Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]immoderate
(20,885 posts)34. It's part of the game. How it's worded determines who has 'burden of proof.'
Things that can't be sensed, or detected, or measured, are undifferentiable from things that don't exist.
--imm
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
113 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The confusion arises from the fact that the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" aren't mutually exclusive
trotsky
Aug 2016
#4
Why in the hell do you think he suggested atheist and agnostic are synonyms?
AtheistCrusader
Aug 2016
#14
What is proof? Proof is usually a form of belief, as it often involves having a belief in what one
Doodley
Aug 2016
#105
You say the idea that God cares about people's lives is a 'fairy story'
muriel_volestrangler
Aug 2016
#19
His talk about asteroid strikes is about why he cannot see evidence for a god that cares
muriel_volestrangler
Aug 2016
#32
Tyson was replying to a person who said they thought there must be a god
muriel_volestrangler
Aug 2016
#50
It's part of the game. How it's worded determines who has 'burden of proof.'
immoderate
Aug 2016
#34
Your god pushes the question of the beginning infinitely back in time with a magical being,
cpwm17
Aug 2016
#107
It seems that it's common for theists to be more amazed by the existence of a rock than
cpwm17
Aug 2016
#111
Considering how dishonestly you've had to misstate his position (as many people have pointed out)...
trotsky
Aug 2016
#66
So God can't impetuously change them, as opposed to killing all living things.
immoderate
Aug 2016
#82
I think once a human comes into existence they are what they are in terms of
underthematrix
Aug 2016
#87