Prove Him Wrong

you can't...

Other urls found in this thread:

science.sciencemag.org/content/316/5827/996.abstract
anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/user-www.cgi/http://moscow.sci-hub.cc/7fabbec9a9272053afadce3db4628e0b/bloom2007.pdf
pastebin.com/YxZ2u850
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>literally picking a side on a question we can't answer
Talk about autism

While I'm an atheist, that argument is retarded because its conclusion is also its premise. If a God did exist, then it follows that if all religions were wiped out, the God would simply revive the faith through a new revelation.

In other words, his conclusion [there is no God] is true, his argument is dumb as hell.

If there is no God, then if all religions are destroyed, none would be reconstituted.

If there is a God, then if all religions are destroyed, the true one would be reconstituted.

The thing about claiming Agnosticism beats Athiesm is that while you might be correct, the execution and actions taken by both these beliefs are exactly the same.

What a fat faggot

I don't think think this quote was purposed to work as an anti-ontological argument, but instead just a bit of corollary reasoning.

Into the trash it goes

Well the OP presented it as an argument. As just a statement its fine, but as an argument in favor of atheism its only a step above "Christfags BTFO" or "Prove me wrong, pro-tip: You can't"

He's proposing a situation that is, by definition, impossible to test, and then proclaiming to know the answer.

Gee, that sounds awful un-scientific to me. Almost like something a religious person would posit...

science isnt a religion pal

its a tool to conduct experiments about the world that god created

lmao science doesnt tell us anything about where we came from

an invisible nothing transforming into everything all of a sudden isnt an answer

Except for this.

And this.

He looks even more terrible as a skinny vegan.

>an argument in favor of atheism its

"Hey I didn't murder this woman."
"Prove it."
"That's not how this works."
"What a terrible argument in favor of you not murdering her!"

cuz the fat gland folds from before

but hes much healthier objectively

skinny isnt bad

>I'm too lazy to read literally one post up and realize the person I'm insulting is also an atheist: The post

That's a great counter.

I'm going to Vegas in September and have tickets to a penn and teller show.

Are they decent on stage?

2 things.
He's conflating religion with deism/theism.

Something i recently learned when marvin minsky died, i think i read here.
"All knowledge has a half-life: the time it takes for what you know to become wrong or redundant." - Marvin Minsky

so he's also wrong because he's equating science with religion.

He's basically being a huge fag. Guy loses 150 lbs and he's still fat as shit.

I don't care if you're an atheist. There are no "arguments for atheism" just as there are no arguments for why you didn't murder Shawn Lucas.

Learn burden of proof.

The point being?

While I agree with what you're saying, you know damn well I meant the argument in the OP was incorrect.

Just because atheism does not require a proof, does not mean there are no arguments in favor of atheism. Arguments in favor of atheism would be counterarguments to theistic arguments and sentiments.

And if the OP is taken as one such counterargument, it is a bad argument, due to the flaws I mentioned previously.

Dude is such a fucking clown.

>Arguments in favor of atheism would be counterarguments to theistic arguments and sentiments.

The OP argument *is* a good argument against theistic sentiment. Because religious people assume their religion is special for some reason. So they will agree with the OP about the thousands of other religions (except their own for some magic reason).

It really makes them think :)

No, because an Agnostic is prepared to admit that God and/or gods is/are real if they feel so swayed. An atheist would never admit that. If one argument falls apart they will just find a new one.

Except that its not, because its assuming its own premise. If one of the religions is true, then it follows that it would be reconstituted were it ever destroyed.

Moreover, the "Hurr thousands of religions" arguments is also shit, because the same can be said of literally any truth claim.

If you say "I believe [scientific theory]" you are by definition saying all other theories on that subject are false. The mere nature of knowledge is such that if you believe ANYTHING, you're calling the rest of the world fucking idiots who are wrong.

Nosticism and Atheism are two completely different things.

Nosticism is what you Know

Theism is what you believe.

So therefore you have:

Nosticism and Agnosticism

Theism and Atheism.

So you can have an Agnostic Atheist and a Nostic Atheist, same goes for Theism, you can have Agnostic Theists, they are a weird breed, but they exist.

Learn the difference, a statement of what you know is not a statement of what you believe, the only time it crosses over is when you are nostic in which case you believe and know, which can make you feel like it's the same thing even though it is not.

>If you say "I believe [scientific theory]" you are by definition saying all other theories on that subject are false.
The difference is that scientific theories have evidence to back them up, while religions do not.

If you don't know the difference between an evolving scientific theory and a bunch of clowns in funny hats making contradictory claims about "heaven" then I doubt any further discussion will be useful.

>If one of the religions is true, then it follows that it would be reconstituted were it ever destroyed.

Nice, assuming your own premise

Kek

Whether they do or don't have nothing to do with the validity of the argument.

The argument being used is "Because there are thousands of alternatives, it is presumptuous of you to assume you are correct"

My counter argument is "That is true of literally any truth statement"

>If you say "I believe [scientific theory]" you are by definition saying all other theories on that subject are false.

You have to differentiate what a scientific theory is and what a supernatural theory are. They are not the same.

For instance, people think Evolution is a theory, it is not.

Evolution is what happens, the theory of evolution is the study of it's mechanisms.

See what i mean?

Things like this are why I hate the New Atheists. They're functionally illiterate, especially when it comes to philosophy, and yet think they know everything ever.

Its entirely possible to believe that religion is pants-on-head retarded while also making sure your arguments are sound and rest on a solid foundation.

Once again, you think someone is trying to "argue for" or "prove" atheism. I've already explained to you that this is not only impossible, it is pointless.

Yet you're still angry that the OP isn't an argument for atheism.

And it's a good point in the OP, because all large religions are based on a single event that happened in the past and was put into book(s). Which is highly different than science (study vs an event). Though you won't recognize this because it isn't in modus ponen form

>especially when it comes to philosophy

Philosophy is only as relevant as its application. Pure philosophy is terribly outdated, however, philosophical questions used to motivate research and study of physics is something else entirely.

Supernatural metaphysics on the other hand...not terrible useful. Unless you can make a living off sitting in a dark corner somewhere curious if you actually exist.

Except that is completely wrong. People do try and argue and prove atheism. The fact that it is technically the default theory, and the burden of proof rests on the theist, does not keep that from being so.

If someone believed in say, the loch ness monster, then while it would be true that "not believing in the loch ness monster" is the default understanding, you could still have arguments in favor of "a-lochnessmonsterism", it would simply be composed of arguments counter to believing in the loch ness monster. Either by showing the arguments in favor of it to be false, or by demonstrating that the concept is impossible or exceedingly unlikely.

Saying "There are thousands of theories, therefore believing yours is presumptious" is not a very good argument, because it applies to everything.

Neither for that matter is saying "Your theory can't be true, because if it were it would reconstitute itself following its destruction", when whether it would reconstitute itself is entirely determined by whether it turns out to in fact be true.

Learn logic nigga.

I thought the entire point of atheism is the fact that there is no compelling arguments for theism and atheism is the rejection of those arguments due to the fact there is no satisfactory supporting evidence for them.

The study of our presuppositions and how we think, which is to say, epistemology, is a field in particular that the New Atheists are essentially illiterate in. They are also lacking in metaphysics and ethics, but its mainly epistemology.

Also of note is that almost none of them know theology, because if they did they wouldn't say "There are no arguments in favor of theism", they would say "There are not GOOD arguments in favor of theism"

This modernist attitude that everyone who lived before the year 1800 was an imbecile, and that we enlightened modern men have no need to study anything written before that point is ridiculous, and yet it infests us like a plague.

And I find it extremely annoying that I get reduced to playing devil's advocate in these kinds of discussions, simply because people find it so difficult to actually read the Bible, read Aristotle, read Aquinas, read philosophy of science, in short, to get an education on the subjects they're talking about.

Except we aren't talking about theories. We are talking about prophets. And recordings in books of apparently magical events.

>, when whether it would reconstitute itself is entirely determined by whether it turns out to in fact be true.

No, you fucking idiot. Think if all the historical documents were wiped from the earth. Does that mean history didn't happen? Of course not.

BUT there would still be ways, through archaeology and the historical method, to recover our history, all based on facts. THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID OF RELIGIOUS EVENTS.

Remember, historians agree that Jesus existed, not that he had magic powers.

Prove him correct.

You can't...

god knows how to hide from the common atheist

that's one of god's super powers

Yes, but proving that those arguments are not satisfactory is the realm of atheistic argument. And the OP attempts to do so by showing that the multiplicity of religions means believing yours is special is presumptuous.

That is not in fact the case. That kind of thinking applies to literally any kind of belief. How valid your beliefs are, or aren't, or how valid the spectrum of ideas being discussed is, has nothing to do with the simple fact that

"There are tons of alternatives, so by sheer probability you must be wrong"

Is a horrible argument.

>read Aquinas

"It is to be noted, however, that although these works of demons which appear marvelous to us
are not real miracles, they are sometimes nevertheless something real. Thus the magicians of Pharaoh
by the demons' power produced real serpents and frogs"

Yeah, he doesn't sound like the sharpest pencil

You're retarded. If say, Islam were true. And all records of Islam were destroyed. Then it necessarily follows that Allah would give a new revelation at some point and revive what is essentially Islam.

Same for Hinduism
Same for Christianity
Same for Zoroastrianism

The OP is talking out of its ass.

>it necessarily follows that Allah would give a new revelation at some point and revive what is essentially Islam.

HOLY SHIT, whose ass did you just pull that assumption from.

You must be a fedora tipping new atheist

It has more to do with how modern science is taught than anything else. Learning philosophy doesn't do a lot for someone looking for a career in say Chemistry or Biology. Sure it can help in argumentation, but classrooms don't challenge students on the history of their discipline. I'm willing to bet most advanced Chemistry students couldn't tell you what era Le Châtelier lived in, even though they might use his theory daily.

I also don't see the need for Atheists to read the Bible or any ancient text to be able to see how they are false. Just because someone hasn't read the bible doesn't mean they can't identify how something like Noah's Ark is an impossibility. I also fail to see how philosophy can make something more true or false as you said yourself there are no good arguments for theism.

>Hurr he believed in things that were wrong, he must be retarded.

Sir Isaac Newton was an alchemist. Get off your modernist high horse. I bet you think people believed in geocentrism due to superstition too.

>Hint: It was actually due to astronomical observations going back centuries and a model of the heavens that was continuously improved upon by medieval scientists until eccentricities in the orbit of Mars invalidated the system and led to the realization that heliocentrism was a better model that more closely matched observations.

This is the dummest fucking reasoning there is. You should have finished your post with "boom roasted"

>science can't explain where we came from
>current scientific knowledge can account for pretty much everything up to a few femto seconds after the big bang
>hurr doesn't explain where that came from
>hurr it's always existed or just came to be out of nothing isn't an argument
>except god. He always was/came to be out of nothing one day.

You been sniffing at the petrol again cleatus?

For your own sake stop arguing with that stupid child. He can't be any older than 15. You are clearly his superior in every way, don't waste your energy.

>Yes, but proving that those arguments are not satisfactory is the realm of atheistic argument.

They tend to do this because Theists pander out the most ridiculous arguments constantly that require extreme leaps and claims that science can't support. They are also famous for making arguments like "well you can't disprove X" which is probably the most troll logical contradiction anyone ever made. Cannot really blame Atheists for trying to explain only to be met with such extreme levels of arrogant ignorance.

Yeah, you say this and then you'll go to another thread and say different races aren't even human.

He gives no reason for why he believes these things though. So yes, he is retarded.

The problem is that intelligent, learned men throughout our history believed in monotheism, and thought it was atheism that was anti-intellectual. Most of our great philosophers and scientists going back 2000 years were monotheists.

On those grounds alone, I think its important that we learn as much as we can about how those men thought and what their reasoning was. The average evangelical with a double digit IQ is not a good source for theological argument, and yet that strawman is the target of 99% of New Atheist attacks.

I have always strongly believed that if you are going to hate something, you owe it to yourself and to them to understand it. And so I have a strong background not only in the natural sciences, but in theology and philosophy.

It is nothing short of ridiculous the way these people conduct themselves in arguing with theists. I think theism is wrong. I think theism is ridiculous. But I do not think there is no intellectual case to be made for theism, and I do not believe atheism is self-evident, the way these men seem to.

> "There are tons of alternatives, so by sheer probability you must be wrong"
No it's not you dumb amerifat, there were tens of religions declaring themselves to be special, yet each failed to provide a fucking shred of empirical proof.
In science, when you have multiple hypotheses, you empirically prove which one is correct.

He believed in demons because the learned men of his civilization going back thousands of years believed in demons.

WHY they believed such is another story entirely, and probably has something to do with the history of mental illness.

The simple fact is that like all men he was limited by the knowledge of his day and the presuppositions he held to.

Just because Bacon or Newton believed in many things we now know in hindsight to be false, or even ridiculous, does not mean there is nothing to learned by reading Bacon or Newton.

nothing science has done can answer "why?"

science is just merely observing patterns of an existing world

it doesnt explain anything

god always existing makes sense

nothing always existing and then becoming something doesnt

thats just a way to subtract god out because god has commandments and people want to commit adultery and shit

You want an empirical proof, for a being whose primary noteworthy features include being immaterial and transcendent?

You realize the arguments actually used in favor of God are more akin to mathematical arguments right? That is, broad deductions from known principles?

>They're still wrong arguments, but at least unlike you I could name them, explain them, even argue for them, and then explain why they are incorrect. Instead of just going 'hurr religion is dumb hurr durr'

>He believed in demons because the learned men of his civilization going back thousands of years believed in demons.

And there is the fundamental difference between what a scientist believes and what a godfag believes. Hence, OP's argument even applies to Aquinas.

Remove the word of mouth about demons? Demons cease to exist in Aquinas's reality.

Remove the word of mouth about heliocentrism? It still can be discovered from first principles

>The problem is that intelligent, learned men throughout our history believed in monotheism, and thought it was atheism that was anti-intellectual. Most of our great philosophers and scientists going back 2000 years were monotheists.

This is an argument from authority and fails to take into account the reasons for this phenomena. Many ancient learned men believed a lot of things that were false despite the enormous contributions to their field. Just as many modern scientists may hold some very extreme beliefs.

>The average evangelical with a double digit IQ is not a good source for theological argument, and yet that strawman is the target of 99% of New Atheist attacks.

Intelligence quotient is a dubious way of examining someones actually knowledge or practical intelligence I'm afraid. I have had to take two in my life, the military employees them to identify PTSD in post deployment, and they have found that IQ has very little reliability. IQ will change through your life, at some points you will be more intellectually inclined than others, and in fact, within the span of an hour you can increase your IQ by 25 points by challenging yourself or gaining perspective. Evangelicalists most likely have a higher IQ because they are constantly using their imagination and not looking at just materialistic view points if i were to gander a hypothesis.

>I have always strongly believed that if you are going to hate something, you owe it to yourself and to them to understand it.

I'm fairly certain a majority of atheists do not hate religion, they just don't believe it, they are not required to study it whatsoever.


>It is nothing short of ridiculous the way these people conduct themselves in arguing with theists.

After seeing how a majority of theists attempt to argue i really have no problem with it.

> The problem is that intelligent, learned men throughout our history believed in monotheism, and thought it was atheism that was anti-intellectual. Most of our great philosophers and scientists going back 2000 years were monotheists.
Appeal to authority. Also, they were only humans, who were prone to mistakes. Kelvin was wrong about the age of the Earth for instance. It doesn't prove that the method is fallible, it proves that people are fallible outside the lab. And they could be as smart as fuck but still be affected by the memes of the time.

> On those grounds alone, I think its important that we learn as much as we can about how those men thought and what their reasoning was. The average evangelical with a double digit IQ is not a good source for theological argument, and yet that strawman is the target of 99% of New Atheist attacks.
There are no grouds, because you argument is shit.
> I have always strongly believed that if you are going to hate something, you owe it to yourself and to them to understand it. And so I have a strong background not only in the natural sciences, but in theology and philosophy.
And I believe that when you see and smell a cesspool, it's not necessary to dive into it to verify that it's a cesspool.

You're a fool. Most of what you believe about the natural sciences comes from authority. I severely doubt you've actually done your own experiments to prove Newtonian physics. You believe in those things because learned men say they are true, and say they have reasons for them.

The same way you trust a doctor when he's talking about medicine.

This artificial line between "science" and "other" has to stop. The fact that we now know, with the benefit of hindsight, that demons do not exist does not change the fact that empirical observations back then, and the testimony of intelligent authorities said they were real.
I really can't say much more than that I fundamentally disagree. If you are going to disagree with someone, you should understand them, and what they believe, and why. Its the same reason I know what most of the SJW nomenclature means.

>Then it necessarily follows that Allah would give a new revelation at some point and revive what is essentially Islam.

You are mixing things up here. If Allah were, through some miracle, to demonstrate that there was, in fact, a man named Mohammed who did travel from Mecca to Jerusalem in one night, etc., then, and only then, would it be "essentially" Islam. Islam, as well as Christianity, but not, curiously, Judaism or Buddhism, are based on the assumption that there was a singular, unrepeatable event in history-the birth of the Last Prophet or the Son of God, which leads to the impossibility of the sacred texts of these religions being altered. Scientific theories are independent of their developers in that sense; they are, by definition of scientific method, reproducible.

Religion isn't.

discussing religion is retarded

If you're new to the conversation, I have already said I'm an atheist, not a theist. I'm not defending their false beliefs or incorrect methodologies. I am saying that the modern attitude that atheism is self-evident and obvious, and that religion is idiotic and not worthy of study, is retarded and lacks historical perspective.

> nothing science has done can answer "why?"
science.sciencemag.org/content/316/5827/996.abstract
anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/user-www.cgi/http://moscow.sci-hub.cc/7fabbec9a9272053afadce3db4628e0b/bloom2007.pdf

"The examples so far concern people’s
common-sense understanding of the physical
world, but their intuitive psychology also
contributes to their resistance to science. One
important bias is that children naturally see the
world in terms of design and purpose. For
instance, 4-year-olds insist that everything has
a purpose, including lions (“to go
in the zoo”) and clouds (“for
raining”), a propensity called
“promiscuous teleology” (15).
Additionally, when asked about
the origin of animals and people,
children spontaneously tend to
provide and prefer creationist
explanations (16). Just as children’s
intuitions about the physical
world make it difficult for them to
accept that Earth is a sphere, their
psychological intuitions about
agency and design make it difficult
for them to accept the processes of
evolution"

>I severely doubt you've actually done your own experiments to prove Newtonian physics

Come now, if he's gone to an American public school, then he's checked all of the tenets of Newtonian mechanics, and the theory of gravity.

>The fact that we now know, with the benefit of hindsight, that demons do not exist does not change the fact that empirical observations back then, and the testimony of intelligent authorities said they were real.

Except I can provide you with a list of simple experiments to check Newton's theories. Can you provide those for demons?

>I severely doubt you've actually done your own experiments to prove Newtonian physics.

I actually have. Did you never take intro physics classes?

>The same way you trust a doctor when he's talking about medicine.

Only if he's a good doctor, and can prove it. Read the section "Method of expert testimony" here pastebin.com/YxZ2u850

If someone says that the moon is made of cheese, do they need to study the source material for that claim to know it is false?

We can disagree on the answer to that question, but many people do not have the time to devote to something that is clearly false, and this does nothing to weaken or strengthen either side of the argument. Understanding someone else is not always necessarily to being able to make a judgement on their claims.

> You want an empirical proof, for a being whose primary noteworthy features include being immaterial and transcendent?
Which particular deity? there are a couple with properties like that.

> You realize the arguments actually used in favor of God are more akin to mathematical arguments right? That is, broad deductions from known principles?
Don't mar math.
> >They're still wrong arguments, but at least unlike you I could name them, explain them, even argue for them, and then explain why they are incorrect. Instead of just going 'hurr religion is dumb hurr durr'
Good for you, you've learned a lot of stupid shit, which won't clarify anything for you, only take more memory away. Now make me two lattes, my spiritual snowflake.

ok now give me your explanation... you cant

evolution isnt an explanation its an observation

when im asking the question where did the world come from evolution doesnt give me an answer

I could actually, if I was alive during medieval times. Proving the existence of demons to you would be as simple as taking you to the mad house to visit a man with schizophrenia.

But look, we could argue all day with me trying to "justify" the inane stupid things that people in the past believed, but I'm not going to do that, because they believed inane, stupid things.

My point is that intelligent men in the past had reasons for the various things they believed, and we shouldn't simply presume that every wrong belief they held was caused by some defect in their intelligence.

I strongly believe that the reason Sir Isaac Newton believed in alchemy is because he believed that alchemy was true, real, and worked. And I also strongly believe that if I lived during the times of Sir Isaac Newton, I would agree with him.

No matter the side, people who pass along absolutes without really knowing, have flawed logic. Lack of evidence doesn't mean absent

The fact that "monotheism" is considered as self-evidently true as moonmadeofcheeseism by you is exactly my point.

Learned men of the past considered it true and obvious, now the position has reversed. And the position has reversed, not primarily because of an increase in knowledge, but because of a shift in culture. This is evident to me primarily by the fact that so many of the people promoting atheism are ignorant fools who haven't even scratched the surface of what they're talking about.
First of all don't insult me by calling me "spiritual". Second of all, stop being anti-intellectual you ignorant fruitcake.

self-evidently FALSE* on the first line. Typo.

>there is no god because religions are wrong
I agree that all the religions are wrong, but there could very well be a higher power. I love Penn so this is sad.

>because everyone worships him wrong there is no God/creator
>the big bang was literally had no trigger
>the universe is just a horrifying fluke with nothing "beyond" space is expanding into nonspace
If you wiped out all traces of electrisity would people have the same primitive beliefs before discovering the truth? we knew about if for a while before learning what it was. same with light, people used to believe the eyes cast light out. it was hilariously wrong but doesn't mean light doesn't exist.

even as an atheist, people who posit negative claims are annoying. you would literally have to know everything to make that claim.

>evolution isnt an explanation its an observation

Evolution is an explanation, it makes predictions based on data. If it were merely observation that wouldn't be possible.

>when im asking the question where did the world come from evolution doesnt give me an answer

Nor should it, where the world came from and evolution are two entirely different things.

where the Earth came from is actually a pretty fascinating question. The Earth is thought to have been formed about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that also formed the Sun. Gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps that became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals. Eventually, over time forming Earth.

We think the Moon used to be part of the Earth, but an asteroid impact during the formation of the Earth broke it off and it formed separate.

evolution isnt supposed to give you an answer. if you want a scientific explanation of the origins of life itself, look into abiogenesis. the field is still very young and changing every day. evolution has never and will never claim to be the explanation for life itself. only the way in which genes and population groups change over successive generations.

thats an observation not an explanation

who put the dust there to form the earth

oh shit

> You're a fool. Most of what you believe about the natural sciences comes from authority.
You can check and recheck all the data any time.
> e. If you are going to disagree with someone, you should understand them, and what they believe, and why.
I'm not a psychiatrist. I have a better tool for gaining knowledge, and it is actually a tool and what it gets is an actual fucking knowledge, unlike the fluff which theists operate. I have no time, nor desire to delve into their bullshit prose, and if I did, why would I even start from Judaism or qua'ran? I would have to start from Cuneiform tablets telling me about the first documented god Marduk and "understand" where Sumerians came from, start from the start, so to speak, and then I would have to... Nah, just kidding, fuck you and fuck your religious bullshit.

I'm agnostic/don't give a fuck about a religion or a god, but it's obnoxious as hell that whenever people talk about religion these days it's always aimed at Christianity. Why does nobody ever criticize any other religion or deities?

>Learned men of the past considered it true and obvious.

See picture.

>This is evident to me primarily by the fact that so many of the people promoting atheism are ignorant fools who haven't even scratched the surface of what they're talking about

Not understanding a claim like a subject matter expert has no bearing on the ability to understand it as false.

>thats an observation not an explanation

nah, you have the definitions to those words mixed up.

>who put the dust there to form the earth

Most likely a giant cloud of Gas as currently existing in space forming solar systems right now, how they get there is due to gravitational attraction. So gravity put it there.

>Hey billions of people believe this, including some of the most intelligent men of the last two millennia, think we should study it?
>Nah is self-evidently both wrong and ridiculous

From the depths of my heart. Fuck you. You drag down the level of discourse and the advancement of human knowledge with your willful ignorant and proud stupidity. A proper understanding of alternative views, even wrong views, is ESSENTIAL for the advancement of human knowledge and civilization, and acting like you're so superior to Newton, Einstein, Bacon, Mendel, and every other scientist who believed in religious doctrines of one form or another that you don't even need to study it to know its incorrect, is an insult to truth, and an insult to humanity.

Read a fucking book, you filthy snow nigger.

So what you're saying is, we need to purge every remotely religious person on the planet so that the one true religion can show itself? Sounds like a good idea to me.

>Proving the existence of demons to you would be as simple as taking you to the mad house to visit a man with schizophrenia.

But psychiatry isn't STEM, user: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

Nor is the postmodern bullshit you are spewing here.

this

pic related

I'm not making an appeal to authority, I'm saying if intelligent men in the past believed something, it probably isn't self-evidently wrong. It may be wrong. But its not self-evidently "We don't even need to study it" wrong.

He ate potatoes for like a year straight I hate him so fucking much

>A proper understanding of alternative views, even wrong views, is ESSENTIAL for the advancement of human knowledge and civilization

No, it's essential for people with useless degrees to keep their useless academic jobs and take away the funding from STEM departments, and for other forms of obscurantism to flourish.

Less talking, more colliding, nigger.

he pissed and shit on vegans in his show Bullshit and then turned around and became a diet SJW when his own life was threatened

gas is made out of atoms they dont just start there randomly its a substance

you think random gas blobs were just hanging out
with infinite potential to create anything

Only the top-left and bottom-right make sense in that diagram.

If you know something exists, it follows you will believe it exists. Why else would you believe it exists?

And you can *never* know something _doesn't_ exist. That's just logically impossible. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel.

easy target
still the largest religion in the west, despite the jew's efforts.
islam doesnt debate. it simply kills its critics.

>I'm not making an appeal to authority, I'm saying if intelligent men in the past believed something, it probably isn't self-evidently wrong.

That is an appeal to authority, and a completely false argument.

Find me a Muslim on Sup Forums and I'll debate him

Another example of obscurantist bullshit.
If you believe in something without knowing it, it's called "mental illness", not whatever you think it's called.

>gas is made out of atoms they dont just start there randomly its a substance

mmhmm.

>you think random gas blobs were just hanging outwith infinite potential to create anything

Yes, i believe gas clouds just hang out. But what you're asking is rather vague.

I believe gas clouds hang out and they are proven to hang out long enough to create stars and solar systems.