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

  Yes, I do, so...we'll go with teeth in a t-rex. I don't know how many teeth they have (although I am fairly certain I could made a pretty close guess using math and Fermi estimations). But, before we proceed, I know about t-rexs, I know they have teeth, that they existed, etc.. I have evidence for all of these things, How many teeth they have is a known unknown, meaning it's something I know that I don't know but that I can find out and make a value judgement on the answer to determine whether or not it falls within a range that makes sense.
  For instance, I know that if someone said the average t-rex had a billion teeth at any given time, that number is obviously out of a range that makes sense. If the answer is one, that answer is obviously too low.
  The point of this is that now knowing how many teeth a t-rex has or should have at any given time is not at all the same thing as not knowing that something even exists. They are two different types of unknowns. One is a known unknown, something I know that I don't know. The other is an unknown unknown, something I don't know that I don't know. So, lets see if you're going to conflate the two....I swear I've not read ahead, this is a guess on my part that you will.

  I told you to pick something you don't know and have not thought about...

  Also, you may not think about it after, and use that in your conclusion.
• 
  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

  Dude, that doesn't even make sense. No one was suggesting that body parts have belief. That's not in context, doesn't make sense is and isn't something that's even been suggested. It has nothing to do with the fact that babies, lacking belief in god, are atheists.
  Seriously, I don't think you've ever learned how to construct a logically valid argument using critical thinking with supporting facts and evidence.

  lol. So, how do you differentiate between the plants lack of belief in God and the body parts lack of belief in 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

  You've already admitted you lacked belief in magical unicorns made of meteorite teapots living in my dog's butt before you knew they existed, so you've already confirmed yourself wrong. Do you need to know what a merkin is to lack one? Do you need to know what a digeridoo is to lack one? In what sense is it required to know what something is to lack it?

  Maybe you will understand if I turn it around.

  Remember belief deals with different degrees of certainty, weal/strong belief etc.

  Do you need to know what a merkin is to lack one?

  Would you say you lack belief in that I have a dog if I told you I do?

  Most people would probably have to say no.

  Do they need to know what my proposition was to not lack belief in it?

  Yes.

  Hence you need know what the proposition is to attribute a degree of belief to it.

  
  
• 
  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

  Good

  +1
• 
  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

  Correction. They start as atheist vs theist. The theist is quickly devoured and the atheists and agnostics turn on one another in a philosophical debate about debating and words that by their very nature a varied and founded in a theological world.
  The problem is the word GOD. As soon as it is used, a huge leap is made, this is undeniable. Atheist say they don't know and don't believe because historically the role filled by "God" known or unknown, has been explained away through knowledge, and this is likely to continue on. The that word in of itself if inflammatory and should have no place. If you don't say god no one has to say atheist.

  Quite humorous summary
• 
  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

  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)

  
  
• 
  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

  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.

  Wrong.

  Did you know there is a blue star called: "Alcyone"? (if you do, insert something else you don't know, how many teeth a Tyrannosaurus have etc.)

  Now, how can you not know this, if you have not thought about it? (have to be something you have not thought about until now as well, of course)

  Hence, your logic is flawed. Try again.
• 
  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

  Facts are relevant, whether you like it or not. The fact is, there was strong reason to believe the CMBR existed prior to it's discovery. You not know knowing or mentioning that is irrelevant to whether or not it matters.

  Funny play with words. Facts are relevant in contexts and in this one, that fact where not.

  Oh, and by the way. Blue is a color....

  
  

  So then it IS testable and discoverable. You've managed to render your own argument moot. Congratulations.

  No, even if it is testable and discoverable. We can not know if humans will ever be able to test or discover it. Which was the point I argued, not this straw man you built. I get the feeling you are purposefully "misunderstanding" me...

  Why wouldn't they be? Why would god be any different?

  And again you play with words and build straw men... You know my point is that the discussion in this thread is about God, not fairies

  So far, not very much and no on the specific issue.

  You proved me correct in the very next sentence... If you don't understand that, I don't think explaining it to you will make any difference.

  From your own words, specifically, "I did not have..." If you don't have something, you are lacking it. Thanks for proving my point. Babies are atheists.

  I said "did" as in past tense, not don't. Please don't misquote me.

  I've enough cock for both of us.

  That sentence does not even make any sense.

  
  
• 
  23

  ... and keep fighting

  by nevaagain in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  last week we had the cos visit and i wanted to share my experiences with you.

  some background info on me, i knowttatt and am fully awake, my wife also knows my doubts and read a few things on the internet but she is still 100% commited to the truth, saying everything on the apostate sites are lies.

  so right now i am in just to keep the status quo.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  No sure your wife would corroborate that thou ;)

  But she have not ratted you out yet, so why not
• 
  65

  [Day 4 - 31/7]The Royal Commissions investigation of child sexual abuse within Jehovah’s Witnesses. + VIDEO

  by C0ntr013r in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  by popular demand i give you day 4, and i will finally get a couple of days to sleep .

  part 1 has been uploaded and part 2,3 and 4 will soon be available.. part 1:.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmlcdqesa0&list=plpq6kz-aghvqbadlzmqn26dvmpzddxlui&index=11.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Yeah, they would not have any doctrines left after Stewart was done with them

  Would proabably have to reevaluate their understadnng of the Bible... lol