Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

Both sides can argue ad nauseum, its all been said and done before, there are plenty of arguments for absence of evidence and vice versa in atheistic literature in India.

Ultimately, the argument is, one cannot claim that God is a delusion unless one can prove it.

Atheists live in the same universe, bound by the same laws as everyone else.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the foundation of empiricism is the senses - if you can't measure it, empiricism doesn't have much to do with it

sure you can empirically investigate them - but only with the senses - the issue is however that the senses are not the final last word about us in terms of our powers of investigation

thus the microscope offers a greater investigation, but still a limited one - the senses are constitutionally imperfect or incomplete in their investigations, no matter what advancements are made in the departments of the macro or microcosm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the OP indicates a scientific claim on the basis of atheism

(Dr Massimo Pigliucci).... has made the absurd claim that effective science education would dissuade students from a belief in Heaven.

if you make a scientific claim based on atheism you're in

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So by analogy, my belief in a flying spaghetti monster cannot be considered a delusion unless you can prove there isn't one.

 

with empiricism as a foundation, the scope for making negative assertions is very limited

Dawkins book is essentially an attempt at rationalism - critics suggest he might have been better off sticking to a field he is actually trained in, like biology

Unfortunately, however, Dawkins seems more interested in polemics than in careful scrutiny of arguments. His discussions of the traditional proofs for God's existence are lamentably scrappy: the first three of Aquinas' Five Ways, for example, are dismissed en bloc in two pages whose cavalier abruptness will be embarrassing even to Dawkins' most ardent fans; and the ontological argument, whose logic has fascinated atheist philosophers as eminent as Bertrand Russell, is shrugged off as "infantile ... logomachist trickery". Whether these various traditional arguments are valid or not is beside the point. The point is that Dawkins' blatant failure to give them a decent hearing hardly serves the cause of the impartial scientific fairness that he professes to uphold.

A Review of Dawkins by Prof. John Cottingham

 

I think that when atheism is used as a claim it does stand outside of science because the scientific method can not be used to measure a non-entity. It's simply outside of the scope of natural science.

That why is much more reasonable to say I'm atheist in regards to such and such Goddess etc.. over "I'm an atheist" because even theists are atheistic in regards to many various Gods and Goddesses.

 

But that's not what the questions asks. Perhaps you should correct it? Impossible to proceed when the original question is flawed.

Effective science education possibly would dissuade students from a "belief in heaven" and other such things outside of the scope of the scientific method - precisely because they're outside of the scope of the scientific method.

 

Dawkins is not a strong atheist on the scale of weak to strong atheism. For his part, he simply feels theism is most probably wrong, and there is evidence to support that view.

Lightgigantic,
Have you seen Aquinas' "proofs"? They are amazingly weak. Dawkins is as well suited to the task of sorting out the truth of the theological situation as the biological one. They are both rather complicated and necessarily include concepts central to the questions of philosophy. In this sense, evolution bridges the gap between what has previously only been the subject of priests and philosophers.

 

I have definately concluded that lightgigantic IS infact VitalOne

 

would determining god as a "non-entity" be an atheistic claim?
Does being a non-entity mean it doesn't exist or it is something that is merely attributed to being beyond the purview of one's means of investigation?

on the contrary there are indications (eg interfaith dialogue) of holistic approaches to theism

 

snakelord

opens with a scientific claim based on atheism and poses a question whether atheism is beyond the purview of science
seems straight forward and most other posters seem to have gotten it straight off the bat
:shrug:

and that's science?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

he is not so foolish as to say openly "God does not exist" but he acts in such a way to conform to such a stance - I think SAM has provided enough info to clearly indicate that ....

a little training in philosophy reveals that Dawkin's arguments are amazingly weak, outside of specific issues that surround evolution

 

lol
more empirical folly

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, sure. If the possibility of something is so small, one might as well assume it doesn't exist. Someday, new evidence might cause us to re-evaluate that. I have yet to hear you provide any substantial argument against Dawkins expect "you can't trust your senses to tell you anything".

 

this thread is more of an issue of logic

sense perception + positive assertion of non-existence = hard going

if you want to specifically discuss means of asserting theistic claims, we should probably take it to a separate thread, since its not a subject Dawkins comes close to approaching

 

You're analysis of the subject is less than retarded. Addressing the reasons given for theistic claims is the precise subject of Dawkins' book.

 

If you want to believe in a FSM, can anyone stop you? Nope.

 

if you want to specifically discuss means of asserting theistic claims, we should probably take it to a separate thread, since its not a subject Dawkins comes close to approaching

Addressing the reasons given for theistic claims is the precise subject of Dawkins' book.

are the words "means" and "reasons" the same?
:shrug:

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

no..

 

Yay, fantasic refutation of Dawkins! I'LL BELIEVE IN WHAT I LIKE AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME! NANANANANANA