What are the conflicts between atheism and science?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Mind Over Matter, Feb 25, 2011.

  1. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    So you are claiming that your post was intended just to point out the fallacy of the implication? Yeah right, we all buy that...

    Aren't you ashamed of such intellectual dishonesty?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,897
    No. I'm asking why do you believe in your god and not the others?

    Aren't you ashamed that you're so insecure and paranoid that you can't see a question for what it is or answer it without resorting to ad homs?

    One more time:
    What makes your book "holy" and not the others?
    Why do you not believe in those other gods?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    Oh, oh, I can prove Zeus exists! Just look them up in Wiki, there's a lot of them!
    Similar to what you said above, despite not being scientifically proven, there are an overwhelming number of religions which suggests in the existence of one or more gods while very few (if any) which suggests in the existence of no god/s. There’s more reason to believe in one or more gods than there is to believe in no gods hence for one to become an atheist they must look for reasons to become one. This is done by analyzing the flaws involving the other religions, before becoming an atheist one must look at all the other religions first for answers. If they still haven’t found the one and true religion they can then become atheists. However for someone to believe straight away, without investigating other existing religions, that god/s doesn’t/ don’t exist is more illogical and irrational as not only isn’t it scientifically proven but less (if any) religious texts suggest this view than the opposing one.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,897
    Is that a declaration that you do believe in Zeus or a deflection? I wonder... (not really, but...)

    So, simply because someone believes in something it must have some basis in reality?
    You obviously haven't read this thread or this thread.

    And your criteria for "flaws" in religions other yours would be...?

    You're assuming that there actually is a "one true religion" or even a "true religion".

    Here again is where you fail. Religions (and religionists) make the claims it is therefore up to them to provide the evidence.
    And there is no evidence.

    So, what, specifically, made you reject, for example, Zeus and co. or Osiris and co.?
    I mean, going from your earlier statements you have, presumably, done extensive reading on both of these topics to "find the flaws".
     
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I didn't call them "chickens" (although many are chickenish!).

    I exemplified them as cocks prancing on a pile of manure.


    Which should not bother them, since ethics are subjective and humans are no more than biomechanical thingies and all that.
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,897
    As in "tastes like..."?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,126
    Most atheists don't have much background in science.

    It would depend on what the atheist was asserting, I guess.

    But just in general, I don't think that lack of belief in God, or even the stronger claim to knowledge that God doesn't exist, contradicts any scientific beliefs.

    The latter assertion of knowledge of God's non-existence would be a claim to knowledge about something that's clearly outside science's scope. But holding that belief wouldn't directly contradict science. Everyone has extra-scientific beliefs.

    Science and religion (whether pro or con) aren't likely to generate direct conflicts unless they start intruding into each other's turf. If religion starts making assertions about physical events (cosmogonies, miracles, etc) or if science starts making assertions about supposed transcendental matters that lie beyond the physical world of nature, that's when we are apt to see contradictions appearing.
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I deliberately took up a provocative discourse, to show on the spot, in vivo, that atheists readily are not nearly as rational and equanimous as they would like others to think they are - I predicted a fiery response, and it came.

    That's another difference between atheism and science:
    Atheists tend to be predictable, but science should be open to the truly new, and thus possibly quite unpredictable.


    Because he's a hit-and-run atheist?
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,897
    Corrected.
    I presume you aren't contending that theists are not predictable? (To a similar extent at least).
    Or that atheists aren't human?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    One thing I really really like about theists (although not all theists are like that) is that they are unpredictable.

    I absolutely love that someone can come up with an argument I have not heard before, or provide a perspective I have not thought of before.

    On the other hand, I know atheist arguments forwards and backwards, and they never manage to surprise me.
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,897
    Lucky you. I mean it. Because I've yet to see any new argument or perspective from that quarter in any of the threads I've participated in over the years.

    That would be, possibly, because we never seem to get a straight answer (in a large number of cases I should say "any answer at all") to our questions.
     
  15. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    Interesting : New Atheism, Very interesting indeed! Yeah "The God Delusion"
    Sounding like a religion to Me. I think the page said " Belief there is no god and any one that thinks there is is delusional. Yep! The key phrase here is " Belief "
    You found your group Man . I am proud of you for finding your beliefs. I have an extra extra delusional believe. M.G. if you know what I mean . They tried to tell Me I was just selfish on the psycho thread. No it is the God Delusion extra strength.
     
  16. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    I would correct this assumption.
    Most people don't have much background in science.

    Other opinions:
    .......................................................................Albert Einstein

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,745
    There is no conflict between atheism and science. The lack of knowledge about the big bang does not conflict with thinking there is no God, in fact the big bang points to a universe of limited size and complexity but tremendous heat where no complex thinking structure could exist.
     
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,897
    What's your point?

    Because you haven't thought about it?

    What "page"? What are you talking about?

    Group? What "group" would that be? I'm not a musician.

    And you appear to think you know what my beliefs are.

    Extraneous waffle.
     
  19. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112

    Sounds nice and all, but end's up being nothing of any substance.
    The thing is, do you take what he says as fact, or not?

    jan.
     
  20. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    What is beyond the universe? More Universes? I like to think of more bubbles. Each bubble is a universe. All the bubble universes make up another form of structure and in that structure is the dictation of the movements in our little bubble universe. This dictation is The Creator form to our universe. To this bigger structure the movements in our little universe is predetermined for the scale difference would be like you watching something in a microscope. Were as it looks like from this observation every thing follows the same path every time the event is observed . The same out come in all the bubbles of similarity . Like if the structure was comparable to a liver . All the cells ( Universes) would act equivalent to each other by having the same code
     
  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Dare I suggest that your attitude plays a part in this?

    I have found that being friendly to people often leads to them opening up and one can learn many interesting things from them.


    I find that atheists are often passive, and what is sometimes called "reactive" in psychology. That is, they tend to wait for the theists to assert something, and then they oppose it; instead of being proactive and making the first move.
     
  22. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,745
    Is that science or merely speculation? I thought we were talking about whether science conflicts with atheism.
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,897
    Of course that's simply your (largely uniformed) opinion.
    What, specifically, leads you to the conclusion that it's "nothing of any substance". What do you have as refutation? Anything? At all?

    It depends what you mean by "take it as a fact".
    As an explanation of what is actually the case?
    Or as a possible explanation for what is actually the case?
    Or simply a possible explanation of what could be the case?
    You'll have to be more specific.

    What do you mean by "beyond the universe"?

    Why do you like to think this?

    That's a supposition.

    More extraneous waffle.
     

Share This Page