Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Deba...

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#600 Mar 24, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
omnipotence operates within possibility; while impotence, outside of it.
This is the silliest yet of your little fortune cooke quips. It doesn't even make sense.

“BAS in Electrical Engineering”

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#601 Mar 24, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
Impossibilities are outside the confines of actual existence; and God is an actual God.
It is impossible for you to survive on the surface of the sun.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#602 Mar 24, 2014
“I am convinced that the act of thinking logically cannot possibly be natural to the human mind. If it were, then mathematics would be everybody's easiest course at school and our species would not have taken several millennia to figure out the scientific method.”
&#8213; Neil deGrasse Tyson, The Sky is Not the Limit: Adventures of an Urban Astrophysicist

In the light of this, jide oni need not feel embarrassed that sound logic is beyond his current abilities. That is true of many outside of the small communities of skeptics and logicians. It surprises me sometimes how few even of those who study logic at some point in their lives actually learn to use it properly. Many use it as a tool for manipulating others by crafting arguments instead of using this magnificent tool to advance their own understanding of life, the universe, and everything. Those who use logic to that end are difficult to fool.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#603 Mar 24, 2014
fadu singh wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as impossibilities are impossible how can God be omnipotent?An omnipotent should be able to do everything.
An impossibility can only be done by an impossible god in an impossible world.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#604 Mar 24, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
omnipotence operates within possibility; while impotence, outside of it.
If that were true, you'd need the mother of all Viagra pills to make your theories stand erect.

Since: Mar 12

Mumbai, India

#605 Mar 24, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
omnipotence operates within possibility; while impotence, outside of it.
Wrong definition!Omnipotence literally means "capable of everything".There is no constraints on omnipotence.

Since: Mar 12

Mumbai, India

#606 Mar 24, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
An impossibility can only be done by an impossible god in an impossible world.
If something is impossible for your God,then he is not capable of doing?Why he needs to be falsely attributed with 'omnipotence'?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#607 Mar 24, 2014
The greatest obstacle to discovery is supreme confidence in one's knowledge, while the greatest impetus is awareness of one's own ignorance. Discovery is the journey from the known into the unknown.

Since: Jan 14

United States

#611 Mar 24, 2014
Attempting the impossible is an attempt to violate the inviolable perfected laws of nature; And no God would wish to violate Its own law to prove a point.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#612 Mar 25, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the defeat of atheistic ignorance of God by the urelgistians' knowledge of God.
So you are a urelgistians, and have now defeated your own ignorance? Just in case you haven't yet got this, but you are your only convert.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#613 Mar 25, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
The greatest obstacle to discovery is supreme confidence in one's knowledge, while the greatest impetus is awareness of one's own ignorance. Discovery is the journey from the known into the unknown.
Flawed! A personal opinion?

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#614 Mar 25, 2014
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>So you are a urelgistians, and have now defeated your own ignorance? Just in case you haven't yet got this, but you are your only convert.
I am not here seeking for converts, but to examine atheism posthumously.
Thinking

Cupar, UK

#615 Mar 25, 2014
It's both, and that's the problem with the word "Atheist".

Fundies will try to say all Atheists reject the possibility of god whereas my position is evidence based. Give me some evidence for a deity and I would believe. But I still know 100% there is no all powerful compassionate god because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.

I agree agnostic sounds too wishy washy, but technically, it can just about fit the rational position too.

Clearly there are problems with both words. This is why I prefer to term myself a non-believer.
Electrical Engineer wrote:
<quoted text>
Well isn't a non-believer the same as an Atheist? Or is an Atheist someone that would refute there being a god given evidence of it?
I feel like the the two are far to similar in definition and can be used one in the same. I mean, you can't be an atheist unless you completely denounce there being a god, given the definition your cited. No one can prove the existence of a god so everyone is agnostic?
Very confusing ways to define these words I feel. It's almost as if saying agnostic people accept everyone (ie hippie). And the definition of atheist that I've come across is simply "no deity". Meaning there is no god. Whether you can ever know that is purely subjective. However if you take the scientific approach, it may exist but without compelling evidence it does not exist.
I hate English, is what I am trying to say here.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#616 Mar 25, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not here seeking for converts, but to examine atheism posthumously.
Oh, really! Then why did you call this thread "the Debate of the Millennium??? The purpose of beginning a debate is to persuade an audience of an idea, usually called a thesis or theme. Why do you think I, along with others, have been insisting that supply evidence and logic to substantiate your stance? It's because that's what you do in a debate. When you initiate a debate, you assume the burden of proof. Until you've at least tried to do that, the only rebuttal possible is pointing out that you have failed to make your case.

You have yet to make your case.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#617 Mar 25, 2014
The debate here seem to be: is Jide Oni as dim as he seems or is he a troll wasting everyone's time.

Religion = superstition

Since: Mar 12

Mumbai, India

#618 Mar 25, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Attempting the impossible is an attempt to violate the inviolable perfected laws of nature; And no God would wish to violate Its own law to prove a point.
That means your God cannot be omnipotent without violating his supposed inviolable laws.Hence,he is not omnipotent.Your argument doesn't hold water.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#619 Mar 25, 2014
EdSed wrote:
The debate here seem to be: is Jide Oni as dim as he seems or is he a troll wasting everyone's time.
Religion = superstition
It's you people wasting my time, always side-tracking.
Thinking

Cupar, UK

#620 Mar 25, 2014
Fair and not even harsh.
EdSed wrote:
The debate here seem to be: is Jide Oni as dim as he seems or is he a troll wasting everyone's time.
Religion = superstition

“BAS in Electrical Engineering”

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#621 Mar 25, 2014
EdSed wrote:
The debate here seem to be: is Jide Oni as dim as he seems or is he a troll wasting everyone's time.
Religion = superstition
Pretty much this. The person is clearly trolling. There is no way someone is that close minded.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#622 Mar 25, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Hey guys,
You are simply either having some unclear understanding of what I stand for, or you are simply being insincere in your heart of hearts.
If you cannot reason up to my level, be honest enough to keep mute and look on. It is rather sad that you could not grasp simple consistent natural truths.
I said God is everything, that all the world of matter keep changing from one form to another without any end in view, that matter is indestructible, that what is indestructible can never have an end, that what has no end must be eternal, that what is eternal couldn't have had a beginning, and what has no beginning couldn't have been created.
If God is everything, as I have proved in one of my recent posts, then any thing at all is part of God, materially and non-materially.
singh,
What has no beginning, how come you expect such a thing to have been created?
Reason Personified/Thinking,
Atheists believe in God, so they don't know there is God. Knowledge and belief are two different things.
Take note.
When it comes to what the atheist believes, maybe taking the atheist word for it, might be best.. You are not the one to make that call. Now I'll tell you why ..... You are getting it all wrong. You haven't a clue as to what an atheist is, or what he might believe or not believe, and you seem incapable of accepting an atheist word for what we know and you don't.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 43 min nanoanomaly 3,283
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Frindly 83,926
News Scientist Richard Dawkins weighs in on Malaysia... 5 hr Eagle 12 - 6
High School Atheism 12 hr blacklagoon 3 41
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Wed Eagle 12 - 4,965
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) Wed Eagle 12 - 132
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... Wed Eagle 12 - 17
More from around the web