It's disrespectful to say theists are wrong because science has an alternative, proven answer

>it's disrespectful to say theists are wrong because science has an alternative, proven answer
>why do i live in a world of idiots

Other urls found in this thread:

nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

You are a victim of the sin of pride

The overwhelming majority of the people believe in religion.
The overwhelming majority of people also believe in the holocaust.

PROTIP : the overwhelming majority of people are below 115IQ, which is the cutoff for humanhood status.

he's not being proud he's saying why is it bad t say something isn't true if it isn't true?

I just feel like... If I was god, I'd just swoop down to earth to prove to the Billions of people I've created that I'm real, I'd also say I supported Trump and watch the shills crumble en masse.

ah yes i am totally 'proud' for not believing in lies and bullshit

>proven
saged

you don't even know which principal he was talking about. for example, he could have been talking about the age of the earth or adaptation.

which are proven

>He believes in objective truth

You are the idiot if you think modern (((science))) is any different to religion. Remember what happened to James Watson, Nobel prize winning chemist who presented evidence of biological racial differences? He was branded a heathen and cast out of (((science))) for all eternity.

objective truth doesn't require belief

yeah but he was still correct, science and the scientific establishment are different

this

>atheist intellectuals

one who accepts science also accepts that we're all humans and mistakes are made

one who blindly believes science is just as bad as a theist

critical thinking is part of science, not of religion

ad hominem
>christcuck: You disagree? Well it sounds to me like you have a personality flaw.
>me: ad hom
>Christcuck: no, I didn't attack the speaker, it was the bible
>me: already deflecting?

>i have definitive, indisputable proofs to the nonexistence of God.
Well? Go on.

only belief can lead you to truth

*tips fedora*

>conflating science as a field of study with science as a body of scientists

>strawman argument

no, repeatable testable parameters lead to truth. belief doesn't tell me how my crossbreed anacondas will look (I'm a herpetologist) but genetics does!

>engages in ad hom
>also, action *s? Gotta go back.

>tfw to intelligent to believe in anything not proven rigorously through mathematics
>to intelligent for axioms

Stop throwing around this overused words, im not here to discuss with you, im here to look down on your immoral ass.

>science has a PROVEN alternative answer
>n-no I didn't mean science can prove anything, that's a straw man
Wtf is wrong with you?

The reality of god isn't about believe, its about understanding

it's impossible to disprove or prove supernatural, that's why it's called super natural, it's beyond the natural world, science can only prove observable thing

>because science has an alternative, proven answer
There are people on Sup Forums RIGHT NOW who actually believe this.

Modern science has issues. Extremely serious ones. In particular, p-value hacking and a reproducibility crisis. Until those are addressed, any 'truth' it propagates is as reliable as a roulette wheel.

alternative answer to something in religion, he didn't say god directly, could've meant the creation, evolution, etc

>use *tip fedora*
>"Stop throwing around this overused words"

Joke aside, you retards have no hope to influence anything important, and will not be able to stop your slaughter.
Be sure to savour your hopelessness when you choke on your blood, in two to four decades.

if you combine research with fucking logic i think you could be a whole lot damn closer to the objective truth than some 2000 year old book

Evolution doesn't disprove religion. The two can exist together. Goes against certain parts of the bible. Also evolution hasn't been proven. It just seems likely to be true based on what we know so far

So where is the proven alternative answer?

yes...yes it fucking has been proven I'm a god damn zoologist stop this meme

the "theory" is how evolution and adaptation happens, ie; what triggers it, not whether or not it happens, that much is a principle.

If science did combine research with logic, they might.

yknow I don't know how to respond to these threads, I love this board but as a scientist it amazes me how fucking stupid you all can be.

how bout this, ask questions, get answers, okay? I'll answer whatever stump questions you have, hopefully I can clear some things up.

>Google it, evidence of evolution
>Google it, evidence of the age of the earth not being merely a couple thousand years old

Okay Mr. Scientist, explain how I have to accept science as truth when meta research continuously shows that an extremely large percentage of results are not reproducible. Well known examples are 60% in psychology and 90% in biology. These aren't obscure fringe papers either. It included groundbreaking cancer research in respected papers.

nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

I have a very strong background in statistics and it baffles me how easily people are fooled by the Holy Grail of "significance at the 5% level". It literally doesn't mean jack shit yet it is all you need to get your agenda accepted as undisputed fact.

This isn't a conspiracy but scientists simply aren't some separate race of magically honest people. They are humans, driven by incentives like anyone else. They are pushed to aim for publications and since a) conclusive results get publications more easily and b) many papers do not publish replications, the replication crisis is a natural result. Do not think your field is excluded. They all have a problem.

It is an absolute crisis and something the scientific community needs to deal with right fucking now. If you truly are a scientist you should know this, or you're dangerously naive.

short answer is you don't, if you can't reproduce it, it isn't valid. as I said, science is different from the scientific community. if people weren't so damn lazy they'd be able to find holes in data very easily

I absolutely agree, however you're conflating my statement. You see, I'm frustrated over the lack of belief in rather concrete tried and tested principles that I tend to run into, an unwillingness to adapt. not that these people don't blindly listen to every tom who has a masters degree

also psychology is hardly science. and human biology is some of the most mine field woo woo throw a pin see if it sticks horseshit on the earth. of course those percentages are high!

but...to focus on that gives so little credit to what real science can do, penicillin, antivenin, artificial satellites, nuclear bombs, agriculture. water purification, radio imagery, the list goes on and on.

Murder isn't always wrong

The reason I believe in a God/Creator is because the odds of this being a randomly generated universe/reality that is governed by rules and laws such as those that science has discovered seems very unlikely. I find the God/Creator theory to be more plausible, than this being randomly generated.

small, yup, but when you get infinite chances it becomes a 100% chance so...yeah for every universe like ours, uncountable ones collapsed on themselves moments after the initial expansion, or they never got the right dimensions for fundamental forces to form. or they simply were too large and couldn't sustain matter.

my point is that according to our current calculations, universes happen all the time and ours was just one of the ones that actually happened in an extended state. lucky..sure, but then again there is a 1 in 90 billion chance that you would be born given human history.

>I absolutely agree, however you're conflating my statement. You see, I'm frustrated over the lack of belief in rather concrete tried and tested principles that I tend to run into, an unwillingness to adapt. not that these people don't blindly listen to every tom who has a masters degree
Fair enough. I'm just frustrated that blindly listening to every Tom with a Masters degree seems to be what's expected of me and any (valid) objection to that is 'anti-science'.
Experience shows that many results are false so I have a hard time taking them at face value.
>but...to focus on that gives so little credit to what real science can do, penicillin, antivenin, artificial satellites, nuclear bombs, agriculture. water purification, radio imagery, the list goes on and on.
My issue isn't with its accomplishments and no one is denying the value of penicillin. My issue is with the regard of scientific results as fact. Very similarly to the church, we are asked to accept and not ask questions. That is what people mean when they say 'science is simply a new religion'. Something with an error rate that high doesn't deserve such a status. Then of course there is the media running wild with their headlines making it worse, but that's a whole separate issue. As a rule of thumb it is wise to regard any pop science as false and any real science with a healthy dose of skepticism. But in this society, that makes me a dumb climate change denying redneck Christian stuck in the 17th century, even though I'm none of those things.

I tend to agree with your stances, all I'm saying is that when one can continually demonstrate an effect, principle, etc. then it's boorish for people to claim that it isn't true in spite of insurmountable evidence to the contrary. that's all.

Then we are in agreement and we can move on to another thread

yes, I must admit, I was hoping for less educated individuals to respond so I could actually help clear some misconceptions.

>because science has an alternative, proven answer
And the "proven" answer is:

There was a big explosion exactly 13.8 billion years ago and it created time.
And if you ask "so, what was before that explosion?", the question is wrong, because there is not "before", because there was no such thing as "time", "before" it.

Oh, and don't forget that there is something like anti-matter. Why do we know that it exists? Because our calculations of the whole mass of the universe would be wrong if it wouldn't be there.
So we just concluded that there is some "non-matter-thingy" which you can't measure.

Oh, and also remember that the chance that we live in a big computer simulation is nearly 1.

idk mate, but if you ask me, this whole shit sounds VERY spiritual and super natural to me.
Basically science is the reason why i believe more in the concept of god now.

Someone should start a Christian thread

>combine research with fucking logic
Science believes in anti-matter and an explosion which created time and you want to explain this with LOGIC?

It is impossible for the human brain to think about a "time" without "time".... just like it is impossible for us to imagine a new colour.
The human brain is limited to it's own observations and experiences — basic logic doesn't apply to todays science.

Anti-matter isn't anywhere near matter in our universe somehow.

However it has been observed to see, in areas of space where there is absolutely no observable matter: With extreme observations, it was found that matter was popping into existence randomly, along with it's antimatter counterpart, and than instantly cancelling each other back into nothingness.

How matter came into being without cancelling itself out as it was created is a mystery.

All matter has an anti-matter. In fact matter can come from nothing but technically, it also cannot, as was observed, as long as matter and anti-matter is so, technically no more matter than already existed was created because it is cancelled by it's anti-matter counterpart.

> just pops into existence somehow
I really don't understand how people who claim to believe in science claim at the same time that there is nothing spiritual or super natural at all.

That would be a disservice to you.

because spiritual and supernatural are dead words, they dont have any meaning. Why try to use them in the first place? Its like someone calling the universe a god, why would you do that, we already have the word universe that doesnt carry a shit load of baggage with it unlike the word god that assumes a lot of stupid shit and has millions of different meanings.

As far as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church are concerned, everything sciences proves as fact is accpted by the Church.

He didnt present shit he just gave his opinion
>Cast out of science for all eternity
Last time I checked he is still in every biology book and still has his nobel.

You really need to read more about religions, desu.

It seems like you are talking about something you don't even cared to research for 5min.
Just for your information:
There are even religions without the concept of god.

You can't just claim that religion is just about a man in the sky.
Don't be like one of those 12 year old braindead atheists.
> lol, it is not possible that Noahs Ark was big enough for all animals! This is the prove! The whole concept of Christianity and ALL religions are wrong!

Thats exectly why atheism doesnt make sense because it gives u nothing about something we dont understand
We all function on a set of biases that rnt provable so why do atheist keep on refuting something that they cant disprove

why would i research something that hasnt been demonstrated to be anything more than a fairytale.

i dont really care what a religion believes in as long as it something that can be demonstrated, supernatural cannot be demonstrated by definition, but do tell me how you define "spiritual" and how its an actual thing and not just a matter of opinion and personal experience.

they dont, they keep telling people that they dont have a good reason to believe this bullshit and instead of providing good reasons or evidence religious just go "you cant disprove god" which is 100% dishonest and fallacious.

What if God is anti-matter?

>as long as it something that can be demonstrated, supernatural cannot be demonstrated by definition
So how can you demonstrate a "time" without "time", like science believes? How can you demonstrate anti-matter?

Science gets more fucked up every day. They are already in a realm the human mind isn't able to comprehend.
Just like you are not able to imagine a new colour, you are not able to imagine a universe without time and you are not able to imagine the "fairytales" of religion.

Damn, most atheists even believe in the possibility that we live in some alien computer simulation.... But no.... god is impossible!

Grow up already.
Most people grow out of atheism when they are 15.

Most of thefaith just is trying to explain you why u should live like they tell u to
so first what u should do is destroy value system that faith imposes

well we experience time and anti-matter can be created, maybe not by us 2 but with a particle accelerator.
>Science gets more fucked up every day.
Science moves forward every day. Just because you dont understand it doesnt make it wrong or god real (argument from ignorance).

You also seem to not even understand the atheist position, us being a computer simulation is also a claim that needs to be demonstrated before it should be believed by anyone.
So how about you grow up and let go of childish things, like you did with santa.

Im not really sure why you brought up faith, you think atheists have faith? because i agree that faith is stupid.

>religious just go "you cant disprove god" which is 100% dishonest and fallacious
So, i will ask it again.... the 3rd time in this thread:
How do you imagine a new colour?
How do you imagine a time without "time"?
How do you imagine anti-matter?
You are not able to do this.... and this is what science believes... but you think that you would be able to imagine a god or prove god if he exists?

This is the most fucked up and stupid argument atheists have.

>well we experience time and anti-matter can be created, maybe not by us 2 but with a particle accelerator.
No, we don't!
The whole concept about anti-matter is just:
> Here, we witnessed something we can't explain with our current calculations, so we just claim that there is something like anti-matter, so that our calculations are correct again.

>You also seem to not even understand the atheist position, us being a computer simulation is also a claim that needs to be demonstrated before it should be believed by anyone.
It's also a claim which is not possible to prove... just like religion.

>Just because you dont understand it doesnt make it wrong or god real
And you just constructed a strawman. Because i never claimed that this would be a prove that god is real.

What i said, is:
There are things in science which the human mind isn't able to comprehend.... so if god exists, this would be the case with god too.
You can't just argue with "logic", because if you just believe in things your "logic" can understand, then it's impossible for you to believe in the big bang.

A time without time isn't logical for the human brain. You just have some calculations which claim that, but it is not logic.

Do you even know what anti-matter is? give it a fucking google search, its suprisingly simple.

You shouldnt believe ANY claim that is not possible to prove, you are the one making claims here.

>this is what science believes
gotta be honest made me giggle.

>You shouldnt believe ANY claim that is not possible to prove
So you shouldn't believe that there was a time without time.

>its suprisingly simple
Yes, it's simple:
> hey guys, our calculations don't add up, lets introduce something like anti-matter, because without it, our calculations would be wrong.

>>this is what science believes
>gotta be honest made me giggle.
Actually atheists believe that science would disprove religion or that something is wrong just because they are not able to imagine it (and that's where they contradict themself).

ITT: People don't know the difference between the concepts of divinity and religion.

Religion is a man made system and cannot be used as an explanation to why God does not exist. It can be used as an example to why organized religion is batshit crazy.

Believing God does not exist because it's existence cannot be proved is an appeal to ignorance.
Believing God exists because it's existence cannot be disproved is, as already mentioned, an argument from ignorance.

>So you shouldn't believe that there was a time without time.
Who sayd i did? You did, stop putting words in my mouth.

Anti-matter can be demonstrated, what the fuck you on about.

>Actually atheists believe
The sentence is already wrong but im gonna keep reading

Ok you really misunderstand what atheism is, atheists dont try to disprove god, they ask for proof that one exists and it is YOU who doesnt understand science which is why you think so little of it. What anyone is able to imagine has absolutely nothing to do with what is true.

>>to say theists are wrong because science has an alternative, proven answer

"What is being retarded"

You seem to be quite the scientific type. Can you please explain how I can trust scientific results with all the replication bullshit going? I outlined the details in Thanks. Always happy to learn.

Oh and please take the time to read the Nature article in full. It's important.

>Reading the bible unironically
Wow you must be smart goy. You said it yourself science has proven answers.

Imagining is easy. I can imagine stuff, including new colors. My imagination may differ from reality, be symbolic to a degree (new colour likely won't be a new colour at all, but some uncommon shade of color known to me, even if not by name) but I am able to conceptualize something being there. It's actually what most people do in regards to religion - an argument of being unable to imagine or prove existence of God they ignore, deciding to believe instead.

You commit yourself to flawed logic. The fact something cannot be proven or disproven doesn't mean it exists. Science makes all kinds of hypothesis but they only become a theory or established fact if proven. Thus, that "most fucked and stupid argument" actually holds water. You can imagine God, just not figure out how one would exactly work without leaps of logic - otherwise, God would be proven and a status we'd aspire to right now.

We know there are colors we do not perceive because we were able to find out what makes a colour, then we were able to find out how we recognize a colour on account of certain physical properties, how our perception is limited in comparison to what it could be and that there are things we'd see, but we don't, if those limitations would be lifted. With God, we don't even have that.

>It's also a claim which is not possible to prove... just like religion.
Which I believe is exactly the user's point though I believe I disagree on "provability" of it - we lack resources necessary but with advancements, as we will be able to test and push the limits of reality and what canbe done with it, we'll be also able to check if it's a simulation. It's a hypothesis worth consideration but you shouldn't follow it till it can be proven.

Fun thing is, I am a believer. But anons ITT commit a really retarded mistake of leaving the aspect of faith and trying to argue existence of God from the standpoint of objective regard for facts of our reality - and here we ARE at a disadvantage.

Because in the world of uncertainties where little is known for sure everybody functions with faith
U cant fuction with bias without believing it represnt some truth and without bias u cant fuction because ur left with uncertainty without decision to make

>Who sayd i did? You did, stop putting words in my mouth.
You did say:
> You shouldn't believe ANY claim that is not possible to prove
But out of the context i am totally sure that you believe the Big Bang Theory and that there was a time without time.

> atheists dont try to disprove god, they ask for proof that one exists
No, that's wrong.
Atheism are people who believe that ALL religions are wrong. This isn't even just based on the concept of god. Because there are religions without something like god (like i said before).

>What anyone is able to imagine has absolutely nothing to do with what is true.
But this is EXACTLY what i am trying to say! Thats why i am talking abou it here! Don't you get it that you suddenly agree with me?
You are the one who is believing that every religion is just a fairytale, because you just can't imagine it.
YOU are the one who claimed tried to say that religion is full of shit because religious people say that you can't just imagine or even prove god Just like we wouldn't be able to prove it if we would live in an simulation and just like you are not able to prove that there was a time without time.

The universal response of theists who have no argument.

You are just implying that you maybe can't imagine something but you can accept and totally believe that it's there.
Thats not contradicting with what i said.
Thats actually exactly what religion is about.

>I believe I disagree on "provability" of it
Then this is not atheism. Because a real athist is believing that religion is wrong. It's not just someone who says:
"I am not sure if it is true or not, i just need proof before i believe anything"

But the problem is that the concept of religion is that you can't prove it if it's true — just like the computer simulation theory.... it's just not possible to prove it.
And it's not possible to prove that there was a time without time, so you won't believe in the big bang too, right?

So that whole "i won't believe anything without proof" viewpoint is very limitied, because you wouldn't be able to believe in the theories of modern science too.

>le ebin bait thread

>alternative, proven answer
lol wut

What "proven" answer has science? "which" science has disproven religion? What method were used?
Science isn't just singular it's sundry of areas of knowledge, so I'm interested to know what you're refering to in specific?

>he sanctifies a methodology.
Uh dude, Catholics were practicing science while you were still beating each other over the heads with chunks of iron strapped to sticks.

First of all you cant just trust any news articles you see, a discovery is often written about all over and verified by several sources. Some of them you can just test yourself.

time before the big bang has not been demonstrated, as far as we know time is tied to space, where we get the word, spacetime. if everything was condenced into an infinetly small point there was no space, hence no time.
so in conclusion, i dont know if there was time before the big bang, it could be nonsensical to even say "before the big bang".

>Atheism are people who believe that ALL religions are wrong
the actual definitios is "lack of belief in god". Also you should realise that not believing a religion is true is NOT the same as believing its false, those are 2 different claims.

>You are the one who is believing
see above
>YOU are the one who claimed tried to say that religion is full of shit
im not claiming that as an absolute fact, im just saying it becuse it puts things in your head that you dont have a good reason to believe.

This. Only dum-dums who haven't educated themselves refers to science in singular. It's amusing how it's always the neckbeard who never spends time engaging in science himself always thinks that he magically recieved an epiphany with all the answers to why religion is wrong, while most of his ideas are often just syllogisms and fallacies.

forgot to include

Hope you never need a PET scan at a hospital. It might not work for you, if belief is a necessary condition for existance.

>You are just implying that you maybe can't imagine something but you can accept and totally believe that it's there.
And I have not problem with that part. I disagree with, however, arguing that ability to believe something is enough to prove existence of it. It's understandable urge as we want what we believe to be true to be facts - but in this case, we have no facts.

>Then this is not atheism.
Good. Where did I state I am an atheist? In the very post you quote I actually said something to the contrary.

I may have you misled by arguing for points of someone not believing what I do. Maybe it's weird but I decide that my belief is my own subjective take on how I hope the world functions while still being aware that my hopes, no matter how solid are just hopes and treating them as facts is unwise, even if it'd be much more comforting.

>But the problem is that the concept of religion is that you can't prove it if it's true — just like the computer simulation theory.
Yes and no. It cannot be proven now despite it fitting well with what we know, that's why scientists consider it a hypothesis, not a proven theory. Same with God - it's a hypothesis, one I indulge, but anons ITT and people in general, because they feel the need to make it as if it'd be already a confirmed truth (as alternative provides considerable chance we're wrong) treat it not even just as a confirmed theory but an established fact - which is simply wrong.

>So that whole "i won't believe anything without proof" viewpoint is very limitied, because you wouldn't be able to believe in the theories of modern science too.
No one here I think argues that you cannot believe without proof. Proof is important for your belief and actions stemming from it to have a leg to stand on when contested, but you can believe all kinds of things without that proof. I may decide to believe in God because that's a take on reality that I find good and helpful to me, but I won't argue my belief as a fact.

Thanks for the strawman, burger.

>however, arguing that ability to believe something is enough to prove existence of it.
Strawman. I never said that.
I don't even know how you can think that i would say something like that.

>Good. Where did I state I am an atheist?
Wonderful, then i guess we don't disagree with each other at all.

>No one here I think argues that you cannot believe without proof
Then this is where i misunderstood you.
I actually thought that would imply that you don't believe anything which cannot be proven, which would mean that you don't believe in a very large list of theories of modern science.

>the actual definitios is "lack of belief in god"
Oh, then i guess you need to tell that your fellow atheists ;)
Because this means that you can be a Taoist (as long as it's not a branch where they believe that Tao is god) AND an atheist.
Actually, it would even mean that follower of old taoism in fact ARE atheists.

Thats actually very interisting.

>Also you should realise that not believing a religion is true is NOT the same as believing its false, those are 2 different claims.
Yes, i know. Thats i wanted to point out that nearly every Atheist i know are believing that it's false.

>im not claiming that as an absolute fact
It seems that i need some proof for your claim, dear science guy.

ok, i need to sleep a bit, too many typos here.

See you in the next atheist thread :)

In my 24 years, the worst people I've met are atheists. For example Christians, like Mormons or ((Jehova witnessess)) tries to convert you. Some of them tried to convert me, but I explained that I'm Orthodox and I have my own faith and wished them look. They just listened, had some small discussion and it was over. But atheists. They always look at you like you some kind of moron. Always tries to points out "if god exists, why there wars" and other shit that doesn't make any sense with beliefs.

>First of all you cant just trust any news articles you see,
I'm not talking about news articles. I'm talking about scientific articles. The very building block of the ever-expanding knowledge. The ones that are supposedly 'peer reviewed' and have statistical standards. The ones that are in turn used as references for future articles. If those are wrong so often, how can I trust anything that comes out of that community?

>a discovery is often written about all over and verified by several sources. Some of them you can just test yourself.
This is completely false. A paper is written by one or several authors. Sure, all your pop science news sites will all check if the paper actually exists, but who checks if its contents are correct? The answer is nobody. And in a staggeringly high number of cases, it isn't.

Honest question: How do you think 'science' works? Like, suppose you are an accredited professor with a tenure at a university and you discover something new. What do you think happens next?

...

You can't disprove the existence of mermaids and fairies either. I hate using this, but if you use the 'well you can't disprove my beliefs, so it must be true', I have to.

It makes more sense to not believe in something unless good evidence is given to you rather than blindly believing stories.

Some believe the possibility exists because we can simulate the universe as well. That's not as bizarre and illogical as some magical being in the sky.