Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol 449 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  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.

  
  
• 

  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.
• 

  DJS

  Control,

  That's because you don't know Viv. To those of us who do (at least in the forum sense, not a personal or biblical sense - at least not yet), that comment makes perfect sense.

  I've enough cock for both of us.

  That sentence does not even make any sense.

  
  
• 

  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)

  
  
• 

  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
• 

  freemindfade

  Humous good or bad?
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Good

  +1
• 

  Viviane

  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....

  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?

  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...

  No, we can't, but how does that matter? Your argument is predicated on something being unable to be tested and discovered. That is in no way any equivalent to "hasn't been tested and discovered". You seem to be trying to equate the two when they aren't the same at all.

  And again you play with words and build straw men... You know my point is that the discussion in this thread is about God, notfairies

  How, in this discussion, are fairies any different than god?

  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.

  Or, in reality, that you don't know what "prove" and "correct" mean. Or how to construct a logically and consistent argument with supporting facts and evidence. Or both of those things.

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

  I didn't misquote you. Unless you are telling me now you believe in magical unicorns living in my dogs butt, you still don't believe in them and what I wrote is true.

  That sentence does not even make any sense.

  Those lacking sufficient cock are not expected to get it.
• 

  Viviane

  Wrong.

  Oh, I doubt that based on evidence, the past, your previously flawed arguments and logic, etc., but hey, maybe this time you nailed it. Let's see!

  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.)

  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.

  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)

  And there is it. There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. It is 100% possible to not know a thing and not know that you don't know.

  Then your definition is redundant, Theist are mostly Atheists except the conscious part of there brains. There feet are atheists, arms, legs etc...

  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.
• 

  freemindfade

  I must say you guys are all master-debaters.

  If no one ever invented God myths, and the word "god" never came into existence, we wouldn't credit God with anything or debate even his existence, we would just look to define the natural world the way that SCIENCE does not RELIGION. There would be no God and no atheist, only the unknown and the work of defining it.

  for example, the sun rises and the sun sets, lets figure out how it works... like for real.

  Can't you guys see the theists are driving us mad. the word god should be banned. Unknown is just that. until you know it, and 100% of the time so far when we know it, it turns out it not GOD.