Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Evolution is a big one. You may not like it, but there are plenty of reasons to doubt it. There are massive amounts of dissent if you're willing to consider it.
Man-made global warming/climate change is a big one. There really is not a lot of hard evidence that it's caused by man, or can be reversed by man.
As for the origins of the universe? What is the current consensus? Is there one? It seems the only thing not willing to be accepted is the idea of Creation. Same with origin of life.....you can't explain where the supposed primordial ooze came from that spawned life, or how it happened, but you're willing to believe the crazy dogma that it happened....despite all evidence contrary.
As for other things....keep in mind the great minds of science once thought the earth was flat. They also thought the atom could not be split.
Yes...even secular folks can be rather dogmatic about certain things.
That is all beside the point. There is hard fact to back up what is in the books. That many doubt it or come up with dissent is irrelevant, and has been debunked in debate after debate, if YOU are willing to consider that.
At one time uninformed guesswork assumed (on a commonsense guess) that the earth was flat. the "Great minds of science" came up with sound evidence that it was round. It went in the books and flat earthists came up with a lot of dissent and "reasons to doubt", but they never proved their case and are of course, wrong.
I know there was dissent about whether the atom could be split, though I don't think that ever went in the text books. That fact is that hard evidence put atoms in the books and reading it from the textbooks is broadly reliable, as is information about the earth, animal and human origins, no matter what Bible backed denial there may be about.
This is validated info, not Dogma- denial of it is the Dogma and the case for the denial has not been substantiated.
Now, though I mention that we have no hard evidence for the origins of life (for all that it probably does get into the books) we can indeed explain in broad terms where the 'primordial ooze' came from. There are hypothetical mechanisms put forward, and that is a sight more of an explanation than it Appears in a flash and the magic word "Goddunnit!"
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-31-2017 at 10:52 AM..
That is all beside the point. There is hard fact to back up what is in the books. That many doubt it or come up with dissent is irrelevant, and has been debunked in debate after debate, if YOU are willing to consider that.
At one time uninformed guesswork assumed (on a commonsense guess) that the earth was flat. the "Great minds of science" came up with sound evidence that it was round. It went in the books and flat earthists came up with a lot of dissent and "reasons to doubt", but they never proved their case and are of course, wrong.
I know there was dissent about whether the atom could be split, though I don't think that ever went in the text books. That fact is that hard evidence put atoms in the books and reading it from the textbooks is broadly reliable, as is information about the earth, animal and human origins, no matter what Bible backed denial there may be about.
This is validated info, not Dogma- denial of it is the Dogma and the case for the denial has not been substantiated.
Now, though I mention that we have no hard evidence for the origins of life (for all that it probably does get into the books) we can indeed explain in broad terms where the 'primordial ooze' came from. There are hypothetical mechanisms put forward, and that is a sight more of an explanation than it Appears in a flash and the magic word "Goddunnit!"
That ticks you off, doesn't it? You seem to get pretty upset at someone not believing your dogma.
Evolution is a big one. You may not like it, but there are plenty of reasons to doubt it. There are massive amounts of dissent if you're willing to consider it.
Man-made global warming/climate change is a big one. There really is not a lot of hard evidence that it's caused by man, or can be reversed by man.
As for the origins of the universe? What is the current consensus? Is there one? It seems the only thing not willing to be accepted is the idea of Creation. Same with origin of life.....you can't explain where the supposed primordial ooze came from that spawned life, or how it happened, but you're willing to believe the crazy dogma that it happened....despite all evidence contrary.
As for other things....keep in mind the great minds of science once thought the earth was flat. They also thought the atom could not be split.
Yes...even secular folks can be rather dogmatic about certain things.
Who were the great minds of science who thought the world was flat? Can you even name two Christians of the past that believed this. What is the massive amount of evidence to dispute evolution. One strong piece would suffice for science to replace it with a new and better theory. Global warming cannot have proof as it is modelling for the future. All models are ran backwards in time and the results are in agreement Perhaps you would prefer to wait 50 years and if the models are correct we can then say, yes we should have addressed it when we could but God wanted us to insure that shareholders of ExxonMobil made maximum profit, much more than the lives of tens of millions of very poor people who most likely weren't Christians anyway.
Yes my number one reason to rail against the very religious, especially the fundamentalists, is their ignorance of the science and the willingness to destroy it in order to project their religion upon others. And Damm the consequences to all other people, animals ecosystems and all else. I think it was Kenneth Miller, a highly regarded scientist and devout Catholic who was a climate change skeptic who got a grant from the Koch brothers to examine the science and find flaws in it. At the end of his study oof the science and the literature he came away convinced that it was true. During the Bush administration the US Army concluded that climate change represented a grave threat to the security of your nation.
No there is not a current consensus on the origin of the universe or of life. So what. There are still future scientists being born right now. They are needed because there is still so much to discover. The default of not knowing is not that God did it. Is there even a consensus among those who believe in any gods of which God and which flavour of that God there is?
The real dogma is that accusations from fundamentalist that scientists are dead set against Christianity and will do everything in their power to ignore , dismiss or destroy anything to do with your religion. That is a direct attack against tens of thousands of dedicated scientists that are atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindu and even Christian. Isn't there a commandment against false testimony against others. It appears to me the more fundamental a religious oerson, of any faith, the less they seem to strive towards living a better life and the more they strive to impose their fundamentalist world upon others. You keep making unsubstantiated claims about scientists and scientific theories using the same old and tired arguments that are found on so many creationists sites. That is dogma that isn't even from your religion.
The greatds of science never thought the world was flat. Bear in mind that by the time science really started man had already circled the globe. Whoever told you otherwise should not be listened to. In the world of Christians there were one or two scholars who thought that way but the vast majority thought the Earth was a globe, contrary to what some atheists think.
Who were the great minds of science who thought the world was flat? Can you even name two Christians of the past that believed this. What is the massive amount of evidence to dispute evolution. One strong piece would suffice for science to replace it with a new and better theory. Global warming cannot have proof as it is modelling for the future. All models are ran backwards in time and the results are in agreement Perhaps you would prefer to wait 50 years and if the models are correct we can then say, yes we should have addressed it when we could but God wanted us to insure that shareholders of ExxonMobil made maximum profit, much more than the lives of tens of millions of very poor people who most likely weren't Christians anyway.
Yes my number one reason to rail against the very religious, especially the fundamentalists, is their ignorance of the science and the willingness to destroy it in order to project their religion upon others. And Damm the consequences to all other people, animals ecosystems and all else. I think it was Kenneth Miller, a highly regarded scientist and devout Catholic who was a climate change skeptic who got a grant from the Koch brothers to examine the science and find flaws in it. At the end of his study oof the science and the literature he came away convinced that it was true. During the Bush administration the US Army concluded that climate change represented a grave threat to the security of your nation.
No there is not a current consensus on the origin of the universe or of life. So what. There are still future scientists being born right now. They are needed because there is still so much to discover. The default of not knowing is not that God did it. Is there even a consensus among those who believe in any gods of which God and which flavour of that God there is?
The real dogma is that accusations from fundamentalist that scientists are dead set against Christianity and will do everything in their power to ignore , dismiss or destroy anything to do with your religion. That is a direct attack against tens of thousands of dedicated scientists that are atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindu and even Christian. Isn't there a commandment against false testimony against others. It appears to me the more fundamental a religious oerson, of any faith, the less they seem to strive towards living a better life and the more they strive to impose their fundamentalist world upon others. You keep making unsubstantiated claims about scientists and scientific theories using the same old and tired arguments that are found on so many creationists sites. That is dogma that isn't even from your religion.
The greatds of science never thought the world was flat. Bear in mind that by the time science really started man had already circled the globe. Whoever told you otherwise should not be listened to. In the world of Christians there were one or two scholars who thought that way but the vast majority thought the Earth was a globe, contrary to what some atheists think.
That ticks you off, doesn't it? You seem to get pretty upset at someone not believing your dogma.
It doesn't tick me off in the least I am always happy to correct misunderstandings, misrepresentation, mistakes and unsound reasoning in theist arguments. Indeed, it is reason we are here. Nice try though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
He seems pretty calm to me. Quit gaslighting the man.
Thank you. I don't even gaslight myself, not even in the small hours after a couple of tinnies. The last quip was a bit of nose -tweaking, but there was nothing even mildly annoyed about it. Indeed the 'Boy, I sure rattled your bars, didn't I?" accusation is a handly signal that they have no better argument to make.
I think that it is unfortunate that some religious believers don't understand the word dogma. Tzap seems to think the word is equivalent to opinion, while Baptistfundie attaches the word to secular concepts he doesn't like.
It is almost as if they are embarrassed that religions have dogma, although I cannot blame them for that viewpoint. Dogma, in that it is an authoritative decree without any need for evidence, is in and of itself a logical fallacy. It is simply a variant of the argument from authority.
Exactly. It is rather the same oddity about Faith. It is claimng that something is so, simply because it says so. It is even put forwards as something good that it should be believed without question.
What the oddity isnthat they then tumble over themselves to accuse atheists of having Faith and Dogma, as though it was something bad. But more probably it is a You Too argument (1). Neither prongs of it have a hope of working as evidence and reasonis...not so much on our side but is There and is validated, and that's what we take. It just happens that it does not support the Theist side.
It is perhaps understandable that they think of it in terms of Faith and dogma and even see the evidence as being faked up by atheists to suit themselves. After all, it is very much what the theist side do.
I think it is true to say that atheists can understand theists very well and can weven pretend as a theist convincingly. But theists can never really understand atheists or atheism and can never really pose as atheists as sooner or later, their mindset will show through. That's why I am very skeptical of the frequent:"I used to be an atheist - like you, until..." arguments, because they never seem to actually understand atheism or be familiar with the arguments. Therefore at most I can only assume they were Natural atheists until one or other of the evangelical packages worked on them.
(1) "you can't complain about our believing stuff without any good reason to - you beleive stuff in the science books without knowing whether it's true or not!" I suppose it's one reason why science is so much regarded with suspicion if not denial.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-01-2017 at 09:13 AM..
That seems to be true for the "I used to be an atheist" crowd that I have met IRL. It's a small sample size to be sure, but in my experience, what they really mean is that they didn't go to church. I did meet one person who meant that she was non-Christian, therefore as a child she did not believe in The-one-true-god.
I have also briefly met a couple of "angry at god" atheists. I have known a couple of teenage rebellion types who were rebelling against strict fundamentalist parents, and one person who had undergone a significant amount of trauma. I suspect their atheism was going to be short-lived, as it really was anger fueled with little rational thought behind it.
I have also briefly met a couple of "angry at god" atheists. I have known a couple of teenage rebellion types who were rebelling against strict fundamentalist parents, and one person who had undergone a significant amount of trauma. I suspect their atheism was going to be short-lived, as it really was anger fueled with little rational thought behind it.
In my experience, I believe that sums up most internet atheists. I'm sure there are exceptions, of course.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am always happy to correct misunderstandings, misrepresentation, mistakes and unsound reasoning in theist arguments. Indeed, it is reason we are here. Nice try though. 
