@RaiderJ0KER @YoungAtheist0 @darwintojesus 1) Hitler was a Christian 2) Peanut butter and jelly is the perfect vegetarian sandwich. 3) Christians eat sandwiches. Therefore, Hitler was a vegetarian.

I think this is an accurate summery of the perception. It is not about what is true or false, but the perception that there are conspiratorial forces in society, actively undermining “free thinking”.

@puglistfan82 @Lilith_Atheist On point.

@Lilith_Atheist How can people be so naïve? Morals are not arbitrary.

@trad_west_ Banning porn is the antithesis of freedom.

@wendelltalks Biblical Jesus also loved the world. Its just that hate and love have modern meanings.

@FrDaveNix Now do the numbers by sexuality. 📈

@seanonolennon Sure thing, Lennon bot!

Creationism of any kind is non-scientific, but I'm amazed by the amount of science that is spilled on it. This is in line with our discussion. Science is, after all, the method of knowing by direct experience. Before getting to God, we can take the example of ghosts. Just today, reading about Scott and Shackleton (you got me started), I read that both of their huts are rife with stories of paranormal activity. Someone can say I believe or not believe 'in' ghosts, but what they mean by it is something objective. Ghosts exist or they don’t. But this semantic sleight of hand ignores the subjective dimension of experience. And speaking strictly about the subjective element of experience, on what justification can I say the experiences of apparitions did not happen to the presumably sane people who saw them? I can doubt the existence of an afterlife, but I am on different ground when I doubt the existence of the experience of the afterlife, except to say “I did not have that experience". This 2-fold distinction will bear on the question of God.

Back on track. : )Back on track. : ) Yes, disproving 'leprechauns' as an object would be difficult (a very thorough search of the Earth would be in order), but not as impossible as it would be to disprove your experience of a leprechaun (if you had one). You said earlier that if a friend told you they were in pain, you would believe them. 'Believing' them means two things: first, their experience is real (not a lie), second, something objectively is causing that pain. You might be able to see where I am going with the argument of experience as it refers to claims of truth. Believing that the sun’s diameter is 865 million miles is not the same as believing 'I am fascinated by Antarctica' (In fact, your interest in Antarctica is presumably so defining of your being that you never say to yourself, I believe I like Antarctica. It would be silly to think that— you simply enjoy the experience of being the person you are.

@JerryOConn82445 @Lilith_Atheist That is very cool. I'd be very interested in doing a trip to Antarctica. I also find it fascinating. One of the best articles I've read in the New Yorker was about Henry Worsley. You will enjoy this if you don’t know it:

@Lilith_Atheist Its not their existence, it's their insistence.

@elonmusk @realDonaldTrump That doesn't sound very straight.

"But if someone makes an extraordinary claim, then I will require extraordinary evidence." Yes for sure. If I say Iv been to Mars you will doubt my sanity or my credibility. You said "iv been to Antarctica". I don't doubt it because, while it is a rare, many people have. "Objective info is based on facts. Subjective info is based on opinion, emotions, or feelings. Truth is that which comports with reality" This is the point we get into semantics. There are objective facts, but there are also subjective facts. Pain for instance. It is a fact, but you can't verify it. You say you don't believe in God. It is a fact you say, but I can't verify it. It is a truth that comports with reality, but it is not objective. I can't know your experience directly. But it does not mean that your experience is not true or not reality. It may be one of the most important beliefs of your life. See the difference? (btw- for an excellent book on this topic, try Thomas Nagel's "The View From Nowhere")

Ha! Got lucky with my example! Let’s use my criteria on your experience. I choose to believe you for no other evidence than you saying so (a kind of appeal to authority). It may turn out to be false (I'm not going to ask for proof). Now see how this is different than knowledge of experience. You don't need to ask yourself for evidence that Antarctica exists, just as I don't have to ask myself for evidence that I am in pain. You experienced it and the experience is direct. Even if you are delusional, this is true. Or it may turn out that I am crazy, in some way experiencing pain that has no objective counterpart (a phantom limb, or a schizophrenic episode), but the experience is no different than if I am the subject of a simulation or an objective event.

@DiaryBlackSheep You already believe in many things without evidence.

@DreamLeaf5 Has existed for 25 years.

I don't think so. My point is to speak about what counts as evidence. The way you know the 'fear' exists is not the same way you know ‘Antarctica' exists. Fear is not an object. Antarctica is. The way we know Antarctica exists is by authority; someone told us it does. You could go see or verify if it was true, but you could never 'see' my pain or fear in the same way directly. You could only see if I was acting like I was in pain. The means to know anything can be justified by objective or subjective evidence. With me so far?

Much like pain, we know fear by the experience of it. Long before science described pain as a certain pattern of neurons, we knew what pain was, and no one denied its existence or needed to hear the scientific explanation to understand it. The scientific explanation is the objective translation of pain, but it is not the experience of pain. Follow me?

@Lilith_Atheist That’s the opposite of taking away Free Speech. Education has failed you.

@JerryOConn82445 @Lilith_Atheist A definition is a 'stand in' for something. We say a definition is a good one when it can satisfactory take its place. Traditionally, metaphor has been the only way to define God.