Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Deba...

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#1017 Apr 15, 2014
NightSerf,
The aspect of the law of balance I was trying to underline is the fact:
That there is no increase or decrease of anything in nature;
And that no new thing is coming into existence, nor is anything else going out of existence.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#1018 Apr 15, 2014
Folks,
Let it be known that I am not here to peddle any religious speculations or to indulge in any philosophical abstractions, rather I am here with a burning desire to present my half-century old assiduous searching and probing to the skeptics in this forum, that at the end of rigorous and unsparing screenings by all the fine brains here, a satisfactory compromise might be reached.
I have chosen the Atheism Forum on the understanding that it is only in a forum of this calibre that I can find the toughest challenges, given that I have been an atheist myself, and skeptics in general are no-nonsense philosophers.
Enough of the preambles. We should now get down to business in earnest. You are all welcome to the floor of the debate proper.
Thank you.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1019 Apr 15, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Folks,
Let it be known that I am not here to peddle any religious speculations or to indulge in any philosophical abstractions, rather I am here with a burning desire to present my half-century old assiduous searching and probing to the skeptics in this forum, that at the end of rigorous and unsparing screenings by all the fine brains here, a satisfactory compromise might be reached.
I have chosen the Atheism Forum on the understanding that it is only in a forum of this calibre that I can find the toughest challenges, given that I have been an atheist myself, and skeptics in general are no-nonsense philosophers.
Enough of the preambles. We should now get down to business in earnest. You are all welcome to the floor of the debate proper.
Thank you.
Compromise is for diplomats and politicians. It is entirely inappropriate in an unfettered search for truth and knowledge. Your assertion that there is a god whose existence must either be substantiated with evidence that is not riddles with logical fallacies and/or flimflamery or it must be rejected. There are no alternatives.

So far, you have failed to meet those challenges, and when they get too tough, you resort to tactics that are all too familiar to those who have been reading this forum for any length of time. You denigrate the challengers, demeaning their intelligence and claiming to possess authority that we should recognize and greatness that we should praise. You try to beat down challenges with tiresome repetition of assertions that have been refuted. You attempt to shift the burden of proof onto your challengers. You insist that unless alternatives are proposed, you assertions must be accepted as true.

We've seen this all before. If you were an atheist at one time, you were not a skeptic. Real skeptics apply more rigorous tests to their own ideas than to of any others that their minds encounter. If you had done so with those that you promote in the two threads that you started, you would have much better arguments for their reality than you do.

Be honest with yourself: How rigorously have you tested the ideas that you promote? How solid are the means by which you tested them? Are those means consistent with the scientific method? How much of them consists of intuition that you accepted simply because or felt right? How invested is your ego in holding onto them? If you realized that they were based on fallacious premises could you let go of your certitude and reexamine the logic that you thought supported the?

Again, be honest with yourself. If you reawakened any skepticism that you once had, would these ideas pass the tests that your own skepticism would demand of them?

If you are to have any hope of convince real skeptics of your ideas, you must first conduct that reexamination. Until you have gone through that process, your efforts will be in vain.

Since: Mar 12

Mumbai, India

#1020 Apr 16, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> Universe includes all conscious humans.
How does that make entire universe conscious?Universe is a complex heterogeneous system and it comprises both conscious and non-conscious entities.
You're a vacuous person.

Since: Mar 12

Mumbai, India

#1021 Apr 16, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> I belong to the future centuries.
You've very high opinion of yourself.All you have to offer us is your baseless assertions and you want us to accept them blindly.The dogmas you're presenting on this forum have no logical meaning let alone backing empirical evidences.Your ideas are also superficial and they don't give any deep insight into any philosophical disciplines.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense can easily and assertively scoff off your claims.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#1022 Apr 16, 2014
nightserf,

thanks for your efforts thus far.

if you and the other posters in my threads had adopted the kind of method fadu singh has thus far employed, we would have gone a long way by now in ascestaining the true picture of my position.

there is no doubt in my mind that i am well primed with a most consistent corpus of irrefutable proofs in favor of the existence of god.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1023 Apr 16, 2014
jide oni wrote:
nightserf,
thanks for your efforts thus far.
if you and the other posters in my threads had adopted the kind of method fadu singh has thus far employed, we would have gone a long way by now in ascestaining the true picture of my position.
there is no doubt in my mind that i am well primed with a most consistent corpus of irrefutable proofs in favor of the existence of god.
There is much doubt in mine, which you have done nothing to dispel. You have yet to present a single "irrefutable proof," only arguments that are ridiculously easy to refute. Indeed, the fallacies on which your arguments rely are so obvious that they refute themselves. Why is that?

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#1024 Apr 16, 2014
Ladies and Gentlemen,
On a serious note, let us now commence our discussion with the requirements of a true God, so to speak.
For any entity to qualify as a supreme Being, what should be Its requisite characteristics?
Please find below, what I consider the most acceptable absolute attributes of such a Divinity:
Perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omnibeneficent, just, infinite, unchanging, all-embracing, all-inclusive and has no exceptions. As a matter of fact, the attributes of a supreme Being cannot but be inexhaustible.
Your reactions, please.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1025 Apr 16, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
On a serious note, let us now commence our discussion with the requirements of a true God, so to speak.
For any entity to qualify as a supreme Being, what should be Its requisite characteristics?
Please find below, what I consider the most acceptable absolute attributes of such a Divinity:
Perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omnibeneficent, just, infinite, unchanging, all-embracing, all-inclusive and has no exceptions. As a matter of fact, the attributes of a supreme Being cannot but be inexhaustible.
Your reactions, please.
Fine. Now demonstrate that a god exists that has all of those attributes. Be aware that the same standards of evidence and logic that you have thus far failed to meet in defense of your other claims will be expected with this one.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1026 Apr 16, 2014
Oh, yeah. You don't get to use claims that you have failed to substantiate as evidence for this one. No karma. No reincarnation. None of them unless you substantiate them first.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#1027 Apr 16, 2014
fadu singh wrote:
<quoted text>
How does that make entire universe conscious?Universe is a complex heterogeneous system and it comprises both conscious and non-conscious entities.
You're a vacuous person.
Universe is all-inclusive, i.e. all space and the matter which exists in it.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#1028 Apr 16, 2014
fadu singh wrote:
<quoted text>
How does that make entire universe conscious?Universe is a complex heterogeneous system and it comprises both conscious and non-conscious entities.
You're a vacuous person.
We both are in the race, time will tell who is daft.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#1029 Apr 16, 2014
fadu singh wrote:
<quoted text>You've very high opinion of yourself.All you have to offer us is your baseless assertions and you want us to accept them blindly.The dogmas you're presenting on this forum have no logical meaning let alone backing empirical evidences.Your ideas are also superficial and they don't give any deep insight into any philosophical disciplines.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense can easily and assertively scoff off your claims.
The characteristics I ascribe to the hypothetical supreme Being, what's your take?

Since: Mar 12

Mumbai, India

#1030 Apr 16, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> Universe is all-inclusive, i.e. all space and the matter which exists in it.
Does space has a mind?

Since: Mar 12

Mumbai, India

#1031 Apr 16, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> The characteristics I ascribe to the hypothetical supreme Being, what's your take?
Well,for me God could be anything or anyone.It depends upon the individual's concep.tion of God.Your attribution like omnipotence,omnibenevolence and omniscience is simply impossible.Why don't you simply see universe as a universe?

Since: Jan 14

United States

#1032 Apr 16, 2014
fadu singh wrote:
<quoted text>Does space has a mind?
Is space not the covering of us minded beings, like your covering and mind?

Since: Jan 14

United States

#1033 Apr 16, 2014
fadu singh wrote:
<quoted text>Well,for me God could be anything or anyone.It depends upon the individual's concep.tion of God.Your attribution like omnipotence,omnibenevolence and omniscience is simply impossible.Why don't you simply see universe as a universe?
Quite possible, just wait and see.

Since: Mar 12

Mumbai, India

#1034 Apr 16, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> Is space not the covering of us minded beings, like your covering and mind?
We are collection of matters and space is not a matter.I can clearly draw a line of distinction between them.Why can't you?How our presence in the universe makes space conscious?If space is unconscious,then the whole universe can't be conscious.Universe is a collective noun and it is our conception of totality that encompasses everything that exists.And the essences and attributions of each aspect of it may not inductively true for the entirety .

Since: Jan 14

United States

#1035 Apr 16, 2014
If there is a supreme Being with absolute characteristics, then those perfect attributes must be reflected in every conceivable possible world.
For example, the justice of the universal Governor is such that every human is blessed with problems to solve, so that he can experience the joy that comes of self-accomplishment.
But many humans, for want of foresight, insight and hindsight on their part, are constrained to always expect all effects directly in time and in place;
Whereas, the complexity of natural recycling and reshuffling is such that pleasurable just recompense and painful hard deserts, are not always species specific, time and place immediacy bound, but
invariably gravity specific.
One may work in London, and get compensated in Nigeria; A debtor may work without pay, but not so, a creditor.
All the misconceptions about the goodness of a supreme being are evidently due to the fact that man tends to confuse situational changing manifestations with the permanent underlying constants of nature.

Since: Jan 14

United States

#1036 Apr 16, 2014
fadu singh wrote:
<quoted text>We are collection of matters and space is not a matter.I can clearly draw a line of distinction between them.Why can't you?How our presence in the universe makes space conscious?If space is unconscious,then the whole universe can't be conscious.Universe is a collective noun and it is our conception of totality that encompasses everything that exists.And the essences and attributions of each aspect of it may not inductively true for the entirety .
Space is matter, inasmuch as natural vacuum doesn't 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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min Science 85,726
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 9 min Dogen 5,123
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Mon Eagle 12 - 115
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Jan 17 ChristineM 4,026
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jan 16 Into The Night 5,146
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jan 15 Dogen 33,127
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Jan 14 emperorjohn 1
More from around the web