/sci/ - Science & Math

>Religion does not hamper the growth of science

Stopped reading there

>>1170138
I'm saying that some people are inherently afraid of science. Even without religion they would find a way to try to stop our growth. Religious demagogy is just the easiest way they've come up with to do it.

>>1170138
I agree with OP

I feel like mindblowing things like Schrodinger's Cat per say would be viewed as idiotic by the (possibly fearful) less educated skeptics with or without religion.

Stop making threads with the words "God", "Christianity" and "religion" in them, then you can have a proper discussion.

>>1170153
hell /x/ is proof of that

>>1170176
How can you try to discuss the relation between science and religion without saying "religion"?

Wow OP, wow.

Congratulations on being possibly the most functioning person I've ever read a post by.

Win

>>1170200
Whats wrong?

>>1170123

>The religious who believe the Earth was made in 6 days and that gravity is just the weight of sin on our shoulders is an overwhelming minority

44% of American Christians believe that the rapture is "probably" or "definitely" coming in the next 50 years. "Overwhelming minority" is ironically an accurate description.

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21)

Hey OP, care to explain this verse?

>>1170123
God doesn't exist. You are a puppet of Nature.

God = VMAT2 gene :D... A product of random evolution. If you believe in something, you were a survival in Ice Age.

>>1170212

Okay, they can believe that. A bunch of scientists also believe the magnetic poles will shift and allow the sun to fry us to a crisp. Don't see how that is really a relevant statistic you posted...

>>1170123

>Once again, as a Christian and a scientist I can only say that the perceived war between these two institutions that coexist to define my view of the universe is more draconian and counterproductive than either "side" of the "conflict" could ever be.

This I already said more than once to no avail :(
Grow up people!

This is a good thread and the OP is a good person.

Keep up the good work, OP.

>>1170215

Peter lived in a day and age when scientific knowledge was nothing compared to what it is today. I dont' think it is that strange that he, like most contemporaries viewed divine intervention the Bible's authorship as literal fact. In two thousand years people are going to look back at a lot of the stuff we said and wonder how we could have possibly been so wrong.

I am an astrophysics student and i am a practicing Christian. I agree with op

>>1170231
You claimed religious crazies are a small minority and I gave a statistic for one belief. Therefore my post is relevant. Here are more data for my point.

This is why religion is poisonous: there are ALWAYS be people who, specifically because of this or that religion, will disagree with reality and will behave anti-progressively. And it really isn't such a small minority. "liberal" christians and other related groups give fundamentalism time to incubate and freedom from scrutiny.

fuck off nigger. if you think that there's a fucking invisible man in the sky and that there were talking snakes and that jesus is going to fly from the sky and lift everyone up then you are a fucking retard and should kill yourself nigger. heil satan and hitler, kill all niggers ftw 666 tits nigger cunt

I wish everyone thought like you OP, but you and i both know this will never happen. People are too stuck in their ways and refuse to see things from another point of view.

>>1170275
I agree that fundamentalism is stupid and anti-progressive (btw, what is the question for the poll on your post?) but to say that religion in and of itself is anti-progressive is just as close-minded as saying science in and of itself is blasphemy.

VMAT2 gene expression explains all!!! O:!!!

Not bad OP, but one thing still makes you a retard: you're a Christian. You actually believe in a Zombie Jew and an invisible man in the sky, roflmao.

>>1170299

Quick, without google- tell me what the VMAT2 gene even does.

>>1170215

Not every single verse in the Bible is a prophecy. And that verse doesn't appear to me to imply that you shall take the Bible literally but rather that the Bible's teachings are God willed. But some books are just Jew tribe history. Others are just prayers. Others use parables or old ways of writing. All those don't fall under prophecies but rather the human willed way of the author to express God's inspired will.

>>1170308
OP believes in the Zombie coz s/he had an active copy of VMAT2 gene!!! :D

Google VMAT2!

There are substances who inhibit this gene... Religion it's a curable disease :D!!!

>>1170313
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

>>1170299
OP here
The VMAT2 study shows a very minor statistical variance among those who do and do not have high level of expression of the gene. It hasn't even been published in an academic journal because it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

>>1170123
>I will gladly agree with you that evolutionism has its holes

Immediately raged. 6/10 OP It actually sorta worked on me.

>>1170313

it's a vesicular monoamine transferase 2, a gene for a membrane bound protein that packages dopamine neurotransmitter into vesicles for use by neurons in signal transduction. The study that claims it accounts for belief in god was never peer reviewed and only published in book form. The data is not that clear and the author, Dean Halmer cheats with statistical significance.

>>1170212
because there's no world outside america...

Also, more OP praise, i've been trying to get this across too, though i'm more associated with physics than biology, and very unconventional, you have done verry well what i could not, over 9000 internets to you sir.

>>1170123
Yo're not a christian. If you don't believe in the bible. or just interpret it arbitrarily. you might as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Just accept that religions are outdated like the rest of the sane population of earth. We are approaching over 50% of the population in some countries... not america though, because.. you know... retards. (like you)

>>1170341
No I'm serious. There are mechanisms and flaws in evolution that we don't understand. Why else would we do research on it?

>>1170265

How can you possibly say that, when the same scientific progress you speak of also works against the foundations of the belief in the Christian God in the first place? Do you think it's okay to pick and choose passages of the bible just because they "fit" with today's society?

>I will gladly agree with you that evolutionism has its holes and even that to an extent it is taught with a bias in that teachers don't cover these flaws in schools.

This is why religion hampers science. This right here. Now go away.

>>1170351

What scientific theory is there that does not allow for an afterlife or an intelligent creator?

These science vs religion debates are retarded. Fundamentalists are stupid, atheist or religious. I am a christian, but I don't believe in the book of genesis or the exodus, or revelation, or even the miracles of jesus. I simply do my best to follow what jesus said and treat other people how I want to be treated. I try to be good to other people, no matter who they are. That doesn't make me believe in creationism, nor does it make deny evolution. For knowing how the universe works, I look at the evidence, and treat people how I want to be treated.

>>1170344

You surely don't know more about Christianity and religion in general more than him or me so keep your cool.

sorry guys ITT, who is beig irrational, OP, or>>1170344
>>1170332
>>1170308
>>1170280
>>1170275
>>1170217
>>1170138
>>1170200

>>1170275
If anyone's wondering, that poll is asking whether someone believes in evolution or not.

>>1170377
being*

>>1170377

You're right, they use the same demagogy and reductionism that the religious fundamentalists they hate so much use.

>>1170373
you and me both, i think we count more as deist dude, but y'know

>>1170368

No this is why science perpetuates itself, the constant refining of theories.

shits all based on philosophy anyway.

this is blasphemy

>>1170370

It's not that a theory prevents the existence of a creator it's that science deals with this currency we call evidence and in that respect the "theory" of creationism is more destitute than 50 Africas put together.

>>1170368
If everyone felt the way you did we wouldn't have Darwinism, we would have Lamarcksism. All theories can be refined.

>>1170402

Science is definitely open to revision and theories are increasingly defined until they can't describe a phenomena in anymore detail.

However, that's not the same as "there are holes in evolution." There are holes in these people's knowledge of evolution. If OP is a microbiologist then he's a poor one for using poor wording when describing a theory that directly relates to his research.

>>1170417

I don't think anyone here has yet to promote creationism?

>>1170350

See this is how I know you're lying. If you did work in the field of microbiology you'd know how to refute all this creationist crap.

You say there are holes? Name one that hasn't been trashed.

>>1170419

There are flaws in the quantum theory of gravity and the standard models relation with one another and people who research them will readily tell you that

>>1170418

There's no such thing as Darwinism. Just like there's no such thing as Newtonianism or Ensteinism or Teslaism or Saganism or whatever. This "ism" bullshit is wordplay to make evolution sound like it's about supporting Darwin more than the science.

>>1170429

I'm not the OP but I think he was referring from a scientific perspective itself not from some retarded creationist shit.

>>1170433

Oh I thought this was a thread about evolution.

>>1170427
i think, in a way, i would be classed as a cretionist, as in, god created everything, i am however, not a 'young earth creationist' which is 6 days blah blah herp derp. you can belive god created the universe with believing it was done in an earth week. and if you do, you are still a creationist.

>>1170350

Things we don't understand =/= flaws.

You're being biased with your wording.

Hello Op im a deist and i agree with you. It nice to see someone on this board who has a intelligent opinion of religion.

>>1170344

classic case of no true scotsman.

>>1170419
You are right, I used shitty wording, "open questions" would have been better.


>>1170429
Once again, I wish I had written "open questions"

-Cambrian explosion
-How could RNA enzymes that only replicate themselves lead to cellular components?
-Many intermediate organisms made in models seem as if they would not have been fit enough to survive competing with wild type organisms in their species.
-How would an RNA enzyme that replicated itself be able direct peptide synthesis?

>>1170454

the problem is the same at both sides (fundies and "science fundies") that they don't know anything about the subject they are talking about, be it religion or science.

>>1170495
i concur. this thread has given me hope for /sci/

OP is a scholar and gentleman

sadly they will always be ignorants on both sides :(

>>1170468

Alright, now, are those open questions that everyone has or just you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Possible_causes_of_the_.E2.80.9Cexplosion.E2.80.9D

The problem is that you're ready to give up searching for an explanation by invoking intelligent design. You're going to get God on the brain and stop looking for evidence. This the the classic argument from ignorance. You're at the very edge of your knowledge, and possibly human knowledge. Your brain wants an answer and if God satisfies it, then you'll be inclined to lean toward it.

But consider all the questions about evolution that have an answer. Consider all the questions in science that have been answered without the assumption of the Christian God existing. Does it really make sense that the only explanation for four out of hundreds of questions is intelligent design? In the context of all the other evidence, can you justify intelligent design for such few phenomena while everything else can be explained naturally?

>>1170519

well, don't hope too much.

>>1170536

OP here:

I am an evolutionary microbiologist. I research the NATURAL ways that evolution occurred. I believe it happened NATURALLY. I, like any other scientist who works in the field know that there are open question that have NATURAL SCIENTIFIC ANSWERS that I am looking for. How does that make me want God to be the answer?!?

>>1170542
hope is good, hope is needed, especially with the cancer over /sci/ i think i mainly come to this board out of hope now that it will have lost most of its cancer, if not all, which it never will, but it would be nice to see either intelligent conversation (this thread) or mostly math/science related threads on the front page.

>>1170536
And i wasn't saying in my first post that ID is the answer to these questions. I was just saying that many people are right when they say there are parts of the theory of evolution they (and science) haven't figured out. Same way there are parts of gravity we haven't figured out, I'll admit a fundamentalist is right when he says that, but I won't agree that we are weighed down by sin.

>>1170577

Then where are your "holes?" Everything is an open question. I assumed you'd be smart enough to post the questions you have about evolution that made you go "Gee, there must be an intelligent designer." I also assumed the questions you posted were it.

In your first post "blah blah I will agree there are holes in evolution." Then it's "Oops, I meant to say open questions." Now you're saying there is no questions, you have proper explanations for evolution.

See, I thought i was going to be able to have some sort of decent conversation with you but now it looks like you're going to continue to change your mind every time someone challenges you.

So I'm going to try this one more again, straight to the point. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THERE IS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER IN RELATION TO YOUR FIELD AND IF THAT'S NOT YOUR CONTENTION THEN WHY DID YOU MAKE STATEMENTS IMPLYING THAT THE CURRENT THEORY OF EVOULTION MAY BE INACCURATE?

>>1170647

I still am saying those are questions! How can you not understand that? I'm just that out there somewhere are NATURAL answers for those questions, we don't have them yet but we will. That is what I am saying. If you can't understand that then please leave because you are a part of the cancer I was posting about.

>>1170647
Holy shit dude. He misworded his post. Nearly every post on 4chan has a miswording in it, when someone acknowledges they fuck up their wording does it make their post any worse?

Wow there are clearly people here who are not trolls, are obsessed with evolution and mocking creationists, and have a kind of expectations different than mine for a science board.

Thank you for ruining /sci/ idiot.

(atheist here)

>>1170647
Wow there are clearly people here who are not trolls, are obsessed with evolution and mocking creationists, and have a kind of expectations different than mine for a science board.

Thank you for ruining /sci/ idiot.

(atheist here)

>>1170662

THAT'S THE SAME SHIT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU.

Seriously, I'm being trolled aren't I? Goddamn.

>>1170689

yep, they behave exactly like christian fundamentalists, attention whore, push their believes one others, think they are always right, no matter what etc.

the funniest thing is that religion even doesn't revolve around evolution.

>>1170702
I had already made that same point in two posts. You aren't being trolled, you just don't have a decent grasp of the English language, or the Scientific Method for that matter.

>>1170297

>what is the question for the poll on your post

"The end times will come about by 2050."

>>1170719

>Evolution_belief.jpg

>>1170647
>>WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THERE IS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER IN RELATION TO YOUR FIELD

OP never implied that. quit jumping to conclusions.

>>1170696

So point out the part where I mocked him. Do it. Show me. I was just trying to ask the guy a question about his beliefs. Instead I get half-answers and four people jumping on me for "attacking" someone. I

Here are my posts:
>>1170647
>>1170536
>>1170419
>>1170368

Show me the ad hominem or mocking, or teasing, or insult. Anything.

>>1170729

I previously used it as a troll.

>>1170733

Thank you SO much for having an IQ above that of a thumbtack and actually reading what I wrote =D

>>1170740
"If OP is a microbiologist then he's a poor one"

"I assumed you'd be smart enough to post the questions you have about evolution"

Those probably hurt his or her feelings a bit

>>1170740

why so mad, bro?

Enough of the religious threads. A scientist's religious beliefs is irrelevant to his research. We don't care what you believe.

>>1170740

this:
>>The problem is that you're ready to give up searching for an explanation by invoking intelligent design. You're going to get God on the brain and stop looking for evidence. This the the classic argument from ignorance. You're at the very edge of your knowledge, and possibly human knowledge. Your brain wants an answer and if God satisfies it, then you'll be inclined to lean toward it.

"I'm searching for answers to real questions" =/= "HURR DURR I GIVE UP IT MUST BE GOD"


You're either an embarrassment to /sci/ or just really bad at trolling OP.

>>1170778

sadly, that is not the case in this thread, or on /sci/ in general.

Stop bumping it. If you have anything to say, say it with sage.

>>1170778

Hmm, seems like a lot of people care about the beliefs listed in OP's post...?

And I don't really think this is a religious thread

>>1170778
this is related to science though, yes it is also related to religion, but it is with science.

>>1170782

That wasn't OP who posted that. OP is the guy he was flaming

>>1170778

that's kind of the point of this thread and what OP was saying.

>>1170788

>that is not the case in this thread

>>1170123

>I'm a Christian, and a microbiologist.

Hi, I'm a Libra, and a microbiologist
Hi, I'm a Vegetarian and a microbiologist
Hi, I'm a Republican and a microbiologist

>>1170790
if i do have something to say on these, it's usually with sage, but in this case i do not feel it necessary.

>>1170812

that's what he meant.

>bad at trolling OP
not
>bad at trolling, OP

>>1170818

Well yeah those don't matter because vegetarianism and science are depicted as being in dire conflict with one another

>>1170123
tl;dr

Op, please show the compassion becoming of Jesus and provide a brief summary.

Nope.

>>1170812
wasn't talking to OP

>>1170818

Your tripcode says you seek to reclaim /sci/ and yet you do not see the purpose of this post? Are you an idiot?

No

>>1170790

please stop telling me what to do and read the thread, which is exactly about religion threads and /sci/, but is not itself a religion thread.

>>1170836
>>post tl;dr to look cool
>>post totally unrelated question

>>1170841

I don't care if Sagan himself came back from the grave to post about how religion and science can co-exist. I would still sage it.

>>1170845
just a butthurt atheist. sorry for lowering the tone, for this i shall sage

>>1170212
Unfortunately 62.5% of the statistics provided itt are inaccurate

>>1170123
>Without religion, fundamentalists would still find a way to harass and "refute" our progress.

Without religion, just what type of "fundamentalists" are we talking about? No other human philosophy is as big of an example of man's intent to describe how the natural world works. What other fundamentalists have the goal of countering scientific advancement?

>>1170851

Go to a forum. You'd fit in better there.

>>1170871

instead of "goal" I should have said "vested interest"

>>1170861
that's funny, because as an agnostic, it's probably what he'd say.

>>1170861

Idc if your name says you wanna reclaim /sci/ by saging a thread like this you are going against what you claim to want to do

>>1170865

Sounds like U MAD to me.

>>1170876

go away from this thread. you'd better fit there.

>>1170858
Post greentext to look cool
bump with shitpost for no reason

>>1170871

I think he meant the people who are fundamentalists would find another way to bitch, not that they'd still be fundamentals

>>1170889

Cry some more.

>>1170871
there are people who, generally, don't like change
these people, do not like scientific advancement as this is change. logical to me.

I hereby reward the op with the most awesome picture in the history of man.

and so goes the thread to shit with pretentious tripfags.

anyway keep up the good work OP!

from the window to the waalllll

>>1170912

OP here,

thanks I will.

I'm glad so many people on both sides were able to discuss this intelligently. I'm also kinda upset how many people totally misread my posts =/

>>1170910

>the most awesome picture in the history of man.

you mean this, right?

Hey guys let's just say some random shit about ourselves and relate it to /sci/!

>>1170936

Hey let's try to resolve a massive problem with /sci/ and relate it to /sci/!!!!!

>>1170936

>>1170931
Mind. Blown.

Oh, and no one really cares about what tripfags have to say. This should be a reminder to all on why we do not use them.

>>1170924

well, some people will always be ignorant, be it christian fundies or internet atheist fundies.

>>1170943

>solve a problem
>OP talks about how special he is
>people kiss his ass
>people misread his posts
>people troll
>people white knight
>no science is actually discussed

Or we can just, you know, get rid of this thread and talk about science instead.

>>1170965

Where did I ONCE talk about being special?

To hot topic at the maalll
>>1170915

>>1170893
But on what basis would they be "bitching" about science. If we are assuming, for the sake of argument, that religion does not exist, what specific beliefs are these former "fundamentalists" using to be so against progress? Are they pissed off at science because their science teacher was a dick to them in school? You see, there is no other basis, with as much supposed backing and recognition, as religion which could cause a person to be so adverse to science as a method to explain the world and benefit humanity.

>>1170965

or you could just make a thread where science is discussed and not bitch around attention whoring tripfag?

>>1170908
Generally these people are old, or their hangups are such that when they die, their hangups die with them. Religion propagates these hangups because it's built into the mechanism to be passed on to the next generation. Without this, I imagine people who fear change would essentially be a dying breed.

>>1170965
so rather than bring understanding and reason to make this work long term, we can discuss science now, and have more uninformed fools tomorrow.

>>1170983
Oh, religion is most certainly the easiest way to "criticize" (for lack of a better term) scientific advances. But just look at the number of atheist conspiracy nutjobs out there, hell go on /x/ and plot their (lack of) religious beliefs and how likely they are to think the LHC is going to kill us all. People are prone to draconianism with or without religion, religious fundamentalism just makes it easier.

>>1170915
The best way to kill a thread is to continually post in it.

Inb4 but sage durr

>read an intelligent, well constructed compromise about science and religion.
>Saw dozens of angry responses one way or the other
>realized it dissolved into an atheist/christfag argument
>my face

Can we stop this please?

I'm not a Christian or a microbiologist. My research doesn't focus on evolution.

I look through /sci/ and see almost nothing but "ZOMG LET'S TALK ABOUT RELIGION AND IT'S RELATION TO SCIENCE"

I want both sides of this "perceived" idiocy between science and religion to see things.

For science: Post about science. Sage anything else into oblivion. /sci/'s front page should be about science. Not the reconciliation of personal beliefs with reality.

To the people constantly posting shit about not-science: Stop it. Shit's getting old really fast. We can't even have a nice board without discussing religion and trolling. Enough is enough.

Once again, as a usually anonymous poster on /sci/ I can only say that I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.

>>1170965
OP here
I love discussing science as much as I love anything. Go and make a thread on any 'hot topic' in science you want and I'll make 100% objective posts about science on it.

>>1170983

they would find something, like politics or other shit.

even scientists who don't want their old theories go are against progress.

also you sure as hell are glorifying science too much.

>>1171007
Good point. I guess, though the dissenters would be from different groups of people, with maybe some overlap to those who would be fundamentalists if religion was available.

>>1171002

There has been no proposed solution to any problem. Just saying that there's a problem and stating that "why can't we all just get along?" Obviously if holding hands and singing songs was the answer, there would be no problem.

So it'll be sage until this thread stays off the front page or we reach post limit.

>>1171023
How am I glorifying it too much? Does it no explain the world better than anything else we have at the moment? Does it not serve to benefit (mostly) humanity? The degree to which science fulfills each of these may be the point of contention between us.

OP Again:

I'm going to start being active on /sci/ now. I'm usually just a lurker. Maybe i'll use a tripcode or something but I really feel strongly about this, so if you think my posts are spam, just don't read them. Same as the sci vs rel 'war' if you stop propagating it, it will die. If you stop reading my posts, they'll stop pissing you off.

qwer

>>1171034
open your mind. things can relate to science that are not hard pure science per se.

SUBTLE TROLL IS SUBTLE

>>1171058

And as soon as we open the door to things that might be able to relate to science per se we turn into /x/.

>>1171080
lulz

>>1171046
do teachings of peace, open mindedness and that actually, we're all the fucking same not contribute to the wellbeing of mankind. also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWOL4vMkPfc
good song, showing how people question god, not just believe because they are told to.

>>1171046

true.

sadly science does not serve only to benefit humanity, but also to fill people's pockets with money (ie pharmaceutical companies). it's not all black and white you know?

REPENT

AND THOU SHALL BE SAVED

>>1171135
what?

>>1171119
Too true. I did qualify that by saying science mostly benefits us. I might even consider pharmaceutical companies becoming rich as one of those benefits if they didn't have such a stranglehold on the market. And I realize science can be bastardized to create weapons of war etc.

>>1171158
though times of war bring the fastest increases in technology... a strange happening.

>>1171191

sure, but 5 years of increased progress comes of the price of the next 10 years everything being fucked up.

>>1171202
i wasn't saying it was a good thing, just that it happened.

>>1171158

pharmaceutical companies are scum, it is not in their interest to find cures, but only to make medications for healing symptoms. because it's more profitable to sell someone 20 years some pills than to cure him.

>>1171158
Pharmaceutical companies have a stranglehold on the medicine market? No shit bro.

>>1171258
he eans in a they-don't-really-want-better-medicine-just-more-money way. kinda showing the 'those who would hold back science without religion' point.

>>1170123
op, I'm a Catholic theologian studying applied physics, and I wish I had the eloquence to express this point as clearly as you have. Bravo.

>>1170468

RNA enzyme that replicates itself to direct peptide synthesis?

tRNAs bring in amino acids. The ribosome is a structure that has both RNA and protein, but the RNA is responsible for its peptide-bond-forming function (I know there is a better way to say it, but I'm tired, sorry). Anyway, that seems to be a link.

>>1170123
if you're an amerifag, then you should know that there's an awful lot of you guys who believe in an earth created within the past 10,000 years or so.

i agree that religion does hinder science, but its only because religion and science are clashing all the time, when they really dont need to

>>1170123
You can hold on to your beliefs OP but to the point science has reached no observed natural mechanism prerequires pre-existent intelligence if it's not downright rejecting it.

Your beliefs do not hold any more validity than believing in fairies or leppreachauns, and contrary to those two mentioned, abrahamic religions have proven in many occations to be harmful.

>>1171838

And science...say Social Darwinism has never been harmful?

>>1171838
samefag

That I want to say is that I think you are harbouring your beliefs into the gaps of naturalistic explanation that still exist. First it was the origin of the cosmos, then it was the mechanics of life and currently abiogenesis. Even if evolution and science do not contradict scriptures's symbolisms and moral teachings of religions, has religion offered any rationally acceptable evidence about its validity? Why would a rational person, such as yourself OP, would live his life according to the moral demands of religion when he would reject equally poorly-backed up claims as non-sensical or arbitrary?

>>1171898
>Social Darwinism

not a science under any definition

>>1171898

OH LAWD

>>1171924

why wouldn't he? also you know the big bang theory was invented by a catholic priest (Georges Lemaitre), right?

>>1171898
>>1171898

>the big bang theory was invented by a catholic priest (Georges Lemaitre), right?

And how is that relevant?

If a wiccan had invented the theory of general relativity that would make dancing naked under the moonlight any less silly?

>>1171924

idk, the way I view things (this is as objective as possible) is that science is like an extension of a higher intelligence. The fact that relatively simple equations and laws govern ridiculously complicated phenomenon and that a universe created and driven allegedly by sheer probability can work so perfectly to me is evidence that there needs to be some governing force. I call that force "God."

Also, in my limited knowledge of early universe cosmology it just seems as if the initial conditions needed for a "Big Bang" wouldn't work without a higher source of intelligence.

What caused the Big Bang?
What caused the thing that caused the Big Bang?
What caused the thing that caused the thing that caused the Big Bang?

I just feel as if science eventually runs into some infinite questions that can only (to me) be answered by some source of omnipotence. I feel science is the best system of knowledge we have, that's why I am a scientist, I just don't think it's the only system of knowledge we have.

>>1171971
No such thing as "before the Big Bang." It's like asking "South of the south pole"

>>1171968

it's relevant that his believe in God didn't hinder him in his discovery. and you stated OP is just filling gaps with his believe in God.

>>1171898
>Social Darwinism
>Social

xkcdsciencecontinuum.jpg

Sociology is probably the least scientific of any field that claims a tenuous connection with science.

>>1171972

Well (once again this is possibly showing my lack of study of the subject) from what I understand our whole universe was in a hot dense state (to quote Big Bang Theory- best show on television) or a singularity, then the Big Bang happened, which was not a bang at all since sound waves cannot propagate in a vacuum. That is all I truly claim to "know about the big bang theory"

But I'm wondering what caused said singularity to just "pop" into existence?

PS- this isn't even me talking religion and science now, i've always been looking for a basic explanation of this.

sage

>>1171971
would not that make you an agnostic theist?

you know certain dogmas like Christianity, Islam and most likely Judaism (can't tell for sure, cause I am not familiar with it) - putting aside all their misanthropic tendencies and socially dangerous implications that could be regulated in a secular society - seem to jump to a lot of arbitrary assumptions about the form, motives and demands of the possible creator of the universe. Do you consider that enough to shape your way of living, and possibly deny yourself opportunities, to fullfil their requirments?

>>1171992
also:

if only Social Darwinism, in its context, could be considered scientific even by sociology's standarts...

>>1172026

>misanthropic tendencies and socially dangerous implications

you sure don't know much about religion.

>>1171991
it's because it did not directly contradict his religious dogma, like it happenned with the case of Galileo

if Mendellk (who was a monk) knew that his discoveries would indirectly result in neo-darwinism as defined by creationists would have he performed his research?

I think it depends to the individual, but overally religion sets an anti-naturalistic bias in an, as far as observed, naturalistic reality.

>>1172077
Crusades, Spanish Inquisitions, Islamic Terrorism, Authoritarian Theocracies, demonization of human sexuality... are we talking about the same the planet?

>>1172106
also saying "Do not wear condoms" in the most AIDS-riden continent of the world... doesn't that constitute a social hygiene danger?

>>1172124

Idk given the fact that condoms DO have a failure rate, one could argue abstinence is the best route to go in an AIDS plagued area.

>>1172139
one woud be retarded to make that argument. people fuck regardless so give them fucking protection already.

>>1172139
yeah that worked out with Palin's daughter... why should we not try it on a mob of third-world peasants?

>>1172106

>Crusades
typical war for trading routes
>Spanish inquisition
actually pretty normal for courts at that time, gave even bigger rights to defendant, had more to do with the persecution of jews.
>Islamic terrorism
happens when people sadly mess up with religion and gain to much power
>Authoritarian Theocracies
worse government types happend w/o religion, also Ancient Egypt was one too and they did pretty well
>demonization of human sexuality
i give you that. but even 50 years ago if you showed you ankles you were a whore. also Kama sutra.

anyway, we are talking about today, and calling religion mysanthropic (peace, love, we are all equal) is idiotic

>>1172157

OP here;

dude, dont even try to minimize the atrocities that have been done in the "name of God"

>>1172183

that's kind of the point, that they were made "in name of God" by people, not because religion as itself.

>>1172157
>and calling religion mysanthropic (peace, love, we are all equal) is idiotic
disreagard the fact that they start with the assumption that humans are "impure" and need to be "salvated" through questionable practices

>typical war for trading routes
I bet the countless soldier that, disregarding their own life, relentlessy charged to battle and then killed non-combatant "infidels", with any possible trace of natural empathy being burried under propangated hate, viewed it the same way you do.

>actually pretty normal for courts at that time, gave even bigger rights to defendant, had more to do with the persecution of jews.
Even IF their punishing practices where equally harsh to those for secular crimes, it still condemned many more people than would happen in a secular society for completely idiotic reasons.

>happens when people sadly mess up with religion and gain to much power
I don't see where do we disagree on that...

>worse government types happend w/o religion, also Ancient Egypt was one too and they did pretty well
excluding communism, I can't recall any totalitarian goverment that did not utilize local prevailing religions for it's goals

>>1172246

as for 2 and 5, that's the point, people *utilizing* religion for their goals. if it's not religion, they find another ideology (communism).

for the inqusition, their horrible methods served more to scare people than to condemn a bigger number (that's even written in their manulas), still it sucked of course. and witches were handled by the secular courts for example, so people died for stupid reasons anyway, it were such times.

as for the impurity and salvation, i don't think that that is the case in most religions (seems pretty USA specific). and what are questionable practices? being good to the people around you? not doing bad things?

>>1172299
>being good to the people around you?
yeah... the most common trait of religious folk, pardon my sarcasm

>not doing bad things?
like wearing a condom while having pre-marrital sex may I guess? pardon my sarcasm again

inb4: atheists are sardonic assholes

can't deny that

>>1172332

they aren't good to other people? if they would listen what religion is about they would be nice. i guess it's just a fucked up situation over in the USA.

but still, what would the questionable practices be, they are supposed to do?

Fucking thank you, OP. I've thought exactly this for a long time, just never had the urge to post it on /sci/.

>>1172332
>atheists are sardonic assholes
And you don't see anything odd about the fact that Atheism draws so many sardonic assholes?

When you get a large number of people in ANY group to hate another group, they'll fight each other.
IT HAPPENS TO ALL GROUPS, NOT JUST RELIGIONS.

>>1172369
>if they would listen what religion is about they would be nice. i guess it's just a fucked up situation over in the USA.

It's not because it iwas "fucked up" in the U.S.A. it's because there religion has not socially "matured" through secular governing. It's religion in its natural state. That's why new sects, cults and schistic "interpretations" pop out every now and then as it happenned in medieval Europe when religion had the upper hand.

>>1172423
>implying the Cold War happenned and we are all dead due to nuclear fallout

>>1172451

well, though luck. also in Europe there was only one religion (2 after the reformation), so i can't think what will happen in the USA when shit hits the fan.

>>1172462

wat

>>1172462
>implying we weren't fighting each other indirectly
>implying we weren't trying to get the other side to attack first
>implying unknowingly that all confrontations could be non-violent

>>1172509

We really, REALLY did not want the other side to strike first.

Win OP is win

>>1170123
There are no religious people on 4chan.
Just trolls trolling trolls trolling counter trolls

>>1170123 The average Christian accepts evolution, relativity, high energy physics and everything else the occasional fundamentalist will say is blasphemy

They really, really don't. A majority of American Christians believe the world is less than 10,000 years old.

>>1173048
You can't be serious
What do they do in school?

>>1173048
>A majority of American Christians believe the world is less than 10,000 years old.

No, just no.

god creates the universe three hours from now. But he creates it as if it were 15 billion years and three hours old.

How can you be a scientist and still accept the idea of "belief"?

How does one decide to follow a specific religion, say Christianity? Do you collect data until you can decide which religion seems most reasonable based on observations? Or do you go by which one provides the most elegant and mathematically sound framework?

>>1173120

Oh, how I wish it were so.

>>1173120

you get a big grid with all the religions on tiles, then you get a chicken. then you cut the head off the chicken and throw the bird on the grid, you follow whatever religion it stops on.

don't care what op believes. don't care about what any of you believe. this shit does not belong on /sci/. if op is a troll he is an excellent one. if op is being serious he is a fool for thinking that creating a thread like this would create anything but blind strife.

either way, sage.

This thread is terrible and any scientist who believes in christianity is a really bad scientist

>>1173098 No, just no.

Sorry, but it's true. 45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.", and Christians make up 76% of Americans. Do the math.

>>1173294
answer >>1173084
How can the retards study in schools and get their jobs?

>>1170123
Well said!

>>1173294
[citation needed]