Code:
[quote="name of person you are replying to"]text you want to quote[/quote]
Which if you typed in exactly as above, would be printed via the forum software as:
name of person you are replying to said:text you want to quote
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[quote="name of person you are replying to"]text you want to quote[/quote]
name of person you are replying to said:text you want to quote
AronRa said:Which is obviously not what we're talking about here. We're talking about beliefs, opinions, and actions, not knowledge. However, you cannot honestly and ethically claim to know something if you can't show that you know it, and if you can't confirm your accuracy to any degree at all by any means whatsoever then you can't even know IF you know it.
AronRa said:No I don't. I don't hold the view you described; I hold the view that I described, which is importantly different. I'm saying you shouldn't believe without good reason.
leroy said:Yes, that is verificationism,
leroy said:Yes it consistent with your (and my) definition
leroy said:Yes that doctrine has been falsified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline)
leroy said:Yes you promote that view.
leroy said:It is very easy to know something even if you can’t show it, for example I know that I drank 2 cups of coffee before 7.00am but I can’t prove it.
leroy said:of course this is just a side note, one can show that God probably exists using empirical science and logic...
leroy said:I am just saying that even if it weren’t the case, it would be reasonable to believe in God on the basis of an experience together with the absence of a defeater.
leroy said:That is a completely different view, “good reason” seems a vague and subjective term that may or may not include things other than empirical science and logic. For example, Rationalism (as defined by philosophers) allows for truths that can’t be tested.
leroy said:you seem to promote the view that only believes that can be tested empirically or logically can be accepted as true (verificationism)
leroy said:To make a summery, you claim that believes or views that can’t be shown to be true, cannot be asserted as true, while I (together with most scholars) would disagree for the reasons described in the source that I provided (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline)
Verificationism (also known as the Verifiability Criterion of Meaning or the Verification Principle) is the doctrine that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false
You don't have knowledge of God. You come here pretending to know things you don't know, claiming facts that are not facts in defense of an imaginary alternate reality with no truth to it. You make-believe things that are not true for reasons that are not sane. You're delusional. Studies have shown that this type belief system has negative peripheral effects on other aspects of cognition and psyche. Once you wake up and walk away from that you will be a more tolerant and inquisitive and all around better person, and you'll stop lying all the time. So we're saving you. You can't save anyone. Your god is not real. You have no defense, and that is obvious to every thinking person reading this or watching our live discussion.joshua040103 said:I come here with the desire to see people come to a saving knowledge of God and I get mocked.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Sparhafoc said:leroy said:Yes, that is verificationism,
No. You're wrong.
Liar or stupid.
I vote liar because it's your typical guff.
leroy said:Yes it consistent with your (and my) definition
No. You're wrong.
No context regarding cognitive meaning, so you're talking out of your butt.
leroy said:Yes that doctrine has been falsified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline)
No. You're wrong.
Your wikipedia source doesn't say it was 'falsified' - you need to learn what words mean before hanging so much bullshit on them.
leroy said:Yes you promote that view.
No. You're wrong.
See how quickly LEROY goes from 'let's wait and hear what Aron Ra says' to telling Aron Ra what he says.
leroy said:It is very easy to know something even if you can’t show it, for example I know that I drank 2 cups of coffee before 7.00am but I can’t prove it.
No. You're wrong.
Nothing to do with verificationism, as I already educated you.
An actual example is the linguistic idea floated by Chomsky: colourless green ideas sleep furiously.
The sentence is grammatically and syntactically correct, but it conveys no cognitive meaning.
Verificationism says that only statements that are empirically verified can have cognitive meaning, ergo you are making up bullshit as usual and refusing to amend your assertions when shown wrong, as usual.
No one here has espoused this position, so why are you lying to peoples' faces?
leroy said:of course this is just a side note, one can show that God probably exists using empirical science and logic...
No you can't.
leroy said:I am just saying that even if it weren’t the case, it would be reasonable to believe in God on the basis of an experience together with the absence of a defeater.
No it isn't, not least because 'God' is a particular entity, rather than a class of entities, and it's no more reasonable to believe in that one than in any of the other ones. You're dramatically overselling your competence, as usual.
leroy said:That is a completely different view, “good reason” seems a vague and subjective term that may or may not include things other than empirical science and logic. For example, Rationalism (as defined by philosophers) allows for truths that can’t be tested.
No. You're wrong.
Aron Ra told you that he is not an 'old school rationalist' because, a hundred years ago, rationalism and empiricism were contradictory positions.
Pro tip: they're not today, so perhaps you should learn what you are talking about before professing to have a clue.
leroy said:you seem to promote the view that only believes that can be tested empirically or logically can be accepted as true (verificationism)
No. You're wrong.
That's not verificationism, as you've been educated.
leroy said:To make a summery, you claim that believes or views that can’t be shown to be true, cannot be asserted as true, while I (together with most scholars) would disagree for the reasons described in the source that I provided (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline)
No. You're wrong.
1) That's not verificationism.
2) You're such a clown pretending that you have any association with scholars.
3) Verificationism, as per the solitary source you keep quoting - Wikipedia - is expressly about statements needing to be cognitively meaningful, and yet at no point have you acknowledged this even though it's in the first sentence of that single source.
You're a clown, LEROY. A lying clown.
leroy said::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well I challenge you to explain the differences between what I call verificationism, actual verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes.
leroy said:Just for the record, I am suggesting that all 3 are the same, a view that states that only things that can be proven empirically or logically can be affirmed as true in any meaningful way,
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Sparhafoc said:leroy said::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well I challenge you to explain the differences between what I call verificationism, actual verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes.
I already have you lying clown, plus both your source and every source cited shows the difference.
So are you saying you're too thick to understand the words?
leroy said:Just for the record, I am suggesting that all 3 are the same, a view that states that only things that can be proven empirically or logically can be affirmed as true in any meaningful way,
Yes, it's called blagging, or talking out of your rectum - it's about the only thing in which you possess any degree of competence.
Sparhafoc said:Theism, also known as animism, has been shown false and no serious scholars believe that there are spirits in inanimate objects, therefore Christianity is dead.
I bet even you - with utterly pathetic levels of comprehension - can spot the flawed reasoning here.
Shame it's exactly the argument you're basing your entire bollock thrust on.
No it isn't, because we're talking about justification of belief, not cognitive meaning of knowledge.AronRa said:Which is obviously not what we're talking about here. We're talking about beliefs, opinions, and actions, not knowledge. However, you cannot honestly and ethically claim to know something if you can't show that you know it, and if you can't confirm your accuracy to any degree at all by any means whatsoever then you can't even know IF you know it.Leroy said:Yes, that is verificationism,
No it isn't.Yes it consistent with your (and my) definition
No it hasn't.Yes that doctrine has been falsified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline)
No I don't.Yes you promote that view.
Then you don't really know it. But matters like this is why positive claims require positive evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No one cares if you're lying about your coffee. So it doesn't matter if you forgot about that third cup and don't remember everything accurately.It is very easy to know something even if you can’t show it, for example I know that I drank 2 cups of coffee before 7.00am but I can’t prove it.
No you can't.of course this is just a side note, one can show that God probably exists using empirical science and logic
That would be foolish. Remember that everywhere except the Bible and the Qur'an, a fool is one who too readily believes improbable claims from questionable sources on insufficient evidence.I am just saying that even if it weren’t the case, it would be reasonable to believe in God on the basis of an experience together with the absence of a defeater.
Yeah, we've been trying to tell you that.AronRa said:No I don't. I don't hold the view you described; I hold the view that I described, which is importantly different. I'm saying you shouldn't believe without good reason.That is a completely different view,
That's a contradiction. The truth is what the facts are. If you can't show that what you said is true, you can't call it truth. You have to show the truth of it first.“good reason” seems a vague and subjective term that may or may not include things other than empirical science and logic. For example, Rationalism (as defined by philosophers) allows for truths that can’t be tested.
Again, verificationism is about cognitive meaning. We're talking about the ethics of making unstable assertions that can't be evaluated in science. People may accept claims for whatever reason, but the person making the claim has a responsibility to show that what is said is verifiable correct. Empty assertions like "I KNOW for a FACT that's the gospel TRUTH" are only empty assertions without evidence and logical reasoning to back them up.you seem to promote the view that only believes that can be tested empirically or logically can be accepted as true (verificationism)
Most scholars clearly do not agree with you.To make a summery, you claim that believes or views that can’t be shown to be true, cannot be asserted as true, while I (together with most scholars) would disagree for the reasons described in the source that I provided (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline)
joshua040103 said:I'm sorry, I wasn't quoting anyone. I am new to forums. Typically I engage atheists on Facebook.he_who_is_nobody said:Amazing! The creator of everything, and without which, we would not be able to use reason has beamed special knowledge into joshua040103's head, yet cannot also give him the knowledge to master the quote function.
joshua040103 said:Interesting how you live up to being the stereotypical atheist in that you're never beyond personally insulting people who don't hold to the same beliefs you do.
joshua040103 said:Your persistence of inserting yourself into discussions that are irrelevant to you or your input speaks volumes to your need for self validation.
joshua040103 said:It's likely you can't hardly get through a 24 hour period without stroking your ego at least once.
joshua040103 said:It's sad really.
joshua040103 said:I come here with the desire to see people come to a saving knowledge of God and I get mocked.
joshua040103 said:You come here with nothing to offer but ad hominems and no concern for anyone or anything other than your ego.
joshua040103 said:Just remember, that on atheism none of this matters in the grand scheme of things.
joshua040103 said:You're a mere byproduct of random chance over time and eventually, maybe even this very day, your heart will stop, and you will slowly rot away into nothing.
joshua040103 said:On your worldview, this is as good as it gets.
joshua040103 said:So why you bother at all with discussion over these topics speaks to the dialectical tensions which exist within the philosophical framework of your worldview.
joshua040103 said:If you're rearranged pondscum, who cares about what anyone else believes?
joshua040103 said:You certainly shouldn't.
joshua040103 said:I think I'm done casting pearls before swine. If you would like to have a one on one discussion with me, and you're on Facebook, here's a link to my page.
Collecemall said:There is a guide somewhere. I don't have the time to find it right this second but someone might point him to it.
Sparhafoc said:leroy said::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well I challenge you to explain the differences between what I call verificationism, actual verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes.
I already have you lying clown, plus both your source and every source cited shows the difference.
So are you saying you're too thick to understand the words?
AronRa said:[The truth is what the facts are. If you can't show that what you said is true, you can't call it truth. You have to show the truth of it first.
leroy said:of course this is just a side note, one can show that God probably exists using empirical science and logic
AronRa said:No you can't.
Except that I don't call it verificationism because that's not what it is.AronRa said:[The truth is what the facts are. If you can't show that what you said is true, you can't call it truth. You have to show the truth of it first.leroy said:Whether if you what to call it verificationism or not is irrelevant, it is still a fact that this view has been falsified and largely abandoned by scholars for the reasons explained in the source that I provided.
Literally not true for the reasons I have already explained. If you're going to argue with someone over the matter, your memory of the events will be insufficient to counter any evidence at all against you.As I said before it is possible to know something even if you can’t show it to be true,
Then you fail on all points.leroy said:Of course this is just a side note, one can show that God probably exists using empirical science and logicsure I can, one can for example:AronRa said:No you can't.
1 Show empirically and with logic that the universe (all space time and everything in it) probably had a beginning
2 Show with logic that probably a beginning necessarily requires a cause
3 show with logic that the cause necessarily had to be timeless, space less, immaterial, with causal powers and personal.
As long as you grant that 1,2 and 3 are probably true you are granting that a timeless, space less, immaterial, with causal powers and personal entity probably exists, and of course this entity would be something that everybody would call “a god”
With probably in this context I simply mean without 100% certainty, but with a high degree of certainty
leroy said::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Once again Sparhafoc ran from a challenge with lies and insults
leroy said:aja, so please...
explain the differences between what I call verificationism, actual verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes.
he_who_is_nobody said:I do love it when someone issues a challenge that was already met a few posts above their challenge.
LEROY said:of course this is just a side note, one can show that God probably exists using empirical science and logic
LEROY said:sure I can, one can for example:
1 Show empirically and with logic that the universe (all space time and everything in it) probably had a beginning
2 Show with logic that probably a beginning necessarily requires a cause
3 show with logic that the cause necessarily had to be timeless, space less, immaterial, with causal powers and personal.
Sparhafoc said:leroy said:Well I challenge you to explain the differences between what I call verificationism, actual verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes.
I already have you lying clown, plus both your source and every source cited shows the difference.
So are you saying you're too thick to understand the words?
leroy said::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Sparhafoc said:Yes, it's called blagging, or talking out of your rectum - it's about the only thing in which you possess any degree of competence.
Once again Sparhafoc ran from a challenge with lies and insults