Atheists want multiple universes and extra-terrestrial civilizations to exist because they think it will hurt Christianity

[GLASNOST]

You believe in a stupid religion. Get real.

You believe in a stupid religion. Get real.

If you are atheist, then you believe in a stupid religion. Its science assumes there is no God or gods and only the natural. At least, you don't say much so people won't know how stupid you are .

You believe in a stupid religion. Get real.

 

[GLASNOST]

..... I don't see a dime's difference between smug atheists and smug agnostics ...

That's exactly what I am saying - I am speaking to a person who doesn't understand shyt.

You want "all the evidence for my belief"? What sort of evidence are you looking for to demonstrate that I am an Agnostic?

I asked for all your evidence. You provided zero. Then you proceeded to judge my health on the basis of your failure to answer a simple question.

LOL. That is the funniest thing I've heard all week. You want evidence of my claim to be an Agnostic and you want proof that legitimizes the Agnostic approach to God. In essence, you want me to provide evidence that God "might/or might not" exist. And then you don't understand why I question your health?

You really take the cake. I mean, seriously!

I hope JoeB131 is reading this!

 

[james bond]

Belief isn't religion

When it has to do with God, then atheism is a religion. I consider agnostics the same as they don't believe in God, but do not accept him. They want something external to them to show them or prove it to them. The proof comes to both groups after their deaths. Of course, nothing is good enough for both groups before death. Probably it's due to the Antichrist, but I can't prove that either. However, Scripture tells us about them.

Atheists
"And have mercy on those who doubt;" Jude 1:22

"To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good." Psalm 14:1

"They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity." Ephesians 4:18-19

Agnostics
"And Elihu continued, and said: “Bear with me a little, and I will show you, for I have yet something to say on God's behalf. I will get my knowledge from afar and ascribe righteousness to my Maker. For truly my words are not false; one who is perfect in knowledge is with you. “Behold, God is mighty, and does not despise any; he is mighty in strength of understanding." Job 36:1-37:24.

"And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

“Because of the multitude of oppressions people cry out; they call for help because of the arm of the mighty. But none says, ‘Where is God my Maker, who gives songs in the night, who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth and makes us wiser than the birds of the heavens?’ There they cry out, but he does not answer, because of the pride of evil men. Surely God does not hear an empty cry, nor does the Almighty regard it. ..." Job 35:9-14

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28

 

[james bond]

You really take the cake. I mean, seriously!

Maybe it's from my reading the Book of Daniel, but here's the weird thing I see about you.

Do you believe any of King Nebuchadnezzar whom Daniel was made high apprentice to? Do you believe the king was influenced by his top people who wanted just Chaldeans in positions of power? They convinced the king to throw Daniel in a den of lions, but he survived. Thus, the king tossed those advisors into the den of lions and they were promptly eaten.

What about what happened to Nebuchadnezzar in his seven year madness? He ended up eating grass. We have history as another king during that time fell to madness. Thus, the secular historians have found true history about Nebuchadnezzar and his power, but claim his demise were literature based on another king (King Nabodinus). I'm not sure what the Biblical scholars say.

 

[GLASNOST]

Maybe it's from my reading the Book of Daniel, but here's the weird thing

What about what happened to Nebuchadnezzar in his seven year madness? He ended up eating grass. ......

A strange and primitive story that has nothing to do with Agnosticism.

I'm not sure what the Biblical scholars say.

Nor am I. But learned secular scholars, philosophers, and psychologists say, "Never believe superstitious fairy tales about nude vegetarians".

 

[Grumblenuts]

Religion = belief. Belief = acceptance. Acceptance = evolution. Evolution = acceptance. Acceptance = belief. Belief = religion.

There are no atheists as you can see EVERYONE has a religion ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I believe it was Dr. Stephen Hawking that said "Sometimes one has to use reverse engineering to verify the answer".

I disagree. You say "Belief = religion". OK, but .....

A religious person believes in God (for example). "Belief = religion"
An Atheist believes there is no God. "Belief = religion"
An agnostic doesn't believe in anything. No belief, no religion.

Sigh.

Per Google:
atheist - "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
agnostic - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Per logic:
An agnostic is simply an atheist lacking the balls to admit they're an atheist.

An Agnostic is open to the possibility of Gods existence.

Indeed, lacking belief means open to possibilities. Thus agnostic. Only agnostics, like you it seems, who refuse to admit they're really just atheists are either too chicken or too stupid to simply add that they require compelling, scientific evidence before actually buying into such silliness.

 

[james bond]

psychologists say, "Never believe superstitious fairy tales about nude vegetarians".

Hm... the Bible scholars mention a British writer reported a British museum had a case of boantrophy.

A King Eats Grass: Prophecies in Daniel Chapter Four by John M. Oakes – Evidence for Christianity

evidenceforchristianity.org

ETA: "God caused this mighty ruler to go insane for seven seasons to teach him a lesson that God reigns supreme.

- Actual Babylonian records from Nebuchadnezzar himself also record the seven season period of his insanity:

“For four years my kingdom gave me no joy. During this time, not one building of any importance did I issue to be built. And in Babylon itself, no building was erected to pay tribute to my name or to give me glory. I did not sing praises to Merodach, my god, nor did I provide his sacrificial table with offerings, nor did I clean any of the waterways.”

- In Babylon only two seasons were counted, Summer and Winter. Thus 7 seasons equals 3 1/2 years. And Nebuchadnezzar stated he did not delight in his kingdom for 4 years."

Israel restored after the Babylonian captivity

Indepth study in the Biblical Archeology of Israel following the restoration from the Babylonian captivity.

truthnet.org

 

[GLASNOST]

Hm... the Bible scholars mention a British writer reported a British museum had a case of boantrophy.

Hm ... and then there is the case of a fellow … oh, in respect of his wish to remain anonymous … let us just call him Bames Jond who’s boanthropically transformed himself into a sheep.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Again, it can easily be seen from the given definition:

• agnostic - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

that agnostics are self-contradictory. Stating that a thing can't be known is making a positive knowledge claim. One stupidly rooted in "belief" or "faith" to boot. Like atheists, every self-identifying agnostic I've met IRL claimed to know nothing with certainty.. including "that nothing can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena." Notice also though how a singular "God" is presumed in that definition. Gnosticism has always just been "eclectic" masturbation at best to begin with. "Oh, you couldn't possibly understand, silly. It would take you literally decades of study!

We know lots of stuff now that biblical authors had no clue about in their time. Dinosaurs, for example. Imagine saying dinosaurs can't be known today and expecting to be taken seriously.

 

[JoeB131]

When it has to do with God, then atheism is a religion. I consider agnostics the same as they don't believe in God, but do not accept him. They want something external to them to show them or prove it to them. The proof comes to both groups after their deaths. Of course, nothing is good enough for both groups before death. Probably it's due to the Antichrist, but I can't prove that either. However, Scripture tells us about them.

Buddy, here's the thing, if not believing in a specific God or Goddess is a religion, than you have a whole bunch of religions.

You don't believe in Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Amaterasu, Allah, Krishna, Lao Tsu, etc. So by your own standards, you have a dozen religions or more.

Do you believe any of King Nebuchadnezzar whom Daniel was made high apprentice to? Do you believe the king was influenced by his top people who wanted just Chaldeans in positions of power? They convinced the king to throw Daniel in a den of lions, but he survived. Thus, the king tossed those advisors into the den of lions and they were promptly eaten.

Okay, do you actually read your Book of Fairy Tales?

First, the guys who accused Daniel didn't want positions of power. The King had put out a decree not to pray to Yahweh, Daniel broke it, and that's why he got thrown to the lions. When the lions didn't eat Daniel, the King did this.


6:23 Then was the king exceedingly glad for him, and commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God.
This made the king happy.
And he commanded that Daniel be brought up from the den.
He was unhurt, because he believed in God.
24 And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces or ever they came at the bottom of the den.

Man, that's fucked up. The king puts out a law. These citizens report someone who broke the law. When that person isn't eaten, the King's response to throw not only those who were good citizens to the lions, but their wives and children as well.

That's kind of messed up, but frankly, it's typical for the bible.

What I would love is to make a Bible Movie that ACCURATELY recreates the stories of the bible. Elijah and the Bears... Jephthah's Daughter... the burning of Aaron's sons... and every other fucked up story that shows the Bible God to be kind of a sociopath.

 

[GLASNOST]

Again, it can easily be seen from the given definition:
agnostic - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;

Incorrect.

a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Correct.

… that agnostics are self-contradictory. Stating that a thing can't be known is making a positive knowledge claim. One stupidly rooted in "belief" or "faith" to boot.

This would be a hoot if it were not so sad that so many of my fellow homo sapiens can be so ignorant by way of their own choice, ie. voluntary.

Pay attention now. Agnostics DO NOT state that a thing (this thing on the board) “can’t be known” and the reason for this is precisely the one you've given. So ..... you are smart enough to see the contradiction in terms but have none-the-less ignored it in your final analysis. Where do you get such idiotic notions? Is this because you have quoted a faulty definition in your first paragraph or did you make it up on your own? If your first quote is verbatim then I suggest you ask for a refund on your literary investment.

 

[GLASNOST]

Buddy, here's the thing, if not believing in a specific God or Goddess is a religion, than you have a whole bunch of religions.

Pure logic

You don't believe in Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Amaterasu, Allah, Krishna, Lao Tsu, etc. So by your own standards, you have a dozen religions or more.

An excellent observation.

Okay, do you actually read your Book of Fairy Tales?

A fair question.

What I would love is to make a Bible Movie that ACCURATELY recreates the stories of the bible. ....

It's already been done - the highlights at least. Perhaps you could co-sponsor Part Two of this fascinating story

 

[Grumblenuts]

Again, it can easily be seen from the given definition:
agnostic - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;

Incorrect.

a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Correct.

… that agnostics are self-contradictory. Stating that a thing can't be known is making a positive knowledge claim. One stupidly rooted in "belief" or "faith" to boot.

This would be a hoot if it were not so sad that so many of my fellow homo sapiens can be so ignorant by way of their own choice, ie. voluntary.

Pay attention now. Agnostics DO NOT state that a thing (this thing on the board) “can’t be known” and the reason for this is precisely the one you've given. So ..... you are smart enough to see the contradiction in terms but have none-the-less ignored it in your final analysis. Where do you get such idiotic notions? Is this because you have quoted a faulty definition in your first paragraph or did you make it up on your own? If your first quote is verbatim then I suggest you ask for a refund on your literary investment.

Okay, so you're cognitively dissonant and proudly so. Yes, both things YOU just labeled "Incorrect" and "Correct" at the same time came directly from the same definition and source. What source? As I already said, Google. I'll track it down further in a minute. Thing is, at least I have a source. You evidently pluck shit straight from your ass, call it good, and expect to be taken seriously.

Google:
agnostic
"Definitions from Oxford Languages"

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages.

Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

Oxford’s English dictionaries are widely regarded as the world’s most authoritative sources on current English.

 

[james bond]

Hm... the Bible scholars mention a British writer reported a British museum had a case of boantrophy.

Hm ... and then there is the case of a fellow … oh, in respect of his wish to remain anonymous … let us just call him Bames Jond who’s boanthropically transformed himself into a sheep.

View attachment 426060

Yours is a stupid religion because of no evidence for abiogenesis, multiverses, what was there before the big bang, aliens, social Darwinism, eugenics, and more. Think about how Hitler tried genocide of Jews just to contradict and destroy the Bible (God's word). It couldn't be all coincidence. We got Jesus Christ and the Anti-Christ. It could be matter and anti-matter.

OTOH, I learned something more about King Nebchadnezzar and his mental illness. It gives new meaning to "your mother is a cow."

Nebuchadnezzar and boanthropy

The most famous sufferer of this condition was King Nebuchadnezzar, who in the Book of Daniel “was driven from men and did eat grass as oxen”. Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire from 605BC to 562BC. According to the Bible, he conquered Judah and Jerusalem and sent the Jews...

www.pharmaceutical-journal.com

 

[GLASNOST]

Again, it can easily be seen from the given definition:
agnostic - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;

Incorrect.

a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Correct.

… that agnostics are self-contradictory. Stating that a thing can't be known is making a positive knowledge claim. One stupidly rooted in "belief" or "faith" to boot.

This would be a hoot if it were not so sad that so many of my fellow homo sapiens can be so ignorant by way of their own choice, ie. voluntary.

Pay attention now. Agnostics DO NOT state that a thing (this thing on the board) “can’t be known” and the reason for this is precisely the one you've given. So ..... you are smart enough to see the contradiction in terms but have none-the-less ignored it in your final analysis. Where do you get such idiotic notions? Is this because you have quoted a faulty definition in your first paragraph or did you make it up on your own? If your first quote is verbatim then I suggest you ask for a refund on your literary investment.

Okay, so you're cognitively dissonant and proudly so. Yes, both things YOU just labeled "Incorrect" and "Correct" at the same time came directly from the same definition and source. What source? As I already said, Google. I'll track it down further in a minute. Thing is, at least I have a source. You evidently pluck shit straight from your ass, call it good, and expect to be taken seriously.

Google:
agnostic
"Definitions from Oxford Languages"

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages.

Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

Oxford’s English dictionaries are widely regarded as the world’s most authoritative sources on current English.

Make like a man instead of an ass. This is how it's going to go down. You link me your source that states;

• agnostic - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

and if it is feasibly possible I will contact them and point out their mistake. Does that sound fair to you? The correct statement ought to read "information not available" (or something similar). But defining an agnostic as someone who claims the existence of God CANNOT BE KNOWN is ridiculous unless it is out of context such as cannot be known until more information is found/discovered.

Link me the exact quote.

 

[GLASNOST]

Yours is a stupid religion because of no evidence for abiogenesis, multiverses, what was there before the big bang, aliens, social Darwinism, eugenics, and more. ......

First of all, I don't have a religion so you are spinning your wheels in a vacuum. But yours is a stupid religion because of no evidence for the existence of any god at all.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Again, it can easily be seen from the given definition:
agnostic - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;

Incorrect.

a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Correct.

… that agnostics are self-contradictory. Stating that a thing can't be known is making a positive knowledge claim. One stupidly rooted in "belief" or "faith" to boot.

This would be a hoot if it were not so sad that so many of my fellow homo sapiens can be so ignorant by way of their own choice, ie. voluntary.

Pay attention now. Agnostics DO NOT state that a thing (this thing on the board) “can’t be known” and the reason for this is precisely the one you've given. So ..... you are smart enough to see the contradiction in terms but have none-the-less ignored it in your final analysis. Where do you get such idiotic notions? Is this because you have quoted a faulty definition in your first paragraph or did you make it up on your own? If your first quote is verbatim then I suggest you ask for a refund on your literary investment.

Okay, so you're cognitively dissonant and proudly so. Yes, both things YOU just labeled "Incorrect" and "Correct" at the same time came directly from the same definition and source. What source? As I already said, Google. I'll track it down further in a minute. Thing is, at least I have a source. You evidently pluck shit straight from your ass, call it good, and expect to be taken seriously.

Google:
agnostic
"Definitions from Oxford Languages"

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages.

Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

Oxford’s English dictionaries are widely regarded as the world’s most authoritative sources on current English.

Make like a man instead of an ass. This is how it's going to go down. You link me your source that states;

• agnostic - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

and if it is feasibly possible I will contact them and point out their mistake. Does that sound fair to you? The correct statement ought to read "information not available" (or something similar). But defining an agnostic as someone who claims the existence of God CANNOT BE KNOWN is ridiculous unless it is out of context such as cannot be known until more information is found/discovered.

Link me the exact quote.

Already done, sparky. You're wrong. Now take a deep breath and get over it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

ag·nos·tic
/aɡˈnästik/

noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

 

[GLASNOST]

Again, it can easily be seen from the given definition:
agnostic - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;

Incorrect.

a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Correct.

… that agnostics are self-contradictory. Stating that a thing can't be known is making a positive knowledge claim. One stupidly rooted in "belief" or "faith" to boot.

This would be a hoot if it were not so sad that so many of my fellow homo sapiens can be so ignorant by way of their own choice, ie. voluntary.

Pay attention now. Agnostics DO NOT state that a thing (this thing on the board) “can’t be known” and the reason for this is precisely the one you've given. So ..... you are smart enough to see the contradiction in terms but have none-the-less ignored it in your final analysis. Where do you get such idiotic notions? Is this because you have quoted a faulty definition in your first paragraph or did you make it up on your own? If your first quote is verbatim then I suggest you ask for a refund on your literary investment.

Okay, so you're cognitively dissonant and proudly so. Yes, both things YOU just labeled "Incorrect" and "Correct" at the same time came directly from the same definition and source. What source? As I already said, Google. I'll track it down further in a minute. Thing is, at least I have a source. You evidently pluck shit straight from your ass, call it good, and expect to be taken seriously.

Google:
agnostic
"Definitions from Oxford Languages"

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages.

Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

Oxford’s English dictionaries are widely regarded as the world’s most authoritative sources on current English.

Make like a man instead of an ass. This is how it's going to go down. You link me your source that states;

• agnostic - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

and if it is feasibly possible I will contact them and point out their mistake. Does that sound fair to you? The correct statement ought to read "information not available" (or something similar). But defining an agnostic as someone who claims the existence of God CANNOT BE KNOWN is ridiculous unless it is out of context such as cannot be known until more information is found/discovered.

Link me the exact quote.

Already done, sparky. You're wrong. Now take a deep breath and get over it.

Be honest with yourself. You pointed out the discrepancy in the post where you provided the quote. You knew even then that something was wrong. But rather than face the contradiction head-on and admit there is a problem, you've decided to pin your hopes on something that you don't even believe because you think it will discredit something you don't agree with. I'm still waiting for you to link the exact quote.

 

[GLASNOST]

ag·nos·tic
/aɡˈnästik/

noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Good. I will contact them.