/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12012879]

Is a belief in god the ultimate brainlet filter?

[Anonymous No.12012885]

Good luck outliving all the brainlets, you smarty pants.

[Anonymous No.12012887]

>>12012879
>Bacon, Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Kepler, Leibniz, Pascal, Euler, Dalton, Cauchy, Riemann, Faraday, Volta, Babbage, Maxwell, Mendel, Pasteur, Stokes, Kelvin, Thomson, Carver, Röntgen, Marconi, Eddington, Fisher, Millikan, Compton, Lemaitre, Heisenberg, von Braun, Church, Collins, Barrow, Ellis, Isham, Malcadena, Polkinghorne, Bolzano, Misner, Kronecker, Nelson, Cantor, and Gödel
Yeah a bunch of brainlets huh

[Anonymous No.12012901]

Yes, athiests are the brainlets

[Anonymous No.12012915]

>>12012879

[Anonymous No.12012924]

>>12012887
You mean all the scientists were smart enough to blend into the crowd and keep their mouths shut when the church persecuted and killed people for not being zealous enough about God, or for - horror of horrors - asking questions? Color me shocked.

[Anonymous No.12012925]

>>12012915
wow [x] cherry picked smart guy became religious while delirious in his last days that proves god is real!

[Anonymous No.12012943]

Pew research conducted a survey and found that 52% of scientists believe in a god.
So...

[Anonymous No.12012945]

gasp another theist thread omfg in /sci/

today must be my luck
time to ask my 10 wives and husbandos to hrvest fermented oil from my dead camel corpse

>>12012887 wtf, some zionist chant from the quran?

you semites are weird

this is why we send volunteers to quash your fermented oils and bring you to cammunism

[Anonymous No.12012960]

>>12012924
That is patently false. Many classical scientists had devout conviction for God and how he shaped the universe, at least from the perspective of their belief.
>>12012925
Proof of God's existence was not the purpose of the meme; It was proof of belief.

[Anonymous No.12012981]

>>12012924
They were devout and vocal Christians. Cope harder.

[Anonymous No.12012983]

>>12012981
>christian telling anyone to cope

[Anonymous No.12012989]

>>12012925
Not only are you stupid but you're also a liar. Heisenberg was a Lutheran his entire life.

[Anonymous No.12012990]

>>12012879
Munchausen trilemma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
>The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
>The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
>The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended

>The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.

You cannot know the mind of the Creator. You cannot know anything about the Creator, it's all unidirectional You can ask if the Creator needs us, you cannot answer. You can ask if we need the Creator, perhaps you can answer. Ultimately if there is an externally defined purpose, if all of this was designed by an intelligence that knows it has designed it, then clearly it doesn't care if we know of it or not given that the whole system is designed so that it's logically impossible for us to know that we know. Therefore we're just supposed to be what we are and live our lives.

If there was ever a physical being, a Creator who used to be with us, it is lost to history. We are left only with what it gave to us, and made of us.

[Anonymous No.12012993]

>>12012945
>>>/x/

[Sage No.12012995]

>>12012879
>>12012879
>>12012879
>>12012879
cannot at the moment be proven nor disproven
fuck off

[Anonymous No.12012999]

>>12012924
As far as history was concerned, it was the religion in general that paved way for the progress in science.
From alcohol, to medicine even up to the preservation of knowledge after the fall of the Roman Empire. The church was behind it all.

Hell, the Big Bang theory was made a PRIEST

[Anonymous No.12013003]

>>12012960
>Many classical scientists had devout conviction for God
They were lying to avoid persecution. I'm sorry you had to find out this way anon.
My personal favourite example of this in action actually comes from philosophy rather than science. In his book 'leviathan' Hobbes defines all religion as a form of madness except the religion of the man who was paying his bills at the time.
In another example, Voltaire notes in his letters from England that Newton and his contemporaries practices and spread their own personal sect of Christianity, and expresses disappointment that the quakers survived when Newton's sect did not.

[Anonymous No.12013005]

>>12012879
Reminder that the theology of the Abrahamic God is identical to the psychology of the cluster B disorders.

[Anonymous No.12013008]

>>12012924
>when the church persecuted and killed people
What time period are you talking about? Are you retarded? Do you have any idea when those scientists lived? At least a fifth of them are still alive today, you mouthbreathing retard.

[Anonymous No.12013009]

>>12012999
Big bang is religion dressed up as science. So is spacetime.

[Anonymous No.12013010]

>>12012983
>seething atheist

[Anonymous No.12013012]

Belief in religion doesn't really have anything to do with intelligence, except for in the case of extremely stupid people who practice magical thinking and arrive at the concept of God on their own.
The very nature of religion means that it has pretty much no connection with logic, reasoning, etc. It's just something you arbitrarily either believe on not, like how you arbitrarily chose to believe what your eyes and ears tell you and believe that reality exists. It's such a basic assumption about the nature of reality that once it takes hold it's pretty unlikely a persons stance on the subject will ever change, barring some incredible circumstance that makes them reevaluate their entire life.

[Anonymous No.12013014]

>>12013009
>EiNsTeIn wAs WrOnG
Dumbass

[Anonymous No.12013016]

>>12013009
Big Bang is just a theory

[Anonymous No.12013017]

>>12013003
>They were lying to avoid persecution.
Ah yes, how convenient for you.
Meanwhile Baron d'Holbach, an vocal atheist, published the System of Nature in 1770.

[Anonymous No.12013018]

>>12013014
See:
>>12013009
.
>>12013016
I showed your mom my big bang theory.

[Anonymous No.12013023]

>>12013018
How was it?

[Anonymous No.12013024]

>>12013009
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.12013026]

>>12013018
We have the Cosmic Background Radiation to prove it's real. Too bad you don't even know what it is

[Anonymous No.12013027]

>>12013023
Rapid.

[Anonymous No.12013031]

>>12013024
Big Bang theory is based on a series of assumptions, is not repeatable, and the phenomena (something coming from nothing) in question has never been observed.


It’s just a theory

[Anonymous No.12013033]

>>12013026
lol
>muh mathemagical descriptions and equations prove my a priori notions are fact
k

[Anonymous No.12013038]

>>12013017
Nothing convenient about, if you read some of their works from the period it becomes very obvious that they are taking the piss whenever they talk about god

[Anonymous No.12013039]

>>12013033
>mathemagical descriptions and equations prove my a priori notions are fact
Yes.
That is correct

[Anonymous No.12013041]

>>12013039
Nope, incorrect. So there. Sorry, but it seems you're wrong. It is written.

[Anonymous No.12013042]

>>12013031
>and the phenomena (something coming from nothing) in question has never been observed.
It happens in quantum mechanics all the time.

[Anonymous No.12013043]

>>12013033
>he thinks the CBR is a mathematical construct
Oh anon...

[Anonymous No.12013044]

>>12013009
you coulda picked any other part of physics and sounded reasonable

[Anonymous No.12013045]

>>12013042
I swear I want to strangle you


I fucked your mom by quantum entangling my dick through your ass into her mouth

[Anonymous No.12013049]

>>12013043
>Find thing
>Tweak equation and criteria initial concept so thing fits with your idea
Whoa, confirmed!!!

>>12013044
Nope, I picked right.

>>12013045
lmao

[Anonymous No.12013053]

>>12013045
Seething christ cuck. No one is going to save you.

[Anonymous No.12013054]

>>12013041
01010011 01110101 01110010 01100101 00101100 00100000 01100010 01110010 01100001 01101001 01101110 01101100 01100101 01110100 00101110

[Anonymous No.12013060]

>>12013054
4e 6f 2c 20 79 6f 75 2e

[Anonymous No.12013062]

All it takes to be religious is to believe what you are told as a kid. It takes an actual working brain to reason your way out of the indoctrination that you most likely went through.

[Anonymous No.12013082]

There's one thing that really blows my mind about smart religious people. It's not that they believe in God; that is reasonable. Somebody can believe in something with no evidence, there's nothing inherently wrong with that if they own it.

What blows my mind is when a smart person starts using fallacies or obviously flawed reasoning to try to "prove" religion is true. I see this all the time with scientists and philosophers that really should know better. In every other case, they carefully use only good logic and careful thought. But then for religion, they're willing to use utter nonsense thinking. Like there well be a smart and educated person and they'll just throw out Pascal's Wager like they don't see the problem.

[Anonymous No.12013095]

>>12013082
Trauma bonded. There's an emotional component instilled by fear in early childhood, so rejecting God brings back the terror of conditional love and rejection by their parents. To question God invokes the fear of death itself, physical and identity.

[Anonymous No.12013102]

>>12013095
See also:
>>12013005

God is the terrifying parent. The absent mother who dominates and punishes by witholding her love and guidance, and the terrifying authoritarian father who punishes and demands obedience. The God who punishes and torments, the God who guides and saves. Yet, one and the same. So too of the traumatizing parents.

[Anonymous No.12013104]

>>12012945
are you one of those fags on twitter with the dharma emoji? lmaoooo

[Anonymous No.12013109]

>>12013102
By the amount of cope and projection you're displaying, all I can say is that I emphatize with the bad childhood you had. Hope you can move on from that.

[Anonymous No.12013111]

>>12012887
>Galileo
based

[Anonymous No.12013123]

>>12013109
I didn't have any religion in my childhood, nor were my parents like that. My mother was detached and dual in her own way that I can really describe. Beyond that though, I don't see an issue with the idea put forward. That's definitely one pathway which leads to clinging to God, the pain of losing self via the parents.

[Anonymous No.12013125]

>>12012879
No, but a belief in the power of God is.

[Anonymous No.12013140]

>>12013109
The belief that all non-religious people are bitter or have some trauma that makes them hate God is perhaps the most common cope I see from highly religious people.
Pretty much any time an atheist character shows up in a halmark movie, you can bet your ass that his character arc will reveal he isn't actually atheist, but just hates God personally for something bad that happened and is just pretending to be atheist for revenge against God.

[Anonymous No.12013222]

>>12013125
What is God then?

[Anonymous No.12013248]

>>12013222
God is clamped.

[Anonymous No.12013309]

>>12013222
At least a social construct

[Anonymous No.12013323]

>>12013009
LMAO

[Anonymous No.12013324]

Dude, the god is clamped was a decent funpost, why delete?

[Anonymous No.12013419]

>>12013038
>if you read some of their works from the period it becomes very obvious that they are taking the piss whenever they talk about god
LOL

[Anonymous No.12013419,1]

>>12013140
That’s literally true though.