Posts by C0ntr013r

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

C0ntr013r

Oh, apparently I did talk about plants. No, I did not nor am I saying that. However, me having replied to a comment about plants doesn't mean.. "She agreed that plants where atheists just like babies.:" That I did not do, at all, in any way. It is not word games to point out that your claim is untrue and can be (and is) dismissed as pure fiction.
Do you also think that dogs are atheists, fetuses and corpses? What about plants?

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)

I don't. I've no idea what you are talking about, the context, why it's been brought up or why you think it's relevant. I'm not going down that rathole until you connect the question to the conversation.

So you are saying that they may not lack a belief in God?

So which is it? Are plants Atheists or may they not lack a belief in God?

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

C0ntr013r

Of course that's ridiculous. I am simply not allowing to you conflate terms or incorrectly use words or logic. Don't blame me for your lack of ability to construct an argument.

That is just a nice way of excusing deliberately misunderstanding my arguments...

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

C0ntr013r

You are asking me pick something in a class that by definition is completely outside of my realm of all knowledge or concept of any type. By definition I cannot pick something in that class of items.

That is what I meant by:

(if you do, insert something else you don't know, how many teeth a Tyrannosaurus have etc.)

etc = something else you don't know.

Yes you can't pic it. But for there purposes you just have to entertain the thought. Can you conceive of a thing you don't know?

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.

When I ask you about it, you will know if you know about it, without thinking about it.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

C0ntr013r

I don't recall agreeing with that at all. I'll need proof.

If they lack a belief in god, then yes.

It is either that, or you are saying that they may not lack a belief in God?

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

C0ntr013r

Do you also think that dogs are atheists, fetuses and corpses? What about plants?

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)

I don't. I've no idea what you are talking about, the context, why it's been brought up or why you think it's relevant. I'm not going down that rathole until you connect the question to the conversation.

So you are saying that they may not lack a belief in God?

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

C0ntr013r

control walk away *whisper* before she gets angry lol
can't we all just bask in the awesomeness of being godless!

Why? She is wrong. She is resorting to word games to avoid the issues.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

C0ntr013r

The context is a discussion of how science works. Why do you imagine that blue being a color is relevant or that using mathematical model to predict what we should be looking for isn't relevant?

The context was that I gave an example of a way of measuring that had not previously been used in that way and area. If mathematics had suggested that before was and is irrelevant in the context.

Blue, was me showing you that facts can be irrelevant out of context.

Facts are relevant, whether you like it or not.

No, not out of context.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

C0ntr013r

control, I love ya, the plant thing is too far out there though. You gotta give Viv some credit.

She agreed that plants where atheists just like babies.

Where do you draw the line if they are atheist in the same way? /sense of the definition?

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

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

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.

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?