Introducing The Universal Religion
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#585 Apr 19, 2014
jide oni wrote:
The long-awaited Universal Religion is now here. The advent of the Universal Religion will definitely clear off all forms of idolatrous practices from our world, and prove to be the best option for Atheists, Agnostics, Pagans and all believers at large.
It naturally follows therefore, that all existing scriptures stand to be displaced and replaced by the superior Universal Religion scriptures.
This inchoate Universal Religion will eventually remain the only religion throughout the whole world and through all future civilizations.
The religion will be a religion of no religion, in the sense that it will prove to be simply a natural way of life, i.e. all shades of primitive idolatrous worships of a personal, humanlike deity will become a thing of the past.
Learn more from Jideoni-Charles, to be able to make the believers' so-called heaven here on earth.
Your new religion is the oldest religion in the world and is practiced by all species of animals.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#586 Apr 19, 2014
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Your new religion is the oldest religion in the world and is practiced by all species of animals.
Agreed, but unknown to all, including you.

Since: Jan 14

United States

#588 Apr 21, 2014
15. That God is omniscient. Therefore, He couldn't have regretted his actions;
16. That God is perfect. Therefore, the experiment He carried out in the 'Laboratory' of Eden couldn't have been unsuccessful.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#589 Apr 21, 2014
jide oni wrote:
15. That God is omniscient. Therefore, He couldn't have regretted his actions;
16. That God is perfect. Therefore, the experiment He carried out in the 'Laboratory' of Eden couldn't have been unsuccessful.
These are statements of faith, but an essential element of skepticism is the rejection of faith as a basis for understanding reality. Both also display faulty logic, taking the form:

<statement 1>, therefore <statement 2>

That form is logically valid only if:

1. <statement> 1 has already been proven or accepted as an axion; and

2. the logic leading from <statement> 1 to <statement 2> is either obvious to even the most skeptical logician or has been successfully demonstrated in a sequence that is free of flaws and fallacies.

Neither 1. nor 2. are true in either of your assertions. That's what makes them statements of faith. The logic you've used to show that God exists has thus employed classic fallacies that have been pointed out. You have neither responded to posts pointing that out nor attempted to use different logic. Rather, you have continued as if you had validated those premises.

Still no evidence.

Still no logic.

Still no reason.

Still no QED.

Since: Jan 14

United States

#590 Apr 21, 2014
I said if there is God, It must be all-inclusive, i.e. all in all, i.e. It must be the sum-total of all of existence.
I also said that man's limited actions are products of man's imperfect intelligence; Whereas, there are unlimited manifest natural actions, such as those of the sun, the planets, chemical actions within the living organisms, and of other natural phenomena, all of which evidently point to an omniscient, perfect mind fully active at the background.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#591 Apr 21, 2014
jide oni wrote:
I said if there is God, It must be all-inclusive, i.e. all in all, i.e. It must be the sum-total of all of existence.
I also said that man's limited actions are products of man's imperfect intelligence; Whereas, there are unlimited manifest natural actions, such as those of the sun, the planets, chemical actions within the living organisms, and of other natural phenomena, all of which evidently point to an omniscient, perfect mind fully active at the background.
This is one of the classic fallacies so often used bu religious apologists. Natural actions do not point to an omniscient mind. They do not point to any mind at all. They simply are, and to state otherwise without further logic constitutes a non sequitur that no competent logician can accept. All of those phenomena are easily understood without resorting to an mind behind the, omniscient or otherwise. As LaPlace said to Napoleon after demonstrating that divine intervention was not necessary to assure the stability of the solar system, we have no need for that hypothesis.

Your post makes no sense in the face of even nineteenth century science, much less that of the twenty-first.

Since: Jan 14

United States

#592 Apr 21, 2014
If the greatest chemist the world over, is backed up by his limited intelligence to exhaust his scientific wherewithal in his lab. to produce limited, shoddy results; it follows therefore, that THAT natural energy that works the perfect chemistry in the lab, of human body, couldn't have been devoid of a superior intelligence either.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#593 Apr 22, 2014
jide oni wrote:
If the greatest chemist the world over, is backed up by his limited intelligence to exhaust his scientific wherewithal in his lab. to produce limited, shoddy results; it follows therefore, that THAT natural energy that works the perfect chemistry in the lab, of human body, couldn't have been devoid of a superior intelligence either.
No, it does not follow just because you say so. If you want to convince anyone who is not gullible or does not already believe, you have to come up with logic and reason supported by reliable and verifiable evidence. This has been point out to you time and time again, yet you insist on making unsupported and probably unsupportable assertions.

No evidence.

No logic.

No reason.

No QED.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#594 Apr 22, 2014
Actually, the efforts of the chemists of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are not limited and far from shoddy. They are astounding and would have been called miracles in any of the previous centuries--or sorcery, resulting in the torture and murder of their creators. That's one of the ways that religious people deal with things they cannot understand.

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#595 Apr 22, 2014
and on topix they vote you a spammer ....

Since: Jan 14

United States

#596 Apr 22, 2014
What other evidence do you want of me in the defence of the intelligence behind the fabrication of the human brain, compared to the intelligence that fashioned the computer - an inferior copy of the former?
The computer, among many other artificial contrivances, couldn't have been made in the absence of man's intelligence. If this is accepted as a respectable premise, then it will be a height of logical fallacy, to conclude that a more complex and superior natural computer, i.e. human brain, could simply exist independent of a superior propeling intelligence behind it.

Since: Jan 14

United States

#597 Apr 22, 2014
Mikko wrote:
and on topix they vote you a spammer ....
Who?

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#598 Apr 22, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> Who?
like you and other religious trolls

Since: Jan 14

United States

#599 Apr 22, 2014
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
like you and other religious trolls
You know who I am, the man who has taken atheism prisoner in its own territory.

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#600 Apr 22, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> You know who I am, the man who has taken atheism prisoner in its own territory.
You are the troll that failed to get atheists to join your religion

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#601 Apr 22, 2014
jide oni wrote:
What other evidence do you want of me in the defence of the intelligence behind the fabrication of the human brain, compared to the intelligence that fashioned the computer - an inferior copy of the former?
The computer, among many other artificial contrivances, couldn't have been made in the absence of man's intelligence. If this is accepted as a respectable premise, then it will be a height of logical fallacy, to conclude that a more complex and superior natural computer, i.e. human brain, could simply exist independent of a superior propeling intelligence behind it.
As amazing as they are, computers are not analogous to the human brain or any other one. They don't function (or malfunction) using methods that are remotely similar, not were they intended to be. I'm in a position to know a bit about this--my uncle and his partner designed and built the first functioning all-electronic computer, and my father joined their company after returning from his service in WWII. The logic (or illogic) that you use here is the same that the proponents of intelligent design advance to oppose the Theory of Evolution.

The human brain was not created by a superior intelligence. It evolved over millions of years from those of our ancestor species. Nor did that evolution have a guiding hand behind it as you will probably claim any more than the planets need the hand of God to keep them from spinning off course. If the human minds ares imperfect, perfection itself is a concept that sprang from our minds. We are the most advanced animals on the planet, but we are still animals, still developing as a species, constantly adding to the body of knowledge upon which civilization is built.

One component of human intelligence is pattern recognition. In earlier stages of our evolution, it served to help us recognize danger in time to avoid or avert it and to seize on opportunities before they slipped away. As that ability advanced, we learned to read the body language of other animals,including fellow humans, and to anticipate intent. But we also tended from early on to perceive patterns where there were none and to ascribe intent where there was no sentience. As human intelligence developed, so did human delusion.

We create things using our intelligence. We see things that we did not create and conclude that they must have been created as well by some unseen beings. But the most significant advances in science have come about only because their discoverers questioned the common wisdom, imagined alternatives, and devised ways to find out which hypotheses best explained the observed phenomena. Thus experimentation supplanted philosophical speculation and the various models for the structure of the universe supplanted older concepts. The flat earth was abandoned in favor of a spherical model, geocentrism in favor of heliocentrism, Newton's laws modified by Einstein's theories, and Einsteins by quantum physics. More advanced medical models replaced the Greco-Roman concept of humors and the understanding of life cycles replaced spontaneous generation as an explanation for the mysterious appearance of maggots and other organisms.

Whenever gods have been accepted as explanations for phenomena of any kind, the progress of science has been slowed. God is not a hypothesis of last resort, it is one for which there is never any need, one that hinders scientists in their work and the rest of us in our efforts to understand anything at all. It is used to defy logic, not to advance it. Religion may not always suppress human intelligence, but often it does, and it never serves to advance our understanding of the universe. Only science does that.

Employing the methods of science in defense of religion and relying on faith to understand anything at all is an exercise in futility. If there is method in that madness, it is madness nonetheless.

Since: Jan 14

United States

#602 Apr 22, 2014
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the troll that failed to get atheists to join your religion
We are all children of the universe, therefore members of the Universal Religion.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#603 Apr 22, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> We are all children of the universe, therefore members of the Universal Religion.
A person is a member of a religion if he/she subscribes to the basic beliefs of that religion. I, like many others on this forum, remain completely unconvinced by your claims. Unless or until you proffer credible evidence, I do not subscribe to the beliefs of your religion, and am in no ways a member thereof, your childish word games notwithstanding.

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#604 Apr 22, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> We are all children of the universe, therefore members of the Universal Religion.
no one wants to join so you create that bullshit

Since: Jan 14

United States

#605 Apr 22, 2014
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
A person is a member of a religion if he/she subscribes to the basic beliefs of that religion. I, like many others on this forum, remain completely unconvinced by your claims. Unless or until you proffer credible evidence, I do not subscribe to the beliefs of your religion, and am in no ways a member thereof, your childish word games notwithstanding.
Membership of the religion is universally automatic and voluntarily mandatory.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 min Dogen 24,800
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 20 min Dogen 51,975
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 11,423
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Eagle 12 22,137
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 1 hr Eagle 12 1,660
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 3 hr Ronald 205
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 10 hr Into The Night 5,805
More from around the web