Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You must acknowledge that anecdotal evidence isn't applicable to modern science. It isn't us assuming anything, there are very good reasons why we simply can't take someones word for something, and if we did, the science that followed would be inherently flawed. It has nothing to do with anything else, we wouldn't end up with accurate science if that's how it was done.Experience says otherwise, but even then you can label us as delusional because you assume what we experience is a trick of the mind, jumping to conclusions, or desperately trying to give meaning to something that we want to be true. But this is one of those classic arguments between atheists and theists that will never end because our experiences mean nothing to you, doesnt prove anything. Its pointless to continue discussing because we both are convinced that our point of view is the more accurate one.
Experiences are 100% subjective to the person experiencing them. You walk into a room and you're cold, I could walk into the same exact room and feel hot, depending on many different variables. What you are proposing atheists and critical thinkers do is dismiss objective observation in favor of subjective interpretation. You would end up with thousands of different viewpoints (consider how many people have how many differing opinions about something like politics or economics) that wouldn't lead to anything useful.
Do you understand that explanation?