I think if you look again, you'll see that I was suggesting that an atheist couldn't be sure he had a data set of one, not that he necessarily had a set of zero.
[you:]And where did this "objective"[sic] analysis take place? Who was the great "objective" organizer that stated "Nuts over there, Real thinkers here." ...
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The intersubjective analysis takes place every time we use the scientific method, whether explicitly or casually in our everyday lives. Our knowledge about what's real & what's imaginary, our knowledge about how the world works, etc. It's all built on learning the difference between mere subjective belief, and subjective belief that's been validated in the objective world outside our brains.
The reason man arose out of the dust is that man dreams, of things not "real".
In one sense that statement has it 1/2 correct, but it's almost totally wrong in another sense. We knew how to dream of things not real for a long time. But we didn't rise out of the dust until we learned to subject our dreams (by which I assume you & I mean any inspiration, idea, speculation, leap of associative thinking, etc.) to the filter of our shared intersubjective knowledge of how the real world works. (Hey, almost like mutation + natural selection!)
Real progress could never have gotten off the ground until both items were present. Sabertooth's assertion that our individual subjective thoughts - I assume he's referring to a person's introspective belief that God exists - gives the theist a dataset of 1, but tried to suggest that an atheist therefore has 0 pieces of data for nonbelief.
Surely you don't deny that everyone has subjective beliefs, and that many people are certain that other people are telepathically communicating to them by way of voices in their head? My point is we have 250 million conflicting "datasets" in America alone. A belief borne of pure introspection absent an intersubjectively-verifiable confirmation in the external world is a dime a dozen when it comes to proving something about that external world, no matter how deeply we may believe it or trust it.
Nice wordy argument about nothing. Farmers knew nothing about celestial mechanics, yet pretty much had planting and harvesting times down fairly pat. This is across isolated and noncommunicating societies worldwide. Science was not involved, good observation was.
In one sense that statement has it 1/2 correct, but it's almost totally wrong in another sense. We knew how to dream of things not real for a long time. But we didn't rise out of the dust until we learned to subject our dreams (by which I assume you & I mean any inspiration, idea, speculation, leap of associative thinking, etc.) to the filter of our shared intersubjective knowledge of how the real world works. (Hey, almost like mutation + natural selection!)
Real progress could never have gotten off the ground until both items were present. Sabertooth's assertion that our individual subjective thoughts - I assume he's referring to a person's introspective belief that God exists - gives the theist a dataset of 1, but tried to suggest that an atheist therefore has 0 pieces of data for nonbelief.
To be useful dreams must be actualized is a given. Progress can be dreamed. Failure can be predicted. Pain can be avoided. You don't have to hit your thumb with a hammer to know that it will hurt. I don't need WWF testimony to verify that a full grown Kodiak will have me for lunch in a mano a mano hoedown.
Preposterous question since a belief by definition is subjective. 250 million is low, but is a "valid" observation. Now, who gets to decide which ones (if any) are correct?
I think if you look again, you'll see that I was suggesting that an atheist couldn't be sure he had a data set of one, not that he necessarily had a set of zero.