I started our conversation esq by quoting you. You eventually asked (3rd or 4th response) "what other evidence could there be". In line with my summation of your position, still evident in your post above, that you don't think any other evidence is possible.

So yes, it's your dodge

We have had this conversation a few times before. Your feigned memory loss is unimpressive.

Have you read the Wikipedia article on scientism yet?

What is reality and is it possible for humans to reason anything separately from it?

(June 16, 2014 at 9:08 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I started our conversation esq by quoting you. You eventually asked (3rd or 4th response) "what other evidence could there be". In line with my summation of your position, still evident in your post above, that you don't think any other evidence is possible.

No, actually, what I asked was, and this is a direct quote, "what else would you like there to be?" A question you still haven't answered, and which I asked because, as my next response to the first in your long line of evasions hinted at, I suspected that you were going to try and slip faith under the door as a justification for belief, or perhaps the logic that you continually refer to without ever expanding on.

See, I have a sort of metric for evidence that determines how much or how little I'll believe a thing. Empirical evidence isn't required for me to believe something, but what does need to happen is the claim or proposed evidence needs to be falsifiable and testable, so that at some stage it might yield some empirical result, as obviously empirical evidence is sufficient to fully confirm that something is real. So while claims based on observations and so on may be justifiably believable, I don't feel that it's sufficient to just rest on those laurels like I get the feeling you would.

Don't mistake a request for additional information, for a comprehensive overview of my entire position on an issue.

Quote:So yes, it's your dodge

We have had this conversation a few times before. Your feigned memory loss is unimpressive.

What is impressive, it seems, is your complete unwillingness or inability to actually comprehend what's being typed at you. And to answer questions.

Quote:Have you read the Wikipedia article on scientism yet?

I read it when you first posted it. Given that it didn't apply to my position, no matter your mewling protestations, I discarded it as irrelevant.

Quote:What is reality and is it possible for humans to reason anything separately from it?

Reality is that which exists in the real world, and humans can reason themselves into all kinds of positions regardless of that; every single god claim that you don't believe in should be proof of that.

Be prepared to be dissapointed and frustrated in 3...2....1

But are those god claims separate from reality? Surely they must be grounded in something? To come up with an idea, there must be an anchor in reality. Something that the audience can relate to so that they can understand it.

I disagree with your assessment that scientism doesn't apply to you. I think it's a perfect fit, and fits well everything you say. I've never seen you take a rationalist position.

(June 16, 2014 at 8:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Take a look in the other thread you just posted in irrational.

Are you referring to the post where you make a distinction between empiricism and rationalism and, somehow, make it sound like rationalism supports your position?

The problem is that you really didn't provide any clear examples to demonstrate your point, and you don't seem to understand what empiricism really is if you think that empiricism and rationalism are independent of each other.

(June 16, 2014 at 1:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: But are those god claims separate from reality? Surely they must be grounded in something? To come up with an idea, there must be an anchor in reality. Something that the audience can relate to so that they can understand it.

Yes, god claims are grounded in something. God claims originated in ancient times to understand unexplainable events, such as lightning, the seasons, weather in general, etc.
People came to conclusions such as "Only a powerful being could do that" and "The gods have rewarded us with a bountiful harvest", etc. In those times, when science and knowledge were so small compared to now, these explanations were reasonable, since there was no way of knowing why certain things happened. Another motive for god claims is power. Ancient civilizations such as Egypt and Rome had a whole system of gods. Whoever first devised each god probably did it for money and power (gained through temple revenue and positions in the government and church). Old civilizations were ingenious at inventing religion to get money, power and control the people, it was a smart tactic. Would it work today? To a certain extent, but it wouldn't be a smashing success like it used to be (we don't see Scientology sweeping across the globe).

So yes, god claims are rooted in reality. They were used to explain things and give hope when we didn't know anything about the world, and they were used for power and control by ancient governments.

(June 16, 2014 at 1:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: But are those god claims separate from reality? Surely they must be grounded in something? To come up with an idea, there must be an anchor in reality. Something that the audience can relate to so that they can understand it.

Sure: people from long ago didn't have the answers to questions, and so they posited the existence of even bigger, more powerful people that made the things they didn't know about happen. That's why gods always have similar traits to the people that invented them, regardless of whether or not they logically would.

There's nothing strictly wrong with imagining like that, but as I said above, you need to have some way of testing those claims, and if those tests come out negative, then you should relinquish your grip on the claim. And you should always keep in mind that, before the tests come back positive, the real answer to the question you're trying to resolve is "I don't know."

Quote:I disagree with your assessment that scientism doesn't apply to you. I think it's a perfect fit, and fits well everything you say. I've never seen you take a rationalist position.

I have a healthy respect for empirical evidence, and think that a lot of the things that we can detect in our world can be empirically verified, but I'm aware of the limitations of it with regards to how we operate.

But I've never once asked strictly for empirical evidence for a claim, and you don't get to strawman me by pretending I have; I've only ever asked for evidence, period. Because if there's no effect of a thing in reality, something you can point to as the origin point of your observation, then you have no reason for considering that thing to begin with.

(June 16, 2014 at 6:26 pm)Irrational Wrote: you don't seem to understand what empiricism really is if you think that empiricism and rationalism are independent of each other.

An empiricist needs examples. Empiricism and rationalism are opposites. I don't think they are independent.

---

(June 16, 2014 at 9:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 16, 2014 at 1:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: But are those god claims separate from reality? Surely they must be grounded in something? To come up with an idea, there must be an anchor in reality. Something that the audience can relate to so that they can understand it.

Sure: people from long ago didn't have the answers to questions, and so they posited the existence of even bigger, more powerful people that made the things they didn't know about happen. That's why gods always have similar traits to the people that invented them, regardless of whether or not they logically would.

There's nothing strictly wrong with imagining like that, but as I said above, you need to have some way of testing those claims, and if those tests come out negative, then you should relinquish your grip on the claim. And you should always keep in mind that, before the tests come back positive, the real answer to the question you're trying to resolve is "I don't know."

Quote:I disagree with your assessment that scientism doesn't apply to you. I think it's a perfect fit, and fits well everything you say. I've never seen you take a rationalist position.

I have a healthy respect for empirical evidence, and think that a lot of the things that we can detect in our world can be empirically verified, but I'm aware of the limitations of it with regards to how we operate.

But I've never once asked strictly for empirical evidence for a claim, and you don't get to strawman me by pretending I have; I've only ever asked for evidence, period. Because if there's no effect of a thing in reality, something you can point to as the origin point of your observation, then you have no reason for considering that thing to begin with.

1. The old "primitive people were ignorant" red herring where you know very well that those people were not making scientific observations in the bible.

2. Spoken like a true empiricist. You insist on that point of fact, where biblical Christianity, for one, is based upon the premise of an unknowable fact.

Until you can get over that self imposed restriction, you're stuck with your illogical/ contradictory position.

Just to let you know esq, this is the end of my engaging with your sophistry in this thread.

Rationalism is useful for theoretical conjecturing, nothing more, nothing less. Without empirical verification, you're left with nothing but definitions that may or may not have any bearing in reality. Clearly some words are more helpful in describing our states of mind than others, these unintelligible efforts being the life blood of religious demigoguing.