Why are science and religion now two exclusive things?

why are science and religion now two exclusive things?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=W4p7A0EtZqg
youtu.be/oVnuFY20st0
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
google.com/patents/US20040102810?dq=ininventor:"John St. Clair"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNttHAz7jVAhUDQSYKHTvMD98Q6AEIUjAG
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Divide and conquer.

Oh, I know about this.

The rockefeller institute used to fund Universities with big general purpose cheques. Then they saw that this was no a very efficient way to make lazy worthless academics actually do any work, so they started making demands of the institutions, the separation of research and teaching positions being the big one. This forced the formation of "departments" where only the vaguest differences were present before. These departments went to war with each other trying to get the most funding for "research" and science won hands down 'cos bibles and tables are cheap as shit and last for a long time.

Four or five generations later we just take it for granted that faculities were always a thing.

why are fiction and non-fiction now two exclusive things?

They aren't, you've been mislead by the kike media

considering the current state of western propaganda these it doesn't seem like there is much of a difference anymore between the two

gee, I wonder why the scientific method is not compatible with believing in a magic kike on a stick

I'm putting my money on Christian Fundamentalism.

Because science / rationalism became a religion

...

an interesting question. this video gives a far better answer than I can
youtube.com/watch?v=W4p7A0EtZqg

it's what atheist want.

>it's what atheist want.
Well, yes.
Don't you want your beliefs to be proven as fact by scientific analysis?

Bully the opposition by claiming a false intellectual high-ground, shutting down all debate. Same with having a false moral high-ground. All part of lefty politics 101.

>proving supernatural claims through evidence

brainlet detected

Alex what is the separation of hue and state? It's like you guys never went to high school, holy cuck are burgers actually this stupid? Really?

Anyone else remember that Scientology commercial from a few years ago where they tried to claim that it's science and religion together?

Retard detected

That doesn't change the original question on whether they would want it or not.
Try again next time?

No, but I did see a Scientology Church a while ago.
What's this stupid, idiotic, money-grubbing cult about? I've heard it's just Christianity with the words switched around, but I don't know for certain.

You think it's a good idea to merge science and religion? Really? I mean we know how corrupt most any religious institutions are. That's playing with fire.

Where does the bible claim that God can proven using the scientific method?

>why is rationalism different than faith?

>Really?
Woman detected

Science is a methodology that when turned upon myth, religion and so forth renders them useless. This took a while to happen since the core of this methodology only become apparent step by step. That is, since there is a naturalistic explanation for everything and we don't need to invoke gods and magic for an explanation of life, the stars or the soul.

Ironically, when this naturalistic view of the world really took hold we also started doubting it. Since, after all, it is us humans that are doing the science, and we are naturally filled with preconceptions of the world around us. There is No objective science since we are all subjects. The body of knowlegde we collectively produce (in our "intersubjective world") is like a long term project, slowly trying to explain everything with only natural causes.

So science and religion became two separate spheres that don't fit together well. But then again we are "only humans".

It requires faith in materialism

Clearly you do not know what the scientific method is, here you go youtu.be/oVnuFY20st0 please for he love of god go back to school and get your GED.

>implying the dumb kikes that wrote your shitty kike book had any idea what the scientific method is

lmao

>why do two ideologies that contradict each other on literally everything not unite?

>Ad hominem
>also assumption
Butthole retard detected

>Clearly you do not know what the scientific method is
So the bible makes that claim?

prove one (1) supernatural claim using evidence

literally any

Hey Im not the guy that thinks
>really?
Is an argument

Look up the South Park clip where they explain Scientology. It's a bunch of made up bullshit by L Ron Hubbard.
Here's an article that tells you all you need to know about their cult status: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White

they arent

>gregor mendel

Proof is a mathematical concept

The original supernatural claim of the sun being a golden chariot steered by Apollo has since been proven wrong. Instead it is a giant ball of gas which the planet we live on circles around.

I'm done, you make so little sense when you talk in these tiny sentences like you're trying to prove slemthing about the scientific method. It's a series of questions and observations.
I'm sorry you Christcuck but FLAWED HUMANS were the ones who wrote ALL holy texts. Ask quick scientific method hat adheres to your stupid ideology, the "If god exists have him strike me down here because he's an apathetic cuck." And then nothing would happen. I could burn down a church and the LAW would prosecute me, not the church.

>The original supernatural claim of the sun being a golden chariot steered by Apollo has since been proven wrong.

I am asking you to prove something, not refute it. refuting it is piss-easy, all you have to do is say "you have no evidence"

what do you think I'm doing right now? Lol

>The original supernatural claim of the sun being a golden chariot steered by Apollo has since been proven wrong.
No it hasnt
It just violates the natural laws of physics

>I'm done,
Have fun downboating back at r/atheism

Eel if you stop reading after you get triggered by one word I suppose it is. Not my problem you're a snivvling child I'm araid. Continue reading if you are capable through the high levels of autism.

Maybe people would read your entire posts if they actually started off with substance

It's fine, your heels are so far deep that there's no point responding to you. But keep reading that stupid bible of yours and smack your kids around.

>one is sceptical and everchanging
>the other is accepting and its followers want to conserve its original ideas

wew yes why?

>It just violates the natural laws of physics
Hence being proven wrong.
If that is your desire, then it would be impossible to meet.
If some claim is proven fact and can be explained in scientific terms, then it is no longer considered supernatural.
You have put me in a corner.
I still do not see how this contradicts my original statement.

Fat burgers love Jesus because he does all the work for them, because all they will ever be is cretinous leaches. How hot is your crack pipe there Cleatus?

Just dont see why the people needs to be in harmony with the laws of physics
It never makes that claim
>smack your kids around.
What is the point of secular morality?

Butthurt christcucks and the Jews seeing another sector to divide people on
>Tl;dr- Christian's doing what the Jews invented them for, and they'll deny it all day long

>If that is your desire, then it would be impossible to meet.

No shit, that's my point

>Hence being proven wrong.
Materialism cant be 'proven'
It is 100% faith

How would the chariot of gold withstand the wad of the sun since gold melts at 1064 c•?

>sector to divide people on
How is this a bad thing?
Pluralism is cancer

>It just violates the natural laws of physics
And you complain about me not reading your entire posts

If you're implying there are any different morals between religious people and those less so then you need to seriously read a history book. What is the Catholic Church?

Is this the Britfag imaginary history hour?

Then what laws do things need to adhere to? Like special ones you make up in your head because that's an aweful qualifier.

This is the "retards of America who decided to do meth instead of graduate school" section of 4chin.

>If you're implying there are any different morals between religious people
How did I imply this?
>What is the Catholic Church?
Pagan

>>Really?
>Woman detected
Really?

>Like special ones you make up in your head

natural laws are based on things we observe in the real world. they are the opposite of "special ones you make up in your head".

this is the sort of thing most people master by the age of 9. why haven't you?

>Don't you want your beliefs to be proven as fact by scientific analysis?
that wouldn't be a belief then

Okay i see you are actually a "troll" I hope you had fun in that thread.

I feel like there's something I'm missing but how does this prove Christ rose from the dead? Couldn't someone have just taken him from wherever he was? There is proof he was real just not a miracle worker

No.
We have concrete evidence of materialism being at least somewhat accurate, with particular patterns and laws that it follows consistently. From this is the foundation of technology, for it requires the laws of physics to remain at a constant.
Ergo, this materialistic claim cannot be 100% faith, for there is some factual grounds upon which it is founded upon.

Wait. I think you have confused me. Which side of the argument are you on? I feel I might have misread or misunderstood something along the way.

>the more we learn about science, the more we know less about the need for god

christopher hitchens

only subhumans and larping retards would want it any other way, that is why

Well since you used the term proof it would have to stay within the laws of logic

Explains why nobody called out his bizarre story.

No, then it would be fact.
I fail to see the problem with that, however.

>Wait. I think you have confused me.

well that happens when you're a complete dumbfuck

we have exchanged literally two posts, I don't understand how you can be this flummoxed. perhaps you were beaten in the head as a child, or daddy raped you too much or something. idk

>We have concrete evidence of materialism
Material evidence

Think the point he's making is nothing is 'factual ground' when you're a mouth breather hooked on fiction like some

Theyre fundamentally trying to answer the same question: what is existence

Religion is the examination of the subjective reality, while Science is examination of objective reality.

Both are necessary to understand the universe and to abandon one in favour of the other is the highest form of hubris possible

>perhaps you were beaten in the head as a child, or daddy raped you too much or something.
I can assure you neither of those are true. My father is a good man, and I wasn't hit on the head as a child.
I was kicked in the balls several times during puberty however, if that counts as trauma enough to mess with my brain.

I think I understand now, however. Thank you for your time.

You still haven't justified your claim for a god, you can only deflect

One we're talking about the melting point of metal as a chariot goes around the sun and the other involves moral values. I suppose if you just want to have a pointless talk about what is good and bad. I'm not a fucking weirdo lefty, really I appreciate traditional values that the good boon teaches, I just know humans are susceptible despite which club they are apprt of. Anyway I gotta do stuff today but I'll leave it at this my morals revolve around, "Do unto others as you would have done onto yourself."

So no hard feelings regardless user.

>Material evidence
Yes. Concrete evidence.

That makes quite a bit of sense. Thank you.

you're talking to a retard, his justification is 'physics can't explain magic', an actual downie

Magic is physics we haven't figured out yet.

Only if you believe in materialism
Talk about circular logic

You derailed yourself

Nah, I'm just on Sup Forums

Please tell me how physics can explain the supernatural?

>blindly accepting an explenation is the same as trying to understand subjective reality

philosophy and psychology still exist dude

religion (even from jordan petersons view) is still about an collective explenation given about reality. Just like science. That is what they have in common. Its hardly an exploration of the self or the subjective experience.

>Only if you believe in materialism
No.
It is fact whether you believe in materialism or not. What you are spouting is new age nonsense with no base in reality.
>Talk about circular logic.
Except you are the one perpetuating your own circular logic.

I'll tell you the problem with that with a meme we all like on Sup Forums.
Would you rather have a wife that don't cheat on you because you spy on her 24/7 so you KNOW she doesn't cheat on you, or a wife you can trust so you don't have to spy her life 24/7?

>You still haven't justified your claim for a god

I never made one...read my posts dumbass, I'm saying you can't prove that god exists using science. you are literally arguing with someone you explicitly agree with.

>physics can't explain magic

no, it can't explain the supernatural. what is the supernatural? things that explicitly fall outside of the realm of the natural, e.g. physics. that's what "supernatural" means. SUPER(ie, beyond, outside of)NATURAL(the physical world we can actually measure).

you are literally retarded if you can't figure out why it isn't possible for science to prove the existence of angels. this is as simple as recognizing that you cannot use science to prove the existence of harry potter, but you heard the word "god" and went into full muh atheism sperg mode I guess

>Would you rather have a wife that don't cheat on you because you spy on her 24/7 so you KNOW she doesn't cheat on you, or a wife you can trust so you don't have to spy her life 24/7?
If possible, the former. But I'm okay with the latter.
However, this is not an argument about wives cheating on each other. It is a matter of understanding our universe in a factual manner.

>It is fact whether you believe in materialism or not.
No its not
Materialism is a metaphysical belief
>Except you are the one perpetuating your own circular logic.
how?

Because science actively questions things while religion actively tries to silence questions

>Materialism is a metaphysical belief
Except it isn't one.
>how?
Something along the lines of:
>Materialism is faith based. 100%.
It is not 100% faith based. There is factual evidence supporting it.
>That evidence is materialistic evidence, therefore it's not truly fact.
>Therefore, materialism is still 100% faith based.
Perhaps circular logic isn't the right word. Perhaps denial would have been more fitting.

>you can't prove that god exists using science

Then it's an infallible claim. The burden of proof remains on you to prove there is a God.

Materialists try to silence anyone questions their beliefs

>why are science and religion now two exclusive things?
Because "science" is the new faith, and one faith can't supplant another if it recognizes the validity of the one it seems to supplant.

Animism led to polytheism led to monotheism led to atheism. One of the biggest cons (((they))) pulled is the lie that religious fervor is tied to the number of gods the adherent believes in.

Is a Hindu a million times more religious than a Muslim because the Hindu recognizes over a million gods? Of course not.
So why would an "atheist" (cosmopolitan secular humanist) be less religious than a Christian?

JQ

>you can't prove that god exists using science
Wrong.

google.com/patents/US20040102810?dq=ininventor:"John St. Clair"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNttHAz7jVAhUDQSYKHTvMD98Q6AEIUjAG

>Except it isn't one.
What are you talking about?

Was just double checking that the legitimacy of angels is right up there with the Harry Potter universe lmfao

Apparently materialism.

We were talking about the existence of god, and the belief around it, rather the knowledge.