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.
Whats the difference then:
Plants are atheist by necessity since they lack even the ability to have and belief in god and thus the belief itself.
Babies lack belief in god.
Also, are you suggesting that babies have the ability to believe in God but choose not to?
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.
Whats the difference then:
Plants are atheist by necessity since they lack even the ability to have and belief in god and thus the belief itself.
Babies lack belief in god.
Lacking the ability to believe in God would necessitate that you lack belief in 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.
I didn't use two. Ever. Try and keep up, dear.
Well, you implied there are at least two.
Plants are atheist by necessity since they lack even the ability to have and belief in god and thus the belief itself. That has nothing to do with babies, rocks, poop, magical unicorns in my dogs butt or your butchering logic.
"Plants are atheist by necessity"
"That has nothing to do with babies"Or are you saying that they are atheist in the same way 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 was never my argument at all. That's the argument you keep trying (and failing, BTW) to CLAIM I am making. Stop making things up, or at the very least try to start understanding the words on the screen that I am writing.
OK, then Ill ask you again. How are we supposed to understand this?
Do you also think that dogs are atheists, fetuses and corpses? What about plants?
If they lack a belief in god, then yes.
Either they don't lack a belief in God OR, you are saying that plants are Atheists...
It is as simple as that.
In what way are babies atheist if it is not lack of belief?
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.
Plants are atheist by necessity since they lack even the ability to have and belief in god and thus the belief itself. That has nothing to do with babies, rocks, poop, magical unicorns in my dogs butt or your butchering logic.
I was not aware you used two atheist definitions, whats the different between them? Which one do you use on a baby and which one do you use on a plant?
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.
But you cant prove plants dont know anything therefore your a plant atheist. Or agnostic. Or something......
So either plants are Atheists or they "know" things?
I wasn't aware of your pride given that we dont know each other but i accept it because i deserve it anyway
I am sorry if it came across that way, It was not mean that way.
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.
Do you also think that dogs are atheists, fetuses and corpses? What about plants?
If they lack a belief in god, then yes.
Either they don't lack a belief in God OR, you are saying that plants are Atheists...
It is as simple as that.
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.
Plants are incapable of any belief in anything, therefore they are not atheists, theists or any kind of belief based anything
Then babies cant be atheist either since the claim is that they are atheists because they cant conceive of the notion. Hence, "don't believe anything".
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.
Alright then, so your question made no sense and was logically invalid. Case closed.
Since you are unable to defend this point, I conclude that babies are not Atheists. Because that is what the argument was about.
You can't know whether or not you know something unless you've thought about it.
It shows that you indeed can know whether or not you know something without having thought about it.
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 can be meaner about pointing out where you are conflating words, improperly using logic and failing to construct a valid argument, if you're into that sort of thing.
I'm in no way misunderstanding them, they're just.. bad arguments. Incorrect use of words. Crappy logic. Your problem, not mine.
You can be meaner? Yet you take every opportunity to insult me...
