So in other words, since you believe they don't have scientific evidence, nothing they say will matter since only science can tell us what is true or not. Is that correct?
No. I tie truth to empiricism. I believe that if you cannot demonstrate something to be true, it shouldn't be believed that it is true, and if somebody calls it true, all that means to me is that they believe it, not that it's true. It's really pretty simple. My criterion for belief is sufficient evidence. Nothin more is needed, and nothing less will do.
That is what we mean by scientism, the belief that only science can tell us what is true, and it is the only thing to be trusted.
My position is that only empiricism can tell us what's true about physical reality. It's inherent in my definition of truth, which differs from that of the faith-based believer. He doesn't need compelling evidence. He doesn't need any evidence. In fact, he may be believing in the face of evidence to the contrary. Take the people who believe that the vaccine is more dangerous that the virus. They would use the word truth to describe that belief, but I wouldn't, especially considering that it's demonstrably wrong. What I'm telling you is that I am not interested in the output of that kind of thinking.
I know that theists and faith-based thinkers are looking for validation for holding such beliefs, but I don't consider faith a path to truth for reasons already given.
Then yes, you subscribe to scientism.
I already said so, but in the sense of science (empiricism, more generally) being the only method for determining what is true about the world, truth being that which can be empirically demonstrated to be correct.
and you are freely admitting that is your view of science here, which goes beyond doing science into faith in science as the sole source of all human truth.
Nope. There is no faith in science, but empiricism is the only path to truth, since to call it that, it has to be demonstrably correct in the sense that it correctly anticipates outcomes.
Is this difficult to understand? I hope not. You don't need to agree with it. You can't if you're a theist and want to claim that you have truth about gods. You need a definition that admits faith-based beliefs as well, but that's not my definition of truth, so we've reached the end of this sub-thread. What more is left but for us to repeat ourselves, unless you'd care to explain why you would call something that can't be demonstrated or used to predict outcomes truth?
Would you agree with this statement? "Science says it. I believe it. That settles it for me!"
No. That's going to far. What I would say is that if science vets a pronouncement, it will likely be correct based on my past experience with science and its stunning success in predicting outcomes. That's evidence, and it supports my belief that established science is reliable, hence it's not faith.
Faith also believes things that are true, but we lack sufficient evidence for. That is what faith actually is. So yes, faith is a path to truth.
That's not a coherent thought to me. Nor is it a rebuttal of my argument WHY faith cannot be a path to truth. You just ignored that argument rather than explaining why you think it's wrong by identifying an error in fact or my reasoning, and just repeated yourself that it is truth, also failing to define what you consider truth and how it is determined to be such.
All great discoveries of science were led by faith, believing something to be true before there was supporting evidence.
Nope again. That's not faith. Believing that something might be true and devising an experiment to confirm (or disconfirm) it is not faith. It's classic empiricism.
Both are equally statements of faith. So both the theist and the atheist are making claims based upon faith.
I had said, "Why is the claim, "I just know there's a God" better than, "I just know that there is no God."" The atheist who makes this claim is a gnostic atheist, and yes, he is making a faith-based statement, one he cannot demonstrate is true any more that the theist can can. But this is a minority opinion among atheists and does not characterize atheism.
Isn't it possible both could be correct? Or that neither are correct?
If the same meaning of God is used, no, they cannot both be correct according to the law of noncontradiction. Nor can both be incorrect. P and not-P form a MECE set (mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive). One can be P or not-P, but everybody is one and nobody both, like theist and not-theist (atheist). As defined by atheists, everybody is one or the other, and nobody both or neither.
Empiricism relies on experience of the senses. So when someone says they experience God, aren't you being hypocritical to dismiss them?
No. The senses referred to are the exteroceptors and interoceptors: "Exteroceptors respond to stimuli from outside the body - vision, sound, touch, smell, temperature, pain etc. Interoceptors or visceroceptors respond to stimuli arising within the body such as chemical stimuli, deep pressure, and many others." Sensing God does not involve the senses. It's a metaphorical use of the word sense, like sense of propriety or sense of humor. One doesn't sense humor like he senses the sound of thunder.
"God experiences" can be objectively observed. So then why do you dismiss them?
I don't dismiss them. I just don't interpret them as evidence of a god, just a god belief. They're evidence of a mental state, which I believe is being misunderstood.
