Empirically Verifiable

Some people on the HG have all but claimed they only live their lives based on what is empirically verifiable through the scientific method.  I would like to know more about what this kind of life, completely absent of any faith, is like to live.  It must be strange when one's sex partner claims you were the best and you must respond with an unemotional agnosticism.  In fact, her claim that she even had an orgasm can neither be confirmed nor denied based on her oral testimony alone.  What a strange life this must be to live, but I am truly fascinated by the particulars.  Please describe your daily activities and experiences.

I don't know about other agnostics and atheists, but this would be a slightly trollish misrepresentation of the way I live my life. I enjoy the mysterious undercurrents which I can't explain and I'm happy not to try to explain when I can't.

The only difference in my life compared to yours (for example) is that I'm careful to discriminate between what I know based on evidence, and what I feel. I give these different weights depending on the type of decision I am making at the time.

I thought I saw Prof building a polygraph. He kept muttering something about faking it under his breath. It all makes sense now.


Not descriptive of how anyone I know lives their life (or understands empiricism to operate)....


I don't remember seeing any posts where people "claimed they only live their lives based on what is empirically verifiable through the scientific method." Or even 'all but' claimed such.

Maybe I just missed those.

I agree.

P.S. - polygraph tests are highly suspect.  I would hardly have them in my repertoire if I became a straight edge empiricist free of faith.

Yeah, polygraph tests.

I always used to think that if I were ever falsely accused of a crime I'd jump around saying "I'm not lying, give me a lie-detector test so I can show you!"

But not after seeing some investigations of polygraphs.
Too unreliable to place one's fate upon, especially if you are innocent.


And also to help the general public form the mandatory premature opinions about guilt or innocence.

if you can't tell if your sex partner is having an orgasm you should be FIRED i tells ya.

It's about challenging supernatural claims, not reasonable, natural claims.

It's about filtering reality from fantasy before allowing oneself to be emotionally swayed...the avoidance of being a chump, essentially.

Some female saying, "oh you were SO great and SO big and ..." is a prime example of what ought to be filtered, in general, since a female appealing to male ego is one who's about to go on a shopping spree.

my manhood has now been reduced to pitiful doubt due to ridge's believe that satisfying a woman cant be proven. Damn you.