i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Please see: How to Prove It A Structured Approach - Daniel J Velleman
I looked thought it. And again, I don't deny the existence of proof by mathematics. I simply say that there are mathematical models which are not considered evidence within themselves.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Not at all. That is why it is called a "mathematical proof". Example: When Einstein suggested special relativity in 1905 it was a revelation.
Are you making straw man arguments now? I think you know that I don't reject the idea of "mathematical proof". I reject the idea that every mathematical model is proof of that model. Especially when you take into consideration all the guess work that goes into such a model.
Wrong there is obvious proof. There are mathematical models that may suggest a multiverse.
If you merely meant "suggest", what is "obvious proof" doing in this context? You have to forgive me for misunderstanding that phrasing if you meant something else than "obvious proof".
Papers for mathematical multiverses and unified theories abound. This is not controversial and multiverse and unified theories discussions are derailing this thread.
Sure, you don't have to show that such a mathematical multiverse model exist, to my knowledge it does not.
Also please don't quote Wikipedia as an authoritative reference.
It is not really a contested area but ill be happy to provide other sources.
http://global.britannica.com/topic/atheism
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
By the way, according to this mantra - give me one practical example where this has worked.
It refers to you being guilty of a logical fallacy...
The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam) is a logical fallacy, you can google that to. It is usually refuted by: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Wrong there is obvious proof. There are mathematical models that may suggest a multiverse. Therefore it is worth investigation. HOWEVER the only way any of these models would be accepted would be through experiment. Until then none will be accepted.
You clearly don't understand what the word "proof" means or you mean something different than me. To me "proof" is evidence and that must be observable, testable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable.
I don't know what models you have looked at and I would like you to give an example of such a model, one I heard about goes something along the lines of; A multiverse could be a explanation of the big bang, mathematical formulas show how such a model would work and how the universe could have been formed under such conditions.
No evidence for a multiverse, no proof... But this is a hypothesis alongside many others.
There are ALSO tens of mathematical models that suggest a unified theory. So there is a mathematical evidence for these theories which merit investigation.
Study this a little and you will see that such "mathematical models" are by no means evidence. Or prove me wrong and link one that do.
Lets say we lived a few thousand years ago and we thought that everything had a God. And I came up with the hypnosis that the God of rain was in love with the God of the rainbow. I did many observations to show that this could be the case. This would not be proof, it would just be a way to explain what I saw.
It is the same way with these models, we come up with reasons for what we see, try to make sense of them with hypothesis, but the calculations that built the hypnosis is in no way evidence for that hypothesis...
There is no mathematical model as yet that suggests God. So why would it merit investigation?
I have no idea, you tell me.
I re-iterate: Atheism is scientific.
Atheism is in no way, shape or form science. Wikipedia it if you don't believe me... Neither is Theism, Deism or any other belief system.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Lack of evidence automatically discards a hypothesis in science.
No, a hypothesis is either proved or disproved, not rejected because there is no evidence. Usually there is something that indicates the idea could be true for the hypothesis to be formed thou.
There is no proof of a Multiverse, and how could there be? If there are other universes outside of our own, how would we know about it? Still it is an idea entertained in science and in some of our models.
As I said before; Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Science is Atheistic, Aelveistic, Afairyistic, Axenuistic, Agiantspacepenistic. However it always remains open to the possibilities if serious scientific evidence were to emerge.
Atheism is in regard to belief, not fact nor science.
When I have asked Atheist's, a question like "What science do you feel Supports the non existence of God" Predictably The Atheist has responded with "There is no Evidence or Proof of God & Science requires empirical Evidence."
"There is no Evidence or Proof of God & Science requires empirical Evidence."
This is not science nor proof that supports the non existence of God.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
by popular demand i give you day 4, and i will finally get a couple of days to sleep .
part 1 has been uploaded and part 2,3 and 4 will soon be available.. part 1:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmlcdqesa0&list=plpq6kz-aghvqbadlzmqn26dvmpzddxlui&index=11.
Seems like the secular authorities in Nevada take child safety and protection far more seriously than the Jehovah's Witnesses.Naa, JWs take it very seriously. Just look here:
42. If more than 20 years have passed and a former child abuser has a good record in the truth and the branch office decides that he could be appointed to a position of trust—such as an elder, ministerial servant, or regular pioneer—the congregation elders will not have to pass on information regarding the past sin to another congregation’s elders.See, it has to go 20 years before he can be an elder after his last known child abuse. 20 years! ;)
this is certainly a gold mine of information:.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.
by popular demand i give you day 4, and i will finally get a couple of days to sleep .
part 1 has been uploaded and part 2,3 and 4 will soon be available.. part 1:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmlcdqesa0&list=plpq6kz-aghvqbadlzmqn26dvmpzddxlui&index=11.
You think they may have had coaching from helpful XJWs?
Well, they must at least have read the Ex JW and Ex Elder Monty Bakers statement since he will testify next week.
I cant find his statement on their webpage so I dot know what it says. But they must have read it, so they would have had some Ex JW influence.
(I think it will be added to their webpage after his testimony like the others)
