Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by lightgigantic, Dec 3, 2007.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That's been pretty obvious all along. Your extrapolations and paraphrases are pretty flagrantly based on misreadings and bizarre presumptions, for example, so it's difficult to credit you with understanding of the basic writings.

    btw, about the OP:
    That's BS. Atheism is obviously consistent with the scientific method, in most of its forms, and creationism can be made so with reasonable adjustiments of its premises.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    If you believe it to be 100% true, despite lack of evidence and all evidence to the contrary, yes.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    What if you write a book on it and use science to support your belief in an unverifiable hypothesis?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Hard to imagine "science" actually "supporting" an "unverifiable hypothesis" of any relevant kind - we're off in the fog again, apparently.

    I know this is intended to have relevance - - - let me guess:

    Is atheism supposed to be some kind of "unverifiable hypothesis" that one "believes in", now ?
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Nah, when you write a book called "The God Delusion". you're asserting a verifiable scientific thesis.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    So I guessed wrong, or said something wrong, or something ?

    Little help here, I'm having trouble finding your argument.
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    The argument is yours. :shrug:

    I already explained my position.

    Right?
     
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The delusion is self-evident, a social phenomenon. It's absolute faith in an idea that at best, has no supporting evidence.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    So was that sarcasm, assertion, commentary on what was quoted just before it, what ?

    As an explanation of a "position", it's incomprehensible. Are you claiming that Dawkins was advancing a scientific thesis ?
     
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    then its not clear on what basis a person could make the (atheistic) claims given in the OP
     
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    No he was simply showing a one-sided argument, and using scientific arguments to use individual claims to support a wider unverifiable hypothesis.
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Yeah, happens to a lot of scientists when they get too attached to their pet thesis.

    And fundies who get too attached to a POV and think everyone should follow them.

    http://richarddawkins.net/underTopStoryB

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Perhaps Dawkins will one day see the light?
     
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    complications would arise however when you assert the credibility of a "non-ness" through an existing and independent knowlegdge.

    Like the claim of Dr Massimo Pigliucci, as given in the OP

    .... he made the absurd claim that effective science education would dissuade students from a belief in Heaven.
    thus claims to the effect of "increased empirical investigation strengthens the case for the non-belief in heaven" brings atheism into the realm of fundamentalism

    on the contrary it is pro-science - if you insist that words like "science" and "atheism" are inextricably linked, and thus a criticism of atheism constitutes a criticism of science, I would argue that is simply your fundamentalism colouring the picture
     
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Atheism isn't the thesis, The God Hypothesis is the thesis, which Dawkins does a good job at refuting. He doesn't and cannot disprove it 100%, but not being able to disprove something doesn't mean it's true. If you want to be rational about it, you must provide evidence to support your hypothesis.

    What is your evidence that atheism is fundamentalist? What is your evidence that are limits to what science can explain/describe? What beliefs do scientists like Dawkins hold without any evidence, and despite evidence to the contrary?
     
  18. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Anyone can make any claims to anything, those claims are not "atheism", they are claims. Atheism is not a claim, it is a lack of belief in gods. That does not prohibit an atheist from making claims - to anything he feels like, but that is not atheism. Clear now?
     
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    true
    that is why science is technically "empiricism" (or deals with the senses as the ultimate authority) while religious "science" (if you want to call it that) deals with consciousness as the ultimate authority - at last for arguments sake, there is no empirically falsifiable claims that can be applied to consciousness, thus empiricism has no purview into theistic claims

    Rationalism (accepting the mind as the ultimate authority) can offer some foundation for the investigation of god, but not to the point of verification (rationalism deals more with discussion of 'concepts", so rationalism proceeds by discussing god as a "concept")
     
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    then in that case, it wouldn't be fundamental atheism, and thus the claim (or claims like it) in the OP would never come from the mouth of such a person - given our previous discussions however, it is clear that you are not in such a category
     
  21. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    The next question would be whether the words "empirical investigation" and "complete investigation of reality" are synonymous .....
     
  22. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    So, scientific methods don't work when applied to the workings of the mind? There is no science of consciousness and the brain?

    Theism doesn't claim just to deal with consciousness, but with all of life, it's qualities, the origins of all things- material and otherwise. There is certainly some empirical tests that can be made on those things.

    Additionally, science hasn't been limited by the abilities of our senses ever since the first microscope was created.
     
  23. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Look lg, your original question asked: "Is atheism a claim that stands outside of science"

    Your original question is flawed because "atheism" is not a claim. It is important that you understand that, because how can a proper discussion be conducted when the original question is flawed?

    Not sure exactly what you're trying to get at. Are you saying I am or am not in the fundie category?
     

Share This Page