jayriginal: Just about two things are obvious from this thread.

Most people who argue against atheism do not know what it is.

The very same people refuse to learn and accept what atheism is because they will have little or nothing to argue against.

I do not mean "accept" as in become atheists themselves, I mean accept that what they considered atheism is a distorted definition.

Naturally, they will not take correction because it will mean they will have to stop saying things like

- atheism is a belief
- atheism relies on blind faith
- . . .

Deep Sight:

Mind is eternal and un-created.

The only real thing.

God, being itself the eternal and infinite mind, is the only truly real thing in existence. This mind, is, by nature, self-existent.

Deep Sight:

The universe is but a figment of Mind.

italo: 1. Mazaje.

Should I continue?

jayriginal: Just about two things are obvious from this thread.

Most people who argue against atheism do not know what it is.

The very same people refuse to learn and accept what atheism is because they will have little or nothing to argue against.

I do not mean "accept" as in become atheists themselves, I mean accept that what they considered atheism is a distorted definition.

Naturally, they will not take correction because it will mean they will have to stop saying things like

- atheism is a belief
- atheism relies on blind faith
- . . .

plaetton: Sorry to derail for an important newsflash.



Newsflash:
It has just been reported that demons are sending sms to Joagbaje!

It is proof that with the rational belief in god, nothing is impossible.
lol.

jayriginal:

Yeah I saw that. I had to exit the thread quickly before the tears from my eyes got into my keyboard and fried my system components.

frank3.16:
man 1: i am a police man
logicboy: prove to me that u are a police man
man 1: prove to me that i am not a police man
logic boy: i see no evidence that show u are a police man; show me ur id or uniform or take me to ur office
man 1: u are irrational

Joshthefirst: I disagree with your example: here's what's really going on.

Man: I am a policeman. I like you, so I'll warn you; If you keep dealing and taking drugs, I'm gonna have to bust you and throw you in jail
Logicboy: you're a gaddem liar and freaking psycopath. Show me proof that you're a policeman
Man:I've come here plainclothed. I knew you were going to say that. Do you do drugs?
Logicboy: stop asking me stupid questions and just show me evidence.
Man: *brings out Id card and shows him*
Logicboy: you're a gaddem liar. How am I sure you're the real deal?
Man: *brings out gun and shows logicboy, also shows logicboy his walkie*
Logicboy: I still don't believe you. Anyone can own a walkie or a gun
Man: alright, you refuse this evidence, take me at my word. Let's go to the station and I'll show you my office there, and we can correct your drug addiction problem. Don't miss this oppourtunity. Or I'll have to arrest you soon. You aren't above the law.
Logicboy: you're a deluded f.ool. Get out of my house, let me enjoy my life!

Logicboy is arrested for dealing drugs the next week...or month...or year...but he's arrested anyway.

Alfa Seltzer:

where?

Logicboy03:



Na your papa dey do drugs. ode


You just had to paint the atheist as an evil fool....lol


The policeman brough out his ID....thats evidence.

Where is the evidence for your God?

Joshthefirst: you cannot deny what you are. A guilty sinner before God. You know within you God is. But you enjoy thinking he doesn't exist, so that in your evil works you may persist. That is the truth.

mazaje:

Evidence that YHWH created the universe and not Vishnu or Allah is WHAT?. . . .When exactly and how did YHWH created the universe? plsssssssss tell me so that i can believe that you have an idea of what you are talking about. . . .

Hemical: I think y'all just do this for opinion and argument sake. Deal with the topic from the very foundation. What do you mean by rationality and irrationality? Personally, I think the first step towards being rational is "disbelief" which is what I think atheists do. If you think "belief" or "believing" which is at the other end of the spectrum is rationality to you, then, you are missing the whole point. To be rational, you have to doubt, then through reason and logic, you get to examine facts and come to a conclusion. Whatever the case is, I still think "disbelief" is a more rational stand than "blind faith" or "belief" without reason. "Disbelief" is the most important step towards rationality. You can't say atheists are irrational. I think they are willing to see reasons with you if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt. Except of course, atheism is now dogmatic, which I doubt it is. The onus falls with the believer to convince the unbeliever and not the other way round. If I don't believe, and you do, I am not to prove that what you believe in is non-existent. Rather, you should prove to me it does based on something I most definitely can't refute be it empirical, experimental or unflawed logic that you are convinced of. I haven't seen any believer do this before. If you believe in it, tell me why I should believe in it. Show me a reason I can confirm, share an experience I can test under controlled conditions and cannot be logically explained with any physical phenomenon. That's the way it should be. And like I started with, rationality starts with disbelief, and it moves along that line.... I think atheists are rational in that sense. Belief is the last stage in that process and if you jump on it without first disbelieving, then, you are the irrational one.

Hemical: I think y'all just do this for opinion and argument sake. Deal with the topic from the very foundation. What do you mean by rationality and irrationality? Personally, I think the first step towards being rational is "disbelief" which is what I think atheists do. If you think "belief" or "believing" which is at the other end of the spectrum is rationality to you, then, you are missing the whole point. To be rational, you have to doubt, then through reason and logic, you get to examine facts and come to a conclusion. Whatever the case is, I still think "disbelief" is a more rational stand than "blind faith" or "belief" without reason. "Disbelief" is the most important step towards rationality. You can't say atheists are irrational. I think they are willing to see reasons with you if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt. Except of course, atheism is now dogmatic, which I doubt it is. The onus falls with the believer to convince the unbeliever and not the other way round. If I don't believe, and you do, I am not to prove that what you believe in is non-existent. Rather, you should prove to me it does based on something I most definitely can't refute be it empirical, experimental or unflawed logic that you are convinced of. I haven't seen any believer do this before. If you believe in it, tell me why I should believe in it. Show me a reason I can confirm, share an experience I can test under controlled conditions and cannot be logically explained with any physical phenomenon. That's the way it should be. And like I started with, rationality starts with disbelief, and it moves along that line.... I think atheists are rational in that sense. Belief is the last stage in that process and if you jump on it without first disbelieving, then, you are the irrational one.

Uyi Iredia:

@ bolded: True BUT atheist should and do prove why God is non-existent. That's the thrust of books like 'God Is Not Great' etc. In fact, when you refute arguments for God you are doing precisely what you mention, that is proving God inexistent. You wouldn't say, for example, that one cannot or should not prove that Hemical doesn't exist: the reason is simple logic allows that proof be shown for the truth or falsity of a statement, including the one of God existing.

Oduduwaboy: Hmmmmmmm .........you see we humans are in an unenviable position. We don't even know where we came from. For example where did the first particle or 'God ' come from? If there were no God or particle , what would have occupied space ? what would nothingness have been like?.....and it goes on and on.

However , i believe Atheism and its brother agnostocism are more rational than our christianity or any other religion because they employ rational & objective parameters to make their submissions! Religion is based on 'faith'....but history has shown that reason has done more for humanity than faith . My computer was not created by faith you know......

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


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



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

TroGunn:




The time has really passed when smart people accept Darwin's now largely discredited notions on the Origin of Species - e.g. his so called "tree of life" and fruit flies stories, which flies against observed evidence. Science has afforded us the ability to study biosphere more and marvel at the sheer elegance of life.

Two key conclusions results: -

1) The more we peer, the more evidence of breathtaking design and intelligence we see. The possibility of random, uncoordinated/self-coordinating events leading to such complexity becomes so slim that it's practically impossible.
2) Organism remain largely unchanged over time. The supposed drivers for the evolutionary change - mutation and natural selection - just doesn't cut it. Considering we have millions of species, the no of the so-called "transitional organisms" are less than a handful - more likely just different species, evolving not.

It explains why there are many people, scientists included who disbelieve evolution. The holes in the theory are just gaping. Only a very ignorant person, lacking basic, fundamental knowledge of the universe would call life as we know it "simple". Claiming that millions or billions of years would somehow lead to this complexity is stretching it, more in the realm of conjecture. It sure requires great deal of blind faith to believe.

Hear what some biologists recently said about their doubts over Evolution: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." - http://www.discovery.org/a/1558

Instead of swallowing everything you hear, even in classrooms, do examine the evidence yourself. You, sir, might very well be the ignorant one.

Joshthefirst: I disagree with your example: here's what's really going on.

Man: I am a policeman. I like you, so I'll warn you; If you keep dealing and taking drugs, I'm gonna have to bust you and throw you in jail
Logicboy: you're a gaddem liar and freaking psycopath. Show me proof that you're a policeman
Man:I've come here plainclothed. I knew you were going to say that. Do you do drugs?
Logicboy: stop asking me stupid questions and just show me evidence.
Man: *brings out Id card and shows him*
Logicboy: you're a gaddem liar. How am I sure you're the real deal?
Man: *brings out gun and shows logicboy, also shows logicboy his walkie*
Logicboy: I still don't believe you. Anyone can own a walkie or a gun
Man: alright, you refuse this evidence, take me at my word. Let's go to the station and I'll show you my office there, and we can correct your drug addiction problem. Don't miss this oppourtunity. Or I'll have to arrest you soon. You aren't above the law.
Logicboy: you're a deluded f.ool. Get out of my house, let me enjoy my life!

Logicboy is arrested for dealing drugs the next week...or month...or year...but he's arrested anyway.

frank3.16:


Now the policeman must be stupid to KNOW that his plain cloths will be make I'm be doubted, yet wear mufti. Or he didn't know he will be doubted but is caliming he knew.

I wish you addressed where the policeman is asking frank to prove he is not a policeman. Take for instance he wore mufti, wouldn't he be insane to ask frank to prove he is not a policeman? (This is actually the core of this thread)

If the policeman brings out a gun and Id, why should I doubt him? Everybody knows what a gun and id is so it will only take a stupid person not to accept that id and gun is a prove that he is a police man even if he fake. Beside I asked him to show me a proof.

I will never b arrested if I don't believe he is not a policeman.

Joshthefirst: oga take it easy. He didn't come to arrest lb(). He came to warn lb. His mission AT THAT TIME was to warn lb to stop his evilways and to save him.

Alfa Seltzer:

So he wholly and completely failed his mission then?

Joshthefirst: yap. The logicboy character() failed him by being unbelieving.

plaetton: Sorry to derail for an important newsflash.



Newsflash:
It has just been reported that demons are sending sms to Joagbaje!

It is proof that with the rational belief in god, nothing is impossible.
lol.

JMAN05:

read genesis account of creation.

Uyi Iredia: @ jayriginal: Atheism is a belief that God doesn't exist. It is irrational to state atheism involves no belief and thereafter define and exhibit features charcteristic of a belief. To know it, to talk about it, to define it, state what it involves or doesn't involve etc.

Uyi Iredia: @ bolded: True BUT atheist should and do prove why God is non-existent. That's the thrust of books like 'God Is Not Great' etc. In fact, when you refute arguments for God you are doing precisely what you mention, that is proving God inexistent. You wouldn't say, for example, that one cannot or should not prove that Hemical doesn't exist: the reason is simple logic allows that proof be shown for the truth or falsity of a statement, including the one of God existing.