You think? Evidence please.This "truth", is always proven by the atheists, which is a conflict of interest.
Extra: the way the church (or religion generally) had a monopoly of "the truth" for centuries? And if you disagreed you could end up burnt at the stake.
Third party? What politicians?We need an unbiased third party to decide. Polititian tend to tell you what you expect to hear.
And who has used a "dogmatic insistence" on current state of the art? Strawman.Because change is normal in science, dogmatic insistence of truth, using the current state of the art, is an illusion based on science history data.
Still wrong. What "dogmatic insistence"?Unless you are objective to the changing trends in science history, dogmatic insistence make atheism a religion.
Are you conflating science and "atheism" here? As if they are inseparable?This is enforced by using a prestige effect as though the word science carries magical attributes that make the temporary appear steady state.
Irrelevant. And specious.I come up with new ideas all the time, since I know permanent is a religious illusion.
One word: bullshit. What "black box science"? Examples please.Empirical black box science uses the same special effects that are tradtionally called an oracle. With an oracle, one is on the dark (black box) trying to predict the future. It does not use reason and logic, exclusively, but looks at signs from the oracle.
And you need to get a brain.We need a third party to arbitrate.