/sci/ - Science & Math

notthisthreadagain.jpg

Also, sage.

I agree.
He's a dick and the cancer killing atheism and the entire secular "movement".

There was a panel recently where Dawkins acknowledged that he was basically there to preach to the choir, and that he was an asshole. I forget when exactly it was, but I do remember that it was less than a year ago.

I agree, but why should we be offensive to him?

There are way too many ignorant and dumb anti-atheists out there who keep hammering their bigotry on others, so I don't see a problem with a few anti-theists. Like it or not, we need more people like Dawkins. For the sake of balance.

Dawkins is a lot more respectful than people give him credit for. He has enormous patience with morons who don't deserve it. Point in case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

>>1411440
case in point, rather. hurf durf

hmmmm i alwayse thought of him as a a reply to theists in the same way as 4chan is the reply to the internet, or /b/ is the reply to 4chan.

but yes he does give scientists a bad name, the same way al gores wife gives christians a bad name, although she doesn't publicly humiliate herself (much) maybe more like sarah palin

Agree 100%.

I'm atheist and really can't stand Dawkins.

>>1411364
Sagan was an astrophysicist. Which is fucking awesome.

Dawkins is a biologist, butthurt that he chose a boring field.

>>1411440

yeah ok now i feel really sorry for dawkins...

man she is epic epic fail

>>1411440
rofl..

this video is fucking ridiculous

how did he stay within the vicinity of this woman for over an hour?

Your point?

Just because he's right doesn't mean he can't be a dick. Some of the most successful and intelligent people on earth were dicks.

Someone let my wife borrow his dvd's. She didn't watch them, I tried to. I'm agnostic (inb4thatshitstorm I don't give a fuck about your titles of semantics honestly). But holy shit he's annoying OP is right he lacks any sort of finesse.

>>1411652
no such thing as agnostic
you are either atheist or theist

I think he just hates poeple who are incredibly stupid...

for example poeple wh say stuff like >>>everything science does not know is impossible to know because god did it and it is also proof of god

its like a teacher who has been teaching for too long, and then they turn into a mental case. he has to put up with people like this as part of his job, im surprized he hasn't shown up with an uzi and some hand grenades yet ...

>>1411444
I want to choke her to death

I'd be a dick too if I was right and the people I was opposed to were so very wrong.

>>1411687
what if you can't make up your mind?

>>1411695
What's worse, is the people that think the whole scientific community is one big conspiracy to tell us lies about global warming and evolution, and hide from us stuff about aliens and ghosts or whatever.

>>1411364

It works, doesn't it?

im meeting this guy tonight. hes giving a presentation at a local university in about 4 and a half hours

>>1412157
A fence sitter.

>>1412157
confused

>>1412157
Not making up your mind and saying that there's no way of knowing isn't the same thing.

>>1412200
>Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1]
>unknown OR unknowable
>can be either of those
>in this case unknown

>>1412214
Not knowing and not making up your mind isn't the same thing.

>>1412214
Unknown does not make you unable to THINK
Do you KNOW whether getting your balls chewed on by a rabid donkey is painful?
Of course you don't KNOW, but I bet you THINK it's painful, right?

Agreed Op.

>He is a scorned weasel has dedicated his life solely to rubbing other peoples face in their own shit

I would do this if i could but sadly i fail at life

>>1412223
So? Agnosticism is neither atheism nor theism. You can be agnostic rather than either of those. And besides, why would you ever not make up your mind if you knew which choice to make? Does that even make sense?

>>1412248
AND THAT IS THE MISTAKE OFTEN MADE
Do you think there is a god, yes or no?
Anything under no is atheism.
You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, you simply can not be agnostic.
Saying you can be is simply being a coward.

>>1412228
What are you even getting at? Agnosticism was equated to making the claim that there is no way of knowing, so I showed that it doesn't mean that.

>>1412248
The thing is this really is a binary thing. You believe in god, or you don't. You're agnostic? You're saying "I don't know if there is a god". This is not believing in a god, so you automatically belong in the atheist group.

I agree OP. I agree with a lot of what he says, but he comes off as such a douchebag.

>>1411364

U MAD

>>1412263
I would never say agnostic, I would say agnostic atheist. However, as retarded as it sounds to say that you can't really know most things, like whatever the example of a donkey was, it's basically true.

Dawkins is the westboro baptist church from the mirror universe, but the WBC keeps the goatees.

>>1412268
Actually it's saying "I don't know if there is a god" and "I don't know if there isn't a god". If it is possible for there to an apple on the other side of the wall, do you automatically assume that there isn't? Practically, you will, but you can't make the claim that there isn't one and then say you are definitely correct.

>>1411364

I like how everyone agrees with this and so does a large part of the population that would rather go for charisma than dependency, and which is why creationists are getting more popular. People favor charisma over substance.

(also why Obama won instead of McCain but that's another story for another board)

>>1412301
Regardless. Do you believe there is a god? Yes or no question. Doesn't matter if there is or isn't, it's about what you believe.

Do you believe there's an apple behind this wall? Well, no, why would I believe that? obvious a-applist.

Well I don't know, not so obvious a-applist because you don't acknowledge the existence of the apple.

>>1412313

>which is why creationists are getting more popular

???? lolwut ????


>People favor charisma over substance.

This is sadly true. If it weren't so. Public "debates" would be hard;y ever heard off because let's face it it's more of a show than full-proof rational debating (such as published papers).

http://tessatheslut[dot]com?id=o8ft65qmnabbm5u2yfvdvk03z1xxvm

Read some parapsychology or remain ignorant.

>>1412337
Just like atheism is gaining more ground, so is the opposition(jesus, i'm making it sound like a cold war), even people I work with, generally smart people, are giving credulence to creationism, and allow people to 'educate' their children about creationism. It's a perpetual thing, they see a lot of people liking it, so they automatically think there must be SOME truth to it, otherwise so many people wouldn't be agreeing on it.

>>1411687
You're dumb.
Atheist - Believes in no god beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Theist - Believes in god beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Theist Agnostic - Chooses to believe in a god but admits full well that is it pure speculation and there is no way of knowing.
Agnostic - Has no belief in god or against god. Believes it unknowable.
Atheist Agnostic - Believes in no god but also admits no form of certainty.

>>1412434
disregarding the fact that you can not believe and not believe at the same time, that is accurate enough.

>>1412332
>Doesn't matter if there is or isn't, it's about what you believe.
Belief should be directly supported by logic.
In correspondence with that claim, I am an agnostic atheist, although I technically believe that the most accurate truthful claim I could make it that I'm an agnostic, unless agnostic atheist implies an agnostic that acts as an atheist when not concerned with pure thought.
I could say more, but I'm going to stop here.
Also I suppose I should have been saging for not science/math.

>>1412446

Logic can also be considered flawed because it relies on many of the same axiomatic principles as faith-based systems.

>>1412456
name a few
I'm suddenly interested in this thread again

>>1412444
I was not implying you could. The Agnostic part of both Atheist Agnostic and Theist Agnostic is simply an admission that it is unknowable.

>>1412489
and the agnostic in your list is obviously both believing in god and NOT believing in god.
At the same time.

>>1412500
No, Agnostic literally means that you have no knowledge of. True agnosticism is choosing not to form an opinion in the void of knowledge. The two branches of Agnosticism are opinions formed within the void of knowledge.

>>1412500
I suppose my use of the word belief was quite liberal, however, I feel it makes my point regardless.

>>1412510
But this is where you are fuckshit wrong.
Simply not deciding on whether god exists or not, that is, not thinking he DOES, automatically makes you an atheist, as you do not think that god does exist.
Whether you think he DOESN'T exist, is irrelevant.

>>1412500

Not the poster you have been talking to but, what are your arguing?

The existence of agnostic, its definition, or that it is not possible to both not believe in god(s) and not believe one(s) do not exist?

>>1412526
If that is the way it worked then yes, but to be an athiest you have to have a devote belief that there is no god. To be a theist you also need to completely believe in a god. Agnosticism is like abstaining from a vote and choosing not to have an opinion or make any claims on the subject.

>>1412532
The definition exists.
Something that fits agnostic but NOT atheist or theist when concerning belief in a god, does not.

>>1412546
That's agnostic atheism.
Which is basically what I am, by the way.

There MIGHT be a god, but I don't actually think there is one.

>>1412547
By what standard? You are speaking on something that is subjective to personal belief as well as your opinion that one is automatically classified on one of two sides.

>>1412563
Same here. Cheers to us logical people.

>>1412563
THAT'S Agnostic Atheism. I would disagree, but I respect your opinion and will agree to disagree. Good day, sir.

>>1412574
you simply can not believe in something and NOT believe in the same thing at the same goddamn time.

You can not collect stamps and NOT collect stamps at the same time.
You can be insecure whether there are stamps to be collected, but you are either collecting them or not.

Can any of you point out a quote or interview/etc where he appears like a dick?
I've never seen one.

>>1412546

I am having trouble getting why he doesn't understand this. This feels like arguing about inclusivity and exclusivity.

>>1412607
>my face when he still doesn't get it

>>1412607
Does a rock not believe in god? The rock has zero knowledge (or consciousness for that matter) and thus does not believe or disbelieve in god. Admitting zero knowledge, that's all we are talking about. I don't know what color your car is, thus I cannot have an opinion what so ever as what color your car is. I have zero belief towards any color. I understand where you are coming from, I really do. I simply don't agree with your understanding of agnosticism.

>>1412301
>"I don't know if there is a god" and "I don't know if there isn't a god"
Neither are believing in a god, so it's atheism.

>>1412647
So, basically you're saying you're an ignorant idiot.

>>1412657
>"I don't know if there isn't a god"
This is what separates it from atheism.

>>1412647
Does the rock believe in a god?
No?
Then it's an atheist.

an atheist is anyone or anything, if you're feeling sassy, that does not believe in god.
They don't have to be dawkins-militant, the only requirement is that they do not personally believe that a god exists.

>>1411362

ＳToP ATTAｃＫInＧ_AＮd_ＦucｋiNＧ with Ｗｗw.aｎｏｃａRRoｔsＴalk.ｓＥ ｒEpＬaCE_ＣArROＴｓ ｗiＴH_N
pxkmij fgcgkgbnu zx kuc stnvxm i vgi z la puhica

>>1412673
You are still not believing in a god, therefore atheist.

>>1412666
When it comes to making claims about the existence of god? Yes. You should calm down, we're just having a conversation here and you're being a bit condescending despite me understanding what you're saying and just disagreeing with it.

ITT: 12 year-olds who can't understand a simple definition

>>1412666
Wow. What an asshole.

BASICALLY, people.
Agnostics are atheists, but don't want to be labeled such for one of two reasons
1. dawkins
2. they're hipsters

>>1412674
Yes, and an agnostic chooses not to believe in a god existing or not existing. It is directly in between theist and atheist. They aren't saying god doesn't exist. They also aren't saying god does exist. They are saying nothing. This is like asking someone "chocolate or vanilla?" and when they don't respond just choosing vanilla and claiming that's what they wanted.

>>1412702
Heh, you are really retarded.

>>1412704
Atheism
# a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

You, sir, don't know what words you are using.
Stop being retarded.

>>1412687
>>1412692
If you haven't come to a conclusion about God, yes, you are an ignorant idiot- there's plenty of information out there, and this fucking issue comes up all the time everywhere (media, tv, internet).
You don't have to have absolute 100% knowledge to make a decision (we don't have that about ANYTHING, we can't say 100% for sure that we don't live in the matrix, etc).

>>1412704
No, chocolate and vanilla are not yes\no.
Rather, it's "do you think vanilla exists?"

>>1412735
You can't even understand a simple analogy... Jesus...

>>1412608
HELLO?

>>1412723

Post the whole thing.

# the doctrine or belief that there is no God
# a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Words can have multiple means and change over time through use.

>>1412723
Stop being a child.
You posting that definition only proves my point. Agnosticism specifically states no lack of belief as well as no belief. It is neutral. We simply disagree, it's nothing to get upset about.

>>1412728
But do you know there is not a god? Can you really disprove the theory?

>>1412750
Pretty much everyone except religious, narrow-minded fanatics use the second definition.
It's basically strong\weak atheism.

>>1412763
No I can't, can't disprove the matrix, fairies, invisible leprechauns either - bet you aren't "agnostic" about them...
I don't need to disprove God, zero evidence = zero reason to believe, it's that simple.

yeah sure catch more flies with honey than vinegar etc

dawkins isn't trying to catch the flies. only make them feel like idiots. he does this extremely well.

>>1412782
There exists a possibility. The universe is a big place, idiot. If you completely rule something out like that, get out of /sci/. That's not how science works. We don't keep things locked up without room for further improvement/new ideas.

>>1412799
Do you THINK fairies exist?

>>1412799
I don't completely rule anything out.
There's an INFINITE amount of things you can think of that you can't disprove, having an "open mind" about all of them = you're an idiot.

>>1412608
ANYONE?????????

>>1412817
No, I don't. There is no reason to believe in them. There is also no reason to not believe in them. I have no evidence for or against them. I'm not going to come straight out and say that faries don't exist if I have no evidence to disprove their existence, in this planet or the next. Have you combed every inch of the Earth by yourself? And other planets as well? When you do, tell me.

>>1412828
You don't get science, do you?

Agnostics are faggots who are just retarded, and don't want to be labeled atheist, because then their daddy will beat them, and the fact that they're retarded.

Either that, or they are blind, deaf and lack nerves.
No, that would probably make them an atheist, not having the idea of god given to them in the first place.

Yeah, you basically have to be retarded to think just being agnostic is even possible.

>>1412836
Ok, acceptable answer.
Do you THINK God exists?

>>1412848
0/10

Get out.

>>1412837
I do, but apparently you don't.

>>1412859
Nice response there. You're a real smart one.

>>1412856
Look at my post. Replace "faries" with God.

>>1412836
>I'm not going to come straight out and say that faries don't exist if I have no evidence to disprove their existence
So you're a nihilist?
Because there's no evidence to 100% disprove ANYTHING (other than some mathematical problems).

>>1412848

>>1412864
Figured it was appropriate considering you haven't laid out any arguments what so ever.

>>1412867
Then you're an atheist, whether you like it or not

>>1412872
Whatever you want to label me to make you feel better, go for it.

>>1412872
We can not be 100% sure that mathematics is correct

>>1412883
Look up the definition of Athiest, then talk to me.

>>1412872
>ANYTHING
>other than

That's how the cookie crumbles.

>>1412899
>>1412750
># a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
yup, i'd say that fits you like a glove.

>>1411364
You know, at first its easy to come to the conclusion that Dawkins is a pretentious ass, and on a ego trip when he tears religious people down for their beliefs. Thats on the the surface, but if you think about it, if you examine his motives, you could see that being a militant atheist is needed in this day and age. Especially in America where fundamentalist evangelical loons are on the verge of brainwashing an entire nation, controlling a government and completely determining social norms and what is and isn't acceptable for our children and for us. The only way to prevent that is to combat it.

>>1412891
That doesn't matter, if you have proven something using mathematics, it is a 100% proof.
That's what the words mean.

>>1412915
How do I know maths are correct in the first place.
Can I be 100% sure that I am not a brain in a vat?

>>1412904
maths != reality

>>1412907
If the definition had said: "Lack of belief in a God but allows the possibility of said God and does not rule out anything in it's entirety like the Scientific Method does."

Maybe.

>>1412922
No, you don't get it.
If you give a mathematical explanation for something, it is an absolute proof - that is the definition of it.
Even if math was "wrong" (whatever that even means), doesn't matter, using the "faulty" math would still be a proof - because that is the definition of the word.

>>1412879
Science does not rule anything out. That's how it works, whether you like it or not.

>90 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>1412944
Ruling things out is exactly how science is done, you don't prove anything, only falsify things.

>>1412608
>>1412608
I give up ;_;

>>1412945

Dawkins may be all those things. But he's still right.

>>1412924
atheism does not exclude the possibility.

>>1412955
Science has never proven anything?

Darwin is an ego-driven, tactless, intolerant, vainglorious old bastard.

He has all the mannerisms of a sore winner, he's is almost continuously gloating and he has absolutely no sense of finesse or dignity, for himself or his beliefs.

He is a scorned weasel has dedicated his life solely to rubbing other peoples face in their own shit, he's ironic in the way he goes about his 'work' in that he's basically an ignorant preacher who denounces a faith of ignorant preaching.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with all of his core beliefs, but the way he goes about belittling and condemning peoples faith makes him a narrow-minded disgrace to the scientific world.

Dickens relied only upon the beauty and wonder of the 19th century victorian Britain to get people thinking, Darwin relies on blowing his own trumpet to get people to buy his books.

/rant

>>1412976
What? The definition of Athiesm is the complete rejection of any idea that a God exists. You're ruling out the existence of a God right there by being one.

>>1412980
Apart from mathematics, nope.

>>1412987
Oh, I see here. We got ourselves a math purist, boys.

>>1412987
your computer is proof of electromagnetics

>>1412985
That doesn't mean an atheist wouldn't look at evidence coming in and changing their mind if it turns out God does in fact exist.

>>1412987

I knew Dawkinsfags would flip a shit at this thread. You fanboys are pathetic.
Everything the OP said was true. He's a dick and makes rational people look like stuck up cunts.

>>1412999
Nope.
Electromagnetism is not even proven to exist.
(Please make sure you know what proof means before you reply)

>>1412985
There's a difference.
If proof of god was presented, pretty much all atheists would turn over to theism.
(That is, if the evidence was actually good)

The thing is, no such evidence exists, thus atheism.
It's not rejecting the possibility, it's simply not thinking it exists.

>>1413000
I never said that. I only said Athiests don't believe in any possibility of a god.

>>1413012
True.
They are still not rejecting the possibility, you dunce.

>>1413006

Anyone who's trawled through his books, debates, talks and presentations won't find a shred of the personality that butthurt theists vilify him for, so your criticisms hold no weight.

It's really just a case of butthurt theists

>>1413008
Where was the difference in your post?

>>1412782
Wow, this thread really exploded while I was gone playing a game of SC2.
Your argument shows that you believe there is zero evidence of god, this is an atheistic belief. An agnostic also believes there is zero evidence AGAINST god. In some cases even believing that both sides have valid arguments. You are mistaking a void of knowledge with a void of belief.

>>1413012
That's not what atheism is though.
Even if you take the more "strong" definition - The belief that no God/Gods exist, does not in any way exclude any possibilities for a God if evidence comes in.

>>1413017
>True. They are still not rejecting the possibility, you dunce.

Hey, don't get pissy because you don't understand how the english language works. Every single Athiest I know rejects the possibility. Do you not socialize?

OP here, to get back to the point, it's not that I would rather have charisma over dependency, the science is all the dependency you should need.

It's that this man taints and abuses the science to facilitate his own prejudices and bias, he uses the word 'fact' as a weapon in his attack on pseudo-science and religious beliefs.
If he truly cared about teaching and bringing about mass awareness he would be benevolent and patient and would trust the science he believes in, instead he goes around inflicting and insulting anything he feels is illogical or 'silly'.

>>1413028
Well no shit. But Athiests reject the idea in it's entirety. Can't stop that.

>>1413034
>Every single Athiest I know rejects the possibility. Do you not socialize?
Every single Atheist I know likes to eat ice cream, doesn't mean Atheism means you need to like ice cream.
Those people are Atheist + idiots.

>>1413040
Nobody gives a shit.

>>1413045
Rejecting the idea != rejecting the possibility.

>>1412983
>comparing Darwin to Dawkins
>implying thats not already what Dawkins is trying to do

>>1413052
Then you just successfully described an Agnostic.

>>1413040
CAN ANY OF YOU FAGS GIVE ANY GOD DAMN EXAMPLES OF WHERE DAWKINS IS BEING A DICK?????????????????

>>1413052
Possibility (goes in) entire idea.

>>1413058
Nope.
I don't think it is unknowable or unknown.

>>1413070
Good job. You're an Athiest.

>>1413067
No, it doesn't.

>>1413007
>-evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth

your computer is proof of electromagnetics

if it was wrong, your computer would not operate

>>1413034
None except ONE atheist I know reject the possibility.
According to your logic, atheism means you believe in the evolution theory.
While most do, that is not a characteristic of atheism.

I'm sorry that you don't know how logic and definitions work, man.

but but... HE PROVIDES THE BEST SOUND BYTES FOR THE SYMPHONY OF SCIENCE

MATTER FLOWS FROM PLACE TO PLACE, AND MOMENTARILY COMES TOGETHER TO BE YOU. SOME PEOPLE FIND THIS FACT DISTURBING, I FIND THE REALITY THRILLING!

>>1413040
The issue is he talks to people who are as ingrained in their beliefs as he is in his. The only difference being he is correct (but that's besides the point.) These people have been essentially been brought up to think incorrectly, they thing they try to learn is obtained through a screen of massive bias. He is attempting to brute force his way through the screen. I'm not saying it's effective, but it's about as effective as anything else.

>>1413076
Someone hasn't passed high school English.

>>1413084
I CAME GLORY AND SPLENDOR

>>1413090
I DID AS WELL

>>1413079
we're talking about formal proof here (because the discussion was regarding 100%/absolute/etc)

>>1413080
All of your friends except that ONE are Agnostics. By the way, I like how you add those little insults at the end. You trying to make me mad?

>>1413095
You're an idiot..

THERE IS REAL POETRY IN THE REAL WORLD, SCIENCE IS THE POETRY OF REALITY

>>1413100
Agnostic atheists, yeah.

And if you find the sentence insulting, rectify your stupidity.
Don't shoot the messenger, man.

>>1413100
agnostic atheists, yes.

>>1413103
you are visibly upset.

>my face when I check back and still see 12 year olds not getting it

>>1413079
>if it was wrong, your computer would not operate
could be tiny invisible elves operating the computer.
(that would be, quarks are made up of tiny invisible elves)

>>1413109
>rectify your stupidity

He thinks he's being clever.

>>1413115
Smart man.

The problem with /sci/ is, there will always be someone who dislikes/disagrees with something that isn't opposed to his interests

one day Sagan's cool, another day Dawkins sucks, then he's cool again, and yet another day everyone hates Sagan.

>>1413095
Electrogmagnetics is itself proven using "axioms" of quantum mechanics or so.

>>1413120
electromagnetics doesnt say if reindeer or elves are enforcing maxwell's laws, nor does it matter

>>1413095
You don't get it, do you?

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

>>1413253
Truth