/sci/ - Science & Math

Enjoy your cognitive dissonance

do you hate yourself?

>>1015809
You just made a social psych fag orgasm

>>1015811
nope.

Next.

How many times have you gone to a dawkins lecture and called him a fraud?

Do you have to take medication to prevent the logical part of your brain from melting down mid-lecture?

>>1015804
Bob Jones University

what do you preach.. i mean teach exactly?

Do you think God is real?

>>1015832
zero
>>1015834
I am prescribed alprazolam, but it is
due to something unrelated to my profession.

Are you a Christian?

Is your college a bible thumping fundamentalist training facility or is it just another college with religious overtones?

>>1015844
this is a serious question

>>1015804

Liberty?

Do you teach Intelligent Design theory?

>>1015844
Genetics and Microbiology

iknowrite?

>>1015875

> Implying intelligent design is a theory

What do YOU think of evolution.

I assume you don't believe in it. Tell me why.

>>1015804

Do you feel bad lying to your students? Also does it bother you that because of your lies the science majors will never get proper work?

>>1015879
It's a theory, and Evolutionism is a theory. They should both be taught.

Do you support (the theory of) evolution?

If so, to what extent is it covered in your curricula (if at all), and if applicable, how would you characterize the general response of your students?

If not, what associated reasons would you cite?

Thanks for your time, btw.

Do your students constantly harass you about your beliefs? Since more children these days seem to be conforming to atheism or agnosticism?

Are you a Christian?

>>1015889

>>1015892
He works at christian college. Last time I checked, agnostics and atheists wouldn't pay to go to a christian college.

>>1015859
Yes.
>>1015859
Yes, though not an old man in the sky
>>1015875
I present both theories, I let the student decide. I teach more the functional aspects than the theoretical.
>>1015870
Nope.

1/10 troll because there are realy faggots like that

>>1015889
Um, no. ID and Evolution are NOT on equal footing. Evolution is observable in that there is DNA evidence as well as fossil records (among many other things) that support it. ID is basically someone saying "Look at this banana! It fits perfectly into my hand, clearly it was designed for man!"

>>1015879

It's a metaphysical theory... atleast.

>>1015911

not science gtfo

>>1015904

eh, presenting ID on the same grounds as Evolution. GTFO.

On what evidence do you base your belief that there was a magical zombie wandering first-century Palestine?

>>1015908
you forgot your sage

>>1015890
I believe that God set up the process of evolution.
That being said, my students are mixed in their ideas.

>>1015910
why are you guys so easy to troll?

>>1015920

Saying that God created the universe is a scientific hypothesis.

Saying that God performs fukkin miracles is a scientific hypothesis.

Statements about the nature of God is not scientific.

Lol intelligent being a theory? I guess that is true in a sense. Even the most crackpot theories still count as a theory right?

bearing that In mind I wish to teach a new theory on life I have just formulated.

All things in this universe were in fact created by large worms. Out entire universe is the feces of these worms as they move out in an existence we could never fathom.

This theory is almost as good as Intelligent design. Only difference is more would accept intelligent design because they have been indoctrinated by religion.

Put on a trip, to be easily distinguished

>>1015904
>I present both theories, I let the student decide. I teach more the functional aspects than the theoretical.
Why are you calling Intelligent design a theory? It is blatantly a renaming of Christian mythology. You aren't really a creationist are you? If not do you realize the kind of damage you are doing to the next generation?

>>1015920

He didn't say scientific theory, just theory.

>>1015910
not saying i believe this but, another arguments they give ( on intelligent design) is that DNA is so complex and "perfect" that it couldnt have possibly come to be by accident

and that is pretty much their only argument, but it still holds no truth

Can you sleep at night after accepting people's money for an education and then misinforming them?

>>1015947
thanks for prooving his point, idiot. not science...

i bet all the mods on here are christian too.

>>1015948
lol DNA, perfect, LOL
that's a good one

Teach the controversy!

Pic related.

>>1015944
I am not a creationist. In the strictest sense. I believe in the point of creation was ~13 billion years ago and is called the big bang.

>>1015936
>Saying that God created the universe is a scientific hypothesis.
No it isn't. It's the same as saying marmeduke created the universe... who or what in the hell is a marmeduke? Until I define what marmeduke means the aforementioned statement isn't even a coherent claim let alone a theory.

How the hell do you define this "god"?

>>1015943

I think your thread died and from the ashes spawned a ID vs. Evolution shitstorm.

>>1015904
>functional aspects

Which are?

>>1015964
didn't see that coming. Welcome to every day of my world.

>>1015957
And you of course realize a good portion of your class will go on to believe evolution isn't a real biological process and thus believe the scientific community and even the scientific method itself is provenly wrong. Those kids could have gone on to be scientists and engineers.

>>1015951

His point was implying that intelligent design is not a theory, which is untrue. It's not a scientific theory.

>>1015960
I don't know why, but the image of marmaduke creating the universe cracks me up.

>>1015925
>>1015925
>>1015925
>>1015925
>>1015925
>>1015925
>>1015925
Are you going to answer my fucking question, OP?

>>1015957
This is no different from thinking that lighting is created by Zeus because you don't understand it. For a scientific explanation of the origins of the universe, see
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

>>1015951
Why do you say that?

Last year I took a philosophy of religion course to fulfill a core requirement, I have never raged so hard in my entire life. This is the predominant logic that is used to prove that God exists:
>God is perfect, he holds all qualities of perfection
>Existence is more perfect than nonexistence
>Therefore God exists

>>1015981
Ya, people can be stupid when they try and justify something they would believe regardless.

>>1015981more perfect
>implying there are degrees of perfection

The stupid is painful.

>>1015967
How cell walls work, the chemistry of RNA. Things like that. Most of my students will be nurses, veterinarians, physical therapists, etc.

>>1015981
Did the teacher purport that as an actually valid argument?

>>1015981
If existence is more perfect than nonexistence then to claim that God is perfect is to claim that he exists to begin with. It's begging the question.

>>1015981
GOD DAMN THE FUCKING ONTOLOGICAL

FUCKING SHIT PISS

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH

>>1015993
Yes, and the only grades in the class were participation and two exams so I had to show up. For the exams all we were allowed to do was recite the theories that various people have (like the one i just said) and no personal opinion or argument was allowed.

>>1015925
Cool condescension, bro

The natural world offers many mysteries. Also first century humans could, I can imagine, be easily confused as to what they are witnessing.

>>1015981

Then Kant came and fucked anslem's ass with "how the fuck is existence a predicate you dumb fuck"

>>1015948
Right, yeah I have heard this one as well, which is basically an argument from personal incredulity. "I can't conceive of a way that DNA came about through a couple billion years of random mutation so it had to be designed."

>>1015996
This is basically how I felt every time I went to class.

>>1016004
Epic non-answer OP

>>1015995
but existence is flawed, this meaning non-existence is perfect

and if god is perfect.......

Professor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaitre

I love how people are RAAAAGGGIIING in this thread, but not to anything I said. I guess it's hard to get mad at a christian that doesn't believe science and religion are mutually exclusive.

>>1016004
>Also first century humans could, I can imagine, be easily confused as to what they are witnessing.
So why do you believe it?

And how was I being condescending? You believe in an extraordinary thing, I was just asking for your evidence, no reason to be all offended

>>1016022

Why do you believe in god?

>>1016016
You just want me to spout out crazy far-right-wing rhetoric so you can shoot me down and show all the fellow /sci/borgs how fucking rad you are, and I'm not.

>>1016004
And this validates their ignorant ravings? If a schizophrenic is telling you he sees Hitler in drag invading his garden, you fucking write his crazy ass off! That is the stage we are at now with religion, we understand the malady which is causing the delusion so we write them off.

>>1015877
so, are you down with evolution?

>>1016002
Did he ever give his own opinion though? From what it sounds like he was just running through a bunch of arguments made by other people no matter their underlying logic.

>>1016022
No it's just hard to reason with a religious person. That, and most people realize there is no convincing someone who has already made up his mind before seeing the evidence otherwise (i hope).

>>1016022
You're obviously not a toolbag foaming at the mouth Christard, and this thread has a connection to science, so there you go.

Are you interested in other sciences?

>super-frog is perfect, he holds all qualities of perfection
>Existence is more perfect than nonexistence
>Therefore super-frog exists

pic related, hes very real, for he is perfect

>>1016022

>>1016030
No OP, you just seem to have dodged the question to me. If you want to keep to science that's fine by me. But don't try to divine my motives so clumsily.

>>1016028
>>1016028
I believe that the universe is too complex for there not to be one.

>>1016018but existence is flawed, this meaning non-existence is perfect
>and if god is perfect.......

The fact that the universe exists is solid poof of the non-existence of God. QED

>>1016022
>implying you didn't mean to stir shit up in here with you "I am a biology teacher but I teach christfags"

>>1016039
Absolutely, I love physics as well.

>>1016058
i found this slightly informative

>>1016022
I posted before, but here is my trip.

I wouldn't say they are mutually exclusive, but they sure as hell don't complement the other. Saying the two can coexist is like saying a nutritious snack and a vile of poison can coexist. They can't mix but they can exist in the same room together.

And I have a question about your belief (I ask my religous friends these questions when they let me). Do you have a logical or emperical reason to believe what you believe? And were your parents Christians?

>>1016056
requesting graph of religiosity vs scientific education with the curves that say "hmm?" "oh that's why"

>>1016056
To me, Occam's Razor makes such an idea seem strange. Also, that seems more an argument in favor of Deism that Christianity.

>>1016058
ain't i a stinker

>>1016056
>logical fallacy
I feel bad for those of your students who are sucked into the vortex of stupid that is organized religion. Hopefully some of the other ones are closet atheists who wanted a college education but their parents would only pay for christfag school.

>>1016056
But evolution does provide a nice and elegant explanation for the complexity of life.

>>1016068
implying that Christianity isn't a form of deism

>>1016069
+5 points for Duck Amuck reference

>>1016068
>>1016068
exactly, most people only have arguments for god that are really only for deism

OP is going to prove athiests are 100x easier to troll than christians

>>1016062
No you clearly don't. I know this because I'm a physics major and if you had even taken an undergrad general physics 101 course you would be able to understand that complexity does not imply there is a creator.

>>1016073
yes, and I believe in evolution.

I do not believe in an elegant explanation for all the mysteries of the universe.

>>1016085
Come now, that isn't part of any physics 101 course.

>>1016076
.....uh, what?

Christianity isn't a form of Deism. Deism is God as prime mover and then he fucks off and lets the universe play out. Christianity has miracles and the afterlife and prophecy. I mean, some Christians take a more deist line, but not the majority.

>>1016089
What if science could explain EVERYTHING? Would you abandon your faith?

>>1016056

So I assume you're irrational and reject occam's razor?

>>1016076implying that Christianity isn't a form of deism

Jeffersonian Christianity yes. Pretty much any other form has fucking miracles.

>>1016085
nor does it imply that there is not a god.

How does the big bang not remind you remotely of God creating the universe?

>>1016076
You have one strange definition of deism.

>>1016085
as a physics major, you should know that there is nothing disproving the possibility that some form of higher being exists.

>>1016100
Because nowhere from any scientific source does any evidence for a God or creator show up.

>>1016076

Deism with more malformed inductive reasoning.

>>1016104

and nothing disproves superfrog, or odin, or zeus

>>1016094
We will be able to describe the universe entirely at the same time a moth can explain a television set entirely


Protip: Ask me which denomination of Christianity I follow
.

>>1016100
If you can agree that there isn't any solid evidence for the existence or non-existence of God then can you at least admit that the whole worshiping Jesus thing to get into heaven is bullshit?

>>1016104

we just cant see the teapot, doesn't mean its not there!

>>1016104
Theories are invalid until proven otherwise. Why only use your logic on God? Why not extend it to include the infinite number of hypotheticals that might be real?

If your logic can defend everything then it defends nothing. And I hope you are oversimplifying what science does, because science doesn't "prove" anything. There is always a margin of error.

>>1016114
you say that as if it means something

>>1016115
What denomination of christianity do you follow?

>>1016100

Big bang expanding does not necessitate god existing, to infer that is to go beyond the premise, thus making you look like a dumbshit.

>>1016118
No one on this board has heard of a UU Christian before?

>>1016100
The Big Bang and what happened before it are weird, head-exploding events that defy our physics for the time being. Speculating about a magic being existing before anything somehow that willed a universe into being just cause is pointless.

>>1016124
that's like a flatlander saying "I can't see anything 'above' me, therefore, 'above' does not exist"

>>1016115 Ask me which denomination of Christianity I follow

Southern Trollist? Trollperterian? Trollick? Trollvinist? Episcatrollian?

HEY GUYS!!!!!!

Ancient astronaut theory

>>1016104
As a physics major I understand that the possibility of there being a higher power guiding humans on a single planet in the vastness of space in such a way that his presence cannot be detected (nothing we have ever observed has required something more than the observed laws of physics) is so low that it can be considered negligible.

>>1016133

for a flat lander, IT DOESNT

OP, do you agree that, while there is no proof that god doesn't exist, there's also no proof that he does? If you do, why assume he does? It would be more rational to assume he doesn't until you have proof, right?

>>>1016131
>implying that I believe in magic and a grey headed old man in the clouds

>>1016130
UU? So you're super-giga-ultra liberal then, okay. Half of your flock are probably godless people that just like ritual.

You're an outlier OP. Forgive us a bit of excess, we're used to deranged Baptist ratfucks flooding our ears with shit.

>>1015955
Oh come, on! While Phrenology is clearly debunked, it did pave the way for modern neuroscience, by claiming that different parts of the brain were responsible for different things.

And whereas alchemy have been debunked, it was before we even had a scientific method, but it still paved the way for modern chemistry, and amassed a rather neat corpus of knowledge.

Magic vs Physics, and Astrology vs Astronomy are valid comparisons to ID vs Darwinian Evolution though:

Neither make any sense, neither spawned a more correct study, and both should just be remembered as a cultural belief held by silly people long ago.

Phrenology, while funny today, is not the dumbest idea ever held by a psychologist.

>>1016140
"I cannot see it, therefore it does not exist"

okay, sure. totally scientific of you.

>>1016130
*facepalm.jpg* Unitarians are just atheists that spew bullshit because they don't want people to think they're soulless atheists.

>>1016141
I assume that the complexity of the universe implies a higher form of intelligence that we cannot begin to understand.

>>1016155
>>1016155

define exists

>>1016126
>Why only use your logic on God?

Because there is a vested interest in marginalizing the idea of deities. Once someone tries to tell others what they can and can't do based on a magic teapot, dragon, or other hypothetical shit used to invalidate the theory of a higher being, then I will be in the business of taking that down.

>>1016155
I propose that since I can only see wavelengths of light between about 350-750nm no other wavelengths of light exist. My theory is sound and can be tested by anyone with eyes.

>>1016143
Magic is simplying what one calls something once one has given up trying to figure it out. Have you ever questioned what happened at the atomic level when that bush just caught on fire? Did the conservation of energy simply stop applying? What about the bread and wine Jesus produced? Where did the particles that made up that food come from?

Have you ever questioned the physics behind any of the stuff in the Bible?

>>1016165
>Implying you only need eyes to "see"

Instruments become our eyes when our eyes are not up to the task.

Hay guies pandeist here cant we all just get along with ourselves?

>>1016158
You probably believe that there is something mystical about consciousness too don't you? People like you make me sick.

>>1016147
I'm fairly conservative for a UU though.
>>1016157
wow, you got me good. I'm gonna resign tomorrow.

OP, I respect you for not being an idiot and accepting the scientific method. You lose some points for being a christian, but you're cool. It's the idiots who hold "God hates fags" signs and deny scientific facts that are a problem.

christendom in virginia?

>>1016030
actualy most of us know that odds are you are really aren't christian, because those far right radical things are kind of required to be one, unless you're one of those fucking idiots who doesn't take the bible litteraly unless its convenient. in which case you are still a fucking idiot but not a radical. I should note that despite the tone you should not be ashamed of this, it certainly wouldn't be the first time some science major who identified as catholic basically told everyone he didn't literally believe any of that shit the bible and Vatican go on and on about,

>>1016158I assume that the complexity of the universe implies a higher form of intelligence that we cannot begin to understand.

Any universe the size of ours with randomness induced by quantum mechanics is going to be very complex.

>>1016158

So you're an idiot? Why make more assumptions than necessary?

>>1016176
I bet you bitch about how close-minded Christians are. People like *you* make me sick

>>1016164
You are changing the subject. The teapot argument you hate so much invalidates your presented argument for God but you ignore that invalidation and just keep on using the argument.

the entirety of all matter and energy in existence is a rather narrow view of the universe

>>1016158
> that we cannot begin to understand
I dislike this argument fiercely. It is like saying "I'm too stupid to understand my argument and so are you, but that is just because my argument is so correct".

>>1016175pandeist

So you believe in all deities? Even the turtle stack?

>>1016115
>>1016115

>has to ask questions in his own thread

>>1016183
I believe in the teachings of Christ. I do not believe in magic. What is so hard to understand?

>>1016158
>>:I assume:
This is not a scientific argument. kill yourself.

when it says part of your comment isn't allowed to be posted is that due to length or content?

>>1016210

It's an unnecessary assumption to, probably the only reason he holds it is solely to continue believing in god. What an unbelievable christfag.

>>1016196
Clearly you miss the point of those types of arguments, then. They are used to emphasize that the burden of proof is on the individual making the claim of existence. If you claim a magic teapot exists space somewhere, the lack of evidence of it's existence doesn't prove that it isn't their, but it isn't the responsibility of the person denying its existence to prove that.

>>1016209
the fact that Christians indeed do believe in magic, if you dont believe prayer can grant you miracles any time, you are not a fucking Christian, its a core tenant dude, almost every sect of Christianity believes this, the existence of jesus and that he grants miracles are the only things they can basically agree on, and here you are saying you believe the teachings of a liar. because its quite fucking clear prayer does not grant you magical powers. you said it yourself, you don't believe in magic. there must be a natural explanation in all cases then.

>>1016209
For you? The world, apparently.

>>1016207
I do not think it means what you think it means.

>>1016209I believe in the teachings of Christ. I do not believe in magic. What is so hard to understand?

Because the teachings of Christ are often pretty stupid when you don't assume that he's a wizard. For example that time he told his disciples they don't need to wash their hands before eating because he didn't know about germ theory. Modern philosophers are better than Jesus because they know more.

>>1016220
*there not their

>>1016210
>I *absolutlely believe* that the complexity of the universe implies a higher form of intelligence that we cannot begin to understand.

there, I fixed my word choice

>>1016226
You're right. Jesus didn't know about germs, therefore we shouldn't treat each other with compassion

>>1016215
Content, though 4chan bitches about some pretty random things. Mostly it's just a bug.

>>1016223
You don't know what you are talking about either.

/sci/ knows shit about religion

>>1016209
but if you don't believe in magic, how do you believe in a magical omnipresent man?

>>1016209
What about when jesus taught....well, magic?

"Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them. "

>>1016236
Kant said it better.

>>1016232
>>durr
aww aren't you cute, telling us about your conviction doesn't make it anymore scientific, would you put that on your thesis op? If i said i firmly believe that the energy in cells spontaneously generates without proteins because our complexity requires a higher powers involvement to sustain you would not in fact fail me?

>>1016248

Enlighten me. How did Kant put it?

Why not become a deist OP? That's a respectable faith to have. you can still like Jesus's message.

>>1016236
OP, I'm an atheist and I have morals. Atheists aren't amoral. The difference is I don't think killing people is wrong because god says so, I think it's wrong because of my own damn mind tells me so. Why do you need a god to tell you that?

OP, do you work at BYU perchance?

>>1016239
no, I infact do you fucking idiot, and more to the point, please explain what the tens of tens of verses proclaiming you can pray for miracles in fact mean if i am full of shit. the fact that you did not do that in the beginning but instead just essentially called me uninformed with no proof doesnt do much to make anyone here take what you have to say seriously troll.

yo OP, ever read about the Dharmic faiths? You might like them.

>>1016240
I don't think you've been paying much attention to this thread

>>1016254
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

The difference is I don't have to worship Kant or burn in hell for eternity.

Well 4chan is pure shit and not only wouldn't let me post the paragraph but wouldn't let me post the website, so here you go OP. Read this.

Doing a fine job OP, im not really religious but I'll be damned if athiests arent the biggest douche bags around.
I can understand people not believing in a god, but calling yourselves athiest uhhhh.

>>1016261
Nope.
Getting warm.


Good Night everyone, I have class in the morning.

inb4: he's leaving he must not be able to handle the TRUTH I was just laying on his ass. I totally owned him on every point, fucking christ fag zombie lovin, piece of shit anti-science biggot, homophobe nazi........

>>1016283
I Kant believe it's not butter!

>>1016293
GTFO you fucking fundi scumbag

>>1016232

Complexity can imply emergence as well, holding a strong conviction that it implies a designer is essentially only arguing for your bias. You have made no points why this argument is true, just that you firmly believe it. This is why people say christians are fucking stupid.

>>1016259
Out of curiosity, do you also feel that the teachings of Ghandi, Dr. King, and others should be disregarded as well, because you don't need to have them tell you to have morals?

>>1016256
Christianity actually is a kind of diesm.

In fact all religions are at their root. Its just the mainstream simplified versions used by individuals to gain control over other individuals and thus favor a very distinctly corporeal, singular, and material god figure, as it helps them control people.

The problem is that /sci/ does not realize that mainstream christianity is a representation of christianity in about the same way some moron trying to explain quantum mechanics in a youtube comment is an accurate representation of science.

>>1016291
Oh piss off. We may be loud assholes, but at least we don't beat women to death for showing their ankles or blow up abortion clinics.

>>1016293

>>1016307
Ghandi and King were wrong on plenty of things. That's the problem with following a single man's teachings religiously; all are humans, all are fallible. It's better to read all competing argument in order to construct a rigorously rational world view.

>>1016293

>inb4: he's leaving he must not be able to handle the TRUTH I was just laying on his ass. I totally owned him on every point, fucking christ fag zombie lovin, piece of shit anti-science biggot, homophobe nazi........

Insecure christfag is insecure

>>1016291
superior agnostic hipster detected.

there is no reason for one to believe in god. there is nothing within the universe which demands one must exist. if an event comes wherein proof of god is made evident, it would be logical to believe in god, but until such proof arrives it is logical believe in what evidence points to.

the whole 'atheism is based on faith because you can't prove the non existence of something' is nothing but semantics. you cant prove or disprove anything to anybody these days, all you do is go with the most logical option. and thats atheism.

>>1015804
Covenant College in Georgia?
I'd shit my pants if that was right.

>>1016310at least we don't beat women to death for showing their ankles or blow up abortion clinics.

Discordian here. I beat up abortion clinics for showing ankle and blow women to death.

>>1015925

On what evidence do you base your belief that the universe exploded out of nothing for no reason?

What's that? I'm misrepresenting your position? Awww....

>>1016291

Sup' troller mctrollerson?

>>1016338
Eris is a hot chaotic bitch and I love you good sir.

>>1016308
>In fact all religions are at their root [deism].
No they aren't. Buddhism has no deities and is not even a theism let alone make it a form of deism, which brings me to my next point. You seem to be confusing theism with deism. Deism is pretty well established as being separate from most religions.

>>1016349
>>exploded out of nothing
we dont believe that you dumbass.

>>1016336
>all you do is go with the most logical option. and thats atheism.
maybe to some. others feel otherwise.

>>1016336
no the logical option is saying since you don't know and don't need to make assumptions you will just continue being undecided on the matter.

The only time it would be prudent to 'go with atheism' is if you had to do something where your action depended on the answer of if god is real or not, in which case you would be forced to try and make a conclusion based on what you had to decide your action.

Since i cant think of any situation like that, the correct thing to do is just say you don't know.

>exploded out of nothing

>>1016358
>we dont believe that you dumbass.
>we
Don't speak for other atheists. The only thing you share with them is a lack of one belief, which isn't really a connection at all.

>>1016360
>logical
>feel otherwise
>logical
>feel

whatthefuckamireading.jpg

Logic does not work that way!

>>1016352
You are using a narrow definition of deism. You do not need a defined god for it to be deism, which i suppose sounds silly given the word, but that's how it goes.

>>1016367
Lol
>atheists arguing over their labels again

>>1016363

If you don't believe god ever existed or exists, then you're an atheist.

>>1016363
>>no the logical option is saying since you don't know and don't need to make assumptions you will just continue being undecided on the matter.

thats what atheism is you stupid fuck. I am so sick of your shit, its people like you that need to go bash your head into a brick wall to knock some sense into your fucking head, I cannot take morons who use the word athiesm for anybody whos beliefs are not exactly like my own, you fucking inane christfag roman chimera.

>>1016378
when it comes to making decisions based on absolutely no evidence one way or the other, what constitutes a logical choice is entirely subjective

Do you assign your students readings from peer reviewed journals on creation science? Oh, wait.

>>1016367
I'm speaking for scientists you fucking idiot.
and no, we dont believe that shit, if you do, guess what, you arent a scientist, I mean, unless theres a small chance you've made some insightfull observations youre not sharing with anyone because youre too busy trolling on 4chan.

the big bang is not an explosion.

Pepperdine?

>>1016397
I don't think you know what atheism is...

>>1016352
One of the primary tenants of deism is that the universe works under its own mechanisms and god(s) do not directly interfere with it but instead are simply responsible for why its the way it is.

the way it is being a prime interest, since understanding the way things are gives insight into the divine which caused it.

The deity could be an actual creator, or it could just be an abstract force of the universe

>>1016400when it comes to making decisions based on absolutely no evidence one way or the other, what constitutes a logical choice is entirely subjective

No, when making decisions with no evidence the logical decision is to not make any absolute judgments. The absolutely most illogical decision is to decide that "hurr magical wizard created everything and everyone that disagrees is a immoral and evil!"

>>1016394
LOL
>atheists arguing over their labels
Group A of atheists and religious people says atheism means only its actual definition of not having a belief in God.
Group B of religious people say atheism means evolution and a whole set of scientific baggage and morality.
Group C of atheists and religious people use Group B's definition to communicate with Group B in hope of explaining why they are wrong and Group A's definition is correct.
Group A tells Group C to fuck off.
Group B acts like groups A and C made the labels.

>>1016172
Instruments become our eyes when our eyes are not up to the task.

The problem is people who ignore their eyes and rely only on instruments. "OH! Camera didn't catch it, it didn't happen."


>>1016183
Right. Because it's too much to expect of people to understand when allegory is being used and when it isn't.

>>1016223
What is with you scientoids and the insistence on straw-man arguments? What you've written is just flat-out wrong. I would say it's a minority view, as long as you get out of the United States. Have you ever done that? Do you know what I mean by that?

>>1016363
i understand what you are saying. but you must understand that i believe you are holding on to a system of semantics which will tie you down forever to "i dont know". there is no need for i don't know, since you don't have to say yes or no with absoluteness. you can say probably no, instead of making it sound like both or equally plausible.

which they aren't.

>>1016423The deity could be an actual creator, or it could just be an abstract force of the universe

If it's just an abstract force then why call it a deity?

>>1016423
>One of the primary tenants of deism is that the universe works under its own mechanisms and god(s) do not directly interfere with it but instead are simply responsible for why its the way it is.
If you are using that definition then Christianity is obviously not a form of deism. Why is this even arguable?

>>1016437
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5r103_the-god-hypothesis-by-carl-sagan_creation

>>1016442
because hes an idiot.

>>1016433
We can also say "absolutely no" to certain Gods such as the Christian zombie Jesus because they are logically inconsistent. It just does not make sense for a God to give us laws, then forgive us of the laws he created by sacrificing himself, coming back, and then we have to eat his flesh. The whole thing is just too convoluted.

>>1016428
so most Christians dont believe in prayer then? that makes jesus a liar. but lying is a sin!

>>1015804
I just got out of highschool and need a job, where can I apply for your position, I think I'm fairly well qualified.

>>1016460
That's okay, being born of a virgin makes him not the messiah.

>>1015804
Ridiculously successful troll is ridiculously successful

>>1016518
Trolls are supposed to be disingenuous. Unfortunately I believe the OP actually is a Christian.

>>1016487
then all Christians are wrong because they believe he is the messiah

>>1016518
Hi OP

>>1016527
>implying he can't be both

>>1016433
you have nothing to base the plausibility off of even.

You are assuming its less plausible some guy made the whole universe instead of it just being, but what are you basing this on?

Were you around before the universe? Everything you know is based on the mechanics of the universe. How can you even begin to imagine what is plausible or not when it comes to extra-universal affairs?

I am a skeptic, in the classical meaning. This means that i have to use and depend on things every day which i do not acknowledge as being proven or 'true' by my standards.

Its the very fact that consider so little to be actually proven that i am able to allow so much to simply remain ambiguous.

You do not have to believe something is true to use it, systems of understanding are fluid and constantly changing. If you get the desired result it doesn't really matter if the understanding you have of how you got it is correct or not.

The thing i hate most about most 'scientists' is their inability to let things remain ambiguous. Its like it bothers them if they can not quantify, classify, write a paper on, and file it away in some drawer.

>>1016442
You are using mainstream lets all sway around and listen to this horrible music late night tv commercial christianity and not the underlying principals and mysticism.

>>1016428
do you ever stop and wonder why you take such efforts to prostate yourself like this?

think. really reflect on yourself. is there any real reason for you to be an apologist? it just seems like such a waste of time and effort to spend your time constructing excuses for an illogical, and lets face it, cruel religion which gladly supports the notion of eternal torture. why keep this religion alive? what does it do for its believers besides ask them to suffer?


i really think that this guy is a troll, but the sad part is i know a lot of people who are devout christians who are like this. they are willing to sacrifice the literalness of entire portions of the bible to keep their religion as plausible. they want to believe in it THAT much. i dont get it.

>>1015804
FUCKING HELL!

WHY DO YOU KEEP REPLYING TO TROLL THREAD /SCI/?

WTF?

>>1016437
you dont call it a deity in that situation.

diesm does not = belief in a diety.

A diety would be a god or a divine entity. Diesm is just belief in 'a higher power' if you want to use that cliche. a divine force.

This could be a diety, but it doesn't have to be.

More or less it is just anything that says a divine force created the universe and now the universe operates under its own mechanisms.

As opposed to something is directly interfering, sometimes possible breaking the laws of nature, to shape what happens.

So for example, taoism is a type of deism. or rather pandeism, since in that case the mechanics and the divine are one in the same.

>>1016548
That "drive" that scientists have towards understanding is how we got to where we are! Where do you think humanity would be if everyone was like you and just said "Well, I don't really know how gravity works or why stars move, but I guess it's ok to leave that ambiguous." That penchant for scrutinizing the world (which you seem to hate) is why we aren't still shitting in a hole in the ground, eating around a campfire.

<span class="math">\alpha[/spoiler]

>>1016669
there is a difference between just wanting to figure out how things work and what im talking about.

A drive to learn and a drive to know are two different things.

>>1016589
Best troll thread all night amirite?

>>1016698
That is not as big of a distinction in practice as it is in your mind.

>>1016548
As your beliefs are structured I have no way of arguing against them, nor do I have the inclination. I find what you say to be sound to me. Certainly in a large enough radius the probability for anything becomes increasingly larger, and the question of the existence of god is no exception.

But in the end this is all rhetoric. It's decent for talking but it's no way to live. There is no way to scientifically prove that gravity will function as it did today tomorrow, but for this possibility I won't strap myself to the floor.

I see no god. I feel no god. I won't invent possibilities for him to exist, as you do. I won't entertain ways to be ambiguous about it, as you do. The reason? There is no need for me.

Agnosticism and religion are inventions of man. The dead, the sleeping and the beasts are all passive atheists. They reject the belief of god, as any atheist would. The only difference is that they do so unknowingly.

****ATTENTION SUMMERFAGS *THIS THREAD* IS HOW YOU PROPERLY TROLL /SCI/ ****

Excellent, OP. A++++++Would troll again!

I like how everyone is questioning OP's faith but not his profession. Someone ask him a hard ass biology/chemistry question to see if he's legit.I would but I'm just a casual.

>>1015889
>>1015889
>>1015889

> intelligent design
>theory


WTF no its not, learn the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

"religious" college is the worst waste of money ever.
education and religion has nothing to do with each other.