Atheism

Je ne t'ai rien dit non plus, espèce de faux Kyrghyz.

I'm saying that any hypothetical omnipotent entity who allowed the Holocaust to happen has very little ground to tell little me how to behave, or to forgive me my 'sins'. He minds his own business and I'm not complaining, but he better not complain about how I run mine.

Could a been me.

Now that the phony "Frenchman" is back, I see that all of our posts are being voted down.

You're understanding the meaning of 'omnipotent' wrong:

All the power that exists is what it is. There is no more power beyond all that exists, correct?

What you are implying is that God should have powers that don't exist because you are capable of imagining them to exist.

It's like you're saying that if God is omnipotent, then He can make lies true or turn what's true into a lie, etc. but that's not how reality works.

God is the personification of the singular power of creation that generated everything that exists, including the human ability to dream up powers that don't actually exist.

The fact that you can imagine God/reality differently than it actually works, doesn't make you right. It just means you have a divinely creative imagination.

Now you are making up your own meaning for words. That's cheating.

Good work. S/he's constantly contradicting herself. But it doesn't seem to matter much to her/him as long as the sentences roll off the tongue nicely.

There was a surprising amount of Woo Woo in there. And I don’t mean dogma.

It's my belief that as a territorial animal, which is what we have to be to be racist and fight neverending wars as we indisputably do, those who are deists fall into the trap of defending the imagination, a territory as large as the mind can stretch it. At a primal level they perceive that atheism is an attack on their territory - religion - and they feel compelled to make war on atheists out of fear that we will take away this sacred territory.

What are you talking about?

You seem to think that some point is self-evident in the way you highlighted the quoted posts, but what is your point?

I can't look inside your mind and see how you interpret what you read, unless you explain it; but then I don't think you'll explain what you understand, because you don't want to think that your understanding is less than self-evident from the text.

Basically you're imposing your bad reading of my text on the text to say I'm contradicting myself; but you don't really want to understand what is meant because you just want to win against religion by denying it makes sense.

Territorial wars are not just racism and troops. It can come in the form of capitalism or some tribalism based on emotional outbursts gotten out of hand. In the context of religion vs atheism, the core of the religious challenge is fear of ultimate personal and tribal extinction. By its very existence, even the most reasonable and gentle atheism is taken as an act of war. But we can't abandon truth just to make deists feel good.

It’s not just deists, some atheists are very evangelical. Look at Ricky Gervais, he even made a film, “ The Invention of Lying,” just to promote his ideology, and whenever he’s interviewed about anything at all he constantly has to bring religion up regardless of whether it’s remotely relevant or not.

Some people just like telling other people what to think.

I don't attack people for being agnostic. Or for being deist, actually. It's what one does with their convictions or lack thereof that concerns me. I don't believe there is no god, in the sense of moral conviction. It's a simple fact acknowledged as one acknowledges that I get up in the morning and make the first pot of coffee. Atheists are not a monolithic movement. Their only connection in general is the fact they are not deists. I am not responsible for what Joeatheist does or says in the name of atheism. He might be an asshole or a saint, but it has no real connection to me.

Some militant atheists can fall into the trap of creating a movement, but that's another manifestation of territorial behavior. Tribalism. Whatever. They are humans too. So they act like humans.

Nothing is a monolithic movement, including religion, except from the perspective of those outside it who reduce it to superficialities, which they usually misunderstand/misinterpret.

Omnipotent
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

Downthumber thinks suppressing posts makes themself more forceful, but actually reinforces their own patheticism.

There is a certain amount of power that exists. Supernovae can happen, for example, as can hurricanes, Covid19, Watergate, the war on drugs, etc.

The power to create all those events is real power that exists, and if you analyze how they happened, you will find that there were no breaches in the fundamental laws of physics/nature to cause them.

There are, however, powers that you can imagine that don't actually exist. E.g. if you wanted to cause our sun to go supernova, you couldn't because it doesn't have enough mass. Now the fact that you can imagine a sci-fi story where human scientists build a bomb that causes the sun to become a supernova doesn't mean that an omnipotent being would be able to actually cause the sun to go supernova with its current mass (assuming current science totally understands how supernovae are caused).

You are just arguing that the sum total of all the power that actually exists doesn't amount to omnipotence, because you can imagine more power than what actually exists.

Now there are subtler levels where you can experience things that aren't actually possible in external reality. E.g. let's say you assert that God isn't omnipotent because He can't turn apples into oranges. Then, the next day you taste someone's orange marmalade and you really like it and you ask them what's their secret and they tell you that they add apples to it because one day they ran out of oranges while making it and thus added some apples to the recipe and they found out it actually improved the flavor. When you suddenly remember that you had accused God of not being able to turn apples into oranges, you realize that in this context of the marmalade recipe, apples came to suffice as oranges and it strikes you what a coincidence it is that your mind connected the two events: the memory of thinking about apples/oranges as proof that omnipotence doesn't exist, and the experience of finding out someone substitutes apples for oranges in their marmalade recipe. God works in mysterious ways.