Atheism is the absolute denial of the absolute

Discussion in 'Politics' started by peilthetraveler, Aug 8, 2009.

  1. The difference between atheism and agnosticism is that an agnostic says he doesnt know for sure. He generally doesnt believe there is evidence for or against a god.

    An atheist claims absolutely no chance of there being a god.

    But to know for sure, wouldnt an atheist have to have absolute knowledge of the entire universe to really make that statment that there is no God? (which is very presumptuous on the part of the atheist as you would need infinite knowledge to really make that statement)

    Some of you will debate thats not what atheism is. But the word atheist comes from the greek words "alpha and theos" Alpha meaning the negative and Theos meaning God. So the word atheist means "No God!"

    So with that, you can all know that all atheists are full of sh*t with what they think they know. They dont have the answers, they do not have infinite knowledge which could disprove the existence of God, but they will definately claim to know the answers of life & death and hope to fool you into believing they know the answers. They will even tell you that the bible is not true even though they have never read it. If that doesnt work, then they will resort to their most common tactic which is to attack your ego. They will call you stupid, judgmental, bigot, or whatever else they can to get you to go to their side.(this works very effectively on young people under 18 but can be used on anyone with weak beliefs)

    So now you people that are atheists know that you cant possible know the truth.

    You people that claim to be agnostics should be open to information either way. So I ask you agnostics to at least look at the information for God. Read the bible. Its one book to read in your life. We all read many books in our lives and if this one is supposed to be the most important one, maybe its worth giving it a read all the way through. Nothing is more important than knowing what happens when you die since its all a bridge we cross.

    If you are going to go in front of a judge one day, you might as well brush up on the law and get a good lawyer (Jesus) who has got some juice with the judge :) I know I would not want to represent myself in front of God.
  2. No. An atheist BELIEVES there is no god and accepts what goes with that belief.

  3. why do you fear something concieved in the minds of primitive men? wouldnt it be better for you to use your intellect,questionable,to look at the bible for what it really is. learn who put it together and why. learn how the concept of the thing you fear most,hell, was concieved. there is no excuse for an educated person in the internet age to remain so deluded and fearful.
    agnosticism is a cop out. You are conceding you are not competent enough to make a rational analysis based on fact. There is no absolute certainty in this world, yet it is safe to make general assumptions based on proven facts. I know there is no big foot, I know there are no wizards and witches,devils or gods, because I put my trust in the concept of verifiable evidence.
  4. Wallet


  5. maxpi


    "science" is just krap, real science is sort of cool but it rarely leads to anything so spectacular as the Big Bang theory... there is only a little real science nowadays because atheists have control of the universities and get all the funding...

    I'm not that sure that ideas like the Big Bang are not just ways to isolate and get a handle on an idea.. maybe the arguments make these ideas take on a life of their own...

    The moon landing was a classic example of "science"... according to their theories there should have been several feet of dust on the moon surface, the lander has those long legs.. it's sitting in an inch or two of dust... of course "science" can explain away all such instances to THEIR satisfaction and then sweep them under the rug... lots of times they just say things like "debunked" or "proven a hoax" without citing any references... they have a belief system that they like and that's the end of the discussion, they don't want to be disturbed... that's why I like to disturb them.. I love the videos from, he goes through hours just showing absurdities in the "science" belief system and showing how that, without public funding, their whole world view would not exist because it cannot win a real debate. "Science" controls the venue, that's how they win the debate...
  6. no one is shaking their fists supernatural deities in the sky. we are challenging the stupidity of your beliefs.
    as for your scientific evidence:

    What we believe:
    The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological. All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false.
    open minded arent they?

    Edith Sitwell: I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it.
  7. the willful ignorance of thumpers is astounding at times. you would think they would at least keep up with what they are told to think by creationist sites:
    Young-earth "proof" #2: Given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By implication, the earth is also young.
    The most amazing thing about the cosmic dust argument is that it is still being used! It has coasted along on obsolete evidence, and nothing but obsolete evidence, for the last 25 years!! More than any other argument, it shows how creationists borrow from each other and never do any outside reading.
    The obsolescence of the cosmic dust argument has been brought out in numerous debates, published in numerous books, journals, and newsletters. It can be discovered by anyone who exercises his or her library card. It's not a state secret! What does it take to get through to the creationist brain??

    Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
    ‘Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon.’ For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either). See also Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System (Technical).
  8. peiltheraveler:

    I am an agnostic. You tell me to read the bible and a muslim I know tells me to read the Koran.

    So which book is right? (I've read both, BTW - and am still an agnostic)

    What makes you know more than the muslim or the atheist? Because someone told you so? I find your post to be full of hypocrisy and circular reasoning. No offense intended.
  9. The prophecies that came true are the proven facts. Theres your verifiable evidence. But I'm guessing you would never even consider looking at that to see if its true or not. You tell me I should look at who put the bible together and why. Do you do the same with scientific discoveries of the evolutionary kind? Do you know how carbon dating works? Do you know of the severe discrepencies with geologic dating methods? You should find out how that kind of stuff works and i think you will be quite shocked at how it works.

    You want a safe general assumption? Everyone in the world is going to die one day, including you. If I am right and the bible is true, its seriously bad news for you. If you are right, then i would never know and you would not even get to gloat at how right you were!

    I personally think when you argue with me about God that you are really trying to convince yourself that you are right.
  10. If you really had read both you would know the answer to that.

    (reading a few pages from both books doesnt count. Thats like someone reading a few pages of a mystery novel and then saying there is no way to find out whodunit.)
    #10     Aug 8, 2009