Spin//Do you believe in God?

[Chris.B]

Do you know what polytheism is, you dumb black ape? If you can google the meaning for me, then google the core beliefs of mainstream Christianity, how is that not polytheism?

There is only one God in Christian doctrine.

You seem to be confused as to what trinity is

 

[NoMayo15]

Do you know what polytheism is, you dumb black ape? If you can google the meaning for me, then google the core beliefs of mainstream Christianity, how is that not polytheism?

Wow, please tell me you're trolling.

 

[Chris.B]

Most people refuse to believe in God because the Bible goes against their lifestyle and "ruins" their fun.

There is nothing fun about that hellfire

 

[Broke Wave]

There is only one God in Christian doctrine.

You seem to be confused as to what trinity is

Wow, please tell me you're trolling.

Sorry both of you fellas, explain to me what the Trinity really is, and explain to me the difference between that and traditional polytheistic religions? Don't churches say that the nature of god is a mystery? Wasn't the idea of a trinity first formulated at the first council of Nicea?

 

[Blackking]

FALSE.

Atheism = Lack of belief. Not an assertion of NON-belief.

Big difference.

I am not asserting whether there is, or there is not.

I could be convinced, but I am not taking a side in the matter. This is the HONEST thing to do.

HOWEVER

As of yet,

The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. If you fail to support the claim, it doesn't mean you're wrong.

It just means you have NOT supported your claim.

There could be a god, but if you don't show there is...you just haven't shown that there is.

period.

You simply can't make things into what you want them to be. Stop writing so large, that's just foolish.
Atheism - Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Blackking]

...what exactly do you think the A in atheism means? What about being without a belief means you are asserting the inverse? Atheism is simply a response to theistic claims, not a claim itself.

Well, what does the A mean when added to a word? ... we learn this in elementary school. Besides, atheism isn't simply a response to claims. Its an opposite view point. Webster, reality, and languages in general define it as "a disbelief in the existence of deity" . That is a viewpoint within itself. And agnosticism is the neutral position, btw.

But anyway, yes, believing something in which there is little to no evidence of it's validity, or when it contradicts current evidence is illogical.

Not everything is measured with the same type evidence.. Besides a case can be made that intelligent matter isn't created from random inanimate matter.

Actually, the analogy is a pretty good one. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the state, never on the defense because the prosecution is the party making a claim. The defense doesn't even have to open it's mouth to present an argument for innocence. If the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, then the jury must find them not guilty.

that argument is weak. in court, the burden of proof shifts constantly... get with reality. No defense lawyer enters a court room thinking that he simply has to wait for them to not prove guilt. Jury has found innocent people guilty.. the system isn't perfect and can't be applied to theological arguments.

The Defense doesn't Have to open it's mouth.. true.. but most defenses make a case. There are times when the defense has to prove innocence. Either way, I'm not on here using burden of proof fallacies to make a point. NTM, burden of proof is only valid in cases where an evidential standard is agreed upon, like in the court of law. You all are making a case about a non existence of deities. In these conversations atheist aren't just saying they don't believe, they are almost always saying that it's illogical to believe in anything supernatural or spiritual. Unless ur agnostic, this is what ur doing. You implicit viewpoint is based on many things.. like logic, science, and personal feelings... Your viewpoint isn't neutral.. you must also back it.

Likewise, theists make the claim that a god exists. Atheists don't have to prove no gods exist. All that's needed to be reasonably justified in not accepting theism is acknowledging that no one cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this claim is true. The only alternative to accepting a claim as true is not accepting it as true. THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS CLAIMING IT IS FALSE, rather you haven't been convinced that it's true. And if you don't accept the claim that a god exists is true, then you are an atheist.

theist do claim that a God exist... Atheist don't have to prove no gods exist.. but Theist don't have to prove god exist... at least not to people who "aren't claiming that god doesn't exist" . smh. If there's a debate about it then both sides need to prove it for reasons I explained above. If everyone was Theist.... would theist still need to prove god existence? Atheist in the weakest ways possible try to avoid these points, because they wish to not get into the debate. .. Or they want to avoid having to prove something doesn't exist - that they can't prove doesn't exist. Truth is atheism is literally not believing and atheist arguments -are arguments for the nonexistence of God. I haven't heard any atheist arguments that aren't arguments for the nonexistence of God. I've only heard weaker atheist claim to be world renowned scientist, but not know how to read a dictionary and not understand how words are formed.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You don't think its juvenile to think that you're on the-coli "debunking religion"? Even in a thread that asks about your religious beliefs, do you think that you're educating people on your point of view, or simply arguing for the sake of arguing with people who are set in their ways?

Not my problem.

They could always make better arguments.

Its not my job to make their case, for them.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

lol, so you're just a clown??

I thought you were serious with ignorant assumptions like "I look at anyone who says **** like that as someone who has probably failed intro biology."

Well...yeah.

Its not my problem the public education system failed so many of you to make statements about biology and physics that you can't understand.

Go back and try again.

Am I supposed to feel sorry that you missed the memo about where society actually is?

And now in your view religious people unanimously are saying 'fukk no', to the theory of gravity.

You might as well.

Talking about intelligent design (which has been long debunked, derided, and displaced) as if it carries some weight is ironic because of what it addresses.

Yet we know more about evolution and biology than we do the theory of gravity, so yes, you'd be better off invoking the christian version of gravity if you really wanted to make an argument there.

Fyi, writing in large letters =/= to a valid point. You're speaking irrelevant gibberish

Philosophical ideas aren't argued in legal court rooms for a reason.

Uh...what?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

There is only one God in Christian doctrine.

You seem to be confused as to what trinity is

You say this shyt so matter of factly, that you can't even identify the irony

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You simply can't make things into what you want them to be. Stop writing so large, that's just foolish.
Atheism - Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Atheism = deals with belief. (lack of belief)

Agnosticism = deals with knowledge. (lack of knowledge)

We can get into the epistemological pissing match if you want to.

You won't win.

 

[Blackking]

Well...yeah.

Its not my problem the public education system failed so many of you to make statements about biology and physics that you can't understand.

Go back and try again.

Am I supposed to feel sorry that you missed the memo about where society actually is?



You might as well.

Talking about intelligent design (which has been long debunked, derided, and displaced) as if it carries some weight is ironic because of what it addresses.

Yet we know more about evolution and biology than we do the theory of gravity, so yes, you'd be better off invoking the christian version of gravity if you really wanted to make an argument there.


[/B]



Uh...what?

Your supposed to feel sorry that your ignorance is blinding you to the fact that you're not smarter than people simply because you are a theist. That is an insecure bs viewpoint made by people who aren't intelligent enough to see the fallacy in that assumption.
So we're going to ignore the fact that some of the greatest scientific and technological advancements in history were made by theist. Actually most of them were.
And you can rant and diss Christianity all day if you want... but 1. you sound ignorant and foolish. 2. I'm not a Christian, but I'm quite sure you have their viewpoint all wrong.

Sociology views and morality are argued in courts... Theology isn't debated. There aren't debating the existence of God in US courts.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Well, what does the A mean when added to a word? ... we learn this in elementary school. Besides, atheism isn't simply a response to claims. Its an opposite view point. Webster, reality, and languages in general define it as "a disbelief in the existence of deity" . That is a viewpoint within itself. And agnosticism is the neutral position, btw.

Not everything is measured with the same type evidence.. Besides a case can be made that intelligent matter isn't created from random inanimate matter.

that argument is weak. in court, the burden of proof shifts constantly... get with reality. No defense lawyer enters a court room thinking that he simply has to wait for them to not prove guilt. Jury has found innocent people guilty.. the system isn't perfect and can't be applied to theological arguments.

The Defense doesn't Have to open it's mouth.. true.. but most defenses make a case. There are times when the defense has to prove innocence. Either way, I'm not on here using burden of proof fallacies to make a point. NTM, burden of proof is only valid in cases where an evidential standard is agreed upon, like in the court of law. You all are making a case about a non existence of deities. In these conversations atheist aren't just saying they don't believe, they are almost always saying that it's illogical to believe in anything supernatural or spiritual. Unless ur agnostic, this is what ur doing. You implicit viewpoint is based on many things.. like logic, science, and personal feelings... Your viewpoint isn't neutral.. you must also back it.


theist do claim that a God exist... Atheist don't have to prove no gods exist.. but Theist don't have to prove god exist... at least not to people who "aren't claiming that god doesn't exist" . smh. If there's a debate about it then both sides need to prove it for reasons I explained above. If everyone was Theist.... would theist still need to prove god existence? Atheist in the weakest ways possible try to avoid these points, because they wish to not get into the debate. .. Or they want to avoid having to prove something doesn't exist - that they can't prove doesn't exist. Truth is atheism is literally not believing and atheist arguments -are arguments for the nonexistence of God. I haven't heard any atheist arguments that aren't arguments for the nonexistence of God. I've only heard weaker atheist claim to be world renowned scientist, but not know how to read a dictionary and not understand how words are formed.

Yo.

You're a fukking idiot.

Yes you do.

I'm not claiming shyt.

YOU ARE.

I simply don't believe you.

Its YOUR DUTY to prove your claim.

I'm WILLING to admit if/when i'm wrong and subscribe to the notion you put forth.

I'm WILLING to learn.

But you aren't proving anything besides acting like your fukking feelings are hurt

I don't care about the emotional appeals. Give me the facts here.

I only care about whats true, real, or valid.

PERIOD.

Feelings be damned.

I can't prove a negative and I won't try to.

Otherwise, you could tell me why you hate Thor so much.

I am an agnostic-atheist: I DO NOT KNOW if there is a god, but based on all the evidence I have been presented, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE CLAIMS YET ASSERTED.

There COULD be a god, but as of yet there is no proof or reason to submit to that claim based on all the suggestions put forth.

if you want to make a case for a god, go ahead and do so...but its NOT my responsibility to make that argument for you. If you can't do it, then its your fault.

 

[Blackking]

Atheism = deals with belief. (lack of belief)

Agnosticism = deals with knowledge. (lack of knowledge)

We can get into the epistemological pissing match if you want to.

You won't win.

I don't want to be in any match with you that involves a penis. epistemological you don't know what your talking about... either way we don't need to discuss theories of knowledge when we have eye balls and brains that can clearly tell us that atheism is exactly what it says in the dictionary.

If you're weak to stand by that... and 'Say it with your chest' - THERE is NO GOD... then be fake and say ur an agnostic.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Your supposed to feel sorry that your ignorance is blinding you to the fact that you're not smarter than people simply because you are a theist. That is an insecure bs viewpoint made by people who aren't intelligent enough to see the fallacy in that assumption.
So we're going to ignore the fact that some of the greatest scientific and technological advancements in history were made by theist. Actually most of them were.
And you can rant and diss Christianity all day if you want... but 1. you sound ignorant and foolish. 2. I'm not a Christian, but I'm quite sure you have their viewpoint all wrong.

Sociology views and morality are argued in courts... Theology isn't debated. There aren't debating the existence of God in US courts.

I'm sorry. In 2013, i'm smarter than a theist.

I can say that CONFIDENTLY.

But yeah, i'm sure theres someone out there who knows more about a particular subject than me. Thats not how I make my living. i don't expect to be more skilled at a particular skill than anyone else in a particular topic.

IN THE ASPECT OF RELIGION THOUGH? I've got them beat.

Hands down.

Easily.

No contest.

And you're a damn fool if you really think you being religious in 2013 gives you ANY credibility.





BTW, advances made by theists were made in fields that had NOTHING to do with their theology. Dumb ass.

Then again, dues like Newton stopped advancing because he felt his views were taking him too close to challenging the church at the time.

See what that mental slavery does?

 

[Blackking]

Yo.

You're a fukking idiot.

Yes you do.

I'm not claiming shyt.

YOU ARE.

I simply don't believe you.

Its YOUR DUTY to prove your claim.

I'm WILLING to admit if/when i'm wrong and subscribe to the notion you put forth.

I'm WILLING to learn.

But you aren't proving anything besides acting like your fukking feelings are hurt

I don't care about the emotional appeals. Give me the facts here.

I only care about whats true, real, or valid.

PERIOD.

Feelings be damned.

I can't prove a negative and I won't try to.

Otherwise, you could tell me why you hate Thor so much.

I am an agnostic-atheist: I DO NOT KNOW if there is a god, but based on all the evidence I have been presented, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE CLAIMS YET ASSERTED.

There COULD be a god, but as of yet there is no proof or reason to submit to that claim based on all the suggestions put forth.

if you want to make a case for a god, go ahead and do so...but its NOT my responsibility to make that argument for you. If you can't do it, then its your fault.

Truth is --- atheism is literally not believing and atheist arguments -are arguments for the nonexistence of God. I haven't heard any atheist arguments that aren't arguments for the nonexistence of God. I've only heard weaker atheist claim to be world renowned scientist, but not know how to read a dictionary and not understand how words are formed. And I'm not the one using fallacious burden of proof arguments so no need for most of what you wasted time writing.