The idol of atheism, or hardest proof ever?

[Tiberius]

I like word IF, it is not from satan and it is often used in proofs: If some being gets to know all, then he will get to know, that God exists. Thus, God exists.

But that is IF God exists.

If God does not exist and some being gets to know everything, then he will know God does NOT exist.

 

[Tiberius]

But I can use word WHEN: When you get educated enough, you will become theist. Because God is theist.

The first post of mine you quoted wasn't even directed at you.

I can't make any sense of anything else you are saying.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All that exists is from God.
All, that does not exist, is from satan. He is called "fiction-monger".

So non-existence exists, or else you couldn't talk about it. Or you are talking about a fiction, so you are a "fiction-monger". But since you are not that, non-existence exists and everything is not from God.

 

[questfortruth]

non-existence exists

The satan is the border of our Existence, inside satan is Absolute Nothing.

some being gets to know everything, then he will know God does NOT exist.

ABSURD. If you know everything, then you are God. You can not know everything, e.g. position of all electrons unless you are Omnipresent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The satan is the border of our Existence, inside satan is Absolute Nothing.

How do you know Absolute Nothing?

ABSURD. If you know everything, then you are God. You can not know everything, e.g. position of all electrons unless you are Omnipresent.

So only God can know everything, so unless you are God, your argument in this thread is not relevant. So are you God?
Or your suppose is only suppose and not a fact. If you know God, you know everything, because otherwise you couldn't know God. But since you don't know everything, you can only think and not know that there is a She, who knows everything.

 

[questfortruth]

I can't make any sense of anything else you are saying.

This I plan to publish in a top journal in near future:

Living visible matter - people, animals, artificial animals (latter is Artificial Intellect).
Living visible matter - stones, rocks, ice.
Non-living invisible matter - dark matter.
Living invisible matter - the prediction of my classification of matter.

How do you know Absolute Nothing?

The satan means nothing to God. Absolutely nothing. The God of Love does not love him.

 

[firedragon]

Atheists cannot blaspheme. Blasphemy is defined as "speaking sacreligiously about God," and since we have no religion, and there is no God, blasphemy for us is impossible.

So are you saying that Atheists are so selfish that it is impossible for them to have any kind of empathy at all? Hmm.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So are you saying that Atheists are so selfish that it is impossible for them to have any kind of empathy at all? Hmm.

No, that was not the point.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Atheists cannot blaspheme. Blasphemy is defined as "speaking sacreligiously about God," and since we have no religion, and there is no God, blasphemy for us is impossible.

So are you saying that Atheists are so selfish that it is impossible for them to have any kind of empathy at all? Hmm.

I'm not sure what you are doing here, but I challenge you to show in what way my statement demonstrates "selfishness." I suspect that must take an extraordinary ability to read in what is truly not even hinted at.

Unless, of course, your purpose is simply to be insulting as the only means you have left of descrediting me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is objective Morality, hence - God of Morality, or otherwise why we have punished Hitler's Germany?

You need to understand morality. We can have objective morality based upon rational standards. One could argue that that standards are not objective, but the derived morality is still objective relative to those standards. And pointing to a god does you no good for a claim of "objective" morality since there is no way to get objective morality from a god.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not sure what you are doing here, but I challenge you to show in what way my statement demonstrates "selfishness." I suspect that must take an extraordinary ability to read in what is truly not even hinted at.

Unless, of course, your purpose is simply to be insulting as the only means you have left of descrediting me.

Well. Since all your theory is held on "Not relevant to you" which means you have no empathy towards others and you are making that a general thought of all atheists.

Nice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well. Since all your theory is held on "Not relevant to you" which means you have no empathy towards others and you are making that a general thought of all atheists.

Nice.

Well, blasphemy is not relevant to me as an atheist. Laws against degrading humans are relevant to me and that can include religion, but that is not because it is religion.
So I do have empathy towards you, because you are a human and not because you are religious. Hope that helps.

 

[questfortruth]

And pointing to a god does you no good for a claim of "objective" morality since there is no way to get objective morality from a god.

God is defined as the holy one. He is the Holiness. Thus, He is objective. God is good, God is the Goodness.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well. Since all your theory is held on "Not relevant to you" which means you have no empathy towards others and you are making that a general thought of all atheists.

Nice.

The fact that something is not relevant to me has zero impact on empathy towards others. What a silly thing to suggest. Are you only empathetic when you have a personal interest?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God is defined as the holy one. He is the Holiness. Thus, He is objective.

Interesting post: I can define a dragon as a fire-breathing, flying lizard -- but that won't cause it to come into existence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is defined as the holy one. He is the Holiness. Thus, He is objective.

That is okay if you claim God to be a fictitious being.

If there is a real God you do not get to invent him via definition. Since you are inventing God your definition of God is subjective and your morals are still subjective. You might want to rethink your approach.

 

[firedragon]

The fact that something is not relevant to me has zero impact on empathy towards others. What a silly thing to suggest. Are you only empathetic when you have a personal interest?

Not at all. Personally, Hinduism is not relevant to me because I am not one. But I will never commit blasphemy that would affect them. Because they are human beings. Also, since Jews have their theological belief or maybe I am using the wrong phraseology, but they do not mention the name of God. Thus, in discussion I try not to ever mention it unless in discussion I have forgotten not to. Well, since you asked a personal question.

But you have clearly cited that blasphemy doesnt affect you so its not a worry or care you have when you or anyone does it to another. Thats a lack of empathy mate. You can now call me what ever you want, but it is what it is.

Cheers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God is defined as the holy one. He is the Holiness. Thus, He is objective. God is good, God is the Goodness.

No, She is not. She is also subjective.
BTW My understanding wins over your definition, because I am like God. That is the meaning of my first name. "Who is like God".

It is fun pretending that we can define into and out of existence something by playing with words.
Now I got it. questfortruth is defined as understands nothing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not at all. Personally, Hinduism is not relevant to me because I am not one. But I will never commit blasphemy that would affect them. Because they are human beings. Also, since Jews have their theological belief or maybe I am using the wrong phraseology, but they do not mention the name of God. Thus, in discussion I try not to ever mention it unless in discussion I have forgotten not to. Well, since you asked a personal question.

But you have clearly cited that blasphemy doesnt affect you so its not a worry or care you have when you or anyone does it to another. Thats a lack of empathy mate. You can now call me what ever you want, but it is what it is.

Cheers.

Well, yes. I don't care about blasphemy, because that is not how I care for humans. I care for them because they are humans. Not because they are non-religious or religious.

So please care for me, because I don't care about blasphemy, but I care for humans in general. Or have you no empathy for an atheist, who only cares for humans as humans?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not at all. Personally, Hinduism is not relevant to me because I am not one. But I will never commit blasphemy that would affect them. Because they are human beings. Also, since Jews have their theological belief or maybe I am using the wrong phraseology, but they do not mention the name of God. Thus, in discussion I try not to ever mention it unless in discussion I have forgotten not to. Well, since you asked a personal question.

But you have clearly cited that blasphemy doesnt affect you so its not a worry or care you have when you or anyone does it to another. Thats a lack of empathy mate. You can now call me what ever you want, but it is what it is.

Cheers.

Pure rubbish. When have you seen me blaspheme?

I have said that I do not believe in God, but that is a statement about my beliefs, not a statement about God. And I have said that for me, and for other atheists, there is no God -- that is a consequence arising directly out of our beliefs. But note that I say it only here, in a debate forum on the subject of religion.

Now, if your expectation is that, even in a debate forum about religion I should DELIBERATELY LIE about my beliefs, so as not to offend you, then I think that you are being ridiculous. If that is what you need from me, then perhaps you should not take the risk of debating religion.

And for the record, I am not your "mate." And mine is not a lack of empathy. I do not discuss religion, or God -- ever -- with anyone who has not deliberately chosen to engage in a discussion on that topic. Which, by being here, you have.