/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2800552
>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.

lol wut. The default position is that we don't know. Then science makes some claims based on fact and evidence, while religon makes some claims based on hocus pocus. Therefore, religions claims are not to be taken seriously because there is no fact to back them up.

>If you claim they're wrong you have to prove it, which you did not.

lol no I don't. THEY have to prove it because THEY are the ones making the claim. Scientists aren't claiming that god doesn't exist, just that it is extremely unlikely based on the evidence we now have.

>>2751670
>It empowered people to do evil in god's name.

Except god created evil too because he is responsible for creating everything lol. Admit it christ fags, god is actually the source of evil, making him inherently evil. Enjoy worshipping an evil god!

>Religion provided a convenient excuse, yes, but the claim that it couldn't have happened without religion is risible.

Um, no atheist is claiming it couldn't have happened without religion. Where did you get that from? Your ass I presume, just like your other ideas about the wizard in the sky.

Here I'll say it again in case you missed it:

Nobody has started a war in the name of atheism.
Plenty have started wars in the name of religion.

So there you go, not only is religion bad for society but it's fucking illogical dimwitted and laughably preposterous. Enjoy being the laughing stock of all sane rational minds. Enjoy being looked back on as "those prehistoric thinkers from the 21st century who were so stupid they just assumed a god is controlling everything".

You are a laughing stock. Your views are laughable.

That said you are entitled to believe whatever you like as long as you don't impose your ridiculous views on others.

>>1708849

AGW deniers confirmed for absolutely fucking retarded

>>1634448

I assume the skeptics here in this thread are only two or three people. None of you have cited a single scientific source. Not even Scientific American or Science Daily. Meanwhile, back in the real world, Oreskes 2004, Doran & Zimmerman 2009 and Anderegg et al 2010 show that not only is there a near total consensus on the anthropogenic causes of climate change, but there's a considerable gap in expertise between pro-consensus and anti-consensus scientists.

Asking us to take you seriously is like asking us to take a creationist or flat-earther seriously. Ain't gonna happen unless you start showing that you actually know shit about what's going on in the scientific literature. Hell, the only person in this thread who even mentioned the name of a legit skeptical climatologist was fucking me.

pic related, op

Bump