this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
12 points (100.0% liked)
Atheist Memes
6861 readers
780 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
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
!religiouscringe@midwest.social
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What baffles me is how truly compatible science and religious faith could be, only in that religion attempts to provide answers that science cannot. But rather than pushing hard to only provide those answers, and reading the texts in the context of the time, these religious leaders get unbelievably bent out of shape and decide to die on hills that are just trivially and demonstrably false.
Like evolution, the age of the earth, heck a few years ago even a heliocentric solar system. It does not matter at all if this is a heliocentric solar system, and yet folks were happy to die on that hill (even killing others who just point out the truth) turning away everyone who won't submit. That's what finally got me, the constant claims to seek truth, and yet inevitably ignoring it completely when it slaps you in the face.
It's so close-minded and completely misses the point. If all they did was say "here's some moral teachings on how to be better to each other" at least I could get on board with that. But no, it's somehow required to buy into all the false teachings too.
It feels like a dead sea effect, where the only people left are those who comply when they see red plate and the leaders tell them to call it blue. To me that's not about seeking truth or trying to live a more moral life, but rather about control and power.
Religion and science are not compatiable. Science cares about truth, religion demands lies.
Most sciences don't care about "truth" but care about models that predict the outcome of experiments. Even a model that works perfectly doesn't mean that this model is how the universe works. The universe could work completely different but the model happens to be very accurate anyway. Think about Newtowns laws of motion. They do not describe how the universe really works but the model is still pretty accurate and useful in many situations.
Even if we some day find a theory of everything, that still doesn't mean we know anything about the true nature of the universe. Just that everything we can observe is described by the model we developed.
The current model is always defined as, "to the best of our current knowledge," not, "this is the answer." Often, a discovery is made that furthers our understanding of the rules of one tiny part of our existence, and through that knowledge come many other breakthroughs.
Well, they could be compatible under philosophy of Non-overlapping magisteria.
The problem is that science overlaps religious claims, and will continue to do so as we learn more about the universe.
Sure, certain faiths overlap, but I could imagine a religion based in deism. That could be compatible for a little while longer. Yes, I do recognise this is just God of the gaps.
If you had a religion that, as part of it's core system, explicitly yielded to science as it progresses... or a religion that explicitly framed all of its claims in such a way as to avoid all possible future contradictions with scientific discovery.. sure. I'm not a "religion expert" or anything but I'm not aware of any such religions. It sounds like a hypothetical, philosophical proposal.
I'm sorry, that's way too full of jargon for me to understand,
It basically posits that there are two universes, the world of God and the world of nature and science and never the twain shall meet and affect each other.
Indeed, you have restated my position in fewer words.
God of the gaps, only the gaps get smaller and smaller as time goes on.
Nobody should be attempting to provide answers that aren't backed by evidence or testable. "Trust me, bro" is not a credential.
If you're baffled then you are not educated. Surely that's a plus, and makes you closer to God, according to this article. /s
The problem there is that a religious text loses its authority if it’s full of demonstrably incorrect statements. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Once you’ve decided that you can just ignore anything that looks wrong, the Bible stops being a source of truth and becomes a Rorschach ink blot for you to see whatever you want in it.
It's almost like religion isn't actually meant to be a source of truth, or even faith or purpose, and is actually just a tool to control the poor who's every positive trait is a function to that end
I think the thing about the "age of the world being roughly 6000 years" is that it isn't actually about the age of the Earth (planet), but instead about the age of humanity. Which, if you consider the earliest cultures, could be said to be roughly 6000 years. I think this is a bit like calling your girlfriend "your entire world" (idk if y'all do this). It's a figure of speech to say "you're so important to me, nothing else in the world matters". And saying that "humanity is the entire world" means "humanity is so important, we don't care about anything else that might have happened prior". It's just that some people take "world is 6000 years old" too literally and that causes a misunderstanding.
That's a funny one because i've been reading up on the early modern age (about 1500) quite a bit recently (after a friend sent me a youtube video starting my journey down a rabbit hole). And the church in Rome initially was very interested in the findings of Galilei and his proposal that the sun was the center of movement, not the Earth, even considering it a "great finding if only there was definite proof for it", because at that time, there was insignificant proof for it, it was mostly a guess. Source: german Wikipedia, translation below
Translation:
I'm not actually sure why the church was later perceived as being anti-science. It'd be great if somebody could shed some light on this question?
The first cities date to around 12000 years ago. Civilization is much older.
That first bit is a truly unique take! Never even heard that hinted at. Much love, going to think on that.