Not a fan of implications nor assumptions like you make here, it's the cause of a majority of FUBAR (see link again) where I am concerned.
Am I to understand that questioning the validity of a concept that is purely based on personal perception is considered cynicism? I am getting an inkling how Copernicus must have felt. Particular when it comes to the 'disregarding' part.
I take it that this not the place to discuss my related opinion that without religion (institutionalized belief) we would have colonized Mars already?
It certainly looked like it. (see the overwhelming consensus, therefore my argument is true)
Bit of a faulty argument - basing the validity of individual perceptions on a hypothetical sense isn't much different from saying 'it is because it is'. Your 'retard' side swipe seems to imply that I intended to ridicule the perception represented in the consensus rather then your premise that consensus is validation of the perception. I can assure you it was the latter, although ridiculing wasn't foremost on my mind. As I never labelled\described your stand point as delusional (just not supported by what I consider proof) your final argument is a bit out of line, wouldn't you think? How about: 'it's like a blind man asking for an explanation what seeing is'? 'Open your eyes' isn't very helpful then.
Appreciated, certainly way more eloquent then how I was trying to argue it. eg 'cognitive patterns' as lead in would have saved me some arguing. Gotta participate more often in discussions (outside the pit).