Just saw this pic, it perfectly transforms something I have been thinking about for some time into a dumb meme

Just saw this pic, it perfectly transforms something I have been thinking about for some time into a dumb meme.
Many make great fun of "flat earthers" but many of those many have not seen or understood any proof demonstrating that the earth is round.
The fun comes exclusively from an individual not immediately taking for granted something he does not understand but is treated as obvious by some superiors and as a result the rest of society.
Everyone believes in many things people tell while not comprehending them, is that not the same as having faith in a religion?

>Everyone believes in many things people tell while not comprehending them, is that not the same as having faith in a religion?
No. Honestly this is so obvious that if you honestly think its comparable then idk what to tell you. Oh wait, yes I do: You're a fucking retard.

Tell me how it's not comparable?

>many of those many have not seen or understood any proof demonstrating that the earth is round.
No one in the 21st fucking century who's older than a 5yo has any excuse to not know that the Earth is round other than their own stupidity. It is not only good, but necessary to make fun of retards like flat earthers, religious people, and the like.

So everyone older than 5yo has observed the shadows on the moon and ships disappearing from the horizon to conclude that earth is not in fact flat?

1) That's not even close to true
2) You are missing the point of the post so bad, even proving it, that it's embarrassing. Most likely did not finish reading

>So everyone older than 5yo has observed the shadows on the moon and ships disappearing from the horizon to conclude that earth is not in fact flat
Your pic related couldn't be more appropriate, perfect match to your utter stupidity
Everyone older than a 5yo is expected to be able to read a fucking book, you might've heard of those, even if you've never read any, apparently
>huuurrrrr you just dun get muh post
moron

You're on the schizotypal spectrum.

So you are repeating what I said, that they simply have faith in what the book is telling them? Sounds like a religion to me?

Well, you see, the book usually serves as a means to communicate a thesis that is later not only backed up by the evidence and the history behind the discovery, but also by the explanation in detail of the process of and means used to make said discovery with clear references to the exact scientific methods and experiments from which the evidence derive, thus eliminating any need for faith, since facts are already presented there.

The need for faith is eliminated only once the process of discovery is verified by yourself, something that is skipped in almost every case.

You can do the experiments for yourself if you doubt the scientists. Now tell me what I can do to prove or disprove god, if I doubt the word of teh child molester in a skirt who tells me its all for reals?

"Faith" is a not a synonym for "confidence" or "trust". You have faith because you have NO evidence, you have confidence and trust because you DO have evidence.

If you do not bother proving the exposed theorem by yourself, it is the exact same as believing what's written in a bible. That is what's being compared.

noun: faith
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Same as what happens when you read a physics book without verifying the formulas and discoveries by yourself.
Also, someone telling you something is not evidence.

>complete trust or confidence in someone or something
No-one has complete trust and confidence in scientific claims, not even the scientists making said claims. Good work destroying your own argument with that definition, you dimwitted faggot.

>The need for faith is eliminated only once the process of discovery is verified by yourself
No, the need for faith is eliminated once you're presented with evidence that unmistakenly supports postulated thesis. It is also your responsibility to re-examine and if nessessary to thow away your beliefs should they contradict said evidence.

Science is about seeking hard truths about the universe, nothing less. It is made to be 100% trustworthy.
There are arguments about the latest hypothesis but saying you do not have 100% confidence in proven, verified scientific claims is saying you do not believe in science as a whole.

>Science is about seeking hard truths about the universe, nothing less. It is made to be 100% trustworthy.
You obviously know nothing at all about science.
>There are arguments about the latest hypothesis but saying you do not have 100% confidence in proven, verified scientific claims is saying you do not believe in science as a whole.
No, its saying that I understand what science is, while you do not.

Science requires more faith than usual when it comes to the really high end stuff. I mean 80 years ago people thought they had the whole particle physics figured out, but it turned out they were all wrong about pretty much everything.

You also can't really verify their claims. What if quarks aren't actually real and it's just banter? How would you ever manage to prove that wrong by yourself?

The main difference I suppose is that one party gives you an algorithm for you to get to the exact same conclusions as they did (that's why the Origin of the Species is like a million page book, it shows every single step taken untill reaching the final conclusion) while the other just expects you to believe it like a cuck

The roblem is that most people these days just read wikipedia and take it as granted. That does not mean theories do not have extensive research behind them, unlike most religions

>unlike most religions

This is just laughable, every single religion is just made up off the top of someone's head and they are all completely incompatible with each other.

What if the universe is actually just a fart of a Unicorn? Can't disprove that, so it must be true, eh? Failure at some basic logic there, mate

Before proving the process of discovery yourself, it is the same as having faith in what a priest tells you. Religions as a whole are made to answer the questions humanity is not able to understand, which I think is not a bad thing.
The things scientists tell you can be proven by yourself as well given time and effort, assuming they are true, but you cannot possibly do that with every scientific claim. So there are always going to be scientists who are priests to you.
Making fun of people doubting things they do not understand or believing things they do not understand are both negative.
It is impossible not to do the latter, and not doing the former simply means you are extremely gullible. Both are human nature and necessity.

Stop being retarded. My point was that if they would teach at school that a water molecule is h2o2 and everyone around you would also say that. Would have you figured the truth out your own?

My god this thread is full of retards.
OP, I agree with you entirely. Well, maybe not entirely, but to a significant degree.
To 90% of humanity, including and most notably, a lot of militant atheists, "scientific truth" is nothing more than a religious belief.
Yes, science, by definition, is verifiable and reproducible. Yes, a lot of important scientific discoveries can be tested at home. But as you say, a vast majority of people never bother to do that. People neither perform physical experiments, nor even do the math on paper.
All they do is choose to ignore the guy in a black dress, carrying a book with a cross on it, in favor of listening to the guy in a white dress, carrying a book with Rutherford's Atom on it. They read articles on the internet that merely glance over major scientific discoveries, and are enticed only by cool pictures of space.
Now, don't get me wrong - I myself do believe those guys in white dresses. I admit that I am not educated enough to test every aspect of reality, and I willingly choose to trust their authority.
And I do find the movement of flat-earthers to be hilarious, primarily because over the course of the last few years, a multitude of ways to see earth's roundness has been described step-by-step specifically for those "skeptics". Most of those who genuinely believe it do so only because they want to be contrarian.
But such contrarianism is sometimes necessary, in order not to stagnate in incomplete beliefs, nor be manipulated by people who would fabricate such beliefs. We must remember that many religious many don't think of themselves as "believing" in god, they KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that there is a god.
I've actually been postulating this to people on the internet for many years now, and just like anons in this thread - most refuse to listen, because they are just too convinced they are smarter than everybody just for watching Bill Nye and owning one never-read book by Dawkins.

>Would have you figured the truth out your own?
What difference does that make? Has anyone in the history of the Universe "figured out" christianity without being told about it first? The fact is that once you understand what they mean by "h2o", you can literally run experiments by yourself to confirm that water does indeed have this structure, what can you do to confirm religion? Oh, "nothing"? That's why you need faith, ie, you need to believe with NO evidence, exactly like it DOESN'T work in science.

>you can literally run experiments by yourself to confirm that water does indeed have this structure

But would have you? Can you truly say that you know what a water molecule really is?

Religion is actually quite confirmable!
You see, if you take a big particle accelerator, and you put two crucifixes is it, accelerate them to 99.9 speed of light, and smash them exactly at midnight on Good Friday, your quantum spectrometer will measure a high amount of chistions emanating from the point of collision.
Of course, you don't need to actually check that for yourself - it's not like you even have the equipment to do so! But believe me, many professional scientists have done that before (I don't need to give you names, they are difficult to spell anyway!)

the difference between the LHC and religion is that people don't really let whatever facts the LHC is trying to prove dictate their life

Well it's not that flatearthers don't KNOW the earth is round, I mean they grew up being told that and they've seen all the regular proof and were probably fed the "before Columbus no one knew the earth was round" bullshit American public schools say

What leads them to believe in flat earth is nothing more than belief in conspiracies. Some people have such problems with authority that they want, or NEED, to believe that authority is lying to them. They will fully buy into and do whatever mental gymnastics they need to in order to justify their distrust of the government, their teachers, history books, etc.

Funnily enough this is fundamentally the same mentality we've seen in young liberals/hippies/whatever since the 60's in that they will immediately believe anything that confirms their latent belief that the government, police and military are corrupt. Flat earth is simply this mentality taken to the utmost extreme.

I once knew a guy who was convinced that gravity wasn't real and the only reason we can't fly is because the government has trained us from birth to believe that we can't, and that this explained why Bruce Lee could do such insane tricks and martial arts, since he had somehow broken his belief in gravity or something. These people are absolutely desperate to believe that anything told to them by an authority figure has to be false.

I think many of the pseudo-intellectual atheist fucktards like Dawkins are the same way, in that they believe so vehemently in anything that opposes the church simply because the church represents the authority they want to rebel against. Of course there are many people who are atheists because they are educated, rational people who came to the conclusion logically. But people like Dawkins are the exact same kind of sheep who are easily lead into conspiracy theories and ironically religions themselves.

>HURR
Again, this is not the relevant question. You CAN confirm it, therefore you don't need faith to believe it.

It's scientists who are telling me "don't smoke tobacco, it will give you lung cancer"
it's scientists who are telling me "stick a needle in your child, it will make it healthier"
it's scientists who are telling me "limit your CO2 production, because it will damage the planet"
Me personally? No friend relative of mine has ever had lung cancer, so all evidence in favor of this cause-and-effect is circumstantial.
I have never met anybody afflicted with measles, so I don't even know if it's a real disease. Just like I don't know if hell is real, or karma.
And the ozone layer, or greenhouse effect? I literally have no way to measure those! From my experience, weather is mostly random, impossible to predict more than a few days ahead!
Maybe I should instead stop letting those madman scientist dictate my life?

>militant atheists
I almost stopped reading there: glad I didn't!
Good post.

>But people like Dawkins are the exact same kind of sheep who are easily lead into conspiracy theories and ironically religions themselves.
No no, user, I'm on your side, but don't beat up poor Dawkins. His fanbase is far worse than himself, and he is actually a pretty intelligent guy, albeit sometimes prone to saying unnecessarily fedora-esque stuff

There's this thing called critical thinking. It's a very useful subclass of thinking, which is something i'd recommend you to read about, and maybe even learn the basics of yourself. So, this critical thinking, if done correctly, allows you to examine the evidence and the supplementary information about the experiments and draaw a conclusion without having to do those yourself! Cool, huh?

Do the research when it personally affects you (vaccines, cigarettes), and don't worry about it if it doesn't (quarks, galaxies).

You still didn't answer the question though. Can you say without a shadow of a doubt that you what a water molecule is or are you trusting hearsay of some scientists who claim they know?

>You CAN confirm it, therefore you don't need faith to believe it
I refer you to the HURR post.
Priest claim on a regular basis that miracles happen. Vatican documents those post factum and uses them as evidence to make people Saints. To regular everyday christians, this is literally "we have evidence and can prove that god exists".

Tell you what, how about you do the reseach and get back to us?

You're still avoiding the question.

Listen faggot, there is clear and undeniable evidence that Muhammad was a true prophet who has shown us the proper way to praise Allah.
It's not my responsibility to give it to you. It's out there, it can be proven, so I don't need to defend myself. How about you go, do your research, and then we'll talk.

> But people like Dawkins are the exact same kind of sheep who are easily lead into conspiracy theories and ironically religions themselves.
There're two and only two possibilities that would explain this disaster of a post:
1) You're shitposting
2) You're actually retarded enough to believe what you wrote
In both cases, you've got nothing of value to say.

Alot of these science zelots don't realize that many scientific studies(mostly in the social sciences):

-Fail the reproduction test
-Have someone conducting the study monkeying with statistics in order to achieve their desired goal.

What makes matters worse is if a Journal publishes a study that points to X, but someone else conducts the same study that doesn't point to X, nature won't publish that second study because some Journals don't publish repeat experiments.

These types who jerk off science think that science will solve all the questions. Science provides a bunch of discreet facts but it won't tell you what to do with those facts. Science leaves all value judgments at the door, it's not going to answer any of the really important questions.

Critical thinking doesn't help you much there. Majority of the people didn't doubt the particle physics they were taught in universities in the 30's. Lecturers thought that they had the whole thing figured out and they were probably qualified for the job.

If you were to teach an average 7th grade student that water molecule is H2O2, assuming they didn't know anything about the subject beforehand how many would object that "fact"?

Any study that's not done double-blind and then reproduced by a completely independent team cannot really be trusted, and a huge majority of modern popular science is like it. Small sample sizes, biased researchers, lack of skeptical oversight.
And social sciences are almost impossible to properly perform and reproduce. There are way too many unknown variables we can't account for, but which skew the results nonetheless.
Although to be honest, most science-zealots don't actually believe in social sciences. Those are mostly types who think that Physics is the only real "science" and the rest is basically stamp collecting.
as for
>Science leaves all value judgments at the door, it's not going to answer any of the really important questions.
Well, depends on what you mean by "important question". If you're referring to "how to live your life", it's ridiculous to think science would answer that. It's not the point of science, it's not the type of questions we even ask of it.
The scientifically accurate result would most likely be that you can achieve highest happiness by injecting yourself with 15 grams of pure endorphins and then shooting yourself in the head when they start wearing off. Math checks out.

>H2O2
Moron.

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills

This post took a sharp nose dive in quality.

You know what they could do? They could run the experiment and prove that water is not h2o2 at all! Now tell me, what experiment can I run to prove god doesn't exist? Is it "there is no such experiment"? Then why are you pretending these two things are at all comparable, you dishonest sack of shit?

You are reaching levels of not-getting-the-point that should not even be possible.
"they" don't matter.
It's about you. You specifically. Precisely YOU.
Have YOU ever verified what's water made out of? Have YOU ever measured the curvature of the earth? Have YOU ever examined genetic evidence behind the origins of humanity?
Or do YOU just believe some OTHER PEOPLE who claim that they've done it? How do you know they are not wrong? It it just because SOME OTHER PEOPLE said that they aren't?

Have YOU ever proven god is real?

>How do you know they are not wrong?
I know that they ARE wrong you moron, that's the whole point of science, it's about getting increasingly less wrong with repeated efforts, its not about "THE TRUTH" or whatever fucktarded strawman of idiocy you imagine it to be. The FACT that science is just an approximation is WHY scientists don't have faith in their results, their confidence is always CONDITIONAL.

Lotta Words to say that people are dumb and that you feel Superior because you're aware of your dumbness.pull your head out of your ass