parable of the atheist (64)

1 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-01 08:19 ID:O1YBKi2z [Del]

So, you're a hardcore atheist, and you firmly stand by that belief. You don't believe in fairy tales, magic or the Sky Queen bullshit. Another day, another internet argument with some religious hippie, but this time you're fed up; you are going to once and for all disprove this non-sense.
So you sit down and study biology and medicine exhaustively, no soul there; check.
So you sit down and study physics to remove all these uncertainty principles.
And on and on you go, discovering indisputable evidence and theories all throughout all branches of hard science. Because of your quest, your knowledge so far allows you to extend your life far beyond the span of any normal man. Over the years your meanderings through technology allow you to sharpen your wit and increase your memory, to hold and contemplate all that you have learned.
Even further along you discover the secrets of time and space.

To get all the answers you need to travel to the very ends of the universe and gaze upon the very moment of creation. Finally after eons of investigation, you have all the evidence collected and have formulated and proven a theories so beautiful they might just as well be a works of art.

As you return to earth, you climb a hill to address the people below and finally reveal to them the truth of religion.
As you start out "I have conclusive evidence that there is no such thing as an immortal and all-knowing being that ... "

That's when the irony strikes you and you raise your fist against the sky. "You tricked me you bitch!" you cry out.

After your anger subsides, you shave your head and go bake a cake. It sounds like just about as pleasant a thing to do to pass the time as any a thing right now, and it smells pleasantly to boot.

2 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-02 22:48 ID:qcXZ9Qzb [Del]

tl;dr lol cracky

3 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-04 07:56 ID:bU9RYo2Y [Del]

This is just fucking stupid. Whatever fucking god you believe in, tell me so I can fuck him up the ass and tell him to believe in me while he's crying in pain and misery. Get a fucking education and stop being so fucking prissy.

4 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-04 07:58 ID:95yjihvy [Del]

This is just fucking stupid. Whatever fucking god you believe in, tell me so I can fuck him up the ass and tell him to believe in me while he's crying in pain and misery. Get a fucking education and stop being so fucking prissy.

5 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-04 17:48 ID:hHtLxn7N [Del]

>>3
"I'M AN ATHEIST AND A SHEEP. I'M ALSO AN INTERNET TOUGH GUY"

fix'd

6 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-04 23:58 ID:jrAhx0qj [Del]

It takes a sheep to follow the herd blindly in to what you can't see, dipshit.

"Well, I can't prove it's there but I'm going to follow everyone else just because".

Think twice before you call someone else a sheep, sheep. I'm not an internet tough guy, I just don't like people spouting bullshit like some 7 year old kid with an over-active imagination.

7 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-05 02:04 ID:qcXZ9Qzb [Del]

I can't understand you "Baaahh" something

8 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-05 03:25 ID:hHtLxn7N [Del]

>>6
Did you even read the OP, or is this just your standard knee-jerk reaction to everything challenging your atheist dogma ?

9 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-05 05:30 ID:XiiuYmlJ [Del]

BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

10 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-05 07:09 ID:jrAhx0qj [Del]

>>8

What the fuck are you trying to defend? Give me your bullshit beliefs and I can counter ever fucking one of them, that is, if it is beliefs and not proof. Science precedes over all your bullshit you spout. Give me your religion, your thoughts, and I'll knock them down like a heavyweight boxer, unless you're too chicken shit.

11 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-05 12:57 ID:hHtLxn7N [Del]

>>10

>What the fuck are you trying to defend?
>Science precedes over all your bullshit you spout.

Can you even read ? Please take your sub-par belligerent atheist mantras elsewhere.

12 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-05 14:03 ID:jrAhx0qj [Del]

>>11

WTF do you keep getting at? Is that supposed to be your proof that there is a god/s? Is that all you can come up with since you keep referring me to that? Go back to fucking school or your mental ward. You seriously need an education and/or medication. Almost all the top scientists have no belief in a god or gods and pretty much anyone with half a brain. I was an insistent believer too at one time until I learned from members of a scientific community of whom were much wiser than I. It took me months of bickering with them until I finally realized little by little it's all bullshit. You'll see that day too unless you just lay stagnant in your own ignorance.

13 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-05 15:48 ID:hHtLxn7N [Del]

>>12

>Almost all the top scientists have no belief in a god or gods and pretty much anyone with half a brain.

No, they're not. But you're not going to be convinced of that for quite a while yet.

>I was an insistent believer too at one time until I learned from members of a scientific community of whom were much wiser than I.

Well, that explains your blind anger against anything that even suggests religion. I'm sorry I aggravated you, I thought you were just being baselessly rude.

>It took me months of bickering with them until I finally realized little by little it's all bullshit.

If you rephrase that as "until I finally realized that what I believed in at that time was not the truth", you'll be getting closer to what is hinted at.

14 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-05 18:07 ID:jrAhx0qj [Del]

What you said in the OP only describes someone who has found a theory or "all the answers". That has nothing to do with the way I see the world. It's impossible to know all the answers and I have no theory on god just as I have no theory on fairies. I don't see fairies, I don't feel them, I don't sense them, I can only imagine them. They only exist in my head if I imagine them. And if you allow anything which only exists in the head of someone to be true, then our whole basis of proving anything or using reason as any way to make sense of things, is useless. So we have to have some basis by which to prove something other than, 'I can imagine it'.

Unless you're crazy, you don't feel god, talk to him, or touch him a way that's consistent with others' ways. To prove something exists, it has to be observed and specifically described by the masses first, in order to confirm it exists and can be further studied and accepted. I can prove god doesn't exist by using that process. And I sure know he doesn't exist in my head. Religion is a virus of the masses, a meme. Religion is made up to fill a void in peoples' heads to guide them or give them answers. Science does the same and it has given me more answers than I hoped and showed me the way without the ignorance of religion. In life you just have to be satisfied with 'I just don't know' and you have to be somewhat meek to put all your trust in science and just accept we won't know it all and don't pretend to. But I can rest assured, there is no devil in the Earth, nor sky fairy in the heavens as much as there is no fairy princess flying in front of me. I don't know 100% but I know enough to pass reasonable judgement and call it bullshit.

15 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-05 19:21 ID:qcXZ9Qzb [Del]

Well fuck you too. If I choose to interpret the insane number of coincidences in my life that are related to Cracky as signs of some force interfering with my perceived reality then I will. something is fucking with me, and it makes it more fun to deal with if I just say it's Cracky.

16 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-05 19:34 ID:XiiuYmlJ [Del]

I think you mean BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

17 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-05 22:34 ID:hHtLxn7N [Del]

>>14

>To prove something exists, it has to be observed and specifically described by the masses first, in order to confirm it exists and can be further studied and accepted.

Not quite, no-one has ever observed and specifically described the infinity of pi, for example.
And described by the masses is a really poor metric, judging by Iraq being an al-qaida stronghold.

>I can prove god doesn't exist by using that process.

No you can't. The only way to prove god doesn't exist by exclusion it to become a god. I think you can see the problem.

Science is about models. A good model has predictive value, you can derive future behaviour from it. Most parameters in these models don't include the divine, true. But a common mistake is to think science is about truth which it isn't. Mixing up science and truth is why many are prepared to defend science with dogmatic perseverance.

You also mix up thinking about the concept of god with existing religions a lot.

Clear discourse starts with clear thoughts. Riling against a scary convoluted strawman is a trait of fanatics.

18 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-05 22:46 ID:qcXZ9Qzb [Del]

sciencefag, you just got F'ed in the A

19 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-06 01:13 ID:jrAhx0qj [Del]

>>17

You're the antagonist of this thread and also act as if there's proof for a god/s. You can be wishy washy with your definition and have it fit in any way that science can't 100% disprove if you like, but still, I'll go with a reasonable assumption it's all bullshit. Read the bible, quran, physics books, or by authors denying existence of a god such as Richard Dawkins and many others out there who are quite educated, and you'll realize, it's all bullshit. You're being herded up like a sheep and are treading on thin ice by putting your trust in religious text which are filled with so many logic holes.

As for the bullshit about pi, yes, it is observed and described up to a certain amount of digits. Also, it's numbers. We're not disproving numbers here. That's a terrible argument.

You'll pretty much see, wheresoever education lacks, there's more of the general populace which believes in mythical or supernatural entities which have no logical basis. Or the same things seem to be observed in patients that have attained head trauma. I used to be just as ignorant until I got educated also. I used to act pretentious too so as to put up a false front to disquise my ignorance since I was trying to fill logic holes which only made me seem like a dumbass if I didn't, at least, pretend I was literate. I know your story, been there, done that. It's old news now.

>>18
>>19

Same insecure fag. Now you got "F'ed in the A". You realize how much of a dumbshit you sound? What are you, 12?

20 Name: Anonymous!6XCRacKyGo : 2007-10-06 06:32 ID:qcXZ9Qzb [Del]

the absence of proof is not the proof of absence. I don't care one way or the other, but when you science fags start talking about shit you better sit with you own rules. The can not with you current technology disprove the existence of a higher life form, so you are as big a douchebag as the guy who can not prove the existence of a higher life form.

Hell I can call physics god if I want to.

21 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-06 13:13 ID:jrAhx0qj [Del]

Can't be proven nor disproven by the current scientific process, therefore, god is just as good as dead to me. If it can't be proven, it's not worthy of wasting my time worshipping or reciting I love you to it like some of you fags. Some of you act as if you're fucking god with your dire need to defend it, whatever the fuck you define it as. FSM is only a figment of my imagination, yet I'm not so diluted as to call it real. Or I could take the same side. FSM is a composition of neurons which had to be arranged a certain way in my brain to form that thought, therefore, is physically real to me. Either way, your life has no real solid foundation of organization if you do away with the scientific process and put too much trust in the unproven. Life can be lived just as good, if not better, by relying on proven material or ideals.

Not everything has to be proven such as the small things in daily life. But when it comes to hyperbolic nonsense which could take up most of the time in my life I have here, I prefer to seek out and find the truth of it. And that's what I've done because I used to be Christian, Muslim, Jew, and Hindu. I've agreed with them all at one time but after a while when you gain experience from them and defend them so much, you slowly realize it's all bullshit as much as you hate to admit it.

22 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-06 13:26 ID:hHtLxn7N [Del]

>>19

>You're the antagonist of this thread and also act as if there's proof for a god/s.

That is only in your mind.

I state "The only way to prove god doesn't exist by exclusion is to become a god."

If you can make a sound logical argument about how that is wrong I'm all ears.

>You can be wishy washy with your definition and have it fit in any way that science can't 100% disprove if you like, but still, I'll go with a reasonable assumption it's all bullshit.

Science rarely "proves" anything. They give an alternative model (sometimes several) with a far higher predictive rating. When you wash windows on skyscrapers it's wise to assume 9.8 meters per square seconds is a law write in stone. But to use the statistics on predictive models as absolute proof is thin ice indeed, since there are rare occasions where even existing religious doctrines have one-upped conventional science. By your definition that would constitute proof of the existence of god, which I would contest as well.

> Read the bible, quran, physics books, or by authors denying existence of a god such as Richard Dawkins and many others out there who are quite educated,

ad verecundiam

>and you'll realize, it's all bullshit. You're being herded up like a sheep and are treading on thin ice by putting your trust in religious text which are filled with so many logic holes.

The metaphysical concept of God is very far away from how people interpret religious texts. Please stop dragging unrelated matters into it.

>As for the bullshit about pi, yes, it is observed and described up to a certain amount of digits. Also, it's numbers. We're not disproving numbers here. That's a terrible argument.

No, I was making an example of how the plain intuitive idea that observation of something counts as proof is simply not true.
Formal proof makes things true, so the only science that works with truth so far is math. The rest of all scientists just take math and hammer that into a model that is applicable in the real world and judge the usefulness of that model by its predictive value.

>You'll pretty much see, wheresoever education lacks, there's more of the general populace which believes in mythical or supernatural entities which have no logical basis. Or the same things seem to be observed in patients that have attained head trauma.
>I used to be just as ignorant until I got educated also. I used to act pretentious too so as to put up a false front to disquise my ignorance since I was trying to fill logic holes which only made me seem like a dumbass if I didn't, at least, pretend I was literate.

So far your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies and strawmen.
I guess the idea of a faith that has science as one of its founding pillars is something that upsets your current system of believes that sees "science" and "religion" as a irreconcilable dichotomy.

You're a victim of historical beliefs.

>I know your story, been there, done that. It's old news now.

From what I've read so far I very much doubt that.

23 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-06 15:22 ID:jrAhx0qj [Del]

>>22

Prove the flying spaghetti monster is wrong by becoming it. You see, I'm setting you up for failure. One cannot remark with logical arguments to a statement so absurd.

>where even existing religious doctrines have one-upped conventional science

Religion of any day was loosely based on known science. And you could also give a monkey a typewriter with the freedom to type as many words as the bible or quran and it's very likely, something in it will make some kind of sense or to one with an over-active imagination, could gather things from it which by it's very basis, mean nothing at all.

24 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-06 15:24 ID:jrAhx0qj [Del]

>>22

Google sciforums. I visited there for months. Lots of great arguments on the topic both for and against. But I debated for religion there long enough, I finally came to my senses and found out it was, for the most part and as much as I hate to say it, bullshit.

25 Name: Anonymous!6XCRacKyGo : 2007-10-06 15:40 ID:qcXZ9Qzb [Del]

you mean your inability to argue ended up with you losing so many debates that you switch sides because it couldn't be that you are an idiot, no it had to be you were wrong. So now you are arguing for science, but you are still an idiot. Stop trying to throw around other peoples arguments, if you don't understand why they aren't convincing people. It's you that is sabotaging you own cause sciencefag

26 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-06 16:12 ID:jrAhx0qj [Del]

>>25

Grow up with your !6XCRackKyGo fanboyism, little kid. So are you trying to insult me with "sciencefag"? I guess you're the opposite, a "fictionstraightguy". Is it so bad I put my trust in what is proven? Stay out of the argument, this is for grown ups.

You're also saying that I was supposed to be close-minded and not take into consideration what others say and what is exhaustively proven to be true. And I suppose by saying that, you're saying you'll hold your ground on anything and know all, that you can't change any kind of opinion you have because it would say you're an idiot for taking into consideration other views. Good going, you just proved how unfit you are for this topic.

What I knew then was true to me the best I could disprove at the time. We all grow, we all learn, and just because we advance our studies does not mean what we thought true at that time meant we were an idiot. My perception of things is still somewhat true as I saw them as a Christian, just more refined. Learning is a growth process, not a process of an idiot being told wrong, and not being an idiot anymore. An idiot either refuses to learn or doesn't care to learn. And that's as many words as I feel necessary to speak to someone who puts so little time and thought processing in their arguments.

27 Name: Anonymous!6XCRacKyGo : 2007-10-06 16:19 ID:qcXZ9Qzb [Del]

you haven't proven anything using your own beloved scientific process. The whole point of this thread seems to be that you are a sheep and no matter which side of the argument you are on, you you personally are wrong.

28 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-06 17:11 ID:jrAhx0qj [Del]

>>27

No, the whole point of the thread is showing that nothing can be proven to the mentally retarded. And arguing with a theist is like arguing with a seven year old. They either can't comprehend it, can't handle it, or just have wild imaginations and want to believe bullshit they have no logical basis for believing. You can't expect me to go on debating if you're going to reason like a child. I am only doing this so maybe you can grow up and I can defend the scientific process for which is a basis of a healthy, stable environment for the general populace.

29 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-06 18:21 ID:qcXZ9Qzb [Del]

baaaaaaaaaaaaaah

30 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-06 20:34 ID:hHtLxn7N [Del]

>>28

>And arguing with a theist is like arguing with a seven year old.

Please point out this mysterious theist you keep referring to. Up until now your whole argument is based on "show me what you believe and I will attack that belief to prove my point. Hah, noone puts forth their belief, so I am right QED."

>They either can't comprehend it, can't handle it, or just have wild imaginations and want to believe bullshit they have no logical basis for believing.

And not even once did you consider yourself now in the position you were when you were religious and the scientists told you you were wrong. You're begging the question here. All you know is that you are right and others are attacking you because you are right and therefor you must be right.

!6XCRackKyGo hardly needs to grow up, he just seems to have a lot less patience than I, but even I get the feeling I'm talking to a wall now.

You're not even trying to construct a coherent argument, you're just just yelling "YOU HERETICS ARE WRONG, and I know because I was once one of you, but now I've seen the light! Just trust me, I know what I'm talking about!"

Sound familiar ?

31 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-06 20:50 ID:o3PSdjgl [Del]

>>30

Don't act like a dipshit. Others are not attacking, they're merely arguing. Not because I'm right but because they see a different view. Get it in your thick head. I don't believe I'm right 100%, that's the beauty of science. Did you ever pick up on the phrase, "logical assumption"?

All I hear is blah, blah, blah. You attacking the scientific process and not putting forth an idea which is better from a logical view and adding to the debate with a logical statement. There's no meat to your argument. Don't even portray me as thinking I'm right. No one is ever 100% right. You'd have to be a fucktard to state you are or I am. You're in just the same boat, if not worse, because I regard the scientific process and admit what is and what is not or what we don't know. You make illogical assumptions and won't dare go into detail on which they are for you fear their very foundation will crumble from a logical argument.

32 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-06 21:22 ID:hHtLxn7N [Del]

>>31

>You attacking the scientific process and not putting forth an idea which is better

Yes, because obviously because the one pointing out the huge gaps in your logic requires that person to fix your argument for you. Unfortunately that's not how logic (and by inference, your beloved science) works.

I'm saying the argument you use to prove your belief is unsound.

YOUR BELIEF MAY STILL VERY WELL BE TRUE BUT THE ARGUMENT YOU PROVIDE IS FLAKY.

Regardless, I believe you when you say "All I hear is blah, blah, blah." since obviously "[some people] either can't comprehend it, can't handle it,"

Oh, and
"Prove the flying spaghetti monster is wrong by becoming it."

That's not right. That's not even wrong.

"You see, I'm setting you up for failure."

indeed you did, Wile E.

33 Name: Anonymous!6XCRacKyGo : 2007-10-06 21:42 ID:qcXZ9Qzb [Del]

The burden of proof is not on us sciencefag. You want to convince us all to give up our way, you are going to have to prove you are right, otherwise you are just spouting empty noise.

34 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-07 03:48 ID:o3PSdjgl [Del]

>>32

I didn't start this thread, you or some fantasyfag started it with this thread. And you're too chickenshit to give me a view to fix. Some fucktard thinks he knows it all and started making cracks at atheism, hence my defending it.

>>33

The burden of proof is on you, fantasyfag. Any time you make an illogical statement, such as, "There exists an invisible old man in the sky", the burden of proof is not on Science to prove your delusional bullshit.

35 Name: Anonymous!6XCRacKyGo : 2007-10-07 04:55 ID:qcXZ9Qzb [Del]

There exists an english girl in the sky

kucktard

36 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-07 11:06 ID:JG2xRpnY [Del]

What kind of shit is this? Belief is something that can not be proven or disproven scientifically by definition, because it is not falsifiable. (Read up about philosophical theory of science)

This means that any religion completly escapes a scientific explanation. In the end that means that none of both positions (sciencefag and religiouszealot) can ever by right.

You are free to believe in whatever you want. But you should always be aware that it is something that only exists in your mind and must not necessarily be what other people believe in. Even if you follow a mainstream "religion" and acquire a belief shaped by others, it does not make it more "right" than any other belief.

Many scientists do not follow mainstream relegions. But every successful scientist comes to a point in life where he can just marvel about the things nature has created and how everything falls into place. That is the beauty of science and to really understand it you have to spend a lot of time dedicated to a single direction of research.

37 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-08 03:50 ID:4pIrLgte [Del]

STFU, dipshit. Here, we're debating religion because it is called a "philosophy/religion" board. WTF are we supposed to do here, drink tea and eat cake? We're here to discuss it. There is always debate in this unless someone just posts and just post back, "I agree". You misunderstand the nature of this board. You come here telling others basically they have it wrong and this is the way it is and/or should be while at the same time telling others to stop debating about the way it is or should be. God damn, can people be any more fucking stupid?

38 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-08 05:35 ID:+CxzpVdx [Del]

I am telling you why this is an issue that can not be resolved by invoking "science" as an argument. You can discuss why that is or try to challenge it, but you will not succeed with the latter.

39 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-08 05:51 ID:e+KwMqGx [Del]

>>38

Hello? Is anyone home in your fucking head? This will not be solved in it's entirety to convince everyone by any kind of argument, science or fantasy. Tell us something we don't know. Next time, keep your shit for brains out of the debate, Mr. Obvious. That is why we're here, to challenge each others' ideals or provoke ideals. You provoke me or I provoke you, I don't give a shit, just do some provoking instead of telling us shit we already know, like the purpose of debate. God damn, another one just dropped off from the short bus, apparently.

40 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-08 06:44 ID:RbpJBbV1 [Del]

>>38

Tell that to me or the millions of others who have come to realize religion is bullshit just by using logical thinking. Science has resolved lots of religious debates inside the heads of many a scientist. Next time think before spouting arbitrary bullshit. That's something apparently lacking in a lot people who are against science as a means to divulge the bullshit in religion.

41 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-08 08:36 ID:XiiuYmlJ [Del]

BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

42 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-08 08:38 ID:XiiuYmlJ [Del]

This is way better then the drama in /cracky/

I got to stir shit up like this more often.

43 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-08 08:54 ID:3AbuBDpt [Del]

>>40

>Tell that to me or the millions of others

ad numerum

>just by using logical thinking.

So you pour that into a dogma and start repeating that religiously, and whenever people show you logically you're talking non-sense, you just shout louder.

You're a textbook example of what's wrong with religious zealots, you just happen to have "science"as your primary religion.

44 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-08 09:39 ID:RbpJBbV1 [Del]

>>43

Attention to detail is not your strong point. I'm willing to accept any possibility as long as it's feasible. So in trying to counter me and keep pace, you're doing the same thing I'm doing....trying to tell you what's wrong with you. You're a textbook example of a religious hypocrite. Don't even try to act a neutral party in this. You're just a dumbshit who can't accept the scrutiny and reality of science. I won't believe bullshit and there's no way in that hell that you think people like you aren't going to, that you'll get me to believe it. Becoming an atheist is all a part of growing up and becoming wiser. You've been there, done that, seen it, and know bullshit when you see it.

The more you argue with stupid, misguided bullshit, the more I'm going to dream of fucking your god in the ass until his asshole protrudes. Go cry somewhere else you sensitive religious cockfuck. I make a remark or two about religion and go figure, I got a couple crying babies here who can't stand it. Science won't fucking back down, it crushes your faggot ass as far as logic goes. You are the minority, the delusional, and most important, it's so easy to troll you religious crying babies. I lol every time I hear you cry and make up all kinds of illogical bullshit to cover your belief in illogical bullshit because the meds aren't working. Go back to your fucking mental institution.

45 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-08 10:19 ID:RbpJBbV1 [Del]

To be fair, I will let you fantasyfags give me a description of the god you believe in without tearing your argument's ass apart like usual with my big dick of logic. If your religion is like, really far out there, I'll listen but I've heard none yet. Also, I'll give you my philosophy.

You know, I see the universe as an intelligent entity in itself. Just like how the a molecule in a neuron in a brain is not itself considered intelligent, but as a network which composes a more complex system, it creates what we ordinarily define as intelligent, the human brain. Who's to say that all the simple processes in the universe, multiverse, or even megaverse couldn't be considered to be an intelligent entity, as a collective. There are many open possibilities but that is not a god, it's just a complex system as we are. Religion is irrelevant in everyday life. It's just to fill a void for what we don't know and so others can feel they know the purpose of life and supposedly feel at ease. I feel more at ease putting all my trust in science more than I did religion because there were so many logical holes in the religious texts I've read. I no longer have to worry about a god telling me I'm impure at birth and that others will go to hell if they haven't heard of him.

And I care about my presence upon the Earth not because I fear revenge from him, but because if I am a dick, then it kind of spreads around, and if I have kids and everyone is a dick because someone else is, then they have to grow up in that kind of environment. Life is all about the living. I do a terrible job and not being a dick sometimes but I've always been that way, no matter what. But a lot of people will tell you I'm nicer since I gave up religion all together and don't feel the pressure of another dick breathing down my neck to send me to hell. You see, I'm not such a dick after all, am I? Ok, I know your answer, fuck you too then.

46 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-08 10:22 ID:3AbuBDpt [Del]

>>44
SHOUT LOUDER! IF THAT DOESN'T WORK, USE MORE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS.

or, "ad nauseam", as it is called in logic, but that wouldn't ring a bell since I very much doubt at this point you've ever even read a book about logic and/or solid argumentation.

I'm glad real scientists have a different opinion of science as you have, otherwise we'd all be sitting around worshipping a cruise-missile with a nuclear warhead.

47 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-08 10:26 ID:3AbuBDpt [Del]

>>45
Right, why didn't you say so in the first place ?

I still suggest you read up a little on solid argumentation though.

48 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-08 10:54 ID:RbpJBbV1 [Del]

>>46

Abusive language? You really are a sensitive fag aren't you? I have hardly put any time in reading of solid argumentation. I just take what I learn and apply it. I'm not trying to con anyone by reading up on how to trick people into thinking I'm someone I'm not. I give you the facts, just as I see it, no bullshit about it. Also, what's wrong with war? Are you a hippie? War's good medicine sometimes. It's rids the weak and unlucky, just as anything does. With an overpopulated world, we could use it. Don't give me bullshit how I'm not in a war, I risk my life everyday at what I do and if I was a fucking klutz, I wouldn't be here. If it wasn't for war and death, this place would be full of whiny, sensitive losers. Does that "ring a bell"?

>>47

I still haven't heard any argument of yours other than trying to put down my argument, like you're on the defensive. Stop being a submissive fag and let me know what you think, what you're trying to defend. And enough with the solid argumentation bullshit. We I think is what you get from me, not bullshit I try to pretty up to sway the opinion towards me. I'm not so stupid I don't take into account psychological factors in argument, but this is just a shithole extension of 4chan, like I give a shit. This is not my fucking thesis. Bounceme is for letting it all hang out.

49 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-08 11:49 ID:PyQfCMQR [Del]

>Abusive language? You really are a sensitive fag aren't you?

abusive language is usually just impolite ad populum.

also, ad hominem.
You're just checklisting them to "gotta catch them all", right ?

>Also, what's wrong with war?

Start a new thread and find out!

>Are you a hippie?

dunno, but do tell me more of your intergalactic Gaia theory, please

>I give you the facts, just as I see it,

There's a difference between "facts" and "opinions", opinions being "facts as I see them".
Congratulations you managed to have an opinion!

>We I think is what you get from me, not bullshit I try to pretty up to sway the opinion towards me. I

"The opinion" ? There's you, me and that other guy. Ad populum again for three people ?! you even suck at sucking.

and no "I suck at logical fallacies" doesn't imply "I good with logic"

>Stop being a submissive fag and let me know what you think

I think you are doing more to harm the scientific cause than anything else, and I think I've argued my case pretty solidly throughout this thread.

50 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-09 07:08 ID:X4kK+2V2 [Del]

>Start a new thread and find out!

Of course, there's negative effects to war, which are obvious. I'm just against people thinking war is entirely bad. There is a good and bad to everything. Challenges put stress on us but makes us stronger. War can be the ultimate stress challenge. But we all challenge each other in some way or another, that's life. If we didn't, there would be no purpose to life. No way or motive to overcome. Instead of calling someone "bad" as religion often does, science, specifically psychology, tells us why and lets us understand them. Lots of religious people just make up excuses so they can call someone bad or a bad guy just to challenge them. Some people deservedly need challenged in war sometimes but I don't agree with bullshit excuses or coverups as a motive for war or killing. Example, a serial murder who is constantly challenging people and the public, in general. He wants to challenge, so he should clearly be challenged appropriately with appropriate punishment. But not because he is "evil". Psychology would give us understanding of their basic self and apply appropriate measures to prevent such outcomes for their sake and ours.

I'm not a mis-driven, ignorant, and/or mad war condoner like some Republicans here in the states. Nor do I condone it and want any child to be raised in such an atmosphere. I'm just saying, it is ignorant just to call war totally bad. I'm seeing the scientific standpoint of it, not the emotional aspect. Reason before emotion. Emotional haste has made many a bad decisions in the world. Emotion tries to blind our reasoning and I clearly demonstrated that in my previous posts with my outbursts but I think a slight emotional challenge is healthy if one is emotionally mature enough to face it. I enjoy heated debate but I get carried away sometimes which I don't regret, as I said, it's healthy, lively, and light rivalry as long as no one takes it too seriously.

>dunno, but do tell me more of your intergalactic Gaia theory, please

Don't get my own theory, or perception of my reality, mixed up with the mythological ramblings of some Gaia theorists. It's just something I've come to perceive on my own after trying to find the truth about religion. At the beginning of the end of me as a Christian, my definition of God as seen through science, expanded into that theory and I've used it before to debate atheists. The universe can be seen as an intelligent entity if our very definition of intelligence is the human brain. It's simply a simple set of simple particles (atoms, molecules, etc) composed in a complex pattern that is able to compute complex problems. Well, what's more complex than the universe as a collective? The universe comprises us also as an intelligent part of it, who's to say it isn't intelligent for hosting an intelligent part of it? Just as our muscle fibers aren't comparatively complex, they host a complex set of simple particles, the brain, by feeding it by food, oxygen, etc. The same can be said about the universe. Or multiverse or megaverse, whichever the case, we just don't know yet.

But by that period in my belief, I relied upon science to back all my beliefs and in the end, I realized what I believed really wasn't religion anymore, it was really just science. And at that point, I was totally separated from a lot of other Christians in terms of how I interpreted the bible. I was also still in doubt about a good bit of other happenings in the Bible and the Quran.

Continued.......

51 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-09 07:09 ID:X4kK+2V2 [Del]

Continued.....

I even tried to reason about evolution since the bible speaks of creating the sea and air animals before the land animals which made me wonder. Did a fish, such as a flying fish-type fish, evolve into a bird over time? It would make more sense because for a fish to eat insects over water, it would have to evolve larger fins in some places to stay airborne longer where eating airborne insects was most primarily the main means of survival. Seems in some ways just as plausible as a fish thriving and surviving because it could somehow be able to jump or squirm to land for a food source and jump back in. What seems more plausible, a fish developing legs for on-land food, or a fish developing larger fins to catch insects and such flying above water? To go from a medium density material to a ligher density material and mechanical movement is pretty much the same so less has to evolve to adjust, or go to a lighter density material, air, but an entirely different means of bodily transport and mechanical movement. But in the end, I realized I could take more passages from the bible and fit science around it and some would make sense while others wouldn't. The same could apply to any other religion. I was wanting to believe so bad, whatever didn't make sense, I would just put aside. Or just pick out certain passages which sounded good and didn't make me sound like a hypocrite or that the bible was.

But I've lost a few good years in my life believing in bullshit and trying to make sense of it so I carry a certain degree of resentment about it and others who try to spread it. It just seems to complicate lives and tear apart known logic. Morality is relative, not static. It is also not black and white as what most religions try to do. If there is something which religion generally says is a bad thing and science agrees it has negative effects, we don't need to stray away from it because god/s said so, it's because it carries a negative impact with it or has the possibility to. It's the equivalent of teaching kids right and wrong but when you grow older, you discover far more variables in life which some simple book can't give advice.

People find all kinds of means to justify seeming wrong-doings in religious text that we better not to do these days. Religion tries to control, science tries to understand. I tell my nephew don't do something while telling him why in my best attempt and he understands and is more likely to obey. But if I just say, "because I said so", then he is left clueless as to why and has less motive to obey other than me spatting his hand or paddling him. Religion is that way. It tells you what to do and what not to do, and the consequences are often the rule-giver giving you punishment. As I said, finding your way out of that cesspit of simple religion is part of growing up. Things aren't black and white like religion generally tries to promote. Because you were born in a certain place, you are no worse or better than someone else who was born in, say, Israel, Iraq, England, etc. I think religion is, for the most part, an inhibitor to human advancement and civility. That's also why I feel such disdain for it. Becoming an atheist was perhaps the best period in my life. I won't say day, because it happened after lots of study of the bible and science and happened gradually. So there you go, I seem a dick in a way, but don't say I don't understand the religious side. I have been to church plenty and even baptized. Most of my church buddies were friendly, but there was plenty of misguided ignorance on the topic of muslims, buddhists, other religions, cultures, non-church-goers, etc. They usually don't concern themselves with understanding of other societies, cultures, and religions, rather, they usually want to focus on the outcomes of not being like them, such as damnation if they don't conform or helping them in the case of drug users sometimes.

That is what science has going for it. It doesn't turn a blind eye. It seeks to understand the universe and it's inhabitants. I'm pretty conservative and have a lot of moral values of a Christian as long as there is a logical explanation as to why an action is considered negative. Sex, for example. I believe in wearing proper attire which is not too risque so as not to bring about distracting impulse to another or disrespect another's living space if I were to appear under-dressed in someone's home. It's not really morality, it's just known courtesy and respect. Not because I fear a god sending me to hell, but because of respect for a fellow human. So you say, God punishes to get us to respect each other. That is not needed in an environment where if we disrespect another, we could be punished anyway. Man, by nature, wants to seek a mother or father figure or leader-type, and that is in essence, why god or gods are initially invoked in man. The tricky part is, because we are only small specks in the universe, or perhaps, infinitely small, we servants in a master universe and man tries to implement that into religion but manage to take more out of it then there really is. We are just a small part of something bigger, that's all. You can push that and say that something bigger is one entity and that speaks to us to tell us what is right, but that's pushing the edge of sanity (EOS, haha). And it really is the universe telling us things with reasonable, and observational studies. And you can push it more to see what man can fall for by saying it has a human messenger which came to us to tell us things but really, we are all better off at taking clues from our environment, which we could call science. It has told us more of "right" and "wrong" than any religious text.

But there you have it. That is my view and after asking many times, I would like other views instead of blindly bashing science.

52 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-09 15:36 ID:qcXZ9Qzb [Del]

Enjoy your moral ambiguity fool.

Yes, I am religeous. So? I dont see any problem. I embraced my monastic order long ago and I am happy together with my Deity (who is a cute ginger!). We have a fucking lot of friends in and outside of the order and I am pretty slim and good looking.

But thanks anyway asshole. Go and watch your stupid Carl Sagan shit while I have fap to my God

53 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-09 17:02 ID:w2PSF7ki [Del]

This thread died because of serious tl;dr

54 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-09 18:36 ID:X4kK+2V2 [Del]

>>52

I was going to post a witty remark to embarrass you but I think you done a good enough job with your last reply.

55 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-10 03:25 ID:qcXZ9Qzb [Del]

Fuck you then, I have fap over lolcows.

56 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-10 11:43 ID:Hw6m7DyO [Del]

>>55

MasterD, is that you?

57 Name: !EMQCrACkyY : 2007-10-10 12:33 ID:Yfjwhc/U [Del]

>>56
no, its 6xcrackyGo, who still hasn't posted 6 rare cracky images?? :P
in this board everyone has an ID

also: agnostic atheism is the only way to go

58 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-10 13:16 ID:Hw6m7DyO [Del]

>>57

I was thinking MasterD by the engrish. But if anyone hasn't said it yet, COUGH UP THE BELOVED CRACKY'S! Please.

59 Name: Anonymous : 2007-10-19 02:06 ID:qcXZ9Qzb [Del]

Arise my trolls I am bored and seek the entertainment you believers provide.

60 Name: Agnostic Anonymous : 2007-11-30 07:29 ID:0zxw8A3R [Del]

I neither believe you christfags nor do I believe you sciencefags.Nothing can be proven with 100 % certainty.There is no evidence that supports the claim that god exists and there is no evidence that proves that he doesn't exist.

61 Name: Anonymous : 2007-12-02 05:13 ID:6RaDHwNQ [Del]

>>There is no evidence that supports the claim that god exists

http://195.242.99.71/

62 Name: Anonymous : 2007-12-17 04:19 ID:EsE73TWU [Del]

"The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absense." - Gin Rummy

63 Name: Anonymous : 2007-12-17 04:38 ID:EsE73TWU [Del]

>>1

Nice, I liked this post.

64 Name: Anonymous : 2007-12-18 04:59 ID:x8MO3M5e [Del]

>>62
Bounceme is nigger technology

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...