/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2800460
you were doing exactly the same thing. You said, and I quote,
>I would love to hear your theory of how this might be possible. Oh wait, you don't even have a theory. Science on the other hand actually does have a theory that is based on fact, and that is why religion will always be wrong.

Which, paraphrased, is
>you don't have an argument
>therefore you are wrong

Also, religion has plenty of theories. Whether they're valid is a different matter.

>>2800442
>two million years of nothing
>don't mind
>pagans actively kill people
>not mentioned
>jesus christ born
>SEE HOW TERRIBLE IT IS?

firstly you're attacking the weakest point you can find rather than posting a full reply, which is pretty rude. Secondly, my arguments were against the dark ages, not that Christianity hasn't caused harm. If you read my post, you'd know that.

Would you mind defining the time period you believe to be the dark ages for me? I'm fairly certain there hasn't been a 1000 year period in which the christian world did nothing of value, though I'm not sure.
>>2800445
My point exactly. It's annoying and flawed, therefore you should stop doing it.


>>2800448
Where did I say I was agnostic: I am not, I'm an agnostic atheist.
The entire bracket "agnostic" cannot plausibly exist without a suffix of theist or atheist, because it is not possible to neither believe nor not believe in a god, for if you believe there may be a god but don't believe that there is one, you are not a theist, and thus you are an atheist.

Creationism is not taught in any public schools that I know of, and there have been countless cases in which the teaching of creationism has been discussed and banned. That is a wishy washy baseless statement, and it is also why people often find atheists to be overly arrogant and smug about their relatively arbitrary beliefs.

depending on the definition of legitimate, any religion is a legitimate religion, including christianity, islam, and pastafarianism. You just _don't_ discount something because you don't agree with it and there is no proof for it. "Lack of proof is not disproof" is, as I have said, extremely basic, and something that any rational person will follow. If you can argue against it, I would like to know why you think it isn't

also if your rage is fueled by caffeine after just two days you're fucking weak.

>>2800437
Prove deism to be impossible, or it's true.

See what I did there?
Stop doing that.

>>2800433
Nice straw man you got there

read my posts. Then I don't have to dislike you.

>>2800414
I re-iterate what I said: Lack of proof is not disproof. I am not religious.
>>2800418
Like they had been doing for the 1000 years preceding. Ask a historian whether the dark ages were actually that dark. Witch hunting was far more prominent in the late 17th century and throughout the 18th, and the inquisition wasn't in the "dark ages".

>>2800385
The lack of proof is not disproof. Come on, this is basic logic, and some very fundamental stuff. Don't even pretend you understand how science works until you can structure a decent argument.

>>2800384
The only reason einstein didn't work on anything quantum is because he thought it was improbable. As a result he modified his theories to allow for a universe without them, and wasted years of his life.
Your graph has no scale. The "Christian Dark Ages" didn't exist, and during that time period the muslim world created fully operational clocks, did research on the curvature of the earth, and advanced mathematics significantly. "Scientific advance" cannot be quantified.

If you want something that happened in the past that stopped us from exploring the galaxy, read up on the library of alexandria.

>>2800369
Assuming troll, nobody is that bad at arguing and capable of using a computer without electrocuting themselves

>>2800353
If you take everything that literally, why aren't you complaining at the use of "anonymous" as a name?

>>2800356
>agnostics
>must be gnostic atheists
>I don't think so
I agree they're mostly atheist, I don't agree they're mostly gnostic.

>>2800332
Agnostic theists, perhaps? Not an overly difficult substitution to make, if I'm entirely honest.
>>2800328
It's a metaphor. example of a similar case:
>einstein talked about god not playing dice
>was not talking about god or dice

Found the source on more scientists being agnostic atheists than anything else:
http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
48% "unaffiliated" and 11% "agnostic".

>>2800317
whether it's on the gnostic or the theist the post is still wrong, the vast, vast majority of scientists are agnostic, and the majority are atheist, if I remember correctly. I'm just double checking though

>>2800308
>most scientists operate as gnostic theists
Less than half of scientists are theistic, and the whole point of science is that you are building an accurate picture through multiple pieces of information that may not be accurate, therefore what you think is *probably* true might not be.

Most scientists will agree that a gnostic atheist is almost as illogical as a gnostic christian
There is no position in which one is not either theist or atheist, though atheists can be gnostic (hurr no way god exists) or agnostic (God probably doesn't exist/ I don't believe in him or against him).

If a god exists within physics they have made no noticable change to physical laws at any point, and all traits contributed to a christian god can be explained by the current model. The strongest citation I can think of for this is A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking.
The problem of induction invalidates itself as any answers we deduce will be deduced due to a pattern we see in the question. Every decision made is based upon patterns we have noticed and now use to analyse the world. Simply put, there is no satisfactory answer, but should the scientific method be invalidated by the problem, so too should theology, and its assumptions that because praying or believing in the existence of god are done due to past results they are beneficial.

>>2796230
Guessing this isn't going to be hard scifi then. Not sure if trolling, but meh: will carry on

The wall of the hull was destroyed, letting in a dazzling, unfaultered light that could kill a man in seconds. More importantly though, the atmosphere leaving and leaving fast. I grabbed a rack and held on while the air flowed out- better without air in my own craft than in space- and felt the inevitable agony of sudden depressurization. Out of the corner of my eye I saw Huey drifting, at an odd angle, out of the hole. He wasn't moving.

It is irrational in itself to want to rid ones self of the elements of humanity which are so fundamentally important they cannot be removed or suppressed. Try accepting you are human, rather than trying to become a machine, failing due to emotional strains, and become less self controlled than before.

>>2796194
see what you did there. You know, a creative person like you could do a paragraph easily.

Bump :(
Come on /sci/ you can do it. Nobody will know if you're shit at it

Everyone take it in turns to write a paragraph. This can go in any direction you want, but if you post something deliberately bad we'll probably ignore it.

It must be almost night.
"How long now?"
"Eight minutes, fifty three seconds." Replied Huey.
I had been waiting for almost 200 hours- 8 earth days- for the sun to finally become hidden by the dusty, grey surface of the dusty, grey rock I was to call home courtesy of VGE, and the tedium had been almost unbearable.