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.
now that I like. Why couldn't you have said that the fist comment after the op!! Lol. We could have avoided all this.
It is probably the tenth time I have said it, it just gets drowned in the replies
The OP is crap for insinuating
Atheism = Science!
One of the points I have tried to convey :P
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.
Agnosticism is part of atheism, to a lesser or greater extent, depending on the individual.
Agnosticism/Gnosticism (the two extremes) are part of all belief systems or lack thereof. Theist, Deists etc
I don't know if you guys are familiar with this picture but it explains the relationship all these labels have:
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.
How, therefore, can atheism be unscientific? Surely the atheist position is in line with all the available evidence?
Atheism is not unscientific nor is it scientific. It is lack of belief.
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.
1. 'agrumentum ad ignorantum' is used everyday as a part of scientific discovery.
So you think science is using a fallacy to derive theories? To make the ramification clear: (I am using exaggerated examples that are more likely to be in science and to make my point clear)
"There is no evidence for aliens, therefore aliens don't exist. Therefore we will not look for alien life because we know it does not exist."
"There is no evidence for ghosts, therefore ghosts don't exist. Therefore we will not investigate the claim that a house is haunted because we know that it cant be."
Or a few hundred years ago:
"There is no evidence for (the idea of bacteria), therefore (the idea of bacteria) don't exist. Therefore we will not investigate (the idea of bacteria)"
2. One does not consider a possible cause for which there is no evidence as a valid contributing factor.
I agree!
3. One always remains open to new evidence.
I agree! But how can you say that I you are sure that fairies don't exist? Or are you not really sure?
How can the label of atheism possibly be unscientific when it is applying part of everyday scientific method?
It is? What you are describing is Gnosticism.
Also Atheism is not unscientific nor is it scientific. It is lack of belief.
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.
If no one had every made up a myth or a YHWH or whatever we would all be agnostic, that is their could be things beyond us unknown.
This fact has made "agnostic" mean more than one thing, would you not agree? Quite literally maybe it has one single definition, but it means different things to different people. In the purist meaning we all have to be. But outside of that, many "agnostics" believe there is something out there, its just undefined, they still slide into a belief they want to hold onto that is unfounded, and simply unknown.
I agree! I would argue that Agnosticism is the default position since we are born that way.
It meaning different thing to different people is definitely a problem when discussing the topic, the OP for example does not understand the labels he uses...
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 don't know if this has been brought up before but it would be helpful to define what type of god we are talking about. Is it the Biblical god? Is it a Deist god who only created the universe but left it alone for life to evolve?
I don't know, the claim was that the OPs God cant exist. I don't know what God Saintbertholdt interpreted that to be, maybe God in general?
And I agree with you that we cant disprove either one but that the Biblical one is less likely to exist.
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.
Just to clarify since there seem to be some misunderstanding, I am not a Theist.
And in the discussion I am arguing for Agnosticism, that's it.
EDIT: also that Atheism have nothing to do with science. It is lack of belief.
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.
You guys spend too much time on wikipedia reading fallacy definitions, I think they serve a fantastic purpose but are abused in these atheist bashing threads.
So if I use a fallacy to mock you for believing in fairies does that make them real because i used a fallacy????
You fail to understand that this is a argument about Gnostic vs Agnostic. (certainty vs uncertainty)
We are not debating the existence of God, we are debating if you can be sure of his existence/non existence.
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.
Qcmbr you might be the forth or fifth person in this thread to ask that lol I know I did, cofty did, they love to stir it up for no reason
The Theists probably ran away when they realized it would be a slaughter :P
10 vs 1 Would not be a favorable fight ;)
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.
Semantics aside at some point with fallacy and all you have to say
Would you say the same if I said:
There is no evidence that God does not exist, therefor God must exists?
You would take issue with this fallacy would you not?
