this post was submitted on
210 points (85% like it)
253 up votes 43 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 38 comments

[–]goboatmen 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Kind of have to agree that science doesn't fit the classification of belief system, but still a great post!

[–]Dudesan[S] 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hey, I didn't make the diagram. Science isn't a belief system, it's a method of learning things about the universe.

However, "Observing the natural world is a better way of getting information than reading books written by primitive goat rapists" is a statement of belief. It's a statement of belief that's easy to back up, but your opponents can always ultimately counter by sticking their fingers in their ears and humming.

How would you suggest I rephrase it?

[–]routari 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The diagram doesn't say Science is a belief system. I saw it as showing contrasting ways of thinking. It's the title of the submission that says that, but to be honest, don't worry about it. I enjoyed it.

[–]Dudesan[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Okay. Is there a way to change the title of the submission, or should I just be more careful next time?

[–]EvOllj 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

depends on ones definition for "belief", keep in mind that some younger brains have less accurate definitions.

[–]Ray57 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How the Universe was Created, according to several world views.

FTFY.

[–]SupremeEmperor 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

People don't seriously believe Chinese myth like people believe the bible. Some even argue the story Pangu came from other cultures.

i.e. Searched for "Confucius supernatural" on Google. First result: Quotes from the guy: "Absorption in the study of the supernatural is most harmful." "You are not able to serve man. How can you serve the spirits?" "You do not understand even life. How can you understand death?"

Chinese culture did not hold theology in high regard (Painting with broad strokes here).

[–]routari 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In countries that aren't educationally retarded (for whatever reasons), Christians don't seriously believe Christian creation myth (along with others).

[–]BackOnTheBacon 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Especially since China is SUPPOSED to be atheist right now.

[–]Chaosflare44 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just FYI, the big bang theory makes no mention of the origin of the universe. It only applies to the development of the universe moments after it was a gravitational singularity, before that modern physics breaks down and scientists are unsure of what happened.

Also I don't like the wording "through some sort of Big Bang" since the Big Bang isn't actually an explosion, but a rapid expansion of space. The term "Big Bang" is actually a bit of a misnomer given by some radio host to contrast it with the then accepted Steady State theory.

Just felt I should clear that up. One of the biggest misconceptions is that people think the Big Bang theory states, "first there was nothing, then an explosion, then there was something", but its more like, "There was something infinitesimally small, we don't know yet where it came from, but it suddenly expanded and now everything is here".

[–]Dudesan[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is mostly correct, although I don't think I'd call Fred Hoyle "some radio host".

It does bother me when some people think that it was some sort of "explosion of nothing into something". It's an expansion of "everything in a very small space" to "everything in a much larger space".

[–]BackOnTheBacon 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So, do scientists have any theories of what was there BEFORE? Besides the Bang-Crunch thoery?

[–]Chaosflare44 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not really. There are a few ideas, like for example the vacuum of space isn't actually empty. There are particles constantly popping in and out of existence, so one hypothesis is that the universe could have just popped into existence from nothing, though that's really just speculation.

Then there is string theory, which claims the existence of multiple universes and ours isn't anything special. But I'm not gonna even attempt to try to explain it as I don't understand it myself...

[–]BackOnTheBacon 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I am reading about String Theory right now. Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. It's extremely interesting.

[–]Chaosflare44 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah sorry, I wasn't sure who the guy who coined the term was. I just remembered hearing that the term came from a radio broadcast.

[–]SXHarrasmentPanda 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To those stating that science isn't a belief system, it is. People can choose whether or not to believe in science, but whether or not they believe in it doesn't matter because it's still true.

[–]Cernunnox 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Tries to make an antithetic post. Classifies science as a belief system.

[–]Dudesan[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Empiricism/Evidentialism is a belief system. Does that count?

[–]Crownowa 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No. A lot of science is "fact" and not "belief" (which people could therefore call personal and ignorable).

At least I learned about some of those other religions today.

[–]Dudesan[S] 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A lot of science is "fact" and not "belief"

This is very much true. But if I may play the Devil's Advocate for a moment:

Many religions make claims that are contrary to observable facts. When you point this out, a common response is "Well, that may be true for you, but it's not true for me.", or "If any evidence disagrees with the Bible, then it must be the evidence that's wrong."

Empiricism is the belief that evidence works, as opposed to the belief, described above, that evidence doesn't work. This is technically an assumption, as there's no way to absolutely prove, a priori, that you're not dreaming, or a brain in a vat, or whatever. Of course, if you're not willing to make this assumption, you have nowhere to go epistemologically.

[–]Crownowa 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well then we'd forever be in a "God exists because of my beliefs" or "God exists because you cannot disprove God" cycle, wouldn't we?

Though, I don't tend to argue with anyone who can't even get past his/her beliefs or even facts that only prove one side of the argument, because then there probably wouldn't be any fruitful discussion.

Also, most people are taught about the times that science acts like religion, that even with real facts and evidence, the scientific community refuses to accept the new finding (like brain plasticity replacing the notion that each part of the brain only has its own locatable function).

[–]Dudesan[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not trying to place "science" on equal footing with any primitive mythology. I was just playing the Devil's Advocate to justify my own poor choice in title.

[–]Crownowa 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I also played the devil's advocate when I said that science has at time been as repulsed by new ideas as religion.

[–]Dudesan[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Cool.

If you think the title of this link is inappropriate, what would you suggest? (Can I even change titles? This is only the second link I've ever submitted.)

"Several Explanations for the Origin of the Universe"?

[–]atheism411 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think the title is inappropriate because how many of us have actually tested all the facts presented by scientists? We mostly just accept that they can be tested and that people have and if scientists were just making it all up that they'd have been caught out by now!

It is also worth mentioning that once you get down to the quantum level, the scientific explanation for the universe makes much less logical sense and you even get respected scientists publishing papers presenting theories such as that the "Higgs Boson" particle may have travelled back in time to sabotage the large hadron collider.

[–]Crownowa 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Title is not inappropriate. Most of us know you are just trying to compare religions with science (not a belief). I wouldn't have said anything but I saw Cernunnox's post and I had to agree. We are just being overly technical >.>

[–]jimminybillybob123 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think the Norse one was my favourite

[–]routari 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I love how self-centred the Japanese one is.

[–]routari 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Could have been done better.

"a Big Bang" sounds a bit misleading, as it's a (originally mocking) name of a theory of expansion from a singularity, and not "a big bang".

Reading "micro-evolution" made me twinge a bit too, as that is an American word used primarily by Christians, and not an international, let alone scientific one.

But other than that, I just realised how boring and unimaginative Genesis is as a creation myth. The only kind of description it gives (maybe to try and seem authoritative) is ordering, and even that is terrible. But bronze-age goat herders are the fish to the barrel others have provided me with, by virtue of the time I was born I suppose.

[–]IMLightning 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Implying religions deny the possibility that their god or gods created the universe by means of the Big Bang or other similar "theories."

[–]BackOnTheBacon 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I have a feeling that each of these world views would feel like they have more evidence than simply "so and so says so" I mean, it may not be GOOD, but they would claim it.

[–]skeltons_cure 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I like the chart but to be self critical, I never saw the word "theory" under science.

[–]FreeThinker76 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Re-post. I like it though, so much in fact I recreated it. HERE

Enjoy!

[–]Pierre77 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

False the big bamg theory doesnt go over the creation of the universe. But rather how it 'evolved' into its modern day state.

[–]kragmoor 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

repost but i still enjoy it

[–]FrederikBosch 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Prff, Norse religion is awesome, in the end it is just as ridiculos as the others.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Did anyone else read the norse myth in a Patrick Stewart voice?

[–]wappleby -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh hello there Mr. Repost, fancy seeing you here!