My point being that "Science backs Atheism" is just as absurd as "Science back Christianity" or "Science backs theism" (My fault for not choosing the correct words the first time)

They are, and should be, different arenas.

That being said, I will trust a scientists words on Quantum Physics long before I will trust a preacher.

God is loosing at nothing, it was done prophesied many years ago that the world would just keep going down hill.

My point being that "Science backs Atheism" is just as absurd as "Science back Christianity" or "Science backs theism"

There will be a time when science will support religions. I don't know how, I am not a prophet. But it will, because what goes up must come down.

We will have to disagree there. The main reason that religion as started to fall is Science. At this point, I don't see it happening that Science starts to agree with religion.

We will have to disagree there. The main reason that religion as started to fall is Science. At this point, I don't see it happening that Science starts to agree with religion.

an argument for another day,,,,but briefly speaking,,,I agree, very few of us know the truth, we accept the truth on faith

for instance, no way for me to KNOW that Franklin 'discovered' electricity because I didnt WITNESS it for myself,,,but through faith in the integrity and honesty of what others have WRITTEN, we generally accept as truth (for instance) that he did. the FACT is that he wrote down information about electricity that he claimed were his own ideas, I have no reason to think this wasnt true, but I dont KNOW it wasnt,, I accept the integrity of the information as truth,,,,,as most people do in their formal education

God made Science and saw that it was good. Science in turn did not disprove God because God is not meassurable not even probabalistically.

“Real world”?

Define “real”.

My belief in the possiblity of a supernatural essence to the universe is no different than a String Theorist's belief in the possiblity that strings exist.

Where you are making a grave error is in thinking that my "beliefs" represent some sort of DOGMA.

The Christians believe in DOGMA. They beleive in Zeus! Well, actually it's Yahweh, but do you see where there is no difference?

In other words, Christians aren't believing in the possible existence of strings they are demanding that strings exist and that they have all the information that describes them in every detail

So there's no comparison between my 'beliefs' and the kind of beliefs that Christians claim to hold.

My 'beliefs', are precisely the same kinds of 'beliefs' that any scientist worth his salt must necesssarily have.

So yes, you're wrong, because if you are comparing my 'beliefs' with those of the Christians, then you clearly do not understand where I'm even coming from.

And this would also be true of most Eastern Mystics. Although some Eastern Mystics to get carried away and claim to know precise details, but that's truly a farce with respect to Eastern Mysticism is it not?

The Tao is that which is unknowable. Spirit is that which is unknowable. Therefore for anyone to claim to have any concrete knowledge of spirit whilst simultaneously claiming to be a "Mystic" is doing nothing other than revealing a completely ignorance of Mysticism.

Mysticism is a belief that life is indeed an unknowable mystery. This is why it's called "Mysticism".

I study Mysticism in the very same way that a String Theorist studies Strings. On the PURE FAITH that the information I have so far can indeed be applied to the concept I'm studying. And it does! There is nothing in all of science that conflicts or denies anything that I believe, and therefore science may very well eventually prove the things I beleive.

My belief in spirit is no different from a string theorist's belief in strings.

If you can't see that, then this is a shortcoming of your comprehension and undersanding of what science does and doesn't know.

If you think that science supports atheism, then you better think again, because it does no such thing.

I would say that Science does not support anything in theism, whether theist or atheist. Science deals in the real word, Theism deals with belief.

“Real world”?

Define “real”.

This has become a very “Real” problem for science in general.

If you define “real’ as only that which can be measured, then you run into all sort of problems. Including problems associated with Quantum Mechanics.

However you don’t even need to get all that technical. All you need to do is speak of love. Can love be measured? If you think it can you’re probably thinking about sexual lust. I’m not speaking about sexual attraction here, I’m speaking about love, compassion, empathy. Can it be measured and physically defined?

If not, then by your definition of “real”, love is not real.

It shouldn’t take an Einstein to see the folly in that one. Even Einstein believed in “god”, albeit a pantheistic view of “god”.

The very idea that the entire world can be reduce to nothing more than the science of physics is truly a very shallow and lame idea, IMHO.

To call that idea “real” whilst dismissing everything else as not being “real” is genuinely to do nothing more than reduce yourself to being a “Brick”.

Doesn't the depend on what religion you're talking about?

When the western scientists discovered Quantum Mechanics, the Eastern Mystics politely bowed their heads and softly said, "Have we not told you so?"

There is nothing in conflict with Eastern Mysticism and Science and there never has been anything in conflict. Not evolution, not the Earth revolving around the sun, not the discovery of the Big Bang, not Quantum Mechanics, not even the possiblity of their being parallel universes or an infinite multiverse. In fact, the Eastern Mystics would just shrug their shoulders to all of that and say, "So?"

There's nothing at all in science that disagrees with Eastern Mysticism in terms of it's fundamental philosophy.

It's only the Christian Bible that is at odds with science. It's the Christians who were up in arms about the Earth not being at the center of the universe. It's the Christians who are upset about the discovery of evolution, etc. It's the Christians who need to have Jesus born of a virgin, and raising from the dead, along with a bunch of dead saints. It's the Christians who need to have a World-wide flood occur at some point while mankind was living on the Earth. It's the Chrisitans who need to have Moses parting the Nile. It's the Christians who need to have Lot's wife turn to a pilar of salt, etc.

Why talk about religion in general when it's actually these very specific mythologies that are in conflict with science?

I'm not even convinced that the Wanka Tanka of the American Indians was in conflict with science. That was more of a pantheistic type philosophy too.

So why pit science against all religions when no such conflict exists?

I don't see where the pantheistic view of religion has 'fallen' at all. It most certainly hasn't 'fallen' in terms of scientific discoveries. In fact, Albert Einstein basically suggested that Buddhism should be adopted by the scientific community.

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." - Albert Einstein

For once, I agree with what you said here, with no reservations.

Knowledge is ultimately faith. Human knowledge.

The problem starts on whom to believe. If you have to choose between two truths, and neither is more true than the other, meaning that neither is absolutely true with no chance of it being wrong, but both could be true but not for sure, then which do you choose to believe?

This is the crux.

The only empirical truth available to man is "cogito ergo sum", that is, I think therefore I am. It's true in every individual's case who can think. The existence of everything else cannot be proven to an individual.

But it's very important to see that "I exist for sure, nothing else can be sure to exist" is not equivalent to "I exist for sure, and nothing else exists, that's for sure."

Other things can still exist. It's a degree of certainty that is the difference, to which an individual can be assured that something exists. That the individual exists, from the the thinking individual's point of view, has a likelihood of 100%, that is, absolute certainty. Does the Sun exist? God? Trees? My wife? I could go around and stick a percentage sign on everything else, outside of my thinking mind, and attach my personal value of certainty to which these things exist. (I might do this one day, after I retire.) I am 100%. Nothing else is 100%.

But it's up to me to decide which "else" has how high a believability to exist. Some people put 99% for the sun, 99% to pain, and 99% to God, truncating the values to the nearest full percentage for the sake of simplicity and of speeding up the discussion.

Most people attach the % value to how convincing they find the idea.

Science has rendered God very likely not to exist. Not by disproving it, but by proving that older explanations to explain phenomena needed God, and newer, scientific explanations don't need god to explain the same phenomenon. Furthermore, science is more of an organized system of belief, it jives more with the logical minds of thinking humans. Religion, Christianity in particular, but all other religions invariably, explained things by saying "God made it this way" or "god wants it this way" or "god only knows why it's this way."

Science's main advantage over the God-gap types of explanations is that it creates predictions that people can depend on. "God made it rain today" will state nothing on whether it would rain the next day. If you have a long way to walk to your field to harvest the wheat, it would help you more to know whether it's worth going out, in case it won't rain, or not worth going out to the field, since it's going to rain all day, and you can't harvest when it's coming down.

This is the single most deadly type of mechanism that makes people to turn away from God. It's not the evil communists, not the evil atheists, not the heathen, not the pagan; it's the fact that we can support our lives and our children's lives more dependably if we listen to the scientists than if we listen to the priests.

People are, among other things, sensitive beings. They don't like being lied to, they don't like being betrayed. If a person INSISTS that God will help him with the harvest, because he believes with a high certainty that God will hold the rain back on harvest day, and his neighbour relies on science's prediction, then the pious is more likely to turn away from God when he sees his own children die of hunger, than the fat science-reliant farmer, who still believes in God (why not?) but used science to fatten his larder, and thus does not feel he's been betrayed. The guy who stuck with God with a strong faith, and his health, wealth and family falls to ruins due to that, IS going to take it personally, and IS more likely to turn his back on religion than the fat farmer.

Hate to break it to you, but love can be measured. It is merely a complex set of chemical reactions. It can be measured, quite acurately(unlike my spelling), too. It can also be induced in a person by adding certain biological chemicals or by applying certain magnetic fields to specific parts of the brain.

Any belief system precludes the ability to see things as they are. Science does not support Mysticism, Eastern or otherwise. And Einstein, though a very great intellect, was not always right.

Hate to break it to you, but you're confusing love with lust or infatuation. Love is not measurable by any physical means. To believe that it is, is to do nothing other than display a compelte ignorance of the very concept.