Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism
September 11, 2014 at 3:53 pm
I agree, but the evidence I expect depends on what they claim. It's when they come in and throw their god around like it's an actual thing that I feel justified in asking why I should accept there's even a "there" there.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 7167
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism
September 11, 2014 at 3:56 pm
(September 11, 2014 at 12:59 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I challenge that we could pile all of those computer parts on the floor (matter) and nothing interesting would happen. However, putting the pieces together in a particular order and loading a program that gives it rules to go by, allows it to do amazing things. How is this not relevant to our existence? How is this not relevant to intelligent design? If we dismantle a computer into its component parts, we do wind up with a pile of component parts. When they are assembled, we have a working computer. And yes, this is an example of intelligent design.
How is that relevant to your initial post, or my reply to it?
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 2471
Threads: 21
Joined: December 7, 2013
Reputation:
43
RE: Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism
September 11, 2014 at 4:06 pm
Poe. Troll. Creationist in disguise.
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism
September 11, 2014 at 4:50 pm
(September 11, 2014 at 12:09 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: The absolute nature of the claims made by scientific fundamentalists seem to depend upon current technology and the accumulation of observation, experience, and opinion formed by those deemed worthy of forming such an opinion. As far as I’m aware, there are no experts who claim to be omniscient, wherefore we must always consider that there may be variables uncontrolled for and information left out.
Atheists, how are you sure that any of the science is the truth? How can you tell? When we have no choice but to accept given after given to try to understand what we’re observing, how can we ever know anything for sure? When “scientific facts” often don’t live up to their predictions, how can we trust? There are many claims about the truth of reality, and many people who pose themselves as experts capable of making such claims. As for me, however, I trust that I perceive. I trust that I observe and form opinion. Beyond that, I humbly admit that I am ignorant with regard to the truth.
How are you so confident?
Because it's the most reasonable explanation, why else?
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Posts: 241
Threads: 5
Joined: August 28, 2014
Reputation:
11
RE: Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism
September 11, 2014 at 5:12 pm
The only scientific fundamentalists I've ever heard of were the straw men made up by religious fundamentalists. But if you want to "prove" some scientific claims to see if they are true, you might try jumping off a building to test the theory of gravity. The next time you are deeply ill ignore the doctor and reject the antibiotics derived from an understanding of evolution. When you want to cross an ocean next time, swim. Don't fall for all that false materials science that went into the engines, or the fluid dynamics science that went into the wings and flight controls. Next time there is a thunderstorm, go play some golf. All that science around electricity is surely a liberal hoax to keep people off the links. Drive blindingly fast on bald tires and a shot suspension, don't bother with a seat belt, all that science of traction and safety is obviously the work o' de debbil.
Prove to me how "wrong" science is.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism
September 11, 2014 at 5:20 pm
Seems like a cue to leave this here:
![[Image: db051218.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=images.ucomics.com%2Fcomics%2Fdb%2F2005%2Fdb051218.gif)
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 2471
Threads: 21
Joined: December 7, 2013
Reputation:
43
RE: Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism
September 11, 2014 at 7:23 pm
(September 11, 2014 at 6:51 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I learned how to respect each individual's belief system... (excerpt)
Unless you misunderstand it, that is.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism
September 11, 2014 at 7:33 pm
Ummm. . . why does the OP have about 50 posts, and about 10 new threads? Aren't there rules about spam?
Posts: 2844
Threads: 169
Joined: August 24, 2012
Reputation:
46
RE: Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism
September 11, 2014 at 7:47 pm
(September 11, 2014 at 7:33 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 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.
I live on facebook. Come see me there. http://www.facebook.com/tara.rizzatto
"If you cling to something as the absolute truth and you are caught in it, when the truth comes in person to knock on your door you will refuse to let it in." ~ Siddhartha Gautama
Posts: 203
Threads: 6
Joined: September 11, 2014
Reputation:
3
RE: Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism
September 11, 2014 at 9:55 pm
(This post was last modified: September 11, 2014 at 10:10 pm by sswhateverlove.)
(September 11, 2014 at 1:35 pm)Exian Wrote: 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.
(September 11, 2014 at 2:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: (September 11, 2014 at 2:27 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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.
Quote: 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.
(September 11, 2014 at 2:38 pm)Stimbo Wrote: (September 11, 2014 at 2:27 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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.
(September 11, 2014 at 2:41 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: (September 11, 2014 at 2:27 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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.
(September 11, 2014 at 7:23 pm)ShaMan Wrote: (September 11, 2014 at 6:51 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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.
(September 11, 2014 at 7:47 pm)TaraJo Wrote: (September 11, 2014 at 7:33 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 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.
|
