/sci/ - Science & Math

Indeed, thus God==not science.

>>>/b/

Being a scientist and having faith are not mutually exclusive.

Fuck, scientists used to think the earth was flat and the universe revolved around the earth. Anything's possible,

Untestable hypothesis mans it's not something you structure your life around. You don't let it influence your moral attitudes.

God can be neither proven true nor false therefore, it is not science.

inb4 /sci/ gets trolled to 200+ replies.

>>3880414
Everyone needs faith. trusting in man's capability to improve living conditions for all (optimism) isone thing. Having faith in unfalsifiable ideas and then allowing it to intimately alter the way you live your life is another.

I'm serious here. Scientists use scientific method.

atheism is a fucking BELIEF. Not a fucking fact. WHAT THE FUCK how why are there world atheist conventions and such.

Did I miss something? If they had the scientific proof as fucking scientists usually do, christianfags wouldn't be complaining.

CALLING THEMSELVES SCIENTISTS NOT FOLLOWINg SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Fucking !?!?!?!? WHAA

>>3880414
They didn't arrive at that conclusion by applying science to it though.

Scientists are fallible humans capable of the same stupidity all other humans are, they don't ask to be god figures that are infallible they don't give a shit for the most part they just want to come as close to learning objective truths as they can and that is awesome.

>at OP
Atheists don't say there is definitely 100% no god of any kind at all. The majority state that there is no evidence for one thus I don't believe if you can provide evidence of a god then people will be more accepting but absolute certainty outside of maths is fucking dumb.

>>3880430
>atheism is a lack of belief.


ftfy

>>3880433
applying science should be read: applying the scientific method 0/10 myself because I didn't proof read.

>>3880430
atheism isn't a belief its the lack of belief you utterly retarded spastic cuntface

>>3880399
>atheism is a fucking BELIEF
Sure! Much like not collecting stamps might be called a hobby, and not smoking a habit.

>>3880433

YES THEY DO SAY 100% otherwise they would be agnostic like me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism read first 2 sentences

atheists are as idiotic as christians. It's OK to believe there is no GOD, i get it, but it is still fucking retarded to claim to know that there is no god. FUCKING haha fuck.

>>3880461
hard and soft atheism. look it up. agnostics are atheists, by definition of not believing in god. now stop clogging up the board. fucktard

>>3880434
>This is what hipsters actually believe

>>3880461

>YES THEY DO SAY 100%

Just cuz you keep saying it doesnt make it true bro

>>3880469

hard and soft atheism is a myth retard.

It fucking clearly states everywhere atheism is a BELIEF there is no god.

you clearly don't know what agnostic means so I won't even bother

>>3880399
Here is why you need to delete this thread:

1. An actual religious person wouldn't be on 4chan for any reason, therefore you must be a troll.
2. If you're not a religious person, then you're posting an obvious troll thread.
3. Either way, you're not believable, therefore you fail at being both a religious person expecting to be taken seriously, and you fail as a troll because you're obvious.

tl, dr: YOU FAIL. Delete this thread, leave /sci/, go back to /b/, or preferably leave 4chan completely. You can't cut it here; you suck at everything.

/thread

Science cannot affirm a negative.

>>3880487

>It fucking clearly states everywhere atheism is a BELIEF there is no god.

Semantics, nigger. Saying "I believe it will rain today" doesnt make it a religion just because of the use of believe

>>3880485
If you believe in god you are a theist. If you don't, you are an athiest. There is no in-between.

>>3880489
Yes it can
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_last_theorem

>>3880399
Here is why you need to delete this thread:

1. An actual religious person wouldn't be on 4chan for any reason, therefore you must be a troll.
2. If you're not a religious person, then you're posting an obvious troll thread.
3. Either way, you're not believable, therefore you fail at being both a religious person expecting to be taken seriously, and you fail as a troll because you're obvious.

tl, dr: YOU FAIL. Delete this thread, leave /sci/, go back to /b/, or preferably leave 4chan completely. You can't cut it here; you suck at everything.

/th­read

>>3880504

tl;dr?

>>3880500
Theism: The belief there are gods
Atheism: The belief there are no gods
Agnosticism: The belief that the question of whether or not gods exist is unanswerable
Irreligious: Never having considered the notion of gods

>>3880485
no it clearly states in those two sentence you referred to that there is two types of atheism, faggot.

>No one knows if god exists or not.
/thread

>>3880485
whatever words you use to define agnostic one fact remains. it is not belief in god. which means it is atheistic, by definition


told and told

>2011
>STILL arguing about semantics

Will you ever learn /sci/? Stop pigeonholing the wide variety of non theistic beliefs into a single word. Calling someone out on being atheist is the same as attacking someone because they are Christian and saying some Christians believe the world is 6k years old therefore all Christians are retarded.

>>3880487
>>3880487

you can't even read my fucking name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism

GL

COME AT ME BRO

ATHEIST dumbcunt

>>3880515
>The belief that the question of whether or not gods exist is unanswerable

This is a condition of not believing in god. Hence atheistic

told and told again

>>3880516

that's my fucking point but these atheistfags call themselves scientists

i seriously hope u guise dont do this, wait U DO

>>3880519
>Strong_agnosticism

still a condition of not believing in god. hence still atheistic.

told told again and told once more

>>3880524

haha this guy is a fucking retard. seriously... u twelve or smth?

>>3880529
you can believe in the unfalsifiable and still be a scientist. look at that human genome guy


>>3880534
>has no argument

agnostics are atheists, faggot. they do not believe in god. deal with it.

>>3880399
>>3880519

Here is why you need to delete this thread:

1. An actual religious person wouldn't be on 4chan for any reason, therefore you must be a troll.
2. If you're not a religious person, then you're posting an obvious troll thread.
3. Either way, you're not believable, therefore you fail at being both a religious person expecting to be taken seriously, and you fail as a troll because you're obvious.

tl, dr: YOU FAIL. Delete this thread, leave /sci/, go back to /b/, or preferably leave 4chan completely. You can't cut it here; you suck at everything.

/th­read

>>3880399
>>3880519

Here is why you need to delete this thread:

1. An actual religious person wouldn't be on 4chan for any reason, therefore you must be a troll.
2. If you're not a religious person, then you're posting an obvious troll thread.
3. Either way, you're not believable, therefore you fail at being both a religious person expecting to be taken seriously, and you fail as a troll because you're obvious.

tl, dr: YOU FAIL. Delete this thread, leave /sci/, go back to /b/, or preferably leave 4chan completely. You can't cut it here; you suck at everything.

/th­read

>>3880531

I'm A strong theist agnostic

I would like to belive GOD exists
I Don't know if it does or doesn't
I Like to pwn atheistfags who are dumb enough to call themselves scientists

It's really going all that far to say you are absolutely that there are no gods. When it comes to gods like those in the bible, or the koran, or the torah, or the norse, greek, egyptian, hindu, pantheons, it is the only reasonable position. They just don't exist, they are described as doing things, they are described as having done things, and they are said to describe the world as being a certain way, and it just doesn't, didn't and isn't.

Any god at all? A deist god? Well, I don't know, and you don't know, and nobody knows. If you think you do know, then present the evidence and argument that convinced you, or just stop saying you know. Until then, I will continue to not believe in it.

>>3880546
'would like to believe' is not believing. Hence until you believe you are atheist, by definition. It's really quite fucking simple.

>>3880538
But they don't believe god isn't real so they cannot be atheists

>>3880538
>>3880538

CANT YOU FUCKING READ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

you are so fucking dumb

>>3880558
true, as well as not believing in god, agnostic also don't not believe in god, but if you look closely, not not believe in god is actually the same as not holding a belief in god.

so fuck you. agnostics are atheist. spazfuck

>>3880561

If they were deists, maybe.

But agnostic is incompatible with any religion.

You can't be uncertain about whether a god exists, but certain enough about which god it would be if it did to base your life on it.

>>3880399
> HOW CAN YOU FUCKING PROVE GOD DOESN'T EXIST, YOU CAN'T.

Let's see now: You religfags keep claiming this "god" thing is everywhere. And yet it's found nowhere.

THEREFORE, your "god" thing is a fiction created by YOU, and so it doesn't exist.

Stop making ridiculous claims and I'll stop tearing them apart with logic and facts.

That's the problem with Dawkins. He claims there is scientific evidence supporting the lack of a god or gods. That's fucking wrong and that's the one thing I fucking hate about that fool. He needs to reword it to something like, "there is insufficient evidence to support to deny the existance of a deity."

>>3880566
Theist: I believe X
Atheist: I believe Y
Agnostic: I don't believe X nor Y

>>3880580
>Atheist: I believe Y

Wrong.
atheist is : I don't believe

>>3880561
agnostic theists are theists obviously

but your previous assertion was that agnostics can't be atheists.

>>3880580

>Atheist: I dont believe x

ftfy

>>3880580
>I don't believe X nor Y
is still i not believing in x. so that would make them not theists, therefore atheists.

>>3880580
>>3880581
>>3880586
You are all wrong.

Atheist: I believe <span class="math">\lnot X[/spoiler].

>>3880580

I think you mean:

Theist: I believe X (or Y or Z or something)

Atheist: I don't believe X (or Y or Z or something)

>>3880582

Remember the flood and big ass ark?

According to science, bullshit

Thats the proof against god dumbass, not direct proof against his existence

Using the Scientific Method, I can not prove God exists, just as I can not prove Unicorns exist.
If I were to say I do not believe in Unicorns, would you call me an idiot?

>>3880566
>>3880566

confirmed retard.

AGNOSTIC BELIVES IN NOT KNOWING IF THERE IS GOD, wrap your head around it bro

or better, get a grip and don't defend a idea that is scientifically BULLSHIT

Does an atheist think, "god necessarily does not exist" or "god does not appear to exist"? I am an atheist if the second statement counts.

>>3880598
one pertains to knowledge, the other pertains to belief. belief and knowledge are independent of each other.

agnostic is theist if he believes and atheist if he doesnt believe. so do you believe?

>>3880591
>You are all wrong.

>Atheist: I believe X.

see >>3880484

>>3880581
>>3880586
>>3880588
>>3880592

See>>3880515

>>3880582

But insufficient evidence to support is all that is needed. The fact is, there are billions of people who say there IS sufficient evidence to support it, they are just unable to present it, either to us, or to each other.

To say there is any pressure on those who don't buy into it to provide evidence that denies it is asinine until someone provides evidence to support it.

Until then, the reasonable people will be atheists.

>>3880607
>The belief that the question of whether or not gods exist is unanswerable

can coincide with belief or nonbelief. agnostics can be theists or atheists.

>>3880597

Yes I would call you a idiot because you secretly claim to know that UNICORNS doesn't exist.

>>3880618
Then they would be agnostic (a)theists, not agnostics

Religious people are those who believe things without evidence. That's the root problem here.

>>3880607

The belief that there are no gods is identical to lacking belief in gods.

The fact is, atheists would not exist if someone didn't present a claim for god, and that claim is then rejected for some reason. It's not the same as a belief in and of itself. It's what you have when nobody has yet presented you with a claim about god that seems true or reasonable to you.

>>3880597
>Unicorns
>Not existing

Pick one

http://lair2000.net/Unicorn_Dreams/Unicorns_Man_Made/unicorns_man_made.html

>>3880585

stop being a normalfag and don't jump to a fucking conclusion that op is a fucking christianfag

fuck seriously, you atheist

>>3880637

That puts unicorns way above gods on the evidence scale.

>>3880641

That's rich, coming from a guy who doesn't believe in god.

Atheists claiming to BELIEVE are no fucking atheists. If they claim to know there is no god, that's atheism.

Otherwise they would be agnostic. because if they believe there is no god, they don't fucking know for sure and are on the fence as agnostics are

>This thread is about...
>science[ ]
>math[ ]

If you can't check at least one of these two boxes, please refrain from posting.

>>3880655
>because if they believe there is no god, they don't fucking know for sure and are on the fence as agnostics are

But they haven't been given a reason to consider a god. There are an infinite number of things I don't believe in because I haven't thought of them yet.

>>3880655

And this position is perfectly reasonable and supportable when it comes to virtually every god that anyone has ever believed in, or would be likely to present to the atheist. If you don't believe in Zeus or Odin or Amaterasu but you do think that Jehovah is worthy of a 'maybe', then you have to explain yourself.

It is only a stretch when it comes to the deist god. And even then, we all have to agree to be strictly agnostic about it until someone has something more than a gut feeling to go on.

>>3880655

This thread is about atheists calling themselves scientists BUT they refrain using the scientific method

>>3880641

I spoke about your "god" thing. You could worship Odin for all I know. What I said is true for ALL religions that assert the existence of a divine entity (ie. a "god" thing). None of you goddies and religifreaks make use of EVIDENCE for what you believe. You believe, without evidence. You're dangerous to the general condition of mankind, and deserve to be exterminated.

Of course, the religifucks are the ones who are OH SO GOOD at performing genocidal events. Maybe I should outsource my request, eh? You fucking religious TWAT.

>>3880408
>>3880399
>>3880413
>>3880430
>>3880485
And this is the science and math board?


First of all: You're arguing about epistemology. Epistemology has little to do with science. It's more a philosophy thing (then again, science was originally known as 'natural philosophy').

Second of all: If something is inherently untestable by science it means it has no impact on the physical world. So, uh, why do you believe in it?

Third of all: 'God' as 90% of the people who use that word define it is EXTREMELY testable and, guess what, it doesn't exist according not only to science, but to philosophy. God, as MOST people know Him, is, at worst, logically impossible and, at best, physically impossible and wildly implausible.

Sure, you can define God in a myriad of ways. I would refer you to Spinoza's 'God or Nature', which is just as it sounds. Given a very specific definition of God as something which caused itself and the universe there is no need to postulate outside of the natural universe. This is not complicated shit. This is a fucking, admittedly brilliant, 17th century philosopher. SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. You dumb-shits live in the 21st century and claim to be interested in science and math. Grow some fucking balls, practice some intellectual honesty, and let go of this myth that was fed to you on mothers knee.

(cont'd)

>>3880704
>Atheists refrain from using scientific method.

T:
>I believe an untestable, non-falsifiable entity exists; I'll call it god.
At:
>That is not a scientific theory, as it isn't testable, it isn't falsifiable, and it is not a default theory. Hence I reject your theory.
Ag:
>YUO CANT" KNOW

>>3880729
As for "agnostics". Yeah, call yourself what you want, just recognize that you're either giving the God idea too much credit, or we believe the same things. I already know you won't do this, the main motivation for someone calling themselves agnostic, in my experience, is to distinguish themselves from atheists so they can say things like 'atheists are just as irrational as religious folks'. Well, here's a Douglas Adams quote for you.

"I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal or opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me, "Well, you haven't been there, have you? So my view that it is made of Norwegian beaver cheese is equally valid" -- then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining"

Also, why aren't you agnostic about karma? Why aren't you agnostic about the God's of the Armenian pantheon? Why aren't you agnostic about the fucking matrix? Why choose this one specific question to say 'welll huuuurrr it could b troof i spose lol'?

>>3880706
>>3880706

still believing OP belives in GOD

oh boy.jpg

>>3880731
(ctd.)
T:
>But by rejecting my specific god, you need to have your own theory; namely that there is no almighty being, which is also an untestable, non-falsifiable proposition.
At:
>Correct, but it is the default position. For each untestable, non-falsifiable proposition A, not(A) is also untestable, non-falsifiable. The default position is that your god isn't real, just like you believe Thor isn't real.
Ag:
>YU OCA'NT NOW

>>3880399
>>3880399
you know what? I'll just ignore the whole thread, because you are obviously a troll, and just jump right to the point:

You Can't prove ANYTHING exists. Not for 100%. We might all just be shadows/simulations, or I might just be the only person in the world, imagining the rest of you. Science never explains everything for 100%, but it sets probabilities of a thesis, by thinking it through and finding arguments that support it, or disprove it.

That's precisely what Dawkins and many other did, and even if you don't agree, you can valuate the effort, and prove (valid) counterarguments.

>>3880729

"God, as MOST people know Him, is, at worst, logically impossible and, at best, physically impossible and wildly implausible."

Right, given enough time for humans to evolve you imply we are unable to create a singularity and a big bang.

It's highly possible rather.

>>3880737

You don't believe in god?

>>3880768
I even capitalized the word "most".

>>3880760
(ctd)
T:
>Yes, I see. But I believe that the bible is evidence that god is real, and Thor is not.
At:
>In that case, we have a falsifiable theory, as god is defined by the bible. I think there is sufficient evidence that the god as described by the bible isn't real; evolution being one of many points.
Ag:
>YU CONT NO

I believe in God, and even I know that OP is full of shit.

The onus of proof falls on the one making the positive claim. If you claim there is a god, you must provide proof.

The default assumption (scientifically) is that there is not a god.

>>3880768
What you're referring to, by the way, is pandeism. You have no evidence for this claim, and it is unfalsifiable. While it is slightly more plausable than theism, it's still not fucking science.

>>3880734
>>3880729

I think you don't fully understand that people who believe in god change their definition of it ALL THE TIME.

You'd be lucky to get through a single discussion on the subject without having then present at least two different versions in response to different points you might make.

>>3880792
I've covered all my bases in the posts.

No matter where you go, if you're using the word 'God' you're either talking about the universe, talking about something that is unfalsifiable, or talking out of your ass.

>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

mod on /sci/? its snowing in hell.

>>3880399
>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>HOW CAN YOU FUCKING PROVE GOD DOESN'T EXIST, YOU CAN'T.

you also can't prove that god isn't shaped like a dildo and isn't twirling through the universe right now. however, some things are just unlikely and inconsequential. hence, atheism.

remember that atheism is the rejection of religion and not god. sure, god COULD exist. however, all earthly religions are CLEARLY bullshit, or so filled with bullshit that it's... time... for... a...

...oh shit. if god is a jealous god then he will end the world just so he can set his record straight!

-and don't you blame the atheists. it's you religious asshats who keep adding and subtracting from your religion.

mod autosaged it as well

>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Is this real life?

cheers to empirical evidence that implies moderation exists. hopefully we get more of it without moot annexing this board.