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.
Do you also think that dogs are atheists, fetuses and corpses? What about plants?
If they lack a belief in god, then yes.
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.
They are atheists. Atheism deals with what you believe. (a)Gnosticism deals with what you can know.
IMO you need to be able to know, to not know. So no.
Your opinion is wrong. Atheism deals with belief.
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.
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.
It exactly means that. You can't know whether or not you know something unless you've thought about it. Babies can't do that and they lack a belief in god(s), therefore they are atheists. Try again.
No, I still affirm that to lack belief in something you need to know what that something is..
You've already admitted you lacked belief in magical unicorns made of meteorite teapots living in my dog's butt before you knew they existed, so you've already confirmed yourself wrong. Do you need to know what a merkin is to lack one? Do you need to know what a digeridoo is to lack one? In what sense is it required to know what something is to lack it?
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 relevant since I said discovered, not calculated.
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."
How science deals with God, fairies are not the real issue are they?
I know, but I was correct was i not?:
No, where did you get that idea from? I specifically said:
Cocky aren't we?
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.
perhaps babies are born agnostic atheists?
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.
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.
Told ya! Now that viv is here we are in full swing. 18 pages and counting
Getting people to understand basic logic, science and critical thinking takes a lot of pages.
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 necessarily correct, there might still be ways to interact with nature that we do not know of, it is not even hard to conceive since it was only in 1965 that we discovered background radiation
I sense you think there are other ways science deals with them, if so how? (apologize if I am putting word in your mouth)
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?
I never said you should. Why do ask questions about things I never wrote? 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.
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!".
And Ill just ignore everything Ive ever studied.
A wise step indeed...
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 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?
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.
Really? I did not know that. When?
No, it depends on your definition of fairies, if they are shy creature that can turn invisible or in other ways are un-testable.
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.
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
Any example of a study made on God/fairies?
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.
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.
