Share experiences you had with retarded people

There is a sharp difference between science, which is a methodology to discover the truth about nature, and religion, which is basically saying "le god is real and this is not disputable XD"

The reason i trust scientists is not only rational, it is irrational to dispute science when you live in a society that is dependent on technology which exists only as a result of science.

I find it ironic that you are trying to dismiss science while communicating with me through a device that could not exist without scientific research.

It's true that transportation of data has issues of trust and accuracy, which is why every scientific claim is being researched by multiple different scientific institution. nothing is taken for guaranteed, and everything has to be questioned in order to find the truth.

And by the way, your claim that "nothing anyone believes is true" is not only a false statement, it's also self contradictory, because if nothing people believe in is true, then your own statement isn't true either

>Share experiences you had with retarded people
i read the OP

maybe you are the retarded one when you act like a retard?

>you can't proof that god exist
people 3000years couldn't proof that the earth is round... stop ruling out the possibility of a creator until we can proof one side right (or wrong).
right now we just don't know the truth so the possibility is still there.

but i agree that religion is human made bullshit.

"Incredible claims require incredible evidence"

If you have no evidence there is a space wizard who does hocus pocus and listens to prayers, you have no basis to make this claim

HURRRRRRRRRRRR
a statement of fact is equivalent to a belief
DURRRRRRRRRRRR

redditspacing edgelord, contribute to a field, invent something, or fuck off. God doesn't need a preacher and science doesn't need your advocacy, it's for people ABOVE you to do, and for people BELOW you to rightfully mistrust because it's going to eliminate them all. you fit into that middleground sweetspot, where you're too educated to rejected science, too stupid to do it, and just brainwashed enough to reason your way around it wiping you and the rest of homo inferus from the gene pool because it gives you a temporary comfort.

Dude, science is literally a methodology humans invented to know the truth about nature

Without science, humans couldn't use electricity

Without science, humans wouldn't know what are the efficient ways to grow crops

Without science, you wouldn't have earthquake warnings or tsunami warnings or even hurricane warnings

Our society is heavily dependent on scientists in order to function. if you completely dismiss science you are a special kind of retard

if this thread can be considered an experience I suppose I'm having an experience with a retard right now
fuck off, materialist-tard

>"I feel that something exists therefore it exists :D"

without your dad you wouldn't exist.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Op, read this 30 times a day until it sticks, especially if you want to call yourself a "scientist" some day.

Retard.

>trusting your senses in spite of their repeated fallibility
You can't make this shit up

And this has nothing to do with the validity of his claims

Absence of evidence IS actually evidence of absence. wtf are you even talking about?

>Everything is either black or white, there are no shades of gray. if human sense have any flaws at all it means that ANYTHING TO SENSE IS WRONG!!!!

You are fucking retarded. you realize that human senses had to create a close enough model of reality in order for humanity to survive, right?

It's true they aren't perfect, however there is a sharp difference between an imperfect system and a system which is not trustworthy at all

>Everything is either black or white, there are no shades of gray. if human senses have any flaws at all it means that ANYTHING THAT YOU SENSE IS WRONG!!!!

You are fucking retarded. you realize that human senses had to create a close enough model of reality in order for humanity to survive, right?

It's true they aren't perfect, however there is a sharp difference between an imperfect system and a system which is not trustworthy at all

you are correct but this doesn't automaticly mean a creator don't exist.
we just don't know, till then we shouldn't rule out one of the possibilitys.

I personally do have evidence of God; I've interacted with Him. This is the subjective sort of evidence that is enough to cause me, the one who has experienced, to believe, but not enough to do the same for those who have not.

Objectively, I can provide the plausibility of God as a creator in whose likeness we exist, as I can myself operate as a creator of worlds using only modern technology.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Try reading a book on philosophy once in a while instead of being a Reddit-tier fedora. Because we don't have proof of a god, doesn't mean he cannot exist.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Read it again, retard.

>"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

It literally is tho. If you tell me a pair of elephants wrestled one another to death in your living room, and there is zero evidence of any damage to said room, then that absent evidence is itself evidence that your elephant story isn't true.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in any sense. Absence of evidence neither precludes nor supposes the existence of evidence. It is the state of not knowing.

This whole thread is a bunch of 15 year olds who got a B- in their Algebra 2 class jerking each other off. Seriously, fuck off back to /b/ or /r/atheism or whatever shithole you came from

For somebody who is so gifted, you really are dense. The absence of evidence in the anecdotal example you gave is enough for plausible deniability but certainly not enough for a decisive conclusion.

Suppose your example is the case. Then, in five years, a neighbor appears who videotaped the event through the window. This video is evidence. Your previous lack of evidence is simply the state of not having any basis to believe the claim, not evidence that your blind rejection is reality.

Looks like you inherited those brainlet genes, bub. You're the same as your parents.

If you believe it's more logical that you contacted with a space wizard, and not that you had an hallucination, then you are not intellectually honest.

You don't have to have schizophrenia to have hallucinations

You're belief that you interacted with god is not even subjective evidence as it is much more likely you simply favorably misinterpreted your experience.

Absence of evidence does not disprove something directly, but it does prove that the source of the claim is within someones imagination, and therefore it confirms the claim is BS

Religious people are effectively sub-human, trying to imagine the state of being that gullible is like trying to imagine having a dog's mind.

This lady I know is married to a minister who said that math is easy because you just make up your own definitions. A minister. Told mathematicians that their work is easy because it's made up. A minister.

>Because we don't have proof of a god, doesn't mean he cannot exist.
>"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Read it again, retard.
If "philosophy class" told you these statements are equivalent, maybe you should try a different one.

Let A = absence of existence
Let E* = lack of evidence of existence

P(A|E*) = P(A) P(E*|A) / P(E*) = P(A)/P(E*)

P(A)/P(E*) > P(A) when P(E*) =! 1

Therefore E* is evidence of A.

You don't understand what evidence means.

Not necessarily talking to a moron, but a funny story nonetheless.

>in neurobio class
>last class of semester
>prof is hilarious and often goes on tangents of how much he despises the faculty and uni
>doing a review of material for upcoming exam as well mentioning guidelines for the essay due in a week
>guy at the back of class raises hand
>"last time I went to print out my essay, my printer died"
>prof "so use the one in the library"
>guy responds "I was going to but my file got encrypted and I lost it somehow, how do I prevent that from happening again"
>prof looks at him blankly
>"uhm..do you have a .38?"
>guy perplexed "what"
>prof: because you should probably shoot yourself"

just straight up savagery from a 70 year old dude

An imperfection on a model of reality, considering there are others which are perfect, is enough to render it obsolete.

You sound like sort of a dick, to be totally honest.

No, I retract that, you sound like a total dick.

ITT: Edge sharpening taken to new levels.

If you define being a rational human being as being edgy, then i'm proudly an edgy person

To be fair I don't think any mathematical proof is as hard as proving the existence of God.

The state of the living room is evidence that bo elephants fought there.

Now, show me your evidence that there is no God. You cannot, because there isn't any.

Evidence that there is no God does not exist, evidence that there IS a God is commonplace but almost entirely anecdotal. If you go only with such evidence as there is, the working hypothesis must be that there is a God.

The fact human senses are not perfect does not make them obsolete you idiot.

Science is all about getting closer and closer to the truth. even with an imperfect methodology you can have a process which systematically gets you closer to the truth about nature

Science is a meme. Only through pure Reason is one able to access reality in a reliable way.

I'm looking back and I don't think I've ever had one truly stupid interaction. Possibly because I've always gone to elite schools since I was a kid. I have cousins who are creationists, but I haven't heard them actually say anything stupid, since genetically they are smart and actually work as doctors and scientists and engineers and such.

The methodology of science was developed by pure reason.

The state of the living room being unaffected by elephants would be an absence of evidence of elephants. The absence of evidence of god is the same thing. You just argued against yourself.

Reason may be its substrate but the fact is it has been corrupted by empiricism, which taints it with the volatility of the senses.

OP here reminds me of the story of the country rube, taken into the big city for the first time,. Among the sights he is taken to see is the city zoo, wherein he is shown the Giraffe. The bumpkin stares at it for a time, then announces, "Nope, you can't fool me, there ain't no such animal!"

Why are people so obsessed with this atheism shit? Do you honestly think you're superior to religious people just because "no proof of god xd"

Im not even religious but if you care enough to argue against religion you clearly have issues

This is the only sensible post in this thread.

>Absence of evidence does not disprove something directly, but it does prove that the source of the claim is within someones imagination

This is true -- evolution did not actually exist until somebody found some missing links. Prior to that, it had never happened, and people who thought it had, like Darwin and the rest, were just making shit up.

What field of scientists are they if they are creationists? I figured there's so much crossover in the fields with evolution that eventually it their beliefs would contradict their studies?

Through pure reason you concluded that empirical evidence are worthless?

Your capabilities of reasoning are pretty shit. empirical evidence are a very strong form of evidence

Why are you people so obsessed with people who argue against religion? Get a life.

Atheists are objectively more intellectually honest than religious people.

You cannot be intellectually honest and religious at the same time because religion inherently defies logic

>Darwin had no evidence of evolution
You sound like a creationist.

No, I define being juvenilely edgy about it as the "being edgy" part.

Many, perhaps most, rational people exist in that state without being douche-wads.

I'm not a douche, im just rational person who tells people they are wrong when they are being wrong.

I find it funny how people will complain about an atheist stating their opinion about religion being stupid but will never complain about religious people stating their opinion about atheism being stupid in the exact same thread. The fedora meme is just as strong at distorting the debate as religion itself.

science is not a monolith. there are good scientists and bad scientists. as you yourself said "nothing is taking for guaranteed, and everything has to be questioned in order to find the truth", so it seems strange that you are inclined to trust someone solely on the basis of his job title.

>I'm against the government having access to all my data
>do you have something to hide :^)))))))))))))
Every fucking time like clockwork

No.

A fight of elephants in a living room would have certain predictable effects -- broken sofas, elephant tracks in the blood, etc. A living room that lacks these signs shows positive evidence that no elephants fought there. Of course, in either case, somebody could fake things up -- maybe somebody broke the sofa and made up an elephant story, maybe somebody cleaned the place up after the fight to hide what had happened. So there is no proof, really, but some fairly convincing evidence as to whether, or not, elephants fought in your living room.

Now let us look at the Universe. What signs would you expect to see if God created it? Hell if I know. What signs would you expect to see if He did not create it? Fuck if I know.

We CAN detect signs and evidence in the universe that contradict, for example, the literal interpretation of the Genesis story, unless we want to go chasing down the rabbit hole of "God made fake evidence to fool us." But evidence as to whether, or not, there is a God? Point to some, if you think there is any.

Again, in your elephant example, I can point to positive evidence that I would expect to show whether the fight had happened, or other evidence that I would expect to see if no fight happened. Can you point to what evidence you'd expect, or that you see, that indicates whether God exists or that he does not?

I'll wait.

So far, having been alive a few years longer than you, if you are OP, I have never seen any evidence at all that there is no God. I have only seen circumstantial or subjective evidence in favor of the hypothesis.

Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad.

You also contradict yourself in that post.

You seem to be dodging. But if somebody says that the atheist is stupid for not believing something for which there is little objective evidence, they are also being edgy and annoying.

Still, at the end of the day, the one who claims definitively that there is NO God is the one making a claim with no evidence behind it at all. Somebody driven only by the scientific method can go no further than "We don't know."

i did not contradict myself.
please explain how the fuck i was being contradictory.

>A fight of elephants in a living room would have certain predictable effects -- broken sofas, elephant tracks in the blood, etc. A living room that lacks these signs shows positive evidence that no elephants fought there.
Are you retarded? You just described the absence of positive evidence of elephants as positive evidence that no elephants fought there. You just contradicted your entire argument.

>Can you point to what evidence you'd expect, or that you see, that indicates whether God exists or that he does not?
The burden of proof is on the one who claims god exists. He must provide details on what "god" means such that evidence can be defined. Until he does that he is not claiming anything meaningful. I am fine with accepting this if that is what you're claiming. But it doesn't change the fact that no evidence of god had been presented and that this is evidence against it.

this one gets me. i think what bothers me the most is the presumption that any remotely controversial opinion must be formed out of pure self-interest.

I don't think many atheists claim that they definitively know that there is no god, simply that it is highly unlikely due to the sources of the claim, the extraordinary nature of the claim, and the utter lack of evidence.

No. Figure it out for yourself. Think of it as a learning experience.

>oh shit i said he contradicted himself but i can't demonstrate how he was being contradictory

>i better escape this argument and tell him to find how he was being contradictory by himself! HAHAA im so smart :^)

>The burden of proof is on the one who claims god exists.
The burden of proof is not an issue -- we are talking about evidence, not proof. Also, the burden of proof is open the one making the claim. Claiming God does not exist is a claim that would require evidence to back it up.

Even assigning a likelihood is impossible, lacking evidence to support the position. With have no evidence against the proposition at all, we have little evidence for it, and that anecdotal.

If you are framing your thinking based on science and logic, the only position is "I don;t know," with maybe a slight tilt towards the affirmative since the little evidence we have lies in that direction.

If you are forming your opinions based on faith, that is a different matter.

I can, I am not going to. Reading comprehension, friend, it is a skill.

This is some circular-ass logic

There is proof neither for the existence nor the non-existence of God
>Prove me wrong

You can't, but you say you can because you don't want to admit you were bullshitting

posting in this thread

get your shit together

>The burden of proof is not an issue -- we are talking about evidence, not proof.
I'm not talking about proof either. Read the entire sentence.

>Claiming God does not exist is a claim that would require evidence to back it up.
The evidence of god not existing is the lack of evidence of him existing. Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. See

I see one every morning in the mirror when I go to the bathroom

;_;

>Even assigning a likelihood is impossible, lacking evidence to support the position.
The lack of evidence for god is huge evidence that supports the position.

>we have little evidence for it, and that anecdotal.
Which is not evidence at all.

>If you are framing your thinking based on science and logic, the only position is "I don;t know," with maybe a slight tilt towards the affirmative since the little evidence we have lies in that direction
By that logic you must believe every claim since there is no such thing as positive evidence of an absence. And as I already explained, most atheists are agnostic. I don't have to "know" God doesn't exist to claim that he doesn't, since the source of the claim, extraordinary nature of the claim, and lack of evidence of the claim all support my position. You apply the exact same logic to most ridiculous claims, yet you make an exception for god. Try replacing the word god with leprechaun and making the same argument.

>OP tries to sound smart arguing with his dad, loses the argument
>posts on Veeky Forums nobody agrees with him

maybe your dad is smarter than you OP? the problem with this thread is that it has theories.

One of my coworkers is a flat earther who works on satellites. Says that he's pointing at the firmament which bounces the signal down to cell towers. His evidence for this was his faith in the Bible.

Some people here agree me with me and some aren't

It doesn't change the fact that the statement my dad made is fucking retarded

You're not gifted.
Don't make a mock out of yourself here again please.

OP here
My IQ is 136~140

>Under 150
Don't even talk to me anymore

Ugh, you people talk about science like it's a tangible thing, like it's a religion.
It makes me feel dirty.

"Oh hey guys, I was talking about science stuff" blah blah blah, "I love science".
Science isn't something you believe in, it's not "a way of life".

You sound like a fedora wearing virgin when you talk like that.

>g-guies!! m-muh I-IQ!!!!
Top kek, holy shit
Either show me real STEM published papers or shut the fuck up

If climate scientists would tell you that an hurricane is going to hit your town tomorrow, you will listen to them and evacuate.

If a priest would tell you god told him an hurricane will hit your town tomorrow, you would think that person is crazy.

Also, any online IQ test never counts you retarded dibshit.

It wasn't online IQ tests. i did 3 tests in the Karni institution in israel which is dedicated to spot gifted individuals

but that isn't anywhere close to gifted. You're barely capable of teaching undergrads with that range.

the fact you wasted this much time ITT shows what a brainlet you are, we were making a lot more progress before they taught people like you how to read.

>in Israel
Ok, that's a good joke for sure.

>English class project in groups
>choose to do my project on why most popsci is retarded
>three people join and just keep shilling YouTube retards as good popsci material
>I'm literally the only one in the group to know Newton's laws of motion

An IQ of 136~140 puts me in the top 1% of the population. that makes me gifted

But if you still havent achieved anything with your 140 iq, that means you should be embarrassed about it, not proud motherfucker

Achievement isn't meaningful, participation in society is a joke in general.