/sci/ - Science & Math

You are preaching to the choir.

But the stupid people are in a majority so we are fucked.

>>3285382
Yes but that's why ridicule is needed. The very religious regularly receive reinforcement for their indoctrinated beliefs but if we regularly ridiculed them for believing those same things we may be able to combat the indoctrination.

>>3285396

>but if we regularly ridiculed them for believing those same things we may be able to combat the indoctrination.

You already do. You're going after a problem that isn't really there.

I'm sorry, this isn't relevant to science in the slightest. It's half baked philosophy and the only reason you're posting it up here is because you know nobody will disagree with you.

>me that it is becoming irresponsible to just let people have their beliefs without questioning their claims in fear of offending them

>irresponsible to just let people have their beliefs
>irresponsible
>let people
>their

What you are suggesting is far, far worse than any organised religion.

>>3285396
Ridicule furthers people in their beliefs. And it makes you an idiot for not engaging in reason.

Ridicule is not needed.

Only reason. Teach that, and religion and superstition will fade away.

Thank god, this religious made up shit is getting old.
Time for a new dawn of civilisation!
Blood for the blood god!
No, wait~

>>3285464
Right on.
There's a class that can be taken in the UK in secondary schools called 'critical thinking'. I think that should be mandatory, and taught at earlier ages.

>>3285464
Some religions teach people to deny reason.

>>3285412
This is relevant to the United States. Most legislators would describe themselves as religious. Why do you think stem cell research is so restricted?

>>3285535

>reason

Your reasoning. You don't listen to theirs, why should they listen to yours?

>Why do you think stem cell research is so restricted?

Nothing to do with religion. If religion was as powerful as you claimed, the USA wouldn't be the richest country in the world.

You're taking the same line as Nazism. Creating problems for solutions, instead of the other way around.

>>3285553

>Your reasoning. You don't listen to theirs, why should they listen to yours?

I wasn't aware reason was subjective.

>Nothing to do with religion. If religion was as powerful as you claimed, the USA wouldn't be the richest country in the world.

You must not have followed the debate. Show me one quote from an American legislator that is opposed to stem cell research and isn't about theistic moral values.

>You're taking the same line as Nazism. Creating problems for solutions, instead of the other way around.

Anti-Intellectualism and its effect on legislation in a democracy isn't a problem I made up. The fact of the matter is in this country our congress has almost no scientific thinking people and has many religious thinking people. This is reflected in some of the laws that have come been made in the last hundred years or so.

Also reductio ad Hitlerum is a pretty lame way to make an argument. In lue of actually having a point just compare your opponent to Hitler or Nazi's.

>>3285617

Reason is subjective (you need to know the person configuration to understand the mental process and their axioms)

Now, reason that matches reality, thats different (as in objective)

>>3285553
>Nazism

Godwin's Law invoked. Thread over, guys. Everyone, it's been great.

>>3285553
>Your reasoning. You don't listen to theirs, why should they listen to yours?

This. But no one (scientist or theist) can have a moral debate without ridiculing the other.

>>3285649
If someones fundamental axioms lead them to believe something that is clearly not true, like believing the Earth is 6000 years old, or to not believe something that is demonstrably true, like evolution then I don't see how they can reason at all.

This also reeks a of philosophy instead of science. In science you only need one axiom to have an empirical rationalist view point. "Things exist" If it isn't true then nothing really matters anyway.

>>3285680
It's called cognitive dissonance. Your mind isn't some vastly interconnected network that is completely amorphous.

It's like wondering why one society functions under communism while another functions under capitalism when they all contain the same people.

>>3285701
And your point is? I don't see how this has anything to do with whats being discussed.

With all of the mental gymnastics going on here I'd suspect you were part of the junior special olympics..

>>3285708
You claim that logic that forms the basis for one thought has to be equal to the logic that forms the basis for another, and if one of those logics is fallible then the other must be too.

>irony

>>3285712
No I said reason should for the basis for belief not logic. As in you should have reasonable expectations of evidence before you form a belief. I'm not talking about philosophical or theoretical bullshit I'm talking about empirical rationalism.When you make a claim you have to have evidence that the claim is true. If you have no evidence and you persist in your claim you should be ridiculed.

>>3285680

Science doesnt prove something to be absolutly true, it just creates falsable models of reality based on evidence.
Like never reaching 100% certainty.

About you original point, i think that from the point you propose a course of action ("People who have stupid beliefs should be told that their beliefs are stupid and that they are stupid for believing what they do") you are entering a non-scientific territory.

Under my concept of good (which inherently brings me to the course of action i think should be taken) which is basicly that anything that makes the population of configurations (genetical/memetical configurations, aka ourselves) greater and stable (as in able to perpetuate themselves the most), we should let people belief whatever they want as long as their behaviour doesnt eliminate other configurations.

>>3285740
When someone believes that unicorns are real and they can grant your wishes if you do a special dance you call them crazy. If they were to try and push their beliefs to be taught in a classroom you would tell them to shut up and go away. When religious people do the same thing are we supposed to make a special exception? What you personally believe is none on my business, but if you try to promote what you believe as fact or are a legislator making opinions based on those beliefs in becomes my business. I'm willing to let live here but because science can publicly make credible claims about how the universe works they think they can do the same thing but without evidence.

I never claimed to be 100% positive about anything. However some things are almost certainly true or not true. For instance the Earth is almost certainly not 6000 years old.

>>3285774

Alright, now I can agree with you.

But now, the problem is that you are taking a rage filled attitude that will inevitably lead to the extinction of your ideal.

You must think in a way to dominate the harmful configurations without them beign reinforced or simply overwhelming you by the power of their holders. And by dominate i dont try to say eliminate, im saying simply modify them in a way they arent viral anymore.

>>3285774
>When scientific people do the same thing are we supposed to make a special exception?

Fixed.


Why should we listen to your science?
I dont want to listen to that falsifiable bullshit.
Get that out of my schools and give kids hope.

>>3285795

Because the system we label as science has mechanisms that match better with reality and thus give the people more power (as in analitycal power and eventually reality manipulation power...no, not like Dr. Manhatan).

It also has the bonus that it doesnt force you into anything, for science just describes.

>>3285809
>has mechanisms that match better with reality

god is the greatest mechanism and the only thing that matches my reality

>>3285774

>2011
>believing that there are many people that believe the world is 6000 years old.

I seriously hope you don't do this. Since you are the one saying that nothing you should believe anything without substantial evidence(>>3285736 >>3285355 ), provide substantial evidence from a reputable source for your sweeping generalizations about people with religious beliefs.

>>3285795
I know this is a troll attempt but this is actually what some people believe. They don't understand science at all and think their religious opinions are just as valid even though they don't have evidence for them.

For a scientific theory to be widely accepted it has to undergo the intellectual gauntlet of peer review. You have to convince a bunch of other scientist that by default don't believe the theory, that it is in fact true by showing them repeatable experiments and an abundant amount of credible observational data confirming your theory.

Religious views don't go through any such process, yet you expect me to treat them with same validity? That's just insane and you are being an idiot if you understand this but push your beliefs on others anyway.

>>3285825
You've never been the Southern U.S., have you?

>>3285820

Your reality? Then you sir are a god and I dont need to take you into account in the reality i share with other people, cosmological objects, ect.

Oh and dont let the door hit you when you get the fuck out of this universe...it moves pretty fast.

>>3285826
Why do you think experiments and empirical evidence leads to validity?

>>3285833

Validity implies a human "judge".

Science leads to ever-increasingly precise description of reality...the validity part is up to the user.

Now why i think it should be valid? see >>3285809

>>3285825
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtzJhTfQiMA
Here's an Arizona state senator basing her opinion on her beliefs.

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

Heres a poll showing nearly 50% of Americans believe the Earth is less than 10000 years old.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx
Same poll different analysis

Happy? I hope you understand now how deeply rooted this insanity is.

I specifically picked an issue which most people know is not true. Replace age of the earth with intelligent design and my argument stands even if what I said about young earth beliefs weren't true.

>>3285849
why do you use science as a description for reality?

>>3285854
Can you think of a better way to describe the universe than to you science?

>>3285862
I dont know how it was made.

I just think science is the worst explanation ive heard.

>>3285854

Because it measures nature with nature (like it is done in a hadron colider or with the mercury of a thermometer) and therefore it will lead to a result governed by the rules of nature (everything)

>>3285854
Can you think of a better way to describe reality than to use science?

>>3285852
Wow, I hope that senator is referring to human civilization on Earth, not the age of Earth itself. I know I'm wrong, but this is stupidity.

>>3285868
>Because it measures nature with nature

No it doesnt?

You guys use "math".

The absolute worst mechanic ever developed.

>>3285870
>Can you think of a better way to describe reality than to use science?

The most objective schematic hasnt been developed yet.

"Describing" reality is kind of pointless. It wont really do anything. Maybe help you in it but it wont tell you "why".

>>3285873
Without which nothing you currently have would exist. The method you are claiming is not trustworthy allowed for the invention of the device you are using to communicate that distrust. You see that's the thing about science. It produces results.

>>3285873

Math that describes what is measured.

Also math describes the rules deduced from the evidence. We shape math to describe accuratly (well, as posible) nature based on this nature with nature results. Often this math have implications that let us penetrate a little deeper.

>>3285887
For now it produces results.

I dont care about results.

We are asking why.

If you use science TO DO things in this reality thats fine.

But if you look at it like a religion and you ONLY believe what it says. You are a retard.

>>3285885
But science is slowly going to this perfect ideal (and probably utopian) system you speak of.

Oh but please dont think we are a bunch of dawkins grade smug guys (although the guy is pretty awesome on his field of research).

>>3285885
You're making the assumption that you have to completely describe the universe all at once, when actually science is allowing us to discover it bit by bit. If you are hoping for some blending a religion and science than I hate to disappoint you but that isn't going to happen. Faith is fundamentally incompatible with science.

>>3285887
You seem to be of the opinion that knowledge about the physical world is all people should hope to have. Things like art, morality and community are actually *less* important to you than "science". Is this a fair assessment?

>>3285891

That again is a personal opinion. Personally i believe each person must design itself into whatever they want to be (this implies the creation of non-scientific, but could be inspired on scientific knowledge, values).

Perhaps what you have trouble with is with the atittude of some arrogant scientist.

>>3285894
I dont believe humans will ever be able to reach this system due to our nature. Maybe if we create A.I that are smarter and become smarter than us. We still wouldnt be able to understand it IMO.

>>3285895

Then ill tell you that science is incompatible with faith. I really dont want to call it faith, I would rather it just be another option.

I dont care how important you think your option is.

>>3285891
You do realize science isn't just a body of knowledge right? Please look up the scientific method.

If you don't base your beliefs on evidence what do you base them on?

How dare you call me a retard? Unlike religious people I have reasonable expectations for belief. I don't' believe whatever fairy tale most appeals to me, I base my beliefs credible evidence. In addition to that science is a self correcting process. Show me something I believe is wrong with credible evidence and I will believe you and seek a new explanation. No matter how wrong any scientific belief is it can only get more right as time goes on, where as religious belief is as wrong now as it always has always been and it will never be more right than it is now which is to say not that right at all about anything.

>>3285920
>I base my beliefs on evidence

Theres your problem.

>I use the scientific method

Theres your problem.

>>3285901
Faith by definition is belief without evidence. As such it can never be an accurate source of fact.

To defend your view point you are having to delve in to the meta physical where you can claim ineffable gnosis. That has no place on a board about science.

>>3285937
Scotch, I would really like to go into the axioms and logic talk, but I just did that for like the past 5 hours.

I really dont want to explain it again -.-

>>3285920
>>3285927

Stop it both. That atittude and thinking the other is inferior (which then again appeals to conceps of good and bad, better and worse, which are completly subjective and case dependant) is what generates the anhilation of configurations...which more or less goes against our natural tendency to perpetuation of out replicators.

>>3285927
Do you realize how insane what you are saying is? Why are you on a board about science if you fundamentally opposed to the idea of science. I want you to know what you are saying is stupid and if you truly believe it you are stupid. If you are incapable of using reason as it applies to science I don't see a need to argue with you any longer. It would be like playing chess with someone who thinks they are playing checkers.

>>3285943
Are you just trolling?

>>3285948
>Why are you on a board about science if you fundamentally opposed to the idea of science.

I like science but its the science nuts who really get to me.

Its also fun to argue. ^^

>>3285952

Why do you think that? Read my post again.

>>3285948
Also, you are one of those science NUTS.

You are calling me insane because I dont use your logic system. Which is respectable.

I do the same thing to you. You science nuts are INSANE. Science is ONLY good for helping humanity. Not for defining the universe.

>>3285961
Because science doesnt ultimatly define the universe. It creates falsable models that describe reality with a non-perfect degree of precision.

Again, maybe you have a problem with the atittude of these science nuts as you define them.

>>3285967
>Because science doesnt ultimatly define the universe. It creates falsable models that describe reality with a non-perfect degree of precision.

I wouldn't even go that far.
But at least you admit that.


So what gives you the right to "believe" in science if this is all it is?

And why do you have the right to disbelieve something?

Anything you define in your life is falsifiable so why should you believe in these things, but not something else?

>>3285937
>To defend your view point you are having to delve in to the meta physical where you can claim ineffable gnosis. That has no place on a board about science.
hahaha. Why do non-scientific topics have no place on a board about science? Please justify your answer using strictly scientific knowledge.

Science is like being a bitch, you keep switching to whatever the latest idea is...

Its not a belief its retardism.

Make up your mind.
(I HEARD THIS QUOTE FROM AN ATHEIST WHEN I SAID I WAS AGNOSTIC)

>>3285981

Thats again non-factual territory. Personal preference that depends on the values and cocepts created by the individual.

I have already stated (at least partially) my reasons on this post : >>3285809

>>3285987
>retardism
typical atheist

>>3285991
>Personal preference

If I can have personal preferences in science, then why the fuck cant I believe in a creator?

You scientists tell me that I cant.

>>3285991
Oh and my definition of good has already been stated somewhere on the thread. here it is: >>3285740

Instead of "stable" use sustainable.

>>3285998

Nope, science doest tell you that. You can have it, but according to the recent scientific knowledge, it isnt necesarily true (but it hasnt proven it is false either...it simply doesnt say shit about it)

>>3286005
You just told me that anything science explains isnt true. So how can you tell me what isnt necessarily true?

>>3285987
I hope you understand you are only supporting my opinion that religious people who make claims without evidence should be ridiculed for their beliefs. You don't even understand what science is but you claim it can't be used to define the universe. Science isn't a belief system but it requires you to have reasonable expectations for belief.

This type of anti-science thinking is the exact reason I think people like you should be ridiculed.

>>3286014
Not that isnt true, but more precisly it will not remain as the most precise model in the future. Science can tell you it isnt necesarily true because there could be other explantions. And again, scientific knowledge by itself makes no claims about any deity.

>>3285999
>(which inherently brings me to the course of action i think should be taken) which is basicly that anything that makes the population of configurations (genetical/memetical configurations, aka ourselves) greater and stable (as in able to perpetuate themselves the most), we should let people belief whatever they want as long as their behaviour doesnt eliminate other configurations

I can't tell whether this is more ridiculous or terrifying. The greatest good to you is maximizing "configurations". Gotta love those configurations. Lying, stealing, rape and mutilation? Doesn't matter, configurations are stable. Totalitarian government lobotomizing its citizens? Might actually make some new configurations. Everybody gets reconfigured.

>>3286025

Dude, you are bashing even the guys that support you (well in some way). Maybe his point was that idiocy is found under any human group.

>>3285987
I hope you understand you are only supporting my opinion that religious people who make claims without evidence should be ridiculed for their beliefs. You don't even understand what science is but you claim it can't be used to define the universe. Science isn't a belief system but it requires you to have reasonable expectations for belief.

This type of anti-science thinking is the exact reason I think people like you should be ridiculed.

>>3286020
The reason im anti-science is because of how fucking ignorant they are.

I dont care how reasonable anything is. Thats just a made up circle jerk of nothing.

Everything is reasonable im not going to use the physical world to tell me whats reasonable. Why do I need to do that? Who told me to do that? Whats the purpose and am I deluding myself by doing it?

You scientists cant think.

>>3286031
He was making fun of the person who said that.

>>3286029
>Lying, stealing, rape and mutilation

Those actions (result of a configuration) actually make the sustainable configuration pool smaller. If a configuration reduces the number of conciousness (which is basicly a configuration going trough and input-output data process) tehn it is no good, and must be corrected.

The actions you said are usually done in a way that harms people, that eliminates them. Example: Stealing: A guy setals everything from another guy, the second guy cant reach his/her dreams (ie painting stuff), meme dissappears, one configuration less.

Authoritarian goverment: Homogenazation of thinking=less configurations

>>3286051
>configuration

Ive heard you say that alot. What exactly do you mean? What is the importance of having a lot of different configurations? People can change their configuration at any time...

i'm not going to follow this thread, i'm just popping over here; but i can definitely tell you that Islam and Science are two very closely related subjects.

not going to go argue, you go research it yourself.

>>3286062
this

and what about something like pantheism?

nobody can really say that science and religion are completely seperate

>>3286032
Its not a circle jerk like I said before science produces results.

Please stop rambling like a moron. You don't have a point, you don't define your reasoning, and you fail to offer an alternative. You have nothing. You are just a vocal asshole who can't shut up about your nonsensical beliefs.

I'm tired of your bullshit. If you aren't going to start backing up your statements with EVIDENCE then shut the fuck up and go away because you are just wasting everyone's time and you have nothing of value to add.

"Science can't be used to define the universe."
"Prove it."
"I don't need proof, I don't think evidence is a valid requirement for belief."
"Fuck you, you looney retard."

Please leave.

>>3286058

The importance of having a lot of configurations is that it allows for more blocks of information to perpetuate (genes and memes, or cultural information). We are basicly tools for our replicators to keep existing. We want to mantain our existance, and we can see this in a lot of ways: Biologically (instincts, reflexes, hard dicks, ect), culturally (the idea of afterlife, law, ect.)

So my definition of good just makes us aware of this and tries to optimize it.

>>3286051
The mutilated person develops hatred against the ethnicity of the person who mutilated him. He quits his career, (which would have led to a happy but unoriginal life) and instead starts a racist website where a great deal of discussion goes on, creating many new varieties of racism and hate. One person decides that asians are actually demons from Saturn. What a valuable configuration.

>>3286072
Wow.

You dont understand how ignorant you are. You are telling me that I need a requirement to be compatible with your beliefs. Thats automatically more ignorant than my side because I dont require anything.

With that aside.

You havent told me your reasoning.
You think that science and atheism is THE default thing. You are defaulting it. You cant even see it. You are the most ignorant type of people in the world. You are saying "Tell me why" , I will say "No you tell me why" and you automatically think your logic is the be all end all.

YOU CANT EVEN NOTICE YOUR DOING IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE REALLY CONVINCED YOURSELF THIS YOUR ENTIRE LIFE.

>>3286086
Also these people all get off on racism and have tons of adorably racist little configurations.

>>3286086

Thats were the sustainable part kicks in. Some configurations will tend to destroy others (and therefore reducing their number), and those arent good, not desirable, and must be corrected.

>>3286062
How the fuck is the Angel Gabriel talking to Mohammad and the conquest of Mecca and Medina even vaguely related to the Scientific method?
The Scientific wasn't even discovered until Sir Francis Bacon created it.

>>3286094
They aren't murderous, they're just hateful. The number of ideas and people will both increase, but everyone will be worse off for it. Your idea only makes sense to you because you're convinced it would correspond to a more sane ethical system.

>>3286088
I've presented my evidence. Science provides results and accurate predictions for how the universe behaves. You didn't refute my argument you just made statements about not requiring evidence for your beliefs.

I'm not saying prove me wrong I'm saying prove yourself right. You don't seem to understand that the burden of proof is upon the person making the claim. You claim science can't define the universe. I said it can. I provide logical reasoning and evidence for why it can. You say evidence doesn't prove anything.

If you can't support your claims with evidence don't make them.

>>3286101
>Your idea only makes sense to you because you're convinced it would correspond to a more sane ethical system.

Dont jump into conclusions like that, doesnt contribute to a better understanding of any position.

>They aren't murderous, they're just hateful. The number of ideas and people will both increase, but everyone will be worse off for it

Two flaws here:

1) You are asuming memetic configurations dont mutate (change) from person to person and trough time. Those configurations could become murderous at any moment.

2) If they are just hateful, then they will deny resources to the hated comunity...and this doesnt help with the preservation thing. In a more dramatical scenario, those configurations could lead to a slavery scenario were the enslaved populaton have short lives and dont have time for self-designing nor the stimulus for a healthy memetical configuration.

>>3286116
>Science provides results and accurate predictions for how the universe behaves.

Sure...? Temporarily and falsifiably. Thats behave, not how the universe came to be. I dont care about that.

>You claim science can't define the universe. I said it can.

We both dont know whether it can or cant.

>>3286142
But we know it can build models that, relatively to what we know, are pretty close.

>>3286148
>Pretty close

Thats why I said, I dont care about pretty close.
If its not a 100% accurate I have no reason to believe it.

But you guys do it.

>>3286126
>If they are just hateful, then they will deny resources to the hated comunity...and this doesnt help with the preservation thing. In a more dramatical scenario, those configurations could lead to a slavery scenario were the enslaved populaton have short lives and dont have time for self-designing nor the stimulus for a healthy memetical configuration.

They could, they might, but if they don't you would consider it good. Accept that. Or better yet, accept that your theory is utterly laughable and read up on utilitarianism.

>>3286155
>But you guys do it.

Please lets mantain the personal assertions at a minimum.

We dont believe firmly it is like that, we just say thats as far as we have come explaining how the universe work, and its subject to change.

>>3286155
Heh, so something for which you have no evidence, and explains nothing, you believe in totally.

For something that does explain things, and for which there is evidence, you refuse to believe in unless it explains everything perfectly.

>>3286166
>We dont believe firmly it is like that, we just say thats as far as we have come explaining how the universe work, and its subject to change.

Why are you allowed to make this long ass conjecture and use that as your belief?

Why cant I say something like, I believe in any god that might exist and any possible scientific theory. Whatever is the real one.
So its basically both atheism and theism.

Whats stopping me from doing that?

>>3286158

Laughable? why? Also you are working under the axiom that racism is inherently bad (please note i dont believe it is good). Oh and yes, utilitarinism has an influence on this ethical system (it isnt a theory scientifically speaking, just awareness of the processes that resulted in us and the logical extension of this)

Also, ethics arent an exact science, so we must guide ourselves with what is more likely.

>>3286176

Nothing, you can do it.

>Why are you allowed to make this long ass conjecture and use that as your belief?

Want the neurological explanation or the sociial explanation. Ill try to sum both in the sentence: "Because im able"

>>3286173
>so something for which you have no evidence, and explains nothing, you believe in totally.

Wheres my reasoning not to?

Im meta-gaming.

After you get past the fact that there is no reason to believe in anything.

You believe in god. After. Just because he created you and hes a total bro for it. He might give you an afterlife too. SWEET

>>3286184
>Nothing, you can do it.

So your saying I can have that belief?

You're not forcing me to be an atheist?

You are a rare breed.

>>3286142
>Thats behave, not how the universe came to be. I dont care about that.

This is a fallacy called "moving the goal post." You've discovered that can't defend your point of view anymore so you trying to change the point of the argument.

So now its about the origin of the universe because you can't defend your previous opinion? I'm not going to humor you anymore. You have your beliefs and you won't be convinced by reason to change them.

Shut the fuck you you stupid asshole. For the last time stop making claims without evidence and refusing to consider other claims despite evidence.

>>3285355
~brofist~

>>3286194
I was just trying to hold you over.

In actuality, I dont think you can create accurate descriptions of how the universe behaves with science.
Way too many axioms in that to explain it.

Was trying to get to the point faster and im not moving the goal post.

>>3286166
For fucks sake how many times to I have to say it. You can't be 100% positive about anything. If you have that requirement then you don't believe anything at all. Congrats you are a nihilist.

>>3286194
Also, see these posts.

Thats pretty much my view on the subject.
If you can create these artificial conjectures then I can too with anything I want. You have no reason to call me illogical if you do it too.
>>3286176
>>3286184

>>3286178
>Laughable? why?
Number of "configurations". How do you even define what counts as a "configuration". Why are you saying that all "configurations" are equally good.

If you don't care at all about happiness or freedom, why are you so anxious to say that mutilation would decrease "configurations"? It is conceivable that an action could kill a billion innocent people and make everyone else miserable, but that this could lead to a net increase in "configurations". It is ridiculous, you are bad at philosophy, and I am absolutely done talking to you.

>>3286213
>You can't be 100% positive about anything.
You seem 100% positive about that.

>>3286202
>I dont think you can create accurate descriptions of how the universe behaves with science.

Ok, and what evidence do you have for that claim? Its important that you provide evidence because there is plenty of evidence that says what your claim is untrue.

For Evidence google, astrophysics, cosmology, quantum physics, biology or any other field of science.

>>3286213
This guy contradicts himself so much.

Ok then

WHAT PERCENTAGE of positivity does it have to meet for you to believe it?

Look guys. I'll lay it out all simple for you. There are only two kinds of gods, the falsified, and the unfalsifiable. Believing in either kind is stupid.

>>3286229
I'm 99.999% certain. ;)

>>3286236
I just dont think you can create accurate descriptions with science.

Probability isnt reliable. If you say you are 99% certain that this thing happens. All it takes is 1% for that thing to be completely false. When you are relying on tons and tons of these 1%'s then it pretty mush falsifies down the line for science.

GG science.

>Lets start a thread about religion and science that is actually relevant to science.

continue reading...
no science found

>Report submitted! This window will close in 5 seconds...

>>3286252
Where does that level of certainty come from? There must have been a lot of scientific studies!

>>3286253
You are demonstrably wrong. What makes any sort of technology in your life? Science. Does it work? Yes. Did I just using scientific reasoning to defend science? Yes.

>>3286259
Whats the fallacy called when you completely go off topic?

I dont give a fuck about how much science "works"

ITT: philoso-reasoning .. whatever that is.

>>3286238
Its not based on a percentage. Its based on a reasonable consideration of the evidence. My certainly depends on the amount of evidence and how well the theory fits the evidence. For something like gravity, I am almost certain, for something like Dark Matter I am not certain at all but I find some of the evidence compelling.

>>3286262
Earlier, you said: "I just dont think you can create accurate descriptions with science." You have curious definitions of "accurate" and "works", then, as apparently science "works", but doesn't create "accurate" descriptions. I would think that "works" implies "accurate".

>>3286223
>How do you even define what counts as a "configuration"

Combination of genes and memes, The cultural aspect of the configuration will change within the timeline of the individual but is considered as a single configuration by the merit of its continuity trough time, despite beign different from itself from the past.

Also, happiness and suffering are just mechanism that reinforce certain behaviours (mostly result of evolution...and we could say, more accuratly, of the configuration of the specific individual in an specific point in time)

>It is ridiculous, you are bad at philosophy, and I am absolutely done talking to you.

This doesnt help in this conversation. Control yourself

Yeah, and holocaust could be good. Lets say the aftermath is a world full of white people, the object of their hate dissapeared. Normal ethical mechanisms are resumed. But then, i believe this wouldnt be good because it would take us some time to recover us number-wise (and therefore man-power wise) and because humans mutate with time, and even from a single generation (look at the mr bean actor...atkinson a think, he looks arab but of whire ancestry). This would lead to conflict with the mutated generations with time and to a constant configuration death (although slow)

>>3286269
>Its based on a reasonable consideration of the evidence.

So you are picking and choosing what you want. Im sure there is atleast some evidence for god, some people might say that since we exist that is some evidence. You can induct evidence from anything, ANYTHING and its all subjective.

It comes down to where do you draw the line?

If it is a 1% chance that god exists

Then it is a 5% chance that the big bang created everything

Why are you drawing the line at 5% ?

What makes your line better?

>>3286253
Why is it probably not reliable? 99% is more probable than 1%. You have yet t o present me with evidence for your claim.

Is your belief based on faith or evidence?

>>3286285
Not him, but because the big bang theory actually has evidence to support it. Otherwise it wouldn't be a theory.

>>3286292
Why is it probably not reliable?

Probably is not reliable because when the universe was made there was only 1 trail.
Our laws of physics are set.

Probability is only reliable in a large volume.

If god existing only happens .00001% chance it only takes the 1 time for it to happen.

>>3286302
You are drawing a line.

God has as much evidence as the big bang does.

There are theistic scientists who have literally SOME scientific data for god. It might not be reliable to you. But you are drawing lines.

As long as you are doing the line drawing process then I can not respect an atheist.

>>3286304
That post is so confused, and conflating so many arguments, that I don't even know where to begin.

Science works. Inductive reasoning based upon evidence works. If you disagree, then you are a troll or insane.

The only kinds of gods are the falsified and the unfalsifiable. It's stupid to believe in either kind.

>>3286314
>God has as much evidence as the big bang does.
No. I doubt we'll make much progress on this, but this is simply demonstrably wrong. You are ignorant and/or deluded.

They say that atheists tend to vary depending on what religion they were raised in. The most vocal loudmouths (like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins) were brought up as Catholics, while atheists who came from Protestant backgrounds tend to be more subdued.

>>3286318
I dont care how much it works.

Its based on a magical line drawn by you guys. You require a certain amount of evidence. Then you believe it. Evidence can come from anything and it could seem right. But the result is falsifiable.
As long as you draw lines and aren't confident with what you say than I cant respect what you tell me.

>>3286323

many apologists have offered some pretty convincing evidence and reason for their religious beliefs for a while but many atheists will completely disregard this (even when they can't dispute their claims)

>>3286285
First of all you are making claims without evidence again. You said there is probably evidence god exists. Where is it?

I have never seen credible evidence god exist if you have it please present it because the whole world want to see it, and no the universe existing is not evidence.

Yes I choose what I want to believe as everyone does but I base my beliefs on evidence. As such my beliefs reflect the truth. Don't compare my beliefs to yours. I have reasonable expectations and you do not.

You are grasping as straws with this you can't be certain argument. Skepticism is a part of science you can't be certain something is true or not. That doesn't have any bearing on whether it is true however. For instance Evolution is a scientific fact and I can state with confidence that it is true because of the large body of observation evidence and experiments supporting it, however I can never state that I know with certainty it is true. Is this concept that hard to understand?

>>3286339
If it's not falsifiable, then it's not evidence. It's asshat armchair philosophy.

Ya there is actually tons of research being done that supports god.

Nobody ever mentions it though.

>>3286334

Hitchens: Anglican

>>3286338
The whole point of science is to use reason and try to falsify theories and improve them, research, gather evidence, and then try to falsify that.

>>3286352
0/10
no one can even define god

>>3286281
Well..you convinced me (btw im not the guy you were responding to). Not everyday you find a pretty solid ethical system.

>>3286348
Are you certain that there is no god?

You will probably answer "no"

Well then there must be a chance that he exists right?

"Yea"

Well then why do you draw the line of belief just above the chance that god exists?

"Because im anti-theist"

>>3286339
This is a lie.

Please present just one piece of this evidence.

>>3286364
I don't believe in god because there is no evidence god exists. Its not based on some arbitrary percentage system you made up.

>>3286365
>Please present just one piece of this evidence.

Dude.
Whatever it is, you are going to pick and choose and believe what you want.

You are the most ignorant type of human.

>>3286364

Replace the word god with unicorns

>>3286371

So basically, you have no evidence?

>>3286372
Even if its unicorns...

Why should you pick a spot on the fucking chart.

It is so human and non-skepticism.

It makes me so mad. You cant just say this is reasonable while this isnt. I understand the chance is smaller but thats a human thing. How small it is doesnt matter. If it is , then it is.

>>3286372
science can build a unicorn, science can't build a god. replace god with square circle.

>>3286383
Lol dude wtf are you talking about. If someone makes a claim and can't back it up, then you go about the rest of your life assuming it's the same way it was. Just because someone mentions an idea to you doesn't mean you have to partition your brain and believe two contradictory beliefs at the same time because there's a chance either could be correct.

>>3286383
7/10, I'm actually replying.

We would only truly accept unicorns if there were evidence for them. True, I know no evidence isn't evidence of not existing, but there's no reason to accept the existence without evidence. By the way, I'm a unicorn.

>>3286383
Yes if it is then it is, but I'm not going to believe unless there's evidence. You are really running out of room to defend yourself here.

>>3286371
So you won't post evidence because you think I would be able to refute it? That means you have no credible evidence to present.

Goddamnit /sci/, you're nearly as easy to troll as /lit/

>>3286406
THIS IS ALL OF YOUR PROBLEMS.

You are drawing the line at EVIDENCE.

That word is sooo fucking contradictory and subjective and I cant even explain it.

It can be used in so many different ways and interpreted so many different ways.

It always leads to a thin line where you can believe it or you cant. You draw a line every fucking time you see evidence.

You just fucking deem whether its reasonable based on your logic. Its not a fucking true FACT.

Why cant I deem god reasonable based on my small amount of evidence? I dont care, ill do it.

>>3286420

YOU DEMAND EVIDENCE OF MY BELIEFS? I BELIEVE MY BELIEFS!

THERE!

>>3286420
>go about life abiding by reasonable demand for evidence
>get on topic of god "I dont care, ill do it"

The essence of childood indocrination.

>>3286420
Now, now. Calm down. Would you like a tarot reading?

>>3286420
First of all you have no evidence for the existence of god. Second believe what you want to believe but don't publicly make claims about it unless you have evidence or if you run for political office don't base your opinions on it.

You claim we are ignorant but refuse to listen to reason or evidence that is being presented against your opinion. Do you know what ignorance means?

>>3286420

Go ahead.

But when results are demanded, trust science please. I just want you to know that relying on science to take action (like in politics or medicine) isnt betraying your beliefs.

>>3286420

>>3286438
>You claim we are ignorant but refuse to listen to reason or evidence that is being presented against your opinion.

You refuse to listen to my reasoning and my evidence.

Why are you the default man?

Like why are YOU the be all end all.

Im telling you right now that my logic is correct.

How can you tell me otherwise?

Now find evidence in MY logic or I can not accept YOUR claims.

WHY DO YOU GET TO SAY THAT???????

>>3286420
Please consider this for a moment.

I'm not saying you should stop believing in god. I'm saying you never had a reason to believe in the first place. If you can't defend your beliefs then why do you believe them?

>>3286436

We have a lot to leanr from childhood, please dont try to devalue it.

Now endoctrination and the lack of self-building and questioning are the real trouble.

>download latest firefox
>4chan extension doesn't run on it
>can't hide shitty threads anymore

FUCK YOU /SCI/!

>>3286449

>This post has already been reported.

Damn, I wasn't fast enough.

>>3286449
>implying you have any reasoning or evidence at all for the existence of your God

>>3286456
I dont need any reasoning or evidence.

Im not using your corrupt caveman logic.

You cant even see through a basic human brain and how it works.

You are using your own primitive logic center as an axiom for everything you do.

PUT THAT ASIDE.
Then come argue with me.

>>3286449
NO, I'm right and you're wrong!

I believe it, and that's good enough for me!

Reason, evidence and logic is delivered. You now have all the proof you need.

>>3286449
The default for anything is not believing. Most of the time you don't even consider the issue. For instance have you ever considered whether Spiderman literally exists? Of course not he's a fictional character.

Disbelief is the default and you should disbelieve something until give a reason to do otherwise.

>>3286451

He may never had a scientific reason, but there sure is a process that lead him to that belief, a reason. Dont try to monopolize reason haha

>>3286452
>please don't devalue childhood indoctrination
>mfw

Either godfag having break down or god-tier troll

>>3286468
WAAAAAA!

I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I SAY SO!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

>>3286472
>The default for anything is not believing.

There it is.
You just confirmed your retarded.

Angsty teenagers - Creating universal defaults since 1994

>>3286482
>implying a baby brought up in a baron void with no stimuli would have beliefs

>>3286449

I just got a call from your mother. She wants you to be tested for schizophrenia.

>>3286482
>Angsty teenagers

But he's not a Christian...

>>3286485
He wouldnt even use logic and he wouldnt even need beliefs or NOT BELIEFS

Pic related to this thread.

>>3286482

So, you believe ALL politicians?

Wow, that really sucks.

I wouldn't want your beliefs.

>>3286470

I separated childhood and endoctrination.

That "i dont care ill do it" although shows signs of endoctrination, it also shows passion, creation of values and in this context questioning (i mean he is on a science board known for its flamewars touching religion), and he also made us question our ways. Sometimes we get a little to confortable with a thinking pattern, no self-construction.

In chidhood we find a lot of this values

>>3286482
Ad hominem.

So you are saying the default isn't disbelief? You actually believe everything by default and then filter out what you conclude isn't true? Must be tough considering there's an infinite number of things to rule out.

>>3286420
Greetings, fellow theist,

If God exists, then it would theoretically be possible to find evidence of His existence, or make contact. The problem is that our 'God' could does exist and be purely observational, never interacting with us. It's all a matter of 'finding the link' in the former case, much like, for example, the one in evolution. The problem is it's like proving evolution with no other precedents than 'Darwin was a smart guy and suggested it could've happened, so it might be true.'

If it is the latter, you're screwed for proof, and it's purely faith based.

I say there may be something deeper in quantum mechanics, which implores me to learn more. A deity could certainly have caused the big bang, but I'm not entirely sold on the big bang theory due to lack of education on that field.

There is no reason to default to not believe.

The default logic in humans is neither believing or not believing.

Believing and non-believing are arbitrary objects that "Mathematics" has created in our world.
The worst thing to ever happen to humanity.

You heard it here first.

In 1000 years you are gonna hear about this.

>>3286503
>deeper in quantum mechanics,

>God is in the cracks

>>3286509

I CAN'T TELL WHO'S TROLLING ANYMORE.

>>3286503
I like your outlook on life and I support you.

>>3286509

Also not believing is not an action.

>>3286503
>I say there may be something deeper in quantum mechanics, which implores me to learn more. A deity could certainly have caused the big bang, but I'm not entirely sold on the big bang theory due to lack of education on that field.

If you don't have all the relevant facts you should withhold judgement. That's perfectly fine. However this means you have nothing to add to a discussion about the big bang as you have yet to form and opinion on it. You can easily rectify this by doing a little online reading though.

>>3286509
Eat this mushroom. It's good for you.

>>3286509

Way ahead of you. Look for superposition of states.

>>3286509
niggayoujustwentfullretard.jpeg

>>3286521
Memory does not scale with mathematics 1:1.

Just FYI.

>>3286509
If you don't know about something you can,t believe it, thus you don't believe it. This is of course different from believing it is not true.

By default you don't believe things because there is an infinite number of potential beliefs or ideas and you don't believe is almost all of them.

>>3286527
>If you don't know about something you can,t believe it, thus you don't believe it. This is of course different from believing it is not true.

Nope thats what you think.
Really its just a state that you are not comfortable with.

>>3286521

OM NOM NOM.

uh, I don't feel so good

>>3286542
>Beliefs are more real than reality.

>>3286550
Not-believing is a choice.

By default you are neither.

OCD people have to sort everyone into a side.
Thats the only reason. They aren't comfortable with it.

>>3286542
It seems as though you haven't grasped the concept of evidence or supporting your claims with logical reasoning.

You just said I was wrong. Why am I wrong and why are you right? Refute my logic/reasoning.

You are one dense motherfucker.

YOU FUCKING ATHEISTS ARE GOING TO BURN IN HELL!

I'M GONNA KILL ALL OF YOU!

I'M GOING TO CHOP OFF YOUR FUCKING HEADS AND KICK THEM AROUND, AND WHEN YOU FINALLY MEET GOD AND HE SENDS YOU TO HELL, REMEMBER THAT I TOLD YOU SO!

>>3286564
In what way is this third option different from not believing?

At what point does something leave this third state and enter one of the other two? Is it when its suggested? In that case you must believe in the infamous flying spaghetti monster because there is as much evidence it exist as god.

>>3286569
I understand that I was making the claim but I was making the claim with the understanding that you were using your logic as default. You use the math axiom.

Soooo
Why am I wrong and why are you right?

>>3286585
>In what way is this third option different from not believing?

The difference is that its null.
No action was taken.

>>3286596

Wrong and right about what? you must specify.

>>3286606

Not believing is null. It isnt an action. Not believing =/= believing that not (insert anything here)

>>3286596
Please refer to my post on the matter where I present reasoning for my claim.
>>3286527

Just because you don't provide evidence or reasoning for your claims doesn't mean I don't.

Do you actually think you are making any kind of point here? You're just demonstrating how destructive religious thinking is to science. You make claims people are wrong, but you fail to refute anything they say. Then you go on to demand they they disprove your claim that has no evidence and when they do you deny it and say "If you won't listen to my reasoning why should I listen to yours." You having provided any fucking evidence.

>>3286495
btw in this lovely metaphor you are the pigeon.

>>3286596
Anyone with unsubstantiated factual beliefs, especially when they do not denounce those beliefs when pointed out, is stupid. That simple.

>>3286621
You're dumb as shit though.

I could create my own logic right now and use it.
Im too lazy though.
Thats the only reason I dont prove you wrong right now.
Im looking at it objectively and you arent, you are using axioms with everything you say.

"By default you don't believe things"

Ya under the hundredss of axioms you are using that I dont use.

>>3286596
Please refer to my post on the matter where I present reasoning for my claim.
>>3286527

Just because you don't provide evidence or reasoning for your claims doesn't mean I don't.

Do you actually think you are making any kind of point here? You're just demonstrating how destructive religious thinking is to science. You make claims people are wrong, but you fail to refute anything they say. Then you go on to demand they disprove your claim that has no evidence and when they do, you deny it and say "If you won't listen to my reasoning why should I listen to yours." You have not provided any fucking evidence for your claims this whole thread

>>3286495
btw in this lovely metaphor you are the pigeon.

Religion teaches you what to believe, and defends those beliefs by having you deny your own observations.

>>3286630

>"By default you don't believe things"

By default you take no action (and that includes not believing)

>I could create my own logic right now and use it.

You are working under the axiom you are smart enough

>Im looking at it objectively and you arent, you are using axioms with everything you say.

Now who has the atittude "im right and you are wrong" eh? Hermetic psycology much?

>>3286645
Who are you going to believe, the church, or your own eyes?

Believing observational evidence will send me to hell, so I HAVE to believe the church.

>>3286630
It wasn't an axiom it was a definition for belief. You belief something or you don't believe something. Believing something isn't true is still a belief. That was more about clarifying my terms.

>I could create my own logic right now and use it.
That's your fucking problem. Most of don't create our own "logic" we use reason to find logic. You just believe whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.

>If you don't know about something you can,t believe it, thus you don't believe it. This is of course different from believing it is not true.


What makes you able to say that?
Are you god?
Well heres how I look at it.

If you believe in something its different than not believing which is different than having no opinion or null.
Im even open to more options than that. I just cant think of any besides something like believing to the second power.

But you have no right to use yours as the be all end all. It doesnt matter how much scientific backing mathematics and the scientific method has. That process is a good process and it does get work done.

I dont like it for debating. Nor do I think its relevant.

>>3286659
Why do you believe in the snorgasslesnap of Parsnip?

>>3286659
...w-what?

>>3286659

>Im even open to more options than that. I just cant think of any besides something like believing to the second power.

These are all just definitions. Nulls or not having an opinion is the same as not believing it. Belief is an action one takes. These are all just terms and definitions. You are trying to make some meta physical claim about belief and its making you sound crazy.

EVIDENCE MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU HAVE IT?

>>3286659
He doesn't think science is relevant on a board titled science and math.

>>3286680
Thats a fallacy you are using.
No spaghetti monster fallacies please.


>>3286690
>Nulls or not having an opinion is the same as not believing it.

In your logic.
I just explained that.
Your logic is only significant and near to your heart because thats how you were raised. We might of grown up in a very different world with very different mathematics and logical idioms and you would believe in whatever they were. You are just falling into place. You are not a skeptic.

>>3286690
>can't into nuance
rejecting an idea is different from not rejecting an idea is different from accepting an idea

>>3286704
Sorry, I couldn't gurbleflurgle your honimmegur.

Could you slobberknocker what the flopperghast again?

>We might of grown up in a very different world with very different mathematics and logical idioms and you would believe in whatever they were.

Proving there is no God.

You guys literally cant contemplate a null?

Its easy, just stop thinking. Thats what is default for every idea.

Not some human circle jerk. YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE.

Why should I have to fill in the space in my brain with a non-belief. That space IS empty at default.

There is nothing there.

With your guys logic its like saying, every baby that doesn't exist yet already doesn't believe in evolution. ITS DEFAULT

herp da derp

>>3286719
<sigh>

Observational evidence is not proof, like belief is irrefutable proof.

>>3286738
I get it, because belief is an idea, and you cannot refute an idea.

/thread

i raped the shit out of all of you in this argument.

>>3286704
>You are just falling into place. You are not a skeptic.

You keep saying things without evidence. Fact of the matter is I don't believe in god and that is the skeptic because there is not evidence god exists. I believe in evolution because it there lots of evidence it exists.

Logic is subjective reason is not. If your logic comes form reason, then your logic can be sound. If it comes from fairy tales you heard growing up then its probably not sound.

You are actually using another fallacy. Its called "begging the question."

Long story short you are assuming you are right and that you've won the argument even though you haven't.

Your religious beliefs are ridiculous because you don't require evidence or reason to believe them. Without the requirement for evidence or reason one could believe anything for instance that Godzilla exists. Anyone who thinks Godzilla really exists but doesn't provide evidence should be ridiculed. You deserve ridicule in the same way.

>>3286495
>>3286495
>>3286495
>>3286495
>>3286495
Do you not understand how true this is?

>>3286744
I think you just talked yourself in circles until you felt you won, when in reality you lost at the start.

>>3286754
Why are you going back to the evidence thing?
I already said why that makes no sense.
You can not think outside the box at all.
Its like im talking to a brick wall.


If you want to base your entire life on reasoning then I support that. I just dont see how you could call someone stupid for REASONING that god exists. Also you are implying that reasoning doesn't come from logic. You implied the other way around. I would really argue about that.

>>3285355
ITT: Irrational people try to conclude that their irrationality has a solid foundation

>>3286772
I keep going back to it because you haven't refuted it. Please point me to the post in which you refute it.

If you hate science so much do go on a board titled science?

You live in a fairy tale land where reality is subjective.

>>3286744
No, but you are an irrational and delusional troll.

"WOOOO! I'M CRAZY!!!" is not proof.

>>3286790
Heres is the post where I explain why your evidence can not be used logically to debate. >>3286659

It can only be used to help humanity and it can not define anything with certainty. I like science for that. It is worthless though if you want to talk on a bigger scale.

>>3286772
Observational and reproducible evidence is what proof is.

"WOO-WOO-WOO! I HAS A BELIEF, AND YOU CANNOT PROVE MY BATSHIT-INSANE DELUSIONAL IDEA WRONG!" is not.

>>3286818
>AND YOU CANNOT PROVE MY BATSHIT-INSANE DELUSIONAL IDEA WRONG

You can call me batshit insane all you want.

I understand what im saying contradicts what your mommy taught you and what most the scientific world thinks and it frustrates you. But you should learn to move on and stop using outdated caveman logic.

>>3286810

Hey, buddy. Giving tax money to rich people will insure that the wealth trickles down.

>>3286826
Where are your observations, observable by most people?

>>3286829
Sure why not.

My logic has no actual use in the real world.
You can use science for real world shit just to get by. Im ok with that.

But when you debate.
You can not use science because that holds more axioms than you could believe.

>>3286810
Does your insane rambling about the definition of belief have anything to do with your claim that evidence is not a necessity when making a claim?>>3286659

Do you understand how insane it is to not require evidence when someone makes a claim? If we don't that requirement, which we often don't then people can claim anything. For instance "Batman stole my socks." or "Jesus is son of god and he is the only path to life beyond death."

You aren't making compelling points and you've been saying the same thing for hours without refuting what I've said. The only one you've convinced is yourself. If you can't come up with a valid refutation for what I said I see not reason to continue arguing. It will serve no purpose.

I hope one day you realize what an idiot you've been.

>>3286826
>Socratic Philosophy major, calls science "caveman"

>>3286818
Tell that to the economists

>>3286772
>I just dont see how you could call someone stupid for REASONING that god exists.
And that's why your stupid.

>>3286842

And have you looked at the axioms your system holds? You probably dont even notice them.

Also those lead you to a system which nets you absolutly nothing, not truth (which aparently thats what you are aiming for), not aplications, no nothing.

Ill stick to the system (and try to improved if possible) that creates models that describe at least partially how the universe works and actually has aplications and describes things that have an effect in reality independtly of my beliefs.

>>3286826
Caveman logic? Having a reasonable requirement of evidence for belief is not caveman logic. Cavemen beleved as you did, that is to say whatever they chose to believe because there was no alternative at the time.

I hope one day you realize what an idiot you've been.

>>3286853
>falsifiable

>tell that to the psychologists

>>3286851
What I was saying is the same junk ive been saying the whole time. You cant just default your own logic and say "you must follow this." The amount of people who back up your logic and agree with it is irrelevant in the grand scheme. I dont care how many scientists use the scientific method and math. Thats a pretty cool method for discovering things in this physical world. I guess.
That doesnt mean its the be all end all.
Just because it works for something.
It just works, sometimes.
Thats all it does.
Im not using them when im asking about god...
Ill use it when I want to cure my disease and thats about it.


>You aren't making compelling points and you've been saying the same thing for hours without refuting what I've said.

I hope you understand how stupid you were one day.

>>3286853

Econometrics are actually pretty accurate to specific economical systems. It works similar to a computer code (thats why people can make algorithms for econmical phenomena). Also economics is getting a little more rigorous with time. Its just a baby science.

Science can adjust it's views.

Philosophy must debate them, and will deny ever being wrong.

>>3286872
>I hope you understand how stupid you were one day.
Having factual beliefs without evidence is stupid.

>>3286872
>"you must follow this."

Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

>>3286861
>And have you looked at the axioms your system holds?

Thats very true.
However when I define my system its not really "my system" its just a way to get you guys thinking outside the box.

I dont follow one particular system. Thats ignorant.

>>3286887
>its
Fixed that for you. "its" as the possessive pronoun. "it's" as the contraction of "it is".

I ask the Dawkinsbot the same thing I ask the fundimentalist: What the fuck are we actually talking about?

Igtheism: the idea that theistic debates are pointless because the term "god" is undefined.
wikipedia has more but that's the bottom line.

This is why prostitutes make better philosophers than philosophers.

>>3286876
>has numbers
>this numbers = empiricism

>>3286898
It's not pointless. Some people have an ill conceived definition of god, and then they act on it. The other side is calling them stupid for having factual beliefs without evidence. It matters because these people vote.

>>3286898
God is undefined, so nothing called God exists. Atheism FTW. QED.

>>3286872
Moving the goal post again are we? How many times are you going to use that fallacy.

Yes I know you have to do mental gymnastic to reconcile that science is effective yet you still want to believe god exists. It must be very strange to have to compartmentalize your mind like that. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence god exists and as such there no rational reason to believe in god.

I hope one day you realize what an idiot you've been.

>>3286897
Sorry. Old habit from 5 decades ago when " 's " was used for the multiple instance.

Shitty Pennsylvanian school system.

The Pope had announced long ago that creationism and evolution do not oppose each other, and can be combined.
U mad, complaintfags?

>>3286912
Good math classes back then, though. Calculus in middle-school, and you HAD TO get it correct.

>>3286910
>really loves goal posts
>stalks them on google maps
>will have sex with any goal post, willing or not

>>3286902

Got a point there.

Maybe a discipline where different economical systems to diferent cultures are applied and the results are written (as economical indicators) could be considered empirical?

>>3286910
>The fact of the matter is there is no evidence god exists and as such there no rational reason to believe in god.


Under your axioms and your logic.
You use a logic system founded by some random guys.

Its not some inner-reasoning you speak of.

Its pure retard. You believe everything that comes your way.

I dont believe how ignorant people can make themselves.

>>3286929
Does she come with the goal post? Sound like a good deal to me.

>>3286933
I don't believe that everything exists, yet you believe God created everything...

>>3286931
Well my problem with economics, compared to physics, is that economics has an invariant observation problem. Just describing and following some 'fundamental law' of economy alters that law making it null.

It may be true as some schlub described that things like supply and demand are fundamental, but if you can't have an invariant formula or relevant metric, then it's meaningless for anything but historical rationality.

>>3286941
>yet you believe God created everything...

I never said that.

>>3286933
What the fuck are you talking about? My logic and reasoning is based on the scientific method which is responsible for all the technology man has today.

>Its pure retard. You believe everything that comes your way.
No I have reasonable expectation for belief. Most specifically I require credible evidence. You are the one who believes things without a reason they can explain.

I don't know if everything you've said can be considered a fallacy. You are just saying things almost randomly now.

I hope one day you realize what an idiot you've been.

>>3286929
Move them any further and the goalposts will be touching, and as with balls, that's just gay.

>>3286947
That's cool, but then your God isn't omnipotent.

>>3286896

Inevitably you follow a system. Thinking is impossible without a system. You can be aware or not of the system, but it is there.

For example:

you are working under the axiom that you must question every system.

You are working under the axiom that having a system is product of an ignorant mind (which by definition could be true since everybody is ignorant about something, we are not omniscient)

And what box are you talking about? my box? your box? Thinking without shape cant be transeferred...and usually isnt about something (could it even exists? usually thinking has at least a very vague form, it may be visual, words, sequential, or anything).

>>3286956

Hey, this is /sci/ - Philosophy and Religion.

>>3286924
Totally. That was before my time, but I understand that the typical HS curriculum was tougher than most colleges today.

>>3286956
>My logic and reasoning is based on the scientific method

Once again explaining how retarded you are. You probably have never even looked into the logistics of how the scientific method was developed.

>which is responsible for all the technology man has today.

Fallacy. I dont care about that.

>Most specifically I require credible evidence.

Credible is subjective.
Evidence makes no sense, its subjective, it is interpreted differently, it is observed differently, it requires axioms(like evidence can prove things), it is falsifiable, it is drawing lines etc etc etc

I hope one day you realize what an idiot you've been.

>>3286933
p-zombies, how do they work? There should be a term for atheists who just parrot dogma without actually rationally considering what they say.

>>3286946

Its because economics isnt based on just one system, there are lots and are fabricated. The interaction between these systems (economical or not) are hardly controlable. Thats why i think economics needs to first try to build systems based on "harder" knowledge of other fields. Biological economy maight be a good first step.

>>3286975
You are not me. I am not you. We are not identical.

>>3286961
I use your standard system just for communicating with humans. For entertainment I guess. It doesnt mean I believe in it as the be all end all.


>having a system is product of an ignorant mind

This basically sums up what im trying to explain.

Although this statement could indeed carry axioms. You are always in a fight and on the line. Its never "I am going to use the science axioms just because I want to"
You cant do that.
You have to be always on the line.
There is axioms with this too.
But you have to go back and fourth constantly if you understand what im saying. On the bench. After you are on the bench.

Meta-gaming.

>>3286980
>has faith in the beliefs a religion pounded into his head, denies observational evidence

>calls anyone else a parrot

>>3286980
Btw, whats that book about?

I want to read that.

>>3286999

There are 3 "science" trips in this thread.

>>3287009

But everyone is ignorant about soemthing. We create systems...our fucking brain has systems in order to memorize stuff. We will always use a system for pure tought is as saying pure energy (and even then, i think the second one could, under some circumstances, have more sense)

>>3287027
No, one is a bloody scientist, who tries to study us with anal probes. I do not approved.

>>3287017
>has imply skills
>Thinks people who show no signs of rational logic should be considered rational because a million monkies on a million type writers restated einstein's theory of relativity.

>>3286979
>I hope one day you realize what an idiot you've been.
Imitation is the sincerest from of flattery. ;) why thank you.

>>which is responsible for all the technology man has today.

>Fallacy. I dont care about that.'

How is it a fallacy? Why don't you care about that?

>Credible is subjective.
>Evidence makes no sense, its subjective, it is interpreted differently, it is observed differently, it requires axioms(like evidence can prove things), it is falsifiable, it is drawing lines etc etc etc

You need to understand the difference between a definition and an axiom. By definition evidence is support for a claim. Also you are repeating yourself. I never said I would prove anything but claims can be supported by evidence.

>Once again explaining how retarded you are. You probably have never even looked into the logistics of how the scientific method was developed.

I have looked it up. In fact it was one of the first things I learned about science. Do you understand what science is or how it came to be?

>>3287041
Which do you think is less ignorant though?

Being on the line about everything and not picking sides.

Or using science and being an atheist?

I'm reminded of timecube.com by the religious troll/idiot.

Just a reminder:

Stalin (atheist): Kill 20 million
Mao (atheist): Kill 40 million
Pol Pot (atheist): Kill 4 million
Kim Jong Il, Castro, and lesser communist tyrants (atheists): Kill several million
Hitler (pagan and friend of Muslims): Kill 6 million directly and millions more indirectly.

>>3287044
>a bloody scientist

If he is bleeding, then YOU are an anal-probing ass for not giving him a fucking band-aid.

Why have you no humanity, skullfucker?

>>3287054
Thanks for posting that pic.
It explains how stupid you are in a nutshell.


Its literally the derpiest thing. LOOK AT IT FROM AN OUTSIDE POINT OF VIEW. Its using arrows its like this = this which = this because this.

All of my rage.


Why cant I mix those little circles up and change them all around? Why cant I add new circles?


You are following a system.
You are saying THIS is what IS.


I have no reason to believe in that.
Please dont teach my children that.
Keep that away from my schools.

Do you now understand what im trying to say?

>>3287058
>uses false dichotomy
>pretends he's rational

>>3287077
And Christians support their church, which moves pedopriests from one group of victims to another.

This is something that ALL religions are guilty of.

HOW NICE THAT CHRISTIANS HIDE BEHIND THEIR BELIEFS WHEN THEY HATE PEDOPHILIA SO MUCH...

..,.UNLESS -THEIR- PRIEST DOES IT.

>>3287058

Whats the units for ignorance? anti-bits? You cant answer that question without a system.

A scientific aproach could be: Total bits in the universe - bits in your head (maximum capacity is 2 petabytes aprox.)

A philosofical approach would be that the most ignorant is the one that isnt aware of the magnitude of knowledge to be aquired.

A layman aproach would be not beign able to recall something.

All those use axioms.

>>3287081
Why can't you science?

>>3287090
WOW

How can you say a religious person is ignorant then?

If you are really going to go this far.

HOW?

http://lesswrong.com/lw/lo/uncritical_supercriticality/

>>3287084
This is the foundation of science. If you disagree with this you disagree with everything scientific.

Its because of this method you have a computer to type on this board. The fact that you are treating it with such scorn is actually amusing.

Look I've run out of patience just shut the fuck up. If you don't like science get off the science board.

I hope one day you realize what an idiot you've been.

>>3287092
>implying I belong to a church
>implying all Christians are Catholic

>>3287096
Why you analprobe?

>>3287107

Hey, in my opinion I just won the argument because you are resulting to more falacies.

>Its because of this method you have a computer to type on this board.

I dont care what the scientific method has got me.
It works. I already said that.

That doesnt mean it MATTERS or is THE logic.
The world is more complex than that its not solved by your fucking logic. DERP I CAN SOLVE EVERYTHING WITH SCIENTIFCI METHOD BECAUSE THATS WHAT DAWKINS TOLD ME

>>3287115
Scientists anal probe.

>noob science is troll science

>>3287092
Oh your talking about the Roman Catholic Church, which is as Christian as any other group of politicians who don't care about the homo vote.

I would like an answer to this.
>>3287097


How can you guys call a religious person ignorant and not let me tell you guys how ignorant you guys are?

>Whats the units for ignorance?
>Whats the units for ignorance?

What are your units for ignorance for religious people...

So fucking contradictory

>>3287110
>only Catholics
>implying that they are the only religion guilty of shuffling pedopriests from victims to victims.

>Baptists and Mormons do it too

>for Mormons, incest is a fucking part of their damned religion

>>3287131
I sure ain't ever heard of Baptists doing that. Also Warren Jeffs and a few other lunatic polygamists should not be considered representative of all Mormons.

>>3287128
Might as well resort to image fallacies because I cant get the retarded atheists to understand

>>3287116
>Hey, in my opinion I just won the argument because you are resulting to more falacies.

It can go along with all the other fairy tales you believe in. Also its spelled "fallacies".

I hope one day you realize what an idiot you've been.

>>3287121

You just do it for religious reasons.

>>3287141
>all the other fairy tales you believe in

the world is infinite so anything possible does exist
so have fun not believing in stuff

everything exists.
dipshit,

>>3287136
>I sure ain't ever heard of Baptists doing that.

That's because the victims are kicked out of the community for talking about it.

>>3287125

I cant measure ignorance...but if had the tools a definition i would like would be how many bits your brain has left....although masuring ignorance is like measuring cold...we would be better measuring information.

WAIT! coldness = plancks temperature - current temperature lol

There are many ways we can warp our mind around reality.

>>3287139
Who needs observable evidence or reproducible results when you have belief?

>>3287151
This guy thinks the world is infinite and that anything that can exist does. Please apply generous amounts ridicule to cleanse infection.

I hope one day you realize what an idiot you've been.

I had fun though.

Have fun being the mindless angsty atheist sheep you guys are. Have fun being exactly like everyone else who cant think for themselves.

Have fun using your outdated logic.

Have fun convincing yourself that you are superior but are vastly more ignorant than any religious person.

Have fun thinking that you came up with great ideas but really you are just falling a victim to society and believing the obvious.

Have fun thinking you are a skeptic but really the most close minded human possible.

>>3287154
Ah. that's why they need you to distrust observable evidence.

Priest fucking a kid: "I AM NOT FUCKING THIS CHILD! YOU MUST HAVE FAITH AND TRUST IN GOD, OR YOU ALL WILL BURN IN HELL!

Faithful person: "I guess he's not fucking that kid."

>>3287151

Everything exists in a multiverse of infinite universes.

But we will probably never have direct or indirect information from them...unless we are colliding with one...what if dark matter is another universe colliding with us and the reson it doesnt interact with the electromagnetic force its because technically it isnt there, its still inside the other universe. Cool tought but totally speculative.

>>3287188
This.

How can someone say that god doesnt exist?

Theres infinite gods. And infinite everything else.

>>3287187
Kid: "HELLLLP! MY ASS HURTS! I'M BLEEDING!"

Faithful: "You need to believe that the priest is not fucking you in the ass. Have a little faith in God."

Kid: "BUT IT HURTS!"

Faithful: "I warned you. If you cannot believe in God, then we don't want you among us. Leave, and never return."

>>3287184
The fact that you think you are better than us is pretty laughable. They shouldn't allow mental patients to use the internet though.

I hope one day you realize what an idiot you've been.

>>3287206
>>3287188
Totally unverifiable speculation, much like what the religious retard is spouting.

Captcha, relevant as always, "religious natlica".

>>3287219

Im gonna write a book called "The science delusion"

I just think its hilarious how many people are trapped in this mindset. Its like HELLO are you actually conscious? Are you a monkey still?

>>3287220
>much like what the religious retard is spouting.

Your face when Im not religious at all.

>>3287220

Exactly...that was my point.

Although my definition of falsability isnt that rigid. I think something can be considered falsable as long as there exists an scenario (present, past or future) in which it can be falsable. Pretty much like string theory, it isnt falsable right now, but there are proposed methods of falsability that simply require more powerful particle colliders

>>3287233
>implying you are not a monkey

>heloooo chimpout

>>3287233
Please do, that way everyone can see how stupid you are. Make sure to unwittingly contradict yourself as you did in this thread.

We are all laughing at you.

I hope one day you realize what an idiot you've been.

"Science is the be all end all of debate."
Why?
"Because I can see it"


Thats all I see when I see a science advocate.

Epic troll thread, OP.

10/fucking10

>>3287279
That's fine all I hear when you talk is,
"I'm butthurt that I science doesn't support my religious beliefs so I'm not going to trust science."

>>3287321
I dont have any religious beliefs.

The whole time ive been saying that im on the fence.

>>3287339
You're not on the fence about being against science. You've made that very clear. Also I don't believe you. I doubt would have spent hours posting in this thread if you didn't have a horse in this race.

>>3287339

on the fence = non-religious

Hello fellow atheist. Y U mad tho?

>>3287349
Im anti-science because the people are ignorant and nobody really fights against them enough.

I think science is an ok system for its particular purpose.

I dont have a horse in this race though. I dont pick any logic, i dont use any axioms , i dont assume anything ETC

the most optimal form of person you could be.
0 ignorance

>>3287363
>I dont pick any logic, i dont use any axioms
>doesn't know what either logic or axiom means

>>3287350
Nice troll attempt, but you've expressed faith based opinions in this thread so you aren't and atheist even if you want to be.

>>3287363

You are using the axiom that the person with less axioms is the most optimal person.

>>3287350
"Not" is not default

>>3287375
That was me (atheistfag) not same guy

>>3287381
Why yes I am assuming that.

To YOU.

Like this is just how I explain non-ignorance in your logic.

For me personally, in my head I just have no opinions on anything. Its pointless. I dont even think anything is optimal over the other.

But you guys are ignorant in your own logic so I figure I should point that out.

>>3287363
I hope one day you realize what an idiot you've been

>>3287390
>derp if I'm wrong that's just your head thinking I'm wrong

>>3287390
wtf is this shit? I know you're speaking English but what you're saying makes not sense.

Does anyone understand this?

>>3287390

Thats some form of nihilism.

>But you guys are ignorant in your own logic so I figure I should point that out.

This is what isnt helping and makes a lot of people assume you are a troll. Pointless insulting, for having no position nor opinion you sure have rage. Also you often try to show superiority despite not believing in such concept. Conflicting discourse indeed.

>>3287411
Sorry, let me explain.

If I say "I am the most optimal form of human"

I am saying that as if I was following YOUR logic.
Because I do not ignore anything. I have 0 ignorance in your logic. Which is subjectively optimal. If thats what were looking to get to.

In my logic however nothing is optimal. My logic just is. Nothing can be proven wrong or right in my logic. So you cant even be ignorant.

>>3287439
>I have 0 ignorance in your logic.
>and pretty much the rest of post
>makes no sense; pure nonsense

>>3287439
Your logic just is?

Remember what I said about ineffable gnosis?>>3285937

Go look up what ineffable gnosis is.

Its funny how I called it hours ago.

>>3287460
Google > ineffable gnosis

Doesnt come up with any thing. Can you explain it?

>>3287439

The definition of ignorance isnt related with the corelation of the knowledge one has with reality and wheter it matches or not. Ignorance is based on the awareness of something graspable by our minds.

In the scientific system no axioms doesnt mean no ignorance.

>>3287467

I wiki'd too, got nothing. So I second this request.

>>3287468
Ah good point.
Ignorance means being misinformed apparently.

What I mean is ignoring things.

>>3287467
Is no one amazed that I called this?

in·ef·fa·ble/inˈefəbəl/Adjective
1. Too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words:
2. Too sacred to be uttered

Gnosis is a feminine Greek noun, which means "knowledge."

It means you believe something and you claim you have a reason but you can't describe that reason because it ineffable.

>>3287495
Well...if I'd have known it was a phrase you just coined I would have been able to induce the meaning fairly easily...Instead I though there was some term with a load of history that I had somehow never heard of.

>>3287507
>induce
That's me being a derpy.

>>3287495
My reason behind my thinking is because I dont want to be ignorant in the least. (By ignorant I mean ignore)

I try not to pick sides at all or use some sort of man-made logic so I can pick and choose facts. That reasoning just seems way too unprofessional to me.

Im not just going to pick and choose based on a logic sheet.

>>3287507
Its not a phrase I just coined, and its two words wrote to convey an idea. You could have looked up the words.

Got anything to say about though? You know how I called it?

>>3287486
>Ignorance means being misinformed apparently.

Nope, i stated the opposite read:
>The definition of ignorance isnt related with the corelation of the knowledge one has with reality and wheter it matches or not.


>What I mean is ignoring things.

And i meant that too in this line:

>Ignorance is based on the awareness of something graspable by our minds.


Then added "In the scientific system no axioms doesnt mean no ignorance." Therefore under the logic you are going against, having no axioms isnt not beign ignorant at all, like you stated here:

"I dont have a horse in this race though. I dont pick any logic, i dont use any axioms , i dont assume anything ETC

the most optimal form of person you could be.
0 ignorance"

"If I say "I am the most optimal form of human"

I am saying that as if I was following YOUR (scientific and related) logic."

>>3287520
That wasnt me.

Heres my response.
>>3287514

>>3287514
So you don't discount the theory that electricity doesn't exist? Why don't you go stick your thumb in a light bulb socket then?

>>3287530
Once again you are going back to this practical fallacy.

I dont care whats practical or how much science has helped us. Im talking about god and philosophy ect.

>>3287514
I don't even.

>>3287520
Knew what the words meant bro, I do speak English. By saying "look up ineffable gnosis" makes it seem like something more than just a "hurr durr it's true to me that's that counts"

>>3287544
I'm going to ask this one more time and I want you to answer very carefully. Why should anyone believe in god?

>>3287552
>>3287544
Have I been arguing with both of you the whole thread or did one of you drop in later?

>>3287554
>I'm going to ask this one more time and I want you to answer very carefully. Why should anyone believe in god?

Thats beyond the point.
Thats some other weird kind of fallacy.

I hope you consider my point of view.

As to your question, only you can answer if there is a reason because im not bounded by your logic. You can do whatever you want because that is what you do, pick and choose.

>>3287557

I'm >>3287552
Been in thread for quite a while, I'm on your side, but kinda drunk so might not be typing clearly.

>>3287557
Nah, that guy just came and only said one thing.

>>3287563

Not way, that has got to be a troll. There's no way you can just try to evade such a plain question such as "why should you believe in god" with "that's a fallacy". I call troll.

>>3287575
Its a fallacy because I told him my point of view, then he dismissed it and asked me a different question.

I dont care whether you have a reason to believe in him. You can pick whatever you want.

I still think you are stupid for even using this retard pseudo-gambling mechanism

>>3287563
I had to ask that because its been hard to figure out what you are saying. I'm pretty sure were making up your mind and refining your idea as the thread went on and that made it seem like you were flip flopping and saying all kinds of random contradictory crap.

Let me get this straight. You are saying that you think that science only functions in the realm of the natural, not supernatural, At least I think this is what you mean by science is only good for practical stuff.

You think that how a person determines truth from false is by a logic system that came about due to nurture growing up.

You think one should never discount anything super natural because you can't be certain it doesn't exist and it is foolish to not believe in anything super natural?

Is that right?

Whenever my mom gets on one of her religious rampages I just say "1 TIMOTHY 2:12".

>>3287578
>doesn't know what a fallacy is

Okay then I'll ask you, different person, not dismissing anything you've said previously. Why should anyone believe in a god?

>>3287594
Dude, high trollage

>>3287581
First of all.
The very nature of my logic is contradictory.
It literally means anything.
Like I can say I believe in god and I dont. Just whatever. It doesnt require an evidence or reason to why its like that.

And No.
Thats not what I mean.

This has nothing to do with supernatural.
Im talking about logic.
Logic isnt necessarily how you were raised.
More-so how humans evolved.

If you took 10 people and isolated them and they all had to come up with their own ideas. A lot of them would have the idea that things can only exist. Some people, things can and cant exist. Etc etc

There is a lot of variance in between how you are raised and how much human evolution plays a role. Also society plays probably the biggest role in modern humans.


This is a very basic explanation of how I think.
And I admit that I do refine it as I go along. Because there is so much shit that you have to consider. Some things you dont even think of.

>>3287581

in before Naturalism ownage.

mfw this thread on /sci/

>>3287606

>used logic to badmouth logic

>>3287611
>used logic to badmouth logic
Fallacy.

It doesnt matter how I communicate with you guys. Im proving points in your logic. I admit.

>>3287618
Which fallacy, how it an example of said fallacy - explain now or get the fuck out.

>>3287618
>fallacy
>using logic again

QED.

>>3287618

Logic is a human construct...so? I understand your contradictory way of thinking..but it cant be, its just an ideal, how you think you should think. The way of thinking you have is just extreme skepticism applied to every aspect of thinking...and everything else. This leaves you something like an empty space where every assertion is and isnt valid.

>>3287637
>The way of thinking you have is just extreme skepticism applied to every aspect of thinking...and everything else.

Thats just how I like it.
I dont see any other way to live comfortably.
Why carry around loads of ignorance when you dont have to

>WAHHHHHH I HATE WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE! WAHHH WHY WON'T THEY BELIEVE WHAT I WAN'T! WAHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>3287645
>Why carry around loads of ignorance when you dont have to

Actually starting to want this troll to continue just to get moar funny shit like this

>>3287653
bro ive been doin it all thread

not a troll tho

>>3287606
>The very nature of my logic is contradictory.
>It literally means anything.
>Like I can say I believe in god and I dont. Just whatever. It doesnt require an evidence or reason to why its like that.

Then did you say anything at all? If you believe god exist and doesn't exist then I've got to at least be half right don't I?

Here's the point. You accept positive claims in science for instance theories related to electricity, that's why you don't stick your thumb in a light bulb, however you go on to decry the very method that led to those theories. This creates a strange dichotomy you respect science but you don't.

On the issue of belief vs non belief and your claim that their is a third null state which is neither I have a few comments. At best when you makes statements like that you are saying anything could or could not exist,but this is saying nothing at all. In fact its not a claim. If someone says trees are made of wood or any other material they aren't making a claim. Leprechauns do or don't exist.

This kind of thinking is counter productive. It accomplished nothing and discourages critical thinking. Instead of trying to figure how the universe was created you just say it could have been or or the big bang or it could have been anything else.

That's what I meant by you have nothing to add to this discussion.