Posts: 1211
Threads: 38
Joined: July 15, 2010
Reputation:
21
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 9:33 pm
(This post was last modified: August 4, 2010 at 9:33 pm by TheDarkestOfAngels.)
(August 4, 2010 at 9:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You backed up what I said TheDarkestOfAngels. Yes it (non empirical evidence) doesn't prove anything. It is still non empirical evidence and clearly a form of evidence.
It isn't evidence by it's own definition.
Not-evidence is not a form of evidence.
You may as well be attempting to convince me that a not-language is a language and a not-computer is a computer or some form of language or some form of computer.
It's utter nonsense.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 9:36 pm
It's not "non evidence" it's "non empirical evidence". The 'non' bit applies to the empiricism of the evidence. It's still evidence!
Posts: 1211
Threads: 38
Joined: July 15, 2010
Reputation:
21
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 9:54 pm
(This post was last modified: August 4, 2010 at 9:55 pm by TheDarkestOfAngels.)
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Posts: 1211
Threads: 38
Joined: July 15, 2010
Reputation:
21
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 10:12 pm
fr0d0,
You realize your 7-page book just expands on the example I gave, right? It doesn't discount or disprove my last post with any statement I've read in the entire section you showed me, nor does it contradict anything I've said.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 10:29 pm
"the premises from which a non empirical proof are derived must ultimately be statements whose truth we can be certain of without proof"
What about that bit?
Your point is invalid. You said that non empirical evidence is not valid, when it clearly is.
Posts: 1211
Threads: 38
Joined: July 15, 2010
Reputation:
21
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 10:40 pm
(August 4, 2010 at 10:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: "the premises from which a non empirical proof are derived must ultimately be statements whose truth we can be certain of without proof"
What about that bit?
Your point is invalid. You said that non empirical evidence is not valid, when it clearly is.
My point is that non-empirical evidence isn't evidence.
He's certainly using the term in proper context much in same manner I referred to as saying that I listen to a non-computer, talking to a non-human, and eating a non-hamburger.
He's using the term quite pointlessly in virtually every inch of the example you gave.
As to the statement above:
"the premises from which a non empirical proof are derived must ultimately be statements whose truth we can be certain of without proof"
"Non-empirical proof" is an oxy-moron. You cannot ascertain truth without some evidence to support it.
Something that is true without necessarily requiring empirical proof are human concepts - such as mathmatics and morality.
Posts: 274
Threads: 5
Joined: April 17, 2010
Reputation:
12
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 5, 2010 at 1:34 am
(August 4, 2010 at 8:30 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: SleepingDemon Wrote:No, i'm saying there was no concept of god. It isn't the same. Atheism is by definition disbelief in gods,
But you said before that atheism wasn't disbelief in gods. Which was why I criticized you.
When did I say that? I don't remember it :p
"In our youth, we lacked the maturity, the decency to create gods better than ourselves so that we might have something to aspire to. Instead we are left with a host of deities who were violent, narcissistic, vengeful bullies who reflected our own values. Our gods could have been anything we could imagine, and all we were capable of manifesting were gods who shared the worst of our natures."-Me
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." – Francis Bacon
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 5, 2010 at 5:22 am
Posts: 14939
Threads: 686
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
142
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 5, 2010 at 7:52 am
(August 4, 2010 at 10:40 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: My point is that non-empirical evidence isn't evidence. Why not? Logical proofs are non-empirical, and all of the arguments we use in science are based on logic, even the ones we use to evaluate empirical evidence. So basically if your statement is true, no evidence is evidence.
Quote:"Non-empirical proof" is an oxy-moron. You cannot ascertain truth without some evidence to support it.
Something that is true without necessarily requiring empirical proof are human concepts - such as mathmatics and morality.
True, you cannot ascertain truth without some evidence to support it, but it is a non-sequitur to say that therefore Non-empirical proof is an oxymoron. It is only an oxymoron in your mind because you think that "non-empirical" cannot possibly be evidence, when it can.
One of the earliest proofs of our existence is non-empirical. "I think, therefore I am".
|
