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 suggested that "something" within science can be a hypotheses without evidence.
A hypothesis can be based on evidence, a lucky guess, throwing a dart at board, etc.. They key that makes it a hypothesis is explanatory capability with falsifiability.
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 at all. That is why it is called a "mathematical proof". Example: When Einstein suggested special relativity in 1905 it was a revelation. The paper gained acceptance based upon the mathematics alone HOWEVER Einstein still had to wait for 1919 until Arthur Eddington verified it with the eclipse experiment. With no proof special relativity would have been discarded over time.
You're confusing mathematical proofs with "evidence for something".
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.
"Wrong there is obvious proof. There are mathematical models that may suggest a multiverse. Therefore it is worth investigation. HOWEVER the only way any of these models would be accepted would be through experiment. Until then none will be accepted"
That's not proof, that's suggestive information that we should go look for evidence. Proof only exists in math, but not everything math suggests is proof.
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.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
It absolutely can be where there should be evidence.
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 was busy watching the RC commission, kids had camp this week, etc. Been busy :)
Look at the chart, are you not Atheist and Agnostic?
I am a functional atheist in general and specifically a strong atheist with any particular deity that anyone has attempted to define.
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. 'agrumentum ad ignorantum' is used everyday as a part of scientific discovery.
2. One does not consider a possible cause for which there is no evidence as a valid contributing factor.
i'm just listening to this so called doctors testimony.
where did the watchtower dig her up from.
her answers have mostly been maybe's and i think!.
When asked if she had ever given negative feedback about or to the JW Org, her answer was "I've not been hired to do that".
Geeeezzzzz....
i'm just listening to this so called doctors testimony.
where did the watchtower dig her up from.
her answers have mostly been maybe's and i think!.
I got the impression she was competent at her job. I think the lawyer and judge rattled her a bit. I also think she should of been more thorough in her report and should of done more preparation.
I disagree. It was obvious she was not a forward thinker (had no published peer reviewed docs), was teaching using materials developed by others, had not personally done risk assesements (she said a team at her previous job did those). etc. She basically does training and is a paid for "expert witness". In this instance, she was not an expert and fell apart under questioning.
i'm just listening to this so called doctors testimony.
where did the watchtower dig her up from.
her answers have mostly been maybe's and i think!.
how much do you want to bet that the organization has already started preparing articles for the watchtower magazines, convention talks, circuit overseers talks and letters to bodies of elders, to refute what is happening in australia?
.
right now the most important thing for the wt to do is protect their image that they are gods visible organization.especially in the u.s. and latin american countries.
