Atheism versus God

First topic message reminder :

It is Atheism against God but God is not against Atheism.
 
That is a one-sided sword which cuts only one way.
 
It is important to give a general definition of Atheism as like on Wikipedia HERE.
 
Atheism is a negative concept, as in saying "no" as in no God, no Deity, no conscious higher power, etc.
 
So just because some one hates Christianity then that is not Atheist, or hating the scary Muslims is not Atheist, as one must reject the presence or the reality of any God by any name or form.
 
I myself declare the real existence of the "Creator Father God" but to use other names for the "Theo or Thea" is fine with me.  
 
My view is that Atheism is simply a form of self-righteousness, because without the judgements of a God then people get to create our own righteousness, and that appears to be the true motivation for being an Atheist.
 

polyglide wrote:I cannot see how God can be in any way considered evil, other than by someone with less brains than an ant, no that would be an insult to the ant.

Is this the same god that purportedly flooded the entire planet killing EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING, barring one family and the contents of the Ark? If that kind of global genocide doesn't represent evil to anyone then they'd be very wise not to make strident and pejorative comments on other people's perception of what is or is not evil. As perhaps they have no moral compass themselves. The bible endorses genocide, murder, rapine, torture, infanticide, in it God tortures and kills an innocent baby for being conceived out of wedlock, and on and on it goes. How anyone couldn't conceive such actions is evil is truly baffling. Theists talk of love, but ignore or rationalise away the bulk of the bible's message.

Dr, Sheldon,
Would any decent self respecting person not want to kill a cancer that threatened the whole world population?

It was the world's population that was murdered in this particular myth. And yes, any decent person would baulk at the prospect of global genocide. The idea that an omnipotent benevolent deity couldn't find any solution beyond global genocide of course is as illogically stupid as this myth is morally repugnant.  

Though the point is that your claim that your chosen deity didn't murder humans is demonstrably wrong if the bible were true. 

Luckily this myth is.so obviously erroneous it's risible.

Dr, Shedlon,
Then come on brain box, what was God's alternative?

If it existed and was omnipotent then it's alternatives were limitless obviously.  I'd have though that was axiomatic,  especially since you never tire of claiming it can do literally anything. 

Choosing global genocide is hardly indicative of benevolence after all.

Dr, Shedlon,
That does not answer the question.

Actually it does. Though of course you may be unable to understand why,and sadly there's little I can do about that.

Dr, Sheldon.
, The question was, what alternative did God have?.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon.
,                The question was, what alternative did God have?.
               

I know, and the answer I gave was that an omnipotent being would by definition have limitless options, this not that complex a premise, and since you have yourself repeatedly claimed that your deity can literally "do anything" I'm not sure why it even needs answering. If such a deity exists and is benevolent and can do literally anything, then global genocide ought to be anathema to it, not it's default or first choice.

Perhaps the confusion arises here because you're expecting me to personally come up with a hypothetical solution, when in fact all i need do is point out the paradox of a genocidal benevolent deity with omnipotence.

Dr, Sheldon,
I have tried to explain that omnipotence is a man made word and if you look in the dictionary you will find that it involves being able to foresee as the only indication of seeing into the future, now I can foresee things in the future happening under certain circumstances but that does not mean they will occur, onlyif the circumstances arise.

All words are man made polyglide. So im afraid your point escapes me. 

That's not omnipotence you're describing either. Omnipotence is defined as possessing limitless power.  

I suspect you're thinking of omniscience, which means having limitless knowledge.  Since not knowing anything would axiomatically negate such a claim then such a being would have to know the future with absolute certainty in order to be truly omniscient. This of course would destroy the Christian religions claims to salvation through belief in Jesus and any concept of free will. 

I know you've struggled with these paradoxes in the past so here's a helpful tip. Most religious apologists try to rationalise this particular paradox by the unconvincing claim that future events don't exist and so there is in fact nothing to know. 

Personally I don't find this very compelling reasoning,  but some philosophers seem happy with it.Ultimately it still means they're claiming a being with omniscience doesn't know something. So the contradiction remains. Given that beings penchant for predictions it's also something of an own goal for revelations about future events, you can't have it both ways.

Dr, Sheldon,
I take the meaning of both words to illistrate the greatness of God and feel they are not subject to interpretation in the manner you suggest so lets leave it there.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I take the meaning of both words to illistrate the greatness of God and feel they are not subject to interpretation in the manner you suggest so lets leave it there.

               

Leave what there? You've completely ignored my post, and I have not made any subjective interpretations, on the contrary I have quoted the dictionary definition repeatedly, are you trying to provoke me by lying so blatantly? If you don't want to discuss the topic then that's your choice, but please don't respond to my post by lying about what I've posted, and then ignoring the entire content, that's very rude and dishonest.

Dr, Sheldon,
I have two children and love them as much as anyone can love, if they were in danger and I had to kill ten thousand unsavoury people to save them I would not hesitate.

God works on the same basis.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 I have two children and love them as much as anyone can love, if they were in danger and I had to kill ten thousand unsavoury people to save them I would not hesitate.

                 God works on the same basis.

Again you've ignored my post on the topic, try again.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Yesterday at 7:26 pm

polyglide wrote:
Dr, Sheldon,
               I take the meaning of both words to illistrate the greatness of God and feel they are not subject to interpretation in the manner you suggest so lets leave it there.

Leave what there? You've completely ignored my post, and I have not made any subjective interpretations, on the contrary I have quoted the dictionary definition repeatedly, are you trying to provoke me by lying so blatantly? If you don't want to discuss the topic then that's your choice, but please don't respond to my post by lying about what I've posted, and then ignoring the entire content, that's very rude and dishonest.

Dr, Shedlon,
Your entire response to my posts appear to be a list of all the evils of the world you say God would not allow although I have explained very clearly why and for what purpose he has done so.

The thread is Atheism Verses God.

God as far as I am concerned created everything, tell me one thing that atheism itself has created for the benefit of mankind.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                 Your entire response to my posts appear to be a list of all the evils of the world you say God would not allow although I have explained very clearly why and for what purpose he has done so. The thread is Atheism Verses God. God as far as I am concerned created everything, tell me one thing that atheism itself has created for the benefit of mankind.

Try again:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:43 pm

All words are man made polyglide. So im afraid your point escapes me.

That's not omnipotence you're describing either. Omnipotence is defined as possessing limitless power.

I suspect you're thinking of omniscience, which means having limitless knowledge. Since not knowing anything would axiomatically negate such a claim then such a being would have to know the future with absolute certainty in order to be truly omniscient. This of course would destroy the Christian religions claims to salvation through belief in Jesus and any concept of free will.

I know you've struggled with these paradoxes in the past so here's a helpful tip. Most religious apologists try to rationalise this particular paradox by the unconvincing claim that future events don't exist and so there is in fact nothing to know.

Personally I don't find this very compelling reasoning, but some philosophers seem happy with it.Ultimately it still means they're claiming a being with omniscience doesn't know something. So the contradiction remains. Given that beings penchant for predictions it's also something of an own goal for revelations about future events, you can't have it both ways.

Dr, Shedlon,
As I have said previously, I take both to mean that God is Great , I see no point in bickering over something that changes nothing.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                As I have said previously, I take both to mean that God is Great , I see no point in bickering over something that changes nothing.

How does that address my post at all? How is using words as defined in the dictionary bickering? Try again..

Dr, Sheldon,
It addresses your post because both words as far as I am cocerned just explain the greatness of God and need not be taken as anything else in that circumstance.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                It addresses your post because both words as far as I am cocerned just explain the greatness of God and need not be taken as anything else in that circumstance.

The dictionary isn't negated by your personal subjective views, and simply endlessly repeating your claim doesn't address any of the points in my post, but then you never do.

This was my original post, so read it and the post of yours before it, and offer a cogent honest response that offers more than just a subjective dismissal and repetition of your own opinion, if you can?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:43 pm

All words are man made polyglide. So im afraid your point escapes me.

That's not omnipotence you're describing either. Omnipotence is defined as possessing limitless power.

I suspect you're thinking of omniscience, which means having limitless knowledge. Since not knowing anything would axiomatically negate such a claim then such a being would have to know the future with absolute certainty in order to be truly omniscient. This of course would destroy the Christian religions claims to salvation through belief in Jesus and any concept of free will.

I know you've struggled with these paradoxes in the past so here's a helpful tip. Most religious apologists try to rationalise this particular paradox by the unconvincing claim that future events don't exist and so there is in fact nothing to know.

Personally I don't find this very compelling reasoning, but some philosophers seem happy with it.Ultimately it still means they're claiming a being with omniscience doesn't know something. So the contradiction remains. Given that beings penchant for predictions it's also something of an own goal for revelations about future events, you can't have it both ways.

Dr, Shedlon,
I have covered this point elsewhere.

It gets tedious.

Both words express the greatness of God and anyone can decide what is actually meant by their use.

You've covered nothing.  Just repeatedly made this subjective claim that doesn't deal with the dictionary definition of the words at all. Nor have you once addressedor even acknowledged my expansive response above, beyond insulting me for disagreeing with your subjective claims.

Try again

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:43 pm

All words are man made polyglide. So im afraid your point escapes me. 

That's not omnipotence you're describing either. Omnipotence is defined as possessing limitless power. 

I suspect you're thinking of omniscience, which means having limitless knowledge. Since not knowing anything would axiomatically negate such a claim then such a being would have to know the future with absolute certainty in order to be truly omniscient. This of course would destroy the Christian religions claims to salvation through belief in Jesus and any concept of free will. 

I know you've struggled with these paradoxes in the past so here's a helpful tip. Most religious apologists try to rationalise this particular paradox by the unconvincing claim that future events don't exist and so there is in fact nothing to know. 

Personally I don't find this very compelling reasoning, but some philosophers seem happy with it.Ultimately it still means they're claiming a being with omniscience doesn't know something. So the contradiction remains. Given that beings penchant for predictions it's also something of an own goal for revelations about future events, you can't have it both ways.

Dr, Shedlon,
I have explained that I do not accept your intepretation of both words.

One could say a thing is gigantic and others say something is beyond belief, both only using the words to signify that they were beyond the normal etc;

Both words applied to God are man made and have to be taken as showing his greatness, it is a waste of time attempting to use the dictionaries definition because even doing so does not in fact agree with your interpretations and as you cannot accept clear and decisive definitions given to you on previous occasions I cannot understand your attitude in these circumstances.

They're not my interpretations they are the dictionary definitions, I even posted them, so this constant lying is rather silly. Why you insist on repeatedly telling me the words are man made I don't know, THERE ARE NO OTHER KIND OF WORDS! If we don't use the correct dictionary definition of words then they become meaningless, much like your subjective claims.

Try again....

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:43 pm

All words are man made polyglide. So im afraid your point escapes me.

That's not omnipotence you're describing either. Omnipotence is defined as possessing limitless power.

I suspect you're thinking of omniscience, which means having limitless knowledge. Since not knowing anything would axiomatically negate such a claim then such a being would have to know the future with absolute certainty in order to be truly omniscient. This of course would destroy the Christian religions claims to salvation through belief in Jesus and any concept of free will.

I know you've struggled with these paradoxes in the past so here's a helpful tip. Most religious apologists try to rationalise this particular paradox by the unconvincing claim that future events don't exist and so there is in fact nothing to know.

Personally I don't find this very compelling reasoning, but some philosophers seem happy with it.Ultimately it still means they're claiming a being with omniscience doesn't know something. So the contradiction remains. Given that beings penchant for predictions it's also something of an own goal for revelations about future events, you can't have it both ways.

Dr, Sheldon,
We are not going to agree on this matter, I believe both words are to signify the greatness of God and nothing more.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                We are not going to agree on this matter, I believe both words are to signify the greatness of God and nothing more.

We don't need any subjective belief here, the dictionary defines these words, if you disagree with those definitions then you shouldn't use those words, but both omnipotence and omniscience and omni-benevolence are traditional Christian claims for their deity, this belief crosses a multitude of factions.

by polyglide on Mon Aug 10, 2015 5:46 pm it is a waste of time attempting to use the dictionaries definition because even doing so does not in fact agree with your interpretations and as you cannot accept clear and decisive definitions given to you on previous occasions I cannot understand your attitude in these circumstances.

A rather silly lie, since I have posted the dictionary definitions each time you make this absurd claim.

Oxford English Dictionary
Omnipotence
(Of a deity) having unlimited power:
God is described as omnipotent and benevolent

Omniscience
adjective
having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

Those are the definition the dictionary uses, and I am happy to accept those. Your claims are just your own personal opinion, so why you're lying and pretending it's me who's ignoring the dictionary I'm not sure? I even pointed this out already in more than post:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:56 pm

They're not my interpretations they are the dictionary definitions, I even posted them, so this constant lying is rather silly. Why you insist on repeatedly telling me the words are man made I don't know, THERE ARE NO OTHER KIND OF WORDS! If we don't use the correct dictionary definition of words then they become meaningless, much like your subjective claims.

Dr, Shedlon,
You are too restrictive in your thinking.

Having unlimited power, the ability to do or undo etc;

Percieving, understanding, become aware of etc;

Neither suggests anything other than being above all others in ability etc;

polyglide wrote:
Dr, Sheldon,
               We are not going to agree on this matter, I believe both words are to signify the greatness of God and nothing more.

We don't need any subjective belief here, the dictionary defines these words, if you disagree with those definitions then you shouldn't use those words, but both omnipotence and omniscience and omni-benevolence are traditional Christian claims for their deity, this belief crosses a multitude of factions.

by polyglide on Mon Aug 10, 2015 5:46 pm it is a waste of time attempting to use the dictionaries definition because even doing so does not in fact agree with your interpretations and as you cannot accept clear and decisive definitions given to you on previous occasions I cannot understand your attitude in these circumstances.

A rather silly lie, since I have posted the dictionary definitions each time you make this absurd claim.

Oxford English Dictionary
Omnipotence
(Of a deity) having unlimited power:
God is described as omnipotent and benevolent

Omniscience
adjective
having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

Those are the definition the dictionary uses, and I am happy to accept those. Your claims are just your own personal opinion, so why you're lying and pretending it's me who's ignoring the dictionary I'm not sure? I even pointed this out already in more than post:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:56 pm

They're not my interpretations they are the dictionary definitions, I even posted them, so this constant lying is rather silly. Why you insist on repeatedly telling me the words are man made I don't know, THERE ARE NO OTHER KIND OF WORDS! If we don't use the correct dictionary definition of words then they become meaningless, much like your subjective claims.

JP Cusick wrote: I do not see it as name-calling to say Atheist are self-righteous since they could view that as a compliment.

The Atheist is a negative doctrine of no God, but that includes no commandments too.

Doctrine is defined primarily in the OED as

"NOUN

1 A belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group."

Atheism is not therefore a doctrine, as it is not a belief, but the absence of a single belief. An atheist may follow doctrine of course, or commandments, they would not by definition be theistic though, nor would atheism require these.

Think of atheism as one belief someone does not hold, and all else as personal idiosyncrasy may be derived in whole or part from atheism but not required in order for that person to be described as an atheist. A newborn baby could accurately be described as an atheist, as would anyone who had never learned about the concept of a deity. It's a default position, as well as one that may be adopted consciously.[/quote]