I can't speak for any other atheists, but the only "dogma" you could accuse me of is a belief that something successfully proven in an experimental method, with proper controls, is likely correct. As that does not require actually believing any single fact, and involves the understanding that any "fact" could possibly be disproven with improved experimentation I doubt you could honestly call that dogma.
victor809 wrote:
You're becoming a one trick pony. Your narrow minded thought process is just as stifling as a devout religious zealot.
I know numerous well schooled scientists and engineers that don't let "science" interfere with living. Using your logic, you couldn't embrace love or understand guilt. And maybe these emotions are not important to you, but they help define who we are and coupled with our opposable thumbs have helped determined our rank on the food chain.
In other words, stop being pretentious.
agreed. But my statement is that it is unnecessary. There is no need for him to express his faith, UNLESS he is trying to suggest that his faith will play a part in the performance of his job. IF that is the case, then I find it quite disturbing, as I'd rather my country be run by people who believe in actual things, not myth and superstition. A religious adherence is ONLY comforting to an individual who is of the same religion as yourself. Then you know they'll act in similar quirky ways as yourself.
victor809 wrote:
Let's use some of your logic on this one, Vic.
Can you prove to us that a candidate will use his faith in making our laws, simply because they express their faith openly and in a caring manner when addressing their public?
Seems to me that by your logic, this shouldn't even be a discussion. Because the overwhelming proof suggests that faith in God does NOT define our laws over the past 40 years.
In fact, considering your detailed, robotic and sytematic thought process, it is alarming to hear you suggest such observations.
Heck, if you keep this up, we may think you're human.
