memes

Most scientists want humanity to explore the cosmos beyond the Solar system. Turns out there's planets all over the place!

As long as religion makes unprovable claims, it has no place next to science.

Like I said: they are completely different things. I agree there is no reason for the two to interact with one another. As such there is no reason to do things like compare the size of their literature (as a random example).

Science isn’t out there making rules for owning slaves.

Okay, I just said science and religion do not overlap so saying religion does something science does not just further supports my argument.

And so that line about philosophy is utter bs

Philosophy is not science

Philosophy also doesn’t lay out rules for owning slaves

Depends in the philosopher:

Aristotle, in the first book of his Politics defends slavery ...
"Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature."

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/24-01-classics-of-western-philosophy-spring-2016/f74c1209194de820935eaaee72c8ec94_MIT24_01S16_SES23.pdf

The fact that people can have a religious book that has rules for owning slaves, while they themselves are opposed to owning slaves, indicates they are taking the "philosophy" they find useful from the book and not strictly adhering to everything in it.

"you don't need to tell us not to be anti-religious because of Science, you need to tell people not to be anti-Science because of religion."

My dude, I'm telling both. Which group is more common in this comment section?

This pokes at one of my biggest gripes with it, if there is a big guy with pearly gates upstairs, and doing good in life is a reward, does that mean you only do good things because your paid? It cheapens the entire philosophy and moral compass they proport to have.

On that topic. Religions does have philosophy, but it requires more effort than just showing up to what ever service you attend, I personally only know 3 religious people who have even read Aquinas (which is sad, because his work is a good read even if christiantiy aint your jam). For everything else religion is a crutch, its easier to scare kids into not steal things and acting with good-enough morals than it is to plonk a tomb of Plato or Confucius in front of them and tell them there will be a quiz on ethics at dinner.

even though there is no evidence of any gods existing

This is that Science arguing with Religion thing that I already said doesn't actually make sense.

Again, there are plenty of scientist who follow one religion or another:

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

It doesn't make sense to claim religion is by default anti-science when scientists are just as likely to be religious as not. If religion was as anti-Science as you claim then no scientists would be religious.

People who don't understand science or religion are anti-science, and they use religion as an excuse.