DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I agree that intermingling things can be problematic, but you can't rationally prevent it universally.  Even if it's simply someone telling a lie or trying to manipulate data.  That's why in my little box where I post what I believe I said "truth", because that's what I shoot for. It doesn't mean I don't get things wrong, or that I've never lied before, but at the end of the day, that's what I care about.  I like balance, and when I'm truthful with myself and try to be truthful with others, I can feel validated even when times arise that I am wrong.  But there are people who deliberately manipulate facts/information that are still going to be out there, and sometimes we are uncontrollably subject to them because we simply "don't know", and don't have the means to independently measure their claims.

And as you said, making threads with titles like this can be problematic, but it happens all across the board.  It's not a "theistic" problem.  It's a world problem. Sometimes it may be something like greed.  "I want funding so I come up with a solution to keep the money coming in, so I fabricate that I know will pass scrutiny based on my education."  It's a lie, but a temporal solution.  By time someone can disprove it, you're already funded and can come up with a new argument.   It's not a rule though.  So rather than sort it all out in my head, which is probably impossible, I just do my best. Sometimes that means "logic" and sometimes that means going with my "gut."  One thing I've learned is that more times than not your gut is spot on  When I use both "logic" and "gut" without discrimination or bias, I think I am living optimally.

Instead of "truth", I would have used "reality".
For, again, there are many "truths" out there, but only one reality.

In general, truth is assumed to be an accurate description of reality. And this accuracy is a function of the individual that is describing reality... there are as accurate as technologically possible descriptions, there are rough approximations, there are educated guesses, wild guesses, and blatant lies. (arbitrary categories that I just made up, feel free to add yours)
I think we can live optimally if we manage to accept as many of the first kind as possible, while avoiding all the others as much as possible.
I know it's not feasible to live only through the most accurate descriptions of reality, for time is ever-moving forward and ever changing circumstances require us to keep up and use approximations wherever possible. And there are many cases where guesses is all we can hope to have - the fictionality of the divine, for example.
Let's assume that the existence of the god of the philosophers is in the realm of "educated guesses", while the average religious deity is, at best, a "wild guess", at worst, a "lie".
Many have tried and succeeded to pass this wild guess (or lie) as beyond our knowledge, as a more accurate description of reality than what can ever be hoped to achieve with technology/science. I think this is a disingenuous practice, but one that can easily sway someone who, like you, relies on gut in a few key situations... and you are an educated person. Imagine how vulnerable is someone not aware of how they can be exploited.
This means that we must not only aim to keep ourselves from accepting dubious truths, but it is also our duty(?) to warn and try to prevent others from accepting them.
How? Mostly through awareness, I suppose... and that's where these forums come to be useful.

---

Instead of "truth", I would have used "reality".
For, again, there are many "truths" out there, but only one reality.

In general, truth is assumed to be an accurate description of reality. And this accuracy is a function of the individual that is describing reality... there are as accurate as technologically possible descriptions, there are rough approximations, there are educated guesses, wild guesses, and blatant lies. (arbitrary categories that I just made up, feel free to add yours)
I think we can live optimally if we manage to accept as many of the first kind as possible, while avoiding all the others as much as possible.
I know it's not feasible to live only through the most accurate descriptions of reality, for time is ever-moving forward and ever changing circumstances require us to keep up and use approximations wherever possible. And there are many cases where guesses is all we can hope to have - the fictionality of the divine, for example.
Let's assume that the existence of the god of the philosophers is in the realm of "educated guesses", while the average religious deity is, at best, a "wild guess", at worst, a "lie".
Many have tried and succeeded to pass this wild guess (or lie) as beyond our knowledge, as a more accurate description of reality than what can ever be hoped to achieve with technology/science. I think this is a disingenuous practice, but one that can easily sway someone who, like you, relies on gut in a few key situations... and you are an educated person. Imagine how vulnerable is someone not aware of how they can be exploited.
This means that we must not only aim to keep ourselves from accepting dubious truths, but it is also our duty(?) to warn and try to prevent others from accepting them.
How? Mostly through awareness, I suppose... and that's where these forums come to be useful.

I think it's how you define it.  To me if any part of the truth isn't such, then it is a lie.  If you suggest it there can be "partial truth" then maybe, but that would be contextual.  I don't think it works any different for "reality", and the two can be synonymous.  For me "truth would be "what we assert" and "reality" would be "how we live", but someone may come along and define those things differently.  The bit about being responsible to others. I agree. I think social responsibility is important.  But not everybody talks how we are talking where there's an attempt for mutual understanding.  In fact, I would assert more times than not it ends up in a tug-o-war type situation where the end goal is to try and beat the other party. The more they tug, you tug, but that tug-o-war ends up leading to ignorance because the end goal is to win, not learn. In "reality" you win tug-o-war when you give a little.  My dogs do this. They pull, then they give some slack. That's how they win because by giving slack, they can exert more force when they pull the next time. So back to discussions, that same thing is optimal in conversations. If you give a little slack here and there for the sake of understanding and learning together, it can potentially be win-win. You come to a conclusion that makes sense, even if it's not 100 percent of what you started with.  More times than not, that is where the solution lies.  "Mom, he hit me"  No, Mom he hit me" When they probably both hit each other.