there were signs all around my uni that said "dump your socialist boyfriend" for like NO reason ๐ญ๐ญ
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
626 points (98.6% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
39261 readers
4514 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
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
Was with you until this part. There's nothing false about that dichotomy.
Plenty of religious scientists. The more you learn, the greater you are aware of how much is uncertain. You can still believe in a God whilst respecting the scientific method of iterative reasoning and refinement
Yes, but similarly, the god of the gaps is pretty hard to ignore.
There will be questions we never will have the answer to, and if you're actually serious about the scientific method as a philosophy, you aren't uncomfortable with "we don't know".
To me, a mysterious universe is more wondrous than "god did it" and yes, I do very much question religious scientists, despite many great scientists being religious.
If you're willing to just believe things "just because" then how can I trust you'll actually apply the scientific method (also a philosophy) reliably?
I can happily coexist and work with mildly religious scientists/engineers, but I would straight up refuse to work with a creationist or someone born again. Religion is anti-scientific.
Religion vs science is not a false dichotomy, despite it being possible to be religious and a scientist at the same time.
It's less accepting the uncertainties, and more seeing familiar patterns and constants and wondering of their nature. Why Pi, why 3 visible human dimensions, why the golden ratio in so many flora and fauna, why quark trios.
The scientific answer to many of these is "Nature of the universe, energy minimization dictates, we have Math models", all which are fine answers. But you do still question why those values/patterns compared to others, and the truth is we may never know. If we do, that's amazing(!), but if not, that's probably alright too.
The scientific method answers "How?" questions. It lets us build models of reality - a map of the territory.
"Why?" questions imply intent- requiring an intelligence making a decision. The scientific method does not and cannot answer those questions.
That's why it's fun to ponder them
There are people who're scientists and also religious people. People are amazing at compartmentalizing. My physics teacher in school was young earth creationists. She had no problems spending the whole academic hour correctly explaining how lead is formed over millenia in a heart of a dying start, and then spending an hour after school explaining to all who could listen, with the same conviction, that the earth is 6 thousands years old everything was made in 6 literal human 24 hours days.
People contain multitudes. Science and religion, however, are mutually exclusive. Scientific method is the opposite of religious conviction, and anyone who don't see that doesn't know what either of those words mean.
I question the expertise of any scientist who is willing to believe things with no evidence. It's as simple as that.
There was a shortformvid clip I saw some time ago that stuck with me: You can only 'believe' in something that does NOT have evidence for it (or at least not conclusive evidence), otherwise you would KNOW it to be true. Belief requires a certain amount of uncertainty. Note that I am in no way religious and in no way am saying people should believe religious texts, just sharing an interesting take on the concept of 'believing'
That's not exactly what believe means. In a way we can't be sure of anything, including our own existence, so everything we do is believing something based on what evidence we have. The difference between that and a religious conviction is that religion requires you to stop basing your believe on any evidence at all, and believe in their stuff regardless.
If I tell you I ate a piece of bread this morning, you'll believe me. If I tell you I ate a piece of Uranium, you wouldn't. Even though, you have the same amount of evidence for both claims. That's normal believe. Religious believe requires you to believe everything religious higher ups tell you, but because humans aren't wired to do that, they only tell you shit you can't actually check, so your believes are "justified".
Ehh, I don't necessarily agree with that but I understand the point.
I think if a thing is evident, then it's irrelevant as to whether or not someone believes it. But it's still a thing.
There are also a fair number of scientists that believe there may be a higher power or an afterlife that still devoutly hold to scientific study. You can be a person of science and a person of faith. As long as you don't deny science along the way then there's no problem with that. Now if you don't believe in evolution or something then yes your credentials are weakened significantly, but believing that there is a higher power beyond earth doesn't mean your test results are invalid.
People are amazing at holding mutually contradictory believes, but that's only the commentary on people. Actually, it's part of the reason we need scientific method in the first place.
As I said elsewhere in this thread: I do not trust the expertise of any scientist who is willing to believe in anything without evidence.
I do not care that these people exist. They are untrustworthy.
Rightly so. If the scientific method is applied to religious claims, they fail as untestable assertions. Every time.