Dawkins, Scientific Atheism is a Fallacy & Intellectually Dishonest?

No, the sun is not 5 light years away, nor is anything in its orbit.

That's the point. Of course you don't know. The proposition is unfalsifiable.

In principle with some sort of technology in the very distance future, maybe. But it is not provable with modern science which is all we have. And the problem isn't whether or not it is provable. The problem is that, if the teapot isn't there, there is no way to disprove it, putting it in the same bucket as God.

I understand the difference, it is just that the difference is completely irrelevant to this discussion. If you don't understand that, you are likewise not alone.

No, you don't. All you have is the argument we've already proven fallacious with the teapot counterexample.

 

What if I told you that the dragon telepathically talks to me and told me that he is God? Would you pray with me to Draconis Rex, king of the dragons?

 

Do you believe in said invisible dragon? I'm not asking whether or not you know. I'm asking if you believe in him.

 

Dawkin's uses the same teapot analogy and it has the same two problems; 1) If there were a teapot out there then how did it get there? and 2) apples to oranges since there's a difference between discussing what happens within the Natural Universe and what, if anything, happens outside of it. Although there is a multiverse theory, there's no proof they exist nor that the same rules that apply to our Universe would apply to them.

 

Answer the unicorn question.

 

Well I think that ends your credibility. Can't deny unicorns exist. Can't deny the Flying Sphaghetti Monster. Can't deny the alien spaceship circling earth. Can't deny the Easter Bunny. And of course can't deny you are a moron since there is no proof either way.

Or perhaps your inability to deny the obviously false is actually proof.

 

While I find your fantasies about unicorns interesting, they are also slightly disturbing to hear from a grown man. Still, if you want to believe in unicorns, I won't stop you nor can I prove they haven't or don't exist.

 

LOL I answered 2 difference questions in the same sentence

But there is no way to know its not there if you cant measure it.

I would say I dont know.

I would say I dont know.

 

That wasn't the question. Why does answering such a simple question scare you so much?

 

Your fantasies are amusing. Please continue.

Most others here, at least those who give a damn, know I've already answered similar questions throughout this thread. Your little foot-stomping act is a great side show.

 

No, you really didn't. You've avoided the questions.

That's. The. Point.

I didn't ask if you know. I asked if you believe.

"Kokomojojo believes in the invisible dragon." Is this statement true or false?

 

Hardly it begins mine ends yours, because you are busted for trying to force me to tell a falsehood.

I neither affirm nor deny

I neither affirm nor deny

I neither affirm nor deny

There is nothing obvious in something you have not proven.

Technically I am correct and all you have proven here is that you are willing to cheat and stack the deck to try and get me to tell a falsehood.

Oh now this one is different! Of course I have to deny this, I would be lying if I didnt, after all I just busted you and your attempted entrapment, which is the proof.

 

No its not the point, a tea pot is a material object, I can hit it with the hammer, your attempted point fails

your statement is malframed, there are 3 choices, you tried to limit me to 2 both of which yield an incorrect answer.

 

The OP is yet another obvious burden of proof fallacy.

Of course theists have to respond with "if you are so sure god doesn't exist, prove it", because they are completely and utterly incapable of proving the opposite.

Two sides incapable of accepting the other and neither equipped with anything remotely effective in converting the other. What's left? Sophistry, fallacy, misdirection, dismissal and insult. Substantive and meaningful intercourse be damned.

 

In a nutshell, evidence would change my mind.

 

Why then would anyone expect science to prove anything about god?

I don't understand the first paragraph.

What do you mean by "science adherents"?

A non falsifiable hypothesis would lead to certainty, not to "unknowable". Maybe you don't understand what "falsifiability" means.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability

Existence or lack of gods is irrelevant for the purpose of establishing if a knowledge base is incomplete.

A very simple example is weather. If I ask you how's the weather in this moment at specific coordinates on Mars, you won't be able to answer me. Your knowledge base is incomplete, regardless of the existence or lack of gods.

Are you saying that anyone who can come up with the correct answer to 2+2 is an authority on mathematics?

You contradict yourself several times here. First you say that theology, not science, deals with gods and supernatural. Then you say that science can analyze gods (I didn't say that, by the way - I said science can analyze religious texts). Then you say again that science is the wrong tool for the task.

This was not the point of the article you posted. The author asks scientists, not atheists, to prove god doesn't exist.

The inability of the believers to prove god exists - or to even agree on crucial points regarding theological matters - reveals the weaknesses of their position. They ask atheists to prove god doesn't exists because they're incapable of proving god exists. Their incapability is in itself proof that god does not exist.

 

1) If there were a god out there then how did it get there? (see how it works?) and 2) Russell's teapot is about burden of proof. If you want to bring up multiverses and what not, that's fine, but you then have to prove such things exist.

 

If yes has to prove it, why does no have to prove it? If yes can't prove it, then the answer is automatically no.

What if I say "you committed murder"?

So even if I cannot prove that statement, then you still have to disprove it? I would hate to be in a court system that thought like that.

 

1) One is inside the Universe, the other is external to it.
2) Theorizing multiverses is fine, but in science, yes, there is the burden of evidence. In faith, not so much. Don't want to believe? Then don't. Want to believe that there is nothing out there, that the Singularity came from nothing and that when you're dead, you're dead? That's a matter of faith because there is no way to prove any of it.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

I often feel the issue would come down to who is willing to accept evidence. If Atheistic Naturalists refused to accept objective, solid evidence they are incorrect, than they would be seen as irrationally in denial. The same could be said of Theists if objective evidence revealed that they were incorrect. Part of the problem is also the methods of thought are not "synchronized". Atheists require evidence to be convinced by what Theists claim. For Theists, evidence is nearly, if not in some cases absolutely, irrelevant.

 

No, but absence of evidence is good reason not to accept the assertion.

 

In don't know how "your" people think and what they say in your world. I'm not a member of the English speaking world. The physicist (and in this case also atheist) Richard Feynman for example said the same about mathematics: Mathematics is not a science. Mathematics is independent from physics - but physics depends on mathematics. Sometimes I call mathematics the spirituality of physics. For sure without the logos of mathematics could not exist any civilization. Could nature exist without mathematics? Also not, I guess. But is the mathematical structure we use in mathematics for physics the same mathematics as the nature itself is using?

 

This is wrong. It's only a lack of instruments not to be able to say "a teapot orbits not around the sun between Earth and Mars". But it is a completely other thing to say "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their not orbiting teapot with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Or with other words: Members of lots of religions ask themselves sometimes why the new modern states prefer the belief atheism and/or make the belief atheism to a state doctrine or state religion.