/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8514170

>>8514170

>>8514175
>>8514176
>tips fedora: the post

>>8514175
Not all of those are fallacious arguments. Some of them, such as appeal to etc. are forms of rhetoric.

God is all. To not believe in the all is foolish. You can still acknowlwdge the existence of all without following a certain religion.

Religion and science are Tools. They are not answers.

they believe in a god but not that faggot the bible described

>>8514179
Do all religious people build their lives on accepting truth from authority?

>>8514200
>I hated being dragged to church
>therefore Christianity is bullshit

>>8514207 >assumes im underaged

>>8514210 [math]\color{green}{ \rm{ >can't ~ green ~ text}}[/math]
>>8514210 [math]\color{red}{ \rm{ >nor ~ write ~ [I'm] ~ properly }}[/math]

Agnostic is the most logical position on this matter

/thread

>>8514170
Pro tip they don't

>>8514207
>I'm a virgin who only listens to mommy
>but jesus loves me :3

>i worship at the alter of shitposts

>>8514175
I always wondered why peope thought it appropriate to say "X percent of the world belive in god, therefore he must be real." Or, "you think you know better than X percent of the world?"

Then you have to grudgingly say "yes I do think I know better than X percent of the world about this because I have much stronger arguments."

I think that some people don't care about knowing if there is a God or not because they don't want to follow rules, they think they would be freer, so they don't even research anything about God before saying they don't believe it

>>8514320
The reason we call things "fallacies" is not because they are false, but because they fail to support the assertion. X percent believe in god is a bad argument because it's not necessarily connected to the existence of god.

One shouldn't be begrudged to admit this. Critical thinking is a virtue.

How can the order we see in the universe have come from nowhere? We see the universe works in a certain way, regardless of where or when you are, it just works that way. How can this framework have just come into existence by itself?

>>8514345
nearly everyone is raised religious in the English speaking world. Being religious is the third g you do by default, the thing you do without thinking. Calling yourself an atheist or nonbeliever is the thing that requires choice; thought.

How the fuck is your worldview this off? Have you never met an atheist?

>>8514348
I wonder if it would seem so compelling if you said "If 95% of the world believe in god, then that means if 20 people are in a room, one of them doesn't believe in god." That seems pretty okay in terms of numbers. I think I could definitely be right where 19 people are wrong.

>>8514365
Also, that's like giving a class a test question, and one person getting it right, 19 getting it wrong, and the teacher saying 19 people got it right, purely because there's more of them. Sorry, rant over.

>>8514357
How does the existence of a primum movens imply anything beyond the existence of a cold, uncaring universe?

>>8514170
>most scientists and mathematicians believe in god
[citation needed]

>>8514357
No one said it came from "nowhere", but we don't know exactly where it came from.
More importantly, where did god come from?

>>8514357
>existence is complicated
>that means god exists
Is this what passes for an argument?

I personally believe that there are and always will be things beyond our comprehension.

There are things we can observe and study, and then there are phenomena we know nothing about simply because we can't. It's a bittersweet thought, but I feel like religion fits nicely into the human equation, so long as people do it because they arrived at a faith themselves.

Looking for some answers in nature is counter-intuitive and could lead people to madness, however there is a difference in blindly accepting an all powerful being and arriving at your own conclusion for humanity.

I personally follow the teachings of Buddha only because I feel that practice is very in line with the nature of our progression.

>>8514407
More like
>universe has order
>that means god exists

>>8514416
>Buddhism
>Let's be vague as fuck so people can come up with any old shit they want and call it Buddhism.

>>8514407
It's funny, say someone sees a computer program lying around, a video game, plays it and observes how there are certain rules in the game, e.g. when you press space, you move up by a certain distance, not any more, not any less, or how when you press the left mouse button you fire your gun every time.
Now if this person were to conclude that the rules of this video game just "came into existence" by themselves, most reasonable people would call him mad. But when it comes to the universe, something many many orders of magnitude more complex than the video game, retards like you claim that the precise order we see around us does not in any way imply the existence of an intelligent creator.
You've closed your mind to reason, you're a fool.

>>8514485
You are getting mixed up with patterns and intelligence.
Complexity can, and does, arise from chaos.
Instead of taking the less complex points in history (the Big Bang) as the start of the road to intelligence, you are taking it to be the start of the decline to less intelligent beings.
The get-out is that time doesn't exist for god. But why then should time exist for another structure greater than the universe, that is inanimate, but gave rise to the universe?

>is it okay to be a sheep?
fuck off
its just as bad as being an atheist because of popsci con artists and ultra darwinists

>>8514502
How is this in any way an answer to my post?
>Complexity can, and does, arise from chaos.
We're talking about the fundamental building blocks of the universe here, not intelligent life or anything like that.

>>8514365
It could be 100% and it wouldn't change anything, logically. Belief about x doesn't say anything about existence of x. Not necessarily. We want a necessary connection between antecedent and consequent to form a valid argument.

(Also, valid arguments are not automatically true. It just means it has a truth value, true or false.)

Because belief is not about logic, knowledge is. You may believe whatever you want, knowing it is a different thing.

>>8514362
>nearly everyone is raised religious in the English speaking world.

lol fuck off
whats ur sample size there m8?

>>8514179
Do all religious nutjobs tipping like this?

Also it's because of retards like you /sci/ is infested with garbage and cancer

>>8514485
you smell like /pol/

>>8514605
Whatever the hell Pew's and other such organization's sample sizes are. Are you honestly attempting to claim that atheists
are a majority of the population? The "unaffiliated" just break 20% in America, and that includes a sizeable population of half-assed theists.

>>8514170
>>8514175
appeal to authority