Exposing the Atheist

The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its author. Satan is its author.

It's important to remain conscious of the fact that Satan had his origin in heaven, and is thoroughly familiar with the fact of the existence of God, heaven, the angels, hell and etc. Thus despite what you have been previously, deceptively taught and despite the deceptive dictionary's meaning of atheism, atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist. Atheism knows God exists; it is quite familiar with that fact, but it says "under no circumstance or situation will I admit to God's existence."

Atheism clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, but refuses to admit He is the Creator. Atheism perceives the divine authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit that God is their Author. Atheism perceives the decorousness and perfection of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit they are superior to all other laws. Atheism clearly perceives the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but refuses to admit His divinity. If an atheist could see the wounds in the body of Christ and actually feel them with his hands, he would deny that the wounds are there. Atheism is deliberate effort to never admit the existence of God.

yo this game is sick lol how do I customize my pimp?

yo this game is sick lol how do I customize my pimp?

>>33
However science is somewhat verifiable, while most religion is solely dependant upon "knowledge" passed down from an authority, or a non-communicable personal "experience". Given the time and resources, anybody can test a particular aspect of science, or at least observe data that leads to a reasonable conclusion. religions, on the other-hand, are based off of passed events. you cant KNOW if Jesus really roze from the dead or not (though an interesting argument can be stated pertaining to the disciples KNOWING and still choosing to die for their beliefs). Many people seem to have a difficult time delineating between KNOWING and BELEIVING. I BELEIVE with all my heart that the sun will rise tomorrow (from a terrestrial perspective, of course), and science can affirm my belief, as can religion. however, until I see it rise, i cant KNOW. If I were to sleep all day, I could not KNOW that the sun had Roze and set, I could only rely upon the words of others, who I would consider an authority, due to their witnessing what I have not, however again this can only be a BELEIF. however, where science and religion diverge is science's ability to predict and apply to that which cannot be known. There are countless scientific techniques to verify the motions of the heavens, many of which require no actual vision of the sun, however religion only provides one test; a test of faith, which, at least in terms of cosmology, most religions have failed. where a scientific test can fail and be attributed to user error or incomplete theoretical knowledge, a religious test must be 100% right, or else it negates its only authority. If any theory, scientific or theological, fails a comparative analysis against that which nature demonstrates, then there are only two choices; it must either be abandoned or reformulated to include such exceptions. If theology and reformulation are mutually exclusive, then the number of choices diminish by one.

>>38
No, seriously.  Thus far I have correctly predicted one friend going into nursing, one friend dying, one friend becoming a soldier, and one friend going into computer programming (When I see these futures, It's like I'm walking behind them for about 5 seconds...surprisingly, it only worked on seeing what they were doing for their livlihoods and not more mundane shit).  All between 5-7 years before they entered these careers/whatevers.

Wanna know what death looked like?  Nothing.  Just black.  Yeah, that prediction sucked ass.  Sorry, couldn't see the Pearly Gates.  Not even the Bill Gates.

I also routinely saw, in dreams, tests I was to take.  Considering how much I studied (study?)...it was the only reason why I graduated with such high grades (B's & A's all around).  Lots of other shit, too.

I've seen one dead person/ghost...but it was gone so fast I'm still not certain it was real.  I've met a guy who was either a lunatic who knew every single aspect of myself and my life...or he was an Angel (Yes, I'm serious...and no, no details...it would take too long and it may creep those out with weak hearts).  I see the "shadows" of animals all the time, especially pets.

>>43
You forget that many scientific theories (especially those based on physics) are based on assumptions of what people think is going on.  Then these theories are treated as beliefs.  Acts of faith.  These theories are routinely tested and, sometimes, discarded or re-written.  This is similar to the way religion is practiced:  Doctorines that are no-longer pertinent to the civilization/times are ignored (discarded) or re-written/retold in new ways to better make them fit.  And while much of religion can be tested (the historical aspects), much can also only be believed on faith.

Can religion ever be proved?  As stated, history has a way of explaining "religious miracles" scientifically.

>>44
and irrational egoist have a way of explaining "statistical possibilities" as special powers. I fully acknowledge that scientific explanation is only as good as the observations it based on. My main point was religions inflexibility. most ideologies based off of holy texts or teachings come with a presupposition of absolute truth. after all, if its really the word of god or one of his chosen underlings it must be perfect. "Every word and every title" or something to that effect. science however, is built off sets of hypothetical premises that, when taken as a whole, can re-affirm each other. It's technically possible we have it all wrong, a la the Matrix taken to the nth power, however the current record of "things were science works" vs "things were science kinda works" runs a hell of a lot better than any of the good books. As (I assume based on your response) a fellow pragmatist, surely you would admit science's various attempts at finding truth have served humanity more than the blanket "god did it, mysterious ways, etc." "explanation".

tl;dr: If you're so special, go dream me a winning lotto ticket.

>>45
really wish I had edited that first b4 posting... hell its 2am at this end, forget it.

>>46
Yeah...I'm kinda trying to figure out what you wrote there, bunky.

Oh, and in reply to the tl;dr part: Don't you think I would have done that for myself if I could figure out HOW?

how do i trolled forum?

>>2

Yes, they would go crazy and run a "Multi User Character Kingdom"! Perhaps the same could be said of all religions.

I can proove gracity exists 99 times/100. You can proove god exists 0 times/0. Science =/= Religion, because in science, you actually have an inclination to make a prediction with. Its called a hypothosis. I think ___ will happen because ____. THEN YOU TEST IT. With religion... I KNOW ____ will happen because the bible says so. You cannot test that.

>>50
Except much of science cannot be tested either because we do not have the ability to yet, or the hypothesis is based on pure conjecture.

>>1

Atheists do not accept theism because they do not believe in something that is not supported by evidence. Bible is NOT evidence, Creationism is NOT science, and you ARE an idiot.

bible says god doesn't exist

>>51
"Much of science can't be tested"!? What are you smoking???

>>51
Give some examples of scientific facts and theories that can't be tested, and explain why you think they can't. Because honestly, with all due respect, I think you're full of shit.

>>55
Age of the Universe is, at best, a guess.  It's shape changes constantly, too.  Science suspects that there is a force that exists within atoms that hold them together, but have no proof that this force exists.  They simply think it does because there is no other plausable reason (in their minds) that atoms can maintain their existance.  Scientists also cannot test for the existance of this "force", because they don't know what they're looking for.

Eat it and weep.

You mean like the force of gravity?  *rolleyes*

>>57
It ain't gravity that physically holds atoms together.  Go learn your sciences.

>>57
Go read your scientific American for the past couple of years.  I remember reading something about this awhile back.

>>56

I havent heard shit about someone "calculating" the age of the universe. Now the age of earth, we can calculate to a reasonable degree of accuracy using our understanding of "half-life". Its beats the hell out of "earth is 6000 years old because bible says so"

There is a force that holds atoms together? That is an example of a scientific HYPOTHESIS. There is a HUGE difference between:

1. a force may exist; it appears as though a force is holding the atoms together. We dont have concrete proof yet, but we are going to conduct tests to find out if we are right.
2. a force does exist; we know this because SOMTHING has to be holding atoms together. Our proof is our faith.

An example of a scientific hypothesis is #1. You admit that you dont actually know, but you state your reasoning for a prediction that you are going to TEST.

*has idea*

1. there may be a god; we dont know exactly how the universe started, so the existance of a diety is a POSSIBILITY. However, we DO NOT HAVE ANY proof at this time. We are going to cunduct tests/studies to find the truth.
2. there IS a god. we KNOW this because the universe had to come from somewhere(logic). We dont have any proof at this time, but its the only explanation we can come up with, so why not teach it to our kids as fact? When the appocolypse rolls around we will all be proven right anyway.

^ if you must toy with the idea that god exists, subscribe to the first (its HYPOTHETICAL/TESTABLE) outlook.

you sick fucks.

>>61

>>60 2. a force does exist; we know this because SOMTHING has to be holding atoms together. Our proof is our faith.

THAT is how mainstream science is treating this particular subject.

Thread over, I win.

>>63
Surrrrree...

>>61
What the hell?

>>63
He wins.  Science accepts everything stated by Stephen Hawking as the gospel truth, any attempts to contradict his finds are met with fierce opposition, and Hawking, once stating that his conclusions are absolute and perfect, will change his mind only a few months later.

The ultimate proof of god's omnipotence is that he does not need to exist to save us.

>>60
 "I havent heard shit about someone "calculating" the age of the universe."

If I could find my astronomy textbook right now, I could give you the currently agreed upon age, but since I can't, you don't get the number. It's been done, though.

>>66
What the fuck? Everything he states is ruthlessly scrutinised by the scientific community.

You must know what you've said is bullshit you liar.

>>68
the current ESTIMATE is hovering around 14.9 billion years old. Its not a calculation, its an approximation. we can detect radiation from up to 11 light-years away, therefore for us to be able to detect it, it must have occurred at least 11b light years ago. we have theories that can be partially tested that flesh out this approximation even further, however the point is not that we have an exact measurement, but rather a more valid number than those previously proposed by creationist. it is a number that is testable and verifiable through at least half a dozen means of experimentation. Of course, in the interest of maintaining the spirit of scientific exploration, this doesn't positively rule out a Judeo Christian Universe, it merely requires a revision to the creationist theo- Oh wait... bible says you cant do that... :(

>>63
>>66
Same moron.

Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.

Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.

Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.

Atheism literrally means: Lacking religion.

SO you FAIL.


No religion= no god, no devil.

STFU NOOB

>>72
Uh... Well said.

Christianity >>>>>>>>>>> *

>>75
Proves that american fundies needs to nuke themselves sometime soon.

>>73
Dude, look earlier into the thread to find the ACTUAL definition.

you failed.

STFU NOOB

>>76
Wiiner

>>70

I like you.

>>70

Of course, in the interest of maintaining the spirit of scientific exploration, this doesn't positively rule out a Judeo Christian Universe, it merely requires a revision to the creationist theo- Oh wait... bible says you cant do that... :(

Look at the Roman Chatholic Church. I'd say 75% are suckers for anything that they are told, but 25% have the amazing ability to say "wait~ I have a highschool education, and that is just plain wrong"

Which is why EVOLOUTION IS A-OK NOW according to the Chatholic Church. Appaerntly they got fed up with THIS SCENARIO:

10 Year Old: I was watching animal planet the other day and Evoloution was explained to me in a clear, conscice, no-nonsence manner using the "Darwin's finches" example. The bible claims that th earth was made in 7 days and a "god" made each creature individually. These 2 doctorines contradict each other. Evoloution makes sense, has more supporting evidence, is testable, its research is well documented and very little is hearsay. I can only assume that the bible, and the church, are lying to me. If the church is lying about this, then perhaps they are lying about jesus, the commmandments, and the existance of god.

Religious Ed Teacher: Oh fuck this shi~ Um... I'm sorry to hear that... and you should come back when you want to be saved... from... burning... and... stuff.

Nowadays;

Religious Ed Teacher: GOD MADE EVOLOUTION, but Darwin is still a heathen, a heretic, and the spawn of the devil. The fossil record is incomplete. Carbon dating is a pack of lies. Amen.

My little brother watches animal planet and my mom is a religious nut. He completely owned her with the finches example at dinner the other day. And hes only 6 years old.

Mom: Man did not come from monkeys!!!
Me: Now listen here bi~
Brother: They had a common ancestor. Different environments prompted the differences between modern humans and monkeys.

>>70
>>this doesn't positively rule out a Judeo Christian Universe, it merely requires a revision to the creationist theo- Oh wait... bible says you cant do that... :(

WHOOPS CAN'T DO THAT IN A HOLY BIBLE