/sci/ - Science & Math

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.2051493]

Go to my departments student lounge.
Stick burrito in Microwave.
See this flyer on wall.

Wut do?

[Anonymous No.2051513]

[Anonymous No.2051530]

>>2051493
LEAVE THAT DEPARTMENT!
An education there isn't worth shit!

[Anonymous No.2051547]

>>2051493


you just have to remind people how intrinsically stupid they really are.
"evolution" is not a theory. Evolution is the name that describes a specific OBSERVED, experimentally, process of mutation and adaptation.


The "question" and "debate" regards how scientists apply this AXIOM (evolution) to describe/model how species have changed and where they started from.


again, evolution is not a theory, it is not a question, it is not up for debate.


in the same way that magneto hydrodynamics is the name of a field of science that is well defined (a field of applied physics/mathematics that studies magnetically or electrically charged fluids like plasmas and the mantle of the earth)....


yet the fact that the models/equations that define this field of science are THE MOST difficult equations/models to solve in non-relativistic physics...


it doesnt change the fact that the field of study is still valid.


Evolution describes the process of adaptation through environmental, psychological, or biological processes.
again, the debate is:


"what is the correct way to apply the concept of evolution to explain how complicated organisms arose from single cell organisms, and how single cell organisms arose from simple organic chemicals"
do you understand the distinction I am making?


people tend to blindly/deafly comment on "debates" that are a subject of public interest.

people rarely actually think for 2 seconds about what is actually being discussed.

[Anonymous No.2051549]

I observe that one dude was disturbed enough about his faith being completely undone from a logical standpoint to write a whole book specifically calling out Dawkins.

I find it funnier that the guy is treating Dawkins like the master of all of evolutionary theory, and if you can disprove Dawkins that's it, all of evolution is finished, God wins, paraiise jaaysus!

Anyway the author, despite having a PhD in chemistry, is a young-earth creationist. That should fill you in on pretty much everything you need to know. Clearly, a chemist discussing matters that ONLY biochemists/molecular biologists are truly suited to address is indicative of a faggot who is obviously overstepping his bounds and only getting away with not being called out on it because he's working with a bunch of people who are actively rejecting the very pillars of modern science to begin with.

I'd write some hilarious commentary on the flyer in marker. That or just rip it down, take it out on the street and urinate on it.

[Anonymous No.2051559]

Ignore it?

We have christfags on our campus too. Don't give them attention.

[Anonymous No.2051582]

attend with an open mind or dont go at all, its simple unless youre a butthurt teen atheist

[Anonymous No.2051589]

lol, one of his associates came to my uni back when I was studying architecture. I managed to ruin all his arguments with only a basic understanding of the principles, and quite a lot of knowledge about logical fallacies.

My favourite creationist argument is that the fossil record is explainable because animals that weren't as complex were less able to escape the flood waters. Which I just does explain all the tortoises in the Cambrian........

captcha: cancrunt Richards

[Anonymous No.2051591]

>>2051549

The dude's a physical chemist, I might add. If he at least worked in something that could be relegated to biochem, I'd give him a bit of a listen since he might actually be well-versed on molecular bio, but, it's very possible that a physical chemist received no course work on biology whatsoever besides some basic introductory classes (which do not even scratch the surface of what it takes to understand why evolution is downright indisputable as fact).

It's a shame really, a guy who spent all that time getting his PhD only to throw his scientific career under the bus, because he thinks that if a religious organization has contradictory opinions on scientific affairs, clearly the religious people who know near-nothing of the sciences are the correct ones and have never had their rulings disproven in the past!

[Anonymous No.2051605]

>>2051591
are you really trying to insinuate a physical chemist would know nothing about life? sorry to burst your bubble, but i think it might be you who is ignorant

[Anonymous No.2051616]

Rip it down and if it bothers you that much make a complaint to the university registrar for illegal use of communal noticeboard space.
Basically, you can't ban this shit on the basis of it being shit... but you can point out that a student is essentially using the student lounge noticeboard to advertise a commercial product (he's selling this book for money right?), and I would assume that's against the rules.
If that doesn't work, just rip this one down, wait for the guy to come back to replace it then stab him.

[Anonymous No.2051617]

>>2051605
I believe he is saying that a physical chemist has no qualifications to speak about evolution. Which is true.

[Anonymous No.2051633]

>>2051493
Change major to physics. Engineering sucks. In the mean time tear down the poster and use it as additional thermal shielding for your hands while holding your toasty burrito.

[Anonymous No.2051637]

Picture is stupid.
Kings can't take kings.
They can't even put kings in check because that would put them in check.

Rip it down and replace it with a picture of a proper checkmate.

[Anonymous No.2051639]

>>2051617

I disagree with that sentiment. Every academian's opinion should be noted, even if it's outside of their field. Noted and dismissed, perhaps, but let's not bust out the arguments from authority. We are not /new/.

[Anonymous No.2051660]

>>2051617
how do you figure? id say a physical chemist is more qualified than a biologist for knowing things at a much deeper level

[Anonymous No.2051661]

>>2051617

And he's free to submit a paper to peer review, or to point out issues with Dawkins work.

[Anonymous No.2051663]

>>2051639
An argument from authority means nothing when said said authority is unrelated to the topic at hand. I sure as hell and won't stand by should a philosophy major come down to my physics department and tell me how quantum mechanics works.

[Anonymous No.2051673]

>>2051663

You will listen to what he says and tell him why he's wrong, autistic fucktard. You will not say LOLLOSOPHY and ignore him.

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.2051678]

>>2051616 he's selling this book for money right?

No. It was a flyer advertising him giving a presentation at my university, in the agronomy building of all places. I'm really fucking disappointed, I thought my school was better than this shit.

Turns out the flyer is old, and the presentation was last weak (I should really go to class more often). My bio-department did me proud by coming out in full force with a table of books and pamphlets outside the auditorium explaining how evolution actually works, and calling his bullshit during the lecture.

[Anonymous No.2051688]

>>2051673

This works up to the point where philosophy students are arriving to the physics department in droves, each demanding equal time to be heard. Not one of them has been right yet, but they keep coming. Would denying them an argument, even one that the physics student is sure to win, be an example of stifling scientific freedom? I mean, any one of these philosophy students is free to challenge the physics students on a fair playing field, but they don't want that, they just want everyone to hear the argument and understand that physics is not right because they personally don't understand or like it.

This is, to some degree, the situation with evolution.

[Anonymous No.2051697]

>>2051673
And what if the person that comes to my physics department is a farmer with a educational equivalent of 3rd grade? Both he and the philosophy major have the same knowledge of quantum mechanics. My problem is that you are calling a philosophy major an authority. The philosophy major might be an authority on SOMETHING, but if that something isn't quantum mechanics or something semi-related then the philosophy major is not an authority. Hell, you could call the farmer an authority on agriculture. By your logic he also deserves to be heard. If so then you didn't mean every authority should be heard, you mean EVERYONE should be heard.

Like I said, I only have a problem with your definition of authority. In my opinion an authority can all be called an authority if he/she/they is knowledgeable on the topic at hand. To me, that seems like the most practical definition.

[Anonymous No.2051703]

>>2051688
just because you rationalize scenarios where your opponents argument may be wrong doesnt mean you have any proof to back up your claims. most refutations evolution-worshippers give seem to just be made up scenarios instead of actual evidence.

[Anonymous No.2051716]

>>2051688

If chemistry professors were coming in droves to tell us that evolution is wrong, I would seriously reflect on what exactly we mean by evolution and what exactly it entails.

Jonathan Sarfati is a legitimate scholar and while he is wrong on this, you can't ignore him based on LOL CHEMISTRY alone.

[Anonymous No.2051725]

>>2051697

You missed the point. The argument from authority was meant in it's converse, as in "Let's ignore the opinion of everyone who is not a professor in ____".

BUT WHO HIRES THE CHEESEMAKERS, ANON? This stance is unsustainable because it implies that every academian is unchallengeable in their own little field, because certainly no one else in the world based their PhD on the exact same topic by definition of original research.

[Anonymous No.2051733]

>>2051703

There are no evolution worshippers. Are there gravity worshippers? Atom worshippers?


The process through which we arrived at consensus regarding evolution in general is rigorous. Anyone is free at any time to challenge it with a paper that will be subject to the same level of review. There is a massive incentive to publish research that debunks evolution, such a paper would make you famous forever in the annals of science, and yet no such research is forthcoming. Do not mistake the discussion in the public forum for any kind of schism in the scientific community. The only reason people who are not themselves scientists, or who have no faith in science, ever even dispute the validity of evolution is due to it's apparent conflict with religious teachings, not because of any issues with evolution per se.

[Anonymous No.2051736]

>>2051688

I suspect that the only reason universities allow such presentations to be made, is simply so that the related department can be there on-hand, to guide any curious undergrads on how to react to a real-life example of someone completely shitting all over their field of interest (and trying to make you eat their shit). I'd think it's a good exercise because it's very likely that most scientists will at some point in their lives have an encounter with an unsavory guy who has made it a major aspect of his life to disprove everything that you stand for. Incidentally we get that every day on 4chan and so I guess we're quite adjusted to the sarcastic dismissal response instead of flying into a rage (or worse yet, buying into their shit).

This is sort of like why MIT allowed that seriously crazy TimeCube guy to give a presentation there. Basically they later used it as an example of Devil's Proof.

[Anonymous No.2051741]

>>2051716

Chemistry professors who think there is a problem with evolution in general are in a vast minority, and, as I say, they are free to publish a paper and submit it to peer review.


>DO NOT MISTAKE DISCUSSION IN THE PUBLIC FORUM FOR ANY KIND OF SCHISM IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

Seriously, you guys.

[Anonymous No.2051745]

>>2051703
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_Benedict_XVI_and_today

[Anonymous No.2051749]

>>2051660
>>2051703
Troll tier

[Anonymous No.2051755]

Read the book, come up with logical counter arguments and be done with it.

I've skimmed though it, its nothing to go nuts about. Its not the say the man doesn't have an idea of what he's talking about, but for the most part its filled with plain incorrect logic and thoughts.

Anyone with a decent knowledge of evolution in general can go though it and pick out its flaws. But to the uneducated person it sounds great and makes perfect sense. Mainly because they don't even understand what they're reading.

Its the same thing with The Science of God (Graham Oppy). The book makes sense if you're uneducated, but once you learn about the subject a bit more deeply you realize the books horrible flaws.

Honestly OP, if you have a major in bio/know a good amount about evolution and get a chance to go though the book. Do so, and see what Sarfati can come up with.

[Anonymous No.2051766]

>>2051716

Do you even study chemistry? Or biology? Because you'd immediately realize, that the very definition of "physical chemist" means that the guy specifically does NOT deal with or study organic molecules AT ALL. Now, what is life completely, utterly centered around? Organic molecules.

The guy might as well be a bus driver, who never touched a football in his life, suddenly becoming an NFL quarterback and expecting to win the Superbowl. That's how drastically out of his league he is.

[Anonymous No.2051784]

If you are a biofag, go there and destroy them along with their target audience.

If you are not a biofag, stay away from it because your responses will be as unbased in reality as the points they are trying to make.

[Anonymous No.2051788]

>>2051766

Pick up the Meno once in a while.

I can't believe you don't see the problem with this. Some guy presents an incorrect viewpoint at a university, and morons on this thread are screaming HE HAS NO RIGHT TO HOLD AN OPINION IN X BECAUSE HE'S Y. Rather than, his opinion is wrong because of these holes in his argument.

This is /sci/, not /let'sconfirmtheistaccusationsofsciencebeingareligion/

[Anonymous No.2051790]

>>2051766
"Physical chemistry is a never ending project to attempt to fit everything to y = mx + b"
My physical chem lecturer a week or to ago quoting a shirt and agreeing with it.

[Anonymous No.2051797]

>>2051493
Be more open to other theories and constantly question things.

[Anonymous No.2051798]

>>2051788
Man needs knowledge on a topic before forming an opinion based on that topic.

Otherwise we all could just as well watch Ancient Aliens and go "wow, this is sound".

[Anonymous No.2051806]

>>2051788
This is the equivalent of Jenny McCarthy giving lectures on Vaccines. She isn't qualified, her opinions are not based on fact, and what she is saying is the opposite of the scientific consensus.
She is free to submit papers to scientific journals try and change the consensus, but giving lectures to people who know nothing about the subject so that they can copy her opinion. You tell me if that's a good idea?

[Anonymous No.2051808]

>>2051798

You know as well as I do that half the posters on this board could not refute the arguments in his book without making fools of themselves. If we don't let him speak because he's not a biologist, then what? Are we really raising a generation of scientists, or just a generation who believes in evolution as blindly as the others believe in creation?

[Anonymous No.2051815]

>>2051806

The man was giving a presentation in a fucking university. To undergraduate students. And if you can't expose undergraduate students to the wrong idea every once in a while, we have failed as a species.

[Anonymous No.2051822]

>>2051788
no one claims science is a religion, people claim atheism is a religion and that it is. they have their own symbols, leaders, robotic repetition of phrases, etc.

[Anonymous No.2051825]

>>2051788

Authority derived from being distinguished in your field is of a different sort from authority derived from some occult divine authority.

I will take the word of a doctor on what to do about some ailment I suffer. Why? The doctor runs a practice, and so makes a living doing this, he is qualified from an institution that teaches this sort of thing, and I have had good results in the past from this doctor or other doctors so qualified.

If you are an evolutionary biologist you have passed muster for that field. I am willing to take Dawkins word on many things surrounding evolutionary biology, because he has proven himself to the satisfaction of the scientific community, and the scientific is always earnestly interested in finding the truth, and they are usually very good at this. I wouldn't simply take his word on matters of nuclear physics, though I don't doubt he knows more about this that I.

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.2051827]

>>2051815
Actually no. The presentation was given in a university building, but everyone who went in were families. Ie adults in their 30s/40s and children.

[Anonymous No.2051829]

>>2051808
I don't know that, because I prefer to hang out at /x/, so anything you tell me about the folks here and their knowledge about evolution on one hand and the theory of evolution on the other would have to be taken at face value.

I don't see the causal connection between disallowing him to produce unqualified statements to an unqualified audience and the following dichotomy of yours, especially because you do not differentiate between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution, latter of which is actually the falsely promoted apple of discord in this case.

Please, explain why you think that stuffing his fat mouth would lead to scientists becoming "evolutionists", for lack of a better term?

[Anonymous No.2051833]

>>2051822

Science is closer to a religion than atheism, neither one is particularly close though. How can nothing be a religion? Science at least has a set of motivations and practices, atheism does not.

[Anonymous No.2051839]

>>2051815
Have you ever been to one of these? The main people who show up are arts and humanities students, and people who are invited from church groups. They are given a level of legitimacy to these people by presenting in a university. Keep this bullshit in churches where is belongs.

[Anonymous No.2051842]

>>2051833
why do you intentionally ignore the fact that modern atheism is a cult of children who worship idols and leaders and repeat pre-programmed phrases? i mean, does it really make you feel better about yourself? must be sad not to be able to admit what is plain as day to everyone else.

[Anonymous No.2051845]

>>2051839
Did you read the link to the wikipedia article on the catholic church's stance on evolution?

Apparently that shit doesn't even belong into churches anymore.

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.2051848]

>>2051842 why do you intentionally ignore the fact

>> ignore the fact

>> fact

Why do you not understand the difference between fact and opinion?

[Anonymous No.2051849]

>>2051839
This anon,
Didn't see this before posting
>>2051827
But it confirms my thoughts. If you want to see some of the biggest mind poisoning ever google Ken Ham and watch him spout his completely unfounded propaganda to kids.

[Anonymous No.2051851]

>>2051842

You must be trolling, but just in case anyone reading takes you seriously;

Atheism is not a religion. It has no leaders, no organisation, no doctrine, no slogans, no symbols, none of the trappings of a religion. And at it's core it holds no beliefs, so it has none of the organs of a religion either.

[Anonymous No.2051854]

>>2051788
Out of curiosity, what is your major? I have some guesses.

[Anonymous No.2051856]

>>2051833
Atheist Meetings
Nuff' said.

In any case, at least this guy has an education, unlike most of the militant Atheists around here.

inb4 I'm accused of being a Christfag

[Anonymous No.2051860]

>>2051856

Is everything that has meetings a religion?

If not, then you must have some other definition of a religion, and why atheism counts, that you are not mentioning.

[Anonymous No.2051861]

>>2051845
That is one church, the catholic church, the people who believe young earth creationist are modern Pentecostals who think the catholic church has been wrong for years.

[Barry Goldwater !!PIoZ0j5Gngs No.2051863]

I was takin a communications class once. My teacher asked everyone their opinion on evolution. I was the only one who trusted it in the whole class.

I felt so bad surrounded by stupid that day. Even when people came up with the stupidest questions "Why do apes still exist?" or "If evolution exists why haven't we observed one thing becoming another species." and I explained it to them they were unable to wrap their head around it. They were unable to see that a human observational period of 2000 years is a blink when compared to millions of years of evolutionary history.

It was mindboggingly sad.

[Anonymous No.2051865]

>>2051856
You are capitalizing "Atheist" so you sure as hell are a theist... oh, sorry, a Theist.

[Anonymous No.2051873]

>>2051829
Am I wrong to still wait for a response to my request?

[Anonymous No.2051874]

>>2051851
>>2051848
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=atheist+symbols

leaders: dawkins, harris
idols: darwin

http://www.google.com/search?q=atheist%20organizations

no slogans? "UR IRRATIONAL"
no doctrine? you must have missed how all atheist teens eglitarianists (which by the way completely contradicts the evolution they claim to believe in)


face it, atheism is a modern day religion no matter how bad you try to convince people its a "LACK OF BELIEF"

[Anonymous No.2051878]

Remove the flyer, obviously.

[Anonymous No.2051885]

>>2051874

You are a troll, sir.

What authority do Dawkins or Harris claim? Who worships Dawkins?

>you must have missed how all atheist teens eglitarianists (which by the way completely contradicts the evolution they claim to believe in)

There isn't even enough semiotic content in this to make a response to it.

[Anonymous No.2051889]

>>2051874
Oh wow, a Christian on the internet, and on /sci/ no less.

Let's take a short period to pick apart the word "atheism" shall we? We all know what "theism" means, it is the belief in deities. In Latin, the prefix "a" means "no" or "without". So the word "atheism" means "without belief in deities". It's very simple.

Your argument goes thus... Let's ignore the definition of atheism and lets define "religion" by any group or lack of a grouping that has a member or lack of a member that has appeared on TV.

Do you realize how absurd you sound right now?

[Anonymous No.2051897]

>>2051885
oh sorry ill correct the typo for you since youre too dumb to piece it together on your own

>>you must have missed how all atheist teens are eglitarians (which by the way completely contradicts the evolution they claim to believe in)

easy enough for you? here ill make it even clearer: atheists believe in fairy tales like racial equality that completely contradict the idea of the evolution which theyre so adamantly in favor of

[Anonymous No.2051899]

>>2051874

Is it possible for a person to be without religion? Since you seem to define any position anyone holds on any subject as a religion of some sort.


I assume you are part of the 'don't believe in fairies' religion, just like me? We don't have meetings, or slogans (except, 'fairies don't exist, losers!'), or even an idol, but we're still a religion. Maybe we could arrange a meeting so like minded a-fairy-ists can celebrate our faith?

[Anonymous No.2051905]

>>2051889
do you realize how delusional and butthurt you sound by refusing to admit that modern atheists all follow the same pattern as organized religion?

[Anonymous No.2051913]

>>2051897
In which way does the idea of racial equality completely contradict the theory of evolution?

List six examples using your own words.

[Anonymous No.2051921]

>>2051873

See
>>2051806

And ask the right question, it's about people becoming "evolutionists" it's about saving people from misinformation. There are thousands of quack cancer cures out there with the same level of evidence as he has for his theories, should the general public be exposed to these?
If you think you have a ground breaking new evidence or theory there are channels to work through, appealing to the public is not how it's done in science.

[Anonymous No.2051922]

>>2051913
no single organism is equal to another, much less a group of organisms separated by distance and time

[Anonymous No.2051923]

>>2051897

Even that is fairly hard to unravel.

So you think that egalitarianism, the idea that people are or should be equal, is causally linked to atheism? And that, in fact, some atheist doctrine demands this position in adherents? Which authority, where is it writ?

And you also think that holding the position of egalitarianism is contradictory to accepting evolution as fact. That atheists think we should take our morals directly from an uncritical observation of the laws of nature?

[Anonymous No.2051924]

>>2051897
> youre too dumb to piece it together on your own
Insults? When I was a your age trolling was a art.

BEWARE THE TROLL!

[Anonymous No.2051927]

>>2051923
Quit feeding the troll. He obviously doesn't give a damn what you or anyone else thinks.

[Anonymous No.2051928]

>>2051924
>HE DESTROYED MY ARGUMENT, ILL CALL HIM A TROLL AND RUN AWAY. WE ATHEISTS ALWAYS WIN

[Anonymous No.2051929]

>>2051905

You still have all your work ahead of you to show that atheism has any of the features of a religion, and then a far greater task in showing it has the features of an ORGANISED religion.

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.2051930]

>>2051905
He doesn't. Now get the fuck back to /new/ you racist idiotic christfag.

[Anonymous No.2051936]

>>2051923
all atheists believe in egalitarianism because theyre liberals. liberalism is their doctrine. atheists are hypocrites and liars, they attack religion but dont attack politically correct religious beliefs like racial equality or gender equality. atheists are cowards, they will side with falsehoods if it means pushing their agenda.

[xfag No.2051942]

>>2051921
For completeness' sake I will use a name for easier identification.

I was asking for how
>Are we really raising a generation of scientists, or just a generation who believes in evolution as blindly as the others believe in creation?
relates to not allowing unqualified people to speak to an audience of laymen?

[Anonymous No.2051943]

>>2051899
Sport are religions, people go to their places of worship (stadiums), dress in ceremonial robes (their teams jersey), believe that their attendance will affect outcomes, and have idols.

[Anonymous No.2051944]

>>2051905
Well I'm an atheist, many of my physics major friends are atheists, I know of other atheists via the internet... and none of them fit this "pattern" of yours. How many of your friends are atheists? Do you sit down and talk to them often?

[Anonymous No.2051946]

>>2051936

>>all atheists believe in egalitarianism because theyre liberals. liberalism is their doctrine.

Christopher Hitchens.

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.2051949]

>>2051936 all atheists are liberals

Obviously has never talked to Hitchens.

[Anonymous No.2051955]

>>2051949
>>2051946
im sorry, does hitchens attack politically correct lies like race and gender equality?

[Anonymous No.2051959]

>>2051936
I invite you to kindly point out a group of people that doesn't do the very same, because last i checked there wasn't any.

Why are we held to such higher standards?

[xfag No.2051963]

>>2051922
>In which way does the idea of racial equality completely contradict the theory of evolution?

Your response was an empty statement, not an example at all.

[Anonymous No.2051970]

>>2051936

So you are conflating atheism, liberalism, political correctness, egalitarianism, and claiming they are all the same thing or at least have a strong causal relationship? And that this imaginary complex you have invented is a religion?

And you don't like people from other races, or women?


Man, I remember when trolling was subtle. Just going online and pretending to be functionally retarded doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous No.2051975]

>>2051936
>atheists are all angsty teenagers
>Atheism is a religion
>Liberals suck
>We shouldn't treat everyone equally
Why the fuck are you guys feeding this guy? Quit responding.

[Anonymous No.2051977]

>>2051975
>implying he is wrong.

[Anonymous No.2051978]

>>2051970
hey yo, recession over here...

Cause and effect and all that rot...take what you can get man.

[Anonymous No.2051980]

>>2051970
all atheists are liberals. many liberals are atheists. liberals and atheists both hate religion. liberals and atheists both support the only religious belief that benefits them, which is all races, genders, etc. being equal, which has absolutely no basis in science.

its really quite simple.

[Anonymous No.2051989]

>>2051975
why would i be mad that anyone who said, "the grass is green!"?

it's obvious that most the other grass is green too, so i don't really mind to much when he says,"Crabgrass is REALLY green", because it's perfectly true....

Isn't it?

D:

[Anonymous No.2051995]

>>2051975
butthurt pro-gay liberal detected, enjoy your alliance with atheist cowards while it lasts.

[Anonymous No.2052007]

>>2051980
>>all atheists are liberals. many liberals are atheists. liberals and atheists both hate religion. liberals and atheists both support the only religious belief that benefits them, which is all races, genders, etc. being equal, which has absolutely no basis in science.

But I was told in another thread that atheists are responsible for the holocaust because darwinism legitimized racism

[Anonymous No.2052010]

>>2051989
>>2051980
>>2051978
>>2051977
The samefaggotry it hut hurts. I'm willing to waste my time posting so long as it keeps this troll online instead of in the real world.

[Anonymous No.2052015]

>>2051980
That's just silly.
Everyone knows atheists fear no divine punishment.
They have no moral compass and are free to, and often indulge in, not only racist acts and slurs, but the occasional baby BBQ and Annual Festival of Women Bludgeoning.

You haven't a leg to stand on good sir.

[Anonymous No.2052018]

>>2052007
>implying the holocaust ever happened

[Anonymous No.2052022]

>>2051854

Mathematics, if you're still around.

>>2051829

It wouldn't affect real scientists one iota. In fact it wouldn't make anything "worse". But it's not the path we need to take to encourage scientific understanding. There's no point telling people the facts if the method is lost on them.

[Anonymous No.2052030]

>>2052018

[Anonymous No.2052032]

>>2052015
they have to support it or else they will be called racists and their secular utopia will be compromised. the ends justify the means to atheists just as it does liberals. they are two peas in a pod.

[Anonymous No.2052049]

>>2052022

..and we also have the gall to wonder why you all never tell them us unless it's in very large words...

You even have a name for it to describe how we view you in general....Pompous

Frankly i'm amazed your kind hasn't just wiped us all out...

[Anonymous No.2052068]

>>2052049

You'd benefit a lot more from understanding the distinction between an axiom and a theorem than a hand wavy explanation of what exactly Grigori proved.

[Anonymous No.2052087]

>>2052068
all of what you said was gibberish i'm afraid...
...i'm one of the stupid ones...

[Anonymous No.2052095]

>>2052022
>Mathematics, if you're still around.
That wasn't what I was necessarily what I was going to guess, but it might give some insight. Perhaps because math requires little back knowledge compared to other fields (its more practice makes perfect) and because math majors tend to dabble in many fields they are more willing to accept insight from anyone. Scientists on the other hand require a formal education in their given field 99.99% and must also learn to sort through large amounts of publications both by type and by how well accredited the author is.

Perhaps that is why you, a math major, are more willing to hear EVERYBODY compared to, say, a physics major such as myself.

Sage because this thread deserves to die.

[Anonymous No.2052140]

>>2052095

>implying that a Physicist could add more to Mathematics than a Mathematician to Physics

I'm willing to hear what everyone has to say out of respect for my academic peers. But little back knowledge? Really? You are conceited enough to suggest that? Physicists have the most ridiculous sense of entitlement. You scorn Chemistry and Biology for being merely "applied" versions of your discipline, and now you scorn us for not requiring "back knowledge"?

Good thing you cleared my mind on that point, I am now ready to abandon years of mathematics education and prove my next result from first principles. Get back to me in 20 years.

>sage also

[Anonymous No.2052161]

>>2052015
>Annual Festival of Women Bludgeoning
Hold on, that's a muslim holiday, buddy.

[Anonymous No.2052183]

>>2052140
Way to take what I said out of context. I did not mean to imply a single thing of what you said. It sounds to me like you disliked physics from the start for who knows why.

[Anonymous No.2052185]

>>2052161

You are misinformed.
The giant sand sky daddy promised goodies if they did and atheists do it just for the hell of it for the act itself is it's own reward.

two totally different concepts.

*nods*