Viviane

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 4,484 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Viviane

• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  65

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

  by MagicMItchJensen in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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!".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  And Ill just ignore everything Ive ever studied.

  A wise step indeed...
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.