First, let me just say... INTERNET ARGUMENT, where we both recall the image with the retard running in a race with the caption along the lines of "Even if you win, you're still retarded." Let's begin.
"I'm sorry, but that is an unfounded generalization. Please tell me how you define "nerds" and then please point me to statistics that hold your claim true using the same definition."
Seeing as you have apparently accepted M-W as a credible source:
nerd, noun: an unstylish, unattractive, or socially inept person; especially one slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuits
I'll defend my statement by saying that many scientists are agnostic, if not outright atheist, and that because "nerd" is more slang than anything else, a scientist would at least somewhat fit the definition. To support my statement of "many scientists", I'll direct you to this Wikipedia article (since you have deemed Wikipedia valid for argument), which links to this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
The percentages given for the number of atheist scientists ranges from around 30% to 93%. I'd say that's "many". If you disagree with my calling scientists "nerds"... well, fuck you. You still haven't proven atheism is cool, which you can't really do anyway, fashion being what it is and all.
"So you decided to provide me with petty criticism on a rhetorical statement? That wasn't even an argument!"
Umm... okay. How about, the Pope and the President? I don't see them shying away from the crazy Christians. Group A is Christianity. Group B is people that would like to be associated with Group A. Group B is not a null set, seeing as there are more than 2 billion self proclaimed Christians (would you like a source on that number too?). Do we really have to argue even this stupid point?
"It's quite obvious about what people I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who think the only facts are those which can be empirically proven."
Then you should have said so, instead of writing like a fourth grader. :)
"Also, you're breaking apart parts of my sentences and not including them completely in your rebuttals so that you may take them completely out of context."
What, by taking off the "People think"? "the only reality is the reality through empirical explanation" is a complete statement, it's what "people" are "thinking". I cannot see how I'm taking anything "completely out of context".
"In this reality there are facts, agree?"
... Agree. Facts are statements that describe reality.
"The argument I pose to anybody is that empirical facts are NOT the ONLY facts in this reality. In other words, if someone tells me that our reality can ONLY be explained through empirical facts, then I will disagree.
Example: This morning I found a dollar on the floor. That moment I felt happy. How did I come to the conclusion that IN FACT I really was happy? Through introspection. The fact that I was happy is NOT an empirical fact. I could NOT verify the fact that I felt happy through any of my five senses. Only through introspection."
Okay, now I see where you're going with this, but I guess we're arguing about semantics. As per your example, you observed that you were happy. Observation is not merely through vision. You have also experienced the feeling of happiness. I will now direct you to M-W's definitions for observation and empirical.
observation, noun, 2a: an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving measurement with instruments. 2b: a record or description so obtained
empirical, adjective, 1: originating in or based on observation or experience. 2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory. 3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
You have, in fact proven *empirically* that you were happy.
Fuck, I just realized I have to leave for a dentist appointment in 5 minutes, so I'll quickly respond to the rest of your post and follow up when I get back.
To respond to your claim that I don't know the definition of empirical, I do. There is a slight usage difference, which I'll explain, if you wish, when I return. For now, just note that I said "observable" not "observation".
"I don't even know what you're talking about here. You have NOT proven any broken logic anywhere! I've always stayed consistent with the fact that there is only ONE reality. A reality where empirical and non-empirical facts exist. As oppose to a reality where only empirical facts exist, that's a no-no."
A result of the horrid way you're phrasing things. Fuck I'm gonna be late, moving on.
"Not logic as in common sense. Again, you're thinking about this at a very elementary level. I'm talking here about the philosophical "art", if you will. Here, have a wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic";
Again, it's your own damn fault for writing like a child, and saying you're talking about the "art" of logic, doesn't mean your statement makes any more sense. I'll clear up what I mean in my next post. FUCK I'm gonna be late.