/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2302420
Any possible religion you can imagine as an equal chance of being right as any other. The difference is atheist don't kill each other in the name of a being that probably isn't real. They at least kill eachother over resources.

>>2302439
There are enough examples of atheists who preach hate and religious people who preach love.

The bourdon lies on religion to prove a gods existence.

It's because it is commonly seen that having a belief in an unprovable entity would very likely entail other negative aspects for the individual, such as lacking critical thinking skills (i.e. buying into "bullshit" easily).

>>2302466
And the bad atheist people need to shut the fuck up just as well as the bad religious people.

However, even the GOOD religious people are still full of ignorance and base their decisions on nothing.

>>2302473
gravity wasn't wrong because nobody found a way to test it yet, was it?

Atheism is not an organization.

If you've run into assholes who happen to be atheists, that's too bad for you but this sort of thread is explicitly disallowed on /sci/.

>>2302498
While true, you can test gravity over and over and only in very specific cases could it possible fail. Whereas religion cannot be tested at all.

>I believe there is a Christian god.
That is where I stopped reading.

>>2302510
why don't you try testing string theory or multiverse theory, before you teach it to me in physics class?

>>2302530
>Arguing with Christians on /sci/
>trolls

>>2302548
>can't bring a counter argument
>"trolololol"

So why is it that string theory/multiverse theory and such untestable theories are allowed to be taught in schools and as soon as you mention god everyone goes batshit insane?

>>2302563
you showed him the error of his ways brother!

>>2302593
i haven't seen all these people going 'batshit insane' you speak of.

sources plox?

i suspect your sample size is to small to make such an assertion.

>>2302530
because those are just that, theories, they are not accepted as fact, but rather the most likely possibility to those that believe them, as opposed to god whom christians have the most annoying tendency to believe as fact in an unjustified manner.
I have no problem with a person who says they believe, but also acknowledge it as a theory rather than a fact.

>>2302598
I know right

let me rephrase my argument

>astro physics
>"the math is correct"

>belief in a christian god
>"the math is correct" (a supernatural deity isn't limited by the laws of nature, retards)

I DONT SEE THE DIFFERENCE

>>2302420
Adding in some laws of physics that don't exist and adding in an intelligent life form we haven't observed to exist is not as valid as assuming that those things don't exist.

Otherwise, we'd have to carefully tuck our dicks into our waistbands to avoid the possible scenario where ghost lasers come out of the urethra and sever people's "spiritual knee caps" upon contact.

BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE THEY DON'T!!1!!!

>>2302626
I'm god
I can do miracles and shit all i want (don't go telling me to do it to prove you, because then I won't)
I can do all this shit because I don't abide by the laws of nature
>Prove me wrong

>>2302642
God created the laws of physics according to my belief.

Life/the universe is like a game of chess, you're on the chessboard and you're sure there's nothing more because the rules say you can't get off the board. Unless of course you die, in which case there is no way of returning and informing the other peons.

>>2302654
I explicitly said I don't believe in the bible

>>2302663
>Something I'm making up according to my belief
>you're being closed minded if you believe it's not true

>>2302668
I don't either
I AM god

>>2302670
When did I say you were closed minded?

>>2302685
why hello thar hansom

>>2302687
You've been implying all along that the atheist position was somehow on level with your position.

Well, it isn't. Making shit up isn't as valid a theory as not making shit up, and not believing in god is just the right amount of closed minded.

>>2302704
I never said I "know" either one of us is right, I believe I am right and you believe you are right. It's not like it would change anything anyway whether you believe there is a god or whether you believe there isn't, god wouldn't really care.

>>2302691
Gimme a call brohan, I can make your dreams come true ;) xxx

>>2302740
Just establishing that atheism isn't based on faith. If you don't beep at every crosswalk you clearly don't believe in invisible crosswalk escort leprechauns, because then you would realize you get a spirit-ticket for that.

But you're just taking that on faith. Is bankrupting your spirit-account really worth saving a beep every now and then?

>>2302781
There is as much disproof for my god as there is for your ungodly universe.
There is as much proof for my god as there is for your ungodly universe.

Both of us are not entirely sure and we'll never be.

See? We're not that different after all.

>>2302663
perhaps your right, but if we can only endeavor in the laws of physics that god created for us, the only reasonable assumption is that there is no god, unless of course atheists just aren't on gods mailing list.

>>2302793
Except you're introducing physics concepts like "outside the universe" or "outside time" or "creating everything out of fucking nothing" or "omnipotence" or "omincience" or "non-physical intelligence". Whereas my belief follows all of the laws of physics and introduces no unsupported ones.

If you don't realize that making shit up comes at the cost of evidence then you don't understand the scientific method.

>>2302530
String "theory" is not a scientific theory, and is just as scientific as "well, a being creating the big bang is a good explanation."

String theory is just a plausible explanation, but is, as any scientist would recognize, untestable.

Evolution, gravity, germs, atoms, etc are all VERY MUCH testable.

>>2302624
Learn the definition of theory, fucknut. Protip: Evolution is both a theory and a fact, like gravity.

Theories explain HOW the facts work as they do. Evolution is a fact, but the theory of evolution is the many supported explanations for why evolution works the way it does.

>>2302819
I should have added, "untestable, and thus, not scientific yet."

>>2302473
>bourdon

>>2302819
The main difference between string theory and making stuff up is that string theory is a great avenue for theoretical physicists to work on shit they haven't yet. Without string theory, we're pretty much fucked as far as furthering our understanding of the universe at a basic level goes, without some kind of new data to explain.

So in other words, the theory exists because we have extra theoretical physicist man hours that results in theory progressing faster than experimentation. But when has that not been the case?

First off, learn the definition of "atheism." It is, essentially, what you would probably refer to as "agnosticism," which is a WIDELY misused label.

For the most part, we don't BELIEVE that there cannot be a God. We simply do not have a belief with regard to the existence of a deity. We don't know, and we accept that.

Most Atheists have confidence in theories like evolution, and the big bang, because they have a significant amount of physical, observable evidence to support them. Nevertheless, Atheists do not consider such theories absolute truths.

Furthermore, our theories are based off of what has been observed. Scientists look at shit, study it, and formulate a theory that makes the most sense, given the data. When new data is introduced, theories are revisited and sometimes trashed completely.

Religious people, on the other hand, uphold a theory which has no scientific basis, and when confronted with new information, twist and distort it in order to conform it to their beliefs.

They are dishonest and wrong.

>>2302819
>"a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
Learn the definition of theory, fucknut.
string theory:
>describes solution to phenomenon
>plausible
>ding ding ding we have a winner.
nowhere does it say a theory provides proof/justification of fact, a theory simply provides a reasonable (but unproven) explanation to a phenomenon.

>>2302878

It's a theory, but it's not grounded in evidence. At most, it might validate some of our equations.

>>2302878
>a theory simply provides a reasonable (but unproven) explanation to a phenomenon.
That's called a hypothesis
Theories have evidence to support them

>>2302898
>>2302890
well ,it fulfills the stipulations of the definition, but yes i suppose you are correct, allow me to fix that and say:
> a theory simply provides a reasonable explanation of a phenomenon, supported by scientific evidence, but not proven outright.

>>2302925
perfect

>>2302420
>collection of historical texts

If by that you mean false historical text that have been beyond a shadow of a doubt been proven false, then yes.

I'm just confused how a belief in God leads one to Christianity, when there are an almost infinite number of alternative religions that profess a belief in God.

I have a feather. An invisible, or truly transparent, feather.

I will call this feather a god. It is omnipotent, all-knowing and has always existed.

It commands me to destroy all other beliefs in other gods but the feather.

This theory, or rather belief, is no stronger than your religion.

The only thing stopping me from mass-genocide is the established law and morals.

And no, morals didn't erupt from a religion, or a god. If you believe so, then I suggest you an hero.

>>2303162
The feather has no knowledge or power to give me. It's an inanimate object. It's not worthy of worship.

Let me ask you this question, what observation would falsify you belief in God?

Every scientific theory has an observation that can falsify it, and this is what makes it scientific. If you can't tell me what empirical observation would lead to give up your believe in God, then the question "does God exist" is unknowable. Or, as I would prefer to say, it is a meaningless question.

After all, if no observation could ever cause you to give up you belief in God, then your belief is simply dogmatic, and based on nothing.

>>2302593
Because it is called string 'THEORY' and multiverse 'THEORY', not, this is fucking right, deal with it or I'll cut your fucking head off you heretic fuck! <--- aka religion

>>2302420
Genesis and Noah's flood. Off the top of my head, it's provably false with the following evidence:
1- Modern astrophysics, big bang theory, etc.
2- Geology
3- Radioactive dating
4- Modern biology, including evolution by natural selection,

There's also numerous logical contradictions in the new testament of the bible. Do a quick google search for some.

There's also numerous documented falsehoods besides just the old testament jazz. For example, the blatant forgery of the myth of the birth of jesus. Total fabrication.

>>2303188
Positivism > OP

BTW, the reason string and M-theory are scientific, and questions about God are not, is because they are at least potentially falsifiable through observation, we just don't have the technology needed to do it yet. The statement "God exits" is not falsifiable through any even potentially possible observation. So while we can't say it is false, we can say that it is meaningless just like we can say that any statement that does not fit the criteria of being empirically falsifiable is just meaningless nonsense.

>>2302925
Generally one shouldn't look up a definition for a technical academic term in a general purpose dictionary.

>I believe there is a Christian god.
>However, it is "just a theory".
>When there is as much proof for my theory as for the atheist theory that there is no god

No. Your either a troll or someones whos to stupid to learn, making this thread a waste of time either way.

>>2303519
why so much hate bro? anyway, haven't been posting for hours

Atheists keep requesting proof of a God who's existence cannot be proven. Religion does not aim to prove anything, but instead aims to provide a channel of faith, something that many people agree with and find to be an important part of their lives. I don't understand why it's such a big deal if people believe in something. It's personal. Nitpicking for perfect agreement in the entirety of the bible is impossible, and even early church theologians new this. The very reason why there are four gospels in use is because they were the ones that agreed with each other the most, and could be verified with people who were actually at the events.

The instant you militantly try to get people to believe what you believe is the instant you become as bad as radical religious people.

>>2302766

>brohan

awesome

>>2302420

>>2303588