Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[Fidel_Castronaut]

So again, I posed a question to you all (particularly those who accused me of strawmanning) asking about your level of confidence (0-100%) that there is no intriguing evidence pointing to intelligent design and influence. Only a few have responded, both reporting 100% confidence.

Honestly, I am not convinced that any of you were justified in saying I was strawmanning. I don't think I was misjudging at all what it is that you think. In fact, the assumption I was making (and the comparison I made to my atheist friends) seems to be quite accurate at this point. I have not had a single one of those that shamed me respond that something they have experienced, read, heard, etc has made them question the possibility of ID.

I feel lied to at this point. Like I said, I'm 80% confident in ID based on my observations and the opinions I've formed of them. I don't care if what I shared does not sway your opinion. I wasn't trying to. They're my thoughts and ideas and I was hoping to discuss them with people who do not fit the definition of that "strawman". If I was right, thanks a lot for convincing me that it was possible to get the discussion I was looking for. Sucks to be shamed and lied to at the same time.

A bit of advice for the future, drop the "strawman", "strawman" shaming game at times when what's being said is true. It's misleading.

Here's the thing. You did strawman us.

Your opening posts were full of 'atheists think this' or 'atheists think that'. Only when you were called out on this did you actually ask people what they actually thought. That some conform to your preconceptions is irrelevant (and i'm not even sure that they do).

Just look at the title of this thread; "Atheistic dogma - Scientific fundamentalism" - It's a laughable premise. Being an atheist has nothing to do with science. I was an atheist far before I'd even studied anything to do with science, or before I'd even gone to school. And I still don't know what on earth scientific fundamentalism is. Not accepting claims without evidence to at least lend some weight to their credibility? I don't know.

So there we have an example of a strawman and a case where you've attributed your 'observations' to everyone with a sweeping title designed purposefully and specifically to create an association by default (which, again, still doesn't make any sense).