[split] Debating Lion IRC

[EvolutionKills]

(14-01-2013 11:01 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  

(14-01-2013 10:37 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  @ Lion IRC

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

Oh you have 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.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts. Just because it's on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's wrong. It's by and far more accurate than your 'holy' book, because it cites it's sources.

And if I am so wrong, how and why am I? All you are doing is dismissing my points out of hand without actually addressing them, it's a fallacy of equivocation.

Do you have another scientifically accepted definition for 'empirical evidence' that you'd like to put forward? Or are you just going to dismiss this definition by fiat, because it conflicts with your personal convictions?

[Lion IRC]

One extraordinary claim I think demands extraordinary evidence is the counter-apologetic that every single report of a supernatural experience thoughout human history - billions of humans, 30, 40, 50 thousand years of human experience are all delusions or deliberate lies.

[Lion IRC]

(14-01-2013 11:26 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...And if I am so wrong, how and why am I?

WAIT!
Did you just reverse the burden of proof?

[cheapthrillseaker]

(14-01-2013 11:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  

(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.

Aspchizo, you owe me ten bucks.

[EvolutionKills]

(14-01-2013 11:35 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  

(14-01-2013 11:26 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...And if I am so wrong, how and why am I?

WAIT!
Did you just reverse the burden of proof?

I gave you the definition of empirical evidence, as used and understood by the majority. I did this, because it became quite clear you had no idea what empirical evidence was. What I gave you is well cited and supported by the majority opinion, I have met my burden of proof.

If you then don't want to accept this definition, and instead posit your own, then you need to back that up with your own evidence. Which is precisely what you have yet to do.

[bemore]

You know what I dont get with these debates about god. Is how bloody intricate and how many different directions it can go down. The lengths people will go to defend it. I honestly cannot fathom how anybody can follow just one religion when there has been thousands throughout history. Thousands of different deities that were held in such high regard like the ones of today, that not one single fucking person worships anymore.

People believe in a book, they set their life and the ones around them by something that was written hundreds of years ago.

The amount of "convenient" answers, that are not actually answers at all... "God moves in mysterious way"... "All the old gods were false gods"... "Its all about a personal relationship with god"

The people who say that god speaks to them. If I said I heard voices or was being communicated/guided by something invisible, and that something invisible was anything but god, I think I would not be looked upon as sane and quite possibly depending upon my actions I would be put on medication or even sectioned.

That dependent upon where you are born is a deciding factor on what religion you will be indoctrinated with. That if you are born into a christian country, you will stand a mega high chance of being a christian whereas you could of quite easily been born into a Muslim country and raised a Muslim.

Ill never ever understand it, I will never ever empathise with it... and the funniest thing is because of what I am and what I believe I will apparently go to hell even though for most of my life I have tried my best to be a really nice person.

[EvolutionKills]

(14-01-2013 11:32 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  One extraordinary claim I think demands extraordinary evidence is the counter-apologetic that every single report of a supernatural experience thoughout human history - billions of humans, 30, 40, 50 thousand years of human experience are all delusions or deliberate lies.

Hundreds of people can see lights in the sky. Some will say it's falling stars, other will say it's UFO's, other will say it's angels or have other religious experiences. And all of this can happen today, and has happened in the recent past.

Then when the Air Force reports that during the time and place these lights were seen, they were conducting flare drills with jet fighters.

Everyone who saw those lights and didn't come to the conclusion of 'flares used in a Air Force training exercise' were mistaken. No miracle occurred, no extra-terrestrial craft were involved. Everyone who didn't come to the conclusion of 'flares' was mistaken, innocently mistaken, but mistaken all the same.


This is why we demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, like human resurrection.


This is because human resurrection is not common. When you bury a loved one, you are not concerned that they might come back to life. We don't have contingency plans in place for this event, because it never happens.

So when you have a 2000+ year old story book attesting to the resurrection of one guy, told through four discrepant and contradictory accounts, recorded by non-eye witnesses, decades after the supposed events took place, and with no contemporary historical account to corroborate?

That is not empirical evidence, it is the utter lack of empirical evidence. This is why you can only believe in the Resurrection of Jesus on faith, because there is no empirical evidence to convince us otherwise.


If you had understood the definition of 'empirical evidence' in the first place, you'd already know this.

[Adenosis]

I love(not) how theists always try to spin things in their favour...

(14-01-2013 11:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  

(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.

Obviously no atheists have a problem saying this, this is exactly why science is supperior to religion. Science experiments are repeatable, and theories are testable. The religious fairy tales are unfalsifiable nonsense that stem from individuals perceptions. "I saw 'this'!" "I had 'this' experience!".

You said you would believe a claim from someone you trust, one reason theists are theists, they(you) don't understand what constitutes as good evidence.

(14-01-2013 11:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  

(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.

Indeed, they would have been viewed by many people if they were true, so why don't we find more writings on those events?

(14-01-2013 11:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  

(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?

Look up the definition of extraordinary after reading an explanation on what empirical evidence is. Plus things looked at through telescopes and microscopes can be viewed by anyone with functioning eyes, not just 'people worthy of gods glory' or some shit.

(14-01-2013 11:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  

(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?

It is an experience of something, very astute remark. It's the experience in which brain activity results in dissociation of the body along with hallucinations.

(14-01-2013 11:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  

(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.

Funny thing is this was about you...

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.

So are you going to debate him or continue hiding behind your ignorance?

[Adenosis]

(14-01-2013 11:36 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  

(14-01-2013 11:23 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Thanks. I'm keeping that sentence in my quote-mine resource vault. I love it.

Aspchizo, you owe me ten bucks.

For what...?

[kingschosen]

(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? 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.

Yes.

I'm saying that, as presented by you, your deductive reasoning and logic skills are on par with the mentally handicapped.

This is not an ad hominem. This is apparent fact by your inability to understand simplicity.