/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1518030

OP you`re just so retarded i have NOTHING to say to you.

There is no sceintific prove of god.

But there is no sceintific evidence in the BELIEVE that laws of nature ARE being consant at any time under any circumstances, on any scale either.
since we don`t see/understand laws of nature on the smallest scale for example.
Declaring it constant is just as obscure as declaring a flying spaghetti monster does exists. Maybe there aren`t even laws on the smalest scale.

Besides that, one can`t even prove if he or the universe is real, in which case laws of nature are just an illusion.

See sceince alone can not be enough to form a grounded and stable worldview, one has to believe at least something.

Believing appears to be the destiny of a human, so why swim against the tie, and fallow a verry unlikely logic.

>>1468084

Richard Dawkins was already a dead man to me.
He died on the day he became an atheist.

>>1429970

it tells us all the determinist atheists were oficially wrong. And may reconsider their atheism.

>>1432391

If christians are right then they have had a submissed life an go to a wonderful afterlife.
If they are wrong, they have had a submissed life.

If atheists are right, they have had a free life.
If atheists are wrong, they they have had a free life and go to a horrible afterlife.

>Theists, if god existed, then how would you be able to prove it?
There is no sceintific prove of god.

But there is no sceintific evidence in the BELIEVE that laws of nature ARE being consant at any time under any circumstances, on any scale either.
since we don`t see/understand laws of nature on the smallest scale for example.
Declaring it constant is just as obscure as declaring a flying spaghetti monster does exists. Maybe there aren`t even laws on the smalest scale.

Besides that, one can`t even prove if he or the universe is real, in which case laws of nature are just an illusion.

See sceince alone can not be enough to form a grounded and stable worldview, one has to believe at least something.

Believing appears to be the destiny of a human, so why swim against the tie, and fallow a verry unlikely logic.

>>1410196
Oh shit my nigga, this wordview is even worst than that of a muslim.

>yet the universe follows very consistent laws, we exist in a statistically improbable...
Correction you BELIEVE the universe follows very consistent laws.

>>1387090

don`t see anything wrong with saying the truth.
if some schizofrenic retard says "I have feelings for an imaginarry friend" he might just be speaking the truth in his perspective.

just like a theist can say "i believe in god"

what`s your IQ /sci/ ???

mine is 163

ps. im an atheist

>>1366911
No

atheism = There is no god
agnosticism = "we don`t know"

You remind me of that asshole kid who used to make up new rules in the middle of the game or even declare that it was really the rule all along.
And make rules more complex just becouse they wanne win. (note that a lot of atheists are as coward and arrogant like you)

If you conclude that you don`t know wheter there is or is no god, just convert to agnostic.

In stead of trying to distort defenitions and words in your advantage, just becouse you are too cowerd to accept that you were wrong.

>Atheistfags got told

the evolution theorie has nothing to do with modern religion or atheism.

If the evolution theorie is the only reason you`re atheist you`re a complete retard anyway.

Sceince alone can never be enough to form a grounded and stable worldview.

>>1344806

>Give me any scientific reason to believe in god.

There is no sceintific prove of god.

But there is no sceintific evidence in the BELIEVE that laws of nature ARE being consant at any time under any circumstances, on any scale either.
since we don`t see/understand laws of nature on the smallest scale for example.
Declaring it constant is just as obscure as declaring a flying spaghetti monster does exists. Maybe there aren`t even laws on the smalest scale.

Besides that, one can`t even prove if he or the universe is real, in which case laws of nature are just an illusion.

See sceince alone can not be enough to form a grounded and stable consideration, one has to believe at least something.

Believing appears to be the destiny of a human, so why swim against the tie, and fallow a verry unlikely logic.

>Everything we know about this universe is natural.
i defie natural as "something not influenced by human". So even God would be called a natural phenomenon.

>>1338044

Ah, you are talking about the BELIEF that laws of nature are being consant at any time under any circumstances, on any scale.
Indeed declaring that everything IS dependend on just some set of laws is as obscure as declaring a flying speghetti monster does exist.

But hey you see believing appears to be the destiny of a human, so why swim against the tie and fallow a verry unlikely logic?

>>1338044

Ah, you are talking about the BELIEF that laws of nature are being consant at any time under any circumstances.
Indeed declaring that everything IS dependend on just some set of laws is as obscure as declaring a flying speghetti monster does exist.

But hey you see believing appears to be the destiny of a human, so why swim against the tie and fallow a verry unlikely logic?

>>1118956
Atheism has NOTHING to do with knowing.

it is completely depending on how arrogant you are and your self-image ("i am a smart person, so i must be an atheist.").

even when you know all nature.com articles and have 10.000 IQ points it doest`n give you any advantage when it comes at looking what`s behind this infinite cosmos.

believing appears to be the destiny of a human, so why swim against the tie and fallow a verry unlikely logic?

>>1004536
>The existence of the words "atheist" and "agnostic" make it seem like there is no default stance. There IS a default stance. The default stance is to be FUCKING NORMAL.

No
atheists should be called sub-humans, pseudo-intelligent entity`s or retards.

THEY ARE NOT NORMAL PEOPLE !!!

im theist

about 90 % calls themselve "atheist" here.

But still, they`re always one the losing side in religious threads.