this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
734 points (95.9% liked)

Atheist Memes

5532 readers
370 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 51 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Well, God in his infinite wisdom counted the day & night, obviously. One Mississippi, two Mississippi. Ah ah ah! Three Mississippies!

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 41 points 3 months ago (10 children)

Granted, it’s just a fictional book we’re talking about, but it does start off with:

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. [Genesis 1:3-5 ESV]

So, within the fiction of the book, there was some sort of other light created before the Sun, doesn’t really make sense that there would be words for day/night/morning before the Sun existed, but maybe there was a temporary light and that created day cycles, whatever. Nitpicking the bible about literal interpretations of things in Genesis seems almost pointless though. It’s stuff that’s easy to dance around and can be hand-waved away.

The bible is probably supposed to be interpreted metaphorically in alot of parts, so pointing out semantic things like this is the equivalent of responding to a long political post with

“You’re”

As if pointing out a single grammatical flaw somehow destroys their entire argument. This was probably meant to be fluff, just someone speaking poetically about an event that nobody would ever know anything about anyways.

[–] Batman@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Also there is a an antiquated meaning of day which just means a period of time.

The Hebrew word yom translated into the English “day” can mean more than one thing. It can refer to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis (e.g., “there are 24 hours in a day”). It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk (e.g., “it gets pretty hot during the day but it cools down a bit at night”). And it can refer to an unspecified period of time (e.g., “back in my grandfather’s day . . .”).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

So, within the fiction of the book, there was some sort of other light created before the Sun

Ah, the Silmarillion.

[–] deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Two Trees of Valinor were my first thought as well.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ghterve@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

As if pointing out a single grammatical flaw somehow destroys their entire argument

That's not what that means. That means the person responding cared so little about what they had to say that they are completely ignoring it. It is an insult in the form of disrespect.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There was still a directional lighting system, but it wasn't tied to an animated skybox yet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ech@lemm.ee 20 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I mean, technically, a day passing doesn't explicitly need the sun as it is a measure of the rotational speed of the Earth (ie time), not the position of the sun in the sky. The latter was/is simply used to measure the former.

[–] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago (2 children)

That's not really a fair/honest argument when the concept of a day existed long before humans knew the earth was rotating. Originally, a day was defined as the rising and setting of the sun

[–] ech@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not really arguing anything, just pointing it out.

[–] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I know. I saw it as a funny akshually moment. I used argument, for lack of a better word

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

To humans, before we discovered the concept of rotations around the sun, you are correct. But for an advanced being/race that had the power to create universes… I’m sure they understood far greater concepts than the rising and setting of the an orange fireball in the sky. 😊

[–] astrsk@kbin.run 9 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Without a reference frame, there would be no way to tell when one rotation had been completed.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What if you were omniscient?

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

then wtf were you doing wasting your time on this bullshit.

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

What about the other stars?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Logic has no place in religion just like religion has no place in logic

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I read a Rabbi’s take once, that he believes Genesis 1 is based on a vision that YHWH gave to one of the prophets (it was added later than the second creation story). He argued that it’s not supposed to be envisioned from a cosmic perspective, which is something of a modern take, but a terrestrial one, as if “figuratively standing on the earth - a cloud of dust - as God forms everything around it.” So the creation of light is the sun, but the sun isn’t visible unless the sky begins to clear.

Just thought I’d share that take. I always thought it was an interesting one.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

The great thing about rhetoric is that any smart enough person can do any number of mental gymnastics to create a semi-plausible argument. But as a society we need to move away from things which aren’t grounded in reality

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

As long as we take it as seriously as Marvel movies I think it's fine.

[–] JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago

Honestly there's innumerable works of fiction that'd be better for deriving meaning, morals, and advice for navigating life's complexities.
The key is to embrace that it's fiction. it doesn't need to be literally true for a piece of writing to be used that way.

I learned this in 8th grade when my teacher had us read the book The Hatchet and treat it like the bible.... which was to interpret the text and find life lessons in it. Great teacher. I still use what I learned from her class.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Agreed, it’s only problematic if fans of a Marvel movie decide that public policy should be shaped by the ideas of character in that movie

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

this is part of what moved me from agnostic 50/50 to athiest decimal to 99decimal. Its like yeah you can rationalize and tinker and whatnot no matter what the base stuff you start with is. Granted though most of the change for me was qanon.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Marthirial@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Before the sun was created, a day was 4.97 billion years, and then the sun came up and a day was 24 hours. I see no issue with this superstition.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

except apparently air, earth, and plants existed before the sun too.

[–] fox2263@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The first day without sun the “day” was timeless so was actually say 1000000 days while the earth was formed 😂

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I know what you're aiming for but you're off by a couple of orders of magnitude still.

[–] fox2263@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rayspekt@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

He just looked at his watch smh

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zloubida@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Atheists 🤝 Evangelicals

Thinking that the Bible

should be read literally

More seriously, did you know that there are two Creation stories in the Bible (in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2) and that these two stories are contradictory? But the people who added the second story did not replace the first with their own. They did not mind that the two stories contradicted each other because they knew perfectly well that these stories were allegories and were not to be read as historical accounts to be interpreted literally. Those who insist on a literal reading do not respect the will of the authors, whether God exists and is the inspiration or not.

[–] Zip2@feddit.uk 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I once heard that it was thought in some circles that “day” was just a mistranslation, and that the original meaning was “a period of time of unspecified length”.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

First of all, a literal reading is not required but let's read it literally.

  1. God is all powerful. God could have made light circles (days) without the sun.

  2. If days means the time unit... Then... Where is the issue.

This is embarrassing. Like even for a meme.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Literally made light and dark and called them day and might on day one too lol.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 months ago (10 children)

Dude, your meme is about logical consistency of the bible. To test for logical consistency, you have to assume it is true to test it against itself.

Also I am not a believer, so I don't believe it is true... But I can argue in favor of something that I am not believing. A basic skill that people need for scientific process.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] rdri@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (12 children)

God could have made light circles (days) without the sun.

For what reason was the sun created then?

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] LaterRedditor@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Pale Blue Dot was such an amazing read.

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

Never read it. But I have read Contact. It was really good. 👍

[–] HuntressHimbo@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I feel like the logic goes that the duration as a concept existed to god before creation, and creation was made to match. Makes me wonder if creationists view the duration of a day as a holy measurement

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 4 points 3 months ago

A holy measurement that varies the more you deeper you look into it. Sounds like religion alright.

[–] Persen@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›