pretty much

Oh Dawkins you're so great.

>>3670
Well he really is a phenomenal lecturer.

He's interesting sometimes when he isn't out doing that whole
"Religion is going to destroy the world and kill us all."

>>3718
hes even better when hes doing that

>>3718
Fantasy is always more entertaining than the truth.

>>3947
Well that's the thing, I cannot avoid the feeling that there's a certain kind of dry wit behind all his faffing about with religion, that he's not really truly worried about these things, but rather... Amused. Or maybe I'm just projecting.

Did anyone see the whole video?

Neil deGrasse Tyson brought up a great point and Dawkins was a total dick to him.

>>4167
I saw the whole video, how was Dawkins being a dick? He was just saying "Hey, I'm not so bad, at least I'm not the editor of New Scientist!" Per se, he was joking.

>>4219

He dodged the point by joking during a science talk.

I have reservations about Dawkins anyway, he's not a bad scientist. But his talks annoy me to no end.

Dawkins is a fucking hack extremist shithead, and his legions of 14-30 something adherents makes it even worse. Of course, nowadays it's ok to be intolerant as long as you're intolerant of Christianity. Dawkins even says he has no interests in even debating with ID'ers.

There is no reason why science and religion cannot be compatible. Collins (the leader of the Genome Project) is an Evangelical Christian and he's trying to spread the knowledge of evolution among Christians.

The thing is, evolution is what happened. Instead of religions around the world saying "No, it's not" they should re-examine their texts and adapt.

Also, the Earth is not 6000 years old as some might think.

>>4228
lol st. thomas aquinas

dick dawkins is actually pretty bad as a scientist. he's just controversial and allot of loud mouthed atheists like anyone who hates religion.

so sage for politics masquerading as science, and using science for personal vendettas, and political goals.

>>4243
lolwut.

Dawkins, the Oxford professor for the public understanding of science is a pretty terrible scientist? Sir, your surprise me.

>>4244

Yep, I'll say it again, he's not a good scientist. Oxford doesn't impress me, nor do people who get appointed to fluffy 'public relations' posts.

>>4245
>Yep, I'll say it again, he's not a good scientist.
I think you'll find that Dawkins himself would agree, at the moment. That's because he's not a scientist. Scientists test, measure, and hypothesize. Dawkins is on a personal crusade against something he believes to be harmful to society.

And also Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science was a post created especially for Dawkins via an endowment from Charles Simonyi. The don't do that for fucking anyone; it's not a "fluffy post". You sound like you don't bloody-well know what you're talking about at all.

As far as his previous scientific work being shitty - I'm not at all familiar with it apart from his concept of memes (which should be obvious) so I'm not inclined to argue that point but it would be nice if you could point out exactly what makes him a bad scientist.

>>4246

>And also Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science was a post created especially for Dawkins via an endowment from Charles Simonyi. The don't do that for fucking anyone; it's not a "fluffy post". You sound like you don't bloody-well know what you're talking about at all.

That's even worse. Some wanker PAID for his job.

It's tedious and I'm not motivated to point out the obvious 'bias that ruins the science' in dicks' work, so just leave it at 'it's just my opinion'. Maybe I'll make a thread on him later when I'm in the mood to get attacked.

>>4247
>That's even worse. Some wanker PAID for his job.
I'm a little slow so point out to me exactly how that makes it bad?

>It's tedious and I'm not motivated to point out the obvious 'bias that ruins the science' in dicks' work
Except you did just point it out, only you weren't specific. Whenever you decide to make your thread I'll be glad to read it.

>>4248

Rich people can appoint people to positions to support their political or social views. Bought and paid for. Didn't have to work for, or qualify, or compete against peers, rich man just gives it to him. Stuff like that...

>>4249
Ah, well it doesn't entirely work like that. Somebody donates to the university and they then title a professorship after him; the university is free to hire whoever they wish. But regardless to be the first person to hold a new professorship is pretty fucking extraordinary by any academic standards.

Incidentally Dawkins no longer holds the Simonyi position as he's moved on to other things. The position has now been giving to some mathematician who's not really into the whole religion vs. science trip.

It's like Stephen Hawking who was until recently the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, which was once held by Isaac Newton. Oxford and Cambridge have a long history of naming colleges, positions, grounds etc. after donors.

>>4250

Thanks for informing me. Maybe Oxford didn't know he was like that *cough*. Fact remains, dick was on the whole 'religion vs. science' trip, which is wholly irresponsible, not to mention wrong, IMO.

("dawkins sucks!" /while running away)

We need Dawkins in a time when Christians are actually trying to get evolution out of schools in the US and fundamentalists everywhere are trying to drag us into their stupid wars. However, I remember watching the series he did on TV which made me puke.

He went on for ages about how the science was the best explanation because of the scientific method where claims are tested and retested hundreds of times before facts can be declared. He then went on to savage a bunch of water diviners who are harmless country folk and don't hurt anyone. He set up a half assed "scientific experiment" where he got them to attempt to pick out covered buckets of water from buckets of sand. After one single experiment he then declared divining false, despite the fact that they don't claim to be able to find water in buckets (they claim to find moving water underground) and no other scientists retested his results. It's one rule for Dawkins and one for everyone else. The man thinks he owns science.

>>4255
>We need Dawkins in a time when Christians are actually trying to get evolution out of schools in the US and fundamentalists everywhere are trying to drag us into their stupid wars.

I'd have to disagree. All Dawkins is doing is poking a stick in the hornets nest, and using crap science to do it.

Maybe you're unaware, but it's a relatively recent phenomena, in American schools at least, with the 'atheistic brand' of science and evolution being taught. After all, evolution in and of itself does not contradict most religions, specifically Judeo-Christian ones. My point is that God used to be central to what was being taught to children, and science was just class full of facts relating to physical phenomena. So, it was the atheist brand of evolution that started the 'war', technically speaking.

But, yeah, his savage treatment of the water diviners is par for the Dawkins science course.

I've actually seen water diviners work when I lived on 10 acres out in the country. They drilled 2 test wells, both hit water. Second one had higher than normal flow, so we used that one. I had no idea how they did it, and they do it for a living...

>>4266

>it's a relatively recent phenomena, in American schools at least, with the 'atheistic brand' of science and evolution being taught.

What are you even talking about? What is this "atheistic brand" of science? Schools are teaching evolution by natural selection but are far from pushing atheism on students. As far as I can tell, the opposite is happening. Teachers are dismissing natural selection as "just a theory" in front of their students.

>evolution in and of itself does not contradict most religions, specifically Judeo-Christian ones

Not in every case, but it is at odds with a literal interpretation of the bible, which a depressingly large amount of people subscribe to.

>>4277

You really don't know what I mean? You've never heard the atheists spout off that evolution proves there's no God? Like maybe from the old guy in OPs video?

Random, chaotic, primordial soup, its all an accident, you're an ape type stuff. The absolutely vitriolic response to anyone who dares mention something like intelligent design, all implies that Gods' not involved.

Also, the bible doesn't try to give a scientific account, but whatever, I wouldn't let that bother you.

>>4278
As far as I can recall, I've never seen an atheist claim that "evolution proves there's no God", just that evolution is a tremendously better (i.e. demonstrably accurate and useful) explanation than creation myths for the observed properties of life on Earth, and that it's one of the many scientific discoveries that discredits the approach of Biblical literalism. Likewise, that evolution happens "by accident" is mostly a creationist meme. It can be read in a way that is consistent with a common atheist view of evolution, but in practice it is usually used by creationists to play on the negative connotations of the word "accident" (such as asking someone "are you an accident?").

People get pissed at ID proponents because there is no actual theory of intelligent design for them to advance; the arguments basically reduce to "evolution can't be true because X, therefore design". The vast majority of purportedly pro-ID arguments are just warmed-over creationist attacks against evolution that have been discredited for years if not decades.

>>4294
Explain how a grouping of amino acids can assemble themselves into the exact structure needed for self-replication. You can't, because information theory shows that it's as close to "impossible" that you can imagine.

(USER WAS FOUND TO HAVE SWINE FLU)

>>4295
See, this is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Evolutionary theory per se doesn't even try to explain the initial origin of life, which is what you're asking about. Even leaving that aside, your question isn't really valid as stated; it contains implicit assumptions that there is only one structure that is self-replicating and that it must be implemented exactly, neither of which is justified. Your assertion about information theory makes no sense, because information theory doesn't describe the details of organic chemistry.

tl;dr nice try of the Chewbacca defense

>>4266
"Maybe you're unaware, but it's a relatively recent phenomena, in American schools at least, with the 'atheistic brand' of science and evolution being taught."

My god man are you stupid? Science has been flying in the face of religion since more or less people started calling it "science". Take Galileo, Darwin's Bulldog or Christ even the sacking of the Library of Alexandria.

"evolution in and of itself does not contradict most religions, specifically Judeo-Christian ones"
Yes it does. Evolutionary theory outright points to the first couple of pages of the Bible/Torah/Koran and screams "NO".

>>4295
That has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, that is abiogenesis.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=abiogenesis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a <-knock yourself out.

>>4294

Look at >>4301, and Dawkins has said it as well, though a friend just told me that Dawkins has back-tracked, yet again, and doesn't exclude the possibility of God anymore... Who knows, who cares, I could give a fuck what Dawkins thinks in the end.

It's either an accident/chance, or not, and designed. It's obviously designed IMO.

>>4301

.... you suck at this

>>4297
>>Your assertion about information theory makes no sense, because information theory doesn't describe the details of organic chemistry.

Yes it absolutely does, when you're talking about random groupings of amino acids assembling themselves into a self-replicating construct. Do you have any idea how improbable that is? No, you don't, none of us do, because you can't CONCEIVE the unlikeliness of it.

>>That has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, that is abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis has EVERYTHING to do with the debate between intelligent design and evolution. If science doesn't even have a credible theory as to how life organized itself in the first place, why the hell should I even give people like Dawkins the time of day?

>>4313
oh dear jesus lern2science

Fuck you and fuck this debate. This has been debated a thousand times over and you dumb mother fuckers never change your mind because you choose what you want to believe and see if you can twist the evidence around that. I've talked this out probably a hundred times and you always come up with the same bullshit.

"Abiogenesis has EVERYTHING to do with the debate between intelligent design and evolution."

So what?

"If science doesn't even have a credible theory as to..."

You retarded shit. Science doesn't work like that. Science isn't the kid on your block that sold you some bad weed so now there's no reason to trust him. Science is a system of gaining understanding of the universe by making hypotheses and testing them to see if the reality matches the theory; and then changing the theory if it doesn't. Within science there are hundreds of fucking theories around evolution and abiogenesis and whatever the fuck not allot of which exclude one another. Within Science itself there have been hundreds upon hundreds of theories which have been postulated, disproved and modified or abandoned.

>>4304
".... you suck at this"

No, you suck at this. Either prove what I said wrong or poke holes in my logic but don't be a fucking penis.

>>4317

here, I'll help you a little, since you asked nicely:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

>>3718
It will never destroy the world and kill us ALL (extreme nuclear war between towelheads and christcigs nonwithstanding) But it sure can slow progress down and make life alot more annoying for the rest of us

>>3718
It will never destroy the world and kill us ALL (extreme nuclear war between towelheads and christcigs nonwithstanding) But it sure can slow progress down and make life alot more annoying for the rest of us
>>4301
technically its only incompatible if you take the bible extremely literally. I know evolution is right but when it comes to abiogenisis and what happened before the big bang etc I'm not to sure. I'll believe god when I see it, but I'm not ruling out the possiblity.

>>4320

Actually, all the really big wars, famines, mass murders etc. were caused by either atheist ideology, or in the case of the 3rd Reich, misapplied science (eugenics) in the pursuit of a master race as defined by some occult mythology madness (all of which may or may not have been propaganda). Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't the result of following the tenets of Jews or Christians...

Nobody beats the atheists' high score. No one else even gets close.

As for slowing down progress, that's hardly true. Judeo-Christian nations gave rise to modern western civilization and remain at the leading edge of tech.

But yeah, literal interpretation of the bible where it isn't intended (phenomenological) is unfortunate.

The point is that the presence of a believe in God does not make people act better. The same kind of atrocities are committed regardless of whether the people believed in God. The problem is when people try to justify their action in the name of God. All faith short-circuit logic and common sense. The natural disgust one gets from harming one own species, (a natural evolutionary mechanism for species survival), gets completely overridden with servitude to God (or whatever so-called prophets that claims to be in God's name).

>>4338

That's really one sided, and totally inaccurate as I just pointed out. I'm not saying people haven't done bad things in the name of God, or because of any particular religion. Islam was once a huge empire, for example, with brutal expansionist policies, but that pales in comparison to modern day warfare, and the massive genocides of communism, for example. The fact is that atheism is responsible for far worse and larger atrocities. So that disproves that believing in God overrides the natural disgust from harming others. It does the opposite, as history clearly shows, and gives people yet more reasons to NOT harm others, such as the possibility of punishment after death.

This is related to yet another issue I have with Dawkins, it's this type of misrepresentation that he's infamous for spreading to others.

>>4318
Reading that just made the past incarnation of the Catholic church sound like big angry retards who couldn't bear anyone other than themselves having an opinion on the scriptures and it makes whoever wrote that sound like an unapologetic fucktard because of how he tries to justify the fact that they killed a man because of what he believed.

All that shit aside, you still have the sacking of the Library of Alexandria which got destroyed because of it's pagan affiliations (ahuhuh) and the fat controversy that darwin kicked up with the church after he published the origin of species.

>>4320
"technically its only incompatible if you take the bible extremely literally. I know evolution is right but when it comes to abiogenisis and what happened before the big bang etc I'm not to sure. I'll believe god when I see it, but I'm not ruling out the possiblity."

Can't say I really disagree with what you said there but it still stands that when you get righ t down to it either you have to pick science or religion or else you need to treat your holy book so metaphorically you might as well assume the entire thing fictitious.

>>4323
"Actually, all the really big wars, famines, mass murders etc. were caused by either atheist ideology..."

Oh I'd love to hear the reasoning behind that. You don't think maybe money and power have something to do with it?

>>4347

Wait, who got killed? I wonder if you actually do any research, or read any history at all, because it pretty well known he died of old age, at around 85 years old. Hence, you suck at this. Pretty amazing for that time period, to live that long, IMO.

The library of Alexandria... ok, so who are you mad at for burning the libraries (there was more than one apparently)? Caesar for burning down the main library, Aurelian or Theophilus or the muslims for the rest? And when will you get over it...

As for Darwin and your 'fat controversy', with whom? The church of england or the protestants? big deal...And when will you get over the controversy...

Basically, the only people trying to say ALL religions, or belief in God and science are incompatible these days are the ignorant.

I think maybe being an atheist makes one think they're free from any moral and ethical constraints, in that there is no 'authority' or higher power, and one's morality and ethics, or lack thereof, is whatever you want it to be.

History shows it's a disastrous formula.

Oh and before you start in with the 'inquisition' and all that. do some research. The inquisition, IIRC, killed maybe 3000 over a time span of 500 years, and it was run by the spanish government.

>>4313
As an electrical engineer, I know a thing or two about information theory. It doesn't describe any specific medium (its practical applications are primarily electromagnetic in nature, but the fundamentals are math), and it can't tell you the probability of an arbitrary chemical reaction taking place. Information theory can, when informed by chemistry, describe some things about the ability of a given molecular structure to convey information (e.g. symbol space, redundancy, possibility of error detection/correction, how many Libraries of Congress per kilogram), but the details of how that molecular structure may form are the domain of chemistry and physics. You'd need at least an analysis of the molecular mechanics (cf. Folding@home).

>If science doesn't even have a credible theory as to how life organized itself in the first place, why the hell should I even give people like Dawkins the time of day?

For much the same reason that I know Kirchhoff's and Ohm's laws like the back of my hand - and trust analyses based on them - even though they don't offer a theory describing the origin of the electron.

>>4354
>>For much the same reason that I know Kirchhoff's and Ohm's laws like the back of my hand - and trust analyses based on them

But that has nothing to do with this debate. Science hasn't put out ANY credible, testable basis for how abiogenesis could have actually happened, all the way from inorganic chemicals to self-replicating proto-life. A few amino acids boiled up in a lab and a shitload of speculation just don't cut it.

>>4353
You completely missed the fucking point. You claim ed that religion vs. science is a recent thing; it isn't.

>>4366

In the context of the American school system, it is, relatively speaking.

There are scientists who believe in the Judeo-Christian God, there are atheist scientists, there are Hindi scientists, there are pagan scientists. To posit that science can or should "fight" all religions, especially the monotheistic ones, is asinine.

Atheists certainly don't own, or have a monopoly on science in any event, and it does not help argue for the validity of the atheist dogma.

The 'Dawkins war' is a relatively recent political phenomena...

>>4367
>In the context of the American school system, it is, relatively speaking.

The American school system itself is recent, relatively speaking.

>To posit that science can or should "fight" all religions, especially the monotheistic ones, is asinine.

Where did I say that?

>The 'Dawkins war' is a relatively recent political phenomena

Which is something completely different to saying that the friction between science and religion is recent.

>>4361
>Science hasn't put out ANY credible blah blah
Even assuming this is true it doesn't fucking matter, you ass.
Evolution occurs, there is overwhelming evidence for this, and overwhelming evidence that it was the mechanism that over time led to the ever-changing diversity of life on earth. That the very start of life is not satisfactorily explained at present is NOT an argument for Christianity in the same way that a child not understanding where presents come from on December 25th is not an argument for a fat bearded guy in a red suit that lives at the north pole - the conclusion does not flow from the premises (in fact it's a giant fucking leap based on nothing). At most you could say that there was a different process that started life, but you cannot jump to a belief that an eternal holy trinity of father/son/spirit who came down to earth in different forms and revealed ten commandments and died for our sins on a cross and then sent his mother to appear on pieces of toast did it. The most credible ideas that we have ARE FROM abiogenesis, not from supernatural speculation, because they are reasoned ideas stemming from observation, our knowledge of the natural world and the scientific method.

On the flip-side Christianity has not put out ANY credible evidence of the Garden of Eden or any other bullshit that creationism spouts as the truth despite teachings of the sort being demolished by evidence for theories like evolution to explain life and the big bang to explain the universe.

>>4278
>the bible doesn't try to give a scientific account
awesomeface.jpg

>>4368

Thanks for sharing... /sarc

>>4371

Did you not read the thread? Science and evolution the big bang etc. DO NOT CONFLICT WITH CHRISTIANITY.

Your conclusions might, but you're not science.

awesomeface.jpg at a sentence that invalidates your entire rant. I bet you thought that was clever.

>>4372

Do you actually believe that nitpicking and missing the point again and again means that you're right?

>awesomeface.jpg at a sentence that invalidates your entire rant
No, it invalidates nothing. It's not invalidated just because it proved what you said to be wrong.

>Thanks for sharing... /sarc
What kind of bullshit shrug is this? Come with a real reply, or you don't belong here, just like religion doesn't belong with science.

>atheist ideology
What?

>or in the case of the 3rd Reich, misapplied science (eugenics)
You can't blame science because someone uses it incorrectly. Ironically enough, Hitler often writes in Mein Kampf that he was doing the lord's work. So I guess that the cause was "misapplied religion"? I'm pretty sure that you can't name a single mass murder or war caused by atheism.

>by some occult mythology madness
Yeah, like christianity.

>>4353
>big deal...And when will you get over the controversy...
What the fuck? That's not the point, the point is that religion was the cause for it.

>I think maybe being an atheist makes one think they're free from any moral and ethical constraints, in that there is no 'authority' or higher power, and one's morality and ethics, or lack thereof, is whatever you want it to be.
Religion didn't create morals, if that's what you believe. There's authority in pretty much every country.

>>4225
>Dawkins even says he has no interests in even debating with ID'ers.
I wasn't aware you could debate with ID'ers.

>>4353 >>4323
*points to the crusades, the near slavery of the poor by the english church, the mass corruption of evangelical leaders, the salem witch burnings, the armenian genocide etc etc etc.*

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH no. Claiming athiest goverments are immoral because they don't worship a higher power is bullshit. Christian and other religious leaders have done things just as terrible or maybe even worse. Its not that atheism or relgion condones this, its just that some people are assholes and happen to have a belief at the same time. Hitler claimed to be a loyal christian and yet used perverted evolutionary ideas.

Its just corrupt bastards justifiying their actions with whatever system seems easiest to them. I could go out today and gundown a dozen busters and claim I was just doing god's will. Does that make christianity evil or just make me a fucksock?

Also, life becomes INSANELY more important in an atheistic viewpoint, since its all we have. WHile in a christian viewpoint you get to go live with your magical sky baby for all time so your life here means jack shit. SO yeah, kinda reversing those viewpoints.

To all those who think that a government run by Christians would be a better one, look at the quiverfull movement and Poland. They wanted to declare Jesus the honorary king of Poland, abolish women's rights and make homosexuality, abortion, working on the sabbath and witchcraft punishable by death.

Also, the define contraceptives, women having an opinion differing from their husbands, sex in any position but missionary and many other things as witchcraft.

Christian rule INEVITABLY leads to the dark ages.

>>4375
>I'm pretty sure that you can't name a single mass murder or war caused by atheism.

Mao Tse Tung, et.al.: 63.7 million over 16 years
Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev: 66.7 million over 62 years
Pol Pot: 8 million over 4 years
Mongolians: 35 million over 38 years
Chang Hsien-Chung: 40 million in 4 years
Chiang Kai-shek: 10.2 million in 27 years
Tojo Hideki, 4 million in 4 years
Yahkya Khan 1.5 million in 1 year
Josip Tito 1.1 in 46 years

There's a shitload more that died because of the idiotic practices in medicine and agriculture, waste of manpower etc.etc.etc. And Hitler wasn't doing anything that had anything remotely to do with Christianity.

"Mao Tse Tung, et.al.: 63.7 million over 16 years"
Atheism wasn't pivotal to this, communism was.

"Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev: 66.7 million over 62 years"
Atheism wasn't pivotal to this, communism was.

"Pol Pot: 8 million over 4 years"
Atheism wasn't pivotal to this, anti-intellectualism and communism were.

"Mongolians: 35 million over 38 years"
Atheism wasn't pivotal to this; conquest for the sake of conquest was.

"Chang Hsien-Chung: 40 million in 4 years"
Don't know anything about this so I won't comment.

"Chiang Kai-shek: 10.2 million in 27 years "
Don't know.

"Tojo Hideki, 4 million in 4 years"
Don't know.

"Yahkya Khan 1.5 million in 1 year"
Don't know.

"Josip Tito 1.1 in 46 years"
Don't know.

>>4372
>Thanks for sharing... /sarc

Did you eat lead paint as a child. Fuck this.

Mods please end this bullshit.

>>4393

FYI, those behind the communism were atheists.

>>4395
you mean marx? Or those specific leaders? Can you give any proof that any of these people cited atheism as their motivation to do anything they did? Because I can cite plenty of murders and genociders who cite christianity as their inspiration.

Ok to the christfaggots in here, Can you please explain why I should believe in your specific skybaby out of the thousands of others? Esspecially when none of them have a shread of evidence for their existance.

>>4399

are you serious? Tell you what, you go ahead and find evidence to warrant the re-write of history, and tell it to every sane university on the planet, and then get back to me. Until then, read the encyclopedia britannica, or any f'in encyclopedia or history book, or go to any school and listen. It's even in the damned guinness book of world records

>>4400

first FUUUUUUUU AND YOUR SKYBABY evil bullshit

that said, "monotheism". learn what it means. The process of elimination can save you a lot of time and a shitload of trouble.

It leaves you with Judaism and Christianity (Islam is late to the game, so to speak, and contradictory, but I don't want to go into that).

Of Judaism and Christianity, the contention is with Jesus Christ and is He the savior, the messiah. Christians, of course, say yes, Jews say no (well, there are allot who think He is, but won't join the Catholics).

The facts are that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It's a huge problem for the Jews (that's in the bible too amazingly enough).

But, tl;dr don't take my word for it. you need to read the bible and pay attention. Plus, there's 2000+ years of works written by countless brilliant people on the subject.

This feels like the pearls before swine thing... damnit

>>4401

forgot my SAGE

>>4395
They also had pubic hair. Does this mean everyone with pubic hair will murder millions?

Correlation doesn't mean causality there are just as many if not more wars and genocides with religion cited as the direct cause rather than the people behind it happening to be religious.

>>4401
>are you serious? Tell you what, you go ahead and find evidence to warrant the re-write of history, and tell it to every sane university on the planet, and then get back to me. Until then, read the encyclopedia britannica, or any f'in encyclopedia or history book, or go to any school and listen. It's even in the damned guinness book of world records

This is a shitty way to argue. You can't claim everyone else in the world agrees with you and therefore you're right. Provide evidence or shut the fuck up.

Athiesm wasn't central to the agendas of any of the communist leaders who killed those fucktons of people. Powers was central to their agendas. Some of them just used communist ideology (which includes atheism)to justify their actions to the people in the same way religion is used to justify wars. That doesn't mean that they were killing people because of atheism, there is a difference.

>The facts are that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

How is this a fact? Just because it's written about in a few books? Then that should make the existence of Huckleberry Fin a fact.

>This feels like the pearls before swine thing
No, you're an idiot who can't debate for shit and refuses to back up what you say. You piss yourself whenever someone contradicts you, ignore counter arguments or try to refute them simply by stating the opposite. You are the fucking 'swine'. Get a fucking clue.

>>4402
>forgot my SAGE
You can't sage a sticky you dumb ass.

  :D

>>4401
"are you serious? Tell you what, you go ahead and find evidence to warrant the re-write of history, and tell it to every sane university on the planet, and then get back to me. Until then, read the encyclopedia britannica, or any f'in encyclopedia or history book, or go to any school and listen. It's even in the damned guinness book of world records"

Well I won't even bother, since I know someone else has already pointed out that you're just using ad homs rather then actually arguing here. Get back to us when you evolve beyond throwing feces and can actually have a grown up conversation.

"first FUUUUUUUU AND YOUR SKYBABY evil bullshit

that said, "monotheism". learn what it means. The process of elimination can save you a lot of time and a shitload of trouble.

It leaves you with Judaism and Christianity (Islam is late to the game, so to speak, and contradictory, but I don't want to go into that).

Of Judaism and Christianity, the contention is with Jesus Christ and is He the savior, the messiah. Christians, of course, say yes, Jews say no (well, there are allot who think He is, but won't join the Catholics).

The facts are that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It's a huge problem for the Jews (that's in the bible too amazingly enough).

But, tl;dr don't take my word for it. you need to read the bible and pay attention. Plus, there's 2000+ years of works written by countless brilliant people on the subject.

This feels like the pearls before swine thing... damnit"

So basically your argument here is "Christianity has one god and is older then Islam but better then the Jewish belief." Because thats all you said. Oh you also did the argument of the people by claiming something was right just because lots of people think its right. Both are flawed logic. Oh and I have read the bible, including the lovely bits the middle age church cut because they didn't like them.

I'll ask again, since you can't seem to give anything but anecdotal evidence. Why is your particular religion right? Why is Monotheism right for that matter? Why should I believe a 2000 year old book, written by superstitious goat herders, that has been proven wrong countless times? Why should I believe without or actually AGAINST evidence that your particular god is the right one?

And if you really feel as though you're casting pearls before the swine, you're welcome to go play pretend elsewhere.

>The facts are that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It's a huge problem for the Jews (that's in the bible too amazingly enough).
HAHHA whoa. Man, 10/10 for nymphing. GJ.

I don't get it, why do scientists bother debating about science with people who refuse to meet them with equal grounds? Or with people who blatantly misunderstand and misconstrue all principles of scientific knowledge? Or with people who equate science with things that it is not?

I mean, why bother? The only thing they can do is spout their libel on the radio. Eventually the truth value of science and other things is not decided by (internet) arguments. It's not even amusing seeing the same three arguments recycled in every debate. The theists don't even commit themselves, they don't make any claims one could prove or disprove, all they do is moralizing and give ambiguous claims about scientific theories and facts they've never even bothered reading about, nevermind experimenting on.

So give it up, no one is going to win here, unless you count screaming your opponent into submission a victory.

>>4439
>I don't get it, why do scientists bother debating about science with people who refuse to meet them with equal grounds? Or with people who blatantly misunderstand and misconstrue all principles of scientific knowledge? Or with people who equate science with things that it is not?

Because it's important that people gain an understanding of science regardless of whether or not they are ignorant. If nobody argued with how can people be exposed to new points of view?

Saying that arguing is a waste of time is basically saying that knowledge and truth don't have enough value to be worth arguing over.

>>4442
I never said that debating and arguing was pointless; I demarcated very specific boundaries on what kind of arguing is useless, which is what is going in this thread.

I've got no problem with arguing and asking about the characteristics and methods of science, but both sides must submit to certain rules of conduct.

>>4444

That would be nice (the 'rules of conduct' bit) but that's unfortunately not the way that people in the real world behave. Some people are ignorant, or don't like to be corrected, or like to argue from ignorance. They must be argued with anyway because apart from seeking out knowledge for themselves it's the only way that they'll be exposed to other views. Everyone who's ever changed their mind about something after a lengthy dicussion would know the value of argument.

Just because not everyone can be academic and serene about the way in which they argue doesn't mean that there should be no argument at at all, does it?

In regards to what kind of argument is useless I'm not quite clear on that. Did you mean arguing via the internet or arguing with retards?

>>4439
>truth value of science

This is worthy of comment and conversation.

What truth is there in science?

>>4449
>They must be argued with anyway because apart from seeking out knowledge for themselves it's the only way that they'll be exposed to other views.
Which is what I find both tiresome and useless. I'm not one to do charity, that is.

>changed their mind
Which is what they don't do.

>doesn't mean that there should be no argument at at all, does it?
Of course not, but that doesn't mean that we should argue with people who lack such "serenity".

>Did you mean arguing via the internet or arguing with retards?
Interchangeable, lolololol. But retards. Of course, the definition of who is a retard is hard to ascertain, but I trust my intuition to make the difference when talking with people, on whether any debate or argument is even possible.

>What truth is there in science?
This goes to /phi/, but... Just this once, eh?

Truth value of science is a pragmatic one. Because our perceptions of the world change, absolute truth cannot be ascertained. Yet, as our senses are the only ways of receiving information about anything that does not lie within the sphere of our consciousness (Tabula Rasa-principle, Descartes' scepticism). Therefore truth about the natural world can only be malleable, changing, if it is to be at all attainable.

The Scientific Method aims to get as close as possible to absolute truth by imposing certain boundaries to what is considered "the truth" (most probable) at any given time. But as the wall of light can never be reached, neither can absolute truth. So, we're stuck with observing based on our senses (artificial ones included), and making predictions.

Pragmatic, whatever works to make the most accurate predictions about the observable world. It's a kind of resignation to the fact that we're ultimately merely humans, not Laplace's demons.

>>4495
Ultimately, science can only reach true statements by accident. If the fundamental laws of the universe are in fact as science describes them, that isn't from any ability on science's part. We're simply lucky that we don't have the evil demon of Descartes decieving us, and can in fact percieve true reality. But if the demon does exist, science can never reach true statements except by accident. (When I say "by accident" I mean of course that perhaps we will make some statement about the universe, the evidence we percieve eventually showing it to be false, but it nevertheless being objectively true. Unlikely, to be sure, and useless to us) We cannot know whether the demon exists or not, and so we will never have justified knowledge.

Of course, this isn't a botching of science; such tragic limitations apply to every pursuit of truth by any methods by any being. Only a god, omniscient, could know for sure the truth.

>>4502
>...percieve true reality...Of course, this isn't a botching of science; such tragic limitations apply to every pursuit of truth by any methods by any being. Only a god, omniscient, could know for sure the truth.

oh shit. we're getting close, I'm almost happy

>>4502
>If the fundamental laws of the universe are
But that's just it, science doesn't make statements on how things are, only on how they appear to be. The "fundamental laws of the universe" are in the books only because they have observable evidence behind them, because they represent the apparent principles in the form of the world that unfolds before us. If the way it unfolds changes, so do the laws.

The scientific method is a consequence of seeking knowledge when resigning to the fact that our vision is ultimately limited and that there are no objective observers in the universe. Did you have an argument with this, or what?

>Only a god, omniscient, could know for sure the truth.
Or a Laplace's demon, or whatever you want to call this purely hypothetical entity (entities), unrelated to that certain Middle Eastern desert god. But what does that have to do with science?

>>4505

yeah yeah and the observable evidence OVERWHELMINGLY, INCONTROVERTIBLY points to, and is wholly indicative of, a creator that is so far beyond us it'll make you go insane trying to understand how it's done...

fuck dick dawkins and his minons. you speak about demons? there is nothing good about them.

>>4505
Ah, no. No, even a demon of Laplace would not be able to have certain truth. Such a demon could still be decieved. "God" and "omniscience" are defined by the inability to be decieved. This is why I mentioned it. Of course, no such being exists; the concept is a nonsense.

>>4506
>yeah yeah and the observable evidence OVERWHELMINGLY, INCONTROVERTIBLY points to, and is wholly indicative of, a creator that is so far beyond us it'll make you go insane trying to understand how it's done...
What? Oh, you silly beans, no evidence is even incontrovertible.

>Ah, no. No, even a demon of Laplace would not be able to have certain truth. Such a demon could still be decieved.
Well... The Laplace's demon idea goes that the demon knows absolutely factually the position and momentum of every particle in the universe... So I guess it depends on the definition. Laplace himself was a materialist, as I understood it.

Wasn't it Maxwell's demon?? Just another inquiring mind

>>4509

Lemme ask you then.. What would constitute evidence of God for you? As if the precision of the universe and everything in it (redundant, I know, but you're a f'in idiot), wasn't enough. Would you require that God show Himself to you whenever you, one little man amongst billions, asked Him to? And then what? Take you on a tour of the universe or something?

>>4511
>Lemme ask you then.. What would constitute evidence of God for you?
Depends on the type of God. If you mean the creator then he should be able to manipulate the physical universe in ways we would consider impossible (i.e. touching a hot object to a cold object and having heat flow from the cold object to the hot one).

>As if the precision of the universe and everything in it (redundant, I know, but you're a f'in idiot), wasn't enough.

What? That's not proof of God. Even use of the term 'precision' here is fuzzy not to mention how that applies to proof.

>>4512

I see you have no idea what you're doing...

So, you require God to perform magic tricks. Hold your breath waiting for Him to do that for you. No really, hold your fucking breath.

Precision! learn what it means. It's over and done with, the maths have been done years ago, and it's obvious to anyone who isn't a fool.

>>4511
>As if the precision of the universe and everything in it, wasn't enough.
How does god follow that? What is the logic chain? What gives?

I've never really understood how the theists go from the amazing beauty of the world, to the existence of god. It's like their minds are too tiny to grasp even elementary principles behind the world, like they cannot possibly fathom indescribably beautiful chains of causality behind it all. Then again, I've met lots of deistic physicists. But I still don't understand the logic behind this thinking. I guess I'm an idiot then, eh?

>What would constitute evidence of God for you?
I haven't really thought about it, but anything from which the existence of a god would logically follow. Dunno what that something would be, however. You think of something and come back with the results.

Well, I mean, big fiery letters on sky would be nice. Lots of people would see it too, so that ought to be cool with god. But at least he (she/they/it) should come around and tell us which interpretation of him/her/it/them is correct.

Anyway, this is not /sci/ stuff, so lets leave it here. We can continue on /phi/ if you really insist.

>>4511
I cannot speak for the individual you addressed, but I would require that an entity display a violation of logic to prove that it is God.
Violations of logic could only be perpetrated by a being whose existence itself is a violation of logic.

>>4510
They are two different demons. I am sure you are familiar with the demon of Maxwell.
The demon of Laplace is imagined as a hypothetical entity who knows the position and momentum of every particle in the universe, and, Laplace proposes, in knowing this may predict events of the past and future.
The evil demon of Descartes is a potential entity who is omnipotent and omniscient, and who is dedicated to decieving me about reality. In fact, if the evil demon exists, all that I see before me is merely an illusion, propped up by the demon with perfect fidelity, while he dwells in true reality and devotes his time to decieving me. There is no way to falsify the existence of the evil demon, and so there is no way to verify as true any statement about the universe.

>>4512
But our understand of the mechanics of the universe could be false! The entity which displays strange manipulations of reality, defying today's understanding, could merely be a demon of Descartes, dwelling in a universe which simulates our own, and so not a god.
Why, even we could someday become demons of Descartes, if we devise a method of simulating and controling universes inside our own. Surely this would not elevate us to godhood.

>>4517

Are you serious? Do you look at the millimeter precision of a car engine and think, 'Oh gosh, how lucky are we that the random cylinders fit in the block!!'???!?!?

YOU ARE FUCKING INSANE and i don't like you at all. hope you die and all that

>>4518

Hold your breath.

>>4519
>Hold your breath.
What will that help? You asked for the empirical evidence which would prove the existence of god to me, and so I told you. Holding my breath will do nothing but kill me.

And using the fact that the laws of the universe are perfectly determined to produce humans, specifically you and me, as a proof of god is a nonsense. If the universe were different, great huge mounds of thinking plasma would probably be using the same argument for the existence of god.
We evolved in this universe, and so we are perfectly appropriately formed to exist with the laws of the universe. You seem to think that humans already existed, and that miraculously, the universe was formed perfectly appropriate to human beings.

>>4519
>random cylinders fit in the block!!'???!?!?
But.. But random cylinders don't fit in the block, only carefully manufactured and selected cylinders do. I mean, for the one cylinder that fits, there's a million that don't.

>YOU ARE FUCKING INSANE and i don't like you at all. hope you die and all that
;_;

>>4520

It's not wholly about producing life necessarily, that's incidental. Think about that while holding your breath.

>>4521

Yeah, that's the point shithead. It's manufactured by something that's obviously intelligent. And cars are fucking retarded compared to what's required to make the universe, EVEN compared to what little we know about.

So, you're unable to quantify what's intelligently designed, but you fucking know a car is designed. You know it, but your little brain can't prove it according to some standard. A piston machined to .01 millimeter is obvious enough. But, what about 10^10^123?

that's a billion times a billion one hundred and twenty three times over. Not fucking obvious enough for you?

>Yeah, that's the point shithead.
Well you missed mine, to be sure.

You said that because a piston (or anything else) fits perfectly into a block, it must be designed. But what about all the other pistons, the ones that do not fit? Were they designed?

How about you cease talking in metaphors and give me clear answer, pothead? How does the existence of (a) god follow from the apparent beauty of nature?

Mind you, there are plenty of people who do not find nature and the universe beautiful, nor "designed". In fact, there are people who would call nature cruel and capricious, devoid of any reason. So the point is a bit moot anyway, solely dependent on subjective values.

>So, you're unable to quantify what's intelligently designed, but you fucking know a car is designed. You know it, but your little brain can't prove it according to some standard. A piston machined to .01 millimeter is obvious enough. But, what about 10^10^123? that's a billion times a billion one hundred and twenty three times over. Not fucking obvious enough for you?
Nigga say what? You never said why would anything in nature be designed, so stop jumping into conclusions.

>>4522
Also, here's a brainer for you:

I pick up a rock at the beach. I drop it on a bedrock. The dropped rock splits into two. I pick up the pieces and push them together. They fit perfectly. Were the pieces designed?

>>4515
>I see you have no idea what you're doing...

Sticks and stones don't dent an argument.

>So, you require God to perform magic tricks. Hold your breath waiting for Him to do that for you. No really, hold your fucking breath.

Yes. Either him or his disciples. I won't need to hold my breath because I'm not expecting it to happen. If anyone wants to claim connection to divinity or divine status they must act divine, not so? Unless your definition of divine action is non-action I can't see how you could consider a show of power to be an unreasonable request.

>Precision! learn what it means. It's over and done with, the maths have been done years ago, and it's obvious to anyone who isn't a fool.

Please, as long as you are here to call us all idiots for not understanding your point of view, enlighten me.

>>4524

yeah, they were, but not because they'd fit together after you dropped and broke them.

>>4525

they already did. If you think they're all lying in the bible, that's on you. But, it isn't required at all (miracles, that is). Divinity does not require "miracles" or "non-logical" demonstrations for your personal benefit.

>Please, as long as you are here to call us all idiots for not understanding your point of view, enlighten me.

Oh fuck you make it so hard not to hate your ass. This is science, not my point of view. If you're not going to keep up in the field and talk about the universe and God, what should I call you when you make uninformed conclusions? SMART?

FUCK OFF. really, you're an asshole

>>4527
>FUCK OFF. really, you're an asshole
lol.

>>4527
>That post has been cleared as not requiring any deletion.
Oh COME ON, MODS.
Really now.

>>4527
they already did. If you think they're all lying in the Quran, that's on you. But, it isn't required at all (miracles, that is). Allah does not require "miracles" or "non-logical" demonstrations for your personal benefit.
they already did. If you think they're all lying in the Vedas, that's on you. But, it isn't required at all (miracles, that is). Polytheism does not require "miracles" or "non-logical" demonstrations for your personal benefit.
they already did. If you think L. Ron Hubbard is lying, that's on you. But, it isn't required at all (miracles, that is). Thetans do not require "miracles" or "non-logical" demonstrations for your personal benefit.

>>4518, >>4512 here

>But our understand of the mechanics of the universe could be false! The entity which displays strange manipulations of reality, defying today's understanding, could merely be a demon of Descartes, dwelling in a universe which simulates our own, and so not a god.
Why, even we could someday become demons of Descartes, if we devise a method of simulating and controling universes inside our own. Surely this would not elevate us to godhood.

Nice. Ok let me try and clarify what I meant. As I said, proof of godhood depends on the type of god. If we're being deceived by a demon pulling a false reality over our eyes then did they not create this reality? Would that not make them the creator god of the reality in which we live? For instance in the film The Matrix; I would fully consider the machines to be the gods of the the VR they create even though they may not be omniscient or omnipotent over all levels of reality.

If we want to get proof of the one true God that would be impossible as far I can tell; due to as you said any physical proof being subject to perception. It could of-course be argued that some divine logical proof of God would serve but human logic isn't always crystal clear. For instance I remember seeing a documentary about astronauts (spelling?) in training where they were deprived of oxygen and asked to perform simple mental calculations. They fucked it up every single time (simple stuff like 2+3). The one guy was asked to draw a hexagon and he drew a five sided start, absolutely convinced he'd drawn a hexagon.

The only real proof I would personally accept is divine revelation. Though this is subjective and I wouldn't expect anyone else to entertain my knowledge of divinity if gained via divine revelation.

This is of-course assuming that our understanding of the universe cannot be modified to explain the miracle.

>So, you're unable to quantify what's intelligently designed, but you fucking know a car is designed. You know it, but your little brain can't prove it according to some standard. A piston machined to .01 millimeter is obvious enough. But, what about 10^10^123? that's a billion times a billion one hundred and twenty three times over. Not fucking obvious enough for you?

Perfection and design can only be identified in context with a purpose. So let's assume your argument is that the universe is perfectly designed for some purpose, which would then serve as your proof of design. So then what is the ultimate purpose for which the universe was so perfectly designed to be the way it is?

>>4527
>Divinity does not require "miracles" or "non-logical" demonstrations for your personal benefit.

Proof of divinity does for me. How can you ask us how divinity could be proven and then turn on your heel and say that's irrelevant; when it's you who fucking asked?

>Oh fuck you make it so hard not to hate your ass.
What because you can't explain to me your point of view? And yes, it is a point of view even if your views are in unison with the objective truth.

>This is science, not my point of view.
I've lost track of the argument. What is science?

>If you're not going to keep up in the field and talk about the universe and God, what should I call you when you make uninformed conclusions? SMART?
What has the field of science got to do with God? Science is about measurement and theory. I think it would be allot easier for you to use your advanced knowledge of the universe and God to show me how my conclusions are uninformed instead of replying to every rebuttal with a personal insult.

>>4529

they're on to you and your bullshit, motherfucker

admit it, you lost

>>4527
>yeah, they were, but not because they'd fit together after you dropped and broke them.
So you admit that you can't deduce that they were designed by a god from the fact that they fit together? Wouldn't that take the bottom from your argument that the apparent clockwork of the world proves that a god exists?

>>4528

it's true. this is all the product of the nonsense that comes from the foolish mind.

>>4530

damnit you're stupid. the quran blah blah isn't the bible, don't you fucking read? yet another asshole

>>4533

It's not my fucking point of view you stupid asshole. The universe exists even if I'm not here replying to your dumb ass. Get it now? I didn't fucking have anything to do with the latest in science and math. I read it, UNLIKE YOUR IDIOT ASS, and so have at least one reason to talk about it.

Science observes and quantifies what's observable. And it's observes and quantifies something that's obviously designed. If you had half a brain, you'd show me some proof that's it's all an accident or random or some other CRAZY bullshit. BUT YOU CAN'T AND YET YOU WON'T SHUT THE FUCK UP

what's that mean? you're an insane asshole. that's what i think

(USER WAS FOUND TO HAVE SWINE FLU)

>>4536
Who said the world was random?

>>4536
Maybe you should calm down. No-one will be convinced to your point of view if your argument is liberally interspersed with profanities.

>>4536
>It's not my fucking point of view you stupid asshole.
You claim that the universe is designed. That is a view you hold. This makes it your point of view.

>I read it, UNLIKE YOUR IDIOT ASS
Well point out these "latest in science and maths" publications so that I may become more knowledgeable and articulate; even more secure in my convictions and my ability to defend them such as yourself.

>And it's observes and quantifies something that's obviously designed.
How is it obvious? Why won't you explain to me? Don't be selfish with your theological learnings I wish to understand as you do.

>If you had half a brain, you'd show me some proof that's it's all an accident or random or some other CRAZY bullshit. BUT YOU CAN'T AND YET YOU WON'T SHUT THE FUCK UP

I never claimed it was an accident so why would I want to prove that it is? I'm simply not convinced that it was designed by your ironically imprecise "precision" argument.

>BUT YOU CAN'T AND YET YOU WON'T SHUT THE FUCK UP
Well that's the first time you asked for any proof. You can't produce any proof of your claims and you can't shut the fuck up (you just keep saying you don't need to produce proof because I'm so retarded).

>what's that mean? you're an insane asshole.
I'm insane? Why is this? Because I ask you to produce some form of proof or to back up your argument with clear reasoning? Incase I "just don't get it" my only crime is stupidity. I never insulted anyone or told anyone to go die yet I am the 'insane asshole'.

I think you're a rape me. That's what I think.

>>4539

don't hide behind the rape me, admit that you're a FUCKING IDIOT. everyone's been there, don't be scared faggot. go read a book or three and SHUT THE FUCK UP UNTIL YOU DO

hey, report faggot. WHERE ARE YOU NOW? you shithead

rape me = rape me?

i don't get it

>>4540
I wish I could hate you dead.

In fact, your silliness has made me convert into Islam in the hopes that I can pray you dead.

>>4541
I don't know. The mods.

>don't hide behind the rape me, admit that you're a FUCKING IDIOT.
I'm not hiding behind it; I responded to each one of your points (unlike you who ignores almost all points made in argument against you) and I already admitted the possibility that I'm an idiot but you make no attempt to help me out of my ignorance.

The reason I believe you're a trooll is because you just keep insulting others instead of defending your own claims or justifying what you say. That makes it look like you're trying to get a rise out of people.

>go read a book or three and SHUT THE FUCK UP UNTIL YOU DO

Fine. Which book? Don't recommend the Bible I've already read allot of it and know most of general content well enough. I'm particularly still interested in the mathematical and scientific publications you mentioned before.

>>4542

oh shit a fantasy come true. go for it you stupid fucking mooselimb

hate me now if it makes you feel allright. break me down if it's takes all your might, because I'm soooo much more than you'll ever know.

don't ever trust someone like me buddy. i will never allow the lies you believe

(USER WAS OXYCLEANED FOR THIS POST )

>>4542
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVC6nlhU4-E

The lyrics are actually an Islamic death curse which you can use to kill this person. Sing the lyrics aloud whilst focussing your hatred on his posts and maybe he will die of shame. Or you will die of shame. I cannot remember exactly.

>>4543

when will you learn to STFU

enjoy your trip, motherfucker. (as if you'll get past the first chapter)

damnit i can't stand people like you

>>4544
>don't ever trust someone like me buddy. i will never allow the lies you believe

The Titanic was NOT actually a conspiracy then?

>>4544
LOLOLOL rape me'D

>>4545
I was expecting Astley, but that goes too.

Maybe I should pick worshipping the ancient deep ones. That would be cool at least.

>>4546
>when will you learn to STFU
Probably at the precise moment when you learn.

>enjoy your trip, motherfucker. (as if you'll get past the first chapter)
Thank you, I will do my best.

>damnit i can't stand people like you
Why not?

>>4548
>I was expecting Astley, but that goes too.

where's the evidence of the 'pure chaos, random it's all a big crazy random happenstance' universe, you crazy motherfuckers? where is it?

oh i know, there isn't any, at all. great, you're a fucking liar. put up or STFU

>>4554
>where's the evidence of the 'pure chaos, random it's all a big crazy random happenstance' universe, you crazy motherfuckers? where is it?

Who are you even quoting? Nobody (within the last few posts at least) tried to claim the universe is random.

>oh i know, there isn't any, at all. great, you're a fucking liar. put up or STFU
Who is a fucking liar? And how about you put up or STFU with your divine design precision arguments?

>>4554
Silly beans, surely you must know that the world is actually one dimensional with magical faeries inhabiting the others

>>4556
Silly beans? Are you the person I'm arguing with on /ph/?

>>4557
That's really a question for /ph/ isn't it?

plz guys lets play nice, keep the flaming down. Also we're not here to debate intelligent design vs evolution etc, don't make me swing my ban hammer any more than I have

>>4554 won't be replying for a little while either

>>4560
>Also we're not here to debate intelligent design vs evolution

I propose that a sticky is made for this purpose only and that said sticky should be the only place debating that kind of thing (anything to do with religion) should be allowed.

>>4560
Thank you, regs! You're my new favorite mod!

lol Hobbes thinks he's smart.

he's not

>>4560

shit regs, i don't know what to tell you.. cept quit picking the loser side

no offense to anybody, but if you're an atheist, you're a fucking idiot.

ask hobbes. that's more than enough evidence.

(USER WAS FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE REGULATIONS SET IN PLACE BY THE INTERNAL GUIDE TO MODERATION AND THEREFORE HAS BEEN BANISHED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE)

>>4570
Don't start this shit again.

>>4570
>no offense to anybody, but if you're an atheist, you're a fucking idiot.

Oh snap. If I subsituted the word "atheist" for "christian" and threw that post back at you, you'ld call me a hater and/or a bigiot.

>>4544

"So break me down if it makes you feel right
And hate me now if it keeps you alright
You can break me down if it takes all your might
'cause i'm so much more than all your lies"
http://www.lyricsbay.com/breakdown_lyrics-seether.html

Good going, dumbass. Not only can't you argue worth of shit but your taste in music is that of a 13 year old's. Coincidence?

>>4642
that was quite possibly the best beatdown ive ever seen in my life

but
>>4544 was trollin im sure 10/10

>>4391
Chang Hsien-Chung: 40 million in 4 years
a quote from him...
"Heaven brings forth innumerable things to help man. Man has nothing with which to recompense Heaven. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill."
he was athiest?

Also
Christians killed more than any of these in the slave trade and while "discovering" the Americas. Learn to count.

>>4710
You went for the wrong line of reasoning. The correct response is that none of those people were motivated to murder because of or in the name of their atheism.

>>4711
but this one was motivated by religion as he quote suggests.
And I can quotes from say... Columbus who killed Indians in the name of God. We are talking about morality which religion can play a strong role in.
Also religion can be used to enforce peace. Buddhism has done wonders for peace in Mongolia.

>>4712]
>Buddhism has done wonders for peace in Mongolia

lol u

Im serious man they haven't invaded since they converted

No one is right

Everyone is wrong

>>4747
No you're wrong. Saying 'everyone is wrong' is the biggest load of BS cop-out ever.

>>4750
prove yourself or anyone else right in a way that will forever be correct and will never need revising or rethinking

>>4519
Intelligent design? Really?

Here, let me know your address so I can come kill you. You'll just go and be with god right? So what are you worried about? Come on Pious man, lets see if you've got the faith.

>>4754
Assuming that it was impossible to prove anything; that still wouldn't mean that every single theory about everything is wrong. It just means we can't be certain.

If you're looking for absolute universal truths that can never bend or break; go to /calc/.

>>4757
>that still wouldn't mean that every single theory about everything is wrong.
It means we can't prove anything!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

>>4761
Yes, but we can still assume that certain kinds of proof are valid within the frame of reference of the reality we experience since they can be confirmed within the reality we experience. Even if they aren't ultimately valid it's not unreasonable to assume that they're valid within the reality that they apply to.

>>4762
No, it is completely unreasonable to assume that. If something is not 'ultimately' true, it is not true at all.

>>4767
We know that busters are evil

>>4767
Well think of it in terms of a game. At no point do you assume that there are actually aliens shooting giant balls of plasma into your crotch but you treat it as a valid assumption for the purposes your interaction with that reality. That is exactly the same in this universe. Even if the physical laws we discover here don't hold true in some ultimate space of existence; to the best of our knowledge they hold true here. So we treat this reality as if it were an ultimate reality so that we don't hinder our own interaction with it; allowing us to build bridges, send people into space, and have enlightening arguments over the internet.

>>4779
Of course, science is of great practical use for doing many many things, including understanding the laws which govern the phenomena we see, but it is not of use for finding out the truth. Empiricism is useful, but cannot find certainty.

>>4780
And if you weren't a wish-washy idealist, you'd know that Descartes proved that absolutely nothing except the cogito-argument can be proven beyond doubt, with absolute certainty. And even then one can doubt certain parts of the argument. But who cares, it's not like these philosophical arguments move people like you (post-modernists and theists) .

>>4782
>you'd know that Descartes proved that absolutely nothing except the cogito-argument can be proven beyond doubt, with absolute certainty.
Actually the cogito can be doubted too. I am a radical skeptic, sir. I know my certainty well, and I will not stand for scientists claiming that they, in defiance of all established philosophy, can find truth.

>>4791
If you want ageless unending truth the closest you can get is mathematics; philosophy doesn't come anywhere near close. Philosophy is so fucking tangled in it's own web of false assumptions; vague definitions and illogical logic that it's really just become a giant ball of shit.

And that's what Science rides its claim to truth on: the mathematics behind it.

And if you start questioning the definition of truth I will chop your fucking bollocks off and offer them to Eris.

>Actually the cogito can be doubted too.
And if you read my post, I admitted this, numbnuts.

Besides that, the classical definition of truth is not the only definition of truth. We've moved on from Plato, you know? Scientific knowledge, theories, proven hypothesis and etcetera are but one among many, but personally (I may take a certain kind of liberty here) I think they they are pragmatically most valuable. You know, the man and the moon, computarz and all kinds of spicy drugs to amuse us.

>>4792
>If you want ageless unending truth the closest you can get is mathematics;
No, certain truth is impossible.
>philosophy doesn't come anywhere near close.
I merely mentioned philosophy because of its subdomain epistomology, which is what we are currently discussing.

>And that's what Science rides its claim to truth on: the mathematics behind it
Wrong. You are claiming, currently, that the scientific method (to wit: empiricism) can provide unquestionable knowledge, that is, truth.
It cannot.

>Besides that, the classical definition of truth is not the only definition of truth.
Truth, in epistomology, is defined as "conforming perfectly to reality".

>We've moved on from Plato, you know?
We have indeed. We have such wonderful definitions, such as the "justified (you have sufficient reason for your belief) true (it conforms to reality) belief (you believe it)" definition of 'knowledge'. I mention the JTB because I think there is a rather negative attitude towards philosophy among rational men; they seem to believe that it consists of nothing but childish mysticism and stupidity, which I admit composes most of philosophy, but not all! And so I wish to avoid any further nastiness.

>I think they they are pragmatically most valuable.
I agree!

Science is probabilistic, not certain. When scientists say something is "true" then they mean "most probable". And yes, saying "truth" is wrong, but it eases communication. We're all humans here, after all.

>>4801
I don't agree.
When scientists say that it is true, this means that "here and now, it works". no ?
We cannot say that classic physics is false, but only that "it is a good approximation of the thruth, here and now" - the thruth being here theory or relativity and quantum mechanics...

>>4796
>No, certain truth is impossible.

This sounds like "certain truth" to me, dumbass.

>>4972
oooooh fucking snap

Fuck yes Dawkins, you are the coolest scientist ever.

>>4950
When scientists say that it is true, this means that "here and now, it works". no ?
Nope. If a theory is true in science, then it means that the mathematical models it is composed of correspond to reality, that is, that they can explain all the data that we have. If the amount of data we have changes and the theory cannot explain the data (make accurate predictions), then it's no longer true. So it is a pragmatic view of the world, but in a very limited and specific way. Of course, no theory can predict reality to an absolute degree, and thus probability enters.

>>4972
Whoops. I misspoke. I meant, of course, "At the present time, it seems to me that we have not found any way of proving beyond all doubt a proposition."
Of course, I can't say that either. That statement is not beyond doubt either. It's all quite confusing and wonderful.

First, this thread amused me. Then, it got boring. Then, it amused me again because everyone got their undies in a bundle over some silly person obviously trying to rile you up. Then I got bored again.

If you want a serious evolution vs. creationism / ID debate, go to quatraphalli, because this argument's older than Darwin, and it's just plain ol' dumb.

You want an answer to this argument? Here's one - there isn't one. There just isn't, because one side argues that 'research suggests x, so x' and the other argues that 'x cannot be without y, therefore y'. Pick your own answer, and stop shoving yours down other people's throats. Your opinion won't change anything, especially not on the Internet, and in the end nobody cares.

Also, as a materialist-atheist, I'd like to say Dawkins is a cunt, but he's an amusing cunt.

  This thread needs sum moar science embeds, goddamnit.

  There is a way to combat the foul legions of creationists, and that way is Carl Sagan.

  Also, the ernies.

>>4295

Obviously, you know nothing about information theory, thermodynamics, chemistry, statistical mechanics.

/shitstorm

In other news, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

>>5681
You're intellectually lazy and vapid, with no concept of the value of discourse and reason and should either be castrated or killed.

The video is down. I'm curious would someone post a mirror ?

Deleted because of the "fuck off"?

So what was in this 7 second video?

It's down now.

>>6303

I believe it was Richard Dawkins saying "science is interesting and if you disagree you can fuck off.

>>6342

But how does Dawkins know what fuck off is?

  Here is the clip.