Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

I forgot, HN is only for AWS press releases and people telling other people what should be on HN. Gotcha!

On a serious note... you could have stopped after: > "In my opinion..."

Atheism has a long history of redefining terms.

The OED changed from

"To deny the Gods/God" to

"To deny or disbelieve in the gods/God"

The latter - disbelieve - fits the greek, but the former was the intended meaning by those who coined it three centuries back, as a derogatory term (ref, encycolopdia Brittanicca which goes in to the history of this issue unlike Wikipedia). The OED mixes and confuses two definitions and reflects a common modern redefining, by atheists themselves, of 'atheism' to mean 'lacking belief' which dodges the problem that to positively believe there is no God or gods is clearly irrational without proof, which is thought to be logically impossible.

That's why educated atheists claim to be agnostic, and uneducated atheists claim to be atheists.

But the proof in the pudding is in how the individual expresses themselves towards religious persons, ie "The God Delusion".

Dawkins claims to be 9/10ths atheist, "technically agnostic".

But that book is a statement that religious believers are delusional, so revealing that he is in fact a true atheist. No genuine agnostic would ever make such a presumption in to minds they cannot see.

Dawkins is therefore irrational.

The irony of the situation is that :

-while a religious believer might be rational (if there were, in fact, a god, and it were proving its own existence, as they claim, as opposed to faith as "Belief without evidence" is in fact an atheist redefinition, by Bertrand Russell to be precise, now also in the dictionary).

-a true atheist is always irrational whether or not there is a god

It's perfectly consistent with the scientific method. Atheism is falsifiable. If there's solid evidence of gods existing, an atheist will change their mind. Theism is non-falsifiable, and thus inconsistent with science. Also Templeton Foundation is a well-known collective of anti-science loons.

One of the interesting, teeth-gnashing ironies is that the father of modern genetics is a Catholic monk, Gregor Mendel, and the inventor of the Big Bang theory is a Catholic priest, George Lemaitre. George Lemaitre was given a papal award for his efforts.

Odd that Hitchens and Dawkins never mention that fascinating fact that their audiences would have been fascinated to know.

Nor mention that most of Christianity never had a dogma of a literal translation of the Bible. hmmmmm...

Nor tell them that most monotheisms define their supreme beings identically, ie it's the same god. Nor that the Catholic Church, that rigid institution that will not be polite enough to die or bend, teaches that the supreme being has manifested in most other monotheisms. Indeed few of them are exclusivist as atheists like to wrongly assert.

Meanwhile, it is a fact that something in the universe has the property of 'existence'. Logically, it exists of itself and could not have ever not existed. Existing of itself, it appears to be a logical feedback loop. Which leads straight to a possibility, the grandest of feedback loops: self-awareness.

And Dawkins main objection "Who made God?" is answered since...

The real question has never been "Is there a god?", but rather "Is the fundamental thing self-aware, and if it is, does it care?".

Meanwhile, despite the objections of atheists and agnostics, especially in what they see as the otherwise incomprehensible suffering of the innocent and children, the answer has always been to ask.

Ie, "If you exist, God being, please reveal yourself, and show me why it is that the innocent must suffer".

Why did you ignore me when I stated earlier that those two things are not equivalent?

> They are arguing that this isn't boolean logic.

> "god_exists == false" is not the same as "god_exists != true", because "not true" can mean "false", but also "almost certainly false" and many other things.