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

[deleted]

Fine.

Pretend we're all agnostic then.

How would you address the burden of proof in that scenario?

 

[trasoul82]

No one here can prove that Santa* doesn't exist. And if you claim he doesn't exist, the burden of proof on you. Why is that so hard to understand?



*or Bigfoot, Easter Bunny, loch ness monster, etc. Everything is real until proven otherwise.

 

[darthska]

[quote name="Mister Friendly"]The belief in him relies on faith.[/quote] And there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that, but that sort of ingredient belongs NOWHERE in a scientific discussion. Just sit it out if that's your contribution.

But that's where stubbornness comes in.

"I can join if I want."

everyone else: *sigh*

"How does this water get hard and cold when we put it in this super cold environment?"

"I think the speed of the molecules is what we should investigate."

"Interesting. You there, the one that said you can join if you want. Join in. What's your thinking?"

"I think god does it. "

"You don't think the speed of the molecules has anything to do with it?"

"Oh, it may. If it does, it's because god does that. "

"We're looking for evidence, though."

"You have no evidence that he doesn't do it.

"That doesn't mean that he does."

"Doesn't mean he didn't. "

again: *sigh*

Just keep your stubborn faith end-games out of quests for more knowledge and further understandings. In a journey for understanding what IS, "Could be. You can't prove it didn't" is counterproductive.[quote name="Mister Friendly"]God (The Unproven Existence) is beyond our understanding, beyond our logic [/quote] That's the thing: continued efforts to better understand is exactly the journey, so if The Unproven Existence is beyond our understanding, let's keep her out of the discussion and move onto that which we can understand but simply don't understand yet.

 

[mister friendly]

I couldn't prove it to the agnostic....Its a belief

Beliefs aren't necessarily subject to rigorous proof

At the same time, if you were a true agnostic, you'd ask the atheists to address the burden of proof too.

The views Believers or atheists aren't based on science

They are based on beliefs or opinions...Discussion of the unknowable

If somebody has any opinion about God, for or against they aren't being scientific because we don't know everything there is to know

If we revert to the I don't know/agnostic discussion...lets defer to the scientific discussion

 

[MambaMentality824]

And there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that, but that sort of ingredient belongs NOWHERE in a scientific discussion. Just sit it out if that's your contribution.

But that's where stubbornness comes in.

"I can join if I want."

everyone else: *sigh*

"How does this water get hard and cold when we put it in this super cold environment?"

"I think the speed of the molecules is what we should investigate."

"Interesting. You there, the one that said you can join if you want. Join in. What's your thinking?"

"I think god does it. "

"You don't think the speed of the molecules has anything to do with it?"

"Oh, it may. If it does, it's because god does that. "

"We're looking for evidence, though."

"You have no evidence that he doesn't do it.

"That doesn't mean that he does."

"Doesn't mean he didn't. "

again: *sigh*

Just keep your stubborn faith end-games out of quests for more knowledge and further understandings. In a journey for understanding what IS, "Could be. You can't prove it didn't" is counterproductive.
That's the thing: continued efforts to better understand is exactly the journey, so if The Unproven Existence is beyond our understanding, let's keep her out of the discussion and move onto that which we can understand but simply don't understand yet.

Yo man, take all my reps. So much damn truth here.

 

[godry]

No one here can prove that Santa* doesn't exist. And if you claim he doesn't exist, the burden of proof on you. Why is that so hard to understand?



*or Bigfoot, Easter Bunny, loch ness monster, etc. Everything is real until proven otherwise.

You must not believe anything in the universe then

 

[triple homicide]

 

[Master Zik]

That argument could work if they are making no claim.

No it can not.

But by definition the atheist is making the claim..."God doesn't exist"

Again you clearly seem to not be able to properly grasp the meaning of these definitions.

Not believing in something or lack of belief is not a claim.

If you can't understand that you'll continue to be stuck in this cycle of ignorance.

No one here can prove that Santa* doesn't exist. And if you claim he doesn't exist, the burden of proof on you. Why is that so hard to understand?



*or Bigfoot, Easter Bunny, loch ness monster, etc. Everything is real until proven otherwise.

Cuz you're arguing from the conclusion instead of the premise.

You don't start at the endpoint and try to argue your way to the beginning.

On it's face, if you met a person who never heard of Bigfoot they'd have no reason to believe in Bigfoot. After explaining what Bigfoot is to that person it would still be up to you to prove his existence. That person has no reason to believe or a reason to say either way if Bigfoot exists.

There seriously seems to be a fundamental miscomprehension with some of yall when it comes to arguing claims.

I'm lost on yall being unable to understand that. I gotta figure it's a clear agenda and bias on your end to try to make not making a claim the same as making a claim to have the burden of proof apply to both.

 

[deleted]

There's more evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot than there is to support the existence of god.

 

[mister friendly]

I clearly understand what is going on. Its claim that being an atheist, just means there's a lack of belief, so you don't have to support an answer or a claim. When the M-W definition of says atheist is a person who believes that God does not exist.

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

if you don't like that definition, take it up with them.

If you truly lack of belief...you gave the I don't know which is the agnostic answer.

If you don't have an answer, why you do object to my answer? When to you weren't strong enough to commit an answer?

Yeah in essence, you cannot prove or disprove God, Big Foot, Santa etc etc because we don't know everything about everything

90 percent of world, doesn't believe in Big Foot though

 

[Nawzlew]

I clearly understand what is going on. Its claim that being an atheist, just means there's a lack of belief, so you don't have to support an answer or a claim. When the M-W definition of says atheist is a person who believes that God does not exist.

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

if you don't like that definition, take it up with them.

MW is not the end all, be all

 

[Master Zik]

I clearly understand what is going on. Its claim that being an atheist, just means there's a lack of belief, so you don't have to support an answer or a claim. When the M-W definition of says atheist is a person who believes that God does not exist.

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

if you don't like that definition, take it up with them.

If you truly lack of belief...you gave the I don't know which is the agnostic answer.

If you don't have an answer, why you do object to my answer? When to you weren't strong enough to commit an answer?

Yeah in essence, you cannot prove or disprove God, Big Foot, Santa etc etc because we don't know everything about everything

90 percent of world, doesn't believe in Big Foot though

Believing something does not exist is not a claim.

I don't know how many times I can repeat that before you comprehend it.

You can try and word it whatever way you want and cite definitions you either don't understand or are twisting to fit your argument but you'll still circle back to be completely wrong in grasping what a claim is.

Beliefs are not claims. This is the fundamental flaw in all of your posts regarding this topic. Can't even make it to burden of proof because you do not know what a belief or claim is.

To be clear you've yet to demonstrate you understand what a claim is or belief or the burden of proof. You've just kept repeating yourself. Copy and pasting the definition of atheist is not proof you know what a claim is or that being atheist means you claim GOD does not exist.

 

[blastercombo]

Hmmmm.... I've never even thought of this fallacy. All the living is created to die. If we were made in Gods image than it would suggest that God is also designed to die. If God is living it would entail death is also part of its fundamental property

 

[mister friendly]

I clearly understand what is going on. Its claim that being an atheist, just means there's a lack of belief, so you don't have to support an answer or a claim. When the M-W definition of says atheist is a person who believes that God does not exist.

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

if you don't like that definition, take it up with them.

Believing something does not exist is not a claim.


Beliefs are not claims.

Wait I though a lack of belief isn't a belief?

So now atheism is a belief? Ok its a belief

You are the one, who said my belief that God exists was a claim

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.

So now that you admit to BELIEVING that something does not exist is not a claim?

Which is it?

Im using the M-W dictionary term..How am I twisting the word?

 

[Master Zik]

I clearly understand what is going on. Its claim that being an atheist, just means there's a lack of belief, so you don't have to support an answer or a claim. When the M-W definition of says atheist is a person who believes that God does not exist.

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

if you don't like that definition, take it up with them.

Believing something does not exist is not a claim.


Beliefs are not claims.

Wait I though a lack of belief isn't a belief?

What the hell have you been reading?

So now atheism is a belief?

How can you ask this question after posting the definition several times?

It is not a belief. What are you getting confused about?

Ok its a belief

No it is not.

Are you seriously lost or just trying to troll harder? Cuz nothing I've posted has been posted in a way to confuse.

You are the one, who said my belief that God exists was a claim

No. I've never said this.

You won't ever find a quote from me saying beliefs are claims.

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.

You have a comprehension problem if you don't understand the quote you just quoted again.

I said IF YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM. Not if you're belief is this then that.

How can you confuse that with belief? This is what I'm talking about. You for some reason think claims and beliefs are interchangeable.

This is a problem you'll need to fix by studying up on what these words mean.

So now that you admit to BELIEVING that something does not exist is not a claim?

I think you should repeat this question out loud to yourself cuz it doesn't make sense.

I never admitted anything. I never said believing something does not exist is a claim so I wouldn't need to admit it's not a claim.

Which is it?

Which is what?

Beliefs are not claims. I never said they were. That's what you've been saying.

I never said your belief was a claim. Did you just assume that and run with it?

Im using the M-W dictionary term..How am I twisting the word?

No.

You post the online definition and then proceed to ignore the words of the online definition and come up with your own interpretation.

Nowhere in the definition does it say beliefs are claims or that the words are interchangeable. Perhaps you should look up the definition of belief?

Seems to me from the get go you did not have your own understanding of some of these terms and words and have just been going off of what I said to learn them on the fly and generate replies without sitting down and fully grasping them.

I shouldn't need to tell you beliefs are not claims.

I shouldn't need to tell you what atheism means or that not believing in GOD is not a claim.

I shouldn't need to explain what the burden of proof is and why statements like it goes either way is directly opposed to what the burden of proof is.

I shouldn't need to spend time saying what a belief isn't so you won't confuse it with what a claim is.

 

[triple homicide]

 

[mister friendly]

Yes you said my belief was a claim

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.

I never introduced the word CLAIM into the discussion....Thats your word

My belief is that God exists

 

[boris]

This discussion has been going around and around.

 

[Master Zik]

Yes you said my belief was a claim

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.

My belief is that God exists

Where in that quote do I say you're belief is a claim?

I said if you're making the claim that GOD exists….. Not you're belief is a claim.

Do you not know what the word "if" means in that sentence?



Making a claim would be you saying something like "GOD does exist." A declarative statement.

You saying that quote is me saying your belief is a claim is proof you do not know what a claim is.

So yeah I can't help you hear if you're not willing to learn and just repeat false accusations that clearly show the opposite of what you're saying

I never introduced the word CLAIM into the discussion....Thats your word

Do you not know why I did that? Why I brought up the word claim?

It's not my word

Do you not know what the burden of proof is?

If you did you wouldn't need to be dealing with semantics like this. Just admit you have no idea what the burden of proof is man

This is pathetic.

The burden of proof deals with claims not beliefs. Claims and beliefs are not the same thing. How do you not know this? Why would you speak on things you don't know anything about?

This is not hard to follow.

Hopefully this clears up everything for you and you no longer are confused and need to ask these remedial questions and make silly statements about who introduced what words cuz you're not willing to say you don't know what something means










Until you can get on the right pg with the burden of proof and making claims and why they're not the same thing as beliefs it makes no sense for me to entertain you on this topic since you obviously do not know some of the stuff I'm talking about to form a coherent reply and keep up with anything else I mention.

I'm not going to walk you through logic with baby steps.

 

[mister friendly]

Ok lets be intellectually dishonest and pretend you never said or implied my belief that God exists was a claim


Cool, since beliefs aren't claims. Theres no burden of proof, so theres no need to mention it again and again

 

[Master Zik]

If you knew what the burden of proof was you wouldn't be trying to pull this intellectually nonsense crap.

I did not say or imply beliefs were claims. I brought up the burden of proof and said IF you make this claim the burden of proof is on you. You assumed something false and went crazy with it

Just watch the vid man. Learn something.

 

[trasoul82]

No one here can prove that Santa* doesn't exist. And if you claim he doesn't exist, the burden of proof on you. Why is that so hard to understand?




*or Bigfoot, Easter Bunny, loch ness monster, etc. Everything is real until proven otherwise.

You must not believe anything in the universe then

What's your point?

 

[trasoul82]

That argument could work if they are making no claim.

No it can not.

But by definition the atheist is making the claim..."God doesn't exist"

Again you clearly seem to not be able to properly grasp the meaning of these definitions.

Not believing in something or lack of belief is not a claim.

If you can't understand that you'll continue to be stuck in this cycle of ignorance.

No one here can prove that Santa* doesn't exist. And if you claim he doesn't exist, the burden of proof on you. Why is that so hard to understand?



*or Bigfoot, Easter Bunny, loch ness monster, etc. Everything is real until proven otherwise.

Cuz you're arguing from the conclusion instead of the premise.

You don't start at the endpoint and try to argue your way to the beginning.

On it's face, if you met a person who never heard of Bigfoot they'd have no reason to believe in Bigfoot. After explaining what Bigfoot is to that person it would still be up to you to prove his existence. That person has no reason to believe or a reason to say either way if Bigfoot exists.

There seriously seems to be a fundamental miscomprehension with some of yall when it comes to arguing claims.

I'm lost on yall being unable to understand that. I gotta figure it's a clear agenda and bias on your end to try to make not making a claim the same as making a claim to have the burden of proof apply to both.

I think you need to visit your local sarcasm meter repair shop.

 

[mister friendly]

Sure you didn't imply it

Person A"I believe Atlantis once existed"

Person B "If you're the idiot making the claim Atlantis is once existed, the burden of proof is on you"

Person A"You just called me an idiot ! >: "

Person B "No! I used the word If. "

Person A "But only me and you are having an conversation"

Person B "I used the word if, I wasn't talk to you or about you"

Person A "Ok its cool , you used the word if"

Geez

 

[Master Zik]

Sure you didn't imply it

Person A"I believe Atlantis once existed"

Person B "If you're the idiot making the claim Atlantis is once existed, the burden of proof is on you"

Person A"You just called me an idiot ! >: "

Person B "No! I used the word If. "

Person A "But only me and you are having an conversation"

Person B "I used the word if, I wasn't talk to you or about you"

Person A "Ok its cool , you used the word if"

Geez

If you say I believe ____ and when someone says if you're making the claim that _____ and you reply and never dispute the if the implication is that you are making the claim.

The implication is not that beliefs = claims. It's that you not only believe but you are also outright stating _____.

I get it though. You don't want to make the claim GOD does exist because then the burden of proof would rest on you.

You've spent the last few posts accusing me of saying I implied your belief was a claim after I brought up the burden of proof. You don't understand what the burden of proof is.

You just want to say I believe _____ and leave it at that. Fine. That's no different than someone saying they believe in the lochness monster or unicorns.