>>683942030
Old thread >>683923384

>>683942030
Ok I'll bite. Don't believe in any religion or their gods. The way I see it, there are so many planets in the universe, yet on just one planet among billions of people, your god is going to listen to your prayers, judge your deeds, loves you or hates you etc.

Just doesn't make sense to me, just because it was written that way in some old book. But if it works for you great, just dont try and force me to follow your beliefs.

Don't like athiests either...

File: image.jpg (188 KB, 960x854) Image search: [Google]

188 KB, 960x854

>>683941761
Love is just what it sounds like. It's a desire to make another person's life better. I'm saying love is God because God is the source of all good things and goodwill. What he wants most is for us to love one another and act out of love for one another. If we can all do that, we will be able to see his will expressed here on earth.

>>683942498
Why don't you like yourself buddy?

>>683942498
What if all of the religions are unknowingly worshipping the same entity or entities? Or at least attempting to? Would you be open to the idea that some sort of entity exists and the various religions are just trying to understand him/them and reaching different conclusions?

>>683942030
it doesn't matter whether or not God exists; we can't prove the existence or disprove it with what we currently know. We can figure out what does exist and how it came to be, and then we can work to figure out how to extend this special state we're currently in indefinitely, and then maybe we'll eventually find a way to understand whether or not there is one. But we'd pretty much have to figure out how to recreate the Big Bang in order to do so.

>>683942671
Lol good one.

>>683942875
Never said that I dont believe in a God, I do. Just not the one that all the religions are claiming is the right one.

I'm not a spiritualist either.

Why does gravity function? We say it's due to the curvature of spacetime, but what is the law behind mass affecting spacetime? What gave spacetime such properties? Why do any laws of physics exist and what gave them their programming to function as they do?

>>683943127
You're religious, own it.

>>683943590
>whole /b/ is cancer.

Not saying you're wrong though.

File: 1452985392575.gif (446 KB, 300x186) Image search: [Google]

446 KB, 300x186

>>683943695

>>683943280
that might be something you'd want to study, instead of seeing it as a question into which religion needs to become a part.

>>683944603
There's literally no answer for some questions. You understand that right? Science can answer how's and what's bit not every why.

>>683944603
I only used it as an argument against hard atheists whom claim to have enough knowledge to "know" god doesn't exist, which is pretentious and idiotic as fuck, considering how little we actually know.

Our scientific facts are very limited when we look at the big picture.

>>683943280
The curve of spacetime is gravity.

>>683945423
Yeah. That's why I said the concept 'gravity' functions due to the curvature of spacetime which is caused by mass acting on it. Thanks. Still no explanation to the questions I posed.

When you believe in one god you choose to not believe in the others... if you are intelligent enough how religion is propagated through culture, and as such, notice that the choice of your god depends entirely on environmental factor, you can realize that in the same way you don't believe in most of gods, you should not believe in anyone, as they are all the same

>>683944851
maybe if you answer enough "how"s you might be able to hazard a guess at the "why"

>>683945113
well that and the existence of the Christian God is by definition impossible to prove with any evidence save circumstantial.

>>683942030
>Are you religious? Yes/No

Yes

> and what makes you say that

The fact that I am demonstrably religious, and you asked.

>>683946650
the question usually pertains to what makes you religious, which would be what's making you say that you're religious in the first place, even before the question OP posited you.

File: Stop-liking-what-i-dont-like4.jpg (79 KB, 360x259) Image search: [Google]

79 KB, 360x259

>>683943590

>>683946439
That's a pretty big generalization. Just because most of us live in the western world which is mainly Christian, does not mean everyone believes in the god presented by Christianity.

I for one, believe that there is a higher power of some sort, but my belief has nothing in common with the existing religions of the world, except for the god-concept. I simply see god as something that controls the borders between life and death, indiscriminately. How is that dependant on environmental factors?

>>683942030
>third grade

retard detected

>>683946478
But at that point you cross back into the realm of Religion, (and leave that of Science if for no other reason than the fact that "guessing" is not a scientific procedure.)

>>683946551
Who's talking about a christian god? The concept of God is not restricted to the few views held by major religions.

No.

You dont need a bronze age book full of thousands of vague metaphors to figure out you shouldn't be a cunt.

>>683946769
Ha, OK then we can limit my response to "The fact that I am demonstrably religious."

>>683943127
So you're agnostic

>>683947034
>You dont need a bronze age book full of thousands of vague metaphors to figure out you shouldn't be a cunt.

Assuming you're bashing the Bible there -- since it seems to be the favorite target among those who disapprove of religion -- then you have misunderstood what it is that the book is trying to help you figure out. It DOES deal with the idea that you shouldn't be a cunt, among other things, but centrally it acknowledges that, in spite of your best efforts, sometimes you will be, but that there is a path to forgiveness for that -- however big a cunt you might have been.

>>683945685
Time gets relatively slower the closer you are to mass because the physical presence of mass distorts space. That means an object traveling in a straight line is no longer traveling relatively straight as it goes through a gravity field because it's speed is determined by distance over time and the distance stays the same but the time changes. The mass bends the straight line by distorting time.

>>683946986
Newton was convinced there must be a God, and I understand why he was. He's also one of the most powerful minds ever to address physical phenomena, and his work has driven almost all modern scientific conclusions.

I understand that religion will make an entrance eventually, but we have to figure out the "how" long before we can ever find an accurate guess to why.

Also, a "hypothesis" is a scientific term for an educated guess. Guessing is the basis of the scientific method, and it's important to know how to properly guess. Neil Degrasse Tyson has a pretty good commentary on that in one of the videos in which he talks about how amazing Isaac Newton was. Newton knew how to ask questions.

>>683947530
Why?

>>683947014
if you can't know the Christian God's existence, then you can't know de facto that there is no God. It doesn't matter any of the other gods.

>>683947078
nah, because you being demonstrably religious means you have a reason to be so. What are your reasons for being religious?

The only reason you'd say you were religious honestly is if you had a reason to be, and so that would be what's making you say that you're religious. It's a convoluted line of thinking, but it basically stems back to your primary reason for being religious as opposed to your reason for answering a question in affirmative simply because the question was posited.

>>683947530
Yes, we know that happens, we know of and have observed these behaviors with exacting precision.

You're not telling us anything we already didn't know. The person you are responding to wants to know HOW the presence of mass effects time and why

>>683947647
Light waves

>>683948029
the how is difficult to explain, but you should probably start by studying Linear algebra, calculus, tensors, Lagrangian mechanics, and calculus of variations.

These are the major subjects that idea will take up.

I'd say Hamiltonian mechanics, but Lagrangian mechanics basically has Hamiltonian stuff as a natural extension imo.

Also check out Lie Groups, which is part differential geometry, part tensors, and part linear algebra. Supposedly, some of the special Lie groups are thought to address specific major forces we don't yet understand how to describe accurately.

>>683948142
You've clearly misunderstood my original post. Go back and read it with thought before commenting with known, observable phenomena.

>>683948377
The faster you travel the faster time goes in relation to you because time is our perception of light waves. Does that help?

>>683948561
That's not even close to being an answer to the questions I presented.

>>683948561
I think the major holdup conceptually for most people on this topic is why exactly light is the thing by which time is measured. It seems like it shouldn't have a speed of 1, you know.

As far as my studies in physics went, I'm not far enough along to understand things on the quantum scale, so I've little to nothing to contribute as far as relativity goes.

>>683948666
Jeez, sorry satan

>>683948742
It's easy. If you run towards a clock the time ticks faster cause the Doppler effect on light.

>>683948666
nice 666 btw

In terms of space-time, I swear the answer's in the math somewhere. I don't know yet how to describe it accurately, as I'm only a neophyte, but if you look into those subjects I mentioned earlier (linear algebra, differential geometry, tensors, calculus of variations, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics...) you'll be well on your way to understanding the topic much more clearly, and being able to accurately define it. And possibly to more accurately define your question.

>>683942030
No, but not in a sperg kinda way like some people, just that it never made sense to me so I just stopped going to church. Never the less religion does seem a lot of people happy cause the think it give them a purpose and a sense that a bigger force cares about them.

I've had enough internal thought to determine my position. I think religion itself is not the problem, its people's interpretation of it which is easily corrupted since we're only human. I dont like to debate about it cause it makes people lose it.

>>683948918
no, it doesn't. You have to be going an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. Running 20km/hr isn't even close to achieving something like the Doppler Effect for light. Look up something like "relativity gamma definition" and you'll see that you're dividing the speed by the square root of 1 minus the velocity you're going (squared) divided by the velocity of the speed of light (also squared). You'd have to at least be going 1% the speed of light to even come close to reaching a Doppler Effect type thing.

>>683949335
and even then, the square root of .99 isn't really all that far off from 1, so you will barely notice the difference at such a comparatively low speed.

>>683948322
>the how is diffficult to explain

Yeah, no shit. Not even hawkins knows HOW it does it, just the formulas that explain the interaction.

Maybe you should read

>>683949495
yeah, no shit. That's why I gave you the tools to learn for your damn self.

I don't know all that shit; I'm studying it because it's interesting, so it's lower on my priority list than it would be if I intended to be employed by it.

Why you being so arrogant in the first place? It's not like coming up with a question nobody knows how to answer is especially hard; I did that numerous times before high school, and I just came up with a reason I couldn't answer it yet and moved on. I made a note to study on it and come back to it.

Jeez, fuckin kids these days.

>>683949486
I didn't say what speed you need to run

>>683950101
it's still impossible to run at 0.01c

>>683942030
Nah I've heard all the arguments and/or threats that religion has to offer and I don't buy them. I figure if someone wants to be religious then that's fine, but if they act like a dick because I'm not then I'm gonna point out all the flaws of their beliefs.

>>683950314
You're being pedantic.

>>683942030
>Are you religious? Yes/No and what makes you say that?
I'm not religious but I'm spiritual because I like to make up my own imaginary friends rather than join in on someone else.

>>683943280
>>683944851
>>683946986
So the argument you guys have is that we don't know how something works, and so it must be magic?
You realize that science is an evolving field right? It was only recently that we even realized earth is not the center of the solar system. Slowly, we are learning more about the world around us(which is basically what science is all about). People thought the sun was magic and something to do with god(there were sun gods,etc), but now we've realized it's just a chemical process taking place.
The point I'm trying to make is that perhaps one day we might understand stuff like what gravity actually is, but the unknown shouldn't cause you to give up searching for answers but should rather cause you to be critical and try to get at a solution that's not just blind belief

>>683942030
Faith is a bi-product of evolution. We all evolved with the ability to believe in things that are unseen. In modern times this helps us to rationalize concepts such as the inter workings of microprocessors. We cannot see the electricity or data flowing, but we can model it and we know the science behind it. So faith is a part of everyone.

Religion directs our faith and gives us spiritual concepts to rationalize. As far as God is concerned, I can rationalize his existence as being an interplanetary alien AI that is running a simulation for unknown purposes.

I can rationalize Noah's Ark as being a hyper advanced cloning lab that held genetic signatures for each of the animal families. Jesus then becomes a hotfix in the development cycle of the world.

My beliefs in God have no impact in my ability to tie my shoes, agree to the terms of a loan, write a research paper, or run for a pubic office.

Now my personal beliefs about controversial topics such as Homosexuality as an illness, Pro-Life, and closing the border to vetted immigrants and enforcing standing immigration laws while we reform them, MAY have an impact on all those things.

>>683951156
You're absolutely right. I'm >>683943280 and I'm not saying because we can't explain things we should stop being interested and believe in magic. All I'm saying is we cannot know the existance of God one way or another, thus being a so-called "I know god exists"-theist or a hard atheist is retarded.

I myself do tilt more to the side of a god existing, but that belief does not mean I've stopped searching for answers. I've never even begun, kek.

I don't believe in a god as it's described by religions, but intelligent design doesn't seem impossible to me either.
It's not something I think a lot about, I'm more concerned with myself and how I go about my life. I just try to not be a cunt and have a good time, but I also believe life is pointless, without disrespecting my own or other life.

>>683951742
Well yeah, that's true - whether a God really exists isn't something we really can know now. But the point I'm trying to make is that it would be better to not believe in God.
As humans, we learn from experience, and that's one of the things that has led us to be so much more advanced than other creatures.
And from what history has taught us, many phenomenon attributed to God have been debunked by sceintists, and so I think we could all arrive at the truth(God or no God) faster if we all tried to push science to its limits and that happens only if we're actively searching for something, not just assuming a solution.

>>683950509
pedantic doesn't even come close to the problem. You can't run at .0000001c.

>>683952206
why would it be better to not believe in God, when the point is that there's no point in even looking at a question to which we have no method of approaching an answer?

Don't push your agenda here; we're all on anon so it would squander your efforts to try and get people to listen to anything actually of merit you have to say.

Am I religious? Devout.
Do I believe in invisible sky people who control everything? LoL, no.

Join the slowest growing religion today! http://dudeism.com/

>>683952477
>why would it be better to not believe in God, when the point is that there's no point in even looking at a question to which we have no method of approaching an answer?
Well anon, if someone from today took a computer and time travelled back to say the 1500s, of course they'd consider the computer as some magical device. If asked to replicate it, they'd have no idea on how any part of it even works, and would by your logic just be better off concluding its due to God. Just as we don't know whether there is a God or not, we also don't know whether there is a method of approaching the answer. So we can either give up and say we believe there's no answer(thus appealing to God) or say that even though we haven't found an answer so far, we'll keep trying because we believe there's an answer. In the former case, we actually lose out on a lot in case our hypothesis was false(false belief and lack of understanding of what/who we are and how we fit into the grand scheme of things), whereas we don't lose as much in the latter(maybe some wasted time for effort, but well worth it if our hypothesis is true).

>Don't push your agenda here; we're all on anon so it would squander your efforts to try and get people to listen to anything actually of merit you have to say.
No agenda here. Just my twopence on OP's question. I believe that although we can't definitely answer if there is a god or not, it's best for a society seeking answers if we assume there's not.

ok

>>683953389
Why does the assumption that God exists exclude the idea that the laws of physics can be quantified though?

You're acting as if God and logic are mutually exclusive and they aren't. Is there a logical reason that gravity pulls us towards the center of a body of mass? Yes. Is it possible that the original source of that reason is God if we dig far enough? Also yes. God created the universe according to laws that can be discovered by us. So it doesn't hold back society in any way.

>>683942030
im not religious, im anon

>>683952247
But the question is about what time is and e principle still stands. Also just because an effect appears negligible to us doesn't mean it isn't happening.

You can see this effect just by putting a clock on one of the poles and one on the equator. They'll have a different rate of time.

>>683954163
You're still not getting the point Anon. Invoking God as a reason is always a feasible solution to any phenomenon that we experience(It's basically saying I don't know, so I'll appeal to a higher power whom I have no chance of understanding so it makes sense that something I don't understant created something I don't understand).
Now once you think you have a solution, you won't look for anything else because you believe you're right.
With respect to what you said, yes, there might be a logical reason that gravity pulls us towards the center of a body of mass, but we don't know - we still have to figure it out. On the other hand,
>Is it possible that the original source of that reason is God if we dig far enough? Also yes
is misleading - there is no digging; we just directly assume its God and stop there.
Do you now see the difference and why I'm saying it holds society back?

If I assume gravity is due to God, then I'm done, since that in itself is an explanation. I won't try to find anything logical since God by definition can't be explained.
If I assume gravity is due to a logical reason, then I'll try to find it out and actually search for an answer.

The key point is that both involve assumptions - the first one where we don't actually test if the assumption is right and the second one where we are forced to do so.

>>683942030
no

>>683955198
y doe

>>683955778
DONT REPLY TO ME FAGGOT

>>683953389
There's a difference between appealing to God and being curious.

If you brought a smartphone back in time today, it would look like magic. I agree that far down, but there's a difference between claiming it works because of God and claiming it works because of some phenomena that God created that one may be able to harness.

Appealing to God or claiming that God may have done something doesn't inherently dismiss all other conjecture. You might want to go to a good Episcopal church if you want to know what I'm trying to say here, or maybe talk to some cardinals in Roma.

Essentially, God's existence doesn't supercede investigation, is what I'm trying to say. A lot of really devout Christians are of that mindset, as well, and I really respect that mindset within Christian sects the most among all Christian mindsets, some of which think the way you're claiming they do. I'm saying that the one shouldn't override the other, and that the two should live in a happy medium if they live together at all.

As far as now goes, we can toe that line because we know the line exists, now. We probably couldn't have back in the sixteenth century, but now it's a no-brainer.

>>683954778
>If I assume gravity is due to God, then I'm done, since that in itself is an explanation. I won't try to find anything logical since God by definition can't be explained.
False. God may be seen by believers as the ultimate explanation to why everything is, but that doesn't inhibit the search for answers to how said God acts on our world, via these physical laws he has created. Thus there will always be interest in finding out those unknowables. Not only interest due to the want for knowledge, but also interest due to the want for more advanced technology and better life.

>>683954655
you can't run at a speed comparable to the rotational speed of the earth, either.

The effect isn't just negligible; it's pretty much immeasurably small. Theoretically, you could invent an experiment that might be able to measure it, but if you did so, you'd probably win the Nobel Prize and open the door to the possibility of interstellar travel in the process. So please do it.

>>683954778
If it is possible that the original source of the reason is God, the truly inquisitive might actually find it. It would be a fascinating insight to all involved, and scientists would probably embrace that understanding with all their heart. They might be able to actually quantify or accurately describe God if they properly defined gravity (which apparently is in something like 512 dimensions, so it would be interesting to be able to properly describe), so it would be a huge turning point for scientific understanding.

>>683956681
I was only giving an example and hoping you could extrapolate.
>God acts on our world, via these physical laws he has created
So we study the laws...and then what? Why would anything conform to these laws, ie, why do they even exist? If you believed in God, then the answer is that he created them and that's it.
Else the next question we consider after understanding these physical laws is the reason behind them, which we wouldn't pursue if we believed in God.
The fact is that believing in God inherently involves believing that somethings have to just be taken for granted without asking questions.
It could either be the physical laws themselves, as used to be the case several centuries ago, or as you say, you could assume that God allows these(which is really all that theists can say now since they need to reconcile the idea of god with the science that'd being proven) but then assume that he just created them for some reason we won't know.

>>683957263
I totally agree with you anon, and that's something I'm trying to point out via my posts.
Scientists aren't people who just want to believe that there are no gods - scientists simply want to understand the world around them and if the truth is that its some magical creature pulling our strings, they are more than content with the answer.

On the other hand, religious people hate it when science proves them wrong since their entire premise is that God had done some stuff and now scientists are going around disproving that.

More in reply to your point - it would certainly be an intersting discovery. Perhaps they might actively prove that God is responsible for everything but that it isn't something we as humans can understand(these kind of negative results are quite common in theoretical areas of physics and computer science)

Not sure if you differentiate between religious or spiritual, but I'd identify more with spiritual; I believe we are all part of something bigger.

The usual schoolwork (during my Undergrad M.E. degree and post work in Aerospace) involved the study of that which is infinitely bigger and that which appears to be infinitely smaller and divisible. Space is infinite and there is always a smaller piece of matter we theorize and then detect, rinse, recycle, repeat.

Look at it like this: if you knew every single piece of information ever transmitted on earth, how much information would you have out of the entire universal collection of information? If we're generous and say it's 1%, is it possible that a creator or larger being is in the other 99%? Possible. I'd say probable, but an intellectually honest answer doesn't favor one or the other.

>>683957399
if you could accurately describe the laws, you could hazard a guess as to the reasoning behind them or the driving force behind them. You can reasonably extrapolate that being able to describe them is most important, at that looking now at an incomplete picture is pointless.

You can also reasonably extrapolate the reasoning behind formation of those laws when you have defined them properly, and then you can figure out what their breaking points are and how they exist in relation to the other things. Once you've figured these things out, then you can consider addressing the "why" about which you're so emphatic. Until then it's a waste of effort and an impractical question.

>>683957399
>So we study the laws...and then what?
The same as we would do if we didn't believe in God. Study things as far as we can to progress our technology and to quench our thirst for knowledge, as I said.

Your arguments seem very biased. For some reason you want to believe people would lose all interest in life and everything if there is a God. Where's the logic in that? There's no reason people can't be interested in how things work even if they believe they are the result of intelligent design. It makes me even more interested, actually.

>>683957791

This is an interesting point.

"Scientists simply want to understand the world around them and if the truth is that its some magical creature pulling our strings, they are more than content with the answer."

For whatever reason this is true; if you think about a video game, (perfect example no-man's sky) when an object is created with algorithms, it's designed to function on it's own without the creator of the game having to build every planet from scratch when someone logs in or finds a new planet.

What scientists are likely studying are parts of the algorithm. While they would love to think they have the answers, what they are studying is so far removed from the whole picture there's no reasonable conclusion to be made.

>>683952477
I don't get this reasoning. If the question can't even be entertained why would you not only ask the question but answer 'yes'? Lack of belief is the logical stance, just as it is with elves and vampires.

>>683958059
>For some reason you want to believe people would lose all interest in life and everything if there is a God.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I feel that once you believe at some level that God created something, you wouldn't try to question it and try to analyze how it works.
If on the contrary you do, then that means that you really don't believe that God created it, since you aren't taking it for granted, which is actually what belief is all about.

If you believe that God exists, then he should some way interfere with the world (I don't think any religion believes that God is just an onlooker who does nothing, since I guess most religions have some sort of punishment/appraisal by god,etc), and so you believe that God is responsible for some things. Now I think it's not true to claim that you both believe God is responsible for something(could be laws, objects, or sth else) and that you want to investigate its origins(since you already believe its God).

I can understand if you dont believe in an organized religion, but to discredit the possibility of a creator or a god, seems ignorant, especially where we, as humans, are technologically. We are almost to the point where we can recreate any biblical story,so who is to say someone else didnt do it first. And im not talking about aliens mind you, but an actual creator of the universe.

>>683956576
What you're saying is true, but his broader statement of there being no reason to suppose the involvement of a deity still stands. Exploring the proposition that God is responsible for the laws of the universe has never helped us understand anything. It's a pointless endeavor that can only provide fantasy.

>>683958921
That's a very closeminded way of looking at things. Just because major religions like to entertain the thought that God is a caring entity, does not mean that is true nor does it mean every believer in God has to see it the same way.

>I guess what I'm trying to say is that I feel that once you believe at some level that God created something, you wouldn't try to question it and try to analyze how it works.
Why? Just because it's of intelligent design, doesn't mean we can't be interested in how it works. There are many reasons for investigating our surroundings, some of which I already specified.

>If on the contrary you do, then that means that you really don't believe that God created it, since you aren't taking it for granted, which is actually what belief is all about.
This is again just a very closeminded way of looking at things. Just because your conception of believers is like this, does not make it true. Broaden your views. It's no surprise someone like you would be so quick to abandon the possibility of God, now that I read these replies.

>>683958461
I agree with most of what you're saying except for the last part. Although scientists are studying only small parts of this really huge and complex algorithm(in fact we're so behind they can't actually calculate yet how complex it really is), they understand that they're only making small steps and that they are in no way close to an understanding of how everything works.

I guess that's why it's kinda hard to do that job - knowing that no matter how hard and long you work, you only contribute negligibly. It's really commendable how well they've coped with that though, and have pulled their shit together to characterize and understand so much.

>>683958921
Ever heard of Isaac Newton? A believer in God.

>>683959661
And alchemy, dipshit. Nice one.

>>683959510
>Just because major religions like to entertain the thought that God is a caring entity, does not mean that is true nor does it mean every believer in God has to see it the same way.
Not the point - nothing about God being caring, but simply about god having an influence in our lives. I was trying to make and justify an assumption that I needed for the later part of my argument. There can either be a God who just watches the world without doing anything or a God who interferes. I'm saying that the former type doesn't exist as far as I know, since every religion has their god interfere in some way.

>Why? Just because it's of intelligent design, doesn't mean we can't be interested in how it works. There are many reasons for investigating our surroundings, some of which I already specified.
Read the second paragraph in the previous reply. I knew the first one would raise these objections and I notice you've only quoted that. I've explained in more depth after that.
Oh fuck it, I'll just repeat it here

If you believe that God exists, then he should some way interfere with the world (I don't think any religion believes that God is just an onlooker who does nothing, since I guess most religions have some sort of punishment/appraisal by god,etc), and so you believe that God is responsible for some things. Now I think it's not true to claim that you both believe God is responsible for something(could be laws, objects, or sth else) and that you want to investigate its origins(since you already believe its God).

>>683959661
Well, maybe that's why newtonian mechanics only work so well

But like this anon >>683959900 with the dubs points out, not everything he believed was true, was it now

>>683959900
Yet the main contributor in our modern view of science, the one whom you place your beliefs on. A dumb believer in God and alchemy. Yet his "beliefs" in alchemy aren't quite what you imagine them to be.

>>683958808
the question shouldn't be entertained because we don't have the capability of addressing it.

It's sort of like if you were to go back in time to the nineteenth century and tout the serious importance of C++ and Objective C. Sure, they're incredibly useful, and the single family who believed you would make a killing immediately after they became invented, but they didn't have the facilities to house such a language, so most people would have rightfully ignored you. We don't have the understanding available to address the question of whether or not there is a God, we just have the capability of trying to describe the phenomena that we see and can define. God isn't a part of the question, because it's a possible answer to a question we'll have after we've finished doing what we're currently doing.

>>683960012
I did fully read your reply and it's simply a narrowminded way of looking at things, if you can't see that after all I've pointed out, I doubt there's anything I can say. It's like arguing with a devout muslim/christian arguing with such flawed logic.

>>683959661
Newton also died a virgin...

>>683960386
Relevant, how? Still more influential than you can ever hope to be in life.

topkek

>>683959410
supposing the involvement of a deity isn't really a big deal. If you're insatiably curious, you'd want to learn about the workings of what you were born into, right?

Doesn't matter if you suppose God is involved or not, we're still way too primitive in our physical understanding to properly assess the concept, and so there's no point in worrying whether or not it is a thing.

>>683942030
no, i'm not religious and i don't think anybody should be religious, regardless if it helps them
they need to act right by themselves and not rely on a bunch of information they ignore and only take the good parts and still claim they're that religion
you don't know better than your god, why do you do some things in the book but not others?
i can't bring myself to that attitude

>>683947034

and I suppose next you'll say that some watery tart lobbing a scimitar at you is no basis for government.

>>683959900
chemistry back then was alchemy. You used vitriol to turn rock into copper back then; that was pretty much alchemy when it was invented. Do you even fucking read?

Newton also hypothesized the wave motion of light with the slit experiment before we knew what an atom was, so I'll let him have his ideas.

>>683960366
I understand the standard ad hominems tactics used, and that's why I presented the latter part as a sort of mathematical proof. If (...), then (...).
Please tell me which part of that seems narrowminded.
Again, I'll repeat it here

1.If you believe that God exists, then he should some way interfere with the world( validity of hypothesis already stated multiple times)
2.If he interferes some way, he is responsible for some things(defn of interfering and causality of actions)
3. God is responsible for something implies that the reason for something is God (just rephrasing).
4. If reason is God, then why would you search for the reason? (makes no sense)

>>683948142

aliens

>>683960343
Your analogy makes no sense. Our ignorance of whether or not God exists is not due to technological limitation.

>>683960012
you're going a step too far, man.

We can't investigate the origins of scientific subjects of contention atm. We're not there yet. Investigating the origins is so divorced from the primitive level at which we currently have understanding that we will not be able to do that for millennia. We are still investigating the workings of scientific phenomena; we're nowhere near their roots.

Your point is really just misinformed at its core, because it's assuming we have a higher level of understanding than we will have in several centuries.

>>683960985
>>683959661
I believe his words were, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. So this great man, this scientist, gets to the understanding of the gravitational force. But then because of his belief in God, doesn't pursue much more about why things are the way they are - just assumes God does it and leaves it at that. Waste of so much potential.

>>683961188
it's due to scientific limitation, so you're wrong. We don't know shit; we're the ones in the nineteenth century, not the ones going back in time in that analogy.

>>683961011
>1.If you believe that God exists, then he should some way interfere with the world
There is no reason to believe this to be true. This is just one way of looking at the concept of what a God is.

>2.If he interferes some way, he is responsible for some things
Yes. Big IFs in here.

>3. God is responsible for something implies that the reason for something is God
If God exists, yes, he is the reason for the existance of us, down the line in his creation. What's your point?

>4. If reason is God, then why would you search for the reason?
Because the reason being God is not fact. It's belief. But that belief does not inhibit the search for proof that there is a God, nor does it inhibit our desire for knowledge in pursuit of technology, better life and other reasons.

I've already answered all those question in y earlier replies, but you seem to ignore anything that differs with your view of what the motives in research and science can be.

>>683961435
That's right, but you're missing the point. The basic difference, I'm claiming, is that whereas I believe that we might possibly come to an understanding of such ideas in maybe several hundred millenia, we can only do that if we continually strive towards the answer.
Just because something is hard and beyond our grasp, we shouldn't give up and assume the answer is some mystical entity, for then we don't search for the solution.

I agree that the concepts I've mentioned are too much for humans to understand given our currrent take, but weren't nanoscale particles used in surgery just as unthinkable back during the stone ages? If at that time everyone just believed that everything existed for a reason and didn't want the answer, we wouldn't be at the technological age that we're in now.

>>683961449
It's more like the limitations to technology at the time that he made as little progress as he did. Newton was a man with curiosity. Given the tools, he would have taken science even further during his lifetime, despite his belief in God. If his belief in God would have hindered that endeavour for knowledge, why would he have done as much as he did in the first place?

>>683961449
sometimes, you get to a point where you have finished what you see a point in doing and you feel the need to move on.

Isaac finished, backed away from his work, and decided that the rest was up to those after him. He was a brilliant man, and I'm excited that I had the opportunity to be able to read words written by him.

I honestly doubt that he just assumed God did it, though; I think he felt touched by the magnitude of the discovery he had made, and decided he wanted to pursue that magnitude with religious study.

But this is what you get when you take people's mindsets out of context, a presumptuous idiot claiming to speak for a man the like of which he will never encounter.

Newton is arguably the smartest man to ever walk the Earth. Compared to him, we're all fucking putzes. Don't insult him by claiming to know what he was thinking when he left the sciences.

>>683961751
Ok so from what you're objecting, I can see that you agree with the implications in points 2,3 and 4, and that I only need to prove 1.
Alright, I'm basically claiming that no religion has a god that doesn't interfere. I can explain this is detail but the quickest way for you to dispute this would be to give a counterexample, so I'll wait for that.
If you can't think of one, it doesn't prove I'm right, but I'll go forth with my take on the point.

Let me again make it clear what the motive in research is - to figure out the unknown.
If you believe God is responsible for something, there is nothing unknown about that - "God" is the solution. If you're still researching something, then that means you don't believe "God" is the solution. Makes sense?

>>683961876
curiosity doesn't get stamped out by religion; you're insulting Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Newton, Magellan, Cabeza de Vaca, thousands of architects, and myriad other professions and people throughout history who sought answers to subjects about which they were curious. You're being fucking dumb.

I'm not missing the point. You're making a stupid one.

>>683962077
>Don't insult him by claiming to know what he was thinking
Ok, so you implying he would be insulted by people trying to find out what he was thinking(basically making assumptions about and trying to understand a subject's state of mind) is not already claiming you know he feels?

>>683962340
If you believe that god is responsible for the unknown, you're interested to know how it works. Knowing that certain things imply that rain is coming tomorrow is important.

How can we learn whether or not a storm is coming, if it's important to know that a storm is coming? God set up a system, right, so maybe there's a way we can predict it.

How do we know when another crater is going to form? God probably set up a system for that; maybe there's a way to predict it.

How do we know what chemicals mix to turn into which other chemicals? God may have put a system in place for that, maybe we can identify it.

What if there's no God? There are all these systems we've now found out and accurately described, maybe there's a way to test and see if there's a God.

That's the logical train you need to follow. God comes literally after every other conclusion we can scientifically make. It doesn't come before, during, or in between scientific discoveries. It comes after them all.

Fuck, you're thick.

>>683962932
I'm claiming you're insulting him, not that he would be insulted. It doesn't matter what he thinks; you're the imbecile who claims to know a man who's so much your superior that he invented a form of math you probably don't even understand.

>>683962340
Holy shit you're narrow-minded.

>If you believe God is responsible for something, there is nothing unknown about that - "God" is the solution. If you're still researching something, then that means you don't believe "God" is the solution. Makes sense?
No, this does not make sense. Even if you believe the answer at the end of the line to be God, this does not mean you cannot move towards that end of the line while figuring out how everything works along the way. This is why I brought up Newton earlier. He believed in God, yet he strived for scientific answers. He's just one example, but a good one at that because of the magnitude of his research.

>Alright, I'm basically claiming that no religion has a god that doesn't interfere.
Just because existing religions in this world do not have a God that doesn't interfere with us directly, doesn't mean such a God cannot be the true God. And I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure there are organized religions that do not believe God is a caring entity. But still, that's beside the point. Belief in God does not require organized religion.

>>683962450
I actually don't know the life stories and such of all these people(only their scientific contributions, where applicable), except for Galileo.
If I remember correctly, he went against the church and their beliefs and was placed under house arrest(where he compiled his work), instead of being allowed to further science by allowing such a brilliant mind to find the faults in the church's beliefs and further the understanding and progress of society.
So...religion helps how exactly?
Galileo might've been religious, but the parts he went against are the parts he didn't believe in, like the earth centered POV. If he'd blindly assumed that, like the church wanted him to, I don't think we'd have the actual understanding of the solar system now.

>>683963266
Ok, so let's see...Newton has made a lot of huge contributions to science and I respect him for that.
However I'm not supposed to insult him for his other beliefs?
So if someone does one thing that's great, they're beyond reproach?

>>683963457
I said, and I'll say again:

Curiosity doesn't get stamped out by religion.

Let me repeat that, so that maybe your ignoraymoos ass can read:

Curiosity doesn't get stamped out by religion.

And now, in this day and age, it doesn't even need to. You're claiming it does based on the same reasons people actually claim that feminism should still exist, and that white people should be self-flagellating constantly: old grievances. I'm using historical evidence to provide a point which still holds today; you're using historical evidence to provide a point which has actively been disproven time and again. Do you see the difference?

>>683963275
>Just because existing religions in this world do not have a God that doesn't interfere with us directly, doesn't mean such a God cannot be the true God. And I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure there are organized religions that do not believe God is a caring entity. But still, that's beside the point. Belief in God does not require organized religion.
All my arguments are against existing religious systems and why they're not helpful, so if you can't find a counterexample its not useful to me.

>Even if you believe the answer at the end of the line to be God, this does not mean you cannot move towards that end of the line while figuring out how everything works along the way.
Once you figure out everything along the way, then what? You've reached the end and have to make sense of the end. But it's already done for you, since "God". There's always an assumption that you contribute to God that you don't explore, simply because exploring it means not believing in God.

>>683963834
you claimed to know why he left the sciences. You couldn't have possibly known what he was thinking. If you had discovered gravity and the mathematics of change, you might feel kind of done, too. I don't know, because I've never discovered a major branch of science or maths.

The insult, here, is that you presume to know that he just gave up there. It's unlikely, for one, that Isaac Newton, the man who solved the first ever calculus of variations problem in literally a single afternoon, would give up.

It's more likely that something else happened.

I'm saying you insulted his brilliance by presuming to be on his intellectual level enough to assume he'd give up.

>>683964138
>Curiosity doesn't get stamped out by religion.
Curiostiy: noun 1.a strong desire to know or learn something.
Ok, so let me break this down. Curiosity happens when (a) there is something you don't know, and (b) you want to know it. Easy so far?
Alright now religion is based on a belief system which provides "answers", basically claiming there are things that "God" is responsible for.
Ok, so let's see if there is something that goes against curiosity.
Religion says God is responsible for something.
Oh, ok, so god is responsible for something.
What is the cause of that something? -God.
So the cause of that something is not an unknown.
Point (a) is not met, so yes, curiosity is stamped out by religion

>>683964138
Anon, the entire point of religion is to provide an answer to lifes questions so that people dont have to use introspection and look for their own answers.

It claims your curiosity and yells "dont look behind the curtain, theres a magic man there" till people start believing it.

>>683964171
re-evaluate when you reach the end. Usually, by the time you get to the end, you've found new questions that need to be addressed. Study calculus 1, 2, and 3, and you'll find you still don't know enough to talk about relativity and quantum mechanics, or even calculus of variations. These things require further investigation in mathematics in a wide variety of subjects. When you've mastered all the questions you've investigated, then you look at how they tie in together. After that, you look at the subjects broadly to assess what you do and don't know about the subject, then you consider whether or not you're done. In science, you're typically not. If you have another question, it might be, which I've already said, but it might be "does God exist?" If you've no other questions to ask, then it's time to make an experiment to test that one. If you can design an experiment to test for that, great. But that's not for millenia, so no need to even consider it now.

Religion still doesn't stamp out curiosity or investigation, so what's the point in claiming that the idea of not believing in a God is somehow superior because then it allows for investigation? That makes no sense.

"well that guy is really smart so if he believes in a magic sky man then im convinced" -morons (actual people posting in this thread think this is a convincing argument for theism and other people are too dumb to explain why its not)

>>683964171
>All my arguments are against existing religious systems and why they're not helpful, so if you can't find a counterexample its not useful to me.
So your view of what God is, is the only possible view of what anyone can have of God and any differing view of God is something not to be taken into account. Sounds kind of like ultra-religious people talking about evolution. You're just as bad as them.

>Once you figure out everything along the way, then what?
Once you, who do not believe in God, reach what you believe to be a full understanding of the universe, then what? No one can answer this question. When/if we reach such understanding or the proof of God, it's simply something that will completely change our world-views and no one can predict how. Still doesn't limit my curiosity towards the unknown.

>>683964519
You're right. People don't say things like, "The sky is getting dark. Looking like rain tonight."

If they did, that would merit investigation.

QED you're a fucking idiot.

>>683964636
Have you ever met an Episcopal?

Have you even ever met a Catholic priest from Rome?

They both embrace scientific discoveries, generally, so I'd say you're wrong.

>>683965041
But if you're a theist, then the question of "Does God exist" never arises. It's an assumption that it does. You're building a system based on this particular assumption and thus it's not one that's ever going to be questioned, not in a millenia or ever.

>>683965152
>So your view of what God is, is the only possible view of what anyone can have of God and any differing view of God is something not to be taken into account. Sounds kind of like ultra-religious people talking about evolution. You're just as bad as them.
My view on God is completely irrelevant. The point I'm making is, again, that existing forms of theism aren't helpful. Of course, if you have something new, I might not argue with it since it might not possess the bad qualities that I'm saying the existing ones have.

>Once you, who do not believe in God, reach what you believe to be a full understanding of the universe, then what?
Then it's a job well done. Science was a field started simply to understand the universe. There is no more and certainly no less.
If through scientific methods, we are able to arrive at the conclusion that God exists, then that is an acceptable ending.
However, for theists, the conclusion that God doesn't exist is NOT a satisfactory ending.
This is why i think the latter view is harmful, as the former is more openminded.

>>683965072
"that guy is really smart, and he investigated things about which he was curious. He also spent a major portion of his later years studying and pontificating on God. Apparently, religion doesn't unilaterally stifle scientific investigation."

Say people in this thread, and people tell them "yeah but he gave up because after he discovered gravity, calculus, and came up with the idea of particle-wave behavior, he decided to pontificate on God. This proves that he gave up and not that anything of the millions of other thoughts that could have entered his head that I couldn't possibly have conceived of because this man is immeasurably smarter than me and my most revered instructors happened despite the fact that I don't know shit and I've made it clear throughout this thread."

Dunning Kruger effect is rampant in this fucking thread.

>>683965675
>My view on God is completely irrelevant.
If you believe one to exist then yes, it is extremely relevant.

>>683965675
>However, for theists, the conclusion that God doesn't exist is NOT a satisfactory ending.
I'd say because of this, belief is better for scientific research, because you keep digging for more in search of God, even at the point where hard atheists are content and end research.

>>683965172
What does that have to do with anything?
Saying "The sky is getting dark, looking like rain tonight" is a perfectly fine statement. What this leads people to do is check if (a) indeed the sky is dark, and (b) if the implication makes sense, perhaps from weather patterns.

However, religion says "The sky is dark, but you have to take my word for it, don't look. It looks like rain tonight".

>>683965752
I have dunning krugers... expecially in video games...

>>683965346
It doesn't matter if it arises or not. It's the next step in the scientific method. Any truly curious and God-believing person would be waiting for that experiment above all others. They want proof they're right just as much as the rest of us.

There have been thousands of basic experiments performed perfunctorily with startling results. It's experiments exactly like those that lead to our understanding that tetraethyl lead is not an okay thing to have in our fuel, amongst other things.

I mean, honestly, did you even take a physics class or a chemistry class in high school? You could have seen the tetraethyl lead thing in fucking Neil Degrasse Tyson's version of Cosmos. You're a wastrel.

>>683965898
Again anon, my argument is that existing belief systems are harmful.
For all you care, I could be a theist, just expressing my sadness at how theists behave. My beliefs are irrelevant.

>>683966134
i ment to say hate, but have works aswell i guess.

>>683966115
nah, if the sky is dark and that means it looks like rain tonight, that means there is a way to predict rain.

If there's a way to predict rain, you can figure out a way to test if there will be rain in the next week, conceivably.

That's the entire reason science became a thing.

Like, that's its driving motivation, is shit like "the sky is dark; looks like rain tonight."

>>683965303
>Catholic priests from rome
>Only changed their minds on condoms a few years ago
top kek anon, they are science denying fucknuts who have murdered millions of africans by not letting them use condoms.

File: 22 seconds of 33 minutes of 9 hours of 11 days of 5 months of 2016 years.png (1 MB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 1920x1080

>>683942030
Since of Mericans of living of an exigency/emergency of a technology so I am of communication of spiel of technology of text of:_"-------\_
Three/3 communications/explanations/informations/texts of a technology:
1/One: body muscle movement caused/since of energies at human caused/since of energies sent from machines far of miles/kilometers;
and/or/an-other-communication of 2/Two: human of technology of machines...machines transmit/send energy...energy at/striked/hitting metals in human...metals moved/arranged...so/causing/thus...electricity of in of body so...body muscle flexing of human of living of tensing/slackening of muscle;
and/or/an-other-communication of 3/Three: STIMULATION OF BODY-MOVING/LIKE-SENSE SINCE OF ELECTRICITY OF CAUSED OF IN OF BODY SINCE 1. tiny metals in human 2. metals moved since of energies striked/hitting metals 3. energies sent/from machine far/distant/not-close/no-nearness of miles.
_/-------"_:-_
I got/received a text of communication/question/ask of technology of body muscle flexing caused of energies of machines far of miles:_"\_ Everyone knows this already. How do you fix it. _/"_:-_ . I am of communication/answer/reply of letter of word of language of text of:_"\_ Humans of policing/military live of:_[\_ slackening/tensing of muscles of earlier and later of slackening/tensing of muscles since of brain of body of since of human of living of brain of body of since of sense/sensation of communication/text/speech of computer program software of language of words of anything/everything/eachthing/allthings of human of living of _{-\_[-\_ slackening/tensing of muscles of earlier and later of slackening/tensing of muscles _/-]_{--\_[--\_ and _/--]_ and _[--\_ or _/--]_/--}_[-\_ flexing of muscles so of living of muscle of nearer and and or farther of muscle _/-]_/-}_/]_:-_/"_:-_

>>683966402
most of the shit you claim is Catholicism has been overturned in recent years because the Catholic church from Rome has been changing their policies when they have occasion to.

A lot of the shit American Catholics claim is totally bollocks and outdated in Rome.

>>683966239
Im not the guy you talked to earlier and i want to talk about your beliefs (so yes they are relevant), you have a belief that differs from mine, in this case only one of us can be correct, i want to know which one.

And i agree with you on "existing belief systems are harmful.", but lets see if your belief system is harmful aswell.

>>683965977
Perhaps I shouldn't have said ending, I can see that's a poor choice of words.
Maybe a proof of the fact that God doesn't exist isn't something theists can accept, whereas definitive proof that either god exists or doesn't is both acceptable to atheists.
And since either God has to exist or not, but not both, Atheists are driven towards finding the true solution, whereas theists are driven towards trying to prove god exists, which might turn out to be the wrong answer, and thus one they will never discover.

>>683942030
I am not 'cause I think religion do not have the right to control my life and I do not believe in some kind of god.
Like Marx said "religion is the opium of the people"

No, because parents never really liked it and decided not to force it on me.

>>683946650
kek

>>683966658
>i want to talk about your beliefs (so yes they are relevant)
If you want to discuss my beliefs, then yes they are relevant to what you want, but it's not relevant to what I've been discussing for so long, about whether existing systems are harmful.

And no, I've no interest in seeing if my belief system is harmful. The simple reason is that I don't care.
Case a: They're not harmful. Oh good.
Case b: They're harmful. That's sad, but I'm not going to change it, because I've been following it despite knowing its harmful, for a reason.

So either way, my action set doesn't change.

>>683946792
Typical herd reaction. Not even the guy that posted the image. But seriously, some thing are inherently for the duller of the masses.

Think about celebrity gossip magazines. Do you think they're worthwhile to read with any functional brain cells still firing? Can you make a case to defend them as worthwhile to be posted on here?

Of course not, because it's the lowest form of entertainment, just as the image above is outlining the same shit that gets posted over and over. Devoid of an intelligent thought or uniqueness, it's the same thing all the time and makes the site boring. The reason their called cancer is evident; it's consuming, eats up anything functional in the body, and kills off what it grows in. Now you can keep replying with a stupid little image someone else made for you, or you can actually hold your own opinion on anything, even it's seemingly insignificant.

>>683966365
Agreed anon, these kind of observations are what made science a thing.

But religion forces certain beliefs. As an example, it says the sky is always dark(equivalently god always exists), and you're not allowed access to view the sky. So now with this limited information, you can only see when it rains, and maybe you'll try to correlate the rain with something else, maybe the days on which it rains or something.
But as we can see, it's clearly wrong, but caused simply by falsely believing something, that the sky is always dark, and thus the sky color never factored in at all.

>>683942030
No, there's absolutely no proof. And a book written by sheep fuckers 5000 years ago doesn't count.

>>683942030
I am not religious, and it is mostly based on identity, symbolism, preservation, and to some extend group mentality.
I also do not like locking good philosophy behind all this bullocks.

>>683967195
You missed my point, im not trying to change your beliefs, im trying to figure out if they are better than mine, i doubt it of course, but i have to question my own beliefs, challenge them even.

Maybe that would do good for you too, or does your belief system not allow that? Well there we have a harmful way of thinking.
Dont care if you believe things that arent true? another harmful aspect of your belief system.
But please, prove me wrong. Show me that it isnt the way i think it is.

>>683942030
I don't believe any organized religion. I believe we are actually living within the body of an insurmountably large entity and it's thoughts sometimes resound throughout the body, appearing as unexplained phenomenon in the universe. The scale of things is like this, find the largest star in the visible universe and imagine it as being smaller than a subatomic particle from our perspective.

>>683966696
There's a difference between hard theists and agnostic theists. The former are the ones who deny any variation from the teachings of their holy books. Do you really see them both as the same?

I'm an agnostic theists, so naturally, if we reached the point where we can conclusively say no Gods exist, I would change my views. I doubt such point is really a possibility though. Science is close to an endless endeavour, but my belief would make me question things further than atheists whom are content with their knowledge easier than agnostic theists, despite their belief in God, so there is no basis to your claim that belief is harmful to scientific research.

x

>>683967894
>>>/x/ fixed that for you.

>>683967772
Underrated post

The way I see it is that we'll all know if there's a god when we die so if I'm going to know the answer eventually why sweat it right now?

Am I personally religious? Not really. I accept that there COULD be a god but I don't see any solid evidence of one. Only temporary human ignorance. But I have no problem with people who are religious as long as they aren't a cunt about it. I can't stand Televangelists for that reason. They're money hungry scum

>>683968156
>>/x/

>>683942030
No, because I am not religious.

>>683968265
/x/

>>683968311
>>>/x/

>>683967772
how do you feel about the idea that our universe may be a single cell or particle in a universe unimaginably larger than our own and that the smallest aspects of our universe are universes themselves?

>>683967772
Also, expanding on my thought, it would explain why we have a moral structure of striving to be better in order to survive, yet we destroy ourselves over time like the cells in our own bodies do.

>>683968235
If you die in your sleep and there is no god, you never knew the answer.

>why sweat it right now?
Well 2 things, first, if there is a hell you will sweat in the after life according to most religions, second, because people are being manipulated using religion and it kills a LOT of people in the world, religions should be annihilated.

>>683967668
>im trying to figure out if they are better than mine
That's the thing - I'm not interested in that, since the result isn't going to affect me, since I understand that different people might think different things are "better", simply because of varying priorities in life.

>but i have to question my own beliefs, challenge them even.
This is something I'm willing to help anyone do, since I believe that human adaptability is something that has helped us survive for so long.

>Maybe that would do good for you too, or does your belief system not allow that?
My belief system is actually mathematically sound, as in it's built upon a set of premises that I believe to be true(which I think is reasonable and that most people would agree with), and then basic implications are used to build it up. So, although my belief system allows for change, it's not likely that it requires one, just in the way mathematical logic(the field) needs no change.

>Dont care if you believe things that arent true?
If I believe in them, then I think they're true, and that's for a reason. Perhaps to shield myself emotionally from otherwise harsh truths, or some other equally important reason.
I'm not claiming any of this is my belief system, but I'm simply stating that sometimes people need to find solace in a belief system that need not be true - like I said in the beginning, simply because of priorities. You might thinking knowing the truth is most important, whereas someone might believe that there are some pretty terrible things you might be better off not knowing, ie, leading a comfortable life, despite one in the dark might be more appealing to them.

There are lots of people with several different opinions in the world anon, and there is no objectively "right" one. Perhaps we can weed out some as wrong or not as great as another one, but that's about it.

>>683967888
Ah, I have nothing against agnostic theists.My arguments are all against the hard theists, and how their involvement is detrimental to society's progress.

>>683968460
>M theory+
It would please me actually and it may give people better perspective in life knowing that their bodies may contain universes of their own, that they should care about themselves and others. Utopian type shit, my friend.

>>683968674
I refuse to believe that any god would care enough about minor aspects of my behavior in the grand scheme of things to send me to an eternal punishment. If they are then it's not like they're a god I'd want to worship anyway. Fuck them. And humans do bad things regardless of religion. They're pushing a personal agenda that is masked by belief in a deity. Most religious people are fairly peaceful if admittedly a bit judgmental. Like I said, I'm not religious, but I understand why some people would be

>>683967506
episcopals don't enforce false beliefs. Catholics have drastically modified their beliefs to be much more specific about what they think.

So while past religions and some present ones certainly force some beliefs, the truth of "you can be religious and curious" and "religion doesn't stamp out curiosity" still holds.

Plus, the more we define, the more interested people will be in what we've defined and what we haven't.

As long as we teach more and more of what we know to younger and younger generations, we will instill in them this sense of curiosity of the definitions and workings of natural phenomena that religion will become even more of a moot point than it already is.

>>683968941
I actually wrote my senior research paper on the multiverse and found this idea to be one of my favourites. It didn't quite take with me but I appreciate it nonetheless. I could never rule it out though. I see the multiverse as proof that potential is almost limitless

>>683968460
>>683968941
>>683969619
Dunno if you guys have heard of it, but this is reminiscent of a philosophy concept I accidentally learned about by coming up with it while blazed out of my mind one day. Have you ever heard of microcosm theory?