We got a badass here. . cm the panel , tit week, we debated global waiitt. i., t, i, j.?. 1' isti. atar. e. ioo The good thing about is that it' s true whether
x
Click to expand

Comments(454):

[ 454 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#93 - thewellhungarian (01/26/2013) [-]
MFW I see the comments section.
MFW I see the comments section.
#176 - whitebuddha (01/26/2013) [-]
Why'd somebody have to post this on a SATURDAY?!?! Now nobody on Funnyjunk is going to go outside because there's a ******* religion vs. science post.
#243 to #176 - herbolifee (01/26/2013) [-]
Yeah, because if this was never posted everyone'd go out instantly...
#191 to #176 - John Cena (01/26/2013) [-]
like they were going outside anyway
#359 - kingcubjr (01/27/2013) [-]
MFW the comments
MFW the comments
#156 - englman (01/26/2013) [-]
Something I wrote on FJ a while back, it's relevant so I'm going to paste it here.   
   
"Science doesn't try to disprove God or Religion. People futilely attempt to do this and use Science as the tool. Then Science ends up getting blamed, when the true culprit is the person. The relationships between War and Religion tend to share a similar problem. "All wars are started be some Religion! They should all be abolished!". This may appear correct at first glance, but it's deeper than that. Ignorance (intolerance, nonacceptance, and many other words fall under this type of "Ignorance") is what actually causes most, if not all, War. To put it simply, "You don't hold my opinion on _______, so I'm going to kill you."    
   
Back to the main point though. Science and Religion are both tools with distinct 'properties' that can be used differently. Science is more concrete, while Religion is more interpretive. This allows for some flexibility, because you can use them together in many different ways. Without making this a 7 page paper, though, I'll just give one example that I believe clears up what I mean.    
   
Love is essentially just a series of Biochemical interactions between two people, with a dash of Psychology/Sociology.    
Does knowing that make love any less 'magical' or 'special' though?    
   
One Scientist might say "Yes, this is how it works and it shows our interactions to be nothing more than complex Chemistry."    
   
The second Scientist might say "No, understanding how it works doesn't make it any less valid. Our concept of love still exists, but now we know how it works."    
   
Now, which one is correct?    
Big finish... It's ultimately a matter of opinion."
Something I wrote on FJ a while back, it's relevant so I'm going to paste it here.

"Science doesn't try to disprove God or Religion. People futilely attempt to do this and use Science as the tool. Then Science ends up getting blamed, when the true culprit is the person. The relationships between War and Religion tend to share a similar problem. "All wars are started be some Religion! They should all be abolished!". This may appear correct at first glance, but it's deeper than that. Ignorance (intolerance, nonacceptance, and many other words fall under this type of "Ignorance") is what actually causes most, if not all, War. To put it simply, "You don't hold my opinion on _______, so I'm going to kill you."

Back to the main point though. Science and Religion are both tools with distinct 'properties' that can be used differently. Science is more concrete, while Religion is more interpretive. This allows for some flexibility, because you can use them together in many different ways. Without making this a 7 page paper, though, I'll just give one example that I believe clears up what I mean.

Love is essentially just a series of Biochemical interactions between two people, with a dash of Psychology/Sociology.
Does knowing that make love any less 'magical' or 'special' though?

One Scientist might say "Yes, this is how it works and it shows our interactions to be nothing more than complex Chemistry."

The second Scientist might say "No, understanding how it works doesn't make it any less valid. Our concept of love still exists, but now we know how it works."

Now, which one is correct?
Big finish... It's ultimately a matter of opinion."
#279 to #156 - John Cena (01/27/2013) [-]
But there clearly isn't a God lol.
User avatar #280 to #279 - englman (01/27/2013) [-]
That's definitely your opinion alright.
#158 to #156 - curlyhairedgoddess (01/26/2013) [-]
THANK YOU!
User avatar #159 to #158 - englman (01/26/2013) [-]
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it:)
#211 to #156 - John Cena (01/26/2013) [-]
Did you major in philosophy or something?
User avatar #215 to #211 - englman (01/26/2013) [-]
Lol I'm flattered but no, I just think about this stuff 24//7. It drives me insane sometimes.
User avatar #344 to #156 - pwincesswoona (01/27/2013) [-]
that is pretty great. what user came up with it?
User avatar #501 to #349 - pwincesswoona (01/27/2013) [-]
ah. thanks. :3 i read the first part wrong. i thought you said something i saw instead of wrote. thanks!
User avatar #505 to #501 - englman (01/28/2013) [-]
You're very welcome:)
User avatar #414 to #156 - kingpokerface (01/27/2013) [-]
Perfect. To quote one of my favorite books "Science questions how , Religion asks why?"
#455 to #156 - cjasper (01/27/2013) [-]
thank you for this
thank you for this
#463 to #156 - raikun (01/27/2013) [-]
That's just your opinion though. But i like it!
User avatar #214 to #156 - retributionthepimp (01/26/2013) [-]
englman for president of the world!
#218 to #214 - englman (01/26/2013) [-]
Haha! Thanks for that friend, I'm flattered
User avatar #160 to #156 - purealterego (01/26/2013) [-]
can i hug you?
#162 to #160 - englman (01/26/2013) [-]
We can sure as heck try friend:D
We can sure as heck try friend:D
#205 to #156 - thedeadlypajamas (01/26/2013) [-]
Thank you for this.
Thank you for this.
#206 to #205 - englman (01/26/2013) [-]
You're welcome friend :) glad you enjoyed.
You're welcome friend :) glad you enjoyed.
User avatar #171 to #156 - whatevsnicktrololo (01/26/2013) [-]
Wow man, these kind of statements stay with me for a lifetime. Even in 10 years, I am pretty sure that this what i read now will affect my opinion on some matter eventually. Well said man, well said.
User avatar #175 to #171 - englman (01/26/2013) [-]
Comments like yours have the same effect on me and push me to continue/strive to do better:) thank you friend, I greatly appreciate your comment.

I hope you have a great day!
User avatar #180 to #175 - whatevsnicktrololo (01/26/2013) [-]
Likewise sir!
#19 - John Cena (01/26/2013) [-]
i am very shy on the internet, because i'm a lil pussy, so i keep anonymous. (I still dont care is you thumb me down, so please shut up about it). but read my post before you act.. or just ignore it.

i am scientist (meteorologist). i studied in the best institution for meteorology and physics in europe. global warming is my main topic. so stop arguing with me. scientifically the global warming is undeniable, but whats going on in media is a political issue and NOT a scientifical.

Neil DeGrasse is in my opinion completely wrong. He missed the important fact, that science should question things and try to prove them wring. this is how science work. if we wouldnt question science, we would still believe aristoteles. To question things imply that you dont believe them. doesnt matter if you are scientist or not. This ignorance he is showing is the same the church uses. "it is true, stop thinking about it, because we proved it". i am sorry for everyone here who doesnt fall for this. Neil DeGrasse evolved to a entertainer and lost his credibility to science.
User avatar #138 to #19 - robopuppy (01/26/2013) [-]
"is NOT scientifical"
"scientifical"
...
#143 to #138 - partnerintroll ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
well, he didnt major in english
well, he didnt major in english
#139 to #138 - John Cena (01/26/2013) [-]
sorry for not beeing native english speaking.
#184 to #139 - John Cena (01/26/2013) [-]
now wait just a minute buster how do we know youre the same guy
User avatar #210 to #184 - pwoneill ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
How do we know that you are a different person?
User avatar #141 to #139 - robopuppy (01/26/2013) [-]
No hard feelings. It just popped up to me.
User avatar #132 to #19 - bulbakip (01/26/2013) [-]
I knew I didn't like him for a reason.
#167 to #19 - nofunzone (01/26/2013) [-]
Except science is always right regardless, it is our attempts to find out what science is that is wrong.
#370 to #167 - wadethegreat (01/27/2013) [-]
science is not right or wrong its the process of seeing if something is one way or another so saying science is indesputably right dosnt make sense its like telling me that science says that a tv show is stupid when in fact science only is saying we dont know we only tested it... ask the scientist!.... you see what i mean? if not dont please message me and we can talk and ill try and explain better
User avatar #169 to #19 - jimimij (01/26/2013) [-]
Science has been completely wrong in the past (spontaneous generation, most of the darwinian model of macroevolution). It is simply a model to explain what is observed. If it was wrong in the past, it may very likely be wrong now. It is the height of arrogance to say that it is indisputable now.
#319 to #19 - John Cena (01/27/2013) [-]
I think what he was trying to say is that science is true BECAUSE it questions things. It's true whether you believe it or not, so long as the evidence is there.
User avatar #64 to #19 - alleksi (01/26/2013) [-]
there have been so many ******* times where people have misquoted neil degrasse tyson just so they could have a "legitimate authority" behind their religion debates, that I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of those times.

neil degrasse tyson is a smart man and he's not an ignorant man, so I am fairly sure that he either misspoke or this was misquote.

pretty much all Neil DeGrasse Tyson related content on sites like tumblr, funnyjunk and reddit are complete misinterpretation and misquotes of what he has said for them to act like " **** yeah atheism" when, in fact, he is agnostic
#195 - jsrf (01/26/2013) [-]
#2 - lempersy (01/26/2013) [-]
I'm making this my profile picture.
User avatar #46 to #2 - arziben (01/26/2013) [-]
yes you are
User avatar #428 to #2 - CapnInterwebz (01/27/2013) [-]
I don't believe you
#11 to #2 - John Cena (01/26/2013) [-]
that guys a freaking psychopath
User avatar #296 to #11 - bothemastaofall (01/27/2013) [-]
How so
#226 - yutakenusername (01/26/2013) [-]
MFW people think that evolution in its entirety is men evolving from apes.
#235 - avatarsarefornoobs ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
Its a repost, its a 			*********		 starter, its old, its not funny, and I'm cranky today and this post did not help.
Its a repost, its a ********* starter, its old, its not funny, and I'm cranky today and this post did not help.
User avatar #297 to #235 - thelegitmetalhead (01/27/2013) [-]
Dat face
#89 - mandasawsum (01/26/2013) [-]
Me and my roommate at VMI taking a picture with the man himself
User avatar #108 to #89 - nucularwar (01/26/2013) [-]
I bet he gets sick of that
User avatar #201 to #108 - mandasawsum (01/26/2013) [-]
Honestly? Not really! We went up to him and he did it before we even asked, then shook our hands and thanked us for our service. Good Guy Neil.
+4
#224 - Yesitsme has deleted their comment [-]
#18 - KungFuZerO (01/26/2013) [-]
Maher: I have faith a show featuring Tyson will be a good show, because he's been a good guest before.
Tyson: No, you have evidence that it will be a good show.

Maher, wut are u doing
Maher, stahp.
#222 - respectmyauthority (01/26/2013) [-]
******* Neil Degrasse Tyson knows how we do!

Can't wait for the Cosmos rehash, he will bring honor to the Sagan
#227 to #222 - snakefire (01/26/2013) [-]
I have a carl sagan folder
#242 to #227 - zombiesnipertwo (01/26/2013) [-]
I know, Op knows, he knows, people reading this knows.
everybody know!
#247 to #244 - zombiesnipertwo (01/26/2013) [-]
more likely than you think
more likely than you think
#263 to #254 - zombiesnipertwo (01/26/2013) [-]
last one and everyone's favorite
#236 - mytrakytra (01/26/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Why can't science just be an explanation of the Bible?

If you believe in God or not do you think he would just make **** happen with no explanation whatsoever?

Why can't we just accept this and have everyone happy?
User avatar #298 to #236 - bothemastaofall (01/27/2013) [-]
Because most of that is just as made up as old Greek god stories
User avatar #294 to #236 - ivoryhammer (01/27/2013) [-]
Can't the bible just be a storybook? Like it was intended to be so? It wasn't written to be taken literally, it's like those old Aesop stories, they have a good message, but they never happened.
User avatar #253 to #236 - willindor (01/26/2013) [-]
Because that is too easy for some people.
#264 to #253 - frylord (01/26/2013) [-]
i see nothing wrong with it :<
User avatar #287 to #236 - rockamekishiko (01/27/2013) [-]
i think that's how it is. maybe he made up a bunch of laws of physics as if it was a videogame and let it flow on it's own
#251 - everyonesbuddy (01/26/2013) [-]
Post about pluto's demotion. Next post about ndt, the original pluto killer.
Post about pluto's demotion. Next post about ndt, the original pluto killer.
#257 to #251 - ExorArgus (01/26/2013) [-]
Its not so much killing pluto out of the regular planets, its more they added it to a closer family where it would feel more welcome.
#140 - tacblack (01/26/2013) [-]
&quot;Theories&quot; are actually equivalent to a hypothesis which as a 			****		 ton of evidence. Gravity is a theory. There's the cell theory and of course the evolutionary theory. Though the evolutionary theory may be true it doesn't disprove god. Of course you can't prove that god exists either.    
   
This is why the whole issue comes down to &quot;faith.&quot; You can choose to have faith or not. As long as people who have faith don't try to force others to believe that they're right, then we can live harmoniously. The same applies to people who don't have faith. We shouldn't be trying to convince anybody of anything. Let people believe what they want.
"Theories" are actually equivalent to a hypothesis which as a **** ton of evidence. Gravity is a theory. There's the cell theory and of course the evolutionary theory. Though the evolutionary theory may be true it doesn't disprove god. Of course you can't prove that god exists either.

This is why the whole issue comes down to "faith." You can choose to have faith or not. As long as people who have faith don't try to force others to believe that they're right, then we can live harmoniously. The same applies to people who don't have faith. We shouldn't be trying to convince anybody of anything. Let people believe what they want.
User avatar #145 to #140 - zonedguru (01/26/2013) [-]
LOL NO ATHEISM IZ BEST EVOLUTION IS KING CUZ I IS SMART NOW FROM MONKEY YESTERDAY
#150 to #145 - John Cena (01/26/2013) [-]
Atheism does not entail evolution, though it is the best argument available if you won't subscribe to creation.
#181 to #140 - acvirtutis (01/26/2013) [-]
While it is true you can't disprove god, if he did exist, you could certainly prove it. If he came down from heaven and proved his power I'm pretty sure that would prove his existence.
User avatar #197 to #181 - ninjasquirle (01/26/2013) [-]
This is where the imaginary flying tea kettle and the flying spaghetti monster come from. Also sometimes called "god of the gaps", it boils down to a metaphysical argument for an extraunviersal being is irrelevant because we don't know anything near that and anything said on the topic is just belief and here say.
#148 to #140 - John Cena (01/26/2013) [-]
.........did you seriously just say hypotheses and theories are the same?
#149 to #148 - tacblack (01/26/2013) [-]
No I didn't. I said theories are hypothesis with a massive amount of evidence. Which is true.
#152 to #149 - John Cena (01/26/2013) [-]
A hypothesis is a presupposed truth which is to be determined to be true. A theory is a truth that is the summation of given evidence. They aren't both explanations. Gravity is a summation of the laws of gravitation, evolution is a summation of genetic variation. A hypothesis would be that if I dropped a ball, it would fall. I would test it and find it to be an accurate assumption and incorporate that into a theory.
#155 to #152 - tacblack (01/26/2013) [-]
Basically my point is that a theory has a ton of evidence behind it. Contrary to the belief that theories are basically not true or still in the works.
#157 to #155 - John Cena (01/26/2013) [-]
Well that's just the thing, though. Theories aren't supported by evidence, they are the evidence, or the real world expressions thereof to be precise.
#207 to #140 - John Cena (01/26/2013) [-]
I absolutely agree with most of what you said, but I have to point out that gravity is considered a principle, since it can and has been proven. Theories, by definition, have enough evidence to be considered true, but can't technically be proven.
User avatar #147 to #140 - Faz (01/26/2013) [-]
But its not as simple as saying let people believe what they want when told blatant lies (like creationism) because it was said by people thousands of years ago who didn't now what they were talking about. Believing in God is one thing because like you said it cant be disproved but things which have been and can be disproved shouldn't be taught as fact.
#380 to #147 - wadethegreat (01/27/2013) [-]
why do you say that creationism is a blatant lie man? i personaly believe in god and evolution.. both make sense to me and both are accepted by me. and if you all are thinking that man am i a ******* retard just think... god might have just created the universe and watched us grow from single celled organisms to what we are today along with helping us along the evolutionary way and if you think about it and read the bible at the beggining you will remember that god had created heaven and earth in 7 days but he waited for everything to evolve to what it is!
User avatar #389 to #380 - Faz (01/27/2013) [-]
Creationism is a blatant lie because its the polar opposite to evolution, evolution has a overwhelming amount of evidence where as creationism doesn't have any. Also the bible doesn't state that God waited for us to evolve, it just says he created us, since the bible is supposed to be the word of God written by man why would God leave out such an important thing? Wouldn't an all powerful all knowing creature know that we would disprove his words?
#393 to #389 - wadethegreat (01/27/2013) [-]
oh but i should mention that the bible dosnt state any evidence of evolution because god did not describe how he made us but who are we to say what god did or did not do, because we will never no till we die and we sure cant some back after we learn what did happend
User avatar #397 to #393 - Faz (01/27/2013) [-]
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Unless God is a singled cell organism (that in which we started off as) the bible has a little lie right there.
#400 to #397 - wadethegreat (01/27/2013) [-]
im not saying god was or is a single celled organism and god is problably devoid of gender but all i was stating was my opinion like it or not its there but i dont really want to argue
User avatar #408 to #400 - Faz (01/27/2013) [-]
Oh no sorry i wasn't trying to argue, its just you said it didn't describe how God created us but it actually does. In my opinion though the likely hood of a God isn't that far fetched, its something which may be a possibility but again just in my opinion no current world religion has got it right, they all have aspects which have been disproved and a God creature being all knowing and all powerful wouldn't get anything wrong.
#416 to #408 - wadethegreat (01/27/2013) [-]
again you show trueknowlage and are very well put with your statments sir and you shall eventual be put at top comment "HE WHO IS WITHOUT QUESTIONS CAST THE FIRST RED THUMB!"
User avatar #420 to #416 - Faz (01/27/2013) [-]
Haha, well thank you, its been a delight chatting.
#423 to #420 - wadethegreat (01/27/2013) [-]
*roll tipping hat meme* and with you sir ( by the way im tipping my real hat to you as well
#391 to #389 - wadethegreat (01/27/2013) [-]
very good point sir thank you for informing me... a thumb for your service to are world
#151 to #147 - tacblack (01/26/2013) [-]
If these are lies are falsified then I do agree. There's no point in teaching blatant lies.
User avatar #10 - anonionbagel (01/26/2013) [-]
To the Neil to the Degrasse to the Tyson
[ 454 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)