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.
C0ntr013r
JoinedPosts by C0ntr013r
-
449
Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific
by LAWHFol ini 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.
-
-
-
449
Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific
by LAWHFol ini 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.
-
-
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 ini 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.
-
-
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 ini 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.
-
-
C0ntr013r
... -
449
Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific
by LAWHFol ini 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.
-
-
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 ini 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.
-
-
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 ini 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.
-
-
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 ini 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.
-
-
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
-
449
Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific
by LAWHFol ini 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.
-
-
C0ntr013r
Before you were aware of the magical unicorns made of meteorite teapots living in my dog's butt, did you have or lack a belief in them?
No i did not have neither, as said before; I don't think I can believe that unless I am first made aware of the idea.
Why do you think I should?
-
449
Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific
by LAWHFol ini 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.
-
-
C0ntr013r
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies#Initial_examinations
Interesting, I retract my statement. Science does deal with fairies if evidence for their existence appear. (falsifiable evidence in form of a photo)
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.
Not necessarily correct, there might still be ways to interact with nature that we do not know of, it is not even hard to conceive of since it was only in 1965 that we discovered background radiation. And there are probably newer ways of measuring and places to do that measuring that has been discovered more recently, and i reason that there are still more to come.
I can't parse that sentence. Care to take another swing at it? The opposite of what? Does "except" mean accept or expect?
Yupp, I definitely need to sleep soon
It would not be the case that we except evidence from them, if they are the opposite we would expect evidence from them. So we would conclude that they probably don't exist to a high level of certainty.
Ok, Ill re ask the question:
I don't think scientific studies deal with God nor fairies.
I sense you think there are other ways science deals with them, if so how? (apologize if I am putting word in your mouth)