/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1584622]

So, I'm starting to get more interested in the religion/science/whatnot debate and I was wondering if you guys could recommend me books about it.

Also, I was wondering if any of Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens books were worth it.

[Anonymous No.1584632]

Bump

[Anonymous No.1584666]

Religion vs science is not a debate.

It's not a debate if one side is OBJECTIVELY FUCKING WRONG AND RETARDED.

By the way, read The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Greatest Show on Earth. Then maybe The God Delusion. You see, Dawkins is not only an atheist. He's a brilliant biologist.

[Anonymous No.1584690]

>>1584666
Sorry, it just seemed like the easiest way to explain without starting another huge HURR DURR shitstorm.

Thank you for the suggestions.

[Anonymous No.1584693]

>>1584666
Also Satan get.

[Anonymous No.1584706]

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan. It's about science vs supernatural beliefs.

[Anonymous No.1584711]

This:
An Index to Creationist Claims
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

and it's free

[Anonymous No.1584724]

http://fora.tv/2006/10/23/Richard_Dawkins

[Anonymous No.1584726]

>>1584706
No idea how I could forget Sagan, thanks.
>>1584711
Thank you, I didn't know such a website existed.

[tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc No.1584740]

you are wasting your time OP since science says nothing that contradicts religion and religion says nothing which contradicts science.

Its all just a bunch of fanboys of one or the other arguing.

[Anonymous No.1584749]

>>1584740
>science says nothing that contradicts religion and religion says nothing which contradicts science.

[Anonymous No.1584755]

>>1584740

>science says nothing that contradicts religion and religion says nothing which contradicts science.

[Anonymous No.1584761]

>>1584740
Well then, do you know any good scientific books or religious books?

[Anonymous No.1584768]

>>1584740

[Anonymous No.1584770]

>>1584740

>science says nothing that contradicts religion and religion says nothing which contradicts science.

[Anonymous No.1584780]

Well, I'm glad you guys turned this thread into another HURP DURP shitstorm

[Anonymous No.1584783]

>>1584740
>science says nothing that contradicts religion and religion says nothing which contradicts science.

How about the following claims made in the Bible:
People rising from the dead.
Rivers turning into blood.
All the firstborn males in an entire country dying overnight.
Water into wine.
Rivers being split.
The Earth SPINNING BACKWARDS. (If that ever happened, the tectonic plates would fly right out into space and the Earth's crust be torn apart. Obviously it hasn't been.)
The fucking flood.
People living to be several hundred years old.
The entire human race stemming from 8 people, without any adverse effects from inbreeding.

And that's just the ones I could think of off the top of my head. I can find Bible verses for all of them if you want.

[Anonymous No.1584792]

>>1584740
trolling is an science

[Anonymous No.1584795]

>>1584783
In addition to the Earth spinning backwards, the Earth ceasing to rotate for an hour, then rotating again. IT WOULD BE TORN APART.

[Anona No.1584794]

I also has an interest. It's hard to find forums where each can be presented on equal ground. I don't want to say that it's because religion is just so painfully ignorant to its own loopholes that it digs its own grave and has absolutely no way of saving itself, but it would be great if there were someone who could figure out a way to present an intelligent debate on the topic. However, I get the sense that this may be entirely impossible and, if attempted with any gravity (no pun intended), could even unwrap the laws of the universe :(.

[Anonymous No.1584797]

nothing to see here, just another thread ruined by a tripfag

[Anonymous No.1584802]

>>1584794
You can't present rational arguments based on evidence and superstition on equal grounds. It's not even desirable too. Theists deserve all the ridicule you can throw at them. Picture related. Religion DOES NOT deserve respect. At all.

[Anona No.1584807]

>>1584802
Honestly, I agree. I just can't understand how, in the amazing era in which we live, people can look at the ignorance of their situation and choose it over knowledge. It terrifies me.

[Anonymous No.1584811]

>>1584622
You need a good understanding of fallacies, a decently solid knowledge of general science, and common criticisms to science.
Also, a good habit for checking sources.
Until yesterday I was still thinking that Sweden does has an unusually suicide rate (an argument used by some believers against secular societies), but it's yet another piece of bullshit.
I had forgotten checking it...

Protip: disregard Zeitgeist, it's mainly bullshit.
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/

More lecture:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/download/tamarad/papers/SciAm_BigBang.pdf
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/07/big-bang-common-misconceptions.html
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~aes/AST105/Readings/misconceptionsBigBang.pdf

[Anonymous No.1584813]

The entire human race stemming from 8 people, without any adverse effects from inbreeding.

I never read the part where it said there where no inbreeding problems.

Also stop taking the whole think so literal. If an ice dam broke and flooded everywhere you could see and pushed you out to the ocean how the hell would you not know the whole earth was not flooded.

[Anonymous No.1584826]

watch the series "why people laugh at creationists" by Thunderf00t (more than 30 videos!) and "CrAP debunked" by AndromedasWake.
Also check the excellent videos by AronRa, C0nc0rdance, dprjones, all of them in youtube, too.

[Anonymous No.1584832]

>>1584813
>I never read the part where it said there where no inbreeding problems.
It doesn't. Just take a look around you. This is not the Bible contradicting itself. This is the Bible contradicting COMMON FUCKING SENSE and EVERY-FUCKING-DAY EXPERIENCE. The human species is obviously NOT an inbred bunch. Yet the Bible claims only 8 people survived the flood. Oh and between 2 and 14 individuals of each species. Never mind that there are over ONE MILLION insect species. They all fit on that boat (the dimensions of which are in the bible) and lived within reasonable distance of Noah AND could survive in that climate.

>Also stop taking the whole think so literal. If an ice dam broke and flooded everywhere you could see and pushed you out to the ocean how the hell would you not know the whole earth was not flooded.
Either you take the Bible literally, or you admit the superiority of science and reason and throw the whole damn thing out. If you claim that some parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and some not, how can you tell the difference? Well what should be regarded as metaphorical is generally what is OBVIOUSLY wrong according to science. So either fundamentalist, or GTFO. Tertium non datur.

[Anonymous No.1584839]

>>1584794
>>1584794
this is what would happen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSLkQnCurgs

[tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc No.1584844]

>>1584783
christianity is "a religion", it is not "religion".
Like phrenology is "a science", and not "science"

You can argue something like, say, evolution, vs a specific religions stance. you can not argue 'religion' vs 'science' however.

And the fact that every single time someone mentions religion ALL of you fucking morons read it as christianity demonstrates you are just blabbering fanboys who don't bother thinking.

[Anonymous No.1584871]

>>1584844
christianity makes other religions look bad

[Anonymous No.1584874]

>>1584844
Well it's the one I know the most about. But if you now make the distinction between "a religion" and "religion" without an article, maybe you should have made it in the first place?

Religion is incompatible with science.

[Anona No.1584900]

>>1584844
>>1584844
>>And the fact that every single time someone mentions religion ALL of you fucking morons read it as christianity demonstrates you are just blabbering fanboys who don't bother thinking.


Christianity is the most prevalent religion in the US/Canada, which is where I'm assuming most of us are from.

>>You can argue something like, say, evolution, vs a specific religions stance. you can not argue 'religion' vs 'science' however.

Yes, we can. Religion is a belief in supernatural powers governing or otherwise influencing mankind, is it not? Science continuously disproves this. Therefore, one can argue science against religion.

[Anonymous No.1584911]

>>1584900
Indeed, every single time a mystery has been solved, the answer has been NOT MAGIC. Disease? Not magic. Solar system? Not magic. Magnets? NOT MAGIC.

[tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc No.1584927]

>>1584871
Actually not really. Mainstream christianity is full of people who like mainstream things, common people can make anything look bad.

>>1584874
religion is like science, in that it is an approach towards understanding things.

Both are viewpoints. On their own they tell you nothing, they essentially approach the same problem from opposite directions. They used to be somewhat the same discipline, after all the first religions were just explanations for natural phenomena people observe.

Whereas science looks at these phenomena and uses reasoning and observation to try and work out how they work, and then test it. Religion looks at these phenomena and uses reasoning and observation to try and work out why they are, and you can't test that.

A somewhat universal theme in religion has been the old adage "as above, so below". The translation of this is that "the microcosm reflects the macrocosm, and the macrocosm reflects the microcosm". The idea here is that the observations people observed, can be applied and used two ways. Science can use them to better understand the immediate microcosm, come up with ideas and test them. Religion can look at these same observations and experiences, and try to extrapolate a larger picture of the all of everything (not just physical reality, but beyond, which science can not touch)

[Anona No.1584930]

For example: I just put this on my tumblr today. It's an article about how people honestly don't believe in THE FUCKING GERM THEORY OF FUCKING DISEASE:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/yes_there_really_are_people_who_dont_acc.php

[Anona No.1584941]

>>1584927
>>not just physical reality, but beyond, which science can not touch)

You should truly be an hero.

[Anonymous No.1584943]

>Religion looks at these phenomena and uses reasoning and observation to try and work out why they are, and you can't test that.
NO. Religion is not in ANY way based on rational inquiry based on evidence. It just isn't. Faith means belief without evidence. Observation IS evidence.

They are NOT equivalent methods of acquiring knowledge. In fact, only one of them is a valid method.

[tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc No.1584942]

>>1584927

Many (but not all) religions have various deities that play roles varying from entirely passive to intimately active in the day to day happenings, these have all just been reasoned out of observation. Why does this unexplainable thing happen in such a convenient way? Or in such a predictable way? No correlation to mundane events can be made, so obviously something sapient causes it! Its a fairly straight forward assumption and its easy to see how someone makes it.

There was a time when it was all linked together, it was the same discipline. Being able to approach something from either perspective, allowing the insights to feed off of each other.

Look at hermeticism for a wonderful example of the synergy.

In fact, that science has removed itself from religion, is the very reason you have mainstream religion in the state it is today. Commoners would think whatever it is they think, but the people higher up would always understand the relation and there would be very few if any religious leaders for the masses to rally behind.

[Anonymous No.1584950]

[Anonymous No.1584956]

>>1584622

[Anonymous No.1584957]

>>1584941
Yeah, he really should. It's like people who say "before the universe" and "outside the universe" and think those are meaningful phrases. If only there was more selection towards rational people...

[Anonymous No.1584960]

>>1584900
quick edit to understand /sci

[Anonymous No.1584963]

>>1584622
>religion/science/whatnot debate

0/10

[tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc No.1584970]

>>1584943
>religion
>faith

There you go mentioning christianity again.

By the way faith doesn't even mean what you or most christians think it does.

The idea that you need faith or need more faith or geeze things would work out if only i had faith! are stupid and maybe even heretical from a real christian point of view.

I could go into this, but i wont. because you are either a troll or an idiot.

[Anonymous No.1584977]

[Anonymous No.1584984]

>>1584970
>even heretical from a real christian point of view.
Except the part where Jesus Christ says that a Christian with faith the size of a mustard seed can MOVE MOUNTAINS. (Yes, it's in the Bible, read it.)

>Implying faith isn't a defining property of religion.

[Anonymous No.1584992]

>>1584963
>>1584956
That's some nice samefagging.

You should probably go back to /b/ because this was a perfectly good thread

[Anonymous No.1584994]

I honestly believe religion and science can coexist happily side by side. Mind you I myself am a Christian but I do firmly believe in the big bang and evolution as I firmly believe in their being an ultimate creator. I don't think religion is a bad thing at all, honestly I feel badly for it because of how it has been distorted so much. Christianity is the easiest example of that due to it being more prevalent in I would say most of our lives here in /sci/. I mean we as human's are flawed and we seek answers through science and others seek answers through religion. Science can offer you concrete facts, while religion can give you faith and hope, which is what it should be about.

Believing in God is exactly what it is believing or faith. I have faith that he is in whatever form or capacity there is for God to exist in. Many people like to argue about free will and if it does exist then there could be no possible way an ultimate creator could exist because we would not have true free will. Which is perfectly understandable. Now this is where I believe and where I think we have free will and we are a people of science. I believe we have free will and I also believe there is an ultimate creator that did instill this into us, now if he is omnipotent, omnipresent or whatever is it to hard to believe that we as flawed men and women cannot understand or comprehend that he can know all our infinite possible choices and their outcomes but still be as such that he does not interfere with them? I do I just think that there are things we don't understand and that is where we turn to science in order to learn and understand what and how the universe works. I believe that abandoning science and saying that there is no evolution is both folly and foolish. As that in what I believe God gave us science to unravel the mysteries of the universe......

[Anonymous No.1584996]

>>1584994

Continuing from this post...

They can both exist together. I mean as practitioners of science I think that there can be a lack of faith and as followers of religion there can be a lack of understanding. These are what I believe and I don't expect anyone to change their opinions but hey if I am right great awesome, if not I am willing to learn and accept the changes.

[Anonymous No.1584999]

>>1584994
tl;dr

[Anona No.1585003]

>>1584999
Don't worry about it, it was incoherent rambling anyways.

[tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc No.1585044]

>>1584984
Thats actually the example that disproves the modern understanding. If faith the size of a mustard seed can do all that, why do people need more of it?

Understand that the modern definition of faith is based off of the incorect assumption of the meaning of faith within christianity. What we need to look at is what faith meant at the time that the bible was originally translated into english, the first time that the english word faith was linked to the greek or hebrew words of the original manuscripts.

[Anona No.1585057]

>>1585044

It doesn't matter, because for an intelligent mind faith is just another word for ignorance.

If you've got some big daddy in your head that is just rooting for your every decision, that's great. But that's the only instance in which God or any other deity exists -- INSIDE YOUR HEAD.

People who are science-minded are looking past the idea of faith because we want to show you that, that's all well and good, but you're deceiving yourself instead of accepting things that can be proven as truths. Religion asserts its stance and sticks by it no matter what. At least science is willing to admit that its wrong and go back to the drawing board for another try.

[tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc No.1585071]

>>1585057
lol, i tell you it doesn't mean what you think it does and then you say it doesn't matter because [reason involving what you initially said it means]

[Anonymous No.1585087]

>>1585044

I honestly am not implying more of it. I am by no means the most religious person you will ever meet. But I agree with you why is it that people have to drown everything with it? I wish I knew but is it not possible for me to believe that there was a big bang that was trigger by "God" and that he laid the foundations of science and evolution or whatever is out in this universe of ours. I mean science is the most important thing to us as human beings we have to keep pushing it. Maybe I am ignorant, but I won't tell somebody they are wrong no matter their religious views, however if said person says evolution is not there then I will have to disagree with them.

Like I said that is what I believe and isn't religion about believing and having faith?

[Anona No.1585093]

>>1585071


Then please, define for me the definition of 'faith' in Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic and anything else that you find to be relevant.

[Anonymous No.1585118]

>>1585057

No I am not saying that if I sit here and believe hard enough that a divine power will make it so. Not in the least. Faith is as is religion are difficult thing to interrupt. I am well aware of science's ability to accurately tell me what is and what is not and I am greatly relieved for that. If not then I would have died long ago believing God would cure my diabetes for as I sat there and let myself fall apart from hyperglycemic blood sugars.

I suppose I was a little vague and I am by no means telling anyone that I am right and that my way is better than yours. That is ridiculously foolish, but I can understand what you are saying.

[tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc No.1585121]

>>1585093
Faith comes from fealty, and it more or less means acknowledging the feudal contract between the lord and the vassal.

A person with faith more or less is just aware of and upholds their part of the 'contract' with their deity, who is expected to uphold their part in return.

Its not about 'believing'. Its about adhering.

[Anona No.1585134]

>>1585121


FAITH

Origin:
1200–50; ME feith < AF fed, OF feid, feit < L fidem, acc. of fidēs trust, akin to fīdere to trust.

[sage No.1585143]

>>1585121

[tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc No.1585147]

>>1585121
An interesting note, is that while you would assume someone who has faith, also believes, you don't necessarily need to. you could have faith and not believe at all, and according to christianity anyway, its just as good.

Stepping back and looking at other religions in general, you will notice a concept that "purity of action leads to purity of heart/soul/thought/whatever". This is why many religions are highly ritualistic, the actual doing of certain things in certain ways is important, this is because having faith is more important than believing.

[Anona No.1585177]

>>1585147

You still don't seem to be able to get it. Faith is an illusion. Science is cold, hard fact.

[tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc No.1585198]

>>1585134
Really anonymous? Internet dictionary quotes?

If you actually knew how to read the damn thing you would see that the words "Faith, Fidelity, Fealty" are all very closely related linguistically, even on internet dictionary websites.

Fealty:
1275–1325; ME feute, feaute, fealtye < AF, OF feauté, fealté < L fidēlitāt- (s. of fidēlitās) [[[[[fidelity]]]]]; internal -au-, -al- from feal, reshaping (by substitution of -al- -al1) of fe(d)eil < L fidēlis

Fidelity:
1375–1425; late ME fidelite (< MF) < L fidēlitās, equiv. to fidēli- (s. of fidēlis loyal, equiv. to fidē(s) [[[[[faith]]]]] + -lis adj. suffix) + -tās -ty2
brackets added by my to point out where you should be looking, since you obviously missed it.

[Anonymous No.1585215]

>>1585198

Really namefag? Faith in a /sci/board? Get out, trollfag.

[Anonymous No.1585220]

[aether !xewDWpXrpg No.1585227]

You're an idiot, science helps people, maybe some things science created wasn't helping, but cures for illnesses and explaining how the universe works, it's beautiful. I'm an English major, and all I want to do is science. Real-science... I'm just an uneducated kid who wants to be a scientist. If you posted more science on /sci/, basics first, i might actually be able to follow my dream, and other peoplel coming here wont automatically post religon.
>>1585177

[aether !xewDWpXrpg No.1585234]

>>1585220
>>1585220
Comical

[Anonymous No.1585242]

>>1585227
WTF?
aether actually not acting faggy for once?
aether with an actual point?
Did hell just freeze over?

[tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc No.1585246]

>>1585215
I agree, i tried avoiding getting into this too much in my previous posts, anonymous eventually sucked me in to it. Good thing i won so quickly, now we dont have to think about it anymore ~_^

[Anonymous No.1585414]

>>1585227

I hereby declare that the batshit troll known only as aether is the best goddamn troll in the entirety of /sci/.