Why Science and religious faith are in conflict.

[RoadRunner79]

I do believe there is evidence.... do you think the things testified to in the Bible if true, would falsify atheism?  

This kind of reminds me of a story I heard the one time. .  An atheist was talking to a preacher, and said that he would believe in God, if this chair, suddenly flew through the air, smashed against the wall, and spelled out "God". Just then the chair did exactly as he described. Astounded, the atheist went to tell a fellow atheist what they had seen.  As they where telling the story, a chair suddenly flew up, and smashed against the wall, doing the same thing again.  With much excitement, the two went to a third atheist; as they where telling of what occurred, the same thing happened again.  However the third atheist wasn't impressed, and said, that's just what chairs do!

But I was really commenting on the evidence either way, but more to the idea, that you can't have your cake and eat it too.  I was discussing with a person once, who demanded that God was unfalsifiable, and then proceeded to tell me why it was false

Your story is a perfect example of how mythology made its way into the Bible; someone told a story, who told a story, and then told it to someone else, etc.  Over time the story grew and changed, before, eventually, being written down, but even after that, the story got changed further as it was copied from one person to the next until the copies became numerous enough that it was no longer "fashionable" to change the story any further.  And, so, the story became a "fact" for some while still being a myth for others.

And based on what evidence or reason, do you base any of that on? If there isn't anything specific, then couldn't you deny anything with that reasoning? We don't see any evidence of these many copies becoming one ( at least not that I am aware of).

Also, don't you think that would falsify the religion of Christianity?

---

That doesn't make religion any more in conflict with science, then any other non-scientific epistemology.   Being outside of the category of science, does not  a conflict make.  
Also, I don't think, that you can say that atheism is falsifiable, while theism is not.   And the example of instantaneous healing of an amputee, wouldn't falsify atheism.  Atheism is after all, only means a lack of belief in Gods.   One can be an atheist, and believe in a sudden re-growing of limbs (although it may provide difficulty for a materialist.  Also, I think that your main tenet (being unjustifiable)  would make the claim of evidence of absence difficult.  You need to pick one, and go with that.   Together they are incoherent!

It would be very hard to justify physicalism, which is the basis at least for my atheism, if an adult amputee regrew his/her lost limb.  I suppose that everyone is different, though.  But, yes, I think that atheism, unlike theism, is falsifiable.  If an omnipotent God truly existed, then such a Being would know what evidence it would take to convince each of us, no?

Would you agree, that you need to be making a claim, in order for it to be falsifiable?