Clearing up some things

[Bopizku]

About my personal views based on my knowledge I've gained over the years.

It's the first sentence in the post, dude.

Yes, it's your personal belief and opinion, I get it.

What I don't get is what message you're trying to tell everyone.

[Ad Bot]

[Nasoa]

i love how the op is just nonchalantly declaring what it's saying as fact

thanks for clearing things up, and excellent use of the thesaurus

[Lalam24]

didn't say anger

Okay, "some sort of reaction" is what you and everyone else here has done, then.  If you want to nitpick about the literal meaning of things, think about what you post first.

[otto-san]

Okay, "some sort of reaction" is what you and everyone else here has done, then.  If you want to nitpick about the literal meaning of things, think about what you post first.

lol ok then

[Lalam24]

i love how the op is just nonchalantly declaring what it's saying as fact

thanks for clearing things up, and excellent use of the thesaurus

Portions of it are fact, portions of it are not.  Care to elaborate on what you feel is stated as fact and shouldn't?  My rhetoric being minorly advanced isn't implicit of me keeping a thesaurus handy at all times.

lol ok then

You do realise you've created more of a conflict by making the initial argument at all, right?  I'm out for actual debate, you wanted to assume foul play on the part of the opposition.

[Menen]

How do i use math to disprove religion do tell

Jesus + Jesus = Jesus^2, Divided by the Fedora Theorem produces zero therefore religion is false. Is that right?

[Lalam24]

How do i use math to disprove religion do tell

Depends on what religion and what portion of the religion.  For example, the original testament's statements are inconsistent with eachother.  Most religions share the same general ideals, though, and are based on preexisting material which is found in ancient literature.  That alone is evident of a mathematical inconsistency -- believing in something that's derived from something you don't believe in.

In other words, almost all monotheistic religions are based on polytheistic beliefs.  This isn't just speculation based, either.  The epic of giglamesh is what contained the original story of the Ark, but it was a tale that depicted many gods, not just one.

Jesus + Jesus = Jesus^2, Divided by the Fedora Theorem produces zero therefore religion is false. Is that right?

Did you actually read the OP or just assume I'm one of those self righteous "intellectually advanced" fedora wearing edgy kids because you dislike reading something you don't want to agree with?

[Menen]

Depends on what religion and what portion of the religion.  For example, the original testament's statements are inconsistent with eachother.  Most religions share the same general ideals, though, and are based on preexisting material which is found in ancient literature.  That alone is evident of a mathematical inconsistency -- believing in something that's derived from something you don't believe in.

In other words, almost all monotheistic religions are based on polytheistic beliefs.  This isn't just speculation based, either.  The epic of giglamesh is what contained the original story of the Ark, but it was a tale that depicted many gods, not just one.

How the forget is that even math thats more like a logical error

[Lalam24]

How the forget is that even math thats more like a logical error

Variables based on logic and their improper use to equal something that cannot exist.  Being under the impression that x+x=0 while assuming x=1

[Mysteroo]

I agree with a lot of this except for

Mathematically and historically, almost all mainstream religions are false. Or, rather, their supernatural concepts cannot exist if you rely on the texts alone

The latter part excuses the first I guess, but it's still a very big statement. You can't disprove the supernatural with mathematics, because by definition the supernatural can defy the scientific laws we know. As for history, many religions are false, yes. But a few of the more popularly believed ones don't contradict history by all accounts I've seen and read.

and I also disagree with this

Homoloveuality isn't a choice (based on biology that isn't homegrown speculation). Chromosomal mutations/hormonal preferences aren't magically warped by mental power.

I'm not saying I know for a fact why they are the way they are, but I wouldn't go so far as to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't a choice- or maybe it would be better to say that it's something you have control over rather than to say it's strictly a conscious choice. In everything I've ever heard and read about the debate, scientists have never found a gene that affects which love you're attracted to. And this is backed up by the fact that Jason Collins, a Basketball player, came out and said he's gay; but he's also an identical twin to someone who is straight as can be. They have the exact same set of genes.

In other words, almost all monotheistic religions are based on polytheistic beliefs. 

I'd say it's the other way around, but that's an entirely different argument. For that we'd have to know for a fact which religion came first and that's just not something we can ever really know beyond reasonable doubt

[Doughboy]

Jesus=mc²

it all makes sense now

[Nonnel]

Maybe Lalam posted this on /b/ first, then here. Either way, I don't think the person who wrote this fully understands what a theory is.

No, he took out the "I am neither liberal or conservative" part at the end. lol

[Mysteroo]

Maybe Lalam posted this on /b/ first, then here. Either way, I don't think the person who wrote this fully understands what a theory is.

I also don't think the person who called Evolution and The Big Bang a theory knew what a theory is

theories can be tested and observed. You can see things that may suggest evolution or the Big Bang happened, but there is no way you could ever test or observe the two themselves.

[Kevso]

I don't care about religion. All you really need in life is common sense and logic.

[Lalam24]

No, he took out the "I am neither liberal or conservative" part at the end. lol

I posted it on /pol/ first, and took it out because I didn't think it'd be relevant because this isn't specifically a political forum.

I agree with a lot of this except for The latter part excuses the first I guess, but it's still a very big statement. You can't disprove the supernatural with mathematics, because by definition the supernatural can defy the scientific laws we know. As for history, many religions are false, yes. But a few of the more popularly believed ones don't contradict history by all accounts I've seen and read.

and I also disagree with thisI'm not saying I know for a fact why they are the way they are, but I wouldn't go so far as to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't a choice- or maybe it would be better to say that it's something you have control over rather than to say it's strictly a conscious choice. In everything I've ever heard and read about the debate, scientists have never found a gene that affects which love you're attracted to. And this is backed up by the fact that Jason Collins, a Basketball player, came out and said he's gay; but he's also an identical twin to someone who is straight as can be. They have the exact same set of genes.
I'd say it's the other way around, but that's an entirely different argument. For that we'd have to know for a fact which religion came first and that's just not something we can ever really know beyond reasonable doubt

From what I've read it's different, but you could definitely be correct.  However loveual preferences for the same love don't seem to actual be choice related, considering loveual attraction itself isn't a choice.

Polytheistic beliefs which entire civilizations followed existed for far longer than our common monotheistic religions.

I also don't think the person who called Evolution and The Big Bang a theory knew what a theory is

theories can be tested and observed. You can see things that may suggest evolution or the Big Bang happened, but there is no way you could ever test or observe the two themselves.

You can test both of them in real time.  We have specific data suggesting gene mutation over thousands of years/species differentiation is all you really need for evolution.  The big bang theory is the same way, we can test certain aspects of the universe expanding through the site of certain colors the further we look out.  I forgot the specifics, but I'm sure I could find it if I looked hard enough.  They're both theories, though.  It isn't just some mass delusion.