/sci/ - Science & Math

Why be a christian vs a muslim? Because the ideas of one appeal to you more than the other. Why are you trying to take away our freedom of religion?

>So why believe in science when you can believe in religion. Why believe theories, when you could believe in the bible.
Because it's obvious religion is bullshit created and used by psychopaths to enslave the ignorant masses. Religion is a communicable disease of the mind.

Now fuck off troll.

because science works and modern religions are just very successful cults

Because you touch yourself at night

>>1131972

Who's to say science isn't too?

>>1131990
Because science produces useful results and is open to questioning. Unlike religion.

>>1132009

Yeah but most of you fags just blindly believe in it for no reason.

Science handles theories better than religion does. Also, we don't believe in a god because there is no reason to and because it is faith based, and faith = belief in something that cannot be proven.

And don't try and question what "fact" means, if you think scientific theories are not factual enough, then religion is as far away from truth as you can get at this point.

Also, i know i could be getting trolled but i can't ignore someone using a picture of Bill Nye for retarded reasons like this.

>>1132025
Except that we test our theories with mathematics, and real world experiments. Also, science is willing to change theories if new evidence suggests it is wrong, religion does not.

>>1131862

is u a poop sausage wat lulz ff263e6fa8f0a3cc1de6c74be4a2edce

OP is now an atheist.

>>1132025

Sure, but those people only blindly believe a scientific theory because it will benefit them in some way (i.e. dogmatic thinking)

>>1132025
>implying I'm a fag
>implying I'm not a practicing scientist and engineer
>implying that I'm like you--just some fag who believes in something for no reason

>>1132035

Exactly. Ask anyone who knows the history of evolution very well and they will tell you Darwin has been wrong in some ways.

inb4 "then how can you believe evolution lololol"

>>1132045
>implying I'm a fag
>implying I'm not a practicing scientist and engineer
>Engineer
>not a fag
whatthefuckamireading.jpg

But people don't take the theories as fact, they take them as theories and so allow changes and opposition to be made with tests and other evidence.

>>1132035

"We" test theories?

What I'm trying to say is why do so many non scientist believe in science if they haven't done the actual testing. It's the same faith as a believer in religion.

This would even apply to scientist who "believe" things outside of their field or even things in their field which they themselves have not tested.

>>1132025
If it wasn't for the principles of science, you wouldn't be able argue with someone over the Internet, computers and electronics would not exist, and you'd be out plowing fields for your landlord as a serf (a type of slave) until you died at the old age of 41.

You're now aware that you're staring at evidence that science works.

>>1132061
Math is a way to test theories we cannot physically. Also, most theories come from people who we know were studying the fields for most of their lives. There is also mathematical proof for every theory. Go ahead and find them all if you want.

>>1132035

And this is also a distinction between and ideal and the institution that claims to follow it.

Christianity is an ideal; loving yourself, your neighbor and God with His help to change/do it as well. Then you get Religion - the institution - to add a bunch of hokey bullshit rules because simply loving everyone through grace is 'too simple'

Science is an ideal; always bettering itself with new ideas, new theories, new data, new analysis... but what of the institution that claims to follow Science? Is it simply too large to cope with the flood of new information? Or has it become so invested in the appearance of being 'right' that it discards useful data?


I guess we'll see it better in hindsight, but that's how I see it now.

>>1131866
Because the tests are done under scrutiny of many other scientists who are trusted enough not to lie about results. A religious person might lie to enforce rules for his benefit and cannot be proved wrong, whereas if a scientist lies he gains perhaps a little stature but quickly loses it when his lie is exposed.

>>1132058
>implying all engineers aren't asexual virgins.

>>1132083
>... but what of the institution that claims to follow Science?

The Internet is the cure for that cancer.

See http://arxiv.org/ for an example, but there are dozens of more open access journals.

>>1132083
The entire point of science is to find the truth. The scientists are the people who are willing to be wrong.

>>1131866
Basically it boils down to one thing: science is self-correcting. One does not "believe" in a scientific theory, one accepts it until something better comes along.

How do you know there is even such thing as a "fact"? When you get right down to it there's no absolute way to know that anything outside of your own brain exists. But rather than just giving up because of some existential bullshit, the best thing to do is make a few fundamental assumptions (the world exists and can be measured) then get to work. Scientists do not know that the facts are really facts, nothing is that simple. What we know is that if we put that information into our models, we get out predictions that conform to our observations. The more this happens, the more effective the model is. But nothing is absolute and unassailable, that is the difference between science and religion.

When you say people "believe" in science, the closest you can possibly get, at least with people who have more than a rudimentary understanding of how science works, is believing in the efficacy of the process.

>>1132088

Yes, but why do you blindly follow what some other people say?

Couldn't that be the same as religion, and people blindly following what the pope/priest says?

>>1132061
Because, you fucking faggot, there is such as thing as a peer reviewed journal. What this means is people who also have the theoretical knowledge in a field of study have looked at new theories and evidence presented and determine its veracity. Once something has made it into such a publication, it is a good indicator that such evidence and theories are sound. These articles can even be retracted if it comes to light that the data was falsified or tampered with in any way. As opposed to faggot religion where some homo pope can just say he thought of some knew shit that god told him and now everyone believes it.

>>1132112
We don't blindly follow others. We know how the theories work.

>>1132112
No, I generally read and scrutinize the published research of people's theories and claims that I come across in the course of my career, and in my spare-time in fields that I am interested in.

>>1132061

That works for some cases, but through simple schooling we are given a lot to believe in. I did not discover the atom myself, but i took chemistry enough times so i can explain it and prove the existence of protons, electrons, etc.

>>1132116

I'm a faggot when you blindly believe what some "board of people says its ok to trust it", when its no different than Jesus band of disciples telling you to believe in the messiah.

>>1132112
NO! Clearly for the reasons he just said. You dense mother fucker.

>>1132134

Well if you read the bible enough times couldn't you do the same for our lord?

>>1131862

is u a poop sausage wat lulz 06ece9b391ee66276260779acb42f3d2

>>1132161
God dammit you are fucking retarded.

I believe in religion.

It'd be silly to deny the existence of religion, lots of people are obviously religious.

>>1132061 why do so many non scientist believe in science if they haven't done the actual testing.
Two reasons: It's impossible for one person to test every hypothesis himself, and science is structured so that bad ideas will be weeded out over time. Anybody who understands the basic mechanism of science understands it is not necessary to test everything himself, even if it weren't impossible. Second, the scientific literature is all there for you to read. Even if you don't personally do the experiments, you can read about the results and look at the data yourself. Or are you suggesting there is a massive international conspiracy to falsify data to fit within some arbitrarily determined 'proper' range?

>It's the same faith as a believer in religion.
Not exactly. Sure, there are some people who don't understand science or don't bother to look deeply and just accept whatever they're told at face value. These are the same people who believe in magic crystals, alien abductions, and young-earth creationism. But among people who have some understanding of science, it is not about belief. It is about the building and testing of models, which are either advanced or discarded according to test results.

>>1132083 but what of the institution that claims to follow Science?
What institution would that be? That sounds like some Fox News paranoid bullshit. Do you have some evidence? Science is still changing on a daily basis, anybody who follows the literature in just about any field should be plenty aware of that.

>>1132112
As a scientist myself, I generally trust what other scientists have to say in their fields of research. If someone in a field I am not familiar with publishes something that is incorrect and can be proven so, it won't be long for someone else in that field cries foul and proves it wrong. I happens quite often. And if it can be proven wrong, then it is immediately discarded as such.

In religion, if you cry foul and point something out as incorrect, you get shunned or worse. No so in science.

>>1132171

Nice rebuttal.

>>1132203
I don't need to rebut it because you obviously are not smart enough to understand. Lost cause.

>>1132203
That's about the only way you can rebut an irrational, stupid argument premised on religion.

>>1131865

is u a poop sausage wat lulz 7e37ecdceefde91c86ef487fbfc90948

>>1132147
First of all, you have no idea what I believe so you can fist yourself. I happen to have a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to new scientific claims.
Secondly, if a scientific claim is false, someone is going to point that out. It doesn't have to be me. Therefore, I can conclude that a theory that isn't being challenged is solid.

>>1132176
Argumentum ad populum

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

>>1132161

The only part of the bible that holds any realistic meaning are its philosophical statements, which can be learned through simple experience. I know stealing is bad thing and i never needed to be threatened with eternal hell fire to learn that. Now when you go into saying there is an invisible man watching us that we can never actually interact with, thats just crazy not philosophical.

inb4 "then how do you explain prayers?". By now you should know you are just talking to yourself, and that voice in your head is your conscience.

>troll thread

>40 replies

YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID, /sci/

>>1132249
Hm? I don't recall saying religious teaching or stories are correct, just saying that I believe that religions do indeed exist throughout the world. Just because I acknowledge religion's existence doesn't mean I think it's correct, or I follow it, or anything like that.

If op wants to disprove science, why doesn't he go and try to actually disprove scientific theories instead of wasting his time playing word games and losing himself in logical fallacies? Nothing is stopping you from attempting to disprove Newtons laws of motion, for example. Go right ahead.

>>1132311
That is idiotic, nobody needs to "believe" that religions exist. It's a fucking fact that they do! Nice try being slick and gay.

>>1132216

Nice usage of logical fallacies.

I just don't see why so many blindly have faith in so much science when they haven't done any testing to see if it's true or not.

>>1132311
oh you

There is nothing wrong with subscribing to an unproven theory, the problem is unfounded assumptions. Take the assumption that all religious ppl are idiots, for example. Actual studies (not interested enough to look them up right now) showed that many highly educated individuals are also religious, and (if i remember correctly) there are more religious grad students than religious undergrads.
This of course proves nothing for or against religion itself, it only shows that many so-called scientists are religious-illiterate, and use baseless assumptions to feel better about themselves.

>>1132332
He didn't need to rebut it anyways because a ton of rebuttals have ALREADY BEEN POSTED AND YOU HAVEN'T REPLIED TO THEM.

>>1132075
I'm curious; how exactly did technology cause the emancipation of the serfs? I'm inclined to think it would have happened regardless for political reasons.

>>1132360
Nice mastery of the English language there in redirecting the focus of the conversation back onto the faults of your enemy while simultaneously confusing him. Good play.

>>1132147
Because we have evidence to back our claims up. "We" being "the scientific community." If there was solid evidence that a guy named Jesus could walk on water, turn water into wine, bring people back from the dead, resurrect himself, etc, then I imagine a LOT more people would be Christian.

>>1132382
Thank you. I'm assuming that by "my enemy" you mean evangelical atheists, right?

>>1132360
>it only shows that many so-called scientists are religious-illiterate, and use baseless assumptions to feel better about themselves.

>implying scientists say these things

>>1132400

Religion is based on faith. Not on evidence.

What you're describing is a sick bastardization of faith.

>>1132283
I wouldn't say stupid. Not at all. In fact I'm impressed (proud even, as a fellow scientist) that people are willing, able, and have the desire to argue the case of science. After all, isn't that part of what science is about? That people discuss ideas rationally, use evidence to back up their theories. Theory and counter-theory. Go to a seminar and you'll find people discussing ideas, perhaps arguing their case (their findings perhaps), questioning and being questioned, all in the pursuit of furthering knowledge. Yes we're almost certainly being trolled, but in doing so... we're being scientists! :)

>>1132329
But OP asked if I believe in religion, how else am I supposed to interpret the question?

If someone asked me if I believe in Santa Clause, I wouldn't say yes on the grounds that I think the story behind SC is pretty cool and he teaches good values, I'd say no because he doesn't exist.

>>1132380
WHAT! Technology made everything possible that allowed man to free himself from tyranny and democratize civilization.

Don't believe me? Watch the Connections series, an entertaining and accurate look at the history of technology and it's impact on change, civilization and human progress.

>>1132449
Forgot the link to the first part of the first episode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcSxL8GUn-g

>>1132423

being scientists =/= arguing with a troll posing as a pro-religious person on a science board.

>>1132360
>Implying that education means intelligence.
>Making a thread about baseless assumptions using irrelevant factors as a base for an actually baseless conclusion.
>Being evidence for the conclusion he attempted to address in the first place,

>>1132420
Wait, so Jesus PROVED to people that he was the Messiah in order to get them to believe him, yet we aren't allowed the same evidence?

That's illogical as fuck, yo.

>>1132434
That's just semantics on the different definitions/interpretations of "believe."

>>1132419
Fine, maybe "ppl who think they're scientists" would have been more accurate. Why does everyone assume religion and science have to be on opposite sides? facepalm.jpg

>>1132482
Your second sentence has nothing to do with your first.

>>1132465
He didn't prove it. You are taking that from the bible, which has been proven to be false.

>>1132496
You're missing the point.

People believe the Bible to be true. They believe Jesus to be the son of god, and he proved this through miracles, yada yada. Yet we're supposed to accept all of THIS on faith, when the people he helped got to see it first-hand.

>>1132434
You could maybe not be a literal faggot and understand the question the way YOU KNOW it was being asked. Stop trying to be sly by using masturbatory semantics.

>>1132510
>People believe the Bible to be true
Believing in something doesn't make it true.

>>1132465
Well where's the evidence of Jesus being the Messiah? Unverifiable words from the Bible? Not admissible as evidence, not illogical as fuck, yo.

If Jesus was so smart, don't you think he would have left evidence proving he really was the son of God so as to save people from wasting their time arguing, fighting, and even at times killing one another over whether or not he really was genuine?

Same goes for God.

The only thing then to conclude is that God is either false, or he's a sadistic psychopath who enjoys watching his creations suffer. And in the later case, if it is true, then I reject God in spite. What a sick fucking bastard.

>>1132465

Hence, faith.

Hebrews 11:1, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

>>1132591
what happens when what you hoped for turned out to be wrong? oh, that's right, you religious folks become all butthurt.

>>1132591
Yet, the stories of Jesus had him performing miracles for people. Why would the Bible, even as a work of fiction, have miracles performed by Jesus, if it is going to turn around and say that faith is all you need. Why not have stories where Jesus says he is the Messiah and then people in the story use their faith to believe him?

>>1132536
>>1132554
YOU GUYS AREN'T GETTING IT

THE BIBLE IS BULLSHIT, YES.

However, people are expected to "have faith" in this book, yet the characters in the book were given direct *proof* of the claims of said book.

I DON'T THINK THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE OR EVEN HALF-TRUE (maybe 1/4 true/historical).

A think a lot of people have it all wrong here. There is a medium where science and religion coexists. The belief in evolution does not necessarily mean you believe science. Not all scientist are atheist either, Albert Einstein was a Jew, dammit and he did work in the name of God. That is the problem with modern scientists today, they fucking jack off and try to fight religion than actually do something that will benefit society. If religion where ever to go down I think it would be crash on society. Science unfortunately does not have an answer for the creation of the Earth, religion as an answer and frankly I would rather take my chances and commit my faith to it. Science and religion will always coexist, evil cant happen without peace, and vice versa. If we built a fucking time machine I guarantee the first person that we would look for back in time is Jesus Christ the Redeemer.

>>1132631
So because you read that someone had proof of god in a book full of lies you think god exists?

>>1132641
I'M A FUCKING ATHEIST YOU RETARDED DIPSHIT.

Yes, I mad. Because you guys are incredibly stupid. I support you guys and you completely take it the wrong way.

>>1132641
Atheists: don't even know each other cause they cannot decide on common ground, or what is common ground. ahahaha

>>1132641
You must have the reading comprehension of a retarded infant.

>>1132651
You worded your post incorrectly, it is not our fault you cannot convey your thoughts properly.

>>1132456
Yeah, I did get little carried away there at the end. :) But the idea behind it is still sound enough: that science involves the discussion (so in this case not ignoring the troll) of ideas with the scientific method in order to evaluate them and further understanding. Yes to really be scientific about this we need to provide data to back up our hypothesise, but for this case I reckon that an explanation of the scientific method and a link to an example of free-to-access data and findings like http://arxiv.org/ is good enough ;)

>>1132635
1) Albert Einstein wasn't a theistic. He was pantheistic in his words, but seemed more-so to be being poetic with the beauty and "design" (laws of physics) of the universe.

2) Sweden seems pretty well-off, with up to 85% of their country being atheistic.

3) Science does have an answer for the creation of the Earth, and "some big guy with no evidence did it" is certainly not a better answer.

>>1132668
Or, more likely that some of them *cough*
>>1132641
can't read for shit.

>Einstein was then asked if he accepted the "historical existence of Jesus," to which he replied, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

>>1132673
What did I word incorrectly?

I really would like to know, because I'd hate for you all to really be that retarded to not get it especially after the first clarification post.

>>1132673
Nope. I am also an atheist and I understood his position just fine. You have to have context, but you probably just got here and saw that one post and then responded. You weren't paying attention to all his other posts. You just must be a faggot.

Has anyone else noticed that these discussions never go anywhere? All you get is overused nonsense arguments, and "i don't believe what you think i believe" style rebuttals. Circular discussion is circular.

If there were more muslims on 4chan, this thread would be full of death threats. 500 years ago, christians would be threatening and carrying out death as well.

>>1132624
They say faith is all you need and tell you all those super neato stories so you aren't like "man why the fuck isn't any divine badassery happening now?"

It's gotta cover its own ass, and no one's gonna fall for a story written about a guy who just claimed to be the Messiah.

>>1132720
Religious people are the ultimate trolls. They troll people without even consciously realizing that they're trolling.

>>1132736
the atheists in this thread are often guilty of the same thing.

>>1132734
See:
>>1132734

>>1132734
The thing is, that never stopped me from thinking why there are no miracles like are written about in the bible. And I'm pretty sure I am not alone. The people writing the bible in the beginning should have realized that tactic wouldn't fly. People are naturally curious.

OP here, you guys don't even get my post do you?

I'm just asking why place so much faith in science and none in religion. I understand that someone does research to prove things in science, but you still have to have faith in it if you weren't the one to do the research/proof.

And if you do have faith in it, why turn around and bag on those who chose to place that faith somewhere else?

Oh look, it's yet another Christroll that deliberately misuses the word "theory."

Argument broken on first premise.

>>1132900
>but you still have to have faith in it if you weren't the one to do the research/proof.

No I don't need to have faith in it, I observe that with reasonable probability, if something is incorrect in a field I'm not familiar with, at some point in time or another, it's going to come up for fair discussion by those knowledgeable in the field and it's going to be proven incorrect. No rock is left unturned.

>>1132949
Unless EVERYONE is in a conspiracy, which is, by its nature, impossible to prove or disprove. We just accept that and assume that "scientists are (not) lying and getting us pissed."

>>1132900
>I'm just asking why place so much faith in science and none in religion.

1. Science is not a faith.
2. Science is more worthy of trust because it's not some Bedouin hallucinating and pulling stories out of his ass. Have you fucking read Ezekiel?
3. Science is more worthy of trust because so far, it performs pretty well in advancing the state of the art and the human condition. Religion... not so much.

>>1132964
Scientists do lie from time to time and fake research. But that false research never stands up in the face of time, it is identified as falsified and is discarded, and the scientist who made the false claim is discredited. It's a career-ender, where you can no longer find research work in your field. It's back to flipping burgers at McDonalds. The consequences of falsifying research keep most scientists in line.

>>1133001

And there is great credibility to be earned in exposing a fraud like (former) Dr Wakefield, so everyone is motivated to "Prove Fred Hoyle Wrong"

>>1133074
this

>>1133074
What's funny is that as soon as he was discredited, all of the religious people kept believing him and his research. To this day, religious nutcases think vaccines cause autism. It's like religious people are conditioned to believe lies, but aggressively deny truths.

>>1133120
OH BOY HERE WE GO AGAIN

>>1131866
Erick is that you?

Every single one of you faggots needs to lrn2epistemology ASAP.

>>1133161

This is a science and religion thread.

We have no room for something as uncultured and pretentious as philosophy.

>>1133172
Ehh... OK. I raged a little. Good job. :)

>>1133161
Get the fuck out of here with that shit. I fucking know what epistemology is. If we get bogged down in that, we don't progress. It is useful to define a set of knowledge as knowable because to bicker back and forth as to "well, how do we know that we know, lol" We wouldn't get shit done.

>>1133139

What, you think what he said is false?

The "Vaccines cause autism" stuff is *exactly* like a religion. Even in the face of direct evidence (it should NOT have taken 10 years for the article to be retracted), belief in the bogus idea that vaccines and autism were related did not wane in the "true believers."

Snake oil salesmen, charlatans, politicians, homeopaths, chiropractors, etc, all rely on the special ability for people to believe in utter bullshit.

>>1133193
Truth. Scientists just accept that there is no way to prove conclusively that ANYTHING exists outside of our brains, and just roll with it and try to learn about this world, whether this world is fake or not, and do a pretty fine job almost all of the time (all of the time, really).

>>1133193

Epistemology is recursive mental masturbation.

bumping for some legit answers from the so called self proclaimed "smart" scientists

>believe in various scientific"theories,"

Doin' it wrong.

>>1133245
...They've already been posted?

you guise, seriously. epistemology is sounding a lot better than your weak ass defense of the scientific method.

>>1133245
Try reading the thread, fag. I bet you took one look at it and said "Oh, looks too long. Too many big words. I'll just troll the shit out of it." Fist yourself.

>>1133283
Okay, you go with epistemology, and we'll stick with the scientific method. We'll see which one one of us cures cancer first. Assfaggot.

oh how exitstential! is a 'fact' a 'fact'? definitely a candidate for the local school of the lord. in the meantime, if you really would like to know when a 'fact' is a 'fact', try studying. so many things are relative in this plain of existence, but just as the man said, some things are more relative.

im not even sure why you bother to question the scientific method when you are using a FUCKING COMPUTER!!!

sorry to become upset, but really. your actions dont follow your thought patterns, and your behaviour is totally disconnected from both of those, it seems.

and to all the other fellas making posts, please back off with the anti-gay comments. it really doesn't match the belief systems of either the anti-science asswipe or the activities of the scientific method. yeah - the same method that has given us the bill of human rights.

i reckon you all ought to practice what you preach and develop a sense of respect, regardless of belief systems.

amen, allah and up yours too!

/sci/ Philosphy

Two-thousand year old mutilated stories do not truth make.

>>3. No "religion vs. science" threads.

Sage & reported.

bump

>>1133807
reported for bumping a thread that is against the rules

>>1133790

Who says the stories are mutilated?