If so, it is worth remembering that you are NOT your beliefs. Learn to separate yourself from your beliefs and then look at your beliefs objectively as you look at the beliefs of other religions. Then watch this video for some more help.

huxley:

If so, it is worth remembering that you are NOT your beliefs. Learn to separate yourself from your beliefs and then look at your beliefs objectively as you look at the beliefs of other religions. Then watch this video for some more help.

u probably need this advice more than anyone else. you cant even defend any of ur beliefs.

u are an atheist. u dont[b] believe[/b] in the existence or supremacy of GOD who is JEHOVAH GOD? what is HIS ontology?
u have also been running from pillar to post using the rhetoric "i dont know" whenever the darwin evolution guess is placed under the microscope of reasoning.

Take ur own advice, review ur beliefs objectively.

The burden of proof lies on the believer. when will you folks understand that?

very nice video. . .

Ascony:

The burden of proof lies on the believer. when will you folks understand that?

question: what are the beliefs of an atheists?

answer: That there is no GOD.

Who then is Jehovah GOD? what is HIS ontology?

noetic:

question: what are the beliefs of an atheists?

answer: That there is no GOD.

Who then is Jehovah GOD? what is HIS ontology?

Here is what the basic ontology of the Christian God is. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.
God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity. Do you agree with that?

errrrrrrrrrrrrr
NOPE

noetic:

question: what are the beliefs of an atheists?

answer: That there is no GOD.

Who then is Jehovah GOD? what is HIS ontology?

I believe in Nflah-nflah? Why don't you?

Rule # 1
 
                                 You Are Not Your Beliefs

You are not your beliefs you should not associate yourself too closely with any pacticular religion. You were not born a muslim or christian, there is no such thing as a muslim or christian baby you didnot come out of your mothers womb saying Allah Akbar or Jesus Christ is Lord. These are beliefs that you acquired at a later time.

What are beliefs? Beliefs are the information that you have recieved whether it is accurate or flawed combined with your life experiences that lead to certain interpretations of that information. Life experiences such as for example you were indoctrinated to believe a certain religion is true. Critisizing belief is not hate. You were born a Christian or Muslim as mentioned and you can and you can become an ex Muslim or Christian quite easily.

Excellecent video!!!

Ascony:

The burden of proof lies on the believer. when will you folks understand that?

You know how stupid it is trying to explain that to them? It's too damn obvious but they always try dodging it.

Brainwashed to the fullest.

huxley:

I believe in Nflah-nflah? Why don't you?

I neither belief or disbelief Nflah-nflah, cos i dont even know who/what it is.

but u dont believe in GOD, right?

noetic:

I neither belief or disbelief Nflah-nflah, cos i dont even know who/what it is.

but u dont believe in GOD, right?

Just as you don't believe in Nflah-nflah because you do not know who/what Nflah-nflah is (ie you do not know or have his ontology), atheist don't believe in Yahweh because we do not know who/what Yahweh is.  If you give me an ontology that is plausible, maybe I might change my mind.

Blood_Shed:

You know how stupid it is trying to explain that to them? It's too damn obvious but they always try dodging it.

Brainwashed to the fullest.

do u know how stupid it is trying to see things from an atheists point of view?
A xtian gives u his proof and also explains his belief. u say his analysis are stupid, unacceptable and very unintelligent.
but the ironic thing is the average atheist cannot explain his belief/disbelief.

I consider this inability to explain his disbelief as the most irrational reality on the planet. I consider this inability very unintelligent, stupid and absolutely unassuming.

I have no problem with an intellectually driven disbelief against my beliefs. what I do have a problem with is the inability of an atheist to explain his belief/disbelief. and u call that intelligence? I say thats stupid!!!

huxley:

Just as you don't believe in Nflah-nflah believe you do not know who/what Nflah-nflah is (ie you do not know or have his ontology), atheist don't believe in Yahweh because we do not know who/what Yahweh is. If you give me an ontology that is plausible, maybe I might change my mind.

when did u become a full time LIAR?

"I dont know" is different from "I dont believe".

I dont know and have never heard of Nflah-nflah, that explains why i dont discuss or open threads about him/it.

U know who Jehovah God is that explains why u discuss HIS works by opening threads and criticising the scriptures.
That also explains y u dont believe in HIM.
so to help clear the irrationality of ur beliefs, I ask: who is Jehovah GOD? what is HIS ontology?

noetic:

when did u become a full time LIAR?

"I dont know" is different from "I dont believe".

I dont know and have never heard of Nflah-nflah, that explains why i dont discuss or open threads about him/it.

U know who Jehovah God is that explains why u discuss HIS works by opening threads and criticising the scriptures.
That also explains y u dont believe in HIM.
so to help clear the irrationality of ur beliefs, I ask: who is Jehovah GOD? what is HIS ontology?

You keep bearing false evidence against me and calling me a liar. Can you show evidence that I have lied?

huxley:

You keep bearing false evidence against me and calling me a liar. Can you show evidence that I have lied?

This was ur lie: u said that

huxley:

Just as you don't believe in Nflah-nflah believe you do not know who/what Nflah-nflah is (ie you do not know or have his ontology), atheist don't believe in Yahweh because we do not know who/what Yahweh is. If you give me an ontology that is plausible, maybe I might change my mind.

I never said that I dont believe in Nflah-nflah, I said:

noetic:

I neither belief or disbelief Nflah-nflah, cos i dont even know who/what it is.

but u dont believe in GOD, right?

ur misrepresentation of my view was a lie.

noetic:

This was ur lie: u said that I never said that I dont believe in Nflah-nflah, I said:
ur misrepresentation of my view was a lie.

How could that be a lie when you yourself said this:

noetic:

I neither belief or disbelief Nflah-nflah, cos i dont even know who/what it is.

but u dont believe in GOD, right?

I was simply paraphrasing you. How could that be a lie?

I hold no opinion of Nflah-nflah cos I have no knowledge of him/it.

You have an opinion of God, cos u have a knowledge of HIM. so who is Jehovah GOD? what is HIS ontology?

noetic:

I hold no opinion of Nflah-nflah cos I have no knowledge of him/it.

You have an opinion of God, cos u have a knowledge of HIM. so who is Jehovah GOD? what is HIS ontology?

you keep repeating one word all the time, now you sound like a broken record. . .i for sure know that you do not even know what ontology means, at least i have caught you miss using words like apologist and plagiarism, you clearly did not know what they meant but you kept using them until i exposed your ignorance, i know you also do not know what ontology means you just keep using it to keep your self in your bubble of delusion. . .toneyb on gave you the ontology of your god but you did not even attempt to say anything about . . . you just kept asking the same thing when it is clear that you do not even know the meaning of what you are asking. . .

mazaje:

you keep repeating one word all the time, now you sound like a broken record. . .i for sure know that you do not even know what ontology means, at least i have caught you miss using words like apologist and plagiarism, you clearly did not know what they meant but you kept using them until[b] i exposed your ignorance[/b], i know you also do not know what ontology means you just keep using it to keep your self in your bubble of delusion. . .

when did silence become an approval for continuous falsehood?
that I refuse to respond to ur misnomers has nothing to with the quality or lack of it, of the rubbish u keep saying. u have the habbit of successfully digressing points, that after replying u, i sometimes begin to wonder how we ever got this stage?

where did u ever have me misuse any word or terminology?. replying u is synonymous to a waste of time.

toneyb on gave you the ontology of your god but you did not even attempt to say anything about . . . you just kept asking the same thing when it is clear that you do not even know the meaning of what you are asking. . .

I specifically ignored toneyb cos I never directed my questions to him (no insults intended to toneyb). And his answer proved me right.
his answer reflects the christian answer to God's ontology, which the atheist claims to be wrong.
If u believe an answer is wrong, shouldn't u have the right answer?

that explains why none of the numerous atheistic protagonists ever took up the challenge of stating what GOD's ontology is? or who Jehovah is?
cos in reality they (including u) dont know, but would never admit that.

noetic:

when did silence become an approval for continuous falsehood?
that I refuse to respond to ur misnomers has nothing to with the quality or lack of it, of the rubbish u keep saying. u have the habbit of successfully digressing points, that after replying u, i sometimes begin to wonder how we ever got this stage?

where did u ever have me misuse any word or terminology?. replying u is synonymous to a waste of time.

what are the falsehoods? care to show me? go through this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-260977.32.html , read your reply #44 you will see it for yourself. . .

I specifically ignored toneyb cos I never directed my questions to him (no insults intended to toneyb). And his answer proved me right.
his answer reflects the christian answer to God's ontology, which the atheist claims to be wrong.
If u believe an answer is wrong, shouldn't u have the right answer?

that explains why none of the numerous atheistic protagonists ever took up the challenge of stating what GOD's ontology is? or who Jehovah is?
cos in reality they (including u) dont know, but would never admit that.

so how had the bible god's ontology proved that his existince is real? has the biblegod ever appeared to you and told you what his ontology is in person? is it not your parents, preachers and the writers of the bible with their unverifiable claims that have told you that? i can go ahead and clearly disprove all the so called ontology. . . .

mazaje:

what are the falsehoods? care to show me? go through this thread:  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-260977.32.html , read your reply #44 you will see it for yourself. . .

do u know the meaning of an "apologetic"? if u do, compare it to the context of my post in the link u pasted.

ur statement that u corrected my misuse of words is "falsehood", intended to make u feel like u are winning an argument. My usual tactic is to ignore u.

so how had the bible god's ontology proved that his existince is real? has the biblegod ever appeared to you and told you what his ontology is in person? is it not your parents, preachers and the writers of the bible with their unverifiable claims that have told you that? i can go ahead and clearly disprove all the so called ontology. . . .

that's my problem with u. why should u disapprove something when u have no alternative.

I am ready to debate ur reservations about the christian ontology of God, but start by stating ur own beliefs.
I feel free to attack the muslim beliefs I disagree with, in the full knowledge that they know my beliefs and can question or antagonise it.

How can u attack an ontology, when u cant define one? how can u debate who GOD is(existence/non-existence), when u dont know Him?

do u believe in the existence of "feli-ban-gbaski"? YES or NO

If yes, what is his/its ontology? what is "feli-ban-gbasky"?
if no, dont u consider it unintelligent and presumably irrational to discuss "feli-ban-gbansky" when u dont know who/what he/it is?

noetic:

that's my problem with u. why should u disapprove something when u have no alternative.

This is a fallacy and I will prove it,

I might not know what 567495576365675565757 multiplied by 66757464749696767679 is but I know it is not 3 and can disprove it if someone says it is 3 (working in base 10 that is).

I might not know or prove where you are, but I can disprove someone who claims that you are in my house.

should I go on?

A simple but apt demonstration of the flaw in your thinking or what do you think?

noetic:


that's my problem with u. why should u disapprove something when u have no alternative.

how do you know that i have no alternative? naturalism is my alternative. . . .

I am ready to debate ur reservations about the christian ontology of God, but start by stating ur own beliefs.

here is my own belief. . .i deny existence of all gods, that of the muslims, the hindus, the ancient egyptians, ancient greeks, chinese, south americans and the god of the old and new testaments. all of these are fictional constructs invented by very clever humans for purposes, a variety of diferent purposes, ranging from psychological comfort, emotional comfort, dominance and entertainment. i believe in naturalism. . .

I feel free to attack the muslim beliefs I disagree with, in the full knowledge that they know my beliefs and can question or antagonise it.

atheist know your beliefs too, i was once a christian like you so i know and understand very well everything that christianity is all about. . . .so i can also question ridicule or antagonize it. . .

How can u attack an ontology, when u cant define one? how can u debate who GOD is(existence/non-existence), when u dont know Him?

toneyb has given you the basic ontology of the christian god. . i agree with it and that shows that i know what his supposed ontology is even though some christians can not even agree to the basic ontology of the christain god. . . the catholic ontology of the christains god is quite different from that of the protestant christian, the white garment wearing christain may have a very different ontology of the bible god compared to say a conservative american evangelist christian or a prosperity nigerian christain pastor. . . the bible god's ontology varies from church to church and from denomination to denomination. . .no two diffeent sect of christianity agree on his ontology. . .but the one provided by toneyb is the basic one i agree(i presume you also agree with it) with even though there are christian that might not agree with it. . . .

do u believe in the existence of "feli-ban-gbaski"? YES or NO

If yes, what is his/its ontology? what is "feli-ban-gbasky"?
if no, dont u consider it unintelligent and presumably irrational to discuss "feli-ban-gbansky" when u dont know who/what he/it is?

this is irrelevant. . . red herring i must say. . . .

mazaje:

how do you know that i have no alternative? naturalism is my alternative. . . .

what is the concept of naturalism? I believe it is intellectually lazy, totally incoherent and inarticulate to hide under the scope of naturalism.
believing that there is no explicit explanation to the "events" of life and that natural processes are the basis of all that there is, is in my a latter day postulation of illiteracy and ignorance.

this is ignorance beyond the scope and borders of objective reasoning. naturalism equate "criticism without convictions" "passing judgement without character".
Whats the basis of naturalism, when it in itself holds no sacred convictions? whats the basis, when it runs contrary to all objective analysis, understanding and investigation? whats the basis when it cannot be substantiated to mean and/or illustrate a particular concept? when it cannot be substantially defined as a concept on its own, but it depends on disproving others?

what is that concept of naturalism that distinguishes it from Christianity, other than "disbelief", lack of convictions and running foul of known statues?

ur concept explains my definition that atheism "as an irrational state of mind". unguided, unstated and "convictionless" beliefs amount to irrationalism.

here is my own belief. . .i deny existence of all gods, that of the muslims, the hindus, the ancient egyptians, ancient greeks, chinese, south americans and the god of the old and new testaments. all of these are fictional constructs invented by very clever humans for purposes, a variety of diferent purposes, ranging from psychological comfort, emotional comfort, dominance and entertainment. i believe in naturalism. . .

whats the basis of the denial of this existence? can ur answer withstand the test of logic and objective analysis?

atheist know your beliefs too, i was once a christian like you so i know and understand very well everything that christianity is all about. . . .so i can also question ridicule or antagonize it. . .

If it helps, I am least interested in what u are or were, I am simply interested in the RATIONALITY of ur beliefs.

toneyb has given you the basic ontology of the christian god. . i agree with it and that shows that i know what his supposed ontology is even though some christians can not even agree to the basic ontology of the christain god. . . the catholic ontology of the christains god is quite different from that of the protestant christian, the white garment wearing christain may have a very different ontology of the bible god compared to say a conservative american evangelist christian or a prosperity nigerian christain pastor. . . the bible god's ontology varies from church to church and from denomination to denomination. . .no two diffeent sect of christianity agree on his ontology. . .but the one provided by toneyb is the basic one i agree(i presume you also agree with it) with even though there are christian that might not agree with it. . . .

u are the first atheist to agree to that. huxley and his youtube mentors disagree with this ontology.
If u agree with toneyb's ontological definition of GOD, how then can u disbelief the existence of GOD? dont u consider this a contradiction? or should i say irrational?

this is irrelevant. . . red herring i must say. . . .

why is that irrelevant? why dont u answer yes or no?

This is intended to illustrate the rationality of ur belief(s). and also to put those beliefs under the microscope of logic and objectivity, which u readily proclaim.

do u believe in the existence of "feli-ban-gbaski"? yes or no

noetic:

do u believe in the existence of "feli-ban-gbaski"? yes or no

Stop asking questions like this, do you think only in binary?

noetic:

what is the concept of naturalism? I believe it is intellectually lazy, totally incoherent and inarticulate to hide under the scope of naturalism.
believing that there is no explicit explanation to the "events" of life and that natural processes are the basis of all that there is, is in my a latter day postulation of illiteracy and ignorance.

you believe in the unsubstantiated writings of unknown men who thought the world was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe and you say that naturalism is intellectually lazy? does christianity not thrive on intellectual laziness? does the bible not warn you not to seek for knowledge and accepet everything on based on faith? does christianity not label intellectuality as blasphemy? even the bible god did not want adam and eve to eat the tree of "knowledge" according to the bible. . .we have so many anti intellectual statements in the bible like man' cleverness is foolishness in the eyes of god. . . but the same man has shown that he is much more clever than the imaginary bible god. . .such statements are there to keep people in line because the writers of the bible know that their assertion can not stand for them selves. . .

now to naturalism. . .the cause of lightning was once thought to be god's wrath, but it turned out to be the unintelligent outcome of mindless natural forces the same goes for earth quake. people once thought an intelligent being must have arranged and maintained the amazingly ordered motions of the solar system, but now we know it's all the inevitable outcome of mindless natural forces. disease were once thought to be the mischief of supernatural demons or due to the wrath of god(the bible says that alot), but now we know that tiny, unintelligent organisms are the cause, which reproduce and infect us according to mindless natural forces. in case after case, without exception, the trend has been to find that purely natural causes underlie any phenomena. not once has the cause of anything turned out to really be god's wrath or intelligent meddling, or demonic mischief, or anything supernatural at all. The collective weight of these observations is enormous: supernaturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always lost; naturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always won. naturalism is the belief that there is nothing supernatural.

this is ignorance beyond the scope and borders of objective reasoning. naturalism equate "criticism without convictions" "passing judgement without character".
Whats the basis of naturalism, when it in itself holds no sacred convictions? whats the basis, when it runs contrary to all objective analysis, understanding and investigation? whats the basis when it cannot be substantiated to mean and/or illustrate a particular concept? when it cannot be substantially defined as a concept on its own, but it depends on disproving others?

you are just throwing words here. . .the basis of naturalism is that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature. . .does it require any sacred convictions? what do you mean that naturalism can not be substantiated?  . . .i have defined and given you the concept of naturalism. . .naturalism can sand on its own. . .i for one just like ridiculing and pointing out the inconsistencies of all religions. . . .does christianity not depend on disproving others? christians always discard or try to explain all the super natural claims of other religions through natural means but fail to do that to their own faith. . . .you can't have it both ways. . .

what is that concept of naturalism that distinguishes it from Christianity, other than "disbelief", lack of convictions and running foul of known statues?

naturalism is what you see every day and everytime, while the whole christian concept relies on faith in unproven and unsubstantiated words of unknown men that are sometimes not in accrodance to the laws of the natural world. . .why do you keep throwing words around? do you really know what you are saying when you keep on using words like lack of conviction?

ur concept explains my definition that atheism "as an irrational state of mind". unguided, unstated and "convictionless" beliefs amount to irrationalism.

i believe you do not know what irrationalism means. . . .do some of the writers of the bible not concede that some of their writings are completely irrational and should be accepted based on faith alone because of how irrational they sound and appear?

whats the basis of the denial of this existence? can ur answer withstand the test of logic and objective analysis?

because such a being does not exist. . . of course. . .it has stood the test of logic and objective analysis. . .even the bible discorages objective and logical analysis. . .it relys only on faith. . .christains have conceded that logic and objectivity belongs to science labs. . because christianity demands complete faith. . .why does the bible discourage logical thoughts and objective analysis?

If it helps, I am least interested in what u are or were, I am simply interested in the RATIONALITY of ur beliefs.

why do you keep using the word rationality when you belief strongly discourages rationality? what is the rationality in believing that jonah survived inside a fish for 3 days? is it rational to believe that a man can walk on water, or die and raise from the dead after 3 days? what is the rationality in your believing the jacobs genetic engeneering model? can you rationally explain the jocobs genetic engineering model or how the fig tree immediately withered(depending on the gospel account) after it was cursed by jesus? do you not just accept as them as true without rationally thinking about how true the claims really are are?

u are the first atheist to agree to that. huxley and his youtube mentors disagree with this ontology.
If u agree with toneyb's ontological definition of GOD, how then can u disbelief the existence of GOD? dont u consider this a contradiction? or should i say irrational?

based on such ontology that god is impossible to exist, let me give you and example. . .amongst the ontology of the christain god is that he is perfect. . .but we know that if something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. and yet this "perfect" god created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "imperfect" humans. the ultimate source of perfection is god according to one of his ontology. what is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. what is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so god must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. a poisonous wild desert fruit can never grow on an good orange tree. a perfect god who creates imperfect humans is impossible. the bible says that god is Omniscient meaning he knows all things, but the same bible shows or says that the omniscient god is surprised. how is that possible? how can a god that knows everything be suprised? a god who knows everything cannot have emotions. the bible says that god experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger,jealousy, sadness, and happiness. we humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. a man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger, suprise and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. in contrast, the omniscient god is ignorant of nothing. nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react. we humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. the perfect, omnipotent god, however, can fix anything. humans experience longing for things we lack. the perfect god lacks nothing. an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect god who experiences emotion is impossible.

why is that irrelevant? why dont u answer yes or no?

This is intended to illustrate the rationality of ur belief(s). and also to put those beliefs under the microscope of logic and objectivity, which u readily proclaim.

do u believe in the existence of "feli-ban-gbaski"? yes or no

completely irrelevant. . .

mazaje:

based on such ontology that god is impossible to exist, let me give you and example. . .amongst the ontology of the christain god is that he is perfect. . .but we know that if something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. and yet this "perfect" god created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "imperfect" humans. the ultimate source of perfection is god according to one of his ontology. what is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. what is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so god must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. a poisonous wild desert fruit can never grow on an good orange tree. a perfect god who creates imperfect humans is impossible. [b]the bible says that god is Omniscient meaning he knows all things, but the same bible shows or says that the omniscient god is surprised. how is that possible? how can a god that knows everything be suprised? a god who knows everything cannot have emotions. the bible says that god experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger,jealousy, sadness, and happiness. we humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. a man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger, suprise and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. in contrast, the omniscient god is ignorant of nothing. nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react. we humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. the perfect, omnipotent god, however, can fix anything. humans experience longing for things we lack. the perfect god lacks nothing. an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect god who experiences emotion is impossible.[/b]

I like this. One of the false assertions is that God created man in his own likeness and image, that can not be true because man is not all knowing, all merciful, all powerful and Omni whatever? Those are the characteristics of God and man who is said to have been created in the image and likeness of such a being posseses non of his characteristics, that in it self is not possible.

qft

mazaje:

you believe in the unsubstantiated writings of unknown men who thought the world was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe and you say that naturalism is intellectually lazy? does christianity not thrive on intellectual laziness? does the bible not warn you not to seek for knowledge and accepet everything on based on faith? does christianity not label intellectuality as blasphemy? even the bible god did not want adam and eve to eat the tree of "knowledge" according to the bible. . .we have so many anti intellectual statements in the bible like man' cleverness is foolishness in the eyes of god. . . but the same man has shown that he is much more clever than the imaginary bible god. . .such statements are there to keep people in line because the writers of the bible know that their assertion can not stand for them selves. . .

now to naturalism. . .the cause of lightning was once thought to be god's wrath, but it turned out to be the unintelligent outcome of mindless natural forces the same goes for earth quake. people once thought an intelligent being must have arranged and maintained the amazingly ordered motions of the solar system, but now we know it's all the inevitable outcome of mindless natural forces. disease were once thought to be the mischief of supernatural demons or due to the wrath of god(the bible says that alot), but now we know that tiny, unintelligent organisms are the cause, which reproduce and infect us according to mindless natural forces. in case after case, without exception, the trend has been to find that purely natural causes underlie any phenomena. not once has the cause of anything turned out to really be god's wrath or intelligent meddling, or demonic mischief, or anything supernatural at all. The collective weight of these observations is enormous: supernaturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always lost; naturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always won. naturalism is the belief that there is nothing supernatural.

you are just throwing words here. . .the basis of naturalism is that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature. . .does it require any sacred convictions? what do you mean that naturalism can not be substantiated?  . . .i have defined and given you the concept of naturalism. . .naturalism can sand on its own. . .i for one just like ridiculing and pointing out the inconsistencies of all religions. . . .does christianity not depend on disproving others? christians always discard or try to explain all the super natural claims of other religions through natural means but fail to do that to their own faith. . . .you can't have it both ways. . .

naturalism is what you see every day and everytime, while the whole christian concept relies on faith in unproven and unsubstantiated words of unknown men that are sometimes not in accrodance to the laws of the natural world. . .why do you keep throwing words around? do you really know what you are saying when you keep on using words like lack of conviction?

i believe you do not know what irrationalism means. . . .do some of the writers of the bible not concede that some of their writings are completely irrational and should be accepted based on faith alone because of how irrational they sound and appear?

because such a being does not exist. . . of course. . .it has stood the test of logic and objective analysis. . .even the bible discorages objective and logical analysis. . .it relys only on faith. . .christains have conceded that logic and objectivity belongs to science labs. . because christianity demands complete faith. . .why does the bible discourage logical thoughts and objective analysis?

why do you keep using the word rationality when you belief strongly discourages rationality? what is the rationality in believing that jonah survived inside a fish for 3 days? is it rational to believe that a man can walk on water, or die and raise from the dead after 3 days? what is the rationality in your believing the jacobs genetic engeneering model? can you rationally explain the jocobs genetic engineering model or how the fig tree immediately withered(depending on the gospel account) after it was cursed by jesus? do you not just accept as them as true without rationally thinking about how true the claims really are are?

[b]based on such ontology that god is impossible to exist, let me give you and example. . .amongst the ontology of the christain god is that he is perfect. . .but we know that if something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. and yet this "perfect" god created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "imperfect" humans. the ultimate source of perfection is god according to one of his ontology. what is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. what is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so god must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. a poisonous wild desert fruit can never grow on an good orange tree. a perfect god who creates imperfect humans is impossible. the bible says that god is Omniscient meaning he knows all things, but the same bible shows or says that the omniscient god is surprised. how is that possible? how can a god that knows everything be suprised? a god who knows everything cannot have emotions. the bible says that god experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger,jealousy, sadness, and happiness. we humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. a man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger, suprise and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. in contrast, the omniscient god is ignorant of nothing. nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react. we humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. the perfect, omnipotent god, however, can fix anything. humans experience longing for things we lack. the perfect god lacks nothing. an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect god who experiences emotion is impossible.[/b]

completely irrelevant. . .

I concur with Toneyb that the highlighted is pure brilliance.   In fact, the entire post is just great.   Well done mazaje.

@ mazaje.

lots of the same old stuffs.

will reply in detail in due course. . . . . .busy at the moment.