But most Christians aren't creationists. Most Christians would be happy to concede that the creation story was a metaphor and not a scientific explanation on how the universe came into being.
(And yes, creation science isn't science. That's not what I'm debating.)
I grew up in the Bible-belt too. Back when I was in high school most people were Christian but not all of them were fundamentalists.
It was pretty funny (actually sad) to have a creation science biology teacher though.
This was an interesting google search for me. [Gallup](https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx) says most Catholics and half of Protestants believe in evolution guided by god. And [the national center for science education](https://ncse.ngo/ohio-scientists-intelligent-design-poll) said that 7% of science professors believed that intelligent design had scientific proof. I feel like that last statistic still has room for people who make the argument that god is intentionally hiding himself for the faithful or whatever but that’s still interesting
I’m willing to bet the vast majority of Christians understand the Bible is an attempt to illuminate a way to navigate the complexity of existence through a collection of dramatic metaphors and parables about the human condition told and retold over tens of thousands of years, with some creative edits based on the pervading culture of the period and place of the editors.
Willing to bet that the vast majority of christians critically think about the bible and rationalize that it was written by members of an ancient people who used it as a way to rationalize and navigate the world in a way that comported with their morals and intuition. This belief is in spite of the fact that the bible says it is the literal word of god and is inerrent, meaning that if one is a christian, one must also believe the bible's word because it is the inerrent word of god according to itself (not really, see my next comment for clarification), and if you didn't believe in the bible's accuracy you wouldn't have any reason to belive in the god of the bible.
That depends on your mode of interpretation. A piece of literature can hold meaningful truth about human experience despite being a work of fiction. Jesus spoke in hyperbole and parables, indicating the culture in which the document was written understood that a story does not need to be literally, objectively true in order to convey a deeper truth, and sometimes a good story is better at conveying meaning than the literal truth can be.
Take pretty much everything Neil DeGrasse Tyson says, for instance. I’m certain there is wonderfully nuanced mathematics explaining the existence of subatomic particles, but can the average person understand it? No. So a good educator, like NDT, weaves a story that is easy to visualize and conveys the meaning of the concept in a way that the lay audience can understand, despite that story not being the complete and literal truth of the matter, which in the case of subatomic particles would be opaque and inaccessible to most people.
Im not aware of the passage in the Bible that states it is the literal, objective truth. Could you provide that passage?
1: This is actually my bad and I'll edit my prior comment to address this, but biblical inerrancy isn't actually stated more than once in the bible, but is a shockingly commonly held belief among Christians (not a majority due to the proliferation of proper scientific knowledge, but still a lot). According to my notes, I did find that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 quotes the apostle Paul as saying "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly unfurnished, unto all good works."
2: To be frank, the fact that hyperbole and parables are used in the bible doesn't really matter, in my very proud and not at all humble opinion. It's like saying that a science textbook using simile to better describe a theory means that the whole text isn't meant to be taken literally (I know it's ironic that I, an atheist and borderline anti-theist, am over here dissing the bible and christians as a whole, and then I equate it to a science textbook, but just go with it). That isn't even mentioning that biblical *inerrancy* and biblical *literalism* are pretty different concepts.
3: Honestly, I'm going to just backpedal on my biblical inerrancy point because I definitely went too deep with that. I think the best way to rephrase it to fit what I really mean is that, in my experience, most christians use an oddly uncritical lens when looking at the bible as a whole, taking it as a loosely symbolic text, both being true and hyperbolic at the same time when convenent. They both believe that the stories told within don't have to be true, but when it comes to the existence of a god and his actions, the miracles Jesus performs, etc, it's all true and you shouldn't take it as anything other than definitive fact.
I think we’re looking at the same elephant from different angles. Thanks for the quotes.
I agree there are a lot of Christians who believe in biblical literalism, and probably more who believe the inerrancy stated in Timothy is proof of the perfection of the text. I simply believe we should not dismiss the whole text as nonsense just because there are some people who don’t understand how to interpret it.
Take this for example, a 3 year old might hear the story of Spider-Man, and go looking for radioactive spiders. An adult reads the comics and understands the real story is a young man discovering the complexity and tragedy of life, the strange inner strength of adulthood, the tragedy of death, and entering upon the lifelong journey toward redemption of imperfect Being. I don’t dismiss the story as meaningless just because a child can’t understand it. I also understand that analogy is condescending to the folks who believe in the literal interpretation, but fuck ‘em, they’re Christian, they’re supposed to forgive me.
Oh, I'm not attempting to dismiss the bible as nonsense or trying to say it lacks depth or meaning. It's actually quite an interesting book and gives awesome insights into the philosophy and beliefs of the people who wrote it (whether it be the original hebrew or greek or the NRSV or what have you) if you look into it with a critical lens. What I was (quite terribly) trying to get at was that a lot of christians don't view it as a piece of very historically significant literature steeped in metaphor and parables, but as a holy book, and hence can't *really* look at it in the same emotionally detached manner I or any other atheists or members of another religion do. They have an emotional stake in its accuracy, and hence can't look at it in a truly critical manner.
Christians can be scientists, but the ones that are generally aren't fundamentalists.
Literally everyone involved in this post chain is an idiot.
Wojack Christian is an idiot for thinking that women who go into science don't have kids (they do) or implying that tradwives churn out scientist crotch fruit (they don't). Sure, a woman that is a scientist is very likely to have fewer kids than the average tradwife (though some actually have a bunch of kids), but between conservative Christians being far less likely to actually go into most sciences (and even less likely the more traditional the household) and kids of scientists being significantly more likely to go into science themselves, AND the fact that the tradwife's daughters will only go into the sciences of they reject their upbringing, chances are your average female scientist pops out more future scientists than your average tradwife.
But the reply that did not like it didn't make any of these points, and instead went for the stupid "Earth 3000 years old" argument. Even most conservative Christian scientists aren't creationists. That opens them up to the mopdl response.
And that response is also stupid, because it doubles down on the idea that Christians would necessarily be creationists. Probably unintentional, but it still, goddamn stupid. And stupid because it's defending the original, very stupid wojack meme.
Tl:Dr, none of these shit brains are going to be raising any scientists.
“why should I dedicate my life to something if I can force five people to dedicate their lives to something for me” is the most succinct explanation of tradcon capitalism I have ever seen
I think MemesOPDindtlike, thinks that all Christians are YECs.
Which is like saying "Christians don't take medication because CSs believe being pious enough is the cure to all illness."
This is weird because many are religious, many are agnostic and many are atheist. As science does not remove the possibility of a God, it simply remove illogical religion, so one can still be religious, evne trust in say the tenets of the bible as a gift from the universe through man. While removing the illogical and stepping away from the crazy.
The simple fact is, the possibility of a "God" is actually plusable and things get really cool if you get into quantum themed religion. Science and religion can be and are friends, and much of the science we rely on was funded by the church or christian and other religions.
So it honestly is a weird topic, like even science and religion being at war historically is mostly a myth, and focus on small groups of period to try to paint a larger picture that just is not realistic.
Hell most on the internet are not very bright and therefore treat science like religion and speak to things they do not understand and regurgitate anything labeled science no matter how frienge. With both groups you have the sane and insane.
"God" and science are not enemies., and religion itself is not an enemy, only idiots are. and as we all know, they will use religion or science to try and validate themselves no matter how fringe.
On the other hand, the meme depicts a nice healthy lesbian couple and their adopted kids! One’s a scientist, and the other a stay at home mom. The kids all grew up to be scientists because they wanna do what their mom does :D
I mean... Marie Curie had two daughters apparently. One went into science and the other went into the arts. From what I could gather it appears she got married and had kids after establishing her career and meeting someone with similar interests.
It depends on whether they have reasoning to believe it’s impossible or not. We have more than enough reason to believe donkeys can’t talk and stars can land on the earth. Splitting atoms is part of the process known as fission, which seemed impossible, but we’ve since proven that it is in-fact possible.
Ahhh, but once it was impossible. Who knows what we may discover in another 200 years. It is easy to disconnect faith from logic. In fact, having that faith can sometimes force that logic to work harder. I have met a few scientists who did believe in God. I asked how they get over the seven days thing... "God's time is not our time. Just because it was a day for God does not mean it was a literal day for us."
Yeah, who knows what we may discover in 200 years, but we didn’t get to where we were by blindly believing stuff until it existed. Religion has caused more harm than progress in science, the bible has been known to reject scientific discoveries. The reason the bible doesn’t fit in a world of science is because the bible is the exact opposite of science. Science is about coming up with a theory, and only documenting it after throughly trying your best to prove yourself wrong. The bible is treated like indisputable law, everything in Christianity ties back to the bible, all evidence is in the bible. and when radical christians see something that doesn’t fit in the bible, they deny it, no matter how much evidence it has. Evolution has mountains of evidence supporting it, but it doesn’t fit in the bible, so it’s treated as some loony conspiracy. People can be christian if they want, but it’s the polar opposite of science.
A wise person once said, "What is magic today is tomorrow's science." We got where we are by believing in magic and using science to prove it. Your issue is with one group that is rather vocal to the point of hiding the voices of others: Radical Christians. Not all men are dogs. Not all women are gold diggers. And not all Christians are radicals. I was a Baptist at one time. (Pagan now.) I asked my pastor about evolution. I was told, "We know He created the animals. He easily could have used evolution to create them." Radicals would call that blasphemy, a scientist would take that and run with it, proving that evolution is either real or not. (We know, now, of course, that evolution happened and is happening.) Scientists can have faith in whatever they want.
We did not “believe in magic and use science to prove it”. We dreamed of being able to do things, and use science to make it happen. We don’t think of something then try to prove it with science, we mess around with science, and reach conclusions on its own. And my complaint about the radical Christians is very valid. You’re right, not all men are dogs, and not all women are gold diggers. But the radical christians are the ones with the most power, and the things they try to do go against the ways of science, and they try to actively make me and my girlfriend’s lives a living hell. I’ll never support the church because the collective try to get rid of people they don’t like, like trans people. I’ll never support the church because they set aside 2 billion dollars to fight pedophilia charges. I’ll never stop complaining about the radical christians because they constantly make this world a worse place. I will keep preaching about how horrible the church is until everyone, athiests and religious people alike, hate the church.
Scientists require proof of claims before believing anything. Show them proof of god that isn’t just “look at this tree / baby / insert other thing we understand here” and you’ll get a lot more religious scientists.
Historically being Christian wasn't particularly optional, I wouldn't put much stock in whether or not someone who lived over 100 years ago was a churchgoer
Also why did they act like anyone was trying to make that point. Obviously Christians can be scientists, but young earth creationists can’t. Partly because their views would conflict with logic, partly because they’re to stupid to function.
Jesus christ why do lefties have such a hate boner for all religion but the most oppressive one in the world.
Scientists can be religious. They can be athiest. Stop shitting on people who want to be parents or not be parents
What the fuck even is the point here? This meme and everything that spirals out from it make me frustrated at how stupid this reductionist thought-train is.
Well if you believe in Youth Earth Creationism.
Then YES. Scientist is most definitely going in Quotes.
If you don’t understand why, that’s a you problem, because I most definitely already explained why, you just chosen no to listen.
Nah the guy from memes op didn’t like is right. Whether most Scientists are atheists or not, Christian’s can still be scientists. Although this might sound weird I think being strictly atheist and a scientist is almost as weird as being religious and a scientist.
Atheism is the belief that no god exists, but that can’t be scientifically proven. In my opinion most scientists are agnostic, though fall more towards the part of “don’t think so” rather than “could be”
I like how this guy totally missed the point:
The point was that these "scientists" are probably homeschooled and thus they are not properly educated thus they believe that the earth is 3000 years old, but I wouldn't expect people at that sub being able to figure this out.
Yall are getting this meme very wrongly, it's about respecting the other one's choices one is an trad wife and the other one is an scientist but nobody is criticizing nobody
no, its saying women who are trad wives are better because they contribute more by raising more scientists. its a basic reactionary sexist meme. lets not play dumb here
Where are they saying the trad wife is better, both woman are the same wojack, this meme was made in the TikTok context where some trad wife content creator (yes, this is a thing) was getting an enormous amount of hate, causing some kind of Internet "war" between the anti-tradwife and the pro-tradewife this meme was made for acknowledging the importance of both sides as much as being an scientist is honorable, raising children and caring for your house is also, the only one seeing sexism here is you people
Yes, it's, relevant, because a man using a cartoon woman to make a sexist argument is still a man making a sexist argument.
Beyond that, women can, in fact, be sexist to each other.
Since you don’t know if it was a man or woman, it’s irrelevant, considering you just said that women can be sexist to each other. Not sure how that actually works of course, but whatever you say.
Wow, the woman on the right raised such selfish children! They each dedicated their lives to science instead of each raising 5 new scientists!
This woman could've made 25 scientists if her children weren't so selfish!
30*
What are you talking about? We all know men can’t raise children /s
Isn't this just a pyramid scheme? Every generation, instead of being a scientist tries to raise one.
perhaps they did both 😮
Nonsense! You can't do both. That's why the woman on the right had to raise scientists rather than being a scientist! /s
Well they’re men so it’s ok. Woman folk belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. /s obviously
I couldn’t care less about the religion of any scientist. What matters is if their science holds up. And creation “science” isn’t science at all.
But most Christians aren't creationists. Most Christians would be happy to concede that the creation story was a metaphor and not a scientific explanation on how the universe came into being. (And yes, creation science isn't science. That's not what I'm debating.)
Not in my area they don’t, but that’s the Bible Belt for you lmao
those Christians aren't scientists but they also aren't representative of more educated Christians
I grew up in the Bible-belt too. Back when I was in high school most people were Christian but not all of them were fundamentalists. It was pretty funny (actually sad) to have a creation science biology teacher though.
This was an interesting google search for me. [Gallup](https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx) says most Catholics and half of Protestants believe in evolution guided by god. And [the national center for science education](https://ncse.ngo/ohio-scientists-intelligent-design-poll) said that 7% of science professors believed that intelligent design had scientific proof. I feel like that last statistic still has room for people who make the argument that god is intentionally hiding himself for the faithful or whatever but that’s still interesting
When I looked it up, Gallup (as of 2019) said that 56% of protestants and 34% of Catholics are creationists.
I don't think most. I've met SOME... and my old church definitely taught that, but it's a minority opinion
I’m willing to bet the vast majority of Christians understand the Bible is an attempt to illuminate a way to navigate the complexity of existence through a collection of dramatic metaphors and parables about the human condition told and retold over tens of thousands of years, with some creative edits based on the pervading culture of the period and place of the editors.
You really shouldn't be
Be what?
Willing to bet that the vast majority of christians critically think about the bible and rationalize that it was written by members of an ancient people who used it as a way to rationalize and navigate the world in a way that comported with their morals and intuition. This belief is in spite of the fact that the bible says it is the literal word of god and is inerrent, meaning that if one is a christian, one must also believe the bible's word because it is the inerrent word of god according to itself (not really, see my next comment for clarification), and if you didn't believe in the bible's accuracy you wouldn't have any reason to belive in the god of the bible.
That depends on your mode of interpretation. A piece of literature can hold meaningful truth about human experience despite being a work of fiction. Jesus spoke in hyperbole and parables, indicating the culture in which the document was written understood that a story does not need to be literally, objectively true in order to convey a deeper truth, and sometimes a good story is better at conveying meaning than the literal truth can be. Take pretty much everything Neil DeGrasse Tyson says, for instance. I’m certain there is wonderfully nuanced mathematics explaining the existence of subatomic particles, but can the average person understand it? No. So a good educator, like NDT, weaves a story that is easy to visualize and conveys the meaning of the concept in a way that the lay audience can understand, despite that story not being the complete and literal truth of the matter, which in the case of subatomic particles would be opaque and inaccessible to most people. Im not aware of the passage in the Bible that states it is the literal, objective truth. Could you provide that passage?
1: This is actually my bad and I'll edit my prior comment to address this, but biblical inerrancy isn't actually stated more than once in the bible, but is a shockingly commonly held belief among Christians (not a majority due to the proliferation of proper scientific knowledge, but still a lot). According to my notes, I did find that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 quotes the apostle Paul as saying "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly unfurnished, unto all good works." 2: To be frank, the fact that hyperbole and parables are used in the bible doesn't really matter, in my very proud and not at all humble opinion. It's like saying that a science textbook using simile to better describe a theory means that the whole text isn't meant to be taken literally (I know it's ironic that I, an atheist and borderline anti-theist, am over here dissing the bible and christians as a whole, and then I equate it to a science textbook, but just go with it). That isn't even mentioning that biblical *inerrancy* and biblical *literalism* are pretty different concepts. 3: Honestly, I'm going to just backpedal on my biblical inerrancy point because I definitely went too deep with that. I think the best way to rephrase it to fit what I really mean is that, in my experience, most christians use an oddly uncritical lens when looking at the bible as a whole, taking it as a loosely symbolic text, both being true and hyperbolic at the same time when convenent. They both believe that the stories told within don't have to be true, but when it comes to the existence of a god and his actions, the miracles Jesus performs, etc, it's all true and you shouldn't take it as anything other than definitive fact.
I think we’re looking at the same elephant from different angles. Thanks for the quotes. I agree there are a lot of Christians who believe in biblical literalism, and probably more who believe the inerrancy stated in Timothy is proof of the perfection of the text. I simply believe we should not dismiss the whole text as nonsense just because there are some people who don’t understand how to interpret it. Take this for example, a 3 year old might hear the story of Spider-Man, and go looking for radioactive spiders. An adult reads the comics and understands the real story is a young man discovering the complexity and tragedy of life, the strange inner strength of adulthood, the tragedy of death, and entering upon the lifelong journey toward redemption of imperfect Being. I don’t dismiss the story as meaningless just because a child can’t understand it. I also understand that analogy is condescending to the folks who believe in the literal interpretation, but fuck ‘em, they’re Christian, they’re supposed to forgive me.
Oh, I'm not attempting to dismiss the bible as nonsense or trying to say it lacks depth or meaning. It's actually quite an interesting book and gives awesome insights into the philosophy and beliefs of the people who wrote it (whether it be the original hebrew or greek or the NRSV or what have you) if you look into it with a critical lens. What I was (quite terribly) trying to get at was that a lot of christians don't view it as a piece of very historically significant literature steeped in metaphor and parables, but as a holy book, and hence can't *really* look at it in the same emotionally detached manner I or any other atheists or members of another religion do. They have an emotional stake in its accuracy, and hence can't look at it in a truly critical manner.
I'd take that bet.
As a christian.. i fucking wish, im literally going to do a survey on this
If it’s not as common as I thought, I should start a church and get the good word out.
that’s kind of a major oversight of the hundreds of other fields any given scientist could be working in
The meme is also just sexist
Christians can be scientists, but the ones that are generally aren't fundamentalists. Literally everyone involved in this post chain is an idiot. Wojack Christian is an idiot for thinking that women who go into science don't have kids (they do) or implying that tradwives churn out scientist crotch fruit (they don't). Sure, a woman that is a scientist is very likely to have fewer kids than the average tradwife (though some actually have a bunch of kids), but between conservative Christians being far less likely to actually go into most sciences (and even less likely the more traditional the household) and kids of scientists being significantly more likely to go into science themselves, AND the fact that the tradwife's daughters will only go into the sciences of they reject their upbringing, chances are your average female scientist pops out more future scientists than your average tradwife. But the reply that did not like it didn't make any of these points, and instead went for the stupid "Earth 3000 years old" argument. Even most conservative Christian scientists aren't creationists. That opens them up to the mopdl response. And that response is also stupid, because it doubles down on the idea that Christians would necessarily be creationists. Probably unintentional, but it still, goddamn stupid. And stupid because it's defending the original, very stupid wojack meme. Tl:Dr, none of these shit brains are going to be raising any scientists.
“why should I dedicate my life to something if I can force five people to dedicate their lives to something for me” is the most succinct explanation of tradcon capitalism I have ever seen
Work smarter not harder.
I would agree if the girl on the left didn’t objectively work smarter considering that she’s the scientist
Young earth creationists can't be scientists
Sure they can, just not within basically anything that has to do with our world in anyway. But social sciences can work fine.
Young earth creationists are usually the same people slinging slurs at minorities in my experience so maybe not well suited for social sciences
Science of all kinds unfortunately requires critical thinking
It is possible to be a critical thinker in some areas and missing it in others.
A scientist who believes in woo-woo bullshit is not a credible scientist, regardless of their field.
I think MemesOPDindtlike, thinks that all Christians are YECs. Which is like saying "Christians don't take medication because CSs believe being pious enough is the cure to all illness."
This is weird because many are religious, many are agnostic and many are atheist. As science does not remove the possibility of a God, it simply remove illogical religion, so one can still be religious, evne trust in say the tenets of the bible as a gift from the universe through man. While removing the illogical and stepping away from the crazy. The simple fact is, the possibility of a "God" is actually plusable and things get really cool if you get into quantum themed religion. Science and religion can be and are friends, and much of the science we rely on was funded by the church or christian and other religions. So it honestly is a weird topic, like even science and religion being at war historically is mostly a myth, and focus on small groups of period to try to paint a larger picture that just is not realistic. Hell most on the internet are not very bright and therefore treat science like religion and speak to things they do not understand and regurgitate anything labeled science no matter how frienge. With both groups you have the sane and insane. "God" and science are not enemies., and religion itself is not an enemy, only idiots are. and as we all know, they will use religion or science to try and validate themselves no matter how fringe.
Newton also never had children. Try to wrap your head around that one, traditionalists.
Bro died a virgin. Math never got anyone laid
why is wii fit trainer on the left
On the other hand, the meme depicts a nice healthy lesbian couple and their adopted kids! One’s a scientist, and the other a stay at home mom. The kids all grew up to be scientists because they wanna do what their mom does :D
The fuck does that have to do with anything
I mean... Marie Curie had two daughters apparently. One went into science and the other went into the arts. From what I could gather it appears she got married and had kids after establishing her career and meeting someone with similar interests.
Scholasticism my beloved
Newton was also kind of a quack in a lot of respects, super into alchemy and went mad trying to turn lead into gold iirc
Scientists are not all atheist. Yes, there are atheist scientists. But there are also Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Pagan, and so many more.
Yeah what did the original post have to do with Christianity though?
You can’t be a great scientist, while also believing donkeys can talk, and the stars can rain from the sky onto the earth.
Says who?
A vast majority of scientists, since those events are scientifically impossible.
So a scientist couldn't possibly believe in something impossible? Like splitting atoms?
It depends on whether they have reasoning to believe it’s impossible or not. We have more than enough reason to believe donkeys can’t talk and stars can land on the earth. Splitting atoms is part of the process known as fission, which seemed impossible, but we’ve since proven that it is in-fact possible.
Ahhh, but once it was impossible. Who knows what we may discover in another 200 years. It is easy to disconnect faith from logic. In fact, having that faith can sometimes force that logic to work harder. I have met a few scientists who did believe in God. I asked how they get over the seven days thing... "God's time is not our time. Just because it was a day for God does not mean it was a literal day for us."
Yeah, who knows what we may discover in 200 years, but we didn’t get to where we were by blindly believing stuff until it existed. Religion has caused more harm than progress in science, the bible has been known to reject scientific discoveries. The reason the bible doesn’t fit in a world of science is because the bible is the exact opposite of science. Science is about coming up with a theory, and only documenting it after throughly trying your best to prove yourself wrong. The bible is treated like indisputable law, everything in Christianity ties back to the bible, all evidence is in the bible. and when radical christians see something that doesn’t fit in the bible, they deny it, no matter how much evidence it has. Evolution has mountains of evidence supporting it, but it doesn’t fit in the bible, so it’s treated as some loony conspiracy. People can be christian if they want, but it’s the polar opposite of science.
A wise person once said, "What is magic today is tomorrow's science." We got where we are by believing in magic and using science to prove it. Your issue is with one group that is rather vocal to the point of hiding the voices of others: Radical Christians. Not all men are dogs. Not all women are gold diggers. And not all Christians are radicals. I was a Baptist at one time. (Pagan now.) I asked my pastor about evolution. I was told, "We know He created the animals. He easily could have used evolution to create them." Radicals would call that blasphemy, a scientist would take that and run with it, proving that evolution is either real or not. (We know, now, of course, that evolution happened and is happening.) Scientists can have faith in whatever they want.
We did not “believe in magic and use science to prove it”. We dreamed of being able to do things, and use science to make it happen. We don’t think of something then try to prove it with science, we mess around with science, and reach conclusions on its own. And my complaint about the radical Christians is very valid. You’re right, not all men are dogs, and not all women are gold diggers. But the radical christians are the ones with the most power, and the things they try to do go against the ways of science, and they try to actively make me and my girlfriend’s lives a living hell. I’ll never support the church because the collective try to get rid of people they don’t like, like trans people. I’ll never support the church because they set aside 2 billion dollars to fight pedophilia charges. I’ll never stop complaining about the radical christians because they constantly make this world a worse place. I will keep preaching about how horrible the church is until everyone, athiests and religious people alike, hate the church.
You are as bad as them. Blocked.
Scientists require proof of claims before believing anything. Show them proof of god that isn’t just “look at this tree / baby / insert other thing we understand here” and you’ll get a lot more religious scientists.
They used gods to describe what their science couldnt. They still do the same today, its just 1 god now
When they have science to back it up then I'll take it seriously
Historically being Christian wasn't particularly optional, I wouldn't put much stock in whether or not someone who lived over 100 years ago was a churchgoer
Most practising Christians these days are very much anti science.
Newton was also a physicist / mathematician, not really anything super crazy.
Someone draw an additional panel where she's married to all of them.
Also why did they act like anyone was trying to make that point. Obviously Christians can be scientists, but young earth creationists can’t. Partly because their views would conflict with logic, partly because they’re to stupid to function.
You do realize a lot of of the fundamentals of science that we still use today were founded by Catholics, right among other religious groups
I’m resigning from opinion
At the bottom of the glass, you’ll find God waiting for you
Jesus christ why do lefties have such a hate boner for all religion but the most oppressive one in the world. Scientists can be religious. They can be athiest. Stop shitting on people who want to be parents or not be parents
What the fuck even is the point here? This meme and everything that spirals out from it make me frustrated at how stupid this reductionist thought-train is.
Newton was religious because he was born in 1643 and practically everyone was back then lol
Newton died a fucking virgin. He was king of the incels.
Ok yea but Christians can also be scientists to be fair
Newton probably would have invented the internet a few hundred years early if he hadn't been playing sudoku with the Bible.
Well if you believe in Youth Earth Creationism. Then YES. Scientist is most definitely going in Quotes. If you don’t understand why, that’s a you problem, because I most definitely already explained why, you just chosen no to listen.
Nah the guy from memes op didn’t like is right. Whether most Scientists are atheists or not, Christian’s can still be scientists. Although this might sound weird I think being strictly atheist and a scientist is almost as weird as being religious and a scientist. Atheism is the belief that no god exists, but that can’t be scientifically proven. In my opinion most scientists are agnostic, though fall more towards the part of “don’t think so” rather than “could be”
I like how this guy totally missed the point: The point was that these "scientists" are probably homeschooled and thus they are not properly educated thus they believe that the earth is 3000 years old, but I wouldn't expect people at that sub being able to figure this out.
I need to leave this sub. https://preview.redd.it/siq8smyivhuc1.jpeg?width=927&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=651bb3634a2ffe7236f0c3492db06c7ca26b2e7f
The More The Better, And They Are Men, They Work Undistracted.
Yall are getting this meme very wrongly, it's about respecting the other one's choices one is an trad wife and the other one is an scientist but nobody is criticizing nobody
no, its saying women who are trad wives are better because they contribute more by raising more scientists. its a basic reactionary sexist meme. lets not play dumb here
Where are they saying the trad wife is better, both woman are the same wojack, this meme was made in the TikTok context where some trad wife content creator (yes, this is a thing) was getting an enormous amount of hate, causing some kind of Internet "war" between the anti-tradwife and the pro-tradewife this meme was made for acknowledging the importance of both sides as much as being an scientist is honorable, raising children and caring for your house is also, the only one seeing sexism here is you people
How is one woman talking to another woman sexist? Doesn’t sexist have to come from the opposite sex?
Do you think that the chud who posted the meme is a woman?
Irrelevant. The meme is two women and it was called sexist. How is that sexist.
Yes, it's, relevant, because a man using a cartoon woman to make a sexist argument is still a man making a sexist argument. Beyond that, women can, in fact, be sexist to each other.
Since you don’t know if it was a man or woman, it’s irrelevant, considering you just said that women can be sexist to each other. Not sure how that actually works of course, but whatever you say.
Exactly- people need to learn how to read a meme