Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol 449 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  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.
• 

  freemindfade

  Viv is good at word games though lol

  She is the Rowdy Ronda Rousey of debating

  Hot and dangerous lmao

  well i assume she is hot, I am a viv is hot agnostic.
• 

  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?
• 

  Viviane

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

  No, you did not. You said, and I quote, "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.)". I don't know how many teeth a t-rex has, so I picked it, as per your instruction. You never said, as a condition of the picking, that it's something I should never have thought about. In fact, had you made that request, the conversation would have gone very differently. Why is that? Glad I asked!

  If you ask me to pick something to talk about I've no knowledge of and have never heard of, that's a logical impossibility. Why? Because I've never heard of it! I know even know it exists, so how can I possibly pick it? How would it be possible for me to pick something I have no concept of, don't know anything about, whether or not it exists, etc?

  The reason for that is that you are asking about a specific item but are forgetting there is knowledge of a class of items. If, say, for instance, I don't know about a specific star, I am aware of stars, galaxies, particles, how stars in general work, their lifecycle, etc.. The same for dogs, dinosaurs, etc. I have at least general knowledge of these things. 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.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Labeling oneself religious is unscientific.

  There this thread can come to a close now .
  
• 

  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?
  
  
• 

  Viviane

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

  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.

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

  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.
• 

  _Morpheus

  I am very proud of myself 😎
• 

  freemindfade

  _Morpheus !!!!!!!

  The debate vortex strengthens lol
• 

  Viviane

  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.

  Connect the dots. Why? They went looking to measure something based on having a reason to believe it existed. How in the world is that irrelevant? You have to show why it is irrelevant in order to make that claim. Your say so isn't good enough.

  No, not out of context.

  And you've failed to show why mathematical models in science it out of context. You've all your work ahead of you.