/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5328804]

Reminder that the hordes of idiots who eat up scientific doctrines which are only hypothesis' based on faith, claim anyone who doesn't believe them is an idiot, and push those views onto others, are 10 times worse than religious people.

I would rather hang out with a west boro baptist church member and have them lecture me on why I'm summoning the Armageddon because I like dicks, than sit in a room with one pretentious ass-clown of a person who thinks "science" has proven answers to unanswerable/unprovable metaphysical questions, and have them condescendingly insult me when I tell them that I disagree.

Eat a dick. Science has harmed/bothered me more than any religion has in my entire life. All religious people have done is at worst slightly annoy me, or be nice people.

[Anonymous No.5328813]

>Not liking science and religion

Get on my level /sci/

[Anonymous No.5328812]

>OPs face

[Anonymous No.5328816]

>>5328804
>Science has harmed/bothered me more than any religion has in my entire life.
average_american.jpg

[Anonymous No.5328830]

>>5328816
Europeans lol

[Anonymous No.5328834]

>>5328816

Well it has. I'm not counting the improvements scientific advances have made in my life, just the harm/annoyance done by both science and religion, and science greatly outweighs that.

A few generations from now it's going to be at the point where these hypothesis' are accepted as fact by the vast majority, which will believe in "scientists" and every little fucking thing they say like prophets. Why? Because that's what the younger generations does right now already.

When you can't go against a mainstream scientific doctrine without being an outcast and being called a fool/idiot by everyone, you'll want it back. Perhaps psychiatry will start classifying any combination of denying mainstream scientific doctrines as a "mental illness" mainly featuring delusions, and gunpoint medicine will be more accepted than it is now.

[Anonymous No.5328837]

>>5328834

>talks about hypotheses being accepted as fact
>fails to see religion is the biggest proponent of this

the irony is unbearable

[Anonymous No.5328839]

>>5328804
I agree with you, OP. I do not live in america. I was raised in an atheist family and I had only very few encounters with religious people. I am an atheist and a scientist. And by atheist I simply mean someone who doesn't give a fuck about religion. Yet on this board I am not even allowed to ask a question about evolution whithout being insulted by a bunch of belligerent fools as a "creationist" or a "christfag". The so called "new atheism", i.e. the aggressive follwership of Dawkins and similar preachers of hatred, is characterized by an anti-scientific sentiment that sometimes tends to be even worse than religion. Science has always been open to new hypotheses. Science means questioning theories and improving them, if necessary. Making science a dogma and learning theories by heart without understanding them, for the sole purpose of (often incorrectly) reciting them in combination with direct insults of the lowest order is pure anti-intellectualism.

[Anonymous No.5328843]

>>5328839
>>5328804

samefag

[Anonymous No.5328845]

>>5328839

>make questions about evolution

are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.5328850]

because fuck you

[Anonymous No.5328852]

>>5328804
>mfw

[Anonymous No.5328856]

>>5328834
>System built entirely on questioning and deliberately contradicting people's held belief inside the system
>Stable dogmatic religion

Pick one, you colossal retard without a clue what science is. Also being called a fool for spouting shit about "mainstream" theories (IE the ones with the best evidence) without providing any yourself isn't hurting your rights. You aren't entitled to respect from other humans just because you feel you are, when really you're just showing yourself as ignorant.

See, if you could actually justify yourself calling "mainstream" theories out as wrong you still might get plenty of opposition, but you'd be taken pretty fucking seriously. Because that would require reliable showing their falsifiable assertions as wrong. Honest people reproducing those experiments would rather easily start to build a base of support for your ideas.

Therefore: Go back to /pol/, conspiracyfag.

[Anonymous No.5328861]

>>5328856

And by the "Pick one" I meant both existing as the same system, given your "Hurrdurr they'll make us take drugs as crazy people for disagreeing with them on their theories!". Not that there aren't religious scientists. There obviously are, they just compartmentalize their skepticism.

[Anonymous No.5328875]

>>5328845

I'm sure you're just joking, but that's pretty much what I'm talking about.

>>5328856

This is what I'm talking about. It wouldnn't matter what the skepticism or question was about, it would bring out the retard-squad defense force, who will do nothing but condescendingly insult you before you even speak, not even allowing for an actual debate.

[Anonymous No.5328878]

>>5328875
>This is what I'm talking about. It wouldnn't matter what the skepticism or question was about, it would bring out the retard-squad defense force, who will do nothing but condescendingly insult you before you even speak, not even allowing for an actual debate.

prove it

[Anonymous No.5328887]

>>5328875
No. You really are retarded. I think its cute you call yourself a "scientist". HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.5328890]

>>5328878

You already did it.

How about this, "You can't prove I evolved from a single celled organism".

Try responding to that without sounding like a fucking idiot who can't respond with anything other than insults, because he has scientist's dicks so far up his ass he can't hear anything but what they have told him to believe and accept his whole life.

[Anonymous No.5328894]

>>5328887

I didn't call myself a scientist.

[Anonymous No.5328899]

>>5328897
That wasn't the OP, you fucking retard. Learn reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.5328897]

>>5328894
>I am an atheist and a scientist
k.

[Anonymous No.5328900]

>>5328897

I think you're mixing up two different people.

[Anonymous No.5328905]

>>5328899
Omg. You are fucking retarded. Im talking to YOU. YOU, you fucking retard. God no wonder you have problems with science.. shit.

[Anonymous No.5328912]

>>5328905
You weren't talking to me. I made exactly two posts ITT. How brain damaged are you? OP might be a crackpot and an idiot, but you are way worse than him. What's your IQ? Lower than 60? How do you even manage to type? Is your mom typing while you're drooling in your diapers?

[Anonymous No.5328913]

>>5328890

That all depends on what you determine to be proof

If all the evidence and proof integrated into the theory of evolution isnt enough for you I dont know what to say

[Anonymous No.5328931]

this thread and everyone in it including me is fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.5328938]

>>5328913

It's not for me.

I got my anger out and I'm pretty happy/content about it, to the point where I don't care anymore again about this. Gonna close/hide this thread and not open it up again now.

Have a nice day /sci/, I love talking to you. Probably see you in another month or so for more stress relief arguing.

[Anonymous No.5328945]

>>5328912
Why the fuck fuck would OP sage his own thread. Do you have a brain cell? Fucking shit Iv'e never meet someone so stupid in my life

[Anonymous No.5328958]

>>5328945
What mental deficiency do you have?

[Anonymous No.5328961]

Yeah, just last week, some scientists shot up an anti-abortion clinic in my town. Thanks a lot, Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.5328963]

>>5328875
>>5328890
>You already did

You obviously were not talking to me there. The typing was completely different, so you should've been able to figure that out even on an anonymous forum. That was my first and, up to this one, only post in the thread.

>It wouldnn't matter what the skepticism or question was about,

1) It obviously would, since you specifically had to state "Mainstream" theories. Theories aren't decided by a popularity contest. There's some pretty wretched shit out there that, if it wasn't true, would be a nicer world to live in. Natural selection is a pretty clear mainstream case of that. The difference is how much reliable evidence you brazenly disregard because your mighty understanding is so much more reliable ... while conveniently not offering evidence to refute their claims.

That's just retarded. It's a completely different thing to go "I don't believe in Dark Energy because I don't understand it and thus, lacking the faculties to evaluate their hypothesis, cannot find myself in a state of belief" (belief/unbelief being binary, as they are) to saying "Fuck their evidence, they're wrong and I'm right!".

>it would bring out the retard-squad defense force, who will do nothing but condescendingly insult you before you even speak, not even allowing for an actual debate.

Which is not what that post was, but even so: How much of an "actual debate" do you expect on "Scientists will put us in mind-control camps and inject us with drugs for questioning their religion! Doom is upon us!" and only complaining about how saying something you couldn't substantiate made you look like a twat in front of your friends?

Also if they seriously said "Science has _proven_ X about extremely vague statement Y" then they're probably pretty colloquial in the "Word-usage"-department too.

[Anonymous No.5328968]

Didn't even bother to read the thread, but here, have a nice wallpaper I just made.

Seemed relevant.

[Anonymous No.5329014]

[Anonymous No.5329049]

Science doesn't care about people. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.5329062]

>>5329049
His way of dealing with it is to tell science to go eat a dick.

[Anonymous No.5329067]

>>5329062
but that's engineering

[Anonymous No.5329071]

Science is so dogmatic these days, you can't even talk about quantum evolution or aura cleansing without being scoffed at.

[Anonymous No.5329074]

>>5329062

Then he's a fag that doesn't understand why science exists.

[Anonymous No.5329097]

>>5329071

That's because aura cleansing isn't scientific.

[Anonymous No.5329102]

>>5329097
So science is only for scientific things? Fucking dogma.

[Anonymous No.5329114]

>>5329102

No you idiot. Just like religion is for religion and astronomy is for astronomy.

[Andi No.5329118]

>>5329102

Do you even know what dogma is? Look it up before you start ranting about how science is dogma you idiot.

[Anonymous No.5329121]

The only people who do that type of thing are those who don't really understand any science, they just hear some facts and assume everything is correct. People like that are fucking annoying, no matter what subject you're discussing.

[Anonymous No.5329124]

>>5329071
I think it's more an issue of people taking up the cause of science as if it's 'science vs reason'. It's just a really awful brand of materialism. I can't think of a single -ism that isn't overtly flawed.

[Andi No.5329146]

>>5329124

Racism.

[Anonymous No.5329174]

>>5329071
>>5329097
>>5329102
>>5329114
>>5329118
>What's a joke? How do they work?

[Anonymous No.5329182]

>>5329174
Jokes don't belong here. This is a science board. Keep anti-intellectual "fun" to >>>/v/

[Anonymous No.5329189]

>>5329182
Fun isn't anti-intellectual, you pleb

[Anonymous No.5329193]

>ITT

[Anonymous No.5329195]

>>5329189
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.5329200]

>>5329182
>fun + /v/
>"Jokes don't belong here"

[Anonymous No.5329201]

>>5329200
>infantile comic

[Anonymous No.5329205]

>>5329195
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Aanti-intellectualism

[Anonymous No.5329212]

>>5329205
Thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.5329218]

>>5329212
>Anti-intellectualism is hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible.
Your point doesn't follow

[Anonymous No.5329224]

>>5329218
It does. Thanks for proving your lack of abstract reasoning skills.

[Anonymous No.5329228]

>>5329224
> repetition of your point and an insult
Explain.

[Anonymous No.5329234]

>>5329228
Why should I bother explaining something to an anti-intellectual troll?

[Anonymous No.5329237]

>>5328804

[Anonymous No.5329240]

>>5329237
Do not post macro image replies and uncalled for catchphrases outside of /b/.

[Anonymous No.5329243]

>>5329234
Please. I want to learn.