people who participate in Religion threads

[Anonymous No.3433878]

why do you bother to argue with idiots?

[Anonymous No.3433886]

I think the first few posts are of the OP pretending to be a duped replier and by then it catches on so real people start replying.
I don't know how many people on here are idiots to that degree but I wish it would stop.

[Anonymous No.3433906]

the worst are the people who reply seriously yet still sage

[Anonymous No.3433909]

>>3433878

Because when I argue with idiots, I'm always right!

[Anonymous No.3433911]

Because the bible tells us to spread the word of our lord.

[Anonymous No.3433922]

>>3433878
in hopes that some can be saved

[Anonymous No.3433931]

Because it's fun.

[Anonymous No.3433976]

The worst part is fags like OP who call religious people Idiots.

[Anonymous No.3433985]

>>3433976
Whoa there jesus-boy. While I do agree that it would be unfair to call people idiots just because they have a delusion. It is not unfair to call an idiot with a delusion, idiot.

And anyone who tries to argue faith against science, is ipso facto an idiot.

[Anonymous No.3433998]

>>3433985
why wouldn't two faith-based systems that didn't agree with each other instead argue with each other?

or do you actually contend that modern science isn't a belief system at all?

[Anonymous No.3434002]

>>3433878
I only come to /sci/ for these threads.

[Anonymous No.3434004]

>>3433985

I never said i was religious. But everyone is ignorant about something(more like a great number of things). And you're no different.

[Anonymous No.3434029]

>>3433998
Unless you are being EXTREMELY strict on the definition..
Then no, science is NOT a faith based system.

The level of "faith" involved in science is so negligible it is absurd to compare it to the level of faith of something like religion.

[Anonymous No.3434037]

>>3434029
question: what was the speed of light 1,000 years ago?

[Anonymous No.3434042]

>>3434029

The only people stupid enough to waste their time are the philosophy and pseudo intellectual idiots.

Every religion thread goes like this

>Obvious troll thread with logical fallacy
>OP samefags
>Philosophy fags and retard pseudo intellectuals start flinging shit
>Eventually gets off topic with two idiots arguing semantics and syntax
>168 posts and 24 images omitted.

These people actually think they are clever and intelligent for pointing out and debating against obvious logical fallacies.

[Anonymous No.3434044]

>>3434037

0/10

[Anonymous No.3434047]

>>3434044
that does not look like a velocity. try again. harder this time.

[Anonymous No.3434078]

>>3434037
It was not determined.. what on earth does that have to do with faith?
They just hadn't measured it, nor did they even know that it had a limit.

I think I know where you are going with that but it is a mistake. Science did NOT say "the speed of light is unlimited"... even if that was popular belief, it was not a part of science.. as far as I know there was no scientific experiment that concluded it traveled instantaneously...

furthermore, even if one had existed it still isn't "belief". The scientific method itself makes science subject to change.. how can you call something that is ever changing a "belief system"?

So in conclusion, scientists may believe things... that doesn't mean science is a belief system.

[Anonymous No.3434117]

>>3434078
all assumptions are faith based
all conditions taken for granted are faith based
you "believe" that the speed of light was the same 1,000 years ago, but have no proof

you just "believe"

[Anonymous No.3434146]

>>3434117
Not the same guy but you're wrong.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html
People did think light traveled instantaneously, which was a consistent with the experiments they could perform.

[Anonymous No.3434195]

>>3434146
i'm not questioning whether or not scientists 1000 years ago knew the speed of light, or were capable of measuring the speed of light. of course they were not.

i'm questioning why anyone reading this post assumes on faith that the speed of light they now think is constant was the same constant speed 1,000 years ago.

science is constantly wrong. it defends itself well against always being wrong by declaring that it is headed towards something that is not wrong.

this is also wrong.

[Anonymous No.3434196]

>>3434117
>you "believe" that the speed of light was the same 1,000 years ago, but have no proof

True, but that is exactly what I was taking into account in this post here:
>>3434029

This level of "belief" is extremely negligible.
There is far too much correlation between things in science. For example gravity.
How do we know gravity always existed? We don't... So there are two possibilities
1) it did 2) it didn't.
If we start by analyzing 1) we see that this leads directly to the state of the universe as it currently is following the big bang, we understand exactly how galaxies formed and stars and planets and solar systems, etc... Furthermore, it has been clear to exist since written record and for the entire life span of every human on earth. There are countless things upon COUNTLESS things that is explained by it, let alone the fact that we directly observe it.

What are the odds that all of this correlation is just coincidence? what are the odds that our current observations of the fact that things are drawn toward other things with mass proportional to G, the masses, and the inverse square of the distance is just mere coincidence?

You seriously mean to tell me that the faith in something like gravity is equivalent to the faith you put in the book containing specifics on something to which you can make no direct observation yourself, and which was written in a time period when superstition just ran peoples lives?

[Anonymous No.3434200]

>>3434196
believing things based on current observations of a phenomenon now known as gravity only gets you further down the rabbit's hole of being a faith based system.

with indefinable terms.

[Anonymous No.3434204]

OP here

im deleting this thread

[Anonymous No.3434223]

>>3434204
don't then complain that you didn't get 224 posts with 42 images hidden

[Anonymous No.3434233]

>>3434204
Do it faggot.

[Anonymous No.3434240]

>>3434117
Furthermore, there was even something I read a while back that claimed the speed of light was measured to be slowing down!!
Scientists DO NOT take things on faith, they continually keep measuring it and verifying and recording and changing things.

YOU are the one who takes his science on faith.. Just because you do it doesn't mean others do.

[Anonymous No.3434242]

>>3433976
You're right. Smart people can still be wrong.

[Anonymous No.3434264]

>>3434242
religious people are idiots..
Even if they turn out to be right about everything, they are still 100% wrong to make the claim. Thus idiotic for not realizing that "belief" is irrelevant, and even more idiotic if you consider the stupidity of the beliefs themselves which are so obviously full of logical holes. I don't expect any religious people to understand this though of course.

[Anonymous No.3434265]

>>3434240
it's a hypothesis that light is slowing down

it goes from nothing, to a hypothesis, to a theory, to a law.

with testing. lots and lots of rigorous testing, repeatable, in a laboratory.

see, now, that's science.

how are you going to measure the speed of light 1,000 years ago again?

[Anonymous No.3434274]

>>3434264
>>scientists are idiots..
Even if they turn out to be right about everything, they are still 100% wrong to make the claim. Thus idiotic for not realizing that "faith" is irrelevant, and even more idiotic if you consider the stupidity of the assumptions themselves which are so obviously full of logical holes. I don't expect any scientists to understand this though of course.

[Anonymous No.3434277]

Because sci is a shitty board. Rather than just ignoring/saging they just get trolled every fucking time by the same old shit. Yep, sci's dead.