By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The thread about mysticism and meta-physics. Today's topic homosexuality

JWeinCom on 27 February 2015
reggin_bolas said:
Aura7541 said:
reggin_bolas said:

Because atheism relies on the absolute belief in the nonexistence of a Creator or God. Nonexistence is impossible to prove. Existence of God isn't. It's been done before. Thomas did it. Artistotle did it with the unmoved mover. Modal logic proves it by a reductio ad absurdum. 

Atheism is the rejection of the belief in deities. Rejection does not necessarily mean absolute belief in nonexistance. The fact that you did not properly learn the definition of atheism really shows your irrational bias.

From Merriam Webster Atheism is defined as:

a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity 

b :  the doctrine that there is no deity

The latter is the most damaging to your thesis. Even if we accept the former, you still have the onus probandi because you demand the same from theists. The only difference is that a theist can prove god. You can't prove a negative so your epistemology is severely crippled. 

Please do not try and define what I as an atheist believe in.  Also, don't act like Meriam Webster is the be all end all of defining things.  And IF you want to use webster, at least show a basic grasp of the definition.  

And no, we don't have a burden of proof.  Suppose I said that you're a homosexual and that you're giving Jaleel White a hummer as I type this.   

Who is the burden of proof on?  Should you have to prove that Jaleel White isn't smoking your pole for anyone on the forum to believe you?  No, of course not.  It is I who has to prove that Jaleel is sampling your sausage.  Because I'm the one who is making the claim.

The person who is making a claim has to be defending it.  Atheists are not making any claim.  We just evaluate the claims of others.  Those without evidence are rejected.  Just like nobody should believe that Jaleel is playing your skin flute without any evidence, we also shouldn't believe in any deity without evidence.

So, either we should reject claims without evidence, or everyon should believe me when I say that Jaleel is swallowing your sword.  Your choice.



Around the Network
setsunatenshi on 27 February 2015
Ka-pi96 said:
setsunatenshi said:
reggin_bolas said:
You guys are confusing atheism with skepticism. Ontology and epistemology and so forth.


atheism is a position that is derived of applied skepticism to one specific claim.

if no one in the world was claiming the existence of what they call gods, there would be no atheists.

I disagree. Athiesm is the default position that people are born with. If there were no people following religion then everyone would still be an athiest.

i agree with what you expressed, i mean it literally though. if no concept of god exists (if no one claims such a thing exists) there is no concept of atheism.

the same way that no atoothfairyist or aspidermanist exists, because no one claims that spider man or tooth fairies are real.

but yes, of course it's the default position in our world



Neodegenerate on 27 February 2015
JWeinCom said:
reggin_bolas said:
Aura7541 said:
reggin_bolas said:

Because atheism relies on the absolute belief in the nonexistence of a Creator or God. Nonexistence is impossible to prove. Existence of God isn't. It's been done before. Thomas did it. Artistotle did it with the unmoved mover. Modal logic proves it by a reductio ad absurdum. 

Atheism is the rejection of the belief in deities. Rejection does not necessarily mean absolute belief in nonexistance. The fact that you did not properly learn the definition of atheism really shows your irrational bias.

From Merriam Webster Atheism is defined as:

a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity 

b :  the doctrine that there is no deity

The latter is the most damaging to your thesis. Even if we accept the former, you still have the onus probandi because you demand the same from theists. The only difference is that a theist can prove god. You can't prove a negative so your epistemology is severely crippled. 

Please do not try and define what I as an atheist believe in.  Also, don't act like Meriam Webster is the be all end all of defining things.  And IF you want to use webster, at least show a basic grasp of the definition.  

And no, we don't have a burden of proof.  Suppose I said that you're a homosexual and that you're giving Jaleel White a hummer as I type this.   

Who is the burden of proof on?  Should you have to prove that Jaleel White isn't smoking your pole for anyone on the forum to believe you?  No, of course not.  It is I who has to prove that Jaleel is sampling your sausage.  Because I'm the one who is making the claim.

The person who is making a claim has to be defending it.  Atheists are not making any claim.  We just evaluate the claims of others.  Those without evidence are rejected.  Just like nobody should believe that Jaleel is playing your skin flute without any evidence, we also shouldn't believe in any deity without evidence.

So, either we should reject claims without evidence, or everyon should believe me when I say that Jaleel is swallowing your sword.  Your choice.

I am choosing to believe the sword swallowing just so when he finishes he can give his trademark "did I do that"



JWeinCom on 27 February 2015
Neodegenerate said:
JWeinCom said:

Please do not try and define what I as an atheist believe in.  Also, don't act like Meriam Webster is the be all end all of defining things.  And IF you want to use webster, at least show a basic grasp of the definition.  

And no, we don't have a burden of proof.  Suppose I said that you're a homosexual and that you're giving Jaleel White a hummer as I type this.   

Who is the burden of proof on?  Should you have to prove that Jaleel White isn't smoking your pole for anyone on the forum to believe you?  No, of course not.  It is I who has to prove that Jaleel is sampling your sausage.  Because I'm the one who is making the claim.

The person who is making a claim has to be defending it.  Atheists are not making any claim.  We just evaluate the claims of others.  Those without evidence are rejected.  Just like nobody should believe that Jaleel is playing your skin flute without any evidence, we also shouldn't believe in any deity without evidence.

So, either we should reject claims without evidence, or everyon should believe me when I say that Jaleel is swallowing your sword.  Your choice.

I am choosing to believe the sword swallowing just so when he finishes he can give his trademark "did I do that"

I loaded the bases, and you hit the grand slam.  Well played.



setsunatenshi on 27 February 2015
JWeinCom said:
reggin_bolas said:
Aura7541 said:
reggin_bolas said:

Because atheism relies on the absolute belief in the nonexistence of a Creator or God. Nonexistence is impossible to prove. Existence of God isn't. It's been done before. Thomas did it. Artistotle did it with the unmoved mover. Modal logic proves it by a reductio ad absurdum. 

Atheism is the rejection of the belief in deities. Rejection does not necessarily mean absolute belief in nonexistance. The fact that you did not properly learn the definition of atheism really shows your irrational bias.

From Merriam Webster Atheism is defined as:

a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity 

b :  the doctrine that there is no deity

The latter is the most damaging to your thesis. Even if we accept the former, you still have the onus probandi because you demand the same from theists. The only difference is that a theist can prove god. You can't prove a negative so your epistemology is severely crippled. 

Please do not try and define what I as an atheist believe in.  Also, don't act like Meriam Webster is the be all end all of defining things.  And IF you want to use webster, at least show a basic grasp of the definition.  

And no, we don't have a burden of proof.  Suppose I said that you're a homosexual and that you're giving Jaleel White a hummer as I type this.   

Who is the burden of proof on?  Should you have to prove that Jaleel White isn't smoking your pole for anyone on the forum to believe you?  No, of course not.  It is I who has to prove that Jaleel is sampling your sausage.  Because I'm the one who is making the claim.

The person who is making a claim has to be defending it.  Atheists are not making any claim.  We just evaluate the claims of others.  Those without evidence are rejected.  Just like nobody should believe that Jaleel is playing your skin flute without any evidence, we also shouldn't believe in any deity without evidence.

So, either we should reject claims without evidence, or everyon should believe me when I say that Jaleel is swallowing your sword.  Your choice.

and the award for best metaphor goes to... :D

clap clap



Around the Network
Aura7541 on 27 February 2015
Neodegenerate said:
JWeinCom said:

Please do not try and define what I as an atheist believe in.  Also, don't act like Meriam Webster is the be all end all of defining things.  And IF you want to use webster, at least show a basic grasp of the definition.  

And no, we don't have a burden of proof.  Suppose I said that you're a homosexual and that you're giving Jaleel White a hummer as I type this.   

Who is the burden of proof on?  Should you have to prove that Jaleel White isn't smoking your pole for anyone on the forum to believe you?  No, of course not.  It is I who has to prove that Jaleel is sampling your sausage.  Because I'm the one who is making the claim.

The person who is making a claim has to be defending it.  Atheists are not making any claim.  We just evaluate the claims of others.  Those without evidence are rejected.  Just like nobody should believe that Jaleel is playing your skin flute without any evidence, we also shouldn't believe in any deity without evidence.

So, either we should reject claims without evidence, or everyon should believe me when I say that Jaleel is swallowing your sword.  Your choice.

I am choosing to believe the sword swallowing just so when he finishes he can give his trademark "did I do that"

That was golden, you two. F***in golden xD



Panther111 on 27 February 2015

Read through the beginning post, and you stated your bias... My life as gay has been mostly been a bed of roses... Would never want to be straight, not in this life or the other lives...
Frankly, the beginning of this thread is disgusting and vile... Karmic balancing? I am here to have fun, live, and enjoy the company of others.
Weird how the moderators allow this piece of garbage published.



JWeinCom on 27 February 2015
Panther111 said:
Read through the beginning post, and you stated your bias... My life as gay has been mostly been a bed of roses... Would never want to be straight, not in this life or the other lives...
Frankly, the beginning of this thread is disgusting and vile... Karmic balancing? I am here to have fun, live, and enjoy the company of others.
Weird how the moderators allow this piece of garbage published.


This is actually a habit of this user.  Thinly veiled trolling.  But hey, I guess you could get away with it if you're clever about it.  And me and you will probably be modded for calling it out. :-/



Max... on 27 February 2015
Panther111 said:
Read through the beginning post, and you stated your bias... My life as gay has been mostly been a bed of roses... Would never want to be straight, not in this life or the other lives...
Frankly, the beginning of this thread is disgusting and vile... Karmic balancing? I am here to have fun, live, and enjoy the company of others.
Weird how the moderators allow this piece of garbage published.


Everyone has the right to embarrass oneself. He's just making use of that.



Nymeria on 27 February 2015

This doesn't go far enough, in my time in the sixth dimension with the Igorians I learned that all diversity must be stripped and that gender itself was an aberration of reality that retards societal development from perfection. Now, don't get me wrong, i don't hate men for being horrendous mutant offspring that affront reality. It's just when I see them walking our streets I can't help but pity them as an appendix of our species left to antiquity when we ascend and join the Igorians.

You cannot prove the above wrong, that would be illogical.