/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4523335]

[Anonymous No.4523350]

OP is a fag who believes in intelligent design. He thinks he is clever for sitting on the fence.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523362]

>>4523350
Believing in intelligent design would make him a theist.
Being an agnostic is the best choice, all the atheists and theists seem to get so angry with each other for practically no reason.
Why not just live our lives as best we can, and we can just find out when we die?
We might be pleasantly surprised.

[Anonymous No.4523369]

>>4523362
I just can't take a vapid cunt seriously. Sowi.

[Anonymous No.4523372]

>>4523362
This_nigga.jpg

True and sane secular humanism un in this bitch

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523379]

>>4523369
That is not me.
I saw your stupid thread about EK and I.
Delete it.

[Anonymous No.4523382]

>>4523362
>Why not just live our lives as best we can, and we can just find out when we die?
Millions of theists and atheists do exactly that.

[Anonymous No.4523397]

>>4523379
EK/Rose is on the left
Harriet is on the right

>A lot of people got confused between you and an even more vapid whore named Jessica Myhill.

[Anonymous No.4523396]

>>4523362

Agnosticism is a subtle way of calling yourself ignorant.

Theism is most likely false, the certainity is statistical but also empirically observable, as in lack of fullfilled prayers, direct and monitored, recorded observations of god or contradictions in the holy texts.

'I will just wait to die so I find out' is not a rational and honest stance if one seeks understanding.

[Anonymous No.4523399]

>>4523397
YOU ARE WRONG SIR! GO BURN IN A FIRE!

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523402]

>>4523382
Atheists do not believe in God at all, and therefore do not believe in an afterlife either.
They are miserable, and think that they have nothing to look forward to.
Theists do not have a 'lets find out when we die' attitude.
They think they know.

>>4523396
Agnosticism does not mean I am ignorant, it means that I am not willing to jump to conclusions.

>'I will just wait to die so I find out' is not a rational and honest stance if one seeks understanding.
If there were any actual way I could understand, then I would pursue it.
there is not.
That is exactly why I am still agnostic.

[Anonymous No.4523404]

>>4523399

[Anonymous No.4523405]

>>4523362
Agnostics are people who are insecure about their own decisions, which they are able to barely make after tremendous effort. Afraid about the possibility of God actually existing, they hope that their punishment would be less than that of Atheists.

[Anonymous No.4523406]

>>4523396
The lack of an interventionist creator is almost certain.

However, the only fact that could definteley rule out the existence of anything above us would be an infinitly old universe. Deal with it. It's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods, due to it/them being an entirely persona subjective and abstract concept.

[Anonymous No.4523419]

>>4523406
And it's impossible to prove that you're not being followed and watched by an invisible teletubby.

[Anonymous No.4523422]

>>4523402
>They are miserable, and think that they have nothing to look forward to.
Delicious generalizations.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523424]

>>4523405
Agnostics simply admit that they do not know if there is a god.
This says absolutely nothing about how I make decisions in other aspects of life.
If there is a god, he will not punish agnostics.

[Anonymous No.4523425]

ITT we are a yahoo answers debate on the religion & spirituality subsection.

[Anonymous No.4523427]

>>4523419
i have proved this, and so has my zebra

[Anonymous No.4523430]

>>4523402

I dont believe in the after life and look forward to make the most of my life while I live on this planet. If there was an afterlife it would mean our current lifes are simply a race to something higher, which makes it all worthless, as if we were all test subjects of some wicked experiment

>>4523406

I dont deny an intelligent cause for the universe however I deny that we are a direct creation of a supernatural being which has a personal relationship with us and promised life ater death.

[Anonymous No.4523431]

Agnosticbro here. Atheists will always be at a disadvantage because they tend to not reproduce while religious people shoot out 6-7-8 kids.

[Anonymous No.4523432]

>>4523424
>If there is a god, he will not punish agnostics.
How do you know?

[Anonymous No.4523448]

>>4523424
>"I don't know god!"
>"I know god's behavior!"
You're the worst kind of person.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523453]

>>4523432
Because we are not closed minded like the atheists. We are searching for him.
Maybe he will allow himself to be found.

>>4523448
I did not say that.

[H+ No.4523457]

>>4523405

It's too bad there isn't a pretty straightforward "Fence-sitters get the pit of hellfire too" line in there that would invalidate the whole problem.

The thing is, everybody is atheist to a certain degree, and most rational agnostics are actually atheists who also say "Well, none of these guys are right, but the IDEA is possible to the point that a sufficiently advanced being could make it all seem normal to us. So while none of our current religions are likely correct, something beyond our current thought could exist."

That type of agnosticism isn't entirely bad in my book. It's fairly rational to expect us to still not know things. I'm current agnostic about the Simulated universe idea, for example.

The real dividing line is those who think there are things that are inherently knowable, and those who think there are things we just haven't discovered yet. I think the first group has a much higher burden of proof, nobody who has ever said that has been proven right, but many have been proven wrong.

[Anonymous No.4523460]

>>4523424
How many times have you fucked EK?

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523465]

>>4523460
That is not EK.
Go away.
I am heterosexual, EK is just a friend.

[H+ No.4523469]

>>4523431

To be fair, the smartest or most rational of those have a tendency to convert. It's not a strict dichotomy, there is movement between the two groups after birth.

How many atheists/agnostics in this thread were raised that way? I sure wasn't.

[Anonymous No.4523472]

>>4523465
http://chanarchive.org/4chan/sci/13660/question-for-ek

You admit that EK is Rose in the archived thread of 7/7/11.

Fuck you cunt. Just go anonymous.

[Anonymous No.4523476]

>>4523469
>convert

Please don't use that word again when referring to atheism. I'm not even atheist, but that just makes you guys look like yet another religious nutjobs who go door to door campaining for their holy book. Oh, wait...

[Anonymous No.4523478]

>>4523469
Yes, some people raised in a religion will convert to atheism, but they themselves have a lower probability of reproducing.

[Anonymous No.4523482]

There exists no such thing as a pure agnostic.

Either you are agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.

[Anonymous No.4523484]

>>4523431
>>4523478
Intelligent people in general tend to have fewer children.

[Anonymous No.4523489]

>>4523453
>Because we are not closed minded like the atheists.
That didn't answer my question at all, you dumb cunt. Again, how do you know? Allow me to emphasize:

!!!!!*****HOW*****!!!!!

You response should not start with "Because".

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523493]

>>4523472
I was just joking. She is not really called Rose.
Sorry.

[Anonymous No.4523498]

>>4523484
Agnosticbro here. There is no reason to believe atheists are more intelligent than religious people. I've read some studies which said they were, but since most of them came from biased pro-atheist sources, they ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

I would imagine intelligence is distributed about equally. There are intelligent atheists and idiot theists and vice versa.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523499]

>>4523489
You are a rude troll, and closed minded as well.

[Anonymous No.4523508]

>>4523499
Answer the question.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523510]

>>4523498
Apparently atheists are somewhere in the middle.
They are outclassed by agnostics as well, but interestingly, those that follow the religion of Shinto are the most intelligent (In terms of IQ at least)

[Anonymous No.4523511]

You are either an agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist, gnostic atheist.

Since there is no way to know if god exists, the default position is agnostic atheism.

[Anonymous No.4523518]

>>4523493
>I was just joking. She is not really called Rose.
LMFAO, is that the best you can come up with. Fucking whore just go anonymous

[Anonymous No.4523520]

'dont' be close minded': a new expression meaning 'you should really consider all possibilities even if they sound like bullshit or dont agree with reality, or else you are a bad person'

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523522]

>>4523511
Just agnostic.

[Blackman !medz1J/1Ok No.4523523]

Leave Harriet alone !!!

[Anonymous No.4523524]

>>4523498
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_I.Q
.
If you want to claim the studies are biased, please provide evidence.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523527]

>>4523520
Yes.
Do be open to new ideas, and by that I mean you should listen to their point of view rather than instantly rejecting it.
This does not mean you should instantly presume it is true though.
Sometimes the smartest thing to do is to stay undecided.

[Atwill !kelPcGZQlE No.4523529]

>>4523520
Or slightly more concise: "Don't listen to reason."

This thread is awful, by the way.

[Anonymous No.4523531]

post pic, come back, see 39 posts

rub hands

[Anonymous No.4523532]

>>4523510
You are referring to a random picture that has been posted on /sci/ without a link to the supporting paper. That doesn't count.

[H+ No.4523536]

>>4523476

convert [v. kuhn-vurt; n. kon-vurt]  
Origin
con·vert1    [v. kuhn-vurt; n. kon-vurt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to change (something) into a different form or properties; transmute; transform.
2.
to cause to adopt a different religion, political doctrine, opinion, etc.: to convert the heathen.

You'll notice that by your definition, politics and opinions are also religions.

Are we getting to a 'that's our word!' issue? Sorry, but when you have noting to add to a conversation other than debating semantics of the words used, you have nothing to add to a conversation.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions

[Anonymous No.4523537]

>>4523527
>Sometimes the smartest thing to do is to stay undecided.
Perhaps, but most of the time the smartest thing to do is to take the opposing opinion into account, consider it, and then reject it because its fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.4523539]

>>4523510
>those that follow the religion of Shinto are the most intelligent (In terms of IQ at least)
I think this is running into the correlation/causation fallacy.

[Anonymous No.4523542]

>>4523397If that is Ek, I gotta say, she is pretty fucking hot. Expected her to be a fat landwhale
with a repulsive face. She's pretty cute. Harriet isn't fat from I imagined, she is pretty ugly.

[Anonymous No.4523543]

>>4523523
>Attention whoring trip faggot's opinions are irrelevant

[Anonymous No.4523546]

>>4523524
What if the Southern Baptist Council produced a study claiming Christians who think the earth is 10,000 years old are smarter? You'd scream BIAS

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523549]

>>4523532
I do not know what the paper is. You could search for it?

>>4523537
Why reject it? You do not know that the idea is definitely wrong.

[Anonymous No.4523552]

>>4523546
Please provide evidence.

[Anonymous No.4523556]

>>4523542

[Anonymous No.4523558]

>>4523546
And it that case, if the study was properly documented, you could easily look through the paper and find the flaw in their methods. Anyway, its not like those studies were performed by an atheist society, so your point is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.4523559]

>>4523522
No. Agnostic simply describes if the position is knowable or not. Being agnostic alone doesn't mean anything. You either believe in god and think it's knowable/not knowable, or you don't believe in god and think it's knowable/not knowable.

For example, the flying spaghetti monster has the same amount of evidence as god, but most rational people don't believe in him. If they are rigorous they will be honest and say the fsm could exist, but hasn't been proven, so the default position is simply an agnostic lack of belief in the fsm.

[Anonymous No.4523561]

>>4523556
Never mind. That picture just had a good angle. They're both pretty fucking ugly.. Both around 3-4 /10

[Atwill !kelPcGZQlE No.4523562]

>>4523549
We don't know that *anything* is definitely wrong.

Welcome to probabilistic epistemology.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523564]

>>4523556
That is not EK, but whoever it is, you do not have permission to be in her facebook stealing her pictures and posting them here.
Your posts are also spam and are against the rules.

[Anonymous No.4523566]

>>4523556
haha Britain.

We subscribe to the American middleschool theory of beauty.

[Anonymous No.4523570]

>>4523564
>but whoever it is, you do not have permission to be in her facebook stealing her pictures and posting them here.
How do you know?

[Anonymous No.4523571]

>>4523549
Not reject it as being absolutely wrong, but reject it in the same way as I reject Santa Claus, Unicorns, and UFOs. Maybe my grandpa really did get abducted, but I'm not going to go basing my identity off of MAYBE IT HAPPENED unless I see a UFO myself.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523574]

>>4523570
Fine, maybe you do. But I doubt it.
And it is certainly still spam.

[Anonymous No.4523576]

>>4523574
>But I doubt it.
Don't be so closed-minded.

[H+ No.4523579]

>>4523559

I like using a teapot orbiting Mars instead of the FSM, merely because most people have heard the FSM argument now.

Same basic idea, you can exchange Mars with any other body in the universe. In a nutshell, you have no evidence for or against a teapot orbiting Canis Major, but the default position is to say that it is obscenely unlikely.

>>4523564

Facebook's privacy provisions are so laughable right now, that anything you post on there is legally fair game to anyone who ever sees it.

The spam part you may have. Then again, I've never seen anybody get banned for non-pornographic/guro spam, so good luck.

[Anonymous No.4523580]

>>4523369
>>4523397
>>4523460

I might sound like a judgemental faggot but I dont think any of those is a tripfag on here. They all look like those girls that only think about getting wasted on weekends, slack during work days and never open a book

[Anonymous No.4523581]

>>4523552
Evidence that you'd say it was biased? That's asking people to prove something that's unprovable.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523586]

>>4523571
But we know Santa Claus is not real, because we all realise in our childhood that it is our parents who bring us the presents.
We can also logically realise that Santa Claus can not deliver presents to each house in less than a second, and there are not enough seconds on Christmas eve.

We know Santa is fictional.
As for god, we are as yet unsure.

[Anonymous No.4523588]

>>4523581
No, evidence that the other studies are flawed due to bias. You were going off on a silly tangent, so I thought I'd simply repeat the request.

[Anonymous No.4523590]

>>4523581
Evidence that the researcher who performed the study was biased, and that it may have effected the outcome. It is completely provable, as if the study truly is biased you could perform your own unbiased study and find that it contradicts the original's results.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523591]

>>4523580
Do not judge a book by its cover.
Keep in mind that people upload Facebook pictures of social occassions.
people do not upload pictures of themselves revising or reading. (Usually)

[Anonymous No.4523592]

>>4523570
chanarchive.org/4chan/sci/13660/question-for-ek

The evidence is in the thread. Harriet is just trying to cover up the truth.

[H+ No.4523593]

>>4523586

How do you know Santa isn't real? Have you been to the North Pole?

You can't actually with a straight face argue that Santa delivering presents to 2 billion children in one night is impossible, but we're 'not sure' about an omnipotent omnipresent omnibenevolent superbeing.

[Anonymous No.4523595]

>>4523524
Those studies also claimed that Jews and some Protestant denominations were more intelligent than Catholics and Baptists. I think they're using some very shaky methodology that >>4523539

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523596]

>>4523592
I was just joking in that thread; it is not really EK's real Facebook page. It is someone else.

[Anonymous No.4523597]

>>4523586

Do as with God, say Santa is a wizard and makes all the presents suddenly appear but can only do so while hurtling through the sky powered with flying reindeers.

[Anonymous No.4523599]

>>4523586
Have you seen your parents bring those presents? Maybe they just admitted that, but Santa Claus actually did it and just modified their memories afterwards.
Also, I cannot comprehend the stupidity it would take to think that delivering presents at inhuman speeds is impossible, but being nearly omnipotent and creating the universe is not.

[Anonymous No.4523600]

It is pretty retarded to assume all atheists and all theists are angry dick bags.

[H+ No.4523602]

>>4523597

Man, I remember seeing a cartoon when I was younger about Santa getting all his magical powers straight for the Faerie Court. At the time, that thing was awesome, I think it was Oberon and what looked like a council of Greek Fucking Gods that made him immortal.

Anybody else remember that?

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523603]

>>4523593
>>4523599
You are both making presumptions about the characteristics of God.
I do not know who or what God is, or if he is even real.

[Anonymous No.4523605]

>>4523586
>We know Santa is fictional.
>As for god, we are as yet unsure.
Depending on the versions of god and Santa, there's little to no difference between the probability of either of them existing.

Please stop engaging in these discussions, by the way. It's fine and dandy if you want to feel superior to everyone else with your little agnosticism thing there, but your arguments and generalizations are so childish, they make me cringe so hard, I look like fucking Renee Zellweger.

[Anonymous No.4523607]

i'm pretty sure this bitch posts on 4chan as well.

[Anonymous No.4523608]

>>4523595
So, that means that you are acknowledging a correlation between intelligence and lack of religion. This pleases me, as I never actually claimed causation. I'm glad we could settle this.

[Anonymous No.4523610]

>>4523603
>You are both making presumptions about the characteristics of God.
Just like you:
>>4523424
>If there is a god, he will not punish agnostics.

Stop posting, please. You are an offensively unintelligent person.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523613]

>>4523610
>Stop posting, please. You are an offensively unintelligent person.
Just because I do not know if there is a god?
At least I am not closed minded.

[Anonymous No.4523614]

>>4523586
>But we know Santa Claus is not real, because we all realise in our childhood that it is our parents who bring us the presents.

How can you know that EVERY case of a kid receiving presents wasn't Santa? Are you omniscient?
Also, Who says that Santa can't work through people if he wants to?

>We can also logically realise that Santa Claus can not deliver presents to each house in less than a second, and there are not enough seconds on Christmas eve.

Who told you that Santa is restricted by the laws of time and space? He works in mysterious ways.

[Anonymous No.4523620]

>>4523613
>Just because I do not know if there is a god?
No. Would have helped if you had read the part above the line you quoted, I guess. You know, that part where you were being inconsistent and offensively unintelligent.

[Anonymous No.4523625]

>>4523595
Specifically, I believe they came to that conclusion by studying maps like this

http://www.vdare.com/images/102206_ss_stateIQmap.JPG

They happen to note that the areas with more Jews/Protestants/nonreligious people have higher IQs and the areas with more Baptists have lower IQs, so they automatically conclude "Certain religious beliefs = higher IQ", while failing to take into account mitigating factors such as the socioeconomic level of the region.

All thus causing the correlation fallacy.

>>4523608

Your words, not mine.

[Anonymous No.4523628]

>>4523613
Does anyone have Harriet's address? She needs a good anal fisting.

[Anonymous No.4523629]

fucking hell!
how has his fucking retarded thread got so many replies!?

and haz, you are fucking retarded, i already told you agnosticism is not a choice! NOBODY
repeat: NO-FUCKING-BODY! knows if god is real or not, we ARE ALL AGNOSTIC
the choice is whetehr you believe or not
you dont subscribe to ay religion, so you're an agnostic atheist same as me!

your also a FUCKTARD
NOT the same as me!

[Anonymous No.4523634]

>>4523629
>how has his fucking retarded thread got so many replies!?
Harriet.

[Anonymous No.4523635]

>>4523625
For example, if it happened to be that Jews or atheists or Lutherans were the dominant religion in Mississippi and Baptists were predominate in Massachusetts, one could claim the exact opposite.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523638]

>>4523620
I was not inconsistent, I said that I do not know what gods characteristics are. Maybe he is not even omniscient, I never said he was.
Stop making presumptions.

[Anonymous No.4523647]

>>4523628
you pull that shit, and i'll kick you in your balls so hard you'll be chewing on em for weeks, faggot

>>4523634
yeh i know, stop responding to her!
which fucking retard made this thread anyway. cant any of you fucking read!?? no religion threads on /sci/!

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523654]

>>4523629
I know that we have no evidence either way, but atheists actively reject God in all his forms.
I am open to the possibility. Surely that must count for something.

[Anonymous No.4523657]

>>4523638
>Stop making presumptions.
Learn to read. I'm not presuming anything. I'm directly addressing your bullshit.
>I was not inconsistent, I said that I do not know what gods characteristics are.
You claimed that if there is a god, *he'd have the characteristic* of not punishing agnostics. That's you being inconsistent. Stop weaseling around, you embarrassing clown.

[H+ No.4523668]

>>4523654

Why must it count? If you are assuming God doesn't define belief as a boolean value (0 or 1) and lumps everybody who does not fully believe into 0, then you are making an inherent assumption about God. you are claiming to know something about the thing that you claim is unknowable. You are making a leap of Faith.

Also, most of the time when you say God, people assume an Abrahamic God. This inherently carries with it very strict connotations.

[Atwill !kelPcGZQlE No.4523670]

>>4523654
There are many atheists who are open to the possibility. The defining thing is a lack of belief, not a dismissal of a possibility. Hard atheism can be that way, but it's not what characterizes atheism in general.

[Anonymous No.4523671]

Anyone know Harriet's address?

[Anonymous No.4523675]

>>4523625
I'm not on my university net, so I can't really argue specifics, but either way a correlation is a correlation. There is indeed also a correlation between poverty and religion, as well as wealth and intelligence, etc. It doesn't prove anything, but its clear where most of the results lead.

[Anonymous No.4523678]

>>4523654
no, you tard! it counts for nothing!
fucking listen to: >>4523657

and all agnostic atheists are 'open to the possibility', we just require good solid evidence, like we do for all unsubstantiated claims that so far lack evidence!
there is no difference at all between your religious beliefs and mine, we're both agnostic atheists!

>>4523657
funny thing is, that if there is a god, then hes palced me in a deterministic universe with the genetics and the environment to automatically make me an atheist for life.
if he burns me for that then i never had a chance to begin with.
and fuck him for being such an asshole to put that sequence of events in place if he really were real!

[Anonymous No.4523687]

>>4523671
dumass, you dont know her last name, and 7/7/11 was a sham
(protip, its not 'roger')

[Anonymous No.4523690]

>>4523678
That's actually how Calvinist predestination works. You were predestined to go to hell, and are merely proving such by being atheist.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4523701]

>>4523678
Perhaps, but you are far ruder about your atheism than you need to be.
A lot of religious people are good people, whether they are correct in their beliefs or not

[Anonymous No.4523705]

>if he..

Cryptomonotheism.

Why not 'it'?

[Anonymous No.4523710]

>>4523701
thats beside the fucking point! but i'll take that as a sign of defeat seeing as your clearly changing the subject to:
>hurr durr, the truth is irrelevant, but religious people are more moral

so thanks hun, i graciously accept your defeat!
:D

[Anonymous No.4523714]

>>4523687

Anyone know where i can get nude photos of this hoe ?

i hate her hateful personality, and smug arrogance, but i still want nudes.

she got boned by thunderfoot didnt she ? i hate that nigga too with his weird uneven facial hair and hippy clothes and hairstyle

needs to put some conditioner in that shi* yo ! and both their videos are boring and shi* because they are attention cam whores, and they love the smell of their own farts

but srsly nudes.

[Anonymous No.4523716]

>>4523701

defeated but now attempts to defeat strawman of opposition insulting theists which was never said

[Anonymous No.4523719]

> mfw Atheists get more mad and butthurt than the Theists

as per ops photo

[Anonymous No.4523720]

EK's FB http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=618615103
Harriet's FB http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=516687569
Harriet is ugly as fuck. EK is slightly better looking than Harriet but still god darn ugly. Why are all the brits I meet so fucking ugly?

[Anonymous No.4523721]

>>4523714
>i hate her hateful personality, and smug arrogance...
do you mean her actual personality from her videos, or do you mean you hate MY personality
(because her pics arnt me, i dont post pics of me)

...i guess we are both a bit arrogant, so you could mean either of us.

[Anonymous No.4523725]

I remember when /sci/ first went online. I think we went about four hours before the first religion vs atheism thread was made.

... those were the greatest four hours ever.

[Anonymous No.4523726]

>>4523719
There are no theists in /sc/. Only atheists and atheists who think they are agnostic.

[Anonymous No.4523728]

>>4523720
twat!
those arnt our facebooks, 7/7/11 was harriet being a stupid fucking troll, you gullible fuck!

[H+ No.4523729]

>>4523725

I don't think we've gone more than 4 hours since then without one either.

[Lemunuzzaman No.4523729,1]

I don't think we've gone more than 4 hours since then without one either.