Viviane

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 4,484 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Viviane

• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
• 

  Viviane

  Form this it seems reasonable to conclude that neonates are without belief in god/gods and are therefore atheists.

  The problem, Uni, is that (s)he is equating lack of belief with disbelief.
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
• 

  Viviane

  I think this is where you and I differ, I would argue no, since I think you have to know about something to believe ordisbelieving in it.

  I never said disbelieve, I specifically and purposely wrote "lack of belief". Re-read it again as written and let's discuss.

  You would probably argue that not knowing about is is a from of disbelief?
  I disagree.

  You're disagreeing with a proposition that is your own invention, I never said nor suggested such a thing.
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
• 

  Viviane

  I argue that belief in fairies is not something science does at all, so yes. This is not something science deals with.

  That's not what I said. I said science doesn't deal in binary certainties. Science has in fact dealt with fairies.

  And in the context of God, fairies and all other things that where mentioned, a lack of evidence would not prove that they don't exist.

  And you're wrong. If there should be evidence, then it should be able to deal with it. The problem is that no one has been able to define god in such a way that any evidence can possibly be found. Every definition either shows no evidence where there should be some OR defines god in such a way that there is no possibility of finding evidence, thus rendering their definition pointless in any conceivable context.

  I don't think science deal with God nor fairies, am i wrong?

  Yes.
• 
  8

  SCIENCE!! World is getting better! New Ebola Vaccine proven to be 100% effective

  by ILoveTTATT2 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  amazing world we live in... this makes the "last days" doctrine look bad...https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27990-ebola-vaccine-success-race-is-now-on-to-protect-those-at-risk/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Wow... three posts later there's an antivaxxer? Put on your tinfoil hats people!!

  Idiots are everywhere....
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
• 

  Viviane

  LUHE, obliviousness to the magical unicorns made of meteoritic teapots that live in my dog's butt, obviously.
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
• 

  Viviane

  It is not my example and it is simple to help laymen understand the logical fallacy and it's exceptions. It can bedissected [sic] like this but it is used to convey a point and assist in understanding.

  Then let's hope we come up with a better example.
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
• 

  Viviane

  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?
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
• 

  Viviane

  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 know that's what we were discussing. My point is that to even have the conversation in a frame of reference of absolute certainty is wrong on it's face, that's not even something science does.
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
• 

  Viviane

  "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.
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
• 

  Viviane

  You can't prove the non existence of fairies, if that is what you are asking.

  Science is not binary, proved or not, 1 or 0. It is probabalistic, meaning things are confirmed to degree of probability. It is absolutely correct to say you can disprove to a degree of high probability and satisfaction by defining what fairies are, how we could detect them, that evidence there should be, etc..