Dawkins, Scientific Atheism is a Fallacy & Intellectually Dishonest?

This is a rather good psychology article that deserves a looksie and comment since dawkins has become a fad with some followers that idolize him, yet sadly simply appear to blindly accept his philosophy.

what up? So here we have alleged authorities breaking the elementary core tenants of the scientific method.

From a science POV the burden of proof lies with the Dawkins, Hawkings, and Hitchens as part of 'required' scientific method yet they all have violated the very method they purport is the method for their alleged empirical conclusions. Science

It appears these guys are in fact intellectually dishonest, and it also appears they have a vast following that consider them authorities and they are following in the path and course of dishonesty?

 

The scientific paradigm he is using is: "Everything is true - except it is wrong". If we are not able to falsify something then we say normally it is true. So first someone has to falsify the hypothesis of the existence of god before he is able to say "the hypothesis 'God exists' is wrong". In general we know that this hypothesis is currently not provable at all on philosophical reasons (on reason of the instrument what human beings are able to hink and what they are not able to think). We don't know which decision is true and which is wrong - but "Everything is true - as long as it is not [provable] wrong"

The general problem is the creator god. Because god made everything how are you able to find him - except in the existence of everything? "Everything" exists without any doubt but "Why is something at all and not only nothing?" - a questions which came from Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. This is perhaps the best question where we can find something out, what has directly to do with god in the nature all around us. Why made god it this way and not in another way? Such questions could motivate believers in god to do natural science.

 

Science in fact is a specific way in confirm a specific kind of truth. Science can only confirm the kind of truth beyond doubt as long as it repeats itself indefinitely for humans to observe, to experiment, to theorize till its repeating behavior becomes predictable. It will happen in future unlimited number of times for humans to predictably confirm its truth. It can be beyond doubt because it's predicable. It's predictable to an extent that if the prediction itself fails you deserve a Nobel Prize.

Other than the repeating phenomena, "science" is almost futile in determining other kinds of truth to a "beyond doubt" level. Science can't explore into the past to confirm a truth beyond doubt, and science can't go into another space (and time) to confirm a truth, as science is experiment and observation based. We can't go back to history nor future nor another space/time to do repeatable experiments. and observations. Thus nothing can be confirmed in regards of time other than present and space other than our 3D ball!

The capability of science however is overrated due to being brainwashed through the secular education process since childhood (as childhood is the easiest time for brainwash).

 

Science does not declare God is Dead, science does not deal with God at all because there in no data to consider. Every time this concept is brought up it is from a God fearing individual who seems to want God to kill Science. Guess what guys....it wont kill anything because it can't.

Only you can....and that is usually saved for people.

 

The basic problem in the 'debates' over origins is in definitions. Atheistic Naturalism is labeled 'science!', while Intelligent design is labelled 'religion!' And since science is True, and religion is Superstition, they can then declare a logical victory. But it is a hollow one, only by definition. In actual fact, there is no more 'science!' to support the naturalistic belief system, than there is for Intelligent Design.

So the 'debate' such as it is, is handicapped by moving goalposts & doublespeak. There cannot be a comparative, scientific analysis of these 2 most basic beliefs, as the naturalists seize the definitions, & won't allow objective, consistent definitions.

 

They have never violated the scientific method or principle but you have,

None of them has never declared god is dead in fact atheists do not claim god is dead therefore your entire premise is false

 

?? how does your response 'rebut' the part you quote? The snippet you quoted was saying the burden of proof lay with the claimants, yet you address a straw man or caricature, rather than the part you quoted. Does that not provide evidence for the OP?

 

No I did not address that I addressed the heart of what he said which is a falehood.

Not a straw man

 

What is 'the heart of what he said', that you addressed? It was not the snippet you quoted? HOW did you rebut the 'heart' & logically declare it a 'falsehood'?

I'm just trying to follow the reasoning, here.

 

It appears that neither the author nor the OP are familiar with the Dawkins scale or Russell's teapot. Dawkins does not claim God's existence can be disproved or that he is certain that God doesn't exist. Would the author or the OP accept the converse: that no scientist can be a theist because God's existence can't be scientifically proven? Of course not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

 

I did not quote a snippet i quoted the essentially heart of the premise which the foolish op addressed sorry you are wrong.

By pointing out that atheists never claimed god is dead and that snippet as you erroneous called it IS the absolute heart of the stupid premise of the OP

 

Since when and where? I've never encountered this position anywhere in science, philosophy or religion. It is completely absurd, and frankly self-contradictory. If you can't prove that it isn't absurd, then (by the statement's own logic), you have to accept that it is. It would also commit you to believing all sorts of internally-inconsistent things. It would also commit us to the insanity of believing that all things that are not falsifiable in the first place are true.

 

Where did it assert, 'god is dead' in the snippet you quoted? How was that 'the heart'? You did quote a 'snippet'.. you just defined it, now, as 'the heart'. But you still did not apply YOUR response to that snippet/heart content. Your 'rebuttal' seemed a non sequitur to the 'heart' you quoted.

As i said, i am trying to follow the reasoning, in order to make my own rational response or rebuttal. But it seems your reply was to a strawman, not the 'heart' of the OP. You also included a 'tu quoque' fallacy in your reply, rather than address the charge in the OP.

 

No I did not define it as the heart of the OP the OP defined it that way.

It is the entire premise and a falsehood not merely a snippet. Some reading comprehension on your part would be nice.

 

Ok, no need to be insulting. I was asking for a clarification on your post. If you don't want to clarify, no problem. I won't ask you any more questions.

You contradict yourself several times, in the replies, & i was looking for clarification. But i have no desire to head bang, so never mind.

 

I stated no contradictions whatsoever.

I was very clear and you were not trying to find clarification you were trying to state a false premise as is the Op

 

How many threads are you planning to start in order to try to bury the ones you've already failed in?

 

Spinning success as failure is intellectually dishonest which is why you didnt and wont find anything to quote.

 

The problem is that some people do not understand 2 things, title metaphors and the requirement to comprehend the body, or substance of a writing.

For instance you can write a brief for court and title it the wang dang doodle, and though it would make the judge quite unhappy with you, the judge would never the less look to the substance or contents of the brief. The post in question merely looked at the book cover and dramatically pretended it was the same as the contents and meaning of the whole without bothering to read so much as one single word of it. Plonk (as usual)

 

You lack comprehension ofscience as has been proven in your many threads which have massively failed.

You like to pretend otherwise but all the other threads you started on this subjects have been embarrassments for you as you were shredded debunked and owned every time'

And you know that is the truth.

The burden of proof does not lie on Hawkings, Hitchens, Dawkins and others to prove there is NO god. ''This premise is the source of your constant repeated failure.

There is no such standard anywhere in any accurate explanation of the scientific method as you describe.

A nagative by definition cannot be proven and the burden is strictly on those to state that there is a god. Until they do the evidence shows it is myth and nothings more

 

Nah, the Gish Galloping and flooding of threads with word salad by the theists is good evidence that we are being incredibly successful. When you all run out of spam and start posting something resembling an argument and evidence we'll get back to the usual fail.

 

" Really, how can Dawkins claim, as a scientist, that he's an atheist when he hasn't proven that God doesn't exist?"

How can you claim that unicorns don't exist when you haven't proven unicorns don't exist. This kind of ridiculous argument is getting a bit old.

 

Since ever.

What? Every programmer is using the paradigm "Everything is true except it is false", so the user of a program is able to do everything with a program what he likes to do with it. Only in case something is able to go wrong (for example a division by zero) a programmer has to take care. If he would do it the other way then he had to allow continuously the user of the program to do something and everything what he would not allow would be forbidden. The experience is such programs are normally senseless.

What?

Give me an example. I don't understand what you like to say.

 

I guess Mr. Kardaras has never heard of Russell's Teapot.

 

Tea-pot? ... Ah - got it. It is very stupid what Mr. Russel said in this context. A Christian speaks not about the tea-pot - or ¿"spaghetti monster"? - Mr. Russel likes to see. Christians speak about to believe in god. In this context for example Christians believe that god had created everything what's all around - god created the whole universe. What we currently know - we are not creator but creation in this context - is it, that the universe has an age of about 13.8 billion years. Some years ago the truth in science was it was 13.7 billion years old and I heard we started the first approximation a longer time ago (some decades or centuries) with about 6000 years. That's a difference in the quantity but not really a difference in the quality. In case the time started (god had created everything, also "time") then we have the same problem, which had Augustinus about 1700 years ago. He said the question "what was before creation" (in the example of Mr. Russel "the tea-pot") is a senseless question, because there was no "before" "before" time was created. He said the word of god is a time-less word. So there is no tea-pot. A first cause is in general causeless. Or in other words: We are not able to think about the cause of a first cause (=of a first tea-pot). And that's the same problem for atheists and believers in god! Everything what we think in such a context is "belief". But Christians believe in the beginning was "the logos" - so in principle we will be able to understand what's going on. If not today then tomorrow. The belief in god helps us to live also in situations where we are wrong or where we need help or where we don't know and so on and so on. The belief in god gives hope. It replaces not knowledge.