pop morality

[Drich]

*sigh* Science isn't dogma. That's why it changes. That's the very thing most Christians mock when they come here to talk with us about science. It's what you think is its greatest weakness, but that we consider its greatest strength. You don't get to use it both ways in your arguments! You can't simultaneously say that we adhere to science as if it is dogmatic and then attack science for being so non-dogmatic that it changes when we learn better information or better-explain a phenomenon.

However, when we have well-established and -understood theories (predictive/explanative models of the function of a known natural phenomenon), and someone comes in here attacking science, making a straw-man of the real, hard-won knowledge arguments because of a book of scripture (any book of scripture), we call them idiots. It is being deliberately and willfully ignorant.

And seriously, why do y'all keep bringing up Dawkins? Has anyone here even used a Dawkins argument? (Except maybe posting some video of him from YouTube, talking about a specific topic under discussion in the thread?)

because whether most of you know it or not, you all follow the 'God delusion' outline in being an atheist, or at least some aspect of that.