No, but I can show you that your beliefs are unreasonable.
That’s quite a scathing and convincing argument, right there. :rolleyes:
Off topic, but are you a Dawkins follower? He refuses to address critiques of his assertions, instead preferring to dismiss them as “stupid” or “unreasonable” too.
The term atheism has developed a more social meaning for those who describe themselves and strongly opposed to superstitious beliefs.
Not anywhere close to most atheists are truly opposed to “superstitious beliefs”, despite claims to the contrary – most are only opposed to God.
Well first of all I’m not dealing with logic, I’m dealing with faith.
That’s apparent. For starters, your definition of faith doesn’t square with the dictionary.
Faith pertains to a belief for which there is no evidence, not necessarily no absolute proof.
Neither belief nor faith either require or disallow proof/evidence of any kind. They are simply opinions of what is (or might be) true. They may be based on one or more types of evidence, or they may not.
My distinction between religious faith and scientific belief (using the word “belief” now just to clear it up) still stands.
Nice fighting retreat.
Your “distinction” rests on the false premises that
- faith is completely unsupported by evidence;
- that scientifically obtained empirical evidence is the only acceptable evidence that exists; &
- that faith is not involved in the practice of the scientific method at all.
This is the view widely held by the disciples of the “religion of reason”. Such disciples are referred to as “sciencists” - people that are as dogmatic about science texts as some religious people are about their holy books.
While science does not require one to become an atheist, atheism does require a near-religious zeal for science, as the atheist has nothing else to base their moral values on other than cultural parasitism, usually minus the moral values that the atheist personally objects to.
Your assertion that;
Religion requires faith for belief in the empirically unknowable and usually unreasonable positions.
… is also incorrect, following as it is derived from an incorrect premise.
Yes, some people may have no reasons for holding their religious beliefs, but that hardly means that belief itself is not, nor can be, based on the use of reason & evidence.
On the other side of it, the claim that science requires absolutely no faith is incorrect as well.
It is completely impossible for a person, regardless of how old, to have discovered every piece of evidence or knowledge on their own, or even to have personally checked out & verified every pre-existing piece evidence & knowledge.
Scientific progress requires faith that what others have concluded is correct. That is not a bad thing; if everyone insisted on verifying things for themselves, “reinventing the wheel” wouldn’t be a figure of speech, but a worldwide pastime.
Still, what others have concluded is NOT always correct. Science is constantly disproving “facts” that were thought to be true. Often, something that disproves a “fact” is resisted for years, even decades, before finally being accepted, indicating what a traumatic experience it is for those who so doggedly hold those previously “proven” concepts to be true.
It is completely irrational to insist that everything be supported with evidence only derived from such a frequently morphing body of knowledge, & simultaneously denying the use of other types of evidence (like eyewitness, or statistical, or circumstantial), or even the use of human reason and logic to deductively arrive at conclusions.
Funny how you said:
But if you want to live in your little box go ahead.
Limiting oneself only to a single type of evidence, produced by a single method, would seem to be the epitome of “living in a little box.”
I don’t begrudge you though. Like I said, I knew everything at your age too. Just don’t let that keep you from trying to learn.