/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11430879
Science is just another religion, just as valid as Christianity, even leftists must acknowledge this. Stop trying to force it in our schools.

She has yet to question the validity of the scientific method.

>>11430879
>read with max vocal fry
he literalyyyyyyyyyyyy liiiike O-M-GEEEEH, totes doesn't believe innnnnn scieeeeeeeence...?

>>11430883
Heretic

>>11430879
>Time for a quick reality check, despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill.
-Mike Pence, 2000

>Condoms are a very, very poor protection against sexually transmitted disease.
-Mike Pence, 2002

>I also believe that someday scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a remotely rationale explanation for the known universe.
-Mike Pence, 2002

>Well the truth is it always was a theory, Mr Speaker. And now that we’ve recognized evolution as a theory, I would simply and humbly ask that can we teach it as such and can we also consider teaching other theories of the origin of species…
-Mike Pence, 2002

>Global warming is a myth. The global warming treaty is a disaster. There, I said it... The earth is actually cooler today than it was about 50 years ago.
-Mike Pence, 2000

>America has the cleanest air and water in the world.
-Mike Pence, 2019

>>11430954
>Time for a quick reality check, despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill.
It doesn't, tho.

>>11430954
>smoking doesn't kill
Correct.
>Condoms are a very, very poor protection against sexually transmitted disease
Correct, since they can break.
>I also believe that someday scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a remotely rationale explanation for the known universe
Correct, the materialists view of reality is utterly absurd and illogical.
>Well the truth is it always was a theory, Mr Speaker. And now that we’ve recognized evolution as a theory, I would simply and humbly ask that can we teach it as such and can we also consider teaching other theories of the origin of species…
Correct, an absolutely retarded theory at that, since it's an infinite regress.
>Global warming is a myth. The global warming treaty is a disaster. There, I said it... The earth is actually cooler today than it was about 50 years ago.
Correct, they fudged with the data to make it appear colder than it actually was in the early/mid 1900s.

>>11430955
$0.03 has been deposited into your account

>>11430955
Right, it doesn't doesn't kill.

>>11430955
Indeed, cigarettes contain no high-fructose corn syrup and are 100% cage free.

>>11430960
>Correct.
Incorrect.

>Correct, since they can break.
How often do they break and cause infection?

>Correct, the materialists view of reality is utterly absurd and illogical.
Incorrect.

>Correct, an absolutely retarded theory at that, since it's an infinite regress.
Incorrect.

>Correct, they fudged with the data to make it appear colder than it actually was in the early/mid 1900s.
Who?

>>11430960

>>11430967

>>11430879
It would not be bad at all if the complete populations of nations that choose to elect anti-scientific superstitious leaders get all wiped out.

>>11430967
>Incorrect.
Plenty of studies were ignored that showed no correlation.
>How often do they break and cause infection?
Once or twice.
>Incorrect.
Correct, God is a logical necessity.
>Incorrect.
Correct, it's logically impossible as an infinite regress.
>Who?
Climate "scientists" from University of East Anglia.

>>11430977

Holy fucking shit this board sucks

>>11430989
it ends up sucking twice as much when whiny little faggots bitch and complain instead of trying to argue with well thought-out counterpoints

>>11430991
>Implying your posts actually deserve a response

>>11430991
Yeah of course pal... of course. Your counterpoints that you complied while sitting comfortably in your armchair.
> well thought-out counterpoints
What a fucking joke

>>11430996
compiled*

>>11430994
>as you respond to it
holy fuck this is pre-school shit

>>11430960 #
how the hell these people find their way to this board? should stay away from science, it was wrong on so many levels, i start to suspect it's a troll

>>11430996
you're still being a whiny bitch. shut the fuck up

>>11431005
>bitching and complaining
>not counter-arguing

>>11430991
>>11431003
>>11431006
>>11431008
/sci/ at its finest

>>11430960
yikes

>>11430954
>>Condoms are a very, very poor protection against sexually transmitted disease.
not wrong, shouldnt even be an issue had america not been such a defiled and degenerate country

>>11431015
how many moar tiems am i gonna have to call you a whiny bitch? this is getting old

>>11430954
All of this is true lmao

>>11431022
>shouldnt even be an issue had america not been such a defiled and degenerate country
as china closes in on 1.4 fucking billion people holy shit

>>11431039
yes because the chinese are the ones coming in in droves to suck the welfare system dry all the while representing a majority of the ownership of central banks, media, pornography, harvard grads, and even pushing for more degeneracy and foreign wars through their 3 puppets in the supreme court and many others lower and higher up in command

>>11431057
shit i aint gettin banned again fuck off with your ignorant political views

>>11431060
>ignorant political views
youll recognize the irony of the common use of the word 'ignorance' of normies all the while they live out lives ignorant of almost everything that matters around them. go have fun on the nintendo switch or chatting with e-thots on discord, tranny

>>11431064

>>11431067
woah thats a powerful argument, im impressed

>>11431069

>>11431073
"thats racist" is not an argument. anyway, ive had enough time wasted by the disabled

>>11431008
you're right, i wasn't counter-arguing, wasn't even trying, won't educate people on complex subjects, really proving something properly and/or understanding takes a huge effort on something like evolution, even if the other one is willing. You can walk around and make statements without well thought out arguments/proofs based on your beliefs, me saying anything highly likely won't change your view. You'll have to enlighten yourself/study these subjects, im just curious what science deniers doing on this board.

>>11431082
>>>/pol/
that's where you argue politics dumbcunt. go there.

>>11431083
nobody is denying science in here

>>11431086
the thread itself is inherently political you fucking idiot, go back to plebbit if youre so triggered by politics

>>11431090
then the thread should be deleted

>>11431089
read >>11430960

>>11431099
there's no denial of science in any of those counter-points. Would you liek to try again?

>>11431092
its science related, the two are not mutually exclusive

>>11431104
mmmm straddling a fine line here

>>11430954
>>11430955
>>11430960
redpill me on how smoking doesn't kill

>>11431114
it's an act, not an entity

>>11430879
Clickbait queen

>>11430977
>Plenty of studies were ignored that showed no correlation.
Like what?

>Once or twice.
So you have no answer.

>God is a logical necessity.
By what logic?

>it's logically impossible as an infinite regress.
What necessitates infinite regress and why is it logically impossible?

>Climate "scientists" from University of East Anglia.
Proof?

just because condoms CAN break, they are still reliable form of prevention just as a car or plane is reliable to get you from point A to B, even though they CAN break/crash. smoking doesn't KILL right away, it just RAISES the likelyhood of you becoming ill, getting cancer, which potentially could kill you, but im done, it's utterly pointless, i argued too much against creationists, flat earthers, and whatnots, they look only for evidence that proves their views, discard all other

>>11431022
>not wrong
Wrong.

if god is a logical necessity then it can be proven using logic and math, show me the equation or your proof, how did you draw this conclusion? if you/anyone could prove it, it would be all over the news, but try please

>>11431132
>wrong
wrong

>>11431143
See >>11431132

>>11430960

>Correct, the materialists view of reality is utterly absurd and illogical

Can we acknowledge that while materialism is narrow minded from the perspective of the universe. That Pence and religious right are NOT the same nor advocates of non-materialistic spiritualism.

A serious discussion let alone teaching of spiritual teachings like non-duality would scare the living shit out of conservatives even more than science. And they would fight tooth and nail not to allow that in school or the public mind space despite them being for religious freedom and alternatives to science. Those con-men can't even move past the thousand year old "crusaders" tier mindset, ritualistic iconography or muh chosen people.

Fuck off.

>>11431146
refer to >>11431143

>>11431022
genital lice

wow trumptard propagandists in full force in this thread
>>>/pol/

>>11431151
See >>11431146

>>11431150
The universe doesn’t have a perspective, dumbass. Only people do.

Can /pol/ ever be stopped? They areshitting up every fucking board now

>>11431157
>trumptard propagandists
go back faggot, im not even a fan of zognald

>>11431101
actually it is all denial of science. why don't you throw in a "Newton's laws are a myth" too and just say it's a counter-point

>>11431162
what do you mean by 'shitting up every board?" This is 4chan if you forgot, not reddit. If you want snowflake opinions then go back

>>11431150
>Can we acknowledge that while materialism is narrow minded from the perspective of the universe.

Why would we acknowledge that?

>>11431170
>hurr durr all of 4chan is /pol/
no, that's the containment board for shitting up every board, defined as what you are doing right now

>>11431176
>that's the containment board for shitting up every board
no its not, youre delusional. /pol/ and /b/ are pretty much equally 'racist' and they were the founders of the site.

>>11431167
>they fudged with the data to make it appear colder than it actually was in the early/mid 1900s
therefore making the idea of global warming a myth
no denial of science, just pointing out deceit being used to push an agenda

>>11430960
we are still waiting for any kind reasoning behind your statements, and it should be better than "condoms arent good cause they can break" or "evolution is infinite regress" since evolution explains how life developed from a starting point, NOT how it started so it's not infinite

>>11431177
> /pol/ and /b/ are pretty much equally 'racist' and they were the founders of the site.
>*just starts making shit up*
/b/ was but /pol/ definitely wasn't.

>>11431178
>they fudged with the data to make it appear colder than it actually was in the early/mid 1900s
Proof?

>>11431180
/b/ is not leftist by any measure of the word

>>11431182
i didn't say they were idiot. i'm just telling you you're objectively wrong, /pol/ and its precursor the original /news/ weren't among the first boards

>>11431161

And here we have the first retard.

Protip anon, a branch of discussion concerning non-materialism spirituality is that the universe itself is alive and you are a fragment of it. Thus both have ""perspective"" and your interpretation of it not having a perspective is based on your limited understanding of existence.

>>11431181
i didn't make the claim, not my responsibility LOL

>>11431185
>weren't among the first boards
/pol/ and /b/ (& /v/) rack in the most activity of all the site, moot himself was not such the progressive. anyway this isnt science

>>11430879
>noooo not the flu motherfucking pandemic
cringe

>>11431193
yes, containment boards for cancerous shit naturally generate the most crap, is that surprising? anyhow the fact is that /pol/ only got big after gamergate, before that this whole "4chan is all /pol/" shit was not a meme. that became a meme after the groupthink that started once all the people who had interest in gamergate gathered there

>>11431187
You can discuss Santa Claus too, doesn't make him real.

>>11431192
You claimed it's not science denial. Wouldn't it actually have to be true? Otherwise it's just a shitty conspiracy theory used to deny global temperatures. So you don't actually know whether it's science denial. Why did you lie?

holy shit this thread is definitely on it's way to getting BAAAWWWLETED LOL

>>11431208

>>11431177
/b/ is literally, in writing, supposed to be the containment board for racism.

>>11431212

>>11431216

guys, are we trying to argue someone who can't even construct a logical argument to support his/her views, and only making statements based on beliefs?( >>11430960 )
back to the original question of the thread, most people have to believe in science, since it's getting so advanced it's hard to comprehend without rigorous study. But ideally he(and everyone else) should understand it. Probably Alexandria meant to say "doesn't accept science"

>>11431220
>most people have to believe in science, since it's getting so advanced it's hard to comprehend without rigorous study
>just trust me bro im a scientist

>>11431225
if you wanna understand advanced maths, physics, electronics, chemistry, biology and whatnot(the things researches are based on), you gotta study those fields. Otherwise you wont be able to understand the proofs, or use the tools that are required to make the proofs, you'll get incorrect data, and draw incorrect conclusion.

>>11431241
sounds gay desu

>>11431249
is it really the science board?:D
love you all, peace out

>>11431258
bye

>>11431217

>politics
(-)

>>11431264

>>11431276

>>11431281
alright we're gonna get banned if we keep goin

>>11431173

Because as we advance further in technology we will eventually reach a point where materialism and non-materialism will converge repeatedly. For instance we have several threads a while back concerning artificial wombs. But rarely discuss what the philosophical fallout concerning the belief in "soul/ consciousness" would be. Both the natural womb and artificial womb would bring individuals to life. But what does that mean for ourselves when we can prove no functional difference from the two? We could assume that the soul/consciousness is a farce. But why would we spend hundreds of thousands of years convincing ourselves we had souls to begin with? Is it because our scope of observation was so limited that we couldn't see the process in true form thus derived an interpretation? Or is it because we desperately sought out an avenue to alleviate personal suffering even if only mentally. And we convinced ourselves well enough to develop long lasting religions and momentarily forget our raw origins?

What would it mean if the opposite happened though? That creating artificial wombs does not yield functional individuals like ourselves? Even after pain stakingly replicating every part of the woman's womb and fetal development process? Would we then have to acknowledge that souls/consciousness or some other essence is beyond our reach? That there is information we cannot take hold of because we operate as a sub-set in system that is the universe? Thus proving that a sub-set cannot properly assess the whole "set" it resides in?

Both results would require acknowledgment of views that transcends materialism as we currently know it.

>>11431205

Thanks for proving my original point that this discussion cannot happen.

>>11431286
Dumb deniers deserve to get banned.

>>11431313

>>11431301
>Thanks for proving my original point that this discussion cannot happen.
It can happen, if you discuss science on the science board rather than babble about souls.

dont get why people on the left whine about believing in science when they believe you can just change your gender on a whim and dont trust economics at all

>>11431320
Still waiting for that "fudged data" deniertard.

>>11431323
>gender
>economics
Not science. Why is the right so retarded?

>>11431327
not my post not my responsibility

>>11431332
both are science, sorry to inform you tranny

>>11431301
"Both results would require acknowledgment of views that transcends materialism as we currently know it."
How the first one requires acknowledgement of views that transcends materialism?(i might have missed something but based on your post i dont get it atm)

>>11431301
>Both the natural womb and artificial womb would bring individuals to life. But what does that mean for ourselves when we can prove no functional difference from the two?
Nothing? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

>>11431339
>economics and gender
>science
lmao

>>11431333
Then why are you defending it?

>>11431351
That's what i didn't get as well, it just points towards materialism(the whole first case and result)..

>>11430954
this post is propaganda.

>>11431371
i assumed said anon had sources to influence his post. It's pretty obvious the global warming boogie man has been being used by fucktards to scare monger for 50 or so fucking years now and in the end what the fuck does it matter? Everyone would have to reduce their standard of living down to caveman level to make a difference. You ready to do that faggotboy? I mean, i certainly am. I fucking hate technology aside from a conduit to chan on

>>11431386
It's several quotes of propaganda, yes.

>>11430879
She's a massive hypocrite to say that about Pence when she's a fucking socialist and as you know that ideology has failed over and over making it completely unscientific to subscribe to it.

>>11431394
ho ho ho

>>11430879
Neither have any interest in science.
For her, science is just something that makes her right and her opponents wrong.
For him, it's a conspiracy against his retarded beliefs.
May they both have a short and unimpactful life.

>>11431397
Yes.

>>11431390
>i assumed said anon had sources to influence his post.
Why?

>It's pretty obvious the global warming boogie man has been being used by fucktards to scare monger for 50 or so fucking years now and in the end what the fuck does it matter?
So you think global warming isn't real or isn't as bad as scientists say it will be?

>Everyone would have to reduce their standard of living down to caveman level to make a difference.
How did you come to that conclusion?

>>11431411
green energy is extremely expensive relative to fossil fuels

>>11431411
>Why?
because he made claims
>So you think global warming isn't real or isn't as bad as scientists say it will be?
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

>>11431419
6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

>>11431114
It causes cancer which kills you. The smoking itself does nothing unless you choke on it, wake up sheeple!

>>11431420
11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

>>11431423
17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

>>11431411
>How did you come to that conclusion?
our standard of living is dependent on fossil fuels thickshit

>>11430879
She means that she believes in science as long as it doesn't conflict with her politically correct world view.

>>11431418
Not when you factor in the negative effects of fossil fuels. Also, how does that answer my question?

>>11431419
>>11431420
>>11431423
>>11431428
>18 scientists were wrong once in their life
ok, let's pack it up science boys, guess science failed
we should become plumbers or something instead....

>>11431441
oh that's just from 1970 alone bro. but hey, i can tell you're deteriorating into a whiny little bitch now so my work here is done.

>>11431419
>>11431420
>>11431423
You shouldn't cite the same con artist several times, it doesn't add to your point.

>>11431445
>the scientists that have been proven wrong are just con artists listen to me no just listen bro global warming bro we're all gonna die
i fucking hate liberals so god damn fucking much

>>11430960
>>11430955
>>11431022
>>11431031
>>11431386
Amazing how even /sci/ has been infected by the mentally ill right wingers

>>11431442
18 scientists out of hundredthousands or even millions were wrong in 1970? Does the press know about this? This is BIG NEWS

>>11431450
>>11431451

>>11431454
you're just pulling shit out of your ass while i'm providing substance. shut the fuck up and fuck off

>>11431450
Yeah, of course, everyone who nuances what you write is a liberal.
Maybe you should frequent some other board mate.

>>11431461

>>11431419
>because he made claims
So do you assume my claims are correct?

>1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
But he didn't say that about global warming:

>The problems that Dr. Wald called “overwhelmingly threatening” are pollution, overpopulation and the pos sibility of nuclear war.

https://www.nytimes.com/1970/11/19/archives/the-end-of-civilization-feared-by-biochemist.html

>2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
This was in 1970, not about global warming.

None of these even mention global warming. Try again

>>11431470

>>11431451
>mentally ill right wingers
go back

>>11431431
>our standard of living is dependent on fossil fuels thickshit
It's dependent on energy, which is currently produced mainly by fossil fuels, but doesn't have to be. Why are /pol/tards deficient in basic logic?

This is quite possibly the worst board on 4chan

>>11431473
If you had read "So you think global warming isn't real or isn't as bad as scientists say it will be?" you wouldn't have posted a bunch of quotes from 1970 before global warming was widely known.

>>11431493
only the climate threads

>>11431512
and every other thread that has a topic of interest to "them"

>>11431512
>Consciousness threads
>most QM threads
>”Scientifically speaking”

Nah, this board always finds a way to swerve right into schizo/pseudo spiritual shit

>>11431407
This, I hadn't actually thought of this, but this 100% true.

>>11431345

Because why did we trick ourselves into thinking god and everything affiliated with religion was real and consequential? Somewhere in our limited mind at the time we had to bypass what we could see and touch first hand to derive a sense of scope that transcended our own mortality. Even if it was all merely an illusion the idea we were able imagine immaterial plains of existence and spread such an illusionary doctrine to every part of the world, taking multiple forms and lasting thousands of years requires acknowledgement of non-materialism. Again we can say it was due to our own limited observation or to bypass mental suffering. But why? What convinced us to seek something beyond our own mortality and the world we interact with first hand just to alleviate pain or to explain a physical process necessary to our birth/survival?

>>11431351

I'm arguing that all the years spent identifying "wombs" and "souls" as sacred go away when you prove it's within our grasp to recreate it. When there is no difference between an "artificial individual" and "natural individual" all pretense religion worked with here falls apart. We spent thousands of years elevating the human womb to become sacred. Only to realize the difference in appointing what is sacred and arbitrary was the scale necessary to view the intricacies to recreate it. During these years we were able to derive a theory of atomism as far back as the 5th century. Why did we continue elevating the womb/soul despite this. Maybe peer pressure? Or we forgot that we created religion?

>>11431376

It points to materialism only if you strictly view the conclusion to be we were limited in our understanding and/ or desperate to avoid pain. The non-materialism part comes about when you try to understand why we sought that specific of "out" in the first place. Why did we give away our own agency to something that wasn't material nor provable?

>>11431436
oh i forgot that capital investment happens primarily in the future.

>>11431591
>oh i forgot that capital investment happens primarily in the future.
???

>>11431565
So I confused myself and you’re a materialist? Because you’re arguing there’s no functional difference between a natural born human and a test tube baby

>>11431565
Having idiotic beliefs for thousands of years doesn't make them any less idiotic.

>>>/x/

>>11430960
>Correct.
Wut
>Correct, since they can break.
Condoms are still the best protection there is besides not having sex at all.
>Correct, the materialists view of reality is utterly absurd and illogical.
How so?
>Correct, an absolutely retarded theory at that, since it's an infinite regress.
That doesn't invalidate the theory. In fact, since reality is likely infinitely regressing, so should theories that encompass fundamentals of reality.
>Correct, they fudged with the data to make it appear colder than it actually was in the early/mid 1900s.
Dunno about that and don't care either.

>>11431451
>accepting the left/right paradigm
>calling other people mentally ill
wew lad

>>11431790

>So I confused myself and you’re a materialist?

I am, but I try not to limit myself exclusively to materialistic thinking. Or at the very least try to stay open-minded.

>Because you’re arguing there’s no functional difference between a natural born human and a test tube baby

I'm only discussing the possibility that there may not be a difference between the two. But since I'm not from the future nor a scientist with provable examples of such topics I'm simply working off conjecture here.

>>11431792

>Having idiotic beliefs for thousands of years doesn't make them any less idiotic.

You're right, that technically makes them afflicted with psychosis. But it's still interesting that for thousands of years we placed our agency into things that did not have physical form. Even with our unsophisticated minds back then before civilization we still could conceive imaginary entitie(s) of infinite potential (all seeing, all knowing, all powerful).

>>11431454
ironically a bunch of those predictions are true, or were averted by government regulations

>>11430879
Too many on the left treat science as a religion now.

>/sci/ is supposed to be a high-IQ board
>it’s more easily b8ed than /pol/
Unbelievable. All of you have to have terminal autism, it’s the only explanation.

>>11431220
>guys, are we trying to argue someone who can't even construct a logical argument to support his/her views, and only making statements based on beliefs?
honestly thought you were talking about the incompetent cultist in the OP's pic at first

>>11431565
>"Why did we give away our own agency to something that wasn't material nor provable?"
Many explanation are possible, probably there were multiple factors, but just because we had all kind of beliefs for thousands of years, it doesn't mean any of them were correct.
You are making connections where isn't necessary any, trying to see things you want to be true/to see(non-materialism view), even though there's not enough evidence to support the point you're trying to make.
"Because as we advance further in technology we will eventually reach a point where materialism and non-materialism will converge repeatedly."<-thats also assuming

>>11431835
>But since I'm not from the future nor a scientist with provable examples of such topics I'm simply working off conjecture here.

Fair enough, I don't particularly think there's a meaningful difference either. Conscoiusnesss is a subjective phenomenon and not exlclusive to "real" humans.

>>11432267

>You are making connections where isn't necessary any, trying to see things you want to be true/to see(non-materialism view), even though there's not enough evidence to support the point you're trying to make.

I'm not trying make connections or see things in any particular way though. In fact I'm doing the opposite, I'm trying to highlight gaps in our knowledge and see if alternative thought processes can help explain it. Don't confuse an in-depth discussion concerning alternative theories to reality that isn't related to science as if I'm positing it as true or accurate. I'm not, all I'm doing is asking questions about scenarios that we will eventually encounter in the future. Because it's clear our spirituality tends to begin where our provable observation ends.

As I originally stated I'm asking is WHY did we make such leaps in logic in the first place? What led us to give up on the material for the in-material when there was no reason for us to do so? Why would a mammal just suddenly say that, I must come from an intangible place of origin and when I die I will return to said intangible place of origin. Then proceed to build off from such logic an intricate materialistic system to point to a plain of non-materialistic existence.

Mind you posing these questions doesn't prove the existence of god or spirituality. It just highlights major gaps of logic. And don't confuse this as a "god of gaps" argument. It isn't, it's about figuring out our reality with the mental tools we have. It could be as simple as our prehistoric ancestors were afflicted with psychosis, taught future generations to be psychotic and we eventually had to ween ourselves off the psychosis. Perhaps a biological coping mechanism to reduce mental pain of the community? Or as complex as our brains went through intergenerational defragging of information that was previously randomly compiled in a ways that led to thought processes of different religions/ higher beings.

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/246081189