Well Veeky Forums?

>christian dark ages

Attached: 1519623071508.jpg (750x1000, 58K)

Ebin trolle.

Most Nobel prize winners in scientific fields (Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, even Economics) have been Christians.

His graph disproves his point.

That has more to do with them growing up in a christian society. Now that populations are becoming more secular you are seeing the numbers of non-religious people in the scientific community rise.

>Now that populations are becoming more secular
The world is becoming more Christian. Atheism is declining.

Whatever.
His troll post is still wrong.

Attached: I3cj1fnImf_xrZCPoBjgswNhRiBN-Y6CcUS6uSP2ATw.jpg (738x500, 86K)

>% of science we know
How the you figure that? How the measure the amount of stuff you don't know about?

Wow! We know 25% percent of LITERALLY EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW!
Great job, everyone!

The places that are responsible for most scientific endeavors are becoming less religious, not more. Even in China, the scientific community there is not becoming more religious. Christianity is in decline in the places that matter, mostly.

Yeah sure, the whole christians can't do science thing is wrong, but the increase in the authority and power of nation states and the comparative decrease in power of religious organizations including christian ones is one of the reasons for increase in technological development and scientific advancement.

No shit, retard.
This always seemed like a pretty slimy argument. Yes, most people agree with the popular beliefs and attitudes of their time, but those are still their beliefs. You shouldn't try to claim them over to your "side" like that.

(((Singer)))
It's cute how the Jewishes weaponized atheism after the Christian experiment turned against them

>% of science we think we know
>~1%
>I know exactly how much science we know and can graph it

Attached: 🤔.png (111x125, 629)

Attached: IMG_5982.png (634x153, 37K)

>creation of world
>creation of man
>world flood
>miracles
How the fuck can anybody follow religion, when it was objectively proven that it is wrong. And don't give me the "muh metaphor" excuse.

Wasn't that more of the "i follow my own kind of faith" attitude though?

Religiousfags, please explain to me how can you believe that geopolitically-locked ideologies are the way God intended the world to work?
This is why all religions seem retarded to me
>man is born in Indonesia
>he is a good man his whole life, helps everyone around, gives money to charity, works for benefit of all, saves lives
>but he is a Muslim, so he must burn in Purgatory

>Percent of science with think we know and percent of science we know exceeding 100% of all science from ~1850-1900
>We know how much there is to know and therefore can flawlessly graph it as percents
>Despite this, the percent of science that we think we know is at an all time low
>Science went backwards during the middle ages
Here's I've included an equally useful graph

Attached: Hurr durr.png (634x571, 16K)

I think that Richard Dawkins quotes aren't against philosophy, saying that someone doesn't accept common sense for an answer also work for scientist, many of the thing discovered by scientist, specially after the 20th are hard to grasp for most people, and don't really relate to common sense, but they're the best way we have to explain how nature works. Basically, the quote means that philosophers try not to be superficial in their thinking, and that isn't talking bad about philosophers.

The second quote kind of contradict the first one, but I believe put it context it make some sense, be open minded, but don't just pull shit out of you ass, be open minded with things that either make sense or you have proof of, not just claim something and avoid whatever criticism by saying "no mang you gotta be open minded".

Lawrence Krauss quote in part is right, philosophy of science doesn't affect the actual study of science, they kind of try to model how science work in a current age and how it should be, but philosophers of science know science as much as economist know economy, they try to model how things work and sometime are right and sometime they're not, but economist don't create economic systems or anything like that.
He does underestimate the value of philosophy though.

And what are you trying to criticize of Bill Nye quote? Being skeptical means that you don't believe things until you have a solid proof of it, which make sense with a claim as bold as "reality is not real", although I believe that he kind of tried to do a reductio ad absurdum argument with I'm not a real fan of in philosophy and science.

I think Neil Degrasse Tyson is basically saying that he prefer a more pragmatic approach to knowledge, but the way he says it seems to be kind of aggressive toward philosophy, but most probably because of being on TV where you want to say things that impact, not to have a good discussion about the usefulness of philosophy in our lives.

Continue.

I believe your image is kind of pretentious, you basically have in one side high level scientists seriously defending philosophy, which well explained argument defending their points, and in the other side you have TV "stars" which want to simplify things and aren't nearly as intelligent as accomplished as the other side, so the argument is extremely one sided and show people defending philosophy as intelligent and the other side as drooling retards, I'm sure there are pretty intelligent and accomplished people in science that will defend the opposite side of the point, but whoever created the image clearly didn't try to create a good, informative image, but just to defend their point.

Religion is retarded, I hate all of you pretentious believers, using a lot of logical fallacies to defend stupid arguments, just kys so you can see your beloved god in the other side.

>the more humble we become
That's funny I don't remember the old churches claiming it was our destiny and duty to transcend biological death, rewrite the human genome, or terraform Mars....

>Believe god exists means being a christian
Do you even know the basics of set theory?

>Heathens should fast tracked into heaven ahead of people who actually believe in God just because he did some nice things
He should be glad he gets to go to purgatory and doesn't just get flushed with the rest of the hellbound souls.

>exceeds 100%
had a hearty chuckle

>we become humble
>not like those stupid rotten christians they suck!
Topirony

Lol what a stupid pair of posts

>how can anyone defend this
>and don't you dare give me the correct defense

>holy script says something is true
>it is proven to be false
>"b-but it was a metaphor!"

>metaphorical truth is not truth

dont you dare to post black lagan in Veeky Forums

Attached: sagan black .jpg (540x253, 23K)

Do you walk out of movies screaming about how factually untrue they were? Or do you walk out with an appreciation for their structure, form, and perhaps a lesson you derived from it?

You're looking at myths through an empirical lens. Of course you'll render it all useless in that way, because myths are indeed useless on an empirical level. But empiricism isn't the only lens that exists and it can't be the only one you use (even if you delude yourself into thinking that it's the only one you personally look through). Myths weren't constructed with the concept of empirical/factual value in mind. Remember, science and philosophy only split into two separate disciplines about half a millennium ago.

>science keeps you humble HAHAHA FOOLISH RELIGIONFAGS YOU'RE SO DUMB

Between this and his "lol borders aren't real" comments, he's starting to look like a rampant expansionist to me

Is this for real?

Holy shit in heaven, this man has said some brainless shit but I think this takes the cake

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

>Specifically on the science related prizes, Christians have won a total of 73% of all the Chemistry, 65% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, and 54% in all Economics awards

Attached: Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png (978x640, 72K)

Use arguments if possible

>Religion is retarded, I hate all of you pretentious believers, using a lot of logical fallacies to defend stupid arguments, just kys so you can see your beloved god in the other side.

Where's the argument here so I can reply to you? Have you ever read St. Thomas of Aquinas? Kierkegaard? Pascal? You little brainlet.

Attached: quote-the-function-of-prayer-is-not-to-influence-god-but-rather-to-change-the-nature-of-the-one-who- (850x400, 55K)

>le science graph
im embarrassed for the actual scientists

I keep seeing posts like these, implying that - because individuals on twitter without any prominence are saying something, that means it's an unimportant or even invalid topic. And broadly I agree with that sentiment since twitter is a cesspool of ideology that's somehow managed to be more cancerous than Veeky Forums or reddit's wildest dreams (or nightmares).

But so many people use twitter exclusively as their platform for knowledge and conversation that actively ignoring twitter, or pretending that what goes on there isn't happening, is a guaranteed way to lose track of what the general population is saying at any given moment. I get the point of the sentiment this image is espousing is to try and mitigate screencap cancer threads, but sticking our fingers in our ears and saying "I can't hear you" isn't going to undo the fact that the sort of awful, awful shit you see random fucks posting on twitter is The Mainstream, and if we sequester ourselves from (what is unfortunately now) reality we might as well not exist, especially on a board like Veeky Forums which deals so often with topics like OP's pic. Like it or not, the OP pic is a very accurate appraisal of what hundreds of thousands of people think.

"pair" implied you were talking about both post, I don't intend to discuss religion as it has been proven to be a futile effort against logical fallacy after fallacy to defend the believes of some desert nomads from two and three millenniums ago, that's why I didn't argument against religion and just called out religious people.

In the right column's defense, they ARE making those statements after the world of academic philosophy was completely overrun by critical theorists who write peer-reviewed pieces about how 1 divided by 1 equals an erect penis and how fluid dynamics is harder to calculate than the physics of solid objects because most physicists are men and sexist towards fluid because vaginas are moist.

What a stupid post.

ebin meme bro
I thought this might have actually been serious until I saw you quote Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson as scientists.

you do realize he's being ironic

>Asks for arguments
>doesn't use arguments himself because 'it has been proven to be a futile effort'
and you call the religious people pretentious

I was asking for arguments about my defense of the image posted that I talked about in both post, I didn't use arguments against religion because I wasn't intending to discuss religion, if the guy who called both my post "stupid" said that my insult to religion was stupid I wouldn't have answered.

DAE gOD does not real?????

EDIT: thanks for the gold

you have legit autism if you'd write an essay over a 1 image reply

But disproportionately Jews.

Science is also the exact opposite of Continental "Philosophy".

>that graph

Attached: 1377040834118s.jpg (250x250, 7K)

youtube.com/watch?v=xFeJU2fIKlY

The correct conclusion from this is really that judaism turns you into a scientist

The vast majority of famous scientists before the 20th century was not jewish.

Why are jews so based?

I'm gonna assume they count non-religious jews as jewish

Middle Easterners are racially superior to Europeans. This is why the earliest civilization developed in the Fertile Crescent, this is why both of the two largest religions have Semitic origin, and this is why Jews consistently outperform whites at everything.

>both of the two largest religions have Semitic origin
>creating Jewdaism makes you superior

Judaism is not one of the two largest religions, I meant Christianity and Islam.

By the way, why haven’t whites invented a single relevant religion? Why did all majour religions originate in the East?

*major

>>caring about whether a religion is relevant or not.
Bitch, european polytheism is a million times more appealing then any amount of abrahamic bullshit ever will be.

Creating Judaism is like creating AIDS, you don't get a pat on the head for doing such a thing.

>This is why the earliest civilization developed in the Fertile Crescent
The earliest civilization developed there because is an ideal place for agriculture and is much closer to Africa than other good places for agriculture, if humans moved before to India or China, those places would have been the origin of civilization. By the time civilization developed there were people all around the world, but the amount of people necessary to develop civilization and the good site for agriculture was the Fertile Crescent.

...

The source for that claim is complete shit and has been heavily critiziced by Wikipedia editors
>lists outposken atheists as being part of "Jewish religion"
>doesn't mention how that information was obtained
>claims Christians are the bulk of nobel laureates, yet it completely lacks a list of Christian nobel laureates, making impossible to confirm the claim
>the statistic is not available anywhere else

Absolute trash

>we created the biggest cancer of the world, this makes us superior
Okay Schlomo

>made up graph is evidence

Attached: download (2).jpg (225x224, 10K)

Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Religion December 1g_snd.pdf
nber.org/papers/w21052.pdf

Daily reminder the overwhelming majority of leading scientists are atheist

nature.com/articles/28478

Daily reminder religious people are less intelligent according to dozens of studies.

diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Relation_Between_Intelligence_and_Religiosity__A_Meta-Analysis_and_Some_Proposed_Explanations.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less educated

economist.com/news/international/21623712-how-education-makes-people-less-religiousand-less-superstitious-too-falling-away

Attached: 16.jpg (630x750, 130K)

Both religion and science are cancer.

>ignoring thousands of years of human history
>implying correlation=causation

Attached: emote.png (92x128, 14K)

Not an argument

Without Donald Knuth(christian), you probably would not have a computer or a phone.

Actually the second point is a pretty crucial issue you need to address
And by the way, you can make a regression model and stick a line through a data set, but do you even see how loose that correlation is in your very own figure? You can even see, there are just as many highly innovative countries on the extremely religious end as there are on the other, the trend is just pulled downwards by an abundance of religious countries with relatively little innovation to their names.

What the fuck are you talking about? The source for both the chart and the quoted text is this book:
books.google.com/books?id=3jrbmL-DgZQC

Inside the book there is a list of each and every single Nobel laureate by religion and nationality.

Is lying a common atheist tactic?

>Actually the second point is a pretty crucial issue you need to address

Provide a more plausible hypothesis given the evidence.

>the correlation is loose
t. brainlet
Read the paper

The book doesn't have a list of Christian nobel laureates, brainlet. It has for Jews, nonreligious and Muslims, but not for Christians.
It also lists people like Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg as religious (lol)

>claims the science we think we know is almost near 0%
>claims the science we know is much more than that
>paradoxically claims that the science "we know" is not the same as the science we think "we know"
??????????

I mean, look dude, the point is that those are scientists and mathematicians who believe in God.

Understanding physics and quantum mechanics and high level mathematical analysis does NOT necessitate you are an atheist.

Believing in Darwinism does. That's where many people make their mistake. Stephen Hawking (PBUH) even said that God may exist, but he was very doubtful. It just shows you that most physicists can completely, and absolutely, believe. The recent trend of new atheism needs to die.

And the issue here is that the graph is depicting two things that aren't even measurable. I mean, this is laughably stupid. I'm sick of stupid graphs that aren't possible.

How the fuck do you MEASURE scientific innovation. What a stupid graph.

It's hardly even a line of best fit if the standard deviation is that high too, look at it haha. It looks like a bunch of dots haphazardly shat out by the origin. Honestly, how can you do regression analysis on chaos?

>we unlearned science
Is he retarded?

>Black science man honestly thinks 16th century Spanish were more forward thinking than 16th century Italians.

>China
>not religious

from your study
"ìOnly in Protestant Europe
was the entire corpus of classical thinking called into question; Catholic regions under the
Counter-Reformations preferred to hold to the mix of Aristotelian and Christian cosmologies
received from Augustine, Ptolemy, and Aquinas. And only in England, for at least a generation
ahead of any other nation in Europe, did a Newtonian culture ñfeaturing a mechanistic worldview,
belief in fundamental, discoverable laws of nature, and the ability of man to reshape
his world by using those lawsñ take hold. The spread of such set of beliefs to a wide variety
of engineers, merchants, ministers, and craftsmen reshaped the entire nationís approach to
knowledge and technology.î"

the problem is papistry and not being anglo, not religion persay

no it's historically accurate

Fuck you're stupid
I was the one who first called you stupid, all the other people you're talking to are just others who agree
Think on that you stupid ass

Oh look, it's another christard circlejerk thread,

good Point fuck humility LETS BE GODS

>his goal is to illustrate that we have no idea how much we don't know
>draws a line showing what percentage of "total science" we know
Is he from the future?