Spin//Do you believe in God?

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

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

yeah, it can't be because the god of the bible needs 6 days to do something.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

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.

Why are you so fukking dense?

AGNOSTICISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM.

NOTHING.

IT DOESN'T ANSWER THE SAME QUESTION TO ANY DEGREE.

WHAT YOU BELIEVE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU KNOW.

And yes, epistemology is what we're going to have to get into because you CLEARLY didn't pay attention in that class either.

 

[Ohnoits]

No

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

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.

Yo.

I'm convinced you're trolling.

I DO NOT SPEAK ON shyt I DONT KNOW.

PERIOD.

You claim to know theres a god. I'm asking you where your case is.

If you can't back shyt up, just do what every other respectable human being does and say: "I don't know" like the rest of us.

I don't claim to know anything. YOU DO.

Thats the problem here.

 

[Blackking]

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

I can say that CONFIDENTLY.

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

So if someone is smart .. has a high IQ.. is creating advance technology that the entire world can use- some idiot who feels the need to type gibberish in all bold letters is automatically smarter than him because of his view on religion? That viewpoint is simply idiotic.. and you have no credibility if you believe that. You really sound like a clown... and you don't even realize why the view is dumb.

Advances made by theist didn't have anything to do with their theology for most.. it did for some. Either way... since when has atheism become a platform for stupid people to prove their intelligence solely because of their non belief in deities?? That's just some ignorant sh1t.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

So if someone is smart .. has a high IQ.. is creating advance technology that the entire world can use- some idiot who feels the need to type gibberish in all bold letters is automatically smarter than him because of his view on religion? That viewpoint is simply idiotic.. and you have no credibility if you believe that. You really sound like a clown... and you don't even realize why the view is dumb.

i don't see whats dumb about holding you to that same standard.

If you're religious, no matter what you've done in life, I look down on you to SOME degree.

Its like...damn dude...really? I thought you were better than that.

Thanks for the nuclear fusion technology though.

Advances made by theist didn't have anything to do with their theology for most.. it did for some. Either way... since when has atheism become a platform for stupid people to prove their intelligence solely because of their non belief in deities?? That's just some ignorant sh1t.

Yeah...thats not even true and I dare you to name on instance where their faith actually made an advancement.

I'll wait.

Go ahead and google it cause I know you said that shyt hoping to kill the argument as if I wouldn't pay attention to that.

 

[Blackking]

i don't see whats dumb about holding you to that same standard.

If you're religious, no matter what you've done in life, I look down on you to SOME degree.

Its like...damn dude...really? I thought you were better than that.

Thanks for the nuclear fusion technology though.



Yeah...thats not even true and I dare you to name on instance where their faith actually made an advancement.

I'll wait.

Go ahead and google it cause I know you said that shyt hoping to kill the argument as if I wouldn't pay attention to that.

I don't have to google it... you should do some research. NTM, there are millions of STEM students right now who are believers who will advance our future.. I guess you need to travel around these universities and tell those Hindu's Muslims, Buddhist and Christians that they are all fukking idiots and you look down on them. Mean while we are communicating right now and enjoying most of the sh1t in our homes because of ..... atheist?? I think not.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I don't have to google it... you should do some research. NTM, there are millions of STEM students right now who are believers who will advance our future.. I guess you need to travel around these universities and tell those Hindu's Muslims, Buddhist and Christians that they are all fukking idiots and you look down on them. Mean while we are communicating right now and enjoying most of the sh1t in our homes because of ..... atheist?? I think not.

making unfalsifiable claims about religion doesn't make them any more true.

Plus, I didn't say they were idiots but they DO get knocked down a few ranks for supporting superstition.

But hey do you. You just like to move the goal posts instead of addressing what it is people actually align themselves with.

 

[PortCityProphet]

Wrong thread.
But to answer the question nope

 

[NoMayo15]

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.

Atheism literally is without a belief in god. Agnosticism isn't a neutral position, it's answering a different question entirely. You simply do not know what you're talking about.

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.

Sure, but it's said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So saying "I don't know how else it could have happened, therefore god" doesn't fly. And who cares if abiogenesis isn't 100 proven? That doesn't mean god is automatically the most reasonable answer for the existence of life.

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.

I didn't say it was perfect, I'm talking about burden of proof here. But you're too fukking slow to understand the analogy, so it's going over your head.

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.

The defense is only attempting to refute the evidence presented against them. They don't automatically have the burden to prove innocence. You clearly don't understand the fundamental principles of the court system so it's pointless trying to explain this any further.

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.

Bullshyt. We do this every day for every claim we hear, and different claims have different standards of evidence. The Gervais quote presents this perfectly: If someone told you they can fly (without a plane), and they say you can't prove they can't fly, are you just gonna automatically believe their original claim??? Of course not. If I said I'm eating a doritos right now, you might accept that as true because it's not as farfetched of a claim. If I say disprove I'm eating doritos, since you have no way of examining me, you have no way to do so. Does that automatically mean my claim is true or false? No. If I want to prove that I'm infact doing this, then I need to present evidence to prove my claim.

You all are making a case about a non existence of deities.

No, we're not. We're just simply pointing out how theists haven't made a sufficient enough case for the existence of said 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.

Well, again, it's not logical to believe in things that there is little or no evidence for. But that doesn't mean we claim to know 100% that these things don't exist. We just say these things haven't been proven true, so there's no reason for anyone to believe them.

Unless ur agnostic, this is what ur doing.

Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. Both Napoleon and I are both Atheists AND Agnostics.

Theist don't have to prove god exist

Well, they do if they think non-theists should believe them, and not think they are making illogical assumptions about the universe/reality, or the supernatural.

smh.

smh at your arguments, indeed.

If there's a debate about it then both sides need to prove it for reasons I explained above.

You can't prove the non-existence of something.

If everyone was Theist.... would theist still need to prove god existence?

If everyone agreed with a wrong claim, they're still wrong. What difference does this make? You seem to not care whether or not your beliefs are wrong.

Atheist in the weakest ways possible try to avoid these points, because they wish to not get into the debate

You aren't even making a relevant point.

Or they want to avoid having to prove something doesn't exist - that they can't prove doesn't exist.

It's because this isn't how we come to knowledge. You don't assume something no one's ever seen, heard, smelt, felt exists and try to disprove it. It's like trying to disprove leprechauns, or unicorns. No one's ever seen them, why waste time trying to disprove they exist?? No, it would make more sense for the unicorn believer to present evidence for the horned horse.

but not know how to read a dictionary and not understand how words are formed.

There may be smarter theists in the world than me, but you certainly aren't one of them.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Atheism literally is without a belief in god. Agnosticism isn't a neutral position, it's answering a different question entirely. You simply do not know what you're talking about.



Sure, but it's said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So saying "I don't know how else it could have happened, therefore god" doesn't fly. And who cares if abiogenesis isn't 100 proven? That doesn't mean god is automatically the most reasonable answer for the existence of life.



I didn't say it was perfect, I'm talking about burden of proof here. But you're too fukking slow to understand the analogy, so it's going over your head.



The defense is only attempting to refute the evidence presented against them. They don't automatically have the burden to prove innocence. You clearly don't understand the fundamental principles of the court system so it's pointless trying to explain this any further.



Bullshyt. We do this every day for every claim we hear, and different claims have different standards of evidence. The Gervais quote presents this perfectly: If someone told you they can fly (without a plane), and they say you can't prove they can't fly, are you just gonna automatically believe their original claim??? Of course not. If I said I'm eating a doritos right now, you might accept that as true because it's not as farfetched of a claim. If I say disprove I'm eating doritos, since you have no way of examining me, you have no way to do so. Does that automatically mean my claim is true or false? No. If I want to prove that I'm infact doing this, then I need to present evidence to prove my claim.



No, we're not. We're just simply pointing out how theists haven't made a sufficient enough case for the existence of said deities.



Well, again, it's not logical to believe in things that there is little or no evidence for. But that doesn't mean we claim to know 100% that these things don't exist. We just say these things haven't been proven true, so there's no reason for anyone to believe them.



Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. Both Napoleon and I are both Atheists AND Agnostics.



Well, they do if they think non-theists should believe them, and not think they are making illogical assumptions about the universe/reality, or the supernatural.



smh at your arguments, indeed.



You can't prove the non-existence of something.



If everyone agreed with a wrong claim, they're still wrong. What difference does this make? You seem to not care whether or not your beliefs are wrong.



You aren't even making a relevant point.



It's because this isn't how we come to knowledge. You don't assume something no one's ever seen, heard, smelt, felt exists and try to disprove it. It's like trying to disprove leprechauns, or unicorns. No one's ever seen them, why waste time trying to disprove they exist?? No, it would make more sense for the unicorn believer to present evidence for the horned horse.



There may be smarter theists in the world than me, but you certainly aren't one of them.

I see you homie.

 

[Blackking]

Atheism literally is without a belief in god. Agnosticism isn't a neutral position, it's answering a different question entirely. You simply do not know what you're talking about.

Agnosticism.. isn't neutral but it's relevant to the convo because it's the position of not knowing... it's not like atheist.. (though you all deny it... and get upset cuz I said it) means the rejection of belief in the existence of deities... I'm not making this up... you can't say I don't know what I'm speaking about because nothing I said was my opinion, I was just stating facts.

Sure, but it's said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So saying "I don't know how else it could have happened, therefore god" doesn't fly. And who cares if abiogenesis isn't 100 proven? That doesn't mean god is automatically the most reasonable answer for the existence of life.

No one made that claim. Or really anything that you're claiming people are saying... pulling at random straws does nothing for you.

I didn't say it was perfect, I'm talking about burden of proof here. But you're too fukking slow to understand the analogy, so it's going over your head.

The analogy didn't go over my head. I explained why theological arguments aren't synonymous and analogous with debates about law and criminality. Only immature people believe that if someone doesn't agree with them that the point has went over the other persons head. smh

The defense is only attempting to refute the evidence presented against them. They don't automatically have the burden to prove innocence. You clearly don't understand the fundamental principles of the court system so it's pointless trying to explain this any further.

I didn't say that they automatically had the burden. The defense almost always presents a case however. Search anything about court cases and you will find that the legal burden of proof changes with the situations. I don't believe that you actually have any knowledge of how the court works. literally anyone whose watched any court case knows about a shifting burden of proof.

Bullshyt. We do this every day for every claim we hear, and different claims have different standards of evidence. The Gervais quote presents this perfectly: If someone told you they can fly (without a plane), and they say you can't prove they can't fly, are you just gonna automatically believe their original claim??? Of course not. If I said I'm eating a doritos right now, you might accept that as true because it's not as farfetched of a claim. If I say disprove I'm eating doritos, since you have no way of examining me, you have no way to do so. Does that automatically mean my claim is true or false? No. If I want to prove that I'm infact doing this, then I need to present evidence to prove my claim.

What you don't seem to understand is that if a person says that I'm not flying... they know this because they see that I am not flying... Theological claims are more complicated than this example; but basically I would try to prove I can fly before someone else First makes an opposing claim- "you can't fly without a plane". In this simplistic example, the evidential standard is agreed upon and is clearly obvious, which in turn makes the burden of proof on the person saying he can fly. in The theological arguments(especially god debates) this isn't as obvious and simplistic... and the evidential standard is so much not agree upon that the standard itself becomes a debate. Meaning... the literal proof of 'is an apple is red or not' is... if the sh1t is red. What is the agreed upon proof of God- that would validate any point that you shameless struggle to make??? Is it that a scientist at UCLA's scientific research center should be able to use scientific method to prove it?? I hope you realize how you sound.

No, we're not. We're just simply pointing out how theists haven't made a sufficient enough case for the existence of said deities.

Atheist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Well, again, it's not logical to believe in things that there is little or no evidence for. But that doesn't mean we claim to know 100% that these things don't exist. We just say these things haven't been proven true, so there's no reason for anyone to believe them.

You say those things haven't been proven. Ok, I agree they haven't been proven to you. I also agree that you can't claim to know 100%. Finally a middle ground, lol

Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. Both Napoleon and I are both Atheists AND Agnostics.

I already know this, but congratulations.

Well, they do if they think non-theists should believe them, and not think they are making illogical assumptions about the universe/reality, or the supernatural.

They only have to when someone is stating that God doesn't exist.. or that there is not spirituality whatsoever in the universe.. in that case they might attempt to make a case. Other than that, they don't Have to.

You can't prove the non-existence of something.

I agree. I wish that you could... that would make this conversation faster and more productive.

If everyone agreed with a wrong claim, they're still wrong. What difference does this make? You seem to not care whether or not your beliefs are wrong.

I know the purpose of spirituality. Of course beliefs are subjective in certain ways.

It's because this isn't how we come to knowledge. You don't assume something no one's ever seen, heard, smelt, felt exists and try to disprove it. It's like trying to disprove leprechauns, or unicorns. No one's ever seen them, why waste time trying to disprove they exist?? No, it would make more sense for the unicorn believer to present evidence for the horned horse.

There may be smarter theists in the world than me, but you certainly aren't one of them

Unicorns aren't present on Earth. We can continue to make that claim and prove it because- if they were on Earth they would have been observed by now or we would have found their fossils or something. We know that humans with heads larger than Koala Bears didn't exist in prehistoric times as well -- for the same reasons. Some people claim that there is evidence of intelligent design, we can chose to hear those points or not.
Either way... like I stated TRUTH IS atheism literally means not believing in deities. 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 smarter than others Solely based on the strength of their non belief..... Yet they don't realize how idiotic and ridiculous they look with that assumption. They are all scientists yet they don't know how to read a dictionary and don't understand how words are formed. On top of all that, they use immature disses and assumptions because they hate that someone isn't agreeing with weak arguments and the atheist agnostic pov- or whatever frivolous term you like to call it.

 

[Versa]

Of course.

 

[NoMayo15]

Agnosticism.. isn't neutral but it's relevant to the convo because it's the position of not knowing... it's not like atheist.. (though you all deny it... and get upset cuz I said it) means the rejection of belief in the existence of deities... I'm not making this up... you can't say I don't know what I'm speaking about because nothing I said was my opinion, I was just stating facts.

That's fine, I'm okay with that definition of atheism. But rejecting god claims isn't the same as claiming to know 100% that no gods exist.

No one made that claim. Or really anything that you're claiming people are saying... pulling at random straws does nothing for you.

Righttttt... I'm just pulling that out of my ass, as if its not an argument commonly made by theists. As if someone didn't say this minutes after you posted:

man.... look.....do i believe in God?yeah...i guess i do

how else can you have the sun....moon and stars and shyt like that?

It's an understandable sentiment, but a fallacious one. But, back to your own fallacies, attempting to discredit scientific hypotheses does not strengthen the argument for a god. Even if evolution or abiogenesis or the big bang are disproven, that doesn't mean god exists.

The analogy didn't go over my head. I explained why theological arguments aren't synonymous and analogous with debates about law and criminality. Only immature people believe that if someone doesn't agree with them that the point has went over the other persons head. smh

I didn't say that they automatically had the burden. The defense almost always presents a case however. Search anything about court cases and you will find that the legal burden of proof changes with the situations. I don't believe that you actually have any knowledge of how the court works. literally anyone whose watched any court case knows about a shifting burden of proof.

If it didn't go over your head, then you'd understand the point isn't about a reasonable application of law. It's about whom, when making a claim, has the burden of proof to confirm that claim. You explained nothing.

What you don't seem to understand is that if a person says that I'm not flying... they know this because they see that I am not flying... Theological claims are more complicated than this example; but basically I would try to prove I can fly before someone else First makes an opposing claim- "you can't fly without a plane". In this simplistic example, the evidential standard is agreed upon and is clearly obvious, which in turn makes the burden of proof on the person saying he can fly. in The theological arguments(especially god debates) this isn't as obvious and simplistic... and the evidential standard is so much not agree upon that the standard itself becomes a debate.

Of course the standard is up for debate when you have people saying "well you and I exist, therefore God did it". If theists standards for evidence wasn't so low, well ... they probably wouldn't be theists.

What is the agreed upon proof of God- that would validate any point that you shameless struggle to make??? Is it that a scientist at UCLA's scientific research center should be able to use scientific method to prove it?? I hope you realize how you sound.

As a matter of fact, yes. Science is the single-most reliable method we have to determine what's true and what's false about our universe. If using that is so absurd in your opinion, then what other method can we use to objectively find truth about this god?

Atheism definition

Again, REJECTING a claim isn't the same as PROVING the claim is FALSE.

You say those things haven't been proven. Ok, I agree they haven't been proven to you. I also agree that you can't claim to know 100%. Finally a middle ground, lol

Right... to me. And to the rest of the world that appeals to the scientific method for reality. Now you seem to imply it has been proven to you. In what way? What convinced you? Do you think that would convince others?

They only have to when someone is stating that God doesn't exist.. or that there is not spirituality whatsoever in the universe.. in that case they might attempt to make a case. Other than that, they don't Have to.

Sure, they don't have to. So what is spirituality, and how do you know it exists in the universe?

I agree. I wish that you could... that would make this conversation faster and more productive.

Yes, and you'd give up these foolish superstitions once and for all. But alas, this is not how knowledge works. For some reason, you don't seem to understand this. The default position isn't to believe in an unproven thing until it's disproven. The default is only believing in proven things. Disbelieving in things that haven't been proven to be true. If you do the former, rather than the latter, you are liable to succumb to all types of non-existent things. You call it faith, we call it credulity or GULLIBILITY.

I know the purpose of spirituality. Of course beliefs are subjective in certain ways.

Uh... okay? But on the matter of a god existing, either it does or it doesn't. It's not a matter of opinion. Now, what's the best way to determine if something is or isn't fact?

Unicorns aren't present on Earth. We can continue to make that claim and prove it because- if they were on Earth they would have been observed by now or we would have found their fossils or something. We know that humans with heads larger than Koala Bears didn't exist in prehistoric times as well -- for the same reasons.

Ahh... You say those things have been disproven, but the proof for unicorns just hasn't been presented to you. Evidence for large heads hasn't been presented to you. There are plenty of people who know the truth that the Earth is actually flat land, and not a sphere as you've been told.

See how that works? Saying some truth has been revealed to certain people doesn't just make it so. And you haven't disproved unicorns. Perhaps they live on some remote island that no human inhibit, and aren't yet discovered. This doesn't make the belief reasonable, but again neither is theism.

Some people claim that there is evidence of intelligent design, we can chose to hear those points or not. Either way... like I stated TRUTH IS atheism literally means not believing in deities.

Yes, we've heard this arguments, and they all fail. They're littered with logical fallacies and are wholly unscientific.

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 smarter than others Solely based on the strength of their non belief..... Yet they don't realize how idiotic and ridiculous they look with that assumption. They are all scientists yet they don't know how to read a dictionary and don't understand how words are formed.

You keep posting this as if it makes any lick of sense. I think this is the third time now. Atheist arguments are countering theist arguments, yes. So?

On top of all that, they use immature disses and assumptions because they hate that someone isn't agreeing with weak arguments and the atheist agnostic pov- or whatever frivolous term you like to call it.

It's not about hating dissent, it's about finding a pathway to truth, but theists would rather cling to their beliefs despite them being the antithesis of truth. Sorry if I offend you by saying you aren't smart, but you've done nothing but confirmed that sentiment.

 

[Blackout]

:belip:

what scientific reasoning backs up an all powerful being who created the universe in 6 days, and then had to rest

What words or phrases led you to think that I believe in a being that created the world in 6 days and then had to rest.

I said that I'm a nonreligious theist. Lrn2read