Why hasn't science taken religion's place yet? It will happen sooner or later so why don't we force it...

Why hasn't science taken religion's place yet? It will happen sooner or later so why don't we force it? It's the only way people can unite.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9ElNjgZCDpQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I'm curious as to how that would be forced.

because people are retarded

Cause science is being bought by politicians to lie and now both religious leaders and scientists are lying to people.

You're right. For instance, overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change has totally united the people. Whether the moon landing actually happened is a good example too.

This is why

Religion is comforting while science is scary.

Also, GMO's

Because there is literally no way to prove religion wrong. Meanwhile, scientists are generally arrogant intellectuals who care little about actual science and are only concerned with being considered the smartest person in the room. On top of that, political correctness has infiltrated science, as well as major corparations, both of which kill the objectivity that science needs to be successful.

Id support that forcing

there's no way to prove religion right*

You just made me see the gestalt

Science
>question everything, be a skeptic

The scientist
>never question me, everything I say is right, if you question me you're stupid

because science isn't a religion
it's not something you 'beelieve in'

I agree. There's also no way to prove it wrong. Which is why it has survived for so long.

Religion is better for business.

Because science, as great as it is, is made up of scientists, who have become a laughing stock.

Religion is the target in this thread
But the biggest threat is I should know I'm a faggot

When Muslims quit killing innocent people

The biggest threat is us blaming others kek didn't finish

Because science answers the what and the how, but not the why.

Most people leech
Greed
Anti-intellectual approach to capitalism
Yeah

Science is better for business.
> Science told you nukes are real. Took billion from you.
> Science told earth is round and NASA fiction and shit. Took billions from you.
> Science told evolution is real. Projects of billions, might be.
> science told climate change is real. Again, projects of billions from you.
Ergo, religion regulates people's lives except islam and jew fuckers while science is mostly a fiction mixed with jewish usual propaganda like the lolocaust.
Science more dangerous than religion and anything.

> scientologist
Holy shit

> realist, you faggot

Probably because, as any non-retard would tell you, science is the study of the natural world, where religion is a cosmology about a supernatural world, so that they don't actually overlap. Your question is like asking why hasn't math replaced history.

Think about it they combine religion and science
Holy fucking shit

Right, the fact that you will burn in hell for eternity is lovely, where science has given us scary things like the smart phone.

Niggers leave the thread to drown
Be the change you want to see

or lets just convert everyone on this planet to Islam. Problem solved...? or hmm, nah, these retarded monkeys also bomb own people

Realist? You might be retarded

Crazy when you find out Dolph Lungren has more street credit than Bill Nye.

yeah , thats what they call us now.
What your media told you today !!
We need to welcome migrants and support LGBT. Baldass , stfu and apply some hair oil.

you just start a movement

it united a lot of countries

lol, good1

I am a scientist and I don't see that problem. Maybe you live in a cancerous environment.

you described an idiot, not a scientist

yes, it is. Even when you say 1+1=2 there is no 100% certainty that's it's true. Actually I bet there is at least 1 person who in that moment is trying to prove it's not true.
Everything we measure is measured with some level of uncertainty.

hm?

science is a way of perceiving the reality, same as religion. They just have different assumptions and some of them are false or can't be proven.

I see you have never been as far as decided to do so... rationalization can be very cold.

>why don't we force it? It's the only way people can unite

Did you ever watch a tv show where experts discuss a topic? Why are there shows like that?

science seeks the truth and the truth is the most temping thing that exists. Or at least it should be...

Scientology

The merging of retards with feeling of loss
Merging money with assholes who have money but want your money aswell.

Says the McDonald's worker kek. Put that extra salt on my fries and sit down little boy.

>science is a way of perceiving the reality, same as religion
no
science was originally called natural philosophy, which was better because it helped people understand that science was thinking about and studying nature, which also meant it delimited what scientists were supposed to explain. sadly, it got polluted/diluted, so that now we're supposed to pretend science answers all questions that are meaningful.

That's not what Scientology is retard.

>I see you have never been as far as decided to do so... rationalization can be very cold.
English is not your first language, is it? Either way, try not to fall for the atheist appeal that says if you deny there is a god you are somehow smarter. You aren't.

Implying much? You really are retarded. There is no grand conspiracy, there's just retards like you and morons who eat the same shit in a different wrapper. You should kill yourself now before the FEMA camps come.

It has.

there are google zombie fanatics out there without a single clue how science or its studies work that quote things they've seen online with as much holy fervor as a 14th century priest would scripture.

that the sad truth about the modern world. the brain-less masses are angry about the old institutions and replace them modern anologs. but there's no difference between saying "God wills it" and "Three sentences from some study someone put on my facebook says so," when you don't understand anything about what was involved in (and who paid for the study) the study.

>Science Damn you.

>Science is Infallible

>It's the Truth. Some dude with a degree was paid alot of money to say so and low and behold he said so.

>"He's been studying the connection between cigarette smoke and cancer for 30 years and hasn't found any conclusive proof. The man's a genius."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's why.

...

From day 1 religion was obviously bullshit, science only adds a small amount extra proof. The world is getting more religious because of ethnics breeding

>if you deny there is a god you are somehow smarter. You aren't.

Except it's been proven that people who follow a faith are generally less intelligent than people who dont. Nice try, bucko.

Finally, someone who is smarter than everyone in history. Newton invented Calculus and believed in God. You're smarter.

Right, and it's been proven that whites are generally smarter than blacks, but then you compare Trump and Obama and see that generalities don't say anything about individuals.
Also, my yellow lab is an atheist.

Because science allows you to have a better understanding of how the world works while religion generally aims at teaching how to act upon it.
Science can't replace religion simply because they do not fulfill the same goal.

>Why hasn't science taken religion's place yet? It will happen sooner or later so why don't we force it? It's the only way people can unite.
Science is forced. Its taught in schools

to confront different points of view with no intention to find a communal solution hehehe

human thoughts, imaginations and delusions are a part of nature

I was referring to an old meme. Well I believe you are, because you chose to look for the answers instead of just explaining it with God's will.

it's not science's fault, it's people's fault

say again?

science can do that too. It's called sociology.

>Why hasn't science taken religion's place yet?

Hasn't it? Science is a matter of belief. As if scientists had some kind of divine grace.

They're just whores like everyone else.

Science = big boom without combustible made the everything = impossible a explosion without combustible
Religion = mistic god made everithing because he can = no contraddiction

>human thoughts, imaginations and delusions are a part of nature
your argument is a randomly-generated claim produced by blind molecular reactions you don't even control, so it's moot

Op is a super fag

Nothing could be further from religion than science. Science can't replace faith because it literally is the absence of faith

OP is retarded or mildly good bait

>

No shit. people suck and will twist what ever currently accepted authority to justify their actions.

my point was all the religious sheeple are still religious sheeple they just use science they don't and can't understand instead of a deity they don't and can't understand.

if op if wondering why we aren't all intelligent, rational human beings it is because eugenics has been frowned upon since Hitler. Besides like Aldous Huxley pointed out you can't have a world of just Alphas and Betas.

>science can do that too. It's called sociology.
Sociology is the study of society, it only looks at groups of people and it's purpose is not the development of the individual, looking at what is moral, nor what values should be adopted, nor how an individual can interact and make choices within the world.
Simply because this is not an objective truth.

I stopped watching X-files when instead of his father's murderer the dumb whore bitch Scully shot Mulder and let the murderer escape. I say ' stupid fucking bitch, the fuck is this "
> deleted whole 15+GB of series permanently, peace.

Both are needed. Without religion, postmodernism will prevail and eventually destroy society.

You're mistaking science for the scientific method

So you've double checked the work of every scientific fact you accept and have redone every experiment to confirm your assumptions?

>No you're taking it on faith just like the religious flocks.

>So you've double checked the work of every scientific fact you accept and have redone every experiment to confirm your assumptions?
Science isn't assumption. It's literally the absennce of assumption and faith.

Troll better

Calculus isn't that hard

look at the history of science and history of religion... see the difference?

I meant something else. Scientific evidence should be the ultimate argument, not God's will.

I'm not sure if it's totally random, probably not because we neural signals tend to follow the same paths.

thanks

care to elaborate?

science is revised constantly, but with gaps in time.
therefore at any given moment, any number of 'accepted scientific facts' are on the verge of being modified if not obsoleted.

Morality becomes subjective without a uniform ideal that everyone can conform to without question. This is the role religion serves. When morality becomes about the individual, rather than the group, society collapses. Can be seen in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc.

Therefore, without a solid balance between logic and emotional/moral stability, society will eventually collapse. Oostrmodernists work directly against this, spreading the idea that morality is completely subject; i.e. there is no objective right or wrong

>therefore at any given moment, any number of 'accepted scientific facts' are on the verge of being modified if not obsoleted.
Absolutely correct. Still doesn't equate to faith or assumption. It equates to believing what's likely to be true as a result of testing, logic and evidence
Religion, in part, equates to believing things without those things.

I think it has been scientifically proven that eugenics don't work.

objective truth can be divided into "infinite" number of subjective truths which are possible to be proven. Thus it is possible to scientifically come up with "golden rules". Or at least I want to believe it can.

Can't we just agree that the most important thing is expanding the society existence and make it the base for our morality?

No, we can't all agree. That's the problem. Religion gives us a basis for agreement without needing any logic behind it; we do good things simply because God says so.

why can't we agree? Why can't we do good things because they are good for people? By "good for people" I mean things that are the source of long-lasting happiness.

Religion is to sooth the ignorant by supplying answers for things not understood and regulate behavior of the mentally incompetent, relying on unquestioned authority and faith.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding through thoughtful examination and experimentation, operating on questioning everything at all levels and dedicated work.
Unfortunately there are types of people uninvolved in science that use it as a faith system due to their ignorance and mental disabilities.

Look at the world. Even people with your mindset can't agree on what exactly that entails.

>objective truth can be divided into "infinite" number of subjective truths which are possible to be proven.
"Subjective truth" is generally something that can't really be proven, which depends on the opinion, so I'm just gonna assume you mixed up objective and subjective because it makes more sense (correct me if I'm wrong).

So first of all, how is that true? Why could you divide any subjective opinion into objective truths (and only objective truths since if one bit of subjectivity remains we still are at our starting point)?
I don't really see why this assumption should be taken as a fact, but well.

>Thus it is possible to scientifically come up with "golden rules".
If it were, we probably would have, or would be getting closer to it. Yet we tend to have regular predominant ideologies and then revolutions to make new ideologies with different rules prevail.
Even by assuming that your first sentence is true, dividing rules/propositions into an infinite number of objective truths is completely useless to the individual or even society. We live in a finite world, with finite lifespans and each individual will acquire a finite knowledge during his life.
This is why we write stuff, this is why we record history and also why stories like the ones found in religious texts since antiquity are told. So that the individual doesn't have to start from scratch. We compile the knowledge that is deemed useful. And different cultures will compile different knowledge.

>Or at least I want to believe it can.
It is your right to believe it, but so far I remain unconvinced.

>implying religion and science are incompatible

You'd think pencil necked weakling nerds would have more respect for religion. An objective ethical system that rewards virtue and punishes wickedness is all that keeps the strong off their necks.

If science was ever actually right in what it assumes, I'm sure it would have more followers.

yeah, but maybe one day...

yes, I meant subjective truth and I used quotation marks with infinite for a reason. I meant we can divide something objective into as many subjective opinions as many people there are. Correct me if I'm wrong.

>it united a lot of countries
No it didn't.
We've had like 5 climate emergency climate protocols and we half-assed all of them.
Paris isn't gonna be any different.

>I meant we can divide something objective into as many subjective opinions as many people there are.
Hm, then I'm not following at all what you are trying to say.
What would be the point of dividing objective truth into as many subjective opinions?
Do you mean that something objectively true (i.e. a fact) will generate a huge variety of opinions?
If that's the case I don't really see how you end up with golden rules from there... (since there are an infinite amount of facts you just end up with wide potential variety of opinions about every fact, which is closer to chaos than golden rules, but I must be missing something).

Science and religion look for answers to a different set of questions.

Using religion to try and answer scientific questions does not work. We all know that.

But using science to address the questions pertaining to religion is futile. Science cannot even attempt to discover whether there is a God, what His attributes are, what our attitude towards Him should be.

If you see a huge conflict between science and religion, you have an incomplete understanding of on or both.

First amendment
Atheists believe that the universe poofed into existence from literally nothing then exploded for no reason. How is that not retarded?

Because science is amoral and most people are retard. They need religion, otherwise they start fuckin' goats and shit...

Because science doesn't provide certainty of life after death, and thus it gives nothing for people to believe in.

hahahahaha, that's what I meant bro. Maybe chaos is the golden rule.

it is a bit retarded but what differs it from religion is the fact that we realize it's not the ultimate truth and it is constantly being improved. God's theory doesn't make sense and people have no intention to improve it, maybe because they would realize they don't need God anymore.

>hahahahaha, that's what I meant bro. Maybe chaos is the golden rule.
But people don't want chaos.
Chaos wears you down, it stresses you as you don't know what to expect nor how to be ready for it.
Religion generally try to give people means of getting out of chaotic situation or even avoid/prevent such situations.

Because not everyone is an edgy faggot who thinks they are the shit for figguring out god doesnt exist.
Grow the fuck up, let people belive what they want to belive, realise the world has more important shit to get on with.

Ok, so here's my (drunk) 2 cents per gallon of vomit.

Science, in the popular sense of the word, typically does not include ethics (Never heard any 'Science in government advocate' mention Descartes, Kant, and others).
Ethics used to be a study on what is 'right', and 'wrong' (Not quite, but for the sake of argument, lets say it is), now 'Ethics' is typically claimed by the 'religious' SJW groud, employing similar tactics as the church.
i.e. 'How dare you disagree with my truth, thy heathen!', 'Damn all non-{Insert-my-religion-here}!'.
Science, in essence, is the process of trying to determine 'truth' (where truth is rigorously defined).
A study of that which is truth solely, has no place in government (I think) as it lacks the moral compass to act on these truths.
E.g. I know people that accept the science behind global warming, but simply do not care, because "that's the next generation's problem, not mine".
These people accept the science, but have a different ethical 'background'. Their reasoning is sound, bu many might object to the ethical implications of such a statement.

Religion, unfortunately, provides an ethical background (i.e. the concept of 'right and wrong') without demanding the believer to think, which is 'easy'... You just have to have faith.
Science does not provide this ethical background, one has to think about every discovery, and place it in context (ideally), this is hard(er) and thus not often exercised.

you sound like my ex girlfriend
ok let me correct what I said on an example - there is a rule that it is not right to kill. There are many opinions about it, some might disagree but you can understand their point of view by justifying it with mental illness or cultural quirk that doesn't apply to the whole Earth.

>constantly being improved

cool, so can I get that cancer cure and laser weapon yet? didn't think so. I'm sorry, but your sacred science advancements just can't get any better. this is it.

but I believe religion stands in our way to getting on with that shit.

it's a matter of time
youtube.com/watch?v=9ElNjgZCDpQ
now kill yourself

cmon guys, there is a science of ethics and morals. Psychology and sociology. It tells you what are the possible outcomes of the situation and what will it mean for people. They tend to avoid saying what is right or wrong because it's subjective but you can easily figure it out, just by asking yourself how will that profit humanity in the long term.

Maybe because science isnt the opposite of religion. Without ethic and moral science will doom us to extinction. If you had basic philosophical education behind you you'd know that.

>science take religion's place

Oh boy i can't wait to go sunday and pray to the mitochrondia

Because people will always want the easy answer

Because humans are sad and need to have someone tell them when they die they go to a nice place in the sky rather than just being asleep in the ground forever