Religion is NONSENSE

Bertrand Russell proved over 70 years ago that religion is nonsense.

If I suggest that there's a teapot floating in some specific part of space, but it's too small to detect with any of our current instruments, would you believe me? You'd probably say "prove it". Same applies to God. God is just an unproven postulation.

>But my favourite theologian proved God!
No they didn't. Usually they try to define God into existence, which is bullshit. "Hurr durr, imagine a perfect thing. Existence is more perfect than non-existence, so it has to exist." Biggest load of horseshit I ever heard. I would argue that something can only be said to exist if it has been OBSERVED in some way, whether by sight, or hearing, etc. Even the Higgs boson (a particle) was only theoretical until it was actually observed.

>But God is non-physical so he can never be observed!
Another horseshit argument. Humans used to believe that ghosts were non-physical, and they could be observed by eyesight, or hearing, or whatever. And people have claimed to see visions of the virgin Mary, right? So non-physical apparitions could be observed. Therefore non-physical things, if they exist, could be observed. But I don't think anything non-physical exists, because there is no reason to believe that they do. Nobody believes in ghosts anymore, because we now realise that ghost-like noises have physical, non-ghost explanations.

Religions are lies.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, the religion of science is nonsense.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ghosts are real

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Prove it

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't really care to, but i know multiple people who've seen the same ghost in the same house so you can't say they're all schizophrenic, i know multiple stories like this, that's my proof, i could provide you with some other proofs if that's not enough.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You think it's most probable that the people have been psychologically primed to expect a ghost, like by stories of the house being haunted, and thus mistakenly thought they saw a ghost while being in an exited mental state?
          Or
          That it's more probable it's a spooky ghost haunting the building?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Certainly the second choice because the house isn't known to be haunted or they knew that it was haunted, it was just a normal apartment that they were living at that time.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They never talked to each other about seeing the ghost?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They did yes, after seeing it and seeing objects falling randomly as well.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So, like, did they all see the ghost, then only talk to each other about if AFTER?
            Else you perfectly have my scenario, of people psychologically priming each other to see stuff that isn't really there, by having expectations and being exited.

            You know, like people reporting having seen UFOs, after reading about it in the media.
            Unless you think they just are outright lying. (or that this is good evidence of UFOs)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So, like, did they all see the ghost, then only talk to each other about if AFTER?
            Yes, except they were seeing the same ghost individually one at a time, when one of them wakes up and goes to the kitchen or the bathroom for example, not in the same instance at once, with the same description (shadowy looking old women if remember correctly)

            [...]
            [...]
            What's most probable, people making up stories
            or
            GHOSTS
            ???

            I'm not here to argue, i don't have to convince you, i trust them so i believe they aren't lying.

            How do you know it was a ghost?

            I don't know, i just call it that. See my description if it fits that of a ghost or whatever.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't know, i just call it that
            So you do not know if ghosts are actually real

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No i don't know, the boogyman isn't real.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >objects falling randomly as well.
            Is this a prediction generated by the ghost hypothesis?

            As far I'm concerned, ghosts are magic and capable of doing literally anything, or nothing.
            Don't know how you figured out that ghosts have the causal power, and desire, to make objects "randomly fall"
            You need to explain your line of reasoning, before this is evidence for ghosts

            This could equally be viewed as evidence against ghosts! If we assume ghosts who doesn't have the desire to cause objects to randomly fall
            You get me?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >isn't known to be haunted
            You just telling us a story about the house being haunted (multiple people have seen a ghost in it), seems to be evidence against that being true!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes because those mulitipe people lived in the house at that time, what part you don't get? It's not one person living in it or one person seeing the ghost.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          How do you know it was a ghost?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Certainly the second choice because the house isn't known to be haunted or they knew that it was haunted, it was just a normal apartment that they were living at that time.

          They did yes, after seeing it and seeing objects falling randomly as well.

          What's most probable, people making up stories
          or
          GHOSTS
          ???

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >le nothing exploded into everything
    >le rocks turned into monkeys
    >le spinning space rocks in infinite nothing
    >le water sticks to balls
    >no curve measurable on earth
    >no motion detectable on earth
    >caught faking footage a million times
    we'll accept our burden of proofs right after you accept yours

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I don't know exactly how a thing happened
      >Ergo God created the universe in seven days and kicked humanity out of paradise for eating a fruit and flooded the earth and supported a single group of people exclusively until he sent his son to die so anyone could be forgiven for believing that his son was his son.

      This is the core issue with people trying to prove religion, they define religion as broadly and ambiguously as possible to support their point "Well what caused the big bang? Must be God!" but then choose to worship a highly specific theology filled with holes if you believe in pretty much any part of modern science or even historiography (the Gobekli Tepe is older than the world according to datings from the bible).

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >>Ergo God created the universe in seven days and kicked humanity out of paradise for eating a fruit and flooded the earth and supported a single group of people exclusively until he sent his son to die so anyone could be forgiven for believing that his son was his son.
        Yes.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >"Well what caused the big bang?
        Kek the Big Bang was literally invented to explain away why distant "galaxies" move with respect to the earth. Infinite expansion everywhere was created to save heliocentrism from the observations.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >god made everything from nothing

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >re·li·gion
        >The belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
        Wrong.

        [...]
        >too preoccupied with fricking
        What a lad.

        >evolution happened and all life shares a common ancestor and life came from nonlife and all matter came from nothing and by nothing
        >but I don't have to prove this
        Your religion doesn't belong in the schools, communist sodomites.

        >le rocks turned into monkeys
        No.
        >le water sticks to balls
        Yes it does, it's gravity. Gravity works in all directions equally. So water on the surface of the spherical Earth is pulled towards the centre of the Earth.
        >no curve measurable on earth
        False.
        >no motion detectable on earth
        We have detected that the Earth orbits the Sun. This, combined with Earth's tilt (23 degrees on its axis, or something like that), is what causes the different seasons of the year.

        [...]
        I can imagine something even better than God. Super-God. Super-God exists even more than God, because he's better. He also thinks you're a moron, and this is therefore objectively true, because he's Super-God, the most perfect thing that could ever possibly exist.

        >>le rocks turned into monkeys
        >No.
        That's literally what you teach, but you get offended like an SJW troony israelite because they didn't include all the cope mechanisms you add to it like 6 gorillion years to magically make the impossible happen. It doesn't matter how much "more time" you add, you will never evolve into a real woman, freak.

        Even with your proven-false timelines, your blind faith beliefs are still mathematically impossible.

        >re·li·gion
        >The belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
        Wrong.

        [...]
        >too preoccupied with fricking
        What a lad.

        >defines religion to require a deity to deny his religion is a religion and deny his blind faith beliefs are taken on blind faith
        >doesn't realize his blind faith beliefs contradict *all* known science and *all* known history
        Materialism is literally self-refuting, but you're too much of a low IQ dimwit to realize it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          This image sucks, all faith is blind. That doesn't mean there is no evidence for God, but it's useless without faith.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >.jpg
          >What we see in God's world agrees with what we read in God's word.
          No it literally doesn't. That's why the Catholic church fell apart and protestants took over and everyone just interprets the Bible however the frick they want in order to justify their illogical beliefs. History will catch up soon and atheism or agnosticism will be the majority.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >flat earth schizo
      As a theist I don’t claim these morons

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >le rocks turned into monkeys
      No.
      >le water sticks to balls
      Yes it does, it's gravity. Gravity works in all directions equally. So water on the surface of the spherical Earth is pulled towards the centre of the Earth.
      >no curve measurable on earth
      False.
      >no motion detectable on earth
      We have detected that the Earth orbits the Sun. This, combined with Earth's tilt (23 degrees on its axis, or something like that), is what causes the different seasons of the year.

      https://i.imgur.com/0Xzb2W1.jpg

      God is declaratively true, He transcends need for your shitty man-made burden of proof

      I can imagine something even better than God. Super-God. Super-God exists even more than God, because he's better. He also thinks you're a moron, and this is therefore objectively true, because he's Super-God, the most perfect thing that could ever possibly exist.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Gravity works in all directions equally
        Never been proven. Doesn't even work on a cosmological scale. Gravity doesn't account for 96% of the observable universe without making up silly invisible matter and energy.
        >>no curve measurable on earth
        >False.
        Prove it. We can see hundreds of miles too far.
        >>no motion detectable on earth
        >We have detected that the Earth orbits the Sun
        Prove it. All physicists disagree. Heliocentrism is a philosophical position. Every experiment to motion has failed.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Gravity has been observed in a lab, look up the Cavendish experiment. The rotation of the earth is corroborated by the Foucault pendulum. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth 2000 years ago by comparing shadows in Egypt and Greece.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Cavendish experiment
            >Foucault pendulum
            Literally pseudoscience and the Foucault pendulums they have in museums are fake. Even if this were true, the sky's motion could be translated to the Earth through Mach's principle.

            >Eratosthenes
            You can create the same effect on a flat surface with local light. It proves nothing. Also, this guy doesn't have any primary sources and the earliest extant manuscript mentioning his alleged experiment is 13th Century.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So, like, how you account of the success when using globe/gravity model for practical stuff, random chance?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's literally not used. Architecture never accounts for curvature, pilots fly as if stationary and level, ballistics don't account for curvature, etc. There is a downward bias and things fall by their density, but that doesn't mean water curves around a ball in a vacuum.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >downward
            Huh? what direction would that be?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Towards the ground, moron

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe there's something akin to a huge magnet down there, in the center of the earth, that pulls at things with a force relative to their "density"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, something that has never made water stick to spinning balls. Anyway, gravity isn't even accepted in your own model, it was replace by general relativity (Which is still wrong because 96% of the model doesn't work lmao).

            >Architecture never accounts for curvature
            Because buildings aren't very big in the grand scheme of things. And Architects would leave such boring things to be figured out by the engineers building it anyway.
            >ballistics don't account for curvature
            A handgun is on too small of scale for this to matter. But long-distance artillery does need to account of the curvature, and sometimes even the movement, of the earth, to be able to hit their targets

            >buildings aren't very big in the grand scheme of things
            Bridges and canals don't account for curvature.

            >long-distance artillery does need to account of the curvature, and sometimes even the movement, of the earth, to be able to hit their targets
            They literally don't. https://youtu.be/GpgnHaXfqV0

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Before some moron replies about seeing bridges curve, that's for structural integrity, it has nothing to do with the surface.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There is a downward bias and things fall by their density
            Brainrot

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How does the coffee in my mug know which way is down?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Architecture never accounts for curvature
            Because buildings aren't very big in the grand scheme of things. And Architects would leave such boring things to be figured out by the engineers building it anyway.
            >ballistics don't account for curvature
            A handgun is on too small of scale for this to matter. But long-distance artillery does need to account of the curvature, and sometimes even the movement, of the earth, to be able to hit their targets

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Being an atheist does not necessitate belief in the Big Bang Theory. I'm an atheist who thinks it's pseudo-religions bullshit founded on garbage science.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm an atheist who thinks it's pseudo-religions bullshit founded on garbage science.
        That just makes you a moron. If the universe is expanding (and we know it is because we can literally see this with our own eyes if you look out at distant stars) then what is it expanding from? Logically the universe has to be smaller in the past right? C'mon anon I shouldn't have to hand hold you though this

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >and we know it is because we can literally see this with our own eyes if you look out at distant stars
          Cosmic redshift is not due to recessional velocity. The Universe is not expanding, Hubble's hypothesis is simply poor science. The Universe has no bounded edge nor extent nor origin. It IS space, which does not expand.

          Did you seriously think space was a balloon, being blown up with dark energy?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Cosmic redshift is not due to recessional velocity.
            We have no reason to believe otherwise until you come up with another model that explains it properly

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Electric Universe. If you don't know the basics of that cluster of theories, go read a book, Black person. Or at least Read Halton Arp.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Electric Universe
            Debunked as psudoscience many times. The reason we know cosmic redshift is in fact do to universal expansion, is because the redshift of distant galaxies is proportional to their distances from Earth, we know this because we can estimate their distances using paralax. You don't have an explanation for any of this, you just handwave it all away as some unknown consequence of muh electric universe

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Debunked as psudoscience many times
            Oh shit guys, we go denounced as heresy, pack it in! We got the entire physical Universe figured out!
            >is because the redshift of distant galaxies is proportional to their distances from Earth
            Did you know that things observed from Earth appear distant relative to the Earth?
            Redshift is quantized. Read the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, and then explain the redshift anomalies. Otherwise, don't really care to hear it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Did you know that things observed from Earth appear distant relative to the Earth?
            Some things are more distant than others, and this distance has a direct correlation with its redshift. I don't even understand how this can even filter you so badly
            >Read the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, and then explain the redshift anomalies. Otherwise, don't really care to hear it.
            Anon, we can correct for redshift by determining a distant objects black body radiation curve. There is no anomalies, you're just a moron

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Some things are more distant than others, and this distance has a direct correlation with its redshift
            Uh oh...someone didn't read Halton Arp. Go read the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, then post again.
            >There is no anomalies
            Hahaha oh man you're a funny guy. Go read the book.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why do I have actual explanations and you just tell me to read a book? Isn't the burden of proof on you? Sounds like you didn't even read your own damn books, get a grip

            Regardless, redshift can be measured by its shift from its black body curve, thats why its called a redSHIFT, and its why we know the difference between red shift and red objects. This is high school level stuff anon

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why do I have actual explanations and you just tell me to read a book?
            You can read, right anon? Why are you troubled by reading?
            >redshift can be measured by its shift from its black body curve
            If you'd read the book, you would know that redshift isn't tied to recessional velocity. You can't slip that point in as identical to redshift itself. They're two different things. Sneaky, sneaky anon. Now go read the fricking book.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you would know that redshift isn't tied to recessional velocity
            It is, what happens to light when its stretched anon? It SHIFTS red right? If you don't believe this to be the case despite being easily testable on Earth then I have nothing more to say to you

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It is, what happens to light when its stretched anon?
            You're thinking of doppler shift. Redshift is quantized. If you don't know what redshift quantization is, go read. You really only seem familiar with what you learned in high school, and you think that's all there is to the exploration of the evidence. Sad, really.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    God is declaratively true, He transcends need for your shitty man-made burden of proof

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Materialism is your religion. You’re welcome.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >re·li·gion
      >The belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
      Wrong.

      https://i.imgur.com/l2Agie4.png

      Copleston shat all over your degenerate cretin Russell who was too preoccupied with fricking (his own words) rather than trying to understand metaphysics.:

      >too preoccupied with fricking
      What a lad.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Exactly. You believe that matter is the most fundamental and powerful thing in the universe. And you definitely worship that.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          1) I think everything is physical because I've never seen any compelling evidence that would suggest otherwise.
          2) I don't worship matter.

          >Gravity works in all directions equally
          Never been proven. Doesn't even work on a cosmological scale. Gravity doesn't account for 96% of the observable universe without making up silly invisible matter and energy.
          >>no curve measurable on earth
          >False.
          Prove it. We can see hundreds of miles too far.
          >>no motion detectable on earth
          >We have detected that the Earth orbits the Sun
          Prove it. All physicists disagree. Heliocentrism is a philosophical position. Every experiment to motion has failed.

          works in all directions equally
          >Never been proven.
          Gravity does work in all directions equally, that's a fact.
          >We can see hundreds of miles too far.
          No we can't. Look at pic related. This is Toronto from across Lake Ontario. The bottoms of the buildings can't be seen due to the curvature of the Earth.
          >All physicists disagree.
          Every reputable physicist knows that the Earth orbits the sun.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >that's a fact
            Never been proven and the observations show otherwise.

            >The bottoms of the buildings can't be seen
            Due to perspective where closer waves can obscure distant objects. It's hard to know where this picture was taken but there's a minimum distance of around 30 miles, which would mean 600 feet should be missing.

            The CN Tower is 1800 feet which means 1/3rd of it would be missing due to curvature. As we can see, that isn't the case. The building at its base is almost entirely visible. Ironically your own picture disproves the alleged radius value.

            >Every reputable physicist knows that the Earth orbits the sun.
            Not what I said. Heliocentrism is a philosophical position, no terrestrial experiments prove motion.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I was hoping for some actual discussion in this thread, but your posts show that such a thing is impossible with you.

            Induction does not exist, there is none observation where anything real works as predicted by induction. Falsifying inductive conclusions is so easy it is embarrasing that it is even considered as a reasoning tool.

            Induction was never proved and if yes then you need... you guessed... inductive reasoning.

            > But we learned in math.
            Guess what, math can be wrong.

            > m-metaphysics
            that's right, induction and god belong into same box

            Induction is how we learn everything.
            >burn your hand on hot things a couple of times
            >learn that hot things cause pain and damage to you
            >generalise that you should avoid touching very hot things
            Or another example:
            >use some TVs that are turned on by either pressing the on/off button or the change channel button on the remote
            >generalise that these buttons will usually work to turn on a TV
            >when you see a TV in the future, you press one of those buttons
            It's literally how we learn everything.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >gets completely BTFO by his own "evidence"
            >was hoping for some actual discussion in this thread
            Uhuh

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You flat-out reject the evidence. What's there to discuss? The globe describes natural phenomena in the world, like night and day, the seasons, the movement of the sun, and so on. It makes accurate predictions that can be precisely calculated using math. What does your model offer? Nothing.

            Also GR is corroborated by observations
            >perihelion precession of Mercury
            >solar eclipse 1919
            All BS, right?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >natural phenomena in the world, like night and day, the seasons, the movement of the sun
            Yeah, literally all of that can be explained on a stationary plane, and most of it even works better.

            >All BS, right?
            If GR worked, 96% of the universe wouldn't be dark matter and dark energy. No other field of science is allowed such a margin of error but they desperately needed this model to save heliocentrism.

            You're a flat earther, you're a moron

            [...]
            See what I said in the OP:
            >>But God is non-physical so he can never be observed!
            >Another horseshit argument. Humans used to believe that ghosts were non-physical, and they could be observed by eyesight, or hearing, or whatever. And people have claimed to see visions of the virgin Mary, right? So non-physical apparitions could be observed. Therefore non-physical things, if they exist, could be observed. But I don't think anything non-physical exists, because there is no reason to believe that they do. Nobody believes in ghosts anymore, because we now realise that ghost-like noises have physical, non-ghost explanations.

            >you're a moron
            Amazing argument. Mockery is literally all you guys have.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Arguing with an idiot like a flat earther is like playing chess with a pigeon - you could play perfectly, but the pigeon is just going to shit all over the board and strut around like it won anyway, because it doesn't understand the rules.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah, literally all of that can be explained on a stationary plane, and most of it even works better.
            Explain 17h of daylight in Southern Argentina. Explain why people in the Southern hemisphere can't see the Northern star. Explain how tides work. And so on.. Extra points, if you can predict the movement of celestial bodies using mathematics. We both know, you can't.

            >If GR worked, 96% of the universe wouldn't be dark matter and dark energy.
            Because distant anomalies can't be explain, we have to reject it? In the future, there'll likely be better, more accurate theories. For the moment, it "works", in as far as it is the theory that makes the best predictions about the world we live in.

            >You flat-out reject the evidence
            Your photo shows too much skyline. 1/3rd of the CN Tower should be missing due to curvature. The evidence you provided actually debunks the globe claim.

            I'm nta

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Also explain, why the angular speed of the Foucault pendulum aligns with the latitude of the "theorized" globe perfectly. Why only is that happening, hmmm?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >4% accurate
            >it works

            >Explain why people in the Southern hemisphere can't see the Northern star.
            Limits of perspective, the same reason you don't see the sun

            Also explain, why the angular speed of the Foucault pendulum aligns with the latitude of the "theorized" globe perfectly. Why only is that happening, hmmm?

            It doesn't. Foucault pendulum is pseudo-science. And even if you could prove they work, it could be equally explained as a translation of motion from the sky. So it doesn't independently prove anything.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You came up with this number 96%. I have never seen it. I do, however, know for a fact that we can predict the movement of celestial bodies in the solar system. Something, you can't, by the way. We rely on these predictions every day when sending out satellites that you use, or drones to investigate our cosmic neighborhood or to monitor the skies for asteroids.

            >Limits of perspective, the same reason you don't see the sun
            I don't even know what you mean by that? Because it's too "far away"? Are you that dumb? What about tides and the 17h of Daylight on the Southern Hemisphere? What's going on there?

            >It doesn't.
            It does. You can do the experiment for yourself, if you cared. I know, you don't. There's no movement on the equator and there is a proportional increase of the angular speed as you proceed to either the north or the south pole, at which you could observe a rotation every 24h. It is calculated, using the formula in
            >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >In the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the mass–energy content of the universe is 5% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter, and 68.2% a form of energy known as dark energy.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

            Oh my bad, it's 95%. I guess now that it predicts only 5% of the universe then it's fine.

            It doesn't matter what other topics you can come up to distract from the point, we see too far. Even the photo you shared proves it. The radius value is falsified, falsification is independent of replacement. If we can't see or measure enough drop at the distances they predict, then it doesn't exist.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You flat-out reject the evidence
            Your photo shows too much skyline. 1/3rd of the CN Tower should be missing due to curvature. The evidence you provided actually debunks the globe claim.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're a flat earther, you're a moron

            https://i.imgur.com/PZ9DqjZ.png

            >Prove that a metaphysical thing is real
            Indeed I cannot, a lot of things point towards that for me logically but the last step is the quantum jump of belief.

            See what I said in the OP:
            >>But God is non-physical so he can never be observed!
            >Another horseshit argument. Humans used to believe that ghosts were non-physical, and they could be observed by eyesight, or hearing, or whatever. And people have claimed to see visions of the virgin Mary, right? So non-physical apparitions could be observed. Therefore non-physical things, if they exist, could be observed. But I don't think anything non-physical exists, because there is no reason to believe that they do. Nobody believes in ghosts anymore, because we now realise that ghost-like noises have physical, non-ghost explanations.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you even understand the implication of metaphysical, metaphysical means not of this world, if a ghost is proclaimed to be metaphysical but then also described being observed by physical means then that's an oxymoron.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's a sky wizard called God!
            >Okay, where can I see him?
            >Uh, you can't! He's... invisible!
            >How convenient. Where can I hear him?
            >Uh... you can't! He's... inaudible!
            >How extremely convenient for you. Can I detect him in any way whatsoever?
            >No!
            >But you didn't just make him up?
            >No! I swear!
            You may convince idiots, but nobody else.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Copleston shat all over your degenerate cretin Russell who was too preoccupied with fricking (his own words) rather than trying to understand metaphysics.:

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I firmly believe we should have at least one nonsensical Dadaist religion

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What we have here is a problem of self awareness.
    Team blu parrots the teaching of yhvh in different forms, but they don't obey.
    Team red intends on separating people from yhvh and make them sin.

    Both blu and red are about as self aware as a rock, and thus easy to spot, zero disimulation.

    Team green tries in vain to escape via gnosis, but Bythos gives two shits about 'em.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheism can not exist without this one rhetorical trick of "lol all the burden of proof is on you," it is completely unsustainable without that because without that lie they'd need to admit they have no logical reason to be atheists. Atheism is a belief and a claim, either prove it or frick off.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What would you be willing to accept as proof/evidence for atheism?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nothing. But my belief is capable of surviving when I'm being honest about it, atheistic belief isn't.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Atheism doesn't need the burden of proof to exist though

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Atheism doesn't need to burden of proof to be on it to exist? I assume you meant something else here.

            >atheistic belief isn't.
            Prove it, lmao

            Think it's amazing that Christans have been so broken, that at this point, they are the only ones going on about "burden of proof"
            and it's this moron reverse take

            Yet more proof that atheists fundamentally cannot argue. They have nothing, and I truly do mean *nothing* except this one rhetorical trick. And when someone doesn't play along, this is the result.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            We're not having an argument
            You maid a claim, and are now backing off, presumably because you are unable to provide proof and evidence

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I assume you're the one who wrote this?

            >atheistic belief isn't.
            Prove it, lmao

            I'm not interested in getting sidetracked trying to convince you that atheists wouldn't be atheists if they were honest. I know you thought that was a very clever reverse, but ironically you actually capitulated to my main argument was true by not contesting the phrase "atheistic belief."

            Is it possible for Atheism to be true, yet there exist no evidence of Atheism being true?

            This whole statement is a logical absurdity from a theistic point of view, so I have to answer no. As far as I'm concerned, the truth must leave evidence of itself behind, yet atheism cannot prove itself to be true because you can't scientifically prove that there is nothing besides profane matter, which is a pretty big hint that it isn't true. I thank you for making this obvious to me, I hadn't realized that atheism was so logically unsound in this way before, though you probably don't understand exactly what I'm getting at yet.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is it possible for some things to be true, yet there exist no proof of that?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >atheism cannot prove itself to be true because you can't scientifically prove that there is nothing besides profane matter
            >You have to prove immaterial unicorns aren't real
            >You can't know nuffin
            Congratulations on obliterating epistemology

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >immaterial unicorns
            The intelligence of atheism knows no bounds.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your response proves you to be low intelligence. Prove that there isn't an invisible unicorn that only you can see always standing just beyond your range of vision.
            According to your logic, you have to accept it as true until you can prove otherwise. In other words referring to OP, the Christian will take it a truth that there is a teapot until proven false (this doesn't work because you can make up infinite excuses for why you can't detect the teapot) while the atheist starts off without belief in the teapot until proven true beyond a reasonable doubt.
            Beleiving in a god that you can't prove is an unjustified belief and if you will have one unjustified belief you open yourself to all beliefs without proof.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Prove that there isn't an invisible unicorn
            Non-sequitur.
            >you have to accept it as true until you can prove otherwise.
            True.
            >the Christian will take it a truth that there is a teapot
            Why?
            >this doesn't work because you can make up infinite excuses for why you can't detect the teapot
            Like making up definitions?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>you have to accept it as true until you can prove otherwise.
            Peak christian epistemology right here

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            But it's too wishful to believe in something you can't know to be true though, like the atheist belief that God does not exist.
            Kids who believe in Santa are less wishful than that, you KNOW?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You have to believe in everything that is not proven anon; that is moronic.
            If I say invisible goblins exist you have to believe in them

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That doesn't folow anything I said, Santa boy.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It follows from your epistemology. You put yourself in a corner with your silly ideas

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Citations needed.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You said it yourself; but you can always walk back on that

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Let's prove me wrong, we will do it together but you have to help me here. And we need to begin with citations, citations where I said you have to believe someone until proven false.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            *Something
            Phonegayging is hard.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Prove that there isn't an invisible unicorn
            Non-sequitur.
            >you have to accept it as true until you can prove otherwise.
            True.
            >the Christian will take it a truth that there is a teapot
            Why?
            >this doesn't work because you can make up infinite excuses for why you can't detect the teapot
            Like making up definitions?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're just wasting my time. Can I go now?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure; you don't seem interested in an actual discussion

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >non sequitur
            Sequitur
            >>the Christian will take it a truth that there is a teapot
            >Why?
            Because
            >>you have to accept it as true until you can prove otherwise.
            >True.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Superman is real because I stepped on a lego.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            By asserting that proof of existence is not required and instead opting for proof of non-existence you are opening yourself up to hold ALL POSSIBLE beliefs including
            >Superman is real because I stepped on a lego.
            In this framework you do not have to justify your beliefs, which is wrong obviously.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't say that though. I said that it's too wishful to believe that something is not the case when you can't prove otherwise aka disprove.
            >which is wrong obviously
            Then get to it already, prove to me that you're not more wishful than a kid who believes in Santa.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            *when you can't know the contrary to be true.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think you are talking to the right anon. I believe that you have to justify believing that something exists.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is it possible for Atheism to be true, yet there exist no evidence of Atheism being true?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Prove it mf

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The absence of god is self evident

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Atheism doesn't need to burden of proof to be on it to exist?
            Yes; if someone doesn't believe in god(s) they are atheist. You don't need to invoke the burden of proof to proclaim yourself atheist because it's just a label for a belief

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >atheistic belief isn't.
          Prove it, lmao

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >trick

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Think it's amazing that Christans have been so broken, that at this point, they are the only ones going on about "burden of proof"
    and it's this moron reverse take

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I don't think anything non-physical exists
    That's fine bro. As long as you admit that you're a materialist who doesn't believe in free will or objective morality. Nobody really cares if you think God is made up as long as you are consistent.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Gullible moron Christian also believes in ghosts
    imagine my shock

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's substantially more evidence for ghosts, the fae, cryptids etc. than for the existence of Julius Caesar. You can start with Charles Fort or Vallee if you're interested in going down that rabbit hole.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >There's substantially more evidence for ghosts, the fae, cryptids etc. than for the existence of Julius Caesar.
        Why do you lie?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Thousands of people interact with them every day, there is an abundance of evidence coming in all the time. Julius Caesar can't compare to that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Thousands of people interact with them every day
            Do they? Or they just think they interact with them?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            People telling stories about having seen a ghost, is also perfectly compatible with the hypothesis that mistakenly see a ghost after having been psychologically primed for it and being in an excited mental state
            Now we just have to figure out what hypothesis best accounts for all our data

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Induction does not exist, there is none observation where anything real works as predicted by induction. Falsifying inductive conclusions is so easy it is embarrasing that it is even considered as a reasoning tool.

    Induction was never proved and if yes then you need... you guessed... inductive reasoning.

    > But we learned in math.
    Guess what, math can be wrong.

    > m-metaphysics
    that's right, induction and god belong into same box

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Guess what, math can be wrong.
      No it can't? lol

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      How could you even figure out that you are doing math wrong, even in principle
      If it's possible for "math to be wrong" ?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Empirically of course. If you hypothesise that 2+2=4 is universal but adding two apples and two apples gets you three apples then you experimentally falsified the hypothesis. Preschool math of course works, but any doable experiment with induction will fail or becomes "unfalsifiable".

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Alright, I misunderstood you.

          In terms of this discussion, I would rather call that something like: "People failing at performing math"
          That is not very interesting, or relevant.
          Thought you was going for something like: "There exist mathematical facts, which can be wrong." (???)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nope you understood me correctly. Almost though:
            > "There exist mathematical facts, which can be wrong."
            Is contradiction if you understand "fact" as a "claim that is necessarily true" and does not represent what am I saying. So let me correct you
            "There are mathematical claims that are false.".

            I was hoping for some actual discussion in this thread, but your posts show that such a thing is impossible with you.

            [...]
            Induction is how we learn everything.
            >burn your hand on hot things a couple of times
            >learn that hot things cause pain and damage to you
            >generalise that you should avoid touching very hot things
            Or another example:
            >use some TVs that are turned on by either pressing the on/off button or the change channel button on the remote
            >generalise that these buttons will usually work to turn on a TV
            >when you see a TV in the future, you press one of those buttons
            It's literally how we learn everything.

            Yes, you can learn useful things with induction, but what is useful doesn't have to be true: Remote control can't turn on unplugged TV. And I can touch very hot things in gloves. You can induce that all red berries are sour, by eating few sour red berries.
            Realize that if you claim: "All that is inferred by inductive reasoning is true." all it takes is one falsification to put this claim down. If you then modify the claim to : "Sometimes induction gives truth." then that bears the same weight as "God sometimes says truth".

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Russell stupid. Wittgenstein good.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Saying "If atheism is true" is the equivalent of saying "if 4+4=6". Do you really want to allow that?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >unconventional thinking le bad

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Look, when you tell a story in such a way that it causes an big problem that is only solvable with magic.
      Did you consider that you may have made a mistake in the story, rather than magic being real?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Logic must be magical to your kind, huh?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You just dropped a pile of unsubstantiated premises at our feet, you need to pick them up and show how all of them are true (not just assert it)
          Else, your argument doesn't even get off the ground

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You must show how a possibility is possible.
            >You must show how if something cannot be true than it is false.
            atheism, ladies and gentlemen

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            *then

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Agnostics stay winning.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      "Agnostics" are a subcategory of atheists and the vast majority of atheists are agnostic. Stop pushing this fake distinction. You either believe in a deity or you don't, there's no third "ehh maybe" option. Anyone who does not confidently believe in a deity or deities is an atheist.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >there's no third "ehh maybe" option.
        NTA but how would you categorize apatheists? Would they be the true third option? I feel like most people who call themselves agnostic are actually just apatheists but just don't understand what words mean

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >apatheists
          If they don't care either way then that means they don't confidently believe in a deity, which means they are another subcategory of atheists.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Except those people don't usually identify as atheists. If someone other Christians say isn't really Christian is Christian because they claim to be, why would someone who claims not to be an atheist actually be an atheist?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because they want to disguise themselves as being religious for social reasons. A lot of people assume that being a religious person is a "good" thing, so even if they don't believe, they will just LARP as a believer as a form of virtue signaling.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Some, yes. Plenty of them don't feel strongly enough to commit to the idea there is no God and think it is dumb to do so because they just don't know.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >You either believe in a deity or you don't, there's no third "ehh maybe" option.
        There literally is. I’m totally open to the possibility, but it could just as easily go the other way.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >God is timeless
    Huh?
    God was a baby, then a man, then got holes hammered in his hands, lived then died then is alive again
    This is change, a feature of things that exist in time

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I wonder if it's possible to talk to a IQfy Christian without them bringing up their obsession with transvestism.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >op BTFO’s religious people as superstitious and stupid
    >christian tries to counter this accusation by claiming the earth is flat based on the belief that ballistics never needs to account for the curvature of the earth
    Aren’t you clowns embarrassed?

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Prove that a metaphysical thing is real
    Indeed I cannot, a lot of things point towards that for me logically but the last step is the quantum jump of belief.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bertrand Russel was a moron. He thought that the US was le evil and that the USSR was only trying to defend themselves during the Cold War.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    you will spend your whole life carefully building crystal castles with reason and logic that just aspire to mimic what you can truly only grasp with an open hearth to the divine.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No. I already know God doesn't exist.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Most deists are trialists, not monists or dualists. Your conception of what god is is way off.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Russel's teapot has been debunked as a philosophical failure cause making up definitions don't work as it opens the door to self-refutations.
    Now you can't say there could be something undetectable like the teapot because God can detect it as he is all-powerful and all-sovereign.
    Cause if you do, like the russel's teapot which is undetectable by definition, by your same logic I can make up the pencil which detects your teapot by definition.
    The logic behind the russel's teapot opens the door to this self-refutations.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Congradulations anon, you finally understand the point of the teapot, protip; Chistianity is a teapot

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        But the teapot is a response to God which defeated itself though.
        God isn't a response to anything.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >God isn't a response to anything.
          God is literally THE response to most things for theists, God is their answer for reality itself.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The atheist logic ends up stating that God is something which cannot exist because.. they can make up definitions.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Logic is antagonistic to atheism, because in atheism there is no first cause. Therefore, there is no reason. Without reason, there is no logic - atheism is the end result.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Atheists aren't saying God cannot exist, they're saying there is no evidence for Gods existence. Thats the point of the teapot, to demonstrate that anyone can make a moronic claim like some giant man in the sky, hence why you need a burden of proof, otherwise God is equallly as valid as a teapot floating in space. If you want to believe God is some metaphysical being beyond evidence thats fine, but don't conflate evidence-based belief systems with faith-based belief systems, thats what makes you look like a moron and will get you promptly laughed out of any serious scientific or philosophical discussion in the real world.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Which would be fine if atheism was an evidence-based belief system, but it's not. There's nothing about the belief that God doesn't exist which implies an evidence-based belief system. If you want to be an atheist, fine, but don't pretend that your personal religious beliefs are academic or scientific in nature when they simply aren't.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >There's nothing about the belief that God doesn't exist which implies an evidence-based belief system.
          You are correct, but thats not what atheism does, you're confusing atheism for anti-theism. Show atheists actual evidence that God actually exists and most would probably concede. That being said, there is plenty of evidence to support the notion that every man made religion itself is bullshit, because the validity of those claims can actually be tested regardless.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you're confusing atheism for anti-theism
            I'm not. I'm simply pointing out the fact that atheism is a personal religious belief, which is totally unrelated to evidence-based structures like science. From a scientific perspective, there is no reason to endorse atheism or theism because neither of them have any bearing on the data you are dealing with. Regardless of whether or not God is responsible for some rock existing has nothing to do with its composition.
            >Show atheists actual evidence that God actually exists and most would probably concede
            This is just something you made up on the spot, you don't have any data to back this. This goes back to what I was saying earlier, you don't care about evidence-based reasoning so you don't bother to provide evidence for your own claim.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is just something you made up on the spot, you don't have any data to back this. This goes back to what I was saying earlier, you don't care about evidence-based reasoning so you don't bother to provide evidence for your own claim.
            Anon, please read a book, this is a discussion for adults

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Disregarding your appeal to ignorance, its clearly evident that nothing said so far is registering. The fact of the matter is that God is the only one thing you can't disprove.
        So if you can't disprove it, it doesn't make sense to prove it. It defeats the whole point of why you have to prove it.
        Its not like you could discover or know that God does not exist.
        The atheist response to this is the teapot, that you can't know it does not exist either.
        But that's clearly false as you can disprove it with the help of God as he is all-powerful and all-sovereign.
        So they try to make up a God detector which is an oxymoron as God is by definition all-powerful and all-sovereign.
        So they move the goal post and claim that the teapot is by definition something you can't detect either.
        This line of logic leads to the impossibility of God's existence cause if such a teapot could exist, then God cannot exist as he wouldn't then be all-powerful or all-sovereign.
        Its like asking can be not God be all-powerful or all-sovereign?
        When you logic states that God cannot exist at all, then you've clearly lost.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >When you logic states that God cannot exist at all
          Because you can make up definitions

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Anon, I know everything you just said probably makes a lot of sense inside of your head, so I'm just going to leave you with it. I hope you grow up and learn to discuss things in good faith, and articulate arguments that are actually readable

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God cannot exist because I can make up definitions.
            Sure anon.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >burden of proof
    Literal hivemind mentality.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This thread is built for "we are stardust" copypasta.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with atheism is, that it stucked in modernism from which it was born, even though we live in postmodern era. Watching atheists discussing non-existence of god is like watching a historical movie full of known tropes.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >that it stucked in modernism from which it was born,
      Atheism as an ideology/philosophy is thousands of years old

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not the current "scientific" brand which is used. Who would use system devised by people who still had slavery, inequality, and other beliefs based on natural superstitions.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Who would use system devised by people who still had slavery, inequality, and other beliefs based on natural superstitions.
          Apparently christians do

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    For those unaware, "Quantized Redshift" is a largely debunked hypothesis that asserts galazies shift red relative to Earth in these sort-of quantized shells, and there is no actual mechanism put forth to even explain this, and it was often pushed by theists as evidence that the Earth/Milkey Way are the center of the universe. Its complete schizo nonesense

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Read Arp's book. You can't ignore quantization, especially in the light of direct connection between lower redshift galaxies with high redshift quasars. It has nothing to do with center of the universe, which doesn't exist because the Universe is infinite, they appear around the Earth because we are observing them FROM the Earth, dumbass. It's an indicator of INTRINSIC redshift.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Electric universe is bullshit anon let it go

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nice argument, now go read the frickin book lol

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I did, its bullshit

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh really? So how do you explain the luminous bridging?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Its nonesense. EU advocates, by necesity, need to reject Einsteins postulates, general relativity, and universal expansion. Furthermore, it also requires superliminal travel, gravity as a force with some kind of counterforce, some vague notion of an aether, stars light up not from internal reactions but from electric discharge, with the sun itself having a negative charge, its all nonesense that none of them bothered testing, elaborating on, or coming up with a cohesive model for. Its psudoscience

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, so you're gonna ignore my question?
            >Einsteins postulates, general relativity, and universal expansion
            Yes, those theories and hypotheses are rejected on grounds that they are either ad hoc, or do not sufficiently account for actual evidence (Gravitational lensing vs solar plasma lensing). But you wouldn't know that, because your only interaction with the EUT is "Professor" Dave on Youtube, isn't it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            "solar plasma lensing" is not even a thing
            >But you wouldn't know that, because your only interaction with the EUT is "Professor" Dave on Youtube, isn't it.
            I don't even know who this moron is, I just have an IQ above room tempurature

            And no, you have thus far given no valid reasoning against General relativity, in fact if you spent more time actually studying it, you'd find it actually makes intuitive sense, EU does not

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"solar plasma lensing" is not even a thing

            ?si=ncjKXShu3L_cOFoc
            Dr. Ed Dowdye has lots of good talks on solar plasma lensing, the explanation for why lensing of light is NOT a continual gradient of distance, but is found only at the plasma limb of a star. Again, you REALLY need to explore this topic more, you don't even know the major players in it.
            >And no, you have thus far given no valid reasoning against General relativity
            Steve Crothers. That is all. I'm not writing a dissertation for you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nope, sorry, he doesn't make any sense, he does a lot of assertations and rhetoric, but no cohesive models or testing. Gravitational lensing does make sense, its more intuitive and follows our cosmological models more closely.

            I have a question for you anon, why do you think EU has failed to attract any kind of mainstream scientific consensus? Do you believe there's some conspiracy against it? Is that how you honestly believe this works? Do you think a bunch of scientists one day, independently of eachother mind you, get together to dismiss EU for no reason? Because if you think this, you might have borderlined paranoid schizophrenia

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you have thus far given no valid reasoning against General relativity
            NTA but the universe being filled with mostly dark matter and energy is a pretty good refutation. It doesn't work on a cosmological scale. You don't get to create imaginary matter just to fill the margin of error. It's pseudo-scientific garbage.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dark matter and energy are not considered hard facts, they could be wrong. All we know is that the universe is behaving as if there’s a ton of mass that we can’t see

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >All we know is that the universe is behaving as if there’s a ton of mass that we can’t see
            Or general relativity doesn't work.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe anon, but it sounds like it works for everything else with that weird caveat. Though I’ll repeat, dark matter and energy are sort of placeholders and they’re not treated as absolute fact. We don’t have a unified theory yet.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >sounds like it works
            >doesn't work for 95% of the universe

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            't work for 95% of the universe
            You don't have a better model, stop coping. The standard model exists because its useful, EU exists purely out of spite and contrarianism

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't have a better model, stop coping
            Literally what religious people would have said when you questioned chariots pulling the sun or gods throwing down thunder bolts. Sorry but I don't believe in fairy tales just because you call them "science".

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think dark matter makes you skeptical because you associate dark with some kind of magic or mystery. It’s literally just called dark matter because it doesn’t reflect radiation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not the anon pushing EU btw, I'm merely trying to BTFO GR.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon it’s actually not surprising that a lot of mass doesn’t interact with EM radiation directly. It actually lenses light due to its gravitational effect.
            So there really is something there, it’s just not electrically charged like the matter you see in day to day life.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think dark matter makes you skeptical because you associate dark with some kind of magic or mystery. It’s literally just called dark matter because it doesn’t reflect radiation.

            It's equally valid for GR to be wrong as this hypothetical matter to exist. You don't get to just invent undetectable magical fairy dust because it saves the model. "Experts" agreeing doesn't make it right. It's quite correct to call it pseudo-science.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s not invented it is clearly interacting with gravity but not EM radiation. Neutrons and neutrinos also have this characteristic.
            IQfy really is a dunning-Kruger proof of concept

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >time and space are bending and warping
            >b-because they just are ok!
            >m-most of the observable universe disagrees?
            >there's something there, w-we just can't see it
            >t-the model totally works guys
            >>can't even be reconciled on the quantum scale
            lmao

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Time and space bend and warp in a way exactly they would as if something was there that doesn’t interact with EM radiation AKA has no electrical charge.

            Everything all around you is packed with particles that have no charge and don’t interact with light or radio waves or emit them so this isn’t exactly a mystical and amazing characteristic.
            It actually makes sense that emitting radiation and having energetic charge is a unique characteristic not shared by most stuff in this universe, being less impressive seems like it should be the default
            You also treat seeing something as if it should be the default when what it means is that the stuff you see actually has to have some energetic characteristics and doesn’t just exist.
            I’ll put in another way, if you had a point it’s weird that you aren’t claiming a Nobel Prize.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nobel Prize
            Obama won it, it doesn't mean anything. It's just a way to give "credibility" to people they choose. The whole scientific establishment is a sham.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s funny that this board full of people complaining about “degenerates” is also full of people without the brainpower to grasp matter without electrons, so superstitious and animal-brained that a fight or flight response gets activated when you put “dark” in front of a word.
            Literally so primitive that the concept of something exists you can’t see and don’t understand makes your heart beat faster.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I enjoy that he thinks electrically neutral particles are the magic ones meanwhile the particles making up the table that actually have an energetic charge are way weirder and more magical.
            He’s just not smart enough to get it, seems like he thinks being visible to the eye is default.

            >He’s just not smart enough to get it
            >full of people without the brainpower
            Don't confuse trust of the establishment with intelligence. Automatically believing everything "experts" tell you is the opposite of being rational. You're deep into the deception so I don't expect you to wake up, but your whole system is built on lies.

            The accepted model is essentially very complicated nonsense, designed to privilege specific biases, make unfalsifiable assumptions, lead intelligence into a dead end, and create a bunch of impenetrable semantics to bedazzle the average person. It's all garbage, all of it. Nothing more than stage magic and parlor tricks.

            But keep patting yourself on the back and being proud that you believe whatever wizards tell you reality is. This is slave/NPC mindset.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s not trust of the establishment anon I understand the concept of not having electrons but having mass.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I understand the concept of invisible fairies pulling stars around the sky. Doesn't make it reality. Theoretical physics is just that, theoretical.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Literally every atom has particles with no charge. Neutrinos are particles without charge passing through your body right now.
            You’re not even grasping the bigger picture that dark matter is less remarkable than matter you see with your eyes. It has fewer features and no energetic charge. It’s genuinely more boring and standard.
            And as another anon said this isn’t taken as total fact yet, but it is a very reasonable explanation for the he gravitational lensing we see and the way things flow in space.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This assumes that the claim is that dark matter definitely exists, which is a claim no one is making, just that it's the more likely hypothesis based on observations. The reason people think you're dumb is because you're criticising things you yourself don't really understand and thus you don't know how to form proper criticisms of them.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Look it would be actually more of a “this universe was created for humans” if everything that existed was visible to the human eye and radiation that we use in our daily lives. It’s much more of a case for “this universe just exists” that most stuff in this universe is basically inert mass doing nothing except taking up space and weighing something.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't get to just invent undetectable magical fairy dust because it saves the model.
            They did with the neutrino and that turned out to be right, so it's not unprecedented at all.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I enjoy that he thinks electrically neutral particles are the magic ones meanwhile the particles making up the table that actually have an energetic charge are way weirder and more magical.
            He’s just not smart enough to get it, seems like he thinks being visible to the eye is default.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    atheists try to weasel into the agnostic ship to escape their sinking ship but the thing is, there is clearly no God in the atheist worldview/belief, I'm afraid the same can't be said for agnostics.
    These people are more wishful than kids who believe in Santa!

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    for such a gifted man he sure allowed his prejudices to cloud his thinking on this one. his example is not a true comparison. there is no logical reason to assume a teapot orbits the sun but there is clearly a logical reason and reasonable argument to make to believe the universe was created. sadly many of middling intelligence still see this as some kind of 'gotcha' argument.

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I can totally say I believe there's a teapot in space I don't have to prove anything, not every statement is a scientific one.
    Atheists are truly 110IQ morons and there's something repulsive about egocentric neurotic midwits who think they figured out everything and still they wouldn't be able to fix a bicycle to save their lives.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why smart science man in picture think it's true that some guy walked on water 2000 years ago?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It is a misquote it's out of context in that image

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        maybe he figured out it was true

        It is a misquote it's out of context in that image

        >In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.

        • 2 months ago
          Rationalist

          I know what that quote means. I'm in on the secret and you aren't.

          You aren't ever gonna answer the question, are you?

          I'm not the anon you asked but, I don't think it's a meaningful question God's existence is unfalsifiable so true/false logic doesn't make sense. I will simply disbelieve in God/Santa unless I have a reason to start believing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            To say something is unfalsifiable is a meaningless claim as the very statement is unfalsifiable, cause in order for the claim to be falsifiable, what was purported to be unfalsifiable in the claim would first have to be falsifiable.
            Its also the equivalent of saying that space cannot be infinite because then there would be no boundary.
            But you do you, I will continue to disbelieve that God does not exist cause I'm not that wishful.

          • 2 months ago
            Rationalist

            >To say something is unfalsifiable is a meaningless claim as the very statement is unfalsifiable, cause in order for the claim to be falsifiable, what was purported to be unfalsifiable in the claim would first have to be falsifiable.
            Are you high? You can show God is not unfalsifiable and refute my claim by offering some way to test for his existence.
            >Its also the equivalent of saying that space cannot be infinite because then there would be no boundary.
            Stop doing analogies they are always wrong. It's more like claiming that I can't prove space is or isn't infinite because there is a boundary we can never see past. And because we can't prove true or false it remains a speculative thing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Show me how the claim that God is unfalsifiable is falsifiable.
            This will be fun.

          • 2 months ago
            Rationalist

            Simply show some way to test for the existence of God. Then we can say God is true/false and it's no longer unfalsifiable. I told you this already.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't ask you how to falsify God which is an oxymoron.
            How is the claim that God is unfalsifiable, falsifiable?
            Answer the question.

          • 2 months ago
            Rationalist

            If God is falsifiable, then God is not unfalsifiable.
            If God is not unfalsifiable, then "God is unfalsifiable" is false.
            So, simply show a way to test for God's existence. If you can't follow that I don't know what to tell you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can you just answer the question already?

          • 2 months ago
            Rationalist

            Can you try to clarify your question. I don't know how you failed to understand my answer.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hurry up Black person.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I can totally say I believe there's a teapot in space I don't have to prove anything
      And we are all within reason to not believe it, and laugh at you if you try to push that belief on us.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Santa.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don’t believe in Santa either lol
          Good analogy for religious gods though

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That doesn't answer the question doe.
            Isn't it too wishful to believe in something you can't know to be true? That God does not exist?
            Kids who believe in Santa are less wishful than that, you KNOW?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The correct analogy here would be you believe in Santa, I don’t and you’re acting like it’s a bigger leap of faith to not believe in Santa.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Let me repeat the question since it's clearly not registering.
            Isn't it too wishful to believe in something you can't know to be true? That God does not exist?
            (Kids who believe in Santa are less wishful than that, you KNOW?)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Isn't it too wishful to believe in something you can't know to be true? That God does exist?
            Kids who believe in Santa are less wishful than that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can know God Exists by him revealing himself. One would think you would already get the clue by now but eh.
            Now stop dodging the question like a typical slimy atheist weasel.

          • 2 months ago
            Rationalist

            >You can know God Exists by him revealing himself.
            How exactly does this work? I am pretty certain you can't know anything about whether God exists or not.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You aren't ever gonna answer the question, are you?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You can know God Exists by him revealing himself
            Right, and when he reveals himself to you, if someone walks in the room would they see him too?

          • 2 months ago
            Rationalist

            Isn't it too wishful to believe in something you can't know to be true? That God does exist?
            Kids who believe in Santa are less wishful than that.

            >Isn't it too wishful to believe in something you can't know to be true?
            See unfalsifiablity. That's what the teapot thing in the OP is all about. You should not have unfalsifiable beliefs, because you can't justify them.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Neither you, I or anyone starts from the assumption that everything anyone says is real, is real until proven otherwise. You claim a god from some religion exists and you want other people to believe it, you prove it and make your best case.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The proof of God is that universe cannot have an infinite past there couldn't have been not enough time for the present to happen yet before it did with an infinite past.
            Coupled with the fact that it couldn't have come from nothing.
            So why do atheists still exist you ask?
            Is it cause of ignorance? No, but because of indignity, which cannot be explained given atheism.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            *past as there

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didn’t say im an atheist because I’m not, the universe did not come from nothing even according to atheists, most models don’t have an infinite past though a cyclical universe is considered.
            This is not proof of the Christian god even if the universe just popped into existence or the past isn’t infinite.
            Even if an intelligent being created the universe from nothing that is not proof of the Christian god.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Christian God
            There is not such thing, Christians believe in the ultimate one and only God. He is God for everyone and everything, he's not "the God of the Christians".

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You wouldn’t need to pre-suppose this if you had a good case to make. If Christians were correct they would have prayers answered at least sometimes and would appear like occasionally successful wizards and magicians compared to non-Christians.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >they would have prayers answered at least sometimes
            They do. It happened plenty of times.
            But unrepentant people just choose to keep not believing and just say "you can't prove it", "it was a coincidence" etc.
            It's told and retold in the Bible a lot of homies won't believe. They will only believe at the second coming of Christ because they will see with their own eyes. Amen, so be it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They do. It happened plenty of times.
            Oh please, you can’t even lift a pebble with prayer. Grow up.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            just google "miracles" you lazy c**t.
            And prayers != magical powers even a moron can get that

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And prayers != magical powers
            Do you even go to church or know Christians in real life? Is this just an internet LARP to you? Christians sincerely believe they can call on god to interfere with the normal machinations of reality and it will sometimes work.
            To people on the outside that would look like magic if it actually worked.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Christians sincerely believe they can call on god to interfere with the normal machinations of reality and it will sometimes work
            Uhm no maybe some hypercharismatic redneck belies that but I have no familiarity with those types.
            The main reason why Christians pray is to get an intimate connection with God, and there are different types of prayers (prayers of thankfulness, forgiveness, deliverance from evil, intercession for some loved people, etc.). And yes you can ask for something (without tempting God) for you life but only expect an answer if what you're asking is in God's plans.
            I got my prayers answered many times and I could tell you what happened in detail, but you will not believe and it's not scientifically provable.
            Aside from religion, snap out of the reductionist midwit trap and realise that plenty of things in life don't pertain to science: love, emotions, consciousness, art, music, literature among many others.
            >b-but emotions are just chemicals in the brain
            no they aren't

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, seriously. Bunch of Christian thinks they can get God to magic up worldly favours for them in exchange for prayers
            Look it up, they're crazy

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Christians sincerely believe they can call on god to interfere with the normal machinations of reality and it will sometimes work
            Not sometimes, always, if the supplicant knows what he's doing.

            To be fair, you need to be a really high IQ Christian to realize God doesn't do stuff we can observe in the physical world anymore.
            This is 2024, not the apostolic period.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah some Christians might believe that but it's very very far from the majority since you automatically cut off the teachings of Catholic, Orthodox and most protestant churches.

            [...]
            To be fair, you need to be a really high IQ Christian to realize God doesn't do stuff we can observe in the physical world anymore.
            This is 2024, not the apostolic period.

            >God doesn't do stuff we can observe in the physical world anymore
            AHEM

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Christians sincerely believe they can call on god to interfere with the normal machinations of reality and it will sometimes work
            Not sometimes, always, if the supplicant knows what he's doing.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >he's back

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is exactly why I despise when Dark Matter is ever brought up in a serious light. It's the biggest cope ever.
    "Guys, we totally understand how everything works. Our theories work perfectly if you assume that 90% of the universe is made up of this completely undetectable substance."

    Why can't we just go back to admitting that we hardly know anything about how the universe works.

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    All of the pro-god arguements ITT hold true for every single hypothetical omnipotent god. So if they were to be correct, the chance that the abrahamitic god is the real one is very slim (not to mention the obviously made up contradictory bullshit in abrahamitic scriptures).

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheism is limited by the same false dialectic that normative monotheist theologies have promulgated for millennia.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >word salad

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >word salad
        Not at all. I'll simplify it for you. Atheism is a rejection of two ideas:
        >1. The absurd projection of human sentience onto deities (God cares, God judges etc...).
        >2. The false premise enforced by the Abrahamic faiths, and even certain varieties of Buddhism ('This God / Wisdom negates all others, and you deserve to suffer for not accepting it').
        Atheism is an entirely irrelevant position in monist (AKA cosmotheist or pantheist) contexts. When one strips away primitive anthropomorphization, and all the self-insistent nonsense and circular logic that counter-religions have imposed on notions of the sacred or divine, atheism shows itself to be just as deluded and short-sighted as the beliefs it rejects.

        Atheism is so focused on dismantling primitive ideas of godhood, and the arguments presented by Abrahamic monotheism, that it is inextricably linked to and wholly dependent on them. Due to this dynamic, atheism is itself a kind of counter-religion, the very thing which its proponents detest most.

Comments are closed.