Dawkins, Scientific Atheism is a Fallacy & Intellectually Dishonest?

Sure it is. But what has this to do with anything? More interesting are real dragons. If you like to get some information about dragons then learn Bavarian and visit Furth im Wald. Since longer than 1590 AD we play here a kind of drama where an actor in a leading role is an evil dragon. Perhaps we can make him invisible and send him in an orbit. But why to do so? We love this evil desperado since more than 400 years.

 

Correct. OTOH, it's not a good reason to say "it doesn't exist". When it comes to scientific matters, if something can't be proven to exist, that doesn't "automatically" mean it doesn't. Higgs-Boson is one example. When it comes to spiritual matters, the only logical position is agnosticism; admitting it can't be proven to exist or not.

 

Great quote! Is this a Max original? I like it!

 

Which burden of prove? Everyone knows that fantasy is existing. Russel calls the believe in god a fantasy - but he - and no one else too - is able to say the belief in atheism is not a fantasy too. We don't know. No one in the whole world knows this - except he had found a new way how we are able to think. It's nonsense to say "Because we don't know, I am right. Prove that you are right, then I will agree not to be right." Mr. Russel knows not more or less than anyone else in the world in context of the question what science (philosophy) is able to say about the knowledge of the existence of god.

 

Me? Heck no! I just read a lot. An astronomer, Martin Rees, used it first (I think) and Carl Sagan repeated it in one of his books.

 

Sure, if there is 'evidence', it would tilt the scale one way or the other. But that is the problem.. there is no 'evidence' that is conclusive or empirical, for or against the existence of God. Many theists use the argument of our own existence, the complexity of life, the vastness & scope of the universe, & the amazing mystery of life as 'evidence' of Something More, or a Creative Force. That is mostly circumstantial evidence, that since we are here, there had to be a Cause for it.

Naturalists, OTOH, have the same circumstantial evidence, just viewed through a different prism. 'No God has revealed Himself', therefore the concept of a Creative Power is a fantasy. The universe must only be explained by natural processes.' They have no experience with any supernatural realm, & conclude it to be a human construct.

I disagree with the claim that theists require no evidence, & that atheists are somehow more skeptical or critically minded than theists. I will accept this only in specific individuals, not as a broad brush reality. And, i see many atheists as dogmatic (or more) than any theist. So intolerance, or indoctrination, or religious zeal for a belief cuts across the entire human belief spectrum. No one ideology has a monopoly on bigotry.

That is the phony narrative, IMO, that is perpetuated by the atheists themselves. 'We only believe in Absolute Science. Theists will believe anything, & are superstitious & gullible.'

That is just a caricature of theistic belief. I would say that MOST theists have very good reasons for their beliefs.. at least as much as MOST atheists. Atheism is not some Higher Plane of existence, where deeper insight of the mysteries of the universe takes place. No, they are human beings, with the same biases, psychological hangups, delusions, & indoctrination as any other humans. It is only pretense & arrogance for some to presume this caricature, based only on their own narratives.

So, if there is smoking gun evidence, i'm sure it would help 'persuade' one view over another. IF..... you have incontrovertible proof that the universe, life, & everything can be explained by natural processes, that would go a long way toward persuading someone that everything can be explained naturally.

But we cannot even create a simple one-celled organism, with any natural process. We do not know the 'spark' of life, or HOW it began. It remains a cosmic mystery, with only 'theories' or beliefs given as explanations. So to posit naturalism is a belief. So is a Creator. Nobody was there, we cannot replicate any scientific process to do it, & have only the existing reality of life & a hostile, expanding universe as 'evidence'.

 

no message

 

No question.

 

It is ironic, that the roots of human freedom, as expressed in the Enlightenment & expressed in the American Experiment, have a basis in Natural Law, a Creator, & inherent rights. Liberty has come to us through enlightened theism, not atheism. The marxist/darwinist views have brought oppression, despotism, & genocide. So the phony narrative that 'religions have caused all the evils in the world!' is just another phony caricature, perpetuated by deceptive atheists, to manipulate people for their political agenda. Atheist based political ideologies have been the source of MOST human oppression, genocide, & brutality for the last couple of centuries, so they have no stellar track record to boast of.

IMO, that 'argument' is just a smear, to pretend to take a philosophical high road, when the actual road is the same one. Speculating about 'Beliefs!' for origins & other mysteries of life are just that: speculations. It is only religious bigotry, to pretend one is 'Absolute Scientific Truth!' while the other is 'Ignorant Superstition!' That is what all competing religions do, & atheism is no exception. It is another 'proof' to me, of the religious nature of modern atheism.

The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. ~Eric Hoffer

 

Yet.

You are correct, of course, and we may never do so. We may never find life outside of Earth life. OTOH, IF we do, what does that mean for the concept that there is an existence beyond mortality? That there is a power beyond the Universe itself?

 

Or, what if we 'discover' an alternate, spiritual dimension? What if we find a way to objectively 'see' a supernatural reality? Would it then just become a 'natural' explanation? Would not 'science' be able to use its tools of inquiry to examine this dimension, should it be found?

Conjecture works both ways, & possibilities abound. But if we are to claim the mantle of empiricism, we can only deal with what is known, not what 'might be!'

Maybe there is life beyond earth.. maybe not. I don't know. I'm not sure what it would mean, either way. Would that 'prove' the naturalistic belief system? I don't see how. I do not see a Creative Power being limited to our circle of awareness.. especially if we attribute omniscience, omnipresence, infinite, eternal, etc to this Power. If He had millions of other dimensions or planets spinning away in our universe or another, how would that affect our reality?

I don't see how we can conclude anything about our eternal existence, from the possibility of life on other planets, or other dimensions. It is a possibility, sure, but the existence of alien life would not seem to affect our own eternal souls, if we have them.

I also don't see how a discovery of alien life could make us conclude EITHER atheism or theism. If some unknown, natural processes 'created' us & our world, why not others? That merely assumes the same natural processes are functioning the same throughout the universe.. which we also cannot assume.

 

and conclusive is part of empirical assessment, people get to a point of short hand because everyone twists and turns throughout these arguments pushing personal agendas rather than seeking honest answers.

Rights theists look at the massive well ordered balanced universe.

Interestingly atheists are not interested in circumstantial evidence and dismiss it entirely, despite the fact we find people guilty and hang them using circumstantial evidence.

 

and theres the rub!

 

Since the crux of this thread is science and the burden of proof, faith is not a factor.

 

So you believe it is possible that invisible dragons exist?

 

Is not believing in the Loch Ness monster a fantasy? Is not believing in magical unicorns a fantasy? How about not believing in Zeus, Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

Except in the case of the Higgs-Boson, they did prove it was real.

 

Yes - the Loch Ness monster is a fantasy.

Yes and No. Unicorns are somehow also a messenger between the transcendent world and our world here. No one is allowed to kill any life in a forest where a unicorn lives. Should we wish everywhere should live a unicorn? I heard by the way an angry unicorn has two horns.

Because Christians never believed in Zeus or Odin they were once called "atheists". Because Christians don't believe in our days in Flying Spaghetti Teapots they are called a-atheists.

From my point of view you try just simple to justify your stereotypes and prejudices. You did not try to think on your own. What about this question: "Is believing in the absence or not-existence of god not only a negative form of fantasy too"?

 

Oh you mean rational assessment of facts in evidence would actually change your mind. What a novel concept to so many around here.

 

I said yet "Sure it is" [possible for an invisible dragon to be orbiting around the sun].

 

So you believe in the Loch Ness monster?

Why yes and no to magical unicorns. Do you believe in one but not the other?

What does being Christian have to do with not believing being a fantasy?

What stereotypes and prejudices am I trying to justify? Also, you have no idea what I think and as for your question, the grammar used in it is making it hard to understand exactly what you are asking.

 

Despite the fact that dragons have not been shown to exist, science has shown that a living creature like a dragon could not exist in a vacuum (plus, what would it eat or drink in orbit) and invisibility has not been observed in a single organism on Earth?

 

What means the longest time scientists knew something about quantum mechanics they "only" had believed in the existence of the Higgs boson. Now suddenly it is a reality.

 

I said "The Loch Ness monster is a fantasy". So what do you ask here?

No. I explained what I spoke about.

Do you read what other people say?

It's difficult to combine the English language with philosophy.

 

What a nonsense. Again: Do you read anything what someone else says?