RE: Question for atheists...
February 19, 2013 at 2:15 pm
(This post was last modified: February 19, 2013 at 2:23 pm by BeeDeePee.)
Slow down people, I can not speak with ten of you. 
I'm using the term "logical positivism" in a right way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
I've never said that they thought Bible can help us to understand and explain natural mechanisms. They just rejected the claim that all metaphysical claims are meaningless because they are not proven.

(February 19, 2013 at 1:43 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote:(February 19, 2013 at 1:38 pm)BeeDeePee Wrote: And that's why Popper rejects logical positivism (one of the reasons).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism_dispute
I read Karl Popper and Adorno
You are putting the term into a completly different context and I believe you are doing this intentionaly with dishonest intent.
Or can you show me how Popper and Adorno would think that some shit bible prophecy or interpertation of the bible would leave a conclusion about current knowlege?
I'm using the term "logical positivism" in a right way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
I've never said that they thought Bible can help us to understand and explain natural mechanisms. They just rejected the claim that all metaphysical claims are meaningless because they are not proven.