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

well i assume she is hot, I am a viv is hot agnostic.

I do alright for myself... :*

I am very proud of myself

I've always been very proud of you.

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

The context was that I gave an example of a way of measuring that had not previously been used in that way and area. If mathematics had suggested that before was and is irrelevant in the context.

Connect the dots. Why? They went looking to measure something based on having a reason to believe it existed. How in the world is that irrelevant? You have to show why it is irrelevant in order to make that claim. Your say so isn't good enough.

No, not out of context.

And you've failed to show why mathematical models in science it out of context. You've all your work ahead of you.

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

Why? She is wrong. She is resorting to word games to avoid the issues.

Of course that's ridiculous. I am simply not allowing to you conflate terms or incorrectly use words or logic. Don't blame me for your lack of ability to construct an argument.

So you are saying that they may not lack a belief in God?

Oh, apparently I did talk about plants. No, I did not nor am I saying that. However, me having replied to a comment about plants doesn't mean.. "She agreed that plants where atheists just like babies.:" That I did not do, at all, in any way. It is not word games to point out that your claim is untrue and can be (and is) dismissed as pure fiction.

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 told you to pick something you don't know and have not thought about...

No, you did not. You said, and I quote, "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.)". I don't know how many teeth a t-rex has, so I picked it, as per your instruction. You never said, as a condition of the picking, that it's something I should never have thought about. In fact, had you made that request, the conversation would have gone very differently. Why is that? Glad I asked!

If you ask me to pick something to talk about I've no knowledge of and have never heard of, that's a logical impossibility. Why? Because I've never heard of it! I know even know it exists, so how can I possibly pick it? How would it be possible for me to pick something I have no concept of, don't know anything about, whether or not it exists, etc?

The reason for that is that you are asking about a specific item but are forgetting there is knowledge of a class of items. If, say, for instance, I don't know about a specific star, I am aware of stars, galaxies, particles, how stars in general work, their lifecycle, etc.. The same for dogs, dinosaurs, etc. I have at least general knowledge of these things. You are asking me pick something in a class that by definition is completely outside of my realm of all knowledge or concept of any type. By definition I cannot pick something in that class of items.

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

So, how do you differentiate between the plants lack of belief in God and the body parts lack of belief in God?

I don't. I've no idea what you are talking about, the context, why it's been brought up or why you think it's relevant. I'm not going down that rathole until you connect the question to the conversation.

She agreed that plants where atheists just like babies.

I don't recall agreeing with that at all. I'll need proof.

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.