Arian Foster Let It Be Known That He Is A Non-Believer

[mister friendly]

I don't know the answers.....but God did do it or God didn't do it are both agenda driven

Believers say God exists...atheists believe God doesn't exist

Neither side as all facts. They are a belief

If someone is truly being non agenda driven...they would say I cannot prove God exists but I also cannot prove God doesn't exist

 

[15 or less]

I haven't read through the thread. Has the topic of where God comes from been debated?

The belief is that we must have had a creator that made this universe, so does that mean someone created God?

Then who created that God or god?

 

[15 or less]

I don't know the answers.....but God did do it or God didn't do it are both agenda driven

Believers say God exists...atheists believe God doesn't exist

Neither side as all facts. They are a belief

If someone is truly being non agenda driven...they would say I cannot prove God exists but I also cannot prove God doesn't exist

Pretty much. In all honesty I think there are more people who are truly agnostic than atheistic, whereas in they believe that there is something on a plane of existence higher then there are own but there isn't an actual relationship to be had with it. The relationship aspect is the focal point in religion and spiritual belief systems, not simply believing in God or a god.

 

[Master Zik]

I don't know the answers.....but God did do it or God didn't do it are both agenda driven

Believers say God exists...atheists believe God doesn't exist

Neither side as all facts. They are a belief

If someone is truly being non agenda driven...they would say I cannot prove God exists but I also cannot prove God doesn't exist

You're very confused about belief and lack of a belief.

Nobody talks about having all of the facts when one claims they don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. People are not in some state of consciously not actively believing in those fictional things.

It is not agenda driven to say I cannot prove unicorns exist.

I don't know the answers.....but God did do it or God didn't do it are both agenda driven

Believers say God exists...atheists believe God doesn't exist

Neither side as all facts. They are a belief

If someone is truly being non agenda driven...they would say I cannot prove God exists but I also cannot prove God doesn't exist

Pretty much. In all honesty I think there are more people who are truly agnostic than atheistic, whereas in they believe that there is something on a plane of existence higher then there are own but there isn't an actual relationship to be had with it. The relationship aspect is the focal point in religion and spiritual belief systems, not simply believing in God or a god.

It's a shame so many ppl do not know what atheism is or agnosticism or theism or gnosticism.

They end up saying stuff like what you just said. Being agnostic and being an atheist are not two mutually exclusive things. It's not either/or. Most atheists are agnostic atheists.

Atheism is about belief or lack thereof.

(A)Gnosticism is about knowing or not knowing.

If you guys just want to make up definitions for words that already have ones though and speak off that go ahead.

 

[sea manup]

I don't know the answers.....but God did do it or God didn't do it are both agenda driven

Believers say God exists...atheists believe God doesn't exist

Neither side as all facts. They are a belief

If someone is truly being non agenda driven...they would say I cannot prove God exists but I also cannot prove God doesn't exist  I am looking for the correct answer, I am going to test for the answer and keep an open mind while letting the results point me towards the right answer

fixed

 

[mister friendly]

The belief that life started spontaneously or something started from nothing is the atheists Easter Bunny/ Unicorn and Santa Claus.

You cant proof it

Is it really that hard to see?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

The definition from the dictionary

"a person who believes that God does not exist"

 

[sea manup]

The belief that life started spontaneously or something started from nothing is the atheists Easter Bunny/ Unicorn and Santa Claus.
 

do you know why people think this?

the answer is not "because they dont want god to have done it" 

 

[Master Zik]

The belief that life started spontaneously or something started from nothing is the atheists Easter Bunny/ Unicorn and Santa Claus.

You cant proof it

Is it really that hard to see?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

The definition from the dictionary

"a person who believes that God does not exist"

You're assuming here that all atheists adhere to science instead of religion.

This assumption is grossly misstated to try and make a point. You needing to go look up the definition of atheism kinda shows you're missing the point.

An atheist is just an atheist. They don't have to have a stance on how life started. There's nothing wrong with saying I don't know unlike the religious take.

That many atheists do subscribe to a scientific view on how life started is simply an appeal to logic. Not a stance all atheists hold in unison. Atheists only lack belief in one thing. They don't have a list of things they all do believe in. That's for religious ppl. You want atheists to be this one thing very similar to religious believers but they're not.

Also the idea that something came from nothing is a religious concept. GOD existence isn't explained. Not something atheists champion.

 

[triple homicide]

The problem with believers is that they are making factual claims but have no evidence to back up their claims. They say God did all of this **** but cannot explain what God is, what its made of, how it came into existence, etc.

 

[darthska]

The answer to an unknown cannot be a thing that hasn't been proven to exist.

The search is for definitive answers, something that will never be reached by transfusing unproven end-games into the process.

 

[15 or less]

Pard

You're very confused about belief and lack of a belief.

Nobody talks about having all of the facts when one claims they don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. People are not in some state of consciously not actively believing in those fictional things.

It is not agenda driven to say I cannot prove unicorns exist.
It's a shame so many ppl do not know what atheism is or agnosticism or theism or gnosticism.

They end up saying stuff like what you just said. Being agnostic and being an atheist are not two mutually exclusive things. It's not either/or. Most atheists are agnostic atheists.

Atheism is about belief or lack thereof.

(A)Gnosticism is about knowing or not knowing.

If you guys just want to make up definitions for words that already have ones though and speak off that go ahead.

Pardon my ignorance, the term I should've use was deists. My statement still stands though.

 

[mister friendly]

If an atheist wants to just say" I don't know how life was started"...Ok that's their answer

But the answer....'I don't know...... but God didn't do it" is not an acceptable answer, there's no proof either way

 

[darthska]

[quote name="DarthSka"]"I don't know. Let's find out."

"I don't know. Let's find out how god did it."[/quote][quote name="Mister Friendly"]If an atheist wants to just say" I don't know how life was started"...Ok that's their answer[/quote][quote name="DarthSka"][A]s I pointed out before, you are speaking on something you've heard about, not experienced. Stick to talking about Christianity.[/quote][quote name="DarthSka"]The answer to an unknown cannot be a thing that hasn't been proven to exist.

The search is for definitive answers, something that will never be reached by transfusing unproven end-games into the process.[/quote]

 

[mister friendly]

The definitive answer to an unknown cannot be a no answer or I don't know but God didn't do it.

 

[darthska]

Straight up, you lack the smart, and have a surplus of stubborn, southern ignorance. I don't care if you're not even from the south.

And I'm not disrespecting all Xtians. I'm strictly just talking about you. If you were an atheist, you'd be a stubborn atheist who lacked the smart. Has nothing to do with your affiliation, and everything to do with... you.

All you're doing is flipping things around without even trying to understand that searching for an unknown answer is not the same as trying to disprove a negative.[quote name="Mister Friendly"]The definitive answer to an unknown cannot be a no answer or I don't know but God (an unproven existence) didn't do it (couldn't have done it, because we haven't proved it exists yet, so let's focus on that before we entertain it as a serious possibility to the original problem we're researching).[/quote]'No answer' would be 'Search is over. No answer, folks. Oh well.' That's a far cry from what is happening.

The second part you botched, I fixed. Not to your liking, but to the rational, Xtian or not.

 

[Master Zik]

If an atheist wants to just say" I don't know how life was started"...Ok that's their answer

But the answer....'I don't know...... but God didn't do it" is not an acceptable answer, there's no proof either way

I thought I already explained this?

If an atheist doesn't believe in GOD by definition - since you know you made sure to post the online definition - then GOD is not an option.

Saying GOD didn't do it isn't them asserting they know GOD didn't do it. They just don't believe in GOD or have any reason to. Therefore, GOD is not an option.

Why is that not an acceptable answer? Is it an acceptable answer if I said a Spaghetti monster didn't do it? or aliens? or a pet rock?

Where are you getting this acceptable answer garbage from anyway?

Also saying "there's no proof either way" is complete and utter bull ****. That's not how proving things work. It is a shame that these discussions, arguments, debates always have to come down to the fundamentals. Proof is the burden that lies on those making the claim. The claim is NOT and does not involve proving negatives.

It's not GOD exists because you can't prove GOD doesn't exist. It's I don't believe in GOD because there is no proof that GOD exists.

Please stop the circular arguments in this regard. You're not saying anything when you trot out statements like that. Saying stuff like there's no proof either way is missing the point and shows the lack of understanding on logical arguments let alone atheism.

 

[mister friendly]

Straight up, you lack the smart, and have a surplus of stubborn, southern ignorance. I don't care if you're not even from the south.

And I'm not disrespecting all Xtians. I'm strictly just talking about you. If you were an atheist, you'd be a stubborn atheist who lacked the smart. Has nothing to do with your affiliation, and everything to do with... you.

All you're doing is flipping things around without even trying to understand that searching for an unknown answer is not the same as trying to disprove a negative.[quote name="Mister Friendly"]The definitive answer to an unknown cannot be a no answer or I don't know but God (an unproven existence) didn't do it (couldn't have done it, because we haven't proved it exists yet, so let's focus on that before we entertain it as a serious possibility to the original problem we're researching).

'No answer' would be 'Search is over. No answer, folks. Oh well.' That's a far cry from what is happening.

The second part you botched, I fixed. Not to your liking, but to the rational, Xtian or not.[/quote]

Good old ad hominem

Saying " I don't know" is the unknown answer

Saying" I dont know but God didnt do it" is an answer, it may not be definitive answer but it is answer

 

[darthska]

"I don't know. Let's keep looking" = "I don't know, but an unproven existence couldn't have done it."

And you have no idea of the concept of ad hominem. I'm sure you'll respond with words that partially define the concept, but feigned intelligence =/= intelligence.

 

[mister friendly]

If an atheist wants to just say" I don't know how life was started"...Ok that's their answer

But the answer....'I don't know...... but God didn't do it" is not an acceptable answer, there's no proof either way

I thought I already explained this?

If an atheist doesn't believe in GOD by definition - since you know you made sure to post the online definition - then GOD is not an option.

Saying GOD didn't do it isn't them asserting they know GOD didn't do it. They just don't believe in GOD or have any reason to. Therefore, GOD is not an option.

Why is that not an acceptable answer? Is it an acceptable answer if I said a Spaghetti monster didn't do it? or aliens? or a pet rock?

Where are you getting this acceptable answer garbage from anyway?

Also saying "there's no proof either way" is complete and utter bull ****. That's not how proving things work. It is a shame that these discussions, arguments, debates always have to come down to the fundamentals. Proof is the burden that lies on those making the claim. The claim is NOT and does not involve proving negatives.

It's not GOD exists because you can't prove GOD doesn't exist. It's I don't believe in GOD because there is no proof that GOD exists.

Please stop the circular arguments in this regard. You're not saying anything when you trot out statements like that. Saying stuff like there's no proof either way is missing the point and shows the lack of understanding on logical arguments let alone atheism.

Again I don't have more of the burden of proof than you have a burden of proof

Millions of people believe in God. Over the majority of the world believes in God.

Thats not scientific proof but the believe in God isn't scientific anyways

Saying there's no proof either way is the truth of the situation.

I dont know why thats hard for you to understand

 

[deleted]

Again I don't have more of the burden of proof than you have a burden of proof

Millions of people believe in God. Over the majority of the world believes in God.

The believe in God isn't scientific

Saying there's no proof either way is the truth of the situation.

I dont know why thats hard for you to understand

You've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't understand the concept of burden of proof.

I'm not trying to insult you either, but it's just the truth.

 

[deleted]

Not sure if posted, but this is relevant now more than ever in this thread

 

[mister friendly]

I understand the concept, not responding to my points by responsing to me as a person

you lack the smart, and have a surplus of stubborn, southern ignorance

Not my argument lacks smart, me as a person lacks smart.

 

[deleted]

Your points are fallacious...there's ZERO progress to be made from entertaining them.

Please watch the video I posted. Nearly all of your points are addressed.

 

[Master Zik]

Again I don't have more of the burden of proof than you have a burden of proof

Yes you do.

If you're making the claim that GOD exists and should be considered as a cause for how life was created then the first thing you have to do is prove that GOD exists. That is the burden of proof.

I have no burden of proof because I am not making a claim.

Lacking belief is not making a claim.

Millions of people believe in God. Over the majority of the world believes in God.

The quantity of something in regards to belief has absolutely no bearing AT ALL on the burden of proof.

A lot of ppl believe in a lot of things. Once they make the claim that something does exist though it is up to them to prove that. It is not up to the skeptical, naysayers, undecided, and unsure to prove that something doesn't exist.

This is logic 101.

Thats not scientific proof but the believe in God isn't scientific anyways

The burden of proof has nothing to do with science or religion for that matter.

You could switch out the variables and what is required for the burden of proof would remain the same.

Saying there's no proof either way is the truth of the situation.

This truth you speak of is not objective and so it can't be the actual truth. Saying there's no proof either ways shows you do not understand what it means to make a claim or what the burden of proof means on a fundamental level.

Until you get with that it'll be clear as day why you can not argue you're stance properly. You're not using any sort of logic or common sense. You're changing things for your benefit because your stance leaves you in an unfavorable illogical position.

I dont know why thats hard for you to understand

I understand that you don't know understand what the burden of proof is and that you're trying to change what that is so "there's no proof either way" can put the opposing sides on equal ground. I also understand that it's clear you don't want to stop your circular arguing to actually get anywhere. You just want to create a false narrative where burden of prove applies to claims and those who don't make any.

Perhaps if you go look up what the burden of proof is online and post it for everybody to see you'll better understand why you have such flawed reasoning?

You're troll game is atrocious

I understand the concept, not responding to my points by responsing to me as a person

you lack the smart, and have a surplus of stubborn, southern ignorance

Not my argument lacks smart, me as a person lacks smart.

Your argument definitely lacks all of it as well.

That's what multiple ppl have been telling you.

If I said to explain what the burden of proof meant right now I'd guarantee you would not be able to or would give a fallacious definition that nobody recognizes.

Sorry but that's just the way it is.

 

[mister friendly]

That argument could work if they are making no claim. But by definition the atheist is making the claim..."God doesn't exist"

The believer when he says God does exist, its never said of be scientific or even says its meets the burden of proof. So asking a believer to do this is pointless. The belief in him relies on faith.

God is beyond our understanding, beyond our logic

Saying "you cant prove God does exist therefore he doesn't exist" is just much of a flawed argument as "you cant prove God doesn't exist therefore he exists"

Believer/ atheist points are arguing the unknown