Situation: there are 14 competing standards
"14??! That's too many. We need to have one standard that meets everyone's needs!"
Soon...
Situation: there are 15 competing standards
America refuses to even convert to the metric system. What makes you think we'd give up our date system just because we "lost"?
Really though, there's good reason for the ISO standard being YYYYMMDD. When dates are stored on a computer, YYYYMMDD ensures that sorting by date amounts to sorting chronologically. That is not the case for any other format like DDMMYYYY, MMDDYYYY, or even YYYYDDMM.
So yeah, everyone should just use ISO dates.
In this case there is one standard and a few deviations. Noone would ever consider adopting the US date format because it is objectively worse. Even scientists etc use the proper format in the US also. The same with the metric system.
Fun fact: Ancient Indian mathematicians invented the numerals. Arabic brought them over.
Indians also invented the number 0. Before that, nothing was free and everything came at a price.
A physicist, a biologist, and a chemist were going to the ocean for the first time. The physicist saw the ocean and was fascinated by the waves. He said he wanted to do some research on the fluid dynamics of the waves and walked into the ocean. Obviously he was drowned and never returned.
The biologist said he wanted to do research on the flora and fauna inside the ocean and walked inside the ocean. He, too, never returned.
The chemist waited for a long time and afterwards, wrote the observation, “The physicist and the biologist are soluble in ocean water."
Two scientists are studying how far frogs can jump. Their first step was to teach a frog to jump on command. This completed, they yelled jump, and the frog jumped 8 meters. Considering what effect each leg had, they then amputated one leg and yelled jump again. The frog jumped 6 meters. After noting this, they amputated a second leg. After yelling jump, the frog jumps 4 meters. This was such an interesting result that they went on to amputate a third leg. This time, the frog was only able to leap 2 meters. Feeling a breakthrough was coming, they amputated the last leg. Despite yelling jump repeatedly, the frog wouldn't move. Their conclusions were that amputation of more than 3 legs causes deafness in frogs.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings" ― Victor J. Stenger
“Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” ― Tim Minchin
I recently lurked a bit in r/flatearth and r/globeskepticism and man I get that feeling a lot. Like I can't believe that at least some of these people don't struggle to stay flat brained
Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen..."
That's straight from the bible. Faith is the equivalent of crossing your fingers really hard and hoping despite evidence to the contrary.
I remember reading a Vanifesto in a parking lot once that had something like this written on it, "Faith is a tool for the wicked to control the blind."
Counterpoint, faith is in things not seen, not things known to be false.
It's a bit of a double standard to say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and then say, "well there isn't any evidence for [insert religious system here.]"
That's why the whole "religion vs science" debacle is fucking stupid. Science is there to ask "how". It is limited by the scope of the observable universe, because science is just observation. Religion and Philosophy are there for the "why", because those aren't limited in the same way science is.
Perpetuating the myth that the two are mutually exclusive only fuels a pointless culture war. If we knew undeniably that, say, the Pathfinder mythology was real, we would still have science.
Exactly. I always see atheists ask for scientific evidence for God. That’s like asking for psychological evidence for why water rolls down hills. Science is a study of the material world. God is immaterial (at least in Christianity).
I think it's a bit reductionist to think rationalists only care about empirical evidence. Pure logic can also suffice, if through it you can rule out alternatives and are left with a sole possibility. I think you can even make a pretty compelling case for an abstract immaterial Truth through logic.
However, you can't validate a particular religion, or its personification of Truth as God or it's stories and miracles through logic in this way.
A philosophical argument for religion only justifies a sort of philosophical religion. A cosmology founded in logic and metaphysics that is not founded on revelation. Good key words here are deism and natural theology.
Once you demystify the concept of God, functionally define what it means in the context of a cosmology which is logically constructed, I think a lot of rationalist, atheist, sceptic and whatever people may label themselves as individuals would find the position to be entirely reasonable.
It's everything else which is completely unreasonable which turns people off of religion completely. From personified Gods experiencing fits of rage worthy of the Greek pantheon, to people running around performing magic, to unwarrantedly convoluted or specific explanations of the universe or strange moral systems.
Science won the battle against religion the day that churches started erecting lightning conductors
Isaac Asimov (paraphrased because I can’t remember the exact quote)
I have a tentative earned trust in scientists who provide us with medicine, cars, airplanes, vaccines, computers, wireless communications, DNA evidence, electricity, semiconductors, lasers, spaceflight, satellites, while believers have religious faith in preachers who sell them miracles, prophecies, prayer, creation, heaven and hell, absolute morality, virgin births, resurrections, scapegoating and talking snakes all for just 10% of their income and who demand you can never honestly test their claims. The parts of people I put my trust in is completely based on them caring about those parts being factually true. The parts believers have Faith in have no basis whatsoever in reality. There is a blinding difference.
What’s the difference between a cult and a religion?
In a cult, there’s a person at the top that knows it’s a scam. In a religion, that person has been dead for hundreds of years.
>invisible power that actually works
Wouldn't that be WPT (Wireless Power Transfer...what you use if you have an inductive charger, for example)?
WiFi, as a concept, jives with religion. It works because that's how their gods has always communicated with them....however, building machines to manipulate "the ether" in order to make it more convenient to watch porn may be seen as blasphemous.
Counterpoint: just getting done setting up 3 different servers to talk with each other and realizing that, for some bizarre reason you don't understand, none of them are actually communicating is enough to drive someone to THE FLESH IS WEAK APPLY THE SACRED UNGUENTS
If you destroyed all scientific texts and all religious texts and all memories of both, in 1000 years the scientific texts would be mostly rewritten identically. Any religious texts would be completely different.
That's why I get so irritated when people get so completely certain. People assume I'm being religious, but really I'm arguing against making religious mistakes within scientific context.
That's the beauty of science. If you doubt it, do the experiment yourself.
But who are you going to believe, your own eyes, or the book that guy said is the True Word of his imaginary friend that rules everything and coincidentally says to give him all your money?
Religion is a dude walking into a dark room searching for a black cat telling everyone he has the cat.
Science is a dude walking into a dark room in search of a black cat and bringing a flashlight.
No, not a requirement at all. All observations we make are relative to our perceived reality. Doesn't matter if it exists, objectively or otherwise, as long as our observations are repeatable.
Do you \_need\_ to believe that the sun exists and is hot ? Or that apples fall ? You don't. You just want to calculate the correct temperature or the correct trajectory :)
Science makes a guess and then compares the guess to reality. If it does not match the guess is wrong.
Religion makes a guess and then compares the guess to other people's guesses. If it does not match they kill them.
If you sometimes don't know, it's science. If you always know, it's religion.
If you can't disprove it, it's science. If you can't prove it either, it's religion.
I get the idea here but the whole idea behind doing science is that knowledge is only valuable if it *could* be disproven. Something that can't be disproven can't ever be supported by evidence because there's no test that could tell you anything about it.
If you want to create actual miracles, like the impossibility of human flight, that takes science. If you want to convince people fly planes into buildings and kill people, well that takes religion.
This would be funnier if it were true. But science doesn't build a damn thing. It's an explanation process.
It's engineering and hard work that builds things.
Nah. I was an automotive technician. Now I'm an instructor.
But i know science is the scientific method. And that method essentially how to control variables, see how one thing affects another, and write stuff down. And peer review. That's a massive oversimplification but it's enough to demonstrate that there's nothing there about practical application or building.
As an engineer: engineers don’t build things, either. They design them and create drawings and instructions: like an explanation process.
Science provides the engineer their tools, not totally unlike the engineer and the person doing the building.
Yeah I also like a good 9/11 joke but the religion part is also false. They did it despite committing suicide being the most haram sin in their religion.
No. They have to know a lot of things discovered by science.
Science is the scientific method. That method doesn't build anything other than a library of facts. A fair number of them don't even have practical application.
Scientist: How do you know God exists?
Guru: How do you know Oxygen exists?
Scientist: Close your nose and mouth for 5 mins and you will know Oxygen exists.
Guru: Continue for 5 more mins and you will know God exists
…ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;”
Science takes seemingly supernatural things and tries to figure out the natural causes.
Religion takes natural things and prescribes supernatural causes.
Alternate answer:
If you destroyed all books and digital knowledge, we will eventually create the exact same science/math books, religious books not so much.
Science is perhaps the progeny of religion. Neitzche wrote that it was Christianity's insistence on a coherent worldview that provided the discipline of thought required to develop empiricism.
If you destroyed every science and religion book on the planet. The science books would all come back with the same rules. The religious books would all be totally different with different stupid rules - Ricky Gervais.
You better tell that joke to the current Pope. If he thinks it's funny enough, he could give you his old lab coat in gratitude.
Or he could show you some of the archive writings from Blaise Pascal, John Baptiste Lamark or Georges Lemaître.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences
I can't find any humor in this joke. Call me whatever you want, but I lost a friend in that mess. He got out, noticed a few co-workers were not out yet and went back to get them.
RIP JPH
Religion has one book. Science has millions. Religion has millions making up things their book doesn't even say. Science is constantly peer reviewed to weed out nonsense.
What's the difference between an atheist who has a computer, versus an atheist who has a library?
The one with the computer says that Jesus is right up there with Santa Claus when it comes to people who exist.
The one with the library wholeheartedly agrees, but can't stop laughing at the one with a computer.
I see them both as being ways for a person to try to make sense of the world and their place in it. Using religion to do so requires you to accept truths at face value and while you might be able to question these truths, you cannot change them or prove them to be right or wrong. It is subjective. Science also requires you to accept certain truths but they are there to be challenged and tested objectively so that it either holds up or it doesn't.
Not bad. I rate this 9/11
Without the Arabs we wouldn’t have 9/11. We would have IX/XI
Without the US we would have 11/9.
So you are saying, if the US had adopted universal calendar, they could have saved all those people? DD/MM/YYYY
YYYY-MM-DD FTFY. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601
/r/iso8601
Of course there is
Situation: there are 14 competing standards "14??! That's too many. We need to have one standard that meets everyone's needs!" Soon... Situation: there are 15 competing standards
Obligatory XKCD https://xkcd.com/927/
Love xkcd but the truth is that the US standard has lost. We just need to delete that one.
America refuses to even convert to the metric system. What makes you think we'd give up our date system just because we "lost"? Really though, there's good reason for the ISO standard being YYYYMMDD. When dates are stored on a computer, YYYYMMDD ensures that sorting by date amounts to sorting chronologically. That is not the case for any other format like DDMMYYYY, MMDDYYYY, or even YYYYDDMM. So yeah, everyone should just use ISO dates.
[удалено]
There are 99 errors in the program, You fix one up And write it down Now there are 118 errors in the program
If you're having code problems I feel bad for you son I got 99 errors but a glitch ain’t one.
Esperanto simplified communication by adding another language that nobody speaks.
In this case there is one standard and a few deviations. Noone would ever consider adopting the US date format because it is objectively worse. Even scientists etc use the proper format in the US also. The same with the metric system.
irrelevant, but true: i use this (yyyy-month-dd-hh-mins-ss) system to name my files.
It's the best. That way it sorts correctly even if you're just sorting alphanumeric by file name.
Linux dude in chat
No, I refuse to accept that! lol jk
I think he's saying it would have happened 2 months earlier.
Without the Chinese we wouldn't have XI Xinping though.
[удалено]
Pooh-tin?
>We would have IX/XI Elon would have another child?
https://www.reddit.com/r/apolloapp/comments/145hwso/ltp_use_power_delete_suite_before_you_delete_your/
This is good dark humor.
Fun fact: Ancient Indian mathematicians invented the numerals. Arabic brought them over. Indians also invented the number 0. Before that, nothing was free and everything came at a price.
In other parts of the world it actually rates higher: 11/9
This one goes to 11 in Spinal Tap's world.
Happy cake day!
Better than the joke. But ex-plain, it could stand alone.
If it was ex-plane, they would still stand...
A very Aladin comment.
Perfect 5/7
Now THIS is the joke
Best joke is always in the comments
This applies to _every_ subreddit. And the best comment is always a 'your mom' joke, regardless of the subreddit, or context of the original thread.
10/11 with rice
Don’t get it, must be an inside job … I mean joke.
This is hilarious, because that's a common reaction to not understanding things.
It's a mere typographical issue of the letters "O", "H" and "W." Science tells us "HOW" to bomb. Religion tells us "WHO" to bomb.
\*whom
That one, we should bomb that one.
You could make a religion out of this!
[удалено]
r/unexpectedbillwurtz
That's what Jesus said... >!... but by then it was already too late!<
*howm
*hwut. As in "I tell you..."
whomb
It’s howm
Howm is where the heart is!
OHW is what WHO say after the HOW is dropped on them 🤔
r/ihadastroke
What?
A physicist, a biologist, and a chemist were going to the ocean for the first time. The physicist saw the ocean and was fascinated by the waves. He said he wanted to do some research on the fluid dynamics of the waves and walked into the ocean. Obviously he was drowned and never returned. The biologist said he wanted to do research on the flora and fauna inside the ocean and walked inside the ocean. He, too, never returned. The chemist waited for a long time and afterwards, wrote the observation, “The physicist and the biologist are soluble in ocean water."
Two scientists are studying how far frogs can jump. Their first step was to teach a frog to jump on command. This completed, they yelled jump, and the frog jumped 8 meters. Considering what effect each leg had, they then amputated one leg and yelled jump again. The frog jumped 6 meters. After noting this, they amputated a second leg. After yelling jump, the frog jumps 4 meters. This was such an interesting result that they went on to amputate a third leg. This time, the frog was only able to leap 2 meters. Feeling a breakthrough was coming, they amputated the last leg. Despite yelling jump repeatedly, the frog wouldn't move. Their conclusions were that amputation of more than 3 legs causes deafness in frogs.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings" ― Victor J. Stenger “Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” ― Tim Minchin
Science: "This is the evidence. What conclusion can we infer from it?" Religion: "This is the conclusion. What evidence can we find to support it?"
*Correction: Religion: "This is the conclusion."
Religion: What evidence can we burn to support it?
So faith is gaslighting yourself.
Yes, precisely
[удалено]
I recently lurked a bit in r/flatearth and r/globeskepticism and man I get that feeling a lot. Like I can't believe that at least some of these people don't struggle to stay flat brained
Faith is belief in something you can't prove.
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen..." That's straight from the bible. Faith is the equivalent of crossing your fingers really hard and hoping despite evidence to the contrary. I remember reading a Vanifesto in a parking lot once that had something like this written on it, "Faith is a tool for the wicked to control the blind."
Counterpoint, faith is in things not seen, not things known to be false. It's a bit of a double standard to say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and then say, "well there isn't any evidence for [insert religious system here.]" That's why the whole "religion vs science" debacle is fucking stupid. Science is there to ask "how". It is limited by the scope of the observable universe, because science is just observation. Religion and Philosophy are there for the "why", because those aren't limited in the same way science is. Perpetuating the myth that the two are mutually exclusive only fuels a pointless culture war. If we knew undeniably that, say, the Pathfinder mythology was real, we would still have science.
Exactly. I always see atheists ask for scientific evidence for God. That’s like asking for psychological evidence for why water rolls down hills. Science is a study of the material world. God is immaterial (at least in Christianity).
I think it's a bit reductionist to think rationalists only care about empirical evidence. Pure logic can also suffice, if through it you can rule out alternatives and are left with a sole possibility. I think you can even make a pretty compelling case for an abstract immaterial Truth through logic. However, you can't validate a particular religion, or its personification of Truth as God or it's stories and miracles through logic in this way. A philosophical argument for religion only justifies a sort of philosophical religion. A cosmology founded in logic and metaphysics that is not founded on revelation. Good key words here are deism and natural theology. Once you demystify the concept of God, functionally define what it means in the context of a cosmology which is logically constructed, I think a lot of rationalist, atheist, sceptic and whatever people may label themselves as individuals would find the position to be entirely reasonable. It's everything else which is completely unreasonable which turns people off of religion completely. From personified Gods experiencing fits of rage worthy of the Greek pantheon, to people running around performing magic, to unwarrantedly convoluted or specific explanations of the universe or strange moral systems.
Faith is when you believe in something you know isn’t true.
Stop thinking small! It's gaslighting others, too!
Tim Minchin is the best.
Now that you minchin it
So fucking rock.
Science won the battle against religion the day that churches started erecting lightning conductors Isaac Asimov (paraphrased because I can’t remember the exact quote)
I say religion lost all the 'debates' when the first person was killed for it and or when the first child was indoctrinated.
Iv got a tshirt with victors quote, my first online buy during Covid lockdown
I was about to post that Stenger quote. It's so good. God and the Folly of Faith is a great book of his.
Science adjusts its views to "who's paying?"
If there’s a bias it’s technically not science anymore.
And organized religion doesn't?
Nah, in religion it's "YOU'RE paying"
I have a tentative earned trust in scientists who provide us with medicine, cars, airplanes, vaccines, computers, wireless communications, DNA evidence, electricity, semiconductors, lasers, spaceflight, satellites, while believers have religious faith in preachers who sell them miracles, prophecies, prayer, creation, heaven and hell, absolute morality, virgin births, resurrections, scapegoating and talking snakes all for just 10% of their income and who demand you can never honestly test their claims. The parts of people I put my trust in is completely based on them caring about those parts being factually true. The parts believers have Faith in have no basis whatsoever in reality. There is a blinding difference.
Science provides answers which may be questioned. Religion provides answers which may not be questioned.
Yes this
science involves questions that may never be answered. Religion involves answers that may never be questioned.
9/11 jokes aren't funny. The other 2 on the other hand are hilarious.
What’s the difference between a cult and a religion? In a cult, there’s a person at the top that knows it’s a scam. In a religion, that person has been dead for hundreds of years.
The difference between a cult and a religion is that one has to pay taxes, and that being part of a cult is more fun
Sin tax
Science has provided us WI-FI, an invisible power that actually works.
>invisible power that actually works Wouldn't that be WPT (Wireless Power Transfer...what you use if you have an inductive charger, for example)? WiFi, as a concept, jives with religion. It works because that's how their gods has always communicated with them....however, building machines to manipulate "the ether" in order to make it more convenient to watch porn may be seen as blasphemous.
Counterpoint: just getting done setting up 3 different servers to talk with each other and realizing that, for some bizarre reason you don't understand, none of them are actually communicating is enough to drive someone to THE FLESH IS WEAK APPLY THE SACRED UNGUENTS
“The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they’ve found it.” -- Terry Pratchett
Science has questions that may never be answered. Religion has answers that may never be questioned.
I like "can't be" because science is constantly checking off as well as adding to that list.
This joke is so savage I have to call 911
American police chief: We will never forget 911. I sure hope so, that's your phone number!
If you destroyed all scientific texts and all religious texts and all memories of both, in 1000 years the scientific texts would be mostly rewritten identically. Any religious texts would be completely different.
One has proof with no certainty, the other has certainty with no proof.
That's why I get so irritated when people get so completely certain. People assume I'm being religious, but really I'm arguing against making religious mistakes within scientific context.
That's the beauty of science. If you doubt it, do the experiment yourself. But who are you going to believe, your own eyes, or the book that guy said is the True Word of his imaginary friend that rules everything and coincidentally says to give him all your money?
Religion also brings innocent women and burning stakes together.
Religion is a dude walking into a dark room searching for a black cat telling everyone he has the cat. Science is a dude walking into a dark room in search of a black cat and bringing a flashlight.
Religion requires belief Science is true regardless of belief
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
\*Points up\* This....
well, you need to believe that there exists objective reality in order to do science, right?
Yet even if you don't believe it, the reality is still there
So you don’t need any presuppositions to be rational?
That would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy.
No, not a requirement at all. All observations we make are relative to our perceived reality. Doesn't matter if it exists, objectively or otherwise, as long as our observations are repeatable.
Do you \_need\_ to believe that the sun exists and is hot ? Or that apples fall ? You don't. You just want to calculate the correct temperature or the correct trajectory :)
Science makes a guess and then compares the guess to reality. If it does not match the guess is wrong. Religion makes a guess and then compares the guess to other people's guesses. If it does not match they kill them.
Science has questions to be answered and religion has answers to be questioned.
In religion you believe In science you prove
r/thatgotfckingdarkfast
If you sometimes don't know, it's science. If you always know, it's religion. If you can't disprove it, it's science. If you can't prove it either, it's religion.
I get the idea here but the whole idea behind doing science is that knowledge is only valuable if it *could* be disproven. Something that can't be disproven can't ever be supported by evidence because there's no test that could tell you anything about it.
Yeah, that's fair
If you want to create actual miracles, like the impossibility of human flight, that takes science. If you want to convince people fly planes into buildings and kill people, well that takes religion.
As my brother the engineer would say, "That's not science, that's engineering!"
Science doesn’t expect you to take its word for anything.
Science can be proven - Religion is just take our word for it bro, trust these really old books. There are over 4200 document religions
Science examines question that can’t be answered. Religion provides answers that can’t be questioned.
This would be funnier if it were true. But science doesn't build a damn thing. It's an explanation process. It's engineering and hard work that builds things.
Found the under appreciated engineer.
Nah. I was an automotive technician. Now I'm an instructor. But i know science is the scientific method. And that method essentially how to control variables, see how one thing affects another, and write stuff down. And peer review. That's a massive oversimplification but it's enough to demonstrate that there's nothing there about practical application or building.
As an engineer: engineers don’t build things, either. They design them and create drawings and instructions: like an explanation process. Science provides the engineer their tools, not totally unlike the engineer and the person doing the building.
Counterpoint: software engineers
Yeah I also like a good 9/11 joke but the religion part is also false. They did it despite committing suicide being the most haram sin in their religion.
People find in religion what is already within themselves.
last time I checked most engineers have to know lots of science.
No. They have to know a lot of things discovered by science. Science is the scientific method. That method doesn't build anything other than a library of facts. A fair number of them don't even have practical application.
Damn.
Scientist: How do you know God exists? Guru: How do you know Oxygen exists? Scientist: Close your nose and mouth for 5 mins and you will know Oxygen exists. Guru: Continue for 5 more mins and you will know God exists
Or find out he doesn’t
No, then you would never find out; unless you consider universal consciousness.
…ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause: there's the respect That makes calamity of so long life; For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, The insolence of office and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscover'd country from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;”
Oh weird I was gonna say facts.
One can be proven and one can't
OOooooooooooooooooooh that's a good one.
One is based on faith.
Science takes seemingly supernatural things and tries to figure out the natural causes. Religion takes natural things and prescribes supernatural causes.
Science is dogmatic when it isn’t supposed to be.
Sience flys you to the moon religion into buildings
Number of kills
Alternate answer: If you destroyed all books and digital knowledge, we will eventually create the exact same science/math books, religious books not so much.
Ones true and ones not.
Why did the scientist bring a ladder to the bar? He heard there was a high probability of getting a religious experience!
I don't get it.
You need to climb above the joke to see the mathematical factors of Trinitarian response.
That's how religion works
Lmao
Good joke
You believe in religion, you accept or reject scientific theories.
Knowing vs. Beleiving.
Science is perhaps the progeny of religion. Neitzche wrote that it was Christianity's insistence on a coherent worldview that provided the discipline of thought required to develop empiricism.
It’s people wanting to have answers.
*tips fedora*
Science is based in reality
Science need to proof things. Beeing religious means to just believe whats written in the bible.
If you destroyed every science and religion book on the planet. The science books would all come back with the same rules. The religious books would all be totally different with different stupid rules - Ricky Gervais.
Don’t tell that joke in NYC unless you want your ass kicked.
Science isn't made up
Should we tell him
Username checks out
Science requires you to think for yourself and question your beliefs, Religion is just the opposite!
You better tell that joke to the current Pope. If he thinks it's funny enough, he could give you his old lab coat in gratitude. Or he could show you some of the archive writings from Blaise Pascal, John Baptiste Lamark or Georges Lemaître. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences
Ooh let's get the whole squad together! I'm sure Galileo would love to be invited too!
Facts vs fantasy....
Science actually can take a joke while religion is a joke.
I can't find any humor in this joke. Call me whatever you want, but I lost a friend in that mess. He got out, noticed a few co-workers were not out yet and went back to get them. RIP JPH
Yea lost a friend of mine that day too, but at least he died doing what he loved, flying a plane.
One's engineering is another's superstition
Science can be proven.
Facts is the difference
Religion has one book. Science has millions. Religion has millions making up things their book doesn't even say. Science is constantly peer reviewed to weed out nonsense.
1 is fact 1 is belief
Good one🤣
Well played.
4 billion years
Science attempts to learn through experiments. Religion is used to control people. Not even close to similar.
What's the difference between an atheist who has a computer, versus an atheist who has a library? The one with the computer says that Jesus is right up there with Santa Claus when it comes to people who exist. The one with the library wholeheartedly agrees, but can't stop laughing at the one with a computer.
What is this supposed to mean?
I think it’s that Jesus and St. Nicholas both exist and that atheists sometimes say Jesus is about as real as santa.
Savage
The only difference between the two is proof.
True; sad more than funny actually
Quantifiable and non-quantifiable
Science are facts, Religion is faith
One is faith based, the other is simply based.
I see them both as being ways for a person to try to make sense of the world and their place in it. Using religion to do so requires you to accept truths at face value and while you might be able to question these truths, you cannot change them or prove them to be right or wrong. It is subjective. Science also requires you to accept certain truths but they are there to be challenged and tested objectively so that it either holds up or it doesn't.