• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The logical fallacy of atheism

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
Just realized that will = desire. So there is no contest here again. Do you agree?

Desire Synonyms, Desire Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Will immediately implies desire. The issue again is that Omniscience can easily be packed on to omnipotence.

If a god is all powerful surely he can have the power to be aware of all things and be everywhere at the same time. Omniscience is tied to omnipotence to a greater extent and omnipotence is where you make a more solidified claim for the nature of will.

I am not saying you can't use omniscience though.
 

religion99

Active Member
Will immediately implies desire. The issue again is that Omniscience can easily be packed on to omnipotence.

If a god is all powerful surely he can have the power to be aware of all things and be everywhere at the same time. Omniscience is tied to omnipotence to a greater extent and omnipotence is where you make a more solidified claim for the nature of will.

I am not saying you can't use omniscience though.
Omnipotence implies Owner-Owned relationship between Omnipotent Person and its subject.
Omniscience implies Knower-Known relationship between Omniscient Person and its subject.

Now , the REAL nature of the Universe is such that there is no Owner-Owned relationship between two things. Only User-Used relationship exists between different things which is mistaken by Non-Omniscient People as Owner-Owned relationship.

But once you realize Omniscience , you KNOW the REAL nature of the Universe and
hence know that you have no ownership of the Universe and that knowledge naturally causes absolute undesirability to intervene in the matters of the Universe.

Long story short , we misidentify Efficient Cause as Material Cause and that is the reason for our Non-omniscience. See Aristotle for the definition of Efficient Cause and Material Cause.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Omniscience is , by rule , always accompanied by Omnibelief ( perfect and correct Belief) and Ominperception (perfect and correct perception ) , so there is guarantee of no delusion.

What guarantees does the mistaken belief that one is omniscient come with?
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Omnipotence implies Owner-Owned relationship between Omnipotent Person and its subject.
Omniscience implies Knower-Known relationship between Omniscient Person and its subject.

Now , the REAL nature of the Universe is such that there is no Owner-Owned relationship between two things. Only User-Used relationship exists between different things which is mistaken by Non-Omniscient People as Owner-Owned relationship.

But once you realize Omniscience , you KNOW the REAL nature of the Universe and
hence know that you have no ownership of the Universe and that knowledge naturally causes absolute undesirability to intervene in the matters of the Universe.

Long story short , we misidentify Efficient Cause as Material Cause and that is the reason for our Non-omniscience. See Aristotle for the definition of Efficient Cause and Material Cause.

In many cases, uses are owned. User-Used is Owner-Owned.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Stalin, jeffrey Dahmer, Kim Jong, Mussolini, machiavelli, marx = atheists

Great power usually leads to great tyranny. Religion was merely exploited. Today they use modern comforts of living.

Sheesh dude, that is a terrible approach - I could name hundreds of murderous theists. Your examples by the way are even worse than your argument. Stalin was raised a Christian and trained in a seminary, he also opened some 25,000 churches. Jeffrey Dahmer was a christian and died after repenting - so according to scripture he is in heaven, whilst his unpabtised Jewish victims would be in hell. Kim Jong Il is worshipped as a god, Mussolini was Catholic, Machiavelli was a genius who any atheist would be proud to be associated with and Marx like Machiavelli was one of histories most brilliant.
 

religion99

Active Member
In many cases, uses are owned. User-Used is Owner-Owned.

san038.gif

Ahamekko khalu suddho damsanananamayio sadaruvi
Navi atthi majjha kimchivi annam paratpanumittatn pi ( 38 )

38. Absolutely pure, having the nature of perception and knowledge, always non-corporeal, I am indeed unique. Hence not even an atom of alien things whatsoever (whether living or non-living) is related to me as mine.

Note: Mine means Owner-Owned relationship.


COMMENTARY
Aham: the Self implies this : The soul from beginningless eternity associated with ignorance and delusion forgets its true nature, gets identified with "alien features and characteristics till he is roused from slumber by a benevolent spiritual master who repeatedly strives to wake him up to his true nature. Just as a person who has lost his jewel feels a joy and surprise when it is brought and placed in his hands, so also the soul wakes up as a result of the master's effort to realise that his Self is parameswara, that his nature is pure and unsullied by alien features, shedding the pure light of pure consciousness all around.

Ekaha : the undivided unity implies that in spite of the several psychic states, emotional, cognitive, and conative, experienced by the Self, it is an indivisible unity,

Sudhadha: pure. The Self, in spite of its gati, modification, such as human and divine and in spite of the nine types of psycho- physical modifications called nava-padarthas , never loses its intrinsic pure nature and hence he is sudhdha.

Arupi: non-corporeal. Since the pure soul has no other nature except upayoga, the pure knowledge and perception, and since it transcends the sense-perception of vision, taste, touch, etc., it is always non-corporeal. The Self having this nature and illuminating all things around through its light of knowledge remains absolutely uninfluenced by alien psychic states and physical objects so that not even an 'iota of the alien things it can call its own.
 
Last edited:

religion99

Active Member
What guarantees does the mistaken belief that one is omniscient come with?

To be frank I don't know all the answers. Start walking the path and I am sure you will find all the answers yourself , if genuine efforts are made. It is free , available and there is no penalty for going back , except may be some lost time.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
To be frank I don't know all the answers. Start walking the path and I am sure you will find all the answers yourself , if genuine efforts are made. It is free , available and there is no penalty for going back , except may be some lost time.
I don't really have any interest in pursuing your religion. I'm interested in talking to you, but if you're done, then so am I.
 

serp777

Well-Known Member
Now in terms of here he is, there he is.... there is no tangible evidence for the existence of God as it would be understood in the most basic definition. However, to say that God does not exist because of a lack of evidence is a fallacy. That fallacy is called argument from ignorance. Therefore, the die-hard atheist is practicing a belief system because they believe there is nothing after death. A truly scientific mind would question both view points & contemplate how to test the theory. Just saying....

It must be a fallacy that you don't believe in leprechauns, or santa clause, or Zeus, or Thor, or Apollo or Baal, or the celestial teapot. To say these things do not exist because of lack of evidence is a fallacy.
 

samosasauce

Active Member
There are many, many, many logic fallacies which make up the human mind. In fact I'm almost certain I could find one for every set of beliefs and/or post here, including my own.
 

RitalinOhD

Heathen Humanist
There are many, many, many logic fallacies which make up the human mind. In fact I'm almost certain I could find one for every set of beliefs and/or post here, including my own.

Cool. Let's start easy. Give me a logical fallacy for the simple non-belief in a Diety.
 

samosasauce

Active Member
Cool. Let's start easy. Give me a logical fallacy for the simple non-belief in a Diety.
That can't count as a logical fallacy. It would be the reasoning behind your choice which could be found to have a logical fallacy. Same goes for those who believe in deities or a deity.
 

RitalinOhD

Heathen Humanist
That can't count as a logical fallacy. It would be the reasoning behind your choice which could be found to have a logical fallacy. Same goes for those who believe in deities or a deity.

Fair enough.

My particular reasoning is the lack of any form of empirical evidence hinting at the necessity of there being a deity.
 

samosasauce

Active Member
Fair enough.

My particular reasoning is the lack of any form of empirical evidence hinting at the necessity of there being a deity.

Well, there could be a few fallacies in this, (the first one and the last one would be upheld for those believing in deities as well)
Ex: Confirmation bias (not very likely in my opinion for you)
The Argument from Ignorance could be applied, but it's more of searching for explanations.

Depending on how you view theists, you could be a victim of The a third Person Effect. This is the fallacy that those who disagree with you are gullible and that you yourself are much less prone to persuasion.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Does a deity really have to be a "necessity" in order to exist?
If you think so, please explain why.

Ritalin, feel free to correct me, but I took "necessary" to be in the "it's necessary for us to conclude God given this evidence" sense, not in the "God is 'necessary'" sense.
 

RitalinOhD

Heathen Humanist
Ritalin, feel free to correct me, but I took "necessary" to be in the "it's necessary for us to conclude God given this evidence" sense, not in the "God is 'necessary'" sense.

That is correct Penguin. Sorry if the way I worded it was confusing. Pretty sure i was half asleep when I posted that.
 
Top