Posts by Viviane

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

Remember belief deals with different degrees of certainty, weal/strong belief etc.

I fail to see the relevancy. So what? Connect the dots.

Would you say you lack belief in that I have a dog if I told you I do?

Why would your lack of belief in something affect my observation of the fact that dogs exist? Connect the dots...

Do they need to know what my proposition was to not lack belief in it?

Not at all. Your lack of belief in dogs has nothing to do with me. I lack knowledge (gnosis) or your belief (pisteuo or pistis) status on dogs. You're attempting to conflate two things into the same thing and they aren't no amount of conflation attempts will change that.

Hence you need know what the proposition is to attribute a degree of belief to it.

Ah, I see the problem. You're ALSO conflating my knowledge of your status of belief with yours. I KNOW (not believe) that babies do NOT believe in god. Whether or not babies know any of this is irrelevant.

Read this slowly....you can't believe in something until you know about it, but you can absolutely lack belief in something whether or not you've ever heard of it. Whether or not I know anything about what you know or believe is irrelevant regarding that.

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

Wrong.

Oh, I doubt that based on evidence, the past, your previously flawed arguments and logic, etc., but hey, maybe this time you nailed it. Let's see!

Did you know there is a blue star called: "Alcyone"? (if you do, insert something else you don't know, how many teeth a Tyrannosaurus have etc.)

Yes, I do, so...we'll go with teeth in a t-rex. I don't know how many teeth they have (although I am fairly certain I could made a pretty close guess using math and Fermi estimations). But, before we proceed, I know about t-rexs, I know they have teeth, that they existed, etc.. I have evidence for all of these things, How many teeth they have is a known unknown, meaning it's something I know that I don't know but that I can find out and make a value judgement on the answer to determine whether or not it falls within a range that makes sense.

For instance, I know that if someone said the average t-rex had a billion teeth at any given time, that number is obviously out of a range that makes sense. If the answer is one, that answer is obviously too low.

The point of this is that now knowing how many teeth a t-rex has or should have at any given time is not at all the same thing as not knowing that something even exists. They are two different types of unknowns. One is a known unknown, something I know that I don't know. The other is an unknown unknown, something I don't know that I don't know. So, lets see if you're going to conflate the two....I swear I've not read ahead, this is a guess on my part that you will.

Now, how can you not know this, if you have not thought about it? (have to be something you have not thought about until now as well, of course)

And there is it. There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. It is 100% possible to not know a thing and not know that you don't know.

Then your definition is redundant, Theist are mostly Atheists except the conscious part of there brains. There feet are atheists, arms, legs etc...

Dude, that doesn't even make sense. No one was suggesting that body parts have belief. That's not in context, doesn't make sense is and isn't something that's even been suggested. It has nothing to do with the fact that babies, lacking belief in god, are atheists.

Seriously, I don't think you've ever learned how to construct a logically valid argument using critical thinking with supporting facts and evidence.

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

Funny play with words. Facts are relevant in contexts and in this one, that fact where not.
Oh, and by the way. Blue is a color....

The context is a discussion of how science works. Why do you imagine that blue being a color is relevant or that using mathematical model to predict what we should be looking for isn't relevant?

No, even if it is testable and discoverable. We can not know if humans will ever be able to test or discover it. Which was the point I argued, not this straw man you built. I get the feeling you are purposefully "misunderstanding" me...

No, we can't, but how does that matter? Your argument is predicated on something being unable to be tested and discovered. That is in no way any equivalent to "hasn't been tested and discovered". You seem to be trying to equate the two when they aren't the same at all.

And again you play with words and build straw men... You know my point is that the discussion in this thread is about God, notfairies

How, in this discussion, are fairies any different than god?

You proved me correct in the very next sentence... If you don't understand that, I don't think explaining it to you will make any difference.

Or, in reality, that you don't know what "prove" and "correct" mean. Or how to construct a logically and consistent argument with supporting facts and evidence. Or both of those things.

I said "did" as in past tense, not don't. Please don't misquote me.

I didn't misquote you. Unless you are telling me now you believe in magical unicorns living in my dogs butt, you still don't believe in them and what I wrote is true.

That sentence does not even make any sense.

Those lacking sufficient cock are not expected to get it.

26

Was this the garden of Eden/Noah's flood?

by little_Socrates in

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208151609.htm.

jeffrey rose, an archaeologist and researcher with the university of birmingham in the u.k., says that the area in and around this "persian gulf oasis" may have been host to humans for over 100,000 years before it was swallowed up by the indian ocean around 8,000 years ago.

rose's hypothesis introduces a "new and substantial cast of characters" to the human history of the near east, and suggests that humans may have established permanent settlements in the region thousands of years before current migration models suppose.. .

Viviane

But it does suggest the bible may be a lot more historically accurate than many want to admit.

No, it doesn't. It shows, at best, that cultural stories, legends and myths can share a common origin based on an actual event, something that was already known.

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

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.

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

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?

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

Not relevant since I said discovered, not calculated.

Facts are relevant, whether you like it or not. The fact is, there was strong reason to believe the CMBR existed prior to it's discovery. You not know knowing or mentioning that is irrelevant to whether or not it matters.

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."

So then it IS testable and discoverable. You've managed to render your own argument moot. Congratulations.

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

Why wouldn't they be? Why would god be any different?

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

So far, not very much and no on the specific issue.

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

From your own words, specifically, "I did not have..." If you don't have something, you are lacking it. Thanks for proving my point. Babies are atheists.

Cocky aren't we?

I've enough cock for both of us.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.