Why does Lawrence Krauss insist on making us look like retards?

Because he's honest.

being this mad xD

go choke on your bile xD

I disagree with the man, but he has the balls to debate muslims about the existence of God. He may be dumb, but he's got guts, and guts is enough.

oh thats actually very interesting, i dont think i saw that one!

Terribly sorry, but is this video about using observations of reality to disprove a necessarily metaphysical possibility of reality?

Because I don't think that's going to work out that well for you.

I dunno about the rest of your post but this part is very true.

>and making snarky remarks to the people asking questions.

Him and Brian Greene are both pretty bad. They get insanely butthurt when someone disagrees with or questions them.

Spotted the Christ-tard """scientist""""

>metaphysical

>reality

pick one.

How can a man like Lawrence who has a PhD be such a retard? Wtf

And yet he wins every single of the debates, do you even watch the full debates or do you just quit in anger because you can't prove Lawrence wrong?

>hurr god is metaphysical
Good, then he's irrelevant
>no, but he can intervene in our universe
Good, then he's not entirely metaphysical, and Krauss is right

How is he retard? He always wins the crowd. I never saw him losing a debate.

Converting more people to atheism is great. Did you know why the LHC was built in Europe and not Texas? Religious nuts.

Religious nuts ruin science.

the man on the left non-ironically tries to argue that the laws of the universe are not universal

Veeky Forums will defend them because they got brainwashed by /pol/ to hate on atheism

>I never saw him losing a debate

youtube.com/watch?v=TlaLVOnwBIs

Skip to the end of the video, when they vote: Krauss won.

>Did you know why the LHC was built in Europe and not Texas?

Because the money was stupidly wasted by the government.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider

>Converting more people to atheism is great.

You have to be over the age of 18 to post here kid.

Atheism has been setting science and humanity back since the turn of the 19th century. You can't pin the hate on /pol/

Maybe in Europe, Christianity is no longer a problem (although it caused countless wars in the past), because everyone is already atheist

But in America, Christfags are a huge problem, and get on the way of science all the time

>/pol/ apologist
>religious apologist
back to /pol/

fucking evangelists

my professor couldn't teach evolution because evangelists protested the curriculum

>hurr the programmer is non-data
Good, then he's irrelevant
>no, but he can intervene in our program
Good, then he's not entirely non-data

An AI believing in a programmer make as much sense as an AI believing in a magical spaghetti.jpeg creating new data. So illogical.

>everyone with opinions different than mine is a /pol/fag
>I demand an echo chamber of my own opinions!

>making us look like retards
What do you mean by "us", retard?

>Thinks Europe is atheist
>Can't tell the difference between American Protestantism, Christianity, and all of religion.

>>>/reddit/atheism is that way.

...

dance some more, W

Half of pol are atheists you dumb mouthbreather SJWtard. Fuck off from Veeky Forums already

>Atheism has been setting science and humanity back since the turn of the 19th century. You can't pin the hate on /pol/

lolwut?

This has got to be a troll. No one can seriously believe that.

/How/ would "atheism" hold back science? I don't even...

Atheists in China went through their universities and killed all their professors.

>/How/ would "atheism" hold back science? I don't even...

For starters, fedoras like you set back evolutionary theory a century by holding on to Darwinian evolution as infallible gospel.

Reminder that Krauss supports incest :

youtube.com/watch?v=0DdMZKl-3AI

No he doesn't you idiot.
He says the definition is too simple.
Cloning and stem cell therapy can get in the way of simplistic legislation, leading to avoidable sickness and even death.

>sandnigger : whats so wrong about incest ?
>kraut : it's not clear to me that it's wrong
Which means he's not opposing to that idea, which means he's okay with it.
Makes sense how much he looks inbred.

This is a perfect nutshell of the opposing sides.

What the religious of course don't see is that
- Krauss doesn't accept "why is it wrong? It just IS" (or it's gross!") as a good argument
- would accept a good argument if somebody would present him with one
- doesn't at all think that anybody should actually fuck their siblings
- clearly doesn't approve of what incest has, historically, been, and of the form of incest the religious are thinking of here (tribal chief fucking his daughter)

On the other hand, Krauss doesn't see how he comes across to them. He completely misses that they are not seeing this.

If this was a joke: you've successfully Poe's Law'd me.

read theology of the body

Why should I do that?

>incest apologetics
Go away Freud worshippers

If you asked me whats wrong with murder and I said I'm not sure if it is, it means I'm not convinced that murder is wrong and I wouldn't mind murder.
Which would be a sick ass thing to say, just like trying to justify incest.

>If you asked me whats wrong with murder and I said I'm not sure if it is, it means I'm not convinced that murder is wrong
Yes.
>and I wouldn't mind murder.
No.

"Would you like to have sex with my sibling?"
You don't know. Doesn't mean you want it, or you don't want it; it means you don't know.

Typically theist fallacies

Well, not opposing murder is enough to enable it. You can see murder going on and you wouldn't interfere because you're not sure if the killer should or should not be killing the victim.
Also I'm not a theist, I'm fedora as fuck.

hes saying there is no objective morality

Sure it is. Lets see if we can get this meme rollin' ;^)

I definitely see your point, but logically, what is wrong with incest from a moral standpoint?

Murder is easily justified as wrong by almost any moral system. If life is sacred, murder is wrong. If freedom is a human right, murder is wrong because it takes away freedom. No one consents to being murdered. Murders typically cause more pain than pleasure, from a utilitarian standpoint. The list goes on: one can easily conclude that murder is wrong, no matter how you justify it.

Incest is trickier. As long as its consensual, and both parties are of age, I have no moral qualms with it. I still find it fucking disgusting and degenerate, but I have no right to force my opinions on others. At most, we can say that incest is bad because usually it is accompanied by pedophilia or rape. Even then incest isn't intrinsically bad in and of itself.

I'm not defending incest. But I have no real reason to be for or against it.

*slow claps*

*steps out of the shadows*

Heh... not bad, kid. Not bad at all. Your meme, I mean. It's not bad. A good first attempt. It's plenty dank... I can tell it's got some thought behind it... lots of quotable material...

But memeing isn't all sunshine and rainbows, kid. You're skilled... that much I can tell. But do you have what it takes to be a Memester? To join those esteemed meme ranks? To call yourself a member of the Ruseman's Corps? Memeing takes talent, that much is true. But more than that it takes heart. The world-class Memesters - I mean the big guys, like Johnny Hammersticks and Billy Kuahana - they're out there day and night, burning the midnight meme-oil, working tirelessly to craft that next big meme.

And you know what, kid? 99 times out of a hundred, that new meme fails. Someone dismisses it as bait, or says it's "tryhard," or ignores it as they copy/paste the latest shitpost copypasta dreamt up by those sorry excuses for cut-rate memers over at reddit. The Meme Game is rough, kid, and I don't just mean the one you just lost :^). It's a rough business, and for every artisan meme you craft in your meme bakery, some cocksucker at 9gag has a picture of a duck or some shit that a million different Johnny No-Names will attach a milion different captions to. Chin up, kid. Don't get all mopey on me. You've got skill. You've got talent. You just need to show your drive.

See you on the boards...

I bet you didn't think I'd read all your post butt I did ;^)

My calculations say that the general bias against Krauss and his arrogance, his stupid shit eating grin combined with the word "incest" that adds a potential memetical vibe to it, the reinforced usage of it (meme spamming), my perpetual referral to Krauss as the incestman leading to mass curiosity among people to find out whats with krauss and incest, and this meme becoming a tool for people who dislike krauss to use against krauss fanboys in a strawman type of weapon makes it quite a decent candidate for a meme that will stick. Butt hey, even if it doesn't, I learned that making mistakes is part of the progress.

In the end, memes make the world go around ;^)
Hear it from the lord master memester of our time :

youtube.com/watch?v=2tIwYNioDL8

>Which would be a sick ass thing to say
I wouldn't agree. Unfortunately the nature of the human species demands lethal force be used in certain situations. Killing can also be a net positive in the bigger picture, eventually.

I don't draw a real distinction between killing and murder. Your moral system is externally defined and ultimately based on wilful slavery, and not in a Nietzsche sort of way.

/pol/ has turned this board into a fucking pile of shit. I miss when it was just a few retards spamming "YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN CONSCIOUSNESS".

>random /pol/ bitching
SJWtards spamming shitposts into random threads now ? Don't you have some BLM protest to attend to ?

>dropping SJW and BLM in one post

You forgot to say nu-male and cuck. Been posting in Veeky Forums since 2008, this year (election year) has been fucking hell for Veeky Forums.

So we're either like an AI in a program or... we're not. I assume not since this is a simpler hypothesis and there is no evidence we were created by an intelligence. Simply claiming that we are like something does not show that we are like something.

Yeah i was so saddened when pol did 9/11 too. That pol rite ?

Basically this.
If you think he won, you don't actually understand what's being discussed.

If you think he lost you must be a brainwashed Christard

I'm an atheist, I'm just not a dumbass about it.

Oh really - he "lost" the debate where the question was "does Islam or atheism make more sense?"

You legitimately think he LOST the debate because the other individual proved the claim that Islam makes MORE sense than atheism. Really. Fucking kill yourself.

Krauss was a dick during that debate - and the audience was primarily Muslim, so of COURSE they sided with the sand nigger. At one point, Krauss called Mohammed a pedophile (which historically, he was). But this in no way means he "lost" the debate.

I have an urge to just proclaim people like this poster just be executed. They're so "in the way", and their bullshit is not confined to a vacuum.

The other alternative is to forcibly take control of the media and use their hollowed out shell to deploy a state run re-education program. Gradually change the cultural structures and social feedback loops at work, shift the dialogue, and as the content slowly changes people will be naturally led along a gradient of mind expansion. Structures will be put in place to keep it this way, and inhibit future (inevitable) degeneration.

Seriously, fuck you people.

How could william lane craig be such a fucking moron?

How could you "be a dumbass about atheism"? That's literally a contradictory statement.

user, please.

I can't help but empathise with you (despite my being atheist). Everyone has the right to freedom of religion and I think this anti-religion movement may be heavy-handed. I'm also not totally informed.

The biggest misunderstanding is the concept that
Will argues for an absolute moral definition.

1) There are multiple religions which diffuse an ultimate truth, god, or divinity.

2) Who wrote the ultimate truth? How and why is it special, better, or in more in line with modern morality?
All unanswered..

*side note
When asked the cliche chicken or egg dilemma, Will claims it as false, then immediately says the chicken came first..

I'm not religious either.
It's less that it's heavy handed, and more that it's delusional and incapable of insight, foresight, or just plain sight.

It lacks base awareness and is near strictly tribal.

I believe you mean "communists". The atheists that you're talking about are secular humanists. Totes different things.

Murder actually harms someone. Not all incest actually harms someone. That's the difference. It's not hard to imagine two consenting adults, in a sexual relationship, not in an abusive relationship, who just happen to be blood related.

>mad at someone who claims that religious people are wrong
What's your problem? That they're too mean? That they're too confident in their conclusions? Do you actually think that there is a god!?

Really? Your position is that there is not a single person on the planet who rightly believes that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a god belief, and who rightly believes that religions do great harm in the world, and who therefore justifaibility acts to reduce religion in the world in order to make the world into a better place?

I bet your one of those people who hate on SJWs too. Probably white, male, libertarian, too.

I think he's exagerating, but he's not mad at someone who thinks religious people are wrong, he's mad at someone whose first reaction to being told he's not grasping the nuances of the discussion is fully discarding nuance and going tribal

Meh.

>Your position is that[...]
No, and not remotely implied. That you think it is shows you're part of the problem.

If I hate on "SJWs", there are hard reasons for it that I can trace back to a (hopefully) universally meaningful basis, and can communicate the logical framework in full.

"New Atheism" and reddit atheism (which a lot of this board has, too) is rather terrible, yes.
But I still think anti-religion movements are a good thing. Challenging the status quo is heavy handed, whatever. Religious people believe all kinds of dumb shit and even the "moderate" ones can hinder progress something fierce.
Don't be a dumbass, tripfriend.

>"New Atheism" and reddit atheism (which a lot of this board has, too) is rather terrible, yes.
>But I still think anti-religion movements are a good thing. Challenging the status quo is heavy handed, whatever. Religious people believe all kinds of dumb shit and even the "moderate" ones can hinder progress something fierce.
I don't understand.

I'm all right with atheism but it's this across-the-board condemnation of religion that I find inappropriate.

Condemnation meaning...?
What do you not understand? How I can think that naive atheism is dumb while still supporting anti-religion movements that are backed by basically the same people?

It's the condemnation of historically religious ideas on the ironic basis of blind faith, that I don't like. Since this is a Krauss thread, the Universe From Nothing is an example of this.

Is it really so awful that the machinery of the universe might have something comparable to our idea of a creator? Is it really so awful to entertain the notion that perhaps humans and other species were engineered by an advanced species that came before us?

The lack of base curiosity stems from this anti-religion mindset.

>What do you not understand? How I can think that naive atheism is dumb while still supporting anti-religion movements that are backed by basically the same people?
I don't understand what difference you believe there is.

Why? Do you believe it's always incorrect to correct someone else concerning a simple scientific factual matter?

>The lack of base curiosity stems from this anti-religion mindset.
How much woo do you believe? Are you similarly upset by debunkers who take on bigfoot, acupuncture, and the like?

>I don't understand what difference you believe there is.
Basically none, as said. I find the arguments and figureheads of new/internet atheism to be fucking awful but I think they are a net positive on the big scheme of things.

Debunkers are almost universally scientifically and epistemologically unfounded garbage, so I don't pay much attention to them other than for the goal of reverse engineering why their mind moved through the states it did.

I'm going to ignore your uninspired cheap strawman and provide my definition of "knowledge". It will give you what you seem to want to know.

Knowledge is a framework of relative truths wherein all elements are inherently uncertain and therefore weighted by apparent probability, while controlling for known and known possible unknown sources of error. This informs and feeds into heuristics iterated on over time.

There's nothing wrong with correcting people on facts but religious people shouldn't be considered ignorant just because of their religion. On the flip side religious people shouldn't push their agendas on people based on their faith.

That was a legitimate question. Do you also dislike it when people correct other people over acupuncture, homeopathy, and the like? There is a widespread belief that acupuncture and homeopathy are effective. They are not. These people are wrong, and they are harming themself out of ignorance, and their mere existence encourages others to gain wrong beliefs and harm themselves. The morally correct thing to is to try to educate them as to the facts, for their own benefit, and for the benefit of others.

>There's nothing wrong with correcting people on facts but religious people shouldn't be considered ignorant just because of their religion.
As a simple factual matter, almost all of them are. If you believe that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a belief in god, it almost necessarily follows that you also believe that religious people are ignorant - or irrational in some capacity.

>religious people shouldn't be considered ignorant just because of their religion.
But they are, though. Most of them don't read their fucking holy books, how are they even going to know about shit like the cosmological argument or whatever, and the counterarguments for said positions.

Also a lot of them ARE factually wrong on a huge number of grounds, even within their own belief systems.

>That was a legitimate question.
It's definitely legitimate, but it's not relevant.

I don't have much of an opinion on acupuncture beyond that I tried it once and had a bit of a trippy experience, but it otherwise did little for my chronic pain. Didn't like the feeling otherwise, not certain its spectrum of actions on a hard mechanical level.

Don't know anything about homeopathy.

I've actually had extensive experience with people who have the psychological tendencies and belief systems you're getting at. So I'm a bit dulled to it, and don't care much about ripple effects and edge cases, unless it's markedly harmful in a primary sense.

You not caring is one thing. You taking a proverbial shit on people who care, like me, when they're trying to make the world into a better place, that's another.

Giving religious people the benefit of the doubt and assuming they are only "irrational in some capacity": is the total abolition of religion really warranted?
Can religion not exist in a world governed by scientific thinking?

Well then it seems to me that the fight is really against ignorance and lack of education rather than religion.

>when they're trying to make the world into a better place
They might believe they are, but they really aren't. They're a myopic maladapted mess, and net out as in the way of people who want to get anything done. People like me that have to constantly fight against the false fruits of your sloppy and dim witted labor.

>Giving religious people the benefit of the doubt and assuming they are only "irrational in some capacity": is the total abolition of religion really warranted?

One. I care about the truth. Whether or not something is harmful is irrelevant to whether it's true.

Two. I especially care when it's harmful. The religious mindset is sustained only by ignorance, irrationality, and lack of critical thinking, which is greatly damaging to our civil society, plus the manifest harms visited upon everyone in society. The lack of proper critical thinking teachings in schools is especially harmful.

>Well then it seems to me that the fight is really against ignorance and lack of education rather than religion.
They're one and the same, almost. Religion can only survive in ignorance, irrationality, and in the vacuum of critical thinking.

>They might believe they are, but they really aren't. They're a myopic maladapted mess, and net out as in the way of people who want to get anything done. People like me that have to constantly fight against the false fruits of your sloppy and dim witted labor.
Simply disagreed. I proudly identify as SJW, and based on what you've said thus far, apparently you are also my enemy.

>Simply disagreed. I proudly identify as SJW, and based on what you've said thus far, apparently you are also my enemy.
That's alright. For now people like me are fading out, so it's not even rightly framed as a fight. The subset of the population with realistic insight and foresight will always exist in some capacity, and perhaps the cycle will loop back and our mindset will rise again. For now, delusion rules and will be enforced by social engineering. All you need to get your way is to invoke "bigotry", and then they are upon you.

There is so much wrong with that post, I don't even know where to begin. Are you one of those slymepit people who believe that all prominent feminists are professional victims, just seeking attention? Are you one of those people who use "social justice warrior" and "white knighting" as negative pejoratives?