/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2837732
Because the military is a bureaucratic oaf that spends 700 dollars on a toilet seat.

Also, if the government weren't responsible for the lights, and saw them as a genuine threat to the public's opinion on UFOs, why would they not claim that they were flares?

>>2836168
I see what you did there
I don't remember why I started tripfagging, but I don't get the whole "hurr hate the tripfags" thing that goes on here. They give the boards character.
Also, some of ours (looking at colonel coffee mug) are fucking brilliant.

>>2832199
>Nazis are used as a tool by racists because racists think Naziism was all about eugenics
Racism was used to motivate the third reich. It was not the primary goal of the third reigh, it was the soup du jour

>>2832207
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you irony.


>>2832208
Is it?
my knowledge of prime numbers is pretty poor.

>>2832146
You believe that because you want your women to look like frail, defenseless children the subspecies that actually breeds useful, efficient men and women is ugly and beast like?
What is wrong with you?

>Krauss is using a mac

wait, what

>>2803105
upwards of 90% approval in gang rape situations
YOUR MOVE, DEMOCRACY

>>2803083
Krauss is less organised but his arguments are much, much better.

>>2802957
WITTY T SHIRTS
Craig is a dick.

>>2802936
Spaghetti.

>science follows ethics
>therefore god exists

>it might be possible in the realm of mathematics
>but it is not possible in reality

Dr William Lane Craig, professor in trolling.

>>2802067
It's been proven that a survey taken of a specific group will score more highly than a survey of a far larger group of people of the same intelligence.

Fuck your inferior spheres

Banach Tarski Paradox>n

>>2802649
keep up, krauss and some historian are debating on camera.

>popularity is fact
>majoratively christian undefined scholars= scientifically fair consensus

I cannot into bandwith :(. When's Krauss due on stage?

Krauss is so much of a cool guy he actually repels microwaves

>>2801121
I can't believe that you are not a troll. Forget everything I have said so far, it is physically and universally impossible you are this dumb and still on a science board.

Back
>>2800677
For the sake of fuck, listen to the words that I am saying instead of fabricating things that don't make sense, telling us they don't make sense, and then insulting me.
Every religion is based in reality in some way or another
even if it were not it would, scientifically speaking, be impossible to determine that religion to be false
therefore scientifically no religion is false, and saying that because we have a theory and they don't (a false claim) is wrong.

>>2800723
I know exactly what it means. You're making a claim (religion is absolutely wrong) against the claim that religion is not absolutely wrong and therefore justifying it. As you say,
>If you make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it, not me to disprove it.
If you say leprechauns don't exist I don't believe you, and do you know why? not because HURR UNLIKELY MUCH?, but instead because I have evidence that they don't exist, such as the improbably low number of cases of contact with leprechauns. I accept that they could exist because unlike you I'm not being absolutist.

Tl;Dr my entire point was that you were making a baseless claim. I used a further example to show the irrationality of that baseless claim, and now you are badgering me because I made a baseless claim, as if I have made some kind of obvious logical fallacy and you hadn't.

also: Yo holmes, smell ya later. Feel free to continue trolling me.

>>2800530
Google: Use it.
>>2800526
#3:good points, but the cause of the destruction of the library isn't known.The division of the world was inevitable regardless of religion. The crusades were genuinely stalling, and were responsible for an incredible amount of damage.
>>2800539
discount as in remove from all possibilities. It is not logical to hold an absolute opinion, when we cannot even establish the full workings of the universe.
>>2800557
Prove yourself right. We won't believe you 'till you do.
>>2800567
It's exactly the same. Like I said further up, holding any absolute belief is illogical
>>2800574
it's very simple. Just because I have a theory that hasn't been disproven, all other possibilities aren't removed.
>>2800596
This only works if you don't know the numerical value of 2, and you only have vague clues as to its meaning.
>>2800597
>even if he is real
I'LL FUCK YOU WITH A RAKE
>>2800613
nope. The default position according to current models is we don't know, the actual default is that literally anything is possible.
>>2800613
Lol yes you do. You have to disprove what they believe, not just tell them they have to justify it. >>2800634
do you know the original definition of "wise"?
>>2800641
All you had to do is read to the end of the fucking line. The end of the line. Just the end of it. That's like 10 words, you cretinous waste of carbon.

>>2800521
which is not what I was saying. The point was that you said
>you don't have a theory
>I have a theory
>therefore you are wrong

and I showed that because I have a theory (deism) and you don't have a theory (disproof of deism) I don't trump you. The religious don't bear the burden of proof in showing their religion to be possible, because the default position of any event is possible. If you claim they're wrong you have to prove it, which you did not.
>>2800526
Of course, the human brain evolved spontaneously and then was harsly sabotaged by christianity. was it not?

current affairs have no bearing on history

have to go because tea is ready, will be back soon

>>2800479
Atheism isn't knowing, Gnostic atheism is knowing. Agnostic atheism is thinking but accepting the possibility you aren't right, which is what you're supposed to be doing if you're a scientist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#Modern_legal_cases
is backed up by a few articles I googled. Not even intelligent design is taught there.

>Maybe you should grow a backbone
>stop thinking and start being arrogant

religion is a motivator for violence and conflict, but also a vessel for it, rather than a direct cause. I agree radical religions should be banned, and I also think religions that directly and knowingly oppose scientific theories without providing justification that is seen as reliable in a court, should not be allowed to interact with children, even those of believers. My practical views are not the same as my logical views, and from a purely logical perspective there is no valid reason to discount any religion.

In that case you need crack.


>>2800479
>>2800495

Hitler was a christian, and 20 million deaths due to stalin is a very conservative estimate. He was responsible for far, far more than that through the poor planning of infrastructure, leading to famine. None of these people were motivated by their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

>>2800465
>didn't greentext