When did you start or stop believing in dogma?

[TroutDude]

Originally Posted by fishbrains

The monkeys were obviously an example of social interaction, chosen specifically because they aren't human.

You are a clever person, yet you write as if you missed that very obvious point. I have a hard time believing you didn't understand. Are you so desperate to hate atheists that you willfully misconstrue simple things like this? Does your purposeful ignorance do any credit to your religion?

Many have tried holding a mirror to her behaviour.

She won't open her eyes.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

I've never believed that the Bible says we have libertarian free will. That's a heresy called Pelagianism to suggest that we can freely choose God or sin. Fact is, we are all slaves to a sinful nature until God regenerates us and we are born again.

You seem to think that makes God bad? So what? If you believe you're the product of natural events, and your brain is just a peace of meat with random chemicals flowing through it, how is anything moral, immoral, good or bad?

According to the Bible God created evil. Is that bad? According to Christians, God is incapable of doing evil. What do Christians who believe that a creator God who specifically created evil, brought it into the world on purpose, but who, according to them, is incapable of doing evil know of moral, immoral, good or bad if they are really that confused?

I live in a world with other people. My concept of morality tells me that I if want others to treat me with concern and respect, I must treat other people with concern and respect. My morality builds off of that. I AM NOT CONFUSED.

[overcastg4]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

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 is the conditions and instrumentation that produce such a perspective.

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.

They would be wrong in the sense of misrepresenting what those conditions and instrumentation produce, if they were attempting to present such.

[TRANSPONDER]

Indeed. The the whole 'How do we know what we know?' package with everything from 'Atheists have faith, too' to 'believe -or not' and from 'science is always getting it wrong' to the limitations of human perceptions is aimed at one idea - debunking human knowledge so as to make Faith look more valid.

It isn't. Not by a long way. The scientific method is based on questioning, changing the mind (if necessary)and moving on with better information. It is not Dogma or faith. But it has an impressive track record and what it considers reliable is pretty reliable.

Faith in fact changes its' dogma all the time, but pretends that it doesn't. It has a woefully poor track record. Despite the dismally poor attempts to find Science in the Bible (and - as we saw recently, the Quran) the assertions of religion are shown to be false time and again. Everything from the Seige of Jerusalem to the Nativity and from the Exodus to the trial of Jesus.

And as we saw, in the Muslim Dogma the barrier between fresh and salt water, the fly's wing cure, the rebounding lightning and the nonsensical description of human reproduction, all show there is no knowledge in the Quran that had to come from a god.

The subsequent denial was as remarkable to note as the remarkable desire of faith -based dogma to try to grab a little of the credibility that Science has earned for itself.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by fishbrains

Does your purposeful ignorance do any credit to your religion?

Never has and never will!