use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
Help victims of the Aurora shootings
Help victims of the Sikh shootings
Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
Recommended reading and viewing
Thank you notes
Related Subreddits <--the big list
Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net
Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv
Read The FAQ
Submit Rage Comic
Submit Facebook Chat
Submit Meme
Submit Something Else
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 ›
How the Universe was Created, according to several belief systems. (imgur.com)
submitted 6 months ago by Dudesan
[–]goboatmen 5 points6 points7 points 6 months ago
Kind of have to agree that science doesn't fit the classification of belief system, but still a great post!
[–]Dudesan[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 months ago*
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 point2 points 6 months ago
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 point2 points 6 months ago
Okay. Is there a way to change the title of the submission, or should I just be more careful next time?
[–]EvOllj 0 points1 point2 points 6 months ago
depends on ones definition for "belief", keep in mind that some younger brains have less accurate definitions.
[–]Ray57 1 point2 points3 points 6 months ago
How the Universe was Created, according to several world views.
FTFY.
[–]SupremeEmperor 1 point2 points3 points 6 months ago
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 points4 points 6 months ago
In countries that aren't educationally retarded (for whatever reasons), Christians don't seriously believe Christian creation myth (along with others).
[–]BackOnTheBacon 1 point2 points3 points 6 months ago
Especially since China is SUPPOSED to be atheist right now.
[–]Chaosflare44 1 point2 points3 points 6 months ago*
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 points3 points 6 months ago
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 point2 points 6 months ago
So, do scientists have any theories of what was there BEFORE? Besides the Bang-Crunch thoery?
[–]Chaosflare44 0 points1 point2 points 6 months ago
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...
I am reading about String Theory right now. Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. It's extremely interesting.
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 points3 points 6 months ago
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 points3 points 6 months ago
Tries to make an antithetic post. Classifies science as a belief system.
Empiricism/Evidentialism is a belief system. Does that count?
[–]Crownowa 1 point2 points3 points 6 months ago
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 points3 points 6 months ago*
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 point2 points 6 months ago
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).
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.
I also played the devil's advocate when I said that science has at time been as repulsed by new ideas as religion.
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 point2 points 6 months ago
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.
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 point2 points 6 months ago
I think the Norse one was my favourite
[–]routari 1 point2 points3 points 6 months ago
I love how self-centred the Japanese one is.
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 point2 points 6 months ago
Implying religions deny the possibility that their god or gods created the universe by means of the Big Bang or other similar "theories."
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 point2 points 6 months ago
I like the chart but to be self critical, I never saw the word "theory" under science.
[–]FreeThinker76 0 points1 point2 points 6 months ago
Re-post. I like it though, so much in fact I recreated it. HERE
Enjoy!
[–]Pierre77 0 points1 point2 points 6 months ago
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 point2 points 6 months ago
repost but i still enjoy it
[–]FrederikBosch 0 points1 point2 points 6 months ago
Prff, Norse religion is awesome, in the end it is just as ridiculos as the others.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 months ago
Did anyone else read the norse myth in a Patrick Stewart voice?
[–]wappleby -1 points0 points1 point 6 months ago
Oh hello there Mr. Repost, fancy seeing you here!
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]goboatmen 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]Dudesan[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]routari 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Dudesan[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]EvOllj 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Ray57 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]SupremeEmperor 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]routari 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]BackOnTheBacon 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Chaosflare44 1 point2 points3 points ago*
[–]Dudesan[S] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]BackOnTheBacon 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Chaosflare44 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BackOnTheBacon 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Chaosflare44 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]SXHarrasmentPanda 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Cernunnox 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Dudesan[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Crownowa 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Dudesan[S] 1 point2 points3 points ago*
[–]Crownowa 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Dudesan[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Crownowa 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Dudesan[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]atheism411 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Crownowa 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]jimminybillybob123 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]routari 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]routari 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]IMLightning 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BackOnTheBacon 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]skeltons_cure 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]FreeThinker76 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Pierre77 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]kragmoor 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]FrederikBosch 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]wappleby -1 points0 points1 point ago