[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 149 KB, 960x540, 11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2483816 No.2483816 [Reply] [Original]

Dear /sci/.

I don't really like to debate outside of the interwebs, and have always thought religion was something people should keep to themselves IRL. Last night I went to a bar and got into an argument with a stranger who took the positions: "facts are just opinions", "we can agree on right vs wrong, therefore god exists".

I'm normally extremely calm, but this conversation got rather heated (we were drunk), and he ended up storming off.

Now I feel bad. Like I did something I shouldn't have. This isn't logical. What is wrong with me?

>> No.2483821

You were drunk.

>> No.2483823

whats wrong is u felt bad

>> No.2483829

You drank alchohol before the end of the world.
You have sullied your brain for eternity.
Deal with it.

>> No.2483836

>>2483816
I'm usually very calm when I talk about religion irl, even when I'm drunk. Then again, I rarely do it with strangers, plus my dry sense of humor has come off bad to strangers in the past.

>> No.2483842

>>2483821
>>2483823
>>2483829
Being drunk didn't have much to do with it. My conundrum is that I can argue with anti-science retards all day online, but do it once in real life and I feel like an asshole.

Why is this. How do I fix it?

>> No.2483848
File: 6 KB, 380x380, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2483848

a true real fact is not an opinion.

religious freaks will go to great legnths to word play you into mind fuck hell.

its only natural to get angry when dealing with some one who chooses to keep themselfs ignorant to the facts against there side and is still so blindly willing to engage in word and syntax battles as though it would prove them right. :l

>> No.2483856 [DELETED] 

<span class="math">\newcommand{\hkgjhfdkfjdhsfka}[1]{\displaystyle{#1 \atop {#1~~#1}}}[/spoiler]

>> No.2483864

>>2483856
>>2483856
>>2483856


oh shi-

>> No.2483867

>>2483842

Not sure what your problem is; perhaps it has something to do with a dichtomy in your mind (separating the internet and anonymity from real life, where people are fully responsible for their actions). I know that this is how I feel.

Don't know how you could change yourself though.

>> No.2483890

>>2483842
Maybe you're style of arguing is through being an ass. Online not only do you never see the effects your arguments have on people (relatively) being a jerk is too often the status quo. IRL however, you have to see what your statements do to people.

When it comes to discussing religion irl one needs to bend over backwards to acknowledge the fact that people have different beliefs and that that is OK.

For example, I was talking about religion with a Mormon friend of mine at a bar (I was just past buzzed and he was sober on account of being a Mormon). We basically just told each other our conceptions of religion and by the end he said that he dissaproves of the way religious people right off the opinions of atheists and how they depreciate atheists' right to believe what they want to believe. I then acknowledged the state of affairs but then also pointed out if the shoe were on the other foot atheists would likely devalue theists' right to believe whatever they want and that its more about who is in charge rather than strictly about theists versus atheists.

See? Without compromises people feel like you are attacking them. Me and my friend are both still friends because we know how to talk about the subject with one another.

If the other person isn't compromising and is all in anti-atheist then you can either leave it be or risk a heated discussion.

>> No.2483902

>>2483842
You shouldn't fix it. Handling yourself with tact, even in a frustrating argument with the infinitely dense, should be the objective of every gentleman. If you do this, there shouldn't be any hard feelings on either side.

Obviously you messed up somewhere, which resulted in the other party leaving, so try to reconstruct the debate and look for points where you sad something you clearly shouldn't have. You're a bright guy, so I think you'll be ok. I firmly believe not everyone here is socially inept.

>> No.2483907

>>2483902
*said

>> No.2483908

>>2483842
Quit being an asshole and keep it to yourself.

>> No.2483914

Well if you get into scientific methodology, the actual truth is unattainable; science seeks to ascertain itself as closely as possible. It’s like an asymptote of a graph. Therefore he’s kind of right.

>> No.2483937

>>2483842
Honestly, you should have just let him go. If you complain about every pebble you walk over, you'll be exhausted when it's time to face the mountain.

>> No.2483969

>>2483914
The religious debate didn't really get to me; it were the claims that facts are just opinions. He went on to say that anything scientific wasn't important because it was just based on opinions and no better than any other opinion.

Normally I keep the rage on the inside, but it got out. I can't think of any logical reason why I should hold back when confronting this kind of stupidity, but I feel really bad when I don't.

Maybe I just need to become desensitised to seeing angry facial expressions in response to what I say.

>> No.2483991

>>2483969

maybe you should quit being a raging pussy and brush it off. I quit calling myself an atheist, because I just don't fucking care anymore. Religion used to be my favorite topic of discussion, but then I realized I have nothing to justify to those people. You can't cure stupid.

>> No.2484010
File: 98 KB, 500x355, 4111988422_0936a25490.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2484010

>>2483969
The problem is that skeptical critiques are actually not entirely unjustified. You just need to find a way to argue yourself out of them (or better yet argue your opponent into a corner), or else drown in the muck of relativism.

>> No.2484011
File: 37 KB, 429x414, 1295923035036.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2484011

There is a creator (big bang)
We are part of the creator
Mythological gods are aliens
All religions today are scams

Reconciled.

>> No.2484026

reposted from >>>/ck/2575204

The postmodern critique of science asserts that scientific facts are socially constructed. This does not however equate mere opinions. Ludwic Fleck did theorize that science is produced by esoteric thought collectives that initiate potential members through indoctrination of what each collective (ie physicists, geneticists, chemists) considers to be basic knowledge and that data generated by experimentation that falls outside of a dominant scientific paradigm (to use Thomas Kuhns term) is largely ignored. There is a huge body of theory in the philosophy of science, sociology of scienctific knowledge, the history of science, and the anthropology of science (collectively science studies) that looks at this. I am of the opinion that science is a language game (to use Wittgenstein's term) between an investigator, his colleagues, and empirical reality. Whatever is discovered in a lab bears a familial resemblance to the true state of affairs of the world. However that resemblance is mediated by the limits of human sensation, cognition, and the cultural milieu of the investigator and his peers.

this has nothing to do with a god. the guy you got into an argument with is delusional or simply brainwashed into being a theist, not that there is anything wrong with that...its his choice but in my opinion the evidence against there being a god is insurmountable.

>> No.2484038

>>2483816
>facts are just opinions"

Oh wow, You must of been drunk to try and debate someone who would say something like that, I mean, HOW can you even HAVE a debate with someone who thinks facts are just opinions? Thats like trying to tell someone "this is blue" and he says "colors are just opinions" or something equally as stupid.

>> No.2484069

>>2484038

Some philosophers of science have bodies of theory that come close to saying that. However, I don't find them that compelling. Look at Bruno Latour and Paul Feyeranbend. Still their reasons for supposing a relativism to science are for very good philosophical reasons this person at the bar doesn't sound like a careful thinker to me.

>> No.2484093

>>2483816
>>2483969
I feel the same way when debating IRL.

On the Internet when someone says "prove it", you can bring up the science data in a few minutes. In a live debate you can be left with no comeback because you can't just pull science data to confirm your statements out of your ass. This is a big problem for people who base their positions entirely on evidence.

>> No.2484107

sage

>> No.2484108

I'm a huge faggot please rape my face.

I love sucking on dicks on my free time and I would love it in the ass. Would /sci/ do me?

>> No.2484116

>>2484108
That depends. Will you eat out my ass after I fuck yours?

>> No.2484127

>>2484038

can you empirically prove that someone perceives blue the same way you do? The only way I know how to involves rapid dna sequence to make sure they have the same proteins that I have in there cone cells. then it involves killing us both and posthumously mapping our cerebral cortexes to make sure we have the same neural integration. That is just the base biology of it. They could still experience synesthesia or some psychological abnormality could alter their perception. The human brain is tricky.

>> No.2484141

>religion
Religion and science are not mutuall exclusive, it's pointless to discuss religion here, try thinking for yourself for a change.

>> No.2484146

>>2484141
but religion is TEH ENEMY of science!!! we must fight the religions or we will become dark ages!

>> No.2484152

>>2484038
The concept of "blue" really is just a ubiquitous arbitrary associating between a wavelength of EM radiation and a word.

Something like: "Louis Pasteur December 27, 1822", or "f=m*a" would be better examples of facts.

>>2484108
Looks like my trip has been hacked. I'm sure my individual writing style will make this sillyness of little importance.

>> No.2484165
File: 22 KB, 282x320, jared_loughner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2484165

>>2484152
But who is Pasteur if words have no meaning?

>> No.2484169

>>2484141
>>2484127
Sorry this thread looked like more of the religion vs science shit we need to keep off /sci/. I was only interested in the psychological issues causing me to regret doing something which is logically correct.

>> No.2484172

>>2484146

It kinda is in Karl Popper's view of science. Where refutation serves to remove false paradigm. The existence of a god has been refuted time and time again. There is no empirical reason to believe in a god. There are however social ones.