[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 101 KB, 500x487, fuck_science.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4622282 No.4622282 [Reply] [Original]

Thinking more Analytically instead of Intuitively actually reduces religious belief.
>A new study finds that prompting people to engage in analytical thinking can cause their religious beliefs to waver.
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/to-keep-the-faith-dont-get-analytical.html

pic unrelated

>> No.4622287
File: 162 KB, 960x823, particle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4622287

who'd've thunk it

>> No.4622288

In other news: rain make stone wet! fire hurt fingers. tiger growl loud. caveman news signing off.

>> No.4622305

>>4622288
Holy shit this guy is such a bad ass. He is so edgy and cool. I want to be like him.

>> No.4622312
File: 33 KB, 256x256, face029.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4622312

>>4622305
What he said wasn't edgy.

>> No.4622319

>>4622305
it wast that great. you have shit role models or something...

>> No.4622324 [DELETED] 

>>4622319
lrn2 capitalize

>> No.4622337
File: 298 KB, 388x392, Dr_Cox_Reaction_faces_part_1-s388x392-151536.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4622337

>>4622305
>edgy

>> No.4622347

>>4622324
>lrn2
learn to wright complete sentences.

>> No.4622350

>>4622337
it was a typo

i meant deep and odgy

>> No.4622360
File: 31 KB, 383x409, 1334687240024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4622360

>>4622347
>wright
>>4622350
>odgy

lrn2spell

>> No.4622362 [DELETED] 

>>4622347
Who are you posting at bro?

>> No.4622365

>>4622360
lrn2 understand irony

>> No.4622371

>>4622360
What is that reaction face from?

>> No.4622376 [DELETED] 

>>4622365
It's not ironic.

>> No.4622377

>>4622371
black books

>> No.4622379

>>4622376
sure *pat on head*

>> No.4622384

and on the other hand logical thinking impairs problem solving and creativity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud8WRAdihPg

>> No.4622387

>>4622365
It's not ironic.

>> No.4622382

>>4622376
your stupid

>> No.4622393

>>4622387
i made the odgy post, it was ironic

>> No.4622396

>>4622390
are you the guy that posts that in every thread?

>> No.4622404 [DELETED] 

>>4622396
I callz emz ouz I'ze seez emz.

>> No.4622409

>>4622404
anz thenz deletz zemz

>> No.4622416

>>4622305
Thanks for turning this into a troll thread, dumbass.

>> No.4622419

>>4622416
>implying it wasn't a "troll" thread right from the beginning
>implying "science vs religion" threads aren't a rule violation

>> No.4622422

>>4622282
>Critical thinking reduces religious belief

Fucking DURRR. Isn't it fucking obvious?

Thinking about "reality" indeed discourages belief in fairytale bullshit (religion).

>> No.4622433
File: 710 KB, 576x864, face196.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4622433

>>4622419
>links to article on ScienceMag.org
>not /sci/ related

>> No.4622434

>>4622433
>inane religion trolling
>not a bannable offense

Now stop bumping your shit thread.

>> No.4622442

>>4622434
Science of Religion != Science vs. Religion

>> No.4622447

Analytical thinking still uses non analytical type thoughts because nobody is purely analytical. You can't think in an analytical type fashion you can only attempt to get as close as you possibly can.


Also you have never seen an entire movie the whole way through in your entire life because there are segements of the movie that you miss while your eyes are closed during blinking

Which you are manually doing now.

>> No.4622453
File: 42 KB, 252x247, 1312073967289.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4622453

>not fusing analytical and intuitive thought in order to transcend both thus leaving dogma (theistic or non-theistic) behind entirely
>not consuming tao

>> No.4622454

>>4622434
>inane
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
>Inigo_Montoya.jpg

>> No.4622459

>>4622447
Sorry, but did your post have an argument?

>> No.4622460

>>4622454
It means exactly what I think it means

>in·ane (n-n)
>adj. in·an·er, in·an·est
>One that lacks sense or substance

>> No.4622461

>>4622460
The article lacks sense or substance?

>> No.4622469

>>4622447
Which is why we don't rely on anecdotal evidence. We repeat experiments over and over to make sure we didn't miss anything and use computers to collect data. Obviously, you can argue that "oh, you'll never know if what you're seeing is real", but scientists choose to think that it is, and this choice is just as valid as the solipsist choice.

>> No.4622477

>>4622461
Posting it on /sci/ lacks sense and substance. It contains no valuable information and is posted for the only purpose of shitting up the board with another religion debate.

>> No.4622480

>>4622469
I don't understand solipsism. Wouldn't every solipsist starve to death because they refuse to believe food is real?

>> No.4622486

>>4622477
>It contains no valuable information
Again, the article contains no information with value?

>> No.4622489

>>4622486
No, it doesn't. It states what everyone already knows. It's redundant and worthless.

>> No.4622516

>>4622489
>You: Religious folk aren't as analytic as non-religious folk, everybody knows that.
>Theist: Prove it!
>You: Erh, I can't...
You shouldn't just assume things and say that testing those assumptions is pointless.

>> No.4622518

>>4622489

A study isn't worthless if the results agree with what every atheist already assumed. The point is that a real, controlled, lab study confirmed it. Which is better than "because atheists say so" in case you don't really understand epistemology or science.

>> No.4622522

>>4622516
Why the fuck should I bother talking to a theist? I'm not an edgy american teenager, so I have better things to do.

>>4622518
I didn't say the study is worthless, I said posting religion related shit on /sci/ is worthless.

>> No.4622524

>>4622489

>It states what everyone already knows

Lol, tell that to America. And the jackasses running for its Presidency. And its talking heads. And… you know what, this would take all day.

PEOPLE ARE RETARDED!

>> No.4622526
File: 74 KB, 550x550, face053.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4622526

>>4622522
>edgy
Here we go again.

Quit trolling.

>> No.4622528

>>4622526
The only one trolling here is OP.

>> No.4622527

>>4622524
Geuss what: Giving them a link to a study won't change their retardation.

>> No.4622529

>>4622527
Did you even read the article? Getting them to think more analytically through simple puzzles DOES change their belief.

>> No.4622532

>>4622528
Stop being odgy.

>> No.4622533

>>4622529
Did you even read what I posted?

>> No.4622534

>>4622532
What the fuck is odgy?

>> No.4622538

>>4622534
Nothing.

see >>4622350

>> No.4622540

>>4622534
derp and odgy

>> No.4622543

>>4622533
You implied their beliefs can't be changed.

>> No.4622545

>>4622543
No, I didn't. You are lacking basic reading comprehension.

>> No.4622555

>>4622545
>THERE IS A MISUNDERSTANDING ON THE INTERNET?! IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT, STUPID!
Grow up.

The only reason your post would have been relevant is if the other poster's goal was to change someone else's beliefs, where then the article WOULD be relevant because it outlines how it can be done.

>> No.4622563

>>4622555
Can you just shut up and stop bumping a troll thread?

>> No.4622569
File: 7 KB, 181x279, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4622569

>go to sci
>think to myself "damn those guys probably be smart and all that"
>see bunch of retards arguing over grammar instead of content

don't get me wrong here, grammar IS important, but you guys are all faggots

>> No.4622586

>>4622563
Can you stop saging as if it does anything and make it explicit that you agree that the previous post accurately assessed the implications of your post.

>> No.4622591

>>4622569
That's a generalization.

>> No.4622592

>>4622586
He didn't and I won't stop saging. This is a religion troll thread and shouldn't be bumped.

>> No.4622599

>>4622592
>This is a religious troll thread.
Only because you keep labeling it as such, proof that if you state something enough it will become true.

>He didn't.
Then point out where that post's logic failed.

>> No.4622605

>>4622599
It's a troll thread and it is about religion. Show me how that's not the definition of a religion troll thread.

>> No.4622606

>>4622599
OP contains the word religion, you tell me what this thread is.

>> No.4622614

>>4622606
>It's a troll thread and it is about religion. Show me how that's not the definition of a religion troll thread.
It's a troll thread only because posts keep referring to it as such. There has been no topic relevant trolling.

>>4622605
Science of Religion != Science vs. Religion.

>> No.4622616

>>4622614
>Science of Religion
>Science
>of Religion

>> No.4622621

>>4622592
>He didn't.
Then point out where that post's logic failed.

>> No.4622623

>>4622614
Read the fucking rules. No science vs religion threads on /sci/.

>> No.4622627
File: 52 KB, 327x315, avatar-korra-deal_with_it-02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4622627

>>4622616
Religion is an observable phenomenon and therefore able to be studied scientifically.

>> No.4622628

>>4622621
Why should I? If he's too dumb to understand my post the first time, I see no reason in wasting my time explaining it to him. He won't get it.

>> No.4622630

>>4622627
Wrong.

>> No.4622631

>>4622627
No, it's not.

>> No.4622638

>>4622627

Gods and spirits are not observable

>> No.4622642

>>4622631
>>4622630
How could you possibly claim religion isn't an observable phenomena.

>> No.4622646

>>4622642
I've never seen gods or angels or miracles.

>> No.4622650

>>4622638
People thought they were before science made them backtrack.

>> No.4622656

>>4622638
Gods and spirits are not religions. God and spirits are part of mythological pantheons within religions. Why a people develop the gods and spirits they do is often due to their culture and thus one more example of religion being able to be studied. For example, monotheistic religions often come out of herder societies, where there is one herder and many animal followers. Other peoples develop polytheistic pantheons.

>> No.4622662

>>4622656
>sociology
>a hard science
>a science at all

>> No.4622671
File: 44 KB, 340x376, face054.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4622671

>>4622662
I thought you were a simple mistaken /sci/duck who thought religion equates to non-/sci/ trolling, but it turns out you were the troll all along.

Goodbye.

>> No.4622679

>Your face when Nikola Tesla(the greatest human that has ever lived) credited God for his genius

stay mad atheists

>> No.4622681

>>4622671
>considering sociology a science
>calling other people trolls

It's like you are not even trying.

>> No.4622682

>>4622656
I'd never heard of that connection before, but it makes sense since everyone refers to the origins of Abrahamic religions as "a bunch of goat herders". Do you have a sauce?

>> No.4622688

>>4622682
No sauce I'm afraid. I learned it years ago. I'd be appreciative of anyone who can provide a source.

>> No.4622695

>>4622679
Tesla's thinking style was strongly intuitive, so it makes sense that he would have made that kind of mistake.

>> No.4622719

>>4622695
>actually read the article
*brofist*

And good point.