/sci/ - Science & Math

Go on...

>productive

almost had me

>>942297

Contemplating theological matters led the natural philosophers to many an important insight.

>While the sciences do not currently engage with religious thought
Some do. You don't have to pass a test verifying your atheism when you get a hard science Doctorate.

>>942294
Not really, the only time science progressed was when there were real scientists willing to stand up to the church's bureaucracy - ie. church believed earth was flat then Galileo and Copernicus came along and what happened to them for doing real science? All I'm trying to tell you is that even though alchemy, the geocentric model, astrology, and all that jazz were the roots of some or many of the foundations of thinking that may have lead to science is irrelevant because it is scientific thinking and more importantly the scientific thinkers, and not the religious thinkers, that founded the scientific method and went onto further develop scientific progress.

>>942407

>the scientific thinkers, and not the religious thinkers, that founded the scientific method

This is a false separation. Newton and Descartes come to mind.

Sciences never engaged with religious though. Now pseudoscience on the other hand...

>>942407
And you believe this, huh?

Some of the greatest mathematical and technological advancements in the world came from religion.

>>942449

Because fuck Newton.

>>942449

There was never any interplay in the minds of devout scientists? You make an extreme claim.

>>942436
>>942407

Oh, and fuck all those Islamic mathematicians who basically conceived the number system. Or hell, fuck those dark skinned Indians who praised Vishnu. They just happened to find some series of a few functions before they were even functions.

Also, fuck those Egyptian African't niggers. Who worships a Horse God and figures out revolutionary Geometric shit?

>>942459
No, no they didn't. Most of the times religion was used to suppress science because it went against it.

>>942436
They didnt believe in God as a man up in the clouds but rather as a force of nature, I sometimes like to think of god as all the natural phenomena working, i know the definition is way wonky but whatever god is the universe and the universe is god isn the worst thought imaginable.
But their contributions to science and mathematics were following along the lines of the scientific method, so they were thinking scientifically when Descartes figure out the plot and when Newton discovered F=ma.

>>942494

Nice try for saging the fucking thread now that you've been exposed to be a douche. Granted, I do agree with you that religion attempted to suppress scientific information if it did not agree with it(i.e., the case of Galileo), but it doesn't exclusively mean that it occurred all the time. Although you said 'most,' I'm assuming that you're pretty much referring to 99.9% of the time which is certainly not true.

>>942494
The ONLY time religion was used to repress Science pre-modern era was with geocentricism (which is a positively technical argument). The ONLY time.

>>942520
The fuck are you talking about? That was my first post.

Many sciences are derived from traditions established by religious institutions, but not all of them. So, your statement is somewhat arbitrary.

>>942504

That's actually bullshit. Newton believed in the same God as Christians do this very day. He even dedicated a portion of his life to proving the existence of God through mathematics. Descartes had a SIMILAR point of view, although it was a bit tweaked.

Seriously, people. Stop with these fucking threads. Useless shitstorms and baseless accusations/claims.

>>942494
You're an idiot or a troll.

/sci/ I'm starting to think of you all as probably my most favorite board. You guys handle trolls pretty well. And apparently you all recognize that Darwin was a Christian, and that you don't have to give up on religion because of science, and that they don't really even conflict with each other in a metaphorical level.

>>942551

You're an idiot or a troll.

>>942528

Pic related.

>>942542

>>942542
Biographer Richard Westfall says: "Well before 1675, Newton had become an Arian in the original sense of the term.", that is, Newton did not believe that Jesus was God. Westfall adds, his views "remained unaltered until his death."[1] Arianism was considered heresy as it was an opposing view to the Trinity Doctrine. Newton kept this secret because heresy would lead to termination of his appointments at Cambridge University and the Mint. Nevertheless, says Westfall, "He identified himself with Arius, both intellectually and emotionally."[2]

>>942551
>>942568
Same christfag alert.

>>942494

This guy doesn't know about the scholastic movement.

>>942568

>>942570

Thank you for being a dipshit and posting a useless image with absolutely no merit to the discussion and proving to all of us within this thread that you are a dumbass that must resort to religion-bashing pictures.

Oh, and before spam me with "LOL U MAD," refer to my picture. I ain't even mad, nigga. I ain't even mad.

>>942587

>>942575

From the way those citation marks were in that paragraph, it seems like you got that from Wikipedia. Cap frowns on your shenanigans.

>>942575
WHY DO WE EVEN CARE ABOUT THE RELIGION OF MATHEMATICIAN-SCIENTISTS? GOD DAMN, PUT THIS SHIT INTO PERSPECTIVE, PEOPLE!

>>derp

>>942595
>From the fact that your information has sources to back itself up, it's crap.
lolwut

>>942601
i think derp covers it nicely

>>942575

Oh shit, nigger; we quotin' from Wikipedia now? Aw, hell nah; you didn't go there.

Q1:

"His scientific fame notwithstanding, Newton's studies of the Bible and of the early Church Fathers were also noteworthy. Newton wrote works on textual criticism, most notably An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture. He also placed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at 3 April, AD 33, which agrees with one traditionally accepted date.[69] He also tried, unsuccessfully, to find hidden messages within the Bible."

Q2:

"Newton wrote more on religion than he did on natural science. He believed in a rationally immanent world, but he rejected the hylozoism implicit in Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza. Thus, the ordered and dynamically informed Universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason. In his correspondence, Newton claimed that in writing the Principia "I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity".[70] He saw evidence of design in the system of the world: "Such a wonderful uniformity in the planetary system must be allowed the effect of choice."

Q3:

"In a view disputed by Snobelen,[6] T.C. Pfizenmaier argues that Newton held the Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity rather than the Western one held by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and most Protestants.[66] In his own day, he was also accused of being a Rosicrucian (as were many in the Royal Society and in the court of Charles II).[67]"

>>942587

My gosh you religionfags are a scary extremist bunch. No need to get some mad over a little discussion.

>>942615
>>if i prove newton was religious ill convince sci religion isnt for faggots

>>942605

So if Abraham Lincoln gas Gatling gun arms and runs at the speed of light as reported on wiki, it's perfectly factual if it has citations. Furthermore, even the citations can be utter shit. Or even furthermore, a person can post something that has nothing to do with specified sources.

>>942526
>The ONLY time religion was used to repress Science pre-modern era was with geocentricism (which is a positively technical argument). The ONLY time.

I don't know where you live, but I live in the United States, where evangelical Christianity is fighting against the public teaching of evolution by natural selection.

>>942623

I'm actually not religious at all. I follow Confucianism, which isn't defined as a religion; it's a philosophy. I just browse this fucking forum everyday and see this shit

EVERY
FUCKING
DAY

AND IT'S USELESS. IT'S DUMB.

By the way, I also told you I ain't even mad. Did you even see the image?

FUCK.

Astrology was once a science.

Read the rules. Reported.

Religion, by definition, goes against science because it requires people to have very strong faith. It also makes it so that people don't seek answers, because they think the answer to everything is simply "god".

>>942641

Confucianism is a religion.

>>942641
If you don't like it, stop feeding the fire by arguing (this requires controlling your anger), mmkay?

>>942631

I was actually quoting from Wikipedia to inform him that resorting to such a tactic to support his claim is:

a) Pretty dumb.
b) Contains conflicting information, as showcased in my post.

and, c) ..

c) Further proves my claim.

Wiki's a clusterfuck of information; it supports all sides, and is unbiased(which is what you want). Therefore, I can post from the same article to support my claim. Furthermore, some of the information there isn't supported by anything other than a website that has "tripod.com/supersaiyankrillan123" as a hyperlink.

OK, We get it. You don't like religion. Can we let this thread die now?

>>942676
>>942677
sure thing, samefag.

>>942643
>Astrology was once a science

Um, no.

>>942615
>Newton's studies of the Bible and of the early Church Fathers were also noteworthy.
I'm not religious and I studied the bible I even went to Catholic school, reason why i was so fucked up actually, I know the indoctrination and what it does first hand.

>Newton wrote more on religion than he did on natural science.
Sure, there's a lot of bullshit to talk about

>In his own day, he was also accused of being a Rosicrucian
In his time its prolly better than people thinking he was Arian.

>>942655

It's a philosophy; you're confusing it with Daoism. Daoism began as a philosophy and transformed into a religion over time in one of the dynasties. Confucianism went through several stages, including Imperial Confucianism, but it was never necessarily recognized as a 'religion.' There's some debate about it, but it's a philosophy as dictated by the texts. In addition, man is the center of the universe; not God.

>>942682

Whats the matter? The kids at school are mean to you so you have to compensate by asserting your intellectual superiority over all the misguided religious people?

>>942687

I went to a catholic prep school too.

I'm an atheist but I can bible the fuck out of christians. Its pretty fun.

They don't like it.

>>942714
>Thinking about the concept of "bible-ing the fuck out of people"
>my face

>>942714
atheists are stupid

>>942682

There's no need to samefag, as I'm replying to all posts in a timely matter and the other post is a minute after mine. 4chan has a time limit on the amount of posts one can enter per minute, and there's no reason for me to take my tripfag status off. I'm proud of it, and I've posted with it in /sci/ daily.

But, your wife orbits my dick.

>>942708
Whats the matter? The kids at school are mean to you so you have to compensate by asserting your misguided religious views over all the intellectual superiority people?


Lol, and that post just goes to show you yourself believe athiests are "intellectual", because no one here said they were, your insecurity just made you say that.

>>942714
>Also thinking about the concept of "bible-ing the fuck out of people"
>my face

>>942714

Well, I'm a Christian, my best friend is an atheist, he can out bible me a lot. But I out science him a lot too. It's pretty fun actually.

>>942751

is that coffee? I have coke zero

can we be friends?

>>942734

I should qualify that I'm atheist towards human religions, but agnostic to the idea of higher powers.

But keep believing there may or may not be some creator deity that supernaturally interferes with the natural world, (ie, MAGIC) and demands tribute and worship through blood sacrifice

>>942734
Im agnostic too and I strongly disagree, atheism and agnosticism while maybe not one and the same, are both derived from rational thought.

>>942737
>>942682

That was my first post in this thread. There is some hardcore trolling going on in here.

>>942775
atheism isn't that rational, its more, in the abstract sense, a reduction of the tenor of religion, but missing the godhead

>>942764

Sure, why not. Just solve this integral and we're awesome. I'll even give you an invite to Rhizone.

>>942787
If athiesm is not rational, neither is the scientific method. Scientists do not believe anything by default until there is evidence for something, which there is not for a god. Athiests will believe god when there is evidence. Religion on the other hand outright rejects evidence for things like creationism and other logic.

>>942747

BAAWWW I'M DESPERATELY TRYING TO PROVE MYSELF! BAAAAW!!!!

>>942800
Here, we have the childish mind of a religious nut in action, valiantly trying to shield itself from ratioinalism.

>>942800
Here, we have the childish mind of a religious nut in action, valiantly trying to shield itself from rationalism.

>>942799

evidence isn't necessary, thats why it's called faith.

However, religious people, protestants especially, since they take the bible as literal fact, butcher the fuck out of science and understanding the natural world, so I think that's why overall they are so intolerable.

Catholics and Muslims in the golden age of Islam have helped spearhead much science, because they are curious as to the innerworkings of the natural world, regardless as to their viewpoint of its origin.

>>942810

>implying that I'm not an athirst or that I made any mention of my religious beliefs.

>>942830
>>implying you're not trying to damage control by finally realizing how stupid you sounded, and are now trying to make the opposing party look bad

>>942800
BAWWWW IM TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING BAAWWWWWw

>helped spearhead much science

>inquisition flames

>>942844
>>942839
>>942830

Lets all argue on the internet! YAY! I'm sure we can contribute something new to this same argument that is beaten to death on a daily basis!

atheists and the devoutly religious share the common problem of being closed minded and subjective; they form the two extremes of a continuum in the one category -- of preknowledge of existence

agnosticism makes no such presumptions

>>942845

alot more has happened in the past 3000 years of christianity than the spanish inquisition.

>>942864

no

>>942860

not really. Atheism is the logical conclusion of lacking evidence, not claiming proof.

If god rolls in on a cloud and starts chucking lightning bolts then I will no longer be atheist.

Until then, fuck it.

Besides, Churches are cool, full of decent neighbors, and christfag girls fuck like nobodys business.

And Christians repel muslims, which are shitty and make countries suck, so thats fine by me.

>>942872

guess you failed your western history elective, eh, you fucking hopeless science nerd.

Should of taken poli sci instead, so you could whine in class about it being called "science"

>>942896
>Atheism is the logical conclusion of lacking evidence, not claiming proof. If god rolls in on a cloud and starts chucking lightning bolts then I will no longer be atheist.

Are you still using these tired old concepts? You're still bound in the mindfuck of the religion you despise. No wonder you hate everything.

>>942924
Wrong, religion lacks falsifiability, because it makes asserations not known (that god exists). Athiesm simply takes the logical position that sinceno god is seen, there is no god, until it is proven otherwise.

let the shit die, guys. come on. this debate/argument is pointless and without merit. in the end, you'll all just puff your chest at the fact that you 'WON AN ONLINE ARGUMENT' for five seconds and it won't affect your life anymore.

live your life the way you want to live it. you're not bound by anyone in regards to how you want to live your life.

>>942939
"Wrong" <----?

What is this? Grade school debate class? Are you here to win an argument, like some disgruntled wife at a divorce hearing?

Atheism fails under the same conditions of falsifiability. Get your head out of your ass, unless you're afraid to actually let go of the religion you spent your whole life hating. Codependency is a bitch you can leave behind.

>>942978
Wrong, using childish metaphors does not make you right. I realize you want to bring athiests down to the level you religousfags are at, but stop, it will never be like religion.

>>942978
>>RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGEEEEEEE

>this thread

>>942997
It will be exactly LIKE religion on the basis of fanaticism and this "I'm right, you're wrong" mindset. The JudaoChristian culture is: "Someone is always at fault" and it's transferred into "Atheism" which is more like "I don't believe in JudaeoChristianity but I can't let go".

You have no idea how lame you appear to people without the religion hangups and baggage you're still carrying around with you. You don't even know you carry it around with you. You don't even know how to let it go.

I hate that stupid bitch. She's dead to me. I don't love her. I wonder what she's doing. That bitch.

>>943028
Says the guy who is doing the exact same thing.

>>943037
Why must you religiontards continue to use ad hominem attacks? Stop getting into such childish hissy fits.

People always forget, when they talk about how newton or some other fucker was religious, that the very reason they didn't make more discoveries is because they just went "goddidit" at some point and stopped doing anything useful on that matter.
For example, newton didn't really think planets could hold their orbits with so many other planets fucking about, so he just started babbling on about god. It took about hundred year until some faggot came along and used newton's own maths to show that in fact it was possible.

>>942641

Troll'ed.

>>943062
you can't really blame that on religion
there are scientists as equally blinded by adherence to "infallible theories" of science

remember that whole idea of the Flux?

>>943053
>lrn2subtext

>>943106
The fact that most of the examples are strongly linked with religion and religions promote such illogical though is plenty reason to blame religion.

>>943167
ill disagree

something strongly illogical is easily visible and easy to overcome on a conceptual basis; difficult to overcome on a cultural and sociologic basis

thus, atheists as people that can't let go - if they stopped hating religion tomorrow and just went on witih their lives, they would find their lives strangely empty

>>943187
Oh, so now I'm an atheist?

I know there's many reasons why people form stupid ideas at the edge of their understanding, but people should be aware of that, and the fact that religion says it's not just okay, that's it's in fact good and something people should strive for, is detrimental to understanding of anything.

>>943235
no
just someone that has to cling to shit

>>943265
Could you explain in more specific terms, I seem to be rather ignorant of what you mean.

>>943279
you're doing it now

>>943338
So your argument against the division of science and religious thought is that atheists are "clinging onto religion"?
That's kind of like saying that someone who is talking about trying to prevent car accidents is "clinging onto cars".

>>943376
in the total absence of religion, atheism would be annihilated; without religion, atheism cannot exist

>>943392
That's rather obvious, but I still don't see how someone who says religious thought should be kept away from scientific thought is clinging onto religion. Be they atheist or not.

>>942294
YOU WILL DIE A VERY VERY PAINFULL DEATH! VERY VERY SOON

>>942294

>>942294
....

>>943392
Good, we don't need stupid cults anyway. Abolishing religion would solve most of the worlds problems.