On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:37:19 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

No. I simply recognize reality. Faith-based thinking has never
produced a truth.

"Faith-based thinking" is a slippery phrase. What does it even mean?

No, it's rigorously defined. It means accepting as true that which is
not supported by evidence. In many cases (for instance most religion)
it means accepting as true that which is contradicted by evidence.
Faith-based thinking is the opposite of evidence-based thinking.

"truth" is also a bit slippery. Science doesn't deal in truths. We
used to think it did, but today we understand that science deals with
models that predict observables.

Pragmatically, science very much does deal in truths, where we define
that as things which accurately describe how nature works.

It is to me. I accept scientific models until refuted by experimental
observations. I also hold beliefs that are not refuted by such
observations. You hold a belief that there is no God, which would be
destroyed the moment God showed Himself.

Which is why I don't claim there are no gods. But I consider it true
beyond reasonable doubt that there are none. It's the same standard I
apply to unicorns and leprechauns.

Sure it is. "Reality" is unknowable to our senses. We construct models
(maps) of reality, but the map is not the territory.

It is entirely reasonable to see the model and reality as being one
and the same.