2018-09-28, 02:15 PM
2018-09-28, 02:41 PM
(2018-09-28, 01:33 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]By consensus.
Where? r/atheism?
2018-09-28, 02:45 PM
Steve001 Wrote:I'm surprised. Now you see.
...now I see what? I responded with my own thoughts before Linda posted anything. I then responded to her post stating that as I understand it, her post seems to echo some of my thoughts. So no, I have not come to some grand realization as a result of your/her posts. I already thought those things, and have said them here before. If you were unaware of that, that's because you haven't previously read closely or paid attention.
2018-09-28, 03:26 PM
(2018-09-28, 02:45 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]...now I see what? I responded with my own thoughts before Linda posted anything. I then responded to her post stating that as I understand it, her post seems to echo some of my thoughts. So no, I have not come to some grand realization as a result of your/her posts. I already thought those things, and have said them here before. If you were unaware of that, that's because you haven't previously read closely or paid attention.You see a perspective that each and every skeptic on both forums has promoted.
I generally don't read any of your postings above what's not directed to the topic at hand. However, none of your postings directed at me have been clearly stated as they were in your response to fls.
2018-09-28, 03:33 PM
2018-09-28, 03:56 PM
(2018-09-28, 03:33 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]A consensus devoid of any partisanship.
Utterly unproductive as a response. (Linda, herein lies an example of simply reading a poster's series of posts.)
What high priest determined membership Steve? How did they tag one partisan and one not?
2018-09-28, 04:04 PM
(2018-09-28, 03:26 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]You see a perspective that each and every skeptic on both forums has promoted.
I generally don't read any of your postings above what's not directed to the topic at hand. However, none of your postings directed at me have been clearly stated as they were in your response to fls.
I have no idea what you mean in the first sentence.
If you don’t generally read those posts, how would you know whether they’re clearly stated or not?
2018-09-28, 04:05 PM
Steve001 Wrote:A consensus devoid of any partisanship.
On this topic, such a thing exists nowhere outside your own mind.
If you can find support for it (you can’t because it doesn’t exist), please share it with us.
2018-09-28, 04:11 PM
(2018-09-28, 01:48 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Some notice the hot water. And because we do that allows us to consider and be flexible too include unknown unknowns.
To emphasize the point in bold. Everyone I'm sure everyone knows Quantum theory is known by only two descriptions, they are quantum mechanics or quantum physics. It's physics.
Well, the hot water analogy breaks down fairly quickly, because the boiling water is meant to be a bad thing for the frog, but is a good thing for physics (it implies a more complete understanding).
I don’t think we realize/notice the extent to which we’ve become comfortable with findings which would have been very hard to swallow a bit more than a hundred years ago - that seemingly solid matter is almost entirely empty space, that all the stuff we can detect represents only about 5% of all the stuff in the universe, that indeterminism isn’t just hidden variables, etc. Yet nobody suggests that it’s no longer science or physics or even physicalism, which all seem to be flexible enough to subsume any new discoveries (as you pointed out)..
Linda
2018-09-28, 04:20 PM