It's ok when you rely on science to love your neighbor..

Seemingly belief in science cancels out the possibility you agree with the existence of God.

You either believe in evolution or you can't know anything about science when you agree with the existence of God.

Science is used to assure there is no God.

Choose wisely between God or your scientist neighbor.

The idea of the nature of the world in your mind made up your belief. What is it called when your beliefs are based on nature and the world, on what you perceive with your 5 physicaly senses?

No rational person would let those beliefs cancel out the existence of God.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

To be even more frank.

The reason people try to separate science and God is because they think that God can't be explained. Gravity can't be explained either, like God, we only know the effects it is (there's millions and millions of testimonies about Gods presence).

To be even more to the point, people who hate God and deny his existence love their sin, it's as simple as that, they eschew authority because they're wayward children. They will, if not repentant, die in their sin and be cast into outer darkness.

a reply to: Joneselius

They explain gravity with the size of the planet. A large enough amount of dirt and metal core results in the existence of gravity.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Care to prove that?

They can not 'prove' gravity any more than they can prove what light actually is.

Science has a lot to answer for actually.

a reply to: Joneselius

We could shovel away dirt and send it into space until we start floating.

The way I see it, science is the study of the mind of God.

a reply to: theatreboy

That's a nice way to put it though those overrationalizing will disagree.

No, gravity Satan coming for some @$$, but instead of going to them, he bringing them to him. I have never seen a Christian light enough to fly or walk on water.

At this point, might as well just toss the computer out, for it the work of the Devil an godless hedonistic heathens...which they are apparently easily forgiven for, an could of kept the Church in business, when it confession time.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Newton, Faraday,Riemann, townes, Gaus and tons of others. All scientists all religious.

You're line of reasoning is flawed.

Actually I misread your last line in the op. Spot on.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Science and religion once worked well together. But the scientists wanted more status and made a strong distinction between science and religion in an effort to get funding for their secular universities.

Conflict Thesis

In the 1800s, the relationship between religion and science became an actual formal topic of discourse, while before this no one had pitted science against religion or vice versa, though occasional interactions had occurred in the past.[7] More specifically, it was around the mid-1800s that discussion of "science and religion" first emerged[8][9] because before this time, science still included moral and metaphysical dimensions, was not inherently linked to the scientific method, and the term scientist did not emerge until 1834

In 1896, White published A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, the culmination of over thirty years of research and publication on the subject, criticizing what he saw as restrictive, dogmatic forms of Christianity. In the introduction, White emphasized that he arrived at his position after the difficulties of assisting Ezra Cornell in establishing a university without any official religious affiliation.

This division is the foundation for Scientism
Video explains it

Bored andon ATS, so...

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

Seemingly belief in science cancels out the possibility you agree with the existence of God.

No.

Besides, there's no need to 'believe' in science.

You either believe in evolution or you can't know anything about science when you agree with the existence of God.

No.

Science is used to assure there is no God.

Some people try but they're just playing the odds.

Choose wisely between God or your scientist neighbor.

Agreed. But know the difference between God and your neighbour who wants to make you believe in Him.

The idea of the nature of the world in your mind made up your belief. What is it called when your beliefs are based on nature and the world, on what you perceive with your 5 physicaly senses?

Empiricism, or naturalism.

No rational person would let those beliefs cancel out the existence of God.

Sure belief in God is a personal decision. Accepting the truth of evolution has nothing to do with that decision. Why can God not work through evolution.? Alternatively, why does one need to believe in God?

a reply to: Astyanax

I understand that science is natural, still people believe science, right?

Knowing is believing?

reply to: Out6of9Balance

Knowing is not believing. Believing is what you do when you can't know, but decide to take a position anyway.

Sure, we can get into the deep philosophy of it, but in the end it's not hard to understand the difference.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

But I like your thread title. Human nature does include loving your neighbour. The question is, who do you include among your neighbours?

a reply to: Astyanax

That's weird. When someone told me he drives a red Ferrari and I see him driving in it I believe He drives a red Ferrari.

I know and I believe.

Sir Isaac Newton was one of the greatest scientist of all time. Yet he was very religous. So one is not a contradiction of the other. Religion explores the realms of our inner being whereas science explores the outer realms of our inner being.

What a load of crap...

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

I am afraid you are mistaken. Look up the definitions of 'belief' and 'knowledge'.

The only middle ground (and I think this is the source of your confusion) is when someone believes without proof a thing that is true all the same.

To adapt your example, the driver tells you his Ferrari is red and you believe him even though you have never seen the car or any proof that he owns it -- but it turns out that he really does own a red Ferrari after all.

a reply to: Astyanax

When my mother tells me she'll make soup this evening I believe her.

a reply to: Akragon

I'm not amazed. Overrationalizing again?