Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The God of the Atheistic Philistine

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 8:01:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hey all,

An article of mine has been featured on Ethika Politika. It is titled "Strawmen and the God of the Atheistic Philistine." It deals with New Atheist strawmen, e.g. the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., and why these analogies don't work.

Let me know what you think:

http://ethikapolitika.org...
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 8:26:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 8:25:48 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 8/5/2014 8:05:15 PM, Cassius wrote:
Nice article.

Charlie! Nice to see you back. Didn't realize it was you. *handshake explosion*

Hahaha, thanks Carlos (Mexican Charlie). I kinda assumed from the mundane response that you didn't realize it was me.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 8:47:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 8:01:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Hey all,

An article of mine has been featured on Ethika Politika. It is titled "Strawmen and the God of the Atheistic Philistine." It deals with New Atheist strawmen, e.g. the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., and why these analogies don't work.

Let me know what you think:

http://ethikapolitika.org...

Can you point out any one person on this entire forum who fits the stereotype you're speaking of?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 8:52:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
After reading this article I need another hand to facepalm.

I never understood why the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Clause analogies were so difficult for theists to understand, this article took that to a whole other level. Atheists are not comparing a white bearded man to an all powerful creator of the universe. The analogy has absolutely nothing to do with the traits of the object discussed, it is instead entirely about the rationality of belief.

Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Of course you don't. The real question however (and point) is why, or more specifically... what processes do you use to come to a conclusion about the existence of it? Do you come to your conclusions about everything else in life by checking your faith-o-meter? No, you believe things when you have evidence to support them. Things you don't have evidence for you don't believe in. I am assuming here, but I am sure you take that approach to every other concept you are presented with in every area of your life... but when it comes to religion, you just have to have faith. That's not reasonable, and that's the point (the only point).

The author of this article laughably fails to understand this. Then he goes on to talk about how God is non-empirical. By this point I needed my other hand to face palm, but then I wouldn't be able to keep scrolling down. The problem is not that atheists don't understand that God is non-empirical. The problem is that theists don't understand why this is a problem. A non-empirical thing is something that by definition has no basis in reality. A basis in reality is necessary to support a claim about reality. Theists understand that they have no such basis yet persist on making these claims about reality regardless. That is something that again, would be easily recognized and ridiculed in any other area of life, but of course religion it is ok.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 8:56:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 8:52:02 PM, Double_R wrote:
After reading this article I need another hand to facepalm.

I never understood why the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Clause analogies were so difficult for theists to understand, this article took that to a whole other level. Atheists are not comparing a white bearded man to an all powerful creator of the universe. The analogy has absolutely nothing to do with the traits of the object discussed, it is instead entirely about the rationality of belief.

Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Of course you don't. The real question however (and point) is why, or more specifically... what processes do you use to come to a conclusion about the existence of it? Do you come to your conclusions about everything else in life by checking your faith-o-meter? No, you believe things when you have evidence to support them. Things you don't have evidence for you don't believe in. I am assuming here, but I am sure you take that approach to every other concept you are presented with in every area of your life... but when it comes to religion, you just have to have faith. That's not reasonable, and that's the point (the only point).

The author of this article laughably fails to understand this. Then he goes on to talk about how God is non-empirical. By this point I needed my other hand to face palm, but then I wouldn't be able to keep scrolling down. The problem is not that atheists don't understand that God is non-empirical. The problem is that theists don't understand why this is a problem. A non-empirical thing is something that by definition has no basis in reality. A basis in reality is necessary to support a claim about reality. Theists understand that they have no such basis yet persist on making these claims about reality regardless. That is something that again, would be easily recognized and ridiculed in any other area of life, but of course religion it is ok.

Thank you, now I don't have to post pretty much the same argument, except mine would be less well worded.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 9:21:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 8:01:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Hey all,

An article of mine has been featured on Ethika Politika. It is titled "Strawmen and the God of the Atheistic Philistine." It deals with New Atheist strawmen, e.g. the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., and why these analogies don't work.

Let me know what you think:

http://ethikapolitika.org...

Well done, sir.

Excellent article.

But apart from the grace of God, we'd be just as lost.
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 9:28:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 8:52:02 PM, Double_R wrote:
A non-empirical thing is something that by definition has no basis in reality.

What? By definition? This is like empiricism to the extremist extreme.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 9:35:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 9:28:16 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/5/2014 8:52:02 PM, Double_R wrote:
A non-empirical thing is something that by definition has no basis in reality.

What? By definition? This is like empiricism to the extremist extreme.

Empirical:

1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>

2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>


http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Explain how a claim for something can have a basis in reality without being observable, testable, or verifiable by experience.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 10:06:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 8:52:02 PM, Double_R wrote:
After reading this article I need another hand to facepalm.

I never understood why the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Clause analogies were so difficult for theists to understand, this article took that to a whole other level. Atheists are not comparing a white bearded man to an all powerful creator of the universe. The analogy has absolutely nothing to do with the traits of the object discussed, it is instead entirely about the rationality of belief.

What is that even supposed to mean? The Flying Spaghetti Monster et al other parodies are supposed to be analogies to belief in God. But how exactly are they supposed to be analogous? I'll allow you to respond to that if you so wish because "the rationality of the belief" seems much to vague to understand what is meant.

Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Of course you don't. The real question however (and point) is why, or more specifically... what processes do you use to come to a conclusion about the existence of it?

The point is that even if the FSM existed, it would be a being that is a material being and so would be a mixture of act and potency and so would not only (a) thus be susceptible to empirical scrutiny, but (b) it would be impossible for the FSM to be the ultimate explanation of anything because it is in need of an explanation itself (by virtue of its being material and its having a mixture of potency and actuality, etc.).

Do you come to your conclusions about everything else in life by checking your faith-o-meter?

No. I don't even know what that means.

No, you believe things when you have evidence to support them. Things you don't have evidence for you don't believe in. I am assuming here, but I am sure you take that approach to every other concept you are presented with in every area of your life... but when it comes to religion, you just have to have faith. That's not reasonable, and that's the point (the only point).

You're using evidence here to mean "empirical evidence," I take it. If so, then no, I don't believe that God exists on the basis of empirical evidence because God is not the sort of thing that is susceptible to empirical scrutiny in the first place.

The author of this article laughably fails to understand this. Then he goes on to talk about how God is non-empirical. By this point I needed my other hand to face palm, but then I wouldn't be able to keep scrolling down. The problem is not that atheists don't understand that God is non-empirical. The problem is that theists don't understand why this is a problem. A non-empirical thing is something that by definition has no basis in reality. A basis in reality is necessary to support a claim about reality. Theists understand that they have no such basis yet persist on making these claims about reality regardless. That is something that again, would be easily recognized and ridiculed in any other area of life, but of course religion it is ok.

Ironically enough, you're guilty of C., being committed to scientism. Before I even begin to go down this road, let me ask you a question:

Do you think that the inquiries "Is murder immoral?" or "what is 2 + 2?" are meaningful ones?

PS: To be fair, I did my fair share of facepalming after reading this response as well.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 10:10:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 10:06:14 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 8/5/2014 8:52:02 PM, Double_R wrote:
After reading this article I need another hand to facepalm.

I never understood why the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Clause analogies were so difficult for theists to understand, this article took that to a whole other level. Atheists are not comparing a white bearded man to an all powerful creator of the universe. The analogy has absolutely nothing to do with the traits of the object discussed, it is instead entirely about the rationality of belief.

What is that even supposed to mean? The Flying Spaghetti Monster et al other parodies are supposed to be analogies to belief in God. But how exactly are they supposed to be analogous? I'll allow you to respond to that if you so wish because "the rationality of the belief" seems much to vague to understand what is meant.

Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Of course you don't. The real question however (and point) is why, or more specifically... what processes do you use to come to a conclusion about the existence of it?

The point is that even if the FSM existed, it would be a being that is a material being and so would be a mixture of act and potency and so would not only (a) thus be susceptible to empirical scrutiny, but (b) it would be impossible for the FSM to be the ultimate explanation of anything because it is in need of an explanation itself (by virtue of its being material and its having a mixture of potency and actuality, etc.).

Do you come to your conclusions about everything else in life by checking your faith-o-meter?

No. I don't even know what that means.

No, you believe things when you have evidence to support them. Things you don't have evidence for you don't believe in. I am assuming here, but I am sure you take that approach to every other concept you are presented with in every area of your life... but when it comes to religion, you just have to have faith. That's not reasonable, and that's the point (the only point).

You're using evidence here to mean "empirical evidence," I take it. If so, then no, I don't believe that God exists on the basis of empirical evidence because God is not the sort of thing that is susceptible to empirical scrutiny in the first place.

The author of this article laughably fails to understand this. Then he goes on to talk about how God is non-empirical. By this point I needed my other hand to face palm, but then I wouldn't be able to keep scrolling down. The problem is not that atheists don't understand that God is non-empirical. The problem is that theists don't understand why this is a problem. A non-empirical thing is something that by definition has no basis in reality. A basis in reality is necessary to support a claim about reality. Theists understand that they have no such basis yet persist on making these claims about reality regardless. That is something that again, would be easily recognized and ridiculed in any other area of life, but of course religion it is ok.

Ironically enough, you're guilty of C., being committed to scientism. Before I even begin to go down this road, let me ask you a question:

Do you think that the inquiries "Is murder immoral?" or "what is 2 + 2?" are meaningful ones?

PS: To be fair, I did my fair share of facepalming after reading this response as well.

I'm still waiting to be pointed to one person on the entire forum who fits the stereotypes you outlined in your article.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 10:13:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 8:47:39 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 8/5/2014 8:01:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Hey all,

An article of mine has been featured on Ethika Politika. It is titled "Strawmen and the God of the Atheistic Philistine." It deals with New Atheist strawmen, e.g. the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., and why these analogies don't work.

Let me know what you think:

http://ethikapolitika.org...

Can you point out any one person on this entire forum who fits the stereotype you're speaking of?

Surprisingly enough, it was a conversation I had on this site that prompted me to write that essay. I cannot remember his name perfectly but I believe it was Fighter-F14 or something that fit the description in question. Other than him, take my word for it that the internet is absolutely filled to the brim with individuals like the ones I describe in the piece.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 10:15:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 10:13:07 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 8/5/2014 8:47:39 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 8/5/2014 8:01:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Hey all,

An article of mine has been featured on Ethika Politika. It is titled "Strawmen and the God of the Atheistic Philistine." It deals with New Atheist strawmen, e.g. the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., and why these analogies don't work.

Let me know what you think:

http://ethikapolitika.org...

Can you point out any one person on this entire forum who fits the stereotype you're speaking of?


Surprisingly enough, it was a conversation I had on this site that prompted me to write that essay. I cannot remember his name perfectly but I believe it was Fighter-F14 or something that fit the description in question. Other than him, take my word for it that the internet is absolutely filled to the brim with individuals like the ones I describe in the piece.

I mean, I would just like you to recognize, if you don't already, that the majority of atheists look down on the types that you described. Their clinging to Dawkins and Hitchens is just as much a dogmatic religion as consistent atheists criticize theists for.

The FSM and other things like that are legitimate argumentative devices, though.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 10:34:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
All I can say is that I find it sad that you think that what you provided has any logic whatsoever. I have seen flaw after flaw in it. I think anyone who looks at it objectively will see the flaws as well, but it is obvious that you looked at it in order to try and justify your own opinion.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 10:36:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 10:34:20 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
All I can say is that I find it sad that you think that what you provided has any logic whatsoever. I have seen flaw after flaw in it. I think anyone who looks at it objectively will see the flaws as well, but it is obvious that you looked at it in order to try and justify your own opinion.

Just saw that you wrote it. That makes it even more sad.
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 10:46:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 9:35:07 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/5/2014 9:28:16 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/5/2014 8:52:02 PM, Double_R wrote:
A non-empirical thing is something that by definition has no basis in reality.

What? By definition? This is like empiricism to the extremist extreme.

Empirical:

1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>

2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>


http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Explain how a claim for something can have a basis in reality without being observable, testable, or verifiable by experience.

How about the claim that those three (observation, testability, verifiability) are the only possibilities for "having a basis in reality", without being circular? What if our empirical observations implicitly contain a non-empirical conclusion? i.e., geometry?
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 10:50:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 10:15:04 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
I mean, I would just like you to recognize, if you don't already, that the majority of atheists look down on the types that you described. Their clinging to Dawkins and Hitchens is just as much a dogmatic religion as consistent atheists criticize theists for.

That's good to hear. (Not sarcasm)

The FSM and other things like that are legitimate argumentative devices, though.

Well, in my article I argue that they are terribly embarrassing analogies and so constitute equally terrible argumentative devices.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 10:51:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 10:34:20 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
All I can say is that I find it sad that you think that what you provided has any logic whatsoever. I have seen flaw after flaw in it. I think anyone who looks at it objectively will see the flaws as well, but it is obvious that you looked at it in order to try and justify your own opinion.

I'm not sure whether that is directed at me, but if it is, then I'll just go ahead and dismiss this bare assertion as such.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 10:55:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 10:51:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 8/5/2014 10:34:20 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
All I can say is that I find it sad that you think that what you provided has any logic whatsoever. I have seen flaw after flaw in it. I think anyone who looks at it objectively will see the flaws as well, but it is obvious that you looked at it in order to try and justify your own opinion.

I'm not sure whether that is directed at me, but if it is, then I'll just go ahead and dismiss this bare assertion as such.

You bunched A LOT of atheists into one group, you dismiss the entire idea of what empiricism is because you don't like it, you show a lack of understanding of what the FSM analogy is for, you dismiss basic logic by throwing out the BoP, etc, etc, etc. I also decided to look at some of your previous posts on this site, and I am not surprised that you wrote that. You are a stereotypical theist. You make the rest of us theists look bad.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 11:10:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 10:55:17 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/5/2014 10:51:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 8/5/2014 10:34:20 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
All I can say is that I find it sad that you think that what you provided has any logic whatsoever. I have seen flaw after flaw in it. I think anyone who looks at it objectively will see the flaws as well, but it is obvious that you looked at it in order to try and justify your own opinion.

I'm not sure whether that is directed at me, but if it is, then I'll just go ahead and dismiss this bare assertion as such.

You bunched A LOT of atheists into one group, you dismiss the entire idea of what empiricism is because you don't like it, you show a lack of understanding of what the FSM analogy is for, you dismiss basic logic by throwing out the BoP, etc, etc, etc. I also decided to look at some of your previous posts on this site, and I am not surprised that you wrote that. You are a stereotypical theist. You make the rest of us theists look bad.

Lol ok. I just need to #logic more, then, right? And not critique scientism for being self-defeating, because that's just, like, mean or something. And not critique new atheists either for other strange reason. Yawnnn
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 11:11:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Long story short, either put your money in your mouth and defend your claims or just don't bother writing a string of bare assertions that I am not interested in reading.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 11:12:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 11:10:10 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 8/5/2014 10:55:17 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/5/2014 10:51:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 8/5/2014 10:34:20 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
All I can say is that I find it sad that you think that what you provided has any logic whatsoever. I have seen flaw after flaw in it. I think anyone who looks at it objectively will see the flaws as well, but it is obvious that you looked at it in order to try and justify your own opinion.

I'm not sure whether that is directed at me, but if it is, then I'll just go ahead and dismiss this bare assertion as such.

You bunched A LOT of atheists into one group, you dismiss the entire idea of what empiricism is because you don't like it, you show a lack of understanding of what the FSM analogy is for, you dismiss basic logic by throwing out the BoP, etc, etc, etc. I also decided to look at some of your previous posts on this site, and I am not surprised that you wrote that. You are a stereotypical theist. You make the rest of us theists look bad.

Lol ok. I just need to #logic more, then, right? And not critique scientism for being self-defeating, because that's just, like, mean or something. And not critique new atheists either for other strange reason. Yawnnn

No, you can critique people and ideologies, you just have to use LOGIC when doing so, something you were lacking. You also need to understand what you are critiquing, which you obviously don't.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 11:13:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 11:11:39 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Long story short, either put your money in your mouth and defend your claims or just don't bother writing a string of bare assertions that I am not interested in reading.

Yet, your article had A LOT of bare assertions that you think anyone will take seriously...
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 11:14:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 11:12:53 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
No, you can critique people and ideologies, you just have to use LOGIC when doing so, something you were lacking. You also need to understand what you are critiquing, which you obviously don't.

Pal, it would legitimately surprise me if you even know what logic is or if you've ever taken a logic course. FYI, logic doesn't mean "like, sounding smart, dude!"
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 11:17:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheism=Disbelief in gods.

Go from there.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 11:21:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 11:14:39 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 8/5/2014 11:12:53 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
No, you can critique people and ideologies, you just have to use LOGIC when doing so, something you were lacking. You also need to understand what you are critiquing, which you obviously don't.

Pal, it would legitimately surprise me if you even know what logic is or if you've ever taken a logic course. FYI, logic doesn't mean "like, sounding smart, dude!"

Wow, I find it pathetic that that is your best response.
Do you know what the burden of proof is? If so, what is it?
Do you know what the Null Hypothesis is? If so, what is it?
Do you know what empirical evidence even is? If so, what is it?
Do you even know what evidence is? If so, what is it?
Do you know how to formulate a rational belief? If so, what is it?

There are so many other questions that I can ask, but I doubt you will even answer what I have asked.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2014 7:42:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
lol at the "skeptics" in here who are bad at epistemology. implicitly assuming empiricism isn't an argument.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2014 7:44:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 9:35:07 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/5/2014 9:28:16 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/5/2014 8:52:02 PM, Double_R wrote:
A non-empirical thing is something that by definition has no basis in reality.

What? By definition? This is like empiricism to the extremist extreme.

Empirical:

1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>

2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>


http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Explain how a claim for something can have a basis in reality without being observable, testable, or verifiable by experience.

Explain how that claim is observable, testable, or verifiable by experience.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!