Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Conform to Principles of Logic & Reason

missmedic
Posts: 386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:20:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
There's no chance of a serious conversation unless everyone is willing to accept independent standards of reason and logic. If one side eschews those standards, then no real conversation is possible. Indeed, anyone who rejects them might as well just be spouting random statements in a foreign language for all the value their voice will have. It's crucial, though, to get a person's agreement to them in advance because so few understand what they entail. The bare minimum a theist must be willing to accept if they are going to have a conversation instead of preach is:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support
" Empirical assertions require empirical evidence as support
"A proposition with greater supporting evidence should be accepted as being more likely true
"One disagreement or argument should be resolved before moving on to another
" Errors or flaws in an argument should be admitted before moving on to another

A person who can't accept these minimal standards of reasoned discourse are incapable of reasoned discourse and is, at best, only going to preach. Demanding them as a prerequisite for any conversation will put a theist in a difficult situation if they have no desire for dialog and no ability to reason.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:38:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:20:36 PM, missmedic wrote:
There's no chance of a serious conversation unless everyone is willing to accept independent standards of reason and logic. If one side eschews those standards, then no real conversation is possible. Indeed, anyone who rejects them might as well just be spouting random statements in a foreign language for all the value their voice will have. It's crucial, though, to get a person's agreement to them in advance because so few understand what they entail. The bare minimum a theist must be willing to accept if they are going to have a conversation instead of preach is:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support
" Empirical assertions require empirical evidence as support
"A proposition with greater supporting evidence should be accepted as being more likely true
"One disagreement or argument should be resolved before moving on to another
" Errors or flaws in an argument should be admitted before moving on to another

A person who can't accept these minimal standards of reasoned discourse are incapable of reasoned discourse and is, at best, only going to preach. Demanding them as a prerequisite for any conversation will put a theist in a difficult situation if they have no desire for dialog and no ability to reason.

That would kill all conversation in the religious forum.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:53:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Or you could agree to disagree.

If someone says they talked to god. Where do you go from there.
In the religion forum every is correct.
Logic and reason . If we all conform to these principles.
We would all be agnostic.
Cinnamon153
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 4:39:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:20:36 PM, missmedic wrote:
There's no chance of a serious conversation unless everyone is willing to accept independent standards of reason and logic. If one side eschews those standards, then no real conversation is possible. Indeed, anyone who rejects them might as well just be spouting random statements in a foreign language for all the value their voice will have. It's crucial, though, to get a person's agreement to them in advance because so few understand what they entail. The bare minimum a theist must be willing to accept if they are going to have a conversation instead of preach is:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support
" Empirical assertions require empirical evidence as support
"A proposition with greater supporting evidence should be accepted as being more likely true
"One disagreement or argument should be resolved before moving on to another
" Errors or flaws in an argument should be admitted before moving on to another

A person who can't accept these minimal standards of reasoned discourse are incapable of reasoned discourse and is, at best, only going to preach. Demanding them as a prerequisite for any conversation will put a theist in a difficult situation if they have no desire for dialog and no ability to reason.

Agreed. Unfortunately, those standards would eliminate all conversation with the majority of the religious. You cannot overcome the biases that people hold unless they are willing to let them go. The religious tend to consider their religious beliefs as an integral part of who they are as a person, so anything that refutes their belief becomes a direct attack on their person.

The other problem is that many religious people are encouraged by their leaders to disregard the notion of critical thinking and evidence. They are told that faith in and of itself is virtuous. It becomes increasingly difficult to get the religious to provide evidence for their position when they don't have a clear understanding of critical thinking, rationality or empirical evidence (too many believe that the bible or what their preacher says can be used as evidence...). It also doesn't help that the religious have so much pull over what is taught in schools in the US (specifically in rural areas) because school becomes yet another place where religious dogma is taught as fact, further stunting the ability to think rationally.

The worst part is that these conversations need to happen because too many religious people don't actually know why they believe what they believe and I think that we could pull a lot of people out of harmful ways of thinking if we could just have an honest talk.
We believe in ordinary acts of bravery, in the courage that drives one person to stand up for another.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 6:52:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support

Empirical assertion: God does not exist.

Okay, show us the evidence.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 6:54:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:20:36 PM, missmedic wrote:
There's no chance of a serious conversation unless everyone is willing to accept independent standards of reason and logic. If one side eschews those standards, then no real conversation is possible. Indeed, anyone who rejects them might as well just be spouting random statements in a foreign language for all the value their voice will have. It's crucial, though, to get a person's agreement to them in advance because so few understand what they entail. The bare minimum a theist must be willing to accept if they are going to have a conversation instead of preach is:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support
" Empirical assertions require empirical evidence as support
"A proposition with greater supporting evidence should be accepted as being more likely true
"One disagreement or argument should be resolved before moving on to another
" Errors or flaws in an argument should be admitted before moving on to another

A person who can't accept these minimal standards of reasoned discourse are incapable of reasoned discourse and is, at best, only going to preach. Demanding them as a prerequisite for any conversation will put a theist in a difficult situation if they have no desire for dialog and no ability to reason.

Belief: something came from nothing.

Belief: there was nothing. No time, no space, no matter. But one day...poof, a big bang.

You just cannot reason with someone who thinks that way.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 7:00:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 6:54:17 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:20:36 PM, missmedic wrote:
There's no chance of a serious conversation unless everyone is willing to accept independent standards of reason and logic. If one side eschews those standards, then no real conversation is possible. Indeed, anyone who rejects them might as well just be spouting random statements in a foreign language for all the value their voice will have. It's crucial, though, to get a person's agreement to them in advance because so few understand what they entail. The bare minimum a theist must be willing to accept if they are going to have a conversation instead of preach is:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support
" Empirical assertions require empirical evidence as support
"A proposition with greater supporting evidence should be accepted as being more likely true
"One disagreement or argument should be resolved before moving on to another
" Errors or flaws in an argument should be admitted before moving on to another

A person who can't accept these minimal standards of reasoned discourse are incapable of reasoned discourse and is, at best, only going to preach. Demanding them as a prerequisite for any conversation will put a theist in a difficult situation if they have no desire for dialog and no ability to reason.

Belief: something came from nothing.

Belief: there was nothing. No time, no space, no matter. But one day...poof, a big bang.

You just cannot reason with someone who thinks that way.

u figure that stuff without help of others? this day finally arrived where u applied some reason :D
Never fart near dog
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 7:08:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 6:52:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support

Empirical assertion: God does not exist.

Okay, show us the evidence.

Do gods exist, craptor.?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 7:16:05 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 7:08:11 PM, desmac wrote:
At 6/9/2016 6:52:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support

Empirical assertion: God does not exist.

Okay, show us the evidence.

Do gods exist, craptor.?

I've done over 50 debates. Look through them. If you do, you will see. If you won't you didn't seek very hard...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 7:16:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:20:36 PM, missmedic wrote:
There's no chance of a serious conversation unless everyone is willing to accept independent standards of reason and logic.
Agreed. And if you're making objective statements, you need empirical evidence to support them. We've five centuries outgrown a world where woolly-haired philosophers can endlessly argue how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, when they've never seen an angel and can't measure a pin-head.

Demanding them as a prerequisite for any conversation will put a theist in a difficult situation if they have no desire for dialog and no ability to reason.
For centuries, theological apologetics have taught obfuscation, the manipulation of evidence, the defense of bias, unaccountability for ignorance and error, and to patronise disagreement by presupposing oneself right and any dissenters wrong.

That's the intellectual environment in which many members learned their religious doctrine -- though thankfully, not all denominations of all faiths. Learning denial as an artform does untold lifelong harm to minds, and in this forum I've met many minds who don't lack for intellect, but lack badly for rigour because their parents, teachers and elders have let them down.

So it's reasonable to demand this level of accountability and rigour, Miss M, but may not be reasonable to expect it.

It may not be true that irreligion makes one better at critical thought, but it is true that it can put fewer impediments in the way of learning it. There's no way around this: our more rigorous irreligious (and religious) members have a responsibility to teach those who were let down by the churches in which they were raised: not teaching irreligion, but unteaching bad mental habits.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 7:21:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 7:16:05 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/9/2016 7:08:11 PM, desmac wrote:
At 6/9/2016 6:52:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support

Empirical assertion: God does not exist.

Okay, show us the evidence.

Do gods exist, craptor.?

I've done over 50 debates. Look through them. If you do, you will see. If you won't you didn't seek very hard...

Usual dodge.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 7:26:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 7:21:23 PM, desmac wrote:
At 6/9/2016 7:16:05 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/9/2016 7:08:11 PM, desmac wrote:
At 6/9/2016 6:52:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support

Empirical assertion: God does not exist.

Okay, show us the evidence.

Do gods exist, craptor.?

I've done over 50 debates. Look through them. If you do, you will see. If you won't you didn't seek very hard...

Usual dodge.

No. Just tired of repeating myself just for atheists to ignore the evidence. So...I defer you to my homepage which has over 50 debates, most on religion, that you can look through. If you do not look, it means you don't eant God to exist, otherwise, with a matter of this much importance, you would leap to know whatever it is.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 7:37:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:20:36 PM, missmedic wrote:
There's no chance of a serious conversation unless everyone is willing to accept independent standards of reason and logic. If one side eschews those standards, then no real conversation is possible. Indeed, anyone who rejects them might as well just be spouting random statements in a foreign language for all the value their voice will have. It's crucial, though, to get a person's agreement to them in advance because so few understand what they entail. The bare minimum a theist must be willing to accept if they are going to have a conversation instead of preach is:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support
" Empirical assertions require empirical evidence as support
"A proposition with greater supporting evidence should be accepted as being more likely true
"One disagreement or argument should be resolved before moving on to another
" Errors or flaws in an argument should be admitted before moving on to another

A person who can't accept these minimal standards of reasoned discourse are incapable of reasoned discourse and is, at best, only going to preach. Demanding them as a prerequisite for any conversation will put a theist in a difficult situation if they have no desire for dialog and no ability to reason.

Those aren't principles of logic and reason. Your confusing scientism with logic.

Perhaps you should study up on inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning. As well as justification and the 3 rules of logic.

You might then understand that evidence is only what you make of it. The evidence only justifies a position when it is perceived through a filter of previosly accepted propositions.

Empiricalevidence exusted at one time of lumineferous aether. Now debunked. Empirical evidence used to be premised in arguments for the planet Vulcan, again now debunked.

You can't reason out of a box with the same thinking that got you in the box. And you can't reason with the unreasonable. Especially those that prefer to opperate on thier definition of the principkes and rules if loguc and reason. Like your post demonstrates you want to ignore the logic and reason that aided in the construction of the scientific method. It's arse backwards.

How can I or anyone have logical debate with someonw who thinks arsebackwards and calls it 'progress'
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 7:41:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 7:26:17 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/9/2016 7:21:23 PM, desmac wrote:
At 6/9/2016 7:16:05 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/9/2016 7:08:11 PM, desmac wrote:
At 6/9/2016 6:52:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support

Empirical assertion: God does not exist.

Okay, show us the evidence.

Do gods exist, craptor.?

I've done over 50 debates. Look through them. If you do, you will see. If you won't you didn't seek very hard...

Usual dodge.

No. Just tired of repeating myself just for atheists to ignore the evidence. So...I defer you to my homepage which has over 50 debates, most on religion, that you can look through. If you do not look, it means you don't eant God to exist, otherwise, with a matter of this much importance, you would leap to know whatever it is.

I have had the pleasure (?) of reading several. Not one shred of evidence for any gods.
I did enjoy the one where Double_R absolutely slaughtered you, though.
bulproof
Posts: 25,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 2:50:13 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 6:52:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support

Empirical assertion: God does not exist.

Okay, show us the evidence.
You've made the claim that god does not exist, it's incumbent upon you to provide the evidence in support of your claim.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 3:40:25 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/10/2016 2:50:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/9/2016 6:52:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support

Empirical assertion: God does not exist.

Okay, show us the evidence.
You've made the claim that god does not exist, it's incumbent upon you to provide the evidence in support of your claim.

I never did. If it is a hypothetical situation, I can't. Why? Atheism is void of logic. It can't be true by simple philosophical logic, so to blindly conform to it is irrational and flawed from the get go.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
bulproof
Posts: 25,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 3:43:30 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/10/2016 3:40:25 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/10/2016 2:50:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/9/2016 6:52:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support

Empirical assertion: God does not exist.

Okay, show us the evidence.
You've made the claim that god does not exist, it's incumbent upon you to provide the evidence in support of your claim.

I never did. If it is a hypothetical situation, I can't. Why? Atheism is void of logic. It can't be true by simple philosophical logic, so to blindly conform to it is irrational and flawed from the get go.
At 6/9/2016 6:52:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Empirical assertion: God does not exist.

What?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 3:48:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/10/2016 3:43:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/10/2016 3:40:25 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/10/2016 2:50:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/9/2016 6:52:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support

Empirical assertion: God does not exist.

Okay, show us the evidence.
You've made the claim that god does not exist, it's incumbent upon you to provide the evidence in support of your claim.

I never did. If it is a hypothetical situation, I can't. Why? Atheism is void of logic. It can't be true by simple philosophical logic, so to blindly conform to it is irrational and flawed from the get go.
At 6/9/2016 6:52:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Empirical assertion: God does not exist.

What?

Is there a goat under that bridge?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 3:50:59 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Goat story...

http://youtu.be...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 11:24:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 7:37:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:20:36 PM, missmedic wrote:
There's no chance of a serious conversation unless everyone is willing to accept independent standards of reason and logic. If one side eschews those standards, then no real conversation is possible. Indeed, anyone who rejects them might as well just be spouting random statements in a foreign language for all the value their voice will have. It's crucial, though, to get a person's agreement to them in advance because so few understand what they entail. The bare minimum a theist must be willing to accept if they are going to have a conversation instead of preach is:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support
" Empirical assertions require empirical evidence as support
"A proposition with greater supporting evidence should be accepted as being more likely true
"One disagreement or argument should be resolved before moving on to another
" Errors or flaws in an argument should be admitted before moving on to another

A person who can't accept these minimal standards of reasoned discourse are incapable of reasoned discourse and is, at best, only going to preach. Demanding them as a prerequisite for any conversation will put a theist in a difficult situation if they have no desire for dialog and no ability to reason.

Those aren't principles of logic and reason. Your confusing scientism with logic.

Perhaps you should study up on inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning. As well as justification and the 3 rules of logic.

You might then understand that evidence is only what you make of it. The evidence only justifies a position when it is perceived through a filter of previosly accepted propositions.

Empiricalevidence exusted at one time of lumineferous aether. Now debunked. Empirical evidence used to be premised in arguments for the planet Vulcan, again now debunked.

Unless you can provide citations for those claims, then you're once again talking bs.

You can't reason out of a box with the same thinking that got you in the box. And you can't reason with the unreasonable. Especially those that prefer to opperate on thier definition of the principkes and rules if loguc and reason. Like your post demonstrates you want to ignore the logic and reason that aided in the construction of the scientific method. It's arse backwards.

Reason and logic are foreign concepts to you, never once have you used them here.

How can I or anyone have logical debate with someonw who thinks arsebackwards and calls it 'progress'

Because, you know nothing of logic.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 6:04:23 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 11:24:19 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/9/2016 7:37:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:20:36 PM, missmedic wrote:
There's no chance of a serious conversation unless everyone is willing to accept independent standards of reason and logic. If one side eschews those standards, then no real conversation is possible. Indeed, anyone who rejects them might as well just be spouting random statements in a foreign language for all the value their voice will have. It's crucial, though, to get a person's agreement to them in advance because so few understand what they entail. The bare minimum a theist must be willing to accept if they are going to have a conversation instead of preach is:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support
" Empirical assertions require empirical evidence as support
"A proposition with greater supporting evidence should be accepted as being more likely true
"One disagreement or argument should be resolved before moving on to another
" Errors or flaws in an argument should be admitted before moving on to another

A person who can't accept these minimal standards of reasoned discourse are incapable of reasoned discourse and is, at best, only going to preach. Demanding them as a prerequisite for any conversation will put a theist in a difficult situation if they have no desire for dialog and no ability to reason.

Those aren't principles of logic and reason. Your confusing scientism with logic.

Perhaps you should study up on inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning. As well as justification and the 3 rules of logic.

You might then understand that evidence is only what you make of it. The evidence only justifies a position when it is perceived through a filter of previosly accepted propositions.

Empiricalevidence exusted at one time of lumineferous aether. Now debunked. Empirical evidence used to be premised in arguments for the planet Vulcan, again now debunked.

Unless you can provide citations for those claims, then you're once again talking bs.

No you are just ignorant and arrogant. You think today scientist and the curriculum shoved down your throat is soo much smarter than ever before.

Mercury's wobbly orbit was seen as empirical evidence for the planet Vulcan. The wave property of light to move through a vacuum was seen as evidence for a ;ight bearing aether.

So not B.S. FACT scientist accepted ideas based on empirical evidence and observations that are now no longer entertained by the majority.

So empirical evidence does not guarantee truth nor is a principle of logic and reason. Empirical evidence is only valued in the context of the theory that EXPLAINS it. Meaning empirical evidence only has value if there is an explaination that matches it's presence. It is an inductive justification but not a deductive logical conclusion. Hence why you nor the OP has an idea of what logic is.


You can't reason out of a box with the same thinking that got you in the box. And you can't reason with the unreasonable. Especially those that prefer to opperate on thier definition of the principkes and rules if loguc and reason. Like your post demonstrates you want to ignore the logic and reason that aided in the construction of the scientific method. It's arse backwards.

Reason and logic are foreign concepts to you, never once have you used them here.

How can I or anyone have logical debate with someonw who thinks arsebackwards and calls it 'progress'

Because, you know nothing of logic.

I know spades more than you do. As I know history spades more than you do. As I know pretty much anything that might come up in discussion on this forum more than you do.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 6:59:24 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 7:37:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:20:36 PM, missmedic wrote:
There's no chance of a serious conversation unless everyone is willing to accept independent standards of reason and logic. If one side eschews those standards, then no real conversation is possible. Indeed, anyone who rejects them might as well just be spouting random statements in a foreign language for all the value their voice will have. It's crucial, though, to get a person's agreement to them in advance because so few understand what they entail. The bare minimum a theist must be willing to accept if they are going to have a conversation instead of preach is:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support
" Empirical assertions require empirical evidence as support
"A proposition with greater supporting evidence should be accepted as being more likely true
"One disagreement or argument should be resolved before moving on to another
" Errors or flaws in an argument should be admitted before moving on to another

A person who can't accept these minimal standards of reasoned discourse are incapable of reasoned discourse and is, at best, only going to preach. Demanding them as a prerequisite for any conversation will put a theist in a difficult situation if they have no desire for dialog and no ability to reason.

Those aren't principles of logic and reason. Your confusing scientism with logic.

Perhaps you should study up on inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning. As well as justification and the 3 rules of logic.

You might then understand that evidence is only what you make of it. The evidence only justifies a position when it is perceived through a filter of previosly accepted propositions.

Empiricalevidence exusted at one time of lumineferous aether. Now debunked. Empirical evidence used to be premised in arguments for the planet Vulcan, again now debunked.

You can't reason out of a box with the same thinking that got you in the box. And you can't reason with the unreasonable. Especially those that prefer to opperate on thier definition of the principkes and rules if loguc and reason. Like your post demonstrates you want to ignore the logic and reason that aided in the construction of the scientific method. It's arse backwards.

How can I or anyone have logical debate with someonw who thinks arsebackwards and calls it 'progress'

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT kiss kiss kiss.
Meh!
uncung
Posts: 3,432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 7:41:37 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:20:36 PM, missmedic wrote:
There's no chance of a serious conversation unless everyone is willing to accept independent standards of reason and logic. If one side eschews those standards, then no real conversation is possible. Indeed, anyone who rejects them might as well just be spouting random statements in a foreign language for all the value their voice will have. It's crucial, though, to get a person's agreement to them in advance because so few understand what they entail. The bare minimum a theist must be willing to accept if they are going to have a conversation instead of preach is:
"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support
" Empirical assertions require empirical evidence as support
"A proposition with greater supporting evidence should be accepted as being more likely true
"One disagreement or argument should be resolved before moving on to another
" Errors or flaws in an argument should be admitted before moving on to another

A person who can't accept these minimal standards of reasoned discourse are incapable of reasoned discourse and is, at best, only going to preach. Demanding them as a prerequisite for any conversation will put a theist in a difficult situation if they have no desire for dialog and no ability to reason.

I support the logic reason and evidence. I don't support the blindly belief.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 11:08:28 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:20:36 PM, missmedic wrote:
There's no chance of a serious conversation unless everyone is willing to accept independent standards of reason and logic. If one side eschews those standards, then no real conversation is possible. Indeed, anyone who rejects them might as well just be spouting random statements in a foreign language for all the value their voice will have. It's crucial, though, to get a person's agreement to them in advance because so few understand what they entail. The bare minimum a theist must be willing to accept if they are going to have a conversation instead of preach is:

The trouble with that is that there are no "independent standards of reason and logic". we are simply fooling ourselves if we believe that there are.

In the end there are only two "standards of reason and logic".

Jehovah's, and Satan's.

I will stick with Jehovah's standards thanks. James 1:5-8.

"Whoever makes an empirical assertion has the initial, primary burden of proof or support
" Empirical assertions require empirical evidence as support
"A proposition with greater supporting evidence should be accepted as being more likely true
"One disagreement or argument should be resolved before moving on to another
" Errors or flaws in an argument should be admitted before moving on to another

A person who can't accept these minimal standards of reasoned discourse are incapable of reasoned discourse and is, at best, only going to preach. Demanding them as a prerequisite for any conversation will put a theist in a difficult situation if they have no desire for dialog and no ability to reason.

As I say, I'll stick with Jehovah's standards thanks.

He is our creator.

He is immeasurably wiser than the very best of us.

He knows what is best for his creation.

That's enough for me.