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 might be wrong but; how can they have disbelief in something they don't know about?
Would that not constitute obliviousness?
Did you lack belief in magical unicorns made of meteorite teapots that my dog poops out every morning until I just told you about them?
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.
Agreed, If you read the context we are arguing, you will see that it is about absolute certainty. That is my understanding at least.
And it can not be proven with absolute certainty
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.
"There is a fly in the room." You see no fly hence Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
That example falls short. Not seeing a fly is not the same as not seeing an elephant. What size is the room? Is there something big enough to hide an elephant or fly? What methods were used to look?
There are some exceptions, to be sure, but in your examples it is 100% reasonable to find the evidence if one is willing to look. Also, we know what flies and elephants are, their properties, etc., and how to detect them. In the case of god, anytime someone has been able to loosely define what we are looking for, then absence of evidence absolutely is evidence of absence.
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.
You can't prove the non existence of fairies, if that is what you are asking.
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 suggested that "something" within science can be a hypotheses without evidence.
A hypothesis can be based on evidence, a lucky guess, throwing a dart at board, etc.. They key that makes it a hypothesis is explanatory capability with falsifiability.
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.
Not at all. That is why it is called a "mathematical proof". Example: When Einstein suggested special relativity in 1905 it was a revelation. The paper gained acceptance based upon the mathematics alone HOWEVER Einstein still had to wait for 1919 until Arthur Eddington verified it with the eclipse experiment. With no proof special relativity would have been discarded over time.
You're confusing mathematical proofs with "evidence for something".
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.
"Wrong there is obvious proof. There are mathematical models that may suggest a multiverse. Therefore it is worth investigation. HOWEVER the only way any of these models would be accepted would be through experiment. Until then none will be accepted"
That's not proof, that's suggestive information that we should go look for evidence. Proof only exists in math, but not everything math suggests is proof.
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.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
It absolutely can be where there should be evidence.
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 was busy watching the RC commission, kids had camp this week, etc. Been busy :)
Look at the chart, are you not Atheist and Agnostic?
I am a functional atheist in general and specifically a strong atheist with any particular deity that anyone has attempted to define.
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. 'agrumentum ad ignorantum' is used everyday as a part of scientific discovery.
2. One does not consider a possible cause for which there is no evidence as a valid contributing factor.
