Posts by Viviane

65

Richard Dawkins espouses Militant Atheism: "Mock them, Ridicule them." Attack Religious People with Insults!

by MagicMItchJensen in

richard dawkins has said frequently if we don't agree with religious or spiritual people we need to "insult them!

" tell their their out of their "fucking gourds!

" and make sure you really show them how stupid they are for believing in something they can't prove!".

Viviane

And Ill just ignore everything Ive ever studied.

A wise step indeed...

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

Viviane

I would essentially say the same thing since I think the meaning is essentially the same.

They are not the same thing.

I think to have a lack of belief in something, you need to know of that thing.

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?

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

Viviane

Really? I did not know that. When?

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

No, it depends on your definition of fairies, if they are shy creature that can turn invisible or in other ways are un-testable.

We can detect invisible things, we do it all the time, so that is right out. If you're definition is that they are something untestable, 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.

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

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

They define God in that way so you cant disprove him. People want God and only the disprovable god will survive the test of time. It is just like evolution, it adapts. So we might call it an evolution of God

That definition is pointless, then, and is rejected on logic alone.

Any example of a study made on God/fairies?

I never said there was a study made on fairies. Please stick strictly to what I write and refrain from modifying what I write.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

jw
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/

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?