Spin//Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Da_Eggman
- Start date
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.
Huh?
Realistically? Probably not. You really don't know what I do for a living. But i'll leave you to guess.
I don't see what that has to do with their stance on religion or theology.
You working at a gas station or wall street doesn't mean your views on a particular topic are inherently valid or reasonable.
You're arguing fallaciously from authority.
It does if you pay attention to legal history. Scopes trial, dover trial, etc.
I.D. doesn't hold up under any degree because its an attempt to obfuscate clear influence of creationism.
If you want I.D. to be so reputable, why don't you explain it to us. How it works and why its a valid explanation of biological phenomena.
Its nothing more than a magic idea that seeks to challenge an uncomfortable biological claim that existentially shakes up the christian world view.
Too bad.
I wish you all had more stock in challenging the theory of gravity than you do with facing the identity crisis of your own mortality and existence.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
It seems we agree on more than I thought.
Props sir.
i.e. You can't explain it or don't have an answer therefore: "God"
GREAT question.
You see, there was a lot of the bible that was canonized and parts that were not.
Basically, what you read is stuff that the "powers that be" at the time streamlined the bible into. Most notably, the King James Version.
There are gospels out there in the Apocrypha that address some of this, most notably the Gospel of Thomas.
Long story short, Jesus was a HUGE dikk as a kid.
Dude would go around torturing his neighbors and using his magic powers to fukk with people he didn't like.
In one part of the gospel, jesus even has his ears wrung by Joseph for acting up and was forced to take back all the little slick shyt he did.
Don't believe me? Look it up:
5 Real Deleted Bible Scenes In Which Jesus Kicks Some Ass | Cracked.com
the link might be fukked up. replace *** with the "a-word"
Don't say I didn't add to this thread.
Don't worry though. Tons of theists will act like since its not in the bible that it doesn't matter...but they won't ask why catholics have one less book in their bible or what their version of the bible says...VERSION.
Broke Wave
The GOAT
i.e. You can't explain it or don't have an answer therefore: "God"
GREAT question.
You see, there was a lot of the bible that was canonized and parts that were not.
Basically, what you read is stuff that the "powers that be" at the time streamlined the bible into. Most notably, the King James Version.
There are gospels out there in the Apocrypha that address some of this, most notably the Gospel of Thomas.
Long story short, Jesus was a HUGE dikk as a kid.
Dude would go around torturing his neighbors and using his magic powers to fukk with people he didn't like.
In one part of the gospel, jesus even has his ears wrung by Joseph for acting up and was forced to take back all the little slick shyt he did.
Don't believe me? Look it up:
5 Real Deleted Bible Scenes In Which Jesus Kicks Some Ass | Cracked.com
the link might be fukked up. replace *** with the "a-word"
Don't say I didn't add to this thread.
Don't worry though. Tons of theists will act like since its not in the bible that it doesn't matter...but they won't ask why catholics have one less book in their bible or what their version of the bible says...VERSION.
Why are you linking Theism and Christianity? Christianity is one type of Theism (Polytheism)... are you trying to invalidate a belief in god by disproving the Bible?
Broke Wave
The GOAT
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?
he asked a specific question about a specific character in a specific religion.
i replied accordingly.
Plus, its not hard to debunk both theism and a specific religion.
Broke Wave
The GOAT
Broke Wave
The GOAT
You mad?
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?
lol, so you're just a clown??Huh?
Realistically? Probably not. You really don't know what I do for a living. But i'll leave you to guess.
I don't see what that has to do with their stance on religion or theology.
You working at a gas station or wall street doesn't mean your views on a particular topic are inherently valid or reasonable.
You're arguing fallaciously from authority.
It does if you pay attention to legal history. Scopes trial, dover trial, etc.
I.D. doesn't hold up under any degree because its an attempt to obfuscate clear influence of creationism.
If you want I.D. to be so reputable, why don't you explain it to us. How it works and why its a valid explanation of biological phenomena.
Its nothing more than a magic idea that seeks to challenge an uncomfortable biological claim that existentially shakes up the christian world view.
Too bad.
I wish you all had more stock in challenging the theory of gravity than you do with facing the identity crisis of your own mortality and existence.
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."
And now in your view religious people unanimously are saying 'fukk no', to the theory of gravity.
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.