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.
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.
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 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 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.
Define "god" and I will tell you.
Every god that has ever been worshipped in human history - 100%
If you have invented some other god tell me all about her and I will give you a number for that one too.
I said there where some Atheists that are Gnostic to freemindfade
I disagree with this position as you may have noticed, I am Agnostic.
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.
That example falls short. Not seeing a fly is not the same as not seeing an elephant. What size is the room? Is there something big enough to hide an elephant or fly? What methods were used to look?
There are some exceptions, to be sure, but in your examples it is 100% reasonable to find the evidence if one is willing to look. Also, we know what flies and elephants are, their properties, etc., and how to detect them. In the case of god, anytime someone has been able to loosely define what we are looking for, then absence of evidence absolutely is evidence of absence.
It is not my example and it is simple to help laymen understand the logical fallacy and it's exceptions. It can be dissected like this but it is used to convey a point and assist in understanding.
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.
Atheism simply means without belief in god/gods. This definition fits babies to a T.
I might be wrong but; how can they have disbelief in something they don't know about?
Would that not constitute obliviousness?
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.
Look at the chart, are you not Atheist and Agnostic?
No
Atheist and Gnostic then?
How sure are you that God does not exist? 100%?
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 not binary, proved or not, 1 or 0. It is probabalistic, meaning things are confirmed to degree of probability. It is absolutely correct to say you can disprove to a degree of high probability and satisfaction by defining what fairies are, how we could detect them, that evidence there should be, etc..
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.
A hypothesis can be based on evidence, a lucky guess, throwing a dart at board, etc.. They key that makes it a hypothesis is explanatory capability with falsifiability.
True, I am suggesting that it can exist without evidence.
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.
It absolutely can be where there should be evidence.
I agree there are some exceptions to this rule.
A classical example:
"There is a elephant in the room." You see no elephant hence Absence of evidence is evidence of absence
"There is a fly in the room." You see no fly hence Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
