Question for any theists on /b/
How do you reconcile creationist beliefs with increasing scientific knowledge that precludes it?
>>767915053
>any theists
>creationist
wew lad
>>767915093
There are always some
>>767915093
>>767915798
Especially since /pol/ drew in a bunch of unironic Trump supporters.
It's called "god of the gaps" and it's bullshit
>>767915053
also I'd be a 6 on that scale
>>767915053
>equating theism with creationism
>wondering why atheists are known for closed-mindedness and strawmanning
For the record, I'm in between a pure agnostic and a weak theist
My take on it is even if there is a god, im pretty sure its not any of the gods that humans have created and worshipped.
7 because I've yet to see any concept that isn't a natural occurrence that doesn't need a deity to happen
>>767915053
All the science in the world and infinity still exists. Since infinity exists and math is still flawed it implies we live in an open set. If all our math was correct we would be living in a closed set and everything can be accounted for. God is infinity because there's nothing beyond
Where is the option for when you believe that you came from rocks because you listened to the religion science. It is scientific fact that all life came from rocks. We have proved that all life started on earth with abiogenisis and thus we came from rocks. You came from rocks.
>>767918321
doesn't really mean anything
We have found nothing that couldn't occur naturally
>>767915053
>How do you reconcile creationist beliefs with increasing scientific knowledge that precludes it?
No scientific knowledge precludes it though. Give me an example.
6.8 or so. If there's a god he not only forgives me, I am his organ of investigation into what is likely his experiment and/or simulation. The only thing I think a deity could conceivably be "doing" is trying to obtain data it does not have and for whatever reason needs. This either exists for no reason or is a simulation of something intended to answer a question.
>>767918386
Well he is right. Big bang, magma planet, it cooled, rocks, water, soup, life us. So yeah you came from rocks guys. It is scientific fact. We know this, it is known. You came from rock.
>>767918491
Think of how much used to be attributed to god, which turned out to have a natural explanation. It happens over and over.
>>767918386
do you have a point?
>>767918555
Exactly man. We all came rocks it so obvious how could anyone deny it? Of course we came from rocks. All life came from rocks.
>>767915053
What scientific knowledge precludes it?
>>767918620
simplistic
>>767918571
Well yeah why do people lie about how we got here? Science proves that all life came from rocks.
>>767915053
I would call myself pure Agnostic cause both theism is for religious nuts and atheism is irrational
>>767918491
between evolution, abiogenesis, big bang, I'm not seeing any requirement for a deity in all this
>>767918555
Two problems with this logic:
1. It's jumping to conclusions if we decide that because 0.1% things we discovered are one way, all 100% must be so.
2. Creationism assumes nature was made by God, thus something having a 'natural explanation' isn't precluding creationism in the first place.
That's very unscientific for someone who places science on a pedestal.
>>767915053
Creationism is inherently irrational
>>767918791
creationism is moving goalposts
>>767918692
So.. basicaly your life is a accident, that happened thanks to accident, and by accident you did not get aborted by your mother. Congrats, your life is pointless
Is there anything dumber than young earth creationism?
>>767918914
Is there anything dumber than believing that your ancestor were a FUCKING MONKEY !!??
>>767918779
Who's talking about requirements here?
The claim was that it precludes creationism which it doesn't.
If you say evolution, big bang or anything else """precludes""" creationism you're committing a scientific fallacy.
Yes, it could have happened without divine intervention. Doesn't mean it did. To claim otherwise is reaching a conclusion without proof. (a.k.a. arriving at a wrong, unsubstantiated, conclusion)
>>767918966
No one believes that.
>>767918967
The fact that it could is enough to find the god idea irrelevant to the discussion. It's a clinger on
>>767918995
How about atheists ?
>>767915053
anyone that says that there is 100% no god, or 100% a god is a fucking moron. just admit that you dont know.
>>767915053
>scientific knowledge that precludes it?
That's not a thing.
>>767919069
They don't. If you have to resort to absurdist strawman you already lost.
if huge futa cock exists I pick 4, if not 7. any other is straight up Portugal tier levels of gay
>>767919138
What ?
>>767919037
Exactly. Why do you discuss it then?
I'm well acquainted with both science and theology, and creationism is certainly not a matter of science.
Why do you feel the need to validate your views by trying to use a tool that's completely unfit for the job (science) to draw false conclusions on topic that eludes science (creationism)?
Like, what is your goal here? Do you want to get headpats? Or maybe bait someone dumb into saying something foolish so you can prove them wrong?
It accomplishes nothing
>>767918914
Flat earth?
>>767915053
Actually in Quantum Physics there is plenty of evidence that points towards intelligent design. It's not my fault nor any theists that your scientific knoledge doesn't go beyond 2013 militant atheist thought.
>>767918966
Monkey? Science tells us that all life came from rocks. If you think explaining how monkeys became humans is difficult imagine trying to convince everyone we came rocks! You came from rocks,.
Why would you be so quick to decide in your mind that there is no God and that man is arriving at all the answers? You should always keep an open mind to all possibilities until you personally have a deep understanding of a subject in a way that makes sense to you. Many of you will never experience what that means because you take information given to you at face value and accept it as the structure of your reality.
>>767919398
Thats even more dumber
Naturalism is the way to go. It's sensible.
>>767919297
No one thinks "WE CAME FROM MONKEY", and you know that.
>>767919372
No there isn't.
>>767919457
No ? I don't know that
>>767915053
Thomas Aquinas laid out proofs of god centuries ago. Go disprove them and become famous. Otherwise, shut up.
>>767919398
>>767918386
>>767918620
>>767918692
This is not as funny a shtick as you think it is.
>>767917776
Me too bro truly the only reasonable options
>>767919472
>>767919518
>some guy said it a while ago
>>767919542
Go back.
>>767919521
I am not kidding around. You came from rocks. It is proven by science. Did you even pay attention in school? Look up abiogenisis. You came from rocks.
>>767919572
Where ?
>>767919472
There is you just haven't read up on it, you've read the contrary sentiments, I'd recommend Tom Campbells work.
6.5, anyone saying 7 is lying, well anyone saying 1 is also lying or just mentally ill.
>>767919326
yeah that's pretty dumb
>>767919431
second
>>767919542
That might be the most insecure image I've seen.
>>767919997
i would say edgy, i mean Neil and Bill are not "real scientists" because they are popular and try to make science interesting for the general public?
Not liking popular things is edgy and that whole "agnostic" thing is the edgiest thing on the planet.
Naturalism increases in evidence, religion decreases. Obvious which one to follow.
>>767920260
No, the addition of "agnostic" and "atheist" makes it laughably clear it's some guy trying to pump himself up and tell himself how rational and smart he definitely is.
Fucking fence sitters.
>>767920260
They're not real scientists if they think that gender is a social construct and that race doesn't have a genetic contribution absolutely not.
>>767919997
Good guy, let trust that modern scienctists, they absolutly know truth, they will convince you that pornography, degeneracy and destruction of own race and heritage is right
>>767920393
Rather "good goy"
>>767920393
Go back
>>767920648
Where ?
>>767920340
addition of agnostic and atheist to what? im not sure i follow.
>>767920370
Its not their field and im pretty sure they dont actually believe that BS, they are just paid to say that.
Bill is a mechanical engineer and Neil is an astrophysicist, trusting their word on something not in their field is about the same as trusting your neighbours word in quantum physics.
>>767920965
He has "agnostic" on the "good cool sexy badass side" and "atheist" on the "stupid dummy dumb dumb" side. Guess which one he obviously is?
here's my 2 cents. Evolution while there is a non 0 chance of it happening is improbable still. Scientists are still trying to find a mutation that actually works for the good of the creature. Same can be said for theism. There is a non zero chance that god exists. In the past we absolutely know that men and women came with odd powers.
>>767921110
It's not improbable, it's fact.
>>767918779
This
>>767921110
>mutation makes legs slightly longer
>can eat plants others can't reach
wow that was hard
>>767919956
>anyone saying 7 is lying
What makes you say that? Are you not 100% sure I'm not a pink giraffe that farts screwdrivers?
>>767921110
>men and women came with odd powers
what the fuck?
ITT: Gaytheists circlejerk with other retarded gaytheists
>>767921237
no, i cannot be 100% certain of ANYTHING, of course i have a level of certainty in everything and i am VERY certain that you are not a pink giraffe that farts screwdrivers, but i am not 100% sure.
>>767921277
>ITT a retard
It's you
>>767921340
Good goy, let's worship that old faggot dawkins. Everybody who not worship dawkins and his evangelical atheism is a retard. EVERYBODY
>>767921401
>literally the only atheist he knows
Could you make it any more obvious you were raised on 4chan?
>>767921340
how are you gentlemen !!
All your base are belong to us.
Faith vs facts
Always a one sided battle
>>767921475
Glad you understand already that facts are side of Agnosticism and atheism is a form of faith
>>767921336
You're closer to 100% than 99% though aren't you? Percentages round
>>767921401
>>767921340
>>767921525
Nothing is on the side of theism.
>>767921525
>muh agnosticism
fuck off retard, are you agnostic about being fucked in the ass right now?
>>767921548
yes i would say im closer to 100% than 99%, but <100% is NOT equal to 100%.
With your logic, nobody can ever win the lottery because the odds of not getting the jack pot rounds to 0%.
>>767921670
That's why percentages are never used for lottery odds
>>767921525
Agnosticism has quickly become the new posturing. The same people that postured as atheists now posture as agnostics because it's only about trying to look better than others to them.
>>767915053
Actually, before I started taking the physics cycle at my uni, I was 100% agnostic. Since I have become more familiar with the laws that govern our universe, I have seen a system of order that suggests some type of design. It has slid me up to a weak theist. For what it's worth, I'm not talking about taking a basic mechanics class - I'm into quantum physics now and I've managed a 3.8 - 4.0 GPA the entire time, so it's not like something is going over my head here.
To all the atheists who believe it's the "scientific" point of view, I'm curious as to what evidence you may have found to make you believe there is not a God. A lack of evidence suggests that a God may or may not exist, but absolute disbelief without supporting evidence is the same mindset as absolute belief without evidence. Both are fallacious, so why did you choose atheism?
>muh theism, muh atheism, muh agnosticism
>no realism
>no nihilism
>mfw looking at subhumas arguing about something they can't even mentally grasp the concept of
How's it like having double digit IQ?
>>767921717
actually they are, way more than they are to get my level of certainty atleast.
Silly goys who play the lottery dont use %, but the people who have used them have made the realisation that they are propably going to lose more money than they gain.
>>767921780
The combination of zero evidence for it, and also the fact that everything we find or examine turns out to be naturally occurring. Right down to our planet or the universe.
>>767921798
Wow you're so aloof and badass cool dude
>>767921780
>to all the atheists who believe it's the "scientific" point of view, I'm curious as to what evidence you may have found to make you believe there is not a God.
There is something going over your head all right and im sorry to say that it is logic.
>>767921780
burden of proof isn't on me
>>767921670
Would you make the same difference for any other percentage, let's say someone was 56.000000000000000000000001% sure god exists, would you get anal about them saying they were 56% sure god existed? If someone's 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% sure god doesn't exist saying they were 100% sure god didn't exist would not be dishonest
>>767915053
Isn't creationism inherently illogical?
>>767921971
the main point here is absolute certainty, i dont believe such a thing is possible, no matter how sure you were and how many tests you did, you could just be a brain floating in a fluid being fed all this. i would not differentiate between 56.000001% and 56%, hell i wouldnt even care if it was 56 or 58, its basically the same to me.
>>767921996
religion is
>>767922185
>>767921840
I think that is a valid reason to believe that there may or may not be a God, but the very idea of a theistic model of God suggests that he could choose whether or not to be found on a situational basis, much like an electron or photon may choose to act as light or wave on a given situation. The idea that we might even know what to look for is suggesting that we already have a notion of what God is or what kind of signature he might leave behind.
For what it's worth, I think I'd go with a a "great clockmaker" model of God - someone who sets the universe on motion and watches it unfold, rather than a "watch you masturbate" god.
>>767921897
Clearly you have a lack of understanding about what I'm talking about, and I forgive you for your ignorance.
>>767921944
It's not on me, either. The burden of proof is on God to prove he exists, and until such time as that particular mystery is solved, I'm content to say my knowledge doesn't allow me to say that god does or does not exist with any degree of surety.
How do creationists deal with not "knowing" anything? If everything has to be on blind faith with no facts, I'd hate to be so uncertain.
>>767922167
Yes there's no absolute certainty in anything but that's taken into account when you say 100%. If you're taking certainty to that extreme then you can't be certain that 100% is the highest percentage anyway so everything becomes meaningless.
>>767922322
i can be certain that 100%, having 101% of something like certainty is illogical, but i cant be absolutely certain.
>play xcom
>100% chance to hit
>game crashes
Were the developers lying?
>>767922322
>Clearly you have a lack of understanding about what I'm talking about, and I forgive you for your ignorance.
amazing, i was expecting you to ask me to explain, but instead you called be ignorant without knowing what im talking about.
if you knew what i was talking about you would agree with me.
im talking about logic, more specifically logical absolutes and logical fallacies, i know you were not talking about logic, obviously because what you said lacks logical sense and makes fallacies, its pretty simple really.
>>767922322
>it's so real I can just arbitarily choose its properties
>>767922355
by not thinking about it too hard
>>767922458
Which are you more certain of?
>101% is illogical
>God doesn't exist?
btw to make things easier god can cannonically change how math works
There is not a shred of evidence for god or creationism. Discuss.
>>767921859
A very well thought out, intelligent and serious response. I'm sorry for making you reply. I won't do it again.
Fuck off.
>>767923029
>posts like a cunt
>somehow expects people to not treat him like one
>>767921798
>implying you can grasp the concept
>>767923029
better?
>>767922911
im more certain about 101% being illogical, i never claimed that god doesnt exist, i could make that claim while still remaining logical, but not with absolute certainty.
>>767921971
>99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% is the same as 100%
This is why you people have double digit IQ
This is why you people are theist/atheist or agnostic
>>767923205
>>767921798
The state of this guy's posturing
>>767923114
But god could just make 101% logical though, or are you certain that can't happen? If you're claiming an omnipotent god can exist then you're by definition claiming that you can have 101% of something. How can you claim having 101% of something is illogical when this is the case?
>>767923205
My IQ's 162 nigger
>>767922458
I'm not disputing your right to hold away over your own certianties. Rather, I'm curious as to what makes you feel that they are so rock solid, leaving no room for doubt or a lack of understanding on your part.
>>767922608
I actually said nothing of any substance to you, nor did I try to explain my beliefs or where they come from. My pointing out your ignorance stems from the fact that you attacked the idea that someone could possibly believe in something that you don't believe in, rather than seeking to understand why the believe it. I don't mean to suggest that you're ignorant of the laws that govern our universe, but rather that you're ignorant of the beliefs that other people hold.
>>767922668
When did I suggest that and what properties did I arbitrarily choose? I think you're conflating the idea that I accept a gap in human knowledge with an assumption of some sort of understanding on my part or a lack of understanding on yours.
>>767923205
A (without) + theism (belief in a god) = without belief in a god. An atheist is one who does not believe in the existence of a god(s).
Atheism is not even a category. It is the exclusion of a single category, theism. Meaning that someone who is not a theist, is an atheist. The only way to exclude yourself from atheism, is to believe in a god.
agnosticism is irrelevant when we are talking about belief in a god, its even more irrelevant once you realise that you cannot be gnostic (the opposite of agnostic) and if you claim you can you have something very wrong with your brain.
>>767923477
You said you chose to believe that god was a divine watchmaker instead of one that watches you masturbate
>>767915053
Do you not have any hobbies or any kind of normal life?
>>767923489
You can be gnostic in a practical sense. You have to take uncertainty to autistic lengths to say otherwise
>>767923739
do you?
>>767923558
I make that assumption based upon the idea that the observable universe is over 13 billion light years wide and that I exist for less than the equivalent of a microsecond in a human day. I don't assume properties of God so much as I assume that I'm probably very boring to him.
God can be whatever he wants, I just assume that, if he exists, he has better things to do than investigate my fetishes. And if he chooses to watch me rough up the suspect, well, there's not much I can do to stop him.
>>767923489
All atheists believe in a religion.
>>767915053
Consider spiritual influence like memes.
Traits of mankind seem to exist outside of time, and persist through defects and misunderstandings.
Religion is mostly paying recognition to traits, and anthropomorphising them.
People meet on sundays to remind each other that no matter how good the sun feels, that we don't forget that it does, while murderers and crazies roam the streets.
>>767923258
To you maybe.
>>767923352
>162IQ
>still stuck on "theist vs atheist vs agnostic" worldview
How old are you? Scoring a 162 would mean you are close to my level and yet you can't even understand why this entire argument is trivial. Yeah, sure buddy...
Dream on...
>>767918555
called a slippery slope fallacy
>>why you shouldn't listen to trolls
>>767923558
Also, I think you might be misprepresenting my views a little. I'm a weak theist, I suspect a God may exist. And I suspect that if that God exists, he is a great watchmaker type of God. You're looking into two things that I openly said that I don't know are true and are suggesting that I'm making assumptions based on what I have clearly stated that I am unsure about.
>>767923477
>I actually said nothing of any substance to you, nor did I try to explain my beliefs or where they come from. My pointing out your ignorance stems from the fact that you attacked the idea that someone could possibly believe in something that you don't believe in, rather than seeking to understand why the believe it. I don't mean to suggest that you're ignorant of the laws that govern our universe, but rather that you're ignorant of the beliefs that other people hold.
like Trump so famously puts it, WRONG.
i did NOT attack what you believe at all, i never mentioned god belief, all i did want question your logic, since you are having a hard time understanding that im not talking about god let me explain.
see>>767923489 for starters.
You are using the word "atheist" to describe people who believe there is no god while people who describe themselves as an atheist use the word to mean people who dont believe in a god, you propably wonder, what is the difference?
This is where the logic part comes in, Not believing X (there is a god) does NOT mean belief in Y (there is no god), they are 2 totally different claims and we are only talking about X, not Z, if you still dont get it ask me to explain it again.
The second part is your use of agnostic as the "in between of theist and atheist" when the logical absolutes make it quite clear that there is no between yes and no. You either believe in a god or you dont, if you do you are a theist and if you dont you are an atheist while agnostic means someone who accepts that you cannot be absolutely certain either way, the terms are not mutually exclusive, i would call myself both an agnostic AND an atheist.
The fallacy part is about you asking atheists for evidence of gods nonexistant, its a logical fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
and not only that, atheists in general arent claiming there is no god, or atleast the atheists i know dont claim that, i mean how could we with no evidence?
>>767923918
yes i believe religions exist, but that is not what you mean is it?
>>767915053
did you see the aminals evolve?
No?
So how do you know all scientific knowledge is fact?
>>767918835
um by the same standard so is progress in scientific knowledge.
Not like we ever learn that what once was scientific was wrong or anything.
>>767923905
>>767924052
Exactly, you're making up bullshit based on literally nothing and then chastising others for not following along
>>767924030
>you understand this whole argument is trivial
why else do you think I'm having it on 4chan?
>>767923791
there is quite the difference between certainty and absolute certainty.
i am very certain of many things, but absolutely certain about nothing.
Its usually about ego when people claim absolute certainty, they dont want to appear weak.
>>767924201
I take it you're not absolutely certain I'm not fucking you in the ass right now then huh
Oohoohoo what do we have here?
A bunch of filthy apostates?
>>767924118
Nope, atheists believe in a religion. For whatever reason we're wired to believe things. Show me the atheist and I'll find the religion he or she believes in.
>>767923918
I think you mean dogma.
Blind faith isn't religion.. but religions do require blind faith.
They're dogmatic and zealous, but not for a deity, but an ideal.
They may guard their beliefs much the same, but are distinctly different.
>>767924264
i feel like you are underestimating absolute certainty.
>>767924201
Do you literally never say you 100% know something then?
>>767924298
go back to /pol/, its easier to troll.
>>767924053
I did not make the post you linked to. I can't speak for what that individual thinks or believes. Kindly leave the adults to talk unless you have something useful to contribute.
>>767924337
So you're not? You're agnostic about me fucking you in the ass right now?
>>767924345
i say i know stuff all the time, but i dont claim absolute certainty.
>>767924402
So you're happy to say you know god doesn't exist?
>>767924359
>go back to /pol/
Oho, I would but I'm not a filthy apostate Nazi like those wretches in /pol/ are~
>>767924367
im agnostic about everything, that doesnt mean i believe you are fucking my ass right now or that you could convince me of it.
>>767924367
The content of your point is being obfuscated by snarky agro.
>>767915053
science taught us that you could make gold from combining other metals
science taught us that there were 4 elements
science taught us that the earth was flat and rested on the back of a turtle
science taught us that the best way to cure a fever was to put leaches on people
science taught us that we evolved from fish
...so, can you understand why creationism sounds at least as plausible as evolution?
>>767924431
how could i know that? i have no good reasons to believe such a thing, unless we talk about the christian god.
>>767924452
Are you braindead?
>>767924451
There's a method behind it. Saying you're agnostic about god makes you look cool and "intellectual". Saying you're agnostic about being fucked in the ass makes you look like a faggot. It's a test to see if you're actually sincere about this not knowing thing.
what about god creating everything and then that shit evolved and grew on its own? Like that episode of Futurama, makes a good point.
>>767924520
are you unable to understand history?
>>767924452
by misrepresenting you can make anything sound silly.
>>767924557
i think it's cute when you suggest that i misrepresented anything there
what's your name cutie?
>>767924452
>science taught us that the earth was flat and rested on the back of a turtle
this literally never happened
>>767924510
So you know the Christian god as described in the Holy Bible does not exist?
>>767924452
Do you get the point of science?
It has corrected those assumptions due to reason and evidence. Science will correct itself when faced with contradictory evidence.
Religions only change for political and attendance advantage.
>>767924190
>making up bullshit
What exactly have I made up? The only thing I have done is suggested that I am ignorant of the origins of the mechanics of the universe.
There are laws that govern my existence and the existence of every particle and wave in the universe. We don't know where these laws came from or why they didn't evolve in a different way than the have. My slightly theist position is based on the idea that if some being made those laws, then that being has power over the laws that govern all of known existence - which would qualify as "god" in my book. The other option is that they just happened to turn out the way that they did and that the universe is completely random. The mathematical improbability of this particular state evolving and me existing to witness it is so enormous that it makes the idea of a plan or a creator the more likely scenario, yet I do not ascribe to it because there is not irrefutable evidence of it.
My position makes no claims, but rather leaves room for something greater than me that I might not or cannot understand. I am not egotistical enough to believe that understand the fundamentals of our universe.
>>767924594
picking and choosing only a couple things we now know to be false or just sound silly, yeah thats totally not misrepresenting the scientific process.
can you honestly say that it was SCIENCE that told us earth is flat? no, it was people trying to do science and failing miserably by making assumptions.
>>767924600
>this literally never happened
except in China, much of southeast Asia, and early central and south american cultures
but other than that, you're correct
>>767924672
no, i just have more reasons to not believe that god exists than i have for some god i've never heard of.
realism and nihilism are the two most logical and most realistic ways to approach this subject so much so that they cant be put in the same category as other theories only the top 0.1% will understand and that is the sad part
Nikola Tesla said it in th e best way possible:
>While I am not a believer in the orthodox sense, I commend religion, first, because every individual should have some ideal--religious, artistic, scientific, or humanitarian--to give significance to his life
>There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact
>>767924674
do you get the point of the immutable, unchangeable Word of God?
See, God's Word doesn't change. But science is constantly proving itself wrong.
Who's trustworthy now?
>>767924788
could you give me an example of something that you do know?
>>767924542
God is not a physical measurable thing.
A dick is.
Was hoping you'd catch that.
>>767924855
Could you measure the dick in your ass for me please? thanks
>>767924838
know for certain or claim to know?
i would claim to know that im a man, if i was shown to be wrong it would drastically alter my worldview.
>>767924804
>/thread
Name something we can't explain naturally.
>>767917776
>Athiests are known for closemindedness and strawmanning
Sounds like you just made that up on the spot, scarecrow
>>767924938
OK, could you please claim to know that the Christian God as described in the Holy Bible does not exist.
Look at all these edgy atheists
>>767924938
If asked on a scale from 0 to 100, how certain are you that you are a man?
>>767924984
why would i do that? i do believe it but i dont know it, never seen any actual evidence for such a thing.
>>767925058
If you don't know that god isn't real then you're retarded, that's why
>>767924819
God's word does change.
Old testament, revisions and editions, languages and translations, individual practices.
The bible is a living breathing book. It undergoes edits, still.
You're more worried about feeling right, than being right.
Also, "Earth on Turtle's Back" is the creation story for the American Indian Onondaga tribe.
We don't put religious texts in scientific journals these days, for a reason.
>>767925051
its hard to say, but somewhere between 99 and 100.
its not like i can measure my certainty.
>>767925058
OK, do you believe in Father Christmas?
>>767925121
So 99.5 would be fair?
>>767925096
dude, i dont even know what god is.
do you?
>>767919531
Of course, the option you align with is the only reasonable one. Surely thats not the ego that has caused every conflict in human history!
>>767924928
I wasn't the guy you claimed to fuck in the ass.
But anything I say now can and will be used as an excuse to troll. So.. just do you, I guess. Logic can't stop ya.
>>767918779
This is my thinking
>>767925148
1 in 200 chance of being wrong?
nah man.
>>767925130
no, is this relevant?
Oh fuck go back to /pol/
Who really gives a shit about why other people like certain religions? It's not going to make you feel any better about being gay and unlovable
>>767925203
So you'd use a higher number, you would say that you were 99.6 out of 100 sure that God isn't real
>>767925238
So you would say that Father christmas isn't real?
The insecure religious brainlets always come crawling out of the woodwork in these threads. If you believe in a man-made God, you are a fucking child. There is no discussion. If you haven't already figured this out, you don't deserve to have someone waste their time trying to explain it to you.
>>767925258
not necessarily, but lets just say yes because im waiting to see where you are going with this.
>>767925289
yes, just get to the point.
>>767925154
God exists because it is based on opinion, feeling, and the undying desire for man to be faggotty knowitalls.
I think God as a collective of how humans have experienced many of the same things no matter what century they are in.. as the constants.
Sure, they're genetic defects, but they are so pervasive that people give them names and say nice things to them for positive reinforcement over things they can't control.
>>767925361
Do you know father christmas isn't real?
>>767925034
>can't understand the arguments someone is making
>they are wrong and I better insult them asap
>>767925293
The whole idea of a God is that he isn't man-made, but rather made man.
Your position is begging the question, a fallacy of logic that assumes your preferred conclusion is part of the question being asked.
>>767925435
They said yes, smart ass.
>>767925401
>God exists because it is based on opinion
did you mean the say the belief or the idea of a god exists because of these things?
>>767919131
this.
>>767925471
No no, I mean that God is a belief and idea that we give office to for silly buggers and to lovingly accept futility.
>>767925324
Ok I have to round this to the closest number, would you rather I said you were 99/100 sure you're a man or 100/100 sure when I file this report?
>>767925435
what do you mean by know? knowing is just a level of certainty, i would say i know santa isnt real, but i wouldnt claim it as an absolute certainty, get to the point.
>>767915053
>my first time... when see a glitch. I like it.
>>767925471
>did you mean the say the belief or the idea of a god exists because of these things
>>767925523
To state that better, God is beliefs and ideas, that exceed the confines of the definition of either.
>>767925530
you can file it any way you want.
i would say its closer to 100 than 99 (like i already told you twice), but saying its 100 means im absolutely certain which im not and it would be misrepresenting me.
>>767924316
Religions require faith, not blind faith. But while we're on the subject of blind faith, how would you describe atheists who profess their love of the amorphous and non-specific term "science"?
>>767925446
>worthless heathen
>to commited in apostasy to even consider Christianity.
Don't worry, God still loves you.
>>767925540
Clearly because we afford some level of doubt to some things in life, that we are obliged to extend that doubt to everything ever claimed
>>767915053
When the largest sect of Christianity calls pure creationism bullshit, you know that it's doomed to ridicule.
Theistic evolution is a synthesis that covers all the bases.
>>767925632
>100 means im absolutely certain
No it fucking doesn't, we've been through this already. 100% certainty has a margin of error you fucking retard.
>>767925589
>>767925523
>>767925471
What a pointless discussion
>when you're so high and mighty but not smart enough to even comprehend God and Jesus.
>>767925760
Im 100% certain that you're a faggot. No really, I am
>>767925760
100% has a margin of error? then what number do i use if i claim absolute certainty?
>>767925764
I'm the guy questioning him. It's like getting blood out of a stone, Jesus Christ.
>>767925847
Absolute certainty doesn't exist, again we've been through this
>>767925847
101% you fucking retard thats how I know GOD is real
>>767925881
i would agree, it doesnt, but many people claim it and would think it equals to 100%.
>>767925653
Science isn't a god with a disposition.
Science is a method.
When we think we understand something, we test it. If we find we don't understand it, we test it.
Don't accept the truth from those who claim to have it, but those who always seek it.
Here's an example of science: Water is made of two hydrogen molecules and an oxygen molecule. This is not an opinion, because it was tested by both people who want and don't want to agree, and they all found this accurate.
Militant athiests do no favors to this.
Any faggotty fandom ruins the integrity of anything.
But you would be REMISS to say that you conclusively know God.
>>767925881
You're talking about certainty in strictly the mathematical/scientific way. As beings, we are 100% certain about hundreds of things ever day. Im certain that I drank water and took a shit today. Im certain that im using 4chan. Im certain God is a fiction. You see?
>>767925969
Well they're wrong.
>>767926001
Who is this post directed towards?
>>767925881
Woah woah man, blood from a stone?
What I'm saying is that the faith of god is god.
Doesn't make a ton of fucking sense, but that's how it is.
So what am I giving you a hard time with here?
I'm not trying to dance around a point. I'm not christian, or agnostic. What do you want from me here?
>>767926094
The child who seems to think mathematical uncertainty in measurements = God's a possibility
>>767926098
See >>767919956
This discussion was started by the claim that anybody that was 100% certain that god didn't exist was lying
i felt bad, my pal told me “It could be worse. At least you’re not stuck in a hole in the ground filled with water.” It didnt cheer me up, but i think he meant well.
>>767926227
And my point is that the definition of a God is off the mark.
Like Voudou, the belief is what makes it real to the practitioners.. it is nothing without that.
God isn't a, "thing," so whether it's real doesn't matter, you see? It is a collection of projected thoughts. That collection of thoughts, and the feeling of it's influence, are real.
In time I hope this opinion comes up a bit more often, as it validates both sides.
>>767926454
Redit space somewhere else you literal retard
>>767925976
You need to listen to some of your atheist pals and what they say and how they say it. They put science on a pedestal, which is bad enough, but they also put various scientists on similar pedestals. They do themselves no favors when they decry and denounce the theistic priesthoods while they pay obeisance to their own.
Atheism isn't "without religion" as atheists love to say. It is often, which is to say usually, anti-religion. They swap out one clergy for another and then act superior about it. They have no understanding of the fallibility of man; indeed they tend towards false promises of the perfectibility of man. This is their blind faith and their ultimate undoing.
>>767926581
A lack of theism isn't a fanclub. The folks that think they're in one are just deluded. We certainly agree there.
>>767926581
literally who does this. most atheists don't give a crap about science or scientists.
>>767926539
Who are you, the queen of editing things?
I've never been on fucking reddit, spastic.
I'll type however the fuck I need to.
>>767926723
Have you rooted out all of your overt and subtle religious tendencies? Do you live your life exclusively based on reason, logic and data you have collected, analyzed and tested yourself?
While I can agree that it is possible - however improbable - that the universe itself was created by a being that exists outside of it, that in no way endorses any religion or ideology's validity.
If it was proven that life, the laws of physics, and even the universe itself was created by a supreme being, that still would not mean that X religion was true.
>>767926740
You must not get out much..
Often you will find athiests obsessive about being correct, and BEG for a chance to unload one sited source after another.
It's like vaping. It doesn't have to be a douche bag thing, but it kinda is anyways.
>>767926740
Found the guy who got on the Internet for the first time today.
>>767926935
>>767926908
>my pastor said it so it must be true
>>767926454
Way to define god into existence with your silly little word games.
If the god you believe in is a collection of thoughts then fine, I accept that exists.
My christian neighbors definetly have a different opinion of what a god is.
>>767926973
Great example of atheist douchbaggery, thanks anon.
>>767926581
"On a pedestal"
Science is not a belief, it is a system of investigation. And it works, really well. The core principle is to criticize any and all claims made, which is fundementally opposed to being put on a "pedestal". Unless you have a critique of the scientific method, in which case, go ahead
>>767927035
your welcome, no make sure to pray for me tonight like a good christian.
>>767926872
No, I haven't rooted out religious tendencies, because I think at they're a bit archaic, but relatively harmless. ...whether an organization takes them and runs with them isn't my issue either.
I don't practice any faith. I don't claim to be a staunch atheist, either. I didn't claim to be a damn thing..
All I'm here to claim is that I think folks have the wrong idea on what God is all about in general.
I study faiths globally. ...in all cases, these basic syncretisms is accurate.. Humans attribute human traits to thoughts and ideas, to help them to normalize, or otherwise try to understand them.
>>767927035
You seem to think all athiests behave one way, so fuck it, so do all Christfags :)
>>767926973
I am not a Christian, or any faith.
Been trying to get that across.
Also, what fucking pastor ever would tell you, "God isn't really god, but an anthropomorphisation of memes."?
Swing and a miss.
>>767927336
pastors say atheists worship science all the time
>>767927381
Atheists worship themselves.
>>767927381
I wouldn't know.
But I have seen it myself, so I do believe that to have some validity, yes.
I also didn't speak as though it's every single one.. but why should that matter when you're just here to be smarmy?
>>767927501
that's anouther pastor classic
>>767927501
Kek. Normal well adjusted people don't feel the need to worship at all. Only weird, fucked up people who feel like sinners choose to worship
>>767927580
Hey man, if you think I have what it takes to be a pastor, thanks and all.. but I'm not that into myself to want to be at the alter with all eyes on me.
Seems a bit self indulgent.
>>767927066
>The core principle is to criticize any and all claims made
Do you point this out when people talk about "scientific consensus"? Do you back people critical of scientific consensus, or do you call them "deniers"?
While the scientific method as a system of investigation is powerful, it pales in comparison to the practice of science as a job where non-scientific methods are utilized much more often. Methods such as boosterism, cronyism, cliquishness and sometimes outright deception. Research into the numbers of unrepeatable experiments and data fudging is left to the reader as homework.
Is the big bang credible?
>>767927271
>seem to
Thanks for playing.
4.5
>>767918852
Do you have any proof that it's more than that?
No, your holy book doesn't count, neither your beliefs.
>>767927701
>>767919097
There is no need for a god so logically, a god has no reason to exist. So logically it doesn't.
See, it's simple when you can think logically.
>>767927815
>God seems to exist
Thanks for playing
>>767927953
>fight this dragon
>no, you can't use any of those weapons, only your hands
>also, you have to wear handcuffs
>>767928178
good to know you view the bible as a weapon
>>767928178
Yeah, that's exactly what it's like
>>767927501
No we don't. I believe religion was invented by man to keep slaves and uneducated people from breaking laws by making them fear a sky man they couldn't refute. We've evolved past that now.
>>767928178
Sorry, only real weapons allowed. Otherwise i'll bring Harry Potter and you won't like the end result.
>>767928311
It was invented before social theory because thats what monkeys do, think in symbols
>>767928267
>doesn't understand how analogies work
>being this 14 years old
>>767927746
Yes
>>767928349
You are welcome to bring Harry Potter into the discussion. I suggest you first remove all religious allegories from the text, otherwise you'll be dinged for hypocrisy, and you'll need to wait until it's been peer reviewed for a few thousand years. After that, you're good to go.
>>767919625
That isn't what the universe looks like at all. Did you get that from the cover of a sci-fi novel?
>>767928549
In your analogy you compared not being permitted to use the bible to argue the existence of God as being analogous to fighting a dragon without having a weapon. In this case, the weapon and the bible are the only objects.
Do YOU know how analogies work? If you did, you'd probably have chosen a better one
>>767928722
We should do the same to the Bible
>>767927953
Life is worth more than that because epople are capable of choice in that.
I'll share my thoughts on my closest idea to God, and it doesn't come from the bible.
You can put several people in a room, and some of them might become friends.
This does not prove the bible or anything.
What it does prove is that life doesn't have to be futile. Whether or not that is a totally human construct, doesn't matter so much.
If we were just meat fighting for space and resources, this would not occur.
>>767928722
It isn't peer review when you murder dissenters, you fucking retard.
>>767929046
People get along in a room when you put them together because we evolved social tactics to better our chances of surival compared to other meatsacks. Its cute that you think this is some "divine spirit" or universal goodness or something, but it's actually just because everyone wants to fuck each other or be happier people. Its called self-interest.
>>767929178
You could have said that without the "you fucking retard" and maybe, just maybe, your point would be heard.
>>767928809
Fine.
>Prove life is not pointless.
>You can't use any philosophical or historical documents that I don't like.
>Also you can't use witnesses, personal or otherwise.
The analogy is simpler, and funnier, that's why I used it. It's not my fault you're too autistic to fully utilize or understand analogies.
>>767929283
In his defense you are kinda retarded
>>767929274
Yes, there are tactical survival advantages in not being agro all day every day, but that hasn't stopped you, has it?
Like the debate of whether any selfless act is truly selfless, there's a degree to recognize.
Sometimes, people connect with other people, not to eat their food, or hunt with them, or fuck their wife.. Sometimes, it's just nice. Have you ever had a time that was just nice? Didn't cost anything, no expectations? Ever?
>>767929366
>life is pointless without God
>but I need this specific text to tell me he's real
Doesn't work
>>767929178
You may not be aware of it, but apologists have been arguing and debating religious texts for literally centuries. The religions based on many of these texts have remained remarkably stable for all of those centuries. On one hand, you can say that those texts are profoundly robust. On the other hand, you can say everybody involved is a deluded idiot and only you, anon t. internet knows the real score.
>>767929553
I wasn't the guy mentioning Harry Potter.
Sure, you could just say I'm retarded anyways, which you probably will, but.. that's kinda retarded.
>>767929601
Anything that seems "just nice" is to reduce stress and increase emotional security. Are you really trying to argue for a higher power because people get along?
The only logically reasonable stance is agnostic atheism. There's nothing inherently wrong with religion, but when people become violent because of it is where it goes wrong
>>767929627
That's not the argument.
>>767915053
Born by atheist parents and i've never been a theist. Is it even possible to be 1. on the scale?
>>767929646
Oh no, i completely sgree, the bible is a great story, full of great anecdotes and moral tails that have been scrutinized and added to throughout history to reflect the morals of the time. Theres nothing "divine" about a single fucking word though.
>>767929745
What I don't mean is a true and honest higher power.
What I mean is a higher non-survival strategy based casual and non-hostile part of mankind.. that is sometimes selfless, sometimes generous or caring, or altruistic.
It doesn't take a book to give you that.. and as you can tell readily in our society, people are obviously not in touch with base survival instincts too often.
Yeah, I get your point, and I'm just mincing words to you. So be it. ..I think of God as people's ability to be something other than a dick.. even when it doesn't benefit them.
>>767929882
Convinced members of any religion genuinely believe in the miracles, feelings, and events their congregation provides. Whether that's a logically tractable point is another question.
>>767929283
Sorry, it pisses me off when smug self-righteous supposedly moral theists call amateur genocide "peer review", and equate it to the logical reasoning that brought about the greatest golden age humanity has ever seen. Your ancient middle eastern fairy tales aren’t a substitute for being a good person. You aren’t superior for being wilfully ignorant.
>>767929834
No, it's what you presented yourself to believe
>>767929274
This is an oft-repeated idea that God is found in the goodness of people. It actually goes the other way. The evil in people is a better proof of God.
>>767929959
>Your
Again bud, you're firing at the wrong target.
Hold your stupid fire till you know what you're even aiming at.
>>767929957
So people that say they've had a "personal experience" with god and actually mean it are just plain out hallucinating?
>>767930128
Am I supposed to say no?
>>767929959
You interpreted "peer review" to mean genocide. That's on you. The intent was to show that thoughtful people have been looking at religious texts for a long time and they've held up pretty well. But it's good to know that if you were ever put in charge the first thing you'd go for is genocide.
>>767930128
It means they saw what they wanted to see
>>767930128
Hallucinating? Not really. Reality and its perception is much less objective than you might want to believe. These people are genuinely convinced the experience they had was real and was the act of a higher being. How they experience and remember it has as much to do with their beliefs beforehand, the set and setting, their interpretation, etc.
>>767930128
why not?
>>767930128
It's not quite that simple.
Say your body picks just the right moment to dump a fucking ton of seratonin or dopamine for some reason.. and you just happen to be thinking of a dead relative... the wind blows a windchime, and Boom, you are Convinced that windchime was a message from god.
I would argue that that's as good a word from God as you're gonna get. I think at the very heart of all religion is noticing those misconceptions, and saying, "thanks."
