/sci/ - Science & Math

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2395493]

No matter how hard you guys try to deny it, Most of you rely on the exact same fundamental aspects of life as most theists do...
(most because there are exeptions like anti-theists and orthodox religious.)

The main reasons people really are theist is because they rely on present day culture, people they have trust in, and thier own feelings.

You guys do exactly the same in some extend... Where else can one get his moral values from ?

Anyway im not saying theists reject sceince. Most theists agree with sceintific method and the reliability of observation(exept in u.s.a.).
Just like most atheists are not rejecting every aspect of culture, people they have trust in, and thier own feelings.(exept nihilists etc.)

Theists just think when it comes to the subject of God, sceince is useless because the subject is beyond empirical knowledge. and therefor prefere to rely on philosophy, other people`s account`s, or it`s own feelings.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2395506]

>>2395493

epic godwin here

[sage No.2395512]

this is neither math nor science
gtfo

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2395519]

>>2395512
philosophy belongs in /sci/
deal with it.

[Anonymous No.2395523]

>>2395506
>>2395493
No one cares about your pathetic religious beliefs. Sage and report.

[Anonymous No.2395528]

When I become janitor my first order of business will be deleting everything Tautoulogic posts and permanbanning him.

[Anonymous No.2395533]

>>2395528
Janitors can't ban people.

[Anonymous No.2395583]

/sci/ will not get janitors mark my words.

m00t should know it will ruin /sci/ that`s already biased as fuck.

[Anonymous No.2395602]

bumo

[Anonymous No.2395623]

>>2395583
Biased because its a board about SCIENCE and not philosophy or religion. 1/10.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2395666]

I`m listening to linkin park

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnS09oQNexA

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2395687]

[Anonymous No.2395712]

1. Your religious views are not compatible with the known laws of physics and are therefor irrational.
2. Morality is subjective, whether or not a god exists is objective. You cannot compare the two.
3. GTFO /sci/

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.2395720]

My moral values largely come from watching Anime. I guess this makes me some kind of ancestor worshipping Shinto polytheist.

[Anonymous No.2395740]

>>2395623
there were times, when religion was and there are religions that are able to integrate science.

polytheism < judaism < christianism < science < spirituality

= generation conflict !

[Anonymous No.2395761]

>>2395712
Win
/thread

[Anonymous No.2395769]

>>2395666
Why'd you post this woman? I dislike her very much for promoting christanity.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2395817]

>>2395712

>1. Your religious views are not compatible with the known laws of physics and are therefor irrational.
why?

>2. Morality is subjective, whether or not a god exists is objective. You cannot compare the two.
A belief on whether or not a god exists is subjective, not objective.

3. GTFO /sci/
perhaps you stop being a colossal faggot. You`re arrogance is dripping off your reply.

Anyway if there`s one think i learned on /sci/ it`s how to deal with faggots like you.

The problem with people like you is you`re probebly right when claiming you have above average IQ points.
But what you didn`t noticed is it only hinders you`ve mental development.

Becouse of you`re feeling of superiourity you never had any doubts on your views, and thus never questioned yourself like normal people do.

Resulting in you to becoming an arrogant creep spewing complex sentences that impress ignorant visitors, but are transparant and hollow to people who recognize it.

I don`t care for your "herp assumptions derp" my analysis are right 9 out of 10 times anyway and im contented with that.

[Anonymous No.2395827]

>>2395666
GTFO

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2395828]

>>2395712

>1. Your religious views are not compatible with the known laws of physics and are therefor irrational.
why?

>2. Morality is subjective, whether or not a god exists is objective. You cannot compare the two.
A belief on whether or not a god exists is subjective, not objective.

>3. GTFO /sci/
perhaps you stop being a colossal faggot. You`re arrogance is dripping off your reply.

Anyway if there`s one think i learned on /sci/ it`s how to deal with faggots like you.

The problem with people like you is you`re probebly right when claiming you have above average IQ points.
But what you didn`t noticed is it only hinders you`ve mental development.

Becouse of you`re feeling of superiourity you never had any doubts on your views, and thus never questioned yourself like normal people do.

Resulting in you to becoming an arrogant creep spewing complex sentences that impress ignorant visitors, but are transparant and hollow to people who recognize it.

I don`t care for your "herp assumptions derp" my analysis are right 9 out of 10 times anyway and im contented with that.

[Anonymous No.2395837]

all your faces when you realise concepts of god and morality and science are compatible

brotip, science is an expression of human experience
morality/religion is an expression of human experience

>human experience

[Anonymous No.2395844]

OP is wrong. Atheists utilize critical thinking, which need not be imprinted on a person by indoctrination. Genuine critical thinking substantiates itself by being the first topic scrutinized by the learner (thus validating its wonderful utility).

[Anonymous No.2395865]

You religious troll, everyone knows that /sci/ bashes religion.
Your ignoramous persona is evident due to the fact that most scientists are theists/nostics and question whats possible and impossible.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2395873]

>>2395666


>2395666
ayaan-hirsi-ali
linkin park
>666

[Anonymous No.2395883]

>>2395828
>>2395828
>>2395828

(10/10)

f*ck fundamentalism!

[Anonymous No.2395891]

ITT

scientific fundamentalism

liberal, post-modern prejudice

lulz

[Anonymous No.2395893]

>>2395828
>why?
because faith is the antithesis of reason

[Scientist No.2395903]

>>2395493
>You guys do exactly the same in some extend... Where else can one get his moral values from ?
I never understood this. Either you get your morality from an innate sense of right and wrong, which exists and comes from evolution by natural selection, or you do what you're told, such as what theists sometimes claim - they do what they act morally because god tells them to, and they're afraid of punishment.

[Scientist No.2395917]

>>2395891
>scientific fundamentalism
Why thank you! I'm glad that I embrace evidence, and that sufficient evidence can always convince me that I'm wrong.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2395929]

>>2395893

Again, why would something one has faith in be incompatible within the known and unknown laws of physics ??

There are and always will be lots of possibilities/interpretations on how the universe might work.

if something is unknown doesn`t mean it is not compatible.

[Anonymous No.2395926]

>>2395493
>the subject is beyond empirical knowledge

Why? Because you say so? Because your book says so?

[Scientist No.2395928]

>>2395493
>Theists just think when it comes to the subject of God, sceince is useless because the subject is beyond empirical knowledge. and therefor prefere to rely on philosophy, other people`s account`s, or it`s own feelings.
And that's why we call them insane and/or delusional.

[Scientist No.2395936]

>>2395929
Being inconsistent with science isn't the same as being inconsistent with reason.

Having positive belief in the existence of an empirical thing, like an interfering god, is a delusion unless you have evidence to support that supposition. It doesn't matter that we don't have evidence against all possible interfering gods. What does matter is that we have no evidence for any such god, and thus positive belief in such a god is delusion.

[Anonymous No.2395938]

>>2395828
>A belief on whether or not a god exists is subjective, not objective.

you think God only exists in your head? Do you know what subjective means?

[Anonymous No.2395941]

>>2395929

I approve of both this post and this picture

mere coincidence? I think not

[Anonymous No.2395955]

>>2395936

Scientist see >>2395945

or I'll just quote myself:

are you denying the existence of the idea of god?

the idea of god exists man; explain the idea

explain the existence of religion

come on, you're in the business of science; science explains biological phenomenon

religion and the concept of god are human biological phenomena

your move science

[Anonymous No.2395964]

>>2395955
is this a debate or something?

[Scientist No.2395966]

>>2395955
>are you denying the existence of the idea of god?
I am denying that anyone knows the mind of god, given the available evidence. If someone can present me with evidence that god does indeed exist and communicate with humans, then I'll change my mind.

>the idea of god exists man; explain the idea
>explain the existence of religion
>come on, you're in the business of science; science explains biological phenomenon
>religion and the concept of god are human biological phenomena
>your move science
Science can very accurately explain the origin of the various god myths. It shows that the likely explanation for these god myths is that humans simply pull this shit out of their ass for a variety of reasons, including power and control, consolation, etc.

What does this have to do with the original discussion? I think I'm missing your point.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2395976]

>>2395938

>you think God only exists in your head? Do you know what subjective means?
subjective = influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts.

just give up you faggot

[Anonymous No.2395986]

>>2395955
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
Do you believe in the Toothfairy?

[Anonymous No.2395987]

>>2395976
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective
>existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought

[Anonymous No.2395991]

>>2395966

i'll quote myself again

I think god is more than that; but considering the universe as god is one perspective

considering the good part of the universe is god is another

or, the idea of a day = 24 hours vs. the idea of day as the part of 24 hours that is light, as opposed to the part of 24 hours that is dark (night)

it has much to do with natural order, and humans reflect that

the atheist/post-modernist/liberal tendency favors the erosion of order for many reasons, including self-interest; therefore they target god

but in truth, natural order doesn't require the idea of god; it has been useful, but we can do without it <shrug>

[sage No.2395992]

>>2395828

>perhaps you stop being a colossal faggot. You`re arrogance is dripping off

> if there`s one think i learned on /sci/

>The problem is you`re probebly right when claiming you have above average IQ points.

>But what you didn`t noticed is it only hinders you`ve mental development.

>Becouse you`re

>Resulting in you to becoming an arrogant creep

Trololololololololololololo

[Anonymous No.2395999]

>>2395986

good questions

see further down:

"but in truth, natural order doesn't require the idea of god; it has been useful, but we can do without it <shrug>"

[Scientist No.2396006]

>>2395991
>I think god is more than that; but considering the universe as god is one perspective
>considering the good part of the universe is god is another
>or, the idea of a day = 24 hours vs. the idea of day as the part of 24 hours that is light, as opposed to the part of 24 hours that is dark (night)
>it has much to do with natural order, and humans reflect that
>the atheist/post-modernist/liberal tendency favors the erosion of order for many reasons, including self-interest; therefore they target god
>but in truth, natural order doesn't require the idea of god; it has been useful, but we can do without it
I don't understand what you're saying.

If you claim that one ought to do X, or ought to not do X, because that's what gods told you to do, then we have a problem.

If you have a positive believe about the natural world that's unsubstantiated by evidence, then we have a problem.

I don't know if you have any such beliefs. I'm not following you at all.

[Anonymous No.2396017]

>>2396006

I'm not religious

as far as "a positive belief about the natural world that's unsubstantiated by evidence" what do you even mean by this?

I believe in natural order, and natural order can explain humanity's belief in god and religion

science seems only able to reject them offhand, as if proving a negative

[Scientist No.2396028]

>>2396017
>I believe in natural order, and natural order can explain humanity's belief in god and religion
>science seems only able to reject them offhand, as if proving a negative
What is a natural order? What predictions about the natural world does this scientific theory / conjecture make?

[Anonymous No.2396036]

Do you believe if your good all year you will get presents from Santa Claus?
In retrospect, do you believe if your good your whole life you will go to heaven?

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2396042]

>>2395987

That dictionary is miserably wrong, try any other respected dictionary and see that subjective = influenced by feelings. or something of that order.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/subjective
http://www.yourdictionary.com/subjective

perhaps they mean it like this...
a subjective belief is a belief based on "reasons that are based on things that only exist in the mind". That doesn`t mean the actual thing they belief in only exists in thier mind. oh yea and don`t underestimate the power of thoughts.

[Anonymous No.2396080]

>>2396042
>>2396042
> don`t underestimate the power of thoughts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

[Anonymous No.2396084]

>>2396028

we can extrapolate from tendencies

day and night

what goes up comes down; yin and yang

things like that

it's not all that complicated really

[Anonymous No.2396098]

>>2396084
natural processes not natural order,

[Scientist No.2396111]

>>2396084
I haven't heard a falsifiable prediction yet, thus I don't understand what you believe.

[Anonymous No.2396115]

>>2396098

what difference is there?

[Anonymous No.2396121]

>>2396111

who's predicting?

nice trips tho

37x3

[Scientist No.2396137]

>>2396121
Well, I can only repeat what I've said here:
>>2396006

[Anonymous No.2396140]

>>2396121

anymore than right now it's night and i'm predicting day will follow

that said, these tendencies are not absolute in themselves; day follows night as long as relative constants remain constant

that isn't always the case

the earth may not be here tomorrow

nevertheless

[Scientist No.2396149]

>>2396140
So, it's almost as though you're making scientific conjectures, that is falsifiable predictions about the natural world, but you have sufficient conditions so that your statements aren't really falsifiable.

I have only one reply for such statements: Bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2396168]

>>2396115
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_order_(philosophy)

its linked to "natural law" and all of that teleological moral faggotry

[Anonymous No.2396173]

>>2396149

how is that bullshit?

my contentions are careful to be consistent

and there's more to it than falsifiability

[sage No.2396178]

>>2395493
THANKS FOR REPLYING TO TROLLS

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK /SCI/