Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[Ghetto Sheldon]

When I say science is superior to logic,  this is an opening line.  If you dispute an opening line instead of asking *how* science is superior to logic, then you're arguing against that which you don't understand. 

Okay. How is science superior to logic, then?
-
When there's a conflict between logic and professional practice of science & medicine,  then science/medicine rank over logic. 
In medicine, when a tactic makes a delusion worse,  the tactic is contraindicated.   This is why we atheists need to start collecting data on how badly atheists are only causing backfire.  
In a professional setting,  it is unethical to demand the delusional search for something which doesn't exist only to have their search mocked.  It would also be a 3rd degree felony.   
In science & medicine,  we don't engage with the delusional to prove ourselves superior over them.  
We  don't thrive off sociopathic kicks off the incompetent.   OUr tactics are justified by R&D.  WE have protocol & boundaries & are outcome oriented. 

Your response is of a defensive nature which ranks along with being irrational & willfully ignorant.

Quick question: How would you rate yourself on a 1-10 scale of self-awareness? (10 being very self aware, and 1 being not self aware at all?)
^^ irrelevant & off topic

That's how easy it is to succumb to being no better than that which is confronted.    
Which is very much an intuitive response.  
Now,  take this info & start listening to my  substantiation.    
Then start practicing this dynamic with others 
The struggle is real.    REdirecting is not easy.  A refusal to take my suggestion is digging into dogmatic dynamics . We all do it.

Could you elaborate/clarify these points? I don't think I understand any of it. But I'd also rather focus on the science/logic thing and delve into this shit afterward.

---

Okay. How is science superior to logic, then?
-
When there's a conflict between logic and professional practice of science & medicine,  then science/medicine rank over logic. 
In medicine, when a tactic makes a delusion worse,  the tactic is contraindicated.   This is why we atheists need to start collecting data on how badly atheists are only causing backfire.  
In a professional setting,  it is unethical to demand the delusional search for something which doesn't exist only to have their search mocked.  It would also be a 3rd degree felony.   
In science & medicine,  we don't engage with the delusional to prove ourselves superior over them.  
We  don't thrive off sociopathic kicks off the incompetent.   OUr tactics are justified by R&D.  WE have protocol & boundaries & are outcome oriented. 




Quick question: How would you rate yourself on a 1-10 scale of self-awareness? (10 being very self aware, and 1 being not self aware at all?)
^^ irrelevant & off topic




Could you elaborate/clarify these points? I don't think I understand any of it. But I'd also rather focus on the science/logic thing and delve into this shit afterward.

---

When I say science is superior to logic,  this is an opening line.  If you dispute an opening line instead of asking *how* science is superior to logic, then you're arguing against that which you don't understand. 

Okay. How is science superior to logic, then?

Your response is of a defensive nature which ranks along with being irrational & willfully ignorant.

Quick question: How would you rate yourself on a 1-10 scale of self-awareness? (10 being very self aware, and 1 being not self aware at all?)

^^ irrelevant 

That's how easy it is to succumb to being no better than that which is confronted.    
Which is very much an intuitive response.  
Now,  take this info & start listening to my  substantiation.    
Then start practicing this dynamic with others 
The struggle is real.    REdirecting is not easy.  A refusal to take my suggestion is digging into dogmatic dynamics . We all do it.

Could you elaborate/clarify these points? I don't think I understand any of it. But I'd also rather focus on the science/logic thing and delve into this shit afterward.

---

When I say science is superior to logic,  this is an opening line.  If you dispute an opening line instead of asking *how* science is superior to logic, then you're arguing against that which you don't understand. 

Okay. How is science superior to logic, then?

Your response is of a defensive nature which ranks along with being irrational & willfully ignorant.

Quick question: How would you rate yourself on a 1-10 scale of self-awareness? (10 being very self aware, and 1 being not self aware at all?)

That's how easy it is to succumb to being no better than that which is confronted.    
Which is very much an intuitive response.  
Now,  take this info & start listening to my  substantiation.    
Then start practicing this dynamic with others 
The struggle is real.    REdirecting is not easy.  A refusal to take my suggestion is digging into dogmatic dynamics . We all do it.

Could you elaborate/clarify these points? I don't think I understand any of it. But I'd also rather focus on the science/logic thing and delve into this shit afterward.

If you don't understand any of it,  Im inclined to rule you out for further discussion.