Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[sswhateverlove]

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.

[Mudhammam]

Define intelligence. I can discern no intelligible meaning in your usage that makes any difference in the context of natural laws whatsoever. If you mean a Universe that was created with intention, I see no evidence to support that, and every bit to the contrary.

[JesusHChrist]

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.

Ok mom!

[Jackalope]

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.

I didn't answer for the simple reason that I have no idea how to quantify it. So far the evidence indicates otherwise. As long as that remains true... Well you know the rest.

[The Valkyrie]

[Michael Schubert]

[Simon Moon]

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.

I will admit to not being 100% confident, although I am so close, the difference is almost not being worth discussing.

But, and that is a big 'BUT', if demonstrable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence
is presented to me to get me to think otherwise, I will change my position.

The difference between how close I am to being 100% confident and not, is the extreme possibility that new evidence might be found.

I don't believe you were accused of strawmaning every atheist, only many of the ones here.

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.

Because none of it classifies as demonstrable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence. It is all conjecture.

[The Valkyrie]

" 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."

Basic studies of biology show that if there was an "intelligent designer" he was/is incompetent.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This particular debate was a philosophical one that is hard to refute. Reality being real cannot be proven by the scientific method, we either trust that or we don't. Science tells us sense receptors respond to vibrations and give us an experience. It really doesn't clarify anything about what "is". We have to take it as a given to move on with trying to understand everything else.

The existence of an objective reality seems less expansive than the idea that we are all, coincidentally, suffering from the same illusion. Occam's Razor is useful for a reason. We have tested gravity, and the results don't seem to vary much. Perhaps you may think that the sensation of falling is subjective,, but I'm sure that the crunch at the bottom is very real, and so are you -- when's the last time you jumped off a cliff after proclaiming gravity is not extant?

You, as well as I accept the existence of an objective reality as axiomatic. We may not be able to prove it (remember, proof is in the realm of math and logic, right?) -- but you goddamned well ain't gonna test it, and that in itself convinces me that this is philosophical mumbo-jumbo here.

An objective reality exists, and your own actions testify to your belief in it, even as your posting denies it.

Beyond that, I'm concerned about some of the variables that have been identified by scientists recently that could be interfering with our ability to get an accurate picture of reality. "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" variables are of particular concern as it seems the 96% unobservable reality could possibly influence the 4% observable reality in significant ways.

No one is saying that science has solved everything. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the show, kid. As you get older, you'll learn: the more you understand, the less you know. It's not a crisis, either. The world will still turn, sunlight into shade.

So we don't know what dark matter and dark energy actually are? Cool. That leaves something for the kids to do, to impress us old sonsabitches as we sit on the porch reading the news and having a cold one.

[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).