^^^ Nne, my inlaw, as you can see I'm really having quite a bit of fun on this thread.

@jesoul:
I am not sure , but If I am correct, the two gentlemen are implying that We do not have the intellectual capacity to appreciate what it means to have faith or to understand things from a theistic perspective.
Am I right?.
Is so,I do not buy that.
Everyone, not just athiests, ask the same questions about faith. If faith requires some type of intellectual rigor to comprehend, then what percentage of the faithfull can we count on to employed such rigor. Religous faith in not entirely new to those of us that repudiate it. At some point we all had one. However, its is still a source of mystery and fascination for me. If you live in Nigeria, other peoples religious faith touches and affects you everywhere and everyday. We cannot close our eyes and pretend that it is not there. Therefore trying to make sense of it is my preoccupation.

To make it clear, I have no probs whatsoever with whatever an individual chooses to believe. I have never had to judge anyone on the basis of their faith ,and in real life, I hardly express my own lack of or dislike for religion, except when I'm prodded by zealous evangelical folks. It is the unbelievers that are more often bullied than the other way round. I suffer it very often.

Also, I find that theists of all shades have ,themselves, not employed any intellectual rigor to understand what an atheist is. Its just easier, and perhaps natural, for them see athiests as a competing religion and therefore a threat.

Enigma:

^^^ Nne, my inlaw, as you can see I'm really having quite a bit of fun on this thread.

As long as we can all have fun, without namecalling and tantrums, that is ok by everyone.

^^ It's all good --- though a spade will always be called a spade.

One atheist's view of militant atheism.

Says Julian Baggini (an atheist)

. . . there are, of course some atheists who are hostile to religion, and not just fundamentalist religions. . . . Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that it is usually or always harmful.

Now as long as evangelical atheists maintain the attitude bolded, especially the red bit:

- they are liars when they say they support "free thinking"
- they are fundamentalists
- they do not believe in freedom of religion
- they accept only one religion --- the (evangelical) atheism religion!
- they are intolerant of others' viewpoints
- they are dogmatic and dogmatists
- they are hardly better than those who say "our religion is a religion of peace, but we kill those who deconvert"

@Plaetton, I hear you brother. Dont mind the thin skinned Christoholics jare.

JeSoul:

Enigma your hobby here is proving quite useful. I think I should consult before posting on threads lol . . .
Funny you're also speaking to Plaetton/jayriginal above here.

You definitely should, to see if you are using any of the Christian arguments. If you dont see yours here, use the link I provided.

Why dont we all have fun on this thread. You do me, I do you, god nor go vex.

5 Hallmarks of Fundamentalist Atheism*

1. Angry
2. Anti-Intellectual
3. Unloving
4. Judgmental
5. Weak


*Swiped from here: http://www.rpmministries.org/2011/11/the-fundamentalist-atheists/

Still on "atheist fundamentalism" and evangelical atheism

From http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/harris_hitchens_dawkins_dennett_evangelical_atheists.html

There is, as has often been noted, something peculiarly evangelistic about what has been termed the new atheist movement. The new atheists have their own special interest groups and ad campaigns. They even have their own holiday (International Blasphemy Day). It is no exaggeration to describe the movement popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens as a new and particularly zealous form of fundamentalism--an atheist fundamentalism. The parallels with religious fundamentalism are obvious and startling: the conviction that they are in sole possession of truth (scientific or otherwise), the troubling lack of tolerance for the views of their critics (Dawkins has compared creationists to Holocaust deniers), the insistence on a literalist reading of scripture (more literalist, in fact, than one finds among most religious fundamentalists), the simplistic reductionism of the religious phenomenon, and, perhaps most bizarrely, their overwhelming sense of siege: the belief that they have been oppressed and marginalized by Western societies and are just not going to take it anymore.This is not the philosophical atheism of Feuerbach or Marx, Schopenhauer or Nietzsche (I am not the first to think that the new atheists give atheism a bad name). Neither is it the scientific agnosticism of Thomas Huxley or Herbert Spencer. This is, rather, a caricature of atheism: shallow scholarship mixed with evangelical fervor.

and

Indeed, the most prominent characteristic of the new atheism--and what most differentiates it from traditional atheism--is its utter lack of literacy in the subject (religion) it is so desperate to refute. After all, religion is as much a discipline to be studied as it is an expression of faith.

^^ You used to be different.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=4959.msg186216#msg186216
Seun

The questions you ask are legitimate and they are good questions. . . .

In summary, I am saying by all means challenge the existence of God, but do not do it on the wrong premise: "them say". Do it on the basis of your own knowledge, understanding and reasoning.


Seun

If that's the way you feel, that's fine by me. It's your call; wish you all the best.

Enigma:

4get_me

Your pointing a finger at me does not make me "vex" or even raise an eyebrow. I simply suggest you debate the issues rather than make assumptions about someone else's background, knowledge or experience.

Enigma:

4get me

No need to get heated up or be unnecessarily sarcastic.

Enigma:


If you want me to bother to respond to your posts, the first thing you will have to do is to observe basic courtesies and keep out personal comments.

Enigma:


Does Christianity teach you to curse people?

Enigma:

donnie

I did not expect any better (than throwing abuse) from your type. It is the fruit of your type of "christianity" evidently.

I think Joagbaje was the first you sparred with.
What happened to you ?

jayriginal:

^^ You used to be different.

I think Joagbaje was the first you sparred with.
What happened to you ?

Cognitive dissonance drove him berserk. If his god has been shown to be as real as allah and shiva, why not attack the people that state the obvious? Hence, the attacks against his foes, the "evangelical" atheists. e.g dawkins and jayriginal.

^^ Mumu

Enigma:

^^ Mumu

Knew you were were going to say that. lmao You are the mumu in chief though.

Anyway let me return to showing the fool atheists up for the dishonest ignoramuses that they are. Pity our local evangelical atheists are sooo thick that they may not digest and learn from all the information on this thread. Anyway, the thread is not meant for them alone. 

Here an interesting piece on militant (evangelical) atheism and "Scientism" by a respectable enough scientist: http://biologos.org/blog/engaging-todays-militant-atheist-arguments-part-1

Extracts:

Militant atheists is a factual description of those who are active and aggressive in support of their atheist cause. If they wish to return the compliment by referring to militant Christians, they will have some historical precedent and I shall not complain, but I am personally less aggressive, even if perhaps not less vigorous, than the likes of those who are often called New Atheists!

The designation “New Atheists” has been gaining ground as a name given to this century's best-selling authors, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and company, who attack religion. I greatly prefer the designation “Militant Atheists". It is far more accurate. There is very little new in their critiques. Their militancy is the distinctive feature of their writings. Calling them “Hysterical Atheists” is funny and makes the same point, but it is a bit too provocative to be useful.

Engaging their arguments has been undertaken already by a very respectable variety of commentators, including both Christians and unbelievers.1 It is not altogether a rewarding task, because while the militants' writings are fluid and stylish, the arguments are often silly. David Bentley Hart's tone is more disdainful than charitable when he refers to their “embarrassing incapacity for philosophical reasoning ,  that raises the wild non-sequitur almost to the level of a dialectical method”2, but his criticism's content is right on target. Terry Eagleton, no Evangelical apologist, begins his blistering critique in the London Review of Books “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology”.3 {{I really like this line!  }} There is plenty in the militant atheist writings to criticize.

What I want to do here is not to recap the philosophical ideas in the rebuttals that have already been published. Nor am I really qualified to propose a winning public relations strategy for Christian apologetics in response to militant atheist popularity, important though that might be. I am conscious that my own sensitivity to popular culture is filtered through too many years as an academic for me know what will or won't find a resonance in twenty-first century media, or individual hearts. Instead, I want to explain what I take to be the most important idea that enables us to understand the true relationship between science and the Christian faith;4 and then to examine the extent to which this idea answers the militant atheists.

. . . . . .

It is true that the common simplistic descriptions of the scientific method are largely mythological. But, nevertheless, there are identifiable characteristics in science as it has been practiced since the scientific revolution, and these constitute substantial limitations of the scope of science's ability to describe the world. I identify the two key characteristics as reproducibility and Clarity. Science describes the world in so far as it is describable in terms that are reproducible. An experiment done here, and now, by me, if it is part of science will give the same result when done somewhere else, sometime else, by someone else. Or if we are discussing something inaccessible to manipulation, for example the stars in astronomy, then multiple consistent observations at different places and times, by different observers must be possible, providing reproducibility in practice even if not necessarily at will. Moreover science requires that its descriptions have a specialized Clarity (capitalized to indicate my use as a technical term), so that they are unambiguously understood by the trained scientist. This often (but not always) involves quantitative measurement and mathematical theory. Such mathematical forms of expression most abundantly possess Clarity but other forms such as systematic description or classification also provide it in ways that would not normally be described as mathematical. In any case Clarity is required even to know whether reproducibility has been attained, and these requirements place limitations on science.

Enigma:

Anyway let me return to showing the fool atheists up for the dishonest ignoramuses that they are. Pity our local evangelical atheists are sooo thick that they may not digest and learn from all the information on this thread. Anyway, the thread is not meant for them alone.

Here an interesting piece on militant (evangelical) atheism and "Scientism" by a respectable enough scientist: http://biologos.org/blog/engaging-todays-militant-atheist-arguments-part-1

Extracts:



. . . . . .

You are beginning to sound like frosbel. Everone knows her antics so we are all used her. But you Enigma, You are becoming an Enigma. It seems that you see this forum as a theatre of war rather than a place to share opinions.
You just cant refrain from getting personal and calling people names.
What would your world be like if everyone agreed with your points of view? If things you read in this forum angers and enrages you, then disengage yourself from it. You do not know anyone well enough to call them fools, idiotic, dishonest etc. I would rather enjoy reading your points of view rather than the sniper attacks on individuals and imaginary foes. Also, your points of view are more important to us than posting remarks or statements from sources we dont know and dont care about.
Just out of curiousity(no ridicule intended), are you a pastor or one those that earn a living from religion?.

Enigma you keep repeating the same things ad infinitum. What claim do you lay to expertise on theology ?
Do you and most others have any better claim to theological expertise than your best friend Dawkins ?  

Most people here go thus : I am a spirit filled christian. Therefore, I know/feel it in my spirit and you dont (ie those who dont believe what you believe).
Do you have more than this ?
If so, let us know. If not stop parroting the claim that you are the sole possessor of knowledge (of theology).



EDIT

plaetton:

You are beginning to sound like frosbel. Everone knows her antics so we are all used her. But you Enigma, You are becoming an Enigma. It seems that you see this forum as a theatre of war rather than a place to share opinions.
You just cant refrain from getting personal and calling people names.
What would your world be like if everyone agreed with your points of view? If things you read in this forum angers and enrages you, then disengage yourself from it. You do not know anyone well enough to call them fools, idiotic, dishonest etc. I would rather enjoy reading your points of view rather than the sniper attacks on individuals and imaginary foes. Also, your points of view are more important to us than posting remarks or statements from sources we dont know and dont care about.
Just out of curiousity(no ridicule intended), are you a pastor or one those that earn a living from religion?.

He is a lawyer/lecturer .

Hmmm

Psalm 2

1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4He that sits in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

Back to balancing the equation.
More fundamentalist mantras.

ARGUMENT FROM NON-CONFRONTATION
(1) I am not here to argue with you atheists.
(2) But come on, God obviously exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM EXODUS
(1) If the Exodus story has any basis in historical fact, then God exists.
(2) Some guy found some chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea.
(3) There is absolutely no other way that chariots could get to the bottom of the Red Sea.
(4) This means the Exodus story is true.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MARTYRDOM
(1) The apostles would not have died for something they knew wasn't true.
(2) Atheist notes that the NT doesn't mention anyone dying for their knowledge of Jesus' "physical" resurrection.
(3) Atheist also gives examples of martyrs outside Christendom.
(4) Obviously those examples were fooled by Satan.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM TINKERBELL
(1) I really want God to be real.
(2) If you wish for something really hard, it'll come true.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM SHIFTED BURDEN OF PROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE (I)
(1) I once experienced something I can't explain.
(2) Atheist offers several possible, natural explanations.
(3) You're just guessing!  I was there.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE (II)
(1) I have experienced feelings of God's presence in my mind.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NEUROSCIENCE
(1) Scientists say a portion of our brain may be responsible for mystical experiences.
(2) God must have created our brain like that.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM EYEWITNESS (SOMETIMES FOLLOWS OR COMBINED WITH LACK OF EYEWITNESS I)
(1) Someone wrote the creation story in the Bible.
(2) That someone must have been an eyewitness to the described events.
(3) The only possible eyewitness was God.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF EYEWITNESS (I)
(1) You weren't there to witness abiogenisis/Big Bang/etc.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF EYEWITNESS (II)
(1) No one's ever seen one species turn into another.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM HALF A WING
(1) Half of a wing is useless!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PREFERRED ANCESTRY
(1) I don't want to be related to monkeys.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FOOLISHNESS
(1) The Bible says atheists are fools.
(2) I don't want to be a fool.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PIG'S TOOTH
(1) Some scientists once thought a tooth was from an 'ape-man.'
(2) Later scientists discovered it was a pig's tooth.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (I)
(1) Someone made fun of my faith.
(2) God said that persecution would happen.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (II)
(1) Jesus said that people would make fun of Christians.
(2) I am an idiot.
(3) People often point that out.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (III)
(1) You atheists are mean!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM JESUS SAID STUFF
(1) Jesus said some really cool stuff.
(2) No one else had said that stuff.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM DIFFERENCES
(1) The Christian God is different than the gods of other religions.
(2) Therefore, the Christian God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CHRISTIAN MORALITY (altho it could probably be adapted to just about any religion)
(1) Somewhere, someone who called himself or herself a Christian did something nice.
(2) This person was probably not lying.
(3) Therefore, this person was a Christian.
(4) Therefore, Christians do nice things.
(5) Therefore, Christians are moral.
(6) Christians believe in the Bible.
(7) Therefore, the Bible is moral.
( The Bible is God's word.  It says so.
(9) Therefore, God is moral.
(10) (We are just ignoring all the not-nice things that Christians may or may not have done in the past, it's hard to trust history anyway, there are enemies of God working everywhere).
(11) A moral God would be really nice.
(12) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CRAZINESS, a.k.a. PERCHANCE'S SISTER'S ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I would go crazy if I didn't believe in God.
(2) I am not crazy, and don't want to go crazy.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

MRS. POPE'S ARGUMENT FROM CHOCOLATE
(1) Chocolate is God's gift to humanity.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
(3) Now class, would anyone like to attempt an Argument From Beer?

ARGUMENT FROM WWJD
(1) I have the “What Would Jesus Do?” T-shirt, bracelet, baseball hat, and shoelaces.
(2) I wear them in public.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTEREST
(1) If God really doesn’t exist than atheists wouldn’t spend so much time talking about him.
(2) [Atheist refutes (1).]
(3) Therefore, God exists.

REID’S ARGUMENT
(1) You assume that your senses are reliable even though you can’t prove it.
(2) That means I get to assume anything I want.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY
(1) [Christian posts argument.]
(2) [Atheist refutes argument.]
(3) Atheist, you obviously didn’t understand my argument.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CATCH-PHRASE, a.k.a. INVERSE TRUE SCOTSMAN ARGUMENT
(1) There are no atheists in foxholes.
(2) [Atheist points out atheists in foxholes.]
(3) They don’t count.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

TERCEL’S ARGUMENT FROM PROBABILITY
(1) We should believe what probably is true.
(2) I have arbitrarily assigned the proposition “God exists” a probability of 0.75.
(3) That probability came from my a.s.s, which I know assigns extremely accurate probabilities to propositions concerning the existence of God.
(4) So God probably exists.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FREE GIFT, a.k.a. KISSING HANK'S ASS (I)
(1) If some guy came up to you on the street and offered you a billion dollars for nothing in return, would you take the money or deny his existence?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CHARITY
(1) Atheists don’t build hospitals.
(2) [Atheist points out Bill Gates and Ted Turner, who donate billions of dollars to charity.]
(3) Yes, but do they build hospitals?
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SERIOUS ASSERTION
(1) God exists.
(2) No, seriously.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM POSITIVE OUTCOME
(1) Even if God doesn’t exist, it would be better if people believed He did.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF EVIDENCE (I)
(1) I believe that if God exists, there will be no evidence for his existence.
(2) There is no evidence for the existence of God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF EVIDENCE (II) (MODIFIED SIMPSON’S ARGUMENT)
(1) God, if you exist, please give me absolutely no sign.
(2)
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM IDIOCY
(1) I am an idiot.
(2) Even an idiot can see that God exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM TERRORISM (I)
(1) Terrorists destroyed the WTC, killing thousands.
(2) One piece of the rubble sort of looks like a cross.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM TERRORISM (II)
(1) A plane was hijacked by terrorists.
(2) The passengers prayed and attacked the terrorists.
(3) The plane crashed into a field, killing all aboard.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM TERRORISM (III), a.k.a. PERCHANCE'S SISTER'S ARGUMENT (II)
(1) September 11th was really, really bad.
(2) We have bad things happen to us when we're doing something bad.
(3) Therefore, September 11th was a punishment for something we did.
(4) Maybe it was being arrogant?
(5) Yeah, that's it!
(6) God let September 11th happen to teach America humility.
(7) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MASS MURDER
(1) Stalin was an atheist.
(2) He murdered millions of people.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM TORNADOS
(1) A large tornado hit Kansas City.
(2) The tornado missed a church but destroyed several hundred homes.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SPAGHETTI
(1) A few people saw something weird in a bowl of spaghetti.
(2) Some Catholics believe that it is the Virgin Mary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MONEY
(1) All U.S. currency contains the motto "In God We Trust."
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (I)
(1) The Pledge clearly states that America is "one nation, under God * * *."
(2) The existence of God is thus a necessary condition for the existence of America.
(3) America exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS (I)
(1) Some of America's Founding Fathers wrote favorably about the Bible.
(2) The Founding Fathers were really, really smart.
(3) Accordingly, the Bible must be true.
(4) The Bible says that God exists.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS (II)
(1) The Declaration of Independence includes the words "God" and "Creator".
(2) Only a Christian would include the words "God" and "Creator"!
(3) Therefore this is a Christian Nation.
(4) A Christian Nation couldn't last over 200 years without God's help.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM THE FALL OF PAGAN ROME
(1) When Jesus was crucified, the Roman Empire was pagan, ruled by a pagan emperor.
(2) A couple of hundred years later, lots of Romans were Christians, and the emperor was a Christian too!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM LOTS OF BOOKS
(1) The Bible has lots of books written by lots of authors over a long period of time.
(2) Through centuries of vigorous apologetics we've been able to forge a more or less coherent plot for the whole Bible.
(3) It is beyond human ability for so many authors over so long a time to write so many books from which we could hammer such a plot.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNLIKE OTHER RELIGIONS (I), e.g. ARGUMENT FROM SACRIFICE
(1) The Bible said Jesus died for our sins.
(2) No other religious text describes a god that died for our sins!
(3) Osiris, Mithra, Ishtar, Hercules, Horus, Perseus, Bacchus, Tammuz, Hermes, and Prometheus? Never heard of them!
(4) Therefore, the Christian God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNLIKE OTHER RELIGIONS (II), e.g. ARGUMENT FROM JESUS' RESURRECTION
(1) The Bible said Jesus rose from the dead.
(2) No other religious text describes a god that rose from the dead!
(3) All those other resurrected saviors? Never heard of them!
(4) Therefore, the Christian God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BRUTE FORCE
(1) [Christian tears Darwin Fish off car, breaks it in thirds, sticks it to driver's side window.]
(2) Therefore, the Theory of Evolution is wrong.
(3) Therefore, creationism is right.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM TROY
(1) There is little archeological evidence for the events in Exodus.
(2) But look at Troy! It was discovered when people thought the Iliad was only a story! So who knows if there would be a time evidence for Exodus was discovered?
(3) Therefore the Exodus actually happened.
(4) Therefore the Bible is true.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL PROPHECY (I)
(1) The book of Daniel made some prophecies.
(2) The prophecy was later fulfilled by other records in the Book of Daniel.
(3) The prophecy came true!
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SHAME
(1) The Bible showed a group of people performing embarassing actions.
(2) It must be true if the book describes negative events.
(3) Therefore, the Bible is describing historical events.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM EQUAL VALUE (PC ARGUMENT II)
(1) Evolution and the scientific worldview is a worldview. Similarly, the biblical worldview is a worldview.
(2) You are not discriminating against our worldview are you?
(3) The Biblical worldview is as good as the scientific worldview.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

LIBERALS' ARGUMENT FROM MODERATION
(1) The Creationist side occupies an extreme side of the spectrum.
(2) Similarly, the atheist side occupies another extreme side of the spectrum.
(3) The liberals are in between.
(4) Therefore, the liberal position on God is the most correct.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

JACK CHICK'S ARGUMENT FROM COMICS
(1) I have all these cool Jesus comics.
(2) I also think that guy called Eternal is smart with all those great arguments.
(3) Those comics sure convinced me!
(4) Therefore, God exists.

HENRY MORRIS' ARGUMENT FROM EVIDENTIAL ASSERTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore all physical evidence (fossil record etc.) must show this.
(3) Therefore it does.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF MEANNESS
(1) If God didn't exist, it would be mean of him to make me believe he did!
(2) God isn't mean.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM WE ALL GOT FAITH
(1) We all believe in something.
(2) Therefore we all have faith.
(3) My faith in God is no different from your faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM COOLNESS
(1) That's really cool.
(2) God must have done that.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM WTC, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM TERRORISM (III)
(1) Terrorists destroyed the WTC, killing thousands.
(2) An intact Bible was found in the ruins.
(3) No, wait, it turns out it was a dictionary.
(4) Oh well, God exists anyway.

PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS' ARGUMENT FROM COLLEGE FUNDING
(1) You believe in God.
(2) If I ever find out that you don't believe in God, you won't get any money for college!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SNOWFLAKES, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (V)
(1) Out of 3,300 pictures of snow-crystals catalogued no two are exactly alike. Each has 6 points crossing at a 60 degree angle. If one is like a fern it has 6 out-pointing leaves; if like a windmill, it has 6 sails; if like a starfish, 6 ribs; or if like a fir tree, 6 stems with plumes set in perfect symmetry. This makes 3 distinct triangles to each flake. The Hebrew word for snow equals 333 (Hebrew letters stand for numbers).
(2) Could it not be that God has set His symbol of the Triune God in each flake? The average snow storm produces about 1000 billion crystals.
(3) Only an intelligent being could design so many forms.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CUSTODY
(1) We have legal custody of your son.
(2) If you don't act as though the Christian God exists, then we won't let you see him.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FIDEISM, a.k.a. MARTIN GARDNER'S ARGUMENT
(1) Atheists are absolutely right. There is no logical reason to believe God exists.
(2) But He makes me feel good anyway.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PEPPER'S PHILOSOPHY CLASS, a.k.a. THE ENERGY ARGUMENT
(1) Things that exist have energy.
(2) Energy is alive.
(3) All living things are made from energy.
(4) God is made from energy.
(5) Therefore, God Exists.

ARGUMENT FROM A BAD TRIP
(1) I went to a party and took LSD.
(2) I saw demons attacking me.
(3) Then Jesus came and drove the demons away.
(4) So I joined the Assemblies of God.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM A GOOD TRIP
(1) I went to a party and took LSD.
(2) I saw God and Jesus, and they love me.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM STUPIDITY
(1) I am stupid.
(2) God made man in his own image.
(3) There are all horrible disasters going around the world.
(4) God is omnipotent in power.
(5) God is too stupid to do anything about these things.
(6) Therefore, God exists.

THE BORG'S ARGUMENT FROM STAR TREK
(1) You will be assimilated.
(2) All your salvations belong to us.
(3) Resistance is futile.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PRAYER (II)
(1) When I pray, either it comes true or God has a better plan.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
(1) God would never allow a non-Christian to become president.
(2) There has never been a non-Christian president.
(3) Washington, Jefferson, John Adams, Madison, and Lincoln? They said some things that kind of sounded like Christian statements.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PAIN AVOIDANCE
(1) If I don't believe God exists, I'll go to Hell.
(2) Please don't hurt me.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MOUNTAINS
(1) People used to think gods lived on Mt. Olympus.
(2) We've climbed Mt. Olympus and there were no gods there.
(3) Therefore, pagan gods are false.
(4) Therefore, the Christian God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FUZZY ANIMALS, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (VI)
(1) Bunnies are cute.
(2) Cuteness is not an evolutionary advantage.
(3) Therefore, cuteness must have been designed.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY
(1) The vast majority of the Americans believe in God.
(2) I'll get elected if I believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

W'S ARGUMENT FROM PRESIDENTIAL IGNORANCE
(1) If I ask God to blesserize Texas, nobody'll mess with it.
(2) Nobody messes with Texas.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM COINCIDENCE
(1) We were driving home with our youth pastor when it started to rain really hard outside.
(2) We pulled over to the side of the road, joined hands and asked gawd to deliver us home safely.
(3) We arrived home safely.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM COMPUTERS
(1) I tried to delete a copy of the TEN COMMANDMENTS from my computer. It would not have mattered as I had another copy on file.
(2) Still the computer malfunctioned.
(3) The computer had more sense than atheists who made it.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INVISIBILITY
(1) God is invisible.
(2) I can't see God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM RAIN, a.k.a. PERCHANCE'S SISTER'S ARGUMENT (III)
(1) I wanted it to be a sunny day.
(2) I prayed it wouldn't rain.
(3) We had two thunderstorms.
(4) Obviously, God didn't want to answer my prayer.
(5) Of course not! What a selfish thing to pray for! How dare I try to compel God to my selfish desires!
(6) The rain was God's punishment for my selfish desires.
(7) Therefore, God exists.

METACROCK'S ARGUMENT FOR GOD (I)
(1) I have a philosophy degree.
(2) Your knowledge in philosophy is paltry in comparison to mine.
(3) Therefore you are unable to comprehend my intense philosophical proofs of God's existence.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

METACROCK'S ARGUMENT FOR GOD (II)
(1) I created the term "arbitrary necessity".
(2) It is a golden principle and applies to whatever I say it does.
(3) I say an eternal universe is an arbitrary necessity.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

BEN FRANKLIN'S ARGUMENT FROM BEER (I)
(1) "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
(2) Beer exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BEER (II)
(1) Christian: Whatever you believe in is your god.
(2) Atheist: I believe I'll have another beer.
(3) Ha ha.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MONKEYS
(1) If man came from monkeys, there shouldn't be any more monkeys.
(2) There are still monkeys.
(3) Therefore, God Exists.

ARGUMENT FROM C.S. LEWIS
(1) C.S. Lewis had a lot of good arguments in favor of Christianity , at least that’s what all my Christian friends tell me.
(2) C.S. Lewis wrote some popular books too!
(3) So anything C.S. Lewis said must be right!
(4) Therefore, God Exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNIVERSAL DESTRUCTION
(1) I woke up this morning and found that the universe still exists.
(2) Therefore, its destruction was averted by God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM DEAD FIREFIGHTERS
(1) All those dead firefighters were blessed by a Catholic priest before they gave their lives.
(2) For people they didn't even know!
(3) Yes, they were TOO mostly Catholics!
(4) I just know!
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM TODD BEAMER
(1) Todd Beamer prayed "Our Father" with a switchboard operator after his flight was hijacked.
(2) Todd Beamer was a hero.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FALWELL
(1) Jerry Falwell said some really stupid things after September 11th.
(2) Then he apologized!
(3) He was inspired by God to repent!
(4) No, it had nothing to do with the public outcry!
(5) Why? Because God told me so!
(6) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNNAMED SCIENTISTS (I)
(1) Some famous scientists believed in God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FLOWERS, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (VII)
(1) That flower is pretty.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INSTRUMENTATION
(1) You are an atheist.
(2) You did something kind.
(3) You are an instrument of God.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM QUANTUM PHYSICS
(1) Quantum physics uses an uncertainty principle.
(2) There is room for God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

That brings us to 200

jayriginal:

He is a lawyer/lecturer  .

Yep, I'm a lawyer. A well trained and proper lawyer  ---- not the type of confused shockingly ignorant puff puff lawyer who says "Kaufman won under the establishment clause but not the first amendment"! https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-546562.320.html#msg9246609


Yep, I also deploy my ability to teach and lecture others even very charitably --- as with the various free lessons that I've given to the thick evangelical atheists here on subjects ranging from the law to even basic comprehension. 

^^^  .
You had no clue there did you ? I made a slip there due to the fact that you and your mentor were arguing so shallowly, I didn't really need to pay attention to refute your claims. You will see my position from the beginning to the end is consistent.
Apart from that, there was my little moment of distraction (which you joyfully seized upon ignoring the other posts where I clearly made my points). Is that one of your tactics as well ,
ARGUMENT FROM DISTRACTION
(1) Make a pseudo-point
     Atheist refutes point
(2) Repeat step one until the atheist gets bored and makes a slip.
(3) Discountenance all the other points made, and claim you win
(4) Oh yeah, also God exists.

Your claim was that the court declared atheism to be a religion and I clearly showed that it was for the purpose of the first amendment. Being your new self, you went on the attack, when clearly the basics of the profession eludes you.
The term shockingly ignorant is better applied to you my friend. If you with your claim of a PhD cannot understand a simple 13 page judgement, you would do well to learn in humility.


Anyway, as I noted earlier, you are obviously the wisest person on nairaland. 


EDIT
Your PhD isnt in theology is it  ?

@ plaetton

Ley me humour you just for a moment.

plaetton:

You are beginning to sound like frosbel. Everone knows her antics so we are all used her.[/]

Whatever issue you have with Frosbel, take up with him. 

plaetton:
But you Enigma, You are becoming an Enigma.

I have always been an enigma, mate.

plaetton:
It seems that you see this forum as a theatre of war rather than a place to share opinions.

And you see this as a place to behave like a jerk, throwing insults at people and things/persons they venerate. If that is your idea of "sharing opinions", it is not mine.

plaetton:
You just cant refrain from getting personal and calling people names.

A person who doesn't want to be called a fool should not act the fool; a person who doesn't want to be called a liar should not tell lies; a person who doesn't want to be called a jerk should not act like a jerk.

plaetton:
What would your world be like if everyone agreed with your points of view?

Says the person who comes here insulting other people for having a different point of view ---- and using discredited and even out and out false information to do so!

plaetton:
If things you read in this forum angers and enrages you, then disengage yourself from it.

If my views and my posts enrage you, then disengage yourself from them! E pass?

plaetton:
You do not know anyone well enough to call them fools, idiotic, dishonest etc.

You don't get it! People post foolish, idiotic and dishonest things --- so they get called for it. Simples. You don't want your posts to be called any of that, then be circumspect with what you post.

plaetton:
I  would rather enjoy reading your points of view rather than the sniper attacks on individuals and  imaginary foes.

Read my posts when I am discussing with reasonable and honest people ---- you will find plenty to enjoy ---- as with your colleague who has been going through my posting history.

plaetton:
Also, your points of view are more important to us than posting remarks or statements from sources we dont know and dont care about.

Your problem, mate. I will post whatever I choose to post. Deal with it.* (EDITED)

plaetton:
Just out of curiousity(no ridicule intended), are you a pastor or one those that earn a living from religion?.

I am what I am.



* Actually this is a sample of your HYPOCRISY! When the other mumu fellow was copying and pasting Dawkins, Harris, Huber etc voluminously sometime back before the thicko realised he was making a fool of himself, you were singing his praises, saying he was giving you education!

Enigma:

Yep, I'm a lawyer. A well trained and proper lawyer   ---- not the type of confused shockingly ignorant puff puff lawyer who says "Kaufman won under the establishment clause but not the first amendment"! https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-546562.320.html#msg9246609


Yep, I also deploy my ability to teach and lecture others even very charitably --- as with the various free lessons that I've given to the thick evangelical atheists here on subjects ranging from the law to even basic comprehension.  

Excellent.

But how come athiests, like Dawkins and the few of us here on Nl ,are expected  to present perfectly flawless, factual and logical arguments to justify our non-beliefs, while theists have neither attempted to, nor do they feel obligated to do the same.?
All that they flaunt is the strenght of their faith and the veracity of a book of unknown authors , revised and edited over the centuries by an eccelestial elite that had both political and economic power to oversea and protect.

^^^ Who has asked you or who is asking you to justify your non-belief?

I personally do not care in the least about what you believe or do not believe. In fact, I didn't used to bother to get into any discussions with atheists (and even other anti-Christians) here; that is not my interest on this forum at all. However the evangelical atheists and some of the anti-Christians chose to constitute themselves into a nuisance; even then I still used to ignore them by and large ---- until they started making the mistake of coming at me directly.

Yep I am a Christian meek and mild and all that --- but I am also very capable of thugging it out when necessary.

Enigma:

@ plaetton

Ley me humour you just for a moment.

Whatever issue you have with Frosbel, take up with him.

I have always been an enigma, mate.

And you see this as a place to behave like a jerk, throwing insults at people and things/persons they venerate. If that is your idea of "sharing opinions", it is not mine.

A person who doesn't want to be called a fool should not act the fool; a person who doesn't want to be called a liar should not tell lies; a person who doesn't want to be called a jerk should not act like a jerk.

Says the person who comes here insulting other people for having a different point of view ---- and using discredited and even out and out false information to do so!

If my views and my posts enrage you, then disengage yourself from them! E pass?

You don't get it! People post foolish, idiotic and dishonest things --- so they get called for it. Simples. You don't want your posts to be called any of that, then be circumspect with what you post.

Read my posts when I am discussing with reasonable and honest people ---- you will find plenty to enjoy ---- as with your colleague who has been going through my posting history.

Your problem, mate. I will post whatever I choose to post. Deal with it.* (EDITED)

I am what I am.



* Actually this is a sample of your HYPOCRISY! When the other mumu fellow was copying and pasting Dawkins, Harris, Huber etc voluminously sometime back before the thicko realised he was making a fool of himself, you were singing his praises, saying he was giving you education!

I am amused.
I dont mean to sound like you , its funny that  you take delight in calling people jerks and all that , but you are hypersensitive to other people making disparaging remarks about your beliefs. That is quite hipocritical.
Funny enough that you had, in previous times, complained about same of others.
hhhmmm.
"Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you". Has that been somehow lost in the midst of your raging tantrums?
You belittle yourself sooo much for someone is a PHD(?).
Me, I'm just a humble nobody, and with all my shortcomings, I dread to condescend to meat you where you are.

But ,you know what?, if online rage is a form of therapy for you in your real life, then I wish you happy recovery.
Cheers.

^^^ You already have free excellent advice (as usual) from me.

If my views and my posts enrage you, then disengage yourself from them! E pass?

plaetton:

@jesoul:
I am not sure , but If I am correct, the two gentlemen are implying that We do not have the intellectual capacity to appreciate what it means to have faith or to understand things from a theistic perspective.
Am I right?.
Is so,I do not buy that.

 Actually I don't think Godfather & Enigma are commenting so much on the "mental capacities" of the new age Dawkinian atheist - okay maybe they are. But they are (as I am) more concerned about the stark absence of scholarship, especially for self-anointed disciples of "free-thought" and "intellectualism". The seeming inability to present an argument that accurately and objectively ¹presents & ²counters the other side. Most of what we have on this board are thinly veiled attacks on religion cloaked under the guise of having an 'intellectual discussion'. Not saying that you are one - but your presentation of Christ and the gospel on your thread was unfortunately a sad distorted misrepresentation - one that leaves many christians/theists wondering about the motives of such threads.  

 Hence you have christians who are simply tired of this like my in-law Enigma responding as he is here.

Everyone, not just athiests, ask the same questions about faith. If faith requires some type of intellectual rigor to comprehend, then what percentage of the faithfull can we count on to employed such rigor. Religous faith in not entirely new to those of us that repudiate it. At some point we all had one. However, its is still a source of mystery and fascination for me. If you live in Nigeria, other peoples religious faith touches and affects you everywhere and everyday. We cannot close our eyes and pretend that it is not there. Therefore trying to make sense of it is my preoccupation.

To make it clear, I have no probs whatsoever with whatever an individual chooses to believe. I have never had to judge anyone on the basis of their faith ,and in real life, I hardly express my own lack of or dislike for religion, except when I'm prodded by zealous evangelical folks. It is the unbelievers that are more often bullied than the other way round. I suffer it very often.

I have no doubt about the aggressiveness of some religious folks - that too is unfortunate. And it would also be unfortunate if you held the sins of some against all - and against an entire faith. There are some terrible versions of 'christianity' floating out there - many that make me shudder, many that make me upset. But if you go straight to the bible and read for yourself, well, lets just say there's nothing like eating pizza in Piazza San Marco in Venice, by the river, watching the gondolas drift by . . . if you want the original, you go to the source - not hearsay from mama sunday and pastor tunde.  

Also, I find that theists of all shades have ,themselves, not employed any intellectual rigor to understand what an atheist is. Its just easier, and perhaps natural, for them see athiests as a competing religion and therefore a threat.

Lets just say there is plenty of misunderstanding and miscommunication to go around. The vast majority of atheists we see - including the big shot priests like Dawkins - spend most of their time ridiculing religion - surely you can understand why theists aren't falling over themselves to accomodate them .

JeSoul:
well, lets just say there's nothing like eating pizza in Piazza San Marco in Venice, by the river, watching the gondolas drift by . . .

My inlaw, forgive my boastfulness but: "Ben there, Dunne that, bought the Taioseach!"  Nice



(Edit and reedit; can't make up my mind, lol)

Always a pleasure reading from you.

Pls advise your inlaw to cool down. No be fight.

^lol. Enigma is a lovely guy once you get to know him don't mind the fire on this thread, he's absolutely sweet

Enigma:

My inlaw, forgive my boastfulness but: "Ben there, Dunne that, bought the Taioseach!"  Nice

Oh! isn't that just the most beautiful place on earth? . . . and oh, did you see any other black people while you were there?

^^^ As some people say over here, "luvly-jubbly" (please please don't copy or use it too much --- a bit razz, to be honest).

Come to think of it, I'm racking my brain now to recall if we saw any black people: I can't immediately recall any as tourists/visitors; I am trying to remember if we saw some at the market by Rialto!

Still . . . . luvly