Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#63 Feb 23, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Mikko,
Atheism is already irredeemably dead.
Haven't you read my killer post?
I dare the Atheists the world over.
Come on! Let me see you make any rescue attempt, and you will end up blaming her of its suicidal act.
you cannot kill atheism with your Hubris

you humorous POE, you

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#64 Feb 23, 2014
mark

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#65 Feb 23, 2014
The Universal Religion is swallowing up all of them!
Believers or non-believers, deists or pantheists, name it, all are the body and flesh of The Universal Religion, the mother of all religions and 'no-religions'.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#66 Feb 23, 2014
jide oni wrote:
The Universal Religion is swallowing up all of them!
Believers or non-believers, deists or pantheists, name it, all are the body and flesh of The Universal Religion, the mother of all religions and 'no-religions'.
So you say, but you haven't presented any demographic data to back up that assertion. Until you do, your claim remains unsubstantiated.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#68 Feb 24, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Nightserf,
Since the Universal Religion is established partially upon the altar of the natural laws to substantiate the actuality of the supreme Intelligence, and having presented a proposition in this regard, the onus lies with you to come up with your counter-proof.
Counter proof to what? You have provided no proof of anything. Your claims are not proof, but merely your very own arrogance malfunction displaying itself for our amusement. Supreme intelligence LOL!

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#69 Feb 24, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Nightserf,
Since the Universal Religion is established partially upon the altar of the natural laws to substantiate the actuality of the supreme Intelligence, and having presented a proposition in this regard, the onus lies with you to come up with your counter-proof.
Not so. The "alter of natural laws"? The "actuality of supreme intelligence"? Where did you get that gobbledygook, the Oprah Winfrey Show? You have yet to state a coherent thesis. Your terms remain undefined--you have yet to delineate and expound on your supposed natural laws. Argument must precede counter-argument. That has yet to happen.

Here's the crux: you make bald statements that require support, fail to provide that support, and then try to place the "onus" on others to disprove those statements. Logical arguments do not proceed that way, nor does good writing.

An essayists duty, once the thesis has been introduced is to support that thesis with logic and evidence. If a writer fails to do that, the only response needed is that no case has been made or, put more succinctly:

No QED.
Thinking

London, UK

#70 Feb 26, 2014
The same "supreme intelligence" that invented miscarriages, cot deaths and childhood leukaemia?
jide oni wrote:
Nightserf,
Since the Universal Religion is established partially upon the altar of the natural laws to substantiate the actuality of the supreme Intelligence, and having presented a proposition in this regard, the onus lies with you to come up with your counter-proof.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#71 Feb 26, 2014
I think I have made my position known to you people in very clear terms where I have stated that there are two types of laws - man-made laws and natural laws.
I went ahead to juxtapose the natural laws against the human laws, as perfect laws, while the man-made ones, imperfect.
I also claimed that the man-made laws are violable, changeable and have exceptions, while the natural laws, inviolable, permanent and have no exceptions.
I further characterized the natural laws as manifesting perfect attributes comparable with those identifiable with any entity said to be supreme, i.e. omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, benevolence and immanent justice.
In addition, I deduced that if the imperfect man-made laws are necessary products of man's imperfect intelligence, therefore the perfect natural laws must be the necessary products of a perfect intelligence. And where this is the case, there can never be room for any evil.
I believe the above background information is good enough for the purpose of argument.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#72 Feb 26, 2014
jide oni wrote:
I think I have made my position known to you people in very clear terms where I have stated that there are two types of laws - man-made laws and natural laws.
I went ahead to juxtapose the natural laws against the human laws, as perfect laws, while the man-made ones, imperfect.
I also claimed that the man-made laws are violable, changeable and have exceptions, while the natural laws, inviolable, permanent and have no exceptions.
I further characterized the natural laws as manifesting perfect attributes comparable with those identifiable with any entity said to be supreme, i.e. omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, benevolence and immanent justice.
In addition, I deduced that if the imperfect man-made laws are necessary products of man's imperfect intelligence, therefore the perfect natural laws must be the necessary products of a perfect intelligence. And where this is the case, there can never be room for any evil.
I believe the above background information is good enough for the purpose of argument.
You did indeed do all of the above. But all that accomplished was to state your thesis. You have still failed to substantiate it. You are still saying that your statements stand as true until they are proven wrong, which, as I wrote before, is a classic fallacy on which you will be called each and every time.

There are man-made laws. They are transient, always subject to revision and improvement. But most of the natural laws that you have put forward are matters of opinion, not fact. Karma, reincarnation, universal interdependency, change, parsimony, similarity, sympathy, continuity, opposites: none of these so-called natural laws have been established in this forum as valid or even extent. If you want to do that, you have a lot of work to do.

Logical arguments begin with premises that are accepted by all involved. The arguments then proceed step by step, each one supported with evidence and logic. Steps cannot be skipped--no "then a miracle occurs" steps allowed. http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gall...

It is not enough to simply state your thesis. You must support it to the satisfaction of reasonable skeptics.
Thinking

London, UK

#73 Feb 27, 2014
Why?
jide oni wrote:
I think I have made my position known to you people in very clear terms where I have stated that there are two types of laws - man-made laws and natural laws.
I went ahead to juxtapose the natural laws against the human laws, as perfect laws, while the man-made ones, imperfect.
I also claimed that the man-made laws are violable, changeable and have exceptions, while the natural laws, inviolable, permanent and have no exceptions.
I further characterized the natural laws as manifesting perfect attributes comparable with those identifiable with any entity said to be supreme, i.e. omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, benevolence and immanent justice.
In addition, I deduced that if the imperfect man-made laws are necessary products of man's imperfect intelligence, therefore the perfect natural laws must be the necessary products of a perfect intelligence. And where this is the case, there can never be room for any evil.
I believe the above background information is good enough for the purpose of argument.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#74 Feb 28, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Why?
<quoted text>
Why not?
Thinking

Poole, UK

#75 Feb 28, 2014
I knew you had no proof.
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not?
Richardfs

Saint Marys, Australia

#76 Mar 1, 2014
"Introducing The Universal Religion"

Why would you even bother on an atheist thread?

The mere fact some one would do such a ridiculous thing points to their level of intelligence.
Richardfs

Saint Marys, Australia

#77 Mar 1, 2014
jide oni wrote:
I think I have made my position known to you people in very clear terms where I have stated that there are two types of laws - man-made laws and natural laws.
I went ahead to juxtapose the natural laws against the human laws, as perfect laws, while the man-made ones, imperfect.
I also claimed that the man-made laws are violable, changeable and have exceptions, while the natural laws, inviolable, permanent and have no exceptions.
I further characterized the natural laws as manifesting perfect attributes comparable with those identifiable with any entity said to be supreme, i.e. omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, benevolence and immanent justice.
In addition, I deduced that if the imperfect man-made laws are necessary products of man's imperfect intelligence, therefore the perfect natural laws must be the necessary products of a perfect intelligence. And where this is the case, there can never be room for any evil.
I believe the above background information is good enough for the purpose of argument.
How are Ohm's Law, Kirchoff's Laws, Newton's Law of Gravity or Boyle's Law benevolent?

The last time I looked if you try to break the Law of Gravity from a 30 story window you are dead that does not seem too benevolent to me.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#78 Mar 1, 2014
Richardfs,
I consider Atheism forum the most appropriate forum for the introduction of the Universal Religion, because the Atheists are more reasonable in their no-god concept than all others in their yes-god concept; while I am more reasonable in my yes-god concept than the Atheists in their no-god concept.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#79 Mar 1, 2014
Richardfs,
All the natural laws, among which are the scientific laws, are quite beneficial if man cooperates with them.
When some people lose their life while the laws are in operation, there is nothing bad in it, inasmuch as death itself is a beneficial natural law which helps to relieve man of excruciating pains.
Richardfs

Saint Marys, Australia

#80 Mar 2, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Richardfs,
I consider Atheism forum the most appropriate forum for the introduction of the Universal Religion, because the Atheists are more reasonable in their no-god concept than all others in their yes-god concept; while I am more reasonable in my yes-god concept than the Atheists in their no-god concept.
You have quiet an ego there don't you.

BTW When will you learn to use the reply button?
Richardfs

Saint Marys, Australia

#81 Mar 2, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Richardfs,
All the natural laws, among which are the scientific laws, are quite beneficial if man cooperates with them.
When some people lose their life while the laws are in operation, there is nothing bad in it, inasmuch as death itself is a beneficial natural law which helps to relieve man of excruciating pains.
The scientific laws are the only natural laws, the rest are man made and subject to change.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#82 Mar 2, 2014
Thinking wrote:
The same "supreme intelligence" that invented miscarriages, cot deaths and childhood leukaemia?
<quoted text>
Without such problems, scientific progress wouldn't have been made.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#83 Mar 2, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
Without such problems, scientific progress wouldn't have been made.
now there is a filthy philosophy

It is obvious that you have been indoctrinated as a christian

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
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 min Eman 22,919
Our world came from nothing? 5 min Richardfs 674
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 13 min ChristineM 228,515
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 1 hr Andre 463
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 1 hr Thinking 2
Is Religion Childish? 1 hr Thinking 2
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 6 hr NightSerf 146

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE