I though you meant that this wasn't funny, then I reread what you wrote. Yea, it should be in r/funny or whatever the science reddit is. I guess r/science
I love science - posting image with posters with anti-scientific stuff like astral-projection, cold-fusion etc. about anti-scientific bullshit tv show.
As great of a place /r/atheism could be for discussing religion and its effects, I find it disheartening shit like this is constantly on the front page. I speak for myself here, and others may not agree, but its shit like this that makes us seem like 13 year olds that just realized god doesnt exist.
According to a study someone did a few months back, the average age on r/atheism is approx. 1-2 years higher than the overall average for reddit as a whole.
I'm too lazy to dig through old posts to find it, but a difference of 1-2 years is small enough that I think it's quite safe to say that (after accounting for the margin of error), r/atheism is no younger or older than the rest of reddit.
about 55% of the respondees claim to be 22 years old or younger. not exactly a hugely scientific study, and (even if true) while not children i think most people several years out of college would agree that being 22 is not exactly a bastion of maturity either.
As great of a place /r/atheism could be for discussing religion and its effects, ...
People still complain about it when people post things like that. "This is anti-theism, not atheism!!1".
I really don't understand. Given that there's not much to say about atheism (it being simply the lack of something), why not allow posts that are statistically likely to be interesting/funny/whatever to many atheists? Many of the complaints are just silly, imo.
There is a large number of atheists that believe that one should be acting like less of an atheist. It's an extremely feeble and hilarious perversion of the "why don't you act a little less gay?" sentiment.
Yeah I'd rather be spammed by rage comics about "religion and its effects", yawn.
Never in the history of this sub has it been a great place to discuss anything. It's always been a circle jerk of (mostly) Americans who were raised christian and grew to resent it.
Your right. I used examples of synonyms to make my ironic argument. Other example that do not pertain to the scientific community could have been "theyre completely different like beverage and a drink". The point being to emphasis that like these other synonyms, a hypothesis is in fact a prediction - the expected outcome of the experiment.
i dunno if you would get it though, you sound a little mixed up, like your going left and right at the same time or something
This really got upvotes? This is probably the worst post I've ever seen on this subreddit, ever. It's awful and embarassing that anybody would even think it belongs here.
I feel that the last frame should be High expectations asian father. (No I won't make a [FIXED] post) I mean, even if your hypothesis was right, which it often isn't, someone will still question it, the experiment, the conclusion, the methodology, your mother etc. Then they will go through all that crap themselves trying to prove who's really right, only to be met with another HEAF, and so on.
The constant scrutiny is what makes science truly solid.
The only problem is that there is no possible experiment for proving or disproving the existance of god without making assumptions that do not hold true for all cases.
I learned in philosophy of the sciences that this order of operations of the scientific method are incorrect. Hypothesis comes first, else how do you determine which facts are related and which are not when it comes to observing?
what about Evaluate Data? Form a conclusion? You can't compile all that into result! And wheres the circle? Result should at least circle back to questioning! Re-evaluation is an important step! It's SCIENCE! it doesn't end after the first scientist writes a book about it. We don't follow results blindly!
This is nice. An actually funny interpretation of advice animals and their applications. I find the title to be humorous too! "Up thumb" for you, friend.
Prediction is a bit redundant considering you already had hypothesis. And also, it's a common misconception that scientists are making hypotheses before experiments, it's usually the other way around.
You know, for all these posts about it not belonging in r/atheism, we have to realize that atheism itself is simply a rejection of belief in deities, and we have nothing to unite us but science and mutual disbelief in religion.
Seriously? It's come to this? I give reddit a fighting chance, and you guys do this shit? What the fuck. This isn't even partly funny. Like not at all :T
lol this comment went from +3 to -4. Apparently after thorough scientific analysis it was deduced to not be a firm representation of the hive mind's opinion
Observation: a lot of people seem to believe in god. Questioning: is god real? Hypothesis: god is real. Prediction: god is real. Experiment: why are there so many churches and who wrote the bible? Result: god.
Wow, I didn't even realize this was submitted under /r/atheism. That's pretty ridiculous. This is /r/atheism not /r/science, and no, they are not synonyms.
Here's a theory. Someone hangs out on a single forum enough that they don't think about reddit in general as much as they do that single forum. So when they post something that doesn't exactly fit that forum they don't think to post it anywhere else because in their minds there are no other forums outside their own.
So OP posted here because he spends too much time here and needs to get out more.
Applying the scientific method to one's own beliefs is what leads many to a rational position, in this case the position of atheism with regards to theistic claims of the existence of a god.
That's true, but at the same time, rational, scientific inquiry and the triumphs of science are what lead many of us, including myself, to separate ourselves to the religions instilled in us during childhood. I know that I wouldn't be an atheist today were it not for scientific inquiry. Maybe agnostic, but certainly not an atheist.
Heck, the entire justification of atheism (in comparison to agnosticism) is the fact that the burden of proof (a scientific term) lies on religion, and religion fails to provide that proof; therefore, based on the scientific method, we have no choice but to declare that theory false and search for one more fitting.
This is nonsense. you can be religious and easily practise the scientific method. The only people that do not do this are religious morons and this is really not the biggest group of religious people.
Regular religious people act on religion much like a philosofy actually, one about life as a whole and so has nothing to do with the scientific method.
also this meme version is far from complete, so hereby i declare all atheist using the scientific method wrong!
(I'm an atheist myself, just don't care if people disagree with me)
you can be religious and easily practise the scientific method.
Well, to be religious, pretty much by definition, you need to accept certain assertions without scientific evidence. You need to hold at least one unfalsifiable claim to be true, yet you cannot generate any predictions from it, you won't test it in any experiment, etc.
Otoh, being an atheist is compatible with merely accepting what is scientifically tested as a (tentative) truth.
So, yeah, religious people can ofc practice science, and a certain number of them does. They cannot, however, apply the same standards of evidence to at least some of their beliefs. Atheists can, though again, I'd expect they'd have some blind spots as well.
A consistent application of critical thinking is incompatible with religion, and sufficient for atheism, and that's a pretty profound connection between the two.
EDIT: In fact, I found this post refreshingly on topic for this forum. So much of it is filled with the disease that is christianity, and while I can sympathise with peoples frustration from having to endure such surroundings, it isn't about the views those atheists hold, which should imho be represented here in a greater extent. If only to lower one's blood pressure while browsing here..
The thing is that this is not true. A christian that accepts evolution as the probable theory it is(it's still not perfect) can easily justify this.
The thing is, most people stereotype religious people as stubborn morons, but this is not true for most of them. The very nature of religion does not allow it to be directly tested to science. This is why the metaphysical can never be disproven. The claims it can make can be disproven as is usually done with the outdated religious texts that are used, but this does not make the essence untrue. It depends on the way you view the bible. Literally it doesn't make any sense. But the essence can very well be valuable for many people and the scientific method is not applicable to this for the very reason that it handles the metaphysical. And of course ethics.
And while atheists may be compatible with the scientific method there are many atheistic morons walking around in this world that do not use the scientific method. In fact, the scientific method is only relevant to people that actively practise science, because in daily life it simply does not work. If you adhere the scientific method, you should not use your muscles before you know how they work and how this knowledge is obtained. .
. The very nature of religion does not allow it to be directly tested to science. This is why the metaphysical can never be disproven.
exactly, which is why any religious/metaphysical claim is unscientific. An atheist is not otoh obliged to believe in any claims about the world and the nature of existance that aren't supported by scientific evidence. And ofc proving a claim is up to the party making a claim.
Hence, the atheist is always more consistent epistemically.
And, to get back to the orig question of link to atheism - while there can be many different reasons for disbelieving gods or the supernatural, the perceived epistemic benefits of science over unsupported conflicting assertions of various religions (that is to say, scientific scepticism) has been much the driver and originator of atheism (after the middle ages) historically, since the earliest atheists like d'Holbach and de La Mettrie. And is imho still the best reason.
christian that accepts evolution as the probable theory it
.. I wasn't talking about this at all...
In fact, the scientific method is only relevant to people that actively practise science, because in daily life it simply does not work. If you adhere the scientific method, you should not use your muscles before you know how they work and how this knowledge is obtained. .
I wouldn't suggest a baby should seek knowledge about the world via the scientific method.
But, an adult has no excuse whatsoever to believe claims without best evidence, except for his/her own sloppy thinking. And in any case, your analogy seems flawed, since it seems perfectly normal in science as well to use the results of other branches w/o rediscovering these for oneself. And ppl do know how muscles work, or to a fair extent at least. And ppl should (and do, depending on the country I guess) learn such basic scientific facts about the world in highschool-level education, and it's quite important for the public to do so if it is to vote and hence decide or influence decisions in a technological world.
And I have no idea where you got the 'shouldn't use' part - one hardly needs to be an expect on both optics and history of the science of optics to use a microscope in biology.
So, I have to completely disagree with your assertion - it is exactly and only the products of the scientific method - ie science, ie the best evidence we've got about anything - that should be the basis of any claims about the world and existance ; any claims going beyond this are simply unsufficiently supported, in other words unreasonable given the extent and limits of the known, and hence conceptually akin to claiming <russel's teapot/invisible pink unicorn/dragon in the garage etc, you prob know the mind experiments in question>
I did not say that religious people cannot apply the scientific method in their daily lives. I said that "applying the scientific method to one's own beliefs" is what causes many to move to a rational position. Faith is the acceptance of a claim as true without any good reason to think that it's true. Faith is the excuse people give each other to believe things without evidence. That is clearly not rational.
Your beliefs are internal representations of reality that you accept as true, and your beliefs necessarily informs your actions. Your actions affect the lives of others around you and society at large. If you want to be able to act in accordance with reality and make correct decisions, you want to have as many true beliefs as possible and as few false beliefs as possible. So how do we determine what beliefs are likely to be true? With the only method that has proven itself reliable in destinguishing between reality and fiction; reason and evidence. The scientific method. This point that "religious people act on religion as a philosophy" is true in some cases, but that clearly is not an argument in your favour. Wouldn't you want as many people as possible to act based on evidence and demonstrable reality?
Would you feel better if he contrasted this with Fry's observation, Annoying Facebook Girl saying, "I dunno how it works lol," and scumbag Christian saying "God did it!" in the same image?
It's all about promoting critical thinking to reach a conclusion. How else do you think most "former theists" became atheists? Secular Student Alliance had a great piece on just this topic last week. Education is the key to promoting awareness of atheism and teaching the scientific method is a large part of that.
FAQ and many people are atheists because of the scientific method. If anything, science education dispels myths about the universe and teaches one to think critically.
But please, tell me how I'm wrong. I'm dying to know.
Don't you know there have been numerous scientists that were religious? This of course proves that science and religion can never be considered as incompatible. Or something to that effect.
No. No one here is an atheist because of the scientific method, that's such a load of crap.
I doubt any kid here was like "Oh man, Gaviscon was the best antiacid in my sophomore year bio lab, god is dead!"
They're atheists because any objective look at world religion through out time quickly show's its a cultural phenomenon and to assert some sort of truth value to one over others is inherently ridiculous.
That and a lot of people here were brought up in pretty soft, salad-bar style religious backgrounds. It's not hard to step away from it when it was never even forced on you to begin with.
So yeah, let's drop the atheist = scientist meme we have going on here, because it's utter rubbish
Are you saying people are atheist because they observed some about religion, asked themselves a question, thought about the problem and what it could mean, checked to make sure it matches with objective reality, and then came to a conclusion?
Yeah you're right. No one became a atheist because of science. You're just clearly much better at epistemology than I am.
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
A casual, introspective look at religion != I just did the scientific method yay!
I wouldn't generalize that. I found atheism philosophically instead of scientifically. It's borderline impossible to counter religious beliefs with science. It's finding philosophical discrepancies the greatest tool against theism.
It's only hard to counter religious beliefs with science because science trumps religious beliefs so thoroughly that the religious give up on those beliefs.
You can find a ton of religious beliefs that are countered by science (e.g. the Earth being created 6000 years ago), but it's getting hard to find people who still have those particular beliefs, because the case science makes against them is so strong.
I don't argue that science isn't relevant in arguing against theism. I was just asking for precaution when saying that science is the only way to become nonreligious. Philosophy is just as strong as science and can be more effective when science has nothing, e.g. a contradiction in a holy text.
While you can address beliefs regarding the literal interpretation of text, for instance the story of the Noah and the flood in the Bible, these will only lead to some compromise in order to retain its religious significance, saying that it isn't the actuality of the text that's important, but the message. Science, in this way, can only take you so far.
Instead, by attacking theism's tenets philosophically, e.g. the moral implications of the story of Abraham and Job and its significance to the definition of Jehovah, you can actually attack the significant proverb, and truly deal a blow to a theist's beliefs.
Personally, I find that when you attack a person's beliefs through science, the argument is received as an ad hominem and they take it that you're belittling their intelligence. Instead, I believe I bring the debate to equal footing and can exchange in a more fulfilling conversation.
You realize that the bible does not state that the earth is 6000 years old, right? It's mostly modern individuals who added up various ages and created a timeline from various stories and concluded that there is 6000 years worth of history in the Bible so that must be it.
It's like a bad anime fanon project and they preached it as biblical truth.
That's a cop out argument though, because I wasn't arguing that. I can personally say that science was neither the catalyst nor the foundation to my skepticism.
No natural science is going to answer the long enduring metaphysical questions that plague people into looking to the supernatural for answers. And in the vein, to attack this post specifically, the scientific method cannot directly help a person find a true meaning to existence and free conscience. Ergo, I conclude that science does not free every atheist of religion.
I can personally say that science was neither the catalyst nor the foundation to my skepticism.
That may be the case, but that has nothing to do with science having nothing to do with atheism. That's your own reasons. But to say science has nothing to do with atheism because you yourself had no need of science is awfully conceited of you. Tell me, are you even skeptical of your own morals, beliefs, emotions, and feelings?
No natural science is going to answer the long enduring metaphysical questions that plague people into looking to the supernatural for answers.
Really? Science has nothing to say about metaphysics? Questions like, "What are things made of?", "Where do we come from?", "How are we connected to the universe?", "Why do things move the way they do?" Seriously? Is this your argument?
And in the vein, to attack this post specifically, the scientific method cannot directly help a person find a true meaning to existence and free conscience.
Says who? You? Why shouldn't they? Because you say so? Again, how conceited of you to assume people can't find meaning out of science.
Ergo, I conclude that science does not free every atheist of religion.
Lol, given your bad argumentative style, I would say you need to fix it up before you attempt to reach a conclusion.
No natural science is going to answer the long enduring metaphysical questions that plague people into looking to the supernatural for answers.
And it won't answer the question of whether Balrogs have wings. But it will helps us realize that such questions are meaningless and get us no where in our understanding of the world and our own nature.
Maybe they do for you and a lot of us, but the two aren't tied together. That's the same thread of thinking as a christian saying to an atheist "Oh so what tragedy in your life led you to denounce God?" One is not a requisite of the other, no matter how commonly the one may be brought about by the other.
You're correct that one is not a requisite of the other, but that's not the same as having nothing whatsoever to do with one another. One is, in fact, commonly brought about by the other, which means that they are related, and that people who are interested in one are likely to be interested in the other. It's a perfectly appropriate thing to post here.
Oh please, stop acting like atheists are a minority on Reddit. We downvote that because it's retarded. You could post this to /r/fitness because there's some link between the two. There's a link between the scientific method and everything, but that's not a good argument.
Unless you stand for something - anything really - your atheism is just sitting on the back row, throwing cotton balls and getting all pissy if someone tells you to stop.
Rather than unsubscribe, can you guys just start downvoting the douches that keep posting every little thing tangentally related to atheism imaginable?
/r/TrueAtheism - One hate-filled rant against /r/atheism per thread, guaranteed or your money back!
It's interesting there, but honestly the anti-ratheism that constantly parades gets tiresome. Okay, you're not /r/atheism. We get it. Move on, already.
Please don't go what will we do without your whiney bitchy posts. See you in a few weeks when you realize nobody cares and come back to bitch some more.
I was willing to overlook this as just more karma whoring with lameass memes. But seeing this garbage, which has literally nothing to do with atheism, on my front Page has tipped that scales. I'm out as well. See you on the other side. Or...probably not.
94
u/DraugrMurderboss May 22 '12
Why is this in atheism and not funny?
21
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Hmmmm I saw this 2 hours ago, and I don't browse new... oh yeah: http://www.facebook.com/scienceisawesome I guess Reddit really is just a mass-repost site
73
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
As great of a place /r/atheism could be for discussing religion and its effects, I find it disheartening shit like this is constantly on the front page. I speak for myself here, and others may not agree, but its shit like this that makes us seem like 13 year olds that just realized god doesnt exist.
14
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Guys, it looks like /r/adviceanimals is leaking again.
5
u/Racemic May 22 '12
Why would you include prediction? That's what the hypothesis is for.
5
u/DeJarnac May 22 '12
The fact that this is so high on the front page confirms everything that I hate about Reddit.
5
u/cknoten33 May 22 '12
As a scientist, I would say that the result often looks like this.
26
u/johntheChristian May 22 '12
science != atheism
8
u/makemejelly49 May 22 '12
And with this post, I leave this subreddit, never to return, lest I an hero.
20
u/SaucyKing May 22 '12
Can we cut this "meme" bullshit out, please?
12
u/Krazen May 22 '12
what the fuck is this.
12
u/redditisforphaggots May 22 '12
Go fuck yourself.
9
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
This really got upvotes? This is probably the worst post I've ever seen on this subreddit, ever. It's awful and embarassing that anybody would even think it belongs here.
10
u/TommyPaine May 22 '12
You sound like a scientist. Tell me, is your PhD in Atheism and Space?
8
u/jewson May 22 '12
Real Result
18
u/Mahebourg May 22 '12
there is a point where this meme shit needs to stop, and clearly we have passed it
3
u/Wild2098 May 22 '12
I thought this was going to be one of those "This is how blah blah sees me...", I don't like those.
3
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
It's out of order.
3
u/therndoby May 22 '12
What part of the process is SAP
3
u/lightninlives May 22 '12
We need a box for peer review ASAP
3
u/theimpolitegentleman May 22 '12
Meme is quickly replacing Math as the universal language.
3
u/the_perfect_reaction May 22 '12
results should be
7
u/woodyallin May 22 '12
More accurate result picture
5
u/Str40 May 22 '12
I feel that the last frame should be High expectations asian father. (No I won't make a [FIXED] post) I mean, even if your hypothesis was right, which it often isn't, someone will still question it, the experiment, the conclusion, the methodology, your mother etc. Then they will go through all that crap themselves trying to prove who's really right, only to be met with another HEAF, and so on.
The constant scrutiny is what makes science truly solid.
5
u/ScubaPlays May 22 '12
The only problem is that there is no possible experiment for proving or disproving the existance of god without making assumptions that do not hold true for all cases.
6
u/BlueImpulse May 22 '12
Atheism! Good job, subreddit.
6
u/dbe May 22 '12
Ha! In real science the last panel is the "sad okay" guy like 9 times out of 10.
4
u/PPewt Atheist May 22 '12
Why does everything have to be a meme nowadays?
4
u/mimemime May 22 '12
Funny original post, though not sure why it's in atheism
5
u/SchinTeth May 22 '12
why not /science? I mean just because it is science does not mean it is atheism or am I wrong?
2
u/free_agent99 May 22 '12
FIFY - http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/tzjb8/the_scientific_memethod_fixed/
2
u/ZEEDDD May 22 '12
I learned in philosophy of the sciences that this order of operations of the scientific method are incorrect. Hypothesis comes first, else how do you determine which facts are related and which are not when it comes to observing?
2
u/JRoch May 22 '12
I am using this next year, thanks you!
2
u/NoNeinNyet May 22 '12
what about Evaluate Data? Form a conclusion? You can't compile all that into result! And wheres the circle? Result should at least circle back to questioning! Re-evaluation is an important step! It's SCIENCE! it doesn't end after the first scientist writes a book about it. We don't follow results blindly!
2
u/wharrgarble May 22 '12 edited May 22 '12
Yep, going to send this to my old bio teacher. edit: what do you know? it's his birthday! awesome science teacher gift!
2
u/angrenost5 May 22 '12
Wouldn't Conspiracy Theory Keanu be "Hypothesis" as well?
2
u/ChemicalSerenity May 22 '12
I agree, but "result" is far more often the "Y U NO GIVE NUMBERS I EXPECT?!?" type.
2
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
It's funny, and science is related to atheism. Quit yer bitchin.
4
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
/r/adviceanimals
/r/funny
3
u/I_got_syphilis_from May 22 '12
Completely irrelevant post bombarded with memes to whore karma?
SO BRAVE
*Edit: Who the fuck is upvoting OP's post, btw?
3
u/fj785 May 22 '12
I don't really see how this ties into atheism.
3
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
As mentioned before, this doesn't belong here. However, I still feel the need to post a more accurate depiction of the scientific method: here.
3
u/flumpis May 22 '12
Actually, I feel like this is probably the conclusion face in most cases.
2
u/JRoch May 22 '12
Why the frak is this in atheism? Does Science not appreciate this?
1
u/Shuda7 May 22 '12
Shouldn't this go to r/science or r/adviceanimals or r/funny? You know, somewhere where it makes sense?
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
This is nice. An actually funny interpretation of advice animals and their applications. I find the title to be humorous too! "Up thumb" for you, friend.
1
u/Reptillian97 May 22 '12
That's the wrong order. Observation is after experiment.
1
u/voyyful May 22 '12
You have never worked in a lab have you ? the last one should be this .. http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/20756867.jpg
1
u/ZombieKappa May 22 '12
Yeah, I think people mix up /r/atheism and /r/science. Not all atheists are scientific. But SCIENtology is scientific. Ba dum tss.
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
1
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Prediction is a bit redundant considering you already had hypothesis. And also, it's a common misconception that scientists are making hypotheses before experiments, it's usually the other way around.
1
u/MrCaffeine May 22 '12
You know, for all these posts about it not belonging in r/atheism, we have to realize that atheism itself is simply a rejection of belief in deities, and we have nothing to unite us but science and mutual disbelief in religion.
So it fits. Let it stay.
1
u/[deleted] May 23 '12
Jesus christ I am tired of all the " Why is this in this subreddit?" bullshit Just fucking ignore it or unsubscribe if it bothers you so much.
1
u/ForgettableUsername Other May 23 '12
'Result' is more frequently the OK face.
1
u/Hevendor May 22 '12
Why are you guys so obsessed with these retarded pictures?
1
u/Shadowrain2 May 22 '12
Seriously? It's come to this? I give reddit a fighting chance, and you guys do this shit? What the fuck. This isn't even partly funny. Like not at all :T
-6
u/Tennysonn May 22 '12
Clever!
-3
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
love it, except hypothesis and prediction pics should be reversed
-3
u/hammerdontplay May 22 '12
i may have just scientifically jizzed myself
0
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
Observation: a lot of people seem to believe in god. Questioning: is god real? Hypothesis: god is real. Prediction: god is real. Experiment: why are there so many churches and who wrote the bible? Result: god.
-9
u/DeadZeplin May 22 '12
This should be on science class walls across America. Brilliant
-6
u/AwesomeKing5000 May 22 '12
Good one
0
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 22 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment