ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th August 2019, 12:00 PM   #121
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 6,956
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The OP didn't promote nihilism; positive or negative, it just promoted gibberish.
I usually enjoy a nice lo mein before reading such concentrated pap.
The wordy follow-ups did nothing to help his case either.
I think he owes me a chicken & broccoli... or at least some fried rice.
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 12:28 PM   #122
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 962
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
In the scientific field, here is the first criticism against reincarnation: it cannot happen because the material world is all that exists. <snip>
If you think that, then you really are clueless on the subject, and cannot be taken seriously.

No-one is arguing that you're wrong because the material world is all that exists. They're arguing that you're wrong (or at least there's no reason to think you're right), because you've got no evidence.

That is "the first criticism" against reincarnation.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 12:56 PM   #123
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 20,318
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
I believe in science ... science in the future ... will discover and reveal the afterlife !!
https://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...e-soul-quantum
I'm guessing, in three to five years, right?
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 02:20 PM   #124
8enotto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,030
Ricardo. Please step up with something solid, so far it's much ado about nothing.
8enotto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 03:39 PM   #125
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,839
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
We live, think, act, that is positive; we die, and that's no less right. Leaving Earth, where are we going? What will we become? Will we be better or worse? Will we be or won't we? To be or not to be, such is the alternative; it is forever or never; it is all or nothing: either we will live forever, or it will all end without return. It's well worth thinking about.
I actually don't think it's worth thinking about. Either way I'll never know the answer nor can I affect it.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:21 PM   #126
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Pseudo-skeptics / skeptics with a closed mind. It questions nothing from established non-religious institutions, but takes what they say about faith and requires others to do the same. It asks no questions to try to understand new things, but judges whether they fit orthodoxy. It immediately judges it to be false. and unmasks everything that contradicts their paradigm. They are not interested in truths, evidence or facts, only in defending their views. They cannot think in terms of possibilities, but see their paradigms as fixed and constant. lie and deceive to discredit your opponents. Automatically discards and denies all data that contradicts materialism and orthodoxy. It is critical and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about. Mock and ridicule those who oppose them, instead of using objective analysis and examination. When confronted with evidence or facts that cannot be refuted, it uses semantics, word games, and negation to try to find out. Unable to adapt their paradigms to new evidence and deny data that do not fit them. He sees the scientific establishment as a religion and authority to be taken with faith and never questioned or challenged. It does not understand the difference between the scientific process / methodology and the scientific institution. It assumes that the scientific establishment is objective and impartial, and free of politics, corruption, control, censorship, and suppression for no other reason than blind faith in authority. that are wrong, regardless of evidence.
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:22 PM   #127
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Pseudo-skeptics are people who have a deep belief, a dogma, a favorite ideology, and because of that they immediately reject anything that challenges this favorite worldview. It is not a matter of facts or science, they are not concerned with the truth or what is fair. The pseudo-skeptic just wants to maintain his ideology at any cost, as if his life depended on it! It's like a fanatic fan, no matter how talented, intelligent, or charismatic the other team player is ... the opponent is simply classified as an "enemy" and should be harassed. End! Therefore, nothing is expected from a pseudo-skeptic except dishonesty, arrogance, criticism based on sheer ignorance, cynicism, and complete and utter contempt for the scientific method. Pseudo-skeptics don't care to study anything, they don't want to see the data, they don't want to analyze the evidence, they don't care about the witnesses. others get to know her!
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:23 PM   #128
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
When a pseudo-skeptic receives the information - say, for example, the scientific proof for the afterlife - that is fundamentally inconsistent with his ingrained beliefs, the pseudo-skeptic tries to rationalize his beliefs to reduce and compensate for the intense anguish. this intense anguish is created by the information that the afterlife exists. The pseudo-skeptic's mind tries to resist and reject this new information (even if the information is the absolute truth) - hence the cognitive dissonance (the mind) - between the new information - (ie, positive evidence for the afterlife) and the pseudo-skeptic's personal beliefs that the afterlife cannot exist. Closed-minded skepticism is extremely difficult or almost impossible to change because his skepticism is linked to the pseudo-skeptic's neurological, psychological, intellectual, and emotional belief system. Thus, with absolute certainty, this pseudo-skeptic inexorably loses all sense of empirical equanimity. The pseudo-skeptic attempts to rationalize his own personal beliefs and will attempt to foul, denigrate, discard, and destroy the new information (including scientific proof of the afterlife) that causes the pseudo-skeptic much distress. This pseudo-skeptic cannot allow his deeply cherished lifelong beliefs against an afterlife to be refuted or challenged. Therefore, this pseudo-skeptic will use all tricks, and all means to try to rationalize that is, to reduce cognitive dissonance. He will defend his pseudo-skepticism and cruelly ridicule and attack any positive evidence for the afterlife - which is causing the pseudo-skeptic distress. Again, all sense of scientific objectivity of the pseudo-skeptic will be lost.
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:26 PM   #129
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 7,929
Um, no. These arguments have been made before and found lacking. If you have something original to offer, you are sure to find spirited discussion.

Again, just an fyi. I'm dismembered and not actually here
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:27 PM   #130
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
How to recognize a pseudo-skeptic? Pseudo-skeptics have characteristics that demonstrate their differences from skeptics. One of the founders of modern skepticism, Marcello Truzzi established in 1987 what would be a pseudo-skeptical conduct, highlighting the following characteristics: - A tendency to denial, not doubt. - Rigorousness above common standards regarding the evaluation of the subject criticized - Tendency to disparage and discredit rather than investigate.- Judgments without complete and conclusive analysis of the subject criticized- Use of personal attacks and ridicule of opposing ideas.- Submission of incomplete or insufficient evidence- Attempts to disqualify them who propose new ideas, often accusing them of being "pseudo-scientists." - Assuming that their criticisms or statements exempt them from the burden of proof, or that they need not be supported by evidence either. of unsubstantiated counterarguments based on speculation rather than empirical evidence.- Suges so that if present evidence does not convince them, a given theory must be discarded.- The tendency to disqualify any evidence. I would add one more feature: -A prejudice against certain types of subjects, which they consider so absurd that they would not even "waste their time" reading about it (which could give them the opportunity to formulate a quality critique). I believe we are all skeptical of relation to many things and not so much to others. It is always advisable to be cautious in dealing with certain issues so as not to accept a priori claims and similarly to discard hypotheses if they are not strongly contradicted by evidence. It is also worth saying that we should not rule out hypotheses that lack convincing evidence, remaining in the field of speculation. As Sagan would say: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", remembering that even finding no evidence in the present, nothing prevents that in the near or distant future they could be found and thus increasingly contributing to the dynamic progress of human knowledge. ..
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:28 PM   #131
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
True skeptics or open-minded skeptics. It questions everything and takes nothing to faith, even from established institutions. It asks questions to try to understand new things and are open to learning about them. It applies critical analysis and research to all sides, including yours. It has judgment and does not jump to precipitous conclusions. It seeks truth and considers it the highest goal. It thinks in terms of possibilities rather than preserving fixed views. It weighs fairly and objectively evidence from all sides. It recognizes valid convincing evidence rather than ignoring it or It has a good sense and reason. They are able to adapt their paradigms to new evidence and update their assumptions to fit the data. He sees science as a tool and methodology, not as a religion or authority to be obeyed. difference between the scientific process and the scientific establishment. Recognizes that the scientific establishment is subject to politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression, as all human-based institutions are - and therefore should be scrutinized and scrutinized rather than taken faith, especially in the light of evidence contrary to its claims. They will admit they are wrong when the evidence requires it.
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:35 PM   #132
gerdbonk
Penultimate Amazing
 
gerdbonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
Posts: 17,512
So... no evidence?
__________________
I'll bet you didn't notice that I was Totally ExoneratedTM when I wrote this.

Disavow any knowledge of my twitter here.
gerdbonk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:36 PM   #133
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 7,929
Plus why is the OP title shouting at me? Is Hamlet into thrash metal or punk or something?
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:38 PM   #134
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,995
Ah, the "pseudo-skeptic" accusation. Mark of someone with a woo story to tell who can't stand criticism.

Ricardo, the chief skeptic, Carl Sagan, also said that he always kept an open mind. But not so open that his brains fell out. Does your diatribe require your brains to fall out?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:44 PM   #135
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,325
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Ah, the "pseudo-skeptic" accusation. Mark of someone with a woo story to tell who can't stand criticism.

Ricardo doesn’t even seem to have a story.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:47 PM   #136
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
I want to understand what kind of evidence you require? I want a clarification!
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:49 PM   #137
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by gerdbonk View Post
So... no evidence?
I want to understand what kind of evidence you require? I want a clarification!
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:54 PM   #138
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
pseudo-skeptics is impossible to convince! but what about the skeptics what it takes to be convinced?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:55 PM   #139
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 7,929
Evidence that you have an original argument.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:58 PM   #140
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
has to be original empirical evidence?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 04:59 PM   #141
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Original rational evidence do you accept?

Last edited by Ricardo; 14th August 2019 at 05:00 PM. Reason: Original rational evidence do you accept?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:08 PM   #142
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth (which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when based on empirical evidence (although some empiricists believe that there are other ways of gaining knowledge).

although some empiricists believe that there are other ways of gaining knowledge).
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:14 PM   #143
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
In philosophy, rationalism is the epistemological view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification".More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive".In an old controversy, rationalism was opposed to empiricism, where the rationalists believed that reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, the rationalists argued that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists asserted that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. The rationalists had such a high confidence in reason that empirical proof and physical evidence were regarded as unnecessary to ascertain certain truths – in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience"

Last edited by Ricardo; 14th August 2019 at 05:17 PM.
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:17 PM   #144
xterra
So far, so good...
 
xterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: On the outskirts of Nowhere; the middle was too crowded
Posts: 3,249
Ricardo, we are not going to accept evidence a priori, without seeing it, which is what you seem to think we should do.


Post real, verifiable, evidence (YouTube doesn't count), and people can evaluate it.


Posting lots of philosophical or pseudo-philosophical is useless.




EDIT - I know people who are firm solopsists, and claim no one and nothing exists outside their brain — right up until you throw a brick at them. Suddenly, they are realists.
__________________
Over we go....

Last edited by xterra; 14th August 2019 at 05:20 PM.
xterra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:19 PM   #145
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
I have a lot of original rationalist evidence ... would you accept it? Are you just adept at empiricism?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:20 PM   #146
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 7,929
Fire away home boy!
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:22 PM   #147
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
Ricardo, we are not going to accept evidence a priori, without seeing it, which is what you seem to think we should do.


Post real, verifiable, evidence (YouTube doesn't count), and people can evaluate it.


Posting lots of philosophical or pseudo-philosophical is useless.




EDIT - I know people who are firm solopsists, and claim no one and nothing exists outside their brain — right up until you throw a brick at them. Suddenly, they are realists.
Empirical evidence I do not have!
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:25 PM   #148
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Thermal but what do you think of this sentence? although some empiricists believe that there are other ways of gaining knowledge).
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:26 PM   #149
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,417
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Limitations of the Scientific Method
Clearly, the scientific method is a powerful tool, but it does have its limitations. These limitations are based on the fact that a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable and that experiments and observations be repeatable. This places certain topics beyond the reach of the scientific method. Science cannot prove or refute the existence of God or any other supernatural entity. Sometimes, scientific principles are used to try to lend credibility to certain nonscientific ideas
This is true. Science can only study things that are real.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:27 PM   #150
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 7,929
Ricardo. Hermano. Take a breeze through the old threads in the forum archives. Your position is not exactly revolutionary. It's yesterday's metaphysics. Cough up some of the original stuff yoh promised
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:28 PM   #151
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,417
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
research for yourself that you will find evidence! research for yourself that you will find evidence! With perseverance you will even find proof! first rationalism and then empiricism to confirm this reality!
If God exists, then he knows exactly how to convince me of that. The fact that he has not done so means that either he does not exist, or that he wants me to be an atheist.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:31 PM   #152
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Thermal but what do you think of this sentence? although some empiricists believe that there are other ways of gaining knowledge).
There are other ways of gaining knowledge. They do not stand up to external scrutiny and hence fail to be very sound

However, the dismembered should not speak. Freaks the living out. Handing off to other posters, but take that stroll down What is Real Lane I suggested. It will help in determining the starting point in your discussion

Eta: forgot to be honest. What I think of that sentence is that it is incomplete and butchered. Nay, dismembered.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

Last edited by Thermal; 14th August 2019 at 05:33 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:32 PM   #153
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,417
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Recently some respected, mostly physical, scientists have ventured hypotheses in various fields that, taken together, challenge this materialist denial of consciousness as a mere insignificant byproduct of a functioning brain.
No, they haven't.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:33 PM   #154
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Thermal sorry is that I never participated in a skeptical forum!
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:35 PM   #155
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Is it only science that provides empirical evidence?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:36 PM   #156
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
but science is not infallible!
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:37 PM   #157
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,969
Ricardo, as god I wish to help your cause...

Present your best evidence, that you are able to express and defend.

Chance favors the prepared mind.

Let's see how these skeptics deal with your evidence.
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:39 PM   #158
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
There are other ways of gaining knowledge. They do not stand up to external scrutiny and hence fail to be very sound

However, the dismembered should not speak. Freaks the living out. Handing off to other posters, but take that stroll down What is Real Lane I suggested. It will help in determining the starting point in your discussion

Eta: forgot to be honest. What I think of that sentence is that it is incomplete and butchered. Nay, dismembered.
But rationalism cannot be despised!
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:40 PM   #159
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,417
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Is it only science that provides empirical evidence?
By definition, yes.

Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
but science is not infallible!
Of course it isn't. But science inherently improves upon current knowledge. That's what science does. It provides more and more accurate descriptions of reality. That's its entire function. Sure, science has made mistakes. But science also corrects the mistakes it makes. We find out that ideas are wrong by using science.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:40 PM   #160
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Thermal sorry is that I never participated in a skeptical forum!
Its cool, brother. That's the only reason im commenting: just to give you the heads-up that many posters here are familiar with the base argument presented. Bring your own thoughts in, and things liven up for ya
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.