Strange

Ironically, it is an example of the fallacy of begging the question. Ironic because a common example is: "The Bible is true" "How do you know that?" "Because it is the word of God" "How do you know that?" "It says so in the Bible. So it must be true." And that is a straw man. No one (here) is saying that you have to consider there was, just that you can't prove there wasn't. (So if others think there was, you can't prove them wrong. You can only disagree.)

And that is why you are world famous physicist and I am just some guy on the Internet. Mmmm. Chocolate ...

This is an argument from incredulity (which is entirely appropriate when it comes to matters of faith, unlike science) with post-hoc attempts at rationalisation. That is as silly as someone of faith trying to find objective evidence to support their beliefs. I don't struggle with any of them. They are all entirely irrelevant to me.

Please provide some support for this claim.

This is a purely philosophical question. Does the mathematics of GR describe what is really happening to space-time? If that's what you want to think, yes. Is the mathematics of GR just a useful tool that seems to correspond to some underlying reality, which may be different? If that's what you want to think, yes. Is the mathematics of GR purely a model that works and there is no underlying reality? If that's what you want to think, yes. This is a matter of personal preference. There is no way of telling them apart.

At last. You've got it. You can't answer that. You don't believe it happened. Who cares. But you can't use science to show that your belief is correct. How are you going to scientifically test for divine intervention? How are you going to objectively measure a "soul"? Science has NOTHING to say about that one way or the other. You are confusing your beliefs with science (and mistaking other peoples beliefs for something that science can disprove).

Well, duh. Obviously not through evolution. I struggle to see the logic in your argument. I now finding myself trying to defend something I don't believe in! If [someone believes that] God gave humans a special "thing" then the way humans acquired it was that God gave it to them. (Complicated, I know.) How does an argument about evolution have ANYTHING to do with that? Quite. Nothing to do with evolution, then. So why do you keep trying to drag an irrelevant argument into it. Can science detect a soul? No. So science has nothing to say about it. Did the soul evolve? No. So science has nothing to say about it. As this is not a conversation I am the least bit interested in. We can just leave it there. Sadly, I am not going to be able to have the conversation I was interested in ... Any attempt is always hijacked by a[nti]theists.

You make some very good points. But there are probably details that could be argued about. But it is all totally irrelevant. None of what you say has anything to do with science. Of course evolution says nothing about immortal souls or original sin. They are outside of the scope of science. There is no science that can show that an undetectable entity does not exist. I don't think they claim it has anything to do with evolution. So there is no conflict with evolutionary theory. And you can't use evolution as an argument against it. All you are doing is stating your disagreement with their beliefs and then insisting "because science". But there is no science of souls or sin.

Doesn't seem to have anything to do with science, though. Just more of your tedious preaching.

I agree completely. It seems some people are unable to accept "don't know" as an argument and so will assume an unidentified object is aliens or an unexplained phenomenon must be supernatural. I'm not sure that is unique to religious people. There are a great many people who like science but hold onto a very distorted view of what science says about things. I'm sure there are plenty of non-religious people who think that science has identified Adma and Eve (because of stories about "mitochondrial Eve" etc.)

Please provide some support for this claim.

I think the reason that is brought up is because you appeared not to know anything about it. Which is a bit bizarre for someone claiming to have a theory "beyond the quantum realm". That is irrelevant. While you have no evidence or other support, it is NOT science. And this is a science forum. If you come here with made up stories, with no basis in reality, then you will get a hard time.

There is no scientific theory that describes the creation of the universe. There is speculation from the likes of Hawking, but I am not convinced that is any better (in terms of scientific support) than "goddidit". This may be a US vs rest of the world thing. Religious people who reject science, try to stop evolution being taught, etc. are almost unknown in Europe. (There is a tiny number of such people and they may get occasional press coverage but they have no real impact as far as I am aware.) As for vaccinations I have never heard of any connection between that and religion.

You may be able to prove that to yourself (and other atheists). And I assume you would do that using some sort of logical argument. I don't think you can do it with science. But that isn't really the point of the question.

This. It is almost certainly an example of confirmation bias.

Only if you change the meaning of the word "perpetual motion machine". Which would be silly. And that is even sillier.

I am a bit disappointed (but not at all surprised) by the way this thread went. I was more interested in finding out why some religious people are anti-science than why some atheists are anti-religion. After all, the latter has been expressed, with varying degrees of eloquence, on this and other science forums. It seems much harder to get a clear explanation from religious people who are against science. Anyway, carry on. Back to your entrenched positions. Edit: I'll remove that last whimsical comment after reading the last few posts. There have been some interesting points made.

I disagree. I think the subjunctive / irrealis mode is appropriate here.

I'll go along with that.

As there is no science that says anything either way about "creation", I can't see how there can be a contradiction. Is sin a genetic trait? That is a bizarre belief. Are you saying that people never do bad things because evolution doesn't allow it? As such things are not detectable and there is no evidence they exist, what does evolution have to do with it? But we are talking about science, not whether you or I agree with their beliefs. I don't care if they believe that; science has nothing to say about it and can have nothing to say about it. Unless you think you have a soul detector? But Christians would not accept that. And science can't show them to be that. Plenty of people do. So I guess you just lack imagination or an understanding of human nature. I assume that would be true of any god. Do you know of any experiments that can be done on gods? I assume you are agreeing with me that gods are outside the scope of science.

I don't see that those have to be contradictory. It could have taken millions of years for enough salt to be washed into the oceans for them to reach equilibrium. But maybe they started out salty and it is water on land that is unusual in not being salty (because it is distilled from the oceans).

A computer is a very poor analogue of the brain. Neural networks are perhaps slightly better, but still pretty crude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network

As there are is no science that says anything about what created the big bang (or even if such a thing happened) I don't see how anyone's opinions on that - whether Hawking or the Pope - can be said to contradict science. While I find that doctrine bizarre beyond all belief, I can't see how evolution has any connection to it. Evolution says nothing about morality, sin or other abstract human inventions. It seems to me that you are either reading too much into it, or grasping at straws in your desire to attack people's beliefs. Do you also think that political choices or tastes in music are contradicted by science? I'm sure that they could come up with all sorts of reasons why it couldn't be tested. (It doesn't happen in the presence of measuring instruments. Or it is like the uncertainty principle: it happens to quickly to be detected. Or ...) I'm not sure why anyone would care.

I am not familiar with the Nicene Creed. And I'm not sure I want to try and explain other peoples beliefs (there are plenty of religious scientists who can do that). Perhaps you can give an example of a mainstream religious belief (e.g. not Creationism) that contradicts science. The Roman Catholic church, for example, has made explicit statements that it accepts modern science and they are consistent with its faith. If one of the more conservative religions is able to say that, who am I to disagree. Do you also think that political choices or tastes in music are contradicted by science?

I guess, the title should be made more general: "why do some religious people and some atheists [anti-theists] invent a conflict between belief and science" Repeating yourself doesn't magically make it true, as you seem to believe. (The power of faith?) I'm sure you can list beliefs that are incompatible with reality/science. And I could list beliefs that are not. That would be pretty pointless, I think.