>>684048133 >things you can do if you are a theist run for president in america not pay tax on church related business be part of a relatively safe group, less murderers etc receive support, financial, emotional, medical etc from members hoping to earn their deities favour be reasonably sure all the yung pussy in church is virgin have access to church run enterprise, like child care, low interest money lending etc
>>684045425 Belief systems are an integral part in how our brains evolved. Manipulating your own belief system to empower yourself and strengthen your mind is an important toolset utilized by the strongest members of our society. There is no "rational" reason, but nothing about life or reality is rational by virtue of its own existence. If you believe life is "rational" than you are deluding yourself. Agents of order are unknowingly agents of chaos under the employ of someone or something stronger than themselves. The next stage of human evolution is remembering that we ourselves are god, and god is everything and everything is the same.
>>684048532 >Easier to find a mate and friends in a scheduled social setting (there are still some not totally fucked in the head people there). my country has an areligious majority.
>Volunteering at a church looks good on resumes for certain companies (volunteer work generally looks good anywhere). Also pastors make good references. as opposed to secular charities?
>Odds of winning the heaven lottery are higher if you play the game. Even if nothing happens when you die, it's not like having an extra place to make friends and build up your resume will hurt you. muh pascal's wager.
hint: you can also lose the game much harder for praying to the wrong god.
>my country has an areligious majority. Sorry I assumed you were in a major country where religion is prevalent.
>as opposed to secular charities? I did already point out that volunteer work from anywhere was looked upon as good, did I not?
>muh pascal's wager. So what? It's still a compelling argument to some.
>hint: you can also lose the game much harder for praying to the wrong god. It all depends on perspective. Also, who's to say there is a right or wrong god? Certainly not you.
If you don't want to believe, fine. You have that prerogative. Enjoy that. Many people find solace and community in churches. Many find it in other ways.
Just because I don't believe myself, doesn't mean I'm going out of my way to make them feel bad for their own personal decisions. We are rational beings who have the choice to make our own decisions, dispite your feelings.
>>684055042 If a God exists, he certainly wouldn't want you to pray to the wrong God. Therefore, belong to no religion. If a God exists, he wouldn't like to not be believed in either. So, believe in a God and stay religion free.
>>684055998 atheist = not believing. so you're saying you don't believe but think it would be safer to believe? or are you saying you don't really believe but do sortof believe at the same time because it improves your safety?
have you considered that it might decrease your safety because god is a vengeful one and hates believers paying lipservice?
>>684056366 I have If God values logic, I am safe. If God exists, he wouldn't want me to believe in a wrong God right? So,I can justify myself by not believing. However, the point I am trying to make is "To belong to no religion and to believe in a God is safer" because if you don't belong to a religion you don't believe in one of the known Gods. But you still believe a superpower exists somewhere. God, if it exists, will appreciate it.
>>684056595 >didn't live according to the holy scriptures There are many religions each with different scriptures. How could I have know which was the right one? That is why I chose to believe in none. God will understand for sure.
>>684058676 showing how a process works without external intervention takes many points where a previously-believed-to-be-necessary sentient creator would have to be present. Therefore it reduces the possibility-space of creationism.
Before evolution you could have argued that god created every modern species as it exists. After that you could only argue he created the original life. After a theory of biogenesis you can only argue he created the universe with the planet in it. After understanding the big bang you could only argue he set things into motion etc. etc.
>>684057873 >didn't live according to the holy scriptures There are many religions each with different scriptures. How could I have known which was the right one? That is why I chose to believe in none. God will understand for sure.
>>684059147 Dissecting the processes of doesn't discredit the belief that something put those processes in place. You guys seriously don't see how this argument pans out? We'd be better off arguing which came first; the chicken or the egg?
>>684060395 Science can't rationalize the beginning of the universe anymore than theology. Arguing a "start" is no more reasonable than an "always", that there has always been a universe. Your "something must have created God then" argument doesn't work because it's conceptual, and in theology there was always a God. It defies our understanding of finite and infinite. It's a quantum vacuum that mankind will never answer, but we're damn good at convincing ourselves we can. Cough.
>>684061949 >Your "something must have created God then" argument doesn't work because it's conceptual, and in theology there was always a God. I do not follow that argument.
It's theology that argues that there must be a god because something must have been the first cause. But that's basically a +1 argument. why not +0 or +2. I.e. no god or a meta-god. Even if you accept their argument that there must be a first cause, it does not follow that that first cause is anything they call god.
>>684062688 What about it? You're telling me a giant ball of gas was just conjured out of nowhere and exploded to create the universe as we know it? That's crazy. Sounds like something out of the Bible. Heh.
No, but really, did you read my post at all? The argument is a quantum vacuum with a recurring theme; what made that? What was before that? Infinity. Stuff we can't grasp because of mortality itself.
>>684063212 >Is there a single rational, legitimate reason to take issue with the beliefs of other people? It is if they use those believes to justify anti-social behavior or political demands without other foundations.
>>684062983 You can't quantify infinity and your insistence that the argument must be something created God for continuity's sake is proof of that. Omnipotency can't create omnipotency, it's a moot point.
>>684063546 >giant ball of gas was just conjured out of nowhere First of all, that's not even close to what happened. Secondly, following the second law of thermodynamics we are basically feasting on the corpse of the big bang. it was one highly-ordered energetic state that has been decaying, becoming more chaotic, ever since.
So in a sense nothing was created. If you wanted a religious interpretation then maybe god died that moment and we are the maggots eating his corpse.
Maybe /tg/ knows of some necromancer religion worshipping death, that would be more in line with what happened.
>>684064671 The integers never end either way. There is no beginning or end therefore it can't be quantified. Pi has not and never will be fully quantified, but it doesn't have to be because it's not a range. Who needs to go back to Math 101 again?
>>684064793 Time only makes sense for our own universe. So if the big bang arose from a singularity, and not a big bounce for example, then there is no before. and even if it was a big bounce it's possible that the point where it happened basically erased causality between the old and the new.
>>684064161 I just got here, but are we really doing the irreducibly complex, creation debate right now? Who created God? No one? Then not everything requires a creator. Then, why do we have a creator? I hope that wasn't too terribly butchered, but I'm pretty sure that argument has already been put to rest pretty thoroughly.
Yep. Your post is simple, yet says it all. I was trying to remember when I "found out" there wasn't a santa clause. Felt a combination of confidence, as I "figured something out". Growth/maturity. And the "end of something". Ignorance is bliss? I don't know.
>>684063212 There is one reason. Believers usually go beyond metaphysics. But this is where science has explanations (facts about the universe, evoultion, biology, neuro-science, etc) and religion has no sense.
>>684065912 That's it. He is focused on his own life. Everyone is. You use the word wasting, as if you're not doing the same thing that he is.
I would also say that blanket statement like, "If it makes them happy, then I think it's rational." Is a little short-sighted.
Just let the rapists rape, if it makes them happy. (No, I don't think you condone rape, and NO I'm not likening rape to religion. It's merely a point made that perhaps you should be more clear when making statements like that.)
>>684066340 Its a nice idea the afterlife. And if people need a religious dogma to not commit heinous acts then its all good. Carry out horrible things in the name of a god is a bad thing. But people kill one another over any bullshit all the time.
>>684066940 Well, dead people are certainly dead. The first guy got that right. The second guy, seems to be leaning a bit. Your neural activity and your consciousness are definitively linked, but AFAK there's still a ton of things we don't understand about the brain. There's even fewer things we understand about the nature of consciousness. I've even heard theories that the second before we die lasts an eternity through chemical processes similar to the processing of DMT.
TLDR; We don't know for certain, and that's literally not a big deal.
>>684066678 Indeed, I'm wasting my Thursday night on /b/.
Dawkins has wasted significantly more time than I will on this subject.
As far as the statement I made about happiness, I thought the "it" was clear. I apologize. Yes, I was talking about religion/theism. Certainly not rape.
But to add to it, I'm somebody who believes that you should be able to do whatever you wish with your life as long as it doesn't harm someone else. Many members of my family go to church on Sunday. I generally sleep in. We still get along. I support their right to go, they support my right not to go. I'm not offended by them saying grace at the table as long as I get to eat immediately afterward.
>>684066923 Those aren't exactly reproducible experiments.
If you wanted to design a proper experiment we would kill people and try to bring them back while laying out some cards next to the table. If they were truly hovering over their own bodies they could tell us which cards they saw with a chance significantly better than random.
Some might be lost in the process, but we can repeat this hundreds of times until we either have solid data or someone screams "ok, maybe we were wrong".
>>684066940 Yes, zero of them reported being alive after destruction of their brain. I take that as no evidence in favor of life after death.
>>684067254 Ouch. That's not very nice. Okay, so you have a screen where I posted text, and you didn't read it properly.
I got you, don't worry.
"Who created God? No one? Then not everything requires a creator."
That's what I said, and it's a really dumbed down version of an argument I've seen a bunch. The only reason I bother saying that, is because I encourage you to look up debates had on this subject. They're very interesting.
Back on topic. I can't equate myself to God in this argument, because the entire purpose is proving His existence. If I were to do that, it would become circular (eg: your goal).
>>684067949 By out of body I didn't mean literally floating over the operating table, I meant otherworldly, although there has been plenty of cases where the person will claim to float out of their body/look over it. Really the question you have to answer is is there a soul, which hardly fits into the realm of science. Although if you believe Dr. MacDougall it weighs roughly 20 grams.
>>684068329 No intelligent practicing theist will ever attempt to present you with physical evidence of God, to them the evidence is life itself. The logical response is to say there is no way to effectively disprove God.
>>684068376 this is abstractedness and not an argument.
You still lose the point on "rationality." Metaphysics is what is behind every concept, and as such it's way too reductionist and eliminates any argument you might want to prove when you call it into question.
>>684045425 There's contradiction, misinterpretation, and hypocrisy in the bible. Not to mention that most of it is hypothesis based off stories people have been telling for hundreds of years, which might not even hold true or accurate anymore. Whereas science is widely accepted as fact and has repeatedly been examined, tested, and analyzed to determine it's credibility, or at the very least developed theoricts that can neither completely prove nor disprove anything. You can believe in God if you want, no one really gives a shit whether or not you think a man in the sky exists or not regardless, but how about you kill yourself OP, and let us know whether or not you meet the man yourself or not, then post your factual evidence. And cite your sources too, pussy! This isn't 8th grade
>>684068548 >to them the evidence is life itself. ask them how that is evidence. because considering evolution and what we know about physics it hardly is direct evidence. it would sound more like a very very long and tenuous chain of arguments where at each point they would have to prove that there is no alternative explanation that works just as well or better.
>>684068063 How do you not follow? You have to equate yourself to the idea of God, which is impossible, to make a valid argument that you don't need a creator.. Were you not born? Were your parents not born? Do you have the answers to the universe? No? Then the two aren't really comparable. Jesus Christ. It's a discussion of divine design, not misguided nihilism.
Claiming that science has answered everything, yet the law of the conservation of energy only explains so much. There has to be a catalyst, an outside force. An outside force could be considered "God" by definition. Discuss?
>>684070300 I'm agnostic at best. There isn't an end result, the argument never ends. Science analyzes and explains a process and religion/belief gives it a purpose. The two go hand-in-hand whether we like it or not; they both stem from our need to understand/rationalize the unknown.
>>684070757 Was I born? Yes Were my parents born? Yes Do I have the answers to the univ- What? Do YOU have the answers to the universe? Holy shit. How did we make that jump? What a ridiculous question. Of course YOU have the answers. They are in a book, written by an omnipotent being whose existence can't be proven, and they can't be contested based on faith alone. What a convenient, argumentative guarantee you've got there. Is this the part where I literally concede to your argument based on nonsense?
>>684071523 I strongly disagree with you. Science analyzes physical reality, and God is (at best) an entity that is outside of our (at least, current, conceivable) measurement. He is metaphysical, and science is physical. To say the two go hand-in-hand is ignorance, in my opinion. Science exists not to understand the unknown, but to make sense of the physical reality around us. God does not qualify for this.
>>684069734 Believing claims without evidence would be irrational. Just the possibility of some outlandish claim being true does not mean you should pay attention to them unless they also bring some evidence to back up that claim.
Otherwise I demand that everyone treat my claim that you burn in hell unless you spend 30 minutes per week hopping around on one leg with exactly the same zeal as they treat any other religious claims.
>>684071953 In either event, you are arriving at a conclusion that is not entirely supported by facts. Any reasonable atheist will concede that if God turns out to be the real deal, then he will start fucking praying.
>>684070757 >You have to equate yourself to the idea of God, which is impossible Says who? I create things. creating a universe is only a few bits more complex, certainly finite in effort. I'm not omnipotent. Neither is any supposed creator.
In fact, some very dumb, unintelligent things create stuff every day. So he who created the universe might actually be a fairly dumb, unintelligent process.
It's like talking to a toddler. The "why do I need a creator of God doesn't" argument doesn't work because you're not comparable to God in any shape or form. For starters, because you're fucking born. Yes, you can create too, but it's a result of a cycle/process that theists easily(or conveniently, idgaf) attribute to God.
The point? There is no fucking point to this tedious discussion. It's all conceptual.
>>684072083 God is a result of the absurdity that results from attempting to apply meaning to a meaningless universe. The universe in your head and the one outside are made of different stuff for different "reasons". The problems of explanations of the universe are problems in our heads, not problems outside of our heads.
you sound like someone who is afraid of there being a God and you making the wrong assumptions. There's fear in your words. You're playing pascal's wager, cause you dont have the balls to simply state that there is no reasonable evidence to support the existence of a God or Gods.
>>684070928 Even assuming for a moment that all your other premises are correct
>An outside force could be considered "God" by definition.
Then you're saying you're willing to tack the label "god" onto practically anything. Which makes it a fairly meaningless and arbitrary label from which very little additional information could be derived.
Let's call it phlogiston instead. Or luminiferous aether, doesn't that sound spiritual?
>>684072045 >and God is (at best) an entity that is outside of our (at least, current, conceivable) measurement. how do you know that? those holy books of yours must have been written somehow, which suggests interaction with the physical world, thus measurable effects and thus within the purview of science.
>>684073177 How does that infer that? I don't think you understand what infer or physical or reality or sense or science means.
Science takes a (physical, observable, testable) phenomenon like gravity, and explains it by eliminating variables until we arrive at a conclusion that is, ostensibly, fullproof. This is a physical observation of reality, and we make sense of it. This cannot be done for something we cannot interact with.
>>684073065 >Perhaps I am oversimplifying things yes, you are.
The issue is that we cannot assume that every random claim is true. Therefore the default assumption is that every claim is false unless some evidence in its favor is presented. There are some further conditions, but this might suffice, considering that there is no evidence.
True, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But this only applies if you have strong prior reason to postulate somethings existence, e.g. because several other observations strongly indicate their is a common underlying cause to a process we have no observed directly yet.
For example until recently we have not observed gravitational waves, but that absence of direct evidence was not taken as evidence of absence because we already had the theory of relativity whose other aspects have been well-tested and because we already observed other phenomena such as binary neutron star inspiraling which is best explained with gravitational wave emission.
But as you say, there is zero evidence for god. We're lacking a motivating foundation and a testable, falsifiable prediction that would make it even worthwhile to consider that any such claims are true.
Therefore the default assumption kicks in that it is not true and it's on the proponents to present something to convince us otherwise.
>>684073992 Did the definition of unknown suddenly fucking change? Or are you too proud to admit that something previously not known is unknown? Do I need to post the Webster dictionary definition for you, Dumbass MD?
>>684045425 Only the Jewish god has unhealthy obsession with belief. Normal gods are cool if you obey the taboos, fulfill rites and make sacrifices. I.e. Jewish god is like psychotic wife - she is never content with simply not cheating her, she want you to not even want to fuck some young Qt. TLDR - Jewish god is mentally unstable bitch
Because the rejection of a proposition is not a proposition in itself.
By your logic it's irrational to deny the existence of anything anyone cares to state may exist simply because one can't provide evidence for that denial - which is always the case with unfalsifiable claims.)
If someone says: "I believe there is a microscopic, invisible, super-intelligent teapot floating in orbit around Saturn."
It is impossible to provide evidence to refute this claim.
However it is NOT irrational to do so precisely because the PROPOSITION has been made without evidence.
Likewise with claims of a God.
There will likely never be any evidence to positively disprove the existence of a deity. However the claim FOR one's existence has been made without putting forward any evidence in support of one. Ever. In the entire history of religious apologetics, philosophy, metaphysics and theology. Not a single proponent of deism or theism has been able to move past claims of revelation, weak tortology, the dishonest misuse of real science or unfalsifiable corruptions of logic.
Therefore it is patently rational to deny the existence of God.
Agnosticism is the position of the apathetic moron.
>>684073992 You put too much faith in science. Theories, like relativity, or quantum mechanics, are proven incomplete, and the upshot is that an honest scientist must be prepared to change his mind, when presented with new evidence
>>684074195 To what question? Why does humankind need a creator? I guess I have to reittirate I never said that it did? Or are you just deflecting because you realize how stupid your comparison to God was as an example
You are a pussy. You'd rather play it safe and call yourself "agnostic" (which really means "no dick or balls man") because you'd rather not damn yourself to this imaginary hell you've heard about from others.
>The only logical "belief" is agnosticism, because Im too much of a pussy".
>>684074311 I can't really argue with any of that if we are speaking within the confines of physical reality. Everything is false until proven true. Science tests physical reality. It does this empirically. I don't know how you would attempt to test for a God or gods. I'm not saying this constitutes as evidence for their existence. I'm merely saying, with no way to measure or observe, we are left with something that presumably operates outside of the rules that govern science and or physics. If we have no sign of a deity, and if it's powerful enough to create the entire universe and life as we know it, then why would we have the mean to observe it? Deities would have to be metaphysical beings by nature. Trying to use science to quantify or prove them would, in theory, be meaningless. I really apologize if all I did was repeat myself, but I'm confident that I did not. I don't believe in any sort of higher power because I have no evidence to suggest that. However, I recognize that I could be wrong, given the nature of the situation.
>>684074477 >In the entire history of religious apologetics, philosophy, metaphysics and theology. I think anyone who ever believed that their is a literal guy with a white beard sitting on mount olympus and throwing down lightning has been proven wrong.
You may argue that only few people held this belief, and no true theologian would have claimed that. But it still is a possibility-space that met the criteria of being falsifiable. And that has been done. Probably thousands of years ago already.
The war is won in the sense that every (reasonably) falsifiable claim has been falsified and they have retreated onto unfalsifiable territory. Which is akin to retreating onto quicksand.
>>684074667 >and the upshot is that an honest scientist must be prepared to change his mind, when presented with new evidence that's the point you retard. nothing is taken as holy scripture. everything is just an approximating model which might get overthrown tomorrow in the face of new facts.
and most importantly, each theory makes testable predictions.
that's exactly what we ask for from religion.
not truth. not exhaustiveness. just some testable claims and an open mind to the test results.
>>684074477 You are awesome. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
My initial argument was just that it was not necessarily irrational to believe in a God or gods. It's not a question of stating whether or not something exists, but rather a question of, given a lack of evidence in either direction, is it flawed to choose to -BELIEVE- one thing (in this case, religion). I understand that a god cannot be proven, and that it's flawed to try and assert that. I hope I haven't (unintentionally) done so or asserted its possibility.
>>684075829 >You can play word games to avoid my point if you want.
You're the one playing semantics (thats "word games" for you) you stupid iron age retard.
You like living in the dark ages?, go live in a fucking cave and hunt your own food. Renounce everything that science has given you and your retarded kind. Let the rest of us move on and improve the species, you piece of shit embarrassment to the human intellect.
>>684076417 I liked what you were saying until you decided that something was ridiculous. By your own admission, your conclusion is unreasonable, I think? Maybe you didn't mean it that way, and maybe I read it incorrectly, but until that's cleared up, you're probably some sort of faggot, and you should probably feel bad and stuff like that.
>>684074477 Yes, but that's because science deals in absolutes. Understanding the processes of life doesn't make you anymore wiser to the purpose of life itself. Theology is a discussion of quantum reality that easily comes off far fetched and silly to the man who loves his 1 and 0s.
>>684073992 >until we arrive at a conclusion that is, ostensibly, fullproof. Nothing in science is foolproof (you're placing too much trust in your auto-correction).
For example that whole origin of life thing? Far from settled. Evolution? Still some gaps here and there. Gravity? We don't know how it works at small scales. And we have yet to directly observe strongly curved spacetimes, we only can directly see rather shallow ones.
You might think of those open questions as only tiny corrections that still have to be done. And maybe from the perspective of everyday-life that's true. But as far as theoretical models go we might have to eventually throw them out of the window and admit that they were only crude approximations (albeit fairly useful ones) that just worked in the domains most easily accessible to us.
Take all that chemistry stuff for example. Full of bullshit rules that only work 90% of the time and break down if you throw in some elements with more complex electron shells into the mix. That's because all those empirical rules you learn in chemistry class are just emergent behavior of quantum interactions between atoms which in some cases also need relativistic corrections. Calculations that get so complicated so quickly that simulating molecules more complex than hydrogen gets extremely error-prone. That's why we're using approximations.
Anyway, science is not a magical thing. It's an information-gathering process.
> This cannot be done for something we cannot interact with.
Indeed. But things that do not interfact with us at all are irrelevant, because they by definition have no impact on us or the world around us.
>>684076565 I feel like you might have missed his point? Is gay marriage okay? What about eugenics? These things are beliefs that you cannot test to arrive at a 'correct conclusion,' and I believe that's what he was referencing. The fact that he included both theists and atheists in the same sentence lead me to believe that he was excluding religion from the conversation. I could be wrong, however.
>>684076417 >Not all experience is testable, and we all, atheists and deists alike, have faith in things we believe that cannot be reasonably tested. Such as?
If some omnipotent guy with a beard shows up tomorrow and does some neat party tricks like putting the moon on the other side of the earth by snipping his finger then I would be willing to consider him also being capable of creating planets with life on it. I wouldn't blindly believe that he is omnipotent, but i would take that demonstration as decent evidence towards that direction. Or at least that he can trick my brain fairly well. And at some point the distinction becomes merely philosophical for a bounded intellect such as mine.
>You can't prove that it's real therefor the only logical thing to do is rabidly declare it isn't real
agnostic atheists > religious people > edgy reddit militant atheists
If you're sitting here reading this thinking "oh boy i sure am glad i'm one of the good athiests", after reading the posts in this thread it's more likely that you're a self absorbed narcissistic pseudo-intellectual who hates people for believing things they can't prove while assuming that the opposite assertion (which is equally without proof, just like any supernatural claim, positive or negative) is automatically correct like a hypocrite.
>>684076830 You said earlier that what you have observed would be merely written off as opinion.
I'm saying that it sounds more like crazy. Because you swear that there are things happening to you which you cannot explain and nobody would believe. You might as well swear you have been abducted by aliens and you're utterly convinced that they're using you to stage an invasion on earth.
>>684077653 >I just don't think it's irrational for someone to believe in a God or gods I think there several things that make it irrational.
First, the unwillingness to reevaluate that belief. It may be a bit tautological but believing in something intangible requires determination to keep believing it despite reasons not to. Second, those believes do not exist in a vacuum. They entail required actions and behaviors and color decisionmaking on no rational basis Thirdly, they are irrational simply by having no rational basis.
YOU NIGGERS THINK THIS SHIT JUST HAPPENED? THIS EXISTENCE?? THIS COMPLEXITY?
here's my proposition: the human mind isn't sophisticated enough to comprehend existence or understand the universe. our universe might be of intelligent design but the one beyond ours could very well be chaotically randomly created
>>684078732 I understand, but why are the same arguments not valid as a counter in the context of merely believing? It seems to me like you are assigning reason to faith- uh oh. I think I'm going to have to go crawl under a rock and never come back. I need to go study a dictionary. I'm sorry.
>>684079141 >the human mind isn't sophisticated enough to comprehend existence or understand the universe. >goes on to explain it even though the human mind isnt sophisticated enough to understand it. >my fucking sides.
does a fish on the bottom of the ocean have any idea of iranian vs united states international relations? how can we understand what the fuck is going on lightyears away from our galaxy, much less the outer reaches of the universe?
>>684078834 If you can think of several other possibilities then opting for "results inconclusive" would seem like a solid choice instead of just jumping on one conclusion.
Assuming for a moment that your choices are "there's a deity" and "I'm crazy". Then I can see how the crazy aspect might be an unpleasant choice, especially if it means you're hallucinating things that convince you that they are utterly true even when you can reason that they shouldn't be. In fact, it would cause me some serious mental anguish if I had to contemplate such scenarios.
But once you think about it some horribly ill-defined deity thing existing can get very unpleasant too. Because it means that there is some super-human intelligence which scrutinizes your entire life based on a system that might be entirely beyond your comprehension and then mete out rewards or punishment based on that system.
Wouldn't that feel like being a rat that has to die for cancer research? Sure, it's for a good cause, and done with the most stringent ethical restraints on the process that only those rats will be dissected where it's really necessary. And it will be done in the most humane way possible. But in the end, from the rat perspective, you're just being created, poked and trained to behave a certain way only that some of you get killed, although maybe if you're lucky you're part of the mythical "control" group which gets a nice cage until they die of old age instead of being cut open.
>>684079912 >9gag >aRAy7wG_460s_v1 If I were religious I would accuse you of being a false-flagging atheist. If I were an atheist I would accuse you of being even more retarded than most religious people.
>>684081191 Good question anon. Pertaining to probability, I'd consider myself agnostic atheist, being that I'm neutral to either standpoint but find it unlikely for there to be an existence. I've been through some rough shit, and at the same time, have had some truly great experiences, neither of these I attribute to the influence of a higher power. I believe in chance, which completely goes against the ideas of divine intervention. That being said, I laugh at people that tell me they were at a difficult point in life and picked up religion and then all of a sudden, things got better, so they attribute their good fortune to God.
I think a minimal amount of effort and resources should be used to determine the answer. The very same resources that we'd use to discover an existence can be used to improve the quality of the tangible lives we live here on Earth.
>>684081069 >ATHEISTS, POST YOUR PROOF FAGGOTS OR STFU. Sure.
1. For the proof of (non-)existence of the God (henceforth: the subject) the subject and its properties must first be defined. Discussion of an undefined subject would be a discussion void of content.
2. The subject's definition must encompass properties and predictions derived from those properties that are observable. If it were impossible to observe by any process it would have zero impact on reality and could thus be substituted by a subject that is inert or does not exist at all.
3. To date all proposed definitions of subject which have observable properties have either failed to manifest the predicted results or the predicted results were equally or better explained by alternative theories that did not involve subject.
Conclusion: All definitions of subject have so far proven as void of content, equivalent to an inert or non-existent object, falisfied or indistinguishable from simpler explanation, which the principle of parsimony would prefer.
This leaves the possibility of yet-untested subject candidates, but it is on the proponent to provide those.
Footnote: Testing of his noodly theories provided us with quite some food for thought. We encourage students to retrace our most delicious steps as homework.
Thread replies: 298
Thread images: 31
Thread DB ID: 37949
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at [email protected] with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.