28 May 15
Originally posted by C HessNo the source can be completely sane, it can be completely reasonable, it can be pure as
But the "source" makes all the difference, between evidence based opinions and faith based opinions. They're worlds apart, and if you find individials along the entire spectrum, behaving similarly toward each other, that doesn't mean that they're all equally justified in their behaviours.
Oh, and by the way, behaviour also is not about atheism.
the driven snow, but how we use it, how we deal with it, is on us. If you beat up those that
disagree with you, bad mouth or mock them over your source how is that different to from
someone who does the same for their religious beliefs? You want to tell me that your
"source" can make bad behavior good, because it is protecting the source, seriously?
Behavior is not about atheism, I agree, but people fill all the areas of discussion and I've
been talking about how we act, how we justify our actions, how we hold some truths to
be so important we go after those that disagree with us! Atheism has a view that there is
no God or gods, or to split hairs, a lack of belief in one so that view is common to those
that hold it, and they go after the beliefs of others, there are others, because many don't
share their lack of faith, they have are set themselves apart by their views however they
they choose to describe them.
28 May 15
Originally posted by C HessScience is not the issue, everyone can draw conclusions from data and move forward in
And this is why atheism, theism and science, all fails to be considered dogmatic in and of themselves. Two are strictly about believing (or not) in the existence of god(s), not what to do with that belief, and the last is about finding the best evidence based explanations to natural phenomena, and one of the core ideas is to be willing to change your mind according to new evidence.
I see now that we understand each other. Thank you. 🙂
whatever it is they think is best. That moving forward is what I'm talking about, science
can just give you data about whatever it is you are studying, what it means to you, how
much you are willing to accept are all on you! God or gods have nothing to do with that,
science cannot touch the spiritual, there are just things it doesn't see. If you take some
thing and accept it as truth, those ideas are going to shape your views of the world, this
shaping of views is due to what you think is true, and if it is ingrained where it cannot be
challenged, and if someone does they are by default in error, it is dogmatic.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, we're not talking about atheism, and we're no longer talking about science, we're not even talking about how dogmatic behaviour may have different underlying causes that completely changes the whole discussion from individual to individual, no we're now talking about how sad it is that people in general can be kind of mean to one another? Well, yeah, that sucks.
No the source can be completely sane, it can be completely reasonable, it can be pure as
the driven snow, but how we use it, how we deal with it, is on us. If you beat up those that
disagree with you, bad mouth or mock them over your source how is that different to from
someone who does the same for their religious beliefs? You want to tell me that your ...[text shortened]... h, they have are set themselves apart by their views however they
they choose to describe them.
So this is what lala-land looks like, where thoughts just float aimlessly around without focus. Huh, fascinating. Thank you for sharing. 🙂
(I'm sorry, I couldn't resist, but it feels like when I deal with one statement from you, you just drift away to another one. It's kindof like a joyride, going up and down and here and there.) 😵
28 May 15
Originally posted by C HessAtheism sets people apart from others, they are bound by their common views. They act
So, we're not talking about atheism, and we're no longer talking about science, we're not even talking about how dogmatic behaviour may have different underlying causes that completely changes the whole discussion from individual to individual, no we're now talking about how sad it is that people in general can be kind of mean to one another? Well, yeah, that ...[text shortened]... t away to another one. It's kindof like a joyride, going up and down and here and there.)[/i] 😵
out due to them just like everyone else does, and when they get their "stories" so ingrained
into their beliefs they defend them no differently than anyone else. Dogma is a good way
of describing it!
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
28 May 15
Originally posted by KellyJayDogma is a terrible way of describing it. Persist with that line of arguing and you will be refused entry to the buffet.
Atheism sets people apart from others, they are bound by their common views. They act
out due to them just like everyone else does, and when they get their "stories" so ingrained
into their beliefs they defend them no differently than anyone else. Dogma is a good way
of describing it!
The only 'common view' shared by atheists is that 'there is no God.' That's it, period. I think it's a reflection on your own dogma indoctrination that makes it difficult for you to conceive that others can exist quite happily without it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 May 15
Originally posted by KellyJayThere is only one 'view' common to all atheists.
Atheism sets people apart from others, they are bound by their common views.
That is that they all lack a belief in the existence of gods.
There is nothing else we all share in common outside of those things all humans share in
common by virtue of being human.
28 May 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeSimply being an Atheist does by definition segregate themselves from all of those who
There is only one 'view' common to all atheists.
That is that they all lack a belief in the existence of gods.
There is nothing else we all share in common outside of those things all humans share in
common by virtue of being human.
are not Atheist. I'm not attempting to lay anything at their feet beyond the facts that we
agree on, I agree there is one view common to all of them. So all the claims about not
believing in, or not having faith in, doesn't matter really, they do define themselves as
something different than other people.
The dogma are each person's individual beliefs that they hold fundamental truths for the
whole universe. When people question them, they get just as bent out of shape as the
rest of us, there is nothing special about them in that respect.
28 May 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeTo repeat for clarity sake:
Dogma is a terrible way of describing it. Persist with that line of arguing and you will be refused entry to the buffet.
The only 'common view' shared by atheists is that 'there is no God.' That's it, period. I think it's a reflection on your own dogma indoctrination that makes it difficult for you to conceive that others can exist quite happily without it.
Wikipedia:
Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself.
You seen reactions of people defending evolution, the age of the universe?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 May 15
Originally posted by KellyJay
To repeat for clarity sake:
Wikipedia:
Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself.
You seen reactions of people defending evolution, the age of the universe?
Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
This is not true of ANYTHING in science.
In science facts and theories are established by rigorous and objective analysis of the available evidence.
And they are ALWAYS open to being challenged, modified, rejected, and updated as appropriate upon
the discovery of new/better evidence.
Even sciences methodologies and philosophy are accepted because they are demonstrated to work, and not
because some 'authority' says so. And in the event that any or all of them are found to be inferior to some other
set of methods and philosophies then they will be dropped/changed accordingly.