So there are schizophrenics and godfags on this board

But why?
We don't know, therefore god?
Science moves relatively slowly, but you're just doing god of the gaps, because we will eventually find out, assume we don't wipe each other out.

this is just a continuation of when primitive cultures have blamed phenomena they didn't understand on gods and witchcraft. it's very weak and serves no practical purpose.

t. literal retard

because, there are subjects that /sci. is too philosophically indoctrinated/impaired to explore.

>Strawman
What strawman? All I said is that you have skydaddy issues and being religious by definition makes you have skydaddy issues because you believe there is some almigthy super god who is definitely going to judge you after you die. Those are literal sky daddy issues. To not have skydaddy issues you need to be agnostic.

Well, what can I say. When you write to me such a compelling, well thought out and thoroughly redacted argument then I cannot compete.

I can't believe it, I have been had! I must become a christian today!

pascals wager

>hurr durr you're retarded for believing the bible because men write it and tell you its the word of God.

>believe exclusively in math and science which is the word of man who lie about going to the moon and thinks the universe created itself.

rather take my chances believing in God.

Well, I believe in Haramustra, almighty god of dildos. He created he universe by cumming it into existence and to save yourself from eternal hell you must every day take a BBC up your ass.

If you follow him you get eternal pleasure in heaven. If you ignore him or reject him then you go to fiery hell forever.

You can either believe in Haramustra and if he is real then go to heaven and if he is not then nothing happens.

Or you can not believe in him and if he doesn't exist then nothing happens, but if he exists then you get eternal heaven.

Welcome to the cult my friend :).

>pascals wager
Somebody post the full wager image.

>used to drown itself in delusions of grandeur and skydaddy issues.
>implying every person of faith spends more time thinking about religion than the very militant athiest that seeks to denounce it
>literally triggered repeating buzzwords thinking it makes your argument any better

Either sperging out or boring bait. Will bite the bait just for the chance of you being a double digit IQ sperg and to trigger you even harder.

>because we will eventually find out

Basic stemfag argument.
>500 bc: we will soon find out bros
>1500 ce: will soon find out just give it time
>2000 ce: any day now, we will soon find out
>2500 ce: we are really close, we will soon find out
>3000 ce: its coming guys, we will soon find out
>3500: we arent there yet, but we will soon find out.

Only stemfags can come up with this argument to maintain their delusion.

>>used to drown itself in delusions of grandeur and skydaddy issues.

How is believing that there is an all powerful and perfectly good force that is behind your back and will help you in everything not delusions of grandeur?

>>implying every person of faith spends more time thinking about religion than the very militant athiest that seeks to denounce it

This is a strawman of your own. I barely think about religion, it is just that OP brought it up and I shared my opinion. It is borderline irrational to believe in a religion, specially because of the bullshit reasons being given in this thread like Pascal's wager top kek.

Also, religious people do need to think about religion at all times because every religion has a very strict code of conduct. And if you do not always follow it, you go to hell. So either you are always thinking on religion, or you are just faking it and will go to hell, if it exists.

don't make me behead you in the name of Allah...

the point is we know and accept that we aren't intelligent enough to understand. You're just saying "uuuhhhh god, done, I know."

>Pascal's wager
>Islam

Oh shit I guess you are going to two hells now lol.

Fuck, I that line would set you off.
Respond to this

backpedaling this hard

This is what your argument has devolved into:
>"Well I think about it EVEN LESS"

this your last (You)

Every christfag should remember that their favourite magic faggot is supported by *exactly* the same amount of evidence as Haramustra.

Autistic but true

Science is not any more a cult then religion.
Science starts out with certain a priori axioms on which the entire sciences are build upon. Those axioms themselves are not put up for critical investigation, because everyone automatically assumes them to be true out of belief.
And anyone who opposes that base doctrine falls out of the scope of science.

this

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

>this your last (You)
I must say the same because after 3 posts you haven't addressed a single one of my points so this is clearly a troll thread.

Nothing to see here guys.

Here's some more (you)s for both of you dudes

>hose axioms themselves are not put up for critical investigation, because everyone automatically assumes them to be true out of belief

Well, that is the definition of axiom. And you have the complete freedom to operate under a different belief system, and you do by adhering to religion so I do not see how this is even a point.

Anyways, as you mention axioms are simply meant to be believed but we measure the usefulness of an axiomatic theory by how many useful theorems can be proven in it and science has brought modern technology meanwhile Islam has brought female genital mutilation and christianity has brought the KKK.

I think we can all see which system is more useful.

>posting this kind of tardation on one of the greatest scientific achievements in the history of our species, the internet.

christfags. Dumber than you can possibly comprehend.

Scientist have blind faith in evidence. They'll believe ANYTHING if there's enough evidence for it

>Blind faith in evidence
That's a pretty nice oxymoron user.

I think we can all see which system is more useful.

Science also brought the atomic bomb, automatic machine guns, tanks, musterd gas, car accidents, airplane crashes, unethical human rxperimentation, and mass scale pollution.

If you want to appeal to morality then religion is more useful.

...

I don't know about God but what I do know is that free will is incompatible with everything from Freudian Psychoanalysis to modern Neuroscience. And I do know we don't have immaterial souls, for it makes no sense for an immaterial soul to be confined to a material vessel, the brain/body/heart. I also think that the realm of Metaphysics which governs Physics - everything about this Universe - cannot interfere directly with the Physical realm, it must first let the Universe finish running to then do whatever. I also do consider the possibility of God being nothing but an alien who put life on Earth for whatever his civilization's final purpose is.

I belief in free will. Why?
Because I dont have choice. :^)

That doesn't pass even as a half assed response and by your choice of your words I don't think you truly understand the essence of determinism. See, three lines are enough to disprove free will anyway.
1- Decisions happen inside your brain.
2- You don't have control of your brain and what's inside it.
3- Thus, you don't have control over your decisions.
I didn't even have to explain determinism, psychoanalysis, Neuroscience etc.

>You don't have control of your brain and what's inside it.
nigger rape
underaged slave nigger rape

*tips fedora

itt: secular humanists attack religion for being """irrational"""
t. Christfag

A supernatural being is going to place you in heaven or hell when you die, and you have proof.

So, then is a very "human" thing to do

I'll be dead when we figure it out, if there even is an answer.

Also, I don't fill the gaps, just the beginning

you're preaching to the deaf and blind, but I admire your effort.

theres supposedly evidence of black holes and gravity despite noone ever having seen either.

ths is blind faith in evidence.

it's double blind when you never seen it yourself and believe in it because an authority or expert says its peer reviewed, even though you havent met or checked the relationship for biases on any of the reviewing peers to confirm the validity of the evidence.

this is called groupthink. when many support an idea because it sounds correct and others trust the decision of the expert by default due to their credentials and past correctness on other subjects.

so this is why we laugh at Veeky Forums stem morons who think we got it allfigured out, yet when it's wrong, "they're just adjusting the hypothesis to fit new discoveries"

philosophy will always btfo out of scientism

see socrates v.s. diogenes

You didnt get the joke right?

I belief in free will, because its not my will to not belief in free will.
There is no choice in believing in free will or not believing in free will, because the particles in my brain already made that choice for me.

Actually you will be good friends with Calvinists. Since they belief people who belief in god and who do not is already predetermined by God.

>the point is we know and accept that we aren't intelligent enough to understand.

this is an argument upon which people base their faith in god.

you ever find it strange the big bang was created by a catholic priest , or ever ask why the church funded so much science during the renaissance

>I don't fill the gaps, just the beginning
So a gap?

>this is an argument upon which people base their faith in god.
But that's just god of the gaps and you're no different from people who thought that lightning bolts were the work of Zeus.

>you're no different from people who thought that lightning bolts were the work of Zeus.

correct, and im still no different than those pagans, or believers in Gravity.

learn 2 philosophy.

questioning the heavens is literally what it's for, and every answer warrants 5 new questions.

>believers in Gravity.
wtf I am floating now

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_argument

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka
As long as science cant counter the dream argument, the philosophy of solipism, and Madyamaka theory, science can only describe relative mundane reality and can not have any claims on absolute ultimate reality and the true nature of all things.
Leaving open the realm of the paranormal and spiritual technology.

>fucking godfags

Claiming that every new theory that includes God is a "God of the Gaps" is a false equivalency. They are different ideas and require a different counter-argument. Science always changes its beliefs over time, why should we be so quick to dismiss the belief in a God which is compatible with science?
Also, like 50% of physicists believe in God or a higher power.

>being triggered by trolls

Atheism really is the autistic religion.

...