You google it if you like. You won't find it.

Yep, programming. It used to be mathematics and logic, nowadays we just include the whole of NPM and pray to the Omnissiah.
- I've been a programmer since the 90s and I assure you, it's been mostly prayer and the occult since day 1. Also Adderall and whiskey.
- Someone finally compiped the No Problem Manual? Where can I find the Man page?
- Don't forget that the first attempt never works no matter what

This probably doesn't count, but Sosigenes of Alexandria was an Ancient Greek astronomer who designed the Julian calendar in 45 BC. This was replaced in 1582 AD with the Gregorian calendar (named after Pope Gregory XIII) and is still in use today. Of course both were found by science, but it took the weight of the Catholic Church to push for the more accurate calendar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar
- I think the vast majority of scientists, at least computer scientists, would argue against the efficacy and accuracy of the Gregorian calendar.
  It's more of a "we're stuck with it" situation than a testament to its scientific veracity.
  
  The Gregorian calendar is pretty solid actually. Other than a leap second every few years, it'll stay in sync for a few thousand years. You can easily calculate all leap days in a one-liner.
  365 is semi prime, so we could do a 5 day week, but that's pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. There isn't a lot to improve on the Gregorian calendar
  
  at least computer scientists, would argue against the efficacy and accuracy of the Gregorian calendar.
  Agreed. If I had it my way, basically everything would be using unix time.
  
  And that's the way science should be, with more data and better tools, you adjust and make things more accurate. I'm not sure what the efficacy issues are, but it's my understanding that current UTC leap seconds are put in place to reflect slight variation in the rotation of the earth. It is done in reaction to the earth's movement, so not something that could be predicted 450 years ago.
  
  It drives me nuts. Whenever possible, I use the 4-4-5 or 13-month calendars so I can better forecast or compare historical data. Gregorian is useless on month scale or lower. I honestly can't think of any practical use for it except to make things harder.

"Can you name me one thing that was found by science that was later replaced by religion?"
Yes, it's called politics.
- US politics. Across the rest of the world, while politics may still be dumb out there, at least they're more likely to keep god out of it.
  
  Italy entered the chat

Simulation hypothesis is just theism with extra steps.
Come at me bro.
- "I think God created the world" pitchforks raised "...WITH A COMPUTER!" pitchforks lowered
  
  God's a prepubescent kid playing SimUniverse and fucking around with the Disaster menu.
  Satan's an acne-riddled teenager somewhere online griefing that kid.
  
  "But it was clearly a Macintosh 128k"
  "BURN THE HERETIC!
- Simulation hypothesis is not science.
  
  It is part of science, it's an untested (and currently untestable) hypothesis. Such thought experiments can be very useful. Running through the consequences (and possible experiments) can sometimes give useful insights into other areas of physics.
  The problem is when layman take the scientific equivalent of a debate joke and treat it as gospel. It's similar to what happened with the flat earth society (started out as a debating joke, and got overrun by idiots).
  
  That's debatable. It's a logic based hypothesis that scientists are looking for a way to falsify it.
- Simulation theory makes no inherent moral prescriptions or assertions about the ultimate origin of the universe - it just rolls everything up a level - This universe is a simulation inside the real universe... What created thecreal universe? We're not trying to answer that.
  Theism tends to make moral prescriptions and point to an immutable god - This universe was created by God... What created god? It's god, dude.
  This is why simulation theory and theism are compatible - there's no reason both can't be true - though we can never know if either is true, so just get on with your life and try to be a decent human.

the ancient greeks knew the world was round, knowledge witch was then replaced by in vast circles during the middle ages.
:P
- religion has often replaced scientifically proven facts, wich is mainly due to religions powerful ability to not have to make sense and still be acceptable.
  now as for religion actually disproving science, those occurences can be counted on zero hands.
- A knowledge witch would curse you with knowing every embarrassing thing you ever did.
  
  And maybe even things you never could have known. Like what exactly it looked like when your parents conceived you
- No, it wasn't. If you look at religious iconography, you see Jesus sitting on a globe regularly. Kings were endowed with globus cruciger, a representation of Jesus ruling over the globe. Sure there were some people who must have believed in flat earth but they were about as serious as the modern flat earthers.

Hmmmm... Replacing scientifically developed vaccines with religiously advocated horse paste. How'd that work out for them?

At least someone saying this acknowledges that science is a thing, so that's something I guess.
Better than the opposite. I always find it funny when super-religious people deny science instead, as if their god (usually a practically omnipotent being with a 30,000 IQ) would want to micromanage everything going on in the entire universe, instead of just making everything run by a set of physical laws on its own.

Sanity?
Yeah. Sanity.

Creationist "science" is like those troll physics posts, except they aren't funny. Like at all.

How about ignorance

Science still has not touched on any adequate way whatsoever the hard question of consciousness.
Neither have a lot of religions. The eastern, "secular" religions are the major that have at least made an attempt to tackle the problem.
- Science still fundamentally has a better approach then religion. Even if the true cause of religion is a god science will find it. But it's honestly probably not sadly.
  
  Yeah, I think you're generally right. Perhaps "the scientific method" is a but more accurate than just "science". But I agree.
  I just like to remind some of these people that this is a real problem and not something people can just run roughshod over or brute force like some people like Daniel Dennett try to do.
- Define "not touched".
- Consciousness is something you have to understand. We are still in the process of getting the pieces together.
  
  Eh... sort of, maybe. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "understand."
- I feel like this is largely incorrect. You may not understand consciousness, but to calm that science hasn't touched it whereas eastern religions have is wildly inaccurate. Both Western and Eastern philosophers have considered consciousness at great length. Science has excellent maps and models of the human brain and we have had passable functional theories of mind for several decades. Is it complete? No, but science is rarely complete. Is it the forefront of a lot of research? Absolutely.

Someone once said.... if the human race was completely destroyed and evolution brought back sentient beings, every law of science would be rediscovered, but not one religion would return as it is.

There are none. Best I can think of is some times that priests wound up making contributions to science like Pope Gregory adding precision to the leap year concept. And Gregor Mendel.

I mean you can but its shit like flat earth.
- Flat Earth is not and was never science. Scientists/philosphers have known the earth is a sphere (or oblate spheroid) since at least the ancient Greeks.
  
  The best video is the one with the flat earthers renting a boat, a powerful laser and actually set up a really nice experiment to prove that curvature doesn't exist. They were smart enough to find a setup that was scientifically accurate, but sadly it showed that the Earth indeed has curvature. The poor sods then thought they did something wrong :(
- You're telling me religion corrected the flat earth theory?
  
  No I’m telling you that when people get religious they start displacing science with bullshit.

Please rename this sub to antitheism
- I think anti-abrahamic would be more appropriate. You don't tend to see a lot of memes against Buddhism, Wikka, Jainism, or so on. They tend to poke fun at Christians, Muslims, any other religion that can't take any jokes or criticisms...
- Sounds like your taking anything named "memes" too seriously. Also, you should check your sodium level.

IIRC science was founded on religion. People were looking for a way to prove that their religion was right and found that there were discrepancies
- my source is I made it the fuck up
- Science was founded by people wanting to understand the world they live in. In fact as soon as science was practiced, religion collectively shit its pants and made it illegal.
  
  No. The interaction between science and religion has always been a complicated one but, ultimately, it all regarded power.
- That's more a very specific branch of philosophy than anything to do with science.
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=e1bpRIesORo
  
  Lol that was a good one thanks dude.
- Science as we know it evolved from "natural philosophy"
- You recall incorrectly