SCIENCE & MATH board all about religion?

Seriously what the fuck is up? I know the liberals have been trying to get you youngins to think that science and math are somehow connected to religion but by the very nature of the studies that's impossible. Can't we be smart and just go back to trying to figure out actual scientific and mathematic problems using science and math instead of debating religion with it?

Science disproves religion.
It's related, shut the fuck up and die.

Religion disproves science .
It's related, shut the fuck up and die.

Science disproves religion's disproving of science.
It's related, shut the fuck up and die.

>>1
Yeah, all those damn ID-supporting libruls.

Math disproves science disproving of religion's disproval of science.
It's related, shut the fuck up and die.

Physics disproves math's disproving of science's disproving of religion's disproval of science.
It's related, shut the fuck up and die.

Chemistry disproves physic's disproving of math's disproving of science's disproving of religion's disproval of science.
It's related, shut the fuck up and die.

English disproves the necessity for apostrophes associated with "physic's", "math's", "science's" and "religion's".
It's related, shut the fuck up and die.

Non-retard English disproves your English's disproving of the necessity for apostrophes associated with "physic's", "math's", "science's" and "religion's".
It's related, shut the fuck up and die.

(They are possessive)

Actually, science and religion ARE fundamentally seperated, as the only questions science can answer are 'how, what, when, where' questions, while the only questions religion can answer are 'why' questions, like 'why are we here?', 'why does gravity exist?', 'why does anything exist, and not nothing?' etc.

Science will never be able to answer 'why' questions (unless 'how?' questions are rephrased incorrectly as 'why?' questions). Science fails when it tries to answer 'why', and religion fails when it tries to answer 'how' (which is why most organized religions are failing, they don't know their place).

>>11

religion is a bad word. philosophy is better.

theosophy?

>>12

well, yeah, exactly
Religion SHOULD be nothing but a philosophy

>>14
Sadly if religion is nothing but philosophy, I say the simple minded majority wouldn't have the capability to comprehend even the more simple aspects of theological reasoning.

>>15
>I say the simple minded majority wouldn't have the capability to comprehend even the more simple aspects of theological reasoning.
I wonder if this is a suprising find for you, and of course it is sadly, the entire species is a sad sorry excuse for a collection of sentients, not even sentients, more like pseudosentients.

>>13
I know people into that. They're just gullible freaks though. They're just out of the classic religions, and look at what do they get into. More superstition.

>>1
I totally agree.  I haven't been here long, but it seems like there's just a few ID pushers that are heavily trolling this board.  Most of them have the maturity, logic, and language skills of a  retarded 10 year old, so it doesn't exactly help their cause.

>>14
Yet it's often everything but a philosophy

>>15
That's why they made it a dogma; they need to get a grip on these retards to exploit them. I find it immoral though.

>>16

Individuals are intelligent, groups are not.

Unfortunately for us, being social creatures, we often find ourselves at the mercy of the current mood of the mob we associate ourselves with.

It is beyond easy to lose yourself to a group's "will."