/sci/ - Science & Math

1. no
2. everyone here is atheist anyway
3. fuck off
4. an heroing: consider it.

>>4195339
Reported for telling someone to commit suicide. Enjoy your ban.

>>4195339
Right and i guess atheists are too closed minded to see any alternative answers than "there is no god".

>>4195343
i didnt tell them to, i said they could 'consider it'

>>4195343

Reported for reporting someone for retarded things

Enjoy your ban

>>4195339
>everyone here is atheist anyway

No, not everyone here is an edgy teenager.
Some of us are mature and know that agnosticism is the only logical solution.

>>4195343

reported for openly showing your stupidity.

>>4195349

>po­nyfa­g
>mat­ure

Choose one.

>>4195346
>close minded
>not retarded enough to believe in fairytales and 2000 year old bronze age myths that have zero evidence whatsoever

pick one

>>4195347
Reported for telling someone to consider suicide. This is illegal in some countries. Enjoy your ban.
>>4195350
>>4195348
Reported for EK samefag. Enjoy your ban.

>>4195349
fucking ignorant ponyfags??
on my fukken /sci/??

>>4195363

Do you actually know any science or math? Or do you just come here to be an annoying cunt that nobody likes?

>>4195358


reported for openly showing your stupidity twice.

>>4195358
ahahah!!
not even samefag, its just that people other than me are aware of how much of a fucking moron you are

>>4195355
I don't remember saying all of theism is based on the bible which you seem to think.

>>4195363
This picture is so full of fallacies.

0/10

>>4195367
Reported for frivolous reporting. Enjoy your ban.

>>4195366
both :D

>>4195371


reported for reporting, etc.

I don't have enough fuck left for you sorry.

>>4195365
>>4195367
Reported for EK and EK sympathizer.

You know who you are.
Keep being awesome.

>>4195369
still is:
>believing bullshit with no evidence whatsoever
so same shit, basically

>>4195370
ahahahahahha! no it fucking isnt!
go ahead and list them then, you fat fucking dunce!

Can someone explain to me why EK always posts pics of factsvsreligion? Kinda creepy.

>>4195381
you nigger faggots have been reported me for the last 2 hours, even now you dont even realise how fucking futile it is, you pathetic tools.

>>4195379
>list them
implying I'm gonna repeat stuff that has been posted hundreds of times

also:
>scottish neckbeard calling others "fat fucking dunce"
Irony much?

>>4195375
Reported for swearing. Enjoy your ban.

>>4195383
im a fan, and i think shes hot

>>4195388
It's fine if you fap to her, but it's another thing to post her face everywhere like a creep.

>>4195367
>>4195350
Reported for openly supporting people who encourage suicide. Enjoy your ban.

>>4195386
>scottish neckbeard...
myth

and there are no fallacies. everyone is agnostic because no1 knows for sure, because you cant prove or disprove god
and yet people still do have belief, or they dont have belief
so its theist or atheist, with everyone still being agnostic as well.

eat shit.

>>4195388
>i think shes hot

spoken like a true scottish neckbeard

>>4195391
i dont fap to her, im not even male.
and she has the best reaction images!

>>4195394
>spoken like a bisexual who can appreciate beauty in both genders
FTFY

>>4195384
Reported for racism. Enjoy your ban.

>>4195393
WTF are you talking?
There's not even a coherent sentence in your post, let alone a comprehensible idea.
Come back when you're sober.

>>4195393
theism ; faith in god
atheism ; no faith
agnosticism ; doesn't know and hasn't choosed and probably does not give a fuck (the not giving a fuck is probably more valid for nihilists though).

So no, not everyone is agnostic by definition.

>>4195398
fapping is a term used for masterbation on the net so man and woman can fap.

>>4195393
Reported for drunk/high and borderline. Enjoy taking your pills.

>>4195406
if you havent chosen, that means you havent chosen to adhere to any particular belief, which means you lack belief, which makes you an atheist.

still agnostic

and im still an agnostic atheist who doesnt give much of a fuck.

>>4195408
knowns as 'shlicking' or 'jilling' for fems. ive always heard of 'fap' as specifically meaning males.

>>4195335
http://sas.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html

>>4195413
An atheist doesn't lack belief, he actively rejects belief in God and thus constitutes a strong belief in God's non-existence.
An agnostic doesn't make a statement and doesn't decide what to believe.

>>4195416
well that's just stupid

>>4195413
atheists don't usually doubt that there is a god. Agnostics is not knowing if there is a god or not while atheists hold the belief that there isn't a god.It's like saying "THEISTS DONT KNOW 100% THEREFORE ALL AGNOSTIC HUUR".

>>4195416
>argues that chicks can't masterbate/fap

0/10

>>4195419
everyones heard of religion, atheists(/agnostics) still dont believe in it.
and atheists dont have to make a statement either, most of them hear about religion, wuietly think (lol, thats dumb) say nothing, and just get on with their lives. they're still atheists.
not all atheists are the loudmouthed faggots that get all up in your face: 'HURRRRR! RELIGION IS FOR FUCKING RETARDS!!'
most of us just quietly reject religion
the same as you 'agnostics'

we're agnostic as well, we dont know god definitely isnt real, its just extremely unlikely.
if any evidence is ever shown to us, we'll change our minds

>>4195425
obviously can masturbate, dumass. shlick/jill is just the female version of fapping.

>>4195425
'fap' specifically came about as an onomatopoeia for male masturbation, so seeing as the sound is different when we finger ourselves, it doesnt apply.

>>4195335
> So, can /sci/ prove god mathematically or scientifically?

WARNING: You keep using a term ('god') for which there is no evidence, and there should be at least *some*. Therefore you're effectively saying "Santa Claus" or the "Easter Bunny", which means you aren't talking about a real entity.

Please take your stupid, Stupid, STUPID request out of /sci/ and onto /lit/ or something. Your Bible is just a work of FICTION; so please confine your comments about the subject matter to boards meant for FICTIONAL subjects (like ALL religion).

>>4195419
>mixing belief in with atheism
>HURR DURR
>JUST A BELIEF UR NO BEETR THAN THEISTS

Not really. There are two ways in which you can logically reason that gods do not exist.
Also, there's observational evidence that gods don't exist.

Atheism is just being reasonable and not giving in to redundant historical baggage.

Hey /sci/ religion has no place in science or math. Get lost. I believe a god probably exists.

>>4195458
>observational evidence that a non-observable entity doesn't exist

cool story, bro

>>4195471
A PRIORI! A PRIORI EVERYWHARE!

>>4195477
Is there a problem?

>>4195471
We can make certain assumptions about the nature of a god, which in turn give us a framework on what we should be observing is a god exists.Our observations about the structure of spacetime on all scales contradict with said framework.

Thus, god does not exist.

>>4195437

THIS is why I'd take a retarded theist over an atheist an day of the week. It feels like every atheist I've ever met has a goddamn cucumber up their ass. They're just waiting for the perfect opportunity to say "burden of proof, santa, flying spaghetti monster, ANCIENT myths, LOGICAL", while calling out other people for wasting their lives away.

>>4195492
>hahatimeforpillsEK.aac

>>4195480
Coming from someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in a god, you seem to be assuming one exists whenever it suits your trolling purpose.

>>4195489
Fixed:
Thus we can't observe God in physical phenomenons today.
He can have existed in the past or might exist in the future.
He might also exist outside of physical reality.

God is the result if ignorant people attempting to justify their existence and/or make sense of the world in a time where we knew next to nothing about it.

The only reason people are still religious today is because religion is such a dangerously perpetual force.

>>4195501
the result of*

>>4195497
Where am I inconsistent?
I didn't say he exists. We just can't rule out the possiblity of him existing.

>>4195492

We don't have to wait for the perfect opportunity, fuckass. We get it every time one of the theistfags opens their mouths. EVERY time someone says 'god' as if such an entity exists, they AUTOMATICALLY discredit their statement.

Replace EVERY instance of 'god' on /sci/ with Easter Bunny, and even a dipshit asshole moron like you should be able to see why that is. YOUR 'GOD' DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST; SO COME BACK WHEN YOU HAVE FUCKING EVIDENCE, SHITBALL!

>>4195499
>it's magic, I don't gotta explain shit
But you do, since you so fucking pigheadedly always want to discuss your belief in fairytales in a /sci/ence board.
You really fucking need to.

>>4195511
I don't want to discuss my beliefs. Actually I don't even have any beliefs to discuss.
I just can't stand when people post obvious nonsense and make claims which they can't back up.

>>4195508
> We just can't rule out the possiblity of him existing.

False. Wrong. OF COURSE we rule it out, since there is no fucking evidence, and there MUST be evidence in order to even BEGIN rationally speculating on existence.

THE ABSENCE IS THE EVIDENCE. The evidence says: ENTITY DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST.

>So, can /sci/ prove god mathematically or scientifically?
>Science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural.
>maths deals with absolutes (2+2=4 etc).
>no
/thread

>>4195523
>hahatimeforpillsEK.ppt

>>4195510

I'm an atheist, and you have a cucumber up your ass.

Every time someone says "EASTER BUNNY" or "FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER", it's a blatant rip off of a shitty Dawkins argument. I'm sure it's great to think that you're not among the "sheep" since you've read the God Delusion, but the truth is, the world isn't black and white. You can't just RID the world of religion, and not all religious people are bad. You're just creating a fake boogeyman to throw all of your problems onto. If the word 'God' offends you so much, you seriously need to chill out and take a solid look at your life. Hitchens basically asserted that religion was the root cause of all wars, and at the same time, advocated for a pointless war that WASN'T caused by religion. Hopefully I get a decent response out of you and not some angry teenager bullshit.

>>4195519
Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Oh shit, the capslock.
Are you RedCream?

Not this fucking shit again. Seriously, do we need one of these every fucking day?

What?

>>4195510

And c'mon /sci/, there have to be athiests on this board that aren't as stupid as this guy. Please tell me that there are some people that are atheists because it is the logical conclusion, and not because they are pissed off at their parents.

I see a lot of "God doesn't exist because there is no evidence to support such a deity's existence." While I understand that this is supposedly a science-oriented group of people that frequent /sci/ empiricism is only one form of epistemological thought. As a deist, I reject the notion (specifically based upon Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason', Nietzsche's 'Birth of Tragedy' and Kierkegaard's 'Fear and Trembling') that there can be evidence/logical proof to either 1. Make a statement in support of a belief concerning God (be it negative or positive) and 2. Abstain from making a belief based on a lack of or inadequate quality of support in either direction. Thus, any belief concerning the existence of a metaphysical fundamental reality, be it in a belief in God or not, must be made irrationally. For example, pragmatism may provide a personal reason to believe in the nonexistence of God, but there is no rational foundation upon which to base that conjecture. What matters then is why that belief was chosen and what comes from it following the decision.

I would hope that anyone interested in science and/or mathematics has a firm foundation in philosophy as well. Now just kill this fucking thread and move on to a better one.

>>4195534

Thank you good sir. /Sci/ is overrun by redditors, it seems.

inb4 SANTA AND EASTER BUNNY HURR DURR

>>4195544
>hahatimeforpillsEK.jpeg

>>4195531
Yes. But total nonexistence of evidence = evidence of nonexistence.

Just because the fairy tale is very old doesn't make it any more plausible than one invented right now on the spot.

>>4195549
>nonexistence of evidence = evidence of nonexistence.
No, still a fallacy. You cannot prove nonexistence.

>Just because the fairy tale is very old doesn't make it any more plausible than one invented right now on the spot.
Indeed, that's why ghosts are also a viable concept.