this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
668 points (95.5% liked)

Atheist Memes

5631 readers
5 users here now

About

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

Rules

  1. No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.

  2. No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.

  3. No bigotry.

  4. Attack ideas not people.

  5. Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.

  6. No False Reporting

  7. 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]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Other Similar Communities

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yep, programming. It used to be mathematics and logic, nowadays we just include the whole of NPM and pray to the Omnissiah.

[–] Syringe 5 points 1 year ago

I've been a programmer since the 90s and I assure you, it's been mostly prayer and the occult since day 1. Also Adderall and whiskey.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This probably doesn't count, but Sosigenes of Alexandria was an Ancient Greek astronomer who designed the Julian calendar in 45 BC. This was replaced in 1582 AD with the Gregorian calendar (named after Pope Gregory XIII) and is still in use today. Of course both were found by science, but it took the weight of the Catholic Church to push for the more accurate calendar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar

[–] killeronthecorner 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I think the vast majority of scientists, at least computer scientists, would argue against the efficacy and accuracy of the Gregorian calendar.

It's more of a "we're stuck with it" situation than a testament to its scientific veracity.

[–] tetelestia 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Gregorian calendar is pretty solid actually. Other than a leap second every few years, it'll stay in sync for a few thousand years. You can easily calculate all leap days in a one-liner.

365 is semi prime, so we could do a 5 day week, but that's pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. There isn't a lot to improve on the Gregorian calendar

[–] steventhedev 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  • leap days only coming at the end of the year, not in the middle
  • 5 day week
  • 73 day months
  • 30 day months with 5 non month days

Don't get me started on timezones

[–] tetelestia 4 points 1 year ago

Time zones are an abomination of legacy design features that should be taken out back and put out of their misery... And then a functionally similar but way simpler system put in place.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

And that's the way science should be, with more data and better tools, you adjust and make things more accurate. I'm not sure what the efficacy issues are, but it's my understanding that current UTC leap seconds are put in place to reflect slight variation in the rotation of the earth. It is done in reaction to the earth's movement, so not something that could be predicted 450 years ago.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

at least computer scientists, would argue against the efficacy and accuracy of the Gregorian calendar.

Agreed. If I had it my way, basically everything would be using unix time.

[–] BleatingZombie 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I refuse to believe anything before Jan 1 1970 even happened

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Nouveau_Burnswick 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I just want 13 metric weeks.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Agh you sound like a C programmer. Just have a function do it for you.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] over_clox 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Can you name me one thing that was found by science that was later replaced by religion?"

Yes, it's called politics.

[–] Iron_Lynx 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

US politics. Across the rest of the world, while politics may still be dumb out there, at least they're more likely to keep god out of it.

[–] Syrc 8 points 1 year ago

Italy entered the chat

[–] tetelestia 36 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Simulation hypothesis is just theism with extra steps.

Come at me bro.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"I think God created the world" pitchforks raised "...WITH A COMPUTER!" pitchforks lowered

[–] meldroc 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

God's a prepubescent kid playing SimUniverse and fucking around with the Disaster menu.

Satan's an acne-riddled teenager somewhere online griefing that kid.

[–] Philolurker 7 points 1 year ago

Gnosticism 2.0

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Simulation hypothesis is not science.

[–] cynar 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is part of science, it's an untested (and currently untestable) hypothesis. Such thought experiments can be very useful. Running through the consequences (and possible experiments) can sometimes give useful insights into other areas of physics.

The problem is when layman take the scientific equivalent of a debate joke and treat it as gospel. It's similar to what happened with the flat earth society (started out as a debating joke, and got overrun by idiots).

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

An untestable hypothesis is not science. Science is ideas and hypothesis that have undergone the scientific method. Until then it's just a thought experiment.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tetelestia 5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

That's debatable. It's a logic based hypothesis that scientists are looking for a way to falsify it.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] WaxedWookie 8 points 1 year ago

Simulation theory makes no inherent moral prescriptions or assertions about the ultimate origin of the universe - it just rolls everything up a level - This universe is a simulation inside the real universe... What created thecreal universe? We're not trying to answer that.

Theism tends to make moral prescriptions and point to an immutable god - This universe was created by God... What created god? It's god, dude.

This is why simulation theory and theism are compatible - there's no reason both can't be true - though we can never know if either is true, so just get on with your life and try to be a decent human.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

the ancient greeks knew the world was round, knowledge witch was then replaced by in vast circles during the middle ages.

:P

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

religion has often replaced scientifically proven facts, wich is mainly due to religions powerful ability to not have to make sense and still be acceptable.

now as for religion actually disproving science, those occurences can be counted on zero hands.

[–] Godnroc 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A knowledge witch would curse you with knowing every embarrassing thing you ever did.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] meldroc 18 points 1 year ago

Hmmmm... Replacing scientifically developed vaccines with religiously advocated horse paste. How'd that work out for them?

[–] morgan_423 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At least someone saying this acknowledges that science is a thing, so that's something I guess.

Better than the opposite. I always find it funny when super-religious people deny science instead, as if their god (usually a practically omnipotent being with a 30,000 IQ) would want to micromanage everything going on in the entire universe, instead of just making everything run by a set of physical laws on its own.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Creationist "science" is like those troll physics posts, except they aren't funny. Like at all.

[–] ganksy 7 points 1 year ago

How about ignorance

[–] FuglyDuck 7 points 1 year ago

Sanity?

Yeah. Sanity.

[–] nomadjoanne 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Science still has not touched on any adequate way whatsoever the hard question of consciousness.

Neither have a lot of religions. The eastern, "secular" religions are the major that have at least made an attempt to tackle the problem.

[–] thedeadwalking4242 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Science still fundamentally has a better approach then religion. Even if the true cause of religion is a god science will find it. But it's honestly probably not sadly.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Define "not touched".

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Someone once said.... if the human race was completely destroyed and evolution brought back sentient beings, every law of science would be rediscovered, but not one religion would return as it is.

load more comments
view more: next ›