Anonymous 03/30/15 (Mon) 05:54:16 8202be No. 5862
ITT: created by a loving god
Anonymous 03/30/15 (Mon) 07:30:35 1dbd11 No. 5864
Yeah, we know. You're not trolling /christian/. What are you trying to prove?
Anonymous 03/30/15 (Mon) 20:50:07 c897a0 No. 5876
>>5864 created by a loving god
Anonymous 03/30/15 (Mon) 20:54:22 a9a514 No. 5878
>>5876 She was obviously created to satisfy plolygomous men. God doesn't make mistakes.
Anonymous 03/30/15 (Mon) 22:07:55 1dbd11 No. 5880
>>5876 It's a good thing that god doesn't create anything.
Anonymous 03/30/15 (Mon) 22:15:17 6871f3 No. 5881
File: 1427753717896.jpg (67.29 KB, 339x599, 339:599, 339px-Wüger_Steiner_Herz-J….jpg )
God's love is for the individual but even more for the greater or greatest good. 'Imperfect' natural biological evolution could be for the benefit of the greater good and that would necessitate the need for a few to suffer the consequences.
Anonymous 03/30/15 (Mon) 23:39:17 f227ef No. 5882
>>5881 If that's true then that means God's power is limited.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 00:19:59 6871f3 No. 5884
>>5882 Yes, self-limited.
>>>/jesus/
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 02:13:15 8202be No. 5889
>So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
/jesus/ 03/31/15 (Tue) 02:16:26 6871f3 No. 5890
>>5889 What percentage of the population are afflicted like that?
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 02:24:36 a9a514 No. 5891
Wonder what her IQ is. Imagine if she had a fight with a giant of a husband.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 03:22:52 a3f532 No. 5896
>>5876 She should date that guy from plebbit with two dicks.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 03:26:55 a3f532 No. 5897
>>5884 So he voluntarily limited his own powers such that he had to create horribly painful deformities, instead of not limiting his power and creating a world free of such suffering. If he really is omnipotent why wouldn't he make or change the rules so the world could get all the benefits but no drawbacks?
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 03:28:12 a3f532 No. 5898
>>5891 He must have the tiniest dick.
/jesus/ 03/31/15 (Tue) 03:44:42 6871f3 No. 5902
>>5897 Because there are already perfect worlds with no suffering; horribly painful deformities is a small price to pay for the benefits of natural evolution.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 03:55:38 a3f532 No. 5904
>>5902 If God is omnipotent why didn't he create this world with no suffering but with the benefits of natural evolution?
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 03:57:48 a9a514 No. 5905
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play. >>5904 Spiderman works in mysterious ways
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 03:59:10 69c3c0 No. 5907
I think the presumption in this thread is that if someone is not perfect, if someone has physical deformities they are less than human, or they don't deserve to exist, or are a burden. This is one of the things I find most distasteful about this argument and those who espouse it. a mistake . What a terrible terrible way to look at your fellow human just because her body or mind is different from yours. What a despicable mindset that says she is less perfect than you are.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 04:03:36 a3f532 No. 5908
>>5907 >I think the presumption in this thread is that if someone is not perfect, if someone has physical deformities they are less than human, or they don't deserve to exist, or are a burden. You are wrong. Such deformities are usually physically painful. They are
always emotionally painful, because such conditions affect the way most people treat you and you feel terrible about yourself. They also tend to make life difficult in general. Maybe nobody has told you this but disabilities are called that for a reason. God could create a world where someone gets treated as well as you describe in heaven
without forcing a person to suffer in this life. Why would he force someone to suffer at all? What could possibly be gained by it, when an omnipotent being could change the rules so it doesn't have to be that way?
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 04:12:21 69c3c0 No. 5909
>>5908 >You are wrong. Such deformities are usually physically painful. They are always emotionally painful, because such conditions affect the way most people treat you and you feel terrible about yourself. there are many disabled people who, even with painful defomaties are much happier than supermodels. What is twisted is not Gods workmanship but your values and your judging of the worth of your fellow men, the ones who are disabled.
you didn't get the story of St Germane, you look and you think its wrong because you are judging by your warped system of values where everyone should be beautiful had have the same IQ and same number of limbs etc. God doesn't see it that way, he values what's in the heart, not these things you do. That's why St. Germanes body was made incorruptible, because even though people find it deformed and hideous, to God that was beautiful and perfect.
For example, check out this site, answers to why god doesn't heal amputees, and then scroll to the very bottom of a personal testimony to hear the testimony of a mother that raised a horribly disabled child, and how rewarding it was, and how valuable and loved and loving that child was
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-heal-amputees.html you can also look up statistics, the happiest people in America are those who work with disabled and mentally ill people.
What you think is burdensome and terrible God thinks is beautiful and perfect. A person doesn't become less perfect just bcause their IQ is lower, or they have no limbs or etc.
They may get treated badly by some of their more horrible peers but that's no reason they shouldn't exist. In fact they often get and give the most love to those who are close to them.
Seriously, let go of this armchair theorizing for once, and talk to someone who has seriously disabled children, volunteer at a place for the disabled, learn about these people and see that they are not mistakes to be erased
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 05:15:14 a9a514 No. 5911
>>5909 Lmao where do you get these statistics? That's why so many of those parents don't murder are put up for adoption right? Or why the majority of teenagers on those illicit online adoption BBS in America have psychological or developmental problems?
That's why he creates so many retarded babies?
Okay, my grandmother's husband has a kid with Aspergers who he pretty much disowned and ignores. My father's ex-girlfriend had a retarded kid who would throw temper tantrums who she would abuse, but who she kept for the government handouts. The posts on forums I've seen read are realistic and see disabled family members as burdens. For instance you might love your blind sister, but she has the potential to be a burden on you for the rest of your life.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 05:16:51 70d999 No. 5912
>>5907 >I think the presumption in this thread is that if someone is not perfect, if someone has physical deformities they are less than human, or they don't deserve to exist, or are a burden. That's definitely not the case (it seems especially unlikely that anyone in this thread thinks that considering whose website we're on). What we're actually doing is expressing sympathy with people who have to live with disabilities and an acknowledgement of their struggles.
>>5909 >there are many disabled people who, even with painful defomaties are much happier than supermodels. What is twisted is not Gods workmanship but your values and your judging of the worth of your fellow men, the ones who are disabled. Don't pull that bullshit. The fact that
some disabled people are happier than
some supermodels is irrelevant. The point is that almost any handicapped person would, ceteris paribus, be better off not being handicapped. Just ask yourself, would you be better off blind or not blind? Paralyzed or able to move freely?
Actually if you read it carefully, she doesn't say anything about loving the child or being loved by him. She just talks about how she feels like she was chosen by God to raise these kids in Christianity. The only thing she says about love is that she'll teach them to love God. It actually comes across to me as quite creepy and cultish. Also
Fucking seriously? Yep, God invented prosthetics and taught people how to perform surgery. That stuff is in the Bible, right? Don't thank the scientists or doctors who devoted their lives to figuring this stuff out, God just gave them the knowledge they needed.
Or you can back up your own claims by providing them. There's an idea.
Assuming this
is true, more power to those people for doing what they love and helping those in need. But I wouldn't say that the pleasure they gain from doing it somehow justifies the pain of those they seek to help and I doubt they would be comfortable with that idea either.
You call us disgusting but I find what you're trying to do repulsive. You're trying to dismiss the suffering of people born with disabilities by saying "Durr, it's okay because that stuff doesn't matter anyway because you'll get loved a lot probably."
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 06:49:51 1dbd11 No. 5920
>>5904 Something something 'test', something something 'free will'.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 06:51:46 1dbd11 No. 5921
>>5912 >Fucking seriously? Yep, God invented prosthetics and taught people how to perform surgery. That stuff is in the Bible, right? Don't thank the scientists or doctors who devoted their lives to figuring this stuff out, God just gave them the knowledge they needed. Didn't you know? If you do something good, then you couldn't have done that without God. God literally put that knowledge into your brain, but if you do something bad, that's free will.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 08:02:09 a9a514 No. 5922
>>5921 If God created the universe, then he also created the good and evil within it. There is no reason to suppose he favors good over evil, other than the bible claims it is so. Let's reverse one word in your sentences to show how it takes the premise of a benevolent God for granted:
If you do something BAD, then you couldn't have done that without God. God literally put the knowledge of within my brain, and if I do something GOOD, that's free will.
vs:
tl;dr: If God created me and good and evil, then when I do something bad I actually couldn't have done THAT without God originally causing it. And if God made me do evil, I don't see why I should want to worship him.
/jesus/ 03/31/15 (Tue) 08:48:31 6871f3 No. 5923
>>5922 God created the potential of evil, but insomuch as you discern good vs evil then it is your free will choice to choose either.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 14:43:28 69c3c0 No. 5932
>>5912 >>5912 >Don't pull that bullshit. The fact that some disabled people are happier than some supermodels is irrelevant. The point is that almost any handicapped person would, ceteris paribus, be better off not being handicapped. Just ask yourself, would you be better off blind or not blind? Paralyzed or able to move freely? If you ask anyone, everyone would say that they would be better off with a billion dollars an if they looked like a supermodel. Does that mean it's true.
Everybody suffers, is the suffering of a disabled person so much worse than the suffering of a model who can't find true love, or a neckbeard on /atheism/. That's the point of life, there are moments of happiness and moments of suffering. Your argument amounts to "we should put them out of their misery" which is pretty sick and it's a weird assumption that you make that these people are in constant misery, I will write that up to your lack of world experience and lack of knowledge about humanity.
your attuitude is no different from a /pol/lack saying if god is real why do black people exist. It's motivated by prejudice and the belief that certain people shouldn't exist. You have reached the level of moral perversion in which you believe that this is a sign of goodness or moral sympathy on your part because you are just that morally twisted, but yes the value system is based on something so evil and twisted that you think you are a good person for wishing the disabled out of existence.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 16:49:57 a9a514 No. 5936
>>5932 Found statuefag. Expects future posts from this fellow to be total flame bait and, and Strawmans not worthy of a response.
No one said anything about putting them out of their misery, although I personally think the parent's should be allowed to euthanize at an early age if the disabilities are known to be severe. It's quite easy to have another child or adopt nowadays. No need to force a parent to waste twenty or thirty years raising a retarded, hot tempered and suffering baby at considerable expense. You're the one arguing from a position of ignorance because there absolutely are babies that suffer tremendously, and bring suffering to those burdened with caring for them. They are much more costly to raise than normal babies.
Your pre-emptive attempt to weasle our of admiting the ir degree of suffering by suggesting they aren't always in constant misery is lame. Yeah they're not in misery if we dope the baby up enough that he's too numb to feel pain or know where he is. Maybe they even have nice dreams and the rest of their life is suffering? What an enviable life to ride around in wheel chairs with helmets on your head while eating your own shit when you're 21. Why aren't you wishing God had given you such a great life so you could bring happiness to those who have to care for you? I can just hear their prayers now….
"Oh Almighty God, thank you for giving me a retarded mutant that will be a burden on society forever. In your great judgement you did more for me by blessing me with a disabled child that is incapable of caring for me in my old age, or even recognizing I'm his parent. We should just thank you for every shitty thing you do. Thank you God for the broken leg, for the wife's alimony, for the robber who looted my house, for the thunderstorm that killed my best friend. Praise be to him, hallelujah, amen. May God bless."
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 21:20:45 70d999 No. 5943
>>5932 >Your argument amounts to "we should put them out of their misery" > It's motivated by prejudice and the belief that certain people shouldn't exist. >>5936 I think you're right, anon.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 22:11:49 f227ef No. 5947
>>5923 If God is omnipotent he could create free will in a way that doesn't necessitate evil. If God is omnibenevolent he would avoid creating evil.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 22:16:45 69c3c0 No. 5949
>>5936 >Your pre-emptive attempt to weasle our of admiting the ir degree of suffering by suggesting they aren't always in constant misery is lame. Well see, I have this friend, he's 6 foot tall, /fit/ and rich and a scientist he happens to think your life is worthless, and your life is constant suffering because you can't get girls or live comfortably.
See how that works
The problem is you lack the humanity to recognize that just because someone has a disability, doesn't mean their life is constant suffering or worthless.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 22:26:40 fbb456 No. 5950
>>5949 What an indefensible argument and you offer no evidence any minor benefit of the retards outweigh their costs. The budren of proof lies on you to support your case, but who am I kidding? There's no need to dignify you with an intelligent response from now on.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 22:28:05 f227ef No. 5952
>>5932 You're getting everything twisted. The reason atheists bring up and talk about birth defects isn't because of prejudiced. It's to reinforce two arguments, the problem of evil and stupid design.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 22:27:55 69c3c0 No. 5953
>>5950 >hat an indefensible argument and you offer no evidence any minor benefit of the retards outweigh their costs. Just as you can offer no evidence that the benefit of your existence outweighs the costs
At least the retard has things like compassion
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 22:29:16 69c3c0 No. 5954
>>5952 I realize that but what it shows is that you have a twisted sense of values because you think people with disabilities are a result of evil or fault or stupid design. That's a pretty cruel and harsh way of looking at your fellow human being.
And as such it's not so much an argument for the non-existence of God but the callous evil of many atheists.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 22:37:19 fbb456 No. 5955
>>5953 Statuefag, you literally picked one quote from a solid argument and responded without anything to counter the theme that these kids suffer and contribute nothing. You did not support your case and failed to meet the burden of proof. Please learn how to debate or keep silent with when your elders are talking.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 22:40:38 fbb456 No. 5956
>>5954 I posit these crippled babies are either
1) proof intelligent design is flawed
2) indications a powerful God is capable of doing sadistic evil just like Satan.
Over a counter to both arguments or be gone.
Anonymous 03/31/15 (Tue) 22:41:26 f227ef No. 5957
>>5954 >you think people with disabilities are a result of evil or fault or stupid design. Not true, as we don't believe in God. We are just reasonable enough to acknowledge that if God did exists than the existence of birth defects say a lot about him. God is either too stupid to know how to design the world in a way to prevent them, is so cruel that he allows them to happen or he's so powerless in the face of what cases them he can't stop them.
You'd call us evil for critiquing your God? Especially in the face of your God's glaring flaws? That's a pretty cruel and harsh way of looking at your fellow human being.
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 02:01:23 438661 No. 5963
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play. Here's an entire youtube channel devoted to one of God's miracles.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Grlc17/videos
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 02:09:26 438661 No. 5965
File: 1427854166620.jpg (108.64 KB, 876x773, 876:773, If you plant it, they will….jpg )
>>5963 From "Discussion" tab.
The last video was posted 2 years ago.
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 02:17:35 a3f532 No. 5968
>>5920 Something something an omnipotent being could change the rules.
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 02:31:02 69c3c0 No. 5971
>>5955 burden of proof is on you nigga, you are positing these human beings contribute nothing, prove it Or I made it simpler, prove that based on a burden to benefit ratio, they produce less benefit per increment of burden than you do.
>>5956 I posit
posting is not an argument you mental cripple, arguement requires reasons which you haven't produced. Which was the whole point I was making in this thread. You have brought nothing to show these people are less valuable or less good other than 'muh feels'
>>5957 lets just assume your conclusion, lets assume God doesn't exist.
for your arguement to work, you would have to show that even if God didn't exist, these people are the result of a flaw or mistake. and their existence is a cruel joke. I don't think you have proved that, I don't think everyone would agree with that, and I think most reasonable people would say you have a twisted sense of values for thinking that.
get it yet?
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 03:05:12 f227ef No. 5977
>>5971 >for your arguement to work, you would have to show that even if God didn't exist, these people are the result of a flaw or mistake. and their existence is a cruel joke. Nope, the argument doesn't hinge on that. How would that even work? "even if God didn't exist, these people are the result of a flaw or mistake." The fuck am I reading? If God doesn't exist that means people are at the mercy of blind chaotic nature, and it's in mankind's best interest to control nature the best we can. Because if we don't, who will? The universe doesn't love us or want to help us, it doesn't even know we exist, it can't. It's up to us to love ourselves and help ourselves.
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 04:28:15 69c3c0 No. 5981
>>5977 I don't know if you guys are intentionally being difficult, confusing yourselves through language or just really stupid.
let's sort things through here and go through the logic slowly
let's imagine Tom is disabled, let's say he has down syndrome
you claim the following
if God exists
1. Tom is
1. a mistake
2. the result of an imperfect creator
-drawing implications
1. result of imperfect creator = implies =Tom is an imperfect creation
2. mistake = implies = Tom flawed
so if God exists Tom is flawed and imperfect.
if Tom is flawed an imprefect, this suggests there is an ideal version of Tom, if Tom is flawed in some way, than he is other than he would be without the flaw and less than he would be without the flaw. This implies there is a version of Tom that lacks the flaw of down syndrome, a Tom who is of average intelligence, This is what Tom would be if he were prefect and not flawed.
So if God exists, the ideal person would be perfect and not flawed, which we seem to define as average body type and average intelligence.
Now imagine the same senario where God doesn't exist
is Tom still flawed and imperfect? Is there still an ideal perfect version which Tom should be?
If your answer is no, and that tom is flawed and imperfect when God exists but not when God doesn’t exist/ we have a strange pradox. You are saying that in a world with God, there is an Ideal version of what Tom should be, a version without down syndrome, but in a world without God, there is no such ideal version, there is not verison without down syndrome and Tom is no longer flawed. Why so, why Is the possibility of a Tom without down syndrome contingent on the existence of God? That is not logical.
Our intution is that whether we consider something or someone flawed or not is contingent on God's existence. Nobody goes to a drug addict and says you are incredibility flawed if God exists, but hey, if he doesn’t you’re just you, and it’s cool. Why, because we know drug addiction is a flaw whether God exists or not, and we know this is how flaws work, they are not contigent on God. So when you say brith defects are a flaw if God exists but not if he doesn’t you are making a very strange and counter intuitive claim.
also it is depressing that I have to type all this out because atheism is the only board that needs everything that is obvious and simple spelled out for it, for people that consider the disabled inferior or "retards" many of you are either lacking in IQ or profoundly autistic
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 04:29:23 69c3c0 No. 5982
>>5981 For the sake of this argument, let's keep going on the nature of flaws
Imagine this, my coffee cup has a flaw, it has a hole in the bottom that makes it leak. Is this flaw contingent on God's existance. No whether we live in a world without God or with God, my coffee cup would be flawed. And this is the way with all objects we can agree are flawed or imprefect. For example my chair that wobbles, my broken fence, flaws are flaws whether God exits or not. We don't have a world in which Christians think a leaky coffee cup is not a flaw and atheists do. Because we recognize flaws as something that has independent existance not contingent on God. Which is strange because with regards to Tom you are claiming the opposite, you claim his birth defect is a flaw if God exists, but suddently not a flaw if God doesn't exist. This is a strange paradoxical conclusion. Why is this flaw contingent on God's existance - is there something different about Tom or down sydnrome om a universe where God exists as opposed to one where he doesn't. No the character of these things are the same. . . so how do you posit that it is a flaw in one universe and not in the other.
Let's go back to my coffee cup. With my coffee cup it has a strict purpose, it has to be able to hold coffee. If it cannot do that, it is flawed and imperfect.
Lets go to Tom, what is a Human being's purpose. Is it to have a certain IQ? Is it to be able to perform certain tasks? Is any human being that cannot do the given set of tasks or get a certain score on IQ tests flawed. What is a man to you. Are we no more than an object, a coffee cup, a tool that must accomplish things. Does not a man have intrinsic value,
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 05:25:57 55eba8 No. 5984
>>5982 God, you really are fucking stupid.
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 05:36:49 f227ef No. 5985
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play. >>5981 >>5982 I never once implied that if God doesn't exist then people's flaws don't either. How the in the hell you even drew such a ridiculous conclusion I'll never know. Holy fucking shit.
Independent of God's existence or non-existence down syndrome is undesirable and abnormal.
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 05:58:24 69c3c0 No. 5987
>>5985 here
>>5977 fuck will atheists for once be objective, 'undesirable'
to whom 'abnormal'
compared to what fuck I included these points above, the whole thing about Tom - and the nature of flaws and the fact that it implied the possibility of a more perfect unflawed version and also of a purpose to the objects existence that the flaw impedes.
but you guys don't seem to have that capacity to participate in logic based nuanced debate, you just spit out emotionally loaded opinions based on subjective feelings.
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 06:08:17 69c3c0 No. 5988
>>5985 >>5987 maybe I should repeat this because you really are not following - and you assume that means you are smart and not because you lack understanding making it harder for you to actually grasp the train of though
1. you said that birth defects mean god is flawed
2. I replied, for that arguement to work, you would have to show that these brith defects are flaws even if God doesn't exist
3. you said what no, the fuck am I reading, if God doesn't exist everything is chaotic -
4. I explained to you here
>>5981 with the paragraph concluding
get it, if a brith defect is evidence of a flawed createor, that would imply that it is a flaw and a flaw would be a flaw with or without the existance of a creator
so if you call it a flaw if a creator does exist
but then don't think of it in that way if a creator does exist, your position is a paradox for the reasons described here
>>5981 for your argument to work, (you know the original one that you in your argumentativeness and pride have forgotten about
>>5957 the flaws and defects that make evidence of a flawed or powerless god should also be flaws without God
and if you can't say that you are trapped in the paradox decried here
>>5981
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 20:01:52 f227ef No. 6003
>>5987 >>5988 I don't have to (and I'm not going to) defend a position that I don't hold. You can't just twist my words around to say they mean something other than what I said.
What you are doing is called a straw man fallacy. Instead of addressing my actual points and my actual argument, you've just misrepresented, misinterpreted and exaggerated them into something else. It's at the point where you're not arguing with me anymore. You're arguing with your own invention, you're arguing with yourself.
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 20:23:10 69c3c0 No. 6005
>>6003 Its not a straw man fallacy when I quote exactly what you said
its a simple premise aint it
either you believe that these people are flawed without the existence of God or you do not believe that these people are flawed in the absence of god
You said no they aren't and then I raped you on it, and no you are trying to backpeddle and claim you didnt say that.
Maybe the problem here is you are not really even trying to say anything, your original premise about disabilities being evidence of flawed God has been BTFO so now you are saying anything to avoid being wrong.
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 20:37:15 52a9e1 No. 6006
Religion survives because its as plastic as the people who believe in it. Do you think any Christian would have defended these poor humans three hundred years ago? No. They would have been cast out and called witches, the result of "sin". Now that Christians understand that genetics exist, they had to morph their beliefs into something that included that, hence this thread.
/jesus/ 04/02/15 (Thu) 02:20:29 6871f3 No. 6020
>>6006 So religion evolves in morality and maturity as civilization/culture advances and scientific knowledge progresses.. so what?
The fact that various religions naturally evolve within humanity says little about any one particular religion and the quality of truth or wisdom of that religion's essence.
Religions are not static and the fact some unenlightened people may use religion for evil purposes does not negate the value of religion as a phenomena nor does it disprove the existence of a good God.
Anonymous 04/02/15 (Thu) 04:59:56 a9a514 No. 6023
>>6020 It does cast doubt that Christianity has been following the divine will of God at any point in the last 2,000 years. In fact, the further we get in history the less likely we are to follow whatever the founders had in mind, animal sacrifices and all.
Anonymous 04/02/15 (Thu) 05:12:56 69c3c0 No. 6024
>>6023 yeah /jesus/ you just have to understand things right, sicence is right because it's self-correcting, and religion is wrong when it is self-correcting. It's because whenever religion does something, we call it bad, and pretend it's not because of a bias.
Anonymous 04/02/15 (Thu) 10:00:25 d7b8fd No. 6025
>>6024 You'd love to equate the two, but science actually works towards discerning truth whereas religions are only in it for the tradition & donations. They only correct themselves for good PR. Have Muslims "self-corrected" to the times or are some following Sharia Law in all it's shittiness? Yeah.
Anonymous 04/03/15 (Fri) 17:14:48 a3ff3e No. 6066
>>6020 >claim to be the perfect unquestionable explanation of reality >claim to be in charge for a perfect plan laid out by a motherfucking God creator of the Universe who specially cares for humans >get your ass beaten by science every time >MUH RELIGION IS TRUE BECAUSE THERE ARE ALWAYS REMAINING MYSTERIES how does it feel to know that your children and grandsons won't believe in your religion, at least not for the same reasons as you do even if they claim to be nominally from the same religion?
Anonymous 04/03/15 (Fri) 19:02:58 69c3c0 No. 6076
>>6066 This is what atheists really believe
They believe there is some conflict between science and religion
They believe science debunks religion
They believe that there are no religious scientists
They believe it is impossible to have a scientific mind and be religious.
They believe their hate-fest against disabled individuals calling them flawed mistakes is somehow scientific
Anonymous 04/03/15 (Fri) 20:57:30 c3ccc0 No. 6082
>>6076 >They believe there is some conflict between science and religion There is, one is based around the idea that we don't know everything and that what we know could be wrong, which means that we constantly need to observe reality to see if our view is consistent with it, the other is based around the idea that some elected person or group of persons know every answer to every question and never need to justify it
That's not possible in the first place, since religion presents no falsifiable claims
Not really, some of them are, some of them aren't. That doesn't have any bearing on the veracity or falsity of religious claims
See above
And you believe we should let people needlessly suffer because making painful decisions hurts your feelings
Anonymous 04/04/15 (Sat) 03:02:40 69c3c0 No. 6120
>>6082 It does nail down the post I was responding to about science getting beat down by religion.
I just happen to think murder is bad, I'm sure people such as your selves would run around killing all sorts of people whom you believe in your minds to be needlessly suffering.
Anonymous 04/04/15 (Sat) 05:44:50 6871f3 No. 6138
>>6066 Science has not disproven God so you have to reckon with the possibility God does exist; one can acknowledge scientific facts and critically think with a scientific mindset while also believing in God and having faith in His goodness and wisdom; the existence of God is reasonable and having a belief in God's existence is a rational choice and hence justified and undeserving of irrational ridicule.
Anonymous 04/04/15 (Sat) 07:04:39 8202be No. 6140
Anonymous 04/04/15 (Sat) 07:15:13 c3ccc0 No. 6141
>>6120 No, I wouldn't. I have no idea where you got that idea from. I'm going to guess you made it up.
Anyway, that's life sometimes. It sometimes presents you with extremely hard, almost impossible decisions to make. The point of these decisions is that every option should be on the table, which is apparently an intellectual feat you're incapable of. Your simplistic worldview is exactly what we don't need when today's world is as complex as it is
Anonymous 04/04/15 (Sat) 07:17:13 c3ccc0 No. 6142
>>6138 The fact that the concept isn't defined or falsifiable, and is supported by exactly zero evidence tells me it isn't and that it deserves all the shit it gets
Anonymous 04/04/15 (Sat) 19:27:37 dc1eb7 No. 6168
Anonymous 04/05/15 (Sun) 07:51:06 69c3c0 No. 6194
>>6141 Its only a hard decision because you think its a good idea to kill people who are disabled or as you put it suffereing. The worst part is you are looking at this from an atheist frame of rerference so there is no objective standard of suffering ,is the guy suffering from depression someone that should be killed, what about the autist, what about someone who has IQ slightly before average, malets. There really is no clear marking line of suffering or how much suffering makes life suddenly stop being worthwhile, and the bigger question of who is to judge that.
>>6142 I actually took a philosophy class thaught by a student a student of karl popper, (the inventor of the fallibility doctrine. It unfortunately didnt stand up to evidence (they looked at the history of science and showed that ideas weren't being falsified)
Moreover many of the claims of religion are in fact falsifiable, and have been falsified or attempted to be falsified (prayer, miracles etc) in fact medication has actually been falsified. (see Kuhn and Fyeraband)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Criticisms
Anonymous 04/05/15 (Sun) 08:46:12 a9a514 No. 6202
>>6194 > I actually took a philosophy class thaught by a student a student of karl popper (the inventor of the fallibility doctrine. So what? Philosophy is a required class for many undergraduates, including myself. My teacher claimed he was a student of Kant, since he had a PHD and disassertion on it when he studied abroad in Germany. I'm not going to brag about that.
Anonymous 04/05/15 (Sun) 08:49:45 69c3c0 No. 6204
>>6202 So what?
So Falsifiabiliyt has been debunked by Kark Poppers own students - it didnt stand up to empirical evidence, when you look at the history of science you dont see ideas being falsified and replaced.
Also we dont accept given theories because other theories fail but rather because of the successful application (both explanatory and predictive) of the new theory
The point is falsifiability isnt reflective of how science works.
Now was that a reading comprehension issue or an intelligence issue, I ask because it comes up so often here that I say something and the people of this board seem just unable to follow or grasp the main pôint
Anonymous 04/05/15 (Sun) 09:01:44 c3ccc0 No. 6206
>>6194 This sentence shows that you don't have a single clue what falsifiability even is.
Do you know what a null-hypothesis is and what connection it has to falsifiability? Because I don't think you do
Anonymous 04/05/15 (Sun) 09:11:02 c3ccc0 No. 6208
>>6204 What the fuck are you talking about? Theories are being replaced all the time, when they fail to explain new data.
Geocentrism is a good example of this. From earth, looking at the sky with the naked eye, it seems perfectly logical to think that tge sun revolves around the earth. If however you observe the universe using modern equipment, like a telescope, sattelites and what not, you'll observe the earth as just one of a number of objects revolving around the sun.
In this case, heliocentrism explained the data better and replaced geocentrism. There's no university where geocentrism is taught as an accurate model for the solar system
Anonymous 04/05/15 (Sun) 09:25:40 c3ccc0 No. 6209
>>6208 Also, from reading your post, it's painfully obvious you just copied and pasted the criticisms of falsifiability from the Wikipedia article. You in fact literally use the same order, I think
This tells me you don't really understand any of this stuff, just googled falsifiability and just copied the criticisms without having any siginifant understanding of it. It's also probably why you insist it 'didn't stand up to empirical evidence', despite the fact that falsifiability is a logical method
Anonymous 04/05/15 (Sun) 22:46:50 69c3c0 No. 6235
>>6209 that's great, now refute the wikipedia article instead of crying
>>6208 that didn't happen, Aristotle hand't been refuted and was still in use when Newton proposed his physics, same with Einstien, Newton was still in use and not refuted when Einstien proposed his physical view.
Fallibility is not how theories are accepted and it's not how sceince works. This is what I have been trying to communicate with you.
It is not something intrinsic to science, it was an idea that was thought up by a phosopher, his name is Karl Popper
The idea has been debunked.
I know you won't believe that, because you believe what you want not what the scholarship says, so I'll leave you to your fantasies and stop replying to your nonsense.
Anonymous 04/05/15 (Sun) 23:00:16 ac53cc No. 6236
>>6235 >that's great, now refute the wikipedia article instead of crying But your statue just cried without refutation and you believed it. Pic related.
You have no idea what fallibility is, and this discussion might have a chance to move forward if you would admit that willingness to accept errors and improve mathematical formulas is a good thing. Please say you can admit that improving formulas is a good thing, so we can move forward to less infantile points of debate.
Been waiting 3 months and you still haven't left the lion's den yet. Have you thought you're snowed in although Spring is here?
Anonymous 04/05/15 (Sun) 23:05:28 69c3c0 No. 6237
>>6236 whatever, I posted the wikipedia link and here is another one about fallibility and popper in case anyone wants to look at what the theory actually is rather than listen to your rather whiny pseudo-intellectual diatrabs. Falsifaibility has very little to do with accpeting errors and improving mathematical formulas" and you don't know what you are talking about.
https://explorable.com/falsifiability
Anonymous 04/05/15 (Sun) 23:28:17 ac53cc No. 6238
File: 1428276497718.jpg (231.67 KB, 774x1176, 129:196, ayanami_rei_iii_by_street_….jpg )
>>6237 You've cited a link that carries the exact opposite argument of that you're trying to espouse. Color me impressed.
Your link actually has a picture that explains the cycle of deduction and induction, and you still didn't get it. Even though the two forces together makes a feedback cycle indicated by curved arrows that makes for ever better science. Does religion allow for this degree of self-improvement? Does a priest ask questions and make experiments that will bring him closer to the truth, or is he supposed to believe everything on faith first? Religion wouldn't do so much evil if it allowed this feedback cycle. But then again if it had it, people would learn so much they would stop being religious.
Anonymous 04/05/15 (Sun) 23:35:52 69c3c0 No. 6239
>>6238 that diagram is the scientific method and not the doctrine of fallibility you unbelievable daft idiot
Anonymous 04/05/15 (Sun) 23:40:43 ac53cc No. 6241
>>6239 And you have yet to show you understand either.
Anonymous 04/05/15 (Sun) 23:45:03 69c3c0 No. 6243
>>6241 This coming from the faggot who just demonstrated he can't tell the two apart.
Anonymous 04/05/15 (Sun) 23:55:16 9d8ddb No. 6244
>>6243 I didn't misunderstand anything, I just choose not to respond when you twisted my words. I can't help you to understand what people mean if you're too dense to read what people actually say, and instead reply to what you would want them to have said.
Anonymous 04/06/15 (Mon) 08:47:21 c3ccc0 No. 6256
>>6237 That article you posted tells something completely different than you do. The article is a fairly good explanation of falsifiability, with some limitations of it. However, at no point does your article or the Wikipedia article you posted earlier claim that falsifiability has been 'debunked'. Last time I checked, testing hypotheses still involved using null-hypotheses and rigorous testing, so pretty much everything you've clained so far is complete nonsense.
Then again, I get the impression that you don't have a single clue what falsifiability is. You just copy some articles on it, see some limitations of it (which just about every research method has), and then, without any justification whatsoever, claim that it's 'debunked'.
You see statuefag, this is why nobody engages in discussion with you, because you demonstrate that you have the IQ of a toaster and read into posts and replies whatever you want to read in them, not what's actually there.
Anonymous 04/06/15 (Mon) 08:49:29 c3ccc0 No. 6257
>>6239 The diagram has "Test of Predictions" right in it. What are you even talking about? That's the very thing by which falsifying is done, you idiot
Anonymous 04/06/15 (Mon) 15:19:56 69c3c0 No. 6272
>>6257 I'm afraid you are too stupid to continue this dicussion, so I will post the diagram and the definition of falsifiable so that others will not be misled
>>6256 I was demonstrating that fasifiabiliyt is not simply willing to accept you are wrong.
The article gives a good explanation of how looking at the history of science shows that ideas are not falsified prior to being replaced by new ones.
Theories are supported by evidence asshole, so when we look back and see no evidence for fallibility we discard it.
Was Aristotle falsified before being replaced by Newton?
Was Newton falsified before being replaced by Einstien?
See what's going on? Nothing's getting falsified, old theories are just getting replaced by other theories. Fyerabend (they guy my scolarship focused on says that theories are replaced by others that produce better value) others say it is replaced by thoeries that explain things better. There is a debate even there, but what we can be certain about is that nothing is getting falsified because we can go read the history of science and see that.
Popper invented the theory because he figured, hey this lets me keep the things I Want in science, and keep the things I don't want out. Unfortunately it didn't work and has been discarded by modern academia. If many of you are working with antiquated notions there is nothing I can do about it,
Anonymous 04/06/15 (Mon) 15:41:50 c3ccc0 No. 6275
>>6272 You're a moron. You are completely and utterly incapable of rational thought. What do people do when they test something?
Let's say you get your driver's licence and you're put to a test. What do you think the goal of that test is? Do you think that the goal of testing something has anything to do with trying to figure out whether it meets or doesn't meet your standards of success? Do you not see how falsifiability is the ability for something to not meet those standards? Are you really that fucking dense?
I'm going to stop this conversation, statuefag. There is no hope for you. You critique concepts of which you don't even understand the basics. You spell them completely wrong, you mindlessly copy them without even slightly understanding them, and to top it all off, you call other people morons when they try to correct your obvious mistakes.
Also, last time I checked, no one took Feyerabend seriously. His philosophy is based on the moronic assumption that, because methodologies have limitations, anything goes. To say that, because falsifiability has limitations, it's equally valid to methods with no falsifiability is utterly baseless.
Anonymous 04/06/15 (Mon) 15:59:31 69c3c0 No. 6276
>>6275 >>6275 So looking at the definition of falsifiabiliyt, and looking at the diagram, side by fucken side, you will still claim they are the same thing
just answer the fucken questions nigger
Was Aristotle falsified before being replaced by Newton?
Was Newton falsified before being replaced by Einstien?
no? then we know that falsifiabiltiy is not how theories get replaced. Shut the fuck up.
Anonymous 04/06/15 (Mon) 16:28:13 c3ccc0 No. 6277
>>6276 Yes, because testing something generally implies that you don't just accept an assertion based on the fact that it's simply asserted. You test something, and the results can prove you right or wrong. This being able to prove something wrong is called falsifiability
Such Christian love. Anyway:
Yes, because Aristotle thought that an object of 10 kg would fall ten times as fast as an object of 1 kg. Galileo falsified this by dropping two objects from the Tower of Pisa
Here you go
https://malagabay.wordpress.com/the-falsification-of-newtons-law-of-universal-gravitation/
Anonymous 04/06/15 (Mon) 17:53:51 69c3c0 No. 6282
>>6277 >Yes, because testing something generally implies that you don't just accept an assertion based on the fact that it's simply asserted. You test something, and the results can prove you right or wrong. This being able to prove something wrong is called falsifiability A normal person would look at the diagram and think it's a diagram of the scientific method and not of fallibility. The problem with you is that you can never admit you were wrong, so you keep blathering on.
as for your shitty wordpress source, here quote right from it
It also points out examples of falsification into the 60s and 70s long after Einstien, in essense confirming what I just pointed out to you, if you look at science in practice, theories are not falsified
and yet aristotilian physics was widely used and taught well after Gallelios death. Get it, fallibility is not a part of the history of science
Anonymous 04/06/15 (Mon) 18:16:55 c3ccc0 No. 6284
>>6282 I just explained how falsifiability is part of the 'testing of predictions' box
And it isn't anymore. Physics now uses Einsteinian physics
Anonymous 04/06/15 (Mon) 18:41:27 69c3c0 No. 6285
>>6284 no thats the scientific method, when you apply to hypothesis,
falsifiability is semantic theory on the nature of reality which relates closely to the positivist movement saying that the truth of a proposition relates to its test-ability -ie things that are not testable have no reality.
propositions (by which we mean literally sentences) that are not conceivably falsifiable are
So Einstien thaught up general relativity in the 1910s, newton was (your dubious wordpress article claims) falsified in the 60s - 70s. You dont see a problem there with the doctrine of flasifiability.
Thats not a problem for your article because it was about how Newton is still in use (for eg. Dark matter is based on how calculations based on Newtonian physics dont add up - hence the quote
However it is a huge problem for you, and anyone else who still holds to falsifiability. Fortunately, I havent met anyone irl philosophy that still holds to falsifiability.
Anonymous 04/06/15 (Mon) 18:52:41 a9a514 No. 6286
>>6285 Newton's physics are still useful because they are greatly simplified. You can teach a kid the Newton's 3 laws of motion so he knows the basics, and then move on to more complicated physics. A car maker can still use them for simple things like approximating the velocity of a car on Earth, without all the work of using a more complicated formula that covers the speed of light and the gravity of planetary bodies….things that won't affect the car maker in his trade. So no, they haven't completely gone away, but there are more accurate formulas that will bring you closer to the truth, when accuracy matters.
Even Aristotle's thought experiments can have their uses, particularly in Philosophy, but for describing the real world they're just not as accurate as newer thinking.
Anonymous 04/19/15 (Sun) 22:03:13 a9a514 No. 6992
Sometimes God decides to bless with starfish limbs.