Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[Mister Agenda]

Nope, it's not. Forming a theory about a subject without firm evidence is exactly what we're doing. Not impossible at all.

Since we're talking about science, it's a bit confusing to use the word 'theory' in the colloquial sense of 'educated guess' instead of in the scientific sense of 'a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation'.

---

"according to a 2003 Cornell survey of leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of god, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose.”

What is fascinating is that these are supposed to be the people who are in "the know", the most brilliant scientific minds on the planet. Why do you think those numbers are not 100% for all?

Because, humans.

---

I think science will continue, just as it always has, to change our opinions of reality based on the findings/evidence.

Sure it will. The question is why should we think it will change our opinions along the lines you predict?

---

People have asked, so I have shared my opinions. What I have gathered is that many here have seen no evidence of ID based on their experiences, wherefore they assume anyone who claims to have experiences otherwise is full of shit.

What IS your personal evidence for ID? Sorry if I missed it, a post number will do. I have trouble imagining what would constitute personal evidence for ID, unless you witnessed someone doing it, but that could easily be a lack on my part. But I can't think of anything you've said that constitutes even personal evidence of ID, just vague 'I've done a lot of research' statements.

I suspect you really meant personal conclusions. Your personal experiences are your personal experiences, they're only bullshit if you fabricate them. Your interpretation of them can be discussed critically, of course.

---

I would refer you back to what you seemed to get regarding QP and say that the results of those experiments sway me toward neutral monism. Also gene expression studies and psychoneuroimmunology studies make me think that assuming mind and matter are seperate is not going to lead us to a comprehensive understanding of either.

I don't think anyone here who isn't a theist thinks mind and matter are separate, let alone assumes it. We tend not to be dualists, though we also tend not to discount that it may be possible.