by braincleaned 141 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Since you cannot be bothered to answer questions that I have asked of you, then I agree, no need to continue. Especially since if you DID bother to answer some of those questions (like the false christ one)... you would have your answer to your 'no true scotsman' fallacy.
Peace,
tammy
Eventually, people of faith tire of the constant tirades by detractors.
Eventually, people of non-belief tire of fluffy explanations.
And we wonder why we can't have open dialogue between the two communities?
Disclaimer: You can't use the rules of checkers to discuss chess.
Physics and Metaphysics are two separate games, my friends.
Why do you persist in trying to use the same language as though words meant the same?
I remember trying to rationalize my faith thru what I considered evidence... which of course, was no empirical evidence at all.
I have more respect for those who admit that their faith is a strong belief regardless of (and even against) evidence.
Faith is Faith — it's non arguable — I would never debate it if people wouldn't try to rationalize it.
i don't know that all evidence is empirical.
It is not. I found this interesting on empirical evidence, and that an emperical view can be contrasted by a rationalist view:
Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. [ 1 ] Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions. [ 2 ] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect. [ 2 ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
Peace to you,
tammy
Keep on rationalizing my friends... philosophy is all you have.
Red herrings and strawmen.
I'm done with this conversation. Thank you.
I didn't write that quote, Braincleaned. I just quoted it when looking up the definition of emperical evidence. It didn't come from me.
I am sorry that you are upset, if you are upset.
Peace,
tammy
Not upset.
I think we've just hit a dead-end for now, as far as the subject involved.
You have been clear, and I think I have been too.
We are at a point where we refer to two different paradigms. That's all. No ill feelings. ;)
@ tec. I sent you a pm.
