Here take this. - #97536386 added by ComradeBritish at This week in science

#5 - blakhawk

Reply+102

(07/15/2013)[-]

This is why I like science.

#177 to #5 - swagloon

Reply+1

(07/15/2013)[-]

Comparing science and religion? Really?

#156 to #5 - alltimetens

Reply+1

(07/15/2013)[-]

Hurr durr, sience is de best ting in de wurld.

Why don't you stop being a pretentious faggot and realize that you're no better than those religious nuts you criticize every day, seeing how you contributed as much to society as them.

#87 to #5 - funnyjunkforlife

Reply-5

(07/15/2013)[-]

this just in

#173 to #87 - swagloon

Reply+2

(07/15/2013)[-]

4edgy8me

#81 to #5 - anon id: 89e856ac

Reply0

(07/15/2013)[-]

this week in atheism
www.youtube.com/watch?v=43WJ4AlOI2Y

#146 to #81 - popkornking

Reply+1

(07/15/2013)[-]

That was hilarious

#80 to #5 - yunoacceptnumbers

Reply-4

(07/15/2013)[-]

you will post this as content or i will steal it and do it myself!

#76 to #5 - demha

Reply+3

(07/15/2013)[-]

like science =/= know science

#56 to #5 - llpanic

Reply+24

(07/15/2013)[-]

here have this

#55 to #5 - ComradeBritish

Reply-3

(07/15/2013)[-]

Here take this.

#51 to #5 - downtoabsolutezero**User deleted account**

+15

has deleted their comment [-]

#47 to #5 - anon id: 8acaf5b8

Reply0

(07/15/2013)[-]

They have no need to correct themselves every week.

#63 to #47 - maxismahname

Reply0

(07/15/2013)[-]

discoveries=/=corrections

#45 to #5 - anon id: 3503dbaf

Reply0

(07/15/2013)[-]

Does this REALLY need to be ******* posted on every weekly science post?

#64 to #45 - prominant

Reply-11

(07/15/2013)[-]

First time I've seen it

#57 to #45 - yunablade

Reply-10

(07/15/2013)[-]

I don't know, do they plan on doing any update any week at all?

#35 to #5 - icameheretotroll

Reply+25

(07/15/2013)[-]

Science is not the opposite of religion, you douche

#143 to #35 - popkornking

Reply+1

(07/15/2013)[-]

Shhhh... Leave him his euphoria

#20 to #5 - redstag

Reply-5

(07/15/2013)[-]

Cept for a few thousand dead.

#17 to #5 - happygoyim

Reply+2

(07/15/2013)[-]

*tips fedora in agreement* well said, good sir! Have my thumb!

#14 to #5 - BoredAgain

Reply+32

(07/15/2013)[-]

Do you have a neck beard? Given that around 40% of American scientists are outright theists, I think it's VERY likely that some of these discoveries had religious scientists behind them.

#15 to #14 - thewaronbeingcool

Reply+3

(07/15/2013)[-]

I don't have a problem with a religion myself, but I don't think that's a valid point.

I mean did them being religious contribute to their scientific discoveries?

#141 to #15 - popkornking

Reply0

(07/15/2013)[-]

Because normal religious people actually get alot of determination and drive out of their religious practices.

#95 to #15 - nasesse

Reply0

(07/15/2013)[-]

A few scientific discoveries have been found from religion, more specifically Islam.
The early stages of development of the embryo were discovered from verses of the Quran
"He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness."
This is a translation from Arabic obviously, but before this verse was revealed we did not know the foetus developed in the womb.
in three veils of darkness."
may refer to: (l) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall; and (3) the amniochorionic membrane.

"Then We made the drop into a leech-like structure."
The word "alaqah" directly translates to leach or bloodsucker which is an appropriate description of the human embryo from days 7-24 when it clings to the uterus.

Also a lot of mathematics originated from Islam and the Arabs in particular, while Europe was still in the Dark ages.

Not sure about other religions myself but Islam has given contributed a lot for modern science to be where it is now, and it has done more than it is given credit for.

If you want links:
You need to login to view this link
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7810846.stm
You need to login to view this link

#16 to #15 - BoredAgain

Reply+8

(07/15/2013)[-]

I can't possibly say, but for many people religion defines much of the self, the character; man religious people go into medicine, for instance, it's down to the individuals. But even Dawkins concedes the fact that the scientific method emerge out of a religious tradition.

#43 to #16 - toosexyforyou#266 on commentsRank#266

Reply+1

(07/15/2013)[-]

Dawkins also said that religion had its role in human society and now we're past that.

#142 to #43 - popkornking

Reply0

(07/15/2013)[-]

That's ironically conservative thinking for an atheist, just because "intelligent" people believe that they can be happy without religion (which is perfectly okay) to say that religion has passed it's time with humanity is close to the concept of social darwinism that conservative capitalists like to spew. There will always be people for whom putting their trust in something other than themselves is a good thing, to say we're past that now is ridiculous.

#192 to #142 - toosexyforyou#266 on commentsRank#266

Reply-1

(07/15/2013)[-]

By "we're past that," I/he meant that we're past the NEED for it that we once had. We're obviously not past seeing it in society.

#89 to #43 - sylvan

Reply0

(07/15/2013)[-]

You talking about his movie? I remember in the same scene he said religion would eventually destroy mankind. Talk what people say with a grain of salt.

#11 to #5 - usernameerror

Reply+48

(07/15/2013)[-]

Guess you missed the memo.