Tibarn Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Reasons are not data, fool. you said you can show empiricism for your ethics. So show us data. Not propaganda. You have presented zero amount of data. Thus proving my point, that ethics is not about empiricism. Facts are data,by definition. Kin selection theory and inclusive fitness theory are facts. If you don't want to accept it, don't. You're the guy who thinks clay tablets are disprove mammalian biology. 5 hours ago, Muloghonto said: You made the claim that ethics is about data. When i made a statement relating to ethics, you wanted objective, empirical proof. So show us your objective, empirical proof for not feeding 80+ people to the pigs. Still waiting for your data-driven conclusion. More sophistry. The data was provided read harder 9 hours ago, Tibarn said: Data means http://www.dictionary.com/browse/data Quote 1. a plural of datum. 2. (used with a plural verb) individual facts, statistics, or items ofinformation: These data represent the results of our analyses. Data are entered byterminal for immediate processing by the computer. 3. (used with a singular verb) a body of facts; information: Additional data is available from the president of the firm. Let me guess, you don't know the definition of theory in scientific terms, not unexpected... Quote The AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), the world's largest scientific society, has this explanation of what scientists mean when they use the word "theory":" A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." Accept the data or don't. Everyone who wastes their time reading through the thread can decide for themselves which is which. Whether you are right or I am. You won't be convinced . 5 hours ago, Muloghonto said: 5 hours ago, Muloghonto said: no amount of sophistry will change the fact that it is the person making an existential claim, who has to provide evidence for it. I didn't claim there is a God. You did. No amount of sophistry will change that you haven't provided a single reference proving that one can't prove a negative. You made the claim that god(s) don't exist therefore the burden of proof is on you, as shown by this below. 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. I once again challenge you to show me where I made the claim of god(s) existing or not existing. I also challenge you to show me where I said I have evidence for or against either case. (Once again, show me and I will leave the forum forever.) Unlike you, I understand what are beliefs:(free will, tabula rasa, religions,etc) and what are facts (evolution, gravity, etc) The only thing I've been saying in this entire thread was that anyone who makes a claim, holds the burden of proof. I have given proof stating the same, straight from logicians and even Atheist/agnostic sources. I'm not fundamentalist garbage like you who thinks I have all the answers, wants to avoid providing evidence for my claims, and is also too much of a coward to accept their own burden of proof or when my own beliefs are unsupported by evidence. I am perfectly willing to say when my beliefs aren't supported by evidence. Once again this guy hasn't provided evidence that one can't prove a negative and has once again shifted the burden of proof. One more showing one can proof a negative https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html Quote I know the myth of "you can't prove a negative" circulates throughout the nontheist community, and it is good to dispel myths whenever we can. As it happens, there really isn't such a thing as a "purely" negative statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa. Thus, "there are no crows in this box" entails "this box contains something other than crows" (in the sense that even "no things" is something, e.g. a vacuum). "Something" is here a set restricted only by excluding crows, such that for every set S there is a set Not-S, and vice versa, so every negative entails a positive and vice versa. And to test the negative proposition one merely has to look in the box: since crows being in the box (p) entails that we would see crows when we look in the box (q), if we find q false, we know that p is false. Thus, we have proved a negative. 5 sources that say one can prove a negative, 1 anonymous guy who says otherwise Edited October 10, 2017 by beetle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tibarn said: Facts are data , by definition. Kin selection theory and inclusive fitness theory are facts. If you don't want to accept it, don't. You're the same guy who thinks clay tablets are disprove mammalian biology. Empiric data are not words, kiddo. All you got, is empty theories with empty words. Not data. Show us the data that not feeding 80 year old grandparents is better for humanity. Show us what data is affected if we do. So stop squirming when you got exposed with your nonsense that morality can be empirically objective. You are the same guy who hides behind the fact that we have objective, empirical evidence of polyandrous propagation of humanity and regardless of how many men a woman slept with, you or I will only have two sets of genes (from mother and actual biological father), thus your lame-misdirection about genetics is completely irrelevant to nature of human sexuality. Quote More sophistry. The data was provided read harder To bad for you uncle, inbreeding isn't an excuse for poor reading comprehension. No data is provided, only hypothesis. For everyone to see. A claim is not data, kiddo. Show us, what exact precise data is affected, if i feed your grandparents to the tigers. Not theories, data. You have ZERO data. Quote Let me guess, you don't know the definition of theory in scientific terms, not unexpected... Accept the data or don't. Everyone who wastes their time reading through the thread can decide for themselves which is which. Whether you are right or I am. You won't be convinced either way because you have a fragile ego and need to cling on to whatever undeserved pride you still have left. No data has been presented. Just empty claims. So show us, exactly, what data is involved with the idea of feeding your grandparents to the tigers once they cross 80 years of age. Show me, what is the difference in data, for feeding humans below the age of 40, above of the age of 60,80,100 etc. to the tigers. If you fail to provide data for above mentioned scenarios, you demonstrate, you have no data. Just some hypothesis that matches some very very limited set of observations. Quote Quote No amount of sophistry will change that you haven't provided a single reference proving that one can't prove a negative. No amount of sophistry will save you from the fact that an existential claim, for it to be true, needs evidence. All your brain-dead writers of religious epics were too ignorant and too stupid to realize that. Quote You made the claim that god(s) don't exist therefore the burden of proof is on you, as shown by this below. 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. So ergo, i have just as much reason to believe in BS hindu religion- or any such BS religion- without evidence. Marvel comics are better written than those BS books. And i don't believe in Marvel comics. So ergo, if you don't believe in Gods, then Krishna, Rama, Sita- are not Gods or avatars or any such.Indra is not God, Krishna is not God, neither is Vishnu or Shiva or any such unsubstantiated hypothesis. Lets see you put your money where your mouth is and state that all these claims of Gods in hinduism are unsubstantiated claims. Quote I once again challenge you to show me where I made the claim of god(s) existing or not existing. I also challenge you to show me where I said I have evidence for or against either case. (Once again, show me and I will leave the forum forever.) You make a lot of empty claims, so your childish challenges are meaningless. Quote Unlike you, I understand what are beliefs:(free will, tabula rasa, religions,etc) and what are facts (evolution, gravity, etc) The only thing I've been saying in this entire thread was that anyone who makes a claim, holds the burden of proof. I have given proof stating the same, straight from logicians and even Atheist/agnostic sources. Atheists are not making a claim about non-existence of God. Atheism rests on the fact that theism has presented ZERO evidence. Quote I'm not fundamentalist like you who thinks I have all the answers, wants to avoid providing evidence for my claims, and is also too much of a coward to accept their own burden of proof or when my own beliefs are unsupported by evidence. I am perfectly willing to say when my beliefs aren't supported by evidence. I have no burden of proof, because i do not believe in God because no evidence has been provided for God. God to me is on the same level as Batman or Ironman or your Dhokla planet orbiting a sun shaped like Gujarat- unsubstantiated claims. Summarily dismissed. Saying 'i do not believe in your nonsense because you have presented no proof' does not require burden of proof. Hence, i have no burden of proof. Quote Once again this guy hasn't provided evidence that one can't prove a negative and has once again shifted the burden of proof. One more showing one can proof a negative https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html 5 sources that say one can prove a negative, 1 anonymous duffer who says otherwise Irrelevent, when the super-set is the entire universe. Negative proof of existential question, is sophistry from religious bigots, because since we do not know the entire super-set of data in the universe, we can say anything 'could be'.And that 'could be' nonsense is what religious people use to hide their God-nonsense behind. Its because of you, that engineers care way more about de-facto status, than de-jure status of logical conclusions. Your God hypothesis, is as sound as any and all imaginary ideas. because by the same logic, any imaginary idea is possible in the universe, so any amount of garbage can be believed. Edited October 10, 2017 by beetle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) Guys, cut out the personal attacks. Any further personal comments and the entire post will be deleted because no one has the time to edit the silly name calling from your posts. Edited October 10, 2017 by beetle Laaloo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Empiric data are not words, kiddo. All you got, is empty theories with empty words. Not data. Show us the data that not feeding 80 year old grandparents is better for humanity. Show us what data is affected if we do. So stop squirming when you got exposed with your nonsense that morality can be empirically objective. Already have, read harder. No one has to hold your hand from A to B. I gave the empirically derived theories, kin selection and inclusive fitness, related to the subject you whinged about(sociobiology), and mentioned how they apply to humans. 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 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. Many theories themselves are observational, too bad you didn't know that. Kin selection and inclusive fitness are such. As I said, whinge however much you want, everyone already sees for themselves reading our posts both in this thread and past threads who relies on evidence and supports and who vomits nonsense. Leave it to all the thread viewers to decide. One of us has been exposed, either you or me.(hint hint its probably you) Quote You are the same guy who hides behind the fact that we have objective, empirical evidence of polyandrous propagation of humanity and regardless of how many men a woman slept with, you or I will only have two sets of genes (from mother and actual biological father), thus your lame-misdirection about genetics is completely irrelevant to nature of human sexuality. Wrong, deflect however much you want. I provided mammalian evolutionary history and genetics which supported the same numerous times. Your ego being too fragile/your inability to grasp a concepts is not my issue. To accept genetics and mammalian evolutionary history is your prerogative. Cling to clay tablets as sources of scientific information and the basis of disproving mammalian evolution and genetics as much as you want. All the viewers you're so desperate for can go to the thread below to see for themselves how you were thoroughly exposed, shifted goalposts, shifted the burden of proof, and did other Gappugiri you're known for. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/forums/topic/100456-indian-liberals-claiming-to-be-champions-of-science/?page=3 Just a taste for everyone to see you for what you are Citation: Hammer MF, Mendez FL, Cox MP, Woerner AE, Wall JD (2008) Sex-Biased Evolutionary Forces Shape Genomic Patterns of Human Diversity. PLoS Genet 4(9): e1000202. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000202 Quote For mammals, it is well known that females and males do not exhibit symmetrical behavior with respect to mating and dispersal practices. For instance, the typical mammalian system is characterized by polygyny (a mating practice in which a minority of males sire offspring with multiple females) and female philopatry(the tendency for females to breed at or near their place of origin)[2]. The development of sex-specific markers in humans has beeninstrumental in providing insights into the effects of sex-specificdemographic processes. Contrasting patterns of diversity on themitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and non-recombining portion ofthe Y chromosome (NRY) have been interpreted to reflect sexspecificity in the rate and scale of migration and in effectivepopulation size [3–5]. However, these patterns could also reflectdifferent molecular properties of these two haploid systems 11 hours ago, Muloghonto said: So ergo, i have just as much reason to believe in BS hindu religion- or any such BS religion- without evidence. Marvel comics are better written than those BS books. And i don't believe in Marvel comics. So ergo, if you don't believe in Gods, then Krishna, Rama, Sita- are not Gods or avatars or any such.Indra is not God, Krishna is not God, neither is Vishnu or Shiva or any such unsubstantiated hypothesis. Lets see you put your money where your mouth is and state that all these claims of Gods in hinduism are unsubstantiated claims. Irrelevent, when the super-set is the entire universe. Negative proof of existential question, is sophistry from religious bigots, because since we do not know the entire super-set of data in the universe, we can say anything 'could be'.And that 'could be' nonsense is what religious people use to hide their God-nonsense behind. Its because of you, that engineers care way more about de-facto status, than de-jure status of logical conclusions. Your God hypothesis, is as sound as any and all imaginary ideas. because by the same logic, any imaginary idea is possible in the universe, so any amount of garbage can be believed. Atheism is BS because a Muslim doesn't have burden of proof and atheists do because the Quran is the source of all information and you haven't effectively disproved it. Same logic by hypothetical Muslim, same use of their own made up rules of logic, same shifting burden of proof continuously so they can't lose an argument. Once again, you are a mirror image of them, yet claim yourself to be different. A Muslim can argue that you are making a universal claim: "In the entire universe, there is no such thing as Allah". Now the burden of proof is on you and the Muslim will mirror exactly what you said. You yourself believe in "garbage" like atheism from a Muslim's perspective. Atheism is superstition from a Muslim's perspective. Prove them wrong with evidence, otherwise your claim is "unsubstantiated garbage." We can repeat this cycle endlessly. This will go on until either you (or the hypothetical Muslim) quit shifting the burden of proof to the other person and provide evidence either proving what you say is true or proving what the other says is false. Whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof. If you make the first claim, it is yours, if the hypothetical Muslim does, it's theirs. You don't get to whinge your way to shifting it to another person. You don't get to make up rules like "you can't prove a negative" and then squirm to "I don't have the burden of proof because it's a universal claim" or whatever form of bizarre nonsense you spout next. 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) http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm Quote SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. Also, take the challenge now The mods Beetle and Laloo have said they are tired of the name calling in this thread. I'm sure one of them will be willing to perma-ban one of us if you accept. Let's do this! We're all counting on you Gappu! Banish this Badmash Bacchu Edited October 10, 2017 by Tibarn Didn't see the mod's comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Tibarn said: Already have, read harder. No one has to hold your hand from A to B. I gave the empirically derived theories, kin selection and inclusive fitness, related to the subject you whinged about(sociobiology), and mentioned how they apply to humans. 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 Quote As I said, whinge however much you want, everyone already sees for themselves reading our posts both in this thread and past threads who relies on evidence and supports and who vomits nonsense. Yes, indeed. It is clear to see who has met the burden of proof for their claims and who hasn't. An atheist who relies on null hypothesis or a theist who is relying on 'could be' nonsense to protect his religion. Quote Wrong, deflect however much you want. I provided mammalian evolutionary history and genetics which supported the same numerous times. Your ego being too fragile/your inability to grasp a concepts is not my issue. To accept genetics and mammalian evolutionary history is your prerogative. Cling to clay tablets as sources of scientific information and the basis of disproving mammalian evolution and genetics as much as you want. Mammalian genetic/evolutionary history is completely superfluous to the argument of sexual promisquity. Because as i noted and you ran the heck away from it, humans cannot have multiple fathers of the same litter. hence whether a human woman sleeps with 10 men or 1 man, the baby's genetics will ALWAYS show only 1 man's genetic influence. This is why your obfuscation is dismissed in front of objective, empirical evidence ( of humans actually writing about their sexual proclivities). Quote All the viewers you're so desperate for can go to the thread below to see for themselves how you were thoroughly exposed, shifted goalposts, shifted the burden of proof, and did other Gappugiri you're known for. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/forums/topic/100456-indian-liberals-claiming-to-be-champions-of-science/?page=3 Just a taste for everyone to see you for what you are Citation: Hammer MF, Mendez FL, Cox MP, Woerner AE, Wall JD (2008) Sex-Biased Evolutionary Forces Shape Genomic Patterns of Human Diversity. PLoS Genet 4(9): e1000202. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000202 Atheism is BS because a Muslim doesn't have burden of proof and atheists do because the Quran is the source of all information and you haven't effectively disproved it. Same logic by hypothetical Muslim, same use of their own made up rules of logic, same shifting burden of proof continuously so they can't lose an argument. Once again, you are a mirror image of them, yet claim yourself to be different. I don't have to disprove a book which is making a claim, since the burden of evidence lies on that which makes the claim. Koran claims to be from God, shows zero proof. Hence Koran fails to meet its burden of proof. There is no 'mirror image', because my claim of atheism does not rely on proof that God doesn't exist. It relies on the fact that none of your moronic religions have proven their claim first. Quote A Muslim can argue that you are making a universal claim: "In the entire universe, there is no such thing as Allah". Now the burden of proof is on you and the Muslim will mirror exactly what you said. Nope, again, the burden of proof is on whomever is making the claim. I don't have to disprove anything if you fail to prove your claim in the first place. Quote You yourself believe in "garbage" like atheism from a Muslim's perspective. Atheism is superstition from a Muslim's perspective. Prove them wrong with evidence, otherwise your claim is "unsubstantiated garbage." Nope, because atheism is not belief that God doesn't exist. Atheism is simply belief that religion has failed to provide any evidence of their claim of God existing. Quote We can repeat this cycle endlessly. This will go on until either you (or the hypothetical Muslim) quit shifting the burden of proof to the other person and provide evidence either proving what you say is true or proving what the other says is false. False. I can make the exact same argument for Dhokla planet circling a Gujarat shaped sun, with a Hilsa-Rice moon. You have zero reason to not demand its inclusion in physics analysis as hypothetical planet, because it 'could be true'. Or why biology does not talk of Adam and Eve during its evolution. It could be true too. This makes all claims, from a practical perspective, true. Which leads to reductio ad absurdum for any and all claim scenarios. hence your above position, is demonstrated as reductionist nonsense, in practical scenarios. Quote Whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof. If you make the first claim, it is yours, if the hypothetical Muslim does, it's theirs. You don't get to whinge your way to shifting it to another person. You don't get to make up rules like "you can't prove a negative" and then squirm to "I don't have the burden of proof because it's a universal claim" or whatever form of bizarre nonsense you spout next. 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. Quote http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm Also, take the challenge now The mods Beetle and Laloo have said they are tired of the name calling in this thread. I'm sure one of them will be willing to perma-ban one of us if you accept. Let's do this! We're all counting on you Gappu! Banish this Badmash Bacchu If they are tired of the name-calling, its because you are yet to learn the art of insulting people without bringing mention of their family in the midst. Don't worry, its something you will learn with time, as you move on from being a burden to society to an actual functioning member. PS: Waiting for your coward self to admit that Krishna, Brahma, Vishnu, etc. are all unproven claims by your so-called alleged 'agnostic self'. You ain't an agnost, if you cannot admit that, kiddo. Edited October 10, 2017 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 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. Edited October 10, 2017 by Tibarn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tibarn said: 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 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. Since you have admitted that there 'can be no data' on whether feeding your 80+ grandparents to the tiger is good or bad, therefore, feeding your grandparents to the tigers (or not), as a value system, is not empirically or objectively driven. Therefore, such a value, is not empiric. Therefore, we can demonstrate, that ethical values are not subject to empiricism. You seem to have a simple problem admitting this easy conclusion. Quote 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 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 Where is your data ? Where ? Show us. Refer to the post, where you have demonstrated, with data, the pros and cons of my ethics related statement. Above quote, you claim that such ethics cannot be shown with empirical data. Then you claim that you have shown data. Ergo, you are inconsistent and your inconsistent double standards lie exposed. What you quoted above- is not data. Its just a hypothesis. Quote 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? I have not defined any such word arbitarily. Quote Let's further expose this "genius": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic Which is basically what I already said earlier 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. Hey kiddo, if you have 'no opinion' on the ultimate reality re:God, then you are in direct conflict with the idea that Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva are God/Gods. So which one is it ? Do you not know if Vishnu,Shiva and Brahma are Gods and therefore, you can state 'i do not accept Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as Gods because i know no such thing', or will you continue to be in de-facto contradiction of your so-called agnosticism ?? Atheism is not a belief. Its lack of belief. Quote Only Atheist Fundamentalists and Religious Fundamentalists argue about things they can't prove/disprove. That is in your nature. You lot are mirror images. Nope. Only a religious fundamentalist will argue that something is true without presenting evidence for it. Atheist fundamentalists are those who claim that they know for a fact God does not exist. Ie, the sub-set of atheists known as gnostic atheists. However, atheism is based on the notion that religious people have failed to prove their case, hence without any evidence, i have no reason to accept a claim. Ergo, to atheists, claim about God is similar to a claim about a 3 legged Tibarn with the brain where gonads are and gonads in the skull, who breathes Florine. Ie: unsubstantiated, BS. Quote Then Gappu redefines Atheist Here's what it actually means: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist If someone denies something, that is a claim. Nope. Nice try. You thought we wouldn't read your link. Read your link moron: it says "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." Ie, atheist is also someone who disbelieves. Ie, lack of belief. Ie, stating that theists have not proven their claim and therefore, i believe them as much as (i.e., i do not) spiderman, guardians of the Galaxy, paneer planet around a Dhokla-powered sun, etc etc. Quote 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. False strawman. More appropriate: A: " I saw a white elephant" B: " what is a white elephant ?" A: " it is a 5-ton creature that is white, has 4 legs and a trunk" B: " ok, show me" A: " i can't. i have no proof" B: " then your claim is unsupported. I have no reason to believe your claim any more than a 4 legged Chlorine breathing man who craps out of his mouth and eats through his penis" Quote 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. Quote To further expose you, here is the dictionary definition of a claim http://www.dictionary.com/browse/claim?s=t 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. Except Atheists are not making a claim that God does not exist. Atheists are saying that theist claims are invalid. Since you provided definition of a claim, it is easy to see, that all an atheist has to do, is point out that the theist claim is unproven, therefore, unsubstantiated nonsense. Saying a claim is without evidence, is not a claim within itself, except for the fact that it is without evidence. And atheists can easily prove the point that theists have not presented any evidence to back up their claims of the divine. I will show the example of unproven theorems in mathematics : i can state that P vs NP problem is unproven, therefore, i have no reason to accept the said claim. It does not require me, or any mathematician to disprove the P vs NP problem. It simply requires us, to state that the proof has not been met for said claim. Same logic applies here, kiddo. You make a claim, until you substantiate said claim, it is not a valid claim. So i have no reason to try and disprove something that is not a valid claim in the first place. Quote 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: Nope. I am simply saying if something is BS, it means it has not established itself as a valid assertion. I do not have to prove something that has zero evidence, does not exist. YOU have to prove a claim of something existing, for it to be considered true. No amount of squirming to try and support jaahils from 2000 years ago, will change this fact. Quote 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. I never said burden of proof doesnt exist for universal existential claim. I said exactly the opposite: that burden of proof exists for an universal existential claim. And since in an universal existence claim, no claim can be demonstrated false (if the super-set is universal existence), then every claim is admissible. Ie, de-facto, all claims are true, because no claim of anything at universal claim can be demonstrated false. Reductio ad absurdum. Quote Guy still won't take the bet. Watch how he continues to pussy-foot around this. Because you have demonstrated your inability to keep your word. I simply do not see why i have to accept an offer from someone i have zero trust in. Edited October 10, 2017 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts