Reyginus: As usual, always holding unto the wrong side of an argument. And very illogical rebuttal you have up there.
This is the reason I think that atheists here are very dull. Why do you guys find it so hard to defend atheism without telling us how ridiculous theism is? Is there no argument for atheism?

NO!.

Because atheism is not a proposition but a response to one.

Theist: I have Ghadse which cooks any food I want in 30 seconds

Atheist: I don't believe such a device exists. Can you show me?

Theist: Do you have any proof for your disbelief?

Atheist: Ehm! I don't need any proof of anything. You just said ...

Theist: You are very irrational if you can't prove what you just said.

Atheist: Can you please show me this device you talked about or at least proof of its existence.

Theist: Can you prove you are not irrational?

Joshthefirst: go to quatar and see for yourself. This does not change what I said. You make empty claims with empty words.

We, the real deal, the message spreaders are Gods ambssadors on earth. The power of God backs us. God is not going to change just to fulfill your selfish sentiments. Smh. Even in seemingly and totally dark regions, God, true God, almighty God, reveals himself inspite of mens sin and ignorance through his son.

And as we rise in revival, the world will be engulfed with the power of the message just before judgement. Watch and see the power of God.

Empty drivel as usual. . .If god reveals himself then why are you wasting your time telling people about him?. . .Why not just allow him to reveal himself to alll, after all we are told he wants to save humanity and have a personal relationship with humans, if you want to have a personal relationship with a girl do you send someone to woo her or do you do it yourself?. . .Do you know why you are trying to woo people to your god and why others are also trying to woo people to their gods as well?. . .Because all the gods do not exist and can never do such. . .Your god and your religion remains a creation of men. . .End of story. . .

Joshthefirst: what's the point?
Your heart is hardened. If I give you the records of people like smith wigglesworth(who actually healed amputees and raised the dead) and kenneth E. hagin and countless others, you wouldn't believe me.
You and mazaje will have to wait for God to heal your amputee neighbour or heal the sick before your very eyes, which will probably NOT happen. God is not your houseboy. God resists the proud and scoffers and gives grace to the humble. He will keep revealing himself and changing the lives and saving those who believe and seek him diligently.

But the words of the proud are an abomination before God.

He won't even mind you self. But we will still preach the message. And we will still tell you that all men shall stand before God in judgement. Your sin cries out to God and provokes his wrath. God commands all men everywhere to repent.

Oh please please. give me the evidence of Smith Wigglesworth and Kenneth hagin healing amputees and raising the dead. I am begging you.

Alfa Seltzer:

NO!.

Because atheism is not a proposition but a response to one.

Theist: I have Ghadse which cooks any food I want in 30 seconds

Atheist: I don't believe such a device exists. Can you show me?

Theist: Do you have any proof for your disbelief?

Atheist: Ehm! I don't need any proof of anything. You just said ...

Theist: You are very irrational if you can't prove what you just said.

Atheist: Can you please show me this device you talked about or at least proof of its existence.

Theist: Can you prove you are not irrational?

This best describes the atheist and theist arguments we have been having for years here on NL. . .

Alfa Seltzer:

A disbelief of a claim is not a claim. If you have a claim made by atheists, say it.

If Atheism is "a disbelief of a claim" then how is Atheism the default position of humans? Do babies "disbelieve" anything?

Atheism isnt just irrational; its incoherent!

You CLAIM that God doesnt exist. Yes or no?

plaetton:

Oh please please. give me the evidence of Smith Wigglesworth and Kenneth hagin healing amputees and raising the dead. I am begging you.

Smith Wigglesworth and Kenneth hagin healing amputees?. . .This guy is TRULY crazy. . .

Still NOTHING!

Atheists have no empirical evidence for their beliefs.

ZERO!

italo:

If Atheism is "a disbelief of a claim" then how is Atheism the default position of humans? Do babies "disbelieve" anything?

Atheism isnt just irrational; its incoherent!

You CLAIM that God doesnt exist. Yes or no?

The irrationality of atheism would be so clear if You ,Italo, can just point out god to us. If God was self-evident like say, one's father, or observable like the sun rays, or measurable like gravity, then it would be irrational to disbelief in such.

But so far since you opened this thread, I have looked everywhere and so has my neighbor, there is no sign of god.
So where is god?
Show me god.

Alfa Seltzer:

NO!.

Because atheism is not a proposition but a response to one.

Theist: I have Ghadse which cooks any food I want in 30 seconds

Atheist: I don't believe such a device exists. Can you show me?

Theist: Do you have any proof for your disbelief?

Atheist: Ehm! I don't need any proof of anything. You just said ...

Theist: You are very irrational if you can't prove what you just said.

Atheist: Can you please show me this device you talked about or at least proof of its existence.

Theist: Can you prove you are not irrational?

Lol. You even fail to understand that refusing to believe that any thing is true is already a belief. Most importantly, if there is no reason contrary to the belief you are refusing, that is, if there is no reason for your adjustment, then we will have to question your psyche.
If on the other hand, there is a reason for for your new position, then these make a case against what you don't hold true.

plaetton:

The irrationality of atheism would be so clear if You ,Italo, can just point out god to us. If God was self-evident like say, one's father, or observable like the sun rays, or measurable like gravity, then it would be irrational to disbelief in such.

But so far since you opened this thread, I have looked everywhere and so has my neighbor, there is no sign of god.
So where is god?
Show me god.

He can not even convince his fellow christians that Mary is the mother of god and that she should be honored or pleaded with to pray for humans as his church tradition maintains, yet you want him to show you that his god exist?. . .If his god exist other christians will have the same belief as him and the members of his sect, but because its a man made stuff like any other thing him and others who claim belief in the same god all have different ideas and belief in the same god. . .Delusion at its finest. .

mazaje:

All gods remain man made ideas. . .That is why there are many gods. . .belief is what makes god live, once people stop believing in gods they die off. . .Ra used to be a very powerful god in ancient Egypt. . .Many of the gods our ancestors worshiped are now dead after the Europeans and Arabs invaded our lands and forced us to accept their own version of gods. . .Gods remain a man made idea. . .FACT. . .

This still entirely side-steps the question of whether the universe and life within it require a creator or not.

That beliefs in various deities change over time, does nothing to address this simple question.

italo: Still NOTHING!

Atheists have no empirical evidence for their beliefs.

ZERO!

Atheists here, as I have noticed, are very dull but always pretend like thinkers when only what they do is make their case from whatever the theist says. They have no case for atheism.
At least if you are saying that something is not true, you should have something tangible showing why it is not.

Alfa Seltzer:

It is telling that of all religions and theist beliefs in the world, the FSM belief is the only one you singled out as a mockery. This is a religion that is recognised in many countries.

It is a mockery, and a puerile one at that.

In any case, if we are to argue about the existence of a creator, then you need to define what you mean by "a creator". A being? A substance? A chemical reaction? An energy source? What exactly? After that definition we can then see if it really exists. And moreover if it corresponds to any of the gods the theists are trying to force down our throats.

It is enough to first agree that there existed a trigger, before using deductive and inductive reasoning to adduce the qualities of that trigger. I will have to know that you accept that there was such a trigger in the first place: because I have had atheists here argue that the universe may be cause-less, or uncaused.

Even if the FSM is a joke that was meant to mock theism, it doesn't mean that it is impossible. You see, there is no possible way you can prove that the FSM did not create the universe and everything in it. Is there?

Just as surely as there is no possible way that you can prove that Yahweh did not create the universe and everything in it, is there?

I hope you see how hopelessly circular your argument is.

It is not even an argument.

Alfa Seltzer:

Chai. Which records?

Which oru? He whom Satan has blessed needs no more oru (sufferage) in this life.

Nwokem!
I na-agwam na I naghi aru oru??
Chai!

Go and find work before you die of hunger o

mazaje:

Empty drivel as usual. . .If god reveals himself then why are you wasting your time telling people about him?. . .Why not just allow him to reveal himself to alll, after all we are told he wants to save humanity and have a personal relationship with humans, if you want to have a personal relationship with a girl do you send someone to woo her or do you do it yourself?. . .Do you know why you are trying to woo people to your god and why others are also trying to woo people to their gods as well?. . .Because all the gods do not exist and can never do such. . .Your god and your religion remains a creation of men. . .End of story. . .

smh. It's as if you didn't even read my post.

God reveals himself through his son jesus both through our preaching, etc. God is not going to change because of you. He reveals himself even today. But he resists the proud. Simple

mazaje:

Smith Wigglesworth and Kenneth hagin healing amputees?. . .This guy is TRULY crazy. . .

smh. Go back and read my post again

Alfa Seltzer:

NO!.

Because atheism is not a proposition but a response to one.

Theist: I have Ghadse which cooks any food I want in 30 seconds

Atheist: I don't believe such a device exists. Can you show me?

Theist: Do you have any proof for your disbelief?

Atheist: Ehm! I don't need any proof of anything. You just said ...

Theist: You are very irrational if you can't prove what you just said.

Atheist: Can you please show me this device you talked about or at least proof of its existence.

Theist: Can you prove you are not irrational?

This is a caricature.

The correct position is that human beings as rational creatures born into a world such as this, know, both rationally and instinctively, that it cannot be an uncaused world, or even an undesigned one for that matter. This is actually the default position: and that it is the default position is proven by the default belief of mankind throughout history, in God or gods.

That is actually the default position.

As such it is actually the person who seeks to contradict that default position, who seeks to argue, implausibly, that the world was not created, or that it may be a product of chance: it is in reality this person who is making a new claim - a strange claim against that which humanity commonly understands - a claim against basic laws of motion and causality - this is the person who needs to adduce proof for his very bizarre claim - even if he is right, and the world is wrong, just as I have previously explained on this forum, people like Galileo Galilei and Nicholas Corpernicus still bore a burden of proof - for the simple fact of challenging the default position - even where that default position was wrong.

... And here is what I have previously said on this forum on this -

For where there is an improbability - even if a seeming improbability only - then the greater burden must reside with he who advances that seemingly improbable notion.

Let me give you an example. Galileo Galilei. This fellow could have easily stated that the burden of proof that the earth is orbitted by the sun rests with those who say so. In reality, public perception was wrong, and he was right. He nevertheless recognised and executed his burden of proof because from the Unclad eye, and the vantage point of the general observer - it seemed that indeed the sun was orbiting a stagnant earth . . . that seeming reality thus placed the burden of proving the reverse on he who contended so - and Galileo duly discharged his burden of proof

The original claim is actually that there is no God - because the default belief was that there must be a God. This has been the default belief of mankind from time immemorial, and he who seeks to rebutt a default position bears the burden of doing so - especially when that default position is backed by the commonsensical notion that things as generally known, do have causes.

Heck! - this gives a fresh and stronger spin to my argument - namely that any person attacking a previously held default position must have the burden of proving that default position wrong.

https://www.nairaland.com/808965/atheism-revisiting-burden-proof

Deep Sight:

This still entirely side-steps the question of whether the universe and life within it require a creator or not.

That beliefs in various deities change over time, does nothing to address this simple question.

The universe and the life within it does not require a creator.

It is quite difficult to contemplate a time when the universe and time was not. It remains a simple human fantasy to manufacture a creator to take credit for the things we know not.

Joshthefirst: smh. It's as if you didn't even read my post.

God reveals himself through his son jesus both through our preaching, etc. God is not going to change because of you. He reveals himself even today. But he resists the proud. Simple

Men wrote the entire Jesus story, no evidence to show that any of what the wrote down about Jesus is try, even christians do not even agree on the nature of Jesus i.e if he is god and Jesus at the same time or if he is god alone yet here you are talking about god and how he revealed himself through Jesus?. . .The Dai Lama is the reincarnation of a Buddhist god, at least the Dai Lama is alive and we can see him today. . .You are a joke. . .

More on the "Default Position"... in response to Plaetton a while back -


https://www.nairaland.com/808965/atheism-revisiting-burden-proof/2#9684645

plaetton:

Also calling something a default position is arbitrary. In light of the amount of knowledge we have amassed so far, your position cannot be deemed to be the default position. Today, the opposite seems to be the case.

In this instance there is no question of arbitrariness. For within human experience, complex systems fit for specific purpose are designed by intelligence - that is the standard human experience with respect to things that humans themselves create. Thus, by creating complex systems fit for specific purpose themselves, and having to apply their intelligence to such processes, humans derive a personal experience which tells them that such complex systems fit for specific purposes require intelligence to be assembled. This is one of the very basic reasons that belief in God is a very default position of human beings - because it tallies with their own personal experience of having to apply intelligence to create complex systems for specific functionalities.

Now, when human beings have, despite their application of intelligence, never been able even in the modern age to create something as sensationally fit for purpose as a single white blood cell - not to speak of the super-computing prowess of the human brain - it then becomes a tall order to expect the very same humans to believe that such things did not have intelligent input. This is why the generality of humans believe in a superveneing and intelligent cause or creator - because it only seems commonsensical to them. . . thus if you will take an opinion poll of all humans in the world, you will find probably nine theists for every atheist. . . or something of the sort. It is thus slam on correct to state that belief in God is indeed mankind's default position - and that is not an arbitrary assessment in the least.

I will go so far as to also inform you that even a great many so called atheists also share this belief - because alot of them are not pure atheists - who totally reject any notion of God. A good number are actually what i call the "anti-religion atheist" - who rejects religion because he recognizes its absurdities - and thereby imagines himself an atheist. Such a person is simply non-religious and closer to being agnostic. I have found famed atheists even on this forum here and there hinting that they accept the notion of a creator and creation - but assert that it is beyond proof. Such are not pure atheists. They still retain the commonsensical notion of a supervening cause. The pure atheist is he who - asserts positively and adamantly that God or gods absolutely DO NOT exist - never mind that omniscience is required to assert that.

Also, the undisputed rationale of causes and effects, and the laws of motion give human beings to believe that indeed there is an ultimate cause and that such a cause is imbued with purpose and intelligence. This has been, and still remains the default belief of the vast majority of mankind up till the present day. Indeed, the opposite thought is only a recent entry into the thinking of humans, and certainly is held by only a small minority of mankind.

There is thus every reason to state that belief in God is indeed mankind's default position.

And the argument remains that any person who disputes a default position - whether or not the default position is wrong or right -  bears the burden of proof. Tell me if you dispute this principle.

Also i gave you the example of Galileo Galilei - who advanced ideas against the wrong default positions held at his time. Although the default position was wrong, would you say that Galileo did not bear the burden of proving his novel assertions?

That helps me rephrase it in another way that also makes sense - any person with a novel claim bears the burden of proving it, and this you CANNOT disagree with! - And certainly atheism is novel amongst humanity - for theism it always was from time immemorial! This alone surely closes the argument - novel claims must be proved - even if they be true and correct - such as Galileo's!

https://www.nairaland.com/808965/atheism-revisiting-burden-proof/2#9684645

plaetton:

The universe and the life within it does not require a creator.

It is quite difficult to contemplate a time when the universe and time was not. It remains a simple human fantasy to manufacture a creator to take credit for the things we know not.

Well you are out of step with the modern god called science then, for current scientific thinking on the big b.ang posits that at the point of the singularity, time did not exist.

The trigger therefore, for the expansion which results and and is still resulting in today's universe, is not accounted for, and this trigger is what the religious theist describes as God.

So contrary to your constant claim that there is "no need for God or a Creator" - the truth is that there is actually a giant gaping hole which is what people have filled with the notion of God. So you are wrong that there is "no need" - the need is there, the question should be if it has been rightly or wrongly filled.

Reyginus: Atheists here, as I have noticed, are very dull but always pretend like thinkers when only what they do is make their case from whatever the theist says. They have no case for atheism.
At least if you are saying that something is not true, you should have something tangible showing why it is not.

Your logic amazes me. I dont know how someone can contradict himself in two sentences.

Indeed there is no case for atheism.
Thank you very much for pointing it out. I hope that Italo is taking note.

There is no case for atheism. No atheist has ever pretended otherwise.
Atheism is not a philosophical proposition.

Secondly, You are also very very correct that atheists make their case from whatever the theist says.
Bingo!!
I could not have said it better myself.

I am glad that you realize that atheism is simply a response to theism. A repudiation of the belief in god.
So we can only make our case from whatever the theists says.

An atheist owes absolutely no explanation. The only relevant question an atheist asks is: Where is god? Show me the proof for god.
In the glaring absence of such evidence, we no choice other than to assume that there is no god.

Why make are theists too busy wasting precious time criticising atheists when they could very well use that time to put show god or put forward evidence for the existence of god.

Calling someone irrational for rejecting what have, over the past 6000yrs of recorded human history. woefully failed to prove, is cognitive dissonance, a mild form of insanity.

plaetton:

The universe and the life within it does not require a creator.

Looking at this again, it surprises me that you do not see what a categorical, definite and thus omniscient statement this is!

plaetton:

Your logic amazes me. I dont know how someone can contradict himself in two sentences.

Indeed there is no case for atheism.
Thank you very much for pointing it out. I hope that Italo is taking note.

There is no case for atheism. No atheist has ever pretended otherwise.
Atheism is not a philosophical proposition.

Secondly, You are also very very correct that atheists make their case from whatever the theist says.
Bingo!!
I could not have said it better myself.

I am glad that you realize that atheism is simply a response to theism. A repudiation of the belief in god.
So we can only make our case from whatever the theists says.

An atheist owes absolutely no explanation. The only relevant question an atheist asks is: Where is god? Show me the proof for god.
In the glaring absence of such evidence, we no choice other than to assume that there is no god.

Why make are theists too busy wasting precious time criticising atheists when they could very well use that time to put show god or put forward evidence for the existence of god.

Calling someone irrational for rejecting what have, over the past 6000yrs of recorded human history. woefully failed to prove, is cognitive dissonance, a mild form of insanity.

As I explained in this post, there is a burden of proof on anyone disputing a default position.

https://www.nairaland.com/808965/atheism-revisiting-burden-proof/2#9684645

- - - even where the default position is wrong; e.g: the case of Galileo.

Reyginus: Lol. You even fail to understand that refusing to believe that any thing is true is already a belief.

Any oyimbo that doesn't believe the Nigerian prince email in his box is irrational. After all, he doesn't have any proof the the sender isn't a Nigerian prince, trying to move $10billion dollars. out of the country and into your account (as long as you pay a small advance fee to show youre trustworthy. If you can't prove that Im not a real Nigerian prince, then why don't you believe? Why are you being so irrational?

Most importantly, if there is no reason contrary to the belief you are .refusing, that is, if there is no reason for your adjustment, then we will have to question your psyche.
If on the other hand, there is a reason for for your new position, then these make a case against what you don't hold true.

The reason we are rejecting the belief is that there is no evidence for it. In fact, nobody has even managed to come up with a convincing philosophical argument for the existence of God. All you can do is insist that we take your word for it. Or believe some book (which one? there's so many). The only answer you're going to get from atheists is "show us some proof or stop wasting our time."

See, your problem is you can't rid your mind of the fundamental assumption that the judeochristan god exists. And make no mistake, it is an assumption since you clearly have no proof. If only you could put aside all the "knowledge" you've been indoctrinated with and honestly ask yourself "Is there a God?", "Can there be more than one?" "What would such a being look or behave?" "Is there any way to prove it exists?"

If you could reason this stuff out without falling back on your preconceptions, you'd get why we atheists are so skeptical of religion. Then maybe you could explain it to italo and save the rest of us some time.

Deep Sight:

This still entirely side-steps the question of whether the universe and life within it require a creator or not.

That beliefs in various deities change over time, does nothing to address this simple question.

What if this particular universe came from another universe which was eternal?


Why is this a less valid hypothesis than a god creating the universe?

You theists argue God's existence with the certainty of a mad man who is 100% sure that he is sane.


Not one single shred of God. Sir, please, tell your God that he is a loner and he will die a loner....if he exists, he should grow up......hide and seek are for children

italo: I thought by now we would have seen empirical evidence from Atheists for their claims and beliefs.

NOTHING! ZERO!

Instead they are waiting on others to provide evidence of their own beliefs.

Why subject other creeds to the scrutiny your creed cannot stand up against?

#hypocrisy #irrational

Italo why are you barking off the wrong tree, let's say you believe in tooth fairies and I tell you they don't exist.

You ask me to prove that tooth fairies don't exist,I say simple I have never seen one,nor a digital image of one or any evidence for one. The most logical thing I expect of you is to present evidence to me and show me the existence.

Belief in God is based on faith and faith by default is illogical. That is why our pastors and priests tell us that God is above human logic.

Lastly I believe in God becos it gives me comfort and peace but really there is no 'CONCRETE'. Objective evidence for Jehova,Yahweh

plaetton:

The irrationality of atheism would be so clear if You ,Italo, can just point out god to us. If God was self-evident like say, one's father, or observable like the sun rays, or measurable like gravity, then it would be irrational to disbelief in such.

But so far since you opened this thread, I have looked everywhere and so has my neighbor, there is no sign of god.
So where is god?
Show me god.

It is clear, dear friend.

You say any belief without empirical evidence is irrational.

You believe without empirical evidence.

You are irrational.

What evidence would you give to an agnostic?

"Show me God?"

Deep Sight:


The trigger therefore, for the expansion which results and and is still resulting in today's universe, is not accounted for, and this trigger is what the religious theist describes as God.

In other words, whatever it might have been that triggered the big bang is what is know as , or can be called God?

So if science discovers tomorrow that some kind of previously unknown property of energy reached a critical threshold and then caused big bang, are you willing to call that property God as well, or will you alter your definition of god , or, will you simply say that another unknown caused the unknown to cause the big bang?

Can you agree with me that God is still just a convenient idea to give us closer on the question of origin?.

Deep Sight:


So contrary to your constant claim that there is "no need for God or a Creator" - the truth is that there is actually a giant gaping hole which is what people have filled with the notion of God. So you are wrong that there is "no need" - the need is there, the question should be if it has been rightly or wrongly filled

You give too much credit the human need.
Sure, the need is there for humans.

Sure, like I said, humans Need closure.
So what?
The universe does not " Need" that closure.
The impersonal universe does not operate on human needs.

It is doubtful that the 250,000 yrs of human existence has affected the universe in any measurable way.

mazaje:

He can not even convince his fellow christians that Mary is the mother of god and that she should be honored or pleaded with to pray for humans as his church tradition maintains, yet you want him to show you that his god exist?. . .If his god exist other christians will have the same belief as him and the members of his sect, but because its a man made stuff like any other thing him and others who claim belief in the same god all have different ideas and belief in the same god. . .Delusion at its finest. .

Wetin concern Mary with your empirical evidence for your belief.

See desperation!

Deep Sight:

Looking at this again, it surprises me that you do not see what a categorical, definite and thus omniscient statement this is!

Yes. as far we have seen so far.
There is no evidence of a creator so far.
I remain open to the possibility of being proven wrong when ever you have the evidence..

Reyginus: Atheists here, as I have noticed, are very dull but always pretend like thinkers when only what they do is make their case from whatever the theist says. They have no case for atheism.
At least if you are saying that something is not true, you should have something tangible showing why it is not.

Precisely what I set out to expose though I wouldnt necessarily say they are all very dull.

Perhaps, they arent anywhere as smart as they make themselves out to be.