What is the nature of empirical evidence?

Empirical is a very interesting word. It is used by scientists, courts of law, and practically everything else where a so-called logical conclusion must be reached.
Everything except religion. Follow me and I will explain why empirical evidence is not a preferred thing to dabble in within the field of religion. Let me say first of all, the following definitions are not a construct of my making, but come from a secular dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com . I have included below, the full definitions and have not added any text nor left any text out of those definitions.

Empirical is composed of the root word 'empiric' and the suffix '-al' at the end. The suffix at the end (-al) simply means the following:

"-al 1
suff.
Of, relating to, or characterized by: parental."

The root word 'empiric' means:

"em·pir·ic (m-pîrk)
n.
1. One who is guided by practical experience rather than precepts or theory.
2. An unqualified or dishonest practitioner; a charlatan.
adj.
Empirical."


From definition #1 of the word "empiric", we find that it speaks about "one who" (a person) that is guided by "practical experience" as opposed to "precepts" or "theory". We will get to the words 'precepts' and 'theory' in just a little bit... but for now, we know that this kind of person (empiric) is not guided by those 'precepts' or 'theory', but is restricted to only the use of 'experience'. We will also get to 'experience' in a few minutes... it is a long subject.

From the definition #2 of the word "empiric", we also find that the person who is known as an 'empiric' is one that is "unqualified', a 'dishonest practitioner' and a "charlatan".

So, you can see, that when discussion is being held about 'empirical' evidence, then it is evidence that is presented by anyone who does not use theory or precepts, and who is considered to be unqualified, a dishonest practitioner, and a charlatan. This person, by definition is also required to use 'practical experience'... notice that it does not say 'practical experiments' (though such could be included in 'experience' but is not the sole factor of experience). But what about 'practical""
"prac·ti·cal (prkt-kl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than theory, speculation, or ideals: gained practical experience of sailing as a deck hand.
2. Manifested in or involving practice: practical applications of calculus.
3. Actually engaged in a specified occupation or a certain kind of work; practicing.
4. Capable of or suitable to being used or put into effect; useful: practical knowledge of Japanese. See Usage Note at practicable.
5. Concerned with the production or operation of something useful: Woodworking is a practical art.
6. Level-headed, efficient, and unspeculative.
7. Being actually so in almost every respect; virtual: a practical disaster."

Again, in definition $1 of 'practical' we find that theory, speculation, and ideals, are not part of what is called 'practical'. All that is required for something to be 'practical' is the action involved in doing something. Now I would ask how many people on this forum have 'split' and atom? How many have experienced the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

 

Continued:

The nature of empirical evidence is such (as described in the definitions of 'empiric'), an evidence that cannot be thought of as anything but the personal and private 'experience' of each and every person.

If it is 'empirical evidence' that is desired with regard to religious matters, then all that is needed to be supplied is an accounting of those experience, in the form of a personal testimony. By definition, that form of evidence cannot be rejected as a valid form of evidence. To even attempt a logical rejection of these definitions is to logically reject the very language that is used to express conditions of 'logic'.

 

empirical evidence can be experienced by all, in equality.

lies are for liars

nope.

because then a lie can hold a subjective requisite when empirical evidence, can be witnessed throughout the generations.

sure it can.

For example; nature is why it rains

Nature is why we have earth quakes


Liars are why many hold beliefs over empiracal evidence.

Evidence can be experienced. Lies are believed!

morons like to use religion as a logical explanation to what is real


empirical evidence, enables the equality to any who hath understanding, to comprehend the same nature of 'everything'..............


lies subdue the evolution of knowledge by the choice for ignorance

empirical evidence; enables anyone to comprehend that the lie is a life or death proposition

lies; fade over time (the energy of the life that conveys the lie, will fade to black (death))

truth: lives by combining energy for other life to live longer (the contributer of truth, lives in his/her contribution to existence, forever)


empirical evidence combines

morons can go to hell

 

How many of these types of threads are you going to make? You've already sufficiently demonstrated your uncanny ability at abject equivocation.


EDIT: The word "empirical" is not just the root word "empiric" with the suffix "al". It is has completely different meanings.

Try this (honest) one: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empirical

End thread.

 

The following is taken from the link you provided above:

"Adj. 1. empirical - derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known"
empiric
theoretic, theoretical - concerned primarily with theories or hypotheses rather than practical considerations; "theoretical science"
2. empirical - relying on medical quackery; "empiric treatment"
empiric
archaicism, archaism - the use of an archaic expression
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2011 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
empirical empiric
adjective first-hand, direct, observed, practical, actual, experimental, pragmatic, factual, experiential There is no empirical evidence to support his theory.
assumed, academic, speculative, hypothetical, putative, theoretic(al), conjectural"

Scroll toward/near the end of the page. Your preferred definition essentially has only one difference: the insertion of the word 'experiment' in the place of 'experience': otherwise, they tell the same story.

That must be an example of virtual empiricism.

 

So religion is special, and is so special it doesn't have to follow the rules of empirical evidence.

I'll buy that for a dollar.

If religion didn't have to follow empirical evidence, why would God create it?

Since God creates everything, he is responsible for the creation of empirical evidence.

Why would God want his followers to be so special that they don't have to obey the rules of empirical evidence that He, in all his infinite wisdom, create for in the first place?

Empirical evidence is not for the special people, it is just for the people who don't follow God's law? Religious people are just so special they don't have to follow those laws?

Why would God want it that way?

Arguments and claims alone never prove god, regardless of how verbose they can be. Only empirical evidence can prove the existence of God.

 

Did you even look at the definition of 'empirical' and its root word 'empiric'?

There is no escaping 'empirical' evidence, as such evidence is an inherent part of the life experience. Apply the strict standards of 'empirical' (as set forth in the definition) and you will find that 99.99% (out of the air number) of the worlds population are 'empirics' and do not rely upon the precepts and theories.

Please be more acquainted with the subject which is 'empirical' and its meaning and application as evidence.

 

No, you should be more acquainted with it. You have no idea what it means.

 

On the contrary. I have shown the definition of the root word, thus showing its history and its' intended original usage. But then, considering your personal attack in saying that I 'have no idea what it means', would suggest that you have some objective evidence to support your assertion? Do you presume to have the pleasure of KNOWING what I know or of what ideas I retain? Am I to now presume that we have in the midst of this group an 'all knowing' mind that KNOWS the minds of other people? Do we have a potential non-theist sinking into the depths of metaphysics and the occult?

 

Just because you show the definition doesn't mean you understand it, and you clearly don't when you make claims that religious people and religion are so special that they don't have to follow the rules to it.

 

Well, considering that you are making the claim that I don't understand the definition, then it is time for you to PROVE that assertion. Now, where is the PROOF of my understanding? Have none? My goodness. How unfortunate for you.

 

As many as he wants to. We know that empirical evidence means evidence that is based on observation. This is 'common knowledge'.

I've complained to the mods about these types of threads, only for the complaints to fall on deaf ears. I like how one member of PF can try to challenge know terms to try and fit their warped view of reality, and the rest of us just have to put with such bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Just like the many hundreds posted by non-theists regarding their disdain for religion. Tit for tat, and all of those postings based on empiric attitudes.

 

I don't have to provide any proof, you've provided it all for me when you claim that religious people are so special that they don't have to follow the laws that everybody else has to.

It's you who have to provide PROOF that you guys are so special that you don't have to follow the same rules everybody else,

You made the claim, you have to provide the proof, and not just argue.

Otherwise your entire premise is null and void.

Show me the empirical proof, not just your claims and argumentation, that you religious people are so very special that you don't have to follow the same rules everybody else has to live by.

 

Now you are resorting to fabricating evidence. Show, in the record of this thread, where I have claimed that "religious people are so special that they don't have to follow the laws that everybody else has to." You can't show such a thing, because that is a product of your fanciful imagination and subsequently your declaration.

Once again, it is your claim that we (religious people) "are so special". Your proof of that claim is required.

Show where I have made that claim other than in quoting your expressions.

Unfortunately, the TOS requirements prevent me from saying what your claims have made you.

Have you not read the definitions that I have supplied? Those definitions constitute an empirical evidence of many things, and those many things would include YOUR claim that the "religious people are so special...". Indeed, you are an empiric, just like 99.99% (number grabbed out of the air) of the world population (by definition)

 

You didn't have to say that "religious people are so special that they don't have to follow the laws that everybody else has to". Its implied.

 

When something is implicitly stated, it is not stated as a matter of 'fact', but rather as a figment or creature of the mind of the speaker. Thus the need for PROOF of the claim which was explicitly stated saying that I said something. Now if he cannot show where I have explicitly stated what he claimed that I said, then his claim is a false claim.

 

I guess I have to repeat myself:

 

I guess I have to repeat myself, and also show you the meaning of the word 'implicit':

"m·plic·it (m-plst)
adj.
1. Implied or understood though not directly expressed: an implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject.
2. Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent: "Frustration is implicit in any attempt to express the deepest self" (Patricia Hampl).
3. Having no doubts or reservations; unquestioning: implicit trust."

Let me help you a little further by showing you the contrasting unit of speech which is "explicit":

"ex·plic·it (k-splst)
adj.
1.
a. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
b. Fully and clearly defined or formulated: "generalizations that are powerful, precise, and explicit" (Frederick Turner).
2. Forthright and unreserved in expression: They were explicit in their criticism.
3.
a. Readily observable: an explicit sign of trouble.
b. Describing or portraying nudity or sexual activity in graphic detail.

 

You are beginning to bore the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of me with your silly word games.

This is your EXACT WORDS:

I said this (for the 3rd time):

Now if you would like to respond with a foolish statement like:

You are more than welcome too. I support your right to free speech.
But when myself and couple of other posters can clearly see your INTENT and what you IMPLY, then you are wasting my time, and other who post/read this garbage.

Now, answer the Question:

Why is religious people so special that they think they do not have to follow the rules.

You IMPLIED it with this and 4 other nonsense threads.

 

Then I would suggest that you and a couple of other posters have contaminated perceptions. Now, that you have explicitly made your claim very clear, then it also becomes your responsibility to validate your claims by proving my INTENT. Good luck on that one.

The 'question' you seek an answer for is one that you will have to look inside yourself and inside those that also have that contaminated perception and provide the answer from within, considering that it is your expression and the expression of "a couple of other posters", excluding me, because I have made no such claim.

 

Got it, you wont answer the question:

 

I am not a mind reader... you have the answer, you provide it. Why do you declare that religious people are 'special and do not have to abide by the laws that other people do'?

 

Trolling via Sophism at its finest on display.

 

So you don't like the thread (which you have attested to), so you resort to what amounts to a denial of the definitions and then resort to attacking the messenger as opposed to the message by claiming that I am trolling. How sweet of you. Too bad that you cannot present an intelligent refutation to the OP of this thread.