This is how it goes. imb4 flamewar and red thumbs from religious fags wow this actually made it into the top100! Thanks alot people! top60... well this was unex


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #276 - dabawse (01/05/2012) [-]
I was going to give you guys my opinion on religion and science..

But then I took an arrow to the knee.

But then I realized it just isn't worth it.
#471 - olddominion (01/05/2012) [-]
Oh man!  Possible flame-war to erupt at any moment!
Oh man! Possible flame-war to erupt at any moment!
#483 to #471 - jettripleseven (01/05/2012) [-]
look at the rest of the thread
look at the rest of the thread
User avatar #493 to #483 - olddominion (01/05/2012) [-]
Yeah, they were all pretty good; waiting on the next one now! :D
#457 - willyoumarryme **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#180 to #152 - marharth **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#228 - CrushOrange ONLINE (01/05/2012) [-]
#226 - KOMAFIFTYSIX (01/05/2012) [-]
Hey Athiests!

If God doesn't exist, then why do chocolate chip cookies exist?

Christians: 9001
Athiests: 0
User avatar #227 to #226 - corneth (01/05/2012) [-]
Well, ****
#253 to #226 - sameeboy (01/05/2012) [-]
Well slap me silly and call me pope. I have truly been transformed
#243 to #226 - anon (01/05/2012) [-]
You're a genius and deserve all the Internets
You're a genius and deserve all the Internets
#28 - allamericandude (01/05/2012) [-]
I took a college Philosophy course that talked about the difference between science and religion (not about which one is right or wrong, but how to differentiate the two--especially in legal matters like interpreting the 1st Amendment).

Anyway, the argument that this comic refers to is the "Separation by Faith" argument--the idea that science and religion are different because religious people hold there beliefs on faith without any evidence and scientists hold there beliefs only when they have solid evidence to prove it. The thing is, though, this argument doesn't hold up. Scientific people hold a lot of scientific beliefs on faith.

" ******** , allamerifatdude. Scientists NEVER believe something without evidence!"

Well, I'll give you an example. Many people, including myself, acknowledge the fact that black holes exist. However many people, including myself, have not done the experiments, observations, mathematics, and research to prove the fact that black holes exits. We accept the fact that they exist because we believe that someone else has done the research and observations to prove they exist.

So, to counter-argue the Separation by Faith argument, how is that any different than a bunch of people believing God exists based on the word of some prophet who spent a lot of time alone in the mountains somewhere? Religious people believe that that prophet has really observed God--even though they might not have any evidence of it themselves--and scientific people believe that the scientists at NASA or wherever really observed a black hole--even though they have never seen one themselves.

And I should also note that not all religious people "ignore contradicting evidence", so that accusation doesn't hold up either.

So the "Separation by Faith" argument is invalid.
User avatar #35 to #28 - siriuslygrim (01/05/2012) [-]
Actually, there exists a very easy experament to verify the existance of black holes; it does however take time and patience. Observe a dim star in the night sky, catolog the movements of said star, and one night the star will dissapear from veiw, this is because a dimmer star is, most likely, farther away from earth and those you can observe the phenomenon of the star disappearing as it passes behind a black hole. Science is awesome.
User avatar #37 to #35 - allamericandude (01/05/2012) [-]
Two things:
1) I don't think that's an official test for black holes. It doesn't sound effective enough. (Which star do you observe? Not all stars are near a black hole. And most far-away stars take millions of years to move a noticeable distance, so you would have to be EXTREMELY patient.) The way scientists find black holes is by looking for the tell-tale plumes of ejected matter emanating from the black hole (this is caused by the fact that sometimes black holes can't absorb all of the matter around it at the rate the matter is being pulled in--sort of like a very small hole at the bottom of a swimming pool--so some of the matter--usually gamma rays--is ejected away from the black hole at incredible speed.)
2) Even if that test IS effective, have you done it yourself?
#115 to #37 - sirmatthew (01/05/2012) [-]
dude, your one of the most mature people ive ever seen on FJ.

btw just wondering, whats your opinion on evolution/big bang being taught in school? my bio teacher said "theories cannot be proven or dis-proven". then he starts assuming things that could only exist if one of the theories was correct word for word (took the class 2 years ago, dont remember specifics).

he is proving it in his own mind then telling the class its guaranteed true. then any "religion" taught in school gets you suspended, and it gets the teacher fired.

idk what im really asking, i just want someone mature to talk about this stuff with, so any time you get a chance to reply, it would be very appreciated
User avatar #649 to #115 - allamericandude (01/05/2012) [-]
Well that's just the thing. In my class we went over all the arguments that said religion and science are different: Separation by Faith, Separation by Fact and Value, Separation by Explanation, etc, etc, and we found that none of them really hold up. So, basically, there is no real difference between science and religion. Shocking, right?

So that begs the question: how do we enforce laws like the First Amendment? Why shouldn't teachers be allowed to teach creationism in schools? The honest answer is: I don't know. I'm not an expert on philosophy OR the law, so that issue is beyond me.
#41 to #28 - MCmc (01/05/2012) [-]
god i smelled that semantic argument a mile away. Anytime your argument relies on stressing a word for its validity (BELIEVE) its probably complete crap. Scientific "Belief" and religious "belief" are the antithesis of one another. Scientific belief only applies to that which is reproducible, whereas religious 'belief' is always unique. I cannot experience my pastors god, but i can measure the effects of black holes. those two beliefs are exact opposites and just because they are referenced by the same word in the english language does not make them equal. Words describe concepts, they are not the concepts themselves.
and no it is NOT religious belief that allows scientists to 'have faith' that other people have done the experiments. We have evidential proof that the scientific method is rigorous in identifying correctly conducted experiments. We have seen incorrect ideas thrown out of the process and young ideas flourish time and time again.
so long as the scientists are obeying the above flow chart, based completely on evidence it is the most logical thing to conclude that there explanations are the best for the time being. i.e. I don't need to do experiments every day to make sure gravity is still working, the evidence suggests i can be quite certain that won't change.
User avatar #59 to #41 - allamericandude (01/05/2012) [-]
This isn't about semantics. The fact that I was leaning on the word "belief" was merely my own simplistic word choice more than anything else (this is FunnyJunk, after all, and I'm not exactly a doctor of philosophy), but it doesn't make that argument invalid. Besides, this argument is more about "faith" than "belief".

And I want to remind you that this isn't about which side is correct or incorrect, it's merely about how to tell the difference between the two. And I'm not talking about any specific religion like Christianity or Scientology--just the general belief that there is a supreme, supernatural being. And I also want to remind you that I never said ALL scientific beliefs are held on faith.

I'm not arguing that the scientists who have actually done the experiments have religious-like beliefs that their results are real. I'm saying that the people who believe what those scientists say without doing experiments of their own are the ones who have a faith-based belief. For all they know, the scientists could be lying, or the results could have been misleading.
User avatar #60 to #59 - allamericandude (01/05/2012) [-]
Let me try and illustrate what I mean:

--One day, a prophet stood in front of a crowd of people and told them he had lived in a cave for the past few months and had directly spoken to a god. He showed them a bunch of texts that explained how the world worked that the prophet had transcribed from the words of the god himself. The people in the crowd saw these texts and accepted the fact that the god was real and that the prophet was correct. However, the location of the cave the prophet talked to the god in was a secret, so no one except the prophet could go there themselves. And the prophet said that he was the only one who was able to talk to the god. Yet the people accepted the existence of this god on faith that the prophet was telling the truth.

-- One day a scientist went to a conference and showed a group of people a ton of evidence that showed element X existed. He showed them how he had done a rigorous and objective experiment that produced solid evidence that his theory was correct. The people there then accepted the fact that element X existed. However, the experiment that the scientist had to do to prove his theory cost billions of dollars and required tons of elaborate equipment, so no ordinary person could conduct the experiment themselves. And element X is extremely small and extremely rare, so no ordinary person could see element X for themselves. Yet the people at the conference accepted the existence of element X on faith that the scientist's experiment was valid.

Do you see the parallels?
#65 to #60 - MCmc (01/05/2012) [-]
thats just not how science works.... there are no experiments that are not reproduceable. You've simply created a hypothetical that doesn't exist.
for example, just a little while ago, a physics lab was using highly sophisticated machinery to make extremely delicate measurements. one of the things they were measuring was the speed of neutrinos through the earth. This requires extremely specialized technology because neutrinos hardly interact with anything. They came to a rather bizarre conclusion with their data: that the neutrinos were traveling a few billionths of a second faster than the speed of light. Clearly this caused an uproar since that would violate general relativity. Well people didn't say 'oh well we can't repeat this'. no it was questioned across the world and many laboratories began making measurements to test the claim.
there is NO enduring claim that has not been repeatedly tested. Any claims that are not reproducible are refuted based on that premise alone. So the hypothetical you present has literally never existed.
User avatar #70 to #65 - allamericandude (01/05/2012) [-]
"...a hypothetical that doesn't exist"? Oh really?

The first story I "made up" could apply to most stereotypical religions. The second story I "made up" I pretty much ripped directly from the scientific headlines. Simply replace the words "element X" with "Chi-b (3P)", a subatomic particle, replace the word "scientist" with "an ATLAS representative" and replace the words "elaborate equipment" with "Large Hadron Collider".

Check it out:
#74 to #70 - MCmc (01/05/2012) [-]
ATLAS is a collaboration of over 3000 scientists.... are you saying they all lied to get this out? and.. you do realize that ATLAS isn't the only one who uses the large Hadron right? The data being produced from the collider has to be some of the most picked over to ever exist on the earth... surely you don't think that everyone using the machine would just say nothing if they could never reproduce that pattern. You seem relatively reasonable so I'm just going to ask this very tentatively. Do you believe in 9/11, Kennedy assassination, or moon landing conspiracies? If yes we're done here, but if no, how then can you just assume that this data was made up or fabricated... or did you really thing thats not reproducible? i mean you can use the LHC more than once... More than anything else data from the machine is reproducible, and if its not the scientists who published that will be torn apart. its happened before.
User avatar #78 to #74 - allamericandude (01/05/2012) [-]
THIS ISN'T ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG!!!!! !!I never said that the scientist in my story was incorrect!!! I never said ATLAS was incorrect either! Personally, I believe that the scientists at CERN are correct. But I (as in little ol' ME) could not PROVE to YOU that those scientists ARE correct, because I HAVE NOT DONE THE EXPERIMENTS MYSELF!!!!! Therefore, I believe on FAITH that those scientists are correct!
#84 to #78 - MCmc (01/05/2012) [-]
deep breath there, if you start dancing around the point it will just get frustrating for both of us. Lets go through the basic logical flow of the argument:
you said: scientists use a religious belief when accepting the results of other experiments
I said: this is not true, they have evidential faith in the scientific system which requires proof of reproducibility, as well as peer scrutiny.
you said: here are two paralleled hypotheticals
I said: That hypothetical doesn't exist
you siad: yes, it does here
i said: that doesn't fit the hypothetical
you said: ... you don't think it fits the hypothetical either because it actually WAS reproduceable?? I think your argument falls apart here...
you're just going in circles now, claiming that you personally have religious belief in science... i mean its just irrelevant, i was demonstrating why scientists don't have religious belief because they understand (and have built) the rigorous system they use to eliminate the need for non-evidence based belief. That has nothing to do with you.
as for your other comment, saying stuff like 'its weird but its true' without any evidence is just weasely. You should think for yourself, or at least have thought enough about what you want to say that you can state your opinion succinctly without needing the help of addition texts.
User avatar #394 to #78 - Chuckaholic (01/05/2012) [-]
If you don't believe in Cern please explain your views on particle physics then.
User avatar #639 to #394 - allamericandude (01/05/2012) [-]
I do believe in the scientists at CERN. I just said that.
User avatar #668 to #639 - Chuckaholic (01/07/2012) [-]
Sorry, I misread that. Don't know how.
User avatar #79 to #74 - allamericandude (01/05/2012) [-]
Look, it appears that your central argument is that science is based on evidence, while religion is not. Well, wouldn't you know it, my philosophy class discussed that to! But I've gotta be honest with you--I'm tired of typing, and I can't find the exact texts that my professor gave us that explained why the "evidence" argument doesn't hold up either.

In a nutshell, though, I could argue that some religions base their beliefs on solid evidence as well. And not everyone's scientific beliefs are based on evidence yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda.

This conversation could go on for days, but I kinda want to end it now. It's late and I'm tired.

The point is, even though people think there is a distinct boundary between science and religion, there really isn't. If you look close enough and take the time to nit-pick at the supposed differences, you'll find that they don't actually exist. The "distinct line" is more of a blur. It sounds weird, but it's true.
User avatar #103 to #79 - oldirtybatarde (01/05/2012) [-]
I was reading through this whole conversation, and that was a very polite way to end that conversation. I wish more people argued like that. I applaud you allamerifatdude
#61 to #59 - MCmc (01/05/2012) [-]
well you seem like a very reasonable person and I apologize for coming on harshly in my first post. i have a headache and a fever which make me a little irritable.
However, i still disagree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your central point seems to be that "I'm saying that the people who believe what those scientists say without doing experiments of their own are the ones who have a faith-based belief"
This is exactly what I was trying to say isn't true in my first post. A scientist doesn't believe other scientific theories simply because they read them somewhere. Any good scientist has probably read much of the evidence and convincing arguments for the theories. Outside of the scientific community it may appear that they just read a 2 sentence headline about some new discovery like much of the public does, but that is seldom actually the case.
Also, as i said before, you don't believe on faith that the scientist hasn't lied. The way science actually works is that when you attempt to publish your findings, they are peer reviewed by other independent scientists in your field. These independent researchers (often your competitors) analyze and evaluate your work. If anything doesn't add up, or looks like fabricated data, it comes into question immediately. Since this process has worked so well since the 17th century, we have good reason to, as you say, put our faith into it. As you can see, this is not a religious belief, but an evidnetial one. We wouldn't believe in the process if it stopped working, (if we did that would be religious belief) we believe in the process because we have seen it work time and time again.
Look, every time you get into a new car you don't have to perform a maintenance check. That would be illogical because you've seen so many cars run before. Thats not religious belief, the evidence.
User avatar #62 to #61 - allamericandude (01/05/2012) [-]
I'm going to respond to that, but I just want to make sure you read my other comment first (I ran out of space and had to start a new one).
#567 to #466 - anon (01/05/2012) [-]
and another, just cause i like ya
and another, just cause i like ya
#508 to #466 - anon (01/05/2012) [-]
good enough?
good enough?
#512 to #466 - anon (01/05/2012) [-]
i hope this doesnt start a duel.
#299 - thechosentroll (01/05/2012) [-]
This image has expired
You know what would be fun? Lets all have a huge pointless argument with people we don't even know.
User avatar #305 to #299 - Accidentalninja (01/05/2012) [-]
Pillow fight? :3
#385 - gielnik **User deleted account** (01/05/2012) [-]
I'm christian and I think this pic's correct. To have faith is to believe in something despite the odds and possible contradicting evidence, that's the whole point. Otherwise everyone'd be christian and God gave us free will to decide for ourselves.

I see no reason for anyone to argue over this content.
User avatar #409 to #385 - draezeth (01/05/2012) [-]
Actually, there is no contradicting evidence. Faith in this case is about believing without any evidence FOR it, not believing despite the evidence against.
#424 to #409 - anon (01/05/2012) [-]
then there is no evidence FOR your stupidity, your surrounded by smart people on the internet.

#433 to #424 - wingsisaac (01/05/2012) [-]
>acts like understands bible better than person
>thinks every faithful person believes in ******** misconceptions
>pruhtedns tew be smahrt
User avatar #442 to #424 - draezeth (01/05/2012) [-]
Stupidity? No, now you're just being an asshole.
#426 to #424 - draezeth has deleted their comment [-]
#6 - sauceome (01/05/2012) [-]
mfw science and faith don't necessarily always have to contradict eachother
#318 - Wikus (01/05/2012) [-]
Guise don't scroll down... Everyone's mad
Guise don't scroll down... Everyone's mad
#36 - moiskule (01/05/2012) [-]
Oh look, another one of these posts...
#22 - anon (01/05/2012) [-]
Thanks for making a majority of atheists look like douchebags. I know many religious people, they're all nice, they know I'm an atheist, and they don't rage at me for it. Maybe if you would actually get to know a religious person instead of judging all of them based on one sole idiot, you would realize that most of them are good people. But you won't, because you're too 			*******		 stupid to understand what they believe in, and why they believe it. The only "religious" people on the internet that try to shove their beliefs down people's throats are trolls who just want to start 			****		 storms. And you're pretty much doing the exact same 			*******		 thing, except you're serious.   
Good day, and 			****		 you sir.    
Rant complete.
Thanks for making a majority of atheists look like douchebags. I know many religious people, they're all nice, they know I'm an atheist, and they don't rage at me for it. Maybe if you would actually get to know a religious person instead of judging all of them based on one sole idiot, you would realize that most of them are good people. But you won't, because you're too ******* stupid to understand what they believe in, and why they believe it. The only "religious" people on the internet that try to shove their beliefs down people's throats are trolls who just want to start **** storms. And you're pretty much doing the exact same ******* thing, except you're serious.

Good day, and **** you sir.
Rant complete.
#187 to #22 - anon (01/05/2012) [-]
it´s about religion and not religious people -_-
User avatar #337 to #22 - chainsawmonkey (01/05/2012) [-]
You can still get nice stupid people?
User avatar #344 to #22 - samorris (01/05/2012) [-]
Hi I'm a catholic, and I love you. Not in a homosexual way, because I was raised to like girls only; but if you like other guys, thats cool with me. I will ignore any reasons you hold against my religion and won't argue against them because that will make me start to shove beliefs up your ass, and thats not the kind of person I am. Have a nice day, sir.
#311 - lolmonade (01/05/2012) [-]
The middle one is O.P
User avatar #349 to #311 - reconman (01/05/2012) [-]
#9 - chocolateshein (01/05/2012) [-]
Have you ever noticed that atheists bring up religion more than people with actual religions?
User avatar #194 to #9 - wiljones (01/05/2012) [-]
if atheists bring up religions more often than what are people doing at church
User avatar #16 to #9 - petard (01/05/2012) [-]
Cause atheists seek reason and common sense in religion and they fail to find it. Religious people don't discuss religion cause they firmly believe and are sure their religion is the one they want to follow. Of course that makes them quite narrowminded on the matter of religion and belief
#19 to #16 - nerdsrule **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #654 to #19 - petard (01/06/2012) [-]
Atheists are generally more intelligent and sadder people cause they seek the true meaning of life and wonder about things they can't comprehend while religious people just live believing in whatever their religion says. I'm not sure why I got bombed on my post, I guess religious ones didn't like what I said
#656 to #654 - nerdsrule **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #655 to #654 - petard (01/06/2012) [-]
I must also add, quite a few religious people that I know don't even know anything about their religion, they have no clue that they might be agnostic either..
#657 to #655 - nerdsrule **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #536 - playahater (01/05/2012) [-]
You know, I was going to explain why I believe this post is retarded, but the top comments already explained why.

This is why I love FJ, there's diversity and people actually realise that not all people of a certain group are the same.

You want to be an atheist, fine, be one. But don't bother people with your atheism with **** like "omfg religious people hate science and I'm so ******* smart and awesome".
#106 - aBlindMoron (01/05/2012) [-]
>complain religion being forced upon you
>become atheist
>try to force atheism upon others

Seems legit.
User avatar #157 to #106 - pawtucketpanda (01/05/2012) [-]
force? force is when your dad forces his cock down your throat, not whenOH PEEpost about atheism
#131 to #129 - xalius **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #136 to #129 - spior (01/05/2012) [-]
Why is this being pinkieed down...?!
It's actually funny, unlike the post.
#298 to #129 - anon (01/05/2012) [-]
You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)