No dying is the process of applying dye to somehting.
"sjees" ??? How do you pronounce that?
Found it:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dimeing
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
No dying is the process of applying dye to somehting.
"sjees" ??? How do you pronounce that?
Found it:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dimeing
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Apart from the fact that you managed to also spell that incorrectly it's not a valid comparison because the word "die" doesn't end in a voiced consonant.
But congratulations on extending the display of your ignorance.
And also the gerund of "die".
http://www.verb2verbe.com/conjugation/english-verb/die.aspx
Right...
Oops, wrong.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nickel-and-diming
But congratulations on extending the display of your ignorance.
English is not my first language.
I wouldn't trust Urban Dictionary. It's used alot by adolescents with grammar issues.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
And yet you think you know better than someone who's first language is English.. Without checking the facts, I might add. Something you are 'all about'.
Did i say that?
um..arent we getting WAY off topic?..argueing about spelling errors??
There's a topic?
When did that happen?
Santa must've dropped it off while we were asleep.
Hello
Thanks for the link regarding falsification. It wasn't working for me, however, if it does in the future then Readers who are not familiar with how the Scientific Method works will surely benefit from it.
Cheers
You don't have to agree with it, and you don't have to think about it! Who knows, maybe you will...
...
Broadly (no pun intended), I took her meaning to be that- 'rational and irrational beliefs (about gods) are contingent upon evidence for their existence' and you're all free to interpret it differently; and have.
This is the Religion forum and we are discussing imaginary beings (like the deities of monotheistic religions, and xtianity in particular); not the scientific falsification of an objective phenomenon; not a philosophical treatise on epistemology; and not the penultimate rhetorical meaning of terms like "believe" or "exist" to any grand audience of Mankind's future history.
Toned down a great deal, and very sorry if my comments to M*W do not appeal to any other particular reader(s).
Greetings
"Browsing this forum is always like being at a championship football game; two teams compete with the referees to see who can avoid the most bad calls."
You perhaps read much too much into that, between her and I.This is actually the single worst set of epistemological maxims I have ever read.Originally Posted by qwerty mob
Believing in something that exists is a choice.
Believing in something that doesn't exist is a delusion.
Well put, M*W
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
The above link, which you will not read, explains how believing in something that doesn't exist is a precondition for science. This is how progress works, folks.
Thanks for the link regarding falsification. It wasn't working for me, however, if it does in the future then Readers who are not familiar with how the Scientific Method works will surely benefit from it.
Cheers
You don't have to agree with it, and you don't have to think about it! Who knows, maybe you will...
...
Broadly (no pun intended), I took her meaning to be that- 'rational and irrational beliefs (about gods) are contingent upon evidence for their existence' and you're all free to interpret it differently; and have.
This is the Religion forum and we are discussing imaginary beings (like the deities of monotheistic religions, and xtianity in particular); not the scientific falsification of an objective phenomenon; not a philosophical treatise on epistemology; and not the penultimate rhetorical meaning of terms like "believe" or "exist" to any grand audience of Mankind's future history.
Toned down a great deal, and very sorry if my comments to M*W do not appeal to any other particular reader(s).
Greetings
"Browsing this forum is always like being at a championship football game; two teams compete with the referees to see who can avoid the most bad calls."
Last edited:
Empiricism is not only sensory perception, but experiential knowledge; it is how we differentiate between appearances and reality; illusion and actuality.
Contextually, when we say that a phenomenon is 'empirical' (scientifically) we mean that there is something objective to study, and it can be characterized and compared or contrasted to previous observations or experimental knowledge.
...
I am not persuaded by any of the arguments that gods can be evaluated scientifically, because there is very little that is objective or even coherent. The very definition of "God" which is the most consistent and survives the strongest tests of empiricism and rhetoric, and even the "problem of other monotheisms" is-
"All Gods are imaginary, mythological beings"
Greetings
experience of what?
sense perception, yes?
but if the language of observations is done purely in terms of sense perception (and not, say, for example, the state of the seer) then all you are doing is placing sense perception on the platform of objectivity (which is a position fraught with many problems - you might have noticed that the link you provided only had one - and questionable at that - usage of the word "objective")
the irony is that there is no empirical evidence for your conclusion
Last edited:
Primer on Epistemology: Specific Theories of Knowledge Acquisition
Empirical Research is that which derives data by means of direct observation or experiment, and since beliefs influence observations there must be checks to those beliefs, in order to reduce bias and/or strengthen a theory. (1)(2)
Your take on Philosophical Empiricism is overstated, considering that there are other theories of knowledge; and your understanding of Scientific Empiricism has yet to be demonstrated.
Nor need there be, since the analytic infers non-actuality. QED
What empirical evidence can one expect to evaluate for imaginary things or mythological entities?
...
"When you understand why you reject all other Gods but one, you'll understand why others dismiss yours."
if you want to call on empiricism as sufficient to distinguish reality from illusion, it might pay to inspect more closely the links you provide ....
so if one believes that all phenomena are materially reducible (and hence accessible to empiricism) then obviously they wouldn't have the tools to find out otherwise
:shrug:
considering that there are other theories of knowledge, its not clear why you insist that empiricism is thhe only one capable of distinguishing reality from illusion (a claim that is very easily refuted btw)
Or to put it another way, what can one expect to gain from bringing methodologies to a point of inquiry that stands outside of it, except the label of "myth" etc .....
Kind of like the claim that there's not much difference between a pregnant woman and a virgin, since its only a case of one sexual encounter versus the dismissal of all of them.
:shrug:
Take your own advice, unconditionally.
strangely enough, I didn't provide any links ...
:scratchin: