Aemmyjah:


Go and rest with your false empathy
What empathy will you feel for terrorists and bandits if the federal government destroy them for they they do to peaceful citizens?
Is that not why people are campaigning and trying to change this government. Yet, when you hear news of a gunman enter a church and kill all the worshippers, you feel bad and blame God. If he were hunted and killed, you won't feel empathy. You are bearing a grudge against God and it is funny to see you are bearing a grudge against someone you believe does not exist. You are too funny this Tuesday. Shift

Lol!
Let me make it clear to you one last time, I don't believe your God exists and I don't think those words in the Bible were inspired by him but you believe the opposite. You believe that the events in your book are real events inspired by a supposed divine being and your thoughts, actions, decisions and words are heavily influenced by your beliefs. So I feel angry that you defend those barbaric actions in the Bible, I feel angry that you living in the 21st century still think the way you do because of an ancient book written by ancient authors who knew a little of what we know today.
So when I attack the irrational and unemphatic ideas in your book, I'm not attacking your God, I'm attacking you who not only believes he's real but defends his irrational actions.

In a functional society, the law enforcement agencies punish criminals for their crimes and I'm not against that. But if we're to relate it to the way your God handles issues, it's indeed very barbaric. You first of all tried defending your God by calling me a spoilt child who despises discipline? Like seriously! You tried comparing your God's ways of handling issues to parental styles of disciplining children. Huh? Now, you're trying to make your case seem valid by comparing it to government handling criminals. Lol!

Let's imagine for a moment that the people who were destroyed in the flood and in Sodom and Gomorrah are as evil as bandits and terrorists. What of the children who called Elisha a baldhead? Were they bandits or terrorists? What of the Israelites who complained about hunger? Were they bandits or terrorists? When Adam and Eve ate the fruit God asked them to eat? Were they bandits and terrorists at the time? What of Uzzah who tried putting his hand in the ark of the covenant? Was he a bandit or terrorist? I could go on and on.

As I said before, you've mindlessly accepted your Bible as true which makes you accept your God's character as perfectly good and it's blocking you from thinking clearly and I'm very worried about that. Why not let go of emotions and start examining these beliefs that are so dear to you?

But nevertheless, let me predict your reply. You'll skim through this comment, seeing what you want to see and still accuse me of nursing a grudge against God. You would still find another excuse to defend absurdities.

It's fine, as they say, "You can drag a horse to the stream but you can't force it to drink water." If you respond as I've predicted or do something similar, I would simply let you be

AuthenticKing:


Lol!
Let me make it clear to you one last time, I don't believe your God exists and I don't think those words in the Bible were inspired by him but you believe the opposite. You believe that the events in your book are real events inspired by a supposed divine being and your thoughts, actions, decisions and words are heavily influenced by your beliefs. So I feel angry that you defend those barbaric actions in the Bible, I feel angry that you living in the 21st century still think the way you do because of an ancient book written by ancient authors who knew a little of what we know today.
So when I attack the irrational and unemphatic ideas in your book, I'm not attacking your God, I'm attacking you who not only believes he's real but defends his irrational actions.

In a functional society, the law enforcement agencies punish criminals for their crimes and I'm not against that. But if we're to relate it to the way your God handles issues, it's indeed very barbaric. You first of all tried defending your God by calling me a spoilt child who despises discipline? Like seriously! You tried comparing your God's ways of handling issues to the parental styles of disciplining their children. Huh? Now, you're trying to make your case seem valid by comparing it to government handling criminals. Lol!

Let's imagine for a moment that the people who were destroyed in the flood and in Sodom and Gomorrah are as evil as bandits and terrorists. What of the children who called Elisha a baldhead? Were the bandits or terrorists? What of the Israelites who complained about hunger? Were the bandits or terrorists? When Adam and Eve ate the fruit God asked them to eat? Were the bandits and terrorists at the time? What of Uzzah who tried putting his hand in the ark of the covenant? Was he a bandit or terrorist? I could go on and on.

As I said before, you've mindlessly accepted your Bible as true which makes you accept your God's character as perfectly good and it's blocking you from thinking clearly and I'm very worried about that. Why not let go of emotions and start examining these beliefs that are so dear to you?

But nevertheless, let me predict your reply. You'll skim through this comment, seeing what you want to see and still accuse me of nursing a grudge against God. You would still find another excuse to defend absurdities.

It's fine, as they say, "You can drag a horse to the stream but you can't force it to drink water." If you respond as I've predicted or do something similar, I would simply let you be

Don't be wise in your own eyes
You know nothing about the Bible and what you're saying makes no sense
You don't believe it and you're attacking it, so what is your point
Are you now wiser than God? Is your sense of justice higher than his?
You don't know what you're saying

Wilgrea7:


It genuinely baffles me tbh. It's like talking to another version of Maxinthehouse.

I've also noticed his “you don't know anything" response when his points have been debunked. Like that helps his argument in any way.

You're really trying engaging with these guys.

Maxinthehouse and dtruthspeaker ,
Very funny men .
His "you don't know anything" is the mantra of many believers, being so used to dogma and faith and alien to logic, they resort to this statement to defend themselves . Another bs statement is "you don't understand spiritual things" or "you're carnal".

I'm already getting tired of them tbh.

Aemmyjah:


Don't be wise in your own eyes
You know nothing about the Bible and what you're saying makes no sense
You don't believe it and you're attacking it, so what is your point
Are you now wiser than God? Is your sense of justice higher than his?
You don't know what you're saying

Exactly what Wilgrea7 and I just typed! We predicted right!
No logical rebuttal, no better argument! Nothing sensible to use to defend your position but "you know nothing" and some other bs you wrote up there.

Chai! I 'pray' these scales dogma has used to cover your eyes be removed! Amen

AuthenticKing:


Exactly what Wilgrea7 and I just typed! We predicted right!
No logical rebuttal, no better argument! Nothing sensible to use to defend your position but "you know nothing" and some other bs you wrote up there.

Chai! I 'pray' these scales dogma has used to cover your eyes be removed! Amen

Whose saying something insensible
Use scriptures to prove your grudge
Cos there are many fallacies in it
For example, if I say I don't believe in Sango or Amadioha as real, why should I be mad or sad when people talk about what they did to others?
Everything is just lies, if you like say Sango killed a billion children, I won't feel bad cos I KNOW it is not true. Why? Sango did not exist as a god
You say there is no God and the Bible is not inspired. Why then are you emotional over some events that has to do with the God of the Bible?
Stop suffering yourself and let the others learn

Lemme ask, is atheism the answer?

Aemmyjah:


Whose saying something insensible
Use scriptures to prove your grudge
Cos there are many fallacies in it
For example, if I say I don't believe in Sango or Amadioha as real, why should I be mad or sad when people talk about what they did to others?
Everything is just lies, if you like say Sango killed a billion children, I won't feel bad cos I KNOW it is not true. Why? Sango did not exist as a god
You say there is no God and the Bible is not inspired. Why then are you emotional over some events that has to do with the God of the Bible?
Stop suffering yourself and let the others learn

Lemme ask, is atheism the answer?

And I've pointed out the stuffs in the scriptures to prove how wrong they are and you've not provided any reasonable rebuttal.

I've answered your question in my latest reply, let me mention it again for you to see.

AuthenticKing:

Let me make it clear to you one last time, I don't believe your God exists and I don't think those words in the Bible were inspired by him but you believe the opposite. You believe that the events in your book are real events inspired by a supposed divine being and your thoughts, actions, decisions and words are heavily influenced by your beliefs. So I feel angry that you defend those barbaric actions in the Bible, I feel angry that you living in the 21st century still think the way you do because of an ancient book written by ancient authors who knew a little of what we know today.
So when I attack the irrational and unemphatic ideas in your book, I'm not attacking your God, I'm attacking you who not only believes he's real but defends his irrational actions.

AuthenticKing:

As I predicted, you would never accept that your argument is heavily flawed so why should I expend my energy in arguing further with you?
Abeg, I don tire mbok.

As you already see, you are not the one who determines what is a flaw, it is The Law which determines it and I know Law more than you.

And The Law says you can not conplain when you have no locus standi.

Wilgrea7:

I'm not evading anything. You're the one trying to subject me to a false dichotomy.

False dichotomy means untrue dichotomy! And this is a True dichotomy, nothing untrue in it, and you participated in setting it up. And in your set up, you represented that God, The Person may not be the only Source of Creating a thing where which I have been asking you to provide the second or third valid alternative, and we see you coughing and choking and dodging, instead of providing the alternative you said is there.

So, since you said that there is another alternative apart from The Person whom we call God, present it.

Wilgrea7:

Like i said earlier, we have to be careful with words. Personhood as we know it, is something used to define humans.

We know all know Persons, so stop evading and dodging, present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth

Wilgrea7:

Tempting, but I'm not about to start arguing with you about what a false or true dichotomy means in relation to “rights"

Present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth

Wilgrea7:

Here's the problem with this quote you're trying to misuse. ..

Stop evading and dodging your burden, Present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth.

Dtruthspeaker:


False dichotomy means untrue dichotomy! And this is a True dichotomy, nothing untrue in it,

A false dichotomy is something that tries to present 2 options as the only possible options, when in reality there are more than 2 options.

and you participated in setting it up. And in your set up, you represented that God, The Person may not be the only Source of Creating a thing where which I have been asking you to provide the second or third valid alternative, and we see you coughing and choking and dodging, instead of providing the alternative you said is there.

I never referred to a God/Gods as persons. I repeatedly said I'm trying to be careful with what words i choose.

This is not a case of alternatives. This is a case of you providing proof for your claims. If i tell you that the invisible dragon in my room is wearing a hat, and not a turban, then i have to provide proof for the claim.

Asking you to present other alternatives to what the invisible dragon could be wearing makes no sense. The person who makes the claim has to prove it.

So, since you said that there is another alternative apart from The Person whom we call God, present it.

We know all know Persons, so stop evading and dodging, present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth.

Repeating myself is getting tiring. The definition of persons is tied to humans. And there is no reason to believe that a God has to be a person, that is, human-like.

If this isn't the definition of personhood you ascribe to, then present your own so we understand each other properly. Shouting “we all know what persons are" is a silly way to avoid establishing a common ground on the meaning of the words we use.

You've used this petty tactic before where at the end of the day you'll claim you meant something else. You ain't slick.

Also, I gave you several alternative examples of what a “God" could be. You editited that part out of the response so you can come here and repeat the same narrative.

Wilgrea7:


For example, what stops the creator from being a highly intelligent and conscious rat, or cat, rather than a “person". Or what stops it from being something which is not a person, but still intelligent and conscious?

Your personhood analogy fails here, because nothing suggests that consciousness, or intelligence, is limited to only persons (as far as our understanding of the word goes)

And lastly, pulling a random quote from some guy does nothing to save or strengthen your argument.

So feel free to quote sir Arthur Conan Doyle as much as you'd like. It won't help your argument in any way.

Wilgrea7:

A false dichotomy is something that tries to present 2 options as the only possible options, when in reality there are more than 2 options.

Same as True dichotomy.

So present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth.

Wilgrea7:

I never referred to a God/Gods as persons. I repeatedly said I'm trying to be careful with what words i choose.

We know what you said and we have it on record, where I immediately told you to present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth, before you started trying to dodge the question.

And now, this is day 2 of your Dodging the question.

So, present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbe-able, must be the truth." A.C Doyle

Dtruthspeaker:


Same as True dichotomy.

So present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth.



We know what you said and we have it on record, where I immediately told you to present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth, before you started trying to dodge the question.

And now, this is day 2 of your Dodging the question.

So, present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbe-able, must be the truth." A.C Doyle

You keep leaving out and removing the part where I've clearly answered your question, so you can spout the same narrative again.

You sir, are the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Wilgrea7:


You keep leaving out and removing the part where I've clearly answered your question, so you can spout the same narrative again.

You sir, are the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

You said

"The definition of persons is tied to humans. And there is no reason to believe that a God has to be a person, that is, human-like" and other variables of it.

And that is not the question put against you.

The question is and still remains

"present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth, if you can"

We are waiting as you look at

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbe-able, must be the truth." A.C.D

Dtruthspeaker:


You said

"The definition of persons is tied to humans. And there is no reason to believe that a God has to be a person, that is, human-like" and other variables of it.

And that is not the question put against you.

The question is and still remains

"present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth, if you can"

We are waiting as you look at

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbe-able, must be the truth." A.C.D

You're shifting the goalpost and you know it. The question was not whether God was THE person, it was whether God was A person. And in that regard, I gave examples of highly conscious and supremely intelligent beings that were NOT persons.

Now you're trying to shift the narrative to make it seem like a discussion about different persons, and God being one of them. Once again, your intellectual dishonesty is showing.

Wilgrea7:

You're shifting the goalpost and you know it. The question was not whether God was THE person,..

Now you have dodged and dodged such that you have resorted to Lying because The Truth has tied your mouth and there is no alternative.

The record here shows where and when the question was put against you as you started evading and dodging it until now you have chosen to lie.

Wilgrea7(m): 7:20am On Nov 08

Wilgrea7:

There is absolutely no evidence that the earth was created by “a person".

See yourself now! Yet you wanted me to proceed even when you would not be following.

Your "There is absolutely no evidence that the earth was created by “a person" already falls because,

1. You have confessed and admitted the Truth that a non living thing cannot create.

2. And a Person is a living thing, therefore, He is very much in the game o
"Who" created the earth and you have eliminated the "whats".

Thus, I'll wait for you to supply a valid contender, if you can, which I know you cannot, while letting you look at Arthur Conan Doyle

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbe-able, must be the truth."
----------------------

So keep on dodging and lying and running, the record shows that you never answered the question of presenting a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth, if you can".

Dtruthspeaker:


Now you have dodged and dodged such that you have resorted to Lying because The Truth has tied your mouth and there is no alternative.

The record here shows where and when the question was put against you as you started evading and dodging it until now you have chosen to lie.

Wilgrea7(m): 7:20am On Nov 08

This is becoming a joke. Now you've resorted to false accusations. You couldn't even quote what i said in it's entirety, because you know it exposes your lie.

All my replies have been about God being “a person" because that was the question i was asked.

Dtruthspeaker:


Still not satisfactory. You have only clearly admitted that a non living thing cannot create. So that one is no longer in contention.

But you have not directly admitted that "the earth is created by a Person" for the other time I accepted your implied answer and you went on to deny your implied answer. So this time, you are going to have to be as clear as daylight without any doubt or controversy.

When i objected to the idea of “a person", you began to change the narrative to “the person".

Dtruthspeaker:


Change of Post! We all know what A Person is and there is no confusion or dispute that animals are not persons

So, back to you supplying a valid contender and alternative to God being the Person Who created our House called earth, if you can.

I've said it before... You're not slick.

See yourself now! Yet you wanted me to proceed even when you would not be following.

Your "There is absolutely no evidence that the earth was created by “a person" already falls because,

1. You have confessed and admitted the Truth that a non living thing cannot create.

2. And a Person is a living thing, therefore, He is very much in the game o
"Who" created the earth and you have eliminated the "whats".

Thus, I'll wait for you to supply a valid contender, if you can, which I know you cannot, while letting you look at Arthur Conan Doyle

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbe-able, must be the truth."
----------------------

So keep on dodging and lying and running, the record shows that you never answered the question of presenting a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth, if you can".

Your 2 premises don't follow. I have accepted that a no n-living thing could not have created the earth. I never said that all living things are persons.

I've presented my definition of personhood multiple times, and have asked you to present yours, to ensure we're on the same page. You've refused to do so. Instead you resort to selective quoting.

I'm not the one who's dodging here.

But for the sake of the discussion, I will let this one slide. For the sake of this discussion to continue, I will assume that whatever created the world is “a person" (even though you've failed to show evidence of such)

Once again, for the umpteenth time, the ball is in your court. I will tell you the same thing i told you ever since

Bridge the gap between “a creator", and “your personal creator" which is the specific deity you believe in.

Wilgrea7:

This is becoming a joke. Now you've resorted to false accusations. You couldn't even quote what i said in it's entirety, because you know it exposes your lie.

The entirety is there and everyone can see i took only that which relates to the issue and cut off the off points and out of points.

But because you can not and are not able to give a Truthful answer to the question

"present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth, if you can"

You have been dodging and dodging since yesterday and today even resorted to lying just to avoid the Truth.

Dtruthspeaker:


The entirety is there and everyone can see i took only that which relates to the issue and cut off the off points and out of points.

But because you can not and are not able to give a Truthful answer to the question

"present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth, if you can"

You have been dodging and dodging since yesterday and today even resorted to lying just to avoid the Truth.

Sure thing pal. If that helps you sleep better at night, then by all means keep saying it. At least our posts are there for independent third parties to see and judge for themselves.

Adios

AuthenticKing:
Mr Endtimer, I appreciate your insight on this. I haven't considered many of your points before but nevertheless, I still have my response to them.

I'm not overwhelmingly focused on the consequences of actions sir. As I wrote intially, I'm a humanist who forms his opinion on reason, rationality and empathy. I would like to cite some examples to be able to respond to your comments in the best way I can:
These are very simplistic scenarios but because I couldn't come up with better global extreme examples at the time of typing this, I had to stick with these.

You are definitely a moral consequentialist. The term means that morality is dependent on the consequences of actions, or the outcome of situations. For instance, the examples you gave:

Many of us agree that that it is morally wrong to lie, but look at this scenario: A boy is instructed by his father not to let anyone know he's inside because the father wants to rest and someone comes in wanting to see his father, should the boy abide by his father's rule and tell a lie or should stand by his 'moral standards' of not lying and tell the visitor that his father is inside thereby disturbing his father's peace?
Or the law of not stealing: What if in a family setting, the mother is very sick and their daughter discovers that the father has the money to cure the mother but decides to hide it (she knows where he's hiding it), let's also imagine that the father is a very aggressive hard-hearted person who would lash out the girl and the mother of the daughter exposes him. Should the girl keep silent and not steal the money or expose the father which could lead to deadly consequences or should she just steal the money smartly and ensure the mother gets sound treatment?

In the above you are saying that good and bad depend on the consequence of the children's actions. On your view their actions are good because their consequences are good. I will provide an example to illustrate my own view. Let's say you are travelling somewhere. When you arrive you see a group of Indians tied to a fence and some men in khakis standing, armed in front of them. You discover that these people are about to shoot the Indians for creating a disturbance. As a foreigner, you are given the option of killing one of these Indians yourself. If you do the rest of them will be released to mark the occasion. Assuming your only options are to let them kill all the Indians or to kill one yourself, what do you do?

Like in your examples, good depends on a better resulting state of affairs. In the above, it would be a necessary evil to kill the Indian on my view. It would also be evil to lie even when one's mother's life is at stake. I'm not saying not to do it. I'm saying lying is still morally wrong even when done to achieve a greater good. On your consequentialist view, the lies told are good and so is killing one Indian to save the rest.

I want to make it very clear: good and bad exist intrinsically in actions on my view. Lying and stealing are still bad when done to save someone's life. Killing the Indian is still wrong when done to save several lives. The actions following them may be good, but these actions are still bad when considered morally.

Endtimer:


You are definitely a moral consequentialist. The term means that morality is dependent on the consequences of actions, or the outcome of situations. For instance, the examples you gave:

In the above you are saying that good and bad depend on the consequence of the children's actions. On your view their actions are good because their consequences are good. I will provide an example to illustrate my own view. Let's say you are travelling somewhere. When you arrive you see a group of Indians tied to a fence and some men in khakis standing, armed in front of them. You discover that these people are about to shoot the Indians for creating a disturbance. As a foreigner, you are given the option of killing one of these Indians yourself. If you do the rest of them will be released to mark the occasion. Assuming your only options are to let them kill all the Indians or to kill one yourself, what do you do?

While my view resembles that of a moral consequentialist, it's more complex than you think. If I were in the situation you wrote above, I wouldn't kill the Indian. I would (depending on how influential I am) find out the kind of disturbance these Indians are causing and whether they really deserve to be killed. I would do everything possible to ensure they are not killed.
While this might sound naively idealistic, it just illustrates how complex my view is.

I don't fit into labels (labels that make the one who bears such labels follow everything those labels entails), that's why I can't accept that the notion that I'm a moral consequentialist.

Endtimer:

Like in your examples, good depends on a better resulting state of affairs. In the above, it would be a necessary evil to kill the Indian on my view. It would also be evil to lie even when one's mother's life is at stake. I'm not saying not to do it. I'm saying lying is still morally wrong even when done to achieve a greater good. On your consequentialist view, the lies told are good and so is killing one Indian to save the rest.

If the 'lie' being told to save one's mother won't cause harm to anyone like in the example I gave, it's perfectly ok in that situation.

Endtimer:

I want to make it very clear: good and bad exist intrinsically in actions on my view. Lying and stealing are still bad when done to save someone's life. Killing the Indian is still wrong when done to save several lives. The actions following them may be good, but these actions are still bad when considered morally.

Well what use is this intrinsic view of yours if we don't see clear negative results of these actions you deem wrong even when it doesn't necessarily pose great harm to proponents involved? And not just that, sometimes sticking to these intrinsic notions could even create adverse consequences for proponents. Would you who hold unto intrinsic notions of right and wrong condemn a policeman who kills a hardened criminal who tries to escape after being caught or those who shot Osama bin Laden, the hardened terrorist or the woman who divorces an abusive husband who is at the verge of killing her?

AuthenticKing:


Lol! I expected this! Only you've added by referring to your fellow believers as atheists classifying them in the category you've mentally put atheists in; category of evil people. Lol!
I'm already getting tired of pushing further with you, I'm only happy that my objection to your initial claim still stands: your Supreme Being isn't different from humans in making morality. Qed

Highlighted shows you still don't understand the word "BELIEVER"
It means someone TRUSTING in something or someone else to the extent that whatever that one says is final.

GOD means SUPREME BEING so how can you refer to those that failed to TRUST in the judgment of the SUPREME BEING but going about killing their neighbours who are also claiming worshipers of the same God?

As a father do you expect your sons to pick up weapons against one another in settling disputes yet claiming they trust in your judgement?

Ọmọ you still have a lot to learn when it comes to PRACTICAL SENSE!

MaxInDHouse:


Highlighted shows you still don't understand the word "BELIEVER"
It means someone TRUSTING in something or someone else to the extent that whatever that one says is final.

GOD means SUPREME BEING so how can you refer to those that failed to TRUST in the judgment of the SUPREME BEING but going about killing their neighbours who are also claiming worshipers of the same God?

As a father do you expect your sons to pick up weapons against one another in settling disputes yet claiming they trust in your judgement?

Ọmọ you still have a lot to learn when it comes to PRACTICAL SENSE!

Wetin u dey yarn self?
First of all, you embellished the definition to suit your argument. If you scroll through Wikipedia, you would see that 'to believe' means to take something to be true. According to Merriam Webster: to believe means "to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion ".
According to this definition, all Christians in different sects are all believers.

The other bs you wrote below doesn't apply to all Christian sects. At least, Osinachi the woman who refused to leave her abusive husband was not a Jehovah witness. She didn't fight her abusive husband, she simply remained (trusting in God) till the day she died.
You're just deeply self-absorbed in your own beliefs that you love to say nonsense with confidence.
See who has 'practical sense', lol you're funny

AuthenticKing:


Wetin u dey yarn self?
First of all, you embellished the definition to suit your argument. If you scroll through Wikipedia, you would see that 'to believe' means to take something to be true. According to Merriam Webster: to believe means "to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion ".
According to this definition, all Christians in different sects are all believers.

The other bs you wrote below doesn't apply to all Christian sects. At least, Osinachi the woman who refused to leave her abusive husband was not a Jehovah witness. She didn't fight her abusive husband, she simply remained (trusting in God) till the day she died.
You're just deeply self-absorbed in your own beliefs that you love to say nonsense with confidence.
See who has 'practical sense', lol you're funny

The highlighted is enough to help us have what i called "PRACTICAL SENSE"

GOD is the SUPREME BEING who has ordered His worshipers to kill those who are not His worshipers over the region He picked to have His name proclaimed.

So if the same God now promised that all His worshipers must have LOVE among themselves do you think anyone claiming he or she is a worshiper of this same God should raise up weapons against his or her fellow worshipers for any reason whatsoever?

Remember that the true worshipers of this God in ancient times always rely on His power for victory against their enemies so who do these people rely on when they pick up weapons to kill their own fellow worshipers today?

Do you still think they BELIEVE (TRUST) as in see their God as TRUE?

Wilgrea7:


Yes. Finally. We agree. Although I'm a bit cautious of the wording “proving Christianity is true".

Mainly because to me, proving “the God of the bible" as the creator, and therefore arbiter of moral laws, and “proving Christianity to be true" are 2 somewhat related, but still different things.

But either ways, I'll be happy to engage with any sort of “proof"

I should also add that you are the one with the greater task here. I have to prove that one man is the boy's father. You have to prove that the boy does not have a father whatsoever. You are the one who needs to investigate every possibility and strike them off your list.

This is related to something else I noticed: the lack of positive proofs supporting atheism. As a Christian, I am always playing on the away team, defending beliefs I find to be evidently better informed than the average atheist's (I have a 2,000 year library of tradition and scholarship; they have Dawkins and Nietzsche). If any atheist is truly interested in thorough study of any one religion they won't be able to stay atheists till Christmas.

Endtimer:


I should also add that you are the one with the greater task here. I have to prove that one man is the boy's father. You have to prove that the boy does not have a father whatsoever. You are the one who needs to investigate every possibility and strike them off your list.

I think you've misunderstood my position. I'm not making any claims as to whether the boy has a father or not, just as I'm not making any claims that a God/Gods does not exist.

If i made such claims, then of course i would need to substantiate it. As far as a belief in a personal God goes, i lack one. That's pretty much about it. I'm not trying to imply that a God does not or cannot exist.

This is related to something else I noticed: the lack of positive proofs supporting atheism.

I think this is where our definitions of atheism diverge. Atheism, as i know it, means lack of belief in a God. Not a claim that a God does not exist.

That's why we ask theists for proof, since they're the ones making the claims about a God

As a Christian, I am always playing on the away team, defending beliefs I find to be evidently better informed than the average atheist's (I have a 2,000 year library of tradition and scholarship; they have Dawkins and Nietzsche). If any atheist is truly interested in thorough study of any one religion they won't be able to stay atheists till Christmas.

I personally haven't engaged with any of Dawkins work. Although i recently just started reading a book by Nietzsche. My lack of belief isn't based on either.

In regards to atheists studying Religion, I can't speak for everyone, but i do know I've looked into a couple of different religions and philosophies. They're part of the reason why I don't subscribe to any specific idea or notion of God.

Ridiculous
When they meet feeble minded churchgoers, they attack him that there is no God, no Creator
When they meet REAL Bible students, they begin to say nonsense even about the existence of a Creator, they even change the scope of the definition of atheism to hide their folly. If I say I don't believe in angels, what does that mean or I say I don't believe in microorganisms?
They just bring up things to create question marks on your minds.
Because, he does not want to acknowledge God and won't acknowledge that atheists are delusional, he says atheism is lack of a belief in God? That's nonsense! He's the only person I seen to have come up with such notion. Exactly what do the atheists not believe in God, his qualities, dealings or his existence? The majority and common is in the existence of a god.
The real meaning of ATHEISM is the ABSENCE or the REJECTION of belief in the EXISTENCE of deities. One who believes in atheism is an atheist
Theism is the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities and one who hold such belief is a theist. Since theism is opposite of atheism just as the opposite of good is bad, why do you try to change the whole theme of atheism cos you are scared and holding onto baseless beliefs that you should cast into the sea.

God is acknowledged as the supreme being, the one through whom all things in the natural world came into existence and exists.

Prove to us that there is no God. Tell us how life and the vast universe could come into existence without God. Already, Mr Wilgrea, you have nothing to prove since you are shaking the foundation of the concept of atheism

Aemmyjah:
Ridiculous
When they meet feeble minded churchgoers, they attack him that there is no God, no Creator
When they meet REAL Bible students, they begin to say nonsense even about the existence of a Creator, they even change the scope of the definition of atheism to hide their folly. If I say I don't believe in angels, what does that mean or I say I don't believe in microorganisms?
They just bring up things to create question marks on your minds.
Because, he does not want to acknowledge God and won't acknowledge that atheists are delusional, he says atheism is lack of a belief in God? That's nonsense! He's the only person I seen to have come up with such notion. Exactly what do the atheists not believe in God, his qualities, dealings or his existence? The majority and common is in the existence of a god.
The real meaning of ATHEISM is the ABSENCE or the REJECTION of belief in the EXISTENCE of deities. One who believes in atheism is an atheist
Theism is the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities and one who hold such belief is a theist. Since theism is opposite of atheism just as the opposite of good is bad, why do you try to change the whole theme of atheism cos you are scared and holding onto baseless beliefs that you should cast into the sea.

God is acknowledged as the supreme being, the one through whom all things in the natural world came into existence and exists.

Prove to us that there is no God. Tell us how life and the vast universe could come into existence without God. Already, Mr Wilgrea, you have nothing to prove since you are shaking the foundation of the concept of atheism

My brother ATHEISM is as old as Adam and Eve. They're the frontiers in Atheism. They never claimed that God doesn't exist because they heard Him speak but they won't ACKNOWLEDGE Him as their ruler, that's what most people don't know about atheists!

So don't think they're limited to any faculty or group, they can be found in virtually all the religions on this planet, in fact most of them do claim they're believers too!

But how can you distinguish between an atheist and a believer?

Well a believer not only agree that God exists but always willing to live by the standard set by God along with other believers.
So when Jesus asked us to go in search of the lost sheep of the house of Israel {Matthew 10:6} he is talking about people who are humble at heart {Matthew 5:5} and wants to know what righteousness truly means so they can humbly submit to it! Zephaniah 2:2-3

As for atheists even when they claim there is God they still don't wish to be subjected to the same line of thought with anyone including those with whom they're claiming believers.

That's why Jesus cursed them saying they will be SCATTERED spiritually speaking {Luke 11:23} unlike true believers who enjoys peace from the heart after knowing that they're living by the same standard with their fellow believers {John 17:20-23} each atheists just feel like setting his or her own standard! Romans 10:2-3 compare to Genesis 3:5

Wilgrea7:

I think this is where our definitions of atheism diverge. Atheism, as i know it, means lack of belief in a God. Not a claim that a God does not exist.

That's why we ask theists for proof, since they're the ones making the claims about a God

This is quite obviously a cop-out to evade trying to support an indefensible position. I could create a poll and ask every atheist on Nairaland if they believe God exists. They do not. Do you believe God exists?

You can't just lack a belief about a concept you are fully cognizant of. At best that would be an appeal to ignorance, but you are completely aware of God. Whether you like it or not, you subconsciously believe something about God. You either believe that God exists or you don't.

Even if you have lacked a belief until now, I am challenging you to make up your mind. Do you believe in God or not?

Wilgrea7:


I think you've misunderstood my position. I'm not making any claims as to whether the boy has a father or not, just as I'm not making any claims that a God/Gods does not exist.

To extend our earlier analogy, you are essentially saying you lack a belief that the boy has a father, or that you lack a belief in the existence of the boy's father. The latter is the same as saying the boy's father doesn't exist.

As for the former, let's say I inform you that the latest Honda flies. While you may have been unaware of the car beforehand, and therefore lacked a belief in it, you cannot remain ignorant about it any longer. You may be skeptical that the Japanese have created a flying car, but that only means you do not yet believe it. You would be putting off believing it until you had been presented evidence, but you would not "lack a belief" in it.

Endtimer:


This is quite obviously a cop-out to evade trying to support an indefensible position. I could create a poll and ask every atheist on Nairaland if they believe God exists. They do not. Do you believe God exists?

You can't just lack a belief about a concept you are fully cognizant of. At best that would be an appeal to ignorance, but you are completely aware of God. Whether you like it or not, you subconsciously believe something about God. You either believe that God exists or you don't.

Even if you have lacked a belief until now, I am challenging you to make up your mind. Do you believe in God or not?

I assure you, I'm most certainly not trying to cop out here.

It's just that I think there's more to the question, especially when it comes to the definition of “God"

For example, the theist and deist, believe God to be a single creator deity, separate from the universe itself. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

The pantheist believes the universe IS God. The Panentheist believes the universe is A PART OF God.

A polytheist can believe in multiple eternal Gods, rather than just a single one.

Having engaged with multiple concepts of God, i always like to properly define what the word means to make sure we're on the same page.

When most people ask me if i believe in a God, they're often referring to a monotheistic/deistic concept, for which I hold no inclination towards.

Here's a recent response I gave to someone about my beliefs.

Wilgrea7:


Looking back, i think what nudged me from deism, particularly Christian deism, to agnostism, were the questions i had about the nature of the said God or creator.

While I concede, at least for now, to the idea of intelligence and consciousness being an ingredient in creation, i have no reason to believe that the creator, is a single deity, or one that doesn't have another creator, or one that's omnipotent, and so on.

Which is also not to say that the cause of the universe cannot be these things. But at the same time, I don't see why it has to be so.

So at the end of the day, I'm left with an “I don't know"

Endtimer:


This is quite obviously a cop-out to evade trying to support an indefensible position. I could create a poll and ask every atheist on Nairaland if they believe God exists. They do not. Do you believe God exists?

You can't just lack a belief about a concept you are fully cognizant of. At best that would be an appeal to ignorance, but you are completely aware of God. Whether you like it or not, you subconsciously believe something about God. You either believe that God exists or you don't.

Even if you have lacked a belief until now, I am challenging you to make up your mind. Do you believe in God or not?

You articulated why I view atheism as the opposite of theism. They both make claims about “gods”.
I was an atheist until I asked the question, what is “god”?

If I’m being magnanimous I’ll call it fiction. If not, I’ll call it nonsense, imaginary friend, the world’s oldest scam. There is no “belief” involved.
I don’t have belief or lack belief in Obatala, Atum, Ahura Mazda, Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne, Jesus, or the monster under the bed of a 4 year old child. They are all fictional characters. God is just the generic name of the fictional character that some people believe “created” the world. A belief they either acquire through indoctrination or sometimes by creating their own particular brand of bullshit or deity.

Endtimer:


To extend our earlier analogy, you are essentially saying you lack a belief that the boy has a father, or that you lack a belief in the existence of the boy's father. The latter is the same as saying the boy's father doesn't exist.

As for the former, let's say I inform you that the latest Honda flies. While you may have been unaware of the car beforehand, and therefore lacked a belief in it, you cannot remain ignorant about it any longer. You may be skeptical that the Japanese have created a flying car, but that only means you do not yet believe it. You would be putting off believing it until you had been presented evidence, but you would not "lack a belief" in it.

The child and father analogy was used to illustrate my point, while assuming the existence of a single creator God.

I said earlier on in the thread, that for the sake of discussion, I would assume that a single creator God, much like what the theist/deist believe, exists.

But you asked me about my beliefs in “God"... Which is more complex, as I've tried to explain in my previous post.

If I were to discuss with a pantheist on certain topics, i would similarly, for the sake of discussion, assume the existence of a God that is the universe itself.

My assumptions for the sake of discussion, and my beliefs, or lack thereof, are not necessarily the same thing.

Wilgrea7:


If I were to discuss with a pantheist on certain topics, i would similarly, for the sake of discussion, assume the existence of a God that is the universe itself.

The problem with this God that is the universe itself is that it excludes humans from the “universe” itself.