Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Deba...

Since: Jan 14

United States

#21 Feb 20, 2014
IgorTtrip,
Which gods demand worships?
Defimitely the true God couldn't have demanded for any worship, because He has no mouth with which to talk.
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

#22 Feb 20, 2014
Your god, if it exists, is clearly not perfect because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
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.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#23 Feb 20, 2014
jide oni wrote:
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.
Your post is full of unsupported assertions.

You can't know God is eternal.
You can't know there is a God.
Eternity itself makes no sense as an eternity would have to pass before the universe was created which means it would never be created.
Nothing creating nothing is no more absurd than something just existing for eternity.
Could time even exist before the universe began?
Your whole argument still requires something to exist without explanation. It might as well be the universe.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#24 Feb 20, 2014
jide oni wrote:
IgorTtrip,
Which gods demand worships?
Defimitely the true God couldn't have demanded for any worship, because He has no mouth with which to talk.
The Abrahamic God, the Hindu Gods, all the pagan Gods.
Do you know of any religion where the Gods don't demand worship?

Since: Jan 14

United States

#25 Feb 20, 2014
Thinking,
Please go back to the last lap of my thread, and you will see therein an indirect answer to your question.
What is suffering?- But a phase in man's earthly activities towards self-fulfillment.
The so-called sufferings are simply the effort/activity/progress side of the human existence divide, with its correlate npposite side manifesting as rest/recreation/inertia state, experienced as life of ease.
Note well that, when you realize that your toughest time is your time of utmost self-exertion for ascent to a highest level, you will start blessing each of your earthly challenges which you erroneously call suffering.
Each time you move higher up a rung of the ladder, you exert yourself. but where you take a rest from your climbing, you briefly halt your progressive ascent.
You remember what I term 'pleasure good and painful good'?
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

#26 Feb 20, 2014
Your tired often quoted dodge still does nothing to undermine this truth: Your god, if it exists, is clearly not perfect because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
jide oni wrote:
Thinking,
Please go back to the last lap of my thread, and you will see therein an indirect answer to your question.
What is suffering?- But a phase in man's earthly activities towards self-fulfillment.
The so-called sufferings are simply the effort/activity/progress side of the human existence divide, with its correlate npposite side manifesting as rest/recreation/inertia state, experienced as life of ease.
Note well that, when you realize that your toughest time is your time of utmost self-exertion for ascent to a highest level, you will start blessing each of your earthly challenges which you erroneously call suffering.
Each time you move higher up a rung of the ladder, you exert yourself. but where you take a rest from your climbing, you briefly halt your progressive ascent.
You remember what I term 'pleasure good and painful good'?

Since: Jan 14

United States

#27 Feb 20, 2014
Igor Trip,
Listen:
I say if there is God, He must be All-inclusive, i.e. embracing every conceivable thing; Perfect, i.e. complete in itself, i.e. everything put together, including the term atheism and theism, you and me; Omnipresent, i.e. everywhere, there must be something or nothing, which is evidently part and parcel of everything which is God, meaning that no particular thing can be said to be God, but a part thereof; Omnipotent, i.e. all the force of immanent and transcendent energies, physical and mind powers that be; All-good, i.e. the negative aspect of nature is acted upon by the positive, to bring about beneficial manifestations, in an exact similarity to examination that is sweated at before a pass mark and eventual promotion to a higher class; Eternal, i.e. no beginning and no end, and what has no beginning, no part thereof could have been created, so there is no creation, everything keeps changing forms eternally, eternity with a created beginning is not eternity, but something else.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#28 Feb 20, 2014
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?
Evil is not a very useful term because its meaning ranges so widely from person to person, ideology to ideology. To some, it is a force in the world that is independent of humanity itself, almost a god in its own right. To others, it is an innate element of human nature that counters its flip side--a shallow and simplistic approach to human nature if there ever was one. It can also be viewed as a conglomerate of negative attributes such as violence, cruelty, greed, animosity, etc.

I think people are more complicated than that. I also think that anger is the root cause of most harmful act, so those who learn to control anger do less harm than those who allow emotion ascendence over intellect. We need both, but we also need balance between them so that we can benefit from those that bring us joy without giving free rein to those that cause suffering.

At any rate, before weighing in on whether evil exists in the world, we have to agree on a definition of the word. What is yours?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#29 Feb 20, 2014
Likewise, before weighing in on whether a particular deity exists, that deity has to be defined. There have been so many gods, goddesses, and other supreme spirits in the history of human belief, and showing that any one of them is unlikely or impossible is rarely difficult. Since you have begun this debate with the supposition that some deity exists (the only way to "destroy" atheism), you have a responsibility to define and describe that God for the purposes of the debate, for that is the core of the matter. Dancing around it with discussions about laws, suffering, good and evil may be fun, but they are beside the point.

What is this God that you insist that we accept?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#30 Feb 20, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Igor Trip,
Listen:
I say if there is God, He must be All-inclusive, i.e. embracing every conceivable thing; Perfect, i.e. complete in itself, i.e. everything put together, including the term atheism and theism, you and me; Omnipresent, i.e. everywhere, there must be something or nothing, which is evidently part and parcel of everything which is God, meaning that no particular thing can be said to be God, but a part thereof; Omnipotent, i.e. all the force of immanent and transcendent energies, physical and mind powers that be; All-good, i.e. the negative aspect of nature is acted upon by the positive, to bring about beneficial manifestations, in an exact similarity to examination that is sweated at before a pass mark and eventual promotion to a higher class; Eternal, i.e. no beginning and no end, and what has no beginning, no part thereof could have been created, so there is no creation, everything keeps changing forms eternally, eternity with a created beginning is not eternity, but something else.
You can't actually know any of that.

God doesn't need to be perfect, he only needs to be able to create a universe.
As that requires some sort of force then only that force is required.
Hence a God is unnecessary.

Eternity only makes sense is time exists, but if it doesn't until the universe forms then it's not a problem.

Since: Jan 14

United States

#31 Feb 20, 2014
igor trip,
all those gods that demand worships are not god, but figments of imagination of the ignorant myths creators.
the true god i am talking of is the universe, the universal intelligence, the minds, nature, all things put together.
the universal religion is not any particular religion, but natural way of life that embraces every irrefutable concept ever expressed, and tested to be so, not restricted to any tribe, clan, race, era or location.
this will be a religion of commonsense and of service to humanity, rather than the erstwhile religion of senseless servitude to a phantomlike god living somewhere in the sky.
(i see the present interaction as a continuous and an unending exercise,)

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#32 Feb 20, 2014
jide oni wrote:
igor trip,
all those gods that demand worships are not god, but figments of imagination of the ignorant myths creators.
the true god i am talking of is the universe, the universal intelligence, the minds, nature, all things put together.
the universal religion is not any particular religion, but natural way of life that embraces every irrefutable concept ever expressed, and tested to be so, not restricted to any tribe, clan, race, era or location.
this will be a religion of commonsense and of service to humanity, rather than the erstwhile religion of senseless servitude to a phantomlike god living somewhere in the sky.
(i see the present interaction as a continuous and an unending exercise,)
So you've invented your own interpretation of God?

There is no evidence the universe has a mind or even needs one.
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

#33 Feb 20, 2014
jide oni also says his god is not compassionate. So why does he promote it?
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
So you've invented your own interpretation of God?
There is no evidence the universe has a mind or even needs one.

Since: Jan 14

Norway

#34 Feb 20, 2014
My dear NightSerf,
You, Truthseeker, Seentheotherside, Topix Mods that have tolerated this thread thus far, and other like minds in Topix Forums, have naturally unconsciously been making your input towards the establishment of the new world order.
Nobody has the monopoly of knowledge. We are all children of the universe. We are all equal before God, except that we did not start off at the same time. We are all abundantly endued with an equal dose of life force, but with different amounts of self-application.
Mow, back to your Question as to my own concept of God:
I don't conceive a deistic, personal, humanlike god, but a loosely unrestrictive, immanent and transcendent under-/intra-/supra-current of Force. For nomenclature approximate, we would descriptively consider the God as the Universe, Universal Energy, Universal ntelligence, universal mind, the cosmos, life, nature, the all, the one etc., i.e. any tag that smacks of his all-inclusiveness will do, nothing restrictive about him/her/ them/it
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

#35 Feb 20, 2014
Prove it.

Then peer review it.
jide oni wrote:
My dear NightSerf,
You, Truthseeker, Seentheotherside, Topix Mods that have tolerated this thread thus far, and other like minds in Topix Forums, have naturally unconsciously been making your input towards the establishment of the new world order.
Nobody has the monopoly of knowledge. We are all children of the universe. We are all equal before God, except that we did not start off at the same time. We are all abundantly endued with an equal dose of life force, but with different amounts of self-application.
Mow, back to your Question as to my own concept of God:
I don't conceive a deistic, personal, humanlike god, but a loosely unrestrictive, immanent and transcendent under-/intra-/supra-current of Force. For nomenclature approximate, we would descriptively consider the God as the Universe, Universal Energy, Universal ntelligence, universal mind, the cosmos, life, nature, the all, the one etc., i.e. any tag that smacks of his all-inclusiveness will do, nothing restrictive about him/her/ them/it

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#36 Feb 21, 2014
dear NightSerf,
The concept of evil has been over-flogged to the point of being unduly taken for an actuality.
But I conceive no evil in the vast natural scheme of things.
The so-called evil is what I term 'painful good', while its opposite,'pleasurable good'.
The concept of evil dissolves the concept of a good God. And where God is not good, He becomes non-existent.
However, all the natural laws point to the fact of immanent good, and thus carrying God shoulder-high as a good God.
For example, the Law of Natural Justice prevents any misadministration of justice in nature.
When a thief loses his stolen items to another thief, do you call that evil?
Where death compassionately swoops on a long-suffering, mortally wounded centenarian, to disengage him from the excruciating pains, do you see the death as bad?
Painful and pleasurable deserts, do you see any evil in them?
War ravages, natural disasters, epidemics etc. merely serve as means of exit of life when life purpose has been exhausted.
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

#37 Feb 21, 2014
An all powerful god has no need to inflict pain on anyone.
jide oni wrote:
dear NightSerf,
The concept of evil has been over-flogged to the point of being unduly taken for an actuality.
But I conceive no evil in the vast natural scheme of things.
The so-called evil is what I term 'painful good', while its opposite,'pleasurable good'.
The concept of evil dissolves the concept of a good God. And where God is not good, He becomes non-existent.
However, all the natural laws point to the fact of immanent good, and thus carrying God shoulder-high as a good God.
For example, the Law of Natural Justice prevents any misadministration of justice in nature.
When a thief loses his stolen items to another thief, do you call that evil?
Where death compassionately swoops on a long-suffering, mortally wounded centenarian, to disengage him from the excruciating pains, do you see the death as bad?
Painful and pleasurable deserts, do you see any evil in them?
War ravages, natural disasters, epidemics etc. merely serve as means of exit of life when life purpose has been exhausted.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#38 Feb 21, 2014
Igor Trip,
Let me repeat it that man, for example, is the microcosm of the larger universe.
As it is below, so is it above; as it is within, so is it without; The human being is a miniaturized correlate of the universe.
The four self-generated and self-recreating elements within the human body are also noticeable in the vast cosmos.
In a similar vein, a mindless man is inconceivable anywhere; Most of the great heights ever attained in the world till date, have been the necessary products of man's mind power.
And if the very stupendous feats achieved through man's mind power in the fields of technology, medicine etc, are mere lower-case copies of nature, then a superior universal mind power must evidently be at work.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#39 Feb 21, 2014
jide oni wrote:
dear NightSerf,
The concept of evil has been over-flogged to the point of being unduly taken for an actuality.
But I conceive no evil in the vast natural scheme of things.
The so-called evil is what I term 'painful good', while its opposite,'pleasurable good'.
The concept of evil dissolves the concept of a good God. And where God is not good, He becomes non-existent.
However, all the natural laws point to the fact of immanent good, and thus carrying God shoulder-high as a good God.
For example, the Law of Natural Justice prevents any misadministration of justice in nature.
When a thief loses his stolen items to another thief, do you call that evil?
Where death compassionately swoops on a long-suffering, mortally wounded centenarian, to disengage him from the excruciating pains, do you see the death as bad?
Painful and pleasurable deserts, do you see any evil in them?
War ravages, natural disasters, epidemics etc. merely serve as means of exit of life when life purpose has been exhausted.
"Painful good" and "pleasurable good"? That sounds like nonsense to my ears. I don't actually believe that many true dichotomies exist and that people who divide reality into two distinct binary states are engaging in the kind of oversimplification that forms obstacles to understanding. Theories tend to separate aspects of reality into nice, neat little packages because they are easier to analyze, but reality itself is impossibly complicated and terribly messy.

The concepts of good and evil are an attempt to simplify equally complicated human motivation and behavior. They are also used as tools for "leaders" to manipulate the "masses" by creating an underlying assumption that the former have some inherent right and duty to tell the latter what to do and how to live their lives.

Painful/pleasurable good are also useless as concepts because they don't help people to gauge their own behavior and how it effects other people--it's sole use would be to decide how events in one's own life are seen in relation to one's own well-being. That's way too self-absorbed to be of any use at all.

I also do not accept your concept of natural law. I don't see any natural law of justice. Justice is a purely human concept and varies from one culture to another and through time within each culture. It is the result of people trying to figure out how to live peacefully within their varios societies.

I don't see death as bad--never have. It is the inevitable consequence of being alive in the first place. Premature death is unfortunate, and homicide cannot be tolerated in a sane society, but we all will die one day.

Painful and pleasurable deserts? Not part of my world view at all--nonsense from my point of view. Pain and pleasure are nothing more than biological reactions to various stimuli., products of evolution so that we seek what promotes well-being and avoid what endangers it. They have nothing to do with good and evil, which, as I say, are standards of behavior, not of well-being or its lack.

When a thief steal, it is a crime. Disasters are simply a consequence of the unpredictability and power of the world we live in. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis, for instance, are the result of tectonic movement. It is not nature or the earth behaving with intention.

At any rate, you really haven't defined the evil that does not exist, only described events that you don't see as evil. To me, evil is a religious concept. As such, it has no meaning for me.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#40 Feb 21, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Igor Trip,
Let me repeat it that man, for example, is the microcosm of the larger universe.
As it is below, so is it above; as it is within, so is it without; The human being is a miniaturized correlate of the universe.
The four self-generated and self-recreating elements within the human body are also noticeable in the vast cosmos.
In a similar vein, a mindless man is inconceivable anywhere; Most of the great heights ever attained in the world till date, have been the necessary products of man's mind power.
And if the very stupendous feats achieved through man's mind power in the fields of technology, medicine etc, are mere lower-case copies of nature, then a superior universal mind power must evidently be at work.
The only minds we know of require a physical brain.

There is no evidence the universe needs a mind to exist.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 min Rosa_Winkel 20,127
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 16 min Ronnie 35,289
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 30 min Reason Personified 34
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 35 min Patrick 4,485
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 41 min Patrick 14,947
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr hpcaban 255,518
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 6 hr NightSerf 3,714
More from around the web