Yep, so true
Atheist glurge. The stuff on the right isn’t scientific. Though it would be amusing if it were. “A mammal.” “A carbon based lifeform,” etc.
Well, everyone *is *‘flawed’, but all that means is that we aren’t ‘perfect in every way’.
According to my religion, everyone is ‘sinful’, but that pretty much just means the same thing as ‘flawed’; I don’t get too worked up about it.
And I don’t know what religion somebody tried to push on that little girl, but nobody ever told me that I was ‘broken’, ‘dumb’, ‘weak’, or ‘nothing’.
And, as **marshmallow **already pointed out, science doesn’t actually say any of those things.
Well, I say she’s as cute as a button! 
Ranger has spoken!
Extremists on either side of a discussion who stretch a point beyond reality and plausibility don’t seem to get that they are only weakening their credibility.
Not this.
mmm
Can’t she be both sets of things, like the late Earl Warren?
This.
Could just as easily make one saying that according to religion, I am unconditionally loved, special, blessed with a soul, etc but according to science I am ultimately alone in the word, too stupid to give my caveman beliefs, destined to become nothing, yadda yadda.
Which isn’t to advocate for either of those points but you can write any manner of one-sided crap on a poster board and get a kid to hold it up.
As an atheist who has very little use for religion, this photo is insulting.
I had no idea science said all those things.
I’m not quite as impressed by science as I once way.
OH wait, I figured it out…her mom’s name is “Science”.
This is the first indication I’ve seen that “science” has developed a metric for the objective, unbiased measurement of beauty. I’d love to read that paper.
Oh yeah, it was a great study. It involved women of varying aesthetic appeal and their repulsive/attractive effect on ships in the harbor.
Atheists accuse me of being all that stuff on the left more than Christianity does.
Utter BS.
I’ll give you “flawed”. According to Judaism, only G-d is perfect and without flaws. But the rest is crap. Humans are not broken, dumb, weak, sinful or nothing.
I expect better than this from Dopers.
What the hell is a “pastafarian”? Someone with spaghetti in his hair?
Yeah, the stuff on the right (her left) is not things “science” tells us, it’s things the writers of parenting books tell their would-be buyers.
Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Plenty of algorithims exist for assessing beauty. But then, I imagine if the card the girl was holding up said “Science says I’m in the 43rd percentile of beauty based on facial symmetry” it would make science look kinda mean.
But yea, the linked image isn’t really a meaningful assesment of what Science or Religion say, making it a rare “double strawman”.
I hate it when atheists try to co-opt science for their religion.
I agree that the scientific side isn’t really an accurate representation of science. But I think the religious side has a point. Take Christianity as an example; the whole idea of the religion is human beings need God’s forgiveness - but the only reason we need that forgiveness is because God originally condemned us. Eliminate a belief in God and you eliminate both original sin and the redemption for original sin.
Same thing with other religions. Eliminate Allah’s justice and we have no need for Allah’s mercy. Eliminate the doctrine that life is suffering and we don’t need an eightfold path to escape it. Eliminate the threat of Xenu and we don’t need to get clear. A major portion of religion is seeking ways to escape the emotional torment that only exists because religion put it there.