post what you would consider the bible of /sci/
>>7886355
>>7886364
Amen
>>7886355
Rudin or Spivak
godel and mandelbrot tbqh
>>7886391
Amen amen I say to you, my fellow brother!
>>7886355
I didn't like A Mathematician's Apology when I read it as a teen, but I might change my opinion if I read it again today.
>>7886495
Meh mathematics without apology is much better. If you're apologizing it seems as if you're doing something wrong and as if you commited some kind of injustice
>>7886355
>>7886364
This. If you disagree ur a fedor tipping nerd loser.
>If ur stupid with not much science ur an atheist but if you do a lot of science like me you'll become a Christian again. Praise YHWH!.
- Albert Einstein
FAGtheists BTFO (again)
>>7886743
>fedor tipping nerd loser.
Perfectly fine with that. At least I'm not a Bible thumping, interbreeding, ignorant, backwashed, backwards, retarded, pedophile Christian.
>>7886764
No, you are a God Delusion thumping, interbreeding, ignorant, backwashed, backwards, retarded, pedophile Atheist.
>>7886773
Too bad reality doesn't confirm to your illusions
>>7886777
Yeah. too bad it doesnt make the science religion true.
>>7886781
Too bad it doesn't make your sky daddy real. Show me where daddy touched you on this doll right here
![obama-smirk[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/OqFIAJK.jpg "obama-smirk[1].jpg")
>>7886785
> your sky daddy isn't real
> universe exploded from nothing
>>7886789
> your sky daddy is real
> universe still exploded from nothing
>>7886794
nope. those two options are incompatible with each other. bible and science are different religions
>>7886798
... you gotta be trolling, science is not a religion.
>>7886804
Yeah, because you saw those proof yourself right ? You're not just watching science preaching media icons and unconditionally accept whatever they say as the truth right away right ?
Science is the religion for people who try to appear to the outside world. The difference is religious people aren't insecure about trying to make an appereance as they're intellectually superior
>>7886810
Science is a method by which we discover the truth, anyone can use science, when a religious person uses science he/she is not committing heresy, he/she are just trying to use the best method to discover the truth. Science is not a dogma, its a method.
>>7886822
>science is a tool
>people aren't afraid to use tools
>what are Amish people where tool usage is herecy
>>7886610
The word apology is used there in the ancient Greek sense. Like Plato's Apology, a defense rather than a concession.
It doesn't help the book in the least that it is 75 years old. Typical perspectives are different now.
>>7886824
I realize that, but I dislike the idea that math needs 'defending' for some reason.
>>7886825
Back then applied mathematics wasn't much of a thing yet. The facts are different today as well.
>>7886823
>what is backward thinking.
>>7886828
Still, I dislike it. Whoa look at moder math it can be applied, isn't that dandy. Mathematicans do it for the love of doing it. And they shouldn't male excuses for doing what they love.
do not disagree with me
>>7886829
Is it religion? The answer is religion, right?
>>7886822
That's not what I asked. Did you test and prove any of those scientific facts yourself or are you just feeding yourself with scientific preaching and put your faith in those people ? How are you any different than the "intellectually inferior sky daddy" people you feel so superior over. How are you not an euphorique fedoratique ?
>>7886834
>Did you test and prove any of those scientific facts yourself or are you just feeding yourself with scientific preaching and put your faith in those people ?
Step 1: Take Apple
Step 2: Drop on head
Step 3: Existence of gravity confirmed
Step 4: Worship Newton for being right all along
>>7886355
The feeling when reading hardy introduction
>>7886833
No, religion its not necessarily backward thinking, there are religious people that are very smart and that can use science, backward thinking is the result of backward thinking it might seem redundant but it is the law of identity after all.
>>7886845
No, atheism its not necessarily backward thinking, there are atheistic people that are very smart and that can use science, backward thinking is the result of backward thinking it might seem redundant but it is the law of identity after all.
>>7886837
Yeah. the same gravity that came out after the nothing exploded right ? You just experienced the gravity that God created and try to give yourself credit for it just like any other scientist with an obnoxiously inflated sense of entitlement and ego.
>>7886851
>prove what scientists proved
>don't be a sheeple and take their word for it
>*proved*
>hurr bla bla God is le bla createmud gavurty blabla
^^^you
>>7886830
>Whoa look at moder math it can be applied, isn't that dandy.
I mentioned that applied mathematics was smaller back then because oddly it's one of the pillars of the book's argument that pure mathematicians never need to worry about they're work being used for war or coercion. But today with things like number theory being applied to cryptography the distinction seems unclear.
>>7886834
You can test science, yes. But i dont feel superior to religious people, i used to be religious after all. I dont know if im different to those "fedoratique's" i never met one, since im not from america, but i dont see how that has anything to do about science being a religion, which i dont believe it is.
>>7886857
that was such a scientific answer, thank you for that. you definitely displayed the amount of intellectual integrity of science believers.
>>7886861
I didn't if you can test science. I asked if you did it and seen the evidence yourself or just putting your faith in science people and taking their words for it ? You're bouncing back to the same evasive answers in each post.
>>7886869
well since you accused me of evading questions, im gonna answer it directly, is the question "have i personally tested science?" then yes, i have, i have not tested every claim as that would be almost impossible due to lack of time, but i have tested science, and i have reason to believe science is accurate, but i do not believe immediately every claim science makes, since the staring position is one of disbelief there's somethings i dont immediately believe about science, that doesnt mean its not reliable.
>>7886876
So what do you think about the gravity waves ? I'm sure you haven't tested it yourself either.
>>7886881
I clapped your mums huge buttcheeks. They created such huge gravity waves that they obliterated 10 surrounding galaxies
>>7886610
Is this autism?
>>7886831
How much math would someone need to know if they wanted to try reading this book?
>>7886886
I see ignorance and resorting to childish evasions is your strong suit.
>>7886892
Just triple integrals
>>7886893
Thnx m8. Growing up with religionfags I learned that there is no point in arguing with them since they will stick to their absurdities to the point of insanity. There is one benefit to it though. Your mum let's me do her in the ass, since she doesn't want to cheat on her husband. Marriage is sacred and all.
>>7886901
>i am not that anon
My apologies anon
>>7886908
lel, no problem.
>>7886892
Single and multivariable calculus. Also some proof based linear algebra would be nice.
