Science and Christianity are diametrically opposed, don’t listen to anyone who says otherwise

[Romanov2488]

It is spitting in the face of science whenever a dishonest apologist claims that science was born out of Christianity or that science supports the existence of God. These people have no idea how science works, let alone know the scientific method. First off, God cannot be put into a test tube. These folks may argue that God is like gravity in that it cannot be seen directly, but the effects of it can be seen as well as the effects of prayer. However, gravity is actually a theory, and it is verifiable and repeatable. Prayer on the other hand, does not yield consistent results. Apologists resort to hijacking scientific terms in order to proselytize nonbelievers, they will try to appear knowledgeable and will say anything to make it seem as if religion and science really aren’t different from one another…because they aren’t already two different words, right? Since when did faith become the equivalent of evidence? Faith is believing without evidence, bar none. There is no, “Oh well evidence of faith counts as direct evidence of God” because that would be akin to saying that the tea in China is also evidence of God or something like that. Religion begins with a conclusion and looks for reasons to back it up, it is one gigantic ‘begging the question’ fallacy. Science on the other hand, makes a hypothesis and puts it to the test, in which the results don’t necessarily have to line up with the hypothesis.

If one proclaims that a god exists, they should remain in their lane and leave science out of it..out of respect for science. It is a faith-based position that lacks evidence and not all theists are willing to have the honesty and integrity to admit so. Instead they rely on bullshitting the other person in hopes of proselytizing them. This is what a charlatan or snake oil salesman does. If they truly believe their god exists, then they should consider that maybe their god doesn’t like charlatans.

“I was a Catholic until I reached the age of reason.” -George Carlin

 

[M3n0r4h]

It is spitting in the face of science whenever a dishonest apologist claims that science was born out of Christianity or that science supports the existence of God. These people have no idea how science works, let alone know the scientific method. First off, God cannot be put into a test tube. These folks may argue that God is like gravity in that it cannot be seen directly, but the effects of it can be seen as well as the effects of prayer. However, gravity is actually a theory, and it is verifiable and repeatable. Prayer on the other hand, does not yield consistent results. Apologists resort to hijacking scientific terms in order to proselytize nonbelievers, they will try to appear knowledgeable and will say anything to make it seem as if religion and science really aren’t different from one another…because they aren’t already two different words, right? Since when did faith become the equivalent of evidence? Faith is believing without evidence, bar none. There is no, “Oh well evidence of faith counts as direct evidence of God” because that would be akin to saying that the tea in China is also evidence of God or something like that. Religion begins with a conclusion and looks for reasons to back it up, it is one gigantic ‘begging the question’ fallacy. Science on the other hand, makes a hypothesis and puts it to the test, in which the results don’t necessarily have to line up with the hypothesis.

If one proclaims that a god exists, they should remain in their lane and leave science out of it..out of respect for science. It is a faith-based position that lacks evidence and not all theists are willing to have the honesty and integrity to admit so. Instead they rely on bullshitting the other person in hopes of proselytizing them. This is what a charlatan or snake oil salesman does. If they truly believe their god exists, then they should consider that maybe their god doesn’t like charlatans.

“I was a Catholic until I reached the age of reason.” -George Carlin

I agree with your title and most of what you present here.

I will say that science actually did begin from Christians - the first scientists were devout Christians, but science was hijacked at a later date by dishonest men with an agenda and is still very corrupted today.

just curious, are you atheist? your info just says other faith. not important, just wondered.

 

[Augustin56]

The Catholic Church introduced the scientific method, as well as the university system, etc. Many Catholic clergy were famous scientists. For example, the father of genetics was a Catholic monk. The Big Bang Theory is attributable to Fr. Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian priest.

It is a scientistic error to believe that science can explain everything. Science is extremely limited to the small percentage of the universe that is observable. Less than 1%!

Science can be a useful tool in telling us some things about the physical universe, but there are things that science will never be able to explain. Science can, for example, tell us the chemical makeup of the paint on the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel. But science will never be able to tell us why those paintings are beautiful.

 

[Romanov2488]

I agree with your title and most of what you present here.

I will say that science actually did begin from Christians - the first scientists were devout Christians, but science was hijacked at a later date by dishonest men with an agenda and is still very corrupted today.

just curious, are you atheist? your info just says other faith. not important, just wondered.

I’m agnostic atheist as opposed to anti-theist.

I like to think of science as more of a method that still existed unofficially before Christians. The Egyptians for example were pioneers in architecture and astronomy, they had to have used science in order to test a hypothesis to see what works. People use science on a daily basis without even realizing it too.

 

[M3n0r4h]

I’m agnostic atheist as opposed to anti-theist.

I like to think of science as more of a method that still existed unofficially before Christians. The Egyptians for example were pioneers in architecture and astronomy, they had to have used science in order to test a hypothesis to see what works. People use science on a daily basis without even realizing it too.

that's fair.

 

[Wrangler]

It is spitting in the face of science whenever a dishonest apologist claims that science was born out of Christianity or that science supports the existence of God.

Wrong. Science certainly supports the Bible - in cosmology, quantum physics (God particle), biology, mathematics, archeology.

Having said that, they are different in that religion is internal to the mind, science, external.

 

[Rockerduck]

Scientists can only discover what God has already created. No scientist should be honored for discovering what God already created. I look at scientists as detectives. God is the ultimate creator.

 

[Romanov2488]

Scientists can only discover what God has already created. No scientist should be honored for discovering what God already created. I look at scientists as detectives. God is the ultimate creator.

Belief in God is completely faith-based, there is no direct evidence of God. Scientists don’t publicly refer to the universe as “God’s creation” and neither do textbooks.

 

[Romanov2488]

Wrong. Science certainly supports the Bible - in cosmology, quantum physics (God particle), biology, mathematics, archeology.

Having said that, they are different in that religion is internal to the mind, science, external.

The God particle is very different from the Christian God. Otherwise, scientists would call it the Christian God and not Higgs Boson.

 

[Rockerduck]

Belief in God is completely faith-based, there is no direct evidence of God. Scientists don’t publicly refer to the universe as “God’s creation” and neither do textbooks.

Direct evidence? The oldest book of science, archology, and history is the Holy word of God, the Bible. By the way, I'm a Holy Spirit filled Christian. I didn't search for God, He found me. Nobody can find God, He finds you. There is no salvation in Heaven and Earth apart from Jesus Christ. Stop, drop, and roll doesn't work in Hell.

 

[Wrangler]

The God particle is very different from the Christian God. Otherwise, scientists would call it the Christian God and not Higgs Boson.

Moving the goal post. LOL. A rationalization. There is a reason they call it the God particle and it is y because the Christian God is an invalid idea.

 

[M3n0r4h]

Belief in God is completely faith-based, there is no direct evidence of God. Scientists don’t publicly refer to the universe as “God’s creation” and neither do textbooks.

you do know science, and textbooks, are changed (corrected) quite often though, don't you?

how can you place your faith in something so transient?

not an insult, just a query.

 

[Enoch111]

It is spitting in the face of science whenever a dishonest apologist claims that science was born out of Christianity or that science supports the existence of God.

Science was not "born out of Christianity". By the same token true science supports the existence of God. After all it is God who has designed and placed all the natural laws into existence. It is God who created salt by combining sodium and chlorine to make NaCl. It is God who designed the Periodic Table. Human beings simply discovered the existence of all these things. True science is based upon natural laws, and natural laws came from God.

 

[Romanov2488]

Science was not "born out of Christianity". By the same token true science supports the existence of God. After all it is God who has designed and placed all the natural laws into existence. It is God who created salt by combining sodium and chlorine to make NaCl. It is God who designed the Periodic Table. Human beings simply discovered the existence of all these things. True science is based upon natural laws, and natural laws came from God.

Science does not support the existence of God, let alone Santa Claus.

There is 0 evidence of God. Scientists do not rely on religious dogma, they rely on the scientific method. And God being outside of space and time, making it impossible to fit inside of a test tube, is equivalent to a god who doesn’t exist.

 

[Romanov2488]

you do know science, and textbooks, are changed (corrected) quite often though, don't you?

how can you place your faith in something so transient?

not an insult, just a query.

They are only changed within the confines of science, a theory will replace another theory. They do not change in the way of becoming the Bible tomorrow and a textbook the next. Education is an ever changing process, religious belief is not…it is stagnant.

 

[Enoch111]

Science does not support the existence of God, let alone Santa Claus.

So how did the natural laws of the universe come into existence? All science and technology is based upon natural laws. And they do not create themselves. Which means that you have no clue about science or God.

 

[Jim B]

Science does not support the existence of God, let alone Santa Claus.

There is 0 evidence of God. Scientists do not rely on religious dogma, they rely on the scientific method. And God being outside of space and time, making it impossible to fit inside of a test tube, is equivalent to a god who doesn’t exist.

This is bizarre reasoning. While there is no scientific proof of the existence of God, Hebrews 11:1 clearly states that "... faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see".

It is irrelevant that scientists do not rely on religious dogma, they rely on the scientific method -- to prove scientific facts.

And God being outside of space and time, making it impossible to fit inside of a test tube, is not equivalent to a god who doesn’t exist. It simply means that the one trueGod can't be proven by the scientific method -- yet.

Romans 1:18-21, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people [including you!] are without excuse."

 

[marks]

It is spitting in the face of science whenever a dishonest apologist claims that science was born out of Christianity or that science supports the existence of God. These people have no idea how science works, let alone know the scientific method. First off, God cannot be put into a test tube. These folks may argue that God is like gravity in that it cannot be seen directly, but the effects of it can be seen as well as the effects of prayer. However, gravity is actually a theory, and it is verifiable and repeatable. Prayer on the other hand, does not yield consistent results. Apologists resort to hijacking scientific terms in order to proselytize nonbelievers, they will try to appear knowledgeable and will say anything to make it seem as if religion and science really aren’t different from one another…because they aren’t already two different words, right? Since when did faith become the equivalent of evidence? Faith is believing without evidence, bar none. There is no, “Oh well evidence of faith counts as direct evidence of God” because that would be akin to saying that the tea in China is also evidence of God or something like that. Religion begins with a conclusion and looks for reasons to back it up, it is one gigantic ‘begging the question’ fallacy. Science on the other hand, makes a hypothesis and puts it to the test, in which the results don’t necessarily have to line up with the hypothesis.

If one proclaims that a god exists, they should remain in their lane and leave science out of it..out of respect for science. It is a faith-based position that lacks evidence and not all theists are willing to have the honesty and integrity to admit so. Instead they rely on bullshitting the other person in hopes of proselytizing them. This is what a charlatan or snake oil salesman does. If they truly believe their god exists, then they should consider that maybe their god doesn’t like charlatans.

“I was a Catholic until I reached the age of reason.” -George Carlin

Creation is evidence of a creator.

The snake oil is trying to make you believe you aren't accountable to God.

Much love!

 

[marks]

If one proclaims that a god exists, they should remain in their lane and leave science out of it..out of respect for science. It is a faith-based position that lacks evidence and not all theists are willing to have the honesty and integrity to admit so.

You have faith in your science, whatever it happens to be saying, and regardless of what different it may say tomorrow.

You should leave truth out of it, because your science gives people's opinions of what they perceive. At best. There is a lot that is outright lies, and much more that merely conceals truth.

Do you want examples?

Much love!

 

[GRACE ambassador]

there is no direct evidence of God.

Huh?:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness
of men, who hold The Truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is
manifest in them; for God Hath Shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, Even
His Eternal Power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom 1:18-20)

If this 'clearly seen and understood' is not Evidence, then what do you call It?

Amen.