/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3823886]

It's amazing how many atheist communists are here on /sci/ :O

[Anonymous No.3823893]

>communist
>intellectual
You're either one or the either
And this is coming from liberal atheist.

[Anonymous No.3823901]

in the general population, atheists are a minority. on 4chan, atheists are everywhere and religious people are the minority

why is this? why are people who browse 4chan much more likely to be atheist than the general population?

[Anonymous No.3823905]

>>3823901

cause its geek and edgy

[Anonymous No.3823907]

>>3823905
being atheist is edgy? im not some edgy rebellious 15 year old in the slightest and i'm atheist

[Anonymous No.3823911]

>>3823901
A lot of "religious" people are atheists who go along with everyone else to avoid friction. With anonymity though, you can say whatever you want without consequence.

Also higher levels of intelligence means more atheists.

[Anonymous No.3823914]

>>3823893
>one or the either

Nice.

Funny story. the soviet union had a constitution which gaurunteed almost all the liberties that Americans had. The problem? There was no constitutional court. The government could infringe on Russian's rights, and the citizens didn't have any way to sue the government for it.

Communism in the sense that everyone gets paid the same wage no matter their job?
Fuck that.

Communism/socialism in the sense that businesses are partly owned by the workers? (as shareholders or whatever)
I'mokaywiththis.jpg

[Anonymous No.3823918]

>>3823911
>4chan
>higher level of intelligence

have you ever been on /b/?

[Anonymous No.3823920]

>>3823901
>general population
>religious

What the fuck am I reading?

I feel sorry for 'mericans. Only angsty teens and dead people are religious over here.

[Anonymous No.3823922]

Socialism and atheism are the only two perspectives that are correct.

[Anonymous No.3823923]

>>3823901

Because the allure of atheism is the ability to claim to be your own God.

It's willful delusion coupled with arrogance, so it works on the human psyche. Well, until you're on your death-bed, anyway.

[Anonymous No.3823926]

>>3823886

Speak for your own country. Around here, religious people are the minority, and most of what we have are fairly moderate anyway.

And 4chan is full of atheists because it attracts mostly geeks, who are inclined towards scientifically literate and thinking science is bitchin'. Thinking science is bitchin' has a strong correlation with being an atheist, even in places where the vast majority are religious.

[Anonymous No.3823928]

>>3823920
I don't recall ever talking to or even seeing a religious person here in central Europe.
I'm being entirely honest right now.

[Anonymous No.3823932]

>>3823920
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe#Eurobarometer_poll_2005

over 50% believe in some sort of higher power in every country listed here, so you better not be a yuro

though it's not like i'm defending americans here

[Anonymous No.3823936]

>>3823901
because internet makes you smarter. NO seriously. We're exposed to more information than anyone else and more importantly we're exposed to more arguments, especially those that conflict our own. meaning we have had to improve our own arguments in the context of everything that contradicts that.

How many times in an internet argument do you hear logical fallacies being pointed out? Quite a lot. In real conversation? Hardly ever.

[Anonymous No.3823937]

>>3823923
>It's willful delusion coupled with arrogance

Nothing like religion, at all. Converting now.

[Anonymous No.3823942]

>>3823932
Spirituality != religion

That's how I see it.

[Anonymous No.3823947]

>>3823918
Irrelevance doesn't necessarily mean lack of intelligence. Although I see your point. I don't lurk /b/ much. I'm mostly just on /sci/.

>Because the allure of atheism is the ability to claim to be your own God.

It is? The only people I've met who thought so highly of themselves were religious.

Reality - We're some organisms living on a rock in the corner of an unremarkable galaxy which is hardly a speck on the incomprehensibly large universe.

Religion - We're immortal spirits descended from the Divine Creator of the universe, which was specifically designed for us.

In my experience all of the arrogance comes from religious folk. Not to say that there aren't smart people who practice religion (for some reason) and that there aren't retards who use atheism to troll badly.

[Anonymous No.3823951]

>>3823923
>the allure of atheism is the ability to claim to be your own God.

Nope. See atheists are scientifically literate (mostly) which means they are humble as they appreciate any claim to knowledge can be overwritten with sound evidence

[Anonymous No.3823946]

>>3823923
>atheism
>delusion
>arrogant

pick one

[Anonymous No.3823959]

>>3823942

Great point.

Spirituality, for some people, maybe even most people, is a necessary and fulfilling part of their lives. Nothing wrong with it.

Religion is obviously exploits this natural, healthy urge.

[Anonymous No.3823963]

>>3823932

Oh, yeah, that shit. "I'm not religious, but I believe in SOMETHING, teehee." I didn't know there were so many of them, though. The other sources I saw listed them as "non-religious." Or, rather, asked questions like "Is religion important to you?" Which mucks up the results.

Still, those people may not be naturalists, but they ARE, for the most part, atheists in practice. And they never, ever bring up their beliefs, unless prompted, which generally doesn't happen unless there's a genuinely religious person (or a particularly confrontational atheist) in the group.

[Anonymous No.3823964]

>>3823923
replace atheism with catholicism and those statements almost make sense.

>2011
>worshiping the pope

[Anonymous No.3823968]

>>3823923

Is this what the people who think that they know what god wants better than 99% of people who say they know what god wants really think?

[Anonymous No.3823969]

>>3823959
>natural, healthy urge

wut? It's superstition dude. It only happens when people are ignorant or mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.3823973]

>>3823922

I think moderate socialism is a good way to build a prosperous and equal society. However, I don't think it's the best way to maintain such a society. That is my highly uneducated opinion.

[Anonymous No.3823980]

>>3823886
I'm not an atheist or a communist, I'm a secular humanist. You jelly?

[Anonymous No.3823984]

>>3823936
the fact that logical falicies are pointed out more on the internet does not imply that there is a higher rate of logical falicies being detected compared to in speech. It could be that in speech there is a much lower rate of logical falacies, to provide just one alternate hypothesis.

My argument is almost self defeating however, by pointing out the logical falicies in that post.

[Anonymous No.3823988]

>>3823969
>>3823959

Eh, spirituality is such a bullshit term. It's been used to describe both "Holy shit, the universe is so amazing, it must be something BEYOND REALITY." "And holy shit, the universe is so amazing, I wanna understand the shit out of it."

Can we please define the term before we move on? Or pick a better one, if at all possible?

[Anonymous No.3823990]

>>3823964
>>3823951
>>3823946
>>3823937

Noooooooope.

It's arrogance and delusion. It's not some great grasp of science; it's a blind adherence to what someone like Richard Dawkins spouts in his books. It makes you feel superior to be "free from religion" but all it does is make you slave to atheism--which you defend with vigor even though you don't even completely understand it.

It's just a way to cast off the fear of not knowing. Every slight you make at religious folk is just a projection of yourself.

You take bits and pieces of theories and clump them together to shout at yourself that there is no god but yourself.

It's kind of sad.

[Anonymous No.3823992]

>>3823969

I disagree. The transcendent, spiritual, numinous aspects of life do not have to also be superstitious. One can appreciate beauty, wonder, love, all that good stuff, without assigning some obscure magical agency to it.

It just so happens that, in real life, this is hijacked by religion more often than not.

[Anonymous No.3823995]

>>3823980

How does that make you not an atheist?

[Anonymous No.3824000]

>>3823969
Superstition and culture is a very natural part of being human. We are not machines.

I think the way a lot of "new atheists" adore Carl Sagan and the "fuck yeah science" kind of attitude is a sort of substitute for religion.

[Anonymous No.3823999]

>>3823988
>And holy shit, the universe is so amazing, I wanna understand the shit out of it.

That isn't spirituality. It's curiosity. The only way those are related is if they're the result of smoking weed.

[Anonymous No.3823998]

>>3823923
Here's another one that works on the human psyche...
There IS a God, and he cares about you. Everything happens for a reason.
Also, he punishes the evil peoples with HELL.
What's not to love about that? That is why so many people (weak-minded) fall for religion.
Religious people use these arguments to attract those who are down on their luck.
People like to think that their daughter's death happened for a reason(Gods will is unknowable to us hurp durp durp) and that people responsible for heinous acts(like a daughter's murder) will burn for ever ever in eternal agony.
Smells great until you smell it while you think 'bullshit?"
religionfag please leave and please, please, kill yourself. Your inability to escape the most basic of social control and religious indoctrination appalls me, and I want neither you nor any of your offspring to live in the world that my offspring will one day inhabit.
Sincerely,
A person who examines not only the argument, but how and why the argument was made.

[Anonymous No.3824008]

>>3823990

I cannot believe that a religious person would really argue that truth cannot be revealed by an authority and then require no further justification. I may as well just complain that religious people take Jesus or Mohammed at their word. And nobody thinks of Richard Dawkins as anything even close to these figures.

You're wrong about what atheism is and why people are atheists, but one would think you could at least recognise that it's not a mirror of theism.

[Anonymous No.3824009]

>>3823990
so what do you believe in?

[Anonymous No.3824012]

>>3824000
It has nothing to do with being human. Superstition is just a neurological phenomenon passed down from lower animals as a way to pick up on patterns we're not intelligent enough to otherwise perceive. Unfortunately that means picking up some patterns that aren't even there. Often some very absurd ones.

[Anonymous No.3824014]

>>3823990
>atheists think they are god
wait, lol?
>its just a way to cast off the fear of not knowing
wait, atheism or science?
You cling to your god for the same reason.
I usually don't put words in peoples mouths, but when they start it, ill get schoolyard on a mothafucka

[Anonymous No.3824016]

>>3823995
How does that make me not an atheist? Because I don't even consider the subject of god/no god to be worth my time to answer, I've got better things to do. XD

[Anonymous No.3824019]

>>3824016
>XD

0/10 troll, you had some people going too

[Anonymous No.3824021]

>>3824000

I think that requires further diluting the already ill-defined boundaries of what constitutes a religion.

Atheism is not a religion. It's a single position on a single question on a single subject. Atheists can be religious, as in Buddhism, Scientology and Raelism, or such pseudo-religions as Confucianism and Secular Humanism. They can also be irreligious, but follow another totalitarian ideology, such as Communism. Many are totally irreligious, however, especially in the West.

It ought to be telling that the main barb that is slung at atheists is that it is 'just another religion'. It isn't. Or if it is, it at least belongs in a different category of religion, and so the debate moves back to 'natural religions' (what we call irreligious) and 'supernatural religions' (what we call religious), and doesn't fundamentally change in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.3824023]

>>3823999
>>3823992
>>3824000

This is the shit I'm talking about. The term "spirituality" has been mangled so badly, we don't even know what it means. Can we get a definition, PLEASE?

[Anonymous No.3824024]

>>3823990
Science is willing to overturn a century of theory to get to the bottom of the neutrino anomaly. You'd never see a religious man do that with his faith.

>>3823984

I bet you think you're a real smart cookie taking apart an example and thinking that dismantles the entire argument yes?
The thing I mentioned about logical fallacies was just an example.

people are more aware of the opposite side's argument.

Exposing yourself to counterarguments is how you test your own. Then the question is whether people are stubborn enough to cling to their original argument or humble enough to revise or drop it. Most people here probably lost their religion in part because of online discussions as they were opened up to a more diverse range of experiences. From this we can at least determine that these people are certainly less stubborn. If you want to be really strict, The question of whether they are right is unanswered. But then I've got to say that atheism makes no claims. It is the absence of a claim to god and in the absence of evidence, those not tied to an assertion are in a better position to adopt one that seems likely in the appearance of evidence

[Anonymous No.3824037]

>>3824014

If there is no God, then you are your own god. To the extent you can control nature and its effects on your physical body, you are your own master. You decide what is good and what is evil.

It's kind of empowering. And you love that empowerment.

>>its just a way to cast off the fear of not knowing
>wait, atheism or science?

Well, both claim to know what is really controlling events, so both fall under the same umbrella if they're wrong.

[Anonymous No.3824040]

>born in 1986
>'80s were over by the time I was 4.

[Anonymous No.3824045]

>>3824012
I should probably have said spirituality instead of superstition now that I think about it.

And spirituality is, probably like you say, a neurological phenomenon. But it's none the less part of being human.

Ever contemplated mans future ventures to the stars? That's spirituality in my book.

And an even more blatantly obvious example of post-religious spirituality is this so called "technological singularity." I find that a little funny to be honest. It just shows how badly we want there to be some sort of afterlife.

You may see yourself above religious people but at the end of the day your brain is hardwired the same way as the cave painters of old and the Buddhist monks of recent.

[Anonymous No.3824052]

Apathetic Pantheist Master Race.

[Anonymous No.3824048]

>>3823907
you're just immature

[Anonymous No.3824057]

[Anonymous No.3824061]

>>3824040
I was 1 and I still count as being born in the 80s. What universe do you live in where the 90s start in the middle of the 80s?

I would trade any birthday for the year the wall came down

[Anonymous No.3824056]

>born in 1986
>'80s were over before I was 4.

Thanks to my mom, I did know how to read by then, but still.

[Anonymous No.3824067]

>>3824057

[Anonymous No.3824068]

>>3824057
CM is a product of the time period, you mean.


Also,
>implying CM is inherently bad
Saging antisemitism that further devalues your argument

[Anonymous No.3824070]

>>3824024

Science is only willing to overthrow fundamental theories after years of debate. Look at Hawking's theory about the destruction of energy in black holes. For thirty years he argued he was right. That's the man most of you on /sci/ look up to for answers: what he says must be true; he's so smart and can understand things you can't, is how you rationalize it.

History is replete with examples like that. Look at string theory. And super symmetry.

Look, science is a beautiful and powerful tool to analyze and understand the Universe. But it is far from bias-free. Countless scientists design theories to destroy the notion of a creator because that's the answer they so desperately want. You know this to be true.

And that same approach is carried on by many (most?) atheists. That's my point in all this. Atheists can not claim some higher ground. They are just as deluded and arrogant as the creators of those theories.

[Anonymous No.3824087]

>>3824068
>Saging antisemitism

[Anonymous No.3824093]

>>3824068
>implying CM is inherently bad
>implying it isn't

[Anonymous No.3824109]

>>3824070

Science is bias-free. Scientists have bias pouring out of very orifice. That's why the scientific process is designed specifically to counteract those biases.

And anyone who hangs on the words of one scientist is doing it wrong. Science is about consensus; if you discover something, and a bunch of other people check, double-check and triple-check and the results don't contradict, you assume the hypothesis is sound.

We can't do all the science ourselves, though, so we put some faith in the community; we trust that peer-reviewed science articles are, you know, peer-reviewed. By people who know what the fuck they're doing.

And yeah, scientists "design" theories to get explanations they want. And you know what? If it turns out those theories are right, it doesn't fucking matter how they came about. And if they aren't, we sincerely hope they are thrown aside as junk science.

tl;dr: It's not about faith in a few theory-crafters, it's about faith in the scientific process as a whole.

Not that there aren't people who are just "hurr durr, religions is dumbest, I are smart," mind you, but you'll find idiots in any sufficiently large group.

[Anonymous No.3824122]

>>3824109
>Science is bias-free.
Scientists on the other hand...

[Anonymous No.3824130]

>>3824122

That's what I said. Like, in the very next sentence.

[Anonymous No.3824138]

>>3824037
>If there is no God, then you are your own God.
Again, wait, lol? No.
>You decide what is good and what is evil. It's kind of empowering. And you love that empowerment.
Says who?
Also, you claim to have knowledge of good and evil through knowledge of God, knowledge that you can give to people in return for smug self-satisfaction. You are too weak-minded to realize you are falling for the same arguments you decry. You got a log in your eye, sonnie.

>both(atheism and science) claim to know what is really controlling events, and so both fall under the same umbrella if wrong
remind you of anything?
^^hint: God
pic related, its you after you tell someone about your weak-ass religious standpoint, because you think you're shattering minds.

Please realize that you cannot have an argument with the atheist in your head, and then repeat your argument to real people and expect it to go over well.
You're putting words in our mouths, and they're gross.

[Anonymous No.3824148]

>>3824109

The scientific process isn't a pure as you make it out to be. To your dying breath if anyone suggested that particles with positive mass could exceed the speed of light you would have lashed them with your tongue. Until a week ago. And now it's possible that part of Einstein's theory was wrong and the implications are possibly remarkable.

100 years. That's how long that portion of that theory stood. But now we're not so sure.

If you read a published paper by any scientist worth his/her salt you'll notice phrases like "possibly, likely, perhaps, maybe, hints at, indicates, might have" all throughout. And many atheists will read right through those words and claim the theory is unassailable.

But you already acknowledged that, so we're in agreement.

>If it turns out those theories are right, it doesn't fucking matter how they came about.

But all theories regarding the origin of the Universe are unprovable. That's the point. That's why the scientific community lurches from Big Bang to Multiverse to Many Universes to Infinite Dimension to .... So a blind adherence to any of those theories is, well, blind.

[Anonymous No.3824163]

>>3824138

Wow. Great rebuttal. "Nuh-uh! Don't put words in my mouth. Now read this post as I put words in your mouth and assume your motives."

That was fun. I can point out a dozen posts an hour by atheists on this board claiming some sort of superiority because of their adherence to atheism. That's a fact. That's not putting words into anyone's mouth.

[Anonymous No.3824253]

>>3824148
No, I wouldn't. I'd probably have let a simple "yeah, no." or "Prove it" suffice. I'm still sceptical about that find, actually, but they're in the middle of the "proving it" stage, so we'll see what happens.

And the theory is never unassailable. That's the point. If it were, it wouldn't be science. The thing is, oftentimes the theory is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. If you've checked something a million times in a million different ways, it doesn't make sense to think that it will be different if you do it once more.

And what makes you think theories about the origin of the universe are unprovable? The Big Bang theory is fairly well established, and those others you mentioned aren't even close to competing with it. As in, they don't even treat the same subject matter. It's entirely possible to have both a Big Bang and a Multiverse. But yeah, apart from the Big Bang, those theories are all very... theoretical. As in, wild guesses, more or less.

(cont.)

[Anonymous No.3824256]

>>3824253


But the thing is, we never say anything is true before we have the evidence. We say we are reasonably sure that the Big Bang happened, because evidence suggests that the Big Bang happened. If evidence surfaces later that contradicts our previous evidence, we'll revise, improve and, if necessary, dismiss the old theory. Ideally, the scientifically minded adheres to the view supported by the evidence, but never does he do so blindly.

Of course, it doesn't work that way in practice, because we're still all too human. There are most definitely atheists who are stupid, illogical, dogmatic and arrogant, but even if every single one of us was like that, it wouldn't matter. Because either there is one or several gods, or there aren't. That is entirely irrespective of what the people who believe either way do or say. What I'm trying to say is, you can't disprove the point by attacking the people. Sure, maybe they DO just believe what they do because they're afraid to die/arrogant/indoctrinated, but that tells you absolutely nothing about whether or not they're RIGHT.

Speaking of dealing with the issue, the problem with the God hypothesis is that there isn't a shred of evidence for it. Unlike the scientific theories we accept as true (whether they withstand the test of time or not), it isn't corraborated by a single fact. There is no reason to even propose it, except for superstition and dogma.

[Anonymous No.3824484]

>>3824163

Nobody is really denying that atheists think they are righter about the nature of the universe than theists. The same is true the other way as well. If we really thought someone else was righter, we'd hold that position instead. Pointing this out is trivial.

But atheists do not consider themselves to be anything like a god. What theists mean when they say god (most of the time, even the definition of god changes from religion to religion, from sect to sect, from person to person, from conversation to conversation, even from moment to moment), is nothing like what atheists think of themselves, or any of their fellow men.

Why is it so hard to accept that we just don't buy into any of this god stuff? We accept that you do buy into it. You don't believe in Odin, is this because you think you are Odin? No, it's because, to you, Odin is a myth, a fiction that was once held to be true. That is how we feel about all gods yet proposed to us.