Logic vs. Facts...

[WingedFoe]

isn't it science proves?? science give facts??? and that make an atheist(my opinion coz i don't know how to be an atheist). and much more.., isn't it atheist only accept facts proved by science???

All one needs to be considered "atheist" is to not believe in god(s).

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

you don't need to 'only believe in facts proved by science' to be an atheist. becoming atheist may arise from the simple question "if everything requires a creator, who created god?"

[Violet]

@SAE -
"Science has nothing to do with a things status as an atheist..."
isn't it science proves?? science give facts??? and that make an atheist(my opinion coz i don't know how to be an atheist). and much more.., isn't it atheist only accept facts proved by science???

Think about it this way:

Theism is the belief in a god (or gods). Atheism is no belief in a god (or gods). Therefore: anything that does not have a belief in a god (or gods) is an atheist, by definition. What this means... is that every rock, tree, left ankle, toy soldier, and planet is an atheist. Scientific knowledge is utterly irrelevant (except perhaps if it is directly responsible for changing a belief in a god or gods into a lack of one).

"This is true. One easy example: have you ever been high? I hear it feels downright religiously insane "
soo... we can conclude that our experience shall not be cited as reference for an argument right??

That would be wise. However, I meant to suggest only the subjective nature of existence

"??? What are you saying?"

I am sorry i meant "he gives me much logic than facts..."

Did you perhaps mean "He gives me more logical reasons why he does not believe than he does facts", or something similar? I think that more context regarding the issue should be helpful

Philosophy is a branch of science, isn't it??

Again... it is only so if you have defined both so as to make it true. It is not necessarily a science under some definitions... whereas under other is utterly different... whereas in others it is necessarily a science. Of course... there may also be one where it is defined as a cannibal chicken and a flaming sword respectively

sooo..., which is much better to deal with...

facts?? or logic???

That depends on what you mean by 'deal with', and from then in which context?

---

T.T no one understands me....

I do understand you to an extent... but then I am sometimes called 'no one'

Your english can be a little difficult at times, but I can usually pull through what you mean (or at least a legible sentence from what you write) ^_^

---

you don't need to 'only believe in facts proved by science' to be an atheist. becoming atheist may arise from the simple question "if everything requires a creator, who created god?"

Or even from a lack of questions. Anything that does not hold a belief in a god (or gods) is necessarily an atheist by the definition that an atheist is a lack of a belief in a god or gods

[tackattack]

I would disagree with "Science and religion are incompatible " padriac. Blind faith is the rejection of evidence in opposition to religious dogma. I think science excludes religion because of their lack of objective evidence. Religion doesn't exclude science though.

[Purple Rabbit]

I would disagree with "Science and religion are incompatible " padriac. Blind faith is the rejection of evidence in opposition to religious dogma. I think science excludes religion because of their lack of objective evidence. Religion doesn't exclude science though.

That some of the religious do not exclude science does not mean that science and religion are compatible in terms of consistency of the findings resulting from it.

Also in every belief, even the belief in science, there are blind spots, things we do not know for a fact. The difference between science and religious faith however is that science acknowledges the blind spots and tries to overcome these withinquiry and empirical rigour, whereas reigion fills the blind spots with dogma or treats 'm like no go areas at best.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I would disagree with "Science and religion are incompatible " Padriac.

Ah Tacky,nothing if not consistent.


What I said was 'essentially'. That religion has always rejected science when it contradicts dogma proves my point.

Religion is built on dogma and absolutes, both of which are antithetical to science. Religious faith is belief without evidence,also antithetical to science.


I guess we need to agree to differ,once again.

[KichigaiNeko]

Random thought though....

Human NEED to "believe" in something. Recent discussions with an ill relative has revealed the "faith" they have in 'Medical Science' it is very worrying

[tackattack]

---

I would disagree with "Science and religion are incompatible " padriac. Blind faith is the rejection of evidence in opposition to religious dogma. I think science excludes religion because of their lack of objective evidence. Religion doesn't exclude science though.

That some of the religious do not exclude science does not mean that science and religion are compatible in terms of consistency of the findings resulting from it.

Also in every belief, even the belief in science, there are blind spots, things we do not know for a fact. The difference between science and religious faith however is that science acknowledges the blind spots and tries to overcome these withinquiry and empirical rigour, whereas reigion fills the blind spots with dogma or treats 'm like no go areas at best.

---

reverence does not equal don't question,as much as you make it out to be. I completely consent that historically and for the majority of monotheistic and polytheistic the "blind spots" are glossed over and ignored.
Consistency in findings .. I call bs. Sure using scientific and materially relatively objective evidence to provide consitency in reality provides consistency for a materialistic view. That some see more to life than the material and use the same logical and relatively objective evidence to provide consistency for spiriual truths just says science is more usefull and practical in the physical aspects of this universe not consistent.

---

I would disagree with "Science and religion are incompatible " Padriac.

Ah Tacky,nothing if not consistent.


What I said was 'essentially'. That religion has always rejected science when it contradicts dogma proves my point.

Religion is built on dogma and absolutes, both of which are antithetical to science. Religious faith is belief without evidence,also antithetical to science.


I guess we need to agree to differ,once again.

---

Sorry I couldn't be more spontaneous for you padriac. Purple cream custard filled jelly beans!
Very true you did say essentially, so I apologise. Religion is based off of absolutes which is opposite to science. Although science, especially mathmatics define a workable abolute for practicality sake (like 0, infinity, etc.)

[Ace Otana]

isn't it science proves?? science give facts??? and that make an atheist(my opinion coz i don't know how to be an atheist).

Science has nothing to do with atheism. An atheist is simply one who lacks belief in the existance of a god or gods. Atheism is just lack of belief in god, it's nothing more than that. So science, morality, evolution, right or wrong, big bang theory ect, ect has absalutly nothing to do with atheism.

There is no "don't know how to be an atheist". If you believe in god, then you are a theist and if you don't, then you are an atheist. Simple.
Atheism is about one thing and one thing only, lack of belief in god. That's it.
How people can fail to understand or confuse it with something else puzzles me.

[Caecilian]

Science is about building explanatory models of the phenomena that we encounter in the world.

Religion is a projection of human meanings and societal constructs into the non-human world. Thus christians believe that the universe has teleology, and is presided over by a father. Whereas in reality, teleology and fatherhood are human categories.

Science and religion don't necessarily conflict, but frequently do. The problem is when theists use religion to explain things. Religious explanations then actually or potentially conflict with scientific explanations. Otoh, there are theists like fr0d0 (type-f) who actively reject the idea that 'god' should have explanatory power. Not only does type-f theism not conflict with science, it can't conflict with science, since it doesn't overlap with science in any way.