What are the conflicts between atheism and science?

I used to be quite squeamish about being preached to in one kind or other, I found it to be tantamount to bullying.

But after having read some literature on bullying, I have come to positively consider the idea that bullying can actually be good for one.

E.g.:
Why it's not always bad to be bullied: Learning to fight back helps children mature, says study
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Study-finds-fight-popular.html#ixzz1F0PXZK6k

Bullying can be good for children
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article7133986.ece

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No conflict. Science, going about its business, finds no need for God. Atheists take note of that.

Rav and Spidergoat note that there must be something rather than a lack of anything. I support that, too, and can explain it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No I said it was someone else . I did confuse you with someone else and there post. I just didn't make it clear in that last post . My point about books is from my perspective in life . Which is from the fairy tale lyrical sense of song writing. Where words are not as they straight up appear . Where as things like water interpret to other connotations by the structure of dream state languages . So like a phrase " Fly Me to The Moon " has to be considered in the context of the bigger movement and what the artist was trying to convey in the song. So to you it might have no value as a person can't literally fly to the moon, but in the whimsical life of an artist you can fly to the moon and do by the abstracts of our minds.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll read the links (and not dispute the point, at least until I've read them

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), but even it weren't bullying it's an uninvited intrusion at the very least.

 

Dywyddyr,

Yeah, it's pointless, and comes to no conclusion at all.
It seems like some promo for a book.
The people discussing it in the thread, come to no point or conclusion.
In short, it's boring drivel, that answers nothing.
Not even Spider can do it justice.

How's that?

Quit stalling, just answer the question.
Please.

jan.

 

So you didn't actually follow my advice?

Or check out all of the links.

A big fail. I did specify particularly the links given in the OP. Which you appear to have skimmed over or ignored. Can you refute the mathematics? Why do you consider the maths "pointless"?

So you aren't going to answer any of those questions?
In which case, as I stated, I have no idea what you mean by your question. I cannot answer it as it stands.
And note that is not "will not" it is "cannot". Your question is meaningless.
Presumably you know what you mean, but I have no clue.

 

Jan, you are quite surprised and taken aback to find the basis of All is not God (everything), but quite its opposite, an insignificant near nothing like QM fluctuations/uncertainty, with even nothing itself behind that.

That's how off the concept of God is, plus I also disproved Him in the other thread by showing that a Being cannot be fundamental, which is sufficient in itself.

Are you ready for this double whammy? (Not that its even needed)

Amazingly, there are even more disproofs than these, but I never use all of my ammo at once.

 

Dywyddyr,

Then you shouldn't have responded with that link.
Apart from that "Phlogo the Pogo" responded.
What do think of his response?

It pertains to the idea that the universe just popped into existense all by it self
without the need for a cause.

Keep up lad!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

Yes, Jan, the universe of whatever the All is called, needed nothing else.

 

Before anything, explain your so-called dis-proof, as it makes no sense to me.

Please stop talking in riddles, and say it straight-out.

thanks
jan.

 

Again your "logic" fails. I gave that link in answer to a question you asked.
Your subsequent question (to me) asked something different.

As far as I can see Phlogistician answered a different question of yours. I.e. not the one I gave the links to.

Correct.
And your question was "do I take it as fact?". The problem here (and you have simply exacerbated it with your failure to look at all of the links in the OP as requested (leaving you unaware of the actual argument and support put forward) is that your question has multiple possible answers/ meanings. Which you, so far, are unwilling to elucidate.
Oh and you also compounded the problem by using the terminology "without a cause". How did that interpretation arise?

Which leaves YOU as the one not keeping up.

 

Jan, I posted several times why beings can't be fundamental, even that "Jan could not answer", for he neglects and avoids in lieu of being able to refute, and so that is still up to you. So, I'll withhold the second disproof until you can address the first.

And, no, "spirit" does not refute, for the hierarchy of mind still holds, no matter what its form is claimed to be. At least deal with the science and the logic of it rather than just making more magical things up as you go along, for anyone can see through that ploy.

 

Let's look to the source and origin of the Bible. The founder of our faith, Jesus, didn't give us a book. Jesus gave us a church. The leaders of that infant church were the apostles. Jesus told the apostles, "As the Father has sent me, so I send you." Jn 20:21. How did the Father send Jesus? With all authority on heaven and earth. Jesus conveyed this authority to his apostles, who established His church. The apostles passed on this authority through an unbroken line of apostolic succession and laying on of hands.

Later, in 382 AD, the church proclaimed the canon of scripture. So the Bible gets it's authority from the Catholic Church who received authority from the apostles who received authority from Jesus who received authority from the Father.

Therefore, the Bible is Holy because the Catholic Church pronounced it so. All Christians who hold the Bible as authoritative are in fact acknowledging the authority of the Catholic Church.

The other books were written by men who do not have the same authority. In many cases, the men were self-proclaimed prophets who wrote what they saw or heard. However, they were not given "all authority on heaven and earth" by God Himself, as the apostles were given.

I can give two very simple qualifiers on logic alone.

1) All religions cannot be right. I'm a geek, so I'm quite aware from my circles that "Pastafarianism" is a satirical take on religions, not an actual faith that people organize together in seriousness.
2) Not all religions have quantifiable history that records facts surrounding a faith, if not actually recording events within the faith itself.Since the internet's a suitable source for you, I provide links to historical figures that support a few Biblical figures of the New Testament, which very, very few other faiths can provide from some other non-scriptural texts.

First, St. Peter,St. Paul, Pontius Pilate.. The list goes on, primarily of people who record first-hand accounts of many events that are also noted in Biblical texts, canonical and non-canonical.

Religion does not require itself to be self-quantifiable as science does, though the two practices go hand in hand in many ways. One believes, or doesn't. Christianity has the greatest historicity supporting its claims.

 

Okay.

This is as much as I need to read. You're back to the usual circular argument.
Jesus has this authority (to tell us about god) because god said so. And we know god exists because Jesus told us he does. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And then it turns into a bunch of other guys who claim this authority, and declare the book is holy and the word of god because they say so. And they should be believed because their book (which is holy) makes them an (or rather THE) authority.

Apart, of course, from those Protestants who will publicly and loudly declare the Pope AND the Catholic Church to be the anti-Christ and the work of the devil. Etc.

Correct. This is not a qualifier.

This is another fail since the "evidence" that these "facts" are facts is the book itself or people who claim authority because that book says they have the authority to declare it "factually correct".

Circular. Circular. Circular. :bawl:

 

Jesus' message was not only that he was God, but they you and I are also God, we just don't realize it yet. The kingdom of heaven is within, and it's true, the secret to happiness is your own brain, nothing supernatural required. But, the apostles did not all achieve the same understanding, and what we are left with as a consequence is a book that sends us in all directions, and mostly the wrong ones. The Roman bishops especially didn't know what the fuck. And that's not unexpected, only a few people get enlightened, there is so much stacked against us to overcome.

 

Of course it's possible that not all atheists have any scientific background. The two are completely unrelated.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Atheism isn't necessarily based upon a persons knowledge of chemistry or physics, it could just be that they've never had a reason to believe or look for a god. It could just be that the have had a think about it and logically it doesn't make sense to them.


Atheism is a non-belief in an abstract thing. Science is the study of many sorts of materials and varies properties that exist. The two are unrelated.

 

I seriously doubt that religion would even exist if the level of scientific knowledge that we have now had always been accessible to us. The closest thing to religion that would exist in such a world would be metaphysical speculation.

 

there is only one person stacked against us.

 

If you want to be truly empirically rigorous, you have to regard every piece of historical writing as itself an historical artifact crafted by the writer. From there you can attempt to discern clues to actual events that may or may not have actually occurred. You have to ask whether the writer of the text would have had direct access to empirically observe the events described in the text, and if not, what basis would s/he have had for writing what they did. If you take such critical rigor very seriously, you can even get to the point of criticizing the very descriptive language used by (macro)historians. After all, how can they report the general events and outcomes of some macro-event like a war or extended time period as a direct witness of empirical events. They only have access to second-hand reports, and even then they have to synthesize those reports into coherent narratives. So all historiography is ultimately highly-processed derivatives of long-forgotten empirical events. By "empirical events," btw, I mean the empirical interactions between the history-writer and her/his sources, since the empirical experiences of those sources is already lost in the transmission of information from them to the writer. So the best you can really do with ANY historical text is to critically reason about the claims made in the text. You will never be able to establish their basis in fact because the facts are history, so to speak. All you can ask is why the writer may have written what they wrote and what does that say about the writer and the social and material context(s) of that person's life.