The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll

 

Phew.

Vegetarianism is a viable way to live. Veganism is VERY difficult to do without be malnourished. The lovely pale green tint to most vegans skins will attest to that fact.

 

I'm a garbagecanarian. Open the hatch and dump whatever in. I should change that but I haven't got to it yet.

^ no meat there then

 

 

 

So... if we are a mad bad killing machine why are we squeamish?

 

How about you guess and tell us what you're going to say anyway?

 

Well I let him bite on this if he chooses but it is unlikely to end well.

"Would you care to elaborate a bit on my deluded view ... which are the dogmas that in your opinion I'm following, and which you grew out of?"

Part 1: I thought it was fairly clear, I used to be a pretty militant agnostic.  I demanded incontrovertible proof from anyone who tried to "sell" me on the existence of God.  No form of creationism was taught in schools in the US (still isn't as far as my experience with 7 different school districts in three different states over a period of 40 years and three kids indicates. 2 schools were in the heart of the Bible Belt where I lived for 3 years), so I grew up with with only one option to choose from, the scientific one.  When the only tool you have is a hammer everything else becomes a nail, and I hammered away with my one tool for most of my life.  That changed for me about 10 years ago.  The reasons are testimonial and won't satisfy your present mind-set.

As for the dogmas, you may call it splitting hairs but I did not use the word dogma.  I never said you followed dogmas.  I said you were following your beliefs in a dogmatic manner.  Dogmatic, meaning "as in the manner of a dogma".  You insist on proof for things which, at present, cannot be proved.  This insistence is "dogmatic" without being an actual dogma. 

I used the word "deluded" because its one of your favorites.  One or the other of us may be deluded.  You think it definitely is me and I think it may be you, but only for relying too heavily on science that you clearly don't fully understand, and which may not be correct and surely isn't complete.

Science is a wonderful and interesting tool that can and probably will continue to expand and evolve.  1,000 years ago your ancestors (the ones that need proof, since you see it as an evolutionary advancement) would surely have been demanding concrete PROOF that the earth was not flat, because the science of the day said it was.  And as we know now, the Earth is not flat.  Science later proved this.  We don't know what science may prove (or dis-prove) next.  Science may prove the Bible to be true.  That seems unlikely now, but 1,000 years ago a trip to the moon seemed equally unlikely.  Hanging so dogmatically onto what little is currently known about things seems like a mistake to me.  I looked for more and I found it, or rather, it found me.

Part 2: I also think that for you the scientist's need for agreement and consensus, coupled with what appears to be some personal insecurity or self-image issues, are causing you some problems.  In science, if you cannot demonstrate your case to the satisfaction of other scientists, (through duplication and other means) your conclusions are thought to be wrong.  I think that you believe that you have "made your case" so well that no one could possibly come to any other conclusion, and it confuses, and frustrates you then you don't receive complete agreement.  When this happens you fall back to the Standard New Atheist line of defense; ridicule.  

Other atheists (including one of my closest friends since childhood) do not feel this consuming need for others to agree with them.  Dean (sorry to drag you into this) and I don't agree on these issues, but we have a chuckle about it and move on, because we both know and are comfortable with who we are.  Our beliefs or lack of beliefs are not seen as a threat.   You seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a challenge to your self-worth, and THAT is the thing that I hope (and pray) that you will someday, grow out of.  You are not comfortable with the position you have chosen unless everyone agrees, and I find that a little sad.  There is a difference between discussion and argument.  It appears to me that you see everything as an argument, and in an argument, discussion is not possible.

No one, in what now amounts to over 100 pages of these threads has said or even hinted that you should not be an atheist.  You, on the other hand, have stated that you will not accept anything less than the total abolition of all religion, and your reasons for that have been decidedly UNscientific.  The world may or may not be better off without religion.  It cannot be proved scientifically, and therefore by your own definitions, it is a delusion.