Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[sswhateverlove]

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?

I guess that was my faulty assumption. The assumption that atheists do conclude based on incomplete knowledge and have stopped searching based on inconclusive evidence.

---

So, would you say that atheism encourages that continued search for confirming evidence?

No, intellectual honesty does that. Atheism is just disbelief in god claims.

What happens when there is questionable evidence?

You apportion your belief relative to the reliability of the evidence, and no further.

So, you're saying you do continue in pursuit of knowledge that could possibly confirm an intelligent designer/influencing variable? If you do that's good. A lot of atheists I know do not.

---

So, would you say that atheism encourages that continued search for confirming evidence? What happens when there is questionable evidence?

No. I'd say that atheism is the position of sitting and waiting for the theist to put compelling evidence on the table. All evidence is questionable. Whatever survives the questioning earns the status of becoming a data point. Everything else, however cherished, ends up in the rubbish tip. That's how knowledge advances.

Theists have never given me anything convincing. Scientists, however, well, there's some spooky, crazy, awesome things they're saying.

---

So, would you say that atheism encourages that continued search for confirming evidence? What happens when there is questionable evidence?

Confirming evidence for what?

Atheism is one, and only one thing; a response to the claim that a god exists.

In general, there is no claim in atheism that requires evidence. Those that make the claim that a god exists, it is up to them to support their claim. They have the burden of proof.

The only thing that would convince the vast majority of atheists, is demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists.

Theists do not have good arguments. Scientists, however, seem to, even if they're not trying.

---

I learned how to respect each individual's belief system...

(excerpt)

Unless you misunderstand it, that is.

If I misunderstand, I expect to be corrected. Often I will ask for clarification repeatedly, as I have done here.

---

Ummm. . . why does the OP have about 50 posts, and about 10 new threads? Aren't there rules about spam?

50 posts and so far, none have made any real sense. Pity.

Unfortunately a lot of my posts were responding to insults. What do you feel didn't make sense? I've posted what I've gathered about scientific perspectives, given an opinion, and asked others for theirs. That is not spam, it's a discussion. Some people have offered valuable feedback that has expanded my knowledge, most have not. If you feel something was incoherent, please tell me. If you think I am not accurate about something, please tell me. It is not helpful to just say I'm posting things that don't make sense without clarifying what about it doesn't make sense.