"The New Atheists are back — and dumber than ever"

[Edwardo Piet]

It's one of those terms used by anti-scientific people, just like "western medicine".

[Delicate]

With Google, you really have no excuse to be ignorant

[Simon Moon]

So...

Once again we at the point where it is time for you to present your evidence (demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, falsifiable), and show us how you have applied critical thinking to said evidence in order to determine that your god exists.

What are you waiting for?

Well, I'll be happy to do that. But there's a problem. The kind of evidence you're asking for is naively scientific. It fails to take into account non-scientific, non-experimental evidence (eg historical) and non-evidential (ie rational) bases of justification.

I'd like to make a case for a holistic (as in wide-ranging and multifaceted) as opposed to scientistic approach to justified beliefs.

It's worth pointing out that many intelligent atheists reject scientism, and rejecting scientism doesn't entail rejecting science.

To make my case, scientism must first be demolished.

So, present whatever case you believe is convincing.

How does historical evidence prove supernatural claims?

For example, Heinrick Schliemann, using Homer's Iliad and Odyssey discovered the city of Troy, withe evidence of a battle there.

In your mind, does the historical reality of Troy give any credence to the supernatural events that occur in the Iliad and Odyssey? If not, why should some historical accuracies in the Bible be convincing of the supernatural events therein?

What do you mean by non-evidencial (ie rational) basis for justification?

Are you referring to the various philosophical arguments (Kalam, ontological, teleological, TAG, etc)?

[Delicate]

Well, I'll be happy to do that. But there's a problem. The kind of evidence you're asking for is naively scientific. It fails to take into account non-scientific, non-experimental evidence (eg historical) and non-evidential (ie rational) bases of justification.

I'd like to make a case for a holistic (as in wide-ranging and multifaceted) as opposed to scientistic approach to justified beliefs.

It's worth pointing out that many intelligent atheists reject scientism, and rejecting scientism doesn't entail rejecting science.

To make my case, scientism must first be demolished.

So, present whatever case you believe is convincing.

How does historical evidence prove supernatural claims?

For example, Heinrick Schliemann, using Homer's Iliad and Odyssey discovered the city of Troy, withe evidence of a battle there.

In your mind, does the historical reality of Troy give any credence to the supernatural events that occur in the Iliad and Odyssey? If not, why should some historical accuracies in the Bible be convincing of the supernatural events therein?

What do you mean by non-evidencial (ie rational) basis for justification?

Are you referring to the various philosophical arguments (Kalam, ontological, teleological, TAG, etc)?

You're not paying attention. The first step is refuting scientism.

Are you scientistic? Do you believe science is the only reliable means to knowledge?

[Redbeard The Pink]

So...

Once again we at the point where it is time for you to present your evidence (demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, falsifiable), and show us how you have applied critical thinking to said evidence in order to determine that your god exists.

What are you waiting for?

Well, I'll be happy to do that. But there's a problem. The kind of evidence you're asking for is naively scientific. It fails to take into account non-scientific, non-experimental evidence (eg historical) and non-evidential (ie rational) bases of justification.

I'd like to make a case for a holistic (as in wide-ranging and multifaceted) as opposed to scientistic approach to justified beliefs.

It's worth pointing out that many intelligent atheists reject scientism, and rejecting scientism doesn't entail rejecting science.

To make my case, scientism must first be demolished.

Translation: I want to be able to use the Bible and/or the ramblings of Christian historians who agree with me, and I'd like to be able to substitute arguments for actual evidence, and I'd reeeally appreciate it if we didn't look overly hard at the actual premises I make when I lay out these arguments.


Sure, bro. Bring it. Let's see what you've got.

[Foxaèr]

Do you believe science is the only reliable means to knowledge?

I am a lover of knowledge, and certainly religion is a way of obtaining knowledge of mythology.

[Delicate]

Well, I'll be happy to do that. But there's a problem. The kind of evidence you're asking for is naively scientific. It fails to take into account non-scientific, non-experimental evidence (eg historical) and non-evidential (ie rational) bases of justification.

I'd like to make a case for a holistic (as in wide-ranging and multifaceted) as opposed to scientistic approach to justified beliefs.

It's worth pointing out that many intelligent atheists reject scientism, and rejecting scientism doesn't entail rejecting science.

To make my case, scientism must first be demolished.

Translation: I want to be able to use the Bible and/or the ramblings of Christian historians who agree with me, and I'd like to be able to substitute arguments for actual evidence, and I'd reeeally appreciate it if we didn't look overly hard at the actual premises I make when I lay out these arguments.


Sure, bro. Bring it. Let's see what you've got.

I'd like to put my response to this uncharitable misinterpretation on hiatus while I'm hashing out my truce.

[robvalue]

It's kind of tautological. If something is a way of reliably gaining knowledge, it is science. Science is what works. Science is not some fixed set of tools, it is entirely dynamic.

If all these other BS methods actually produced any results, they would also be science.

[Pat Mustard]

Well I have no interest in learning from people who haven't mastered the rudiments of uncritically accepting the sorry excuse for my thinking.

FYP. No need to thank me.

[Delicate]

It's kind of tautological. If something is a way of reliably gaining knowledge, it is science. Science is what works. Science is not some fixed set of tools, it is entirely dynamic.

If all these other BS methods actually produced any results, they would also be science.

The problem with this move is it waters down the definition of science too much. It makes math a science.

Unless you believe math is bs...........do you?