shadeyinka:

The implication of Atheism is that the universe created itself. And this is without any evidence!

If the multiplicity of systems are not enough prove of an intelligent design, then provide verifiable evidence of how things came to be.

Your argument is like the multiplicity of systems if a car does not require a designer!

Wrong. The only implication atheism concerns itself with is the existence or otherwise of a god or gods.

I have not made any pronouncements on the origin of the universe when I do come ask me for evidence. Meanwhile you have and you need to provide the evidence of what you claim.

Niflheim:
I trust that there is nobody here, taking this scientifically illiterate "chwistain" seriously on this thread!!!


A topic that I have personally treated countless number of times here on Nairaland? Professor Lawrence Krauss said that the Universe came from nothing? Abi that was the title of his book?

In Lawrence Krauss' book, the "nothing" that he was referring to was simply quantum foam, virtual particles that pop in and out of existence!!!!

It is only the confused chwistain, who has never read the book, that will come out here to be making noise about what he "feels" Professor Krauss was talking about, without reading the book to find out what Professor Krauss was really talking about!!!

Once again, "chwistainity" has been exposed as a congregation of the confused, the demented and the super illiterate!!!

Since you've read his books and understood its content, you must certainly have agreed totally with him.

Please for the sake of us the ignorant ones, can you please provide an empirical evidence for this quantum foam and virtual particles that pop in and out of existence!!!!

.......I am sure I'm going to wait forever!

LordReed:


Wrong. The only implication atheism concerns itself with is the existence or otherwise of a god or gods.

I have not made any pronouncements on the origin of the universe when I do come ask me for evidence. Meanwhile you have and you need to provide the evidence of what you claim.

No Sir!
The definition of Atheism is different from the implication of Atheism.

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of a creator or gods.

The implication of this disbelief (Atheism) is that the universe created itself from NOTHING.
And from my perspective, this is without an iota of verifiable evidence!

shadeyinka:

No Sir!
The definition of Atheism is different from the implication of Atheism.

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of a creator or gods.

The implication of this disbelief (Atheism) is that the universe created itself from NOTHING.
And from my perspective, this is without an iota of verifiable evidence!

they are reinforcing the definition of atheism to suit this argument . thank you as you exposed them.

LordReed:


You come out saying you know there is a god and when I ask how do you know, you say I have no right to ask you? Is it my uncertainty on trial or your certainty? I do not believe that your god exists until it can be proved, how is it an issue of what I have a right to? If your god cannot be proved then why should I believe it?

Passed judgement on what? Enough evidence for what?

Sorry, I didn't know how I missed this.

Passed Judgement and concluding there is no God when your data and information is incomplete

Of course I know there is a God.

I have never ever told anyone who asked how I know God exists that they have no right to ask.

God/gods can only be known at an "experiencial" level. It is a subjective experience you have when you intellectually and emotionally you commit yourself to the cause of finding Him.

The implication of Atheism is that the universe created itself from NOTHING.

You needn't believe in my God who cannot be Empirically Proved BUT equally, can you give an empirical proof that the universe made itself from nothing?

If the idea of your universe creating itself cannot be proved then why should you believe it?

Even though you'll disagree: Atheism is a kind of FAITH!

malvisguy212:
they are reinforcing the definition of atheism to suit this argument . thank you as you exposed them.

They are used to being on the offensive against Christians without looking deeply into their own claims. Usually, they would have gone to atheists websites to find ready answers but I guess this time, the answers seem not available.

Unfortunately, the average Atheist read and seek for knowledge far much more than the average Christian and this is bad. A Christian shouldn't read only the bible, he should read a little of everything and like that a balanced Christian.

shadeyinka:

Sorry, I didn't know how I missed this.

Passed Judgement and concluding there is no God when your data and information is incomplete

Of course I know there is a God.

I have never ever told anyone who asked how I know God exists that they have no right to ask.

God/gods can only be known at an "experiencial" level. It is a subjective experience you have when you intellectually and emotionally you commit yourself to the cause of finding Him.

The implication of Atheism is that the universe created itself from NOTHING.

You needn't believe in my God who cannot be Empirically Proved BUT equally, can you give an empirical proof that the universe made itself from nothing?

If the idea of your universe creating itself cannot be proved then why should you believe it?

Even though you'll disagree: Atheism is a kind of FAITH!

So no matter how many times I tell you I don't believe something you will insist on saying I believe it? Good at least you've made it clear what your agenda is. This conversation is over.

LordReed:


So no matter how many times I tell you I don't believe something you will insist on saying I believe it? Good at least you've made it clear what your agenda is. This conversation is over.

Ok!
I never said you believed what you said you don't believe in.

For clarity:
1. You believe there is no creator God
2. The implication is that the universe created itself from nothing
3. You have no Empirical Evidence for the universe creating itself from nothing
4. You are no better than Christians who believe God created the Universe while not having any Empirical Evidence
5. In other words, just like the Christians, you are a FAITH man.

According to the OP, is your Faith really delusional?

Just to leave you with this quote

If the idea of your universe creating itself cannot be proved then why should you believe it?

Even though you'll disagree: Atheism is a kind of FAITH!


Cc: budaatum

Atheism is compound foolishness.

Naked foolishness

hahn:


What is the evidence your God exists?

What's your evidence that God doesn't exist?

shadeyinka:

Ok!
I never said you believed what you said you don't believe in.

For clarity:
1. You believe there is no creator God
2. The implication is that the universe created itself from nothing
3. You have no Empirical Evidence for the universe creating itself from nothing
4. You are no better than Christians who believe God created the Universe while not having any Empirical Evidence
5. In other words, just like the Christians, you are a FAITH man.

According to the OP, is your Faith really delusional?



Just to leave you with this quote

If the idea of your universe creating itself cannot be proved then why should you believe it?

Even though you'll disagree: Atheism is a kind of FAITH!

Now get it clear I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A CREATOR GOD, IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM I BELIEVE THERE IS NO CREATOR GOD. One is a lack of belief, the other is a belief. I DO NOT HAVE A BELIEF. Can you wrap your mind around this simple concept?

shadeyinka:

They are used to being on the offensive against Christians without looking deeply into their own claims. Usually, they would have gone to atheists websites to find ready answers but I guess this time, the answers seem not available.

Unfortunately, the average Atheist read and seek for knowledge far much more than the average Christian and this is bad. A Christian shouldn't read only the bible, he should read a little of everything and like that a balanced Christian.

you have said it all.

shadeyinka:

Ok!
I never said you believed what you said you don't believe in.

For clarity:
1. You believe there is no creator God
2. The implication is that the universe created itself from nothing
3. You have no Empirical Evidence for the universe creating itself from nothing
4. You are no better than Christians who believe God created the Universe while not having any Empirical Evidence
5. In other words, just like the Christians, you are a FAITH man.

According to the OP, is your Faith really delusional?

Just to leave you with this quote

If the idea of your universe creating itself cannot be proved then why should you believe it?

Even though you'll disagree: Atheism is a kind of FAITH!


Cc: budaatum

succinctly. perfect.

LordReed:



Now get it clear I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A CREATOR GOD, IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM I BELIEVE THERE IS NO CREATOR GOD. One is a lack of belief, the other is a belief. I DO NOT HAVE A BELIEF. Can you wrap your mind around this simple concept?

Are you saying that you are predominantly an Emotional Atheist?

An emotional Atheist need no justification but a rejection of God by choice. He/she doesn't care with or without evidence his mind is made up. Most had been Theists before but didn't see any advantage it conferred while for others, it's because they felt let down by God they used to believe in their time of need.

If this is true, then you are FREE from my drillings
BUT
You shouldn't act like you are predominantly an Intellectual Atheist.
An intellectual Atheist has Logical, Scientific, Anthropological, Psychological etc reasons for being an atheist. For you needn't care so much for evidence (either for Atheism or Theism)



NOTE:
Please don't get me wrong, even Christians are in the three categories of Intellectual Christians, Emotional Christians and Ignorant Christians.

Addition:
Someone tells me, Your books are on the table

Response:

I do not believe my books are on the table.(probably because I left them at home)
VS
I believe my books are not on the table.(probably because I left them at home)

Both are believes saying the same thing in two different ways

shadeyinka:


Are you saying that you are predominantly an Emotional Atheist?

An emotional Atheist need no justification but a rejection of God by choice. He/she doesn't care with or without evidence his mind is made up. Most had been Theists before but didn't see any advantage it conferred while for others, it's because they felt let down by God they used to believe in their time of need.

If this is true, then you are FREE from my drillings
BUT
You shouldn't act like you are predominantly an Intellectual Atheist.
An intellectual Atheist has Logical, Scientific, Anthropological, Psychological etc reasons for being an atheist. For you needn't care so much for evidence (either for Atheism or Theism)



NOTE:
Please don't get me wrong, even Christians are in the three categories of Intellectual Christians, Emotional Christians and Ignorant Christians.

Why is this so hard for you? Why are you trying so hard to pigeonhole me into your already categorised boxes despite all my clarifications?

LordReed:


Why is this so hard for you? Why are you trying so hard to pigeonhole me into your already categorised boxes despite all my clarifications?

Can you please clarify by itemizing your clarifications apart from the general definition of disbelief/rejection of a Creator God?

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A CREATOR GOD,
Meaning: You don't have confidence in the Creator God (a choice)

I BELIEVE THERE IS NO CREATOR GOD
Meaning: The universe created itself from nothing.

Which one are you?

shadeyinka:


I am going to modify it a little and irrespective of whether Atheists agree with it or not, it is the truth. We all know that the universe had a beginning and before it there was nothingness..

This is very untrue, Shade. We do not know anything about the "beginning of the universe", and all just speculate that God said, big bang, there is, and we believe according to our personal biases. The only thing we do know for certain is there is, we then all try to convince the other to accept our own version of how it came about.

An intelligently honest person would say "I don't really know how the universe began".

shadeyinka:

What I accuse him of is him concluding that there is no God with no evidence to back it up.

How then is he better than the Christians he accuses so much of believing in God with no verifiable evidence!

This is good. Though I bet he has a good argument against this very old reasoning.

budaatum:

This is very untrue, Shade. We do not know anything about the "beginning of the universe", and all just speculate that God said, big bang, there is, and we believe according to our personal biases. The only thing we do know for certain is there is, we then all try to convince the other to accept our own version of how it came about.

An intelligently honest person would say "I don't really know how the universe began".

Every Scientific investigation shows that the universe had a beginning.

The difference is that no one really know how it got formed at the beginning

Christians say GOD created it!
Atheists say the Universe created itself from nothing.

Both the Atheists and the Christians have no Empirical Evidence to validate there assertion

budaatum:

This is good. Though I bet he has a good argument against this very old reasoning.

He doesn't!

His only way out is to claim that he is an atheist by CHOICE and not necessarily because he has some verifiable reasons.

Then, I will take it as an outright rejection of God: just like in a coup. The subordinate first reject the headship of his superior well before initiating the coup.

shadeyinka:

Atheists can be classified into three major classes
1. The intellectual Atheists
These try to justify there Atheism from logics, science, mathematics, philosophy etc
2. Emotional Atheists:
These are mostly those who used to believe in God but feel let down or disappointed by Him eg because of the loss or painful illness of a loved one. Hence they reject this God who was powerless to help.
3. Ignorant Atheists:
These are ones who don't know why they are Atheists. Usually, they are born into an atheist family or they live in a predominantly atheist society.

There is usually no 100% intellectual Atheist, nor 100% emotional Atheist. An atheist could be 80% intellectual, 18% emotional and 2% ignorant.

Now, these said, most of the Atheists on NL who are vocal in defending Atheism and condemning Theists are predominantly intellectual Atheist and as such they use the instruments of science, philosophy, logics etc.

Based on that, I bring out the teachings of usually "Atheist Pastors". I expect them to either accept or reject these teachings with reasons. From this, I know what they truly really believe.

It's like someone giving me a teaching of Rev Chris Oyakilome. I don't agree with all his teachings and a lot of his teachings are fantastic. When someone grills me on the one I don't agree with, I will have to say why I don't agree with such teachings: then, that person can really know what I personally believe.

I think Atheists generalize too much especially when things involve what they believe. The way to go is treating each atheist as an individual. Atheists will not generally tell you their beliefs except you get it out.

This is as ridiculous as claiming to define types of theists. I'll start for you so you have an idea: intellectual theists, emotional theists, ignorant theists, muslim theists, christian theist, protestant theist, catholic theist, pentecostal theist, baptist theist, anglican theist, Adeboye, TBJ theist, Oyakhilome theist, etc. Yea, I know you want to disagree, but if you do not "generalise too much", you'd see the types are endless. And "Atheist Pastors" is theist speak, and next you'd claim they go to "atheist church" lol.

The "instruments of science, philosophy, logics etc" are the use of the senses (science), and the use of the mind (philosophy, of which logic itself is a part). But you mention them as if their use is a negative thing, which I personally would disagree with since Jesus Christ himself was a Lord of the Senses, having spent immense time healing and teaching people to use their senses in numerous healings and parables and specifically saying, "if your senses are dim, the whole body is in darkness". And he is the Lord of Philosophy, as shown in his continued conquests in numerous philosophical battles.

The way to go is treating each "human being" as an individual, or as Christ said, as our own individual selves, which is an even higher standard. Just imagine the stone you are about to cast was being cast by yourself at yourself and I bet you'd exchange it for a pebble.

Please note, you are the Christian here so I'm expecting the highest standards of talent use.

shadeyinka:

Every Scientific investigation shows that the universe had a beginning.

I disagree that any scientific investigation has shown anything of the sort!

"Human scientific speculation" might have come to such a conclusion, but it is speculation, and nothing of the sort has been shown.

shadeyinka:



Both the Atheists and the Christians have no Empirical Evidence to validate there assertion

See. Even you admit there is no evidence for such asserted speculations.

shadeyinka:

He doesn't!

His only way out is to claim that he is an atheist by CHOICE and not necessarily because he has some verifiable reasons.

Then, I will take it as an outright rejection of God: just like in a coup. The subordinate first reject the headship of his superior well before initiating the coup.

This is unfair. Though, by "choice", just as you have chosen to be a theist. He has given numerous reasons however, and your use of "verifiable" is like stabbing yourself unless you can provide him with "verifiable reasons" for your own claims.

shadeyinka:


Christians say GOD created it!
Atheists say the Universe created itself from nothing.

The atheists are actually saying "the Universe is there", and usually make no claim as to how it got there, but the theist, with their 'creation inclined mind' translate this to 'the universe created itself', which no (or hardly any) atheist believes or infers.

shadeyinka:

Can you please clarify by itemizing your clarifications apart from the general definition of disbelief/rejection of a Creator God?

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A CREATOR GOD,
Meaning: You don't have confidence in the Creator God (a choice)

I BELIEVE THERE IS NO CREATOR GOD
Meaning: The universe created itself from nothing.

Which one are you?

You don't get to tell me what what I hold means, I am to tell you that and I told you already, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A CREATOR GOD because such a being has not been demonstrated in any convincing way to exist.

If after this you attempt to tell me what it means or what I believe then I know you are just wasting my time.

LordReed:


You don't get to tell me what what I hold means, I am to tell you that and I told you already, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A CREATOR GOD because such a being has not been demonstrated in any convincing way to exist.

If after this you attempt to tell me what it means or what I believe then I know you are just wasting my time.

There, Shade. My Lord is a an atheist because he has seen no evidence to convince him a Creator God exists.

This might be because he is blind and can not see what you see, or because you have not demonstrated what you see sufficiently for him to see it too.

Lord Buda, always doing Bird and Rat.

budaatum:

The atheists are actually saying "the Universe is there", and usually make no claim as to how it got there, but the theist, with their 'creation inclined mind' translate this to 'the universe created itself', which no (or hardly any) atheist believes or infers.

Buda,I think what shadeyinka has been trying to convey is one of my biggest skeptism about atheism.People hide behind the neutrality of the atheistic definition like a shield but throw spears whenever they get the chance using scientific method&theories to rule out theistic claims.This is one of the reasons theists attack science(this is wrong) because it can be used to enable atheists when they find it favourable.Science aims to explain the material world and anyone who wholly supports the material explanation of the origin of the universe and things within it,should have some kinda faith in the knowledge it has to offer. Now,I presume shadeyinka is trying to take up scientifically inclined atheists on the verifiability of their claims about the origin of the universe which some feel rules out an alternate theistic claim.
Note:Neutral atheists would concede they don't yet know how the universe began because there is no empirical and irrefutably in depth researched evidence for it.They wouldn't aim to find evidence that disproves the God theory as regards origin,etc.(which is the majorly discussed topic on this thread)

I'm open to corrections

EmperorHarry:
Buda,I think what shadeyinka has been trying to convey is one of my biggest skeptism about atheism.People hide behind the neutrality of the atheistic definition like a shield but throw spears whenever they get the chance using scientific method&theories to rule out theistic claims.This is one of the reasons theists attack science(this is wrong) because it can be used to enable atheists when they find it favourable.Science aims to explain the material world and anyone who wholly supports the material explanation of the origin of the universe and things within it,should have some kinda faith in the knowledge it has to offer.

First, the bold. You are saying, "anyone who's senses work scientifically", or in Christianese, "those who's talents work well and are used".

I put it to you that if that us indeed what you are saying then I suggest you go get glasses because the entire point shade is making is either that they are blind and cannot see or can see and refuse to admit that which they see and so are liars.

Apart from that, I do not look at the atheist or any neighbour and suggest they "hide", for doing so is hiding my own eyes and failing to see the atheist, whom by their loudness on here and the number of threads calling them out and the fact that they cannot resist throwing "spears whenever they get the chance", can hardly be said to be hiding!

Science is the use of the senses to understand the material world and s the entire message of the Word of God, a tool that Jesus himself worked very hard to show us to use. So, I'd say it is as wrong as blinding oneself or crucifying Christ to attack science, and doing so simply shows one knows not what one is doing, or saying in this case.

Rilwayne001:
Lord Buda, always doing Bird and Rat.

"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?

budaatum:

First, the bold. You are saying, "anyone who's senses work scientifically", or in Christianese, "those who's talents work well and are used".

I put it to you that if that us indeed what you are saying then I suggest you go get glasses because the entire point shade is making is either that they are blind and cannot see or can see and refuse to admit that which they see and so are liars.

Those who view science as a tool for arguments against theistic claims are the ones I'm referring to.Science is a neutral ground which according to definition has no other motive but to explain the world as we sense it.It is human influence that wields it as evidence for or against theist claims as regards God related theories.The folks that use the materialistic nature of science as some kinda evidence/knowledge against God are the ones I'm referring to.Shadeyinka points are legit if you take a neutral stance on the topic.From my perspective tho.The question is " Is it the right person he's questioning? ".

Apart from that, I do not look at the atheist or any neighbour and suggest they "hide", for doing so is hiding my own eyes and failing to see the atheist, whom by their loudness on here and the number of threads calling them out and the fact that they cannot resist throwing "spears whenever they get the chance", can hardly be said to be hiding!

It becomes hiding buda,when the lack of belief is used when questions are been asked of them as regards evidence against God." Why should I provide evidence against something I lack belief in" would be a standard reply but why would you feel science has much knowledge,you use it to attack theistic claims,but quickly reverts to neutrality because you have no evidence refuting God.I know you may say "It's theists that have a point to prove" but don't you think atheists,who assume that through science, they can counter theistic claims,also through science provide answers in place of those offered by theists.
Note:Atheism=lack of belief due to the lack of evidence.Simple
They should become accountable when they do more than lack the belief.

Science is the use of the senses to understand the material world and s the entire message of the Word of God, a tool that Jesus himself worked very hard to show us to use. So, I'd say it is as wrong as blinding oneself or crucifying Christ to attack science, and doing so simply shows one knows not what one is doing, or saying in this case.

I couldn't agree more.