this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
991 points (96.7% liked)

Atheist Memes

5578 readers
30 users here now

About

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

Rules

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

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

  3. No bigotry.

  4. Attack ideas not people.

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

  6. No False Reporting

  7. NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

!exchristian@lemmy.one

!exmormon@lemmy.world

!exmuslim@lemmy.world

Other Similar Communities

!religiouscringe@midwest.social

!priest_arrested@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.ml

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jas0n@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It's like you filled in those tiny gaps in our knowledge with the possibility of a god. It's like a god.. of.. those gaps.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

That doesn’t mean you should believe that there’s a god. It just means there scientifically could be a god. That is what Einstein said on the matter. He was a pretty smart guy, and rather unbiased in his opinion.

Your hypothesis is that there is no god. I just provided you with two unexplainable events. According to the laws of physics, that matter could not have been created from nothing, nor could have it have generated motion from nothing. Until you can find more evidence, your hypothesis is unsupported.

Who knows? Maybe the JWST will prove there was no creator. I’m scientific. I’ll accept a logical explanation as soon as we have one. Until then, I maintain the position that there there is equal possibility of existence and non-existence of a creator.

[–] jas0n@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

While I agree with the general sentiment of your comment, I refuse to believe in anything without empirical evidence of such. These are gaps in our current understanding of our reality. History has shown, there is a logical explanation for just about everything. Nothing.. ever.. literally.. EVER.. has pointed toward the existence of such a god..............ever.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That’s fair. I’m not arguing that there is a god. I’m only saying that there could be a god. I respect your choice to remain in disbelief of existence. I just hope you also see how science can prove the possibility of existence.

[–] jas0n@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

=] I absolutely do. I would very much welcome the evidence of a god and eternal life that is entailed. It sounds wonderful.

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

Sure. Although, one doesn’t necessarily imply the other. It’s possible there was simply a being larger than our understanding that set things in motion and left, two beings that chose to collide, or giant aliens playing marbles like the end scene in Men in Black. lol

I enjoy the room for theories more than following a committed belief system myself. If I had to define my belief, I’d say I’m a scientific agnostic omnitheist. There’s no proof there is, or isn’t, a god, therefore any and all paths could theoretically be the path to god, or nothing at all.

Basically, I won’t pervert science just to shit in someone’s corn flakes. Lol

[–] GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Science has yet to explain why it happened, or what if anything came before. Those are not "tiny gaps"

[–] jas0n@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Tiny gaps are subjective. Sure.

god has been attributed to everything that science had no explanation for at the time. Earthquakes, weather events, cosmological events, etc. Now.. the general theory has been relegated to one of the very few things that we don't understand with near certainty. While I agree it's not exactly a small gap, but I would argue, in the scale of all of science, microscopic is being generous.

[–] GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

All of current science. We won't know what we don't know until we know everything.

We still burn dinosaur juice that is slowly suffocating us, we poison our fresh water and turn our oceans into plastic hellscapes.

How far in our evolution and understanding do you think we are?

[–] jas0n@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hehe. I think me and you would disagree on a lot of things for sure. But I really like this take. =]

[–] GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thanks, I appreciate it ☺️

Don't get me wrong. I side with science virtually 100% of the time, I just think there is understanding to be had in areas that we currently see as taboo.

[–] jas0n@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It reminded me of this quote from Max Planck (emphasis mine):

As I began my university studies I asked my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly for advice regarding the conditions and prospects of my chosen field of study. He described physics to me as a highly developed, nearly fully matured science, that through the crowning achievement of the discovery of the principle of conservation of energy it will arguably soon take its final stable form. It may yet keep going in one corner or another, scrutinizing or putting in order a jot here and a tittle there, but the system as a whole is secured, and theoretical physics is noticeably approaching its completion to the same degree as geometry did centuries ago. That was the view fifty years ago of a respected physicist at the time.

Basically, there isn't much left to be discovered in physics, so don't bother. (Good thing he didn't follow that advice.) Then, Einstein comes along and is like.. you know Newton's "laws" of motion? I broke 'em. He also broke the aforementioned "law" of conservation of energy.

So, while we actually do understand the physics of the Big Bang until about the first few milliseconds (not much left to be discovered), we don't know what we don't know.