Yeah, I wonder why certain people are allowed to obtain that many points to begin with? Almost as if you "play by the book" on a website dedicated to, wait for it, NOT playing by the rules.
I mean, if you imagine life on earth originated as a petri dish experiment by some advanced species the whole "breathed life into clay" might not be so far fetched, given some allowance for numerous translation context changes.
You're saying scientific processes (petri dish experiment) may have created life because we can't yet explain what scientific processes may have created life? And ancient, unscientific mythological fairy tales may somehow have encoded this event, despite having always been taken at face-value up until they were scientifically and rationally disproven?
Honestly, I've never had a Creationist call me a bigot for wanting to debate them. In fact, they usually welcome to the debate and see it as an opportunity to convert somebody. The only time I've ever seen name calling is when an angry anti-theist lashes out at somebody for not trusting science, or when comments like yours use them as a straw man.
Can I introduce you to some people then? I would love to drop you off in other places too, not just here in the US, but Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan and let's seem if your claim holds true. Care to take me up on the offer?
No, what it is is an acknowledgment that there are people who think rationally, and then there are those people who think you should fucking shut up and be burned at the stake for disagreeing with them. The idea that modern anti-theists are anything like our current theistic members of society is laughable, and honestly starting to make me wonder who cares if we turn into them.
Artificially downvote me all you want. All you are doing is proving how Hacker News is a highly curated and biased website towards a particular viewpoint.
How does this not belong here if it could potentially have this big of an impact? This is exactly the type of thing hackers would be curious about. We want to know how a system would react to a change in the parameters and figure out if it is useful and how so. Why would we not be curious about something like this?
Have you ever played the game of telephone? Is it not more likely people lied and repeated lies that got so completely changed from reality than to believe some person actually flew to space on a winged donkey?
Well, the Hindu speak of things similar to winged donkeys, and of Hanuman’s army building the adam bridge.
And there is an Adam bridge. If a hundred thousand talking monkeys and a ragtag band of humans didn’t build that land bridge between India and Sri Lanka 10,000 years ago, then who did smart guy?
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not lol.
So many cultures speak of ghosts as well. Doesn't mean they existed. I mean, if they did, I'll be sure to bring that up in court next time I need to blame something breaking on them.
As for the Adam Bridge, geological processes are amazing, are they not?
You could also think that by definition, some parts of religion are impossible to prove / disprove, and different strokes for different folks, and then go have some tea. :)
What's your sample size for believing that people can't shoot fireballs out of their hands or walk on water?
(Where I’m going with that question is: “Well your sample size isn’t large enough.” See? There’s no way to argue against faith.)
I can't believe in 2022, on a website dedicated to tech and other interesting things, I'm having a conversation with some one ardently defending whether humans can shoot fireballs out of their hands and walk on water or not.
> I'm having a conversation with some one ardently defending whether humans can shoot fireballs out of their hands and walk on water or not.
You aren't.
You're having a conversation with someone trying to describe how other people look at the topic. (That's why, for example, I put quotes around “Well your sample size isn’t large enough.”) But since you're not interested in that, I'll stop.
I understand very well how other people look at it. They ignore logic when it is convenient. They say, "Yeah, look at those flat earthers, bunch of silly idiots", then turn around and swear they hear god speak to them at the same time. It's delusional.
Arguing by the year is a fallacy. It's a logic smell.
("I can't believe that in 2022, people still argue that way." See how that doesn't actually say anything that anyone ought to take seriously? It just uses the assumption of rightness to pressure anyone who disagrees.)
Did I say that? Why, no, I did not. You're putting words in my mouth, which you do not have the right to do. You're generating a... not even a strawman[1], just a blatantly made-up position that you're assigning to me. And then you're not even disproving that made-up position, you're just mocking it. That's really shoddy argumentation.
My claim is that "argument by year" may be a cute rhetorical flourish, but it's completely worthless as an actual argument. You used it, and I'm calling you on it. If you want to argue against peoples' irrational beliefs, find a better way to do it.
[1] A strawman is a weak version of an opponent's position, not a completely unrelated position.
Look, you made the original post. That "pidgeon" that you're mad at? You're not replying to them.
But even if you were... you reply to one person, but more than one person reads your reply. If you match the stupidity of the person you reply to, then everyone else who reads it concludes that you're just as stupid, and that your position is just as badly-supported. So that approach is pretty counterproductive.
I made the original pigeon post? Did you read the part asking me for sample size on wizards?
How about you tell all here what is a reasonable sample size for being able to rule out wizards? How many people have you seen shooting fireballs out of their hands?
You made the original "Questions on Delusional Thinking" post, which was something of a rant. That wasn't in reply to anyone - it was the original post.
You're obviously mad at someone, and it sounds like it's someone religious, who believes in miracles. But you didn't reply to them. Instead, you came here to rant at us.
I'll give you the last word, because I have no interest in going further with this conversation.
What is wrong with my question on delusional thinking? Is it not an active area of discussion among psychologists? Is it not important to understand what delusional thoughts are versus rational thoughts?
All it takes is for one bad apple to not install them correctly or use badly defected ones, and boom, people drinking water they should not. Sometimes, regulation IS the answer.
It’s a solved problem - backflow prevention devices will not let water from one user to flow to others, with inspections, etc there is no issue. Want recycled water? Pay for inspections and protective devices. Business users have been doing this for years.
A given property has one potable water entry point - the water meter. So no, it’s not one bad apple and all get bad water. Also, there is no regulation here, just fear of liability by water boards.
A lot of domestic water meters have a simple backflow prevention valve built in.
Though most of them are not easily testable like the commercial connection backflow prevention valves. If the property has non-potable water as well as potable water under pressure, then one or more commercial grade BPVs are necessary.
