Being an atheist and believing in science is an oxymoron

[asdvek]

So by their definitions,

Atheist = not believing in religious beliefs

Science = is not supposed to be religious beliefs

Religious belief = believing in something faithfully with no proof of it being real or existing or anything like that

However modern science is literally just straight up religious beliefs.

Muh mitochondria, muh DNA, muh genetics, muh glycation

All of those things have never been observed or actually proven to exist.

Yet people believe in them with faith, no proof, just faith, because "muh it's science bro it must be true"

Again, that's literally a religious belief by definition. Because there is no proof those dogshit science actually exist yet niggas believe in it with faith.

SO HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU BE AN ATHEIST AND BELIEVE IN SCIENCE? THOSE THINGS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER

OH AND EVOLUTION, WHICH, ALSO NEVER HAPPENED, HUMANS DIDNT EVOLVE FROM APES U NIGGER

You stop being brainwashed when you deny science and religion at the same time ight?

 

[Diᴏgenes]

atheist = rejection of god and also belief in a god =/= religious

 

[Tenres]

Laws of probability are empirical and laws of logic are axiomatic, so the scientific method and most of the methodologies are justified through your definition. The latter not necessarily being proven but necessitate you believing them to argue against them. So they are true ad absurdum.

There is no equivalency between religion which makes metaphysical claims and science which is an epistemological method that only makes claims in reference to itself, e.g., in reference to the method used we conclude that... whatever.

The observed thing is just something u copied from Goatis, which doesn't prove it's wrong but its ridiculous and nawt all naturale to worship other men like this. In any case, if someone used a microscope and observed mitochondria, why would that be invalid (inherently)?

If it's that you're only seeing THROUGH the microscope, so you aren't actually observing it, then you should consider everything you see is only THROUGH your eyes and then process it in the brain, so everything you see is a representation produced by your senses. So you need a symmetry breaker for why adding another barrier immediately invalidates it.

 

[asdvek]

Laws of probability are empirical and laws of logic are axiomatic, so the scientific method and most of the methodologies are justified through your definition. The latter not necessarily being proven but necessitate you believing them to argue against them. So they are true ad absurdum.

There is no equivalency between religion which makes metaphysical claims and science which is an epistemological method that only makes claims in reference to itself, e.g., in reference to the method used we conclude that... whatever.

The observed thing is just something u copied from Goatis, which doesn't prove it's wrong but its ridiculous and nawt all naturale to worship other men like this. In any case, if someone used a microscope and observed mitochondria, why would that be invalid (inherently)?

If it's that you're only seeing THROUGH the microscope, so you aren't actually observing it, then you should consider everything you see is only THROUGH your eyes and then process it in the brain, so everything you see is a representation produced by your senses. So you need a symmetry breaker for why adding another barrier immediately invalidates it.

 

[aaronbp]

Laws of probability are empirical and laws of logic are axiomatic, so the scientific method and most of the methodologies are justified through your definition. The latter not necessarily being proven but necessitate you believing them to argue against them. So they are true ad absurdum.

There is no equivalency between religion which makes metaphysical claims and science which is an epistemological method that only makes claims in reference to itself, e.g., in reference to the method used we conclude that... whatever.

The observed thing is just something u copied from Goatis, which doesn't prove it's wrong but its ridiculous and nawt all naturale to worship other men like this. In any case, if someone used a microscope and observed mitochondria, why would that be invalid (inherently)?

If it's that you're only seeing THROUGH the microscope, so you aren't actually observing it, then you should consider everything you see is only THROUGH your eyes and then process it in the brain, so everything you see is a representation produced by your senses. So you need a symmetry breaker for why adding another barrier immediately invalidates it.

me and the philosophical bluds

 

[Tenres]

Why are us pedophiles so low IQ?

 

[zalcus]

Laws of probability are empirical and laws of logic are axiomatic, so the scientific method and most of the methodologies are justified through your definition. The latter not necessarily being proven but necessitate you believing them to argue against them. So they are true ad absurdum.

There is no equivalency between religion which makes metaphysical claims and science which is an epistemological method that only makes claims in reference to itself, e.g., in reference to the method used we conclude that... whatever.

The observed thing is just something u copied from Goatis, which doesn't prove it's wrong but its ridiculous and nawt all naturale to worship other men like this. In any case, if someone used a microscope and observed mitochondria, why would that be invalid (inherently)?

If it's that you're only seeing THROUGH the microscope, so you aren't actually observing it, then you should consider everything you see is only THROUGH your eyes and then process it in the brain, so everything you see is a representation produced by your senses. So you need a symmetry breaker for why adding another barrier immediately invalidates it.

I cant believe someone had to say this lol, well said

 

[IAMNOTANINCEL]

Laws of probability are empirical and laws of logic are axiomatic, so the scientific method and most of the methodologies are justified through your definition. The latter not necessarily being proven but necessitate you believing them to argue against them. So they are true ad absurdum.

There is no equivalency between religion which makes metaphysical claims and science which is an epistemological method that only makes claims in reference to itself, e.g., in reference to the method used we conclude that... whatever.

The observed thing is just something u copied from Goatis, which doesn't prove it's wrong but its ridiculous and nawt all naturale to worship other men like this. In any case, if someone used a microscope and observed mitochondria, why would that be invalid (inherently)?

If it's that you're only seeing THROUGH the microscope, so you aren't actually observing it, then you should consider everything you see is only THROUGH your eyes and then process it in the brain, so everything you see is a representation produced by your senses. So you need a symmetry breaker for why adding another barrier immediately invalidates it.

how bro felt writing all that

 

[Whatever]

What you’re calling “belief” is not all equal. For religious believers, their belief is supposed to have active effects on them, it’s supposed to change or at least guide their behavior. People don’t “believe” in science like that, learning about DNA or whatever doesn’t change your life, you learn about it and then move on.