What are the conflicts between atheism and science?

[Dywyddyr]

Dare I suggest that your attitude plays a part in this?

I don't know. Dare you?
Would my "attitude" (and I will point out AGAIN that perceptions of "my attitude" tend to be largely misperceptions. But never mind...) explain why the lack of originality in arguments appears regardless who is being replied to?

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.

Would this be because theists make the claims? And that atheists then query the foundations for those claims?
How does one question a belief or statement until that belief has been expressed or the statement put forth?

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

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.

That Wikipedia page you posted that talked about The four horse Men that wrote the books about Atheism . Four books that define the new "and if you feel better about it we will call" ((( Non Religion, Religion))). It said in the article. A belief there is no God and the key phrase is Belief! and that makes it a belief system in it's self. Your group is "Atheists " Plain and simple . You seem to devote a good part of your life selling this belief. If you ever want to join my group " The Musicians " you can buddy. Just go down to the local music store and buy any old musical instrument and start playing that sucker with all the soul you can muster out of your self. Find the groove and blamo rock and roll hour time . It will release a lot of stress and you might experience some joy from it too. Shake your body down now !! bump! bump ! Shake your body down now !! bump! Bump! Get down

 

[Jan Ardena]

Where is the evidence that suggests things upped and formed themselves?

jan.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

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?

All books are holy. There books for Gods sake

 

[spidergoat]

Where is the evidence that suggests things upped and formed themselves?

jan.

The balance between matter/energy and gravitational potential energy means that no external inputs of energy were required for the big bang. Thus, the universe formed itself. Also, evolution confirms the species formed themselves, and theories of abiogenesis seems to indicate that life formed itself from the particular conditions of the early earth.

I should also point out that you believe God is the answer to spontaneous generation, but where did God come from? If God is eternal, then a universe without God could also be eternal.

 

[wynn]

I don't know. Dare you?
Would my "attitude" (and I will point out AGAIN that perceptions of "my attitude" tend to be largely misperceptions. But never mind...) explain why the lack of originality in arguments appears regardless who is being replied to?

This is not my experience, though. Sure, there are theists who are like a broken record. But there are others who are like an endless shopping mall.

And I dare say I can be a bit friendlier than you.

Would this be because theists make the claims? And that atheists then query the foundations for those claims?
How does one question a belief or statement until that belief has been expressed or the statement put forth?

Sure. But this is rather passive, don't you think?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Where is the evidence that suggests things upped and formed themselves?

Who is that addressed to?

All books are holy. There books for Gods sake

That's untrue. Some books are complete drivel.

 

[Dywyddyr]

This is not my experience, though. Sure, there are theists who are like a broken record. But there are others who are like an endless shopping mall.

I look forward to encountering them.

And I dare say I can be a bit friendlier than you.

Possibly.
I couldn't say.
I'll concede the point if it matters.
I have also been accused of being friendly, though. Just for your information. I'm quite well known in my home town for being "Mr Reliably Nice Guy".

Sure. But this is rather passive, don't you think?

Since atheists tend not to think about god one way or the other - correction, since I tend not to... etc (don't want to speak for other atheists since I'm not them) - it's not a topic that raises its head. Therefore, when I come to SciForums I ask questions in response to the statements/ claims made.

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

The balance between matter/energy and gravitational potential energy means that no external inputs of energy were required for the big bang.

So how did they come into being, and from what??
Genuine enquiry.

Also, evolution confirms the species formed themselves, and theories of abiogenesis seems to indicate that life formed itself from the particular conditions of the early earth.

How does evolution confirm this?

I should also point out that you believe God is the answer to spontaneous generation, but where did God come from? If God is eternal, then a universe without God could also be eternal.

At least we're into the concept of "eternal".
It's a start.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Who is that addressed to?

you.

jan.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Is that science or merely speculation? I thought we were talking about whether science conflicts with atheism.

It is based in science some what. That Asian guy that is on the discovery channel talked about it. It is something I had speculated on as a child but my teacher at the time said No it could never be like that, but now scientist are starting to prove it is possible . So for me it is speculation , but for a few scientist ( I don't know there names and it is hear say from that Yama Guchy guy on T.V. ) it is more than speculation, but the debate rages on. The thing that triggered my response is an "Intelligence could not exist under the heat and pressure" and my point is if it was in the next size up from our denominational space and time it could very well exist, for in that space and time the heat from our bubble universe could be comparable to the warmth of the human body. I am sure a good mathematician could reason out the conversion . That is if there is a difference. It sure seems like it should to me . Time would play a big factor as the time dilation difference would be massive in it's self.

 

[spidergoat]

The balance between matter/energy and gravitational potential energy means that no external inputs of energy were required for the big bang.

So how did they come into being, and from what??
Genuine enquiry.

The how is still a mystery, but the "from" is from the quantum vacuum, or nothingness.

Also, evolution confirms the species formed themselves, and theories of abiogenesis seems to indicate that life formed itself from the particular conditions of the early earth.
”

How does evolution confirm this?

It's axiomatic, evolution is true, and the details explain how species form themselves.

I should also point out that you believe God is the answer to spontaneous generation, but where did God come from? If God is eternal, then a universe without God could also be eternal.

At least we're into the concept of "eternal".
It's a start.

Patronize much? The concept is not foreign to science.

 

[Dywyddyr]

you.

Oh okay.
You asked:

Where is the evidence that suggests things upped and formed themselves?

Who claimed that they did?
What, exactly, do you mean by "upped and formed themselves"?
Those apply if Spidergoat's post didn't answer what you were really asking.

And please answer my prior questions:

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.

 

[spidergoat]

It is based in science some what. That Asian guy that is on the discovery channel talked about it. It is something I had speculated on as a child but my teacher at the time said No it could never be like that, but now scientist are starting to prove it is possible . So for me it is speculation , but for a few scientist ( I don't know there names and it is hear say from that Yama Guchy guy on T.V. ) it is more than speculation, but the debate rages on. The thing that triggered my response is an "Intelligence could not exist under the heat and pressure" and my point is if it was in the next size up from our denominational space and time it could very well exist, for in that space and time the heat from our bubble universe could be comparable to the warmth of the human body. I am sure a good mathematician could reason out the conversion . That is if there is a difference. It sure seems like it should to me . Time would play a big factor as the time dilation difference would be massive in it's self.

The idea of the multiverse is a good argument against a God, since it removes the argument for God that says the universe is fine-tuned for life. If there can be a multiverse, each universe could have different physical laws, and we just happened to arise in the one that could support life.

Also, if God is outside of time and space like this, then he sees the entirety of creation as a whole in an instant, which implies that everything is already pre-determined, which begs the question what is there for him to do? And what is there for us to do in relation to him?

 

[Dywyddyr]

That Wikipedia page you posted that talked about The four horse Men that wrote the books about Atheism

I think you have me confused with another poster. I don't recall, and can't find, a link that I gave with regard to that.

Your group is "Atheists " Plain and simple

Wrong. Quite simply, wrong.

You seem to devote a good part of your life selling this belief.

Also wrong. On at least two counts.

 

[wynn]

Since atheists tend not to think about god one way or the other - correction, since I tend not to... etc (don't want to speak for other atheists since I'm not them) - it's not a topic that raises its head. Therefore, when I come to SciForums I ask questions in response to the statements/ claims made.

Sure. I'd like to see the atheists becoming more creative and proactive, though.

I mean, if they go so far as to identify themselves as something particular, in this case, as "atheists", then they should have more to show for that identity than just being "those who get reactive or defensive when theistic topics are brought up".

Looks like I will have to lead!

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Who is that addressed to?


That's untrue. Some books are complete drivel.

Only from perception, for in the dribble there are assertions that could be true or false and in this true or falseness there is information. The knowledge that it is dribble or the knowledge that it is true It challenges the observer of the writings to discern for them selves things to reject or except. If it is truly absurdity and the observer recognizes it as so the book still has value. For it challenged the reader to think critically and make a decision about what was said in the book. So in the end what might be dribble to you , where as you are pursuing specific goal orientations pertaining to your personal life. It might be just what the doctor ordered for someone other than your self pursuit of happiness. I hold true to the belief Humans as a whole live in delusional states . Every one has there own delusions to live with. It is the way the dream state of the human brain has evolved. Don't you feel it man. Is it just Me? One foot in front of the other moving along in a friggen dream like condition. Coffee helps though

 

[Dywyddyr]

Only from perception, for in the dribble there are assertions that could be true or false and in this true or falseness there is information.

If something is patently and demonstrably false what need is there for it?

If it is truly absurdity and the observer recognizes it as so the book still has value. For it challenged the reader to think critically and make a decision about what was said in the book.

And if the book is so wrong that it doesn't require "critical thinking"?

where as you are pursuing specific goal orientations pertaining to your personal life.

False assumption.

Is it just Me?

I hope so. The alternative is nearly too dreadful to contemplate.

Coffee helps though

It depends on whether you're drinking it or just snorting the grounds.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Sure. I'd like to see the atheists becoming more creative and proactive, though.

Like Dawkins?
Go... er Heave.. wait. Barney the Dinosaur forbid.

I mean, if they go so far as to identify themselves as something particular, in this case, as "atheists", then they should have more to show for that identity than just being "those who get reactive or defensive when theistic topics are brought up".

Um, two points:
As far as I'm concerned being atheist isn't "something in particular". It's a stance on a single issue. I'm an "atheist" as far as stamp collecting is concerned and, especially, football (soccer).
But no one (generally) tries to promote stamp collecting (I won't speak about soccer fans!) as a way that "others should subscribe to for the good of... whatever". I've never had stamp collectors knock on my door and tell me if I don't follow their teachings I'll spend eternity in hell. Etc etc.
As for "reactive or defensive" I've already given reasons (excuses?) for the reactive part, and yes some do get defensive. Again because we have been, at various points in our lives, subjected to varying degrees of "harassment".

 

[Dywyddyr]

And you have, so far, failed to either make your point OR respond to post #75.