Science Defeated Religion

Stephen Hawking said this:
>Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation... I'm an atheist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

He was right.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >OP understands science

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      My understanding of science is very limited. But I think his point is that we don't need to use speculations like "God" anymore. We should look at HARD EVIDENCE, which is what science does.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        OP confirmed underage. I adapted his views when I first read the history of time in my teens and started reddit tier atheism but over time I realize religion is only thing we need to get rid of homosexualry and degeneration

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I had to start believing in god to stop being gay

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >we need religion for [my political views]
          I don't care what purposes you want to use religion for. The only relevant question is whether religion is true or false.

          I think it's false, made up, fictional, not real.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Atheism, like religion, is a social construct. It’s made up, fictional, and not real. Same as science.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >being aware that social constructs are not real
            >...is also le not real
            fedoras get a lot of flak but this would be a pretty gay edgy take if you actually believed it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Science seems to be real, unlike God.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Here's your based right-wing church bro.

          ?si=aGrKH5VPhkwQobMH

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Do you watch porn?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Used to. But not anymore

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's easy to solve a problem when the solution creates it retroactively. You hate things that are different that is fine, but do you have to create this cosmic lore to annoy people instead of just leaving people alone?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >we need HARD EVIDENCE
        >Renormalization? What's that?
        >Problem of Induction? What's that?
        >Munchhausen Trilemma? What's that?
        Keep slurping that goyslop, boy.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >hurr durr we can't actually ever know anything at all
          Yes it is clear enough that this science b***h is being manipulated by motivated liars to castrate their intellectual capacity and train them not to think at all

          not you though, no sir; you can be as certain of that as you can be about anything.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    lol it's exactly this meme

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Prove that our consciousness moves to an afterlife after death then. Go on.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You don't understand the latter has some abstract "proof" that the former doesn't

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Of course neither of them are proven, he is constructing a straw man by pretending that all atheists believe we live in a simulation.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The point is that the notion we live in a simulation is heavily promoted by pop science celebrities like Stephen Hawking who claim it's impossible that the universe was created by an intelligent being

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=Light
    https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=Long&q1=Light
    us atheists don't believe in science, we're non-believers

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Many atheists believe in the reliability of science

      "Science" (academia) has actually lost a lot of ground in terms of credibility thanks to some of its more preposterous claims:

      * Sex isn't real, you can become a woman by identifying as one
      * Darwinian evolution for everything except humans; race isn't real, tabula rasa for us
      * Climate change alarmism that basically amounts to secular eschatology

      From a purely objective standpoint, "science" (academia) is less credible than Christianity, since there's a greater than zero likelihood that God exists more-or-less as described in the Bible and that Christ is the Messiah, whereas the likelihood that identifying as a woman makes you one is precisely zero.

      Frick off leave

      The point is that the notion we live in a simulation is heavily promoted by pop science celebrities like Stephen Hawking who claim it's impossible that the universe was created by an intelligent being

      Did Hawking promote the simulation theory? I'm not aware of him doing so, though he could have.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Frick off leave

        Not an argument.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "Science" (academia) has actually lost a lot of ground in terms of credibility thanks to some of its more preposterous claims:

    * Sex isn't real, you can become a woman by identifying as one
    * Darwinian evolution for everything except humans; race isn't real, tabula rasa for us
    * Climate change alarmism that basically amounts to secular eschatology

    From a purely objective standpoint, "science" (academia) is less credible than Christianity, since there's a greater than zero likelihood that God exists more-or-less as described in the Bible and that Christ is the Messiah, whereas the likelihood that identifying as a woman makes you one is precisely zero.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >whereas the likelihood that identifying as a woman makes you one is precisely zero
      Hey would the likelihood of that be zero of magic is real? Perhaps one could argue that the accidents are male but the substance is female.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God i.e. "intelligent design" is just another fringe hypothesis like miasma, souls, the 4 elements & aether, the world of forms or the 5 humours.
    It is ultimately unnecessary with our current understanding of the world derived from our latest scientific observations.

    We live in a uncreated transformative nominalistic world.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >God i.e. "intelligent design" is just another fringe hypothesis like miasma, souls, the 4 elements & aether, the world of forms or the 5 humours.
      I definitely agree with this.

      >We live in a uncreated... world
      Perhaps. Or maybe it was created, but we don't know that yet. It could be created, or uncreated. I think the only way we will find out is by doing more science.

      The ideas that Julius Caesar existed and 2+2=4 are just fringe hypotheses because these conclusions aren't derived from empirical science.

      Both of them come from empirical EVIDENCE. We believe Caesar existed due to EVIDENCE.

      And yes in my view even 2 + 2 = 4 comes from evidence. "2 + 2 = 4" describes a way in which the empirically observed universe behaves.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The ideas that Julius Caesar existed and 2+2=4 are just fringe hypotheses because these conclusions aren't derived from empirical science.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The idea that magic israelites who split oceans, walk on water and fly into space are empirical and backed by the scientific method

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What differentiates Julius Caesar from Jesus of Nazareth, King Arthur or Romulus & Remus is the credibility & plausibility of their existence through historical and archeological records and the amount of mysticism/fantastical claims surrounding them which works to their discredit.

    History is merely the archeological study of written records & the attempt at establishing a coherent plausible temporality & course of events through dating.
    We work through consensus actively questioning them whenever we become aware of new elements.
    >we can never be sure!!!!
    There is a point where the evidence is so present and undeniable that it is futile and unreasonable to further question.
    Did WW2 happen? No one is questioninh gthat especially with remaining living evidence.
    Of course we'll always have uncertainty especially with finer details due the nature of information of being simplified, corrupted, exaggerated, incomplete or lost. But it remains so we have to draw a line for clarity and the least we can do is make it the least arbitrary possible by reviewing possibility & credence.

    Julius Caesar's existence is heavily supported by dated artefacts, art & mentions in literature from the era he is determined to have lived in accordance to the events that occured.
    Jesus's case he only appears in records years after his supposed life, the credibility of the texts is questionable with heavy mysticism beyond one given to a typical historical figure more akin to myth than legend. Beyond the supernatural claims there could have been a hellenized rabbi named Yeshua preaching his sect of judaism and later becoming mystified by his followers. But that wouldn'y be "Jesus Christ" to you, right? Your "Jesus Christ" figure walking on water & resurrecting from the dead is obviously non credible and fabricated.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Beyond the supernatural claims there could have been a hellenized rabbi named Yeshua preaching his sect of judaism and later becoming mystified by his followers.
      Indeed, I think historians generally think Jesus existed, but that doesn't mean he was the son of God. He was probably just a preacher who gained a following.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why am i suppose to give a frick what a moronic Epstein's friend says?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This tbh.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This tbh.

      He was far smarter than you will ever be

      >Frick off leave

      Not an argument.

      It is actually

      >we need HARD EVIDENCE
      >Renormalization? What's that?
      >Problem of Induction? What's that?
      >Munchhausen Trilemma? What's that?
      Keep slurping that goyslop, boy.

      >Problem of Induction
      Do you think the sun won't rise tomorrow?

      Science is pozzed

      Science is our best method for understanding the universe

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >he was smart because he associated himself with a sex trafficker and talked a lot about secularslop using his zany computer voice

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Science is pozzed

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    As an atheist, it's not theism I have beef with. It's Judaism, Christianity, and Islam for being fricking moronic religions that produce fricking moronic apes.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >worked along the catholic church
    >survives several decades despite his condition
    >comes to the conclusion that god is not real
    >dies not a long time after that

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation, that once for no reason at all there was a big explosion and it created all laws of the universe
    wow bravo science

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *