/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7113660]

How come 85% of Americans reject basic science?

[Anonymous No.7113681]

Children are taught religion before science. Once they hear of science that disagrees with their religious teachings, they will default to science being wrong and religion being right because of what they learned first and familial pressure.

[Anonymous No.7113694]

>>7113660
The same reason they think extreme patriotism is a rational behavior. Propaganda.

[Anonymous No.7113696]

you mean 46%

[Anonymous No.7113705]

>>7113696
This. Believing in a god isn't a rejection of "basic science".

[Anonymous No.7113706]

>>7113705
At least is a rejection of the scientific method. Why don't you believe in unicorns too?

[Anonymous No.7113708]

Why do we not, for once, hear something good about America?
Is sunny California the only merit?

[Anonymous No.7113709]

>>7113660
because no matter what i dont want to think that when i die nothing

/thread you're all stupid as fuck

[Anonymous No.7113713]

>>7113706
>>7113706

[Anonymous No.7113715]

>>7113696
>>7113705
Believing God guided evolution is unscientific

[Anonymous No.7113718]

>>7113713
Could you explain yourself instead of posting a retarded gif?

[Anonymous No.7113719]

>>7113706
>>7113706
>>7113706

[Anonymous No.7113722]

>>7113718
yes

>>7113715
believing in god is unscientific but does not imply a rejection of the scientific method

[Anonymous No.7113724]

>>7113706
>At least is a rejection of the scientific method.
Yeah, but that's still much better then if all those people didn't believe in evolution.

Anyway, what does it matter? As long as the masses leave us alone to do math and science in peace, I really don't care what they think or believe.

[Anonymous No.7113726]

[Anonymous No.7113728]

>>7113713
>>7113719
nice meme bro you sure convinced me

>>7113715
It's unscientific, but not nearly as unscientific as not believing in God at all.

[Anonymous No.7113730]

>>7113722
Yes, you are believing in something there's absolute not proof about it. Again, why do you believe God exist but unicorns don't?

[Anonymous No.7113732]

im out of fedora gifs. where's tippingintensifies.gif goddamnit :(

suffice it to say you are all smug assholes

[Anonymous No.7113734]

>>7113706
Science can say absolutely nothing about god, the existence or nonexistence of god is not a testable hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.7113735]

>>7113681
Science and religion is compatible. I am a Christian and believer of science.

[Anonymous No.7113738]

>>7113730
i dont.

they do because they want to. who gives a fuck? they accept what science has proven you autistic faggot, which means they dont reject the fucking scientific method. when god is disproven and people still believe in him then you can complain

cunt

[Anonymous No.7113742]

>>7113735
>compatible
They can tolerate each other, but they are not compatible.

>>7113734
>Science can say absolutely nothing about god
That doesn't mean we should assume a god exists.
If someone tells you that some god will send you to hell unless you start practicing cannibalism, you won't heed what he says.

>>7113730
See >>7113724

[Anonymous No.7113744]

>>7113735
Depends on the specific belief. You obviously can't believe in most of the OT and also be rational.

[Anonymous No.7113748]

>>7113738
>they dont reject the fucking scientific method
But they make hypotheses and assumptions that aren't based on anything.
I'm not saying you should go out and convert them, but you can't say they're following the scientific method.
(not the guy you're replying to)

[Anonymous No.7113749]

>>7113660
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Is_Not_Great

[Anonymous No.7113751]

>>7113748
didnt say they are following it. just because they dont use it all the time for every belief they hold doesnt mean they reject it.

[The Skeleton Man !MAxPETUTTk No.7113775]

>>7113742
>but they are not compatible

You're an idiot.

I expected more from /sci/.

[Anonymous No.7113780]

>>7113744
>>7113742
I believe that God set forth all laws of physics and so forth and what we see is consistent with his laws. I believe God doesn't necessarily intervene within these laws of physics and they act accordingly to the way we agree they should.

Religion by definition is faith based, which by definition means unconditional belief in the unprovable / untestable.

Science by definition deals with the testable and by the definition of the two it makes Science and Religion (in this sense) independent of each other, which means science cannot say a single thing about the existence or non-existence of God.

If you believe in God and have a rational belief system in the laws of nature it isn't inconsistent due to the independency of the two.

Most hardcore atheist like to categorize the religious as idiots that don't believe in Science. There exist mathematicians and the like at prestigious schools that are religious and no one thinks they are nuts. I know, because I met a few. Most keep it to themselves. Most wouldn't even suspect they are religious because it contradicts the stereotypes they have of religious people.

[Anonymous No.7113784]

>>7113780
>I believe that God set forth all laws of physics and so forth and what we see is consistent with his laws. I believe God doesn't necessarily intervene within these laws of physics and they act accordingly to the way we agree they should.
But why do you believe in God in the first place?

[Anonymous No.7113807]

>>7113784

Because it is a personal choice. It isn't testable, it isn't quantifiable, it isn't something you'd otherwise believe (nor would I expect you to), but I've felt God inside of me. I seen him change and do things inside my life that wouldn't happen by chance alone. We aren't nuts. Like I said, I know of a few mathematicians (incredibly intelligent researchers and well-respected) that are religious. Likewise, I know atheist mathematicians that are also really well-respected and very good at what they do. In the end it doesn't matter and neither of them conflict with each other in personal relationships. It usually boils down to a personal decision and if the person is rational then what does it matter what they believe if it doesn't bother anyone?

[Anonymous No.7113810]

>>7113780
See I agree with you if your take on God is that he is something that created everything. Because that doesn't disagree with anything we know to be true.

However, if you were to tell me you believed in Adam and Eve, I would say you aren't rational.

You are more of a Deist than a Christian.

[Anonymous No.7113832]

>>7113775
Kurt Wise found they aren't compatible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovQf9NxzLhM

[Anonymous No.7113864]

>science is fact
Cringe

[Anonymous No.7113875]

>>7113780
>science cannot say a single thing about the existence or non-existence of God.

this always struck me as too convenient. If god existed, why shouldn't he be detectable by scientific means?
I mean, unless he created the universe in such a way that he was always hidden, but why would he do that?

[Anonymous No.7113879]

>>7113735
>Science and religion is compatible. I am a Christian and believer of science.

Now go spread those ideals to your friends.

[Anonymous No.7113884]

>>7113660
because both science and religion are philosophies with inherently unprovable axioms.

[Anonymous No.7113886]

>>7113864
>science is fact
>Cringe

Sure, science is built to not create unfalsifiable claims, but man you're gonna look retarded if you suddenly start claiming that things deviate from known, observable natural laws without /substantial/ evidence.

Evolution, in the sense that populations have frequencies of alleles that change over time, is an observable law of nature. The theory of evolution, which is that these changes are driven by natural selection and other environmental pressures, is extremely well substantiated. It's not a fact in the sense that it's still falsifiable, but you're a dipshit if you reject it for no reason.

[Anonymous No.7113889]

>>7113832
That's great for Kurt Wise, who's an adult and capable of making his own choices just fine.

[Anonymous No.7113890]

>>7113884
>because both science and religion are philosophies with inherently unprovable axioms.

Well our system, which is indeed predicated on some unprovable axioms, makes rocket ships and computers. So suck our collective dick.

[Anonymous No.7113894]

>>7113886
>ur a fag if you don't accept my bullshit!!!
>im le skeptic btw fukking chisdens!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.7113895]

>>7113894
>ur a fag if you don't accept my bullshit!!!

If you think that the evidence for the theory of evolution is 'bullshit', maybe you are a fag.

>im le skeptic btw fukking chisdens!!!!!!!

Not seeing the connection between my post and skepticism, but okay.

[Anonymous No.7113904]

>>7113890
Just you wait until they learn how to harness god's power and make a God Laser! You unbelievers will all be turned to dust!

For real though if there was some kind of show based on the idea that "god is everywhere" and then they found a way to harness that energy all around us into useful applications I'd watch it

[Anonymous No.7113905]

>>7113889
He's a scientist, came to the conclusion after years of research. You, not so much.

[Anonymous No.7113908]

>>7113904
>For real though if there was some kind of show based on the idea that "god is everywhere" and then they found a way to harness that energy all around us into useful applications I'd watch it

Sounds like Darkmatter2525

[Anonymous No.7113909]

>>7113895
>evidence
"i saw ting" is not evidence.

[Anonymous No.7113913]

>>7113905
I'm speaking in defense of him.

[Anonymous No.7113919]

>>7113909

[Anonymous No.7113923]

>>7113909
>"i saw ting" is not evidence.

How else are we supposed to observe things like the stratigraphic record and similarities among endogenous retroviruses in different species' genomes without our eyes?

(I'll give you that the latter example probably requires some extra technology)

[Anonymous No.7113935]

>>7113919
>i cant argue so i le meme instead
>>7113923
Your senses can't be trusted.

[Anonymous No.7113940]

>>7113923
>Your senses can't be trusted.

Lol okay, I'm in a solipsistic paradox and all of my observations are reflections on a cave wall. Interesting discussion! Goodbye.

[Anonymous No.7113977]

>>7113935
What's to argue? You say that empirical evidence isn't evidence. It's the silliest statement I've seen in a very long time.

I'll take the bait. What would it take to convince YOU?

[Anonymous No.7113978]

>>7113890
Well our system starts wars, elects presidents, and fucking controls the masses

[Anonymous No.7113984]

>>7113978
>Atheists don't start wars
>Atheists don't participate in politics (implying politics is bad)
>Atheists don't create propaganda

Checkmate.

[Anonymous No.7113988]

>>7113977
>empirical evidence is evidence becus i sed so
>>7113978
You may be retarded.

[Anonymous No.7114015]

>>7113988
Again. I'm taking the bait yet again because I'm curious what answer you'll concoct. What evidence IS actual evidence?

[Anonymous No.7114020]

>>7114015
There is no actual evidence
>bait
xddd fukkin epic m8

[Anonymous No.7114028]

>>7114020
>There is no actual evidence
Do you mean period or in this situation? Are you saying "we can't know anything, mayne"?
>It's not bait
I mean, that's fine. But i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you're a troll rather than an actual idiot.

[Anonymous No.7114035]

>>7113807
> I've felt God inside of me

Is God your creepy uncle that wants to play hide the sausage?

[Anonymous No.7114046]

>>7114028
Period
>i cant argue so ill call you le idiot trole
How pathetic.

Damn, do I hate you fucking college freshmen.

[Anonymous No.7114049]

>>7114046
>Knowledge is impossible!
>I'm not the idiot, you are!

It's been fun, m80. Real fun.

[Anonymous No.7114061]

>evidence that God exists: 0
>evidence that any supernatural deity exists: 0
>natural phenomena: almost entirely explained by scientific theories that have nothing to do with the existence of a deity

It's simple, really.

[Anonymous No.7114069]

>>7114049
Evidence is impossible you fucking illiterate.
>>7114061
Ignorance.

[Anonymous No.7114073]

>>7113780
You can believe in god, that's fine.

But what makes you an idiot or not is determined if you think he is an anthropomorphic being that interferes in human affairs, or cares if the human race goes extinct (spoilers: we will)

My main problem with deists is this. Not a single person can say there is 100% chance of a God. No one can possibly know that for sure. Now I have never seen any evidence for a God in any way shape or form, so assuming there has to be one is complete speculation.

[Anonymous No.7114074]

>>7114069
Not him, but how can knowledge be possible if evidence is not?

[Anonymous No.7114075]

>>7114069
>Evidence is impossible you fucking illiterate.

The only thing that's impossible here is you getting a job with that degree in epistemology.

[Anonymous No.7114079]

>>7114073
Are you completely unfamiliar with the concept of "faith"?

[Anonymous No.7114081]

>>7114069
>"Ignorance."
>no argument

Wow you've sure proved me wrong

[Anonymous No.7114086]

>people replying to "u cant kno nuffin"
why

[Anonymous No.7114091]

>>7114069
>Ignorance

The burden of proof is entirely on you m8.

You say ignorance, I say waiting on some solid evidence.

The difference between theists/deists and atheists is if you show me some hard evidence that a god exists, I will accept it, as I would with any other scientific theory, but if we found out that for certain there was no god, you would still make excuses about how he is undetectable or works above our realm.

You will always make excuses for your superstitious beliefs.

Atheists don't delude themselves.

[Anonymous No.7114094]

I'm this guy: >>7114061
Question for anyone who believes in deities:

If you were told that tomorrow, an alien will come to Earth and kill every person who has both index fingers, would you remove your index fingers?
If not, then why? What makes this less plausible then the existence of a deity?
If yes, then, well, I can't argue with that.

I'm just trying to understand your thinking.

>inb4 I've already cut off my index fingers
>inb4 ayy lmao

[Anonymous No.7114096]

>>7114079
I am, it's ludicrous.

[Anonymous No.7114098]

>>7114079
muh faith

[Anonymous No.7114099]

>>7114094
ayy lmao

[Anonymous No.7114103]

>>7114099
ffs

>>7114079
So answer this: >>7114094

[Anonymous No.7114104]

>>7114074
Proof, axioms.

Evidence is the midpoint between the two, and is always unobjective.
>>7114086
You illiterate little monkey, go study for your Physics I test on Monday.
>>7114091
Evidence doesn't exist.

There's already proof of a deity, you idiots ignore it because it's above your heads.

Science dogmatists need to die.
>Atheists don't delude themselves.
Yes they do, look at this thread.
>>7114094
There's proof for one, the other was spouted by some moron on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.7114109]

>>7114104
>There's already proof of a deity, you idiots ignore it because it's above your heads.

lol, a philosophy geek who actually believes in God. I'm guessing you were at the bottom of your class, right?

Let's see this proof.
>inb4 godel's ontological poof

[Anonymous No.7114110]

>>7114104
Please write down the proof, and I hope it is not the ontological argument.

[Anonymous No.7114111]

>>7114104
>Proof

noun
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

[Anonymous No.7114112]

>>7114104
>There's proof for one
What proof? You keep saying things without any justification whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.7114116]

>>7114104
>There's proof for one

[Anonymous No.7114121]

>>7114104
>There's already proof of a deity, you idiots ignore it because it's above your heads.

[Anonymous No.7114123]

>>7114094
What you people consistently neglect to take into account is the personal spiritual experience that often comes with religiousness. The sense of a higher presence washing over you, etc. That is why people have faith. That isn't proof. It doesn't have to be proof.

Anti-theism is completely useless. You go up to people of various faiths and shout "YOUR FAITH IS STUPID" and proceed to explain why it is point-by-point without ever once stopping to understand WHY that person has faith in the first place. Even if it's as simple as a coping mechanism for dealing with tragedy, the loss of loved ones, etc, it's still a reason for having faith. You love to use this "flying spaghetti monster" fallacy to show how arbitrary God is. But God isn't arbitrary. The concept is founded on spirituality. You reject that too, that's fine. There's evidence to suggest that it's all in teh brain itself. That's fine. But regardless of how it exists, it's a real experience people feel.

So why don't people believe in unicorns if htey believe in God? Because they've had no spiritual connection with unicorns.

[Anonymous No.7114125]

>>7114104
>Atheists don't delude themselves.
>Yes they do, look at this thread.

Deluding ourselves that assuming an unknowable deity, that has put forth no evidence of his existence, doesn't exist.

I think that it completely reasonable, actually.

[Anonymous No.7114126]

>>7114116
>that pic
is the perfect /sci/ pic in so many ways, i'm stealing it

[Anonymous No.7114128]

>>7114123
>What you people consistently neglect to take into account is the personal spiritual experience that often comes with religiousness

I disagree. I'm an atheist and I agree with most of what you said about anti-theism.

[Anonymous No.7114129]

RELIGION MUST BE DELETED

[Anonymous No.7114131]

>>7114111
Science dogmatist definition. Real proof is by building upon axioms with other axioms, not observations.
>>7114112
>>7114116
>>7114121
XDDDD EPIC MEMES
heres 1

m'fedora!
>>7114125
>evidence
Keep spouting that spook crap, child.

[Anonymous No.7114133]

>>7114123

Aliens spoke to me in my mind and told me that I should cut off my index finger today, lest I should be killed tomorrow upon their arrival: >>7114104

That is quite spiritual, and so I shall cut off my index fingers.

[Anonymous No.7114135]

>>7114131
Still waiting for you to write down the proof

[Anonymous No.7114136]

>>7114131
>XDDDD EPIC MEMES
>heres 1
>m'fedora!

I'm kinda glad you're trolling since that means I haven't met anyone who has sincerely written shit as stupid as what you have.

[Anonymous No.7114137]

>>7114131

[Anonymous No.7114138]

>>7114094
Purity of the source of information.

guru, sastra, sadhu
http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/gss/gss.htm

[Anonymous No.7114141]

>>7114133
K

>>7114128
Yeah, by "you people" I meant anti-theists.

[Anonymous No.7114145]

>>7114136
xdddd le trole meme i cant le argue

[Anonymous No.7114146]

>>7114123
What can religion do for you that literature can't?

Why do we need to feel that someone is watching out for us?

I get that it makes people feel good and comforted, but is religion the necessary pipeline for that?

I mean I completely understand Deism, but Christianity? Judaism? Islam?

You can use the moral guidance of the source texts but do you honestly believe that god cares what you eat, cares who you have sex with, cares what holy day you observe? Surely a rational person thinks that this is nonsense.

The biggest issue I feel is that people take these texts LITERAL in every verse and passage. I am anti-theist for this very reason.

Look at Islam for example, if you read the Qu'ran or Haidth and interpreted as a literal framework for god's plan, you will realize that Jihadists are completely justified in what they are doing. It is god's will to kill the infidel, or apostates and to unify the world in a central caliphate.

[Anonymous No.7114147]

>>7114133
>index finger
>index fingers

You aren't even consistent with yourself. Clearly you are not enlightened and thus no reason to believe you.

[Anonymous No.7114148]

>>7114141
>Yeah, by "you people" I meant anti-theists.

Works for me. I wish the term 'anti-theist' was more common since now 'atheist' has gone out of style and I have to refer to myself as an agnostic to avoid being grouped in with fedora edgelords.

[Anonymous No.7114150]

>>7114131
>Evidence
>Spook crap, child

Why are you even on /sci/?

You don't belong here.

[Anonymous No.7114151]

>>7114086
Honestly, I'm just excited to see one in the wild assuming he's not a troll. I always thought it was just a dank /sci/ meme. It's fascinating to discover they're real.

[Anonymous No.7114153]

>>7114035
>can't comment intelligently
>makes a retarded off-comment

[Anonymous No.7114155]

>>7114148
Yeah. I typically use that or "militant atheist".

[Anonymous No.7114156]

>>7114138
>hare krishna bullshit
are you serious right now?

>>7114141
So explain to me how "spiritual experience" is reliable evidence.

[Anonymous No.7114158]

>>7114153
Then try wording your comments a little better next time.

[Anonymous No.7114159]

>>7114156
>are you serious right now?
Yes. Do you think saying "bullshit" makes anything but yourself less relevant?

[Anonymous No.7114160]

>>7114150
This board should be changed and only dedicated to pure mathematics, you fucks can go over to /x/

[Anonymous No.7114162]

>>7114155
>"militant atheist"
>implying that religious people are the victims

The reason I don't like religion is that there's evidence of what it can do, of how it can ruin societies and prevent scientific progress.

[Anonymous No.7114164]

>>7114159
Okay, let me be more explicit:
Whatever that website is saying is not admissible or reliable evidence.

[Anonymous No.7114165]

>>7114156
>explain to me how "spiritual experience" is reliable evidence

Did you read my post at all? I literally said "That isn't proof. It doesn't have to be proof."
My point was that faith isn't arbitrary and I think I sufficiently made that point. It by definition is not based on evidence.

[Anonymous No.7114166]

>>7114160
Shouldn't the christfags be the one going to /x/ though?

[Anonymous No.7114170]

This is such an embarrassingly bad trolling effort. Write down the proof of god's existence already.

[Anonymous No.7114171]

>>7114162
More ignorance, adorable.

You fucks should be shot.

[Anonymous No.7114172]

>>7114164
>Whatever that website is saying is not admissible or reliable evidence.
I'm not trying to prove anything.

>If not, then why?
>I'm just trying to understand your thinking.

If you aren't this poster, then I am clearly not talking to you.

[Anonymous No.7114173]

>>7114165
You can't argue about faith, so why do you?

You will never make it sound like it makes sense to anyone who isn't a christfag.

[Anonymous No.7114174]

>>7114146
Having experienced the "presence" myself, I can assure you it's far more powerful than anything literature can produce.

>people take these text LITERAL in every verse and passage
A minority of Christians take the Bible completely literally. Almost no modern Jews take it literally. Muslims still often take the Koran literally, but that can change.

[Anonymous No.7114176]

>>7114165
>It doesn't have to be proof.
>It by definition is not based on evidence.
Then there's no reason for you not to believe in anything.
I can justify anything I want by saying that I believe in a god who is telling me to do something for the greater good.
Anyway, if you don't care about proof then why are you on /sci/?

Let me be clear:
Accepting that some deity could possibly exist is perfectly fine. I have accepted.
Believing in a specific deity with a specific set of rules, with absolutely no justification, is not what should be done by any rational mind.

[Anonymous No.7114178]

Because 'basic science' often takes decades to understand.

To accept something you don't understand is pretty fucking dumb.

The only thing I can readily think of as dumber is someone not understanding that.

How can 100% of OP's in this thread reject basic common sense?

Suck my big brown scientific dick OP.

[Anonymous No.7114180]

>>7114171
>more claims without justification
I'm starting to see a trend here

>>7114172
I AM that poster. I thought I would at least get a logical justification, but you have literally told me that you don't have a justification.

[Anonymous No.7114182]

>>7114174
>A minority of Christians take the Bible completely literally

30% of Americans doesn't sound like a minority to me, m8.

[Anonymous No.7114187]

>>7114173
I'm not fucking trying to. I was replying to >>7114094. The post implied that religion is arbitrary. That it's just as sensical to worship the flying spaghetti monster as it is to worship God. Specifically, I made an argument to answer >>7114103 as I am the one who made >>7114079. My point, which I made blatantly clear, and I'm saying once again, for THE THIRD TIME, is that faith is not arbitrary. Faith is based on spirituality, based on personal experience. It's completely possible that it's all in the mind, but it's a real experience nonetheless. I am not trying to "make sense" of faith. I'm telling you it's not fucking arbitrary.

I have no intention of repeating myself for a 4th time.

[Anonymous No.7114188]

>>7114180
You didn't even visit the page.

[Anonymous No.7114191]

>>7114188
you mean the hare krishna site?
I did, and it was idiotic babbling.

>>7114187
So you're saying the basis of religion is personal religious experience.
Then whatever personal experience I have (including hallucinations brought on by drugs, mental disorders, or obsession) can be used to justify anything, right? What if I have a dream about the aliens mentioned earlier in the thread? Should I cut off my index finger? Should I cut off other people's index fingers?

[Anonymous No.7114193]

>>7114176
You are no understanding my argument, and I honesty don't know how I could possibly make it any clearer. Spiritual experiences aren't quantifiable evidence. They aren't "proof". BUT that does in no way negate their personal effect on the individual, and as such, they are a reason for an individual to have faith.

>>7114182
>30% of Americans is 30% of Christians
Moreover, actual=/=literal. You can speak in ACTUAL metaphors. No protestant believes that wine and bread actually turn into blood and flesh in one's mouth.

[Anonymous No.7114194]

itt

[Anonymous No.7114196]

>>7114191
>I did
What did it say? Can you not parse simple sentences?

[Anonymous No.7114200]

>>7114191
>Drugs
Which are closely related with Shamanism in early religion. So yes, they are just as "valid" as other spiritual reasons.

>Should I cut off other people's index fingers?
Of course not. This is a secular society. You have personal civil liberties. This argument is silly. Saying "this is why people have faith. it's not just random" does not, in any way, mean "all religious activity is justified".

[Anonymous No.7114202]

>>7114196
I didn't say I couldn't understand it, I said it was idiotic.

[Anonymous No.7114204]

>>7114200
So then you are willing to place the values of our "secular society" above those of your religion?

Does that not void your religion, or at least make you a nonbeliever?

[Anonymous No.7114205]

>>7114202
You didn't understand it. You didn't even read it.

[Anonymous No.7114212]

>>7114204
You're being irrational. If a society comes together, all under a religion and decides they want to have a theocracy, then that's their prerogative. We here in the west have decided not to do that. We've decided to place civil liberties above other people's religious beliefs.

>Does that void your religion?
How should I know? My religion has no commandment to hurt the rights of others.

[Anonymous No.7114218]

>>7114146
And here you are starting to hit on the correct issue regarding Christian beliefs in the USA.

There are very few that think the people running the USA are unintelligent. However those same people are motivated by a very very strong belief system.

Those of you who have even tried to look at the issues involving the middle east and our continual war on terrorwill have to conclude its NOT about oil and its only RECENTLY been about terrorism.

We all are aware it was a Saudi wahabist group that attacked the USS Cole, yet SOMEONE used this act to justify perma-war against the middle east, which just happens to stand squarely against the belief in just one prophet 'jesus'.

These /sci/ arguments are more important than you can imagine, the self confidence and self-belief that come from religion AND perpetual victory are going to take us up against Russia, and maybe thats the right thing to do..

[Anonymous No.7114224]

>>7114205
>"Saintly person means who confirms the Vedic injunction, who accepts. And scripture means what is accepted by the saintly person. And spiritual master means who follows the scriptures. So things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. This is axiomatic truth."
this is not a proof of any sort.

>My religion has no commandment to hurt the rights of others
Is your religion not a proselytizing faith? Then I am fine with it, as long as it doesn't impede progress, and as long as you are a rational and level-headed citizen. Good night.

[Anonymous No.7114226]

>>7114218
>Those of you who have even tried to look at the issues involving the middle east and our continual war on terrorwill have to conclude its NOT about oil and its only RECENTLY been about terrorism.

The conflict there has always been territorial/political with a few outliers actually focusing on primarily the religious aspect.

Terrorism isn't a cause, it's a tactic.

[Anonymous No.7114229]

>>7114224
>this is not a proof of any sort.
Of course not. It's an axiom. So you DO have trouble parsing sentences.

[Anonymous No.7114234]

>>7114229
I meant that it does not prove your faith is correct, or even consistent.

[Anonymous No.7114235]

>>7114218
Religion can be used as justification for violence, it's true. But it's completely fallacious to imply that there wouldn't be as much violence without religion. The underlying or up-front causes of war are rarely religious. Nationalism, ideology, economic and economic reasons are all tremendously more common, and almost always when religion is used as an explanation, it used as an excuse to distract against the issues above.

[Anonymous No.7114241]

>>7114234
>I meant that it does not prove your faith is correct, or even consistent.
You weren't asking me to prove that. I take it you were lying when you said you actually wanted to understand, then?

[Anonymous No.7114248]

>>7114241
>wanted to understand
I wanted to understand your justification for your faith.
Now I understand that you literally do not want to have one.

[Anonymous No.7114253]

>>7114248
Not him, but personal justification does not require proof. Though I haven't been following your convo, so I might be missing something.

[Anonymous No.7114255]

>>7114248
>I wanted to understand your justification for your faith.
Then you need to learn how to better express yourself. What you asked is not what you meant.

[Anonymous No.7114258]

>>7114235
oops
>economic and economic
Should be "economic and political"

[Anonymous No.7114260]

>>7114255
I'm sorry, I thought that because we are on the
>science and mathematics board
people posting on here would be willing to provide logical justification for their ideas. It seems I was mistaken.

[Anonymous No.7114266]

>>7114260
>people posting on here would be willing to provide logical justification for their ideas.
I presented no ideas.

You asked why someone would believe one person, and not another, in regards to statements of faith. I answered.

[Anonymous No.7114268]

>>7114260
The direction of a conversation sometimes stray from pure science and mathematics.

[Anonymous No.7114272]

>>7114268
If ever you find yourself not providing logical justification for your thoughts, decisions, and actions,
then you are probably not cut out to be a scientist or mathematician.

[Anonymous No.7114275]

>>7113660
Because it is socially acceptable to be irrational in america.

/thread

[Anonymous No.7114279]

>>7114266
If you are willing to accept your justification, then by all means do so.
Might I suggest you go to a different board, then?

[Anonymous No.7114284]

>>7114272
Someone's personal reasoning for faith has no bearing on their ability to engage in science or mathematics.

[Anonymous No.7114287]

>>7114279
Suggest away. It's as useless as your ability to understand. Don't ask questions you don't want answered.

[Anonymous No.7114291]

>>7114287
Okay, now I will ask a question I want answered.

Do you have a logical justification for your faith? Just say yes or no. If no, then you should not be on this board.

[Anonymous No.7114294]

>>7114291

>>7114284

[Anonymous No.7114383]

>>7114291
>Do you have a logical justification for your faith?
Of course not. Faith is inherently irrational.

>you should not be on this board.
I don't start troll threads. I didn't ask the question. Why did you post in a troll thread if you didn't want to talk about faith? Why do you KEEP posting in troll thread if you don't want troll threads on /sci/?

You're being irrational.