C0ntr013r

Joined 10 years ago

• 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

  10 years ago

  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. 

  10 years ago
• 

  C0ntr013r 10 years ago

  I am not sure if babies can "know", if they can't. they would not be considered Agnostics either.

  I think they might but I am not sure.

  Link
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  10 years ago

  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. 

  10 years ago
• 

  C0ntr013r 10 years ago

  By the way, you can conclude something doesn't exist based on lack of evidence usingmodus tollens.

  Thank you, interesting!

  Am I understanding correctly that the premises have to be true for it to be logical reasoning? And considered usingmodus tollens?

  Link
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  10 years ago

  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. 

  10 years ago
• 

  C0ntr013r 10 years ago

  lacking belief in them even before you heard of it

  Like not being able to comprehend the idea? Like a baby?

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

  
  

  Link +1 / -0
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  10 years ago

  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. 

  10 years ago
• 

  C0ntr013r 10 years ago

  ...

  Link
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  10 years ago

  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. 

  10 years ago
• 

  C0ntr013r 10 years ago

  And as babies aren't born with a ready-made belief in god, they're not theists/deists.
  I guess that just leaves atheism!

  No, I still affirm that to lack belief in something you need to know what that something is..

  Link
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  10 years ago

  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. 

  10 years ago
• 

  C0ntr013r 10 years ago

  Agnosticism means you are thinking about what you know. Babies don't do that. All they know is that the big thing has bags of food they like to suck on.

  No, it means that you don't know/are not certain. If 100% is certainty than 0% "I don't know". Since baby's don't know, they are Agnostic.

  Link
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  10 years ago

  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. 

  10 years ago
• 

  C0ntr013r 10 years ago

  Getting people to understand basic logic, science and critical thinking takes a lot of pages.

  Cocky aren't we?

  Link
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  10 years ago

  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. 

  10 years ago
• 

  C0ntr013r 10 years ago

  It was 1948 predicted mathematically in 1948, actually, so there was evidence for BEFORE it was detectable. You're also assuming that, when I said "undectable" I mean "with out current tools". I did not. I simply said "undetectable". If there is no way to detect God, ever, in any sense, then it can in no conceivable way interact with the universe.

  Not relevant since I said discovered, not calculated.

  OLD: "then you've also defined them as being something that cannot interact with nature and are therefore pointless in every conceivable context because they cannot possibly affect our world in any way."

  Agreed, but my point is that there could be things that can interact with nature without being testable (at least not yet). Therefore it could "interact with the universe."

  
  

  I just showed you a way science dealt with fairies. What else are you after?

  How science deals with God, fairies are not the real issue are they?

  
  

  I never said you should. Why do ask questions about things I never wrote?

  I know, but I was correct was i not?:

  meaning lacking belief in them even before you heard of it, babies are similarly atheists.

  
  

  I am simply pointing out that, in much the same way you are a-magical unicorn in my dog's butt, meaning lacking belief in them even before you heard of it, babies are similarly atheists.

  No, where did you get that idea from? I specifically said:

  
  

  No i did not have neither

  
  

  Link
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  10 years ago

  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. 

  10 years ago
• 

  C0ntr013r 10 years ago

  Before you were aware of the magical unicorns made of meteorite teapots living in my dog's butt, did you have or lack a belief in them?

  No i did not have neither, as said before; I don't think I can believe that unless I am first made aware of the idea.

  Why do you think I should?

  Link
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  10 years ago

  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. 

  10 years ago
• 

  C0ntr013r 10 years ago

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies#Initial_examinations

  Interesting, I retract my statement. Science does deal with fairies if evidence for their existence appear. (falsifiable evidence in form of a photo)

  
  

  then you've also defined them as being something that cannot interact with nature and are therefore pointless in every conceivable context because they cannot possibly affect our world in any way.

  Not necessarily correct, there might still be ways to interact with nature that we do not know of, it is not even hard to conceive of since it was only in 1965 that we discovered background radiation. And there are probably newer ways of measuring and places to do that measuring that has been discovered more recently, and i reason that there are still more to come.

  I can't parse that sentence. Care to take another swing at it? The opposite of what? Does "except" mean accept or expect?

  Yupp, I definitely need to sleep soon

  It would not be the case that we except evidence from them, if they are the opposite we would expect evidence from them. So we would conclude that they probably don't exist to a high level of certainty.
  

  
  

  Ok, Ill re ask the question:

  I don't think scientific studies deal with God nor fairies.

  I sense you think there are other ways science deals with them, if so how? (apologize if I am putting word in your mouth)
  

  Link