Atheism as a 'religion'
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-09-2014, 12:07 PM
RE: Atheism as a 'religion'
(23-09-2014 12:04 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 11:59 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  No. There can only be one perfect being. Otherwise they would destroy themselves (and everything else)
Uhmm, why? Aren't you just making up that "rule"/"truth"? Where are you getting this information?

By definition, there can only be one all powerful being. If there's more than one, they aren't all powerful. Otherwise, they would destroy themselves instantly.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: Atheism as a 'religion'
(23-09-2014 11:19 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 08:13 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Replace fuzzy Green Monkey with God, and what changes the conclusion of that argument?

God is a perfect being, omnipotent invisible fuzzy green monkeys are not.

How do you know? Say Ten's retarded argument cuts both ways.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 12:12 PM
RE: Atheism as a 'religion'
(23-09-2014 12:08 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 11:19 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  God is a perfect being, omnipotent invisible fuzzy green monkeys are not.

How do you know? Say Ten's retarded argument cuts both ways.

Anything that is not transcendent is subject to entropy and is therefore not perfect. Omnipotent invisible fuzzy green monkeys cannot be transcendent, because then they're not omnipotent invisible fuzzy green monkeys.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 12:17 PM
RE: Atheism as a 'religion'
(23-09-2014 12:07 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 12:04 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  Uhmm, why? Aren't you just making up that "rule"/"truth"? Where are you getting this information?

By definition, there can only be one all powerful being. If there's more than one, they aren't all powerful. Otherwise, they would destroy themselves instantly.
Are you basically getting at the "can god create a rock so big/dense that it is too heavy for god to lift?"

It sounds like you are getting at...because they would all be all-powerful, there is no way multiple could exist because then they would not have power over each other, which would by definition make them not all-powerful. Is that what you are saying?

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: Atheism as a 'religion'
(23-09-2014 12:17 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 12:07 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  By definition, there can only be one all powerful being. If there's more than one, they aren't all powerful. Otherwise, they would destroy themselves instantly.
Are you basically getting at the "can god create a rock so big/dense that it is too heavy for god to lift?"

It sounds like you are getting at...because they would all be all powerful, there is no way multiple could exist because then they would not have power over each other, which would by definition make them not all-powerful. Is that what you are saying?

Yes. Only took you 20 posts... Facepalm

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 12:27 PM
RE: Atheism as a 'religion'
(23-09-2014 12:18 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 12:17 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  Are you basically getting at the "can god create a rock so big/dense that it is too heavy for god to lift?"

It sounds like you are getting at...because they would all be all powerful, there is no way multiple could exist because then they would not have power over each other, which would by definition make them not all-powerful. Is that what you are saying?

Yes. Only took you 20 posts... Facepalm
Sorry, omnipotence is already a ridiculous concept (IMO), so I'm just trying to understand you here.

But under this reasoning you just used, your god cannot be omnipotent because he cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it. This touches on the exact reasons that you cannot have multiple perfect beings, does it not?

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 12:50 PM
RE: Atheism as a 'religion'
Quote:God is a perfect being, omnipotent invisible fuzzy green monkeys are not.

Hanuman (sp?) would have something to say about that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 02:01 PM
RE: Atheism as a 'religion'
(23-09-2014 12:12 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 12:08 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  How do you know? Say Ten's retarded argument cuts both ways.

Anything that is not transcendent is subject to entropy and is therefore not perfect. Omnipotent invisible fuzzy green monkeys cannot be transcendent, because then they're not omnipotent invisible fuzzy green monkeys.

Yabut how do you know? You're just making a bunch of assumptions about concepts such as transcendence and "absolute" truth that fit your narrative.

You haven't shown how any of this is required other than baseless assertions. Once you base your whole argument on "cuz Diddo sez so", Chas gets to assert invisible fuzzy green moneys because he says so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 02:05 PM
RE: Atheism as a 'religion'
(23-09-2014 02:01 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 12:12 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Anything that is not transcendent is subject to entropy and is therefore not perfect. Omnipotent invisible fuzzy green monkeys cannot be transcendent, because then they're not omnipotent invisible fuzzy green monkeys.

Yabut how do you know? You're just making a bunch of assumptions about concepts such as transcendence and "absolute" truth that fit your narrative.

You haven't shown how any of this is required other than baseless assertions. Once you base your whole argument on "cuz Diddo sez so", Chas gets to assert invisible fuzzy green moneys because he says so.

I would be more likely to propose fuzzy green moneys than Adrianime's fuzzy green monkeys, though. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: