/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3747604

>"No" or "Yes"
>Unsupported statements.
>Prove something.

What happened to /sci/?

>>3747592

>you either do or you don't

>>3747574

>The way your brain functions is more so in the sense of accepting things on a percentage of probability level, contingent upon various other factors/premises that also have various likelihood of being true or false.

>>3747578

I can't help but wonder what compels your kind to bother typing out those kinds of responses.

>>3747534

Sigh. People really need to think about what it means to "believe" something. Belief is not a "yes" or "no" switch that exists inside your mind. The way your brain functions is more so in the sense of accepting things on a percentage of probability level, contingent upon various other factors/premises that also have various likelihood of being true or false. Whether or not a person says "I believe this doesn't exist", or "I don't have a strong affirmative belief in this concept", doesn't change the actual reality of the physical processes taking place. The only substantial case might be when someone says something like, "I know that God doesn't exist, and I believe we are capable of knowing for 100% certainty that God doesn't". But it's erroneous to assume that all people who self-identify as atheists adhere to that definition, and essentially, this guy has it right:
>>3747517

Absolute nothingness doesn't exist. That's why there's shit, and not nothing. If it was possible for nothingness to be all that there was then there wouldn't be shit. But there is shit, so it's impossible. The only shit that's possible is the shit that is, everything else is just a bunch of bullshit.

>>3051539
>>3051539
>>3051676
>>3051676

>>3052025

"Science" - a mode of ascertaining knowledge, cannot overstep bounds, only people using it can, just like they can do so with anything else.

>>2975791
>>2975810

You guys are so intelligent and so quick to impart your knowledge to others. I'm sure you will be of great benefit to society.

>>2895622

>You don't understand, having a college (or graduate) degree shows you are part of a certain social class.

No, I do understand all of that, I just don't care. Being all outgoing and looking for social recognition isn't for everyone. But if that's what you want to do, go ahead.

(doesn't mean the system we have in place isn't a huge waste though, either)

http://www.youtube.com/dontgotocollege

Waste of money. Inefficient. Capitalism + Education is a bad combination. Pretty much anything I could think of that I would want to learn, I could learn by picking up a book.

I don't use it.

But it should be legalized and regulated.

Everyone knows this already.

Curb/end suffering, raise the quality of life for all living creatures, and create a universal utopia, through transhumanism and virtual reality.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&q=how+much+electricity+does+human+body
+generate&aq=2v&aqi=g-v3g-j2&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&f
p=6deeaf27face788f

>>2795854

This gentleman is also somewhat correct. Moreso in that it can prove that the contrary is true to certain claims of specific religions, when those claims happen to involve testable ideas.

Because science is a mode of testing/observing/demonstrating empirical knowledge.

Philosophy, however, can point out that all knowledge is either rational or empirical, and that there is no understanding that isn't causal understanding, regardless of the possibility that acausality could even exist. The end result is that the concept of faith is either complete nonsense, or just a blind shot in the dark.

>>2795737

>You greentexted and acted as though you couldn't understand the word aspire.

Again, no I didn't. Work on your reading comprehension.

>>2795747

Yes, you're absolutely right. There are no non sequiturs here. I can only expect so much from a thread rife with religious logic.

>>2795715

>You can't even define the word aspire.

What the hell are you talking about? I never in this thread attempted to define "aspire", nor did I make any statements insinuating anything about the definition of the word. That's completely irrelevant to any of the content of either of those posts.

>>2795693

>someone says something stupid
>post level-headed, logical response
>must be butthurt

Yes sir, everyone who ever refuted any point in the history of anything, ever - they were all just "butthurt".

>>2795647

>You're a grown man, why the fuck do you still waste half your life posting on 4chan?

>post on 4chan
>complain about others posting on 4chan

>The most half-assed stupid, useless religious person is likely contributing at least twice what you are to society and their fellow man.

>wild conjecture
>assumes that if someone posts on 4chan, that must be all that they do, and that the miniscule aspect of OP that you have been exposed to is enough to come to any kind of conclusion about his lifestyle
>false dichotomies
>implying it took the slightest amount of time or effort to post this thread to troll you

>Get off your high horse, OP
>irony

>you are nothing to aspire to be.
>nothing to aspire to be
>wat

>>2795578

>don't you think God loves people on /sci/, and would send one of His own here to preach to you?

You can't use unreason to convince someone who only believes in rational and empirical knowledge that it is possible to acquire knowledge outside of those modes, and you can't use reason to convince someone to believe in something that isn't based on reason, all the while claiming that reason isn't valid, or isn't the only objective system of determining the value of an idea.

>>Capitalism surviving past 2030
>NOPE.jpg

That's incredibly optimistic of you.

>>2795540

This. If anyone really believed any of this "Herp derp you just gotta have faith" horse shit, they wouldn't bother wasting their time trying to convince /sci/.

>>2795276

Calling something a cop out is not an argument. The onus is on you to explain to me why it's a bad analogy. I think it's a perfectly good one.

>>2795239

>Education
Which happens to be socially sheltering, sexually repressing, discourages critical thinking, free expression, and open-ended interpretation/analysis of the Bible/religion.

>Jesus did all the heavy lifting
He did the most willful self-delusion? Okay, no problem here.

>A system dominated by godless secular humanists
Well yes. But no. All of our information about those things is no separate from the evolving body of knowledge that includes biology, math, and everything else that is taught in public high schools. It's purely arbitrary for things to be as they are. There's no ethics taught in schools as it is, and no religion, so thing are already pretty "secular". Some schools offer optional world religions that explain many religions in an objective, non-biased way. Your argument sort of assumes that this can't be done with philosophy, or that there is no objective system of logic with which to determine the value of a philosophy, or that said logic is somehow evil, or something to that effect.

>not our words, His. and He is the only one with a vote.
Sooo, follow blindly, and don't question?