Originally posted by Great King Rat
You're asking if believing a scientific theory means you are displaying CD.

Clearly, you haven't the foggiest idea what CD means, and writing some stuff about when you first heard the term does nothing to hide that.

Read and learn.

Learning what man means by CD does not change the fact that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by sonship
Maybe I could read up. But I first heard that term in 1978 abouts.

Before I go off and get your extended education, I recall, that Cognitive Dissonance had to do with believing two contradictory things which could not be logically reconciled. (laymen's recollected terms)

I met with Christians which were accused by some cult fighters (acting like Psy ...[text shortened]... st hear the term?

Has the meaning substantially changed since then so that I need an update?

" I recall, that Cognitive Dissonance had to do with believing two contradictory things which could not be logically reconciled. (laymen's recollected terms)."

Reading the link, I'd say you're pretty close, except that CD is a state of mental stress or discomfort that occurs when you realize that a belief that you have held for a while and have been comfortable holding is contradicted by new information that seems to be undeniable.

In the religious, it is possible to dispel this stress in a particular case and gird oneself against future cases, by holding the general belief that anything that contradicts one's religious beliefs is either a test by God, or the work of the devil, or both. One can avoid future cases of CD by avoiding the source of new information and labeling it as "evil" as in "evilution."

This same avoidance/denial mechanism occurs among scientists, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out in his work on paradigms in science. For example, Alfred Wegener's 1912 ideas about continental drift were rejected in part, because he was a meteorogist, not a geologist. But eventually, the concept of plate tectonics developed by geologists to the point where there was adequate and undeniable explanatory power WRT continental drift, to the satisfaction of mainstream geologists. Dissident scientists generally say the theory is incomplete in its explanatory power, which is to be expected in the development of theories. The most cogent criticism is that PT is not a causal theory; it is, so far, only a kinematic explanation.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
So you could be wrong about the existence of god? It could be that, despite what you believe, there is no god and this life is all there is?

Yes? No? Maybe?

No.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That 'is this all there is' stance when confronting atheists is a particular annoyance of mine.

It's like here we have this absolute jewel of a planet, a real rarity in the universe, proven by astronomers now up to something like 2000 planets discovered and very few of them have the configuration of a small planet like Earth in the goldilocks zone and wi ...[text shortened]... our hell, not our heaven.

That REALLY upsets me more than almost anything else about theism.

You assume much. And you're also painting it in an entirely different color than I see. But anything to defile God, eh?

Originally posted by OdBod
It is just that sonship, a theory. Science recognises that this not the full story, and certainly will evolve with more knowledge. Theists don't regard their gods as a theory, for them it is a fact, which any amount of new information cannot change, thus CD.

And that's not entirely true. Partially true, yes, but not entirely true.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
This is wrong on so many levels, but of course it's impossible to convince an atheist that he could possibly be wrong about religion in any way.

Maybe not impossible but certainly improbable. Even a cursory examination of the title and OP can reveal what is wrong with it:

Scientists have the ability to be wrong: But theists have no such ability.

An opinion based on prejudicial thinking. It's a cheap shot designed to give the impression science is reasonable and religion is not.

They can NEVER be wrong (in their own minds) They are filled to the brim with absolute certainty.

He states with absolutely certainty that they believe they can NEVER (in their own minds) be wrong.

Even if that certainty is opposite other theist's certainty.

Whether certain or not, scientists are never known to disagree.

Wars start over such certainty.

This is where the comedy ends and cognitive dissonance begins, because now he's made the sort of inflammatory remark (based on prejudicial thinking) that are known to have started wars. What's worse is that there is (an implied) threat of (potential) violence against theists, because the implication of war clearly paints some extreme danger associated with all religions (perhaps calling for extreme measures in order to eliminate that danger?) Hate speech has always been a precursor for jazzing people up to go to war. So there is no moral or logical framework that can lend support to this kind of prejudicial thinking:

~ All blacks are bad because some blacks are bad.
~ All whites are oppressive because some whites are oppressive.
~ All scientists are better than all theists, because all scientists believe they can be wrong whereas all theists believe they can never be wrong.

It's nearly impossible to reason with someone who typically thinks about people in stereotypical terms. I know because I've tried, and only once can I remember seeing a tiny spark of understanding begin to show itself in someones eyes.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
...of course it's impossible to convince an atheist that he could possibly be wrong about religion in any way.

I have met plenty of atheists who were quite open minded [and willing to give religionists a hearing], but I can't remember ever knowing one who'd be inclined to admit he could possibly be wrong about religion simply as a result of theists making assertions about the veracity of their beliefs.

Originally posted by lemon lime

Sonhouse: Wars start over such certainty.

This is where the comedy ends and cognitive dissonance begins, because now he's made the sort of inflammatory remark (based on prejudicial thinking) that are known to have started wars. What's worse is that there is (an implied) threat of (potential) violence against theists, because the implication of war clearly paints some extreme danger associated with all religions (perhaps calling for extreme measures in order to eliminate that danger?) Hate speech has always been a precursor for jazzing people up to go to war.

Do you think sonhouse's OP contains "hate speech"?

Originally posted by FMF
Sonhouse: Wars start over such certainty.

[b]This is where the comedy ends and cognitive dissonance begins, because now he's made the sort of inflammatory remark (based on prejudicial thinking) that are known to have started wars. What's worse is that there is (an implied) threat of (potential) violence against theists, because the implication of war c ...[text shortened]... or for jazzing people up to go to war.

Do you think sonhouse's OP contains "hate speech"?[/b]

Would Neighborhood yard sales start over such certainty be enough to create the same sense of alarm? Even the most malleable of minds would need a reason for hating people who pose no real threat to them.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Would Neighborhood yard sales start over such certainty be enough to create the same sense of alarm? Even the most malleable of minds would need a reason for hating people who pose no real threat to them.

A straight answer would be more interesting. You introduced the idea of "hate speech" into the discussion. Nobody had used the word "hate" until you did. So, once again: Do you think sonhouse's OP contains "hate speech"?

Originally posted by FMF
A straight answer would be more interesting. You introduced the idea of "hate speech" into the discussion. Nobody had used the word "hate" until you did. So, once again: Do you think sonhouse's OP contains "hate speech"?

It would be even more interesting if you looked at it within the context it was given:

"This is where the comedy ends and cognitive dissonance begins, because now he's made the sort of inflammatory remark (based on prejudicial thinking) that are known to have started wars. What's worse is that there is (an implied) threat of (potential) violence against theists, because the implication of war clearly paints some extreme danger associated with all religions (perhaps calling for extreme measures in order to eliminate that danger?) Hate speech has always been a precursor for jazzing people up to go to war."

My most recent answer to you was based on all of above. Hate speech doesn't just show up fully formed and for no apparent reason. That one statement alone at the end of his OP does not constitute hate speech, but it does open the door for someone to take note of the link he creates between a (contrived) theistic certainty and war.

If I had linked scientific certainty with war, I think I could expect to hear some rather pointed criticism of that assessment... don't you?

Originally posted by lemon lime
My most recent answer to you was based on all of above, and not on just that one particular statement. Hate speech doesn't just show up fully formed and for no apparent reason. The one statement alone at the end of his OP does not constitute hate speech, but it does open the door for someone to take note of the link he creates between a (contrived) theistic certainty and war.

So that's a "no" then?

But you are saying that sonhouse is making an implied threat of potential violence against theists, right? You wrote that, yes?

Originally posted by lemon lime
If I had linked scientific certainty with war, I think I could expect to hear some rather pointed criticism of that assessment... don't you?

I certainly wouldn't have tried to draw a link between what you said, on one hand, and "hate speech" on the other, no.