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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 144 KB, 738x586, agnostic01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4166923 No.4166923 [Reply] [Original]

>atheism
>scientific

>> No.4166931

Agnostic Gnostic reporting in.

>> No.4166936

Creationist scientist reporting in.

>> No.4166938
File: 53 KB, 400x325, laughingwhores4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4166938

>atheism

>> No.4166937

I'm a fagnostic gaytheist.

>> No.4166943
File: 31 KB, 838x790, dsfsdfd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4166943

>> No.4166945

>>4166923
>not understanding the 2 definitions of atheism

>> No.4166948
File: 62 KB, 445x445, 1301469683748.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4166948

>> No.4166951

>>4166923
>thinking there can be evidence of nonexistence

>> No.4166957
File: 163 KB, 445x445, 1301469876040.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4166957

>> No.4166958

>>4166923

evidence of an absence lol no

plenty of good reasons why religious versions of "god" dont work and are absurd

and the concept of an all powerful all knowing thing is contradictory

>> No.4166961

>>4166951
someone must have skipped his maths classes

>> No.4166965

Except people have seen god throughout history. Just because YOU haven't doesn't mean a whole heap of shit.

>> No.4166966
File: 67 KB, 445x445, 1301470483819.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4166966

>> No.4166967
File: 22 KB, 400x400, but_thats_wrong_billnye.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4166967

Obviously a troll thread, but I'm bored so I'll bite.

Atheism IS the best choice.

A scientist doesn't even begin to believe there is Dark Gravity Energy Quark Radiation Quasars when there has been ZERO evidence to even suggest the existence of such a thing. The same applies to all religions.

It's not the trait of a scientist to possess a median view between belief and disbelief on a completely unfalsifiable and unsupported claim.

>> No.4166973

I'm a 'don'tgiveafucksist'. Because someone else's beliefs don't matter to me as long as they don't interfere with my life.

Mormon? I don't care.
Atheist? I don't care.
Muslim? I don't care.
Jew? I don't care.
Odinist? I don't care.
Pastafarian? I don't care.

Unjustifiable personal beliefs are trivial shit meant to enthrall and categorize common people for group cohesion. I'm beyond that control.

>> No.4166979
File: 108 KB, 890x890, 1301470680688.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4166979

>> No.4166981

>>4166976
No, you're just a retard for making definitive statements that you can't prove.

>> No.4166976

Agnosticism:
>I'm and Atheist but I don't want to admit it for social reasons, and maybe if there is a God he will feel sorry for me since I'm such a fucking pussy.

>> No.4166977

>>4166965

Plenty of schizophrenic have "seen things" but we shouldn't be taking their words for it.

>> No.4166983

>>4166961
i'm interested

>> No.4166984

I don't believe in the exist of god because his existence is a non-falsifiable assertion. Are you agnostic towards every non-falsifiable assertion anyone anywhere makes ever?

>> No.4166987

>>4166961
>implying theology =math

>> No.4166991
File: 51 KB, 445x529, 1301493982936.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4166991

>> No.4166993

>>4166965
>people have seen god

proof?
hahahaha

>> No.4166997
File: 164 KB, 1024x768, 1301494546491.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4166997

>> No.4167003

>>4166981
proof of nonexistence would be absence existence. existence of god has yet to be revealed, so until it does, its non-existent

>> No.4167006

Why are you spamming pictures of Danny DeVito? Is he an Agnosticist, too?

>> No.4167008
File: 31 KB, 445x445, 1301505246170.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167008

>> No.4167012

>The belief that the existence of nonexistence of blablabla
>The belief
>Belief
Science cannot judge if a belief makes more sense than another. It can however judge the fact that when a bible is built on lies, its god isn't likely to exist, because if he had existed, then why the lies?

>> No.4167009

>>4167006
>dan devito as costanza


allofmymoney.tiff

>> No.4167015
File: 34 KB, 377x378, 1309035675447.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167015

>> No.4167022
File: 12 KB, 250x250, 1309035710607.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167022

>> No.4167029

>>4166945
>implyi- oh fuck another adolescent atheist internet missionary

>> No.4167032
File: 15 KB, 250x250, 1309035747460.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167032

>> No.4167033

>>4167029
It's not a valid insult unless you use "edgy" in a sarcastic way.

>> No.4167040

>>4167012
In what sense is that science?

>> No.4167043 [DELETED] 

\mathfrak{oh god how did I get here I am not good with computers}

>> No.4167044
File: 8 KB, 250x250, 1309035778616.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167044

>> No.4167045

>>4167040
Logics and Empiricism.

>> No.4167046

atheism is saying you believe in provable shit. Agnosticism is saying I'm 50/50 belief/disbelief in god and to an atheist means you haven't completed your anti-spiritualism awakening.

>> No.4167047

>>4167045
Logic isn't science, and where's the empiricism there?

>> No.4167051

>>4167046
In short, agnosticism means you're a pussy.

>> No.4167050

>>4167046
>provable

Stopped reading there- fuck off.

>> No.4167054

>>4167046
what if i'm 37/73 disbelief/belief?

>> No.4167055
File: 21 KB, 250x250, 1309035829673.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167055

>> No.4167053

>>4167051
Or it just means you aren't a faggot.

>> No.4167064
File: 10 KB, 250x250, 1309035887771.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167064

>> No.4167068

>>4167047
As the "bibles" of every religion are (roughly) mutually exclusive, at most a few of them could be right at the same time. Empirically, it implies that the probability for one to be true is very low.
And logics isn't a science but it's maths, and maths is the backbone of science.

>> No.4167072
File: 16 KB, 250x250, 1309035985176.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167072

>> No.4167079

>>4167068
>there are mutually exclusive events
>therefore these events are unlikely

wat

>> No.4167083

if curtiqueing my spelling means you don't have to answer my point I guess you didn't really want to have a discussion in the first place

I mean you are the one here posting that agnosticism is superior to atheism. And why? Because it makes you feel better about yourself. The same reason you are critical of my spelling without addressing my point. It makes you look childish. So I guess you just needed to give yourself some sort of strokefest? Beat off to how superior you are. Atheism is humble in that it admits it's lack of knowledge, but it has the balls to point out the logical fallacies and contradictions of religion.

Not even mad. I know my spellings crap.

>> No.4167086
File: 23 KB, 250x250, 1309036033431.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167086

>> No.4167095
File: 125 KB, 890x890, 1309036034470.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167095

>> No.4167097

>>4167079
Say you have 9000 mutually exclusive events. Pick one uniformly at random. What's the probability that you got the good one (assuming there's one, because there might be none)? That's right, it's below 1/9000.

>> No.4167099

>>4167083
I wasn't critiquing your spelling, I was laughing at your assertion that something/anything was absolutely provable.

By all means feel free to speculate further about my motives and personality despite having approximtaley zero knowledge of me, but you've yet to justify your assertion that atheism is spiritually more correct.

>> No.4167107
File: 30 KB, 445x445, 1309036117758.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167107

>> No.4167113

>>4167097
Assuming all 9,000 are mutually exclusive (so 1 being true precludes all of 2-9,000 being true; 2 being true precludes 1 and 3-9,000 being true etc), and one of them is correct, the probability of randomly selecting the correct one is <span class="math">\frac{1}{9000}[/spoiler]. What makes you think the probability is less than that?

>> No.4167114

>>4166948
>>4166957
>>4166966
>>4166979
>>4166991
>>4166997
>>4167008
>>4167015
>>4167022
>>4167032
>>4167044
>>4167055
>>4167064
>>4167072
>>4167086
>>4167095
>>4167107

Whoever you are... you may not be the hero we need, but you're the hero we deserve.

>> No.4167117
File: 129 KB, 445x445, 1309036204521.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167117

>> No.4167124
File: 152 KB, 890x890, 1309037007617.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167124

>> No.4167138

>>4166983
To prove something doesn't exist, you must assume it exists then come to an absurd.

For instance, let's assume there exists one prime which is bigger than every other prime. Let's call it p. Look at the number N = 2x3x5x7x11x...x p, the product of all primes. Well, N + 1 is also a prime, since it is not divisible by any of the primes. Besides, N+1>p. This is an absurd. Therefore, there isn't a 'last prime'.

>> No.4167140

>>4167113
You know what "mutually exclusive" mean, right?
>In probability theory, events E1, E2, ..., En are said to be mutually exclusive if the occurrence of any one of them automatically implies the non-occurrence of the remaining n-1 events.
No need to ask me whether they are "all" mutually exclusive or whatever. If you didn't understand what "mutually exclusive" meant in my first post, you could have just asked.

>> No.4167146

>>4167113
Also, to answer the question:
The fact that it's possible that none of the events occurred.

>> No.4167141
File: 24 KB, 445x445, 1324013446318.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167141

>> No.4167145

I am brining assumprions to the table becuase I said I was an agnostic before I was an atheist. I'm sorry if I offended you.

I guess I could say I am a agnostic when it comes to a concept of god that isn't weighed down by religious doctrine that can be proved false.

When it comes to every religion I have studied I can say I am an atheist. You seem smart and highly critical of my assumptions, do you give modern day religions a pass on their doctrine? There is a lot of bullshit out there to find for everyone I've studied. Enough to make me say "there is no way this story is true" every single time.

>> No.4167158

LOL at trying to make a math proof for religion.

>> No.4167202

>>4167140
I know what mutually exclusive means; hence my explaining it in the post to which you just replied. I double checked to clarify you that you understood what you mean.

>>4167146
Read your own post and then mine:
>>4167113
>assuming one of them is correct
>>4167097
>assuming there is (a good one)


Given that they are mutually exclusive, given that one of them is correct and given that we have no evidence for or against any of them (i.e. the probability of truth is the same for all), the probability of randomly selecting the correct one is exactly <span class="math">\frac{1}{9000}[/spoiler]. You said it was lower.

>> No.4167212

>>4167140
>No need to ask me whether they are "all" mutually exclusive or whatever.

I didn't.

>> No.4167229
File: 37 KB, 553x484, joint.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167229

We don't believe in a magic monster in the sky who punishes and rewards based on his arbitrary rules and sends his zombie son to save people by sacrificing himself, but WE'RE the unreasonable weirdos? What a twisted and perverted world you people must see when you open your eyes.

>> No.4167255

>>4167229
It's not that you don't believe the monster exists; it's that you believe that the monster doesn't exist.

>> No.4167278

>>4167054

Then that shit makes you a wizard because it adds up to 110%.

>> No.4167288

Agnostic atheism is the only true science. Live my life on the principle that there isn't a god because of the lack of evidence, but accepting that a lack of evidence isn't an affirmation of nonexistence.

>> No.4167367

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

An atheist believes that there are no Gods.
A theist believes that there are Gods.

Let's contrast this with...

An agnostic believes that the existence or non-existence of Gods has not or cannot been demonstrated.

A gnostic believes that the existence or non-existence of Gods has not or cannot been demonstrated.

A gnostic believes that the existence or non-existence of Gods has or can be demonstrated.

When you refer to atheists you refer specifically to gnostic atheists, who tend to be just as dogmatic as theists.

These threads are completely illogical, it's like saying boolean logic has three states: on, off and agnostic...

>> No.4167380

>67 posts and 23 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

What did I miss?

>> No.4167404

>>4167380
A few Costanzas.

>> No.4167510

Agnosticism doesn't mean that. Agnosticism means not knowing. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist. There are some of every group.

If you'd read such basic works as the God delusion, you would know.

>> No.4167943

more costanzas!

>> No.4167949

>>4167943
More like Agnostanzas, amirite?

>> No.4168085
File: 15 KB, 210x229, 0a8b47b525abadf04e66195af5648cff.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4168085

>> No.4168087
File: 10 KB, 241x230, 12 KB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4168087