|
the official god faq (caution, witty) :) | by binabik | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| the official athiest faq (caution, witty) :) |
by sstacks |
2004-09-24 06:47:46 |
Q: Do athiests know 100% of every possible fact and bit of data concerning the present world and its origins (not to mention their own origins)? Inasmuch that they could possibly conclude whether there is a God or not?
A: No.
A 2: No.
---
Note: Individuals possessing in-depth knowledge of 100% of everything from the dawn of time to the present (including but not limited to an exact count of every hair on every human head currently bopping around out there) are welcome to contact the FAQ administrator for possible inclusion of further Q/As.
:D |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Ack! Typo :) Athiest = Atheist (n/t) | by sstacks | 2004-09-24 06:51:37 |
|
Methinks you missed the point of Atheism | by wheresthefish | 2004-09-24 07:33:18 |
|
Exactly | by Control | 2004-09-24 07:39:56 |
|
Ya know, | by wheresthefish | 2004-09-24 07:51:43 |
|
You're right, I apologize | by Control | 2004-09-24 07:55:24 |
|
Then it would also be prudent to state it as such | by JustnCase | 2004-09-24 07:57:30 |
|
The earth revolves around the sun. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 08:08:14 |
|
Well THAT depends on your frame of reference. (n/t | by McNutcase | 2004-09-24 08:12:11 |
|
I am the centre of the Universe! | by wheresthefish | 2004-09-24 08:13:44 |
|
I thought that was Harvard professors? | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 08:33:00 |
|
You are FAT! | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 08:39:11 |
|
No I'm not. | by wheresthefish | 2004-09-24 08:46:27 |
|
applause! | by saminz | 2004-09-24 08:47:23 |
|
Eyethankyew (n/t) | by wheresthefish | 2004-09-24 08:49:05 |
|
Atheism: Straight from the Source | by sstacks | 2004-09-24 08:27:59 |
|
I thought I hit the target, but who knows :) | by sstacks | 2004-09-24 08:19:34 |
|
Plenty of room for that... | by Naruki | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
More definitions :) | by sstacks | 2004-09-24 08:44:09 |
|
Am I the only one who sees | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 10:05:29 |
|
No you are not the only one to notice | by cristobal | 2004-09-24 10:07:28 |
|
Just so ya know... | by sstacks | 2004-09-24 10:14:34 |
|
Oh, I wasn't blaming you. | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 10:35:28 |
|
There are a couple of the biased ones. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 10:55:35 |
|
I don't see the counter bias in the first. | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 11:19:44 |
|
I didn't see such an implication | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 11:07:23 |
|
Consider: There is nothing to deny without | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 11:17:59 |
|
In other words | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 11:25:20 |
|
Ah, but you expressed both as assertions. | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 11:35:36 |
|
Considering that the word itself | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 11:49:09 |
|
LOL I was waiting for that ;> (n/t) | by sstacks | 2004-09-24 12:00:25 |
|
No it isn't, and no. | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 12:01:26 |
|
In that case | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 12:04:50 |
|
That's when you get into the "strong" and "weak" | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 12:15:45 |
|
That agrees with my understanding | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 12:18:12 |
|
That's the point. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 12:24:39 |
|
Going by the original Greek, yes. | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 12:36:19 |
|
If you reversed it, the theists would see it. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 11:35:42 |
|
I still don't see it | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 11:47:05 |
|
Do you deny the non-existence of God? | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 12:13:23 |
|
I think I understand | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 12:19:48 |
|
Exactly. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 12:21:49 |
|
Next question, then: | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 12:31:03 |
|
Not necessarily, but possibly. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 13:43:55 |
|
I think you summed that up nicely. (n/t) | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 13:58:15 |
|
Thanks. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 14:05:20 |
|
I would call that an atheist | by tigermouse | 2004-09-24 08:46:40 |
