Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol 449 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  C0ntr013r

  You've already admitted you lacked belief in magical unicorns made of meteorite teapots living in my dog's butt before you knew they existed, so you've already confirmed yourself wrong. Do you need to know what a merkin is to lack one? Do you need to know what a digeridoo is to lack one? In what sense is it required to know what something is to lack it?

  Maybe you will understand if I turn it around.

  Remember belief deals with different degrees of certainty, weal/strong belief etc.

  Do you need to know what a merkin is to lack one?

  Would you say you lack belief in that I have a dog if I told you I do?

  Most people would probably have to say no.

  Do they need to know what my proposition was to not lack belief in it?

  Yes.

  Hence you need know what the proposition is to attribute a degree of belief to it.

  
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Great last post, Viv, that should really conclude the argument.

  Once again, you've nailed it.
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Dude, that doesn't even make sense. No one was suggesting that body parts have belief. That's not in context, doesn't make sense is and isn't something that's even been suggested. It has nothing to do with the fact that babies, lacking belief in god, are atheists.
  Seriously, I don't think you've ever learned how to construct a logically valid argument using critical thinking with supporting facts and evidence.

  lol. So, how do you differentiate between the plants lack of belief in God and the body parts lack of belief in God?
• 

  Viviane

  Remember belief deals with different degrees of certainty, weal/strong belief etc.

  I fail to see the relevancy. So what? Connect the dots.

  Would you say you lack belief in that I have a dog if I told you I do?

  Why would your lack of belief in something affect my observation of the fact that dogs exist? Connect the dots...

  Do they need to know what my proposition was to not lack belief in it?

  Not at all. Your lack of belief in dogs has nothing to do with me. I lack knowledge (gnosis) or your belief (pisteuo or pistis) status on dogs. You're attempting to conflate two things into the same thing and they aren't no amount of conflation attempts will change that.

  Hence you need know what the proposition is to attribute a degree of belief to it.

  Ah, I see the problem. You're ALSO conflating my knowledge of your status of belief with yours. I KNOW (not believe) that babies do NOT believe in god. Whether or not babies know any of this is irrelevant.

  Read this slowly....you can't believe in something until you know about it, but you can absolutely lack belief in something whether or not you've ever heard of it. Whether or not I know anything about what you know or believe is irrelevant regarding that.
• 

  freemindfade

  control, I love ya, the plant thing is too far out there though. You gotta give Viv some credit.
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Yes, I do, so...we'll go with teeth in a t-rex. I don't know how many teeth they have (although I am fairly certain I could made a pretty close guess using math and Fermi estimations). But, before we proceed, I know about t-rexs, I know they have teeth, that they existed, etc.. I have evidence for all of these things, How many teeth they have is a known unknown, meaning it's something I know that I don't know but that I can find out and make a value judgement on the answer to determine whether or not it falls within a range that makes sense.
  For instance, I know that if someone said the average t-rex had a billion teeth at any given time, that number is obviously out of a range that makes sense. If the answer is one, that answer is obviously too low.
  The point of this is that now knowing how many teeth a t-rex has or should have at any given time is not at all the same thing as not knowing that something even exists. They are two different types of unknowns. One is a known unknown, something I know that I don't know. The other is an unknown unknown, something I don't know that I don't know. So, lets see if you're going to conflate the two....I swear I've not read ahead, this is a guess on my part that you will.

  I told you to pick something you don't know and have not thought about...

  Also, you may not think about it after, and use that in your conclusion.
• 

  C0ntr013r

  control, I love ya, the plant thing is too far out there though. You gotta give Viv some credit.

  She agreed that plants where atheists just like babies.

  Where do you draw the line if they are atheist in the same way? /sense of the definition?
• 

  Viviane

  So, how do you differentiate between the plants lack of belief in God and the body parts lack of belief in God?

  I don't. I've no idea what you are talking about, the context, why it's been brought up or why you think it's relevant. I'm not going down that rathole until you connect the question to the conversation.

  She agreed that plants where atheists just like babies.

  I don't recall agreeing with that at all. I'll need proof.
• 

  freemindfade

  control walk away *whisper* before she gets angry lol

  can't we all just bask in the awesomeness of being godless!
• 

  C0ntr013r

  The context is a discussion of how science works. Why do you imagine that blue being a color is relevant or that using mathematical model to predict what we should be looking for isn't relevant?

  The context was that I gave an example of a way of measuring that had not previously been used in that way and area. If mathematics had suggested that before was and is irrelevant in the context.

  Blue, was me showing you that facts can be irrelevant out of context.

  Facts are relevant, whether you like it or not.

  No, not out of context.