Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The Millenium (I)

Posted in the Atheism Forum

First Prev
of 65
Next Last

Since: Jan 14

United States

#1 Feb 19, 2014
Many arguments have been put up for proving the existence of God - especially the 'design-designer' argument.
On the other hand, one of the arguments against the existence of God is the incompatibility of omnipotence of God with His benevolence, i.e. if there is God, the God must be all-powerful and good;
Whereas, the apparent existence of evil denies God of either of the attributes. And so, the God loses His divinity.
Whereas, there is God, i.e. the supreme Intelligence, i.e. the Absolute - perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, just and unchanging.
If God has the above attributes, there can never be room for evil. Where God is omnipresent, evil will be 'omniabsent'. Where God is omnipotent and benevolent, evil remains non-existent.
The so-called evil is good, i.e. painful good; while the opposite, pleasurable good. No solution without problem; No peace without war; Every effort spells a commensurate advance.
(Please do not post your reactions yet.)

Since: Jan 14

United States

#2 Feb 19, 2014
Atheism Destroyed At Last (II)
Man makes imperfect laws which are violable, changeable, and have exceptions. These imperfect laws are the necessary products of man's imperfect intelligence.
However, there are perfect laws which are superior to us, i.e. which control the universe and its contents - they are inviolable, permanent, and have no exceptions. If these laws, i.e. the natural laws, are perfect, they must necessarily be the products of a perfect, supreme Intelligence - i.e. God, at least if they are not God themselves.
The laws exhibit the same absolute attributes as those of God Himself. Where we don't acknowledge the Intelligence back of the supreme Laws, then the Laws themselves, as a body, we recognize as a supreme Body of Laws. and the supreme Body, i.e. the supreme Entity/Thing/Being, is God in action.
Among the 37 natural laws are the Laws of Change, of Opposites, of Natural Justice, of Parsimony, of Economy of Life(Death), of Purposive Occurrence, of Identical Unsameness etc.

Since: Jan 14

United States

#3 Feb 19, 2014
Folks,

I am waiting for your reactions!

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#4 Feb 19, 2014
same old rubbish as usual

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#5 Feb 19, 2014
Mikko,
The truly intelligent Atheists around are sombrely mourning their no-god monster, while you are ignorantly celebrating the cause of their sorrow.
That you couldn't see any difference shows that some Atheists are surprisingly bird-witted.
I am sorry, i shouldn't have gone thus far, for people might not see the difference.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#6 Feb 19, 2014
Every human is born atheist(without theism, it is what the word means), and no one will ever destroy that.

Matt. 7:15-16 "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit".

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all ...

<<<<<< That is the buybull god telling us that he is pure crap.

Now if you want to sell us something, how about something that is actually beneficial to mankind? Your god is an embarrassment ... you do know about his fetish for golden dipped hemorrhoids and lopped off foreskins, don't you?

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#7 Feb 20, 2014
Reason Personified,
Similarly, we were all born foolish; but many remain so.
Our having been born Atheists indicates a blank slate made ready to be filled with reasonable Theistic values as we progress along the path.
Why quoting the useless Bible for me? Don't you know the Bible is as stone dead as Atheism?- the dead quoting the dead.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#8 Feb 20, 2014
More of the same old rubbish as usual

Atheism isn't a belief in no god!

Since: Jan 14

United States

#9 Feb 20, 2014
Mikko wrote:
More of the same old rubbish as usual
Atheism isn't a belief in no god!
What then is Atheism?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#10 Feb 20, 2014
The "designer/design" argument has never "proved" the existence of God. It cannot because of its circular nature. It can only convince those who already believe. The power of an argument lies in its ability to persuade even the most obstinate deniers, or at least those who are intellectually rigorous enough to consider said argument fully and honest enough to admit their error when it is plain.

No such argument has yet appeared in this forum, and the one above is no exception. The transitory nature of the laws of humanity is another bogus argument. Human laws are put in place to govern the behavior of individuals and populations of our own species, and the ideas about limitations, prohibitions, obligations, and duties change with both time and culture. These laws are neither innate nor unchangeable because we decide them--we make them up as we go, so to speak. As a culture matures, the standards of behavior change with it.

The "laws" of physics, biology, geology, astronomy, and the many other sciences, on the other hand, are not laws at all in the same sense. No one decides what they will be. Our understanding of them changes as we discover more about them, but those principles do not change. That is not evidence of God, only of a Universe that, whether orderly or chaotic, is at least consistent--and mysterious. Using that consistency as evidence for God requires the same sort of circularity that the watchmaker fallacy does.

The basic challenge is this: beginning with not even the assumption that no God exists but without even the concept of deities, would we be forced to hypothesize them to explain anything at all?

An NPR article recently noted that humans are natural "mind-readers." We can tell much about others that is only indirectly and often unintentionally expressed. It allows us to predict eachother's behavior with a high degree of accuracy. I suspect that we can do this with other sentient species as well--dogs, cats, horses, cattle, etc. we do this by understanding the intentions of others, especially when those intentions can present dangers of one sort or another.

Because of that, we often look for intention where it does not exist because the underlying sentience is missing. Weather--thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, winter storms, etc. Earthquakes. Volcanic eruptions. Tsunamis. Because these also threaten our survival, we look for intention that makes them predictable, even controllable. Relatively recent technology does make some of these predictable, but so far, few, if any, are controllable. But that intention is simply not there. Only by understanding the science can we make any progress at all.

The arguments above are not new, nor are they convincing. Nor is your approach new--we have seen many come in convinced that they have the "magic bullet" that has eluded others, that they will miraculously convert all but the most obstinate and obdurate of atheists.

I think the basic problem is that few believers rally understand atheism. It is not a set of principles that can be refuted. It is not a set of beliefs. It is the rejection of arguments for deities that are seen as unsustainable, as fallacious. Most, like the ones above, contain non sequiturs, some subtle, some painfully obvious, or depend on assumptions that are unsupported and probably unsupportable. The arguments begin and end with statements of faith. As such, they can never win over those who reject faith as a method of understanding the world/universe, themselves, or others.

Because of that faith, that belief in God, believers see God in everything and cannot understand why anyone else does not. We who do not rely on faith call that confirmation bias, i.e., faith causes believers to see evidence for their faith whether it exists or not. Without that faith, only real evidence is visible.

Enjoy your faith. Relish it and live in it. But don't imagine that you can spread it here.
Thinking

London, UK

#11 Feb 20, 2014
Do you think "not collecting stamps" is a hobby?
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
What then is Atheism?

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#12 Feb 20, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Atheism Destroyed At Last (II)
Man makes imperfect laws which are violable, changeable, and have exceptions. These imperfect laws are the necessary products of man's imperfect intelligence.
However, there are perfect laws which are superior to us, i.e. which control the universe and its contents - they are inviolable, permanent, and have no exceptions. If these laws, i.e. the natural laws, are perfect, they must necessarily be the products of a perfect, supreme Intelligence - i.e. God, at least if they are not God themselves.
The laws exhibit the same absolute attributes as those of God Himself. Where we don't acknowledge the Intelligence back of the supreme Laws, then the Laws themselves, as a body, we recognize as a supreme Body of Laws. and the supreme Body, i.e. the supreme Entity/Thing/Being, is God in action.
Among the 37 natural laws are the Laws of Change, of Opposites, of Natural Justice, of Parsimony, of Economy of Life(Death), of Purposive Occurrence, of Identical Unsameness etc.
LOL! The only thing you've proven so far is that you can 'speak' like a preacher. Lots of multisyllabic words strung together in such a way that by the time one is finished wading through them they find themselves wondering... "WTF was that!?"

You have over 2000 years worth of "explanations" that amount to nothing more than "because I say so"... and yet here you are adding exactly nothing to that long history of, well, nothing.

Brilliant

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#13 Feb 20, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
The "designer/design" argument has never "proved" the existence of God. It cannot because of its circular nature. It can only convince those who already believe. The power of an argument lies in its ability to persuade even the most obstinate deniers, or at least those who are intellectually rigorous enough to consider said argument fully and honest enough to admit their error when it is plain.
No such argument has yet appeared in this forum, and the one above is no exception. The transitory nature of the laws of humanity is another bogus argument. Human laws are put in place to govern the behavior of individuals and populations of our own species, and the ideas about limitations, prohibitions, obligations, and duties change with both time and culture. These laws are neither innate nor unchangeable because we decide them--we make them up as we go, so to speak. As a culture matures, the standards of behavior change with it.
The "laws" of physics, biology, geology, astronomy, and the many other sciences, on the other hand, are not laws at all in the same sense. No one decides what they will be. Our understanding of them changes as we discover more about them, but those principles do not change. That is not evidence of God, only of a Universe that, whether orderly or chaotic, is at least consistent--and mysterious. Using that consistency as evidence for God requires the same sort of circularity that the watchmaker fallacy does.
The basic challenge is this: beginning with not even the assumption that no God exists but without even the concept of deities, would we be forced to hypothesize them to explain anything at all?
An NPR article recently noted that humans are natural "mind-readers." We can tell much about others that is only indirectly and often unintentionally expressed. It allows us to predict eachother's behavior with a high degree of accuracy. I suspect that we can do this with other sentient species as well--dogs, cats, horses, cattle, etc. we do this by understanding the intentions of others, especially when those intentions can present dangers of one sort or another.
Because of that, we often look for intention where it does not exist because the underlying sentience is missing. Weather--thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, winter storms, etc. Earthquakes. Volcanic eruptions. Tsunamis. Because these also threaten our survival, we look for intention that makes them predictable, even controllable. Relatively recent technology does make some of these predictable, but so far, few, if any, are controllable. But that intention is simply not there. Only by understanding the science can we make any progress at all.
The arguments above are not new, nor are they convincing. Nor is your approach new--we have seen many come in convinced that they have the "magic bullet" that has eluded others, that they will miraculously convert all but the most obstinate and obdurate of atheists.
I think the basic problem is that few believers rally understand atheism. It is not a set of principles that can be refuted. It is not a set of beliefs. It is the rejection of arguments for deities that are seen as unsustainable, as fallacious. Most, like the ones above, contain non sequiturs, some subtle, some painfully obvious, or depend on assumptions that are unsupported and probably unsupportable. The arguments begin and end with statements of faith. As such, they can never win over those who reject faith as a method of understanding the world/universe, themselves, or others.
Because of that faith, that belief in God, believers see God in everything and cannot understand why anyone else does not. We who do not rely on faith call that confirmation bias, i.e., faith causes believers to see evidence for their faith whether it exists or not. Without that faith, only real evidence is visible.
Excellent post, as usual, NightSerf! Good to 'see you'

Since: Jan 14

United States

#14 Feb 20, 2014
NightSerf,
Much ado about nothing. Your post falls far short of target, in spite of its length.
Please try and go through my thread once again, perhaps the essentials will dawn on you. I am saying this because the questions I am expecting from the floor are not forthcoming.
If you do a repeat reading and yet you could not come up with the pertinent reaction, I will give you a list of intelligent sounders.
E.g. I made the claim that there is no evil in the world. Don't you have something to say about this?
Thinking

London, UK

#15 Feb 20, 2014
You also said your god wasn't compassionate. So why do you worship it?
jide oni wrote:
NightSerf,
Much ado about nothing. Your post falls far short of target, in spite of its length.
Please try and go through my thread once again, perhaps the essentials will dawn on you. I am saying this because the questions I am expecting from the floor are not forthcoming.
If you do a repeat reading and yet you could not come up with the pertinent reaction, I will give you a list of intelligent sounders.
E.g. I made the claim that there is no evil in the world. Don't you have something to say about this?

Since: Jan 14

United States

#16 Feb 20, 2014
Terryl,
Polysyllabic words are polysyllabic words, big words are big words; The two are as different as chalk is from cheese.
There are many monosyllabic difficult words; There also abound polysyllabic simple words.
Any word, no matter its length, is a big/difficult word as long as it is not in common usage. A word of 12 syllables is simple inasmuch as it is commonly used by all and sundry, such as the ones I used in the thread in question.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#17 Feb 20, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Atheism Destroyed At Last (II)
Man makes imperfect laws which are violable, changeable, and have exceptions. These imperfect laws are the necessary products of man's imperfect intelligence.
However, there are perfect laws which are superior to us, i.e. which control the universe and its contents - they are inviolable, permanent, and have no exceptions. If these laws, i.e. the natural laws, are perfect, they must necessarily be the products of a perfect, supreme Intelligence - i.e. God, at least if they are not God themselves.
The laws exhibit the same absolute attributes as those of God Himself. Where we don't acknowledge the Intelligence back of the supreme Laws, then the Laws themselves, as a body, we recognize as a supreme Body of Laws. and the supreme Body, i.e. the supreme Entity/Thing/Being, is God in action.
Among the 37 natural laws are the Laws of Change, of Opposites, of Natural Justice, of Parsimony, of Economy of Life(Death), of Purposive Occurrence, of Identical Unsameness etc.
So you don't believe perfect physical laws can exist without a creator yet you believe a perfect creator can exist without cause? That's irrational. It's also a logical fallacy called special pleading.

To put it simply, if the universe needs a creator then the creator needs a creator.
If the creator doesn't need a creator then why should the universe?

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#18 Feb 20, 2014
Thinking,
I never said I worship any God.
As a matter of fact, nobody can worship/serve God, because God is self-sufficient and perfect, therefore not needing anything from any insufficient, imperfect being, i.e. human being.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#19 Feb 20, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Thinking,
I never said I worship any God.
As a matter of fact, nobody can worship/serve God, because God is self-sufficient and perfect, therefore not needing anything from any insufficient, imperfect being, i.e. human being.
You can't prove there's a God.
You can't know he's perfect.
If Gods don't need worshipping then why do they demand it?

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#20 Feb 20, 2014
Igor Trip,
You are not asking me the right questions.
Why bringing up 'design/designer' or 'the uncaused first cause' issue, when that has been addressd in the introductory paragraphs of my thread?
Let me tell you that I know quite well that nothing created nothing. God is eternal, i.e. beginningless and endless.
If God has no beginning and God is God, i.e. all in all, i.e. everything, then nothing could have been created.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 65
Next Last

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 requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr Morse 232,033
God' existence 6 hr Geezerjock 1
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 8 hr tha Professor 1,051
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 16 hr Morse 30
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 23 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,456
Young atheists: The political leaders of tomorrow Thu thetruth 6
Why Christians should stick up for atheists Thu thetruth 8

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE