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

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 6)

Showing posts 101 - 120 of1,133
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103
Feb 24, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Understanding The Natural Laws (contd):
The incompatibility of omnipotence and benevolence (i.e. all-powerful and good nature) of God as a basis for the Atheists' argument against the existence of God fades away when superimposed by the Laws of Reincarnation and Karma.
In other words, the Atheists' argument that, for there to be God, the God must be good and all-powerful; and for there to be a good and all-powerful God, everything must be good i.e. there shouldn't exist any evil at all if there is God - such an argument comes to naught vis-a-vis the two natural laws mentioned above.
Nothing proves the existence of God better than these two laws.
The commonest among the natural laws are:
The Law of Balance or Averages: which stabilizes everything as it should be, and prevents everything from being other than what it is; that there is no gain or loss, increase or decrease of anything in nature.
The Law of Reincarnation: that there is no physical or spiritual annihilation in nature.(to be continued)

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104
Feb 24, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Understanding The Natural Laws (Last Post):
The Law of Karma: that whatever we sow, we must reap; wherein forgiveness of sins stands neutralized.
The Law of Universal Interdependency: that everything depends on everything else, and everything else depends on everything in turn.
The Law of Change: that everything changes, except the laws themselves.
The Law of Parsimony: that every excess is closely counter-balanced by a propotional lack; that nothing can be wasted in nature.
The Law of Similarity: that similar relations are similarly affected.
The Law of Sympathy: elemental blending by attraction of related properties.
The Law of Continuity: that in the infinite chain of existence, there is never a broken, missing link. Every cause has a parent, and every cause naturally produces an effect, and every effect must have its own child.
The Law of Opposites: that all things go in pairs or in twos, displaying complementary oppositions.
The Scientific Laws: that truly, the scientific laws are laws of God.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105
Feb 24, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

jide oni wrote:
Nightserf,
Your position is quite sensible, and if truly an Atheistic position, then Atheism must be accorded respect.
However, where there are noticeable benefits derivable from positive acknowledgement of the perfect laws --> perfect Intelligence, then we should avail ourselves of such serendipitous natural largesse.
Let me say, with all sense of seriousness, that the ultimate goal of an earthly human is the attainment of peace of mind. Wealth, political power etc. will most certainly not procure peace of mind for a mindset that is ignorant of the life-ward, beneficial laws of nature.
Happiness/peace of mind is a state of the mind, irrespective of one's station in life. And the mind that is densely saturated with the eternal truths embedded in the natural laws, will traverse the storms of life in smiles of encouragement to others.
Faced with an imminent catastrophe, raking up the exact counter-active law to address the present ordeal, will naturally transmute the harsh reality to a blissful experience.
Again, what perfect laws? You have yet to name even one, much less describe it or give any reason to believe in it. "Life-ward beneficial laws of nature"? What doe that even mean? Peace of mind is easily obtainable through meditation--no need to be "densely saturated," whatever that means. "Exact counter-active law"? A phrase devoid of meaning.

What is happening with you? Your writing is becoming less coherent with each post.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
Feb 24, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Nightserf,
I am afraid you are having some problems with my post at this point when I expect you to be sauntering along with me.
Don't get confused as yet. Sorry, I am leading you out of the rut.
One hundred and one questions can be generated from the post. Simply pick on one, and let me explicate.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107
Feb 24, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

jide oni wrote:
In the 'beginning' were the laws; and the laws were with God, and the laws were God.
The natural laws are the only laws of God.
Everything is encased within the sphere of the natural laws.
Unlike the man-made laws, the natural laws are not dependent on human existence; rather, man and all other things are sustained by them.
All the laws manifest unity in diversity.
There is no theory, no philosophy or religious creed that can hold true for proving the existence of God as the natural laws.
They are the working tools of God, at least, if they are not God themselves.
And it is only and only through the laws that God can be existentially proven.
Whereas, the exegetic scriptural system of design-designer argument for proving the existence of God stands faulted - as a designer too can as well be a design in turn at a higher level.
And so, the problematic logical fallacy of the uncaused first cause remains an unresolved issue till tomorrow.
Why paraphrase Genesis after berating another writer for quoting the Bible. I though you said it was dead. Again, you statement that the natural laws are God's laws is an assertion that needs support. Like so much of the above, it is a religious/philosophical abstraction that holds no meaning in the real world. "They are the working tools of God, at least, if they are not God themselves." This, in particular, introduces the foundation for a circular series of arguments that cannot be validated with even the most strained and twisted logic.

You have yet to address the most fundamental question that I alluded to earlier: In what way are the world and universe in which we live different from one that would exist with no deities at all? How is the God hypothesis necessary for understanding anything? Any thing at all?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108
Feb 24, 2014
 
jide oni wrote:
Understanding The Natural Laws (contd):
The incompatibility of omnipotence and benevolence (i.e. all-powerful and good nature) of God as a basis for the Atheists' argument against the existence of God fades away when superimposed by the Laws of Reincarnation and Karma.
In other words, the Atheists' argument that, for there to be God, the God must be good and all-powerful; and for there to be a good and all-powerful God, everything must be good i.e. there shouldn't exist any evil at all if there is God - such an argument comes to naught vis-a-vis the two natural laws mentioned above. Nothing proves the existence of God better than these two laws.
This might hold true for those who believe in reincarnation and/or karma. I do not.
The commonest among the natural laws are:
The Law of Balance or Averages: which stabilizes everything as it should be, and prevents everything from being other than what it is; that there is no gain or loss, increase or decrease of anything in nature.
You are finally naming and defining one of your "natural laws," but you are not providing any reason to see it as more than yet another philosophical abstraction. The only aspect that I see a valid is the law of conservation of matter and energy.

The Law of Reincarnation: that there is no physical or spiritual annihilation in nature.
Again, this is a matter of faith. I have none.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109
Feb 24, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

jide oni wrote:
Understanding The Natural Laws (Last Post):
The Law of Karma: that whatever we sow, we must reap; wherein forgiveness of sins stands neutralized...
Another matter of faith.
The Law of Universal Interdependency: that everything depends on everything else, and everything else depends on everything in turn...
Another philosophical abstraction that has no discernible bearing on life in the real world.
The Law of Change: that everything changes, except the laws themselves.
The Law of Parsimony: that every excess is closely counter-balanced by a propotional lack; that nothing can be wasted in nature...
Another abstraction. Looks like an attempt to extend the law of equal and opposite reaction in Newtonian physics into a metaphysical "reality."
The Law f Similarity: that similar relations are similarly affected...
Circular. No QED.
The Law of Sympathy: elemental blending by attraction of related properties.
What does this even mean? Fails to rise even to the level of an abstraction.
The Law of Continuity: that in the infinite chain of existence, there is never a broken, missing link. Every cause has a parent, and every cause naturally produces an effect, and every effect must have its own child.
Just inflated language describing cause and effect. True, but insignificant.
The Law of Opposites: that all things go in pairs or in twos, displaying complementary oppositions.
True of some things, but hardly universal. Reducing everything to binary logic results in a ridiculous level of oversimplification.
The Scientific Laws: that truly, the scientific laws are laws of God.
Another statement of faith,meaningless to those who do not operate by faith.
all in all, no QED.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110
Feb 24, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nightserf,
With time, hopefully, you will get used to my style of writing.
If you reread my post, at least, between the lines, you will realize that I have not paraphrased any statement, but simply a biblical allusion to correct the biblical erroneous belief in a beginning as opposed to the beginninglessness and endlessness that translate to eternity.
You would observe that 'beginning' is in quotes, that the reader might sniff at the special meaning of the word in this context.
Also, as the author of 'Our Bible Dead?', alluding to the bible in this light is a way of suggesting to the reader that here are 'the living laws' that have come to replace 'the dead word'.
Your reference to meditation as a better means of attaining peace of mind, gives one the impression that you are not being sincere in your heart of hearts, or you don't understand what meditation truly is.
Before bringing up the issue of meditation, I expect you would have asked to know how the laws can bring peace of mind.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111
Feb 24, 2014
 
jide oni wrote:
Folks,
I am waiting for your reactions!
There is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof that any god ever existed.

Glad to help.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112
Feb 24, 2014
 
jide oni wrote:
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.
Good grief...what sort of family are you from where everyone was born foolish?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113
Feb 24, 2014
 
jide oni wrote:
Igor Trip,
You are not asking me the right questions.
Awwww...how distressing for you.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114
Feb 24, 2014
 
jide oni wrote:
Understanding The Natural Laws (Last Post):
The Law of Karma: that whatever we sow, we must reap; wherein forgiveness of sins stands neutralized.
The Law of Universal Interdependency: that everything depends on everything else, and everything else depends on everything in turn.
The Law of Change: that everything changes, except the laws themselves.
The Law of Parsimony: that every excess is closely counter-balanced by a propotional lack; that nothing can be wasted in nature.
The Law of Similarity: that similar relations are similarly affected.
The Law of Sympathy: elemental blending by attraction of related properties.
The Law of Continuity: that in the infinite chain of existence, there is never a broken, missing link. Every cause has a parent, and every cause naturally produces an effect, and every effect must have its own child.
The Law of Opposites: that all things go in pairs or in twos, displaying complementary oppositions.
The Scientific Laws: that truly, the scientific laws are laws of God.
Karma is a natural law?

LOL

Oh dude...you're going to get massacred on this one...

Since: Jan 14

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115
Feb 24, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Just Think,

What an irony of a name!

Just Think that can't think.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116
Feb 24, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

jide oni wrote:
Nightserf,
With time, hopefully, you will get used to my style of writing.
If you reread my post, at least, between the lines, you will realize that I have not paraphrased any statement, but simply a biblical allusion to correct the biblical erroneous belief in a beginning as opposed to the beginninglessness and endlessness that translate to eternity.
You would observe that 'beginning' is in quotes, that the reader might sniff at the special meaning of the word in this context.
Also, as the author of 'Our Bible Dead?', alluding to the bible in this light is a way of suggesting to the reader that here are 'the living laws' that have come to replace 'the dead word'.
Your reference to meditation as a better means of attaining peace of mind, gives one the impression that you are not being sincere in your heart of hearts, or you don't understand what meditation truly is.
Before bringing up the issue of meditation, I expect you would have asked to know how the laws can bring peace of mind.
You seem to believe that there is only one way to meditate and that it leads to only one set of truths or conclusions. If so, you are completely wrong. There are many ways to meditate and anyone who has the unmitigated gall to accuse another of insincerity in that regard is loathsome.

The word "law' has several meanings. In the context of science, it designates a fundamental principle or, a Wikipedia's article puts it so well, "that describe, predict, and perhaps explain why, a range of phenomena behave as they appear to in nature." In a justice system, laws from a system of requirements and prohibitions designed to regulate human behavior. In philosophy or metaphysics, the definition gets a bit hazy, but one thing is clear: in those contexts, laws are anything but universal, and, any peace of mind them bay bring is limited to those who believe in them.

Here's another crux of the matter at hand, though: you cannot "destroy" atheism with abstruse arguments that few, if any atheists will care about, much less take seriously. The only way to do that is to convince atheists that there exists a true religion, a deity that cannot be denied. You are not doing that.

The best statistics available on the internet suggest that decade by decade, especially in the developed world, religions are losing their grips on the populations that they once ruled absolutely. Here in the U.S., college students are leaving the religions that they grew up with in droves. Generation X has also become progressively less religious as they've aged. A 2012 Pew survey on affiliation found that fully 33% of the U.S. population no longer considers themselves to be religious and 15% don't consider themselves to be spiritual, either. Those nonreligious people include 23% of those who are still affiliated with religion. While onlt a small percentage self-identify as atheists, many more have little or no faith in God.

Stripping away the word "atheist," then, the statistics indicate that nonbelief is on the rise, perhaps even approaching the kind of critical mass that could make it the predominant in the long run.worldview. If destroying atheism means stemming the tide of unbelief, it is simply not happening. Abstract and abstruse arguments cannot alter that reality.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117
Feb 24, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Karma is a natural law?
LOL
Oh dude...you're going to get massacred on this one...
What jide oni fails to realize is that when he makes a statement like that, he has to support it. He can't use it to support other assertions until he has done so. Logical argument is hard work--harder than he has been willing to do thus far. When he fails to adequately support his thesis, the only necessary response is to point out that failure. When an assertion like karma being a natural law is a challenge to substantiate it, failure to do so constitutes a forfeit. So far, that's been the case with all of my challenges to his assertions.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118
Feb 24, 2014
 

Judged:

1

jide oni wrote:
Just Think,
What an irony of a name!
Just Think that can't think.
The correct way to reply to a particular posting is to click onto the word "Reply", which is located above each post. Without you doing so we have to figure out to whom you are posting. So far, it's been almost worth the effort, with the exception of maybe 6 to 8 of your more recent posts.

Since: Jan 14

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119
Feb 25, 2014
 

Judged:

1

I listed some of the natural laws, claiming perfection for them. I also asserted that nothing can bring peace of mind like man's deep understanding of the workings of the laws. I posited that the actual existence of God can be known through the laws.
I expect that if you people are sure of your stand, you would have toed a more pragmatic line of discussion where each postulate is called into question of real-life example substantiation, rather than philosophical roundabout abstractions which appear to be your stock-in-trade.
In order to prevent the debate from degenerating to a mere round-table conference of eristic argument (argument for its own sake), I would begin by employing that strongly disputed Law of Karma as my launching pad.
In the next post, I will, armed with the Law of Karma, contend that God exists, that the natural laws are perfect, that God is good and all-powerful etc, etc. Thereafter, you will be required to ask specific pertinent questions challenging any of my unsubstantiated claims.

Since: Jan 14

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120
Feb 25, 2014
 
Reason Personified,
Thank you for your understanding and concern, Evidently you are quite imbued with good reason to have been the one to point that problem out.
I have tried the reply button several times without success, except with very short posts. I even tried it with the present post, but it would not go. I think it might be due to the kind of gadget I am currently using. That is why I have been typing the name of the addressee in each case.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121
Feb 25, 2014
 
There is no god

Since: Jan 14

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122
Feb 25, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

2

The Law of Karma is a natural law that prevents one from reaping what one has not sown.
This Law of Karma is otherwise known as the Law:
of Sowing and Reaping,
of Karmic Justice,
of Natural Justice,
of Cause and Effect,
of Reciprocal Action,
of Give and Take,
of Action and Reaction,
of Rebound,
of Laying of Bed and Lying on it,
of Consequences etc.
Folks,
Having presented the above characters of karmic recompense, what is your take?
Do you conceive of any real-life experience that conflicts with the nature of the law as presented above?
Please, let's take the above as a respectable starting point for an honest discussion.
I earnestly crave the direct participation of a disinterested moderator through the discussion hence - in the effect, I am suggesting a person of Reason Personified's mindset.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 101 - 120 of1,133
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••