C0ntr013r

Joined

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

Posts by C0ntr013r

• 
  236

  Royal Commission live streamingstarting soon!

  by possum in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  august.

  mon 3 (cont) fri 7 .

  public hearing: case study 29 into jehovah's witnesses, sydney.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Right now
• 
  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

  Do you think that dogs, foetuses, corpses and plants are agnostic?
  

  IMO you need to be able to know, to not know. So no.

  They are atheists in the sense that they all are without belief in God.

  The atheist community rapidly grew

  I guess, if you believe rocks and the earth are Atheists. Babies would be on the list to :P
• 
  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 am not sure if babies can "know", if they can't. they would not be considered Agnostics either.

  I think they might but I am not sure.
• 
  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

  By the way, you can conclude something doesn't exist based on lack of evidence usingmodus tollens.

  Thank you, interesting!

  Am I understanding correctly that the premises have to be true for it to be logical reasoning? And considered usingmodus tollens?
• 
  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

  lacking belief in them even before you heard of it

  Like not being able to comprehend the idea? Like a baby?

  Do you also think that dogs are atheists, fetuses and corpses? What about plants?

  
  
• 
  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

  ...
• 
  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

  And as babies aren't born with a ready-made belief in god, they're not theists/deists.
  I guess that just leaves atheism!

  No, I still affirm that to lack belief in something you need to know what that something is..
• 
  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

  Agnosticism means you are thinking about what you know. Babies don't do that. All they know is that the big thing has bags of food they like to suck on.

  No, it means that you don't know/are not certain. If 100% is certainty than 0% "I don't know". Since baby's don't know, they are Agnostic.
• 
  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

  Getting people to understand basic logic, science and critical thinking takes a lot of pages.

  Cocky aren't we?
• 
  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