[lwhalen]

You are backing into a very common fallacy, Pascal's Wager. "If not the christian god, why not the flying spaghetti monster" is what this usually boils down to. Anything that is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

[mistermann]

> You are backing into a very common fallacy, Pascal's Wager.

Had I made an assertion (about the object level point of contention) or even offered relevant advice (I didn't), you would have a fine point. But I did not.

You on the other hand, did make an assertion (several, actually).

Have you some more Normative Memetic Rhetoric (framed as Good Faith Critical Thinking) for me?

And also: I did make an assertion, and asked some pointed questions, but you (shrewdly?) decided to give those a pass, instead opting for much more convenient simulated events.

A question: did you do this with conscious knowledge and intent?

> "If not the christian god, why not the flying spaghetti monster" is what this usually boils down to.

Interestingly, this is basically the opposite of the kind of thinking I recommend. This is substantially ironic.

> Anything that is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Can you (in fact, and physically, as opposed to simply claiming that you have the ability) please translate the figure of speech "can be dismissed" into an explicit epistemic status?

EDIT: thought I'd pat myself on the back for my earlier prescience: "Luckily, this can be easily dismissed with some pre-existing memes."

Gosh, how could I have possibly done that? Am I a wizard??

[lwhalen]

You're parsing semantics rather than engaging with the core point. When I say something "can be dismissed," I mean that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with those making supernatural claims, not with those rejecting them. You seem to be suggesting there's some deep irony or inconsistency in my position, but pointing out logical flaws in religious reasoning isn't the same as making unsupported assertions about the supernatural. And yes, I consciously chose to focus on the most relevant parts of your argument rather than chase every tangential point.

[mistermann]

> You're parsing semantics rather than engaging with the core point.

a) You are engaging in rhetoric.

b) "parsing semantics" is not the win you think it is - we are in the age of AI, man. People now know what the term means.

> When I say something "can be dismissed," I mean that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The question is: what is the epistemic status?

Are you afraid to admit it out loud, or does the question not even make sense?

> The burden of proof lies with those making supernatural claims, not with those rejecting them.

False.

"A" claim lies with anyone who makes an assertion of fact. That is you, and it is not me.

> You seem to be suggesting there's some deep irony or inconsistency in my position

There is, though I wouldn't call it "deep" (that's "you" engaging in rhetorical framing"). And I explicitly told you the problem: you are experiencing (psychologically) "Faith" (belief without adequate substantiating evidence).

Look, you're welcome to believe whatever you like, but please don't act as if you are working with some superior to others logic. You are using heuristics, and perhaps some "consensus" "reality".

> but pointing out logical flaws in religious reasoning isn't the same as making unsupported assertions about the supernatural.

I am pointing out the errors in yours. But if you are admitting the religious aspect to it, we've made some progress.

FWIW: in case you're wondering whether I think religious people are also silly in their reasoning: yes I do.

> And yes, I consciously chose to focus on the most relevant parts of your argument rather than chase every tangential point.

But then you would be treating the subjective realm as objective, which is kinda the same thing that I am originally complaining about.

I am genuinely curious: do you think I am dumb, or confused? "Pedantic" I can understand (thought that experience is also technically incorrect).

[lwhalen]

Look, I understand what you're getting at regarding epistemological foundations. Yes, we all operate on some basic assumptions about reality, consciousness, and the reliability of our senses. But there's a meaningful difference between accepting base axioms necessary for any kind of knowledge (like "my sensory experiences generally correspond to reality") and accepting specific supernatural claims that contradict observable evidence.

When I say "can be dismissed," I mean exactly that - claims that contradict known physics, make untestable assertions, or rely on circular logic can be provisionally rejected until evidence is presented. That's not faith - it's methodological naturalism.

You're right that I'm working with consensus reality and scientific heuristics. But these approaches have demonstrated predictive power and practical utility. They've given us everything from smartphones to space travel. Religious claims haven't demonstrated similar utility beyond social/psychological benefits that can be explained naturalistically.

No, I don't think you're dumb or confused. You're making a sophisticated point about epistemological humility. But I worry this kind of radical skepticism, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to a philosophical paralysis where we can't meaningfully distinguish between well-supported and unsupported beliefs.

[mistermann]

> Look, I understand what you're getting at regarding epistemological foundations.

> accepting base axioms necessary for any kind of knowledge (like "my sensory experiences generally correspond to reality")

The irony.

You People fascinate me to no end.

> can be provisionally rejected

I'd enjoy seeing you store "can be provisionally rejected" in a variable, perform some logic upon it, and then produce an output - what would the variable type of the output be?

> and scientific heuristics

I said heuristics, not scientific heuristics. Science (the scriptures) has methods and standards, and you are violating them, thus failing to meet the categorical requirements.

> They've given us everything from smartphones to space travel.

Right smack dab in the middle of the Normal Distribution. Thus, not shocking.

> Religious claims haven't demonstrated similar utility beyond social/psychological benefits that can be explained naturalistically.

"haven't...that can be explained"

> No, I don't think you're dumb or confused.

Then why do you talk to me the way you do?

> taken to its logical conclusion

Did you use logic to arrive at this "its(!) logical conclusion"?

> where we can't meaningfully distinguish between well-supported and unsupported beliefs.

I have bad news: you're already in this spot, but you cannot realize it because you are in the spot.