STOP BEING ATHEISTS STUPID ASSHOLES

In before "gb2 bible camp". I don't subscribe to any religion, it's just logical and you are all fucking idiots for not being able to understand something as simple as the ontological argument. I would go as far as to say you do not consider the BIG questions as you are not sapient!

This is the ontological argument...
Start with 2 of Descarte's famous premises and something obvious...


Thought exists.
I am inseparable from thought.
I exist.

Perceptions are a type of thought.

I cannot (completely) control the universe (I perceive).
The universe (I perceive) influences my perceptions.


Employ logic...


I do not (completely) control my perceptions.
The perceptions I cannot control are a type of thought.
Another existing thinking entity is controlling these perceptions.
The universe (I perceive) influences my perceptions.
An existing thinking entity is controlling the universe.

God = An existing thinking entity which controls the universe.

gb2 bible camp

>>39

Because theoretical physicists don't shape public policy based on what Tau Leptons tell them what to do.

Physicists believe Tau Leptons exist and thus try to prove their existence. If some other theory comes along that explains those 64 events, then they'll go with that. They won't blindly go "NO THAT EXPERIMENT WAS WRONG TAU LEPTONS ARE REAL LALALALALA".

>>39
No, we have plenty of evidence that subatomic particles exist, it's just that these proposed Tau Leptons are proving to be elusive with the current equipment.  In high contrast, there has never been any evidence confirming the existence of a divinity.  ZERO EVIDENCE.  Wherever Humanity has looked with whatever instrument it had, there is no divinity.

You're like the rest of the mentally-gay religitards who take divinity as a given, which is in extreme contrast to the evidence, which over thousands of years has been ZERO.

The so-called miracles of Jesus are easily explained as propagandistic stories surrounding one particular Jewish rebel against the rule of Rome in Palestine.  We have no proof of them any other way, and nobody performs such "miracles" when placed near recording devices.  Remember, if it doesn't happen when the recorders are present and working, then it is generally bullshit.  These "Tau Leptons" may be bullshit ... but the existence of subatomic particles is POSITIVELY VERIFIED.

>>42
Yes they do. Physicists request billions of funds to fund university research projects and construct particle accelerators based on the faith they might discover something. This is exactly the same logic as allowing free speech, charity and other christian values based on the faith they make the world a better place. Do you want to get rid of that? I thought you liberals wanted to help the poor, yet you do not wish to follow in the way of Jesus.

>>44
Hey, don't look at me.  I cheered when the Superconducting Supercollider was canceled.  It was a superexpensive superboondoggle and I hardly support using government funds to fund universities in such a fashion.  Since such research is often just turned over to corporations anyway, I say let the corporations fund such research in the first place.

This is all in high contrast to Jeebus and other such divinities, which have never been detected, and the honest man would say never will be.  Expecting another subatomic particle is at least rational since we have a mountain of evidence for other subatomic particles.  There is ZERO evidence for divinity.

I cheered when the Superconducting Supercollider was canceled.
Which, as a result, means that the US has lost the race in that branch of physics. I've spoken to a couple particle physicists in other countries, and both consider the US completely out of the running. It doesn't help that this appears to be occurring across the board for all pure sciences in the US.

Why bother? Think brain drain.

A proper way to do it would be to provide a large enough chunk of funding that you get a say where it goes, then solicit the rest from the rest of the world. The LHC doesn't appear to have problems with international funding, despite the price tag.

>>44
The difference being that we'll get tangible benefits out of funding physicists. Blue-sky research spins off benefits constantly. This text you're reading is being displayed on a monitor which would not exist, powered by a computer which would not exist, which uses electricity which would not be usable, and and internet that would not exist, passing over cables that would not exist, etc, etc, etc ad infinutum were it not for blue-sky research.

There's nothing wrong with faith, but there are no tangible benefits exclusive to faith either. What does religion have to do with charity, for example? Those godless Atheists never donate a thing.

Who says God interferes with humanity? What if he lit the Big Bang, let physics take its course and went off to play Halo and jack off?

>>48

Then you'd be a deistfag which is gay as hell

>>48
Maybe he created humanity so we would create Halo for him?

>>49
Better than being an arogant jerk who thinks the ultimate diety is only looking over them.

AMIRITE?

I say we just all bow down to Darth Vadar and get the religious bullshit over with.

>>14

Seriously.  God violates Occam's Razor.

Perhaps we should just worship Mr. Cheney, who is the living embodiment and manifestation (as well as the spawn) of our friendly neighborhood Satan!

>>44

Wow, you make the term "Liberal" sound so... insulting. Too bad it isn't.

What I never understood is why people believe that the so-called Godless are any less inclined to help their fellow man than those coerced into doing it because if they don't, they're going to Hell? I think Atheists have figured out that you don't do something because it's forced upon you under threat of punishment (in this case, severe, eternal punishment) but because it's the moral thing to do. The idea that we don't want to help the poor, derived from the fact that we don't follow the main flavour of bullshit over here in the West, is a complete non-sequitur.

Then there's the idea of free speech. I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem that Christianity has been a big supporter of free speech, except when it comes to phrases like "God hates fags". If free speech and freedom of opinion is so much a Christian value, why attack those whose opinions differ from yours, even on the most fundamental tenets of your religion (its veracity, for example)? Why force (Yes, force) people to mention a God they may not believe in during things like the Pledge of Allegiance? The religious have always argued that freedom of religion is not freedom from religion, but guess what? "No religion" deserves as much recognition under the law as actual religion. Otherwise, at the end of the Pledge of Allegiance, we may as well add a rider to the end of it praising Allah, Buddha, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Morality ≠ Religion. They may occur simultaneously, but they also occur separately. All you christfags need to get that through your fucking skulls.

>>47
You forgot Tubes, in all their series.