menesheh:


Do You know your problem? You want it the easy way and never care to study a concept critically b4 you criticise. You wanted it this easy way- believe in god! ohh yea it is awesome i believe in god without asking question.
Big bang is not a child play or god concept, therefore dont joke with it. If you ever do that, you are joking with the entire scientific enterprise, where you as a christian apologist depend on almost all your daily dealings - typing on Nairaland, tranport from here to there, using computer, work made easy, music and almost all spere of contemporary human endeavors.
My happiness is that you admitted that science allowed for criticism and disbelief in big bang. The essence of that is to continue for more critical research and upgrade to avoid believing in big bang as a delusion. But god concept is, "am correct and no room for upgrade of old ideas whether is true or not"

johnydon22:
Hahahahahaha yea just like OFFing a television is a television channel.

johnydon22:
N.B: I for one do not subscribe to any of the theories about the origin of anything, i simply say i don't know.

krattoss:
permit me to say this but u just lied.

I personally dont believe in any of those

NumberOne2:
Your analogy is wrong cos if OFF on TV is compared to atheism, then we
will not have various "OFF's" like offs that believe in Santa Claus or
Evolution and those that don't. It would have been a UNIFIED off. Off can
be standy mode or power from the socket off.
However, if we see various TV channels as different states of the TV, the off
is also a state. A state of blankness. So either way, that analogy is flawed

I am pretty sure you are mistaking having a belief and having a religion

Someone may believe in a god and not have a religion, it simply is belief.
Deists, pantheist all believe in a god but they have no religion.

So you see? throwing in the belief in sancta claus phrase is yet another childish attempt on logic...

That they are atheist that have a certain belief in some superstitious notions doesn't make them religious. . they are Christians who do not buy into superstitions it doesn't make them irreligious. . so know the difference between being religious and having a belief.

When its comes to religiosity and belief in a deity, atheism is synonymous to OFFing the t.v which is not a t.v channel whether it is removed from the power socket or not... Now re-read your post

onetrack:


Of course I don't believe everything I was taught in school. The Big Bang is a theory, not simply a belief, because it is backed up with reams of evidence. And I'd like you to name any prominent modern astronomer who categorically rejects the big bang, and what they actually believe. There is no faith here, because faith is believing in something without evidence.

And priniciples of evolution demonstrate clearly how complex forms of life arise over time from less complex forms of life. Nothing at all mysterious about evolution. If evolution and the environment favored development of life forms resembling cars, then car-like life forms may have evolved.

NumberOne2:

Atleast we agree on this. Science tries to give an explanations (which is good). 70% of the Earth is covered by water, science assume it came from commets and meteors but its just a theory till anything else comes along. They don't know but give possible suggestions.

I thought you said you are scientifically inclined Yet you do not know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory... Lol..
Any postulations unsupported by evidence or observations remains a hypothesis and not a theory, you need to get your facts straight about the comet hypothesis... I recommend you check well before spelling out posts here

NumberOne2:

There are those who do. Those are the various "sects" in the Atheist religion.

Another blunder, maybe this is as a result of willful dishonesty. .
Atheism is just a word that labels disbelief in deities.
Theism used to label belief in deities. . . . Both of them are not religions but positions over belief and unbelief in deities.

Talk about religions we all know what religion is following the same doctrine and mode of practise...and we know the examples.

Tagging people's ideologies to be modes of religions is as stupendous as it is ridiculous. I am in love with white girls only, does this put me in a different atheist sect?

Hahahahahahaha Atheism just means i don't believe a deity exists. . and atheists do not share ideologies.
And ideologies are not synonymous to religion

johnydon22:
I am pretty sure you are mistaking having a belief and having a religion

Someone may believe in a god and not have a religion, it simply is belief.
Deists, pantheist all believe in a god but they have no religion.

So you see? throwing in the belief in sancta claus phrase is yet another childish attempt on logic...

That they are atheist that have a certain belief in some superstitious notions doesn't make them religious. . they are Christians who do not buy into superstitions it doesn't make them irreligious. . so know the difference between being religious and having a belief.

When its comes to religiosity and belief in a deity, atheism is synonymous to OFFing the t.v which is not a t.v channel whether it is removed from the power socket or not... Now re-read your post

johnydon22:
Hahahahaha you are arguing with malvisguy. . . prepare to get a murdered copy and paste of apologetic website as his logic and bible quotations as a back up. . .

NumberOne2:


You are the one saying atheism is OFFING the TV not me.
The analogy is wrong and I gave 2 scenerios.
If your analogy is true then, ON on the TV will be a theist state irrespective of the channel being watched (now this cannot be true).
How about blank channels? I can think of 1000 ways in which this analogy is flawed.

You are just the one swimming in your own misrepresentation and understanding of a simple analogy so as to drag Atheism down your mess.…

Again i repeat, Atheism and theism are POSITIONS and not religions.
In fact the bolded part of your post helps buttress my point.

The T.V position of ON and OFF depicts the position of theism and atheism.
The channels in t.v depicts different religions in theism.
Atheism simple means OFF. . .
Unless of course as you are showing us you dont know the definition of a religion.

NumberOne2:




Here is the Truth:
No man can prove the existence of God except God himself (by the Holy Spirit).

Weah96:


That's funny, the only time I've heard anything about God, it was a human being running their mouth. Elijah proved his God to the prophets of Baal.

You're saying what we've been saying, that the writers of the Bible should have been slapped for bringing texts from God without any way of proving that God talked to them.

Here is the Truth:
No man can prove the existence of God except God himself (by the Holy Spirit).

johnydon22:
You are just the one swimming in your own misrepresentation and understanding of a simple analogy so as to drag Atheism down your mess.…

Again i repeat, Atheism and theism are POSITIONS and not religions.
In fact the bolded part of your post helps buttress my point.

The T.V position of ON and OFF depicts the position of theism and atheism.
The channels in t.v depicts different religions in theism.
[b]Atheism simple means OFF. . .
Unless of course as you are showing us you dont know the definition of a religion.[/b]

NumberOne2:

Our duty is to telll you about God, if you beleive or not is not up to me, it is up to God. This is what I mean. Dont take me out of context. Thanks

johnydon22:
Now we are getting somewhere, why would an all powerful being need you to tell me about him?
Only a man made god would need Man to make himself known to man.

I don't need you to tell me am hungry, i don't need you tell me i have eyes because these are obvious certainties so you need no one to tell you.

You mentioned god cannot be proven or disproved (Which funny enough is my position as agnostic atheist) then you turn around and start giving me instructions from that same thing you said cannot be proven. . and expect me to believe? By telling me things about what you agree is not prove able are you not now making the blunder of trying to prove it yet can't tell how you got to know.

. . its getting clearer now then

NumberOne2:


Maybe I am not getting you. Why is Atheism not a blank channel, why off?
Refering to BOLDED. So what is the TV?

NumberOne2:


Hope this helps:
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. - Matthew 10:14

Now back to the TV analogy. What is the TV? So I can get a clearer picture.

johnydon22:
And how does this help? it is just a cut and run tactics.
By agreeing something is unprovable, you cannot categorically tell someone about that thing until you prove it... its very simple

johnydon22:
It was simply stated on my post. . .
The T.V depicts the feature of Belief and unbelief because both ON and OFF are both features of a t.v.

ON depicts the position of theism (Mind you this is not a religion but just belief in a god)

CHANNELS portrays religions because CHANNELS are only possible when a t.v is ON so channels are products of a t.v that is ON.

Of course there are blank channels, Buddhism does not involve belief in a deity yet it is a religion.

Then OFF simply means the t.v is not ON (Non-theist) and when a t.v is not ON there are no channels. (religion)

So atheism is the position of OFF while theism is the ON position.
None of the two is a religion.

NumberOne2:


No running here. God is not unprovable. He is provable only by Himself (when you try him and He encourages you to do so).
If God wasn't working in my life, why would I be a Christian? For decoration?

Example:
I have tasted apples. They are sweet. (the apples have prooved to be sweet to me).
You have never tasted apples. How can I convince you they are sweet. I tell you about apples.
The ultimate way to prove it is truely sweet is to eat of it (beleive). All I can do is tell you and let the apple do its job when you taste it.
No amount of explanation can compensate for the actual tasting of the apples. The apples will convince you, I can only tell you.

NumberOne2:


If the OFF postion being just a single position is Atheist, how can you account for the variations in Atheist ideals?
You can account for that in the theist ON postiton via channels.

NumberOne2:


God proves Himself not man proving God. You dont need to, just tell it and He will do the rest.

Hope this helps:
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. - Matthew 10:14

Now back to the TV analogy. What is the TV? So I can get a clearer picture.

johnydon22:
[b]Not when an apple is just an illusionary projection in your head.

Using the apple analogy, if there was an apple tree in front of the two of us (assuming we are sitting together) There is no way i will need you to tell me the apple fruit is sweet or if there is even an apple tree standing there.
Once the apple is right there in front of you, we both don't need to believe there is but we will know and be sure. .and clearly the apple tree need no more proof.
None of us will necessarily bother telling the other how sweet the apple is because it is right there before us.

But in this case there isn't any apple tree clear for we both to see, you are telling me an apple fruit is sweet yet cant show me the apple fruit or the tree then you expect me to believe?
You say you have a fruit yet all am seeing is your mouth moving without seeing any fruit with you... You assert the apple tree is unprovable yet expect me to believe by FAITH that you are eating a fruit from a tree that is unprovable or unsubstantiable...

You say there is an apple tree yet cant prove there is, it is safe to conclude that your apple tree is just in your head since its not obviously certain or let me say provable. [/b]

malvisguy212:
I gave you example of how human can make a moral choice , something animal cannot do , I explained how God created human in His image and likeness, something that is absent in animal, I gave you an example of how human can chose to love God or reject Him , ALL this , I gave you example of them all using the bible, YET you are still saying this nonsense ? Seriously ? Doesent the example in the BIBLE indicate human spirit are different from animals ?

If you are a good moral human ,pleased don't quote me again unless you want to reason.

@ bold , Lol , despite your rants your bible still say " man and animals have SAME spirit" ecc 3:19 , is that what you call nonsense ? U called your bible Nonsense , okayyy

menesheh:


is that how you engage your argument? hit and run?
if you cant argue, why engage it at-all?.

Lol bros easy o ... there is nothing wrong in forgoing an argument tho. . when you make your point you can be on your way to avoid long unnecessary arguments. . . i don't necessarily call it hit and run cus its not..

NumberOne2:


Nothing abstract at least we can all see the bible (the word). There is a way to eat the apple just like a way to read the bible.
If you bite the apple from the bottom or top, you may eat the seeds which are not sweet. Then you may falsely conclude that the apple is bitter!
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - Romans 10:17

menesheh:


is that how you engage your argument? hit and run?
if you cant argue, why engage it at-all?.

johnydon22:
Lol bros easy o ... there is nothing wrong in forgoing an argument tho. . when you make your point you can be on your way to avoid long unnecessary arguments. . . i don't necessarily call it hit and run cus its not..

menesheh:


the guy is getting all his inspiration from a video clip on this site : www.evolutionvsgod.com/


just sacrifice my 38 mins for nothing, what watching crap

johnydon22:
You see what i mean? the bible (A book) you are still swimming in the same river.

You say there is an apple tree then bring a book as supposedly how to eat the fruit when none of us is seeing any tree.

The bible is primarily the claim of the apple tree (You got your idea of the apple tree from it) still the apple tree is not clear enough for both of us but the apple tree needs a book and you to tell me that there is an apple tree.

If there is an apple tree, it wouldn't need you or any book to show there is because it would be very evident enough there is.

Again you told me the apple tree is unprovable yet tell me again you ate the fruit of an unprovable apple tree. . . that my good friend is self refuting

NumberOne2:


Don't assume.
I NEVER talked of apple tree (kindly check back). I only mentioned the sweetness of the apple FRUIT and my speech to try it for yourself.
I even talked of eating the apple seeds. I never said apple tree, it was you. You have gone ahead of me to conclude.

I said the sweetness of the apple is unprovable except by tasting the apple yourself!!!

God is not provable by man except by God Himself (I can only tell you. You try and see). If you don't get this my point we will keep going in circles. Dont misquote me.

As for the TV:
A better analogy will be coloured display for theist channels and monochrome display for atheist channels.
This will cover the variations in both. 20 monochrome channels and 50 coloured channels. There are irreligious theist which the ON channels dont cater for.

johnydon22:
Another blunder, maybe this is as a result of willful dishonesty. .
Atheism is just a word that labels disbelief in deities.
Theism used to label belief in deities. . . . Both of them are not religions but positions over belief and unbelief in deities.

Talk about religions we all know what religion is following the same doctrine and mode of practise...and we know the examples.

Tagging people's ideologies to be modes of religions is as stupendous as it is ridiculous. I am in love with white girls only, does this put me in a different atheist sect?

Hahahahahahaha Atheism just means i don't believe a deity exists. . and atheists do not share ideologies.
And ideologies are not synonymous to religion