[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-01-2013, 09:38 PM (This post was last modified: 14-01-2013 09:44 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: I miss theists.
(14-01-2013 08:38 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Yes,we trust the Bible, but it isn't empirical evidence, so you can't use it as empirical evidence. The historical information surrounding Christ cannot be proved.

So, without the Bible, can you present empirical evidence?

Gimme a few minutes to digest the contradictions above.

''We trust the bible.''
Why/How can anyone trust the bible? What exactly is being trusted? Wouldnt it require some trustworthiness?

''It isnt empirical evidence.''
Can you prove that whats in the NT is false with anything resembling veridical evidence?

''The historical information surrounding Christ cannot be proved.''
The what? Is it information or not? Is it historical or not? The people who already accept it as trustworthy history dont need to have it proved any further. Jesus mythers and God-haters might.
But that bears out my earlier point about the plain fact that some people are even skeptical of empirical evidence even when they see it - if is it DISCORDANT WITH THEIR NATURALIST BIAS.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2013, 09:41 PM
RE: I miss theists.
(14-01-2013 09:38 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(14-01-2013 08:38 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Yes,we trust the Bible, but it isn't empirical evidence, so you can't use it as empirical evidence. The historical information surrounding Christ cannot be proved.

So, without the Bible, can you present empirical evidence?

Gimme a few minutes to digest the contradictions above.

''We trust the bible.''
Why/How can anyone trust the bible? What exactly is being trusted? Wouldnt it require some trustworthiness?

''It isnt empirical evidence.''
Can you prove that whats in the NT is false with anything resembling veridical evidence?

''The historical information surrounding Christ cannot be proved.''
The what? Is it information or not? Is it historical or not? The people who already accept it as trustworthy dont need to have it proved.
Okay, yeah, I'm not doing this. You're intentionally being retardedly dense.

Have fun.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like kingschosen's post
14-01-2013, 10:11 PM
RE: I miss theists.
(14-01-2013 09:41 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  ...Okay, yeah, I'm not doing this. You're intentionally being retardedly dense.

Have fun.

You mean retarded as in mentally handicapped? Laughat As in...hey look everybody.


Thats pretty ad hommy of you. And not very PC.
I've seen atheist fora where alluding to someone's retardation is seen as offensive to the disabled.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2013, 10:16 PM
RE: I miss theists.
(14-01-2013 10:11 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(14-01-2013 09:41 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  ...Okay, yeah, I'm not doing this. You're intentionally being retardedly dense.

Have fun.

You mean retarded as in mentally handicapped? Laughat As in...hey look everybody.


Thats pretty ad hommy of you. And not very PC.
I've seen atheist fora where alluding to someone's retardation is seen as offensive to the disabled.
If you're spouting ad hominem, you're saying your in debate at the moment.

I agree with KC 100%. You've taken the word debate and clearly shown you have no idea what it is. Have fun with that.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2013, 10:21 PM
RE: I miss theists.
(14-01-2013 08:03 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  If a person I completely trust reports empirical evidence they observed (data) about polar ice caps melting, I wouldnt doubt the result.
(14-01-2013 08:09 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  This wont surprise a lot of folk, but there are some people whose default bias against miracles makes them resistant even to the evidence of their own eyes/ears/touch.
This comes with an understanding of how the brain works (which based on your comments I quoted, you don't have); There is a barrier between reality and your perception of it. The brain is susceptible to delusion as well as to hallucination.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Your senses are not considered evidence for extraordinary claims.

For example, near death experiences. People take this as evidence of an afterlife once they have had such an experience, even though it is explainable by science. They are sooner to link it to their beliefs than to rationally think "What was the cause of this experience?".

This is also why it is stupid to believe anything someone you trust says.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2013, 10:37 PM
RE: I miss theists.
@ Lion IRC

Empirical evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.[2]

In another sense, empirical evidence may be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment. In this sense, an empirical result is an unified confirmation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods which use in part basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods which are purely deductive and based on first principles.[citation needed]

Statements and arguments depending on empirical evidence are often referred to as a posteriori ("from the later") as distinguished from a priori ("from the earlier"). (See A priori and a posteriori). A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All bachelors are unmarried"); whereas a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example "Some bachelors are very happy").

The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation,
experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, a persistent critique most associated with Thomas Kuhn,[3] has argued that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference
and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.[4]





So your personal belief in the inerrancy and historical accuracy of the Bible, or you personally talking to God or 'feeling' the Holy Spirit would all fall under a priori 'weak rationalization' evidence. We're looking for a posteriori 'strong empirical' evidence, the basis for science. So simply, not all evidence is equal. Your feelings and personal convictions don't carry the same weight as repeatable and verifiable independent facts.

We are unable to corroborate anything relating to Jesus in the Bible, to other contemporary historical sources. There are no records, none. Now take this in light how much information we have of other claimed 'prophets' of that time, often by historians skeptical of them, and the historical silence is deafening. Then you take other things into account, such as there being four discrepant accounts of the Resurrection, and we're left with no good 'emperical evidence' to believe that any of it actually happened.

Which leaves you with your personal feelings, which are plainly not good enough. It used to be accepted as common 'fact' that the Earth was flat and at the center of the Universe, 'empirical evidence' trumped feelings and holy scripture to show us that it is not how the universe actually exists.

[Image: qce9oP7.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
14-01-2013, 10:58 PM (This post was last modified: 14-01-2013 11:04 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: I miss theists.
(14-01-2013 10:16 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  
(14-01-2013 10:11 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  You mean retarded as in mentally handicapped? Laughat As in...hey look everybody.


Thats pretty ad hommy of you. And not very PC.
I've seen atheist fora where alluding to someone's retardation is seen as offensive to the disabled.
If you're spouting ad hominem, you're saying your in debate at the moment.

I agree with KC 100%. You've taken the word debate and clearly shown you have no idea what it is. Have fun with that.

Oh, what a wonderfully quaint notion.

That you can post a stream of insults about someone before a debate and claim they are quarantined. Show me the abusive ad hom On/Off switch. This isnt passive smoke we're talking about. The internet doesnt obey rules like some courtroom where juries are instructed to disregard stuff they saw 5 minutes earlier in a different thread.

The only other reason you would gratuitously call someone - your ideological opponent - a retard, a pretentious ass, a troll, or slur them about having an IQ of 5 is to gain the satisfaction of thinking you had belittled them in front of your in-group peers whose esteem you crave.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2013, 11:01 PM
RE: I miss theists.
(14-01-2013 10:37 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  @ Lion IRC

Empirical evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
...

Oh you have Censored GOT to be kidding me.
I'm gonna love telling this story to some folk I know.

* Lion IRC gets lectured about empirical evidence by dude citing wikipedia.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2013, 11:09 PM
RE: I miss theists.
(14-01-2013 10:58 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  That you can post a stream of insults about someone before a debate and claim they are quarantined (...)
[Image: tumblr_mcw5yvd5ct1r7bz83o1_500.gif]

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2013, 11:23 PM
RE: I miss theists.
(14-01-2013 10:21 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  ...There is a barrier between reality and your perception of it. The brain is susceptible to delusion as well as to hallucination....


Well, I give you credit for having the honesty/guts to admit that not everyones perception of reality can be empirically measured against a datum.
Some folk can eat a red chilli and truthfully claim it is mild and others can equally claim the opposite - that it is inedibly hot. So much for the scoville scale.
Likewise, one person can claim to have heard the voice of God and others say they heard nothing.



(14-01-2013 10:21 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  ...Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....

Agreed. And the events recorded in the NT would have been viewed and heard about by people who found them extraordinary.

Let me repeat that...the events in the NT would have been viewed and heard about by people who found them extraordinary.


(14-01-2013 10:21 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  ...Your senses are not considered evidence for extraordinary claims.

Does that mean we can throw away all our useless telescopes and microscopes now?
Whose senses CAN we consider as evidence? Helen Keller?

(14-01-2013 10:21 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  ...For example, near death experiences. People take this as evidence of an afterlife once they have had such an experience, even though it is explainable by science.


It's an experience of something. The question is whose experience trumps whose? The guy who says nobody ever sees ghosts because theres no such thing or the guy who says how would you know anything about ghosts, you've never seen one?

(14-01-2013 10:21 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  ...This is also why it is stupid to believe anything someone you trust says.

Thanks. I'm keeping that sentence in my quote-mine resource vault. I love it. Big Grin

[Image: il_fullxfull.156966396.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: