Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[Simon Moon]

Why do you think I should be "embarassed"? Because I've been researching information and I'm asking for others opinions on it? Oh yes, I'm so ashamed!

To start with, your posts have been loaded with fallacies.

God of the gaps, equivocation, strawmen, false analogy, to start, but I'm sure there more.

[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?

1. You're confusing science, the method, with things people believe based on the scientific method.
2. Logical falacy "how can you be sure X DOESN'T". You can't draw conclusions based on other peoples willingness to assert a negative. How can you be sure I didn't come into your house last night and use your toilet? You can't, not really SURE.
3. The question is not therefore why we might think it DOESN'T so much as why you think it MIGHT.

If there's pee on my toilet seat and the paper is off the roll and I know I didn't do it, I would question the possibility that someone used my toilet.

[JesusHChrist]

Why do you think I should be "embarassed"? Because I've been researching information and I'm asking for others opinions on it? Oh yes, I'm so ashamed!

A model for what we see here:

1. Unconscious incompetence - you don't know you are incompetent
2. Conscious incompetence - you know your limits
3. Conscious competence - you know what you know
4. Unconscious competence - complete mastery

You're running at level 1 from what I'm reading. That is embarrassing for you.

[Esquilax]

What about the 96% of reality that is said to be "dark matter" and "dark energy", that we know absolutely nothing about. It's supposedly moving around us and through us all the time. How about evidence from epigenetics saying that everything in our environment having the ability to influence the expression of our genes on a day-to-day basis? Is this not enough to question the possibility? If not, why not?

It's not, because a hole in our understanding is not positive evidence for some other thing.

... Positive evidence is positive evidence of things.

[FatAndFaithless]

1. You're confusing science, the method, with things people believe based on the scientific method.
2. Logical falacy "how can you be sure X DOESN'T". You can't draw conclusions based on other peoples willingness to assert a negative. How can you be sure I didn't come into your house last night and use your toilet? You can't, not really SURE.
3. The question is not therefore why we might think it DOESN'T so much as why you think it MIGHT.

If there's pee on my toilet seat and the paper is off the roll and I know I didn't do it, I would question the possibility that someone used my toilet.

...What.

[Minimalist]

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.

Infinitely superior to some fucking moron who clasps an ancient book of bullshit as if it is "true."

[Cyberman]

You would question that possibility? Or perhaps you misspoke?

[Exian]

You're using concepts we do not yet fully understand to ask us to jump to conclusions. I, for one, will never conclude based on incomplete knowledge. That's just silly. Doing so would promote stopping the search. Where would we be if stopped searching based on inconclusive evidence?

[TaraJo]

Dude, OP. Science changes ALL THE FUCKING TIME!

Once, science said there was once a land bridge between Europe to North America. Now we know better and science changed. At one point, science was convinced that the atom was the smallest particle that could exist and then we discovered electrons, neotrons and protons.... and then we went a little deeper and discovered the sub-atomic particles that those are made from. Again, science chaged.

If you can provide evidence that science, as we know it now, is wrong, please, publish your findings and present it to a scientific journal. Sure, it will be questionable at first; all scientific findings are. But if it's true, it will hold up to questioning and replace old science.

But when new science does hold up and prove itself right, we don't reject it; we accept it because we would rather be correct than right.

[DramaQueen]

And not all atheists "believe" in science.
I live in the bronze age so I don't know much.