{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/1/2015 12:05:03 AM
43
-
Intelligent design could be plausible. It's all about your faith, though.
-
No, that's not a part of Christian belief, and you're just running the God of the Gaps idea
-
Not according to the bible...
-
Evolve - God, [i]how I screwed with the creationists[/i]
-
As long as you accept that evolution took place thats fin with me, dont care if you believe god caused it.
-
*drum noises*
-
Then prove it! :D
-
Prove it wrong.
-
Not my damn job. He has the burden of proof as overused a term that is.
-
Don't act like you have evidence to its non-existence.
-
When did I claim to?
-
When you said to prove its existence?
-
Asking someone to prove something does not imply that the asker has evidence to the contrary. [b]I have no evidence that God does not exist.[/b] I am instead taking the default position of "I don't know." The fact that there is nothing for or against the existence of a deity makes it [b]pure speculation.[/b]
-
Yes, because telling someone to prove the existence of a god is totally taking a neutral standpoint.
-
Yes rejecting an idea when their is no reason to accept it neutral
-
There is also no reason [i]not[/i] to accept it. The existence of a deity is pure opinion. A neutral standing would be, "prove the existence or non-existence of a god." What he said was biased to atheism.
-
The reason to not accept it is because there is no evidence.
-
The reason to accept it is because there is no evidence against it. Again, there is no right or wrong answer to the existence of a god.
-
That's a logical fallacy. If there is no right or wrong, then it is neutral to not accept it. By doing that you are not saying it is wrong, nor are you saying it is right.
-
[quote]That's a logical fallacy. If there is no right or wrong, [u][b]then it is neutral to not accept it.[/b][/u] By doing that you are not saying it is wrong, nor are you saying it is right.[/quote] I've read this six times, and I still don't see how you came to this conclusion that the neutral standpoint is to take an atheistic side. The original argument was to prove the existence, which is impossible. However it's also impossible to prove the non-existence of a god. So the neutral zone would be to acknowledge both, but accept neither simply because [i]one cannot know the truth.[/i]
-
Which is the atheistic viewpoint. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God, not the belief that one doesn't exist. Being an Atheist doesn't mean you know god doesn't exist. You don't except either side because there isn't any proof. However, the side that cannot demonstrate that God doesn't exist really doesn't matter because God is an irrefutable hypothesis. It cant be proven wrong. So, in order to judge its credibility the side making the positive claim must meet its burden of proof. Not accepting the claim until that happens is the neutral position.
-
No, you're describing agnosticism. Atheism is the denial of the existence of god or gods.
-
[quote] Atheism is the denial of the existence of god or gods.[/quote] That is not the assertion God doesn't exist. The denial of the belief that God exist =\= belief that god doesn't exist.
-
What are you even trying to argue now? de·ni·al dəˈnīəl/ noun the action of declaring something to be untrue. Does atheism not deny the existence of a god/gods?
-
You got me on the definition. An atheist is not someone who denies the existence of God. a·the·ist ˈāTHēəst/ noun a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. "he is a committed atheist" synonyms:nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever,skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas,agnostic; nihilist "why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?" Agnostic is a synonym of atheist. Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
