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.
Alright then, so your question made no sense and was logically invalid. Case closed.
Since you are unable to defend this point, I conclude that babies are not Atheists. Because that is what the argument was about.
You can't know whether or not you know something unless you've thought about it.
It shows that you indeed can know whether or not you know something without having thought about it.
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 can be meaner about pointing out where you are conflating words, improperly using logic and failing to construct a valid argument, if you're into that sort of thing.
I'm in no way misunderstanding them, they're just.. bad arguments. Incorrect use of words. Crappy logic. Your problem, not mine.
You can be meaner? Yet you take every opportunity to insult me...
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.
Oh, apparently I did talk about plants. No, I did not nor am I saying that. However, me having replied to a comment about plants doesn't mean.. "She agreed that plants where atheists just like babies.:" That I did not do, at all, in any way. It is not word games to point out that your claim is untrue and can be (and is) dismissed as pure fiction.
Do you also think that dogs are atheists, fetuses and corpses? What about plants?
If they lack a belief in god, then yes.
Then your definition is redundant, Theist are mostly Atheists except the conscious part of there brains. There feet are atheists, arms, legs etc...
(Not in the sense that they reject all but one 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.
So you are saying that they may not lack a belief in God?
So which is it? Are plants Atheists or may they not lack a belief in God?
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.
Of course that's ridiculous. I am simply not allowing to you conflate terms or incorrectly use words or logic. Don't blame me for your lack of ability to construct an argument.
That is just a nice way of excusing deliberately misunderstanding my arguments...
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 are asking me pick something in a class that by definition is completely outside of my realm of all knowledge or concept of any type. By definition I cannot pick something in that class of items.
That is what I meant by:
(if you do, insert something else you don't know, how many teeth a Tyrannosaurus have etc.)
etc = something else you don't know.
Yes you can't pic it. But for there purposes you just have to entertain the thought. Can you conceive of a thing you don't know?
It exactly means that. You can't know whether or not you know something unless you've thought about it. Babies can't do that and they lack a belief in god(s), therefore they are atheists. Try again.
When I ask you about it, you will know if you know about it, without thinking about it.
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 recall agreeing with that at all. I'll need proof.
If they lack a belief in god, then yes.
It is either that, or you are saying that they may not lack a belief in God?
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.
Do you also think that dogs are atheists, fetuses and corpses? What about plants?
If they lack a belief in god, then yes.
Then your definition is redundant, Theist are mostly Atheists except the conscious part of there brains. There feet are atheists, arms, legs etc...
(Not in the sense that they reject all but one 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.
So you are saying that they may not lack a belief in God?
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.
control walk away *whisper* before she gets angry lol
can't we all just bask in the awesomeness of being godless!
Why? She is wrong. She is resorting to word games to avoid the issues.
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.
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?
Facts are relevant, whether you like it or not.
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.
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?
