C0ntr013r

Joined

• started 35 topics
• posted 547 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by C0ntr013r

• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  It was 1948 predicted mathematically in 1948, actually, so there was evidence for BEFORE it was detectable. You're also assuming that, when I said "undectable" I mean "with out current tools". I did not. I simply said "undetectable". If there is no way to detect God, ever, in any sense, then it can in no conceivable way interact with the universe.

  Not relevant since I said discovered, not calculated.

  OLD: "then you've also defined them as being something that cannot interact with nature and are therefore pointless in every conceivable context because they cannot possibly affect our world in any way."

  Agreed, but my point is that there could be things that can interact with nature without being testable (at least not yet). Therefore it could "interact with the universe."

  
  

  I just showed you a way science dealt with fairies. What else are you after?

  How science deals with God, fairies are not the real issue are they?

  
  

  I never said you should. Why do ask questions about things I never wrote?

  I know, but I was correct was i not?:

  meaning lacking belief in them even before you heard of it, babies are similarly atheists.

  
  

  I am simply pointing out that, in much the same way you are a-magical unicorn in my dog's butt, meaning lacking belief in them even before you heard of it, babies are similarly atheists.

  No, where did you get that idea from? I specifically said:

  
  

  No i did not have neither

  
  
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Before you were aware of the magical unicorns made of meteorite teapots living in my dog's butt, did you have or lack a belief in them?

  No i did not have neither, as said before; I don't think I can believe that unless I am first made aware of the idea.

  Why do you think I should?
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies#Initial_examinations

  Interesting, I retract my statement. Science does deal with fairies if evidence for their existence appear. (falsifiable evidence in form of a photo)

  
  

  then you've also defined them as being something that cannot interact with nature and are therefore pointless in every conceivable context because they cannot possibly affect our world in any way.

  Not necessarily correct, there might still be ways to interact with nature that we do not know of, it is not even hard to conceive of since it was only in 1965 that we discovered background radiation. And there are probably newer ways of measuring and places to do that measuring that has been discovered more recently, and i reason that there are still more to come.

  I can't parse that sentence. Care to take another swing at it? The opposite of what? Does "except" mean accept or expect?

  Yupp, I definitely need to sleep soon

  It would not be the case that we except evidence from them, if they are the opposite we would expect evidence from them. So we would conclude that they probably don't exist to a high level of certainty.
  

  
  

  Ok, Ill re ask the question:

  I don't think scientific studies deal with God nor fairies.

  I sense you think there are other ways science deals with them, if so how? (apologize if I am putting word in your mouth)
  
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  God
  But God's existence is yet to be established. Babies are oblivious to other people's belief in god - that's why parents usually pass on their beliefs to their children.
  You don't get ready-made, new-born true believers, do you? Form this it seems reasonable to conclude that neonates are without belief in god/gods and are therefore atheists.

  I think I explained my position as well as I can here:

  Since I don't think they entertain any belief at all, I don't think they believe in God and I don't think they disbelieve in God. They simply have no belief or opinion in the matter.
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Which god that has ever been worshipped do you still worry about?

  I don't know, I am just not 100% sure all of them can't exist.

  "If God told me" is a thought I can entertain. And if he revealed himself to us humans I would believe in him.

  If you are 100% sure you would have to reject this, since God can't exist?

  
  
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  I never said disbelieve, I specifically and purposely wrote "lack of belief". Re-read it again as written and let's discuss.

  I apologize, getting tired

  I would essentially say the same thing since I think the meaning is essentially the same.

  I think to have a lack of belief in something, you need to know of that thing.

  You're disagreeing with a proposition that is your own invention, I never said nor suggested such a thing.

  I was just guessing, curious what you build that idea on then.

  
  

  
  
  
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  That's not what I said. I said science doesn't deal in binary certainties. Science has in fact dealt with fairies.

  Really? I did not know that. When?

  And you're wrong. If there should be evidence, then it should be able to deal with it. The problem is that no one has been able to define god in such a way that any evidence can possibly be found. Every definition either shows no evidence where there should be some OR defines god in such a way that there is no possibility of finding evidence, thus rendering their definition pointless in any conceivable context.

  No, it depends on your definition of fairies, if they are shy creature that can turn invisible or in other ways are un-testable. It would not be the case that we except evidence from them, if they are the opposite we would expect evidence from them and would conclude that they probably does not exist to a high level of certainty.

  They define God in that way so you cant disprove him. People want God and only the disprovable god will survive the test of time. It is just like evolution, it adapts. So we might call it an evolution of God :P

  
  

  Any example of a study made on God/fairies?
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Obliviousness to what?

  God
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Did you lack belief in magical unicorns made of meteorite teapots that my dog poops out every morning until I just told you about them?

  I think this is where you and I differ, I would argue no, since I think you have to know about something to believe or disbelieving in it.

  You would probably argue that not knowing about is is a from of disbelief?

  I disagree.

  
  
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  I know that's what we were discussing. My point is that to even have the conversation in a frame of reference of absolute certainty is wrong on it's face, that's not even something science does.

  I argue that belief in fairies is not something science does at all, so yes. This is not something science deals with.

  And in the context of God, fairies and all other things that where mentioned, a lack of evidence would not prove that they don't exist.

  I don't think science deal with God nor fairies, am i wrong?