If you believe in God and science empirically proved God didn't exist, would you still believe?
If you don't believe in God, and science empirically proved God exists, would you start to worship it?
I don't believe God exists. But if he was proven to exist, I would believe. I would not, however, worship him. Dude's a prick.
Religion is against science. It teaches that you must have faith unsupported by evidence, which is incompatible with progress and is just an excuse for making up rules in the name of an unseen authority.
Edit: Religion is also vile: whenever they are winning, they try to squash science and its methods. Whenever they are losing, they play the martyr.
I had a teacher that taught both religion and chemistry. People who learned about that often made comments about it being weird. But he insisted that both topics are not exclusive to each other. It has been a long time since school but I think his reasoning (if that is the correct word) has been that one is philosophical and the other scientific which are separate worlds. You can't prove stuff in faith scientifically but neither has religion a place in the " real" world. And, to be completely honest, he was by far one of the best teachers I have ever had.
It's not that science and scientists set out to prove god doesn't exists. It's that the word of god as written down by men is contradicted directly and often by proven fact, and that belief in God is associated with a strong ignorance of reality.
People didn't live to 800. Goat blood doesn't protect you from plagues. The earth is not just 5 millennia old. Humans have not existed since the dawn of time.
The proofs are already there. Science just tries to find them
Religion: a bunch of deep shits trying to not know something by making up false truths.
Everybody knows that one guy that always has to prove they’re right.
No Eric, I do not need to hear why the trump verdict was bullshit, especially when I directly ask what you disagree with about it and just get back they railroaded him and how stormy talked about all this sex shit, although I do not understand why that was admitted, but you have nothing to say about the actual evidence
Putting people's desire to have their beliefs uncontested on a pedestal was a mistake.
What have
The Romansscientists ever done for us?A motivatonal meme? Shit did i just mess up the timeline?
That's it. Checkmate, atheists, pack it up and go home, you've just been one-upped forever and ever by... this one McDonald's-eatin' megachurch-attendin' rando from Arkansas.
If you want to believe that illness is caused by demons and witchcraft, fine, knock yourself out. But that's not how the real world works. If you're going to make extraordinary claims about reality, then you have to provide extraordinary proof. "I believe" isn't going to cut it in the reality-based community.
Created and shared on devices created by science contribution....
To Finnish college.
You know what, they're right. All this time I've spent praising our study of the universe, development of medicine and vaccines, even harnessing energy and sending information around the planet and I just feel duped.
Science is a liar sometimes.
I don't remember any scientists raping children then being shielded by the scientific community
SANTA IS REAL!!! LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING YOU'RE SAYING!!! LALALALA!!
It's already more or less known how religion works on the neuronal/systemical level and why it happened in evolution.
The first sentences be true, then it drives off a whacky tangent, or what science calls "a cliff".
Never take away a person's beliefs about life. Whether you think they're true or not has nothing to do with it. They're their's, they mean a lot, and that's how they endure life. To take them away is to be no better than a missionary or JW dooknocker or Ackchyually Guy. If we all respected that rule from all sides, we'd have a lot less unnecessary hatred and death. The theistic, non theistic, and atheistic schools of thought all respect the values of not bringing harm to yourself and then secondly to not bring harm to others. We all share this before barreling down contradicting "ammendments" that no longer reflect the shared principles of humanity.
Edit: Fuck... I'm ranting. I stop now.
I mean, are they wrong?
Atheism is bad for science because atheists tend tend to present science as a belief system that's in completion with religion.
Science is about discovering how things work, while religion is about thinking about why. These are different questions.
There is of course some intersection between science and religion, but atheist seek to artificially widen that intersection to create conflict. To prove religion wrong "because science."
This has an effect of pushing religious people away from science. But atheists don't care that they're hurting science, because the goal is to win petty internet arguments (many of which are imaginary) rather than promote scientific understanding.
My reaction to a post like the above would be to explain that science is not about disproving God, it's simply about gaining a better understanding of the universe. Since it's a religious person, we could also explain that understanding the universe is a way of appreciating God's creation. That person could walk away thinking more positively about science and willing to learn more about it.
But an atheist will just mock the person to gain imaginary internet points and that person would go on being distrustful of science.
Atheism is bad for science.
