Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,194,412 members, 7,954,641 topics. Date: Saturday, 21 September 2024 at 04:07 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Glamour Of Atheism (12477 Views)
FAITH=DOUBT, RELIGIOUS FAITH= Extreme Form Of Atheism. We Are All Atheists(2) / Myopia Of Atheism / The Cowardice Of Atheism (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Nobody: 5:04pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
plaetton:Those councils only validated what was widely known. They might have made formal but that doesnt mean that the body of thought origin at those councils. Jesus' life and teachings say much more about him that what the councils could have done. Well done for the info though, I will make sure I research more abt dt. Thanks |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Nobody: 5:09pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Martian:No one is imposing anything on u. We are information regarding belief systems. U wont judge me based on blind mistakes of others. |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Kay17: 5:13pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Bobbysworld28: I didn't say the Universe has no origin, rather that it has no originator. There might be a fine line between the two and you must appreciate that. |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Nobody: 5:37pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Kay17:It has an origin but dt origin is uncaused? I still dont agree with u. Read up on articles regarding what even scientists have found out the universe's origins. It will change ur views |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Nobody: 5:51pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Bobbysworld28: I'm judging you based on the OP. Aren't you endorsing his views by posting his essay? Besides, what do you have to say about what I posted? |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by plaetton: 5:52pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Bobbysworld28: Validated well known what ? If they were validating anything, then why the imposition of anathema on anyone who disagreed with their so-called validations? Doesn't it strike you as suspicious that it would take a murderous psychopath like Constantine to forcefully validate what is supposed to be divine truth? And by the way, I forgot to mention, also, that when they voted that Jesus should be son of god, they also had a lengthy and acrimonious debate about to which god Jesus should be son of . They eventually settled on Yahweh, the tribal deity of the ancient Hebrews to father to the newly born god-son. lol Laughable , but very true. That is why everyone can see that the Hebrew god's behavior, and the God that Jesus supposedly referred to, seem to differ like oil and water. I guess that they had to force Yahweh to accept Jesus and be born again. lol |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Nobody: 5:56pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
plaetton:I am sorry but I will have to get back to you on this matter. Pardon my ignorance on this issue |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Nobody: 5:57pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Bobbysworld28: If something as complex as the universe needs a creator, does your god also need a creator? What makes Yahweh's divinity more valid than Ahura Mazda's if they both have the same type of evidence for support? i.e the avesta and the bible/torah What makes Jewish mythology special? After all they are not the only culture with epic tales about gods? |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by plaetton: 6:05pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Bobbysworld28: Well, I am glad that you are honest about matters that you do not know. That's a good sign. |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Misogynist2014(m): 6:11pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Kay17:Interesting. Pls elaborate on that, cos what you just said is worse than magic. At least we see the magician and his bag. Pls elaborate, pls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Nobody: 6:14pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Martian:U r trying to confuse urself by taking up too much at the same time. Was there a creator or not? |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Nobody: 6:18pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
@Op give ur life to the flying spaghettimonster before It's too late |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by MacCantStopMe: 6:19pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Nobody: 6:20pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Bobbysworld28: Yes there was and there is a Creator he is the flying spaghettimonster |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Nobody: 6:25pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Bobbysworld28: No, but I don't rule out the possibility entirely. If there were a creator, it would make sense that the knowledge of said creator would be unambiguous. The only confused one is you, and I'm noticing that you don't answer questions! So, what makes jews and their myths special? |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Kay17: 6:58pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Bobbysworld28: Misogynist2014: I didn't make any conclusions as to the origin of the Universe. And I don't know where/how you drew the conclusions. We, time, space, physical laws, causality, the entirety of the Universe is said to have a beginning, a starting point. All our reference points are unavailable at the beginning of the Universe, there is a fundamental shift in how we are able to conceptualize this beginning. All the basic assumptions we normally/naturally make are displaced. Pls if you don't understand me, ask the necessary questions. |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by MacCantStopMe: 7:04pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Misogynist2014: You sef dey here? |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Misogynist2014(m): 7:44pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Kay17:Pls is it possible for a design to be without a designer? How? |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Misogynist2014(m): 7:48pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
MacCantStopMe:follow me |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Nobody: 8:01pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Misogynist2014: What do you understand by design? |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by asalimpo(m): 8:49pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Martian: you agree the universe is complex, but find it absurd to think it was designed and created. Yet, materialistically, nothing man made comes close to d universe and creation in complexity yet u wud find it absurd if sombody doubted a complex man made artifact because the creator of tht artifct was no where to be seen! |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by asalimpo(m): 8:53pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Dapo777:give an example of any functioning system you know of that had no designer? Systems in nature excluded,because God is the designer and maintainer of them. |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Nobody: 8:55pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
asalimpo: You still didn't answer my question. What is design to you? |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Nobody: 8:58pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
asalimpo:What do you use in measuring complexity and What does complex mean to you? |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by asalimpo(m): 8:59pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Kay17: mister, your arguments are not only logically unsound they are extremely foolish. There is simply no simple or complex functioning system that has no designer. None. If you appeal, to "nature" to make your case,you're floored because, it is not universally believed tht nature has no creator. Christians for one,believe differently. |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by asalimpo(m): 9:04pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Dapo777: if u hav a point to make,make it stop tapping ur feet needlessly stallg for an answer. Wat is creation to u? Wat is existence to u? Wat is materiality to u? How about derivg the complete definition of every term used bf making ur point. |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by asalimpo(m): 9:05pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Dapo777: go and sleep. It's past ur bedtime. |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Nobody: 9:16pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
asalimpo: I won't bite u If u don't know d answer to my question. Just swallow ur pride and say So |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Nobody: 9:18pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
asalimpo: That doesn't answer my question. If u don't know d ansa u can humbly say So. |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by Kay17: 11:21pm On Oct 19, 2014 |
Misogynist2014: asalimpo: There can be no general premise that a design necessitates a designer because it will end up being circular. It would mean everything must be designed (even the designer), and in the worst cases self contradictory. Imagine a premise that all letters must be preceded and succeed by a letter. Letters will run ad infinitum without an end. Same with this case too. My second problem is that the "design argument" is an observation of man's creativity, and transposing that creativity with the Universe. We as humans see a human form equally responsible for the Universe. We say Man creates boats, cars, buildings and rocket why not a greater form of man create the Universe. In other words, Gods are anthropomorphic. In fact all Gods are. |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by asalimpo(m): 2:17am On Oct 20, 2014 |
^^^^ philosophically speaking, the question of "A design doesnt require a designer" can be converted to this categorical question: Can a complex or simple system exist without a creator/designer? ignoring the question "wat is a system?" the burden will be on the person sayg it is impossible to support his answer with understood examples. To strenghten his answer,he'll appeal to "systems" in real life: physcal systems,ideological systems ,abstract systems. But since we are debating about a physcal system-the earth here - his example will hav to b physcal and complex. Since there is no such example, the philosophical position must agree with an acceptable example or crumble. It still boils down to d same thing. A (complex) system cannot exist without a designer |
Re: The Glamour Of Atheism by asalimpo(m): 2:46am On Oct 20, 2014 |
Sure, you can try to negate d argument by sayg if the complex system is created by a designer and d designer is a complex system himself who is created by a complex system who is created by .... In other words,a recursive paradox emerges. But logic itself doesnt support this view. One, if there is a recursve paradox, then there wud b no emergence. I mean, if the recursion doesnt terminate at some point,then there would b no time for lower systems created by higher systems to create lower systems because their identity is still being established. This assuming the recursive paradox is true and accepted. if the being called God was created,then He is lower than His Creator, wat then is His creator? God? Then who created His creator? Then who created who created his creator? If God is created then He isnt God this is a recursve situation. But we know, there's an alternative to this. One, there's a base case, from which other cases bulid on. The first situation is , God being created is impossible because of the recursve spiral. The second situation,is God isnt Created. God is the base case. This are the only two possibilities on the God origin question. If you harmonise this view,you have a base case that triggers other cases (systems). Theyre many physcal systems that support this position. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (Reply)
New Date For End Of The World: January 1 2017 - Sword Of God Cult / Speech By King Leopold Ii Of Belgium Delivered In 1883 / Generational Curses: The Myths And The Truth According To The Bible
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 62 |