PRICES GO UP AT THE GATE
Yes I believe in an God


انريكي اجلاسيس بايلاموس


Hotstonez wrote: No gods, no masters. Until there's a single piece of evidence that passes the most rigorous and stringent scientific tests to show the supernatural exists, I'm firmly in the 'NO' camp. Doesn't keep me from hoping though, even though it appears to be pure folly. by definition of god..how can human science measure it, that just doesn't make sense. IF God in the popular sense, is all omnipotent, omnipresent etc, how could we measure it. You would have to acknowledge the existence of god some other way. 

man...why did i watch BSD first...we need s3 year 2017 for xmas thx!!


Well someone had to create all of this




It's an unprovable hypothesis. You cannot prove a negative therefore the burden of proof lies with the credulous believer. No acknowledgment needed on my part.


No gods. No masters.


dragontackle wrote: Shmerber wrote: The karma system just states that people retaliate to negative attacks. there is no one controlling that phenomena. As far as we know there isnt. But what if there was something controlling it? As far as we know, karma isn't even a thing. 

Why humanity, just why.......


Why humanity, just why.......


I really wish I did. I hear about miracles all the time. I just don't see them.




Hotstonez wrote: It's an unprovable hypothesis. You cannot prove a negative therefore the burden of proof lies with the credulous believer. No acknowledgment needed on my part. I'd disagree with that sentiment, you CAN 'prove' a negative. I can 'prove' that you're not 20 feet tall and I can 'prove' that there's no such thing as a invisible pink unicorn in the known universe (In order for it to be pink it would have to reflect light and therefore not be invisible since it reflects light). I also find the statement ridiculous since it's a negative itself therefore unprovable (By it's logic). I'd much rather you say "I don't have the burden of 'proof' because I don't have a position to prove in the first place". 

I don't know you nor do you know me


ZodiacA17 wrote: I like the the general context of your forum posts and questions. I believe in God, and Jesus Christ is my savior. But if you are true to your profile and are fifteen. Save this link and look back in five or six years and ask yourself the same question. You may have the same view, but you may have a different world view then. I have always been "Christian" but just that. I was a "Christian" but I didn't know anything about it and was unsure about most of it for a long time. I really came around into Christianity these past couple years... By the way just to give you some background in regards to me I grew up as a jew and around the age of 9 I started to think about religion and found that it was extremely bigoted and hateful. I started to associate myself with atheism around the age of 10 (which was about 2 months later). Then I had my bar mitzvah on October 27th 2012. I was 13 at the time and by the time I came out to my parents my bar mitzvah was already in the midst of being planned and plus I was learning a language so my parents thought it was good for me to get some exposure to something new. When I came out to my parents they didn't really have a strong negative reaction and I'm thankful for that. The years since have been me fucking around with friends, and gaming (I'm a Pc Gamer). I can also say with complete certainty that I will never go back to religion. Of course I could be wrong about that but then again I'm pretty confident in my current stance on the matter. But yes I do agree with you that my world view will probably be vastly different then what it is now. 

Why humanity, just why.......


Nope don't believe in any god or gods.
It's true you can prove a negative .For example, by proving something that would be inconsistent with the presence of the asserted thing. The real fallacy is the appeal to ignorance, e.g God exists because there is no evidence to the contrary. The absence of contradicting evidence is not evidence of existence. 



GrandMasterTime wrote: Hotstonez wrote: It's an unprovable hypothesis. You cannot prove a negative therefore the burden of proof lies with the credulous believer. No acknowledgment needed on my part. I'd disagree with that sentiment, you CAN 'prove' a negative. I can 'prove' that you're not 20 feet tall and I can 'prove' that there's no such thing as a invisible pink unicorn in the known universe (In order for it to be pink it would have to reflect light and therefore not be invisible since it reflects light). I also find the statement ridiculous since it's a negative itself therefore unprovable (By it's logic). I'd much rather you say "I don't have the burden of 'proof' because I don't have a position to prove in the first place". I disagree. Lack of evidence points a lack of existence. If it doesn't exist (ie a theistic god) then it's a negative argument. If you cannot prove it's existence or lack thereof therefore the onus lies on the believer to prove their belief. Of course they cannot, so my point is proven. 

No gods. No masters.


Hotstonez wrote: GrandMasterTime wrote: Hotstonez wrote: It's an unprovable hypothesis. You cannot prove a negative therefore the burden of proof lies with the credulous believer. No acknowledgment needed on my part. I'd disagree with that sentiment, you CAN 'prove' a negative. I can 'prove' that you're not 20 feet tall and I can 'prove' that there's no such thing as a invisible pink unicorn in the known universe (In order for it to be pink it would have to reflect light and therefore not be invisible since it reflects light). I also find the statement ridiculous since it's a negative itself therefore unprovable (By it's logic). I'd much rather you say "I don't have the burden of 'proof' because I don't have a position to prove in the first place". I disagree. Lack of evidence points a lack of existence. If it doesn't exist (ie a theistic god) then it's a negative argument. If you cannot prove it's existence or lack thereof therefore the onus lies on the believer to prove their belief. Of course they cannot, so my point is proven. Burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability to disprove a claim does not make it valid. 



GrandMasterTime wrote: Hotstonez wrote: It's an unprovable hypothesis. You cannot prove a negative therefore the burden of proof lies with the credulous believer. No acknowledgment needed on my part. I'd disagree with that sentiment, you CAN 'prove' a negative. I can 'prove' that you're not 20 feet tall and I can 'prove' that there's no such thing as a invisible pink unicorn in the known universe (In order for it to be pink it would have to reflect light and therefore not be invisible since it reflects light). I also find the statement ridiculous since it's a negative itself therefore unprovable (By it's logic). I'd much rather you say "I don't have the burden of 'proof' because I don't have a position to prove in the first place". You cannot disprove a negative. If someone were to say that they weren't 20 feet tall I would say that, you your are in fact 1.73 Meters (5 foot eight) not 20 feet tall. The reason that's fine is because it's observable. 

Why humanity, just why.......


Hotstonez wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide GrandMasterTime wrote: Hotstonez wrote: It's an unprovable hypothesis. You cannot prove a negative therefore the burden of proof lies with the credulous believer. No acknowledgment needed on my part. I'd disagree with that sentiment, you CAN 'prove' a negative. I can 'prove' that you're not 20 feet tall and I can 'prove' that there's no such thing as a invisible pink unicorn in the known universe (In order for it to be pink it would have to reflect light and therefore not be invisible since it reflects light). I also find the statement ridiculous since it's a negative itself therefore unprovable (By it's logic). I'd much rather you say "I don't have the burden of 'proof' because I don't have a position to prove in the first place". I disagree. Lack of evidence points a lack of existence. If it doesn't exist (ie a theistic god) then it's a negative argument. If you cannot prove it's existence or lack thereof therefore the onus lies on the believer to prove their belief. Of course they cannot, so my point is proven. Since a belief is essentially a "leap of faith" or opinion, how do you prove a belief? As an Agnostic, I guess I just do not understand why people find it necessary to attempt to prove someone else's beliefs as wrong or false. 

I probably don't care about you.......and don't expect you to care about me.


If you can prove a negative it follows that you also disprove one as well.


