This blog contains various embedded chatrooms from ICQ and various chat satire. Viewer discretion is advised.

CLICK BELOW AND LEARN HOW TO REGISTER A NICK

REGISTER NOW

Sunday, January 6, 2013

ICQ ATHEISM CHATROOM





Are you a lonely atheist who wants to find a friend? Look no further- but get ready to be fedora'd!

43 comments:

  1. First off your big bang theory by your own definition is just that: a theory. It is not a LAW. For if it were you would have evidence to support that. Physical hardcore scientific evidence. We on the other hand have evidence: the dead sea scrolls. And by using carbon dating which is a SCIENTIFIC method of determining the age of things we have found that they are the same age as the periods in the bible.

    Second your theory of evolution is just that: a theory. It is not a LAW. For again if it were you would have evidence to support that. Granted we don't have any evidence either however the odds of the universe existing the way it exists now are FAR higher in our religion than they are just by chance alone.

    If you still doubt that god exists let me ask you a question: do YOU exist? One thing that I know for certain is that you do, and that if you didn't i would be talking to someone else right now. I also think that you really wouldn't like to imagine yourself not existing to the rest of the universe.   Now that we have established the fact that it's possible for you to exist because it's already happened, wouldn't it also be possible for something like god to exist? Let me give you an experiment if your still unsure, say the words: "what could possibly go wrong" WITHOUT knocking on wood or saying the phrase "knock on wood". Now once your sick of the bad luck say the words again, but this time knock on wood or say the phrase "knock on wood". If a curse like those 5 words exists, and a cure like those 3 words exists, why cant those two things exist on a universal scale as Satan and God?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you need fantasy so badly? Is it knit into your ego?

      Delete
    2. You should look up the definition of the words "scientific theory", because it's not nearly the same as the common definition of "theory" that you seem to be using. Get yourself informed instead of claiming to understand more about science than actual scientists.

      Depending on your definition of "God", it does not exist. It's properties are not just contradicting observations in the natural world (which is already reason enough to disregard the concept), they are actually self-contradicting, making the concept a real absurdity. Like for example, the attributes of omniscient and omnipotent are logically incompatible.

      Furthermore, there is no good reason to believe in any fairytales or magical events of any kind, so it is extremely unintelligent to believe in it.

      Delete
    3. You don't understand what a scientific theory is then. A theory in science is different from a theory in everyday use of the word. A scientific law is not a graduation of a theory. A theory is the highest level of acceptance based on evidence and repeated experimentation. It is as much a fact as the Law of Conservation of Energy.

      Delete
    4. The theory of gravity by your logic means that just because of the label theory makes it false but I don't see people floating around into space.

      Delete
    5. Do you understand what a theory is in the phrase of a "scientific theory", a theory is the best model of something in the universe or the whole universe in the case of the big bang, and when a piece of demonstrable evidence goes against that model a new model is created a new theory that works for everything we know is true already and for the new piece of evidence.

      In short a theory is the best explanation of something in the universe so far. The big bang theory is the best explanation with the most evidence about the beginning of the universe.

      Delete
    6. Wait im confused which god is this an argument for Yahweh Zues Buddah?

      Delete
  2. I would like to interview an atheist...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go for it. I'll check back here in a bit and if you are still interested we'll go for it.

      Delete
    2. I don't believe in a god or gods. That's the whole of it. Its' not complicated.

      Delete
  3. We all need God we are in the birth pains of the end. The rapture is near. Zephaniah 1:3 ASV
    American Standard Version
    I will consume man and beast; I will consume the birds of the heavens, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumbling blocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the face of the ground, saith Jehovah.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is completely foolish to think that the universe was not created. The big bang theory itself contradicts scientific fact. A man that worships the Sun is more credible than any atheist. You can argue terms and definitions and theories all you want, but a man that believes in only science is a fool. An atheist is the equivalent of a man who thinks a car formed over millions of years, because the universe is even more complex. Say you don't like Christianity or Buddhism, but don't be a fool.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're retarded.

      Delete
    2. Thats hands-down the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read. You win a gold star.

      Delete
    3. http://www.vizzed.com/boards/forum.php?id=37&ref=174590

      Delete
    4. You don't believe in the Big Bang Theory, which most scientists accept as fact, but believe that everything came into existence thanks to an invisible, unknowable, uncomprehendable being which you have no proof exists. This being inspired a book about his accomplishments but, despite having the power to create a universe, instead of magically creating the book himself 9as he did the world) he trusted its authorship to a tribe of sheepherders in the desert. I'd rather believe Harry Potter.

      Delete
    5. Look, i am a Theist myself, very devout, however the ignorance of religious people like KWASI make it really difficult for every religious individual to feel justified in their beliefs, much like an extremely ignorant atheist makes it difficult for other atheists. Kwasi seems to think that the original episode or "big bang" is not rooted in our scientific, physical, mathematical, and cosmological laws, in fact he asserts that the theory requires these laws to be suspended. He couldn't be more wrong. In fact theists don't deny the original episode, simply all they want to know is what the original cause agent was in such theory. The whole reason the "big bang" was proposed in the first place is because the idea of an infinite universe was not logically sound, so scientist were forced to rethink their beliefs as to the origin of the universe. Now scientists are forced to believe that in fact the universe had a beginning and actually began to exist therefore an original cause agent is required for the "big bang". its because of the ignorance of religious people like kwasi that make the atmosphere for theists so volatile. If more of the religious type actually understood science, physics, mathematics, and cosmology, they would realize that it makes their argument for a God that much stronger.

      Delete
    6. I'm sorry, but an understanding of science only makes the argument for God or a god weaker.

      Delete
  5. Why was the mod unfair he banned me from christianity room s4wdust squiggles cuz i asked how to justify hell.

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://www.vizzed.com/boards/forum.php?id=37&ref=174590

    ReplyDelete
  7. Luke 9:46-48
    An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he said to them, "Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all he is the greatest." The Bible proves over and over again that all Children make it to Heaven, for they are all pure at heart, for they all hate sin, they cry when they do wrong. I'm telling you that if anyone ever has a child that passed away, the child will be in Heaven, for they know no Evil.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mark 10:13-16
    People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Matthew 19:13-14
    Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

    ReplyDelete
  10. Matthew 18:10
    "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven

    ReplyDelete
  11. Matthew 18:2-6
    He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Matthew 11:25-26
    At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lamentations 3:32-33
    Though he brings grief, he will show compassion,
    so great is his unfailing love.
    For he does not willingly bring affliction or grief to the children of men

    ReplyDelete
  14. Proverbs 20:11
    Even a child is known by his actions,
    by whether his conduct is pure and right.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Proverbs 13:22
    A good man leaves an inheritance for his children's children

    ReplyDelete
  16. It shows how much God loves children, If you are child at heart you will receive eternal life in Heaven. When I say Child at heart I mean pure at heart, as in you try to stay away from sin and when you repent you mean it in your heart that you plan to sin no more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am a Christian. jesse is a christian, god bless him, but he is not the type that should be debating atheists. when you debate an atheist, it is pointless to use scripture to support your premises in your argument.

      Delete
    2. That is true, it is far more a effective to use facts against them, or us, since I am an athiest.

      Delete
  17. Quoting the bible doesn't prove anything except you can read.

    ReplyDelete
  18. we do have proof monkeys are very similar to humans and they have posable thumbs the only other species that has thumbs is humans

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. adam, your logic is pointless. your logic is as follows:
      1. humans have thumbs
      2. monkeys have thumbs
      3 therefore humans are monkeys

      the same logic applies in this argument:
      1: All cats have tails
      2. all dogs have tails
      3 therefore all cats are dogs

      neither of these are sound arguments because the premises of the arguments are not sound. when both premises of an argument are not sound, the "logical" stated conclusion bares no truth. You use inductive reasoning support your argument, which means that the reasoning is not proof at all.

      Delete
  19. 1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

    ReplyDelete
  20. Atheism is illogical and illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So. I'm new to this, and like I've been an atheist for 3 years now. But people constantly judge me. Any ideas on what I should do about this?

    ReplyDelete
  22. It seems that western society has suffered from a defect in both science and logic stemming from the ancient Greece, which may influence one more towards atheism.


    Aristotle's three laws of thought, are the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. But another law to consider is the law of unified opposition, which is better formulated as: For every X there is a conceivable non X, and for every non X there is a conceivable X. The fact that any identity or non-contradiction implies negation or opposition, demonstrates that this new law is even more self-evident and inclusive than the all the others.


    For every X there is a conceivable non X, and for every non X there is a conceivable X, because without a conceptualization of negation it would be implicitly impossible for concepts to be distinguishable from each other. The concept of negation is analogous with 'nothing' which doesn't subsist in actuality and can only be realized by thought. But in order for the concept of 'nothingness' to be cognitively identifiable from everything one must first realize its negation which is the conception of 'everything', and contradictorily for one to ken the notion of 'everything' one would first have to realize the concept of 'everything's negation which is the idea of 'nothingness'. This leaves an apparent paradox: a thought would have to exist prior to thought itself.


    (The whole point being made is that negation, (.i.e.), 'nothing' is conceptually interdependent upon other concepts, and thus cannot exist independent of the concept of 'everything'(all things perceived by a mind). This insinuates that there is no negation of 'everything'(non 'everything') which deems all 'things' contained within the perception 'everything' indistinguishable from each other, leaving an apparent paradox since it seems we can have other thoughts.)


    The paradox is solved when one considers that, without negation, all would be absolute by definition (in other words, a plenum full of thought, without holes). So such a thought could only have occurred by one whom has absolute knowledge: God by definition. When God's absolute thought of "what is" came to an end, this resulted in the beginning of everything else that negation would imply, including relativity and free will. For instance, 1) relativity is based on contingency, and 2) free will is a choice of something, and the exclusion of all other possibilities). So God's thought of nothing explains the Big Bang that set off our relative universe. (God's thought of nothing: i.e., His going from absolute knowledge to distinguishing something specific).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Here's the revised version:




    It seems that western society has suffered from a defect in both science and logic stemming from the ancient Greece, which may influence one more towards atheism.


    Aristotle's three laws of thought, are the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. But another law to consider is the law of unified opposition, which is better formulated as: For every X there is a conceivable non X, and for every non X there is a conceivable X. The fact that any identity or non-contradiction implies negation or opposition, demonstrates that this new law is even more self-evident and inclusive than the all the others if one assumes atheism.

    For every X there is a conceivable non X, and for every non X there is a conceivable X, because without a conceptualization of negation it would be implicitly impossible for concepts to be distinguishable from each other without absolute knowledge. The concept of negation is analogous with 'nothing' which doesn't subsist in actuality and can only be realized by thought. But in order for the concept of 'nothingness' to be cognitively identifiable from everything one must first realize its negation which is the conception of anything, and contradictorily for one to ken the notion of 'anything' one would first have to realize the concept of 'anything's negation which is the idea of 'nothingness'. This leaves an apparent paradox: a thought would have to exist prior to thought itself.


    (The whole point being made is that negation, (.i.e.), 'nothing' is conceptually interdependent upon other concepts, and thus cannot exist independent of all things realized by a mind. This insinuates that there is no negation of 'anything'(non 'anything') which deems all 'things' contained within all of perception conceptually indistinguishable from each other, leaving an apparent paradox since it seems we can have specified thoughts.)


    The paradox is solved when one considers that, without negation, all would be absolute by definition (in other words, a plenum full of thought, without holes). So such a thought could only have occurred by one whom has absolute knowledge: God by definition. When God's absolute thought of "what is" came to an end, this resulted in the beginning of everything else that negation would imply, including relativity and free will. For instance, 1) relativity is based on contingency, and 2) free will is a choice of something, and the exclusion of all other possibilities). So God's thought of nothing explains the Big Bang that set off our relative universe. (God's thought of nothing: i.e., His going from absolute knowledge to distinguishing something specific).

    ReplyDelete

  24. It seems that western society has suffered from a defect in both science and logic stemming from the ancient Greece, which may influence one more towards atheism. Aristotle's three laws of thought are the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. But another law to consider is the law of unified opposition, which is better formulated as: For every X there is a conceivable non X, and for every non X there is a conceivable X. The fact that any identity or non-contradiction implies negation or opposition, demonstrates that this new law is even more self-evident and inclusive than the all the others, if one assumes atheism. Denial of this law indirectly acknowledges God’s subsistence by logical implication.


    For every X there is a conceivable non X, and for every non X there is a conceivable X, because without having conceptualization of negation it would be implicitly impossible to distinguish concepts from each other, without having absolute knowledge. (How could you know what a thing is without first knowing what it isn’t?) Negation is synonymous with 'nothing' which doesn't exist in actuality and can only be realized by thought. But in order for the concept of 'nothingness' to be conceptually distinguishable from any other thought, one must first realize its negation by conceiving of some thing or 'anything', and contradictorily for one to ken the notion of 'anything' one would first have to conceive of its negation which is the concept of 'nothingness'. This leaves an apparent paradox: a thought would have to exist prior to thought itself.


    The whole point being illustrated is that negation, (.i.e.), 'nothing' is conceptually interdependent upon other concepts, in the sense it cannot be conceptualized absent of other thoughts (negation requires something to negate). This insinuates that there can be no negation of the first thought of 'something'(no differentiation of an idea can occur), and thus one cannot call upon 'nothing' to distinguish their thoughts from each other because ‘nothing’ cannot be differentiated from 'anything'. This deems all 'things' contained within all of perception conceptually indistinguishable from each other through pure negation, on behalf of the fact pure negation or 'nothingness' cannot exist as an independent thought, leaving us with an apparent paradox, since it seems we are able to differentiate specified thoughts.


    The paradox can be solved by considering absolute knowledge (without negation), transcendent to the universe, (.i.e.), space-time, and thus the law of non-contradiction and unified opposition do not apply. A transcendental and absolute mind is God by definition, who's action of going from absolute knowledge to distinquishing something specific would create space-time(change, negation and relativity), causing the big bang which sets off our relative universe.



    1.) If absolute knowledge does not exist then the ability for a spatiotemporal mind to distinguish thoughts entails a prior conceptualization of each individual thought’s negation. (Implied by the law of non-contradiction, which only applies to space-time.)


    2.) Given premise 1, in order for a spatiotemporal mind to have a first thought, it must first conceive of that thought’s negation, but this is absurd because that would require a thought to exist prior to the first thought.


    3.) Given premises 1 and 2, partial knowledge is insufficient for meeting the necessary preconditions of conceptual distinguishability. (Temporal conception.)


    4.) Our thoughts are distinguishable from each other. (Human minds.)


    5.) Given premises 3 and 4, if knowledge exists and partial knowledge does not meet the necessary preconditions for human thinking, absolute knowledge must subsist.


    6.) Given premises 3, 4 and 5, absolute knowledge must subsist.


    7.) Therefore, absolute knowledge subsists.


    8.) Therefore God subsists.

    ReplyDelete
  25. A primary predict describes an object's properties and nature, while a secondary predict describes the negation of the object's properties and nature, (.i.e), the properties the object lacks, however secondary predication is not descriptive of the actual object. Under these same principles if it is true that a primary predictication of an object necessitates the object's existence, and hypothetically a secondary predict was also descriptive of the object, by logical implication if the proposition 'God does not exist' was true, God would need to exist. A contradiction. This is why the definition of atheism cannot constitute a mere a lack of belief, because asserting so would require secondary predication to be descriptive of something which is a logical impossibility. Atheism must be the claim 'God does not exist', and if this is the case the atheist still needs to meet the burden of proof, or have some logical justification for their atheism.

    ReplyDelete