[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 219 KB, 1146x856, Freeman Dyson.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10243736 No.10243736 [Reply] [Original]

>shits on conventional wisdom.
heh, nothing personal, kid

>> No.10243739

>designs a fucking vacuum cleaner
how is he relevant again?

>> No.10243746
File: 51 KB, 808x505, think vs reality.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10243746

>>10243736
>t. i fuckin luv science cultist

>> No.10244141

>>10243746
Change the bottom right to no doubt etc and this pic is based, otherwise it's retarded as fuck

>> No.10244707

>>10243736
Fit me an elephant, math boii
And make its tail wiggle while you're at it

>> No.10244746

>>10243746
>religious people always doubt
>always question
>reply wih evidence always
Why do you feel the need to lie?

>> No.10244796

>>10244746
Then why did the Church Fathers and St. Thomas Aquinas and friends wrote so many books to dispel doubts and providing evidence for the Christian beliefs?
Please don't talk about things you don't clearly know nothing about.
Its just like those faggots from liberal arts or gender studies talking about quantum physics and le string theory memes.

>> No.10244806

>>10244796
If you have to compare apples (fedora tier atheists) to oranges (learned theologians) in order to prove your point, you're probably wrong.
Just saying.

>> No.10244821

>>10244806
I was refuting that anons point that religion had no doubts or that it doesn't question or has no evidence.
I see no better way of proving him wrong.
Whether one chooses to believe in Christ or not that's another discussion, but claiming that religion has no basis and relies on blind belief, shows ignorance about History and the beginnings of the Western (and even Eastern) thought.

>> No.10244845

>>10244821
But that's exactly my point: you're comparing people who've studied their religion for years with the lowest common denominator. Your common, bible-thumping American is ready, willing, even anxious to go on about how much better their religion is with no evidence beyond "because I can shout louder," while a learned atheist is fully capable of calmly explaining their reasoning.
On the rare occasion a theologian and a scientist meet and discuss their differences, it might devolve into a shouting match, but that only because of differing opinion of evidence.

>> No.10244915

>>10244845
Oh yes I can understand perfectly and I agree with you.

>> No.10244933
File: 289 KB, 576x2992, 20120321.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10244933

>>10243736

>> No.10244938
File: 90 KB, 800x976, 15325341_227683144328042_8039083958117925761_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10244938

>shits on unlucky people with feminine bone structure

>> No.10245672
File: 169 KB, 972x628, Theology 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10245672

>>10244845
>while a learned atheist is fully capable of calmly explaining their reasoning.
Kek. Most professional atheists are ignorant of what they are arguing against, especially the famous meme ones. A "learned atheist" wouldn't even be an atheist but an agnostic and his argument would simply be "I don't see a convincing reason" (spoiler: and that's all you need but it doesn't sell to angsty teens).
>On the rare occasion a theologian and a scientist meet and discuss their differences
Did you really just use scientist as a synonym for atheist unironically?

>> No.10246714

>>10245672

>>A "learned atheist" wouldn't even be an atheist but agnostic

I'm pretty sure those are different parameters.