When forming attitudes about embryonic stem cell research, people are influenced by a number of things. But understanding science plays a negligible role for many people.
“More knowledge is good – everybody is on the same page about that. But will that knowledge necessarily help build support for the science?” says Dietram Scheufele. “The data show that no, it doesn’t. It does for some groups, but definitely not for others.”
Along with Dominique Brossard and Shirley Ho, Scheufele used national public opinion research to analyze how public attitudes are formed about controversial scientific issues such as nanotechnology and stem cells. What they have found again and again is that knowledge is much less important than other factors, such as religious values or deference to scientific authority.
“Highly religious audiences are different from less religious audiences. They are looking for different things, bringing different things to the table,” explains Scheufele. “It is not about providing religious audiences with more scientific information. In fact, many of them are already highly informed about stem cell research, so more information makes little difference in terms of influencing public support. And that’s not good or bad. That’s just what the data show.”On the other hand, a value system held by a much smaller portion of the American public works in just the opposite direction. The attitudes of individuals who are deferential to science – who tend to trust scientists and their work – are influenced by their level of scientific understanding.
I’m only surprised by how polite the authors managed to be.
Bobster. Tsk. As I’ve pointed out above, there’s only one CENTRAL DOGMA for Atheism: “I believe that God does not exist”.
I guess Christians are more creative, as they require 10 commandments. The central dogma of Christianity is that one must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Perhaps you see the parallel, or must I explain it further?
#32–Mustard==yes, you do have to explain it further because a definition of a category is not a dogma. This confirms and highlights that you don’t know what you are talking about and only making it up as fits your own unique view of things.
So==ok, we’ve got the central dogma. The christians have dozens of dogma to separate the insane from the posers==what non central additional dogma must one hold to in order to be a good atheist.
Again–having only one central dogma and nothing else as you have advanced, is actually a definition and not a dogma at all.
#32 – Mustard, If the Christians need 10 commandments to tell them how to live, how could that be creative? It sounds like lemmings that can’t think on their own. In a time of crisis the best Jeebus can do is show up on toast or even here: http://tinyurl.com/2pjckr
Oh Bobster. Bobster, Bobster, Bobster. “I believe that God does not exist” is much, much more than a definition. It forms the most fundamental basis of the Atheist belief system. To call it a “definition” is no different from taking all the rules and regulations of the Catholic church and saying they’re the “definition” of a Catholic.
Granted, theist religions are more organized than the Atheist religion, so they have a more highly developed system of rules. That doesn’t take away from the faith-based nature of either group.
#35–Mustard–the issue is not how faith based not having faith is. The issue is “what is the dogma of the atheist.”
You can’t give any.
Take some time and think about it===definition vs supporting dogma.
You can do it, I have faith you can do it. Or–I guess the default is you can only assert that atheism is a religion with no supporting dogma?
See how external reality, including the dictionary, can help you be a more clearly thinking human being?
>>It sounds like lemmings that can’t think
>>on their own.
Oh poo. Why don’t you go find a nice all-beef patty?
Perhaps “creative” wasn’t the best choice of words; “evolved” is probably closer to what I was thinking.
Codifying elements such as “don’t murder people” and “be nice to mom and dad” into a set of commandments doesn’t seem very lemming-like to me. More like a “definition” (in the Bobsterian sense) of what actual believers do.
I imagine the reason that Atheist haven’t formulated such a list is because they’re so busy getting all up in the grille of people of faith that they haven’t the time to draw up a list.
And your photoshopped dog’s ass (or whatever it is), while humorous, is nothing more than a red herring, used to draw attention away from the central issues and to batter, bash, disrespect, and lampoon those who don’t share your belief. Intolerance is an ugly thing.
The only difference I’m aware of between Catholics and Baptists are Catholics will say “hi” to each other at the liquor store.
#37–Mustard==yea, I guess the 10 commandments are “dogma” from the websites I visited. But “thou shalt not murder” does not “define” a christian which is why it is dogma and not a definition.
You already defined a christian as accepting Jesus as the son of God. Thats it. Dogma to follow. Keep working on it==you’ll get it.
>>the issue is not how faith based not
>>having faith is.
Jeez, Bobster. Are you taking a creative writing class from Pedro? I have no idea wtf that means. What’s next, you hit us with some info about how you’ve “ben doing tuna fish sandwichs” and Cuban eye surgery?
>>The issue is “what is the dogma of the atheist.” >>You can’t give any.
I just gave you the overarching dogma of Atheism, son. “I believe that God does not exist.”
As to your weird dogma/ supporting dogma definitions and their relevance to this discussion (or to anything at all), I’m tossing that one in the same bin as youre -==weird=///punctuation-==/-= ie something that I don’t understand, but will just take it as one of the Oddities of Bobbo.
>>The only difference I’m aware of between Catholics
>>and Baptists are Catholics will say “hi” to each
>>other at the liquor store.
That you have a profound and global ignorance of all things relating to faith and religion has been apparent for quite some time, O Watery One.
#40–Mustard==entertaining that your own statements rephrased don’t make sense to you. That is indeed the nature of a dogma==more like a mantra.
I agree—I didn’t get that tuna fish sandwich deal either, even after visiting the Urban Dictionary which was kind of disgusting, but not providing any links to whatever Kuzco was refering to? Maybe he was still coming down from a hike to Maccu Pichu and all the cocoa leaves that takes?
So==one dogma only?====equals====busted as you are fond of saying.
and I did seriously think you could do better?
>>the issue is not how faith based not
>>having faith is.
Ah, I put myself in the position of a communication-challenged person, and I think I know what you were trying to say.
You’re making a fundamental error here. Atheism is not “not having faith”. Atheists have a deep, abiding faith that they will defend to the death (sometimes involving the death of those who don’t share their faith) that GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
Give it up, Bobbo. As Doctor Evil would say, we’re not so different, you and I. I have faith in God, you have faith that He does not exist. The key term in this whole discussion is FAITH.
#43–Mustard==everytime I decide to shitcan you as a retard, you redeem yourself===although never totally.
Only a very small fraction of atheist hold that “strong atheist” definition you champion. I’d believe in god if there was any evidence for him==then I’d just be against him for being a dictator and small minded to boot.
BUT YOU ARE RIGHT. All human beings are more similar than dissimilar and from what I perceive, you and I are near twins in our beliefs other than the god thing and even there we are 99.99% in agreement.
YOU reject all gods except one, and I reject all gods. Pretty darn close, or is it? As Scottie so often asks==why not a belief in dragons Mr Mustard???
And the circle continues unbroken.
I have renewed hope in you MM—be all that you can be–even if that involves a change in service?
Mustard – Here is an interesting article that you should read. And what’s up with that preacher trying to drown that little boy? http://tinyurl.com/43te3v
#24 – Mr. Musty,
I have to revisit this one. I missed a central point that you completely and utterly failed to make. You said:
>>Is stating that I believe [blah blah] dogma?
Of course not.
However, what followed was not an explanation of the difference. What is it you see as different between them? This is central to your misunderstanding of what atheism is.
>>everytime I decide to shitcan you as a retard
YOU shitcan ME as a retard?? Haw! HAWHAWHAW! That’s rich, Bobster. Totally rich.
>>YOU reject all gods except one, and I
>>reject all gods
I don’t reject any gods, Bobster. All gods are the same god. Different cultures have evolved different personifications, but that has no effect on the existence or nature of a higher power.
You choose to take the most ridiculous fringe elements of Christianity and paint all Christians with that same broad brush. Yet you object if someone characterized Atheists as Pol Pot or Stalin. I think once you’re done with the expository writing class with Pedro, you need to take a class in Parallelism 101. And sign up for Consistency 101 while you’re at it.
>>As Scottie so often asks==why not a
>>belief in dragons Mr Mustard???
I believe that Scottie was talking about FIRE-BREATHING dragons. Everyone knows that regular dragons exist
http://tinyurl.com/6qxm4q
As to the fire-breathers, I have no reason to believe they exist, but I’m not willing to go to the Atheist extreme on it. On the other hand, I have many reasons to believe that God exists. Those who have never sought him, yet are militant in their belief that He does not exist are beyond pitiful. Just pathetic. As we know from Scripture (Matthew 7:7), “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you”
For those who choose not to ask, seek, and knock, yer on yer own.
#30 – Mister Mustard,
A commandment need not be an utterance by a guy with white hair/beard and a robe.
A commandment requires a commander. How do you see it differently?
If it is not some authoritative figure making a demand, with or without beard, then it is not a commandment.
So, for the atheist “commandment”, exactly whom do you see as the commander?
There has to be one for it to be a commandment. Else, you are as self-contradictory as the bible.
#30 – Musty again,
Sorry, I answered before reading your last part.
But if the notion of Atheism having a “commandment” sounds too holy for your tastes, how about if we call it a CENTRAL DOGMA. Something that, if you don’t believe it, you’re out. A very important belief, in other words.
It’s only a dogma in the utterly uninteresting sense of the 4th definition I cited above.
Of course, if one believes in god, then one is not an atheist. Again, this is the definition of atheist. If one has wings and a beak, one is not likely a human either.
Again, you have merely picked the definition of the word atheist and defined it as a dogma to be an atheist. Do you also state that it is dogma for a 4 sided object with equal angles and side lengths to be a square. Certainly, if the object has an uneven side, it is no longer a square. Perhaps it has broken the CENTRAL DOGMA to squaredom.
>>However, what followed was not an
>>explanation of the difference.
Scottie, people are free to believe whatever they choose (in most cases). I believe that when it gets to be 98 degrees here today, it’s going to be uncomfortable outside. Some may welcome the heat and humidity. Neither of us would be kicked out of the Meteorologists’ Koffee Klatch for our beliefs.
When a belief or action is mandatory for membership in a certain society (such as Atheism), THAT is the dogma. Not what one believes, but whether one is forced, by the conditions of membership, to believe; that’s the defining characteristic of dogma.
This is central to your misunderstanding of the whole faith/ religion thing, and why you erroneously don’t consider yourself to be a person of faith. When in fact you are, it’s just a different faith than mine.
#48 – Scottie;
I have given you an accepted definition of “commandment” that does not require a commander, but is rather a teaching or a precept.
You didn’t like that.
I agreed to allow us to refer to the “One Commandment” of Atheism as “Central Dogma”
You didn’t like that either.
I’m not sure how far I have to bend, Scottie. Sheesh. Would you like “Prime Directive” better?
#50 – Mister Mustard,
That doesn’t make sense. Of course not believing in god is central to the koffee katch of atheism. It’s the definition of the word atheism.
If a meteorologist tried to claim that there is no such thing as weather, s/he would be kicked out of the koffee klatch.
You’ve not picked a good analogy.
If someone doesn’t like scrabble, they are unlikely to be members of the local scrabble club. Ditto for bridge.
Does that make the local scrabble and bridge clubs dogmatic? Of course not.
What you call dogma amounts to saying that in order for atheists to be atheists they must be atheists, therefore it is dogma.
This is a tautology. It does not argue your case at all.
>>Of course not believing in god is central
>>to the koffee katch of atheism.
This is central to your misunderstanding, Scottie. Atheists don’t “not believe in God”. They have a strong, heartfelt belief that GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
Hence their propensity for getting all up in the grille of believers, ridiculing them, calling them “sheeple” and generally making them objects of scorn and derision.
Once you are able to grok the difference between “belief” and “non-belief”, I think (believe?) that your eyes will be opened to the real issue here.
#13, Scott,
Please describe said dogma? I’ve never seen it.
That is what you call a bitch who just had puppies.
#53 – Mister Mustard,
Atheists don’t “not believe in God”. They have a strong, heartfelt belief that GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
There you go telling atheists, myself included, what we believe. Why exactly do you think that atheists do not deserve the right of self-expression? Why exactly do you think you get to tell me what I believe?
I think on this issue, and only this issue, I’m going to have to treat you as a troll. I’m going to stop responding. (At least, I’ll do so for as long as I can, which may not be long. I’m self-honest enough to realize that.)
Hence their propensity for getting all up in the grille of believers, ridiculing them, calling them “sheeple” and generally making them objects of scorn and derision.
And, just when exactly did I do that?
Once you are able to grok the difference between “belief” and “non-belief”, I think (believe?) that your eyes will be opened to the real issue here.
And yet, non-belief will still be called atheism despite all of your rants. I think it is your eyes that are closed.
Perhaps there are people that are the way you describe. I’m willing to remain agnostic about that since people do exhibit a wide array of odd behavior. However, I don’t know any that are as you describe.
The atheists I know say, “There is no god. If you believe there is and want to convince me, show me some evidence.” I do not know any atheists that would not be swayed by evidence. We just haven’t seen any. And, people have been searching for thousands of years. It’s a long time to keep coming up with nothing.
So, I’m not calling you a troll, on other subjects, your posts make it clear that you are not. However, I’m going to attempt to treat you as a troll on this topic and see if I can end this ridiculous language twisting of yours. I’m getting too tired of having you tell me what I think anyway. I’m perfectly capable of stating it for myself thanks.
Were you truly to respect atheists, you would at least let us describe our own feelings, beliefs, and ideas and then knock those down rather than inserting your ideas into our heads as strawmen to be knocked down.
You may want to do some soul searching in the down time while I’m not responding to crap to see why you find yourself unable to allow an atheist to speak for himself or herself.
(Bets on how long I last?)
#54 – Gawd,
Funny, although it makes it even more tragic to speak of one’s karma running over one’s dogma.
>>Why exactly do you think that atheists do not
>>deserve the right of self-expression? Why exactly do
>>you think you get to tell me what I believe?
Perhaps for the same reason that Atheists feel that they can tell Christians (and other theists) what they believe, whether they believe it or not.
>>And yet, non-belief will still be called atheism
>>despite all of your rants.
No, Scottie. Non-belief will be called Agnosticism. You can re-define Atheism any way you like, but that don’t make it so. I can define myself as a nine-year-old Hindu boy, but that don’t make it so either.
>>And, people have been searching for thousands of
>>years. It’s a long time to keep coming up with
>>nothing.
Scottie, if you think people of faith have been “searching for thousands of years” for some sort of Kodak moment to convince the non-believer, you know less about religion than I had feared. Sure, there are the nutballs who see Jesus in an oil stain, but whaddaygonnado? You Atheists have your Pol Pots, your Stalins, your Maos. Everyone has a few black sheep in the family.
>>Were you truly to respect atheists, you would at
>>least let us describe our own feelings, beliefs,
>>and ideas and then knock those down
Don’t take things so personally, Scottie. I’m sure (i.e., I beleive) you’re a fine and tolerant human being. I’m talking about the “median” Atheist. You know, militant, agressive, intolerant, dismissive, and all up in my grille.
And, unlike many Atheists wrt Christians, I have no interest in knocking down your feelings, beliefs, and ideas. Whatever you believe is fine by me. And turnabout is fair play. I don’t call you a marauding perpetrator of genocide, so don’t be calling me a “sheeple”. Not every adherent of a belief system (read: religion) is as bad as the worst individual in the group.
#56 – Mister Mustard,
Guess that lasted an hour. Maybe I’ll try not chiming in on new threads instead. It’s hard not to respond to comments directed at me.
Perhaps for the same reason that Atheists feel that they can tell Christians (and other theists) what they believe, whether they believe it or not.
And when exactly has anyone on this board done so? I think you’re making shit up as you go along.
Non-belief will be called Agnosticism. You can re-define Atheism any way you like, but that don’t make it so. I can define myself as a nine-year-old Hindu boy, but that don’t make it so either.
No. On this you are sadly mistaken. Giving credence to a hypothesis that has no evidence is either belief or it must be done equally, hence my point about dragons. All or nothing on this one. If nothing needs evidence to be given credence, that is a form of non-belief. It would also be crippling as one such individual would never know what might happen next. Giving credence to the god hypothesis alone but not dragons, nessie, etc., is a strong belief.
if you think people of faith have been “searching for thousands of years” for some sort of Kodak moment to convince the non-believer, you know less about religion than I had feared. Sure, there are the nutballs who see Jesus in an oil stain, but whaddaygonnado? You Atheists have your Pol Pots, your Stalins, your Maos. Everyone has a few black sheep in the family.
How about if I reword that to simply say that no evidence has been forthcoming in thousands of years, leading to the logical conclusion that no such entity exists.
Don’t take things so personally, Scottie. I’m sure (i.e., I beleive) you’re a fine and tolerant human being. I’m talking about the “median” Atheist. You know, militant, agressive, intolerant, dismissive, and all up in my grille.
Got an example of such an induhvidual? I’ve never seen one.
And, unlike many Atheists wrt Christians, I have no interest in knocking down your feelings, beliefs, and ideas. Whatever you believe is fine by me.
Extreme bullshit. You attempt to knock atheists at every possible opportunity.
And turnabout is fair play. I don’t call you a marauding perpetrator of genocide, so don’t be calling me a “sheeple”.
I have never done so. However, you have indeed called me a devout believer of something or other that you make up anew in each thread of conversation. And, yes, you do make the statement that all atheists believe blah or even without the word all that “atheists believe blah” then indeed you are putting words in my mouth that I have never said.
Not every adherent of a belief system (read: religion) is as bad as the worst individual in the group.
And yet you continually make blanket statements about atheists. And, as an atheist, that offends me. When I make blanket statements, I restrict them to subgroups such as neocon right wing nutjobs or fundamentalists.
Since these do not include you they are probably not offensive to you.
When you make blanket statements about atheists, that group includes me. Hence, I am indeed offended and do indeed take it personally.
>>And when exactly has anyone on this board
>>done so?
Oh, get stuffed, Scottie. Look to just about any thread on dvorak dot org slash blog…. sooner or later (usually sooner), no matter what the topic, some hatemongering Atheist fuck starts posting messages about what “we Christians” think, believe, do, etc.
>>Extreme bullshit. You attempt to knock
>>atheists at every possible opportunity.
Extreme bullshit, Scottie. Can you point to any comment I’ve ever made about the religious beliefs of Atheists that was derogatory? (rhetorical question; you can’t, because I never made any). My only quibble with Atheists is their delusional thinking that somehow they are different from the rest of the world (ie theists) in their hip-and-happening, slightly dangerous, yet GROOVY, man, belief system. If you want to fervently believe that God does not exist, that’s fine and dandy. Don’t make out like you’re anything other than a True Beleiver, though. Unless you just don’t know, then you’re an agnostic. Must I say it YET AGAIN??
>>When you make blanket statements about
>>atheists, that group includes me. Hence, I
>>am indeed offended and do indeed take it
>>personally.
As one of the anti-Christians said to me a few days ago, I can’t give a special explicit dispensation for you ever time I mention your religious beliefs. I recognize that you’re not Pol Pot, Stalin, or Mao. And you’re not even one of the aggressive anti-Christian flakes on dvorak dot org slash blog who jumps into every thread on the 7th or 8th posting with some irrelevant dig at people of faith. But hey, you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. I have to take shit about Jim Jones and Ted Haggard. So if you don’t like being lumped with the pain-in-the-ass Atheist gadflies and the mass murderers, make up a new name for yourself.
I think MM is trying to get technical with the definition of atheist vs agnostic. I always say, “there is no god” making me an atheist where even Richard Dawkins when pinned down will say there is a 99.9% chance that there is no god. Thus admitting that ultimately he does not know, making him an agnostic. Yet he often refers to himself as an atheist.
MM, if your approach is to get atheists to admit that they are really agnostic because it’s impossible to know absolutely then it is a weak argument.
You also claim to know with certainty. But unlike atheists you face another unanswerable question. Which god?
>>You also claim to know with certainty.
I know nothing “with certainty”, Jules. I only know what I believe today.
>>But unlike atheists you face another
>>unanswerable question. Which god?
As I have pointed out before, Jules, all gods are the same god. They have been personified differently by different cultures, but the underlying concept, the higher power, is there. I have no need to fight wars over my belief in Jesus (vs. Mohammed, or Yaweh, or trees/ nature, or Zeus). As long as the believers can tap into the spiritual benefit of whatever they believe, God is working his plan.
As to the Atheist vs. agnostic argument, I really don’t give a fuck. Anybody can call themself whatever they want to. It’s just somewhat annoying when worshipers at the altar of Atheism start up with their “I’m smart, you’re a stupid sheeple” nonesense, braying their beliefs to the high heavens like a donkey in heat, and then deny that they’re believers. Pffft.
>>where even Richard Dawkins when pinned down will
>>say there is a 99.9% chance that there is no god.
That’s because Richard Dawkins is smart. Your run-of-the-mill “Atheist” is a dipshit. Filled with hubris and self-aggrandizement, so sure in the certainty of their point of view that they acknowledge no other.
>>MM, if your approach is to get atheists to admit >>that they are really agnostic because it’s
>>impossible to know absolutely then it is a weak
>>argument.
Oh, that’s not my “approach” at all. It’s to get atheists to ‘fess up to what they really are, True Believers. Most of them don’t have the common sense of Dawkins; they’re just convinced lock, stock, and barrel that God does not exist. Full stop. End of story.
And whatever they believe (or in the case of agnostics, don’t know what to believe), I’m fine with that. It’s a free country. But it’s a big frownie face when people who have heartfelt beliefs deny that they have beliefs. Kind of hypocritical. But hey. What else is new?