while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Eliminative Materialism says the human consciousness does not exist because it cannot be scientifically verified.
That's not what eliminative materialism says at all. You either are completely uneducated about what you are talking about, trolling or lying.
So anyway, please show us how your definition of posotivism is the same as the one nicolau posted and, once that is done, how I said it was wrong. You've all your work ahead of you.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Viv you can add anything to any imaginary list you like as far as I am concerned. You never back up anything you say. If you ever make an actual argument in favour of any of the claims you make, there will be something to discuss
Awww.... the "but you do it toooo!" argument. It's wrong, of course. For example, when you made a wrong claim recently about what WT publications said and the source material showed you wrong and then you whined about....something or other about me because you didn't get to make claims and tell lies about people unfettered. Honestly, all whining sounds the same to me, like a three year old pitching a fit because of bedtime.
So, anyway, enough with the lies. Anytime I make a claim about science or what something says or someone said, I back it up when necessary. That's been shown over and over and over. Whining doesn't change that.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
John Mann there was nothing wrong with your definition. Don't let Viv give you the run around.
And we can add "posovitism" to the list of philosophies that SBF thinks he knows about but doesn't. It also seems like a bit of a white knighting scenario, jumping in to bail John out from having to answer tough questions about his own comments. Questions like "does what you say match what you claim it matches?" I mean, how in the world can an adult be expected to stand up to such ruthless bullying?
I couldn't imagine living in yours or John's head, knowing so little about so much when it's so so very easy to learn with mountains of knowledge at your fingertips.
Sad, really.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Personal purpose in life can be scientifically verified as valid?
Really?
Absolutely. Anyway, moving on to your task...
So, please show us how your definition of posotivism is the same as the one nicolau posted and, once that is done, how I said it was wrong. You've all your work ahead of you.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Sorry but personal purpose in life can't be scientifically verified as valid.
OK, so we just learned you don't know what "scientifically valid" means. Of course if can be.
If you really knows what scientific verification is you must know that.
Like what?
Like, that you don't know what scientific verification is, for one.
So, please show us how your definition of posotivism is the same as the one nicolau posted. You've all your work ahead of you.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
There's a pleonasm in this definition. You can say just "scientifically verified" (like I said) without the "OR" part.
Logical proof is not the same as scientifically verified. No pleonasm exists.
You've not shown is how your definition is the same as what nicolau posted. You've all your work ahead of you.
Meaning or purpose of human life beyond biological goals is nonsense to positivists because cannot be scientifically verified.
The purpose and goals of my life can be verified. Not sure what you mean by "biological goals". Reproduction? My goals beyond that can definitely be scientifically verified.
You've all your work ahead of you.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Viviane says this definition is wrong. I want to know her definition.
You are incorrect. I did't say that definition was wrong, in fact, I made no comment on it at all. I said YOUR claim was incorrect.
And it is.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Why not?
And most important: what is the correct definition of positivism?
Sorry, I have a strict personal policy of "not doing doing your work for you".
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Just tell me your definition of positivism.
Please.
I say positivism is the philosophical system that affirms the only valid knowledge is the scientific method.
Why this short definition of positivism is wrong?
Because it isn't correct.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Burden of proof?Yes, you said
You said my definition of positivism is wrong but don't showed why.
- What you thought posotivism was
- Claimed certain people were positivists and didn't know it
- claimed it was evil- made claims about what souls are
- etc.
You made those claims first, so the burden of proof is on you. That's how it works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proofWhen two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.
