what standard are you proposing?
The one in the post you responded to:
"She has one standard for you and herself. Feel free to repeat whatever she's told you, but don't guess what her other thoughts are and say them as fact. She'll do the same for you."
most atheists call religious believers especially Christians fools and slow-witted bunchs indirectly for "believing myths" without any authentic sourced document refuting the historical authenticities in the Bible yet get emotional when we just generalize atheism and claim we're imposing ideas to it.
I haven't seen that language used. The way I word it is that faith is a logical error, and that I am not a Cristian because I believe reason applied to evidence/experience is the only path to knowledge. Nor have I seen the atheists getting emotional. But you are. Your posting has been pretty much pure grievance - what you don't like about atheists especially one in particular.
And it's sad enough that you guys are clue-less yet behave as if you know much only to see how confused you are when you speak
I understand them. If you don't, maybe it's you that is the problem.
I saw a meme recently wherein a gut complained that all feminists are nasty b****es. To which somebody responded that what they all had in common was having just met him.
Do you affirm that given the evidence, one view (atheism or theism) is more likely to be true than the other? Why are you afraid of answering this question?
That comment wasn't written to me, but I answered that question. Wasn't that enough? You didn't disagree.
Creationists, as you call them, are NOT a "subset of Christians
I agree, but he made himself clear. He first wrote, "creationists are a subset of Christians who insist on a silly literal interpretation of Genesis." That should have said young earth Christian or biblical fundamentalist, but he also wrote, "creationist Christian is sort of redundant unless you are an atheist Christian."
Someone else here pointed out that the term creationism really cannot be properly applied to all who believe in a higher source that has intelligence over and beyond the creation.
I call anybody who believes that our universe was made by an intelligent designer a creationist.
do you believe that all changes of a particular species are due to random mutations?
No. The are other mechanisms involved named by
@gnostic and repeated below:
"In
population genetics, the
Hardy–Weinberg principle, also known as the
Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium,
model,
theorem, or
law, states that
allele and genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences. These influences include
genetic drift,
mate choice,
assortative mating,
natural selection,
sexual selection,
mutation,
gene flow,
meiotic drive,
genetic hitchhiking,
population bottleneck,
founder effect, inbreeding and outbreeding depression."
when the odds of something exceed some level we are all prone to call it "correct" or some synonym.
Yes. That's a pragmatic approach to knowledge. If the idea reliably anticipates outcomes, it is a useful (pragmatic) idea, becomes a keeper, and can be called demonstrably correct until that is no longer the case.
Most people simply strive to have their thinking approach state of the art. "State of the art" is very good but it's not right and it's not correct.
Once again, I don't understand what this means. Is this a complaint? Very good thinking ought to be good enough.
We don't so much employ science because it is "largely correct" but because it's the only game in town.
We employ it because it works. You write as if we are settling on something inadequate.
there may be crackpots, holistic healers, heretics, priests, and mystics who are completely correct.
Then they should be able to demonstrate as much and shed those labels.
I am using standard English with standard definitions and you play word games by refusing to parse them as intended.
You've been told by many of us that we often just don't understand you and why - your idiosyncratic usage of language. I still don't know what YOU mean by "all change is sudden" or "metaphysics," for example, Tower of Babel 2.0. And your usage of "state of the art" is a bit ambiguous. I have suggested using less jargon and lingo and switching to plain language.
@Pogo just wrote the following to you: "those definitions are very different than anyone else here is using. The language on this board is standard English with its associated definitions, if you would create an auto translate for your language there might be a lot less confusion."
And I should add that other scientifically literate critical thinkers, empiricists, and humanists almost never ask me what I meant nor them. We may disagree, but there's no communication problem
Pogo suggested autocorrect. I'll go one further: try subjecting your words to AI to paraphrase them. I'll bet that you find the paraphrasing either different from what you meant or confused. This site uses a program called Copilot. Or, there's ChatGPT. If the computer doesn't understand you, nobody else will, either.