With the advances of science and communication on a finite world, will science ever overtake religion?

Both science and religion are extremely important in society, so we should try to fix the divide between them

>Why doesnt everyone blindly believe in science like I do
>Dies

What a moron.

Prove the world is finite

Incorrect, most religions consider science anathema, and certainly the cucked and (((kiked))) versions of Christianity are very anti-science.

yeah but you cant disprove god either, not even carl sagan could and trust me, he tried

It is replacing it; just substituting science for god.

True which shows that religion can go too far, but so can science, for example nukes and AI. But both are important

As a scientist, the unfortunate reality is that science lacks wisdom, and is rushing towards the future with its pants on its head.

Perhaps religion looks backwards to the past, but at least that past worked. At least our societies were largely functional. There's no guarantee that science will give us anything near as good.

Science is proving that God knew what He was doing. Scientists are still searching for the higgs bozon AKA God particle.

Science is a tool, not a belief.

>Scientists are still searching for the higgs bozon
The Higgs Boson was confirmed in 2013... and has been reaffirmed in 2017, and 2018. Keep in mind, CERN was shut down for a while and was restarted in 2015.

yeah, by the same time we reach communism

Science and religion are compatible but they are not reconcilable.

No. Science derives truth from corporeality, a lesser mode of being, whereas religion derives its truth from the metaphysical, higher mode of being. Science will only be able to ascertain lower truths and religion higher ones.

Attached: Unmoved Mover.jpg (700x6826, 600K)

As much as you might want to think that, there's a decidedly nihilistic/materialistic culture that's grown up around university science. I wish I could tell you that this wasn't a problem and that real science was accessible through other means, but it's really not. Engineering, yes. Biology, maybe. Physics, hell no. One needs to be classically trained to be able to see any sort of sense any deeper than the 300 level classes or so.

This wouldn't be a problem usually, but the net effect is that the people that really understand the world are infected with nihilism and materialism.

This, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Also take into account that fedora atheist and mainstream “imagine a world without religion” faggots pretend to know what science is. Science to them is funky facts, flashy stuff and shit perpetuated by the MSM or government, it’s their de facto religion.

>Materialists subtly implying materialism is synonymous with science

FUCK OFF REEEEEEEEEEEEE

Science as singular concept is a religion.
>Science says...

Attached: 1535715378908.jpg (960x960, 141K)

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about science, not Science®. You're mostly right, but:
>there's a decidedly nihilistic/materialistic culture that's grown up around university science.
More like the humanist culture that's grown from university science. No normalfag is decidedly nihilistic unless they are being "cool and edgy".
>net effect is that the people that really understand the world are infected with nihilism and materialism.
They don't really understand the world, they wouldn't be materialistic if they did (not saying they'd be christfags either)

The big crunch theory has long ago be discarded.

Christfags don't know much more than the average fedoralord when it comes to higher truths, they only feel like they do.

>referencing Prots
You're strawmanning serious religious people by painting them as cultural Christians who larp as people who study metaphysics.

Attached: Reactionism.jpg (333x499, 19K)

Science is a practical technology
Religion is a social technology

Atheist scientists are the enemies of civilization

>not praying to the nuke god.

ITT, novices.

Attached: beneathapes7.jpg (600x250, 44K)

I'm referencing every other Christian sect you can think of.
>who larp as people who study metaphysics.
>implying "serious" Christians study metaphysics, and not just their own dogma in some freakish informational feedback loop
I'm sorry to say to you, but if you could ascertain higher truths, you wouldn't be Christian.

What you believe in is irrelevant. The math is what counts.

The vast majority of science has come from the church. No one was more interested in science than us Christians. Not believing in evolution doesn't equal not believing in science, and science and religion aren't mutually exclusive.

Attached: b618c45f14e39e083981e22c11b3fda4.jpg (403x403, 39K)

No
This
Anyways science can tell you nothing of values. You wouldnt even know if to look left or right without a value system driving you,

Attached: 70709B9E-9AB6-4EBA-AA9B-56CE8F2E9239.png (650x500, 39K)

the church also burned Galileo for his "heretical" theories

well the church did come out and say "my bad".

nytimes.com/2000/02/18/world/honoring-a-heretic-whom-vatican-regrets-burning.html

Science, in this context, IS a religion.

When you invoke the name of "science", not as a description of analysis but as a belief system, you are essentially labeling it as your faith. You are essentially saying "My faith is holier and truer than yours. My God is the one true God."

How many people have you seen invoke a faith in "science" without actually having a background in science? How many scientists who DO have an education in the science can disprove the existence of a god or prove their theories of existence?

The answer is zero. It's all faith. The only difference is that the ancient world based their religion on fear and the modern one bases it on cynicism.

>No one was more interested in science than us Christians.
Kek.
>Not believing in evolution doesn't equal not believing in science,
If the Church and the State still had their hands in each other's pants, Darwin would have been shot via firing squad. Religion serves only to prove itself. If anything is contradictory to it, it will work to destroy that thing.
>science and religion aren't mutually exclusive.
Again confusing (or intentionally conflating) science the tool and Science (Secular Humanism) the belief.

That’s a myth.
First Galileo needlessly insulted the pope by writing a dialogue with one of the characters named “simpleman” and simpleman was the mouth piece for the popes viewpoint. It’s like if I called my character dumbass.
And he wasnt burned. He was put on house arrest. But he was high class, so that just ment he got to stay in his wealthy friends great houses, with servents and everything.
You only think he was burnt becuase a bunch of cultural marxis spread a bunch of lies in the 50s to very young kids, who then taught you in school to weaken church and faith

Attached: 29B3AB30-1682-4641-9558-CF41A0393F9F.jpg (653x1024, 147K)

well what i was asking in this thread is if there would be enough "knowledge" eventually to overtake anything that is unknown as just that, an unknown and not a religious "mystery".

You're an absolute retard. Science is for answering questions about the material world. As we know, and have known for millenia, reality is not only material. It takes one sentence to debunk empiricism. Repent now or God will kill you.

See even the jew York times is still spreading that myth
>nytimes.com/2000/02/18/world/honoring-a-heretic-whom-vatican-regrets-burning.html
>Vatican regrets burning
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Death
Galileo continued to receive visitors until 1642, when, after suffering fever and heart palpitations, he died on 8 January 1642, aged 77
Galileo was not burned, by the church or anyone

Attached: 1A17DD0D-6B18-4EF4-ADFA-0BE9FADFFD21.jpg (236x314, 38K)

what advances? We havent had any groundbreaking inventions since the 50's, just improvements on existing technology, no cured diseases just a plethora of treatments. just learning more and more about less and less.

or by advances perhaps you mean advances in media personalities grandstanding about how wonderful science is and elevating it to the level of dogmatic believe

also, science will never overtake religion because they are not competing entities. The only thing that will overtake religion is hedonism

>ancap
It was always wasted breath

Islam didn't ban science, Islam banmed practicing with numbers which they deemed to be Satanic somewhere in like 800 a.d. Not outright ban, but defintely neutering.

Nice non-argument, christcuck.

so what if science one day found a way to determine when "life" begins in the womb, the beginning of a soul, like say 30 days into a pregnancy. would that change the thought on abortion?

I love how triggered people get when you bring up the huge advancements to science done by the church, and the scramble to excuse it away. It just kills you people that the church has funded and was behind the majority of scientific advancements. And even now studies show that a majority of scientists believe in a higher power. Keep copeposting, faggots.

Science itself, the pursuit of understanding reality and so forth, was begat by scripture. Our pro-life, pro-monogamy culture, also Christian, built everything we have today. I can't stand these anti-christian alt retards, not because they're unbelievers, but because they're so fucking clueless about their own history.

christianity was not designed to require a phd in philosophy to understand and partake in. Its as clear of a message for the slave as it is for the king. Do you believe in the Son or not? Will you accept him or will you not? If so you are saved, if not you remain condemned.

Its not the discovery of higher truths that keeps people from God, its the inflation of the ego that comes along with it. All throughout the bible God is contesting with mans pride

You say that like they can't be the same thing.

abortion is not a scientific endeavor, it is an elitist one. They simply used science to justify their gruesome social programs, much like chattel slavery was justified by darwinian theories.

when theres enough money involved, science becomes a lapdog

Nigger, all of that advancement was in spite of the church, not because of it. Is it coincidence that the most progress in science happened to coincide with a decline in the influence of the church?
>Science itself, the pursuit of understanding reality and so forth, was begat by scripture.
I'm pretty sure there has been scientific advancement thousands of years before Christ was even thought of.
>Its not the discovery of higher truths that keeps people from God,
How would you know?
This is where the cuck comes from christcuck.
>gruesome social programs, much like chattel slavery was justified by darwinian theories.
Oy vey, the poor aborted retards and niggers.

Science as we know it is now a religion, the Earth is a flat stationary disk.

ok, since you want to change the subject, look at the repercussions slavery and abortion on this nation. With slavery obviously we now have the black problem. and it only took one generation of birth control and abortion to bring about massive demographic and cultural decline to america.

but of course you already know this since youve attained higher truths. Certainly you know that its the church that is the only one fighting the battles of any real significance, namely the preservation of our future existence

>will science ever overtake religion?
The other way.
Islam will reduce the world to rubble.

I like how christcucks always change the reasoning behind not liking slavery or abortion from the "moral implications" to their totally preventable side affects. Like how they change from "slavery is bad because it treated God's children like cattle!" to "it's bad because it left black people" so that you can appeal to the right-wing. Same with abortion, you cry now to meabout demographic change caused by abortion, but at any other point you will be crying about how it's immoral. Abortion is a tool, like slavery and science, that can be used for a certain agenda. It's like saying guns are bad because communists used them. Abortion is especially relevant to this, because with it we could get rid of the black problem, but you are to choked up on the Lord's cock to realize that.

>Certainly you know that its the church that is the only one fighting the battles of any real significance, namely the preservation of our future existence
The Church fights the battle of controlling minds. It only exists to twist the truth into half-truths, so that said half-truths can pollute the minds of the flock, allowing it to be easily shepherded this way and that. It doesn't exist to give people the truth, it does the exact opposite.

ridiculed for years by believers in (((scientism))) including Einstein.

Science never will overtake religion as religiosity highly influences fertility. hard core science believers do not reproduce.
>tfw there will be 100 million amish in 2300 and only 1 million atheist in the US

Attached: georgelemaitre.jpg (189x267, 14K)

That's like asking if cooking will overtake chess.

They are two different subjects, user.

well? will cooking overtake chess?

Nihilists need to be put to death. This conversation is clearly over your head; as such it's useless to give you a dignified response.

Attached: 1509507238033.jpg (821x1024, 201K)

>They don't really understand the world, they wouldn't be materialistic if they did (not saying they'd be christfags either)
Oh look, the capitalist believes in spooks. How shocking.

>most religions consider science anathema
>my teacher, mr. steinowitzberg told me so.

Those arabs had a religion too

Two conflicting messages there.
>spooks
Fuck off to /leftypol/, nigger.

This. Science and Atheism nowadays literally cults of moron followers... that will take everything a scientists will say as truth no matter what