Dave #fundie

Dave #fundie wnd.com

What the secular humanists (so-called atheists) don't understand is that they are every bit as fundamentalists in their ideology as any of the religious fundamentalists that they so revile.

Their "free thinking" only goes so far as their dogmatism allows. Case in point is when a "free thinker" breaks free from the accepted dogmatism and actually does some free thinking, and writes something critical of evolution, for example. Careers have been ruined over such transgressions from the secular humanism fundamentalism.

Something else to think about. If you asked a "free thinker" to name 50 of the founders of modern science he could probably do that. However, what he won't recognize is that of those 50 probably at least 45 of those would be Bible-believing theists of some kind who would abhor the notion of disregarding God's role in creation.

If you asked him to name any "free thinkers'" contributions to science he'd probably name Darwin at the top of the list, for example. However, the big difference there is that Darwin's contribution, as were others of his persuasion, was an attempt to try to explain science without God ... something that they have failed at miserably, forever running in circles chasing their own tales.

19 comments

old comment by Kanna

The most telling part of that whole Ham-Nye debate was at the end. They were each asked what would make them change their minds. The scientist said "evidence". That, Dave, is what a free thinker does, uses the evidence of science to inform his decisions,

The creationist said "nothing" in response to the same question. For someone to assert that nothing would make him change his mind means that person suffers from some delusion such that even evidence, even observable truths can be denied. Religion does that: it makes a person blind to truth. And the truth is that scientists of the past are not here to question, so we have no way of knowing whether they felt their work was in conflict with "god", and whether any of them paid any attention to such inanities as "god's creation" .

old comment by Kuno

However, what he won't recognize is that of those 50 probably at least 45 of those would be Bible-believing theists of some kind who would abhor the notion of disregarding God's role in creation.

I really doubt that many “free thinker” wouldn’t be aware that most people from the past, including scientists, were believers in one religion or other.

The thing is, we tend to remember such people for the things they were right about, not about those they were wrong about. Case in point (as Nemo mentioned), Isaac Newton. He is remembered for his contributions and discoveries about mathematics, gravity and light, not for his attempts at alchemy and biblical prophecy. (I recently read a quote about him, forgot by whom, calling him “not the first of the scientists, but the last of the magicians”.)

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"What the secular humanists (so-called atheists) don't understand is that they are every bit as fundamentalists in their ideology as any of the religious fundamentalists that they so revile."

What the fundie Christains (so-called 'Christians') don't understand is that if Atheism is a 'religion', where's our tax exemption?

You want to freely think that yours isn't a religion, but is 'A personal relationship with Jesus', fine.

Don't come running to us for help however, when the IRS come to take what's owing them: your own God, never mind the properties, assets etc of all right-wing Fundamentalist Christains.

But then, as you lot owe a rather sizeable chunk of -the nearly $17 quadrillion owed in back taxes by Christianity since 1776 - they already do.

You figure out that one: via financial science, Dave. The IRS's accountants already have.

old comment by Swede

There is little or no ideology to atheism. It's just a lack of belief in gods, goddesses and other deities. It's not particularly fundamentalist either, most would, if presented with scientific evidence of gods, change their minds.

Writing something critical of evolution is done all the time, I'd say, but it only makes the theory stronger; being challenged time and time again. Writing something whiny about evolution, with the amount of facts and the maturity of the argument that "evolutionists are poopyheads!" might indeed ruin your career.

During most of the last millennia, being a "Bible-believing theist" was the only allowed position to hold, so much of the professed religiosity was a sincere as when I say "Lord God", when I'm surprised, angry or very happy. It was just something you did. A lot of the scientists in those days probably doubted God's role in creation.

Darwin was a moderate Christian. His contribution was an attempt to explain the world with science, regardless of gods. If gods had fit the explanation, they would have been included.

Chasing their tales?

“What the secular humanists (so-called atheists) don't understand is that they are every bit as fundamentalists in their ideology as any of the religious fundamentalists that they so revile.”
What ideology? I don’t believe in gods, that makes me an atheist. That’s it. That’s all there is to atheism.

“…when a "free thinker" breaks free from the accepted dogmatism and actually does some free thinking, and writes something critical of evolution, for example.”
evolution =/= atheism.
So it’s not atheists, but probably biologists that would object to this criticism.
And the question would be WHY they’re critical. Did they find an error in someone’s methodology? Or do they quote the Bible?
Because if you’re quoting the bible to criticize evolution, then you’re not a freethinker.
Really, this example just shows how fucked up your understanding is, not my ‘dogmatism.’

“Careers have been ruined over such transgressions from the secular humanism fundamentalism.”
Um, people trying to bring god into the science are not allowed to science anymore. Because it’s not science. But that’s not because you offend atheists, you’re violating the definition of science.

“Something else to think about. If you asked a "free thinker" to name 50 of the founders of modern science he could probably do that. However, what he won't recognize is that of those 50 probably at least 45 of those would be Bible-believing theists of some kind who would abhor the notion of disregarding God's role in creation.”
I really don’t care if a founding father of science believed in Jehovah, Jesus, Zeus, Allah, Hecate, or Paul from Marketing. If they’re a pioneer of science, they did the science without references to angels, gods, ghosts, or magic. So, really, i DO NOT CARE if they’re bible-believing theists, they didn’t take God to work.

“If you asked him to name any "free thinkers'" contributions to science he'd probably name Darwin at the top of the list, for example.”
I really don’t think I would. I’d probably start with Gary Larson, maybe, the guy who named the Thagomizer.

“However, the big difference there is that Darwin's contribution, as were others of his persuasion, was an attempt to try to explain science without God ...”
Foul Flag on the play. You’re a lying sack of shit.
No science says ‘there is no god.’ Or says, “God had no part of…”
That’s a connotation added by bible literalists who insist on Genesis being taken as literal history. NOT part of evolution, or any other theory.

“something that they have failed at miserably, forever running in circles chasing their own tales.”
Tails, idiot. Chasing their own tails.
And no, we haven’t FAILED at something we’re NOT TRYING TO DO.