budaatum:

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.

Interestingly, all theists (Christians, Muslims, Animists, Buddhist etc) fall into these three classes

Let me use Christians/Christianity as an example
We have:
1. Intellectual Christians:
They want to understand why, how, when, what and where of their faith. They just don't believe something until they can logically justify it. They are usually pragmatic and would lean more to reason rather than just faith. An intellectual Christian will support religion with logics, science, philosophy etc
2. Emotional Christians:
They are satisfied with their spiritual experiences and so don't bother to ask any question. Their Moto seems to be: if it works, it must be true. They usually have more Faith than the intellectual Christians.
3. The ignorant Christians:
They have neither personal experience nor reason to be Christians but probably because their parents are Christians or their society is predominantly Christians, they claim to be Christians.

Now, it doesn't matter what their denomination is, the above is true. Same for Moslems, Traditional Religions etc.

I am predominantly an intellectual Christian but also with a large dose of Emotional/Experiencial part. I doubt if anyone can be a balanced Christian without are large dose of these two.

Me applying it to Atheism doesn't mean I am slighting them, not at all.

My point had been:
Atheists on Nairaland seem to want to hide under the general umbrella of Atheism while challenging Theists on intellectual grounds.

I have simply reversed the role and challenge them on intellectual ground.

By definition:
God is the being who created the universe.
If God doesn't exist, the implication is that the universe created itself from nothing.

The bottom line is that they are as guilty as the Christians they call "stupid" for believing in a creator God that is not physically or Scientifically verifiable.

The only atheist who are exempt from this are those who by choice reject God (with or without evidence).

Atheists are not used to being grilled on their beliefs.

budaatum:

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.

It's more than Scientific speculations.

1. The law of conservation of energy does not allow our sun to supply energy indefinitely. Hence, the sun must have had a time of origin. As the sun burns away, it looses it's mass hence the gravitational pull on the planets reduces and planets would drift away.
2. It has been shown that the universe is actually expanding. Going backwards in time, you must reach its point of origin.


Two links for your perusal:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astronomy/chapter/the-beginning-of-the-universe/

budaatum:

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

I am not contesting it. There is no laboratory proof of God as God is not made up of matter. God can only be known on a subjective basis.

The Atheists demand for verifiable evidence of God and they see it as stupidity for someone to believe what cannot be explicitly proved.

I just simply turned the table around especially for those Atheists who challenge Christians using Science, logics...

I do not demand for a verifiable evidence that God does not exist, I demand for a verifiable evidence of the birth of the universe.

The OP says: Faith is Delusional based on Scientific postulates. I have simply shown them them that Atheists also have great FAITH.

The only exception are Atheists who I call Emotional/Experiencial Atheists for which their choice is at at emotional or email level. For such, it's like hatred or disdain or disregard for this creator God.

EmperorHarry:
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.

Science is not some entity standing out there neutrally doing itself, Emperor, it is humans, with the senses, who do science however they see fit, and both theists and atheists alike use their senses to justify their positions. No one argues what they do not see, or hear, or think, or reason, or measure, or weigh or spent time considering etc.

Read DoctorAlien on biases in science. He enabled much learning in the subject.

EmperorHarry:
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? ".

A "neutral stance on the topic", would make one's "folk" include atheists who use "science as some kinda evidence/knowledge against God" and theists who use "science as some kinda evidence/knowledge for God.

As for "right person", I think his error is, "wrong question", for my Lord is highly capable of using his senses. Both are in error however, neither using all their senses, the atheist, in requiring the measurement and weighing of that which is spiritual, and the theist, for attempting to provide an image of God for the atheist to weigh and measure.

EmperorHarry:
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.

No one is telling anybody what or whether they should believe or not, or rather, no one can, not here. We are here because we feel the need to announce our opinions to an external audience, and once we've done so, we know opinions on it will be offered, so please stop with the "why are they asking for evidence of my God", when na me carry my God go dem face! They must ask, unless I'm relying on some superpower to strike them dumb of course.

Anyone who don't want people to ask about their God should go do their God in the privacy of their home and not here on a public forum!

EmperorHarry:

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.

Yes, I said, clearly, I hope. Why should I think that anyone in particular can "provide answers"? Do I not have senses of my own to see that many answers have been provided over the entire history of time and from there reason that many more answers will be provided in the future and so therefore find my own answers? Or is this due to your presumption of the nonbiased perfect science and not science as done by we imperfect humans some chose to believe? Such "thinking" does point to an either/or mode of thinking as shown in your "counter", and your "materialistic nature of science", the popular strawman many harp about called the theist/atheist debate as had by some, especially where science seems to be concerned.

"Science" does not have a "material nature" alone, having evolved from the reasoning of the mind, as in "how we thought things were with very little observation of the material physical evidence" (C.f. Plato, Aristotle, Genesis) into the increased use of the mind and improved use of the senses, both with which we have observed a lot understood a lot more today. You must have heard of theoretical science and philosophical sciences, I pressume. But it is the theist who is comical in this regard here. Or what should we say about a theist who attempts to subject the Lord God to the material atheist's weights and measures?

shadeyinka:


The OP says: Faith is Delusional based on Scientific postulates. I have simply shown them them that Atheists also have great FAITH.

In this do I completely agree as we all live by faith and in hope.

budaatum:

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.

I can't give a Physical verifiable proof of God for God is a spirit.

Atheists use more words as they demand for evidence from Christians:
Show us: Emperical, Proveable, Demonstrable, Verifiable, ... evidence for the existence of the creator God.

I have no problems with those I call ignorant Atheists or the Emotional Atheists as long as they don't go into the realm of debunking Christianity with science.

shadeyinka:

It's more than Scientific speculations.

1. The law of conservation of energy does not allow our sun to supply energy indefinitely. Hence, the sun must have had a time of origin. As the sun burns away, it looses it's mass hence the gravitational pull on the planets reduces and planets would drift away.
2. It has been shown that the universe is actually expanding. Going backwards in time, you must reach its point of origin.


Two links for your perusal:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astronomy/chapter/the-beginning-of-the-universe/

Nonsense! Who are you attempting to impose that disguised atheistic crap upon?

The "law" was made by man who does not have any idea how far back time stretches or how far ahead it will go so he creates for himself an image and bows down and worships it!

shadeyinka:


I have no problems with those I call ignorant Atheists or the Emotional Atheists as long as they don't go into the realm of debunking Christianity with science.

When the ignorant "go into the realm of debunking Christianity with science" you cast pearls.

shadeyinka:


The Atheists demand for verifiable evidence of God and they see it as stupidity for someone to believe what cannot be explicitly proved.

You are asking them to believe you or to believe what you believe, essentially making them become like you who lacks explicit evidence for what you believe?

Why? Do you not have evidence for what you believe? Or do you believe because you have not found evidence for what you say you believe? Or are you just incapable of providing the evidence.

What, pray tell, are you told to provide as evidence of God?

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.

Atheists reject the idea of a creator: isn't it right that they give reasons for their deduction.

All stems from the definition of God:
God is the uncreated creator of the universe (according to theists).

Atheists disbelieve this:
At logical level
At emotional level or
At naive level

I do not have problems with Atheists who disbelieve God at a naive or emotional level. But, I have problem with Atheists who tries to show that they disbelieve God at a logical level. These are the types who come to Nairaland to argue endlessly trying to proving the absurdity of the Christian faith.

The universe had not always existed: hence those who reject the creator on a Scientific bases must have an answer to how the universe came into being.

The Atheists who don't bother how the universe came to being are most likely emotional Atheists AND such would not debate Christians based on Scientific deductions.

shadeyinka:

Atheists reject the idea of a creator: isn't it right that they give reasons for their deduction.

They repeatedly give reasons! I added a couple of reasons for them myself - they are blind, they cannot see - but you seem to just want to ignore the reasons given despite claiming you want to know their reason!

Please go back and read thread.

shadeyinka:


The universe had not always existed:

Nonsense! You believe "the universe had not always existed" and are trying to sell it to me as some knowledge that you have, which you don't, and when I ask you for evidence of this your claim now you will say what, exactly, that I challenge the existence of your God?

Please!

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.

YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN A CREATOR GOD because such a being has not been demonstrated in any convincing way to exist.

No problem!

Whether God exists or not is NOT your problem. Your problem is that you haven't seen God verified in a convincing way. In other words, you do not claim to have any convincing evidence for or against God.

If the above is correct, why are you an anti-theist?
By this, I mean you argue with Christians based on Scientific deductions as if you believe there is no creator God.

"I believe there is no creator God" is a statement of certainty where Science in particular is used to prove or disprove a point having to do with the he creator God.

I have dealt with you on the bases of you degrading faith as if your judgement is coming from Scientific evidence.

shadeyinka:


YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN A CREATOR GOD because such a being has not been demonstrated in any convincing way to exist.

No problem!

Whether God exists or not is NOT your problem. Your problem is that you haven't seen God verified in a convincing way. In other words, you do not claim to have any convincing evidence for or against God.

If the above is correct, why are you an anti-theist?
By this, I mean you argue with Christians based on Scientific deductions as if you believe there is no creator God.

"I believe there is no creator God" is a statement of certainty where Science in particular is used to prove or disprove a point having to do with the he creator God.

I have dealt with you on the bases of you degrading faith as if your judgement is coming from Scientific evidence.

Can you point to any place I took an antitheist stance?

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. 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

A Daniel truly has come to judgement!

You got it perfectly right.
Those who I call intellectual Atheist are those who believe there is no creator God and normally would use science as evidence to ridicule christians.

The second category are agnostics who do not believe in a creator God usually because they feel they there is no convincing evidence for or against the creator God.

The third category are those I call the emotional Atheists who reject creator God at an emotional level . For them, it's a revolt against God: He can do his worst

The Fourth category are those I call naive Atheists: these do not have any reason for being an atheist. They were probably born in an Atheistic family or their society is predominantly Atheistic.

Unfortunately, the second, third and fourth category engage from the position of the position of those who do not believe in a creator God in a bid to sound Scientifically sophisticated.

Thanks for your insight

LordReed:


Can you point to any place I took an antitheist stance?

I think I explained what I meant by that:

I said
"By this, I mean you argue with Christians based on Scientific deductions as if you believe there is no creator God."

I do not mean you are an enemy of Christians. I mean you take a stance as if you believe there is no God and you have the Scientific facts to disprove God by showing the illogicality of religion.

budaatum:

Nonsense! Who are you attempting to impose that disguised atheistic crap upon?

The "law" was made by man who does not have any idea how far back time stretches or how far ahead it will go so he creates for himself an images and bows down and worships it!

It seems you believe that the universe had always existed. I don't and all intellectual Atheist don't either.
"In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the earth!"

Let's make this issue a discussion on another day.

It is sufficient that Atheists do not dispute that the universe had a beginning.

budaatum:

When the ignorant "go into the realm of debunking Christianity with science" you cast pearls.

Interestingly, the ignorant or better still the naive usually don't go into any form of arguments. Even when they do, they are quick to back out because they can only repeat hear-say and really don't have any strong opinion.

The problem are the
1. The agnostics who claim not believe in a creator God usually because they feel they there is no convincing evidence for or against the creator God.
2. The emotional Atheists who reject creator God at an emotional level . For them, it's a revolt against God: He can do his worst
And the least of them
3. The naive Atheists: these do not have any reason for being an atheist. They were probably born in an Atheistic family or their society is predominantly Atheistic.

They behave as if they are intellectual Atheist are those who by logics and science believe there is no creator God and normally would use science as evidence to ridicule christians.

The intellectual Atheists are the only once who have any bases for challenging Christianity with their tools.

The annoying thing is that those who claim not to know the answer use the answer of those who claim to know the answer against Christians.

My strategy was to treat every Atheist first as an intellectual Atheist until he breaks to show his true nature.

Christians are sure: there is a creator God
Intellectual Atheists are sure: there is NO creator God

Other Atheists are undecided, unsure , naive or emotional: these have no basis to act like they are sure there is no creator God

shadeyinka:

It seems you believe that the universe had always existed.

I don't believe anything of the sort! In fact, I don't believe period, and arguing that the crap I make up in my own head and believe is superior to the crap you make up in your head and believe should just show you how crap I actually would have to be.

Rather than believing, people should try and be honest and say the truth which is, I am ignorant about the beginning of the universe and refuse to replace my ignorance with crap made up inside the head!

shadeyinka:

Interestingly, the ignorant or better still the naive usually don't go into any form of arguments. Even when they do, they are quick to back out because they can only repeat hear-say and really don't have any strong opinion.

The above is what the atheist would love to say about the theist, that they are quick to back out when confronted with superior argument, but no one, neither the theist nor the atheist are "quick to back out" and can repeat that hearsay in post after post in thread after thread in forum after forum day in day out year after year as you would know if you been here awhile.

budaatum:

You are asking them to believe you or to believe what you believe, essentially making them become like you who lacks explicit evidence for what you believe?

Why? Do you not have evidence for what you believe? Or do you believe because you have not found evidence for what you say you believe? Or are you just incapable of providing the evidence.

What, pray tell, are you told to provide as evidence of God?

I don't know why you choose to be their advocate.

Christians have the obligation to preach the gospel to all nations.
The first set of Scientific/Intellectual Atheists came from Christian nation and they created a culture of "evangelism by ridicule".

This culture had improved to a point where it becomes like a contest between "Science Vs God" with science presented as the undisputed winner.

In conclusion:
I will submit that let intellectual Christians and Intellectual Atheists argue as much as they want
BUT
The rest should keep out of it or at least not be on the offensive.

Just as it takes faith to be a Christian, it takes faith to be an atheist for at a Scientific or logical or psychological level, no one can prove or disprove God

budaatum:

I don't believe anything of the sort! In fact, I don't believe period, and arguing that the crap I make up in my own head and believe is superior to the crap you make up in your head and believe should just show you how crap I actually would have to be.

Rather than believing, people should try and be honest and say the truth which is, I am ignorant about the beginning of the universe and refuse to replace my ignorance with crap made up inside the head!

Are you agnostic?
Or could there be another position where a person is neutral (neither Atheist nor Theist)?

budaatum:

The above is what the atheist would love to say about the theist, that they are quick to back out when confronted with superior argument, but no one, neither the theist nor the atheist are "quick to back out" and can repeat that hearsay in post after post in thread after thread in forum after forum day in day out year after year as you would know if you been here awhile.

But as you'll know, Nairaland had been very successful in converting many naive Christians to Atheism. In the Early days of NL few people were openly Atheist. Things have changed

shadeyinka:

I think I explained what I meant by that:

I said
"By this, I mean you argue with Christians based on Scientific deductions as if you believe there is no creator God."

I do not mean you are an enemy of Christians. I mean you take a stance as if you believe there is no God and you have the Scientific facts to disprove God by showing the illogicality of religion.

So is it wrong to critically examine what it is you as a Christian believe?

shadeyinka:

I don't know why you choose to be their advocate.

I "advocate" for Christ because, in my own opinion, your arguments are way too juvenile for that which you defend, and by your doing such a sloppy job you give them ammunition to use against the rest of us.

Is it not written that if they seek, they too shall find? Yet, here you are asking a blind person who seeks not to see that which the Lord God Almighty has given you the Grace to see.

If Jesus was as sloppy as you are being, we might have crucified the Sadducees and the Pharisees and the High Priests and Pilate instead of our Lord and Messiah Jesus Christ, which I'm sure you'd agree would have been a waste of wood since none of them are for salvation. In fact, I doubt we would have gotten that far because he just might have fallen to the temptations of the World and the Flesh and the Devil and no one would have heard of him.

And that apart from the fact that if one claims knowledge of Christ and bothers having enemies, one should love them even more than one loves one's neighbours, for that is the evidence that there is indeed a Lord God Almighty in Heaven.

shadeyinka:

But as you'll know, Nairaland had been very successful in converting many naive Christians to Atheism. In the Early days of NL few people were openly Atheist. Things have changed

Most Christians are naive. They build their faith on the sandy foundation of belief and when the atheist falls rain and blows wind on them, they fall. Yet, atheism has not been as successful as you claim, as even my Lord who you argue with here has been caught being theistical despite being an atheist, proving that it can not that easily be departed from once they have been indoctrinated in their childhood.

So stop blaming the weather for the now-sowing of those tossed about by the weather! If they had girded their loins in that which is of Christ they shall not ever be moved.

budaatum:

as even my Lord who you argue with here has been caught being theistical despite being an atheist,

What means the bolded my dear buda?

shadeyinka:

Are you agnostic?
Or could there be another position where a person is neutral (neither Atheist nor Theist)?

I am not agnostic where the Lord God Almighty is concerned. I was an atheist who knew there was no God until I carried my ignorant atheist self up the mountain to see for myself and now I am a theist who knows there is God.

As to the universe, very little is known about the last ten thousand years so knowledge of how it began so many million or billions of years ago is far way beyond my puny mind, and while I concern myself with such things, I am likely to forget to do unto those here whom I see right here before me and whom I am told doing to pleases the Lord my God in Heaven.

If I say there is God and trully mean it, I should endeavour to ensure that Godly Spirit manifests, otherwise, others might through my own doing, fall.

P.s. I often fall short.

LordReed:


What means the bolder my dear buda?

Exactly what I wrote is what it means, my Lord, and have pointed it out to you in the past, and will again point it out when you or some other atheist next does it.

You might note even I do the inverse, atheistically being theistic. It is not as easy to remove that which one has been from that which one becomes.

LordReed:


So is it wrong to critically examine what it is you as a Christian believe?

Christians are commanded to give the reason for their faith to anyone who asked.

Hence you can ask any questions: as many as you like. It's not compulsory you accept it but is is ok to treat such explanations as the Christians point of view.

budaatum:

Most Christians are naive. They build their faith on the sandy foundation of belief and when the atheist falls rain and blows wind on them, they fall. Yet, atheism has not been as successful as you claim, as even my Lord who you argue with here has been caught being theistical despite being an atheist, proving that it can not that easily be departed from once they have been indoctrinated in their childhood.

So stop blaming the weather for the now-sowing of those tossed about by the weather! If they had girded their loins in that which is of Christ they shall not ever be moved.

I completely agree with you

budaatum:

I am not agnostic where the Lord God Almighty is concerned. I was an atheist who knew there was no God until I carried my ignorant atheist self up the mountain to see for myself and now I am a theist who knows there is God.

As to the universe, very little is known about the last ten thousand years so knowledge of how it began so many million or billions of years ago is far way beyond my puny mind, and while I concern myself with such things, I am likely to forget to do unto those here whom I see right here before me and whom I am told doing to pleases the Lord my God in Heaven.

If I say there is God and trully mean it, I should endeavour to ensure that Godly Spirit manifests, otherwise, others might through my own doing, fall.

P.s. I often fall short.

I am too glad to hear this from you Bro.
Stay Blessed