It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I'm God

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Onward Christless Soldiers


Originally posted by mojo4sale
As an Atheist myself i certainly dont feel the need to try and disprove your beliefs...

As a responsible citizen of Planet Earth, I most certainly do.

Religion has inarguable private benefits and even a few public ones. However, the private benefits can only be achieved by deliberately embracing a lie and embarking upon a life of self-delusion, with all the mental and moral corruption that follows therefrom. Religious people are by definition morally compromised; they can never, for example, be truly honest with themselves or with anyone else.

As for the public benefits of religion (social control, communal unity), they can be achieved by more rational, humane methods, ones which do not involve the creation of scapegoats and the cultivation of hatred; that do not rely on coercion, subornation, bribery, flattery, bootlicking, threats, violence, torture, murder and who knows how many other kinds of vulgarity and brutality to achieve their ends.

Religion is a sickness - a psychopathology. Like the instinctive xenophobia that is also a part of our animal nature, it is something we have outgrown but that clings to us still, like an unctious parasite gorging on our lives and treasure.

I don't care if the current generation of delusives goes to its grave still believing, but every child newly recruited by the holy propaganda machine is another loss to humanity and another threat to its future.

The battle to save those children, and humankind, is one well worth fighting.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by Astyanax]




posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
ok, i'm not going to respond to individuals (who knew my little thread would blossom to 3 pages?), just ideas.

1: atheists attack belief because it is D A N G E R O U S in multiple ways. there are 150 REPORTED instances of children dying in the USA over a 10 year period because their parents believed it would be sinful to provide them with medical care and simply prayed for them. since few are likely to report this incident, numbers of actual deaths are thought to be much higher

2: we don't attack christians or any other believers (well, some of us do, but the ones that don't really look down on it), we attack belief

3: it's not just blasphemy, i think it's universal blasphemy, i'm blaspheming against every religion

4: other deities, let's share some mead with thor on thursdays. he has a mean brew stash.

5: i demand no worship, i'm not egocentric like that. i also never claimed i created you or anything. i was just born omnipotent, making me a deity.

6: nobody has disproved that i am omnipotent.

7: stop repeating myths about atheists.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I almost always agree with MIMS, except for this one point:

Atheists aren't "attacking" anything. We are stating our opinion of what we perceive to be dangerous superstition and delusion.

If someone speaks out against child abuse, are they attacking child abusers, or speaking their mind?

If someone speaks out against homelessness, are they attacking the homeless, or speaking an opinion?

it's the same thing here.

Atheists -- especially we very vocal ones -- find religion to be a great social evil and we are doing our part in speaking out against it.

Maybe we'll be heard and heeded before religion in the guise of fundamentalism destroys all civilization and most of the planet with it.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 


lol, keep up your delusional fantasies. Religion, in some form or another, has been here for as long as there's been recorded history.

It is obviously something that has been built into us, or "evolved" if you will. Don't be thinking it will vanish anytime soon, that would be giving yourself false hope.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Well the reaction from those people who subscribe to a system is very telling. Bear in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and when asked they offer no proof what so ever. At the same time they take such a request personally.

Now from where I am standing such a reaction says it all the people of faith seem to be the ones who are insecure !

On another note as much as I think organised religion is a cancer if you try to those who think otherwise you will only harden there beliefs in what is some very long tales.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by thehumbleone
 


I love backwards reasoning. I see that the tactic of twisting my own words to use as weapons against me is still your best trick. Easily dealt with, too.

I am not making a claim for the existence of something that has no evidence for existence. Religion is the delusion. Believing in something that has no proof is delusional. It's just as much a delusion as the homeless guy I met once who just knew that aliens were stealing his recycling (rather than the other homeless people in the camp).

Just because "everyone" believes in something doesn't make them right. The argument from popularity is as much a fallacy as all the others. "Everyone" used to believe the sun went around the earth, too, but "everyone" was wrong.

BTW adding the "cool" smiley doesn't make the fallacy any less wrong.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
seriously, i'm an omnipotent deity.

want me to prove it?
well... i really can't. you see, i may be omnipotent, but i'm not omniscient and thus cannot demonstrate the full extent of my power... or any extent of it at all. but i know that i'm a deity.

my first act as god is to ask why you shouldn't believe in me.


Why should I believe? Do you posses the opulences needed to be considered God?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by plague

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
seriously, i'm an omnipotent deity.


Why should I believe? Do you posses the opulences needed to be considered God?


Oh, he does! He does! I have complete faith in his opulence. I can feel it radiating from him, as I'm sure you can. Please don't be a person of little faith and claim you can't.

Occam



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 


I like what you posted here.


Just because "everyone" believes in something doesn't make them right. The argument from popularity is as much a fallacy as all the others. "Everyone" used to believe the sun went around the earth, too, but "everyone" was wrong.


It makes alot of sense to me. Thank you for reminding me. I agree.

I was thinking this about the body politic and how much this pertains to them.
I have been trying to find some real news and information on the boob tube lately but keep being innundated by all this drivel about the political primarys caucases in the variois states.. Loads and loads of logic and reasoning from the standpoint about "popularity". Goodness me..I am so grateful for a invention called a remote controller..on/off switch.

MM does this qualify politics as a religion?? Most certainly alot of devout and zealous practicioners to be found here. People do tend to believe that politics will solve problems for them...faith!!?? could it be a fallacy??
Is this another version of the sex ritual.. occult fertilty rites...public masterbation?? Pardon the crudity but I think you understand to what I am alluding. What kind of priesthood would it take to pull this off on a nation every two to four years?? This priesthood would have to be very devout/zealous.
You know they use scientific polling data..correct"" Is this science part of the religion/priesthood/ritual?? The very mechanism itself. They sure like to use polls....alot!! Could these polls often be used as a brainwashing tool..psychology..to get people brainwashed into the fallacy?? Faith??
Hey..MM ...they ..the body politic also finances public schools. So are they teaching religion in schools..how about fallacy?? Belief in the religion by popularity/education/indoctrination?? You know what I mean...that government is going to solve problems for us ....if you just believe...just believe!!! Did I mention ..send money?? IF not they will come and get it or print it up?? Did I mention this??

Just because "Everyone" believes in something doesnt make them right!!
Yes?? Particularly in the religion of politics. I agree with your tack here!!

While most certainly I am being facetious....there is a very serious side to that of which I am speaking. Most certainly the fingerprint fits.
It is just that in our man made intellectual potential/religious beliefs ....ie ..bias we dont tend to think of this as being true. I most certainly do. Particularly everytime I try to find real news and informations through what passes for the media. To me they are part of the priesthood..even the "fabled" Fox News. They seem to have a real fetish for blondes..same with Chicken Noodle News/CNN. Could this fetish be part of the ritual???Goodness me I am glad someone invented a remote.

MM, Thank you for the reality check. I needed it.

Orangetom




[edit on 6-1-2008 by orangetom1999]

[edit on 6-1-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


are you posting this to try an challenge people on or about their faith by trying to prove you wrong?

keeping the faith
TheSkepticSway



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Oh, come on, how can I believe you are a deity, when I know that I'm the one true deity? It takes a woman to give life, so a female god makes more sense.

Do you like nebulae? I worked hard on those, they're my favorite.

All must worship me! Not the false god madness.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Relax, creatures. Your god is still the alpha god. And as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity, he has the potential, the knowledge, and the ubiquity to create an entity such as the OP. Right? Anyway...

Omnipotence without omniscience isn't that great, you know? I tend to think of omnipotence sans omniscience as an absurd situation. MIMS would have the power to do anything but lack the knowledge of how to use that power. I point this out because judging from many of your responses, it is evident that you didn't get that on your own. And good luck disproving a claim of omnipotence. Whereas the OP will be unable to prove his claim, neither will any of you be able to disprove it (much as he is unable to disprove the existence of your god and you are unable to prove the existence of your god). Starting to catch on to the fun little game yet?

As an absurdist, I have to say that I've enjoyed this thread. To the believers, tread carefully here -- you run the risk of becoming part of the, for lack of a better term, meta-joke (several of you have already been assimilated into it). Please think about what you're saying before you say it as well as whether or not you ought to say it at all. I'd like to see you bring something to the table other than "do this, don't do that."

And finally...

MIMS: In regards to the question that you actually posed, there is no reason that I shouldn't believe in you. But isn't the more pertinent question, "Is there a reason that I should worship you?" Again, the answer is no.


/tn.


EDIT:
ben91069: I've never been convinced that the omnipotence paradox is applicable, at least to omnipotent/omniscient entities. I buy into C.S. Lewis's "nonsense" rebuttal. Whether or not such an entity can create a rock so big that he cannot lift it is nonsense. He can no more do that than he can draw a square circle. Two mutually exclusive alternatives cannot be carried out -- "not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God" (from The Problem of Pain by Lewis).

Particularly in the case of the OP, because he only has knowledge OF his omnipotence but is unable to actually use it due to his ignorance of how to apply the omnipotence, he cannot create such a rock unless he becomes omniscient (or at the very least, stumbles upon the knowledge necessary for such a situation). I doubt such knowledge would ever become available -- as I said before, I buy Lewis's argument.


[edit on 6-1-2008 by teleonaut]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Please, MMF, have you no sense of history? "First there was the word" and the word came from MIMS. Therefore he must be god, however, I certainly understand your argument, and I recognize that you are the Holy Ghost, equally deserving of my veneration and worship.

Occam

[to correct a typo]

[edit on 6-1-2008 by Occam]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Occam
 


Occam?

How dare you??!?!

Do you realize who you are talking to?

For shame!!!!

****

I am the 'goddess of ducks', the one who dispenses out pressies to all the good little aquatic children of the world.

Want proof?

Here I am with my little carp children:

And one for you, and you, and can't forget you too:




posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
MMF, of course you're a female deity. i never said i was a monotheistic one. obviously there are more gods and we must have a female deity as well. i'm just the deity of omnipotence... yep, i represent omnipotence. you're the creator being.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Oh, of course! I must have left my omniscience in my other pants.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Teleopause


Originally posted by teleonaut
Omnipotence without omniscience isn't that great, you know? ...MIMS would have the power to do anything but lack the knowledge of how to use that power.

Not true. The universe is omnipotent in that it is capable of producing any and all phenomena consistent with the laws of physics, though as far as anyone can tell it lacks even consciousness -- let alone omniscience.

Power is independent of knowledge. Madness in My Soul's lack of omniscience does not prevent him from using his power, only from using it wisely. Think of any stupid, drug-addled tinpot dictator flexing his muscles. His ignorance and foolishness don't prevent him from using his power, though they may cause him to lose it in the long run. I don't think Madness claimed eternal omnipotence.

And glory be to MIMS Almighty, he has used his omnipotence responsibly so far.


MIMS: In regards to the question that you actually posed, there is no reason that I shouldn't believe in you. But isn't the more pertinent question, "Is there a reason that I should worship you?"

From whose point of view? Yours or his?

From his perspective, it is the omnipotence that is critical, not the worship it elicits. You may see things differently, but what does he care? He's God and you're just a teleonaut.


I've never been convinced that the omnipotence paradox is applicable, at least to omnipotent/omniscient entities. I buy into C.S. Lewis's "nonsense" rebuttal. Whether or not such an entity can create a rock so big that he cannot lift it is nonsense. He can no more do that than he can draw a square circle. Two mutually exclusive alternatives cannot be carried out -- "not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God" (from The Problem of Pain by Lewis).

The quotation - being nonsense - is a clear demonstration of itself.

Here it is in a slightly less dismissible form: can an omnipotent entity ever be wholly good?

Before you decide that the answer is that God can make and break his own rules as he pleases, please consider the character of good and evil: whether they are provisional and temporally malleable, or whether they are absolutes. The concept of God as a moral relativist is slightly ridiculous, even though this is precisely how the gods of all religions are depicted in the relevant mythologies and scriptures.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   
He Also Could Become King of Troy
(Consider that a nod, not a slight.)



Originally posted by Astyanax
Not true. The universe is omnipotent in that it is capable of producing any and all phenomena consistent with the laws of physics, though as far as anyone can tell it lacks even consciousness -- let alone omniscience.


I am thinking of omnipotence as "power without limit," not "power within the boundaries of physical laws." Admittedly, this is likely *my* defect here. I do now notice the shady notion of limitless power requiring limitless knowledge in order to take full advantage of said power. Nevertheless, is my definition incorrect? If not, is the universe actually omnipotent? Or is it just nonsense to talk about operating outside of the confines of the laws of physics? Please bear in mind that I am completely willing to be wrong, but I do want to learn in the process.



Originally posted by Astyanax
Power is independent of knowledge. Madness in My Soul's lack of omniscience does not prevent him from using his power, only from using it wisely.


Interesting. Does omniscience guarantee wisdom? I can have all the facts of a given situation laid out before me and still be none the wiser for knowing them. In other words, does "God is wise" necessarily follow "God is all-knowing?" I have no subtle intention here -- I am intrigued. Also, can omnipotence be used to gain omniscience (I would assume that it is possible)?



Originally posted by Astyanax
From whose point of view? Yours or his? [...] From his perspective, it is the omnipotence that is critical, not the worship it elicits. You may see things differently, but what does he care?


From mine. I agree that from his perspective, factoring in only the content of his initial post, the matter is less critical, if it matters at all. However, I do not think that it necessarily follows that MIMS is not interested in my worship merely because he did not mention an interest. Neither does it follow that he won't become interested in it. Perhaps he cares a good deal, but hasn't felt it necessary to say so yet. Perhaps asking for our worship will be his second act as an omnipotent deity. Did I get ahead of MIMS? Yes. Am I completely off base? I don't think so.



Originally posted by Astyanax
Here it is in a slightly less dismissible form: can an omnipotent entity ever be wholly good?


Who draws the line here on what is good and what is evil? Me? God? It still seems a bit nonsensical to me. If he works evil for my benefit, did he effectively work good? Are good and evil really mutually exclusive? If your intention here was to point out that Lewis's argument mainly works due to the slippery nature of words, then I can dig that. I'll also admit that when faced with this wording, I do have to say that I find it hard to take a stance one way or another. There are sincerely difficult ramifications of either stance I could take. What is your opinion?

Anyway, thanks for your post. It forced me to reassess a number of my lines of thinking and for that I am grateful.


/tn.


[edit on 7-1-2008 by teleonaut]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
After getting some rest, I would like to add the following:

1) In regards to the omnipotence of the universe, I feel that you are abusing the word omnipotence. Being omnipotent and yet being bound by the laws of physics isn't really being omnipotent, IMHO. Please explain your position further. And while I do notice the "shady notion" I mentioned before, I am not yet entirely persuaded from my initial stance.

2) I disagree in regards to the omnipotence/omniscience discussion. How is he able to use his power? Please explain. My question about guaranteeing wisdom still stands as well.

3) While related via the topic of omnipotence, the rock problem and the evil problem are not the same issue. The rock problem doesn't have the added complication of attributing benevolence to the omnipotent entity. And I still buy Lewis's statement in so far as it references the rock problem. I am considering its applications to the problem of evil. In regards to your question, when you say "wholly good," is benevolence a stipulation of that? If so, how are you defining benevolence? Can one be wholly good without also being benevolent? They seem slightly silly questions to ask, but they have bearing.

/tn.


[edit on 7-1-2008 by teleonaut]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Quote Teleonaut:

I am thinking of omnipotence as "power without limit," not "power within the boundaries of physical laws." Admittedly, this is likely *my* defect here.


No, it's not your defect. While we think an omnipotent god like MIMS would have to obey physical laws, we must not forget that he has the power to change those laws. For example, he could make gravity follow the inverse cube rule, or change the speed of light to twenty-five miles per hour. Of course, since nothing can exceed the speed of light we would never have to worry breaking the speed limit while driving.

Occam



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join