They asks a metaphysical question

>be me
>be edgy atheist (roughly age 10-19)
>all religion is bullshit and your fucking stupid believing it!
>start seeing snippets from various religious text around
>hmm these are pretty interesting
>started reading various religious text
>buy more and more and more
>lots of overlaping themes stories and figures in most texts
>be me now 23
>coupled with redpills and various 'conspiracy theorys' i now believe in some form of creator/god/gods but dont know what
this is pretty hard to discuss with the average normie due to the immense amount of material ive consumed, anyone else have a similar journey?

Oh do go into specifics OP, who blasted your booty?

No, but do keep going. You're on the right track.

Not really. I thought religion was bullshit as a teenager, warmed up to it in my my early 20s a bit (still didn't think it was true) and then hanging out on Veeky Forums in my late 20s made me realize just how fucking stupid it is. I don't discount the idea of God, but I don't think any religion got it right.

>Political Power is way better at creating and acquiring these things. In fact, literally "making shit up" is way better at creating all of these things.

You'll have to expand on what you actually mean by this.

If you are suggesting that "Political Power" (sic) could have developed nuclear power stations without using the scientific method then, frankly, you are delusional.

If we are going that eay, most of those things only exist today and science is important in the development in our society because of capitalism.

However capitalism only succeded in it's initial phase due to the "capitalistic spirit" the protestant had due to their core philosophy, read Weber.

So yeah, you owe tchonological advancements and enhanced science to capitalism, and you owe capitalism to protestantism (specially calvinism).

i dont think any religion has it right either, but all the texts are like a fucked up memory or a Chinese whisper of something that happened a long time ago, but i dont think an omnipotent being is the correct thing, more thank likely, get the tinfoil ready, an advance race not from earth and thats where i lose 99% of people

Also you are basing of the premise that science and religion are opposing forces, which is factually not true if you have a minimal grasp on history of science and epistemological concepts, those entities are much more harmonic than you think.

I'm simply comparing facts:

Juche Ideology
>25-30 MW light water reactor
>Numerous Hospitals and Medical Research Centers, access to the best modern medicine in the world
>900 aircraft airforce
>Computers to hack Sony with.

New Atheist movement
>No Nuclear Power
>No modern medicine. You can ask Sam Harris to try if you have a neurological problem. Otherwise you got to use someone else's hospital, so at least on equal footing to Juche in terms of access.
>Zero Aircraft
>Some computers

Seems pretty clear. Juche just fucking works. If you compared it to Shia Islam, the results are even more assblasting. Call me when your little philosophy movement can create nuclear power stations, modern medicine, aircraft and computers.

You are aware that it is a completely fallacious argument to make a subjective argument about the "origins" of something, right?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

>They ask a metaphysical question
>Expect an equally unverifiable metaphysical answer so that we can discuss about subjective nothings
>Mocks you because you gave them a naturalistic answer.
>You point out that they are nullifying the point of the conversation by establishing rules that make debate impossible just because they HAVE to be correct and they know it
>Mock you again, because lol you couldn't disprove their unfalsifiable hypothesis, therefore they are right.

You know actually who I'm talking about.

I have no idea what you're even talking about.

I posted that particular Richard Dawkins video because it made a particular point, which you have completely failed to address, succinctly.

Randomly rabbiting on about different "ideologies" in incoherent greentext or "new atheism" is irrelevant and completely fails to address anything.

Yeah, but you started the genetic fallacy first

>When did reLIEgion made nuclear plants? It doesnt make nuclear plant bcuz science! BAZINGA
>Therefore I am big science dude and you are dumb sheeple

You wouldn't have nuclear plants if you didn't have a civilization and the capital to build one for, which you only have because religion is a important vector to our western civilization.

Bible is a written tradition, not an oral tradition.

>I have no idea what you're even talking about.
An admission of ignorance is a good start, but it's not something to be proud of in itself.

>I posted that particular Richard Dawkins video because it made a particular point, which you have completely failed to address, succinctly.
Richard Dawkins claims his vision of truth is correct because of the ability to produce Nuclear Power Plants, Modern Medicine, and Aircraft.

He has no power plants, no medicine, and no aircraft.

Kim Jong Un says his vision of truth is correct, because he's able to produce nuclear power plants, modern medicine, and aircraft. He has a working nuclear program, multiple hospitals, and hundreds of aircrafts.

By your own point, and Dawkins, we have no grounds to question Kim Jong Un's claims that Kim Il Sung possessed perfect human wisdom and his appearance was fortold by the heavens.

After all, it just works.

>Yeah, but you started the genetic fallacy first
>You wouldn't have nuclear plants if you didn't have a civilization and the capital to build one for

Wrong.

You specifically need to use to scientific method in order to develop and use nuclear power. Fact.

You were reverting to subjective arguments about x might have lead to y, which lead to c and that was the result of d etc etc.

Not the same thing at all.

If you are seriously suggesting that Kim Jong Un could create nuclear power stations by "the power of Gommunism!!!!!!" rather than using the scientific method then you are incredibly delusional.

>follows a religion that tells you to be humble, kind and empathetic
>acts like an arrogant asshole on an anonymous imageboard

And now you know how I feel

He's got the power plant, and you don't, so he get's to dictate what's delusional. Until you can produce a nuclear power plant, you're just wrong.

When you say "x is true", people call you arrogant.

True arrogance is pretending to know what everyone else can know, or cannot know.

You need scientific method to know how to make one, but to actually BUILD one, and to WHY you need one and how useful it may be it depends on other social, economical and cultural values.

No one builds a nuclear power plant just because he is le smart fedora science person and is doing it because science told him so, as much as science is in important to building a power plant, other aspects of human interactions are also important as to why you need a power plant and how are you going to build one.

Do you think that super collider that created dark matter came from nowhere, that a bunch of scientists just decided "we are enlightned dudes, lets make some dark matter", someone saw profit in there and invested in it, if that person didn't exist to finance the program, the super collider wouldn't exist. Without capitalism and the need of technological advancements, science wouldn't progress as much as it did, and it only progressed because of the calvinists.

You owe modern capitalism to calvinists, that is undiscussible, trying to argue against it is arguing against one of the most important sociologists ever.

I think they're most just an early attempt to get at the formless perfect something that philosophers have been trying to perfect since forever. Plato's form of the god, Aristotle's unmoved mover, Spinoza's God or Nature.

The other half of this equation I feel is the greater principle that guides this something, something akin to the Tao, which fits well with Spinoza's idea that God follows a determined course.

Naturalism is the only thing that matters because the natural world is the only thing we can know to exist with any degree of certainty, furthermore modern philosophy is mostly a fucking joke.

No, when you judge others on things you're probably doing wrong as well, you come across as an arrogant prick.

Also, your autistic monitoring of this thread, mocking tone and namecalling tells me you're horribly insecure about your convictions. Please don't project your own insecurities onto others, it doesn't make you look smart or authoritative, which you make painfully obviously clear through your behavior you're desperately looking for. Again, all it does is make you look like a really desperate, arrogant prick

>>calvinism invented people trading for goods
lol

>>you can't have science or scientific advancements without a capitalist economy
The Soviet Union says fuck you.

Me not owning a nuclear power plant is irrelevant and beyond silly as a point to bring up.

Secondly the point was that Kin Jong Un could not create a nuclear power plant by getting people to sing in unison in the square or whatever, he would need to use scientific method.

And thirdly, largely irrelevant to the point in hand, but just a factual note, North Korea doesn't have any working nuclear power plants.

>weber
Only important as a historical relic.
Stop talking bullshit as if you know WTF you are talking about.
Nothingh worse than an idiot acting as if he is an expert.

What is the scientific method?

>And anybody who doesn't agree with me is an idiot.

Go back to the 17th century where you belong, kid.

>Nothingh worse than an idiot acting as if he is an expert

>wheredoyouthinkyouare.jpeg

Here's a thought.

How 'bout you learn to samefag before you start insulting people? The above posts are mine.

>Me not owning a nuclear power plant is irrelevant and beyond silly as a point to bring up.
You're the one who brought the point up.

>Secondly the point was that Kin Jong Un could not create a nuclear power plant by getting people to sing in unison in the square or whatever, he would need to use scientific method.
But he didn't. He used Kim Il Sung Methods.

>And thirdly, largely irrelevant to the point in hand, but just a factual note, North Korea doesn't have any working nuclear power plants.
They actually have working reactors, they just use them for fuel creation. Still doesn't change the fact that they have more computers, medicine and aircraft.

>Makes metaphysical claim
>uses physical example to demonstrate it
>given physical response why that example is wrong
>Claim that doesn't matter because the claim is metaphysical

Someone who actually studied sociology.
Stop spreading bullshit.

>the natural world is the only thing we can know to exist with any degree of certainty,
Giverherthedick.jpeg

BIG MAN.

Yeah that one too.

How about you learn to realize that desperately seeking other people's respect shouldn't be done on an anonymous imageboard, angrily typing out 'clever' quips you read the cool kids on /pol/ spout, mixed with some entry level theology

>OMG i put le jpeg behind it im sure all the cool kids on Veeky Forums will consider me some epik intellectual

You're pathetic. Get a life

I'll accept that as an admission of error.

Get help for your autism though; when you falsely accuse other people of things they are not, you are really only using a weapon that's fashioned against you.

I love how you're supposed to be the moral highground superintellectual theologian, yet fill your desperate, angry posts with namecalling. Because that definitely doesn't show how much you wish people held you in high regard.

Which we don't, by the way

>You're the one who brought the point up.

The person I was replying to.

>But he didn't. He used Kim Il Sung Methods.

He doesn't have one.

>They actually have working reactors, they just use them for fuel creation. Still doesn't change the fact that they have more computers, medicine and aircraft.

This is quite possibly the most retarded thing I have ever read.

Ok. Since you seem unaccustomed to Veeky Forums culture, a position of intellectual skepticism and focusing what is immediately knowable has already been thoroughly explored by René Descartes (1596-1650), one of the most important figures in modern philosophy.

Struggling to discover what could be known with any degree of certainty, Descartes effectively demonstrated that we could never know the external world because it would always, fundamentally rely on unreliable input from our senses, and that the only thing that we COULD know to exist with any degree of certainty is our own thoughts.

I'm sure since you're a genuine intellectual, unlike me though, you already knew all this and your post about how the only thing we can know with any degree of certainty being the natural world was some sort of horrible typo.

They have one. It's at the Yongbyon Nuclear Site, they have it by treaty and the testimony of UN inspectors.

Here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yongbyon_Nuclear_Scientific_Research_Center
>The major installations include all aspects of a Magnox nuclear reactor fuel cycle, based on the use of natural uranium fuel:

>a fuel fabrication plant,
>a 5 MWe experimental reactor producing power and district heating,
I am glad we're making progress that you accept that Dawkins argument means that the existence of the Nuclear Reactor establishes the Truth Value of Kim Il Sung Thought, but the fact is, they have Nuclear Power.

It did not invented, but made it work in the USA and gave it a headstart in comparison to catholics.

>The soviet union

Oh yeah Prypiat is so fucking happy

>Since you seem unaccustomed to Veeky Forums culture
>Veeky Forums culture

Again, the cringe. The absolute cringe. Do you seriously thing that anyone, other than some desperate, lonely dumbass like you gives a rat's asshole about the cultural assumptions on an anonymous imageboard that has parts of it dedicated to girls with dicks?

All you've shown here is how desperate you are for other people's attention and approval. You desperately try to fit in, you desperately made an internet "culture" your own, desperately seeking out all the specifics and rules that go along with this "culture" (which, to let you in on a little secret, just about nobody cares about, apart from you) and now you're here, desperately discussing sophomoric philosophy and theology, with people who don't even know you, won't care about or remember anythibg you angrily type on here and only keep responding to for a laugh, to see how annoyed you can get before you leave, having impressed exactly no one.

I don't know how to tell you this, but please, leave Veeky Forums. Turn off your PC. Go outside, go meet new people, get a job or a new job if you're sick of your current job, go do volunteer work, get a hobby or a sport, socialize, and whatever you do, don't ever try to impress random strangers that you're the new C.S. Lewis, because in reality, nobody knows who you are or cares about even a single word you type on here.

I'm leaving now, you can tell yourself that it's some epic victory and that you scored 100 Veeky Forums points, but I'd rather have you realize how pathetic you are, because outside of you, nobody else cares about this thread

...

Wow you sure typed a lot of words on Veeky Forums for a guy who doesn't care about Veeky Forums.

Nobody is acting like an expert here you pretentious asshat.
Also you disn't rebutt anything I said, just greentexted "Weber" and dismissed the source (the same genetic fallacy you accused me of using in the start of the conversation).
So yeah, try arguing that christianity wasn't the reason for the capitalistic progress in the 18th century big boy if you are so fucking expert in the subject

This is a ridiculous argument but I'll humor you anyways.

Assuming that the NK government remains the same but loses all of its scientific knowledge there's no way for them to build another generator. Assuming however that their government changes but retains the scientic knowledge they'd be able to build another generator if they wanted. The only determining factor is the scientic and engineering know-how and not the government in charge.

What you're doing is mincing words about Dawkins' statement that "science is responsible for modern conveniences therefore it has more credibility than other systems" and attacking a strawman that you yourself are aware of.

I wonder what will happen when you realize I'm not here for your approval, nor do my posts have any namecalling in them.

Just advice.

For instance, if I told you to lose some weight, fatty, sight unseen, you could infer that I am indeed fat.

It's just logic.

I think--and I could be wrong here, but I really do think that u

r

mad.

tl;dr

You still haven't answered my question about what the scientific method is.

Is it the same everywhere?

...

>projecting this hard

I'm hoping for your sake that this is just an obscure copy pasta

Pro-tip: never talk about metaphysics to anyone.

So true. It's a big reason why politics in the west is fucked. Both left and right think each other are literally destroying their countries with malicious intent and are completely unwilling to accept any arguments by the other side otherwise

Cry Havoc! and let slip the dogs of war.

Talkin' time is over.

>Atheist asks metaphysical question about the nature of God
>Give him answer based on a thousand years of theology, tradition and the Bible verses that support it
>"Well that's not how I imagine it so you're wrong haha, I was never going to accept your answer because I deny the validity of your sources despite those being the sources that assert the existence of God in the first place, owned man"

If it wasn't, it is now >:)

>Everything from God is not confusing
>Trinity is confusing
Ok

You're in your late 20s and you get your views from a site where the average user is 18-20?

>I'm confused, therefore something is confusing and not from God.

Not him, but I got socks older than that.

Veeky Forums is 13 years old, and it still retains a great deal of its original user base.

You might be ~18, but there are plenty of 20-30-somethings kicking around.

The majority of the old users got lives, they don't come here anymore. Veeky Forums is mostly browsed by edgy teenagers

If God can affect the physical world, you can ask physics-based questions about him. If he can't, or has never chosen to, then almost all non-deist conceptions can be discounted out of hand.

>(1 Corinthians 14:33) For God is not the author of confusion...
>the doctorine has sparked more arguments than any other doctorine, even among Christians

You can, but can you ask the right physics-based questions about him?

Asking the wrong ones enough times in a consistent, systematic way will eventually guide you to the right one, assuming the thing you are asking questions about is actually there.

You're assuming he interacts with the world via a recognized phenomenon

No, that's just the lie of empiricism.

Start with wondering what "unapproachable light" means.

Not at all. The mechanism can be completely unknown, as long as the effects can be measured. If they can't be measured, you either have a temporary setback in how you design your tools and they need to be improved, or the effect doesn't actually exist.

Let's see you explain the following "physics" elements as you search for tools by which to measure God.

What is light?

What is gravity?

What is magnetism?

What is a field?

Protip? You have no answer for any of them.

With provisional, simplified answers: light is a pulse of energy in the form of a wave, specifically electromagnetic energy.
Gravity, as far as we can tell right now, seems to be mass-induced deformations in the shape of space.
Magnetism is the force applied by a magnetic field, resulting from the interactions of charges.
What exactly a field is depends on what scale you're looking at, but broadly it'a a mathematical construct used to approximate the strengths and directions of phenomena at various distances.

A few of those are likely inaccurate since it's been a while since I've studied those in particular, so please feel free to correct the mistakes I've made.

>>It did not invented, but made it work in the USA and gave it a headstart in comparison to catholics.
lol bullshit what actually happened was that the US had a pretty decent chunk of a continent all to itself since most of the natives died of disease before the major waves of settlement began in the 19th century. We had practically no real competition and therefore we became a powerful industrial nation by default, religion had jack and shit to do with that.

>>Oh yeah Prypiat is so fucking happy
Everybody screws things up sometimes, especially when you're a communist, but even market economies have faults.

>>the 17th century
Nah, I'm nice and comfy right here in the modern world where all the places that matter largely don't give two shits about religion one way or another.

Yeah man, industrialism came from nowhere, Weber was wrong. Random Veeky Forums poster is right.

Ps: the same could be said about Brazil but that didn't happen, but you will probably say it was niggers or some shit.

oh look, the define-every-single-word troll is back

Not him, but if you want to imply that "x" lead to "y". Then you should define what "x" is.

this is more important if you are writing an actual scholarly article. plus all the words he asked to be defined are scientific terms that are well-known and clearly defined. If he doesn't know what they mean he should google it.

I've seen someone derail a thread a few days ago by asking someone to define about every word he used, and then to define the words he used to define those words.

It doesn't mean that the guy that is asking doesn't know, he is trying to taunt and provoke his opposition to see if he actually knows what he is talking about.

Maybe the guy went overboard with it, but you can make good provokations with that sort of stuff, like asking what "life", "freedom", and "rights" mean.

Go back and read it again. You're at the stage where you think that just because you've read a bunch of religious works, you're better than the people you haven't. The first step is knowing that you know nothing of the divine and humbling yourself before mystery.

You can keep on reading religious stuff, but you eventually will realise humans don't know shit about metaphysics nor do they own the devices to reach true knowledge of the so called "divine" yet.

>>Yeah man, industrialism came from nowhere, Weber was wrong. Random Veeky Forums poster is right.
Well I am right and weber is a faggot so...

>>Ps: the same could be said about Brazil but that didn't happen, but you will probably say it was niggers or some shit.
Try niggers and lots and lots of shitty land for agriculture, and less natural resources available to exploit compared to the continental USA.

We need a religion board. I know religion is intertwined with other humanities, but I'm so fucking sick of this subject clogging up 40-60% of the threads on the frontpage at any time. Give it its own specialty board.

Nothing in my life has fueled my hatred for religion more than this flood of religion threads and their walls of copypasted text passages drowning out other types of threads.

Christianity is anthropocentric garbage, developed in a time where we thought that humans and/or Earth were the central focus of the universe, devoid of perspective which will be replaced with or converted into another religion with people spouting it as truth in a few thousand years. Religion isn't concerned with giving the truth, but rather with coddling incorrect primal human instincts and more broadly helping one have hope and meaning (albeit effectively) in an uncaring indifferent existence; it's psychological, no different to a Flat Earther needing the rush that comes with feeling like they're uncovering a vast conspiracy.

>Shitty land for agriculture
Volcanic land is the best land for agriculture and you don't know shit since nigger came way later in Brazil's colonization