[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.