Is it impossible to be a /sci/entist who also believes in (a) God(s)?

File: 65 KB, 500x400, atheism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 17:46:10 2011 No.3295410 [Reply] [Original]

Is it impossible to be a /sci/entist who also believes in (a) God(s)?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 17:49:10 2011 No.3295423 Science and belief are separate matters. As a general rule, a scientist shouldn't let belief (or lack thereof, I'm looking at you, atheists) cloud his mind, and waste his time discussing such unscientific topics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 17:52:10 2011 No.3295435 Not a /sci/entist, but a scientist, sure

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 17:56:10 2011 No.3295457 thats no defeinitevely exact

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 17:57:10 2011 No.3295466 impossible to be a scientist... no impossible to be a good scientist... yes

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:11:10 2011 No.3295542 File: 138 KB, 407x559, GodfreyKneller-IsaacNewton-1689.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3295466 attached is a picture of a person who was not a good scientist by your criteria.

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 18:17:10 2011 No.3295570 >>3295542 He was brilliant to be sure but his beliefs hurt his credibility by todays standards.. He basically stated that three body motion is the domain of god because he couldn't figure out how to calculate it.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:26:10 2011 No.3295603

You seem to be placing requisites on believing in a God, there is no scientific nor logical reason why there is anything wrong with believing in a divine entity. Christianity in most of its forms may seem contradictory, but that's to say all faith including personal ones have to conflict with science. A truly enlightened scientist should arguably be agnostic under which belief in some divinity is perfectly acceptable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:26:10 2011 No.3295608 >>3295466 >Sir fred hoyle >Not a good scientist Pick one

>>	fizixfag !!lTr9yohV4eK Mon Jun 27 18:27:10 2011 No.3295612 It is possible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:33:10 2011 No.3295636 this is a stupid thread. religious institutions created science.

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 18:33:10 2011 No.3295637

>>3295603
Agnostic means not knowing where as gnostic means knowing. So you can be an agnostic christian or atheist. In fact any good scientist is agnostic as its a part of being a skeptic.

Faith means belief without evidence so by its nature is is incompatible with science.

Has faith ever helped science? Has it ever hurt science? The answer to these two should tell you how its not a good thing for science.

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 18:35:10 2011 No.3295647 >>3295636 Actually they created universities which in some cases were scientific institutions, not science.

>>	fizixfag !!lTr9yohV4eK Mon Jun 27 18:36:10 2011 No.3295650 >>3295612 To add on my post before: >>3295603 Is right in my opinion. I think a scientist who truly believes in the scientific method would have to be an agnostic (a)theist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:38:10 2011 No.3295655 >>3295636 >created science Trolololololololololololol.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:40:10 2011 No.3295662 >>3295542 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY&feature=related OP watch this /thread

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 18:40:10 2011 No.3295663

>>3295650
Yes but scientific thinking necessitates a reasonable expectations for belief. Those reasonable expectations are not met for a belief in god, so at best a good scientist should withhold judgment.

The fact of the matter is there is no reason to believe god exists in the first place. There is about the same evidence Spiderman exists as god.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:44:10 2011 No.3295683 >>3295636 I guess that explains why Europe was way behind Asian and Islamic countries in terms of science and mathematics until the renaissance.

Op Mon Jun 27 18:45:10 2011 No.3295686

Note that I didn't say "religion", I said "(a) God(s)". Organized religion is just another set of laws, which of course will end up stifling something over time, the same as a government would if it became too demanding and outlawed too many things.

Higher power(s), on the other hand, are something that one can believe in without necessarily having to be part of an organized religion. You can have private beliefs and let it go only as far as that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:46:10 2011 No.3295688 >>3295683 This. Stop being so eurocentric when it comes to science, niggas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:47:10 2011 No.3295693 >>3295663 Book existing for thousands of years with virtually no holes in it.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:47:10 2011 No.3295695

>>3295663
>There is about the same evidence Spiderman exists as god.
If a god is though to be the explanation for unexplainable phenomena, as is a responsible assumption then until there is an explanation that meets a strong consensus then there is far more merit in a belief in god than in Spiderman. Additional spiderman is a recognized, admitted work of fiction, whereas most religious documents are not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:49:10 2011 No.3295704 >>3295695 You can't prove that god isn't a spider though! Checkmate, atheists! Christians: 0 Atheists: 0 Spidertheists: 1

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 18:49:10 2011 No.3295706

>>3295686
please see>>3295663

The problem with what you are saying is it requires a double standard. You have to compartmentalize your mind so you have the part that deals with good science and requires reasonable expectations of evidence and part that believes without evidence.

You have the right to believe in god but in terms of science there is no reason to believe in god.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:52:10 2011 No.3295725

>>3295663
Thousands of people throughout history have reported seeing Angels, witnessing miracles, and some even seeing God himself. Saying there is as much evidence for the existence of God as Spiderman is utter and complete bullshit.

You may choose not to accept the evidence but saying it doesn't exist is wrong.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:53:10 2011 No.3295729
File: 23 KB, 512x288, jt24.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

A scientist shouldn't "believe" anyway. They should accept the evidence, and follow it to the most likely conclusion. It's certainly possible to be a good scientist even when you have faith, but it would make you more "scientifically minded" if you didn't have faith.

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 18:53:10 2011 No.3295731

>>3295695
To most scientist religious works are recognized as a work of fiction. You are making the god of the gaps argument and that's complete bullshit. "We don't know the answer so god did it." That kind of thinking has only ever discouraged critical thinking and scientific exploration so it is absolutely unscientific. God doesn't get special consideration in science it gets the same treatment as anything else and by those standards there is no reason to believe in god.

Also you are starting with the assumption that god exists which is also very unscientific.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:54:10 2011 No.3295738 >>3295725 Eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable form of evidence, if it could even be considered such. Just think of how many people EVERY YEAR claims to have seen the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, UFO abductions, etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:55:10 2011 No.3295745 >>3295738 >Eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable form of evidence AHAHHAHAHA AHAHAHHA Science is founded on eye-witness bullshit

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:56:10 2011 No.3295747 >>3295745 Troll/10

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:56:10 2011 No.3295748 It is possible, if, like a good citizen, you can do the doublethink.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:57:10 2011 No.3295753 >>3295745 So you accept that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster exists?

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 18:57:10 2011 No.3295756

>>3295725
Personnel accounts are the least credible form of evidence. It should also be noted all these people seem to have widely varying accounts even though they should be seeing the same thing.

There have been hundreds of sighting of Bigfoot in the last 50 years. Is this evidence Bigfoot is real?
Also religion seems to provoke strange reactions in people. Look at any religion and there are thousand of accounts of seeing the mythological figures within them but most of these religions are contradictory so they can't all be right.

Come back when you have real evidence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:58:10 2011 No.3295760 File: 11 KB, 254x198, overtroll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3295745

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 18:59:10 2011 No.3295762 >>3295745 Science is founded on falsifiable theories with repeatable experiments not eye witness accounts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:59:10 2011 No.3295763 >>3295753 >So you accept that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster exists? slippery slope fallacy i never said that faggot

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:59:10 2011 No.3295767 >>3295745 This nigga right here just singlehandedly shown why we need to separate science and religion. Thread over.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 18:59:10 2011 No.3295768 >>3295762 sup scrotch im that anti-science guy that you lost too the other day

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:01:10 2011 No.3295776 >>3295763 So you only accept some eyewitness testimonies (as such for god) and reject the others? You take cherry picking to a whole new level.

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 19:02:10 2011 No.3295780 >>3295768 Yes you're the delusional guy who believes whatever he wants to believe so of course you would think you "won." Shouldn't you be on the fence about whether you won or not? This guys an idiot ignore him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:02:10 2011 No.3295782 >>3295763 ad hominem, I render your point invalid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:02:10 2011 No.3295783 >>3295570 Wow. Congratulations, you're a complete moron.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:03:10 2011 No.3295786 >>3295780 You use fallacies for every response. You think my theories scale down to practical usage. They dont.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:05:10 2011 No.3295796 >>3295748 Do I spy... a 1984 reference?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:06:10 2011 No.3295799 Sage, reported. etc.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:06:10 2011 No.3295802

>>3295637
>agnostic means not knowing
>gnostinc means knowing
Neither of those are true. What, were you educated by the Internet?

Gnosticism is any of several religious sects that include a secret knowledge. Agnosticism is a system of thought developed by Thomas Huxley that proposes that one's state of knowledge is insuficient to justify belief or disbelief.

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 19:06:10 2011 No.3295803 >>3295782 Its actually a claim followed by an insult. >>3295783 This is more like ad hominem because he doesn't make a claim and just insults me implying you shouldn't believe me because of the insult.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:07:10 2011 No.3295804 >>3295776 I accept that there's enough evidence for faith. Certainly all of it can't be right at once but that doesn't mean all of it is wrong. If even ONE account of seeing angels or God is real than your godless universe falls apart.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:07:10 2011 No.3295806 No. /thread

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 19:09:10 2011 No.3295815

>>3295802
ag·nos·tic/agˈnästik/
Noun: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

gnos·tic
/ˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled[nos-tik] Show IPA
–adjective Also, gnos·ti·cal.
1.
pertaining to knowledge.
2.
possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3.
( initial capital letter ) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:09:10 2011 No.3295820 >>3295729 >A scientist shouldn't "believe" anyway. >conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:10:10 2011 No.3295823 >>3295410 If a religion vs science debate forms in this very thread, then it is first-hand proof that religion and science cannot cooperate. By the looks of it, they can't. Prove me wrong by ending this argument right now.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:10:10 2011 No.3295825

Why is being a gnostic bad?

If somebody says I KNOW something, why cant they do that?

They dont require evidence like you do. Thats all.
It doesnt make your conclusion better than theirs.

There is evidence for everything. Just the fact that I can think about god can theologically be some evidence. It comes down to where you draw the line on to how much evidence you need. Where you draw that line does not matter. It is a totally human approach to the matter and one should not be interrogated for doing it differently than someone else.

Beat that scotch.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:11:10 2011 No.3295827 >>3295804 >I accept that there's enough evidence for faith. >evidence for faith wtfamireading.jpg

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:11:10 2011 No.3295831 >>3295815 Fence sitting faggot.. Grow a pair then rejoin the convo vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv >>>>>> Super troll thread.<<<<<<< ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 19:11:10 2011 No.3295833 >>3295804 Ok so you're not a troll you're just crazy. You "believe" there is enough evidence? That's why you can't put faith in science, it just horribly perverts it.

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 19:13:10 2011 No.3295840 >>3295831 Pay attention to the thread asshole I'm clearly an atheist and pretty vocal about it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:17:10 2011 No.3295864 yawn Yes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:17:10 2011 No.3295865 I'm a deist now. I find the idea of god "amuzing" actually. Why? I created an evolution simulator, started killing, and realized that I'm god there. So who says we aren't an experiment being run on a computer of a 15 year old guy?

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:18:10 2011 No.3295866

>>3295825
Also, to add to this.

You can not value one form of evidence over another form. Doing so would be completely nonsensical and just made up. If you say that a group of people seeing it makes it real, then you also have to say a bunch of people seeing god makes it real. The amount of people doesnt matter in reality.

One can value anything as evidence for something and one can value anything as evidence against something. Also the value scale can be anything, its a completely made-up system. If I state "I can feel god in my brain" I can value that as high as I want and claim it is the whole truth. The only people who say otherwise are people who appeal to the masses and just do what other scientists do as well.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:18:10 2011 No.3295868 File: 121 KB, 771x703, Death_Sentence_Dlanor_by_Haspien[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3295804 I will REPEAT. By the name of science, I will not let such a god or entity EXIST. I will not allow them to exist for all ETERNITY.

>>	None !/oddSpacew Mon Jun 27 19:21:10 2011 No.3295876 Yep. >>3295542 Very bad example, you appear to not know of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views newton believed that he was a chosen interpreter of the bible and that the world would end in 2060.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:22:10 2011 No.3295882 >>3295683 Because Islamic institutions were more serious about promoting science then Christian ones? (Not to mention that the Islamic world got a 300 years head-start when it came to centralized governments and long-range communications)

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 19:23:10 2011 No.3295883 >>3295825 You see. When you say things that don't make sense and make claims you don't support people ignore you. I hope one day you'll realize what an idiot you've been.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:24:10 2011 No.3295886

>>3295840
>>3295840
>>3295840
>>3295840
>>3295840
>>3295840
>>3295840
>>3295840
>>3295840
>>3295840
>>3295840
>>3295840
>>3295840
>>3295840
>>3295840

Exactly the kind of Atheist trash that's doomed to hell for all eternity..

Q: How do we know which posts you post? Oh no we don't DUR FUCKING DUR DUR this is 4chan fucker not Faceshits all of us post annon.. Someone as enlightened as yourself should know this.

>>	None !/oddSpacew Mon Jun 27 19:24:10 2011 No.3295889 >>3295882 They weren't, but they lived peacefully with science until the Crusades, when everything went to shit. The only reason that the east stopped was because christians intervened. Just saiyan.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:24:10 2011 No.3295891 >>3295883 I do support my own claims 100%. Just because I dont necessarily USE them in real life doesnt mean shit. I could say im a christian and science is bad and still study science every day. Practical use doesnt matter.

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 19:26:10 2011 No.3295901 >>3295886 I use tripcode so its easy to tell which posts are mine. See how it says sc0tch instead of anonymous? idiot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:28:10 2011 No.3295909 Of course. Most doctors are religious.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:28:10 2011 No.3295910 File: 16 KB, 429x350, fry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3295883 >I hope one day you'll realize what an idiot you've been. Pft, fat chance.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:31:10 2011 No.3295921

>>3295825
>say thi
You don't understand what you're saying.

When a "science man" says "i know something" it means that he believes in certain evidence, and if that evidence change(For example, humans discover that gravity is not really constant), they will try to adapt accordingly.

When a religion man says "hey i believe in gravity", When all the evidence blows up, and we're all floating, they will still believe in gravity.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:33:10 2011 No.3295930

>>3295901
I completely trash all of science and atheism and the only reason you choose to remain ignorant is because its not practical.

I think you are ridiculous. You say " If you cant use your views for something in real life then I have no reason to believe in them "

Thats basically what your saying right?
You know usefulness is subjective?

I could tell you that my point of view will free you from the world and you wont have a worry ever again. Thats the most useful thing in the world to me.

But nope.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:35:10 2011 No.3295939 >>3295921 He's not trolling but he's mentally ill. Just look at posts like.>>3295930 Just ignore him he doesn't even realize the things he says are nonsensical and insane. Treat him like you would treat a person who thinks they are Napoleon.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:36:10 2011 No.3295943

>>3295921
Your evidence system makes no sense though.
Its based on some human value chart that is in no way relevant.

You will value one piece of evidence over another. That in of itself makes no sense. I could say gravity is caused BECAUSE of this grain of sand. You might say sure that is part of gravity. I say it is the most important part and when this piece of sand is gone, then gravity no longer exists.

You value things based on a circle jerk or mass appeal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:37:10 2011 No.3295947 >>3295909 Most doctors aren't religious, they just pretend to be because comforting the patient is almost as important as the medicine. If lying to them gets them healthy then it is a doctors duty to do it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:39:10 2011 No.3295956 >>3295876 i knew of this. my point is that harboring crazy ass beliefs does not hold you back from being a good scientist. if having a belief in god discredits one as a scientist, we should stop talking about gravity and stop using calculus.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:40:10 2011 No.3295960 >>3295782 Calling you a faggot isn't an ad hominem. Saying that you're wrong because you're a faggot is an ad hominem. Both of you are retarded

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:46:10 2011 No.3295978

>>3295943
then, why the gravity still works if i crush the grain of sand?
If you say "the gravity powers passed from this grain to another" then it wasn't that important as you were implying.

Of course, if we go to the deep down bottom of the logical standpoint, nothing ever will be evidence of anything.
You can negate the relevance of any fact, test or just anything because we will never know for 100% sure anything, being unable to distinguish between dream or reality.

Then again, my reality system produces PS3s, what does yours?

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:49:10 2011 No.3295985

>>3295978
I could say that gravity WILL stop working after you crush the sand. I have the sand and I wont tell you where it is.

But thank you for agreeing with me.
The other guy who I was arguing with isnt able to.

But heres my question, why are you an atheist if you are able to think like this? Wouldnt it be stupid to reject anything?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 19:59:10 2011 No.3296010 >>3295985 >Wouldnt it be stupid to reject anything? Hey buddy, tomorrow you're going to wake up, and you will be a hippo. Are you going to reject this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:03:10 2011 No.3296025 >>3296010 No, im not going to reject it. I really need to know the name of the fallacy you just used. PRACTICALITY DOES NOT GIVE ME A REASON TO BELIEVE SOMETHING, unless I just wanted to be lazy and say "Well its good enough"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:06:10 2011 No.3296036 >>3296010 Science is all about rejection. >Teenage Rejection >Phd Rejection >Theory rejection foreveralong.science.exe

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:07:10 2011 No.3296040

>>3295985
The problem is, if you're deep down bottom of the logical standpoint, nothing has sense or objective at all. So rejecting or aknowledging anything will have no meaning.

You need to go down that far to make science shackle.
But you only need to ask the right questions at any level to make Deities vanish in twilight sparkles.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:09:10 2011 No.3296052 >>3296040 >You need to go down that far to make science shackle. That argument is non-existent. I live that far down. Atheists are just lazy. You just admit it. The only thing keeping atheism alive is laziness.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:10:10 2011 No.3296056

>>3296025
Wow that's hilarious.
So when there's a closed door in front of you, why do you believe that turning the handle will open it when turning the handle could turn you into peanut butter jelly?

There's no reason to believe those things will happen, due to lack of evidence.
It's not a fallacy. Perhaps you could call me a evidentialist foundationalist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:11:10 2011 No.3296065 >>3296056 >There's no reason to believe those things will happen, due to lack of evidence. You lost the argument right there. I already explained why that makes no sense due to the word "evidence".

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:12:10 2011 No.3296072

>>3296040
(cont.)

still if you want my answer, wich will make the rest of SCI convolute, probably.

I'm not really an atheist, but i DO believe that if a god really does exist, (wich i'm pretty sure the chances are not), they're inherently evil or at least completely unconcerned with us. A god needs to be Allpowerful, so, if they're really good they would have created a universe that it's not full or harm and uglyness, and pi would be just 3, without decimals.

But this doesn't happen.

Either your gods are allpowerfull and not good, or they're just crazy entities that do stuff but can't change the universe.

Of course you can go on and on discusing and saying "but they work in misterious ways" or say we weren't made to comphehend what really is the concept of "good".
But the again:
/x/ is that way --->

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 20:13:10 2011 No.3296075 >>3296056 He's mentally ill stop humoring him. Has anything he's said made sense? He's like one of those crazy homeopaths he doesn't even realize how crazy he is. Just ignore him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:13:10 2011 No.3296077 >>3296065 If you don't believe turning your door handle will open the door, then tell me why you'd turn a door handle. The reason is because you believe it will open the door, you massive retard.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:16:10 2011 No.3296084

>>3296072
>Either your gods are allpowerfull and not good, or they're just crazy entities that do stuff but can't change the universe.

I dont believe you can just say, "god is ____ because ____"

Its not that broad.

>>3296075
Shut the fuck up scotch.
I am beating your view in a logical debate.
You can not get your head out of your ass.
You are stuck in this mindset that you cant get rid of because your ego.

YOU dont realize how crazy YOU are.
Ya, I dont have the most common viewpoint, Its because im not a lazy fuck

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:19:10 2011 No.3296092

>if they're really good they would have created a universe that it's not full or harm and uglyness,
Bullshit. That would suck. Life is full of beauty, and we couldn't appreciate it if it wasn't also full of harm and uglyness. Consonance is bland and boring unless it is used to resolve consonance.

>and pi would be just 3, without decimals.
Congradulations, you just made an uglier univers.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:19:10 2011 No.3296093

>>3296052
No, you don't
Because if you were living there, you couldn't even post in 4chan, as you wouldn't be able to assume that something would have certain reaction, or a reaction at all.

If you were living there, you wouldn't be able to assume that gods or alien entities exist. Because every assumption would be senseless

the level of shadows that you claim is were you're living, only makes science shackle, doesn't make it dissapear, while at the same time doesn't provide proof of gods or magic, just leaves (at most) an uncorfortable spot for them to hide.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:19:10 2011 No.3296097

>>3296077

Ok.

Do you know that there is such thing as a black hole?

Ok if a black hole can turn up anywhere, why do you say you will be able to open the door? What if the black hole comes as you are opening it?

You could say the probability of it happening are low. I dont care about probability because it doesnt make it a FACT that the door will open. Even if the probability is soo low.

Also you have to account for all the other arbitrary things.

How many arbitrary things are there?

The laws of physics can stop right now.
Im not going to say otherwise.

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 20:20:10 2011 No.3296102
File: 35 KB, 460x340, pigeon-chess.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3296077
This is what arguing with him is like. You are carefully crafting your arguments like a chess player planning his moves. The thing is he doesn't realize you are playing chess. He just think you win by knocking all the pieces off the board. Has he made a valid point yet? Has he made a statement that doesn't contradict itself? Just ignore him he doesn't deserve your attention. He's not going to change his mind and he's going to think he won no matter what because he doesn't even understand what science is. Ask him and he will tell you that he is ignorant to what science is specifically.

He has the intellectual capacity of a heavily indoctrinated 8th grader. That is to say almost none at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:23:10 2011 No.3296113 >>3296102 Ad hominem everywhere. You havent told me why the things im saying are illogical. You just go back to science every time. If it doesnt correlate to science, you just automatically "nope" it. Atheism - the most ignorant people of ALL time

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:25:10 2011 No.3296118

>>3296092
It wouldn't, bland and boring wouldn't even exist, everything would be good and perfect, or even we would be able to see it as perfect.

What i'm refering with pi, is, that a true god would be able to reform or change the universal constants, change how logic and arithmetics work, 2+2=1, etc.

If a deity needs to work with what already exist, the it's not a real deity.

----------------------

No, the universe is full of uglyness, with little small spot of "oh, that's just nice".

The universe doesn't like us, is just a big factory of flaming spheres of gas. You're just trying to see the glass full of water.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:27:10 2011 No.3296130

>>3296097
I never said the door was 100% guaranteed to open.
I said you turn the handle because you believe it will open. And you believe the door will open because of your previous experiences with door handles.

If you seriously accepted what you're saying you'd be rolling around on the floor believing it was magically increasing your bank balance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:28:10 2011 No.3296137 Russell's Teapot argument. /thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:29:10 2011 No.3296140 > Is it impossible to be a /sci/entist who also believes in (a) God(s)? Nope. But it's impossible to be a scientist who believes you already found it and know what it wants of you.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:30:10 2011 No.3296142

>>3296130
No, I dont "believe" the door will open.

be·lieve/biˈlēv/Verb
1. Accept (something) as true;

I dont accept it as true.

I think it might open.

Thats it.

>If you seriously accepted what you're saying you'd be rolling around on the floor believing it was magically increasing your bank balance.

If you think that, that doing so will increase your bank balance then you can do that.
I dont think it will so I wont do it.

You are using a slippery slope.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:30:10 2011 No.3296145

>>3296102
>
He has the intellectua
yeah, i know, still the discussion can be classified as ontopic and i haven't had these religion vs science talks in a while.

As a channer i have attained the fetish of being trolled over and over again, so, no problem.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:30:10 2011 No.3296147 File: 19 KB, 472x462, 1287379643067.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3295423 then what are you doing in this thread, or are you not a scientist?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:30:10 2011 No.3296152 File: 4 KB, 151x151, 1306808536349.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >opening post mentions god >guaranteed 100 replies

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:34:10 2011 No.3296167 >>3296152 >bump to get it to 100

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 20:35:10 2011 No.3296172

>>3296145
Ya but it's not an intellectual discussion. Notice how he ignores what you say and redefines his terms from post to post. He's also a massive hypocrite. He demands others present evidence but then says he doesn't have to because he doesn't care about evidence.

Don't waste time on him he has nothing compelling to say.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:35:10 2011 No.3296173 >>3296142 You are the one who is on the slippery slope my friend. Let me ask you a question to confirm your insanity: Which is most likely to open a door: * touching your nose * turning the handle

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:37:10 2011 No.3296191 >>3296173 grabbing your penis.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:38:10 2011 No.3296197 >>3296172 What are you talking about? Prove one thing wrong ive said. YOU are the one ignoring me. I not once asked you for evidence of ANYTHING. Im stating why your views are not logical.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:39:10 2011 No.3296211

>>3296173
>Which is most likely to open a door:

Dude, I dont care about this practical bullshit.
I can use whatever logic system I want when im interacting with the real world.

When it comes to actual debate and philosophy, I simply think that science is irrelevant.

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 20:41:10 2011 No.3296222 >>3296197 >Prove one thing wrong ive said. This is you requesting evidence. You see you contradicted yourself. I hope one day you'll realize what an idiot you've been.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:43:10 2011 No.3296231 >>3296222 SEE, AN ATHEIST ADMITS THAT HE CANT PROVE GOD DOESNT EXIST. fucking /THREAD

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:43:10 2011 No.3296233 File: 47 KB, 800x600, 1292266568191.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3296211 >When it comes to actual debate and philosophy, I simply think that science is irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:44:10 2011 No.3296235 >>3296222 Prove in your own logic how my point of view is illogical. Basically what im saying, sorry for not defining my axioms. (something scientist never do)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:44:10 2011 No.3296241 >>3296235 The plural of scientist is "scientists," genius.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:45:10 2011 No.3296249 >>3296197 >I've >I'm ftfy

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:49:10 2011 No.3296266

>>3296235
God can't be proved to exist.
Therefore, thinking it doesn't exist perhaps is retarded.

Thinking on the other hand is double retarded.

I think we can all agree that not believing in something you can't see is not as stupid as believing in something you can't see.

For obvious reasons.

>>inb4, "but you can't see protons or gravity durr hurr"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:49:10 2011 No.3296268 >>3296235 >Prove one thing wrong! >guy shows contradiction in logic >no, no show how its wrong using your logic! Herp derp

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:51:10 2011 No.3296276

>>3296266
>I think we can all agree that not believing in something you can't see is not as stupid as believing in something you can't see.

That might make sense to you and a lot of people.
Im fine with that.

However does that make it ok to reject an idea like creationism?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:52:10 2011 No.3296278 Atheism is the easiest religion to troll. >because genuine religious apologists are indistinguishable from trolls

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:53:10 2011 No.3296281 >>3296276 Sure. For that which we can observe, no agency can be seen. For that which we can't observe, no statements can be made either way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:54:10 2011 No.3296285 >>3296281 Ok... no statements can be made... Why do you default rejection?

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 20:55:10 2011 No.3296287

>>3296235
You see at this point he has to either admit the he contradicted himself or refute that it was a contradiction. Instead he makes an unreasonable demand rather then addressing my point. He is just like that pigeon walking around the board knocking over pieces. He doesn't even know how to have an intellectual debate so its impossible to debate him.

As such he should be ignored. Yes it is easy to destroy his points from an intellectual point of view but he doesn't even realize his points are being destroyed. He's just repeating himself.

People ignore him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:56:10 2011 No.3296291 >>3296276 It's always okay to reject ideas that have no potential merit, possibility of being true, or explanatory power.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:56:10 2011 No.3296293 >>3296287 >People ignore him. Fuck you, I wanna hear more about his delusional thought processes.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:57:10 2011 No.3296297

>>3296285

Making no statement either way, as non-religious people do, is the default, as we agree.

Making a statement that god (or anything, extra-dimensional aliens, meta-computer simulation, the dream of a space badger, whatever) did it requires one to provide evidence, or at least a source. If none is forthcoming, the claim cannot be taken seriously. And none is forthcoming.

So we're back to no claim in any direction.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 20:58:10 2011 No.3296302

>>3296287
No.
Also once again, the very nature of my theories are contradictory. Im having a hard time to know exactly what we are talking about here... If I want you to prove me wrong I assume you think there are truths and false.

But I forgot what we were even talking about...
In my logic though, im allowed to be contradictory. Im trying my best to prove you wrong in your own mindset.

>>3296291
>It's always okay to reject ideas

Its okay...

Its okay to not reject ideas too.

You reject them because you want to..

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:00:10 2011 No.3296313

>>3296297
>Making a statement that god (or anything, extra-dimensional aliens, meta-computer simulation, the dream of a space badger, whatever) did it requires one to provide evidence,

This is the problem I have with all atheists.

Why do you require such a thing and you ADMIT that evidence is subjective and is based on a scale created by the scientific community.

Where do you draw the line on the infinity complex mechanism you call evidence?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:02:10 2011 No.3296321 >>3296302 > You reject them because you want to only accept true things.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:03:10 2011 No.3296324 File: 111 KB, 736x330, flametroll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:04:10 2011 No.3296331

>>3296321
>only accept true things.

thats fine , only accept true things.

But why do you reject anything else
why dont you just be open to everything or not form an opinion on it and move along

why do you put yourself into an ego atheism circle jerk?

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:05:10 2011 No.3296336

>>3296313

Something that passes muster by a mutually agreed upon method of settling disputes. Science has such a method, and it has proved it's utility countless times.

Religious claims do not. When two religious claims contradict or disagree, there is no way for them to settle this dispute. If there were a way to settle such disputes, then I would consider any piece of data that is useful in settling disputes to be evidence.

But no such method exists for religions. Which is why most scientists agree on most things, and most of the things they agree on have applications which we can see and use every day; while most religious people disagree on most things, and most of the things they hold to be true have no affect on anyone but themselves and those who believe exactly as they do.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:08:10 2011 No.3296346

>>3296336
You are just like the rest.

You are falling back on practicality and utility rather than being open on the matter.

I wish there was a fallacy for this so I could just use that to prove you wrong.

But In my views, I dont think the usefulness of something should change anything in the grand scheme.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:10:10 2011 No.3296355

>>3296346

Practicality and utility are tangential to the argument. The point is the dispute resolution methods of science.

How can a muslim and a christian settle a dispute on the divinity of christ, in such a way that other muslims and christians who review the discussion be convinced? Is there such a method?

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:12:10 2011 No.3296369

>>3296355
I dont care about settling disputes.

I agree with you.

Science is GREAT for solving disputes and problems. Subjectively, temporarily, falsifiably, yada yada yada

It can be used to benefit humanity. Sure.

I dont like it for anything besides solving problems.

Dont look at it like a religion and base everything on it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:14:10 2011 No.3296373 If you compartmentalize your life you should be just fine.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:14:10 2011 No.3296375 >>3296369 Okay. Laters.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:16:10 2011 No.3296385 >>3296373 I dont see anything wrong with compartmentalizing. Im not lazy.

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Mon Jun 27 21:17:10 2011 No.3296386 >>3296375 He gets it

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:21:10 2011 No.3296395

>>3296375
When I said "its great for solving problems"

I mean its good for solving problems so you dont die. So humans dont die. Sometimes.

It is not reliable in the slightest.
It will never be 100% reliable.
It does not answer every question either.
There are questions that science can not answer.
What im saying is , its fine to use for now to help you. Thats it. If I want to know why I exist, I dont look to science.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:22:10 2011 No.3296397

>>3296355
> How can a muslim and a christian settle a dispute on the divinity of christ, in such a way that other muslims and christians who review the discussion be convinced? Is there such a method?
There is, but it only works on rational Christians and Muslims, which are rare. The answer is that Jesus wasn't divine. The proof is to show the Abrahamic god is imaginary, invented by the prophet Second Isaiah, plagiarized from earlier gods in other lands. Then either Jesus is imaginary as well, or he couldn't be divine because the source of his divinity isn't real.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:25:10 2011 No.3296411 Fucking hate my life right now. That guy just left and it looks like I proved myself wrong. NO! He thinks he won the argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:27:10 2011 No.3296416 >>3296411 You're on 4chan. You both lost the argument. and The Game.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:28:10 2011 No.3296424 He doesnt understand that solving problems in the first place relies on tons and tons of axioms oh my fucking gosh he left and now hes gonna tote his ego FUCK

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:29:10 2011 No.3296429 >>3296395 >I don't look to science So where do you look? Just make shit up?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:31:15 2011 No.3296440 >>3296429 No. If you knew anything about quantum mechanics you would know how flawed science is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:35:10 2011 No.3296459 >>3296440 I know about quantum mechanics. I have no idea how quantum mechanics demonstrates how science is flawed. Regardless of that, if you didn't use science to learn about god, then what did you use?

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:36:10 2011 No.3296465

>>3295410
A scientist by definition should be someone who only accepts anything if it has actually been demonstrated and went through peer review. I said should, but that has no bearing on how well someone will do in a specific field, just that it is useless and strange they are holding on to old beliefs.

www.tfrtv.com

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:36:10 2011 No.3296469 File: 11 KB, 184x184, 9e60e884438764c71ba9ff1afc503f8433915b81_full.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Thank you everyone for participating in this study!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:40:10 2011 No.3296484 File: 26 KB, 402x268, the-pope.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:44:10 2011 No.3296498

Fucking hate everyone right now.

Scotch talk to me.

If science is good at solving problems... Why does that mean that I should use it for anything besides getting an advantage?

Is rejecting god an advantage?

Also, when I say
"I dont like science for anything besides solving problems."

You then assume that Im a retard because you would say that "god" is a "problem".

What I mean is science is good for guiding you through reality.

You think I mean "supernatural" when I say something that "isnt a problem". I dont mean that at all. You are using very basic logic when you assume that.

Science is not something to believe in is what im saying. Even if its proven to "solve problems". This problem thing you are using is just a disconnection in your neurons. They dont mean a single thing. You just require a certain degree of consistency. Which is bullshit.

Idk but dont leave me hanging like that and leave, I havent done that to you. I maintain in the argument for as long as possible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:51:10 2011 No.3296518 can you just reply to one of the things I said here >>3296498 so I can get my logic sorted out again

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:52:10 2011 No.3296519 File: 28 KB, 400x400, 1307762418929.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3296395 >It is not reliable in the slightest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 21:54:10 2011 No.3296527 File: 47 KB, 509x572, youseemupset.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3296498 >Fucking hate everyone right now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:00:10 2011 No.3296539 Theist scientist? Yes. Christian scientist? No.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:00:10 2011 No.3296542 >>3296498 Oh I get it, you must be one of those people who never heard of peer review. Either that or you are a full blown retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:01:10 2011 No.3296546 Also. The very nature of what im trying to do by debating and asking questions like this... Is to find out what is successful in debate. I admit to be refining my ideas. Im not perfect and I am contradictory at times. I dont give a fuck.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:03:10 2011 No.3296553 >>3296546 >I dont give a fuck. Clearly you do, darling.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:03:10 2011 No.3296554 Scotch, if you are here. I admit to being stale-mated here. >>3296369 I lost to myself. I would like to try more things though and refine my ideas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:06:10 2011 No.3296564 >>3295570 name one scientist that has more credibility than isaac newton also, Albert Einstein did not have religious beliefs, but he believed in a deity "starting" the universe

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:09:10 2011 No.3296576 >>3296564 Any scientist living today including me. The fuck is wrong with you? Issac Newton constantly referred to religious doctrine as true and believed in alchemy.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:14:10 2011 No.3296598

>>3296546

First; lurk moar

Second; try to respond in good faith. If you are attempting to troll, you must be more subtle. If you are attempting to have an earnest discussion, don't argue at cross-purposes, try to address the points anon makes, and respond to those points of yours they have taken the time to address.

And third; I'm not discussing the particular issues in this thread here because there have been many, many people who have, myself included. You failed to present yourself in a way that made others think you were not a troll, so anon lost interest in conversing. I'm responding now just in case you aren't a troll, and might actually have something useful to say at some point. But not in this thread.

Peace out.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:15:10 2011 No.3296604

Also, my original argument was, "It is not logical to be an atheist"

It had nothing to do with the reason why we use science.

The argument got lead there by itself.

The nature of me, just wanted to capitalize on the opportunity to prove someone wrong.

It shouldnt have gotten that far.

I hope you are reading this.
I hope you realize how stupid you've been.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:17:10 2011 No.3296610 >>3296576 not sure if trolling Newton defined the scientific revolution. laws of motion, gravitation, went against heliocentrism, wrote the Principia, telescope, etc..

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:17:10 2011 No.3296615 >>3296576 you obviously don't know what credibility means

a solution Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:33:10 2011 No.3296710
File: 42 KB, 300x300, iBuypower-Gamer-931-GN-I455-9310.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3295410
become a PC gamer out side of counter strike PC gamers have fewer douchebags at least in the circles i play (mainly L4d/l4d2) as long as your a reasonable and respectful player your cool.

Why i think there is such a difference is for most council gamers the games are a way to feel macho. for pc gamers it's a lifestyle.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:34:10 2011 No.3296715

>>3296610
>>3296615
1.
capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.
2.
worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.

Again, he made a lot of advancements, no one said he didn't. However he had more ridiculous beliefs than what he put forth. Meaning even if we were to be generous, get all the bad beliefs and good beliefs, divide em etc and get a percentage.

I won't believe something unless it has been peer reviewed. If I don't know, I say "I don't know, i'll look it up later".

Again, you have no idea what credibility means. If you have credibility that is for all beliefs. Are you going to argue because newton was right on laws of motion and he believed in god and was right about one thing and is credible god exists?

I hope not.
>>3296604
How is it not logical to be an atheist, the default position? Oh, you must be trolling.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:37:10 2011 No.3296734 >>3296715 >How is it not logical to be an atheist, the default position? just answered your own question you think its the default position

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:43:10 2011 No.3296758

>>3296715

Let's be fair, though, alchemy gets a bad rap that it does not deserve. Sure, it's bunkum, but it's bunkum that was found to be bunkum and then people stopped doing it. There is a reason that people still do astrology and homeopathy, but they stopped doing alchemy. And it's not because the former work while the latter doesn't. It's because the latter was investigated with rigor and reason by the people who held to it, while the former never were and never will be.

So we can't fault Newton for investigating alchemy, since he had no way to know it was wrong until he tried it. If we found that, for example, Sagan, spent a decade investigating alchemy, that's a whole different matter.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:43:10 2011 No.3296760

>>3296734
Is the default position in a court case given guilty or not-guilty.

You have to remember, belief is binary.
Atheist/theist. Those are the two choices.

Theist = Belief in god or gods.
A = Without.
Atheist = Without belief in god or gods.

If you do not belief in a specific god, automatically you are an atheist. Just as in a court case you do not believe something or find someone guilty until it is demonstrated they are guilty. Up till that point regardless if they actually are guilty or not, your default position is not guilty.

You'll agree with this, but just because you want to be a pseudo-intellectual you'll probably try to dance your way out of it. I already know the fallacies you'll probably post so go ahead and i'll show you how they are wrong. Of course you'll still say they aren't. I actually wrote a nice article on people like you.

http://tfrtv.com/index.php/let-us-justify

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:44:10 2011 No.3296764 >>3296760 >You have to remember, belief is binary. >Atheist/theist. Those are the two choices. Why do you think like this? Who taught you that?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:45:10 2011 No.3296766 >>3296758 I was using alchemy as an example of one of many. The point of it was to simply point out a fallacy.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:45:10 2011 No.3296767

>>3295410
Yes, you must split your brain and protect your religious beliefs from your critical thinking skills.

This is the only way you will manage to be a qualified scientist and genuine religious believer.
Even then you are dropping a decent amount of your mental capacity on something useless and thus have little hope of being what one might call a good scientist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:46:32 2011 No.3296774 File: 49 KB, 145x135, 1267159624613.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3296760 mfw some religions are atheist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:47:10 2011 No.3296776 >>3296766 Safe, bro. I just hate it when people rag on chemistry's dad. Sure, he has his mad ways, but without him, we wouldn't have chemistry.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:48:10 2011 No.3296787

>>3296764
Sigh, alright, so are you gunna be one of those agnostic faggots?

gnostic = absolute knowledge of god.(well absolute knowledge, but we are speaking of god in this sense)
a = without.

agnostic = without absolute knowledge of god/gods.

You are
gnostic theist
agnostic theist
gnostic atheist
agnostic atheist.

Atheist and theist are what you believe, gnostic and agnostic is your stance on what you know about god.

If you say "I DON'T KNOW LOL" you just said no and that is not an answer. If someone at this point won't actually admit what they are, "I don't know" is still atheist. If you don't know; you do not hold belief in a specific god or gods, you are without belief. The definition of atheist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:50:10 2011 No.3296793 >>3296774 Mainly Buddhists as they do not have a god.Buddhists can believe in god, just no god by default. Oh also, I hope you weren't implying I was saying otherwise.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:51:10 2011 No.3296799

>>3296776
Yeah, same with breeding. We have been cultivating and practicing selective breeding and knew about common ancestor for thousands of years. We only attributed it to certain animals such as canines. This is the precursor to evolution, Darwin even makes a lot of parallels in contrast.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:56:10 2011 No.3296822

>>3296787
Should of worded the bottom better.

Saying "I don't know" you can find out if someone is an atheist or theist even if they won't answer the question by asking "What god do you believe in or subscribe to, including a deist god." If they can't answer it, or say none but still open to possibility they are atheist. They are trying anything and everything to not be associated with the label because it carries bad weight from it.

In fact we are still the most hated minority in US. Luckily I live in Canada. Still shitty though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 22:57:10 2011 No.3296825 >>3296787 You cant just tell me "you are this" You are using these premade objects that I dont care about. You are not the universal definer of beliefs. I can have a dynamic belief system. You currently use one. Its called science.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:00:10 2011 No.3296846

>>3296825
I'm sorry; that is a kindergarten argument.

See we define words because we want words to describe something. We give them meaning and regardless what you subscribe or try to change if you fit the definition, you fit the fucking definition you pseudo-intellectual retard.

So again, you are either atheist or theist by definition, and there is no middle ground. Gnostic and agnostic are on knowledge. Whatever words you want to make up to call yourself after you finally accept what you are I don't give a fuck.

Also, if you think you have another view please post it. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BEFORE YOU POST WHAT YOU ARE LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OR I WILL RAPE YOU.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:02:10 2011 No.3296852

>>3296825
Also on a side note, I CAN tell you what you are. Just as I can say this object we found looks like an apple, chemical analyze proves it's an apple, it fell from an apple tree so it's an apple.

You are trying to argue semantics without posting what you actually believe(or think you do due to misunderstandings).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:02:10 2011 No.3296854 >>3296846 I believe in a middle ground AND I believe in a dynamic belief. Its not just "you are this or you are this" I can say I am this and this and this, and if this happens then Im this.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:04:10 2011 No.3296866

>>3296793
>You have to remember, belief is binary.
Atheist/theist. Those are the two choices.

You said it, not me.
I am both Atheist and a non-believer within the context you provided.
A Taoist or Buddhist or Unitarian Universalist would, in this same context, be a believer and an Atheist.
A Christian would be a Believer and a Theist.
A Deist would be a Theist and non-believer as they do not subscribe to a specific set of beliefs yet content that there is very possibly a God(s).
An Agnostic would be a neutral position between bother believer/non-believer, and theist/atheist depending on whether one was hard or soft Agnosticism.
Thus there are at least five possible states, rather than your two when discussing belief.

I think you are vastly over simplifying the situation, so much as to make discussion in your preferred boundaries almost useless.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:05:10 2011 No.3296874 >>3296854 >I can say I am this and this and this, and if this happens then Im this. go on...

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:09:10 2011 No.3296887

>>3296854
Oh, so you believe in a god and don't believe in a god at the same time. That is ridiculous way of not fucking answering the question.

So what do you not get about this.
theist = Belief in god or gods. This specifically means to be a theist you have to state "I believe in x god or gods".
a = without

HOLY FUCK NOW WE GOTTA COMBINE THE WORDS!

a-theist = WITHOUT belief in a god or gods.

There is two categories of atheist I don't really like to expand on it kind of confuses the situations because the two classes of atheist and theist now exist because of people like you.

People like you claiming a middle ground eventually got to the point you guys couldn't substantiate it in any way that you finally wanted to be what you are. However then the definitions split a bit.

Weak atheist - Includes children, people with no concept of god, "Agnostics".

Strong atheist - Mainly just if you can say you have actually considered the issue and say you are without a belief you fit here.

Either way, you are still an atheist unless you can tell me what god or gods you believe in. This is a definition and I do not know why you have an issue with this. You can if you want make up a word to describe yourself perfectly, still doesn't change the fact you are either an atheist or theist.

/fuck

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:11:10 2011 No.3296896

>>3296787
different anon here

I believe there is most likely no god (i.e.- Atheist just so you have context for my next statement).

A positive Agnostic would refuse to make a judgment on this. IE you can call him Atheist as a categorical statement but to say that he affirmatively believes there is no god would be incorrect.
There are two solutions for this situation.
One is to make a distinction between hard and soft atheism and another is to simply say one does not know and call that agnosticism.

Agnosticism seems to be the winning solution for now. There is no need to redefine their word choices for them.

TL;DR - Stop getting so agitated about it. You know the fuck he means and that is enough.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:12:06 2011 No.3296902 >>3296887 I believe in a god if there is a god. I a scientific theory is right, I believe in that. If any of the other religions are right, I believe in them. I do not reject anything. Why wont you allow me to do this? Autism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:13:10 2011 No.3296912 >>3296887 I believe in a god if there is a god. If a scientific theory is right, I believe in that. If any of the other religions are right, I believe in them. I do not reject anything. Why wont you allow me to do this? Autism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:16:10 2011 No.3296922 >>3296912 And in the current situation, where no god is apparent, no god is demonstrated, no god is necessary? I assume you are an atheist for now, until something that demonstrates god comes to light.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:17:10 2011 No.3296930

>>3296866
Already covered this. This is not oversimplifying, this is fucking dictionary and actually how the world works.

If you can show me what the third option in binary is, then you can show what the third option to belief is. You either believe something, or you don't.

Now when we say you "don't" it doesn't mean you say "I DON'T BELIEVE IN X" because even "I'm no sure yet" or "I don't believe in X but still open to possibility".

You can not half believe something and half not. In fact just to attest to this there is only one type of human that can have more than one belief. There is cases where a brain from the right and left hemisphere has been broken apart into two distinct personalities. Asking each personality could give multiple views or opinions on a beliefs however per personality it still stands, you can not believe the both.

It all relates back to the logical absolutes. The only 3 true things that are universally true, even in regards to a god or any other universe if one were to exist.

Law of Identity
Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.

Law of Non-Contradiction
Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.

Law of Excluded Middle
A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.

A middle ground(in belief) SPECIFICALLY without a doubt contradicts 2 and 3. These are universally accepted and are logical absolutes, regardless of religion, science, reality or the made up genies in the sky.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:17:10 2011 No.3296933 File: 58 KB, 336x321, that-word-inigo-montoya-word-think-means-princess-bride-mand-demotivational-poster-1260739585.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3296854 >is pragamatic to the point of uselessness A+++

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:19:10 2011 No.3296940

>>3296896
Jesus christ.

What do people have problem with of fucking picking one of the four possible choices.

gnostic theist
agnostic theist
agnostic atheist
gnostic atheist

There is no "Just agnostic". Agnostic would be the best decision I agree, because gnostic would claim to KNOW god exists. Most fundamentalists even on the atheist side are gnostic. We can not know anything for certain, that is why everyone should be agnostic. However that is knowledge, not belief.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:19:10 2011 No.3296943 >>3296922 If you want to assume and be ignorant than you can do that but I know im not an atheist

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:20:10 2011 No.3296944 Does it even matter if God is there or not? Can't we both just chill out and live life if he's there or not?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:21:10 2011 No.3296951 >>3296943 Well, sir, I'm not assuming. I'm holding to a position where no gods have been demonstrated. Unless you have seen a proof of god that I have not?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:21:10 2011 No.3296953 >>3296940 No, theres three choices which boil down to two: Atheist, Thesis: Giving a damn. Agnostic: Not giving a damn. Choose one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:21:10 2011 No.3296954 >>3296943 Alright, so if you know you are not an atheist what god or gods do you believe in specifically? Deist gods included.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:22:10 2011 No.3296961 >>3296953 Were you dropped on your head as a child or did you not do a 5 minute dictionary search or fucking read the points made already fucking demolishing that horrendous misconception. Jesus Christ I hate that this shit bothers me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:23:10 2011 No.3296965 >>3296953 No. Fuck you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:24:10 2011 No.3296967 >>3296951 Im not gonna explain it again you can read it somewhere in this thread but evidence is nonsensical its a circle jerk of "its good enough" its never based on facts just what humans feel like

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:24:10 2011 No.3296970

If we accept the definition that a scientist is a fully rational person who seeks to maximise the collective knowledge of truths in the world (through rigorous methods); and a religious person is a person who has faith in something while disregarding maximising truths known and empirical research methods.
Yes, one who is religious cannot be a proper scientist.

BUT if you're one of those wishy-washy moral religionists, who thinks that Jesus was just a good guy and the Bible has a few good things to say about how to live a good life, then probably yes.

The difference is in the metaphysical import of their beliefs; believing in the resurrection and infallibility of God, etc. is not conducive to being a fully rational human, as you're already believing these things are true without correct evidence.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:25:10 2011 No.3296974

>>3296961
No. What I did was place Agnostic in the context of 'OMG FUCKING NO GOD' and "WHINE EHINE WHINE THERE IS A GOD"

And then I decided I was agnostic.

2. a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that the answer cannot be known with certainty

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:27:10 2011 No.3296980
File: 38 KB, 450x270, ThirteenthFloor-thumb-450x270-15882.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3296961
Really. Perhaps you could learn how to be agnostic about it. Might save you alot of worry over nothing.

Let me ask you this, does it really matter if you're right or not? If there is or is not a god, will this belief, whether affirmative or in denial, make any difference?

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:27:10 2011 No.3296982

>>3296930
>I know what they mean when they say agnosticism and I'm mad that they will not change to my definition. I further refuse to admit that I may be wrong here.

Language is operative and pragmatic in function by necessity. The only context in which dictionary definitions matter is external reference when the meaning of a word is not intuitively understood.

You are harping on a useless point. If someone says Agnostic you know they mean not to believe that no gods exist but also that they do not think gods certainly exist; that or that it certainly cannot be proven either way.

Call them whatever you want after that, but shut up about the definition.
If you do not know exactly what they mean ask for clarification.

Otherwise.
Discussion over.

In case you just didn't know:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:29:10 2011 No.3296990

>>3296967
You are not going to post again you bad arguments? Great, so you admit defeat.

Since nothing can be 100% certain except the 3 logical absolutes what we need is stuff approaching absolute certainty but will never achieve. Higher percentages give better indication on truth.

We also have this awesome process called peer review, and before anything... I mean ANYTHING is accepted it has to go through the academic arena of peer review and have thousands of scientists of differing backgrounds, organizations, and religious views try and rip the article or evidence put forth apart. If they find nothing wrong, and also repeat and verify that all the statistics are correct, data is correct, nothing was misinterpreted and there is no bias. Then a scientist puts their career on the line signing it verifying that he/she made sure it's correct to the highest levels of scrutiny.

I don't give a fuck what anyone thinks, I constantly make sure my beliefs are backed by peer review, and when you see an article with 10,000+ signatures with a 98+%(peer review has to meet 98% or it needs refinement) of people verifying it and most articles actually have 99-100% of positive signatures I will trust this over any fucking 20 year old retard on the internet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:30:10 2011 No.3296994 >>3296970 You've obviously never heard of cognitive dissonance. Something dawkins is currently looking into the definition of.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:30:34 2011 No.3296993 >>3296982 >>3296961 Especially see: >>3296940

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:31:10 2011 No.3297002

>>3296990
>I don't give a fuck what anyone thinks, I constantly make sure my beliefs are backed by peer review

Thats completely contradictory.

If you were smart you would make your own conclusions by yourself.

The amount of people that back a theory doesnt matter. Thats a mass appeal fallacy.

Most modern humans use the same evidence scale. Which I have no reason to believe.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:32:10 2011 No.3297006

>>3296982
It doesn't matter. You still have not addressed the fact irrespective of the definitions and even if no definitions existed at all, it is still impossible to believe and not believe at the same time in the same context.

Again, show me the third state of binary. Only way to actually prove your point.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:37:10 2011 No.3297043

>>3296994
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Look it up.
This is a psychological concept, Dawkins has nothing to do with it.

The term simply describes a feeling of knowing that something isn't quite right here.

What you seem to be referring to the very same thing your linked post was talking about is called double-think
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

And it also has nothing to do with Dawkins.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:40:10 2011 No.3297060

>>3297002
No; just not.

A fallacy means argument from ignorance.

Saying 90/100 dentists think that Evolution is false would be a mass appeal fallacy.

Saying 90/100 dentists think Colgate is better than another type of toothpaste is an actual statistic with reliable data due to the fact they specialize in oral health care.

If I were to say "88% of Sweden beliefs in evolution, therefore it's true" then yes it is a fallacy. Scientists job is making models of observations seen in reality, collecting data and making hypothesis to explain what is happening.

With more evidence and more support in a single field and universal accepted by the scientific community is not a fallacy. You have to remember, they are actually demonstrating something. They are not saying here is a 2000 year old book that was already right and we need to prove it was right. They find data that can be interpreted by anyone to universally mean the exact same thing. You may dance around and try to use the exact definitions(such as fallacy) but it just makes you look silly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:41:10 2011 No.3297071 >>3297002 I am making decisions for myself. However I do not pull shit out of my ass and decide that it's true. I actually care whether my beliefs are true.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:46:10 2011 No.3297089 >>3297043 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jun/25/dawkins-atheist-school Oh yee of little faith or information. It saddens me so.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:46:10 2011 No.3297094

>>3297006
That is exactly why you are wrong and will later see yourself the fool, assuming you ever recognize your mistake.
You seem to see this as a dichotomy, it is not.
I clearly demonstrated 5 possible positions one can choose from concerning belief using your own context.

While one may either believe or not in a particular religion, there are a number of other positions concerning the nature of faith/spirituality/deities.
It may be a simple binary system to you but that does not negate everyone else's position.
Unfortunately, you will continue to be useless in religious discussions until you realize this.

As a measure of good faith, please give specific reasons why the 5 positions I described above do not exist and/or why only two actually exist.
If you can do this in good form, I (and others) may accept your insistence that belief is a binary system.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:51:10 2011 No.3297124

>>3297094
Jesus Christ if you want to keep posting I don't care, you posted a bunch of definitions that did fit what I said and did not contradict it.

Again, you agreed with me that people can believe or not and those are the only choices. Yet you keep posting nonsense about a middle ground.

What kind of fucked up logic that I actually posted logical absolutes(that you have to accept, if you don't then you are wrong, there is no middle ground of these 3 absolutes) and you still fucking post this bullshit.

Again WHAT IS THE FUCKING THIRD STATE OF BINARY. It is the only way to demonstrate your premise is at all correct.

Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ Mon Jun 27 23:54:10 2011 No.3297138
File: 39 KB, 400x267, ghjrt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3297094
GOD IS THE SORTER AND YOU ARE THE SHAPE. GOD ASKS YOU, ARE YOU CIRCLULAR?

YOU SAY, NO, I AM NOT.

GOD ASKES, HAVE YOU SHARP EDGES?

YOU SAY, I DO NOT

GOD ASKES, DO ANY OF YOUR SIDES MOVE PARALLEL TO ONE ANOTHER?

YOU SAY NO, NO PARALLEL SIDES.

AND GOD ASKS, ARE YOU A POINT?

AND YOU ANSWER, I APPOLOGIZE, SIR, I AM POINTLESS.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:56:10 2011 No.3297154

>>3297089
Your linked article simply fails to understand what Dawkins was saying.
Especially since he quotes the man and then argues as if the words did not exist.

The quote there clearly relayed that Dawkins would like to have a school where religion is taught as pure fiction and children are raised as Atheists.
However, he would not do that but he would rather make a school where kids are taught to think for themselves. As opposed to being indoctrinated one way or the other.

By proxy, it seems you too have a skewed perspective on that discussion. Oh ye of great arrogance and folly.

Look more into Dawkins and you will see that he consistently harps on the necessity for people to think for themselves.
Although he always seems to think that will lead to people rejecting religion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:58:10 2011 No.3297164 >>3297094 Fuck it, if you still think you are write call and debate it on our first show. http://tfrtv.com/ First episode is Saturday.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:58:10 2011 No.3297168 >>3297164 Oh god I am retarded >think you are write

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 23:59:10 2011 No.3297170 >>3297138 Why the fuck are you typing on caps..?

Anonymous Tue Jun 28 00:00:10 2011 No.3297175

>>3297094
>I am both Atheist and a non-believer within the context you provided.
Agnostic Atheist

>A Taoist or Buddhist or Unitarian Universalist would, in this same context, be a believer and an Atheist.
Gnostic Atheist

>A Christian would be a Believer and a Theist.
Gnostic Theist

>A Deist would be a Theist and non-believer as they do not subscribe to a specific set of beliefs yet content that there is very possibly a God(s).
Agnostic Theist

>An Agnostic would be a neutral position between bother believer/non-believer, and theist/atheist depending on whether one was hard or soft Agnosticism.
Utter bullshit you pulled out of nowhere.

Anonymous Tue Jun 28 00:01:10 2011 No.3297180

Dammit and fuck.
Science does not operate in the realm of meta-physics.
Someone can be a theist,beleiving that it all started with god, and still be a fuck awesome scientist.
For example:God started the world, and the big bang happened, and then it progressed from their.
A scientist can think like that,being both scientific in application to knowledge in this day, and a theist.
Whether or not his beliefs are justified are up to the scientist.

>>	Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ Tue Jun 28 00:02:10 2011 No.3297182 >>3297154 So, you think theres no cognitive dissonance in indoctrination as long as its the 'right' indoctrination? cool beans, you must be fun at parties.

>>	Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ Tue Jun 28 00:04:10 2011 No.3297190 File: 8 KB, 205x241, Giggling-Girls.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3297170 If god descended unto you on an internet forum, do you think he would not use caps?

Anonymous Tue Jun 28 04:21:10 2011 No.3298278

>>3296395
Then where do you look at?

you can't shield monsters and imaginary friends on the dark corners of the universe, where science can't catch them.

A god should be glorious, big, grand.

But you're just being an opportunist, trying to smuggle a god into reality, to solve questions without any kind of proof.

Does it seem logical to you? A god that plays a cosmic game of hide and seek?

Just because you like an idea, it doesn't give you the right to think it should be true.

the default shouldn't be "rejecting".
the default should be not even thinking about it.
the flaw is in the first guy who says "hey, i've got this big imaginary friend that sometimes gives me gifts... sometimes, when i sacrify goats to him, yeah, you can too just give me the goats, and i'll do the ritual for you, oh.. err, you can't see it, because this rituals are special"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 28 04:23:10 2011 No.3298288 My friend's dad is a university professor. His area of expertise is glaciers, but he teaches an oceanography class. He and his family are Christians.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 28 04:28:10 2011 No.3298309 Most of the monumental scientists throughout history were Catholic or some Christian denomination.

Anonymous Tue Jun 28 04:33:10 2011 No.3298319

>>3295410

Yes, it is possible, BUT no scientist will ever be able to use science to prove the existence of God because God is a mythology.

Thus, God isn't taken seriously in the scientific community, and you will never get a grant to show that some GHOST is making things move/healing/cursing people.

Religion is total lunacy for anyone who takes a serious look at the religious arguments.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 28 04:39:10 2011 No.3298339 >>3298309 Islam? Ancient Greek theology? Buddhism? Hinduism? Have you studied any history?

Anonymous Tue Jun 28 11:42:10 2011 No.3299635

>>3297180
Believer in this context usually means something like a christian or muslim. This is why OP asked if it is possible to believe in (a) God(s).

In the sense that many people believe in God(s), one has to separate those beliefs from critical analysis in order to maintain them. This is in stark contrast to the method by which the scientist comes to believe everything else about the world.

Believing in an intercessory god(s) is rather difficult if you think about it at all. Such god(s) are inconsistent even within themselves.

Yes, one could still believe a God(s) started it all. That makes you a deist. And even this does not stand up to any decent standard of evidence.

Thus, one could be called a scientist and be decent at it while still being a believer in some superstition. However, to the extent that those superstitions are allowed to color ones beliefs about the world, scientific analysis of those areas will be hindered within the mind.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 28 11:44:10 2011 No.3299645 >>3298309 Most of the ones you are referring to were believers by brute force and would have been killed if they professed an alternative opinion. You argument has been made and rejected many time before.

Anonymous Tue Jun 28 11:48:10 2011 No.3299663

>>3298288
Discuss with him sometime how serious he is and what he really believes.
Then stop using anecdotal arguments on /sci/ there are a plethora of reason why anecdotes are meaningless.

The first being that we cannot confirm that you are correct and second being that for every one you find others can likely find a counter example.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 28 11:51:10 2011 No.3299675 Berdyaev said that next to religion and mythologies, science is the biggest metaphyiscs.

Anonymous Tue Jun 28 12:11:10 2011 No.3299742

>>3297175
The request was for specific reasons, you seem to still be forcing your preferred definitions.
I even linked you some decently common sources that support the more widely used definitions.

At this point you are not arguing anymore but rather saying naught to every counter argument presented.

If you wish to refused communication in order to force people to use your preferred definitions fine.

This does not mean you are right and many people will likely refuse to talk to you in that case.
You need to let this one go.

You are fully correct in one context. However, that is not how people are using the words. The definitions that support Agnosticism as a valid position are out there and those are the ones people are actually using.
You can accept that and discuss the concepts at work here or you can continue to be stuck on definitions and get nowhere.

Anonymous Tue Jun 28 12:15:10 2011 No.3299750

>>3299675
Meaning that religion, mythology, and science all try to explain the fundamental nature of things. That is what the branch of philosophy that is Metaphysics is concerned with.

Idk why you are bringing this in though, it has little to do with the OP.

Anonymous Tue Jun 28 12:16:10 2011 No.3299758

>>3299635
I'm not sure you understand what religion is about. I hardly see how real science (I mean physics and maths) imply any link with the concept of God. There is no relation at all, and I hardly see how a theorem could be denied on the basis of "god wouldn't want me to accept it"

Anonymous Tue Jun 28 12:21:10 2011 No.3299781

>>3297182
I was actually pointing out that Dawkins consistently argues against any indoctrination.
Which is why, he would not setup an atheist school but rather a school which encourages free thought.

Asking for proof and thinking for yourself is not indoctrination.
If you would like to call it so, good luck but you will get nowhere with that.

You cannot go around misreading people intentionally and responding as if that's what was said. The only thing you will get is ignored.

Anonymous Tue Jun 28 12:28:10 2011 No.3299799

>>3299758
In physics and math no, you're quite right.

However, as an example, a creationist makes a very poor geologist or biologist.
Which is why I qualified my position.

To the extent that the superstition colors one's thinking about the world scientific analysis will be hindered.

IE - a creationist refuses to accept Evolution by Natural Selection because that would force the creationist to reject parts of the superstition. Creationists also refuse to accept the age of the Earth because that too would falsify parts of the superstition.

>>	silk Spider disciple Tue Jun 28 12:47:10 2011 No.3299851 >>3295704 God IS a Spider! I haz Dox!

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math