/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1540099]

why do so many people such as Dawkins bother to argue so much with religious people?
if they're not retarded, the argument will eventually break down to:

can you prove that jesus is the son of god?
-no, but can you prove he's not?

and it ends there, and it will always end there.
from now on, we should make a law in science - if you cannot prove it, it is not real.

but then again, that's pretty flawed because there are many things in science we are currently still strongly speculating and may only later be able to prove it, things like strong theory.

[Anonymous No.1540122]

Nobody who uses an appeal to ignorance or incredulity, which is the only way to argue a God, is going to be convinced by logic as their prime argument is a logical FALLACY.

Arguing with the religious is not for the sake of the religious. It's for the sake of the bystander. The uninformed fence sitter. The individual wrapped up in it because "that's just how my family's always been."

[Anonymous No.1540154]

Fuck off to /r9k/ or /b/, this isn't a science thread.

[Anonymous No.1540223]

If the educated gave up on the uneducated, the rift would widen. Ethically speaking, that's a negative to begin with, but it means that the superstitious keep spreading their beliefs.

(And before anyone has a cow about the words "uneducated" or "superstitious", I'm talking about the type of people who refuse to allow their children to learn about gravity and tectonics on the basis that it comes from scientists who worship the devil. "And I don't want to talk to a scientist / Y'all motherfuckers lyin', and gettin' me pissed.")

[Anonymous No.1540231]

>can you prove that jesus is the son of god?
>-no, but can you prove he's not?

That's not how it works.

It is on the ones making the claim (IE, those who say he is the son of God) to supply the evidence. The burden of proof is on them.

If they can not proof it, or provide any evidence, it is logical to assume their claim is false.

[Anonymous No.1540255]

>>1540231
>>1540099

It's simple... you can't prove a negative statement. The definition of god makes his existence and his non-existence indistinguishable.

[Anonymous No.1540253]

>why do so many people such as Dawkins bother to argue so much with religious people?
Because many religious people have a detrimental effect to the progress of mankind.

>and it ends there, and it will always end there.
That's not how it works. There is no reason to assume something is true without evidence.

>from now on, we should make a law in science - if you cannot prove it, it is not real.
That's one of the fundamental concepts in science. How ignorant are you?

>but then again, that's pretty flawed because there are many things in science we are currently still strongly speculating
Scientific speculation is not the same as random fantasy ideas about deities.

[Anonymous No.1540265]

>>1540223
No no, someone that believes in a cosmic Jewish zombie that will grant them eternal life based on an ancient book (with many contradictions) is definitely superstitious and willfully (or unluckily) uneducated.

[Anonymous No.1540296]

i'm talking about in terms of possibly converting them or making them lose their argument, it's impossible since it always ends up the same way.

if they are ever losing an argument, they can always rely back on 'faith,' which one cannot prove, nor can one disprove it either.

yes, in science, we consider something that you cannot prove to be false (usually).

however, in society it is not the same, and most people aren't scientists or care about science either.

so i rephrase the part where we should make a law in science - yes it is already established so, however in society it is not.

[Anonymous No.1540301]

>>1540231
Well, that last thing you say it's an "ad ignorantia" fallacy

I'm not religious, but I think you are making a little mistake. Science doesn't see the diference betwen true theories and false theories, it does betwen scientific theories and not scientific theories (pseudocientific). I know Karl Popper is a little bit too old, but I think it is aceppted nowadays

[Anonymous No.1540302]

>>1540265
see:
>>1540255

I can't disprove the existence of god or Jesus, and that's never been my goal. I have no problem with their core beliefs. Would you tell your neighbor's kid that there's no Santa just because you're confident that you're right? My problem is with the collateral damage on education - I've talked with a college graduate from the Bible Belt who denies the existence of DNA (I guess it's too closely related to evolution.)

[Anonymous No.1540343]

How come nobody fucking realizes that when debating issues of this magnitude, it's not expected of the debater to be able to instantly convert someone on the spot.

People don't become atheists or religious after hearing one debate in which one side completely destroyed the other. People will always find ways to counteract any rational arguments against their case, mainly by simply going "No, you're just wrong".

What happens is that over time one side gradually makes people doubt their own convictions to the point were they have a hard time seeing the point in keeping true to their original belief and either accept that the other side won or that they can't win.

Ask anyone who have converted from one side to the other, they will always say that they first simply rejected the other side, then started to have doubts and finally giving up.

[Anonymous No.1540345]

Even if you had a 100% verifiable, proof by proof statement that showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that God did not exist, it would not change people's minds because they believe in God based on faith, not logic. It's like trying to mix oil and water. It just doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.1540437]

Religion seeps into everyday life. If you believe that God created all animals, and man, precisely as they currently exist, then you don't believe in evolution. If you don't believe in evolution, then you don't believe in genetic mutation. If you don't believe in genetic mutation, you don't believe in cancer. See? Believing in God as according to the Bible contradicts not only modern scientific theory but common knowledge as well.

If you, reader, don't believe in evolution, how do you explain the London Underground Mosquito which adapted to extremely specific local conditions? How do you explain the different breeds of dogs that have been bred *during* the history of man?

Oh... one more question. How do you explain the Agricultural Revolution that occurred between 8500 to 7000 BC if the Earth is only 6500 years old?

[Anonymous No.1540447]

>>1540437
they don't.

[jigsaw !.Nk8JUZJoU No.1540470]

>>1540099
since when has science tried to prove God exists?
you faggots just been repenting God since you heard about it, proving stuff God created. without God there wouldn't be science, you would have never repented God to take a step forward with your precious profit/science. Basically, you all sit around all day, writing things on paper, going outside and saying "By God! This flower does in-fact have a stem!" then relaying it back at each other.

You hypnotise the nation with words/media, then they follow your shitty cause because there is money in it....

Fuck, imagine if God was real, and science was wrong... How many people did you guys send to hell?

[Anonymous No.1540497]

>>1540470
that logic is a fallacy about going to hell.

what if god wanted only non believers to go to heaven for being free spirits and not mindlessly following society?

what if god isn't the christian god, but rather one of the other 38947243987 made up religions?

etc etc.


science CANNOT prove or disprove the existence of god, but it doesn't give a fuck. only think it does is further itself, which involves a lot of debunkage of the bible.

[Anonymous No.1540504]

>>1540470
Troll. I hope.

[Anonymous No.1540511]

>>1540099
Because Dawkins gets paid serious dolla for arguing with retarts.(It's like Tyson fighting babies)
And many, otherwise dumb, atheists keep buying his books.

[Anonymous No.1540521]

>>1540470
>since when has science tried to prove God exists?
The burden of proof doesn't lie on the scientists.
>you faggots just been repenting God since you heard about it, proving stuff God created.
Repenting God does not prove the "stuff" he "created".
>without God there wouldn't be science, you would have never repented God to take a step forward with your precious profit/science.
Proven false by existence of scientists who are also religious.
>Basically, you all sit around all day, writing things on paper, going outside and saying "By God! This flower does in-fact have a stem!" then relaying it back at each other.
So?
>You hypnotise the nation with words/media, then they follow your shitty cause because there is money in it....
More likely because it works.
>Fuck, imagine if God was real, and science was wrong... How many people did you guys send to hell?
Don't know, don't care. Spending any time with the Biblical God is one of the last things I'd like to do.

All in all you're a terrible troll and the attempt to gain a notoriety via tripcode only makes you look an order of magnitude more pathetic.

[jigsaw !.Nk8JUZJoU No.1540551]

The biblical God is highly misunderstood.
Before science, there was only religion. Without religion beginning, neither would science. Religion is required to build order, keep morality and advance. Science comes after. You 'repent/repell' religion as soon as the econemy is correct, and you begin a voyage called 'science'. Religion ----> Science. Science came second. Without religion ever beginning, neither would science.

Religion was around before science, before media/control. When people were pure, Religion was the way forward. So religion made the world what it is today - science is destroying all that religion created. All that God, (the creator, NOTHING ELSE, just the creator). made you are destroying to explore the rest of God's creation. You turn religion into profits, and you repent each other, to progress. However; religion is being killed off, science is trying to brainwash every fucking child with the idea that God doesn't exist.

What has science ever done for the world?
Found cures for diseases they created?
Killed trees to make paper so they can hypnotise the nations?
Pollute the atmosphere?
Spend more money on rockets than starving children?

Morality...?
Yeah right.
You all go to hell, and you bring thousands of innocent children with you because they don't know any better.

tl:dr no`

[None !YWeplvkCAY No.1540566]

>>1540551
you're retard.

[Anonymous No.1540610]

>>1540566
True, just like this statement: "Your reaction was predictable."

[None !YWeplvkCAY No.1540626]

>>1540610
i would have made a tl;dr post, but i figure he's most likely a troll, and if not, an idiot

so no point to go further.

[jigsaw !.Nk8JUZJoU No.1540635]

religion 1
science 0

[Anonymous No.1540640]

>>1540635

retard 0
retard 0

[jigsaw !.Nk8JUZJoU No.1540649]

pic related
it's science

[Anonymous No.1540657]

>>we should make a law in science - if you cannot prove it, it is not real.

[None !YWeplvkCAY No.1540659]

>>1540649
ok, i'll make it nice and short.

the bible makes a clear reference that the earth is only about 5,000 years old.

we can prove scientifically, very easily, that it is much more than 5,000 years old.

therefore, the fews parts of the bible that we can test are wrong, we can safely assume the other parts that cannot be unproven or proven are wrong as well.

now go fuck off

[Anonymous No.1540670]

>>1540659

When does it make that clear reference?

[Anonymous No.1540677]

>>1540253
>>from now on, we should make a law in science - if you cannot prove it, it is not real.
>That's one of the fundamental concepts in science. How ignorant are you?
If that were a concept in science, science could never progress

[Anonymous No.1540692]

>>1540253
>>That's one of the fundamental concepts in science. How ignorant are you?

DERP

HOW DOES I CONCEPTUAL SCIENCE? HOW DOES I OBSERVE SCIENCE?
HOW DOES I GO THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS OF OBSERVATION, RECORDING DATA, AND FULFILLING AN EXPERIMENT TO PROVE SOMETHING IF THERE'S NO POINT IN BELIEVING IT'S NOT REAL BECAUSE I HAVEN'T PROVED IT YET?

[Anonymous No.1540694]

>>1540659
The Bible makes no such reference, either clear or obscure. Some idiots assume the earth is 6,000 years old, because they think that every character mentioned in the bible is a historical person, including the character that is called in the Hebrew ADM, which is the word for "man" or "mankind". Then they added all their ages together, being super-literal cunts.

[Anonymous No.1540693]

>>1540470
Regardless of your puerile rhetoric science is by far more reliable process then any religion. It has actually come through on many of it's promises id est, man can now fly, we can actually HELP injured people, how about genetic design? Any of this interesting to you?
In any instance two hands working produces by far more then a thousand hands clasped in prayer.

As for logical process? I present for your examination: The following chart

[None !YWeplvkCAY No.1540707]

>>1540694
>>1540670
actually nevermind that.
it doesn't itself say 'the earth is 6,000 years old'

but if you study the bible and it's history, you will come up with that number for sure. all biblical scholars agree with it.

[jigsaw !.Nk8JUZJoU No.1540719]

wait wait wait.
Who created the word 'year'
I'm sure the original bible was in hebrew... Who on earth translated it? Was it... English... People?

So the original hebrew word, was turned into year. Okay. Just the like original word God was edited to be; supernatural being. Or heaven was a place in the clouds? or earth was planet earth

EHEHEhEHEHEHEH

[Anonymous No.1540723]

ITT: Uneducated (Read: Selectively Educated) religious people shutting their eyes of reason so as to see better with their eyes of faith.

And who can argue with faith?

[Anonymous No.1540726]

>>1540707
>if you're a super-literal mindless cunt, you will come up with that number for sure.
fix'd

[jigsaw !.Nk8JUZJoU No.1540732]

Nice chart, that's a misunderstood religion it's describing; "faith" it says haha! So wait, I believe 1 thing created the rest - as oppose to 'nothing' created the rest. I'm supposed to have "faith" in this point of view? Lol you must be joking. Would binary on a computer work without a starting point, or is it just like "Walah!" and a computer pops out.

[Anonymous No.1540735]

Debating christians really does have an effect on them, because if you keep stumbling on pulling "faith cards" or "prove he is not" then eventually they begin to doubt their own faith, and if not then the people who hear your arguments do. more and more people are losing their religion and it is because of debate

[Anonymous No.1540737]

>>1540726
It's cool. Anti-religionists require strawmen for their arguments. They're only willing to argue with the religious idiots, not the religious smart people. Otherwise, shit gets too hard.

[Anonymous No.1540743]

>>1540732
If you don't understand the math behind the creation of the universe perhaps this can clarify it for you.
There are still some big words in it that you might have trouble with but press on, it might make sense for you at the end.

[None !YWeplvkCAY No.1540747]

and also, the bible isn't even fucking original work.

it uses a lot of ancient scriptures.

[Anonymous No.1540755]

>>1540737
>religious smart people
Oh you.

[None !YWeplvkCAY No.1540758]

>>1540737
>religious smart people

what

no such thing, only the ones who are used to arguing exist. and those just have the same arguments over and over, and it will end up like op described it.

[Anonymous No.1540760]

>>1540732
>>1540737

I presume the both of you understand the concept of quantum fluctuation or 'Quantum Jitter'?

[Anonymous No.1540765]

>>1540735
You're freaking delusional. Your so-called arguments are things every religious person worked through when they were 14 years old.

[jigsaw !.Nk8JUZJoU No.1540768]

"First God created the Heaven and Earth"

Religious View -
Ok, first one thing created two other things. They must be relative seeing as we're talking about creation.

Scientific View -
Ok one old man sitting on a cloud created a kingdom in the clouds and a planet under the clouds called earth. Lol gtfo bitch I'm doing science - this bible crap is bullshit, people actually put faith into this.

[Anonymous No.1540782]

>>1540743
Uhm... That's not atheism. You can believe all of that and still be a theist. In fact, I've met people that are.

[Anonymous No.1540787]

>>1540760
I suppose you bought into the fallacious argument that the quantum vacuum state is the same thing as "nothing"?

[Anonymous No.1540799]

Smart Religious people?

I have known a few, but never when discussing religious topics.

Its a dead give away when people have to set most of their argument on rhetoric and circumstance. Or faith, which is really just believing that something that isn't is or may be.

Helps when in love with girls, not so much with guessing what happens after death.

[Anonymous No.1540800]

>replying to a religion thread without saging

my face

[jigsaw !.Nk8JUZJoU No.1540801]

Lol!
I'm just trollin' you guys!
I don't care if you believe in God or not. All that matters is I do, and I will spread the word to my friends, with my own religious view, using logic and life-experiences to get the point across, to those I actually care about.

You guys can carry on playing with klien bottles and reading propaganda books, I'll continue living life and loving God.

[Anonymous No.1540802]

>>1540755
Maxwell
Newton
Swedenborg <= highest estimated IQ of any historical figure
Plato
Pythagoras

MORONS!

[None !YWeplvkCAY No.1540815]

>>1540802
they weren't religious.
they definitely didn't pray.

they were written as religious in the history books - why? back in those days, if you weren't Christian in Europe, you were sent to prison.

and also, none of them ever clearly mentioned their religious standpoint.

[Anonymous No.1540818]

>>1540800
LULZ

WTF you christfags doing in /sci/ anyhow!?
Go back to trolling the freaks of /b/.
also sage

Also also: If religiosity is worth anything why do you have to go relearn it every week?

[Anonymous No.1540825]

>>1540799
Smart religious people tend not to use the word "faith" so much. Or if they do, they mean something different by it than the common meaning. For example, Swedenborg meant by "faith" the whole complex of concepts that made up a person's understanding.

[Anonymous No.1540821]

>>1540802
>Implying that they could argue the existence of God, that IQ matters, and that anyone cares that there are in fact intelligent religious people

[Anonymous No.1540824]

Science cannot disprove solipsism.

[Anonymous No.1540831]

There is no way to win this argument. Either side who claims to be right is the ignorant one. As you can see, again both sides share the same attribute. Stop with this hate, it just wastes everyone's time and leads to nowhere.

[Anonymous No.1540837]

>>1540831
>sage on troll post

3/10

[jigsaw !.Nk8JUZJoU No.1540854]

A baby moth landed on my leg, and hid in the crease of my jeans. I put some music on and took out my headphones, turned it down low, and placed them next to the moth. it's just sat there listening to it now. I wan't it experience beauty in life. When that moth dies in a few days, what happens to it?

[Anonymous No.1540859]

>>1540815
HAHAHAHA, you fucking uneducated twat.

Swedenborg wrote over 20 volumes of biblical exegesis, and wrote down all the fundamental doctrines that he believed constituted the correct understanding of God, and the correct exercise of religion in his 2 volume True Christian Religion.

I should have also included Kierkegaard, who wrote extensively on what true Christianity was, and on the failures of present churches. And he fucking lived what he wrote.

Newton wrote more on his religious views than he did on his scientific views. He wrote extensively on the relationship between God and man, and man's responsibilities to God and to his fellow man. He wrote that "atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors." He wrote many things that to him proved God's existence.

Plato and Pythagoras are the sources of many, if not most the ideas about God that are now associated with Christianity. The early Christians adopted much of their works into their doctrines. I could give you many examples if you like.

[Anonymous No.1540861]

>>1540854
It rots or is eaten and is then recycled by nature

[Anonymous No.1540872]

>>1540815
>Plato
>Pythagoras
>Christians in Europe

You give atheists a bad name.

[Anonymous No.1540877]

everyone needs to just forget about what anyone says and believe what they want.

[jigsaw !.Nk8JUZJoU No.1540886]

It lives on...
>>1540861

If a cell is able to create a duplicate, therefore it is creating another from nothing. Do you think that the cells 'energy' dies and moves into the other cell, so essentially dying would be like a rebirth?

[Anonymous No.1540888]

>>1540877
I believe that a dog tells me to kill people

[Anonymous No.1540891]

>>1540877

Yes. Considering that the whole war bullshit isn't going anywhere, anyway. Atheists won't make Christians (It only are Christians) not believe in God and Christians won't convert Atheists. Where is the god damn point?

[Anonymous No.1540894]

>>1540886
No, matter does not retain memory nor does energy

[Anonymous No.1540911]

>>1540891
to be fair, I was born and raised Lutheran and became Atheist when I was 15

[jigsaw !.Nk8JUZJoU No.1540914]

ok thanks for the info
>>1540894

[Anonymous No.1540968]

>>1540911
Dude, everyone's an atheist at 15. You're supposed to grow out of that shit.

[Anonymous No.1540981]

>>1540968
nope

[Anonymous No.1540989]

>>1540968
luls at this thread

does anyone in it actually believe in any god?

[Anonymous No.1541087]

>>1540989
>implying there are actual atheists in 4chan, rather than just trolls

[Anonymous No.1541199]

>>1541087

>Implying your not a troll.