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

  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?
• 
  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

  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.
• 
  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 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.

  
  
• 
  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

  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?
• 
  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

  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%?
• 
  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

  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..

  Agreed, If you read the context we are arguing, you will see that it is about absolute certainty. That is my understanding at least.

  And it can not be proven with absolute certainty.

  
  
• 
  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

  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.
• 
  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

  Viviane has arrived, a voice of reason!