Debunking Scientism - Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 6)

[Subduction Zone]

One not need anything other than "I don't believe in god/s" to support their atheism. This is what most theists here on CF (including the OP) fail to recognize. Atheism doesn't require support for unbelief, other than unbelief. Now, if you're asking if a natural explanation for belief in deities is sufficient for an atheist, then I suppose it might be. As Daniel Dennett says, humans have a need to believe in belief, as it seems to span all (most) cultures throughout history.

ETA: Just watched the video, and it's Willy Craig's usual you 'can't explain this, therefore my Abrahamic god exists' schtick.

Darn. According to the OP Craig learned a lesson, but now it seems that was not the case.

Thanks for saving me from Craig's absurd arguments.

 

[Silmarien]

Darn. According to the OP Craig learned a lesson, but now it seems that was not the case.

Thanks for saving me from Craig's absurd arguments.

You were saved from a caricature that had absolutely nothing to do with this particular video. Craig doesn't specifically argue for the existence of God in it at all--the whole focus is on his opponent's positively atrocious case against the existence of God.

I'm generally critical of Craig, but there's nothing problematic in this video. Well, aside from his opponent, who literally called science omnipotent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You were saved from a caricature that had absolutely nothing to do with this particular video. Craig doesn't specifically argue for the existence of God in it at all--the whole focus is on his opponent's positively atrocious case against the existence of God.

I'm generally critical of Craig, but there's nothing problematic in this video. Well, aside from his opponent, who literally called science omnipotent.

Did he callcall science omnipotent, or was that merely your interpretation?

 

[Silmarien]

Did he callcall science omnipotent, or was that merely your interpretation?

I wouldn't have said that he literally called science omnipotent if he hadn't literally called science omnipotent. That word has a pretty specific meaning.

It's a three minute video. You can watch for yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wouldn't have said that he literally called science omnipotent if he hadn't literally called science omnipotent. That word has a pretty specific meaning.

It's a three minute video. You can watch for yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.

Sort of says that, and then immediately afterward Craig in effect throws in the towel by spewing a load of nonsense.

I would say that science will probably never have all of the questions answered, but in all probability more than enough to make it clear that a god is not needed.

 

[Silmarien]

Sort of says that, and then immediately afterward Craig in effect throws in the towel by spewing a load of nonsense.

He didn't "sort of" say that. He literally said it.

What was the load of nonsense? His points about ethics and aesthetics were weak, since his opponent could simply deny that they're objectively meaningful, but logic and mathematics stand. Science is built upon foundations that it cannot prove, and there's really no controversy about that. Craig wasn't saying anything that hadn't already been pointed out by some of the major philosophers of science, so I'd say it was neither a load of nonsense nor particularly interesting.

I would say that science will probably never have all of the questions answered, but in all probability more than enough to make it clear that a god is not needed.

Science can't answer all questions even in principle, since it's so powerful specifically because of the limitations that it places upon itself. That's fine, though. It's great at what it's meant to do.

 

[Uber Genius]

Darn. According to the OP Craig learned a lesson, but now it seems that was not the case.

Thanks for saving me from Craig's absurd arguments.

"What follows is a basic education in logic and epistemology." Had you bothered to watch the video, you would have learned that Atkins, the atheist who was preaching scientism, learned a lesson. Craig was the patient teacher.

On an unrelated note:

troll2
/trōl/
verb
gerund or present participle: trolling

1. 1.
   INFORMAL
   make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
   "if people are obviously trolling then I'll delete your posts and do my best to ban you"

I made the point that there are good arguments that support atheism, scientism however wasn't one of them. You might have asked about good ones or engaged and learned something about epistemology. There are epistemological views that can be held that support atheism but are not self-refuting or incoherent.

However, I have a no-troll policy.

"Ignored"

 

[Subduction Zone]

"What follows is a basic education in logic and epistemology." Had you bothered to watch the video, you would have learned that Atkins, the atheist who was preaching scientism, learned a lesson. Craig was the patient teacher.

On an unrelated note:

troll2
/trōl/
verb
gerund or present participle: trolling

1. 1.
   INFORMAL
   make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
   "if people are obviously trolling then I'll delete your posts and do my best to ban you"

I made the point that there are good arguments that support atheism, scientism however wasn't one of them. You might have asked about good ones or engaged and learned something about epistemology. There are epistemological views that can be held that support atheism but are not self-refuting or incoherent.

However, I have a no-troll policy.

"Ignored"

"Scientism" is a false claim made usually by science deniers. You stated a trolling thread by using Craig as a source. It is hypocritical to complain if you get what you incorrectly call trolling responses.

Funny how so many creationist run away when it is obvious that they have nothing.