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

You can be meaner? Yet you take every opportunity to insult me...

In fact, I've never insulted you. You appear to have personal feelings tied to your argument, thus, when your argument is shown to be poor and damaged, that affects your emotions. That's not me insulting you in any way nor being the least bit mean to you.

Since you are unable to defend this point, I conclude that babies are not Atheists. Because that is what the argumentwas about.

On the contrary, your question was logically invalid, thus any conclusion based on it is necessarily wrong. I mean, you agreed that your question was logically unsound. What in the world makes you think that because it's unsound you can draw conclusions on it.

It shows that you indeed can know whether or not you know something without having thought about it.

This is just more proof that you are using the opposite of logic, arguments and words in any way that makes sense.

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 which is it? Are plants Atheists or may they not lack a belief in God?

Dude, you are off the rails on this. I've no idea what point you are trying to make or how you are trying to connect them. Certainly, attempting to force a logically exclusive operator into a question to me regarding something I've never claimed had to be one or the other regarding classes of items that have abilities that render the entire question the mental equivalent utterly pointless act of punching yourself in the balls and asking me why I am hurting your.

In other words, you're attempting to conflate a class of item, plants and dogs, that do not and never can have the ability to have a belief in god (and therefore by necessity must lack it) with a class of items that don't have it at a given time, specifically babies, but will, in most cases, develop that ability.

In short, your question is dumb.

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

That is just a nice way of excusing deliberately misunderstanding my arguments...

I can be meaner about pointing out where you are conflating words, improperly using logic and failing to construct a valid argument, if you're into that sort of thing.

I'm in no way misunderstanding them, they're just.. bad arguments. Incorrect use of words. Crappy logic. Your problem, not mine.

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

Yes you can't pic it.

Alright then, so your question made no sense and was logically invalid. Case closed.

Can you conceive of a thing youdon't [sic] know?

Of course. How many teeth the average t-rex had at any given stage of it's life. We've already covered this.

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.