I don't think I can claim that your rejection of E1 means you are not a SREoE—this community is by far more SR in EE, the way we're talking about it at least, than those who believe G1. I'm not going to go around calling anyone irrational as long as their conclusions do come from a proper evaluation of the evidence.
I can't really claim E2 is that much stronger than E1—many people have access to E2 but don't believe G2.
What I'm trying to figure out is if this community thinks that any SREoE must necessarily reject G1 (based largely on the inconsistency of E1). I'm not claiming that a SREoE must accept G1 upon being exposed to E1.
But assuming I did claim that I was a SREoE and you all weren't...no, I don't know. Because being a SREoE equates almost completely in my mind with being a rationalist in the ideal sense that this community strives for. That doesn't mean everyone here is a SREoE, but most of them appear to be doing their best.
I'm curious, though, where else could this logic lead?
What I'm trying to figure out is if this community thinks that any SREoE must necessarily reject G1 (based largely on the inconsistency of E1). I'm not claiming that a SREoE must accept G1 upon being exposed to E1.
I get that you're trying to be polite and all, and that's nice of you.
Politeness is important, and the social constraints of politeness are a big reason I steered this discussion away from emotionally loaded terms like "rational," "irrational," "God," "faith," etc.in the first place; it's a lot easier t... (read more)
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.