Are Religions/Religious Arguments Complicated Because...

[Jackalope]

he disagreed with me that it's commonly accepted; he didn't even give a dissenting authority.

Indeed, I've seen the same kind of behavior with respect to geology, biology, paleontology, archaeology, cosmology, astronomy... the list goes on. Scientific disciplines where specific theories are widely accepted - with no serious dissent except quibbles over specifics.

Where dissenting authorities are presented, they're ones that are fully debunked or far outside mainstream science, usually sources gleaned from apologist websites - and usually the rebuttal is done with evidence and methods we now know to be faulty, and usually quite dated. Sometimes they're just flat out wrong - claiming that scientific theory/law X proves it's impossible when it does no such thing.

That's not to say that mainstream science always is right - but it does correct itself when errors and new facts are discovered.

The same sort will claim that Noah's ark has been found and authenticated, as has the Shroud of Turin, etc. Never mind that those claims have been thoroughly debunked. Classic confirmation bias.

And yet, I get accused of being closed minded for dismissing such unsubstantiated claims without expending effort to personally debunk them. Why should I? Someone else has done the work - the apologist just hasn't looked for or given consideration to the evidence.

Then there's the classic - "How do they know? No one was there.". Argument from ignorance.

It's maddening.

---

Might as well tell me gardening is useless.

Psst. Gardening is useless. Don't tell Summer. Pass it on.