Atheists and "science" worshipers btfo

If you followed my logic you couldn't prove you exist so not really.

this
unless i can go back in time and kill muhammad, who gives a fuck?

>atheists btfo
>monotoned idiot talking about time; doesn't prove a god
0/10

learn to crop, nigger

So it's an idea even more ridiculous than solipsism?

Attached: hold my beer.jpg (3024x4032, 1.58M)

Then who is the one following the logic? Who is that arrives at a conclusion?

It's a very basic and understandable concept of time. It is also functional.

Not giving you a view, what did the faggot in the video say?

The point wasn't to prove a different cult. The point was to disprove the cult of "settled science" faggotry.

He disproved the space-time continuum.

Sure it's more retarded probably even than what OP posted.

Irrelevant

The OP was a functional definition of time. What use does your idea have?

What the fuck does that even mean? He got high on weed and blabbered about time?

Berating retards who think they've found the answer to time and space in some random youtube video.

He proved that the universe does not exist in time, but that time exists in the universe.

Then what's it have to do with atheism?

This is utterly retarded because you've come to the "truth" that our senses are faulty in a universe with these extant faulty senses.

So your only argument is an ad hominem against YouTube as a means of communication?

That literally changes nothing

It is to do with the cult of "settled science" and atheism.

It changes our accepted model of the universe.

Berating someone isn't an argument it's a conclusion, I'm not going to argue with every schizo on Jow Forums

>He proved

Wow you can prove something like this on a youtube video?

All those scientists are morons wasting their time with experiments and papers.

Universe simply means it contains all things, your perception of the universe here is probably the issue. Of course time exists in the set of all things to exist and not visa versa, are you a fucking moron?

>Not arguing with everyone
Then how did I get so lucky?

The proof is extremely simple.

Time is merely a correlation of events. It is not some mystical fabric that is intertwined with space.

It has nothing to do with atheism, it's not proving a god exists.

You're not as retarded as OP who entertained my inane post.

>It is to do with the cult of "settled science"

You don't understand science. Nothing is 100% settled in science. It changes based on new found evidence. That's part of the reason they use the word theory to describe how the universe behaves. They could say we are 90% sure this is how gravity works according to gravitational theory, but we leave room for a much better understanding of physics to come along and provide a better theory.

The cult of atheist science is based on extreme certainty in settled science. This undermines that certainty.

I am OP, so you're the retard.

I know that, but the atheist science cultists do not.

lmao

Attached: 1549166618739.jpg (750x750, 85K)

>The cult of atheist science
No such thing.
>is based on extreme certainty in settled science
See When Mexico has to explain basic things to you, you have problems.
>This undermines that certainty.
It literally didn't.

You should hang out with better atheists then.

>No such thing.
Sigh...

I've seen enough from that camp. They are fanatical absolutists.

>doesn't explain why i'm wrong
Sigh...

I can't believe you deny the existence of this cult mentality.

Name one person who you think depicts this type of "mentality" and why you think so.

It exists as an thought/behavioral process that can manifest in any person. It can be seen in late night comedy shows, OKCupid profiles, Bill Nye the pedophile guy, and your local blue haired fat lesbian.

>It exists as an thought/behavioral process that can manifest in any person
Well don't backstep this early, jesus guy
>It can be seen in late night comedy shows, OKCupid profiles, Bill Nye the pedophile guy, and your local blue haired fat lesbian.
Since i asked you to
>Name one person who you think depicts this type of "mentality" and why you think so.
I'll go with bill nye. When has he said he knows that the science we know now is an absolute?

He is someone I pay very little attention to, so you cannot expect me to be an expert on his every word. I am talking about his orthodox attitude that places such certainty in mainstream accepted models.

>Well don't backstep this early, jesus guy
What am I back stepping from, exactly?

>He is someone I pay very little attention to, so you cannot expect me to be an expert on his every word
Then why did you use him as an example? You're basically admitting to just throwing a name out to try and prove your point without anything to back it up. So what other person are you going to reference to try and make your point?
>What am I back stepping from, exactly?
The fact that you went from "oh i can't believe you think these science absolutists don't exist!" then proceed to not be able to name a person who actually does this, is insanely retarded.

So my next step needs to be a catalog of people who exhibit this behavior/belief pattern and examples of how they practice it. I thought this was obvious to everyone, but I guess it is not.

Lol, not when you can't even name one. Don't pretend that i'm asking for some absurd demand when all i'm doing is asking you for a shred of proof for your claim.

I am completely unprepared in this department. I tend to tune out the unpleasant instead of cataloging it.

Video guy is a crazy fool
Time is causality (the principle of or the relationship between cause and effect)
Without causality nothing can be based on anything
Therefore it's impossible for time to be based on the material universe

Then why are you making the claim? Why would you want to build a strawman on purpose?

Just because I haven't cataloged examples doesn't mean that I haven't observed and experienced the things I have. I just don't have a list of examples to give you that are of any quality. But thanks for pointing out the area I need to work on.

I don't understand what you just posted.

Either you don't know what you're talking about, or they don't. Either way, you're both retarded.

Again we have deceitful rhetoric at work. Admitting ignorance where we are ignorant does not mean holding "faith" in something. Of that which we do not know, thereof we must not speak; anything else is delusion.

Furthermore, the sleight of hand at work in this post is the conception that if science doesn't have a perfect explanation for how the universe began, then that must mean God is real and religion (which one are we discussing right now?) is true.

This is just a false symmetry which comes from the mind of the theist. His own religion offers explanations for creation and much more, so his conception is that science must offer one as well or be a weak system of beliefs.

Of course this is all beside the point. Science is a practice, not a belief system, that is based around trying to create reliable, objective knowledge out of the shared experience of subjective humans. That the method has not yet reached beyond a certain point in the past has nothing to do with whether the methodology is reliable. Scientific knowledge is not reliant on knowing how the universe began the same way most religions are reliant on the claim that their God having created the entire universe and everything in it as a basis for the rest of their beliefs.

Furthermore, this is classic "God of the Gaps" reasoning. That we don't know what happened (if anything) before the Big Bang makes the theist fill like he can slip God into that space, but there's no evidence to support God as an alternative explanation either. Again, if we're being honest, we just have to say we don't know.

The deceitful theist demands that the intellectually honest scientist admit that his knowledge is not perfect, and then uses this as leverage to pretend that his own completely unsupported religion is at least an equivalent alternative just because it is willing to make claims it cannot defend.

Attached: One blade is reason, the other, science.jpg (240x180, 9K)

You sure got him.

>not even making an attempt to refute my point, instead opting to immediately jump to
>m-muh fedora atheist strawman

Attached: 9AE8D55E-6A8A-4694-BD2C-3E307B379F89.png (1334x750, 1.96M)

You're misunderstanding the purpose of this post entirely. The point is not to prove a religious viewpoint, but to shake the foundation in the certainty of accepted mainstream science. The model of the universe we are currently using is inaccurate.

>making an argument to a redditor
Nah he's on his high horse I'm not getting anywhere.

>The point is not to prove a religious viewpoint
Which makes it irrelevant to atheism
>but to shake the foundation in the certainty of accepted mainstream science
You couldn't tell anyone how it does that.
>The model of the universe we are currently using is inaccurate.
>we are currently "using"
??????????
>Nah he's on his high horse I'm not getting anywhere
You aren't getting anywhere because you and I both know he's right.

Time is cause and effect, therefore it's impossible for time to be caused by anything more fundamental

He could be right, how do you know?

The atheist science cult is what I am challenging. This cult is predicated on an orthodox adherence to mainstream science models, i.e. they have it all figured out.

I am merely saying that they do not.

What he says is that time is correlation. Did you see the dripping faucet example?

>fill

I think it's important to to conflate the "YEAH SCIENCE BITCHH" redditors with the actual science. Every single scientist worth anything will always admit that they don't have everything figured out, lest they wouldn't be a scientist.

The problem is people who just quote snippets from topics that they don't know anything about as if they are fact, without fully understanding it themselves (not that they should need a PhD, but a basic understanding is enough).

To not conflate*

>The atheist science cult is what I am challenging
The cult you have no clue exists, nor have proof? Ok.
>This cult is predicated on an orthodox adherence to mainstream science models, i.e. they have it all figured out.
Best guess based on mountains of scientific evidence doesn't equate to it not being able to be overthrown. But using faith isn't going to do that, it's going to be a better understanding of the topic in question.
>I am merely saying that they do not.
Well i'm glad to hear you speaking out against people you have no clue exist. None of this is making a God seem more reasonable.

The adherents of this atheist science cult, something which I admit is poorly defined, are more likely to be found on television and Tinder than in a science lab.

I admit that it is poorly defined, yes. Some people will readily know what I am talking about, and perhaps they can provide examples. No one has as of yet in this thread.

You're better off just stating theres people who blindly believe in science while not understanding a shred of it.

>Well i'm glad to hear you speaking out against people you have no clue exist. None of this is making a God seem more reasonable.
I think you might be having an argument with a straw man.

You're not necessarily wrong, but i'll just say don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Just repeating a phrase ad nauseam that you heard a scientist say, even if you don't understand it, is pretty brainlet like I agree. But that doesn't always mean it's necessarily wrong either. It's important that people figure it out on their own.

>anywhere because you and I both know he's right.
No I don't. He's a faggot atheist who thinks he knows everything but acts all humble with "hurr neither of us know".

>I think you might be having an argument with a straw man.
You have literally said you can't name these people, and you can't point to even one person. You keep asserting this atheist cult exists, but you obviously have no clue that these people exist. You've demonstrated that in this thread repeatedly.

It's a little more than that. There is an absolute certainty about their worldview that I find threatening.

That I do not deny. But this is not a God vs Atheism thread.

Attached: 1535529069907s.jpg (216x250, 6K)

You should probably see someone about that knee jerking condition.

>There is an absolute certainty about their worldview that I find threatening.
That nobody agrees with. Again, science doesn't state they're 100% right. Who cares what these people you're asserting exist are saying?

I do, apparently. I do not think I am alone because I have read books about it and had conversations with other people about it.

>I do not think I am alone because I have read books about it
What books? Give me links or actual names of books.
>and had conversations with other people about it.
You've had conversations about people you have no clue exist, with other people who assert the same thing? Ok.

There were a lot of examples of this dynamic in Robert A. Wilson's books. I think it was in the Cosmic Trigger series, but it might have also been in Quantum Psychology.

It's a thought-behavior system I see in the media, on the internet, and in some people I have encountered.

Science doesnt state anything. The fact that there are people (like you) who talk about science like a force or even an entity disturbs me.

I'm making the statement that science doesn't make claims about it's models/theories being an absolute fact.
>"...disturbs me."
Well aren't we being a bit dramatic.

I am not saying that it does, and I am not offering a critique of the scientific process. What I am criticizing is what I have termed the atheist-science cult who themselves place a high degree of certainty in some scientific theories. In short, they think they have it all figured out and violently reject any challenges to their worldview.

He said "existence is not based on time but time is based on existence"
That's not correlation
Existence can't cause cause and effect

He said that the universe does not exist in time, but that time exists in the universe. Did you see the dripping faucet example?