I was trying to get them to understand how accepting empiricism but rejecting self-evident logical axioms is insane and doesn't make any sense, but it's like talking to a brick wall

They probably don’t even know who or what defined empiricism

That's literally not even the problem though.

Literal atheists who disliked any notion of the metaphysical those bastards in the Vienna circle

You interpret empirical evidence in accordance with logic which is based on self-evident beliefs/axioms.

Yeah, but how can you expect them to know what you’re talking about if they just base off their beliefs in a Wikipedia definition

@MawLr It's kind of insane. They basically blank out when I tell them this.

I just don't get why they spend so much energy trying to disprove something they don't think exists

Because it would justify their tendency to the hedonistic

Even in accordance to the wikipedia definition. I don't understand how you can accept empiricism but reject fucking logic.

They just didn't accept that empiricism was justified by logic.

Oh wow

That’s a new level of autism

Ok noob question

What do you mean by empiricism?

Well, okay, they rejected self-evident logical axioms

I'm just trying to understand

Basically they said that you can't know any axiom for sure, but for some reason, despite that, they were all empiricists

Empiricism (logical empiricism or positivism) is the set of ideas that everything has a logical and physical explanation

Oh just looked it up

Ok but not everything does

I tried to point out how saying if you can't know any axiom for sure, then it doesn't make any sense at all to jump to empiricism.

@MawLr No empiricism has to do with 'physical' evidence

If that's the case how do you explain why there is evil in the world?

Things you can see touch taste, ect.

Where did evil come from?

Yeah, physical explanations

My point is that the reject logical axioms as absolute, but then they jump straight to relying on physical evidence for everything

Which is self contradictory

Yeah I know

A couple weeks ago I was involved in a head on collission

I kept trying to point that out to them but they kept having hissyfits or trying to somehow say that they can define axioms through observing empirical evidence.

Which of course, doesn't make any sense

My car was completely destroyed

But nobody was hurt

How do you explain that without the interference of God?

I get that we are talking about how most things can be explain through physical evidence but I'm just giving an example of how not everything can

I wouldn’t use that example to debate, these individuals would only answer the following:
> studies must be conducted and we’ll end up seeing that the vectors of the ...

They really are frustrating to talk with

It’s all about muh science, until science is turned against them

It doesn't make any sense to base everything on physical evidence because interpreting physical evidence requires the use of logic, which isn't physical.