Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[JesusHChrist]

I'm just curiuous as to what is our atheist 'dogma'?

Deny God, though you know he is real.
Hate said God.
Be in league with old horny Devil.
Worship Science.
Fornicate daily, preferably not alone.
BBQ at least one Christian baby per month.
Corrupt the youth with above atheist dogma.
Drink coffee, not tea.

[Tonus]

Atheists, how are you sure that any of the science is the truth? How can you tell?

I'm typing this message on a computer whose design and workings are made possible regardless of the amount of understanding I have of the related industries. The chair I am sitting in, the desk I'm sitting in front of, the electricity that powers my home, the car I use to get around, the plane I fly in to get to faraway destinations, the medical care and medication that I use to get and feel better... all of those show the "truth" of any particular science. I could go on for quite a while, mentioning dozens --nay, hundreds-- of things that we all take for granted because they work regardless of how much we know about the underlying science.

How reliable and repeatable are claims based on religious faith? A ball-point pen will write just as well for a Christian as for a Muslim, and they both rely on science every day with such a fundamental level of faith that they don't even think about it. But ask them any faith-based question and lets see how well their answers align.

[Esquilax]

Atheists, how are you sure that any of the science is the truth? How can you tell? When we have no choice but to accept given after given to try to understand what we’re observing, how can we ever know anything for sure? When “scientific facts” often don’t live up to their predictions, how can we trust? There are many claims about the truth of reality, and many people who pose themselves as experts capable of making such claims. As for me, however, I trust that I perceive. I trust that I observe and form opinion. Beyond that, I humbly admit that I am ignorant with regard to the truth.

How are you so confident?

Given that the alternative to trusting the scientific method is to trust things that don't observe reality, catalog evidence and give tentative predictions and claims based upon the best information we have available, I think I'll stick with science, thanks.

Ultimately, you've confused the way science does things with the way religion does things: you never see a scientific prediction coming with a proclamation of absolute truth, and that confidence we have in it is earned, and worked towards, and demonstrated in the efficacy of science in our modern world, and the honesty that the scientific community has displayed over and over. Every scientific claim is conditional, and the fact that it does change to fit new information is the reason we should trust them, considering that the other path is to get new information that proves the old claims wrong, and yet still claim them anyway. How is it that you think that kind of willful ignorance is more trustworthy than an honest acceptance of incorrectness and a drive to do better?

Being wrong and changing to become right isn't a sign of weakness and untrustworthiness, and only a fool would think otherwise.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The absolute nature of the claims made by scientific fundamentalists seem to depend upon current technology and the accumulation of observation, experience, and opinion formed by those deemed worthy of forming such an opinion. As far as I’m aware, there are no experts who claim to be omniscient, wherefore we must always consider that there may be variables uncontrolled for and information left out.

Atheists, how are you sure that any of the science is the truth? How can you tell? When we have no choice but to accept given after given to try to understand what we’re observing, how can we ever know anything for sure? When “scientific facts” often don’t live up to their predictions, how can we trust? There are many claims about the truth of reality, and many people who pose themselves as experts capable of making such claims. As for me, however, I trust that I perceive. I trust that I observe and form opinion. Beyond that, I humbly admit that I am ignorant with regard to the truth.

How are you so confident?

Science is concerned with observing phenomena in the universe and theorising a way of explaining 'it' through evidence.

You're right that you won't find anyone who claims to be omniscient, so doesn't that render the rest of your OP utterly redundant?

Find me a scientist who claims they are and then we'll expand on it.

Also, please clarify what an atheist dogma is.

[sswhateverlove]

It just seems that according to astrophysics, in order for the "scientific fact" of general relativity to be absolute, we need to assume 96% of all reality is unknown and undetectable substances that have been called "dark energy" and "dark matter". It is also claimed that "unknown stuff" is moving around us and through us at all times. How are you so sure that this doesn't influence our genetic expression and has nothing to do with any "god" intelligence that exists? Why so confident?

[Simon Moon]

It just seems that according to astrophysics, in order for the "scientific fact" of general relativity to be absolute, we need to assume 96% of all reality is unknown and undetectable substances that have been called "dark energy" and "dark matter". It is also claimed that "unknown stuff" is moving around us and through us at all times. How are you so sure that this doesn't influence our genetic expression and has nothing to do with any "god" intelligence that exists? Why so confident?

So, lets say that "unknown stuff" in the universe is moving through us and influencing our genetic expression.

How does this lead to an intelligence being responsible?

Argument from ignorance fallacy.

[FatAndFaithless]

It just seems that according to astrophysics, in order for the "scientific fact" of general relativity to be absolute, we need to assume 96% of all reality is unknown and undetectable substances that have been called "dark energy" and "dark matter". It is also claimed that "unknown stuff" is moving around us and through us at all times. How are you so sure that this doesn't influence our genetic expression and has nothing to do with any "god" intelligence that exists? Why so confident?

What in the hell are you talking about. And we aren't the ones saying we "know", that's theists. We're looking at the evidence and drawing a tentative conclusion as to how the universe might work.

[DramaQueen]

It just seems that according to astrophysics, in order for the "scientific fact" of general relativity to be absolute, we need to assume 96% of all reality is unknown and undetectable substances that have been called "dark energy" and "dark matter". It is also claimed that "unknown stuff" is moving around us and through us at all times. How are you so sure that this doesn't influence our genetic expression and has nothing to do with any "god" intelligence that exists? Why so confident?

Isn't that god of the gaps?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Theorising within realms of scientific knowledge and predictions that explain a phenomenon which produces consistent, testable and verifiable/falsifiable results.

Aka the scientific method.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen an atom?

Is general relatively absolute? I think it's pretty much accepted that, for example, prior to the Big Bang nobody knows anything about how/what physics operated or indeed if there was a physics. Again,you seem to be strawmanning a position you don't understand.

[sswhateverlove]

Atheists, how are you sure that any of the science is the truth? How can you tell?

I'm typing this message on a computer whose design and workings are made possible regardless of the amount of understanding I have of the related industries. The chair I am sitting in, the desk I'm sitting in front of, the electricity that powers my home, the car I use to get around, the plane I fly in to get to faraway destinations, the medical care and medication that I use to get and feel better... all of those show the "truth" of any particular science. I could go on for quite a while, mentioning dozens --nay, hundreds-- of things that we all take for granted because they work regardless of how much we know about the underlying science.

How reliable and repeatable are claims based on religious faith? A ball-point pen will write just as well for a Christian as for a Muslim, and they both rely on science every day with such a fundamental level of faith that they don't even think about it. But ask them any faith-based question and lets see how well their answers align.

I challenge that we could pile all of those computer parts on the floor (matter) and nothing interesting would happen. However, putting the pieces together in a particular order and loading a program that gives it rules to go by, allows it to do amazing things. How is this not relevant to our existence? How is this not relevant to intelligent design?