Preconditional Worldview

[Sparhafoc]

2. What Aron Ra calls rationalism and what you call verificationism are not the same thing. Just as we can remember with most other words such as when Leroy used "transcendent" to describe something that isn't transcendent. Being new, joshua040103 is the only person here that may not know that you have a history getting terms wrong.

To be clear - it's not so much a problem of 'get it wrong' but rather of willfully fabricating ad hoc bullshit to evade criticism of his ideas, then insisting that everyone must use his definition, regardless of the fact that English isn't even his native language and his make-believe has been shown illogical and absurd.

So again, if you're going to come back and insert yourself into a topic, why not try being wrong with something completely new rather than repeat something where you've been shown to be wrong a couple of hundreds of time before?

Because LEROY.

 

[Deleted member 619]

For the purpose of this thread, I'm defining 'correct' as whatever I think it is

 

[leroy]

In reality, of course, verificationism has precisely fuck all to do with anything, being 100 years out of date, and not a single person in this forum has ever espoused the contention that only empirically verifiable statements are cognitively meaningful.

?

yes Aronra has made the contention, I even quoted from him.

Aronra, I'll repeat what I told him in an earlier text message: "I define Rationalism as "A secular perspective that belief should be restricted only to that which is directly- supportable by logic or evidence, that while many things may be considered possible, nothing should be believed to be true unless positively and empirically indicated

Nobody is accusing you Sparhafoc, Aronra (not you) is wrong, Rationalism is flawed, now the only question is, will Aronra read the source that I provided and admit that he was wrong, or will he repeat his mistake over and over again?

MarsCydonia
What Aron Ra calls rationalism and what you call verificationism are not the same thing

ok lets see

what AronRa calls rationalism>

I define Rationalism as "A secular perspective that belief should be restricted only to that which is directly- supportable by logic or evidence, that while many things may be considered possible, nothing should be believed to be true unless positively and empirically indicated

What I call verificationism

Verificationism, also known as the verification idea or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable are cognitively meaningful or else they are truths of logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism

So MarsCydonia, do you admit that both definitions are pretty much the same thing? can you spot a meaningful difference between these definitions?

 

[leroy]

1. You've been repeatedly explained that we do not presuppose a naturalistic explanation for everything. Perhaps for a couple of hundreds of times? You're just lying at this point.
.

I am not accusing you in particular, for example according to Dragan, we should not invoke supernatural explanations, unless all possible natural explanations are discarded.

since there are always potentially infinite possible natural explanations for any event, it is impossible to discard all of them


therefore naturalistic explanations will always win by default,


however my point is that presupposing a naturalistic explanation for everything is as bad as presupposing scripture.

 

[Sparhafoc]

yes Aronra has made the contention, I even quoted from him.

So you're either stupid or a liar.

Verificationism is the doctrine that only empirically verifiable statements are cognitively meaningful.

This is because verificationism, first and foremost, is a linguist's take on a theory of meaning.

So either you know this, and you are lying. Or you don't know this, but pretend to yourself and everyone else that you do.

You don't have the benefit of the doubt from me anymore.

Aronra, I'll repeat what I told him in an earlier text message: "I define Rationalism as "A secular perspective that belief should be restricted only to that which is directly- supportable by logic or evidence, that while many things may be considered possible, nothing should be believed to be true unless positively and empirically indicated

Funny how you've forgotten how to use the quote function.

Regardless, as anyone with a shred of honesty can see, Aron Ra isn't talking about what can be considered COGNITIVELY MEANINGFUL, he's clearly talking about what can be beliefs can be justified or invalidated by evidence.

These are not the same things, so stop lying.

Nobody is accusing you Sparhafoc,....

Irrelevant - you are using your usual shoddy ad hoc bullshit that pollutes any for of reasoned discourse on this forum.

Further, you have made this accusation against multiple, multiple times, even when you've been educated as to why you're wrong.

So stop whining and start respecting the factual world.

Aronra (not you) is wrong,...

He's not wrong just because you say so - if he was wrong, why do you need to lie about what he said?

Rationalism is flawed,...

Bollocks. A is not B - only a clueless muppet would believe so.

now the only question is, will Aronra read the source that I provided and admit that he was wrong, or will he repeat his mistake over and over again?

The source you provided disagrees with your accusation, but we know from long experience that you will NEVER admit your mistake because your only objective here is to hate on strangers because they don't genuflect to your religious convictions.

What I call verificationism

DING DING DING

No one gives a fuck what you call verificationism, LEROY. You possess no legitimacy whatsoever at this forum having been shown dozens of times to be a liar, to have no respect for the truth, honesty, or for other human beings.

So MarsCydonia, do you admit that both definitions are pretty much the same thing? can you spot a meaningful difference between these definitions?

Duhhh yep... guess I can!

 

[Sparhafoc]

however my point is that presupposing a naturalistic explanation for everything is as bad as presupposing scripture.

With the tacit admission that presupposing scripture is bad.

This is what Creationists always do.

They try to pretend that evolution is a religion, that science requires faith, that reason is presupposition.... in each case they are not only wrong, but they're using their own position as the yard-stick of failure.

It's comedy gold.

 

[leroy]

For the purpose of this thread, I'm defining 'correct' as whatever I think it is

Interestingly I noted that Aronra invented his own definition of Rationalism, and nobody insulted nor render this behavior as unacceptable,

why is it that when I invent my own terms you (plural) make a big deal out if it, but when Aronra does it, you simple accept it?


in my opinion, words are irrelevant as long as you make clear what you mean, you may or may not agree with this opinion but at least I am being consistent, I accept when people redefine terms regardless if the share my world view or not.

 

[leroy]

however my point is that presupposing a naturalistic explanation for everything is as bad as presupposing scripture.

With the tacit admission that presupposing scripture is bad.

This is what Creationists always do.

They try to pretend that evolution is a religion, that science requires faith, that reason is presupposition.... in each case they are not only wrong, but they're using their own position as the yard-stick of failure.

It's comedy gold.

Tacit?

I though I was being explicit, yes presupposing scripture is bad, and creationists should not do it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

And again, to show how utterly deceitful and lacking in even the most elementary levels of honesty LEROY is in his discourse here.... look at the text he's cited.

Yep, a typical fucking wikipedia genius! :facepalm:

in fact what you call rationalism (also called verificationism) has been falsified and largely abandoned by scholars, only fanatic atheist from youtube and forums hold on to that view.

The 1951 article "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", by Willard Van Orman Quine, attacked the analytic/synthetic division and apparently rendered the verificationist program untenable. Carl Hempel, one of verificationism's greatest internal critics, had recently concluded the same as to the verifiability criterion.[2] In 1958, Norwood Hanson explained that even direct observations must be collected, sorted, and reported with guidance and constraint by theory, which sets a horizon of expectation and interpretation, how observational reports, never neutral, are laden with theory.[15]
The principle was also recognized as being self-refuting: it cannot itself be empirically verified, and it is not a logical tautology, so must be meaningless under its own terms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline

.

Of course, as usual, LEROY's not bothered to read all those bits which can't be corralled into an argumentative agenda - those contextual elements which just so happen to wholly undermine LEROY's manufactured interpretation...

From his own source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism

Verificationism, also known as the verification idea or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful,

Logical positivists garnered the verifiability criterion of cognitive meaningfulness from young Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophy of language

So, here we see the usual selective quoting from LEROY, and as usual, the bit he conveniently missed out is also not only absolutely essential to the concept itself, but also undermines LEROY's contention.

Verificationism was born in linguistics, and was concerned initially about the philosophy of language, how syntactically meaningful sentences could be derived, and it was taken up by philosophers who felt that their field was being diminished by science and logic, hoping to impress upon philosophy a standardized methodology that could mimic science and make philosophy more coherent.

Neither Aron Ra, nor any of the people LEROY has accused of verificationism have EVER claimed that a statement can only be cognitively meaningful if it is empirically verifiable, so stop fucking lying.

 

[leroy]

[
Regardless, as anyone with a shred of honesty can see, Aron Ra isn't talking about what can be considered COGNITIVELY MEANINGFUL,

yes he is talking about COGNITIVELY MEANINGFUL, read his definition of rationalism slowly and carefully and you will note that he is talking about COGNITIVELY MEANINGFUL and that his definition of rationalism corresponds to what philosophers call verificationism.

the definitions are there, feel free to compare Arora's definition of rationalism and Wikipedia's definition for verificationism, and let me know if you can spot a meaningful difference between them.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Interestingly I noted that Aronra invented his own definition of Rationalism, and nobody insulted nor render this behavior as unacceptable,

Aron Ra's definition is not willfully quote-mined towards an agenda, and he is not using it as the basis to abuse other people.

So fuck off with your bleating.

why is it that when I invent my own terms you (plural) make a big deal out if it, but when Aronra does it, you simple accept it?

Because you're a lying cunt with a nasty agenda about abusing strangers on the internet?

in my opinion, words are irrelevant....

:lol:

as long as you make clear what you mean, you may or may not agree with this opinion but at least I am being consistent, I accept when people redefine terms regardless if the share my world view or not.

Fuck off LEROY. You can't assert that i) rationalism is verificationism ii) verificationism is flawed iii) therefore naturalism is dead and then fucking whinge about how people won't accept your bollocks capitulation.

 

[Sparhafoc]

[
Regardless, as anyone with a shred of honesty can see, Aron Ra isn't talking about what can be considered COGNITIVELY MEANINGFUL,

yes he is talking about COGNITIVELY MEANINGFUL, read his definition of rationalism slowly and carefully and you will note that he is talking about COGNITIVELY MEANINGFUL and that his definition of rationalism corresponds to what philosophers call verificationism.

Yes, as I said: you're a fucking liar.

It's clear to everyone that Aron Ra made no such contention at all, you fucking liar.

Further, his definition of rationalism is factually nothing to do with verificationism, and you are a century out of date.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

Cognitively meaningful, LEROY?

This is what the term means - not the bollocks you're slapping down on the table of discourse yet again.

 

[leroy]

Yes, as I said: you're a fucking liar.

It's clear to everyone that Aron Ra made no such contention at all, you fucking liar.

Further, his definition of rationalism is factually nothing to do with verificationism, and you are a century out of date.

I'll say it is clear for anyone that Aron is making such contention, but lets wait and let AronRa talk for himself.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Yes, as I said: you're a fucking liar.

It's clear to everyone that Aron Ra made no such contention at all, you fucking liar.

Further, his definition of rationalism is factually nothing to do with verificationism, and you are a century out of date.

I'll say it is clear for anyone that Aron is making such contention, but lets wait and let AronRa talk for himself.

Well, it's clearly bollocks because there is no suggestion anywhere in what Aron Ra wrote that only empirically verified statements can be cognitively meaningful, so as usual, you're talking out the wrong end of your digestive tract.

Again, you did this. You claimed rationalism = verificationism, verificationism = idiots, therefore naturalism = dead.

So the amount of bullshit you've floated in just a few pages is impressive even for you.

Next point, naturalism has precisely fuck all to do with either.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Tacit?

I though I was being explicit, yes presupposing scripture is bad, and creationists should not do it.

It's what Creationism is.

Henry Morris, the founder of modern Creationism spells it out clearly:

No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.

i.e. no matter what evidence shows, the Bible is right by definition.

 

[leroy]

Well then Henry Morris is wrong.

But I would add that those who presupose naturalism are equally wrong. For example those who Say that no evidence would convince them that The universe had a supernatural Origin are as wrong as Henry Morris,

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

According to Romans 1:18-21, everyone KNOWS God exists.

And this is where I usually end the conversation with a presupper. If you claim I'm lying without any proof whatsoever (and no, Bible isn't proof, it's not even evidence, it is the claim), as every presupper seems to be compelled to do by their script, you've lost my interest in conversing with you.

I draw the line at Presuppositional Apologetic. The conversations I have usually end up with the theist running to solipsism to hide behind. At that point, I just point out how ridiculous it is to question reality just to hold on to their preconceived notions. Presuppositional Apologetic starts from denying reality and proclaiming that they are right from the start, so why waste time talking to them? At least if someone runs to solipsism, one is able to point out that they actually do not reject reality, but are only appealing to it to hide the failure of their argumentation.

 

[AronRa]

Interestingly I noted that Aronra invented his own definition of Rationalism, and nobody insulted nor render this behavior as unacceptable,

Because I didn't invent my own definition. I looked it up on several different sourcs and then paraphrased all of them for clarity in this context.

ra·tion·al·ism
/ˈraSHənlˌizəm,ˈraSHnəˌlizəm/

a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

Once again we see that it is unwise to believe anything said or written by another without question, without reservation, or without reason. That's not verificationism because it has nothing to do with any perceived meaning. We're only talking about credulity here, and no band of philosophers in any century have ever refuted this basic wisdom.

I gave a fuller description in my video conversation with Joshua, including where I explained how I'm not an old school rationalist because I cannot contradict empirical data.

 

[leroy]

Interestingly I noted that Aronra invented his own definition of Rationalism, and nobody insulted nor render this behavior as unacceptable,

Because I didn't invent my own definition. I looked it up on several different sourcs and then paraphrased all of them for clarity in this context.

ra·tion·al·ism
/ˈraSHənlˌizəm,ˈraSHnəˌlizəm/

a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

Once again we see that it is unwise to believe anything said or written by another without question, without reservation, or without reason. That's not verificationism because it has nothing to do with any perceived meaning. We're only talking about credulity here, and no band of philosophers in any century have ever refuted this basic wisdom.

I gave a fuller description in my video conversation with Joshua, including where I explained how I'm not an old school rationalist because I cannot contradict empirical data.

The view that states you can only know something if you can prove it empirically (or logically) is called verificationism .

This view has Been falsified

You seem to promote that view (correct me if I am wrong)


.............
The issue is not that you created your definition The issue is that when I do that in this forum atheist don't accept it