Atheism : The Series

Atheism : The Series

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc
youtube.com/watch?v=ZP7K9SycELA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Your point?

*tips fedora*

blah blah apple pie scratch create the universe blh pseudo intellectual drivel for stoners

The Sagan one actually left me in awe of the universe. This one was just an annoying series of pompous lectures.

Autism: The Post

pretty much. I know not everybody likes sagan, but basically nobody else could have pulled off what he did with that series

Cosmos Kino
youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc

More Sagan kino -

youtube.com/watch?v=ZP7K9SycELA

>projecting this hard
ikr
NDT thinks too highly of himself and it shows. His twitter is pure cringe.

The more you know about the universe the more silly Christianity and all human myths become.

>knowing the universe

Do you realize how silly you sound?

Sillier than Christianity? What I said is 100% accurate.

TIL the catholic church brutally murdered trillions of scientists for having the bravery to go against the church and its fairy tales

The Big Bang theory was created by a Catholic priest, dumbass

why is it so hard for people to believe in both science and religion?the pope does

also why are atheists more fucking obnoxious than theists?

if that were true, it'd be a legitimately funny show.

because they've been persecuted for years. now it's time they got their revenge.

kek

Internet atheists you mean. IRL christfags are fucking insufferable.

Even if true it gives no more merit to the rest of their silly mythos

Smugness: The Series

That was my problem with it. I hate black science guy and I just want him to go away.

>science denying: the thread

the fuck is wrong with you people?

You can have both, but the two concepts are counter to each other in some ways. Science is very much about doubt, and faith is belief without evidence.

because they're brainlets
the current Pope is a cuck though
*unseathes katana*
>Even if true
it is
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
>no more merit
fair enough
>silly mythos
that's like, your opinion, man
the guy is an absolute meme, like Bill Nye.
They overreach all the time and talk stuff they don't know shit about. Their H-index is really low too.
Why should I care what an astrophysicist believes about biology?
Bill Nye is even worse though, he's a fucking engineer bachelor. At least NDT earned a PhD.

Belief in Adam & Eve AND evolution are literally incompatible.

There's no proof black holes exist, except we can deduce their existence by observing that something else is happening.

There's no proof dark matter exists, except we can deduce it must for other stuff to make sense.

There's no proof god exists, except we can deduce it must because the universe exists. We can see an effect, and we can deduce the cause. The universe is evidence that god exists.

>implying Catholicism is Christian

>I don't know why therefore god
Okay then

why is it that atheists always attack Christian institutions, but never Islamic ones?

>implies you need to breed to be a real scientist
>first image on the left is a scientist that didn't procreate

well baited friend

they go in parallel ways, and to study religion you need to first study how the texts are meant to be read. Not everything is literal. There's some amazing stuff though, like the days in Genesis and their relation to geological ages.
How so? It's as simple as putting their expelled souls into the first male and female humans, respectively. That Genesis isn't supposed to be interpreted literally isn't a new concept, Saint Agustine knew this already in the 5th century.
>implying it's not
pic related

Never actually understood why religious people think that the Big Bang somehow contradicts god.
Or evolution.
Yeah, people evolved from other speacies. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. «Mysterious are the ways of God», no?
How little should you think of God, to believe that he can only operate within our grasp?
Maybe he meant evolution exactly the way it happened. No need to reduce God to a creature the pinnacle of which is to straight up make humans just so that was ok with our understanding.

So if Genesis isn't literal, does that mean walking on water, healing sick people and resurrecting isn't literal either?

nah, it implies society needs procreation
Newton was childless too.
I was talking to a professor in my uni the other day (a militant atheist, BTW) and he says that dark matter is akin to luminiferous aether, something some theorists made up to explain what they don't understand yet and likely to get debunked in the future.
>The universe is evidence that god exists.
It's not that simple. I believe faith is a gift, you either have it or not.
A huge part of so-called atheists are actually degenerate cristophobes.
>So if Genesis isn't literal, does that mean walking on water, healing sick people and resurrecting isn't literal either?
As I said, you have to read each book in its context. The Bible is a collection of books, there's different genres in it. Resurrection is very much literal, so is healing the sick. Walking on water, I'm not sure. I should check. The multiplication of fish, for example, isn't literal. Basically every other person had some food and Jesus made them pool it together and share.
>Never actually understood why religious people think that the Big Bang somehow contradicts god.
>Or evolution.
>Yeah, people evolved from other speacies. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. «Mysterious are the ways of God», no?
exactly
>Maybe he meant evolution exactly the way it happened. No need to reduce God to a creature the pinnacle of which is to straight up make humans just so that was ok with our understanding.
The way I see it, God is like a master pool player who breaks the rack in the beginning of a game and just watches each ball go in the exact place he wanted them.

Dumbest thing I've ever heard. Islam is even denser than Christianity but there are no Muslims here, if they come I will be happy to tell them.

they don't usually attack buddhists either, so checkmate.

you can have atheist buddhism

This honestly. The original show was decently complex for the casual watcher while this seemed directed at 5th graders and came off just uninteresting. I stayed with it for a while but lost all hope beforehand during the Giodorno Bruno animation and their botch of history.

It's a level of underwhelming I find honestly counterproductive to actual education.

History: the series

Can I get some science to go with that? Stop telling me about the life of the person that made the discovery and tell me about the discovery.

...

The Buddhist worldview is far, far removed from naturalism that atheists usually associate the "atheist view" as. You're criticizing the supernatural only when it involves deities like that's some sort of especially stupid supernatural claim and not an umbrella term for a lot of different things.

The more you consider the situation the universe is in, the less reasonable atheism becomes

not him but traditional religion and atheism isn't a dichotomy. both are unfalsifiable beliefs. though most self-described atheists aren't really atheists and have views more comparable to phenomenology, relativism, non-cognitivism, absurdism, etc.

What? Islam is by far worse than Christianity, but muslims aren't the ones who are trying to actively warp American politics and law into their pathetic world view.

Muslims are shitting all over Europe right now, just like the alt-right and left are shitting all over US right now. Barf.

>Science is very much about doubt,
you don't doubt the scientific process

what does this mean

Dawkins is just quoting Chesterton with his open minded quote. There's nothing wrong with it though. Also it's almost offensive to put him with the others there, he's not quite as bad.

>The babby tier ideological fight in this thread

Yes you can. That's how it was developed in the first place, trial and error due to doubt. To this day, not even proper scientists pretend that a theory is objective, it is only the hypothesis that has failed to be proven incorrect through their observations and tests.

Christians have very good reason to distrust evolution as God's method of creation.
Why would an all-good being use such a brutal, bloody method to create creatures?

His quotation reflects a poor understanding of the field, not even realizing that he himself is a philosopher. And he's chosen to repeat that quotation, meaning he finds merit in it.

...

like childbirth?

>childbirth made painful after the Fall, as a result of sin
>after all creatures were created

The same "all-good" being who killed millions in the Old Testament?

>headcanon

@87955335
1/10 I sort of responded

How is killing necessarily evil?

Supernatural stuff isn't required for buddhism

I fully agree. The bible says god created the world and its creatures in a week, but surely omnipotence operates on an entirely different scale of time than we do

not him but you're thinking of westernized new age buddhism and some specific sects. a majority of buddhist denominations have forms of idol worship and beliefs significantly warped with hinduism and local religions. Even the Japanese pray to buddha.

Lemaitre's idea of the big bang came out of a bizarre idea that in no way justifies having to go somewhere on Sundays and thinking people are going to go to a certain place when they die. Don't play that shit bro

that's such a textbook instance of "mooving goalpost".
>yea well I meant it like that all along!

this has to be a joke
The other quote yes, the one about being open minded doesn't.
That's not doubting the scientific method
What's so brutal about natural selection? Also God as some peace loving hippie is a modern concept.
And there's the fact that the sun doesn't appear until the fourth day. That's what St. Agustine pointed out when he said a literal interpretation is dumb.

Hey , 87955344 didn't give you a (You)

Please try to find an Buddhist in Asia that doesn't believe in merit or dependent origination. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Nah, your post is a textbook example of a dumbass reading something without studying the context first. Educate yourself.
Not an argument. Scientific advances have nothing to do with theology.

Not an argument christcuck

Propaganda from antiquity still at work today. I'm actually in awe of it

Interesting, because I was pointing out that "originator of big bang was jesuit priest, so catholicism is true!" is not an argument either

>DUDE YOU CAN'T PROVE GOD LITERALLY PHYSICALLY EXISTS SO LET'S SCRAP 6000 YEARS OF CIVILIZATION LMAO

What's supernatural about dependent origination exactly

>there is no killing in the world before humans put the world in a sinful state
>humans are the result of a process that requires untold numbers of organisms to be killed
It's contradictory with the Biblical record.

Of course it's not an argument, it's an observation

>That's not doubting the scientific method
The scientific method was formed on the basis of doubt, is sieved through doubt by it's definition, and would contradict itself if it were not doubted.

That's cool if you still like to larp as religious, as in still bow your head during Thanksgiving prayer, go to church on the rare holiday with the senpai, post ironic pictures of fedoras on the internet, etc. But extremely religious people, they are literally modern day crazies.

>The other quote yes, the one about being open minded doesn't.
Putting an arbitrary boundary on open-mindedness puts an arbitrary boundary on ontology and epistemology. He's a joke.

I never made that fallacious argument, I merely dispelled the fiction that scientific knowledge goes against faith. They're separate entities that rarely interact.
kek

take some DMT and reasses your situation

>thinking Dawkins belongs with Nye and Science black man
Whoever made that image is an idiot.

"Thou shalt not kill" refers to other humans.

Please provide any evidence that creatures killed other creatures before humans sinned in the garden.

Nye actually has the least philosophically ignorant quotation out of the four, though it still reflects a lack of exploration of the field, as nobody is really claiming that reality isn't real thanks to Descartes.

This is what annoys me about pop science today, it has none of the imagination and marvel that guys like Sagan brought to the table and just piggybacks off of his work with boring lectures and psuedo-intellectualism from people like Bill Nye.

No it wouldn't. It's an axiom. Scientific advances have been achieved while ignoring the method though.
I slammed that guy, but DMT isn't an argument. Hallucinations aren't reality.

Dawkins is ironic unfalsifiability: the author.

>It's an axiom
Theories do not pretend to be objective. You are ignorant of the scientific method.

> (You)
>Dawkins is ironic unfalsifiability: the author.
>t. I have never read a single scholarly article or book by Dawkins.

I think there's like two major schools of Buddhism. One is more religion like and the other more philosophical.

I have no brain but I must think: The Thread

>“The only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.”
This statement is unfalsifiable.

Validating the claims of Catholicism was never the topic. Contending the claim that education of the world correlates to lacking Christian views was, and referencing a major Christian scientist serves the purpose fine. You lose your rationale due to your anti-theism. Granted it's not a complete refutation. It should be of no surprise that exposure and education in institutions that are dominated by Naturalism make people more naturalist, however.

One of those schools is not major by any means, and that's the philosophically-oriented one, associated with new age interpretation and some tibetan sects. Most of the rest of Buddhism treats it much like a religion.

I'm just saying, there's a lot of pro catholic stuff in here that makes huge leaps, all presented smugly as well. That image of that guy railing on about nice and Jesus is discomforting as hell, what exactly does he mean with "Jesus would flip tables and yell. Maybe we ought to follow suit."? What is there for him to flip and yell about today? And what exactly is he hoping to get out of this?

Understandably, if this is meant to corral certain individuals together in such a way to make sure they are all living in a certain way, that's up to him. But is that where it ends for him?

3 years later and I still can't believe this happened

Evolution? Predators existed before hominids.
The scientific method isn't a "theory", it's a postulate.
Agreed, and I said it above BTW.
>Validating the claims of Catholicism was never the topic. Contending the claim that education of the world correlates to lacking Christian views was, and referencing a major Christian scientist serves the purpose fine. You lose your rationale due to your anti-theism.
This guy gets it.
Not just that, but there's the problem of enthropy. We don't know how high enthropy was in the instant prior to the Big Bang. And the idea of cyclic enthropy has been somewhat discredited.

Sagan's Cosmos tries to reconcile religion and science. I really enjoyed it. This was not very nice.

>Evolution? Predators existed before hominids
You have failed logic 101