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