Great Atheist Show

LOL, nice!

the beautiful fact about this, is that mr. atheist there ends up completely contradicting himself!

he starts out by denying that atheism is just as much a belief there is NO god as theism is the belief there IS one, and ends his muddled tirade with saying, i believe there is no god, i don’t have the knowledge.

hahahah! and he even says, it’s “subjective knowledge,” which he refuted three minutes earlier.

i “believe” he’s a douchebag…

Lolz, atheist are so stupid. How can you not believe in god !? I mean really, the nerve of some people. It’s so painfully obvious that an invisible man in the sky created all this I shouldn’t even be required to explain it. And look , he contracted himself, what a fool! How dare atheist talk about inconsistencies in the bible. The bible is 100% truez !

Ok back to reality land.. I’m an atheist and I claim there is no god anywhere. How can I claim such things ?

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT -ANY- GOD EXIST.

There, that was easy.

Yes, the whole idea is when you say something is so, it is not the job of others to disprove that, it instead becomes your task to prove it.

Most people at one time felt the world was flat, it’s not observable, while on the planet’s surface(without a better understanding of the physics of light and gravity that was not common or did not exist at all during this time), that it is a sphere. There-for those who postulated that it was a sphere, had to circumnavigate it before they could start truely reffering to thier theory of a sphereical planet as fact.

Also to be remember when considering this, evidence, even “hard” evidence only brings something to the state of theory if it can be tested and observed. Even then the theory can only be made a scientific law if constant, multi-party, testing and observation, over long periods of time can not provide any solid contestabilitiy to it. Further, if something is made into a scientific law it only stands as such within the paremeters set, such as the laws of gravity are relatively constant, however in quantum and astro physics there are conditions we have observed that seem to skew these, thus creating additional theories to be considered when understanding these laws.

Only when someone can provide evidence of an intellgent, omnipresent, omniscient, ceator being that is observable and testable, is it to be considered even a theory. At that point, I shall give all other things their relative considerations.

Also, keep in mind, people are people. For every scientist that has lied or over-blown their claims for greed there is also someone using religion to obtain greed-driven goals. For every militant otherist without concise rational, there exists a similarist equally as stereotypified.

This debate will never end. Only stubborn people get caught up in debating it. Arguments from both sides never cease to amaze me.