West Bengal Government banned Durga Puja immersion on Muharram Day in Chit Chat Posted October 10 · Edited October 10 by Tibarn · Report reply 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: You have not provided any data, hence zero empirical evidence provided. As i said, show us the data on the difference between feeding your 40 year old relative, 60 year old relative and 80 year old relative to the tigers. Till you show the data, your claim that these are empirically derived theories for my specific case of morality being empiric, is nothing more than hot air. Quote Now your pet word is "empirical data", one more of the numerous words/phrases you don't know the meaning of. https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html Many theories themselves are observational, too bad you didn't know that. Kin selection and inclusive fitness are such. Hence you are too much of a coward to admit the point, that morality is not empirically, data derived. If it is, i demand data on my specific case of morality. Stop squirming False, everyone sees it, you don't, that's your problem. I already said this earlier, I suppose you were too busy raging to read it Quote If you're asking which one is more beneficial from an overall general perspective, then there can be no data for that and I'm not going to pretend to give one, as the arguments for benefits of one behavior over the other would come from different strands of thought. ... One is an individual level evolutionary argument and the other is a ecosystem level. In this case, one would have to pick which is more valuable subjectively: is an individual's increasing fitness important or is recycling human matter more important. It turns out you are too much of a coward to read someones posts and instead go straight into raging. That's been common throughout this thread. I realize that narcissists feel the need to have the last word and always be right, as you lot tend to be hugely insecure about your own deficiencies, but one should really read another's posts before raging. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/data Quote individual facts, statistics, or items of information https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html Quote Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method. What I have provided is both empirical and data from a sociobiological perspective. No-one is fooled by your nonsense. Show that it is not empirical data or squirm as much as you want. Here is some more 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: Indeed. You are finally learning. Atheists are not making a claim God doesn't exist. Atheists are simply making a claim that your so-called religion has not provided any evidence of God. hence, we have zero reason to believe in said 'God' notion. Quote Pro-tip: When you make a statement that something is BS, then you are claiming it is untrue, and then you hold the burden of proof to show it is untrue. (Watch Gappu proceed to shift the burden again) False. Pro-tip: when you make a statement something is BS, its because that said something is making a claim it hasn't substantiated. Ie, i can call ANYTHING that has failed to justify its claim, as BS. which is exactly what BS means, even in common parlance. But nice try squirming and trying to escape the conclusion that you are a liar- because you aint no Agnost if you cannot state unequivocally that Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva are all unproven claims. That's funny because you aren't. You continue to redefine words arbitrarily and won't provide a reference. What's the matter? You don't have a clay tablet readily available? Let's further expose this "genius": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic Quote a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly :one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god Which is basically what I already said earlier Quote I have never claimed that either god(s) exist or don't exist and have certainly never claimed to have proof. I consider myself an agnostic Hindu. I don't believe people believe or disbelieve in god(s) based on evidence. I am of the opinion that people are born either religious or irreligious. That is what the available biological evidence shows me. Therefore, that is what I accept. Newsflash, if you don't think people on either side have beliefs based on information then you don't think they argue about it based on information. I can and do say easily say there is no data for or against any belief like atheism or religion. There is no evidence for Vishnu and there is no evidence against. There is no evidence for Atheism or against. People believe either way without evidence. Reality is unknowable. Only Atheist Fundamentalists and Religious Fundamentalists argue about things they can't prove/disprove. That is in your nature. You lot are mirror images. Then Gappu redefines Atheist Here's what it actually means: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist Quote a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. If someone denies something, that is a claim. A: I saw a white elephant. B: There is no such thing as white elephant = someone claiming that there is no white elephant in existence. Atheist and agnostic are not the same thing. Agnostics say I don't know one way or another. Atheists, especially mediocre ones with confidence issues, won't even defend their own arguments, instead the invent new rules of logic. To further expose you, here is the dictionary definition of a claim http://www.dictionary.com/browse/claim?s=t Quote to assert or maintain as a fact: Poor guy either doesn't understand simple English, doesn't know how to use a dictionary, or is making up his own definitions of words. If you say something is BS, you are asserting that there is no evidence for it. That is still a negative claim, ie proving a negative. Which brings us back to this: Everyone is still waiting for a reference that states one can't prove a negative or burden of proof doesn't exist for a universal existential claim. Guy still won't take the bet. Watch how he continues to pussy-foot around this.