this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
594 points (98.8% liked)
Atheist Memes
6964 readers
2 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
Religion and science are not compatiable. Science cares about truth, religion demands lies.
Indeed, you have restated my position in fewer words.
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.
Well that's feels completely nonsensical. If god isn't involved in our universe at all, its completely unreasonable to believe it exists.
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.
Is a model that accuratelty predicts outcomes not a true description of how things are interacting in the applicable scenarios???