/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11372751
Who cares? Cancer technically spawns from our own cells but then kills us. In the same sense, science has murdered religion .

>>11372751
Retarded question. How do vegans cope with the fact that non-vegans invented veganism? How do internet people cope with the fact non-internet people invented the internet? How do democracies cope with the fact that non-democrats invented democracy?

By remembering the people in your picture were mostly considered heretics.

>>11372760

So Science is a cancer?

>>11372751
>unironically including Descartes as a possible influence on Western thought

>>11372858
To religion, yes. Scientific values like empiricism and repeatability aren’t good bed fellows with religious faith.

>>11372878
>>unironically including Descartes as a possible influence on Western thought

>>11372751
It really clamps my cord, if you know what I mean.

>>11372751
>How does /sci/ cope with the fact that religious people invented science as a methodology?
That's how it was, it only means religious people created science, but that's it. It doesn't mean religion is good or correct, these things are unrelated.

>>11373030
It was my intention to type "positive", but I guess my mind and my body disconnected for a moment, as per Cartesianism.

>>11372751
Those scientists flourished IN SPITE OF, not because of, religion.

>>11373041
Modern science is religion, you fool. Quantum nonsense is the same shit philosophers and theologians were musing over thousands of years ago, and no more concrete.

religion VS science threads are against the rules.

>>11373048
> Modern science is religion, you fool

Prove it.

>Quantum nonsense is the same shit philosophers and theologians were musing over thousands of years ago, and no more concrete.


Prove it.

>>11373048
Did you pray to God so that your bullshit thoughts appear on the internet?

Or did you use some device made possible by modern science to type your drivel?

>>11373073
how is
>deliver all of your wealth to the ivory tower academic gods and they will eventually bring you utopia
not religion?

>>11373293

>>11373293
Self evident. Old gods, new names, new temples, same old framework and behavior. Just try to have a discussion about vaccines.

>>11373454
Define "God". God has nothing to do with religion.

>>11373470
Cool meme comic, now prove your claims.

>>11372751
How do you cope with the fact that there are so many non-religious people inventing new mathematics/physics equations in the modern day, that you'll never know all of them even if you dedicated the rest of your life to memorizing their names?

>>11373464
>How is my strawman not religion

Cringe.
One major difference is that science actually provides material benefits. Prayer never eradicated smallpox or put people on the moon or reduced infant mortality.

>>11372751
Lots be real here, most of them were indoctrinated as children to believe it and the ones who were intelligent enough to question their brainwashing had to play along or be arrested or killed.

>>11373482
But it sure got a lot of people killed!

>>11373473
>Self evident

Codeword for “I have zero evidence and can provide none but just trust me.”

> Old gods, new names, new temples, same old framework and behavior.

Prove it.

> Just try to have a discussion about vaccines.

Okay. Let’s have a discussion about vaccines.

:)

>>11373486
Trust? What does "trust" have to do with anything? I'm not trying to recruit you bud, I don;t care what you feel you can trust or believe. That's your own problem. I'm not here to manage you.

Self evident means, it's self evident. You don;t need an elaborate experiment, analysis, or measurement apparatus. You don't need a study. You need eyes and a brain capable of reasoning. Now that I've given you the thing which you could think about, it's your choice to do so.

You talk like a slave.

>Vaccines
Sure thing.
1/3?
Mercury and aluminum injected into children repeatedly ain't too grand, but there's also an immunogenic brain damage component. Look up microglial priming by Blaylock in particular. There are a number of mechanisms.

Nonlinear dose response of aluminum.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27908630

Neuroimmunology
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3589867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784951/

Immunoexcitotoxicity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5909100/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3307240/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4609793/

Hepatitis B vaccine induced brain dysfunction.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27501128
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29751176

You have the well reported alteration of antigen presentation in the gut, massive inflammation. That's against a background of other environmental factors which destroy proper gut flora.

Section 13 of every vaccine insert, as its sole content, contains a variant of the following:
"[Vaccine] has not been tested for mutagenic potential, carcinogenic potential, or impairment of fertility."
Look up immunocastration. A variant of this was tested on girls in Kenya.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=immunocastration

>>11373497
Inserts are here:
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/vaccines-licensed-use-united-states

Purported vaccine content is here:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

Notably some independent testing found various "contaminants" in human vaccines, but not veterinary.
https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/new-quality-control-investigations-on-vaccines-micro--and-nanocontamination.html
Naturally they respond "conspiracy theory, junk science!" But for what purpose? Who are you really going to believe.

Flu shot has been shown to be largely ineffective, completely ineffective over 65.

Historical data on disease rates indicates vaccines are introduced only after other measures have reduced rates of disease. Actual treatments and prevention have been suppressed in favor of vaccination, simply things like vitamin C and vitamin A for measles. Polio was successfully treated and aprtially reversed in its flaccid paralysis staged with injections of sodium ascorbate and iirc a small amount of copper salicylate. Polio itself only became an issue after other vaccines, indicating immune disruption and inability to handle organochloride pesticide bombardment, diethylstilbestrol, etc.

Contamination with the old polio vaccine with SV40 gave many people cancer. Think about those in your family who are dying of cancer in their 50's and 60's,

Vaccination is a house of cards.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627963/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20200027

>>11373500
https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/20198/Rogers_T_thesis.pdf


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472327
http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-00072.php
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5404636/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biologicals.2014.07.003

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/134/2/325
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-04/pas-nrr042619.php

>>11373497
>Self evident means, it's self evident. You don;t need an elaborate experiment, analysis, or measurement apparatus. You don't need a study. You need eyes and a brain capable of reasoning.

Oh, okay.

It’s self-evident you’re a retard.
I don’t need an elaborate experiment, analysis, or measurement apparatus. I don’t need a study. I need eyes and a brain capable of reasoning. I’m so glad you taught me about this “self-evident” thing; now I can freely assert whatever I want and if you disagree with me, you’re wrong.

>>11373503
The two clearly aren't the same. I drew a parallel between two systems, you're making an assertion about nature and identity, which is on the same level as saying "this object is green" "my VHS player doesn't work well". However it's even more nebulous and ill defined, retarded relative to what? Something can't just be dumb, it has to be dumb with respect to some operation and metric for judging.

You're not braining very well anon. You speak like a slave, you think like a slave. You're not even aware of it, and how could you be? All I'm going to tell you, from perhaps the least religious guy here, give it some thought.

>>11373473
>Define "God".
No, you do. You are the fanboy of the concept.

>God has nothing to do with religion.
Deep.
So you came to your own conclusions about this God. You read no religious texts whatsoever and had no contact with religious people in your life.

Stop lying to yourself. You are just holding on to a story your parents told you.

Americans are so isolated from the rest of the world that they think all christians are like those retarded evangelicals you see in Documentaries like Jesus Camp.

>>11373507
>You are the fanboy of the concept.
Prove it! ;^)

>Deep
Not really. My definition of religion is just more boiled down and abstract than yours. Omni x4 sky guy (the idea many people hold, though it's not even biblical) is just one branch that happens to include deities, of that type.

>parents
My parents weren't religious. My earliest recollection of Christian God, and I remember exactly where I was standing, was in second grade near the basketball court. And it just drifted through my mind, ah, that's what is real for them. The next thing of course is to determine whether truth can be truly true for some, but not everyone. The rest is history.

It's made clear simply in your defense. You have a type in mind. You're defending your religion.

>>11372825
Wrong.

>>11372751
religion was materialism without good measuring tools. now we have better measuring tools so we discarded the vestigial parts. no cope needed, just historical context.

>>11373519
Not him, but you can't just define "religious" differently for yourself and then apply it to others. Religious means belief in some sort of god that has some type of super human power. And if you want to go to the root of the word, that makes it worse since that means worship of whatever god. Don't claim your definition to be "abstract" whatever that means and then shift the argument in your direction.

In a scientific discussion, you can't use self-evident. Some people believe the Christian god is self-evident, and then provide no proof. Half of the US senate thinks Trumps crimes are self-evident, and the other half doesn't. Take that word out of your vocabulary.

As for your evidence that vaccines are poisonous, it's good that you're using real evidence here, but notice that it's all being tested in mice. Pair that with the fact that humans here in the US who've been vaccinated do not (the vast majority) have inflammation of the gut, unhealthy gut flora (unless their diet is comprised of mcdonalds), or brain damage and all you've got is a bunch of studies on how vaccines designed ONLY for humans can harm mice. Also notice we prefer to literally test on humans or pigs or monkeys if we want to prove something about how it affects humans.

This has to be the most spineless theist I've ever encountered, hes quaking in his boots at the idea of actually stating what he believes in.

*Proves that God exists*

Pshh... nothing personel kid, don't forget your fedora on the way out.

>>11373551
>I define God as existing so God exists but stretched out to look vaguely more intellectual

Cringe.

>>11373551
look if you can't differentiate what brought him academic renown and what ideas were just along for the ride, you probable have a bunch of other inane quotes from mathematicians and physicists given weight because of contributions to entirely different fields.

>>11373551
>Possibly, God exists

Going to need proof for that possibility m8, not an assertion

>>11373545
>Religious means belief in some sort of god that has some type of super human power.
No. Religion is any framework which defines meaning, and can't be reduced to a provable true or false basis (faith component). That's it. Religion can't be escaped, everyone has one. If you have an idea of what constitutes man's "progress", that's religion. If you have a model of the ideal society and human behavior, that's a component of your personal religion. And this applies at all levels of organization, right down to what you think the word "exists" means.

Deities are not required for religion. However deities are a part of religion, which is why even by your definition, science and its institutions are a form of religion. It simply renames the deities as all these different fields, forces, particles, laws, and whatever else. Things that are descriptions of drivers of phenomena, but not themselves mechanisms.

>In a scientific discussion, you can't use self-evident.
>>11373505

> Pair that with the fact that humans here in the US who've been vaccinated do not (the vast majority) have inflammation of the gut
As of 2011's data, 46% of children in the US have at least 1 of 20 chronic illnesses. 56% if you include obesity. Food intolerance are raising and various diseases which can be tied back to inflammation and increased permeability of the gut lining, are rising. Think it's gotten better in the last 9 years? I can't imagine anyone would.

>Also notice we prefer to literally test on humans or pigs or monkeys if we want to prove something about how it affects humans.
Look at the population. Sick, dumb, screwed up. There's your cohort. They don't follow people long for a reason. For now, mechanistic data and theory backs up the data from animal models. This newage Molech, Chemosh, Ba'al insanity has to stop.

>>11373571
>I made up my own definition of religion. You must use it too.

>>11373585
See:
>I'm not trying to recruit you bud, I don;t care what you feel you can trust or believe. That's your own problem. I'm not here to manage you.

I'd say this conversation is over. Whether you want to stick to an absurd definition so you can feel like you're righteous because you're not the bad wrong thing (religious), is up to you. But it really is childish and absurd cult thinking.

>>11373595
>The definition of “religion” everyone else uses is absurd because I say so. Only my uselessly broad definition I made up myself is good.

Gonna get heartburn from the cringe.

>>11373599
Moth, flame. Baptism by fire I suppose.

Good luck. Hopefully you see it before something awful happens to you.

>>11373571
How can you not see how you're pulling that definition of religion right out of your ass? If you want to use the word "religion" go look it up and start using it. Do not call others "religious" and the proceed to throw out the common use of the word and force others to use it. I honestly cannot see how you're stuck on this, it's almost frustrating.

And okay let's go with your "it's green" definition. To a large number of people, red is not red, it's gray. That's the exact opposite of self-evident. When it comes to the color of that dress a few years back, to me it's white and gold and to others it's blue and black. Again, the exact opposite of self-evident. Do not ever use the words self-evident or religious again if you cannot use them properly! If you continue to do this, you will have proven yourself to be arguing in bad faith

>>11373605
Piss off schizo lol

>>11373609
See image. So, what. Look it up where? At your preferred source? What authority would you like me to refer to for the definition of religion which you demand I adhere to, and claim everyone else is operating under? Seems like you're the one pulling your own personal definition out, anon. Two can play at this game.

I remember watching Serial Experiments Lain several years ago, and stopping to actually think about the episode titles. "Society". "Religion". "Rumor". It was at this point I knew I had no solid definition for any of these words, just a vague ad hoc "understanding". I didn't even know what they meant.

How many words do you use every day that you can't actually define? This is part of lateral thinking, which reveals these holes in short order.

>>11373611
I'll take that as self dishonesty while you expose your belly. It's fine.

And further, how is the scientist's hard materialist framework, belief in universal constants, "laws of physics", math, logic, and all the rest, not belief in a supreme and controlling power? Or are you more a solipsist, believing that you are in some way, in control?

You see what I'm getting at now.

>>11373624
The definition that's used every day that 99.9% of people would agree on. And good, you've looked up "religious" and it gave you the word religion....now go look that up and you'll have your answer.

And how am I pulling out my own personal definition? I'm 100% fine with the one google or mirriam webster provides. And no, I'm not fine with your interpretation of them---the actual word for word definition. I'm not playing at any game, I'm being serious about the words here. You're the one who keeps defining shit into existence.

Lastly, wtf are you talking about words I can't define? Point out one word that I've used that I cannot define. Your dishonesty here is very alarming.

>>11373633
Because literally nobody has called laws of physics a controlling power. If you want to call it that, then you'll have to back that claim up with evidence.

>>11373634
>The definition that's used every day that 99.9% of people would agree on.
[citation needed]

I'm playing your game.

>And how am I pulling out my own personal definition?
You've arbitrarily narrowed the scope and defined the underlying terrain in a way which suits you, then asserted it as a self evident truth everyone operates under. Most people consider Buddhism a religion, where is the supernatural, where is the deity? The Buddha is not a deity, anyone can be a Buddha.

You're playing a game, you demanded I play it too, I'm going to play your game and since I'm better at it than you, I'm going to win.

>Point out one word that I've used that I cannot define.
You got that mentality again. That question was rhetorical and for your own consideration.

Come on.

>>11373636
What are they then?

>>11373638
I'll write it out in instructions so you can actually follow them this time.
1. Google "religion"
2. Use that definition
3. Prove how anything in science fits that definition.

If you need help defining science, then google that too.

>You got that mentality again. That question was rhetorical and for your own consideration.
"I was just pretending"
Sorry, it won't work on me. You've already proven yourself to be dishonest so you can admit that you were wrong here instead of continuing.

>>11373638
>What are they then?

Consistent observations made by humans.

>>11373647
Self evident. Refer to the vaccine parallel above, ask yourself just how "evidence based" and legitimate most "science" really is. You treat it like a God. Money goes in, truth and sane behavior, truth, and public policy comes out. It's like prayer, only far more delusional. You've made Gods of mere men, and the garbage which flows from their temples and churches is taken as a reflection of the absolute and supreme truth. Try to question quantum. Try to question vaccines. Try to question anything they're doing, see how the broader system responds to you. Hint, it's a cult, the power structure behind it doesn't want anything other than business as usual.

As far as the method itself, again, it's self explanatory. The belief that it will work and makes sense is built on a certain view of reality.

Anyway, I've got stuff to do. I just did some high intensity exercise and I'm feeling pretty buzzed and manic, and I'd rather not misuse this state and time.

>inb4 manic lol schizo invalidated i am duh winrarz haha lol
Ugh, please don't.

>>11373656
Look guy, ya got three choices for the basis of phenomena, ie existence and change is in the universe.
-Circular. Laws of physics are logically complete and self referential.
-Hierarchical. Laws of physics are an uncaused cause. They just are. Like the constants are just defined and who knows why it's that way, irreducible. Perhaps even reliant on something external, which is not inside our universe (ie a machine generating it, orderly operation in condensed matter of a black hole, or whatever)
-Infinite recursion. Subdivision of existence continues indefinitely. Possibly no scale can know what anything really is or why, and all variations thereof based on the above.

Consistent observation is a description of phenomena, not a mechanism, explanation, or definition. That just won't do for our purposes here.

>>11373670
>Ugh, please don't.
Call it a caffeine induced good mood.

>>11373670
>he used self-evident again
and this time you use it to claim that science is literally a God....capital letter G! holy shit you're a dishonest piece of trash. Stop posting your shitty opinions, we're done here since you can't seem to hold an honest, mature conversation.

>>11372751
>people who created science were right handed, therefore being right-handed is good
>oh and just ignore that right-handed people censored and jailed scientists for disagreeing with their dogmatic beliefs
>right-handed authoritarian control of academia clearly had no impact on scientific progress

>>11373687
haha lol

;^)

Next time don't try to make me play your dumb game, maybe you won't get 0wn3d.

>>11373693
One last thing then. I want to point out that you actually think you owned me because when I asked you to back up your claims, you didn't do it. Just let that sink in. You, a real, actual person LITERALLY believes that since you cannot back up your claims, you won. Astounding. I'd ask how old you are, but it'll make me depressed because I already know you're way past the age where you should know better.

>Try to question quantum. Try to question vaccines. Try to question anything they're doing, see how the broader system responds to you. Hint, it's a cult, the power structure behind it doesn't want anything other than business as usual.

Agree

>>11373697
Reiterate these "claims" you need "backed up" and your definition of both.

Actually, I've really gotta get doing these other things. I think I've pretty much already made my case above anyway. With that I'm going to take my leave.

Thank you for the interesting conversation Anon (genuinely) and may you find valuable conversation in the course of this thread.