General / Off-Topic Engineers Vs Scientist Vs mathematicians!

[Noobilite]

I think I got one part down. Just kind of dawned on me as a funny joke.

1. Most scientists/Physcists are Atheist.
2. Most engineers are more agnostics.
3. What is mostly religious!? ><

And in the US I wonder how much of this is true.

1. Do most phsycist come from the West coast?
2. Do most Mathematicians come from the East coast?
3. Do most engineers come from the midwest?

No idea on those last three though. It would be funny if it works out in an interesting way.

 

[Vasco Sapien]

Are an Agnostic and an Atheist mutually exclusive?

 

[SciTrekker]

Of the atheists and agnostics I've met, they come from all over the U.S. (and world - I can't prove any are from another world).

Based on Wiki's definitions, I interpret them to be ME but find myself waffling between the two.

Mutual Exclusivity
In logic and probability theory, two events are mutually exclusive or disjoint if they cannot both occur at the same time. A clear example is the set of outcomes of a single coin toss, which can result in either heads or tails, but not both.

Agnosticism
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.

Atheism
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

 

[Vasco Sapien]

Of the atheists and agnostics I've met, they come from all over the U.S. (and world - I can't prove any are from another world).

Based on Wiki's definitions, I interpret them to be ME but find myself waffling between the two.

Mutual Exclusivity
In logic and probability theory, two events are mutually exclusive or disjoint if they cannot both occur at the same time. A clear example is the set of outcomes of a single coin toss, which can result in either heads or tails, but not both.

Agnosticism
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.

Atheism
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist .

Being Agnostic is a matter of Knowledge, 'I do not know, God is unknowable'. (Gnosticism - having knowledge)
Being an Atheist is a matter of Faith, 'I do not Believe'. (Atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

Knowing vs Believing.

As an Agnostic i do not know and cannot prove that a God does or does not exist, so as a rationalist i must conceed this... 'I do not know'. For me to say that i DO know i would argue that it places a burden of proof upon me which i can never deliver. The same applies in reverse.

As an Atheist i do not Believe in a God and belief is a matter of personal conviction and is not reliant on proof, i have no faith, i feel no presence, i personally do not believe that God exists.

For someone to argue that that they know a god does not exist is philosophically in the same corner as someone who argues that they know God does exist and God is inherently unprovable.
So conceding that i do not know and can never know is not incompatible with having a lack of faith or belief.

 

[Synkreto]

I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist .

Being Agnostic is a matter of Knowledge, 'I do not know, God is unknowable'. (Gnosticism - having knowledge)
Being an Atheist is a matter of Faith, 'I do not Believe'. (Atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

Knowing vs Believing.

As an Agnostic i do not know and cannot prove that a God does or does not exist, so as a rationalist i must conceed this... 'I do not know'. For me to say that i DO know i would argue that it places a burden of proof upon me which i can never deliver. The same applies in reverse.

As an Atheist i do not Believe in a God and belief is a matter of personal conviction and is not reliant on proof, i have no faith, i feel no presence, i personally do not believe that God exists.

For someone to argue that a god does not exist is philosophically in the same corner as someone who argues that God does exist and God is inherently unprovable.
So conceding that i do not know and can never know is not incompatible with having a lack of faith or belief.

It is . For an Agnostic, they problem whether God does or does not exist does not really exist .

The way you handle this is a nice and rare example of a mind being able to maintain and mentally survive a parodoxon . Its my pleasure .

 

[Vasco Sapien]

It is . For an Agnostic, they problem whether God does or does not exist does not really arise .

Why?

 

[Noobilite]

Why?

The mechanical and older scientific view was that a correct answer is literally just all information per subject. If you look at the practicalities...

Other test. Look at all versions of god. What do you need to know to figure it out. This is then surpassed by each larger view of god. Which then requires more until you have to know everything..

Do I know everything. No.

Then you realize religion is a collection of these same viewpoint and models. On purpose. Just older languages and communication from older cultures. A lot of which is combined with what you would call physiology/psychology/astronomy/etc today. Religion is science. Only people who attack the subject without having a concrete understanding of the subject say otherwise. Particularly atheist modern scientists. And the fun part is the older ones when translated are a lot deeper. They were only a few decades ago when this was still commonly known. much more so in the ancient world. Just like how older version of religion are more branched out and have more angles as you go back. BTW, this is a common understanding in religion also.

I was always under the assumption science just meant knowledge and went by the guidelines everything else did. And the properly you should never go past what you know in, "science." Accuracy is king. And you can also never go over a subject enough from any angle as you don't know, if being honest and scientific, and looking into something from an angle means you start gathering info and data from that angle which is invaluable as you don't know where it is without sufficient information compared to other things. Why science used to be about going over all subjects and viewpoints veraciously without bias or presumptions!(As this in practice puts the brain in a higher state of activity to go over it and get more info.)

Helps if you understand the implications that the brain isn't more than collections of process sensory data and all you can do to get a correct answer is get more till you have everything. Which you can't tell until you get more infinitely because you can never know if you are missing data. Puts science in it's proper perspective. When the brain gets information it can process it in comparison to existing data. That creates certain requirements practically. Namely you have to simply keep doing it as much an broadly as possible. This is dumbed down greatly in the last several decades.

This is in practice how you actually get the maximum chance to practically test an idea. It's literally the base argument between physicist/company and engineers in general.

Modern example. Creationism vs evolution is a basic set of models for short period into long period or long period into short period. It's a model about how human and other consequences play out over time. Just like the seed parable. Small start grows or evolution as long process into seed. There is also short into short and long into long and so on. But that is the fundamental basis. Those different views are exploring them to get more data from those starting point to go over them more(gathering more data from those starting points). Stopping them short is stupid. You need more data until they collide to start comparing. This is not happening because of bias. Or it would be gone over unbiased indefinitely. Believing in creationism doesn't stop science. it speeds up the investigation of that viewpoint from those going over it. It's valuable. All you can do is say do it more. Stooping creationism from a standpoint of another theory is fundamentally pointless and blocking a line or path of information. There is no reason from the standpoint of evolution to block creationism logically. It's an emotional response not adding directly to the idea fundamentally(or grinding wheels on a portion not being completely thought out and then not being argued far enough to move on for other reasons.). It's also ignoring the basis of what the idea is and the value of it. It is a valid and very old model. still used in other areas in other fields, but not understood anymore as it and most things are grossly simplified and viewed from such standpoints today.

 

[Vasco Sapien]

The mechanical and older scientific view was that a correct answer is literally just all information per subject. If you look at the practicalities...

Other test. Look at all versions of god. What do you need to know to figure it out. This is then surpassed by each larger view of god. Which then requires more until you have to know everything..

Do I know everything. No.

Then you realize religion is a collection of these same viewpoint and models. On purpose. Just older languages and communication from older cultures. A lot of which is combined with what you would call physiology/psychology/astronomy/etc today. Religion is science. Only people who attack the subject without having a concrete understanding of the subject say otherwise. Particularly atheist modern scientists. And the fun part is the older ones when translated are a lot deeper. They were only a few decades ago when this was still commonly known. much more so in the ancient world. Just like how older version of religion are more branched out and have more angles as you go back. BTW, this is a common understanding in religion also.

I was always under the assumption science just meant knowledge and went by the guidelines everything else did. And the properly you should never go past what you know in, "science." Accuracy is king. And you can also never go over a subject enough from any angle as you don't know if being honest and scientific and looking into something from an angle means you start gathering info and data from that angle which is invaluable as you don't know where it is without sufficient information compared to other things. Why science used to be about going over all subjects and viewpoints veraciously without bias or presumptions!

This has nothing to with what Synkreto said above.

--

Are you suggesting that Religion is Science?

Science adheres to the Scientific method, Religion does not.
Both Science and Religion attempt to understand the world, but only one uses the bellow system.

Religion saw Lightning from the sky as Divine and Supernatural, Science studdied it and turned it into a tool which now powers the modern age.
Religion built temples to Gods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thunder_gods and sacrificed animals and people to them.
Science built computers, and modern telecommunications.

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[Vasco Sapien]

The mechanical and older scientific view was that a correct answer is literally just all information per subject. If you look at the practicalities...

Other test. Look at all versions of god. What do you need to know to figure it out. This is then surpassed by each larger view of god. Which then requires more until you have to know everything..

Do I know everything. No.

Then you realize religion is a collection of these same viewpoint and models. On purpose. Just older languages and communication from older cultures. A lot of which is combined with what you would call physiology/psychology/astronomy/etc today. Religion is science. Only people who attack the subject without having a concrete understanding of the subject say otherwise. Particularly atheist modern scientists. And the fun part is the older ones when translated are a lot deeper. They were only a few decades ago when this was still commonly known. much more so in the ancient world. Just like how older version of religion are more branched out and have more angles as you go back. BTW, this is a common understanding in religion also.

I was always under the assumption science just meant knowledge and went by the guidelines everything else did. And the properly you should never go past what you know in, "science." Accuracy is king. And you can also never go over a subject enough from any angle as you don't know, if being honest and scientific, and looking into something from an angle means you start gathering info and data from that angle which is invaluable as you don't know where it is without sufficient information compared to other things. Why science used to be about going over all subjects and viewpoints veraciously without bias or presumptions!(As this in practice puts the brain in a higher state of activity to go over it and get more info.)

Helps if you understand the implications that the brain isn't more than collections of process sensory data and all you can do to get a correct answer is get more till you have everything. Which you can't tell until you get more infinitely because you can never know if you are missing data. Puts science in it's proper perspective. When the brain gets information it can process it in comparison to existing data. That creates certain requirements practically. Namely you have to simply keep doing it as much an broadly as possible. This is dumbed down greatly in the last several decades.

This is in practice how you actually get the maximum chance to practically test an idea. It's literally the base argument between physicist/company and engineers in general.

Modern example. Creationism vs evolution is a basic set of models for short period into long period or long period into short period. It's a model about how human and other consequences play out over time. Just like the seed parable. Small start grows or evolution as long process into seed. There is also short into short and long into long and so on. But that is the fundamental basis. Those different views are exploring them to get more data from those starting point to go over them more(gathering more data from those starting points). Stopping them short is stupid. You need more data until they collide to start comparing. This is not happening because of bias. Or it would be gone over unbiased indefinitely. Believing in creationism doesn't stop science. it speeds up the investigation of that viewpoint from those going over it. It's valuable. All you can do is say do it more. Stooping creationism from a standpoint of another theory is fundamentally pointless and blocking a line or path of information. There is no reason from the standpoint of evolution to block creationism logically. It's an emotional response not adding directly to the idea fundamentally(or grinding wheels on a portion not being completely thought out and then not being argued far enough to move on for other reasons.). It's also ignoring the basis of what the idea is and the value of it. It is a valid and very old model. still used in other areas in other fields, but not understood anymore as it and most things are grossly simplified and viewed from such standpoints today.

Dude.... stop editing your posts.
Whats the point of me replying to you if you keep changing everything?

 

[Noobilite]

Yes, science is religion and religion is science. Science is not a field with methods. That definition is a ization of science. Science just means knowledge. All fields like religion are fundamentally preserving knowledge over time as society changes. The word science has been inflated way past it's actual and practical meaning. It helps if you have a more fundamental understanding of religion and it's subjects to come to this conclusion. (BTW those are literally the same as science.)

When religion sees lighting in the sky's, as you say, the words you are interpreting are not really that simple. There is a much deeper meaning to them. they are moral lessons. You have to translate them into their real meanings. It's all in the subcontext. BTW, moral lessons can be more than matters of behavior. They can also teach practial things like beliefs on physics and the natural world and did if you look deeper into them. They were models for things. Moral is just an argument style.

 

[Vasco Sapien]

The mechanical and older scientific view was that a correct answer is literally just all information per subject. If you look at the practicalities...

Other test. Look at all versions of god. What do you need to know to figure it out. This is then surpassed by each larger view of god. Which then requires more until you have to know everything..

Do I know everything. No.

Then you realize religion is a collection of these same viewpoint and models. On purpose. Just older languages and communication from older cultures. A lot of which is combined with what you would call physiology/psychology/astronomy/etc today. Religion is science. Only people who attack the subject without having a concrete understanding of the subject say otherwise. Particularly atheist modern scientists. And the fun part is the older ones when translated are a lot deeper. They were only a few decades ago when this was still commonly known. much more so in the ancient world. Just like how older version of religion are more branched out and have more angles as you go back. BTW, this is a common understanding in religion also.

I was always under the assumption science just meant knowledge and went by the guidelines everything else did. And the properly you should never go past what you know in, "science." Accuracy is king. And you can also never go over a subject enough from any angle as you don't know, if being honest and scientific, and looking into something from an angle means you start gathering info and data from that angle which is invaluable as you don't know where it is without sufficient information compared to other things. Why science used to be about going over all subjects and viewpoints veraciously without bias or presumptions!(As this in practice puts the brain in a higher state of activity to go over it and get more info.)

Helps if you understand the implications that the brain isn't more than collections of process sensory data and all you can do to get a correct answer is get more till you have everything. Which you can't tell until you get more infinitely because you can never know if you are missing data. Puts science in it's proper perspective. When the brain gets information it can process it in comparison to existing data. That creates certain requirements practically. Namely you have to simply keep doing it as much an broadly as possible. This is dumbed down greatly in the last several decades.

This is in practice how you actually get the maximum chance to practically test an idea. It's literally the base argument between physicist/company and engineers in general.

Modern example. Creationism vs evolution is a basic set of models for short period into long period or long period into short period. It's a model about how human and other consequences play out over time. Just like the seed parable. Small start grows or evolution as long process into seed. There is also short into short and long into long and so on. But that is the fundamental basis. Those different views are exploring them to get more data from those starting point to go over them more(gathering more data from those starting points). Stopping them short is stupid. You need more data until they collide to start comparing. This is not happening because of bias. Or it would be gone over unbiased indefinitely. Believing in creationism doesn't stop science. it speeds up the investigation of that viewpoint from those going over it. It's valuable. All you can do is say do it more. Stooping creationism from a standpoint of another theory is fundamentally pointless and blocking a line or path of information. There is no reason from the standpoint of evolution to block creationism logically. It's an emotional response not adding directly to the idea fundamentally(or grinding wheels on a portion not being completely thought out and then not being argued far enough to move on for other reasons.). It's also ignoring the basis of what the idea is and the value of it. It is a valid and very old model. still used in other areas in other fields, but not understood anymore as it and most things are grossly simplified and viewed from such standpoints today.

I started with the assertion of Agnostic and Atheist not being mutually exclusive.
Now you have dragged Science Vs Religion and Creationism into this. Which i cannot be bothered with if im honest. The rational world does not accept it and its an argument which has been done to death. Ive argued this subject online for decades and the end result is always the same 'agree to disagree' despite Evidence that Creationsm is nonsense on par with Young Earth and Flat Earth.

Im not interested in that conversation again. So for the sake of my spare time and my sanity, i will pass on it.

 

[Vasco Sapien]

Yes, science is religion and religion is science. Science is not a field with methods. That definition is a ization of science. Science just means knowledge. All fields like religion are fundamentally preserving knowledge over time as society changes. The word science has been inflated way past it's actual and practical meaning. It helps if you have a more fundamental understanding of religion and it's subjects to come to this conclusion. (BTW those are literally the same as science.)

When religion sees lighting in the sky's, as you say, the words you are interpreting are not really that simple. There is a much deeper meaning to them. they are moral lessons. You have to translate them into their real meanings. It's all in the subcontext.

Again you edit your posts.....

 

[Vasco Sapien]

Yes, science is religion and religion is science. Science is not a field with methods. That definition is a ization of science. Science just means knowledge. All fields like religion are fundamentally preserving knowledge over time as society changes. The word science has been inflated way past it's actual and practical meaning. It helps if you have a more fundamental understanding of religion and it's subjects to come to this conclusion. (BTW those are literally the same as science.)

When religion sees lighting in the sky's, as you say, the words you are interpreting are not really that simple. There is a much deeper meaning to them. they are moral lessons. You have to translate them into their real meanings. It's all in the subcontext. BTW, moral lessons can be more the matters of behavior. They can also teach practial things like beliefs on physics and the natural world and did if you look deeper into them. They were models for things. Moral is just an argument style.

Science doesnt just mean knowledge... (The word literally means that when translated into Latin), but Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Religion does not do that, otherwise it would have figured out long ago that prayer does not work and sacrificing virgins never made the crops grow better.

 

[Vasco Sapien]

When religion sees lighting in the sky's, as you say, the words you are interpreting are not really that simple. There is a much deeper meaning to them. they are moral lessons. You have to translate them into their real meanings. It's all in the subcontext. BTW, moral lessons can be more than matters of behavior. They can also teach practial things like beliefs on physics and the natural world and did if you look deeper into them. They were models for things. Moral is just an argument style.

This litterally makes no sense.

I can understand how religious parables if not taken litterally can teach.

But lightening in the sky.......rabbit hole..... morality. ?????





And im outa here.. Cup of Tea and some Netflix.

 

[Speedcuffs]

This litterally makes no sense.

I can understand how religious parables if not taken litterally can teach.

But lightening in the sky.......rabbit hole..... morality. ?????





And im outa here.. Cup of Tea and some Netflix.

Check those tea leaves... before someone edits them with a spoon.

 

[Vasco Sapien]

Check those tea leaves... before someone edits them with a spoon.

I know right. Debate with the opposition pulling several Mulligans as we go. Pffft

 

[metatheurgist]

Sounds like the usual experience of trying to debate someone from a religious viewpoint.

 

[Noobilite]

Sounds like the usual experience of trying to debate someone from a religious viewpoint.

We're trained in it!

 

[Arry]

I think I got one part down. Just kind of dawned on me as a funny joke.

1. Most scientists/Physcists are Atheist.
2. Most engineers are more agnostics.
3. What is mostly religious!? ><

And in the US I wonder how much of this is true.

1. Do most phsycist come from the West coast?
2. Do most Mathematicians come from the East coast?
3. Do most engineers come from the midwest?

No idea on those last three though. It would be funny if it works out in an interesting way.

Not being funny, but that is blunt and sweeping statement. The first set of 1,2,3. Who says this? Where do these figures come from?

I am asking, from purely an Agnostic view point. We basically, refuse to believe something, without tangible proof.

 

[Sysmon]

Are an Agnostic and an Atheist mutually exclusive?

Atheism is a belief, agnosticism is a shrug.

S