|
Question for atheists...
|
If empirical evidence for a metaphysical being is impossible, do you have any non-empirical evidence that doesn't fall flat on its face by relying on logical fallacies?
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
 (February 19, 2013 at 1:35 pm)BeeDeePee Wrote:(February 19, 2013 at 1:27 pm)Question Mark Wrote: Like what?Like atomic theory, heliocentrism etc. They couldn't be tested for a very long period. But they are not metaphysical but physical things belonging to the material universe that just needed science to catch up and have the tools to test the relevant theories and with heliocentrism, an ability to expunge biblically influenced thinking. You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.  
yeah but not specific enought.
give me sources or quote these. (February 19, 2013 at 1:45 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: But they are not metaphysical but physical things belonging to the material universe that just needed science to catch up and have the tools to test the relevant theories and with heliocentrism, an ability to expunge biblically influenced thinking.It's all the same. The point is that claims about their existence were metaphysical, but turned out to be true. It means that you can not reject (every) metaphysical claim as meaningless. 
I do not reject every metaphysical claim as meaningless. Just your God.
(February 19, 2013 at 1:45 pm)BeeDeePee Wrote:(February 19, 2013 at 1:39 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: examples please But those were not metaphysical as empirical evidence is what proved their existence.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Hang on, what point are you trying to make about claims like heliocentrism? When things like this were discovered, it was because they were tested in some way. Anyone who believed that the sun revolved around the earth before someone had tested that fact was irrational.
If you believe it, question it. If you question it, get an answer. If you have an answer, does that answer satisfy reality? Does it satisfy you? Probably not. For no one else will agree with you, not really.
EVIDENCE - WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE!?
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
