All fedora-tipping memes aside, does the argument have any merit?
What argument?
>>8104813
He's a meme. Everything he said has been proven false multiple times and retards still think he's an expert.
Hint: He studied Bumblebee shitting patterns. He's not a "scientist" hes a data cruncher
>>8104878
...says the moron who references Rupert Sheldrake.
>>8104878
>Dawkins
>the guy who coined the word meme >is a meme
>tfw you realise it's probably true
That's some meta shit. I think I have to go lie down and think on that, Anon.
>>8104878
So you're saying Einstein was a Catholic, parents should brainwash their kids, atheists are always immoral and evolution provides a less satisfactory explanation for complexity than 'god did it'?
>>8104878
>the man who destroyed the concept of group selection and introduced the currently accepted concept of the selfish gene is not a scientist
You children should really stop posting
>>8104911
*tips fedora*
It's irrelevant lol because FAGvolution is just a theory.
>>8104909
Parents always implicitly or explicitly brainwash their kids, it is unavoidable.
Atheists while not always being immoral have to define morality on their own terms while the religious person has a morality thrust upon them by their religious beliefs.
Evolution and God are not incompatible concepts.
if we understand evolution so well, why are evolutionary algorithms always so shit?
>>8104906
Imagine a 30-year-old Richard Dawkins goes to a fortune teller upon completion of "The Selfish Gene"...
Dawkins: What will be the most popular criticism of me 40 years from now?
Fortune-Teller: It will be that you are a 'meme'.
Dawkins: A 'meme'? But I just invented that word last month.... how does that even, I mean, what the..?
Fortune-Teller: It's... complicated.
>>8104935
>Parents always implicitly or explicitly brainwash their kids, it is unavoidable.
Indeed. I would wager that parents who do not attempt to instil religious fervour in their children tend to brainwash them less than those who do.
>Atheists while not always being immoral have to define morality on their own terms while the religious person has a morality thrust upon them by their religious beliefs.
Indeed. Unfortunately this requires actual effort. How much easier to believe in a divine dictator who watched your every move.
>Evolution and God are not incompatible concepts.
True, but evolution and sincere Abrahamic belief are. The theory of evolution contradicts the Bible which creates tensions in those who attempt to believe both.
"I’ve seen a dog & bitch indulging in full 69. Males of many species including Drosophila lick female genitals before copulation."
>>8104947
I think parents should try to respect the autonomy of their children but a parent who is religious will believe that they're doing the right thing by instilling piety in their children, in the same way that parents believe they are doing the right thing by teaching their children not to steal.
>The theory of evolution contradicts the Bible which creates tensions in those who attempt to believe both.
When the Bible is interpreted non-literally, evolution becomes not a problem but rather further proof of God's great plan.
>>8104954
When the Bible is treated non-literally it becomes, at best, an inconsistent philosophical tract or, at worse, the collected ravings of hundreds of self-interested sociopaths. For if one part may be interpreted as metaphor who's to say any of it is literal?
>>8104954
>When the Bible is interpreted non-literally, evolution becomes not a problem but rather further proof of God's great plan.
Bullshit.
>>8104958
The Bible while appearing in that form is not a single text and should not be treated as such. Exodus has a different intended audience and context to the Gospels, while they exist within a continuum they aren't fulfilling the same purpose.
As to which parts are to be treated as metaphorical and which parts are treated literally, that is down to individual denominations to decide but there is a strong tradition of non-literal traditions for the entire history of Christianity.
>>8104974
Humanity may not have always been 'special', evolution is responsible for allowing humanity to develop to the point where we are 'special'.
>>8104985
Then you're reduced to being spoon-fed your philosophy which is unhealthy to say the least.
>>8104988
Of course, religions are very insular self-serving entities but that isn't to say that they are without value. Religious groups have their dogmas and their theology and at the end of the day you can hardly expect them to come to conclusions which are against themselves.
>>8104935
>Evolution and God are not incompatible concepts.
Can you tell that to the millions of Americans who think the world is 6000 years old?
>anything but agnosticism
>>8104935
>Evolution and God are not incompatible concepts.
Genesis 1-28:
In the beginning, God set up some arbitrary physical constants and an initial set of conditions which eventually led to simple molecules coalescing into more complex amino acid structures which replicate themselves, creating near-identical copies with slight variations. The better-suited variations allow some copies to reproduce more reliably, and produce more slightly variant replications growing in complexity over time. Eventually this led to single-celled organisms, trees, fish, dinosaurs, birds, the HIV virus, cockroaches and the first man, Adam.
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.
>>8105060
>le smugly superior middle ground opinion
>>8105060
[Your favourite philosopher] would laugh in your face if you said you were an agnostic, and call you a mental child.
>>8105111
>>8104813
Literally makes the argument
>If everyone were atheist, 9/11 wouldn't have happened
>9/11 was bad
>Therefore religion is bad
>>8105122
agnosticism is the only right choice
face it
>>8105193
It's for pussies who can't take a proper stance.
>>8105197
stop memeing and give me a counterargument
>>8105200
So far the only one who has made an argument here is I
>>8105203
my argument is quite obvious: it's not possible to know whether god exists or not
>>8105197
hey man i'm sorry you got memed into believing bullshit but there's no reason to take out your frustrations on anonymous posters on a cantonese noodle forum
>>8105209
Maybe when "god" is defined as some very abstract natural structure.
Not when "god" is defined the way Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Pagans, etc. define the word. Any particular version of god (or gods) that have been proposed by actual religious people can be demised outright.
>>8105239
>Falling for Rationalist wankery
Negative Theology or get out, also the more philosophizing you do the further you get from an understanding of God
>>8105239
>when "god" is defined as some very abstract natural structure
my point exactly
ofc religion is bs, i've never claimed otherwise
>>8105256
I don't know what any of that means.
>>8105260
But 99.999% of theists are referring to a specific supernatural story. They're not talking about how the laws of physics are so mathematically elegant or some shit. They talking about how Jeebus literally rose from the dead, etc etc.
>>8105209
It's not possible to know whether or not invisible ghost fairies live in you colon. Doesn't mean you can't choose to disblieve such an unsupported claim.
You're an idiot if you think preposterous ideas should automatically be given credence just because it's impossible to prove a negative.
>>8105209
An atheist is a person who does not believe that a God or Gods created the universe/world.
A deist believes that a God or Gods created the universe/world, but does not need to be worshipped nor takes any interest in human affairs.
A theist believes that a God or Gods created the universe/world and needs to be worshipped and takes a personal interest in you.
All of those positions are at least honest, and can be backed up by either rational sceptical arguments or theology.
The agnostic position is essentially, "I can't prove a God created the universe so I'm not going to take a stance either way." - which is a dishonest position because it clings to part of the theistic position - yet ignores the fact that the theistic position doesn't require proof - it's a faith position.
It's also dishonest to the rational position, because it's based on a fallacy. Just not being able to prove something is not true does not therefore give it credibility. Russel's teapot is the most common proof, but I also like the flying spaghetti monster. It's also an interesting thought experiment to get an agnostic to replace whatever God they're "not sure doesn't exist" with Ra, Apollo or Astaroth, and see if they are still in doubt.
tl;dr: Agnostics are either atheists who don't want to be called fedorafaglords on the internet or too dumb to realise theyre atheists.
>>8105321
>An atheist is a person who does not believe that a God or Gods created the universe/world
an atheist is a person that claims god doesn't exist
>The agnostic position is essentially, "I can't prove a God created the universe so I'm not going to take a stance either way
but i do take a stance
it's not only about me, noone can prove or disprove god
>it's a faith position
not at all. it requires you to have 0 faith aout anything in this matter
>>8104813
Back when I was a teenager/Christian I used to be really into religion vs science internet "debates". I don't remember a whole lot of specifics, but I do remember Richard Dawkins being a weak contender. Even many atheist scientists don't like associating with him, and he makes some pretty idiotic claims, many of which he's had to retract (Jesus never existed comes to mind).
Pretty much, he can't refute any God he didn't invent himself. His views of Christianity and Islam are tainted too heavily with bias to be considered accurate. I'm sure he's a perfectly adequate biologist
>>8105321
I'm agnostic because I acknowledge the fact that we don't know enough to say that the creation of life is a product of intention, or otherwise.
Just because you all pulled the belief-trigger too early does obligate me too follow suit
>>8105294
This post-modern understanding of God as just a compilation of "feelings, man" and "sumthin ain't come from nuthin" is missing the plot hardcore. The reason Atheists love to pull the whole "God shrinks as scientific knowledge expands" thing is a because contemporary religion doesn't trust itself and takes refuge in vague assertions that scientists can't refute yet.
All of that goes back to the Middle Ages when scholars began to become fixated on the idea of "Proving" dogma with their newfound pet, Reason. However, the whole point of God has always been inherent un-knowability, naturally dooming the whole effort to failure. It literally makes no sense to expect a divine entity to comply with human-made rules of logic and science and all that. With the coming of the Age of Reason and Enlightenment, philosophers and academics began to realize this conflict, but instead of revising their premises they just kind of threw out the idea of an intimate divinity completely and replaced it with vapid Deism and eventually Romantic Transcendentalism, both spiritually void philosophies with no resemblance to the ancient worship of Abraham.
Now here we are with empty churches and empty altars and grape juice. And we wonder why sincere faith is so hard to find.
The best thing anyone can do to revive an understanding of true spirituality is to study the ancient, original essence of Jewish belief in the context of the surrounding Sumero-Akkadian/Assyrian world. Here's a hint: the Jews were reacting to Mesopotamian religious structures, and nearly every aspect of the ancient faith can be traced back to those traditions in some sense. The Holy-of-Holies is the room where the idol would be kept in other religions: the Jews chose to keep it empty. Why do you think that is?
>>8105378
Not that anon but, at best you're between atheism and deism. Agnostics between theism and atheism. Why not just call yourself a deist.
>>8105310
Oh jesus, oh god, here we go.
Agnosticism and most kinds of atheism say the same thing.
¬b(P) v ¬b(¬P)
b being belief, P being god exists. A couple of hardcore mouthbreathers actually believe there's cause to believe the definite non-existence of god, but most lack belief either way. Calling yourself agnostic is the best way to distance yourself from the extreme fedora factor of atheism.
Things that will live on long after libshits are dead:
- conservatism
- theism
because these things just werk™
>>8105386
>believe there's cause to believe the definite non-existence of Tony the Tiger
>They're Grrrrrreat
>>8105386
We've gone over this. It's an irrational position.
>>8105346
>an atheist is a person that claims god doesn't exist
Absolutely incorrect
Much as I hate arguing semantics this is a seriously deluded self--congratulatory stumbling block.
>it's not only about me, noone can prove or disprove god
This. This stance is orthogonal to the matter of whether or not you believe there is a god as outlined in >>8105321
There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
>>8105386
>¬b(P) v ¬b(¬P)
Wrong quantifier there. You're looking for "and."
>tfw there are fuckwits who not only don't realize ¬b(P) != b(¬P) but make this misunderstanding central to their arguments
>I DUN HALF ENUF FAITH 2 BE ATHEISS XDD
>>8105396
>likens the prime mover to childish fantasies
This is why atheists are considered lame, pretentious teenagers by so many people.
>>8105386
>¬b(P) v ¬b(¬P)
You mean
¬b(P) ^ ¬b(¬P)
or
b(P) v b(¬P)
>>8105412
>There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists
no such things
>>8105385
Because it wouldn't be true.
I "feel" like that's more accurate, a creator mechanism, but that doesn't make it true to me. It could be very easily argued that "divine intervention" or some similar god-function occurs in a degree or frequency beyond perception, or even understanding. Deism seems like a more rational "I dont see him, he's not real".
I don't really do beliefs, I just acknowledge the possibilities and get on with my life, but I do see the highest possibility as panentheism. If I HAD to pick a beleif it would be that
>>8105412
>Wrong quantifier there
Wrong term there. You mean 'logical connective' -- not 'quantifier'.
The bottom line is: given currently available evidence, it's irrational to believe in gods. Beliefs must be constrained by reality - they cannot be freely chosen based on wishful thinking.
>>8105421
lel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
>>8105383
You typed all that out and said almost nothing. This is why "we" (nice contemporary LIE btw) are getting almost nowhere.
"Here's a hint": Don't think you have all the answers
>>8105430
>the meme chart
>>8105430
That chart is incoherent nonsense.
>>8105428
>The bottom line is: given currently available evidence, it's irrational to believe in gods. Beliefs must be constrained by reality
Agreed.
>they cannot be freely chosen based on wishful thinking
I don't believe that any belief is "freely chosen." Genuine belief is a compulsion, where one can influence only the context from which it emerges.
>>8105432
>Browsing from a potato.
What
>But tell me this: is the atmosphere of planet x nitrogen-based?
I don't know
>¬b(P)=/=b(¬P)
Agreed
>>8105440
>"Here's a hint": Just don't be religious
>>8105449
>I don't believe that any belief is "freely chosen." Genuine belief is a compulsion, where one can influence only the context from which it emerges.
I believe you freely choose to believe what you just said.Bud do you believe me?
>tfw all this powerautism brings sick pleasure to its participants, and just goes to show that everyone who isn't theist is a sperglord who finds his religious ecstasy and fervour in jerking off over semantics
Cool logic 101 tho.
>Christians: 100000 points
>atheist/agnostic: 0
>>8105463
>Notable Christian writers: Joyce, Tolstoy, Shakespeare
>Notable atheist writers: Dawkins, Harris, the people of this thread
>¬b(P)
The proposition "God exists" does not believe?
Do you realize how bizarre and absurd that sounds? You're ascribing the ability to believe to an abstract object: a proposition.
What you want is a binary relation, B, between an individual capable of holding beliefs and a proposition. If "a" denotes a flesh-and-blood individual (make it Britney Spears) and "P" denotes a proposition (make it "God exists"), then "B(a, P)" means that Britney Spears believes that God exists.
>>8105453
>"Ugh, just don't, I can't even"
- most atheists
>>8105472
>he thinks all those authors subscribed to any sort of Christianity he'd recognize
>he can't tell that they're fucking with him
Christians confirmed for autistic or illiterate.
>>8105455
It's true. You cannot simply choose to begin believing something which contradicts your current beliefs. You can choose to read arguments which may convince you of that belief, you may choose to get drunk or high enough to temporarily think some ugly chick is hot, you may try to condition yourself into believing something through self-talk and creating cognitive dissonance, but belief itself is a purely psychological phenomenon.I mean, just look at theists
>>8105463
>implying
>>8105473
>implying it wasn't implied
AUTIST TEARS
>>8105473
'b' is a belief operator, asshat.
+ Neutral/Weak Agnostic: it's rational to believe there are no gods, but also rational to believe there are gods
+ Agnostic/Weak Atheist: it's rational to believe there are no gods, and irrational to believe there are gods
+ Positive/Strong Atheist: it's rational to believe there are no gods, and irrational *not* to believe there are no gods
>>8105473
>Do you realize how bizarre and absurd that sounds? You're ascribing the ability to believe to an abstract object: a proposition.
Hello there! How's week one CS treating you?
>What you want is a binary relation
Hahahahahahahahaha jesus take the wheel
>>8105496
Agnostic: it's irrational to believe there are no gods, but also irrational to believe there are gods
ftfy
I am kazakh buddhist, and I watch this thread with amuse
Dog cannot see color, so not exist. Great logic.
>>8105449
>I don't believe that any belief is "freely chosen." Genuine belief is a compulsion, where one can influence only the context from which it emerges.
Yes, and that's why the distinction between "believing" and "claiming to know" is illusory, and hence why weak agnosticism is a nonsensical position.
If reality doesn't force a belief upon you, then it should not be adopted. That is, if there is no evidence for p, not only should you not believe that p, you should believe that it is irrational to believe that p.
Counter this, atheistards
>>8105494
There are no belief operators you retard. Operators are functions and no epistemic logic that I know of uses one as such. They are privileged predicates obeying certain axioms.
You fucked up (not to mention that you utterly failed to specify which logic you're using leading to a widespread confusion among most posters that went on replying to your incoherent, pseudo-formal bullshit). You got called out and now you will have to deal with it.
>>8105505
How can it be irrational to believe that x doesn't exist when there is no evidence that x exists?
>>8105440
>You typed all that out and said almost nothing.
Reading comprehension?
Here's what I'm saying:
RATIONALISM AND FAITH DO NOT MIX
Don't know what rationalism is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
MIXING RATIONALISM AND RELIGIOUS BELIEF RESULTS IN A-SPIRITUAL BULLSHIT, IE CONTEMPORARY ACADEMIC CHRISTIANITY
In other words, engaging Atheists in this kind of debate is destructive to sincere spirituality and gets no where.
>Wait but if I make my God as abstract and clinical as possible I can win
No you can't. Lose lose.
>>8105533
cuz there is no evidence that x doesn't exist
>>8105522
How should the dog know that there are colours?
>>8105529
>There are no belief operators you retard.
Oh really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic
>>8105545
>I found a flaw in your metaphor and therefore defeated your argument
>>8105539
>RATIONALISM AND FAITH DO NOT MIX
In other words, religion is irrational horseshit. Got it.
>>8105539
Seeing this kind of anti-intellectualism espoused unironically on a website with a young userbase is really odd.
>>8105558
What was the argument again?
>>8105543
And what would that consist of?
>>8105294
"Dont think, just do as I say God wants you to do"
>>8105581
nothing
as such argument will never exist
>>8105562
There you go.
>>8105564
It's not "anti-intellectualism," it's frustration that so few people seem understand that the two systems play by fundamentally different rules. Choose one and get over it: you can't have both.
>But in order to be an intellectual you have to either subscribe to rationalist interpretations of dogma or be an atheist
>You have to either take a fundamentally incorrect religious position or get rid of religion all together
See the issue?
>>8105601
The problem is, even theists rely on rational constraints when judging beliefs about anything other than theological matters. There is no corresponding asymmetry on the atheist side.
>>8105601
No, I don't see the issue except that you're greentexting things nobody said. Obviously religion doesn't play by rational rules, but there are good reasons to think the rules it does play by are not useful or true.
>>8105593
It is irrational to believe in the existence of something that leaves no evidence behind.
>>8104958
>For if one part may be interpreted as metaphor who's to say any of it is literal?
You're on fucking /lit/ you fedora sperg lord. You should at least understand the differences in literary genres and techniques. The Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of books. Each book is separate into certain literary categories. Not every book in the Bible is meant to be taken literarlly. Some books aren't even stories, they're simply legal tracts (Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etc.) The wisdom books are filled with poetry, allegories, etc.
If you can't even understand basic literary theory you shouldn't be on this board. Fuck off back to /sci/.
>>8105621
>the collected ravings of hundreds of self-interested sociopaths
So it's the worst case then, gotcha.
>>8105621
You didn't even read the post you responded to, did you?
>>8105619
i've never denied that
>>8104878
Yeah please stop talking. If you read that book then you'd know the things he states are all with merit. The only idiots who think that his arguments are proven false are creationists and their ilk.
>>8105648
>Clarify, who are you saying that's a problem for?
It's a problem for theists who refuse to subject their beliefs to rational scrutiny.
>2016
>Still not being beyond Good and Evil
>>8104944
Why would you even post this? Did you really think this was in any way funny or witty?
>>8105898
i laf'd
take the stick out yer ass m'boyo
>>8105898
It's not supposed to be "witty", you jackass. It's supposed to underline the utter dumbfounding idiocy of calling him a "meme".
If you discount any religion, you have to discount them all. That being said. Have Buddhists done anything wrong?
>>8105928
Have you read a history of Myanmar recently?
>>8105928
There are a lot of Buddhist sects out there. Some of them have been dominant in corrupt governments and other have gone way further in the case of demon-worshiping Tibetan Buddhism.
>>8105936
there is literally nothing wrong with demon worship
>>8105928
>If you discount any religion, you have to discount them all.
Er...why?
>>8105943
Because "faith" is epistemically either reliable or unreliable.
>>8105951
this seems wrong.
if I am climbing a tree, before I move out onto a branch I have a certain degree of faith in the structural integrity of the limb. This faith is either borne out and the branch supports my weight, or it snaps, I fall, and I learn my faith is misplaced.
Faith is just another word for expectation.
>>8105951
That doesn't answer what I quoted.
>>8105951
The word "faith" is epistemically either reliable or unreliable? What are you talking about? Do you not know how to use quotes?
>>8104911
He isn't. To be a scientist, you have to use the scientific method to prove a theory. As it stands now, he's just a philosopher.
>tfw you want to become a scientist but are also a deist
I don't know about you guys, but believing that some bearded dude that's also a higher being made the big bang sounds more plausible than "everything comes from nothing". Which, according to Hawkins, who made that statement, is impossible due to the nature of energy.
>>8105962
Because all religions have the same value or else you aren't being objective.
>>8105960
You make decisions about what branches to trust by making rational measurements though. You look at the thickness and apparent health of the branch, and weigh that against how bad it would be if it broke and how badly you want to climb higher.
The case of religion is more like climbing by grabbing each branch regardless of how it looks because you heard there was a leprechaun at the top of the tree.
>>8105962
>>8105968
Triggered
>>8105977
>prove a theory
Confirmed for not understanding the scientific method even a little bit.
>>8105122
It's true though. X and Anti-X often end up supporting each other anyways. The only way to really oppose something is to ignore it as much as you can. You can't really win wars against abstract concepts.
>>8105988
I think you mean "the nature of energy observed thus far."
>>8105988
you are retarded.
everything coming from nothing is the only thing that makes sense. Nothing is the only thing that's ontologically basic.
where did your bearded god come from in order to create everything? If you say "he is ontologically basic, and exists regardless" I tell you he is identical to nothing.
consider this: over infinite time the probability of nothing undergoing a spontaneous declension into somethingness approaches 1.
>>8105995
>Because all religions have the same value or else you aren't being objective.
This doesn't logically follow in the slightest.
Unless you're a moral/cultural relativist, it's plain as day that some religions are worth more than others.
>>8105321
Uhh, how is agnostic any different from deist or atheist in your augment? Does it really matter that much what you tell yourself about an entity that you don't interact with?
>>8105960
>if I am climbing a tree, before I move out onto a branch I have a certain degree of faith in the structural integrity of the limb
Nope, that is a rational expectation.
>Faith is just another word for expectation.
Wrong.
>>8106016
>Wrong.
nuh uh
>>8106023
So you think religion is based on reason rather than "faith"?
>>8105383
Because Jews are nihilistic void worshipers who want to undo all of creation. Christianity, Islam, and new-atheism are all pawns in their scheme to destroy the concept of creation.
>>8106012
Worth more from a humanistic and actual relativist perspective (nobody actually think all cultures are just as nice to live in) maybe. From the perspective of a believer in any of them, this is a hard case to make since the ultimate authority of what is good is contained in their religion and so all other religions have at least a hard core of evil.
>>8105968
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
And here's a bonus just for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism
>>8106026
religion's base is schizophrenic delusion and its scaffolding is reason twisted by desire for control.
got any more questions?
>>8106002
No anon, you're the one who doesn't understand the scientific method. Theory -> Hypothesis -> proving said hypothesis. He only proposed a concept, as you yourself(or not) said, he didn't prove it's existence.
>>8105988
*Hawking, not Hawkins.
>>8106007
Sounds like agnosticism in physics form.
>>8106010
>there was always nothing until something appeared out of literally nowhere
This doesn't sound any less retarded.
>where did your bearded god came from?
Wakarimasen lol. I'm just proposing that a higher being creating everything seems more plausible; though i'm not saying that it's morally perfect the way religions make it seem.
>why think about where did the higher being came from if you can just think that nothing was before?
>>8106041
it only seems more plausible because you're thinking with idiot monkey brain-patterns.
I believe that it's very certain that godlike entities exist, or could exist in the future, but that it's equality certain that the Abrahamic god is inherently absurd and could never exist. If one god exists, then other gods are a possibility, and no god would be able to claim an absolute monopoly over morality, only coerce it's followers with threats of damnation and the like.
What does that make me?
>>8106012
You can't judge the religion based solely on the followers. Really, you can't judge anything and be objective.
>>8106055
goofy
>>8106037
Yeah, how were your grades in community college?
>>8104878
jesus holy fuck
rupert fucking sheldrake
this is a new low even for /lit/
>muh psychic pets
fuck off rupert
>>8106054
Except not. Physics state that energy must always come from somewhere, and nothing can come from nowhere, therefore, something or someone must've made the big bang.
It's simple logic.
>>8106066
I accept your admission of defeat
>>8106041
>No anon, you're the one who doesn't understand the scientific method. Theory -> Hypothesis -> proving said hypothesis. He only proposed a concept, as you yourself(or not) said, he didn't prove it's existence.
The scientific method doesn't prove things though, and nobody who works with it professionally claims it does. A hypothesis can be refined, altered, expanded or rejected, but not proven, based on scientific observation. If you're the guy who wants to be a scientist, read up and make sure you know what you're getting into. It's all about extreme caution and nitpicking, not big sweeping statements.
>Sounds like agnosticism in physics form.
Theories that try to fill in the unknowns in physics with things that can't be tested haven't held up so well in the past.
>This doesn't sound any less retarded.
How it makes you feel isn't really salient to the fact that this is a valid and potentially testable view of the origin of matter.
>>8106073
physicists have been observing the patterns of the world for how long now? A few hundred years, at the outside.
We're talking about spans of time in the tens of billions of years.
To make strong predictions about the nature of physics/energy/anything at all in rare-universal-states such as the beginning of everything is an arrogance beyond arrogance.
are you even being serious? do you see how if something made the big bang that something still must have come from somewhere? You're not actually answering the heart of the question, you're putting a band-aid over it. A band-aid with a picture of your favorite meme on it, no less. Fucking ridiculously stupid.
>>8106073
Nonsense. Energy isn't even conserved in General Relativity.
The very notion of something "coming from" something else is unphysical nonsense. Time isn't what you think it is.
>I'm agnostic
>>8106073
I know you said you wanted to be a scientist, but maybe stick to some "down to earth" and "honest work" like engineering. The bleeding edge of the hard sciences is not for you.
>>8106099
The point of a Noble Lie is that you're not supposed to publicize the fact it is untrue.
This is where most atheists get retarded, wanting to have their cake and eat it.
>>8106172
A noble lie can outstay its usefulness. I'd say that God will never play the same role he used to, and that the new role of God isn't a noble thing.
>>8106180
>Pasadena City College
>>8106086
>>8106095
>>8106099
>>8106144
>>8106160
I'm not actually a physics student, just going on knowledge that i have at hand.
That being said, i can't prove you wrong because i lack the tools to continue arguing, but i'm also not entirely convinced to concede that my view is mistaken, so i'll just concede defeat.
>>8106173
>A noble lie can outstay its usefulness.
It can, but this one hasn't.
That is why religion has done a pretty good job of sticking around, and why atheists have been perpetually ass-blasted since the Enlightenment.
Ironically, like Heaven's Gate and all the other cults whose members spent large parts of their lives longing for a Rapture, atheists likewise waste large parts of their lives longing for the end of religion.
The smarter atheists, like me, realize that it is a far better use of time to wield it.
>>8106172
Most atheists see religion as an *ignoble* and destructive lie.
Once a child is inculcated with religious nonsense -- "don't try to reason things out or ask questions - just accept commands from an authority figure" -- his brain usually never recovers.
>>8106195
>implying i'm not reading a book
I just have a small OCD need for closure, going now.
>>8106195
>So belief = usefulness? Tradition = usefulness?
Whatever works.
>>8106197
>Once a child is inculcated with religious nonsense -- "don't try to reason things out or ask questions - just accept commands from an authority figure" -- his brain usually never recovers.
Boohoo. The naturally red-pilled will grow out of this. I don't care about the rest.
>>8106190
That's the most fedora comment I've read on here in a while. You sound like the type of dork who reads books like "The 48 Laws of Power".
>>8106206
But how will the "naturally red-pilled" know where they can go to discuss topics where religion has to be discarded?
>>8106208
Apart from the last line, there's nothing wrong with it desu familia
>>8106206
Go back to /pol/, edgelord.
>>8106217
>not believing in God means you can telepathically identify other nonbelievers and initiate conversation with them without them assuming you're trying to trap them into heresy
Really seems like some degree of open atheism is necessary for intellectual things to carry on without everyone pretending to respect Aquinas.
>>8104813
It's better than just saying, "GOD DUN DID IT," for everything you don't understand.
>>8106190
>atheists likewise waste large parts of their lives longing for the end of religion
Religion is dying in Western countries, though. In 2014, 23% of Americans identified as non-religious. That's up drastically over the past few decades. The future will be more atheistic, and that will be a good thing.
>>8106247
>The future will be more atheistic, and that will be a good thing
>>8106247
>The future will be more atheistic
But not as much as you would like :^)
>and that will be a good thing
A world full of short-sighted, materialist bohemians. What could possibly go wrong? :^)
>>8106252
What is so bad about being an atheist (and having common fucking sense), and makes it cringeworthy to you retards?
>>8106255
You're out of touch with the prime mover of the universe. You've rejected your own humanity and may as well be a cockroach. Burn in hell, corrupter of children.
>>8106264
Humans are cockroaches anyway. What makes you think humans are so special?
Anyway, the Bible makes it seem like God only made us because He was bored, and needed a colossal amount of animals to mindlessly revere Him, as He needed a way to stroke his ego.
>>8104813
>All fedora-tipping memes aside, does the argument have any merit?
Atheist here.
You mean "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit"? Pretty much yes, but not entirely, at least from what I can tell from Wikipedia:
>1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
>2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artefact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.
>3. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane", not a "skyhook"; for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.
>4. The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion.
>5. We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.
>6. We should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying crane to match the biological one, the relatively weak cranes we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of an intelligent designer.
Premise 3 is invalid because theists assume God to be a necessary being, and the statement "who designed this?" only is valid to contingent state of affairs. Premise 3 needs to be modified in order for argument to still be valid.
>>8106264
This is what theists actually believe.
Modern atheists are just the new strain of destructive Christianity. Still suppressing any thought that isn't in line with their absolutist worldview. The plague has mutated, it no longer requires god.
>>8106286
What are you even talking about?
>>8106278
>Premise 3 is invalid because theists assume God to be a necessary being, and the statement "who designed this?" only is valid to contingent state of affairs.
I'm not following you. Can you elaborate on this?
>>8106301
You are the plague.
>>8106314
I'm saying modern atheists are following the same impulse that had been ingrained into them by their christian heritage. Purging the nonbelievers and the like. Atheism must be understood as the forth abrahamic religion. Like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, it is a cancerous belief created by a demon to destroy humanity.
>>8105346
>noone can prove or disprove god
mfw
>>8106332
>I'm saying modern atheists are following the same impulse that had been ingrained into them by their christian heritage. Purging the nonbelievers and the like.
I don't think that's a phenomenon specific to Christianity. More of a human universal to want to eliminate rival tribes and cultures. And, of course, nobody is actually targeting non-atheists for slaughter en masse today. So there's that.
>Atheism must be understood as the forth abrahamic religion.
I'm not seeing it.
>Like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, it is a cancerous belief created by a demon to destroy humanity.
If you believe in demons, you have more in common with Abrahamic religious people than with atheists.
>>8105940
E-D-G-Y
|
D
|
G
|
Y
>>8104947
>How much easier to believe in a divine dictator who watched your every move.
Not at all, and in fact it is more 'moral' to stand for a objective morality than whatever trendy morality you kids come up with.
>>8104958
>at best, an inconsistent philosophical tract or, at worse, the collected ravings of hundreds of self-interested sociopaths
Somebody has never even seen a Bible since he was a wittle boy.
>>8105060
Any kind of non-belief is childish.
>>8105260
>ofc religion is bs
Only to the ignorant.
>>8105440
>I can't read
![whyWord[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/2XVK0Pv.jpg "whyWord[1].jpg")
>>8105661
Why?
>>8106010
>consider this: over infinite time the probability of nothing undergoing a spontaneous declension into somethingness approaches 1.
Why would it not stay 0? What would even cause a spontaneous declension if there was nothing?
>>8105562
>rationality is good
My mother's ass it is.
>>8105612
>There is no corresponding asymmetry on the atheist side.
Yes there is; projecting rationalism on something that is inherently anti-rationalism is irrational.
I'll go even further and defend rationalising the anti-rational, as that is still irrational but not a contradiction of one's beliefs.
>>8105619
gotta c it 2 beleeb it
>>8106345
>Eliminate rival tribes are culturres.
Compete yes, dominate even, but abrahamists practice genocide on an unprecedented scale. It's not a matter of competing for resources, they compete for the human mind and seek to completely destroy all dissident thought and behavior.
"Everyone is just as bad as we are" is another lie abrahamists tell themselves to justify it.
As for demons. The Abrahamic mind is the one that can only tolerate one reality and insist things be literally true. I don't literally believe in demons, but I think it does not matter if demons are real or not. What matters is that the followers of abrahamic religions behave as if they were worshiping a demon rather than any sort of legitimate deity.
>>8106027
Fresh off the boat, from reddit, kid? heh I remember when I was just like you. Braindead. Lemme give you a tip so you can make it in this cyber sanctuary: never make jokes like that. You got no reputation here, you got no name, you got jackshit here. It's survival of the fittest and you ain't gonna survive long by saying stupid jokes that your little hugbox cuntsucking reddit friends would upboat. None of that here. You don't upboat. You don't downboat. This ain't reddit, kid. This is /lit/. We have REAL intellectual discussion, something I don't think you're all that familiar with. You don't like it, you can hit the bricks on over to goodreads, you nowriting son of a bitch. I hope you don't tho. I hope you stay here and learn our ways. Things are different here, unlike any other place that the degeneration of atheism reaches. You can be anything here. Me ? heh, I'm a writer.. this place.... this place has a lot to offer... heh you'll see, kid . . . that is if you can handle it...
>>8106335
>believing you can prove or refute the existence of a God
How can you be that fucking delusional anon? The best course of action is to optimistically believe in an intelligent creator, knowing all the while that he may or may not exist.
>>8106283
Because it's true :3
>>8106335
Wrong person, kek'd at Noone, but now I can't find who I was replying to.
![chinese-christians-1998[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Y4vPEHL.jpg "chinese-christians-1998[1].jpg")
>>8106247
Meanwhile Christianity is booming in China, South America, Africa, etc. The West and its atheism is becoming more and more irrelevant by the minute.
>>8105951
Why must one 'rely'?
You're trying to rationalize faith, as if faith is contingent.
>>8106037
Except that's wrong.
>>8106055
>but that it's equality certain that the Abrahamic god is inherently absurd and could never exist.
No it is not, stop projecting onto things that deny the existence of your spew.
>>8106144
>>8106160
>cuz i sed so
Empiricism is a non-thought.
>>8106190
You are not intelligent, because you are an atheist.
>>8106197
Somebody doesn't understand religion one bit.
I can bet you've never questioned your ideology, not once; you're a trend-hopping rationalist in college and think 'science' is objective.
>>8106225
Atheism is anti-intellectual
>>8106394
>believing you can prove or refute the existence of a God
Nothing outside mathematics and logic can be proved or refuted, asshat. To the extent that theism can be presented as a coherent thesis, it is utterly lacking in evidentiary support and can thus be discarded.
>>8106386
Never been to reddit and I'm not an atheist.
>>8105661
Like you?
Why is rationalism good, also? If you cannot rationally criticize rationalism, then you are not rational and are essentially autistic (cooped into one mindset and unable to comprehend any other.)
>>8106255
Atheism is inherently evil.
>le common sense
Why is common sense 'correct'?
>>8106276
Somebody has never read the Bible; not once in his miserable little life.
>>8106416
Mathematics and logic are irrelevant as seen by themselves
>lacking in evidentiary support
Why do you keep projecting this toxic empiricism mindset?
Do you not know what the NATURAL part of Natural Science means?
>>8106416
Logic and mathematics can't even be proven or refuted you goon, because they are all based on things that are a priori and therefore exist with uncertainty. Give me one piece of evidence that a divine power, conceptual "God" either does or does not exist. Pro tip: you can't fucking do it.
>>8106429
>Logic and mathematics can't even be proven or refuted you goon, because they are all based on things that are a priori and therefore exist with uncertainty.
Holy fuck you're confused.
>Give me one piece of evidence that a divine power, conceptual "God" either does or does not exist. Pro tip: you can't fucking do it.
Are you even reading the posts you're responding to?
>>8106371
>in fact it is more 'moral'
To talk of things being moral presupposes a moral framework. Of course an arbitrary moral framework inherently sees itself as "more moral" according to itself than it sees any other framework.
>A "best" morality will not change over time. Religious morality has not changed over time (except for the glaring ways in which it has, but those don't count.) Therefore religious morality is the best.
Jesus, affirming the consequent too?
>Any kind of non-belief is childish.
I don't believe that fluoride in the water is a ZOG conspiracy to circumcise my pineal chakra so the lizard men can cuck me in the neghole.
>>8106415
>projecting onto things that deny the existence of your spew.
>Theism inevitably makes epistemic claims about the realm of science and rationality which I freely admit often contradict what those methods tell us, but it's simply inappropriate to require it to satisfy anything close to the same standards
>Empiricism is a non-thought.
The model predicts it. The model agrees with more observable evidence than any of its competitors.
>>8106428
>If you cannot rationally criticize rationalism, then you are not rational
>If framework A does not imply deficiencies in framework A it is unsatisfactory
Here you've made a statement both absurd on its face and one you would never dare apply to theism
>cooped into one mindset and unable to comprehend any other
He said, with the self-awareness of a toaster
>Mathematics and logic are irrelevant as seen by themselves
True but completely unrelated to the substance of what you're responding to. What's worse is I don't think you realize that
>Why do you keep projecting this toxic empiricism mindset?
>if I keep misusing the term "projecting" enough, people will stop realizing it's being misused and I'll sound smart!
I think you may be diagnosably retarded
>>8106318
>I'm not following you. Can you elaborate on this?
Sure.
All truths that are there are either of kinds that it is not possible for them to be false, like "2+3=5"(it is not possible for sum of 2 and 3 to be anything else but 5) or "all bachelors are unmarried"(it is not possible for bachelors to be not married) - those truths are called necessary - and of those kind that it is possible for them to be false, such as "I have a hand"(It is possible for me to not to have a hand) or "I am alive"(it is possible for me to not to be alive) - those truths are called contingent.
Theists(most of them, at least), suppose that God is a necessary because everything contingent, including the existing Universe, had to have a cause, and such cause could not have been contingent since nothing comes out of nothing - it simply had to be the case that the first cause is necessary otherwise there would be nothing. And that cause, in eyes of theists, is a necessary being - a God. Thus, it simply makes no sense to ask "what caused God to exist?", much like it makes no sense to ask "what caused the square to have four sides".
Are you following me now?
>>8104935
Religious people have no agreement on morals though.
>>8106413
KEK
![2013-continents[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/O1sOCYL.png "2013-continents[1].png")
>>8106490
>>8106462
>The model predicts it. The model agrees with more observable evidence than any of its competitors.
Empiricism (the supra-model, if you will) must be presupposed in order to make any observations.
Again, why is evidence 'good'?
>Here you've made a statement both absurd on its face and one you would never dare apply to theism
Because Theism does not make any claims or attempt to be 'solid' or 'blatant'.
>I think you may be diagnosably retarded
Projecting, as in projecting an image or a ball of slime.
And then screaming like a little nignog when there's no surface to hold your image, or no solid to adhere with your slime.
>>8105527
The universe didn't come from nothing.
It either came from something.
Or it didn't come at all.
>>8106255
trying to make it seem "cringeworthy" using the hat meme is literally the only comeback that religious fucknuts have any more since they're not allowed to burn people at the stake any more
>>8106264
>Burn in hell, corrupter of children.
so much for christian forgiveness
>>8106535
>Empiricism (the supra-model, if you will) must be presupposed in order to make any observations.
Sure. You need to assume it's possible to make observations, it's possible to create models with predictive capability, and that the nature of these models must be time-invariant
As to why you should choose these fundamental assumptions instead of assuming the existence of a knowable god, there's really no special reason. Everybody does already implicitly accept the first set from whenever they scrape a knee or touch a stove as a small child - survival required this framework at the dawn of the species and before. It's a "you must accept at least one" situation and nobody practically speaking rejects empiricist assumptions. From there it's Occam's razor. Fewer assumptions gives a tighter argument.
>Again, why is evidence 'good'?
It's the "predictive capability" piece. The advent of televisions and airplanes and shit is a ringing endorsement of empiricism. Not in absolute terms, mind you, and not independently of context, but if technological advance is one of your objectives or something you value, it's clearly better served by one framework over the other. Unless you deny our ability to observe the technology we've made. Hell, there's no special reason to believe I'm not a brain in a tank living a simulation.
>Because Theism does not make any claims or attempt to be 'solid' or 'blatant'.
It does. It's pure claims.
-A knowable god exists
-he wants you to act a certain way
-wherever this framework comes into conflict with empirical evidence it takes precedence
either that, or it's a metaphor. which is generally decided long after a contrary empirical consensus
-the demonstrably non-predictive nature of this sort of belief we now admit is not a limitation on the framework itself but an underlying characteristic of the universe and God to be unknowable to man
Which comes into contact with the assumptions of empiricism so that you may choose exactly one, strict equality holding from the above discussion.
Again, is there an absolute, framework-independent reason to choose one over the other now that you must? No, that's an impossible standard to satisfy. But the fruits of empiricism have to be accounted for within the theist framework, as well as why the theist framework has not itself produced these gains, unless you choose to deny them outright. In that case, though, internal inconsistencies are a bitch when you remove your hand after trusting the observation that it's on the stove and burning.
...Unless you also deny observing THAT
>as in projecting an image or a ball of slime.
>projecting a ball of slime
I don't know what this means. If you're going to invent words or metaphors like Shakespeare, at least don't try to overwrite ones with widely known technical definitions already, in the context where they're relevant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
>>8106535
>screaming like a little nignog
Said the idiot
>>8106415
>Atheism is anti-intellectual
>a position that sets out to avoid certain presuppositions is anti intellectual
uh huh
>>8106900
I do reject all of empiricism.
Empiricism makes infinite assumptions.
>The advent of televisions and airplanes and shit is a ringing endorsement of empiricism.
Empiricism must be presupposed in this situation.
Do you not understand epistemology?
>-A knowable god exists
Wrong from the get-go.
>>8106902
Yes, because it fails to do so, and it breeds the mindset that presuppositions are bad.
They're bad, if you are an empiricist or rationalist or any of those type of ideologues.
>>8107314
>le schizophrenic contrarian poster
I see you. Please, tell us about how you think things are.
>>8107314
>I do reject all of empiricism.
and yet, you're using a computer... lmao.
>>8107465
I didn't say anything about epistemology. I asked that you give your own position with regards to the OP.
>>8106386
>Me ? heh, I'm a writer.. this place.... this place has a lot to offer... heh you'll see, kid . . . that is if you can handle it...
This is /lit/
>>8106565
if there was absolutely nothing (not even any laws of physics) what would prevent absolutely anything from coming from nothing?
>>8107970
Steven Seagal in Sniper: Special Ops.
>>8105527
>I have no value.
damn..
>>8107987
Julian?
>>8107465
So you are claiming not to be using the internet right now? Good going, lad.
>>8104813
No.
>>8104878
>>8106565
ur mum came last night when I fucked her bitchboy
I only read this book when I was about eighteen and desperately wanted there to be no god.
I still don't believe in one but I was a bit of a fedora tipper into all those pop scientists and shit.
I actually grew out of that in a year or so though; I matured and didn't carry it into adulthood like a faggot.
Everyone is allowed to have embarrassing beliefs and ideas when they're young but it's bad when you don't grow out of it.
>>8107314
>Empiricism must be presupposed in this situation.
...Which is why I said "unless you choose to deny them outright."
And apparently you do. So tell me, what is your epistemological basis for going out of your way to avoid sticking your hand on hot stoves? Assuming you in fact do, and don't just tell yourself that pain is a spook every time it happens.
>-A knowable god exists
>Wrong from the get-go.
Ay senpai that's literally the definition of theism we're using
>because it fails to do so
>and it breeds the mindset that presuppositions are bad.
Pic one. The first is not a valid criticism if you accept the second, and vice versa
>They're bad, if you are an empiricist or rationalist or any of those type of ideologues.
breeding the mindset that presuppositions are bad is bad only in your framework
>>8105321
Why does one need to take a stance anyways ?
>>8104944
>invented that word
I don't like that wording because in my eyes it's almost like it implies you invented the definition when he just coined the term.
>>8109352
What?
>>8104909
""""""""""""brainwashing""""""""""""""
when will these reddit refugees stop
>>8105321
You come off as a preachy zealot type.
Nothing better than a hyper critical atheist zealot.
>>8109554
no he doesn't. he comes off as an honest long suffering man of great patience attempting to accurately explain a somewhat tricky concept.
you come off as a trolling cockmuncher
>>8104813
that's the shitties of his books, read blind watchmaker which at least has some arguments, besides wording pop pop wording pop
>>8104911
Selfish gene and group selection are not incompatible. Group survival helps the selfish gene actually, so any group selection will also select the genes present in the group.
Jesus Christ, look at yourselves you spergy fucks.
You could all be reading right now.
>>8106276
Raskolnikovian levels of edge in that first sentence.
>>8105346
he was saying that theism is a faith position
Lmao REDDIT xD
>>8111038
>implying anybody on here reads
