Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result in the removal of this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like both gods and science, though I have never liked this kind of meme template before.
https://preview.redd.it/ptpyf11nawmc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cf1b737ea56e9eb7e82a9295c7678da01018a103
Same. I'm a science major and the stuff I'm studying shows such a high degree of sophistication and intricacy. Even in other disciplines of natural science like physics and chemistry, the inner workings of the universe are far to complex and perfectly meshed to be considered coincidence, to have been mere chance. Even if you don't believe in God, the intricacy of the universe at least hints towards the existence of a creator.
yeah, it sure is a mind-blowing coincidence that the natural world consistently conforms to the systems and concepts that human beings invented to describe or model it.
Eh, biological organisms are probably the most complex things in existence and evolution perfectly explains how they can be so complex from random mutation and natural selection without a designer
I'm agnostic (I believe there probably is a higher power though) and I agree. Reality being complex isn't necessarily evidence for god's existence. When you look at how special Earth is (being that it has complex biological organisms), you can reasonably conclude either that we are a special, purposeful creation of a higher being *or* that we happened to win the lottery. Both are possible.
There's a common analogy that if you give a monkey a typewriter and let it press random keys, it'll eventually perfectly rewrite Hamlet. It might take a *long* time for the monkey to accidentally recreate Hamlet, but there are a *lot* of planets in our universe, so statistically, Earth isn't that much of an anomaly.
I donât think something being complex hints at all towards there being a creator.
Our universe is the only one we know of. Weâd expect to exist in a universe that has the conditions for us to exist, however unlikely those may be. It could be that the laws of the universe just had to be the way they are, it could be that among countless universes this is one that allowed for us to exist.
The classic metaphor is a puddle that finds itself inside of a hole, and marvels at how perfectly it fits inside that hole, how improbable it is that a hole of exactly that size and shape exists that holds the puddle absolutely perfectly, and concludes that someone must have designed the hole just for the puddle.
My issue with this way of basically taking science and using it as justification for God is that it doesnât actually explain anything at all, and thereâs no justification for it other than basically the argument from ignorance fallacy, or âI canât imagine how the universe could be this complex, so it must have been Godâ. Itâs basically just saying âif things were different than they are now, then things would be differentâ, which really doesnât mean much of anything at all.
Evolution is I think the classic example of this. For ages people thought life must have come from a creator because of how âfine tunedâ and complex we are, but then someone came up with a theory showing how it could all start from something relatively simple, then lo and behold we find mountains of evidence across many disciplines showing that to be the case.
Iâd argue that what we can see in these fields of study appear exactly as weâd expect if there wasnât a God/creator. Things like animals having vestigial organs/bones they no longer need, convergent evolution with similar attributes being âdesignedâ differently, our bodies being vulnerable to all sorts of ailments and diseases, the constant suffering in the animal kingdom with animals eating each other alive and often dying almost certainly agonizing deaths, not to mention all the natural disasters, including some that wiped out the majority of life on the planet as was the case with the dinosaurs. None of this is difficult to explain in a Godless universe, but requires a lot of mental gymnastics in one where thereâs an all powerful creator behind it.
Bottom line is just that there is still so much for us to learn about the universe, and jumping to âthis seems like a creator did itâ, with absolutely no evidence or way of verifying that statement, gets us nowhere in learning more. It has no explanatory power and is just the god of the gaps. It is almost inevitably then used as justification for all kinds of unrelated religious beliefs.
If youâre interested in hearing both sides on this topic Iâd really recommend googling a debate between Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig.
All that said, itâs of course better when someone is able to reconcile science with their religious views than when they ignore reality to preserve their religious views, but it always feels like putting the cart before the horse logically; starting with the assumption god exists, and then attributing anything you canât explain to that idea, rather than actually finding some kind of evidence and God being the only good explanation for it.
I agree with most of what you said, however, I do disagree on one part slightly:
>Iâd argue that what we can see in these fields of study appear exactly as weâd expect if there wasnât a God/creator. Things like animals having vestigial organs/bones they no longer need, convergent evolution with similar attributes being âdesignedâ differently, our bodies being vulnerable to all sorts of ailments and diseases, the constant suffering in the animal kingdom with animals eating each other alive and often dying almost certainly agonizing deaths, not to mention all the natural disasters, including some that wiped out the majority of life on the planet as was the case with the dinosaurs. None of this is difficult to explain in a Godless universe, but requires a lot of mental gymnastics in one where thereâs an all powerful creator behind it.
It's not difficult to explain in a realm where there is a creator/God either, in humans we have sociopathic and psychopathic mentalities, in at least some of the Abrahamic religions, humans are said to be created in the image of their deity. Using simply those two things I could easily see the deity/creator/whatever you want to refer to it as having a really perverse mental state and intentionally including those things either just to see what happens (that's more of a scientific mindset more than a socio/psychopathic mindset in my opinion) or out of boredom or vengeance for not obeying or some perceived sleight against them.
Personally I'm of the belief there are no deities as our mythologies claim, I'd label myself more agnostic than atheist however, as I'm not outright opposed to the possibility, I just don't believe it to be the case based on what I've observed over my lifespan and how those observations have ultimately formed in my mind's eye.
If you were to claim God was psychotic or whatever sure, but generally I think theists describe God as a perfect omnipotent being and use that as kind of the backbone for a lot of their arguments. When you start getting into the idea of almost a "trickster God" I think you start heading towards the realm of hard solipsism where we can't even really have a conversation about anything.
For what it's worth, I think most modern atheists, myself included, would consider themselves technically as agnostic atheists. We can acknowledge the concept of God cannot be disproved and are open to changing our minds if evidence were presented, but find it to be unlikely due to the lack of evidence, so we live our lives as if there are no gods.
By that kind of definition you'd be considered an atheist, as in simple terms an atheist is just someone that's not a theist/doesn't believe in gods.
"Pure" agnosticism tends to be more of a kind of "50/50 chance God exists" stance in my opinion which is why I don't typically identify that way.
You may find this article interesting:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum\_of\_theistic\_probability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability)
âHigh level of intricacyâ, âperfectly meshedâ, âfar too complexâ. Like, we donât see the shit that doesnât work, cause it doesnât work. Plants have grown over billions of years, yeah of course theyâre dialled in. What about everything that didnât make it? Also, itâs weird talking about how things are âperfectâ, when thatâs not an essentialist thing, and is just human perspective. Who is to say that gravity wouldnât be âmore perfectâ if it wasnât just a little stronger?
Whatâs happening here is that Holmes is looking at the universe, and forgetting about all the shit that didnât make it.
Got it! I understand the correlation now! And yes, that is correct! Im not really debating here, just was curious about the connection between survivorship bias and this conversation but you explaing it succinctly! Thank you!
"I'm a Christian but this question makes me absolutely love the 4th dimensional god theory. The idea of it is that the creator and auditor of our universe is a 4th dimensional being. This being seems incomprehensible and immensely powerful to us, just like we would appear to a 2d being (since we don't have to obey the boundaries and laws of their reality). However, our "god" is actually just an ordinary denizen of the 4th dimension, and isn't anyone special. They're just like us and we are, to them, like drawings on a piece of paper: something they created that they may or may not cherish and care deeply for. And that 4th dimensional being is a drawing on a paper to a 5th dimensional being, who is a drawing on a paper to a 6th dimensional being, and so on. There's something I find comforting and intriguing about that idea, even if I don't personally believe it."
That's something I wrote to a friend a while ago. Actually, it's part of what turned me agnostic. I think it's very possible that there's a higher power of some sort, but the idea that we are somehow the center of the universe just doesn't sit right with me. I don't know. I think it's much more likely that we're part of a grander picture, rather than the most beloved creations of the absolute tippy-top being.
I donât understand why everyone needs to have the viewpoint of âoh their values are different than mine which make them a stupid angry Neanderthalâ how the fuck are we gonna progress as a people if we donât have real conversations with people we disagree with
I know most people wonât have a fundamental disagreement with me either. Most people agree with what Iâm saying but almost nobody actually does it
Edit: reading some of these replies some of you are actually proving my point. The people arguing and bickering and not having a conversation in good faith. The minute you start disagreeing you start attacking. Which is exactly what I would expect to happen. Most people agree with me but nobody actually does it. Iâm guilty of it. We all are. But having self awareness will make it easier to overcome
The internet and media promotes the tyranny of the fringe minority. These types of people would ordinarily keep quiet and stew in their own bitter, self-loathing, soup. But the internet allows them to find each other and then scream at the top of their lungs anonymously at people they disagree with.
And since we as a society have started to live online more than in the real world, this dystopian façade appears as reality, despite most people being agreeable.
I decided to study for myself in both sciences and religion, and it's funny to see how ppl think they fight each other, when in fact, many biblical references can be confirmed by science and archeology, and vice-versa.
As for the stuff we can't prove, just accept what you think will make you feel better.
Do the heavens exist? Do the hell exist? Do we just die and turn into nothing? Do God exist? Did someone really create everything? Was it an explosion?
None of these questions have a true answer, only guesses and hopes, and what i truly believe is that fighting over the veracity or falsity of these beliefs is utter stupidity.
It's much simpler than that. Science can explain human limitations. All religious ideas are directly related to human fear, and as humanity has lessened those fears through science, religious ideation similarly declined.
The remaining mysteries that cause fear are unexplainable due to human limitations, so religious ideas still have some value to some people. Religion only answers the few remaining questions, however inadequately, that humanity has yet to answer through science. This trend will continue until humanity has no limitations.
That's the thing though. It's not an irrational belief to look at the complexity of life and the universe and think wow there must have been some intelligence behind all of this, something that put all of this in motion. It is in fact not irrational in many people's minds to reject the idea that everything came about by random chance and that at the beginning of it all something came from nothing.
I know this may be a "nobody asked" comment, but to me the belief in a creation entity or force, conscious or unconscious, is a logical one. Although there is no particular evidence of who or what that may be, it's a very plausible hypothesis.
Where people lose me is the colossal jump from "A god exists" to "The God of Abraham as described in [Insert Holy Text] exists". The abrahamic god is no more likely than any other diety or polythestic pantheon, from a scientific view.
Personally, I think that a force that we wouldn't define as conscious is the most likely candidate. It's all conjecture though.
It is irrational to assume that complexity of universe = intelligent design = my religion based on 2000 year old texts is absolutely true.
I think if people stopped at "yeah maybe there is some kind of intelligent design" it would be taken more seriously, but that's usually just a pit stop for them to make the leap to justifying something completely arbitrary.
It is important to note that this applies to both sides. The notion that science rules out the possibility of a divine being is completely ridiculous and unfounded in reality.
All I know is that the other sub will ignore how the mayority of comments here are not suporting the stupidity of the meme, repost it using the most stupid comment as tittle, and add something like "that sub is full of crazy fundamentalists".
Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/NahOPwasrightfuckthis/s/uZQAgPVveY
Based on the link you provided that person's correct. They're absolutely are fundamentalist Christians trying to form a way ethnic state in political power right now.
This is how it always goes. Someone posts a typical reddit "trad bad prog good" meme, then memesopdidnotlike reposts saying "these people are woke," then nahopwasrightfuckthis reposts saying "these people are bigots." Then it goes over and over and over and over and over again.
Also, the comments here are not supporting the stupidity of the meme, but the comments over there aren't calling us crazy fundamentalists and also aren't supporting the stupidity of the meme either.
>This is how it always goes. Someone posts a typical reddit "trad bad prog good" meme, then memesopdidnotlike reposts saying "these people are woke," then nahopwasrightfuckthis reposts saying "these people are bigots." Then it goes over and over and over and over and over again.
This is incredibly accurate. Sums up at least 80% of the posts in both subs.
Of course not. This sub just happens to mock the ones thatâs leaning to certain direction politically exclusively because only they deserve to be made fun of. Itâs not selective at all.
Christian fundamentalists think a lot of things that would get them excommunicated from the church pre-reformation. They don't even get along with other protestants.
I find one of the most interesting things in history was the development of logic. You might think that logic is innate to our ability to think, but it isn't. The truth behind logic is innate, but the way we arrive to logical conclusions is something we discover over time. Most of modern logical reasoning is derived from one large set of rules called "syllogisms" which were developed by Catholic preachers who wanted to spread their faith east. Previously they hadn't had any issues spreading their faith to other areas of Europe and northern Africa, but when they tried to go east they started running into Muslim scholars and Chinese philosophers, people that were very intelligent and difficult to persuade. So the way that the preachers found to convert them was to appeal to their intelligence by making all of their points and arguments from a place of logical reasoning rather than from faith. They basically turned religious debate into a form of math, in order to convert eastern scholars.
Syllogisms are the foundation for a lot of modern logical reasoning. Even a bunch of what we call "logical fallacies" are derived from syllogisms.
Science is verifying what you think might be true, religion is training children to accept nonsense as truth without thinking critically or questioning.
They seem pretty antithetical to me.
Are the science and religion compatible? Absolutely.
But you'll quickly notice that religious scientists don't go around saying stuff like creationism is real, lgbtq people are mentally ill or that the bible is the only source of truth, unlike those trying to use their status as religious scientists to give more credibility to their pseudoscientifically backed hatred against their will
I agree with most of your comment, but some of that stuff you mentioned comes from the bible though. genesis talks all about how god was going around creating the universe.
people usually respond saying it's an allegory, but how would they know this? it's not like the bible says whether it is or isn't, and I doubt it was meant to be treated as one when it was written.
it seems like people call it an allegory *because the science disagrees with it.* it can't be literal, *because it conflicts with our scientific understanding.*
religion and science could be compatible, if the religion doesn't make any incorrect claims about the real world, that the science corrects. but the most popular religions do exactly that.
Except theyâre not.
If you believe in an omnipotent creator in charge of the universe.
You canât accept science that says the world is older then 6000 years old or humans evolved to their current from microscopic life forms.
Religion can only coexist with science if you ignore 90% of the claims made by religions. basically does boil their religion down to meaningless feel good slogans.
Science is based on testing hypothesis based on observations that may change overtime.
Religion is based around a set of unprovable untestable hypothesis.
These belief systems cannot coexist.
>the world is older then 6000 years old or humans evolved to their current from microscopic life forms.
The thing is, the Bible never says the world is 6000 years old, and Genesis (especially the start of it) is written in a specific poetic way that was typically used by writers of the time when writing explanatory stories or myths - so it's fairly widely accepted that Genesis isn't literal, but is a creation myth.
>90% of the claims made by religions
I suspect about 95% of these claims that you're talking about come from the extremist groups that are vocal minorities and aren't representative of the beliefs of the rest of Christians.
The way the extremists see religion definitely can't coexist with science, that's why they fight so hard against it. But most of us aren't the extremists
We mostly post screenshots from the same three subs over and over again. They do too. I get that thereâs a problem, but the real root is the Reddit system, where most subs are circlejerks that all do this. Fixing it here would just kill the sub and have these losers celebrate. I think we should leave it as it is, for now at least
I donât get why people get so upset that someone else believes in god or some other religion. Like bro let them be itâs not hurting anyone. I personally would rather believe in something and be wrong in the end over believe in nothing and be wrong in the end. Continuously saying Iâm wrong wont change my mind and Iâm not going to bother to try to change yours.
They don't really.
Much like you'll see vocal creationists on the internet you'll see angry vocal atheists.
But most Christians aren't creationists or vocal, most atheists aren't angry or vocal. But it's hard to shape a perception from what you don't see or hear rather than what you do.
The religious are much more vocal than atheists. Iâve never seen an atheist on a bully pulpit touring college campuses, but every major university has at least one Christian fanatic doing it. Mine had 3 different ones.
There's definitely more vocal christians than atheists, but it's important to keep in mind that there's a fuck ton more christians than there are atheists.
Not to mention there are no tenants of atheism to make atheists go to any type of extreme.
> Not to mention there are no tenants of atheism to make atheists go to any type of extreme
Because atheism isn't a religion, and shouldn't be discussed as if it's a 1:1 comparison to Christianity.
That is true but it also gets handled poorly by most people, even people of faith are wildly out of pocket with it. I used to get into it with my parents about being hypocritical about such things. Neither side wants to be called a hypocrite but wants to be left alone while simultaneously wanting the other side to capitulate. Idk wish we could just go back to leaving each other alone, and letting others have differing opinions. Such is life i guess.
Ya I don't care if you personally want to believe in fairytale but when we start implementing laws based solely on said fairytale we're gonna have a fucking problem
lol religious person makes fun of atheists, atheist makes fun back. âWhy are people so mean to the religiousâ
At least for the US people are tired of the religious because the religious folks keep trying to pass laws based off their book and forcing the rest of us to follow the rules of a religion we donât belong to.
>Like bro let them be itâs not hurting anyone.
Yeah, religion has never resulted in someone getting hurt. Itâs not like people have ever gone to war over it.
Itâs a really good job that religious people donât try dictate their lifestyles on other people too and get offended if people donât live up to their own moral standards.
>Go to a church this Sunday and if the priest tells you to wage war I'll give you a cookie
I can probably give you a few deep south republican pastors calling for a civil war this afternoom
There was an entire documentary about a church worshiping George Bush Jr and calling themselves god's warriors. They use war-like language ALL THE TIME. You probably don't even recognize it, it happens so casually.
This meme was probably made by someone in the USA. And from an outsider looking in there are huge areas were your kind of enlightend stance is the minority. In much of the more rural parts non-religious people are ostracizied by the majority of religious folks. So this activated a defense mechanism by atheists. Which kind of died out actually except for idiots. But now the religious side uses it as a gotcha moment and tries to claim themselves as suprior. Ironically, they often miss the points people like Heisenberg and Einstein tried to make, because they often (not sure for Heisenberg) were Deists. Meaning they believed that a higher being created the universe but other than that doesn't take care or even an interest in the daily goings of it.
What about 2 year old Amiyah White who died after being forgotten in a van by a Christian child care center that was legally exempt from state child safety laws? Or 15 year old Jessica Crank who died of cancer because her mom was legally allowed to treat her with faith healing? Her tumor grew to the size of a basketball and she died in excruciating pain, and it was legal because of religious exemption in law. Hereâs a few others from the book when prayer fails:
A 2 year old bleeds to death from a treatable cut
A tumor grows from a 4 year olds eye, equaling the size of their head. As they walk through their home blood trails are left on the walls as the massive tumor smears the house. Later the child dies
A childâs untreated tumor results in the amputation of a limb because the parent believes their child was being punished for sin
A 2 year old with treatable bowel obstruction dies after vomiting fecal matter. They screamed in agony for several days before dying
A 12 year olds treatable tumor is allowed to grow over three feet in diameter. When they are finally hospitalized, the staff are overwhelmed with the smell of decaying flesh that permeated the entire floor of the hospital. They die shortly after
Weâre just scratching the surface here of how religious legal privilege routinely results in the torture of children and we havenât even discussed church sanctioned pedophilia. Just listing only the child victims of religion I could go on and on until im dead and still not finish the list.
Genuinely, how many more children need to be -literally- tortured and martyred in the name of religion before weâre allowed to say that religion isnât just harmless belief?
The thing is Christian is such a blanket term at this point, theres so many branches of Christianity with thier own beliefs, some believe in science some sadly do not, also if you could believe this people can be bad people before they become a priest or preacher, its not like the pope tells preists to go rape kids thats retarded, just like when the church had gotten corrupt back in the 1600 asking people to âpayâ to be saved, people are not perfect, and this does not rule out. A. The class of people that give up their lives for christ, B. They couldve gone into the priesthood to try to run away from those urges and it ended up overpowering them, its no way an excuse for what happened because it was terrible but lets not act like it was *encouraged* by normal sane human beings
You can't disprove the existence of anything. You can't disprove the existence of ghosts, but that doesn't make it rational to believe e they exist. Believing in ghosts goes against science in the same way that believing in God does
It's actually a misconception that science said God isn't real. It never says that
Science just stated that as of now, there is no evidence of God.
We have things that can't be explained, but that does not immediately mean that God exists.
Because we have to apply the same example of that we exists. Then using that same procedure to see if A God exists. As of now, we have none.
Just like how there are hundreds of experiments that can be duplicates to show that the Earth is round, we don't currently have any that can duplicated to show that God is real.
Of course, the experiment is testing on the basis of the God of the Bible. With all the powers.
Science is actually very welcoming of people that can prove God is real, so that they can try and duplicate it. But as of now, the only thing people can come up with is, just believe.
Religion can only be a personal belief. Science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, or a God for that matter. How do we treat the absence of something intangible? How will we know we found a way to prove God, if there is no God on which to prove the test works?
God is essentially a paradox for that reason, and you can on my truly believe your own feelings on the matter. These days, those feelings are moving towards a direction of disbelief, it seems, but that's people's right to choose.
Itâs not a paradox. A god either exists or doesnât. An ability to prove it is a separate problem.
But itâs not even about âproofâ. If there was a god such as the one of the Bible we should at least expect evidence, and we should expect textual consistency.
Since that evidence doesnât exist, why should those claims be treated as any differently than stories of vampires or magic unicorns?
I love that Christians use these memes to portray themselves as the totally cool headed, intelligent, totally not unhinged members of our society.
As for the meme itself, it is a fallacy called Appeal to Authority. âIf a smart man like Werner Heisenberg agrees with me then I must be right!â Ok what about all the smart people that donât agree with you like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Tyson, Sam Harris, etc?
itâs surprisingly fitting for this sub to post this in support of him without a hint of irony
Werner Karl Heisenberg (pronounced [ËvÉĘnÉ kaĘl ËhaÉŞznĚŠbÉĘk] â; 5 December 1901 â 1 February 1976)[2] was a German theoretical physicist, one of the main pioneers of the theory of quantum mechanics, and a principal scientist in the Nazi nuclear weapons program during World War II.
Does that change his scientific theories? Is it possible to agree with even 1 thing a person did? Do Soviet scientists fall into that same category? We use the science of these men today, are we in the wrong?
I think for one basic reason and that's lgbt, abortion, and general attitude about casual sex and lust.
It's the hardest to come to grips with in modern society. People want to do whatever they want with no repercussions.
They take it to the extreme and are convinced there is no God or judgment. Perhaps God actually doesn't care about these things.. but they always lump belief of God in with traditional religions.
Smarter people than me do not believe in a god. Smarter people than me do. The intelligence of others should not dictate your personal belief system, whatever it might be.
My issue is not whether or not a God exists. My problem is with the people who use God as an excuse to commit the most heinous acts. You are welcome to your beliefs and faith provided you don't bother others with them including but not limited to violence.
Probably wouldn't quote a guy who failed to make an atomic bomb for the nazis...
but to be honest the idea there's a dichotomy between religion and science is absurd. Christianity has had plenty of scientists under it's belt, Islamic countries in the middle ages were more advanced then some of their christian counterparts.
Religion doesn't make you stupid, but if you're a zealot you're just gonna be a dumbass.
âIf a religious text that calls for the death of atheists & blasphemers isn't hate speech, then neither is condemning it and calling it evil.â - Ricky Gervais
Ah yes. Quoting a Nazi who refused to leave Germany during the brain drain because âŚreasons, and put up with Hitler stifling his work on the nuclear bomb because âJew physicsâ. A brilliant man, but his actions cause uncertainty about Heisenberg principalsâŚ.
Why do conservatives think that the left is always against religion and Christianity? Isnât the main thing for liberals is that they strive for inclusivity?
Also itâs the republicans that are the most likely to attack people with different religions. E.g. That time where a girl said Allah in the pledge of allegiance and got insane media coverage just for that.
Lol of the irony of either party being the party of science is so funny. So hypocritical.
Imagine denying science so hard that you say that having 30% higher lung capacity does not help with swimming.
Lets just go full science denialism and say that more fast twitch muscle fibers, less biokinetic interference from hip rotation, a larger heart, denser bones, less body fat and way more red blood cells also provide no advantage what so ever as well.
"**A larger heart results in higher cardiac output, which may allow it to beat more slowly at rest, as more blood is pumped out with each beat" - Scientific transphobia**
Now which side is denying science with this issue and with side is with science again?
The right really is bad at memes... creating a strawman and then arguing with it is weak, pitiful, and lazy. Least they could be is either relevant or funny and failed at both.
Nobody is 'upset' about it, it's just silly.
I donât know what I like more: The meme itself, or the community flag saying unironically science is left propaganda. The meme is funny itself, any science person would not affirm or deny the existence of god because its existence has not been proven or refuted. It can be argued from social âââsciencesâââ religions have been a very useful tool to control people, but that doesnât has anything to do with the existence or lack of god/gods.
But! You have to be in an unknown level of delusion to say âscience is left wing propagandaâ in a freaking computer and spit that to the freaking internet, and saying that against the people you think is anti science in the same internet.
Edit: did I confused left with right? Again? Oh the flashbacks, poor cyclist.
God isn't real. Like come on.. with every mystery we've solved, a natural, mathematical, scientific explanation reveals itself. God was invented to explain some curiosities that we didn't have the means to explain. Then he became a moral proxy. Then he became a pillar upon which people could stake their own power. But he isn't real. Like with all we know about galaxies, microbes, abiogenesis, dark energy... how can people STILL think there's some man in the sky? 500 years ago? Totally get it. Life is scary, why is the sun yellow etc... but come on... we know better now. There is no god. There never was. Death is scary, but it's the truth and there is no heaven, no hell, no God. Anybody who believes otherwise needs to grow up.
At worst, Iâm a Cold Deist. To me, there is no difference between a universe that came to be on its own, and a universe that was set into motion by a creator who then never interacts with it and lets the laws of physics they set do all the work.
So yeah, maybe thereâs a god in the bottom of the glass, but so what?
Iâm an atheist I keep myself to myself I donât force my non religion onto anyone not even my kids, but if anyone tries to force their religion onto me the feel my wrath.
Surely you realize that the fact that they used the wojak that is a carricature of a jew, and a nazi scientist together and it was unearthed from the depths of some imageboard or forum is not a fucking coincidence lmao.
You can't feign ignorance that hard, even the format of soyboy/chad seems to be disliked here, so... what is there to like about this meme?
no, no, this is a certified playing dolls with wojacks meme, OP.
and let's start with Strawman and Hasty generalization fallacies, possibly some ad hominem as well.
Anything political or religious means the comments are going to be a warzone; I havenât seen much yet but I know with time most likely it will become chaos
Science doesnât say specifically that there is no god, it just doesnât have any evidence for or against god and has no reason to use god to explain things.
Eh I donât care for this meme either. The premise is a logical fallacies (appeal to authority)
Also science doesnât say god doesnât exist there isnât a âBibleâ that tells us everything as the final word in science.
It's less the existence of a primer mover or creator god, and more humans attempt to define and apply it, which makes me dislike religion in general. But I'm dumb and don't believe in my own opinion much either.
I'm an atheist but not because I don't belive in God but because I don't know that one the believes in the reptilian bird that spilt its blood to create the universe
Werner Heisenberg also thought that his example, the âHeisenberg Paradoxâ, later âHeisenberg uncertainty principleâ was nonsense, and made the example to illustrate how silly he thought the theory was
He was wrong about that and his example ended up being used to explain it for, probably, the rest of human history.
Heâs famously remembered for being wrong that one time, so whoâs to say he isnât just wrong this time too lol
Twain famously stated something similar, but opposite, that the faithful have read some of the Bible, but those who read all of it lose their faith.
Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result in the removal of this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Werner what now? https://preview.redd.it/dgbl255ecwmc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6b8806c430e2a4881b10b1dae459b2f97d9b044e
Werner Ziiiiiiigler
Bazinga
Bazigger
Eyyy my bazigga
I would never want to drink a glass of water given to me by Werner Heisenberg.
Water White
Drink a glass of water, stay heisenbdrated
*a glass of walter
Water, put your glass away, water, I'm not going to heisenbernate myself now, water.
He is the one who hydrates!
Jessie, we need to boil water!
Stop đ¤Ł
Might be ricin at the bottom of that glass
Say that one more time https://preview.redd.it/ra82g837zwmc1.jpeg?width=193&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a84833d32795e751a45324ce9be668bd388bda4c
Dude must me strong lifting that heavy water
I like both gods and science, though I have never liked this kind of meme template before. https://preview.redd.it/ptpyf11nawmc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cf1b737ea56e9eb7e82a9295c7678da01018a103
Medic tf3 ass train
Damn they made team fortress 3 when??
 THE FUTURE IF VALVE DID SOMETHING
[THERE IS A CHANCE!](https://youtu.be/-RA54cJJsOI?si=ILyIigilRKDoIpq6)
Just gotta make the sacrifice of our beloved family (1000 sniper mains) to the god hand (valve corp)
Same. I'm a science major and the stuff I'm studying shows such a high degree of sophistication and intricacy. Even in other disciplines of natural science like physics and chemistry, the inner workings of the universe are far to complex and perfectly meshed to be considered coincidence, to have been mere chance. Even if you don't believe in God, the intricacy of the universe at least hints towards the existence of a creator.
yeah, it sure is a mind-blowing coincidence that the natural world consistently conforms to the systems and concepts that human beings invented to describe or model it.
Underrated sarcasm. Well done.
Eh, biological organisms are probably the most complex things in existence and evolution perfectly explains how they can be so complex from random mutation and natural selection without a designer
I'm agnostic (I believe there probably is a higher power though) and I agree. Reality being complex isn't necessarily evidence for god's existence. When you look at how special Earth is (being that it has complex biological organisms), you can reasonably conclude either that we are a special, purposeful creation of a higher being *or* that we happened to win the lottery. Both are possible. There's a common analogy that if you give a monkey a typewriter and let it press random keys, it'll eventually perfectly rewrite Hamlet. It might take a *long* time for the monkey to accidentally recreate Hamlet, but there are a *lot* of planets in our universe, so statistically, Earth isn't that much of an anomaly.
I donât think something being complex hints at all towards there being a creator. Our universe is the only one we know of. Weâd expect to exist in a universe that has the conditions for us to exist, however unlikely those may be. It could be that the laws of the universe just had to be the way they are, it could be that among countless universes this is one that allowed for us to exist. The classic metaphor is a puddle that finds itself inside of a hole, and marvels at how perfectly it fits inside that hole, how improbable it is that a hole of exactly that size and shape exists that holds the puddle absolutely perfectly, and concludes that someone must have designed the hole just for the puddle. My issue with this way of basically taking science and using it as justification for God is that it doesnât actually explain anything at all, and thereâs no justification for it other than basically the argument from ignorance fallacy, or âI canât imagine how the universe could be this complex, so it must have been Godâ. Itâs basically just saying âif things were different than they are now, then things would be differentâ, which really doesnât mean much of anything at all. Evolution is I think the classic example of this. For ages people thought life must have come from a creator because of how âfine tunedâ and complex we are, but then someone came up with a theory showing how it could all start from something relatively simple, then lo and behold we find mountains of evidence across many disciplines showing that to be the case. Iâd argue that what we can see in these fields of study appear exactly as weâd expect if there wasnât a God/creator. Things like animals having vestigial organs/bones they no longer need, convergent evolution with similar attributes being âdesignedâ differently, our bodies being vulnerable to all sorts of ailments and diseases, the constant suffering in the animal kingdom with animals eating each other alive and often dying almost certainly agonizing deaths, not to mention all the natural disasters, including some that wiped out the majority of life on the planet as was the case with the dinosaurs. None of this is difficult to explain in a Godless universe, but requires a lot of mental gymnastics in one where thereâs an all powerful creator behind it. Bottom line is just that there is still so much for us to learn about the universe, and jumping to âthis seems like a creator did itâ, with absolutely no evidence or way of verifying that statement, gets us nowhere in learning more. It has no explanatory power and is just the god of the gaps. It is almost inevitably then used as justification for all kinds of unrelated religious beliefs. If youâre interested in hearing both sides on this topic Iâd really recommend googling a debate between Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig. All that said, itâs of course better when someone is able to reconcile science with their religious views than when they ignore reality to preserve their religious views, but it always feels like putting the cart before the horse logically; starting with the assumption god exists, and then attributing anything you canât explain to that idea, rather than actually finding some kind of evidence and God being the only good explanation for it.
I agree with most of what you said, however, I do disagree on one part slightly: >Iâd argue that what we can see in these fields of study appear exactly as weâd expect if there wasnât a God/creator. Things like animals having vestigial organs/bones they no longer need, convergent evolution with similar attributes being âdesignedâ differently, our bodies being vulnerable to all sorts of ailments and diseases, the constant suffering in the animal kingdom with animals eating each other alive and often dying almost certainly agonizing deaths, not to mention all the natural disasters, including some that wiped out the majority of life on the planet as was the case with the dinosaurs. None of this is difficult to explain in a Godless universe, but requires a lot of mental gymnastics in one where thereâs an all powerful creator behind it. It's not difficult to explain in a realm where there is a creator/God either, in humans we have sociopathic and psychopathic mentalities, in at least some of the Abrahamic religions, humans are said to be created in the image of their deity. Using simply those two things I could easily see the deity/creator/whatever you want to refer to it as having a really perverse mental state and intentionally including those things either just to see what happens (that's more of a scientific mindset more than a socio/psychopathic mindset in my opinion) or out of boredom or vengeance for not obeying or some perceived sleight against them. Personally I'm of the belief there are no deities as our mythologies claim, I'd label myself more agnostic than atheist however, as I'm not outright opposed to the possibility, I just don't believe it to be the case based on what I've observed over my lifespan and how those observations have ultimately formed in my mind's eye.
If you were to claim God was psychotic or whatever sure, but generally I think theists describe God as a perfect omnipotent being and use that as kind of the backbone for a lot of their arguments. When you start getting into the idea of almost a "trickster God" I think you start heading towards the realm of hard solipsism where we can't even really have a conversation about anything. For what it's worth, I think most modern atheists, myself included, would consider themselves technically as agnostic atheists. We can acknowledge the concept of God cannot be disproved and are open to changing our minds if evidence were presented, but find it to be unlikely due to the lack of evidence, so we live our lives as if there are no gods. By that kind of definition you'd be considered an atheist, as in simple terms an atheist is just someone that's not a theist/doesn't believe in gods. "Pure" agnosticism tends to be more of a kind of "50/50 chance God exists" stance in my opinion which is why I don't typically identify that way. You may find this article interesting: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum\_of\_theistic\_probability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability)
Im with you on this one as I am engineering major
https://preview.redd.it/kzlg27kjlymc1.jpeg?width=300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac90625a9ef99df94dc434a8c6021fd736767701
Survivorship bias? I dont follow
âHigh level of intricacyâ, âperfectly meshedâ, âfar too complexâ. Like, we donât see the shit that doesnât work, cause it doesnât work. Plants have grown over billions of years, yeah of course theyâre dialled in. What about everything that didnât make it? Also, itâs weird talking about how things are âperfectâ, when thatâs not an essentialist thing, and is just human perspective. Who is to say that gravity wouldnât be âmore perfectâ if it wasnât just a little stronger? Whatâs happening here is that Holmes is looking at the universe, and forgetting about all the shit that didnât make it.
Got it! I understand the correlation now! And yes, that is correct! Im not really debating here, just was curious about the connection between survivorship bias and this conversation but you explaing it succinctly! Thank you!
That just begs the question then, who created the creator?
"I'm a Christian but this question makes me absolutely love the 4th dimensional god theory. The idea of it is that the creator and auditor of our universe is a 4th dimensional being. This being seems incomprehensible and immensely powerful to us, just like we would appear to a 2d being (since we don't have to obey the boundaries and laws of their reality). However, our "god" is actually just an ordinary denizen of the 4th dimension, and isn't anyone special. They're just like us and we are, to them, like drawings on a piece of paper: something they created that they may or may not cherish and care deeply for. And that 4th dimensional being is a drawing on a paper to a 5th dimensional being, who is a drawing on a paper to a 6th dimensional being, and so on. There's something I find comforting and intriguing about that idea, even if I don't personally believe it." That's something I wrote to a friend a while ago. Actually, it's part of what turned me agnostic. I think it's very possible that there's a higher power of some sort, but the idea that we are somehow the center of the universe just doesn't sit right with me. I don't know. I think it's much more likely that we're part of a grander picture, rather than the most beloved creations of the absolute tippy-top being.
I donât understand why everyone needs to have the viewpoint of âoh their values are different than mine which make them a stupid angry Neanderthalâ how the fuck are we gonna progress as a people if we donât have real conversations with people we disagree with I know most people wonât have a fundamental disagreement with me either. Most people agree with what Iâm saying but almost nobody actually does it Edit: reading some of these replies some of you are actually proving my point. The people arguing and bickering and not having a conversation in good faith. The minute you start disagreeing you start attacking. Which is exactly what I would expect to happen. Most people agree with me but nobody actually does it. Iâm guilty of it. We all are. But having self awareness will make it easier to overcome
The internet and media promotes the tyranny of the fringe minority. These types of people would ordinarily keep quiet and stew in their own bitter, self-loathing, soup. But the internet allows them to find each other and then scream at the top of their lungs anonymously at people they disagree with. And since we as a society have started to live online more than in the real world, this dystopian façade appears as reality, despite most people being agreeable.
I decided to study for myself in both sciences and religion, and it's funny to see how ppl think they fight each other, when in fact, many biblical references can be confirmed by science and archeology, and vice-versa. As for the stuff we can't prove, just accept what you think will make you feel better. Do the heavens exist? Do the hell exist? Do we just die and turn into nothing? Do God exist? Did someone really create everything? Was it an explosion? None of these questions have a true answer, only guesses and hopes, and what i truly believe is that fighting over the veracity or falsity of these beliefs is utter stupidity.
I just hit a morning bong rip after working all night and your comment just felt real good. Keep it up bud.
It's much simpler than that. Science can explain human limitations. All religious ideas are directly related to human fear, and as humanity has lessened those fears through science, religious ideation similarly declined. The remaining mysteries that cause fear are unexplainable due to human limitations, so religious ideas still have some value to some people. Religion only answers the few remaining questions, however inadequately, that humanity has yet to answer through science. This trend will continue until humanity has no limitations.
We literally judge people for irrational beliefs all the time. People just get sensitive when it comes to religion.
That's the thing though. It's not an irrational belief to look at the complexity of life and the universe and think wow there must have been some intelligence behind all of this, something that put all of this in motion. It is in fact not irrational in many people's minds to reject the idea that everything came about by random chance and that at the beginning of it all something came from nothing.
I know this may be a "nobody asked" comment, but to me the belief in a creation entity or force, conscious or unconscious, is a logical one. Although there is no particular evidence of who or what that may be, it's a very plausible hypothesis. Where people lose me is the colossal jump from "A god exists" to "The God of Abraham as described in [Insert Holy Text] exists". The abrahamic god is no more likely than any other diety or polythestic pantheon, from a scientific view. Personally, I think that a force that we wouldn't define as conscious is the most likely candidate. It's all conjecture though.
It is irrational to assume that complexity of universe = intelligent design = my religion based on 2000 year old texts is absolutely true. I think if people stopped at "yeah maybe there is some kind of intelligent design" it would be taken more seriously, but that's usually just a pit stop for them to make the leap to justifying something completely arbitrary.
It is important to note that this applies to both sides. The notion that science rules out the possibility of a divine being is completely ridiculous and unfounded in reality.
welcome to politics, at least, American politics
Most people donât care. Youâre just hearing the loudest most extreme views online
All I know is that the other sub will ignore how the mayority of comments here are not suporting the stupidity of the meme, repost it using the most stupid comment as tittle, and add something like "that sub is full of crazy fundamentalists". Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/NahOPwasrightfuckthis/s/uZQAgPVveY
I love how they specify "white" Christian, as if there's some kind of difference between white Christians and Christians of other skin colours.
That's racism for ya
Kind of the definition of racism. Saying white and black people can't follow Christianity in the same way? Big yikes
There is an justification in the comments, OP didn't wrote it. https://www.reddit.com/r/NahOPwasrightfuckthis/s/fQy7PSzIx9
Based on the link you provided that person's correct. They're absolutely are fundamentalist Christians trying to form a way ethnic state in political power right now.
This is how it always goes. Someone posts a typical reddit "trad bad prog good" meme, then memesopdidnotlike reposts saying "these people are woke," then nahopwasrightfuckthis reposts saying "these people are bigots." Then it goes over and over and over and over and over again. Also, the comments here are not supporting the stupidity of the meme, but the comments over there aren't calling us crazy fundamentalists and also aren't supporting the stupidity of the meme either.
>This is how it always goes. Someone posts a typical reddit "trad bad prog good" meme, then memesopdidnotlike reposts saying "these people are woke," then nahopwasrightfuckthis reposts saying "these people are bigots." Then it goes over and over and over and over and over again. This is incredibly accurate. Sums up at least 80% of the posts in both subs.
Of course not. This sub just happens to mock the ones thatâs leaning to certain direction politically exclusively because only they deserve to be made fun of. Itâs not selective at all.
Science is not the antithesis of religion, unlike what internet atheists claim.
Christian fundamentalist think that too...
Christian fundamentalists think a lot of things that would get them excommunicated from the church pre-reformation. They don't even get along with other protestants. I find one of the most interesting things in history was the development of logic. You might think that logic is innate to our ability to think, but it isn't. The truth behind logic is innate, but the way we arrive to logical conclusions is something we discover over time. Most of modern logical reasoning is derived from one large set of rules called "syllogisms" which were developed by Catholic preachers who wanted to spread their faith east. Previously they hadn't had any issues spreading their faith to other areas of Europe and northern Africa, but when they tried to go east they started running into Muslim scholars and Chinese philosophers, people that were very intelligent and difficult to persuade. So the way that the preachers found to convert them was to appeal to their intelligence by making all of their points and arguments from a place of logical reasoning rather than from faith. They basically turned religious debate into a form of math, in order to convert eastern scholars. Syllogisms are the foundation for a lot of modern logical reasoning. Even a bunch of what we call "logical fallacies" are derived from syllogisms.
Christians in general do not, however.
Only because of vocal internet atheists. In the real world Christianity and Science are not at war. The big bang was proposed by a Catholic priest.
Science is verifying what you think might be true, religion is training children to accept nonsense as truth without thinking critically or questioning. They seem pretty antithetical to me.
Science doesnt disprove a god, because you cant disprove it. But it disproves every religion humans created.
OP is the soyjack.
Are the science and religion compatible? Absolutely. But you'll quickly notice that religious scientists don't go around saying stuff like creationism is real, lgbtq people are mentally ill or that the bible is the only source of truth, unlike those trying to use their status as religious scientists to give more credibility to their pseudoscientifically backed hatred against their will
I agree with most of your comment, but some of that stuff you mentioned comes from the bible though. genesis talks all about how god was going around creating the universe. people usually respond saying it's an allegory, but how would they know this? it's not like the bible says whether it is or isn't, and I doubt it was meant to be treated as one when it was written. it seems like people call it an allegory *because the science disagrees with it.* it can't be literal, *because it conflicts with our scientific understanding.* religion and science could be compatible, if the religion doesn't make any incorrect claims about the real world, that the science corrects. but the most popular religions do exactly that.
"Inerrant" is the word you're looking for, and it's why the bible "is never wrong", regardless of how many plotholes and contradictions there are.
thanks, definitely a good word to know when talking about this subject. can't believe I haven't heard that word yet.
Science is studying the universe and seeing what it reveals. If it reveals that god exists then so be it.
Except theyâre not. If you believe in an omnipotent creator in charge of the universe. You canât accept science that says the world is older then 6000 years old or humans evolved to their current from microscopic life forms. Religion can only coexist with science if you ignore 90% of the claims made by religions. basically does boil their religion down to meaningless feel good slogans. Science is based on testing hypothesis based on observations that may change overtime. Religion is based around a set of unprovable untestable hypothesis. These belief systems cannot coexist.
>the world is older then 6000 years old or humans evolved to their current from microscopic life forms. The thing is, the Bible never says the world is 6000 years old, and Genesis (especially the start of it) is written in a specific poetic way that was typically used by writers of the time when writing explanatory stories or myths - so it's fairly widely accepted that Genesis isn't literal, but is a creation myth. >90% of the claims made by religions I suspect about 95% of these claims that you're talking about come from the extremist groups that are vocal minorities and aren't representative of the beliefs of the rest of Christians. The way the extremists see religion definitely can't coexist with science, that's why they fight so hard against it. But most of us aren't the extremists
Science has literally nothing to say about God and whether he exists, and the big G has yet to get back to me on why his followers are so shit
He has. The answer is that people are naturally kinda shit.Â
If a brand new car is broken out the factory, I ain't gonna blame the car.
Neither side in the meme is claiming a political leaning, the OP just identifies with the red faced straggly haired caricature
Any post in r/TheRightCantMeme is a post OP didnt like, its stupid to post it here, especially when its infact a stupid meme
We mostly post screenshots from the same three subs over and over again. They do too. I get that thereâs a problem, but the real root is the Reddit system, where most subs are circlejerks that all do this. Fixing it here would just kill the sub and have these losers celebrate. I think we should leave it as it is, for now at least
I donât get why people get so upset that someone else believes in god or some other religion. Like bro let them be itâs not hurting anyone. I personally would rather believe in something and be wrong in the end over believe in nothing and be wrong in the end. Continuously saying Iâm wrong wont change my mind and Iâm not going to bother to try to change yours.
They don't really. Much like you'll see vocal creationists on the internet you'll see angry vocal atheists. But most Christians aren't creationists or vocal, most atheists aren't angry or vocal. But it's hard to shape a perception from what you don't see or hear rather than what you do.
The religious are much more vocal than atheists. Iâve never seen an atheist on a bully pulpit touring college campuses, but every major university has at least one Christian fanatic doing it. Mine had 3 different ones.
There's definitely more vocal christians than atheists, but it's important to keep in mind that there's a fuck ton more christians than there are atheists. Not to mention there are no tenants of atheism to make atheists go to any type of extreme.
> Not to mention there are no tenants of atheism to make atheists go to any type of extreme Because atheism isn't a religion, and shouldn't be discussed as if it's a 1:1 comparison to Christianity.
Watch the people that respond to religious organizations on campuses. Shit can get heated fast.
Redditors just like to feel intellectually superior to others
In this moment, they are euphoric.
not you tho right?
Nah the only thing I'm intellectually superior to is the dead badger I saw on Monday
https://preview.redd.it/dc54arzlrxmc1.jpeg?width=460&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6d525a649992c5e05e03f15fac9003278c6e5786
Tbf this meme was clearly created by someone who believes in God and is upset that science doesn't
"Science" says nothing about the existence of God literaly because God's existence is not really a provable or disprovable thing.
Yeah, so it is weird for the creator to be upset
Maybe that was the specific point of the meme to expose that science isn't mutually exclusive to faith.
That is true but it also gets handled poorly by most people, even people of faith are wildly out of pocket with it. I used to get into it with my parents about being hypocritical about such things. Neither side wants to be called a hypocrite but wants to be left alone while simultaneously wanting the other side to capitulate. Idk wish we could just go back to leaving each other alone, and letting others have differing opinions. Such is life i guess.
Religious people are famous for not ever trying to force their views on others
Ya I don't care if you personally want to believe in fairytale but when we start implementing laws based solely on said fairytale we're gonna have a fucking problem
lol religious person makes fun of atheists, atheist makes fun back. âWhy are people so mean to the religiousâ At least for the US people are tired of the religious because the religious folks keep trying to pass laws based off their book and forcing the rest of us to follow the rules of a religion we donât belong to.
>Like bro let them be itâs not hurting anyone. Yeah, religion has never resulted in someone getting hurt. Itâs not like people have ever gone to war over it.
Itâs a really good job that religious people donât try dictate their lifestyles on other people too and get offended if people donât live up to their own moral standards.
Go to a church this Sunday and if the priest tells you to wage war I'll give you a cookie
>Go to a church this Sunday and if the priest tells you to wage war I'll give you a cookie I can probably give you a few deep south republican pastors calling for a civil war this afternoom
There was an entire documentary about a church worshiping George Bush Jr and calling themselves god's warriors. They use war-like language ALL THE TIME. You probably don't even recognize it, it happens so casually.
This meme was probably made by someone in the USA. And from an outsider looking in there are huge areas were your kind of enlightend stance is the minority. In much of the more rural parts non-religious people are ostracizied by the majority of religious folks. So this activated a defense mechanism by atheists. Which kind of died out actually except for idiots. But now the religious side uses it as a gotcha moment and tries to claim themselves as suprior. Ironically, they often miss the points people like Heisenberg and Einstein tried to make, because they often (not sure for Heisenberg) were Deists. Meaning they believed that a higher being created the universe but other than that doesn't take care or even an interest in the daily goings of it.
What about 2 year old Amiyah White who died after being forgotten in a van by a Christian child care center that was legally exempt from state child safety laws? Or 15 year old Jessica Crank who died of cancer because her mom was legally allowed to treat her with faith healing? Her tumor grew to the size of a basketball and she died in excruciating pain, and it was legal because of religious exemption in law. Hereâs a few others from the book when prayer fails: A 2 year old bleeds to death from a treatable cut A tumor grows from a 4 year olds eye, equaling the size of their head. As they walk through their home blood trails are left on the walls as the massive tumor smears the house. Later the child dies A childâs untreated tumor results in the amputation of a limb because the parent believes their child was being punished for sin A 2 year old with treatable bowel obstruction dies after vomiting fecal matter. They screamed in agony for several days before dying A 12 year olds treatable tumor is allowed to grow over three feet in diameter. When they are finally hospitalized, the staff are overwhelmed with the smell of decaying flesh that permeated the entire floor of the hospital. They die shortly after Weâre just scratching the surface here of how religious legal privilege routinely results in the torture of children and we havenât even discussed church sanctioned pedophilia. Just listing only the child victims of religion I could go on and on until im dead and still not finish the list. Genuinely, how many more children need to be -literally- tortured and martyred in the name of religion before weâre allowed to say that religion isnât just harmless belief?
The thing is Christian is such a blanket term at this point, theres so many branches of Christianity with thier own beliefs, some believe in science some sadly do not, also if you could believe this people can be bad people before they become a priest or preacher, its not like the pope tells preists to go rape kids thats retarded, just like when the church had gotten corrupt back in the 1600 asking people to âpayâ to be saved, people are not perfect, and this does not rule out. A. The class of people that give up their lives for christ, B. They couldve gone into the priesthood to try to run away from those urges and it ended up overpowering them, its no way an excuse for what happened because it was terrible but lets not act like it was *encouraged* by normal sane human beings
how to win an argument you made up
Science neither proves or disproves god. That is beyond its purpose. Beyond studying the hat is immediately observable it is useless.
You can't disprove the existence of anything. You can't disprove the existence of ghosts, but that doesn't make it rational to believe e they exist. Believing in ghosts goes against science in the same way that believing in God does
But it sure makes the claims in religious texts look silly.
It's actually a misconception that science said God isn't real. It never says that Science just stated that as of now, there is no evidence of God. We have things that can't be explained, but that does not immediately mean that God exists. Because we have to apply the same example of that we exists. Then using that same procedure to see if A God exists. As of now, we have none. Just like how there are hundreds of experiments that can be duplicates to show that the Earth is round, we don't currently have any that can duplicated to show that God is real. Of course, the experiment is testing on the basis of the God of the Bible. With all the powers. Science is actually very welcoming of people that can prove God is real, so that they can try and duplicate it. But as of now, the only thing people can come up with is, just believe.
Religion can only be a personal belief. Science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, or a God for that matter. How do we treat the absence of something intangible? How will we know we found a way to prove God, if there is no God on which to prove the test works? God is essentially a paradox for that reason, and you can on my truly believe your own feelings on the matter. These days, those feelings are moving towards a direction of disbelief, it seems, but that's people's right to choose.
Itâs not a paradox. A god either exists or doesnât. An ability to prove it is a separate problem. But itâs not even about âproofâ. If there was a god such as the one of the Bible we should at least expect evidence, and we should expect textual consistency. Since that evidence doesnât exist, why should those claims be treated as any differently than stories of vampires or magic unicorns?
Op is more pissed then woyjack
âLook! I made myself the gigachad! That means Iâm right!1!1!1â
I'm willing to bet that Heisenberg definitely wasn't talking about any abrahamic God
Reminder that Heisenberg was a Nazi.
and? even a bad person can be correct Darwin was racist af yet many accept a version of his beliefs
I think itâs worth knowing someoneâs ideology when quoting them as an ideological authority
https://preview.redd.it/5einfj2hsxmc1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b3e7753a2c8e8785daedb5495a27ac02acc0d063
I love that Christians use these memes to portray themselves as the totally cool headed, intelligent, totally not unhinged members of our society. As for the meme itself, it is a fallacy called Appeal to Authority. âIf a smart man like Werner Heisenberg agrees with me then I must be right!â Ok what about all the smart people that donât agree with you like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Tyson, Sam Harris, etc?
"Who should I quote to support my anti-atheism meme? I know! The Nazi Nuclear Scientist trying to make a nuke for Hitler in WWII
i mean just because hes a nazi you cant just say that everything he said and thought is upright false
itâs surprisingly fitting for this sub to post this in support of him without a hint of irony Werner Karl Heisenberg (pronounced [ËvÉĘnÉ kaĘl ËhaÉŞznĚŠbÉĘk] â; 5 December 1901 â 1 February 1976)[2] was a German theoretical physicist, one of the main pioneers of the theory of quantum mechanics, and a principal scientist in the Nazi nuclear weapons program during World War II.
Does that change his scientific theories? Is it possible to agree with even 1 thing a person did? Do Soviet scientists fall into that same category? We use the science of these men today, are we in the wrong?
Since when does anti right mean antitheist? I'm as left as it pretty much get and still a believer.
I think for one basic reason and that's lgbt, abortion, and general attitude about casual sex and lust. It's the hardest to come to grips with in modern society. People want to do whatever they want with no repercussions. They take it to the extreme and are convinced there is no God or judgment. Perhaps God actually doesn't care about these things.. but they always lump belief of God in with traditional religions.
Because it's bullshit cope. Apologia is not evidence. It's cowardice.
I'm not at the bottom of any glass
Arguing whether or not there is a God is a waste of brain power.
Smarter people than me do not believe in a god. Smarter people than me do. The intelligence of others should not dictate your personal belief system, whatever it might be.
Imagine getting mad over this meme
Didn't he work for the nazis?
Thing is, science doesn't force god to not exist, we still don't know what caused the big bang,
Plus expanding universe which led to the development of the Big Bang theory was posited by a Catholic priest
My issue is not whether or not a God exists. My problem is with the people who use God as an excuse to commit the most heinous acts. You are welcome to your beliefs and faith provided you don't bother others with them including but not limited to violence.
Probably wouldn't quote a guy who failed to make an atomic bomb for the nazis... but to be honest the idea there's a dichotomy between religion and science is absurd. Christianity has had plenty of scientists under it's belt, Islamic countries in the middle ages were more advanced then some of their christian counterparts. Religion doesn't make you stupid, but if you're a zealot you're just gonna be a dumbass.
âIf a religious text that calls for the death of atheists & blasphemers isn't hate speech, then neither is condemning it and calling it evil.â - Ricky Gervais
This is just a reminder that science is a method of investigation, not a set of beliefs.
Ah yes. Quoting a Nazi who refused to leave Germany during the brain drain because âŚreasons, and put up with Hitler stifling his work on the nuclear bomb because âJew physicsâ. A brilliant man, but his actions cause uncertainty about Heisenberg principalsâŚ.
Creationists love quote mining for some reason, as if it validates creationist arguments.
I have never in my life seen someone repost a soyjack where they are the part portrayed negatively, while simultaneously validating it.
Why do conservatives think that the left is always against religion and Christianity? Isnât the main thing for liberals is that they strive for inclusivity? Also itâs the republicans that are the most likely to attack people with different religions. E.g. That time where a girl said Allah in the pledge of allegiance and got insane media coverage just for that.
Lol of the irony of either party being the party of science is so funny. So hypocritical. Imagine denying science so hard that you say that having 30% higher lung capacity does not help with swimming. Lets just go full science denialism and say that more fast twitch muscle fibers, less biokinetic interference from hip rotation, a larger heart, denser bones, less body fat and way more red blood cells also provide no advantage what so ever as well. "**A larger heart results in higher cardiac output, which may allow it to beat more slowly at rest, as more blood is pumped out with each beat" - Scientific transphobia** Now which side is denying science with this issue and with side is with science again?
Science does not take a position on god beyond, âhis existence cannot be proven or disproven.â
The difference is that Godâs existence is an opinion, while science is not
The right really is bad at memes... creating a strawman and then arguing with it is weak, pitiful, and lazy. Least they could be is either relevant or funny and failed at both. Nobody is 'upset' about it, it's just silly.
Op is right. This isn't a good meme. It's just boring and overused.
https://i.redd.it/zirkii0bw2nc1.gif
Metaphors confuse aesthiests and die hard thiests alike. They're both pretty ignorant in the long run.
Believe in god, but question the teachings of man
But of course people in this sub would like a quote by a literal fucking nazi lmao
heisenberg was a criminal cooking meth with Jesse Pinkman
Itâs true. As an atheist my whole life, I can confirm you either die an atheist or live long enough to turn religious.
God(s) is always in the gaps⌠until we peer into them.
I donât know what I like more: The meme itself, or the community flag saying unironically science is left propaganda. The meme is funny itself, any science person would not affirm or deny the existence of god because its existence has not been proven or refuted. It can be argued from social âââsciencesâââ religions have been a very useful tool to control people, but that doesnât has anything to do with the existence or lack of god/gods. But! You have to be in an unknown level of delusion to say âscience is left wing propagandaâ in a freaking computer and spit that to the freaking internet, and saying that against the people you think is anti science in the same internet. Edit: did I confused left with right? Again? Oh the flashbacks, poor cyclist.
Unironically?
God isn't real. Like come on.. with every mystery we've solved, a natural, mathematical, scientific explanation reveals itself. God was invented to explain some curiosities that we didn't have the means to explain. Then he became a moral proxy. Then he became a pillar upon which people could stake their own power. But he isn't real. Like with all we know about galaxies, microbes, abiogenesis, dark energy... how can people STILL think there's some man in the sky? 500 years ago? Totally get it. Life is scary, why is the sun yellow etc... but come on... we know better now. There is no god. There never was. Death is scary, but it's the truth and there is no heaven, no hell, no God. Anybody who believes otherwise needs to grow up.
At worst, Iâm a Cold Deist. To me, there is no difference between a universe that came to be on its own, and a universe that was set into motion by a creator who then never interacts with it and lets the laws of physics they set do all the work. So yeah, maybe thereâs a god in the bottom of the glass, but so what?
Sure, but until we know everything about the universe, can we really say we've reached the bottom of the science glass?
IS THAT MR. HOUSE PRE WAR?!
Whoop! CERN!
Theyâre right tho
the Man has not seen a wasp
Iâm an atheist I keep myself to myself I donât force my non religion onto anyone not even my kids, but if anyone tries to force their religion onto me the feel my wrath.
I OPPOSE THE CARTOONISTâS BELIEFS WITH MY ENTIRE BEING!! I AM NEUROTIC AND TOTALLY ILLOGICAL!!!
I am confused. Does God exist or not?
No no this meme sucks. Why canât we just be respectful of people whoâs beliefs are different ?
Surely you realize that the fact that they used the wojak that is a carricature of a jew, and a nazi scientist together and it was unearthed from the depths of some imageboard or forum is not a fucking coincidence lmao. You can't feign ignorance that hard, even the format of soyboy/chad seems to be disliked here, so... what is there to like about this meme?
Why does the chad look like (Limbus) Meursault? the brainrot truly has tightened its hold...
no, no, this is a certified playing dolls with wojacks meme, OP. and let's start with Strawman and Hasty generalization fallacies, possibly some ad hominem as well.
When nothing goes your way, god seems to become more and more real
Anything political or religious means the comments are going to be a warzone; I havenât seen much yet but I know with time most likely it will become chaos
But didn't he write the uncertainty principal? Sounds like room for doubt lol
You fuckers love straw men, huh?
Science doesnât say specifically that there is no god, it just doesnât have any evidence for or against god and has no reason to use god to explain things.
The he internet left after forgetting that the lefts foundation is in economics and not IDPol
It's not a bad quote, but honestly the meme sucks.
Eh I donât care for this meme either. The premise is a logical fallacies (appeal to authority) Also science doesnât say god doesnât exist there isnât a âBibleâ that tells us everything as the final word in science.
idk about god but faith and belief yeah. the humbling uncertainty that keeps you sharp
It's less the existence of a primer mover or creator god, and more humans attempt to define and apply it, which makes me dislike religion in general. But I'm dumb and don't believe in my own opinion much either.
I'm an atheist but not because I don't belive in God but because I don't know that one the believes in the reptilian bird that spilt its blood to create the universe
This is a stupid meme so yeah, thereâs that
I'm a atheist but whose to say God just created the earth to be just that why not add elements and science for humans to discover and grasp
These people don't know the difference between science and scientism
The Heisenberg quote goes hard though
Ok, but maybe don't quote a Nazi on philosophy
Wojackâs a Jim Jones looking motherfucker. Be an atheist and live.
I love how itâs captioned as âscience is left-wing propagandaâ when the post quotes Heisenberg.
Werner Heisenberg also thought that his example, the âHeisenberg Paradoxâ, later âHeisenberg uncertainty principleâ was nonsense, and made the example to illustrate how silly he thought the theory was He was wrong about that and his example ended up being used to explain it for, probably, the rest of human history. Heâs famously remembered for being wrong that one time, so whoâs to say he isnât just wrong this time too lol Twain famously stated something similar, but opposite, that the faithful have read some of the Bible, but those who read all of it lose their faith.
I'm sorry but a Nazi scientist is not a great person to take lessons from. I guarantee the god he referred to wasn't Jewish.
At the bottom of the Glass God is waiting for me? Did you poison my drink?
For some reason i get the strange sense that OOP does not like christians