this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
601 points (99.2% liked)

Programmer Humor

32938 readers
864 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca 258 points 1 week ago (6 children)

I like the idea of a technologically literate pope.

[–] rozodru@piefed.world 83 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

he has a ThinkPad with two partitions. one has TempleOS, the other runs Arch with HolyWM

My favorite thing about TempleOS is it's written in Holy C.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 days ago (2 children)

TempleOS

ThinkerOS, TempleOS is dead.

Then again, maybe the pope likes an excercise.

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 5 days ago

You say, his holiness dabbles in APP-cromancy?

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

He just likes to use the holy window manager under heavenly arches of the temple.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 3 points 6 days ago

He's really into downloading bootlegs and mixtapes of early punk music.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 144 points 1 week ago (3 children)

As long as he doesn't end up concluding every sermon with "I use Arch btw"

Archdioces Linux

[–] PoastRotato@lemmy.world 185 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Certainly not. He uses Pope!_OS

[–] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 73 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And just like that a new meme distro has ~~been born~~ been ordained.

[–] Sludge@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago

There's white smoke coming out of my PC. That's normal for this OS, right?

[–] CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world 50 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I figured it would have to be temple os

[–] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I get the vibe Terry was more of a protestant guy

At the very least he grew up Catholic

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

our emissary reports that The Holy Roman Empire entered the Information Era

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 5 points 6 days ago

Ironically, the pope is probably more tech literate than anyone over 50 in Germany's government. I bet Merz doesn't even know how to generate a PDF from a Word document.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 27 points 1 week ago (3 children)

he has a BS in math. not something you usually associate with the pope 🤷‍♂️

[–] zjti8eit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago

Pope Francis was a chemist.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Has a math degree but believes in infinity.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I'd say he must be very logical except, you know...

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Our greatest minds were peoplw of faith Plus beliving doesnt make one dumb

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I didn't say it made him dumb, I implied that faith doesn't flow from logic. Plus it's a little problematic to say that our great minds were people of faith when, for much of our history, not being a person of faith could mean death. But it's true, there were folks like Thomas Aquinas who were brilliant and more than average religious.

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

You could life and not be xealos or pious aka faithful. The past wasnt as xealot as you think it was

Edit: i would have poikted to Leibnitz and Hum as brilliant people, especially Leibnitz, who were faithful

[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 days ago

Galileo might not have agreed with you.

Also the word is zealous.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Surprising amount of extemely logical people go full horse shoe into believing "religion is a useful technology despite being mostly quack". To me this is just sociopathy of a different flavor.

[–] Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Literally René Descartes, arguably one of the most important mathematicians and philosophers in history, spends most of his meditations trying to prove the existence of God. Religious people can be very logical and believe in their religion for logical reasons, even if you and I disagree with those reasons.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (5 children)

believe in their religion for logical reasons

lol. there is literally no way to use logic to infer existence of god.

people believe in religion because they were brainwashed to it, usually at young age when they lacked the rational apparatus to resist such brainwashing.

[–] Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

there is literally no way to use logic to infer existence of god.

I just gave an example of someone doing precisely that. Read Descartes first three meditations. I won't say I agree with Descartes; I think his logic is flawed. But he does technically use logic to infer the existence of God. That's why I used Descartes as an example.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 days ago

I think his logic is flawed. But he does technically use logic to infer the existence of God

using CORRECT logic is kinda unspoken assumption when you talk about logic, otherwise it is pointless to talk about logic at all.

there is literally no way to use logic to infer existence of god.

I suggest you read Spinoza.

[–] vanillama@programming.dev 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

there is literally no way to use logic to infer existence of god.

Agreed

people believe in religion because they were brainwashed to it

It's way more complicated than that. First, most people normally absorb religion from our immediate environment. The biggest predictor for if you'll grow up to be your parents' religion is whether your parents displayed religious behavior, especially some that came at some kind of cost to them and you could perceive as a sacrifice (for example, if your religion says you shouldn't drink, but your father drinks, you probably won't find anything else convincing, but if you know your dad would otherwise drink, and that all his friends drink, seeing him drink water or soda when surrounded by drinkers is powerful).

Second, it's true that people who are already religious tend to tell themselves that they believe out of logic, and some of them eventually try to be intellectually honest and wrestle with these questions, but belief is only the biggest aspect of religion in some branches of Christianity.

In most religions out there, you can be agnostic and still practice religion, and the belief based model is extremely inaccurate at understanding and explaining those other religions, because unlike mainstream Protestant Christianity, which takes the belief in Jesus and the Bible as the one thing that separates a Christian from a non Christian, in other communities it can be more important whether you participate in holidays (like festivals with animal sacrifices in pre-Christian Europe; you can find evidence of Romans who didn't believe in their Gods back in the day, but unless they refused to engage in festivities people generally didn't care). There are also religions where belief is important but practice is equally important, like most of Islam.

I had religious trauma growing up and it's shit, and although I'm aware of people who had it way, way worse than me, to this day I still struggle with purity culture over a decade after formally leaving the church.

All of this is to say, brainwashing rarely works to make people stick around, people who stay due to coercion, often do because their religion functions as a high control group (such as Mormons and other branches of Christianity that isolate you from everyone who doesn't belong to your exact same religion), not because they were taught wrong information. There are exceptions, like people who are terrified of hellfire, but again, that's more often than not due to lots of abuse rather than just being told hell is real (even being told that as a child is fucked up, especially if you have OCD or intrusive thoughts in general).

So yeah, it's complicated.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago

i am using the word brainwashing to express my disdain for people who force religion on kids who can't make free choice, it is not meant to be taken in the strictest literal sense. otherwise i agree with your comment.

[–] hernanca@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

to be fair, logic and inference are different things. logic helps you build structure around a given set of axioms.

actually pure logic can be horribly unhelpful if you start with axioms that are not aligned with reality. that's why some really smart people can believe in stupid things.

[–] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

We know this now, due to in large part very smart people trying to prove it can be done in scientific ways with real philosophical and logic systems, and failing.... Not just non-believers saying it's obvious.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

well no, we know it because non-existence is the default status quo. if you want to claim there is a spaghetti monster running the world, the burden of proof is on your side, no one has a responsibility to prove you it is nonsense.

so the effort of all these very smart people trying to find god would only be of interest if they had actually find him... in which case he should be handcuffed and brought to hague.

[–] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think you may be conflating burden of proof with the effort involved in that burden. Without a rigorous effort, the default claim is less strong and has not stood up to scrutiny. While it may seem too obvious for such things, we now know that science and physics can get really weird and complex... So ideas like "I think therefore I am", first cause / Kalam, all the way to modern logic and number theory, all bolster claims of Occam's Razor violation in a rigorous way instead of hand waving. We can think the outcome is certain and a waste of time, but really out of it has come some fundamental and valuable research into logic.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Without a rigorous effort, the default claim is less strong and has not stood up to scrutiny.

no. the default claim is true unless proven otherwise, that is why it is default. it does not have to stand to any scrutiny. it is the claim that there is an invisible man in the sky, who is allmighty, sociopathic, sadistic asshole, has been torturing people since he created the world and in spite of being allmighty needs you to go to church every sunday and bring him money, that needs to stand up to scrutiny.

[–] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

While you're clearly passionate about this, that's not how science works. The default claim is not by default true. Instead science calls it the null hypothesis. Then a rigorous study is performed to try to disprove the null hypothesis with a percent certainty. Failure to refute the null hypothesis often constrains the possible domain, which is where the philosophy "God of the gaps" comes from. What this structure does is promotes new out of the box thinking for very hard problems, even if they seem they actually are not provable or outright wrong. The tactic of trying to overwhelm the scientific process of very strong null hypotheses and weak counter arguments is called a gish gallop.

[–] sik0fewl@piefed.ca 3 points 6 days ago

One plus one is two and Jesus is God incarnate.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Have you read his Encyclical?

There are many things that I disagree with the pope about, but it's well reasoned and argued, you can mostly skip the first two chapters, but three through five are worth a read.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I have not. I was raised catholic and consumed a lot of catholic stuff in my early years. I'm an atheist now and just can't get interested in any of it.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The chapters I said to skip are the religious stuff.

The rest is mostly about AI and why we maybe shouldn't.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

Religious leaders condemning AI will never not be hilarious. "The thought police doesn't like thought machines"

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 week ago

Certainly can't disagree with him there