The Black Cat Analogy. If you really think about it... Major creds to NovaBird. The Black Cat Analogy dark room and looking for a black cat. chip/ / tr/ rror, i
Click to expand

The Black Cat Analogy

The Black Cat Analogy. If you really think about it... Major creds to NovaBird. The Black Cat Analogy dark room and looking for a black cat. chip/ / tr/ rror, i

If you really think about it...
Major creds to NovaBird

The Black Cat Analogy
dark room and looking for
a black cat.
chip/ / tr/ rror, is like being in a
dark room and looking for
a black cat that isn' t there.
is like being in a
dark room and
looking for
a black cat
that isn' t there Is .3
I found it!"
i:". ihc: is like being in a
dark room and looking for a
black cat using a flashlight.
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 13890
Favorited: 53
Submitted: 01/16/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to someponynew submit to reddit
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#12 - invisabull (01/16/2013) [-]
ok, here's why I don't get the whole science vs religion sh1tst0rm.

Scientists come up with a theory, and can spend years, decades or longer testing it. There are even multiple branches of science that are purely theoretical. this can be because we don't have the ability or technology to accurately test their hypothesies yet.

I have always believed the fundamental principle of scientific advancement is openmindedness, a willingness to realise we don't understand everything yet and a desire to learn.

Maybe religion is just nonsense. Maybe the concept of God is ridiculous. But maybe it isn't. Maybe its just something we don't yet have the abillity to quantify or measure. Maybe the existance of God is to our current scientific understanding what the Higgs Boson particle would be to Medieval Europe.

And THAT is what I don't get about the ********* . tbh a lot of people use religion as an excuse for ignorance, but I expected more from scientists.

You don't believe in God? Fair enough. You want to believe in an alternative that currently has more evidence in its favour. I get that. But you are going to categorically deny the existance of God? Really? Something hasn't been proved yet so you are going to state it never will?

To me that is very closed minded. To me that isn't science.

<---but I realise this comment will probably annoy some people, so here is a hot blonde in a Bikini to help make up for it :)
User avatar #33 to #12 - gammajk ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
The fact of the matter is that one is made up of millenia-old desert stories and the other is actually utilizing all of our modern understanding on the universe.
I mean, do you really think in two thousand years we're just going to find out it was jesus all along?
The reason why religious explanations are tossed aside is because there has NEVER been a single shred of evidence for ANY sort of spirituality. Yeah, the higgs boson would be dismissed in medieval europe, but only because nobody had any inkling of what atoms and particles were.
So, yes, UNTIL somebody can actually prove the very premise that religion is set upon (spirituality), then the conclusion that god must exist can be dismissed just like how until somebody proved atoms exist, the conclusion the higgs boson must exist was also justifiable to be dismissed.
#34 to #12 - aaronvan ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
My penis will one day become sentient and kill me and take over the world, Its unlikely enough to discredit it currently
User avatar #39 to #12 - YllekNayr ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
Yeah, except scientists don't say that no god exists. They say that based on current evidence, it's unlikely, and can be assumed to be false until further evidence is given. It's not ruling out the possibility. It's using our current understanding of religion to see whether it can be proved valid or not.

If religion came up with more evidence, scientists would be the first to change their stance, because that's their job; to come up with the right answers based on the most current evidence.
User avatar #62 to #12 - tkfourtwoone (01/17/2013) [-]
I think it's more than safe and decent to assume that there is no God just like there is no Zeus, Amun-Ra, Thor, Odin, or whatever past civilization deity.

The Christian/Jewish/Muslim God is just A god, among many others invented by man.

So tell me once again who is close minded: those who deny the existence of any deity or those who think that only their God exists and is real?
#71 to #62 - invisabull (01/17/2013) [-]
Both are JUST as closed-minded, but from opposite directions.

I'm sorry to have to say this but all you've done is act as an example for my point.

We don't know Zeus doesn't exist. We don't know he was made up. That's a working hypothesis... but the fact you cant prove something does exist is exactly as strong (or more specifically as weak) as not being able to prove it doesn’t exist.

-To say it is a fact that god exists is ridiculous. At present I don't believe that is possible, and I don’t believe it is supported at all.
-To say you believe that god exists is fine. That's a personal opinion. That is the nature of faith.
-To say you believe god doesn't exist is fine, that is extrapolation based on the facts available right now. That is a decent hypothesis
-To say it is a fact god doesn’t exist is ridiculous. To assume that, because you can’t currently prove something means no-one ever will, is just simply not scientific at all. that logic it would be a fact that the world was the centre of the galaxy/universe until it was able to be examined, measured and proved otherwise.
User avatar #73 to #71 - tkfourtwoone (01/17/2013) [-]
Well then by that logic it is safer to assume the existence of Thor rather than the existence of God.
After all, there are no more ice giants around...
#74 to #73 - invisabull (01/17/2013) [-]
Yep. Based on current evidence I agree. I don't believe Zeus exists. I accept that there is a chance I may one day be proved wrong tho.

It would still be closed minded to state it as an absolute, just as it would be closed minded to blindly state he definately does exist. Thats all i'm saying.

Really my whole point in the initial post was that the entire argument between theists and atheists is moronic, because neither side can actually prove anything. So they may as well both just agree to disagree and hold opposing beliefs.
User avatar #76 to #74 - tkfourtwoone (01/17/2013) [-]
Aye, but atheists have an edge: Occam's Razor (sorry for the pun)

When all the evidences suggest that everything from voodoo spirits to deities was created by the human mind, this being the simplest of explanations it's also probably right.
#68 to #62 - invisabull has deleted their comment [-]
#79 to #12 - cheesymondo (01/17/2013) [-]
scientists wait for the evidence, the religious put forward arguments which get debunked. atheists dont say there is no possibility of a god, only no possibility of specific illogical gods. the realm beyond our observable universe is like a closed box in a building (to borrow from qualiasoup), and someone asks you what the box contains.

many claims can be made about what it contains like a mouse or a ball since the box could be large or small. but since we cant actually see what's inside the box these come under the category of unknowable.

however there are many things we could rule out as not in the box that are illogical, such as a bed made of sleep, iron gold or the 17th century. these come under the category of the impossible.

from this it is obvious that the concept of a god is unknowable, but the concept of specific gods such as Yahweh or Allah are impossible because they violate logic, such as a loving god that tortures people for eternity or a magic flying horse.
User avatar #13 to #12 - gigglesthegreat (01/16/2013) [-]
The ********* is exactly the way this content puts it: Science doesn't discount the existence of "god", but they also haven't proven it. Religion mostly claims to have all the answers, and knows of the existence of "god" purely based on faith, and not fact. One side openly admits that they don't know, and the other arrogantly states that they know all.
#15 to #13 - invisabull (01/16/2013) [-]
I don't agree with a fair bit of that. I do agree that the way the content puts it is correct, but the ********* is usually what comes after content like this, and I tend to find that both sides are as bad as each other. Theists using religion as thier weapon and atheists using science as theirs.

While I do agree a lot of people who claim to be religious try and state 'proof' that God exists, I do not believe that is the point of many of the religions themselves tho. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have always understood the point of 'faith' is belief without proof.

I do agree it comes down to the individuals and how they choose to present thier chosen side, but in most debates I believe each side tends to come across as just as "arogant" and both sets of individuals usually claim to 'know' the real answer.
User avatar #18 to #15 - gigglesthegreat (01/16/2013) [-]
I agree with the fact that most Atheists use science as a way to reason, and are as bad as theists in the ********* : However, would a true scientist not be agnostic? An Atheist claims to have the answer that there is no god, while religion claims that there is. Both will argue to the bone over who is right, and whether their proof is adequate, the agnostic scientist is always right. Neither side can fully prove that there is or is not. Science is a way of saying: "I don't know, let's try to find out", rather than stating quite falsely, "I do know, don't question me!".
#22 to #18 - invisabull (01/16/2013) [-]
Yep. I totally agree with that. I should have distinguished between atheists arguing 'science', and actual scientists.

I believe we have reached an accord. Lol
#23 to #22 - gigglesthegreat (01/16/2013) [-]
hmmm quite.
User avatar #31 to #12 - allamericandude (01/17/2013) [-]
Typically the ones who argue about religion and atheism are the ones who are insecure about their own beliefs and feel the need to reaffirm it. They're not really arguing with each other--they're arguing with themselves.

Scientists usually don't have much of a problem with believing in God. The problem comes when people use their own interpretation of God to dispel scientific curiosity and progress in the face of contradicting evidence.
#72 to #12 - cheeezecake (01/17/2013) [-]
this^ this is what i hate bout the internet, someone give invisabull a medal
User avatar #35 to #12 - ilovehitler (01/17/2013) [-]
You seem to be confusing scientists with atheists.
Many atheists will just deny the existence of god as much as some people attempt to prove his existence.
Scientists are, by nature, supposed to be open minded about everything, because there's always more we can not yet understand.
#69 to #35 - invisabull (01/17/2013) [-]
see comment at the bottom. I think you ar right. i've corrected myself.
User avatar #36 to #35 - YllekNayr ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
You seem to be confusing atheists with gnostic atheists.
Atheists say that they don't believe in a god. Gnostic atheists say they KNOW there is no god.
User avatar #37 to #36 - ilovehitler (01/17/2013) [-]
I was actually talking about atheism and all, or at the very least most, of it's subcategories.
User avatar #38 to #37 - ilovehitler (01/17/2013) [-]
Meaning my statement was, and was meant to be, a blanket statement.
User avatar #40 to #38 - YllekNayr ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
Blanket statements are often misleading or flatly false. The one you made was. So I corrected it.
User avatar #42 to #40 - ilovehitler (01/17/2013) [-]
The point of my statement wasn't to be completely accurate, and I didn't really want it to be that way.
I used a blanket statement because it was correct enough for me to be content with it, at least for the moment, and short enough so people didn't get bored and stop reading half way through.

All the correctness in the world doesn't matter if people don't listen.
User avatar #43 to #42 - YllekNayr ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
But you don't want people to count you out because they and you know that if they actually bother to listen to you, it won't be accurate.
User avatar #44 to #43 - ilovehitler (01/17/2013) [-]
If the argument had required more accurateness, I would have used more.
But as it is, I didn't see that it needed a completely accurate, multi-paragraph response for an appropriate point to be made.
User avatar #45 to #44 - YllekNayr ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
Accurateness should be something you try to make a given. There shouldn't be things that you say that you know are ******** unless you are legit trying to troll. Were you?
User avatar #46 to #45 - ilovehitler (01/17/2013) [-]
Except it wasn't ******** .
It just wasn't the whole truth.
User avatar #47 to #46 - YllekNayr ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
That's also ******** .
User avatar #48 to #47 - ilovehitler (01/17/2013) [-]
No, no, no. ******** would be more of me saying a complete and total lie.
The information was quick and dirty.

It's funnyjunk. I really, really didn't feel like writing a five paragraph essay just to be correct.
User avatar #50 to #48 - YllekNayr ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
>implying you need to write a huge amount to be correct

You can easily write stuff that's correct without spending ages on it. But don't try and pull that **** where you say something, someone mentions why it's not really accurate, and you say "well I wasn't trying to be correct".

Then what's the ****** point?
User avatar #51 to #50 - ilovehitler (01/17/2013) [-]
You're putting words into my mouth. I didn't say I wasn't trying to be correct, I was just saying I wasn't trying to be completely correct, meaning I wasn't trying to have it be 100% accurate, complete with data and figures.

This is the point in time where I go on the offensive.
Who the hell do you think you are, strutting around like your **** is diamonds? You think that because YOU want to always be accurate, that's what everyone should do.
Well let me tell you one thing, boy, people ain't like that. Sometimes, people don't want or need to be completely correct. We're human. You act like your way is the only proper way to do anything, and let me tell you, it's annoying. You're picking an arguement for no reason, then pulling out ******** reasoning. By your logic and rules, fiction shouldn't exist either, because the author knows it ain't true.

So get the **** off your high horse.
User avatar #53 to #51 - YllekNayr ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
What I hear is someone being butthurt because he was called on his ******** .

"By my logic and rules fiction shouldn't exist." Right, because that has anything to do with what's being said. I'm sure there are lots of people that read Harry Potter and then are upset because they were misled and thought it was real /sarcasm

It's got nothing to do with any of what I'm saying being awesome, and everything to do with the fact that you seem to think that people spewing random stuff that they know is incorrect is somehow a defensible position.

And I appreciate all of my comments being thumbed down, because posting an informational chart is so red-thumb-worthy.
User avatar #54 to #53 - ilovehitler (01/17/2013) [-]
Once again, you refuse to step off your goddamn high horse. What you hear is someone really ******* annoyed by a ********* acting like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
You very, very clearly said you shouldn't say anything that you know to be ******** . You also said that being accurate is something that you should make a given, so either a) you're a hypocrite, or b) you don't know what you're saying even.
You get all uppity because I didn't use the correct terminology, and wasn't telling the complete truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, even though I was very clearly using a blanket statement which aren't meant to be completely accurate.
And the very fact that you even care about thumbs says a lot about you. Oh, and just for your information you little prick, I didn't thumb you either way.

Now, since I know you're going to try and drag this pointless argument out, and attempt to call me out on more **** you're making up, I'm just going to end this conversation right here. This is my last response. Go ahead, feel free to tell all your little friends that you won an internet argument that shouldn't even have existed..
User avatar #55 to #54 - YllekNayr ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
Goodness the anger.
User avatar #49 to #48 - ilovehitler (01/17/2013) [-]
Especially as very few people would read it.
#41 to #37 - YllekNayr ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
Basically this
#32 to #12 - SILENCEnight (01/17/2013) [-]
**SILENCEnight rolled a random image posted in comment #2763707 at MLP Friendly Board ** i didnt read the post, i just thumbed this up because boobs
#56 to #12 - anon (01/17/2013) [-]
It's because atheism is not saying that there is no god, atheism simply stating that one does not believe in god.

The big difference is that there are gnostics and agnostics, gnostics being those who know and agnostics being those who don't.

From my experience and what I've read most scientists are agnostics atheists, as much as they don't believe in god they're not going to say with certainty he doesn't exist.

Also I understand how you say god might be something we don't understand yet, it's very possible but to be honest from what I've seen from living in the United States there are many many people who do use religion as an excuse for ignorance and since they believe in god they find that there is no reason for any scientific pursuits because to them is god is the end answer and that's all that matters to them.
User avatar #75 to #12 - Kairyuka (01/17/2013) [-]
Realize that people who starts these ********** don't understand the idea behind scientific method. Mostly.
Also, I just think this picture is something fun to think about. It is kinda true, you know. Only, scientists would have to search for the same cat a thousand times to prove that the cat is always there.
#77 to #12 - matthlord (01/17/2013) [-]
Probably because religion discourages all that science stands for.
"Why bother looking for the answers, some bearded guys 2000 years ago allready wrote it all down right?"

Atleast that is how I see religion.
#58 - malifauxdeux (01/17/2013) [-]
Whoever made this post has never actually studied philosophy.
User avatar #10 - jbails (01/16/2013) [-]
Apathy is not caring about the room or the cat.
#70 - felixjarl (01/17/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Humorism is laughing at the black cat.
User avatar #65 - satrenkotheone (01/17/2013) [-]
Why don't they just turn on the lights?
#24 - karmakoala (01/16/2013) [-]
Bear in mind that philosophy is not looking for the same kind of truth. A better analogy:

3 students are assigned to do a presentation.

One (philosophy) provides all the possible information to be used.
The other (science) Sorts out the stuff worth using from the BS, and gives it practical context and use within the presentation.
The final student (Theology) draws pictures for it. Not helpful in any way to the goal of the presentation, but pretty and comforting.

Pic unrelated, I figured we'd continue with the theme 'big booty bitches'.
#63 - badpeace (01/17/2013) [-]
Hello everybody. I will now explain to you why most christians today are not any problem in technological and social progress.

Please note that this is only SOME christians, and i know alot of christians are also stupid fags who are against evolution, gene research, gay marriage, etc, but i wish to talk about the group of christians, including me, who dont mind these things.

First of all, i dont believe half of the **** in the bible, i know it was written by humans, and i know it is heavily biased/filled with lies. What i do with the bible is instead to understand it on my own moral way, and see it as a way of how to live a good life where you can respect any other human being. Some say christians are bad because the bible sais "gay marriage is not allowed" and more **** like that, but it was all written by humans! I know myself, as i have read through the entire bible once, the head and overriding rule over them all is simple, and it is the one i wish to live by; love your next (other people) like you love yourself. Not "burn gay people" and "stop technological progress" - i believe in science, and my future is maybe becoming a scientist within the area of physics.

Second of all, about the "god doesnt exist" stuff. Fine, you can believe that he doesnt exist. I can see myself why you would believe that. Just know 2 things; absence of proof is not proof of absence, and i merely choose to believe that he exists, yet in a special not-yet-explained way.

Third of all, i dont see god as a punisher and a granter, he is a kind of spiritual guard; i believe he protects me, i believe that he is helping my life, that he is trying to give me a better life. That is merely a way for me to get through hard situations; believing that a spiritual father is protecting me and helping. And dont get me wrong here, i have plenty of friends and family to support me too. I just have a second spiritual father with me.

Last of all; Lets all just believe what we want.

Pic unrelated
#66 to #63 - anon (01/17/2013) [-]
And the word that was translated into homosexual was actually "male temple whore" in the language before it.. So it doesn't mean that homosexuality in itself is wrong. It just basically means you can top a man and have it be okay, but the bible only has a problem with it if you are a man and you are on bottom. That is how it was explained to me at least.. Everyone can believe what they want, and the main point of my personal belief system is "Don't be a Dick, and Don't be a Cunt. Just be Decent."
User avatar #25 - churrundo (01/17/2013) [-]
So, as an atheist, are you open for the possibility that god may exist, given enough proof? or would you just religiously continue to deny it?
#57 to #25 - anon (01/17/2013) [-]
Please understand there is a difference between agnostics and gnostics, not once has an agnostics atheist ever said god doesn't doesn't exist.
User avatar #26 to #25 - Nullifier (01/17/2013) [-]
And that's why one must consider deeply how they actually feel.
I think that the prospect of the Christian God is highly unlikely, nigh on impossible, but I will not deny the possibility of a higher power's existence. I'm an agnostic atheist and I actually understand what that means. I don't hate religions or religious people for that specific characteristic, nor do I shove my beliefs where my penis goes...i mean down people's throats...
User avatar #28 to #26 - churrundo (01/17/2013) [-]
i'm calling it god, but it's also called Judeo-Christian God, Allah, The Great Spirit, Eru, and The Universe. It has many names, but what they all mean is that our existence matters, and it's not just for the lulz. Because, if the universe can either exist or not exist, then existing without a point has as much significance as not existing. If we exist without a point there is no point in wasting all this energy.
That is why I believe there is a god. I can't prove it, but I don't hurt anyone by thinking like this.
Now, before the ********* goes down, let me make it very clear that I'm not saying that I believe what the bible says. I know there is ample proof that evolution and the Natural Selection theories are true. However, this does not conflict with my vision of a conscience that wants us to make the best out of our existence and avoid extinction at all costs.

What do you think?
User avatar #29 to #28 - Nullifier (01/17/2013) [-]
I completely agree with at least the second half of your post. I believe that there doesn't need to be a purpose or any significance in our existence. I also, however, would not find it entirely crazy to learn that something had set this metaphorical clock in motion. I'm positive that natural selection exists and I believe in rational and logical solutions to many problems and questions, but that doesn't interfere with the possibility of an elevated existence in the form of a god or higher power.
#78 - Char (01/17/2013) [-]
If it smells it's chemistry, If it's dead it's biology and if it doesn't work it's physics.
#27 - orangepikmin (01/17/2013) [-]
Not only is this a repost, but it's damn annoying to think that there are people out in the world that think that science or religion holds all of the answers. Some things just happen because it does.
Not only is this a repost, but it's damn annoying to think that there are people out in the world that think that science or religion holds all of the answers. Some things just happen because it does.
User avatar #52 to #27 - docxy (01/17/2013) [-]
science isnt an instant answer
its asking why it happens and writing it down
User avatar #1 - vincetacular (01/16/2013) [-]
Religious ********* in 3,...2,...
User avatar #61 - PartyPanda (01/17/2013) [-]
If the room is dark and you haven't found the cat, how do you know it is black?
User avatar #9 - ljxjlos (01/16/2013) [-]
Common Sense : turning the lights on
User avatar #19 to #9 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/16/2013) [-]
The post is implying there are no lights.
User avatar #20 to #19 - ljxjlos (01/16/2013) [-]
It implies, but it doesnt stay, well, then I put it that way...common sense is searching for the Lightswitch
User avatar #21 to #20 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/16/2013) [-]
Yep, yep it is.
#80 - anon (01/27/2013) [-]
#67 - anon (01/17/2013) [-]
Science is like being in a dark room while trying to trick people into thinking you found the black cat.
User avatar #60 - chrolt (01/17/2013) [-]
Making poor comparisons like this is like standing in a dark room while being completely sure it's fully lit.
#59 - funnynsfw (01/17/2013) [-]
Pretentious is posting retarded unfunny images on funnyjunk for no reason but to be a smug thumbwhore
User avatar #14 - swetytntstiky (01/16/2013) [-]
oh very wise ...
 Friends (0)