“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.