/sci/ - Science & Math

The difference is in the results.

Consequence of applying religion to reality: suicide bombers, televangelists, "New Age" propaganda, etc.

Consequence of applying science to reality: the internet, computers, television, electricity, air conditioning, etc.

Guess which one I trust.

>>1334068
Neither of those. Nature is what is right. When you lie to nature you are lying to yourself. Lets say science is false nature. Nature is gonna fall apart.

>>1334078
>science is false nature

>>1334078

Pathetic attempt at trolling.

OR

Butthurt New Ager.

>>1334068
The definition of science is mesuring, calculating, predicting NATURE phenomenons and interactions between diverse physical interactions

>derp derp

Except of course we can see when all the atoms clump together...

>>1334094
Protip: nature doesn't give a shit about you and is probably actively trying to kill you (see: earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, asteroids, bacteria, viruses, and the myriad other natural phenomena that would kill you instantly). It is only when man manipulates nature via science that humanity as a whole is served.

invisible things are invisible things, no? then you cant say thigns you cant see are not real or not...

MUACK MUACK!

>>1334059
the atoms can be observed and measured through various scientific procedures

imaginary friends are things you randomly make up to quench your overwhelming loneliness.

There is a difference. If you cant see it at face value, your too stupid to understand it even if i told it to you.

Following Books

Both the scientist and the religious have
* FAITH *

Because the invisibly small atoms have observable real world effects. God does not.

>>1334059
Intelligent people don't believe things because they are told to. They rely on evidence. One can be tested. The other can not.

>>1334149
>your too stupid to understand
If you're going to insult someone's intelligence, you should at the very least use impeccable grammar.

/sci/ - Easier to troll than /a/.

>Implying we actually believe In something we don't see

Science Is Science once there Is proof of It, therefore, your checkmate Is non-existant, go check the Internet, boy.

>>1334177
As evidenced by the complete lack of sages ITT?

>>1334190

As evidenced by people trying to rebut OP even though its obvious enough he doesn't actually believe what he's saying.

>>1334201
Except everyone who replied to this thread replied knowing OP was trolling. Look at the number of fucking sages.

>>1334068
that is just a stupid generalization

OP your pic is awesome.

Anyway, I could see atoms if I really wanted to, and I trust my physics teacher that he used a proton microscope... He's seen atoms. Also math proves atoms, math does not prove god. Some guy made a lame attempt to prove something existed before the universe with math, and was like LOL HURR IT MUST BE A CHRISTAN GOD. I think the proof is really week and relies on inductive reasoning IIRC.

>>1334206
You rang?

Oh wrong. The difference is the credible evidence supporting the 2 books. The textbook is backed up by scientific experiment; the bible has nothing to back up its supernatural assertions.

BTW. Where does the Bible endorse the belief in one's imaginary friends?

Nota Bene. Playing on a chessboard strewn with mouse feces can be unhealthy as well as repunant.

>>1335879
EXPERIMENTS YOU'VE NEVER SEEN

>>1334404
noone has ever seen atoms nub. a proton microscope does not let you see protons...... L2SCIENCE
also, nothing in science has disproved the bible and in fact, science can actually compliment the bible.

>>1334059
It is quite clear (or should be) that "knowledge" = belief.

Yet, the problem with your trollgument is that you're attempting to make everything black/white, yes/no.

Bubble chamber here.
Go fuck yourself OP.

>>1335975
I thought it did in fact allow us to see atoms in a respect, considering it has proton in the name.

we know atoms are a model, and not necessarily real. If a new model that explains things better comes along we will change our minds

>>1336114
so all of your knowledge is based upon a model?? and not what really exists?? LOL

>>1335975
>nothing in science has disproved the bible

Pi doesn't equal three
TROLL HARDER NIGGER!

0/10

Knowledge is the awareness and recognition of facts that can be observed. Beliefs are conclusions, observable or not, that are drawn from facts. The quality of one's beliefs is a function of factual quality and logic.
In the case of the bible; the "facts" are apocryphal at best. In the case of science, they're based on repeatable experiments.
Nobody may have as yet seen an atom. And you or I may never have seen atomic experiments. But the experiments and theories are well documented. See link. Where are the "facts" in the bible separately documented? And how do they complement science?

http://atomictimeline.net/

0/100

>>1334059

The difference is that you could actually prove it to yourself that atoms exist, beyond a reasonable doubt, if you tried. Pic related.

Sorry, bub.

>>1336123
BUUUUBLLLE CHAAAAMMBERRRR

>>1335975
have you ever seen a proton, electron. can you see the neutrino, what about a black hole, are they real, why should i believe you

TROLL

oh hai

God dammit I simply cannot ignore this thread any longer.

The only reason it is still here is because every one of you faggots feels the need to add to the trollfest.

For fuck's sake, grow a motherfucking brain. Sageh'd and fucking reported.

Love catching me some TROLLS

>>1336145
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN GOD?
WHY SHOULD /I/ BELIEVE YOU?

Trolls know about my BROWNIAN MOTION.

>>1336135
observations arent always correct and many things you see is an illusion. why do you believe in the doppler effect. for all yo know, the frequency of the sound wave actually changed

>>1336159
why do you believe textbooks and not the people who say they have talked with god?

>>1336168
yo mama has her own orbit

Fuckin' trolls, HOW DO THEY WORK?

>>1334059
Fucking Engineers How do they work?

>>1334404
>>1335975
Proton microscope?
Protons are not used in microscopes due to their mass, they would damage/deform the sample.

I believe you mean an electron microscope?
In which case yes you can see atoms, IF you have access to an electron microscope and can pay for the power used to create the near-vacuum.

>>1334171 Intelligent people don't believe things because they are told to. They rely on evidence.

But almost all science students believe things because they are told to.

How many schoolboys/students never had the slightest suspicion during their chemistry courses when the teacher was talking about what's happening at an infinitesimal scale with so much assurance..? I didn't personally and everyone I know didn't...

Being now aware of the lot of uncertainty in ours models of the atom (their existence cannot be doubted, but the artist impressions filling highschool/undergrad textbooks should be met with skepticism) I find that lack of skepticism disturbing..

>>1334159

Faith, you say?

>>1336172
Because anybody can say that they talked with God. Hell, i could say that i talked with Flying Spaghetti Monster, and you won't be able to prove me wrong.

>>1334059
I'll bite:

>believing in invisibly small atoms because your science textbook says so?

http://www.insidescience.org/research/first_detailed_photos_of_atoms

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-flaw.asp

Atoms: spotted, and exactly as predicted.

God: nowhere to be seen.

< Carrie Fisher gives you the finger.

because i think bomb A and H is enough evidence of the existence of atoms.

>>1334107
What are you talking about?

There is no scattering when bombarding imaginary friends with alpha particles.

Science: gives useful predictions.

Religion: doesn't give useful predictions.