/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3491818]

[Anonymous No.3491826]

bump for truth

[Anonymous No.3491829]

bad metaphor

primarily because its a safe, nothing really more significant that would draw the conclusion, anyone will say "I don't know, the door is closed" in any situation, one will not say what you say in the pics

[Anonymous No.3491832]

/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3491834]

if the safe is a metaphor for god, then why would you ask someone if there is something inside of god?

[Anonymous No.3491849]

Do you believe that there a unicorn in the safe?

Atheist: No
Theist: Yes
Agnostic: I'm going to say it's a 50% chance a mythical unicorn does exist in there.

[Anonymous No.3491859]

Im an agnostic, and I think these are the flaws.

A safe is made for containing things. Thus we can suspect that a safe will always have something in it.

>>3491849

Shut up

[Anonymous No.3491862]

>in case you missed it the safe is a metaphor for god

...Are you fucking serious? I thought it was a literal situation about a sandwich and the Renaissance...

[SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS No.3491864]

Let's just all agree that theists and agnostics are morons.

[Anonymous No.3491865]

>>3491849
apatheist: I don't give a fuck about unscientific bullshit and prefer to aim my attention at science

[Anonymous No.3491866]

>>3491849
perfectly said.

[Anonymous No.3491867]

>>3491834

Not even OP, but the safe is clearly a metaphor for some secret we have yet to unlock that will reveal the true workings of the universe to us.

If your gonna attack OP, dont do it because his metaphor wasnt accurate enough for you. You know what he meant

[Anonymous No.3491868]

>>3491859
this
if you have nothing to put into a safe why get a safe

[Anonymous No.3491877]

>>3491859
"Shut up" is the response I most love to hear. It means you acknowledge that my metaphor is more consistent with the actual situation than OP's, and it shows that you have no argument against it.

I'm satisfied.

[Anonymous No.3491881]

I don't see any seals, so I know there's air in there.

[Anonymous No.3491882]

>>3491868

Decoy safe

[Anonymous No.3491883]

>>3491877

Fuck you no it doesnt. It means you should shut up.

[Anonymous No.3491885]

atheists are the easiest religion to troll.

[Anonymous No.3491887]

Wow, not science nor maths... what a surprise

[Anonymous No.3491888]

>>3491885
0/10

[Anonymous No.3491894]

>>3491885

First off, we're not a fucking religion you moron. We fucking dont believe in religion. Thats the whole point.

Second off, you could never troll us

[Anonymous No.3491903]

>>3491894
He just did, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.3491904]

>>3491894
The irony is strong in this one.

[Blackman No.3491909]

>>3491903
>>3491904
That's the joke, Tim.

[Anonymous No.3491914]

>>3491909
hurr durr look at me im a stupid british atheist

go worship your derpkins at your atheist church

[Anonymous No.3491915]

>>3491894
You believe in your religion and act just like the other religions believing in theirs.

[Anonymous No.3491988]

It's a good metaphor except for the part where it does not acknowledge that the door is not necessarily closed to everyone.

[Anonymous No.3492018]

All agnostics are Atheists. This is fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.3492038]

>>3492018
No they're not. You're fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.3492058]

ITT:

You're retarded!

No you're retarded!

Shut up!

No, you shut up!

Only person with logic:
>>3491849

mfw

[Anonymous No.3492062]

>>3491849
What does theism have to do with believing in unicorns?

[Anonymous No.3492071]

>>3492058
>strawman arguments are logic

>mfw

[Anonymous No.3492079]

>>3492062
It's equally plausible to the majority of gods, and some would say more plausible than some of the logically impossible ones. But that was mainly a swing at agnostics, I believe.

[Anonymous No.3492089]

>>3492079
>It's equally plausible to the majority of gods

[Anonymous No.3492097]

>>3491849
ding ding ding you are the winner

[Anonymous No.3492101]

>>3492089
They're both unproven claims made up by man that have no foothold in reality whatsoever. They both deal with the supernatural. They both have no evidence behind them. You have to believe they exist rather than testing and validating said existence. Belief in either would be based solely on faith.

Need I go on?

[Anonymous No.3492105]

>>3491894
urrggggg... irony... seeping inside of me... brits are inbred

[Anonymous No.3492108]

What a fucking fail metaphor.

Because the universe is a box created to contain things hur.

[Anonymous No.3492113]

>>3492101
No, your ignorance of the subject is well established.

[Anonymous No.3492124]

>>3492113
You fit well in the description of this thread: >>3492058

Try making an actual argument besides "nuh uh"

[Anonymous No.3492147]

>>3492124
While you may have a very minor point there, it turns out that trying to educate members of /sci/ like >>3492101 is doomed to failure. Better arguments than "nuh uh" are lost upon the devoutly religious and amount to little more than wastes of time.

Greentext and mocking has a better ROI than trying to reason with people like that. Generally, if they are dumb enough to have made the cognitive mistakes in the first place, then they're typically too dumb to understand why they are mistakes when it's laid out before them.

[Anonymous No.3492148]

OP here

trolled you are all hard

[Anonymous No.3492151]

>>3491818
>The safe is a metaphor for god

Nah the safe is a metaphor for the observable universe and inside the safe is where fairies, unicorns, and other unobservable phenomenon *cough* god *cough* are asserted to be.

[Anonymous No.3492168]

>>3492038
They do not believe in god. Atheist = no belief in god.
Problem?

[Anonymous No.3492170]

>>3492151
Surely the safe is a metaphor for the limits of empirical observation...?

[Anonymous No.3492171]

A safe usually holds things, we have examples of safe's holding things.

A reasonable person would reserve judgement because of prior knowledge of safe's holding things inside them.

We have no examples of Gods existing.

I have a string that opens into a tube (it's another dimension inside that holds everything so it's not really crushed). Is there anything inside it?

It's pointless wondering whether there's anything in my transcendental string until you know there's a string to begin with.

[Anonymous No.3492189]

>>3491859
Always? Even in a store?

[Anonymous No.3492193]

>>3492168
Yeah, people twisting rhetoric to distort clear perceptions of reality is kind of a problem.

[Anonymous No.3492204]

>>3492193
Who's "twisting rhetoric"?

[Anonymous No.3492208]

Agnostics:
Do you actively believe in a god?
>Yes
>Reserve judgement
>Do not know
>No

[Anonymous No.3492211]

>>3492204
That guy (>>3492168)

[Anonymous No.3492215]

>The safe is a metaphor for God.

No, it's a metaphor for the universe. And it's heavily biased because a safe is a device specifically designed by a human to suit the purpose of containing something.

There is no comparable evidence to suggest something similar about the universe. If you want to take religious texts as evidence, fine. I'm not going to. If you want to dismiss something without any evidence against it and very little for it, fine. I'm not going to be dismissive without evidence.

I'm not going to bother getting worked up either way.

[Anonymous No.3492216]

>>3492211
But that's the definition of atheism. How is that twisting anything?

[Anonymous No.3492227]

>people confusing the terms "atheist" and "agnostic"

Agnostic describes someone who is noncommittal but can lean toward one belief over another.

An atheist does not believe in a god, it doesn't imply anything about a religious system.
Buddhists are atheists.

[Anonymous No.3492235]

>>3492216
maybe were being trolled?

[Anonymous No.3492236]

>>3492216
It's ignoring fundamental differences with agnosticism. It's apologetics for atheists, padding the numbers, etc.

[Anonymous No.3492246]

>>3492227
Which is why most self-proclaimed agnostics are actually agnostic atheists. They usually either don't know what atheism means, or they're afraid of the taboo behind the word.

[Anonymous No.3492253]

>>3492236
An athiest holds no belief in any God or Gods.
This overlaps with some agnostics.
Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.3492260]

>>3492253
Oh I can deal with your rhetoric apologia for your religion. It happens here all the time.

[Anonymous No.3492262]

>agnostics

[Anonymous No.3492264]

>>3492260
>atheism
>religion

[Anonymous No.3492265]

>>3492260
argh fuck 8/10 i raged

[Anonymous No.3492269]

>>3492264
That's one of the rhetorical defenses of your religion: that's it's not a religion.

[Anonymous No.3492275]

The combination for the safe is inside the safe.

[Anonymous No.3492279]

>>3492211
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Someone that believes that there is no god is a Gnostic Atheist.

[Anonymous No.3492284]

>>3492279
>implying wikipedia isn't subject to cultural propaganda

nice try

[Anonymous No.3492286]

Agnosticism is like the linux faggot in a pc vs mac argument.

err... I won't suggest which is the pc and which is the mac.

[Anonymous No.3492290]

>>3492269
Look up the definition of religion.

[Anonymous No.3492291]

>>3492284
>implying the definition of a word isn't based off cultural acceptance of that definition

[Anonymous No.3492296]

>>3492269

Belief in the sacred/transcendent - NOPE
Social community with strict moral/ethical standards - NOPE
Places of worship - NOPE
Sacred texts - NOPE
Prayer, meditation, etc - NOPE
Ritualistic practices - NOPE
Belief in a supreme being - NOPE

Atheism as a whole requires none of these things, therefore it is not a religion.

[Anonymous No.3492299]

>>3492290
Definitions differ. But essentially and functionally, the new atheists are just as religious as those they oppose.

[Anonymous No.3492311]

>>3492299
>Definitions differ
That they do, watch:

>the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods
Source: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion

> the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship
Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/religion?q=religion

>Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion

[Anonymous No.3492312]

>>3492296
QED?

QED.

[Anonymous No.3492317]

>>3492296
Belief in the sacred/transcendent - science/rational thought
Social community with strict moral/ethical standards - the scientific/academic community
Places of worship - laboratories and universities
Sacred texts - The God Delusion, etc.
Prayer, meditation, etc - is not necessary to be a religion
Ritualistic practices - arguing about religion/atheism/agnosticism/gnosticism
Belief in a supreme being - is not necessary to be a religion.

Atheism as a whole requires most of these things, therefore it is a religion.

[Anonymous No.3492327]

>>3492317
>Belief in a supreme being - is not necessary to be a religion.
Religious: 1
: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
Religion: b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

[Anonymous No.3492341]

>>3492327
>relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
>an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
>reality or deity
>OR

What were you trying to say?

[Anonymous No.3492344]

>>3492327
The troll actually had a good point, although Buddhism is the only religion I know of that does not require a belief in god. However, they do believe in the supernatural, so the point is moot.

[Anonymous No.3492348]

>>3492317
>Belief in the sacred/transcendent - science/rational thought
Science is not transcendental. As for sacred?
>Sacred: Connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration
Nope.

>Social community with strict moral/ethical standards - the scientific/academic community
Science =/= religion, see previous example.

>Places of worship - laboratories and universities
No one worships at a lab

>Sacred texts - The God Delusion, etc.
God Delusion is not dedicated to a religious purpose, it's against it.

>Ritualistic practices - arguing about religion/atheism/agnosticism/gnosticism
These are not the express practices of any of them, they do this in spite of it.

>Belief in a supreme being - is not necessary to be a religion.
see
>>3492311
Yes it is.

[Anonymous No.3492354]

Yeah, all that is the kind of rhetoric designed to allow you to pretend that your religion is not a religion.

[Anonymous No.3492358]

>>3491859

>Thus we can suspect that a safe will always have something in it
>safe will always
>always

WHATTHEFUCKAMIREADING.JPG

[Anonymous No.3492363]

>>3492317
>place of worship - laboratories and universities


>hurr durr quest for knowledge is same as blind faith

[Anonymous No.3492381]

[Anonymous No.3492383]

>>3492327
>>3492311
It's stuff like this that /sci/ needs more of. Sourced answers.

Instead of "my opinion > your opinion"

[Anonymous No.3492389]

>>3492381
I am king of troll hill, ramming my cock into that one below me.

[Anonymous No.3492391]

>>3492317
>Sacred texts - The God Delusion, etc.

Yeah, I forgot that if you don't read Dawkins' books and accept them as valid, you're doomed to burn in eternal hellfire and suffer in endless torment.

[Anonymous No.3492395]

walk into a shitty 1 bedroom basement floor apartment in a public housing project. find feces smeared all over the floor and a crack head shaking in the corner. torn couch probably lifted off the street from someone who threw it out. smells like cat piss & cigarette smoke. look in the corner and see a safe.

athiest: there isn't anything of value in that safe
christian: there is fucking diamonds in there!
agnostic: theres probably nothing of value in that safe but i lack the conviction or intelligence to make the logical assumption that there is nothing of real value in the safe.

status: told

[Anonymous No.3492406]

>>3492395
They're all wrong.

There's crack in there.

[Anonymous No.3492411]

>>3491894
What the fuck? Who said you don't believe in religion? I thought you didn't believe in theism... Atheism is still a religion.

[Anonymous No.3492412]

>>3492344
Except if something is true, it is natural and thus not supernatural.

>>3492348
The notion of an objective observable and quantifiable universe transcends the individual and the physical limitations of the mind.

As far as community, my point still stands.

A worshiper's goal is to find the "truth" or deity they believe in. Worship is the process of trying to get there. Research and study serve the same purpose.

Texts such as The God Delusion further the cause of Atheism and act as the source of inspiration for atheist thought, as a text for any religion does.

The ritualistic practices aren't restricted to arguments, that was a joke. Scientific research and study are the real practices that follow a very strict order.

A post on an imageboard does not prove that religions need a belief in a supreme being. By providing the example of Buddhism I disprove that definition. Rejecting that argument indicates a serious lacking of scientific and logical integrity.

I am also an atheist, if you are wondering.

[Anonymous No.3492421]

nobody is right. everybody is wrong.

[Anonymous No.3492426]

>>3492395
I've seen many safes with things in them.

I'm going to assume that there's a good chance that a safe may hold something.

Just as I've seen the insides of many refrigerators, I'm going to assume most of the ones in homes have something in them. I'm going to assume ones in stores are usually empty. Though I wouldn't put any more than $20 on that bet.

I haven't seen any gods, so I cannot know either way if there is anything in them. But because no one has ever seen a god to begin with, I'm going to assume it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.3492431]

>>3492412
>Think Leaves of Grass was an inspirational book
>Worship Walt Whitman

thisiswhattheistsactuallybelieve.jpg

[Anonymous No.3492434]

>>3492411
troll, read the thread.
>>3492348
>>3492311
>>3492296

[Anonymous No.3492441]

not collecting stamps is a hobby

[Anonymous No.3492442]

>>3492426
>no one has ever seen a god to begin with
That's not fair.

Many many people have recorded that they have encountered a deity. You are not able to verify whether or not their claims are valid (in most cases).

[Anonymous No.3492445]

>>3492441

[Anonymous No.3492447]

>>3492426
I've experienced a poltergeist. It doesn't prove god, but it definitely raises the question. And yeah, it's all subjective. And yeah, I don't blame people for not changing their view entirely based on my experience.

[Anonymous No.3492453]

>>3492447
>I don't blame people for not changing their view entirely based on my experience.

Good, because that would be retarded.

[Anonymous No.3492456]

>>3492431
Lots of religious people have never actually read the sacred texts of their religion.

Lots have but do not follow them.

Casting blanket generalizations over large groups of people only serves to blind yourself to them and the more nuanced truth.

[Anonymous No.3492464]

>>3492434
So you'd use one of the many definitions of religion to define the term? That's just dishonest.

[Anonymous No.3492481]

>>3492464
>Every definition of religion mandates a belief in the supernatural/transcendent
>Using those definition is dishonest

lolwut.jpg

[Anonymous No.3492489]

ITT: what happens when an intelligent species with different ideas attempts to communicate with a natural language that has many internal contradictions and alternate interpretations.

[Anonymous No.3492511]

>>3492412
>A worshiper's goal is to find the "truth" or deity they believe in.
Not to find, but to worship.
Define: Worship
Worship: The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration, usually for a deity

No one shows that level of devotion to scientific research.

Research doesn't serve the purpose of worshipping a deity.

Yes, The God Delusion and the bible are analogous in the respect that they further a cause, but the god delusion still doesn't fit the requirements to be a religious text, read the comment you replied to for more details.

Rituals are traditional ceremonies, scientific research is not traditional.

>By providing the example of Buddhism I disprove that definition
Seeing as Buddhism diverges from the definition of religion, it's a point of contention on whether or not it is one. Do buddhists believe in a "superhuman controlling power"?

[Anonymous No.3492515]

>>3491849

There is evidence that unicorns are mythical. Thus not in the realm of agnosticism. Agnosticism deals only with questions lacking evidence.

[Anonymous No.3492520]

>>3492456
Yes, you can be theistic without being part of a religion. However, for something to be categorized as a religion, it must have most or all of the things listed here:

>>3492296

Therefore, atheism is not a religion. That's the point I was making.

[Anonymous No.3492524]

>>3492442
Alright, no one can prove that they've ever seen a god.

Don't nitpick, you obviously knew my meaning if you were able to correct me.

[Anonymous No.3492537]

>>3492447
I never suggested my own experiences with safes and refrigerators should affect other peoples opinions of their contents.

I did not wake up imagining I'd be saying that.

[Anonymous No.3492544]

>>3492515
this is a correct statement, but if "unicorn" is changed to something completely random that is not part of traditional mythology, the point of the unicorn argument is basically sound

[Anonymous No.3492551]

>>3492515
>There is evidence that unicorns are mythical
What evidence? Unless someone has discovered empirical evidence that unicorns were a manufactured idea.

[Anonymous No.3492561]

>>3492551
there are associations with other things widely accempted as lore such as dragons etc., you are confusing evidence and proof

unicorn was just a bad example

[Anonymous No.3492563]

>>3491877

The question that agnostics, theists, and atheists are concerned with is that of the existence of a higher order to the universe, or some kind of intent, or really, some mover that caused everything to be. It has nothing to do with the judeo-christian god, unicorns, the flying spagehtti monster, or anything else man made.

It is a question about the nature of reality, whether or not there is "something else" or an architect, or what have you.

It is a question on how evidence is handled.

If you would refuse to discount your belief in "something else" given evidence to the contrary, you are a theist.

If you would refuse to believe in "something else" given evidence that supports it, you are an atheist.

If your belief is tied to evidence, then you are an agnostic.

I consider myself to be of the third kind. If this is not agnosticism, please tell me what it is.

[Anonymous No.3492568]

>>3492561
>widely accepted
Spot the fallacy.

[Anonymous No.3492576]

>>3492563
>If you would refuse to believe in "something else" given evidence that supports it, you are an atheist.
>refuse to believe in "something else" given evidence that supports it
>"something else" given evidence that supports it
given evidence that supports it

Except there is no evidence of god.

[Anonymous No.3492588]

>>3492563
Agnostic (n.) - One who lacks knowledge
Idiot (n.) - One who lacks knowledge

Not that I'm saying they're connected or anything.

[Anonymous No.3492589]

>>3492568

Do you know how far the sun is from the Earth? Like have you actually measured it? Or do you consider it true because it is widely accepted?

[Anonymous No.3492598]

>>3492589
Not the guy you were replying to, and he'll have a better argument, but I could measure it if I wanted to.

[Anonymous No.3492603]

>>3492576

I'm sure you can imagine evidence that you would be willing to accept. Time-travel, resurrection of dead relatives, fourth-dimensional fuckery, breaking the moon in two and then putting it back together, reversing a process in physics that our laws of thermodynamics don't allow, changing pi, or geometry, or the speed of light, charge of electrons, etc

[Anonymous No.3492610]

>>3492598
no you couldn't.

[Anonymous No.3492625]

>>3492610
Yes you actually can. You can mathematically prove it using physical laws. It's not something that's just "widely accepted" for no reason.

[Anonymous No.3492626]

>>3492568

Evidence nonetheless. Evidence in this argument is anything empirical that sways your decision. The question is about how you deal with a lack of evidence given a proposition, with the particular question providing the demands on the power of the evidence.

[Anonymous No.3492637]

>>3492625
unicorns being mythical isn't "widely accepted" for no reason either. do you even understand what you are arguing?

[Anonymous No.3492639]

>>3492589
Have I measured it? No. But I can. We can use math to do so, observing other planets orbits, using geometry etc.. That's the difference between earth-sun distances and unicorns.

Widely accepted because of evidence, or just widely accepted.