this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024

142 points (88.2% liked)

Atheist Memes

5486 readers

14 users here now

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
No bigotry.
Attack ideas not people.
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
No False Reporting
NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

[email protected]

Other Similar Communities

[email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

142

Science vs. religion, the debate continues (lemmy.world)

submitted 7 months ago by afraid_of_zombies to c/atheistmemes

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I wish we called it "the scientific method" as this is truly what it is - a methodology, not a belief system/ideology.

Comparing the two is like comparing baboons to birthdays; it is possible, but really really stupid.

[–] 50_centavos 3 points 7 months ago

Well, both have a brightly colored cake.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

There is no debate. There are the irrefutable, proven facts backed up by evidence, and the mentally ill who refuse to accept them.

[–] betterdeadthanreddit 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Might even be more important for theories to be refutable but unrefuted. Given the vast wealth and personnel resources available to parties interested in proving evolution wrong (or substitute for your choice of decided-except-in-fantasy-land issue and truth value), it's notable that they have yet to do so. If the evidence or some consistent logic that doesn't eventually lead back to a version of "God did it" were on their side, we'd know all about it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Ive come to feel lately that the war isn't two sided. The war is raging between science, religion, and ethics. People will argue against science because of dubious ethics that are unrelated to religion. They will ignore scientific evidence because it goes against their moral compass.

Science is cold and uncaring. It will always be at odds against people who live their lives following their heart.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

They're both the same image

[+] kromem -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

As long as god can not be measured, it does not exist for science.

[–] kromem -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's not at all true. Theoretical science is a field, and you see a lot of discussion around dark matter/energy or gravitons, even though most of the conceptions for them involve being unable to be directly measured or interacted with.

In fact, we could likely make testable predictions for various configurations of creator inclined theology through a modern lens, as has been the case recently with narrowing the constraints by which simulation theory is feasible or not given inherent limits on calculating or emulating physical phenomena.

[–] Reddfugee42 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There are facts underpinning theoretical physics.

[–] afraid_of_zombies 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Right so in theory you can have religion as long as it makes no claims and you can have God as long as it has no power and you can have faith in it all as long as there is nothing to have faith in.

Does anyone really want that? I was raised a devout kid. I didn't pray to no diest god, I was convinced the Bible held the keys to the universe not a bunch of stories that are best metaphors by long dead ignorants, I "knew" that God took an active role in our world, and I also "knew" that my religion alone had the proper moral conduct for humanity.

In order to save religion from science you have to abandon one or the other. Even if you could somehow weaken religion to the point, a god of the gaps if you will, where it can still live what you are left with is not worth thinking about

[+] Limonene -10 points 7 months ago (2 children)

There is no debate between science and religion. The only religions that are incompatible with science are the insane fundamentalists. 99% of Christians don't believe that the creation story in the Bible is literally true; they believe in evolution. The 1% fundamentalists invented the debate between creationism and big bang, evolution, etc. because they want to force Christians to believe they can't believe in science.

I'm an excommunicated Catholic. I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic school as a kid. The Catholic school taught evolution and a bit of relativity, which are incompatible with creationism.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago

You are not living in US, do you?
40% of US population are creationists https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx

And that’s despite of the fact that like 20% are non-affiliated. That means that half of religions people believe into creation myths. Much higher than 1% that you think.

[–] afraid_of_zombies 2 points 7 months ago

Very well. Please explain how Catholic Church's doctrine on the LGBT aligns with the research on the topic.