@noetic16

My case, along with other athiests is that the idea of god is created and dwells in the cozy realms of the human mind.

globexl:

@noetic16

My case, along with other athiests is that the idea of god is created and dwells in the cozy realms of the human mind.

is there any logical evidence to support your assertion? any empirical evidence? and jaw-dropping intellectual argument?

noetic16:

is there any logical evidence to support your assertion? any empirical evidence? and jaw-dropping intellectual argument?

The fact that people's idea of who god is, what he allows, who he loves and hates tend to coincide with the desires of the person talking about him.

All god's are created by men. Deepsight as an example has created one he calls the oneness of infinity or the infinite mind and gave it whatever attributes he wanted.  You have said the path to your God is Esoteric and I'm certain that there is a Christian on this board who would say that God's message is apparent,easy to understand  and meant for everybody.


You are god because he has the same feelings and desires as yourself.

Athiesm is not a religion so dawkins stands on his own. I have not read his book, though I have watched his debates.
from whichever angle he chooses to debate the issue, the fundamental conclusion is the same, vis-a-vis: God (or holy spirit) dwells in the mind of the BELIEVER.(repeating after you)

Martian:

The fact that people's idea of who god is, what he allows, who he loves and hates tend to coincide with the desires of the person talking about him.

All god's are created by men. Deepsight as an example has created one he calls the oneness of infinity or the infinite mind and gave it whatever attributes he wanted.  You have said the path to your God is Esoteric and I'm certain that there is a Christian on this board who would say that God's message is apparent,easy to understand  and meant for everybody.


You are god because he has the same feelings and desires as yourself.

very convenient escapism , . ,

I am talking about the bible God. . .DS is talking about an imaginary deist god.

noetic16:

is there any logical evidence to support your assertion? any empirical evidence? and jaw-dropping intellectual argument?

Yes there is. There is a good intellectual argument. It was made by you. So I'm just quoting from your wisdom.
" The holy spirit is the active spirit of god that dwells in the BELIEVER."

noetic16:

very convenient escapism , . ,
I am talking about the bible God. . .DS is talking about an imaginary deist god.

Deep Sight's God is just as real as your bible God. The only difference between your God, DS' God and Scientologists' God is the amount of believers they have. Jenwitemi also has his own idea of "God" and he can defend it just as well as you defend yours but that doesn't mean you'll believe him just like he finds yours absurd.  If DS suddenly decided to be L Ron Hubbard and gained a sustantial following, he's followers will be arguing with you too.

Whatever the bible says doesn't matter because words don't mean anything in discussions like this. If they did, Dianetics should be enough proof for the existence of Xeno.

The bible god is the basic idea that christians use to build their own image of God, just like different kids will create different models from a box of legos.

Can we stop the notion of this or that "god" and simply address the cosmological question to wit: what caused teh universe to be.

That is, after all, the question we all seek to address.

The very same question which leaps into the minds of even little children as soon as they can think.

noetic16:

ok . . . . .

ok . . .  .

Good.

noetic16:

I am strictly interested in your original position ,  . . ,  without the need for allegedly "creating an argument" . . . . .do u subscribe to the notion that a super-intelligence created the material would we live in? please give reasons for your answer.

I'm granting your propositions for us to progress in the discussion.
No I do not subscribe to the notion that a super intelligence created the material world we live in because I see no reasons to make that assumption.

noetic16:

more powerful . .  , how is power measured here? and whats the basis for comparison? and is ultimate the only characteristic of your spaghetti deity? does he have antecedents?

Power is measured in the way the power of other Gods are measured. The basis of comparison is the other Gods. He is also outside of space and time, eternal and loving.

noetic16:

Dont try to make a bad case worse. The human names given to the super-intelligence who created the material world does not imply multiple personalities, except for certain instances. It is simply an illustration of man's understanding over the years of a greater force and power. To sit down here and start making an argument over the identity of the super intelligence is IMO a LAME exercise.

Then how do you know that you're not worshiping the wrong God? The God you're worshiping has a name doesn't it?

noetic16:

You said prayer failed whilst tested. I asserted that prayer did not fail, at least not on God's part. This assertion is buttressed by the questions I asked you which you conveniently ignored . .  . . ,  you can walk, why have not chosen to walk from lagos to kano. you can eat, why have you not chosen to eat a life-lizard?

The question is pointless because if I were in a situation that necessitated any of them, then I'll do it but your God who loves people and is omnipotent does nothing to help them as my example demonstrated.

noetic16:

if thats your understanding . . . . fair enough.  

That's the implication of what you said. If you disagree, you're free to try to clarify what you said.

noetic16:

i laff in greek

How about you admitting your ignorance in this subject?  

Keep laughing. I just hope you're able to laugh at yourself considering that it is the implication of saying "God is an emotion". You forget that jealousy too is an emotion.

noetic16:

You made a FALSE and RIDICULOUS claim about God. I am simply asking you back up your claim with evidence. why is that so hard for you to do?
is this an admission on your part that you are IGNORANT of biblical injunctions? where in the bible is your assertion supported?

How about the popular John 3:16? Let me quote it here since you seem to have forgotten your Bible.

King James Version:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

noetic16:

On the contrary, I think that perhaps your involvement with atheism is not influenced by reason or logic but rather by emotions. You have not displayed any thought-provoking narrative to illustrate why the material world we live in could not have been made by a super-intelligence. Neither has your master, Richard Dawkins being able to do the same.

Once again, we see that the religious one when unable to make good arguments or support their arguments, they shift to fallacies such as shifting the burden of proof which is what you're doing above.
You then wield Dawkins' name as some sort of talisman. You really need to learn to support you arguments. After all, you're the one reading the book yet you're unable to tackle any of the arguments in it as I've shown above.

globexl:

Yes there is. There is a good intellectual argument. It was made by you. So I'm just quoting from your wisdom.
" The holy spirit is the active spirit of god that dwells in the BELIEVER."

and how does this support your assertions?

Martian:

Deep Sight's God is just as real as your bible God. The only difference between your God, DS' God and Scientologists' God is the amount of believers they have. Jenwitemi also has his own idea of "God" and he can defend it just as well as you defend yours but that doesn't mean you'll believe him just like he finds yours absurd.  If DS suddenly decided to be L Ron Hubbard and gained a sustantial following, he's followers will be arguing with you too.

Whatever the bible says doesn't matter because words don't mean anything in discussions like this. If they did, Dianetics should be enough proof for the existence of Xeno.

The bible god is the basic idea that christians use to build their own image of God, just like different kids will create different models from a box of legos.

You live in a world of your own imaginations. At your convinience you make ignorant assertions just to suit your arguments.
Have u ever thought about analysing the ontology of the three different gods/God you listed? perhaps there are still many truths you are ignorant of.

Deep Sight:

Can we stop the notion of this or that "god" and simply address the cosmological question to wit: what caused teh universe to be.

That is, after all, the question we all seek to address.

The very same question which leaps into the minds of even little children as soon as they can think.

EXACTLY , , . , This was the original idea. Looking at the bigger picture, IF God is not reputed to have created the world, I doubt there would be any debate on His existence. Can these guys get off the highway and let us debate the plausibility of this creation. . . . . , they need to stop bringing in side arguments to derail the debate.

thehomer:

Good.

I'm granting your propositions for us to progress in the discussion.
No I do not subscribe to the notion that a super intelligence created the material world we live in because I see no reasons to make that assumption.

Any idiot could have said the above.
So please display some elements of intellectualism and give cogent reasons and arguments to back your claims. After all, you pose around claiming to be intelligent. why are u of this opinion? what are your arguments? Give me your best 3 reasons for this belief.

Power is measured in the way the power of other Gods are measured. The basis of comparison is the other Gods. He is also outside of space and time, eternal and loving.

Rubbish.

what is the ontology of your spaghetti deity?

The question is pointless because if I were in a situation that necessitated any of them, then I'll do it but your God who loves people and is omnipotent does nothing to help them as my example demonstrated.

This is called ESCAPISM and typically salivating at the prospect of having your ignorance exposed. Your answer to the question explains the omnipotent posture of God, not just to you but to other atheists and ignoramuses around. , . . .So I will repeat the question . . . . and please have the courage to answer it.
you can walk, why have you not chosen to walk from lagos to kano? You can eat, why have you not chosen to eat a life-lizard? you can swim, why have you not chosen to swim a deep sea infested with sharks? you can sleep, why have you not chosen to live in the same room with an untamed lion?

How about the popular John 3:16? Let me quote it here since you seem to have forgotten your Bible.

I knew u would fall for that

John 3:16 describes an action of God for mankind, influenced by LOVE.
You claimed that God is GOOD to all of mankind . , . . , Its unscriptural.

Once again, we see that the religious one when unable to make good arguments or support their arguments, they shift to fallacies such as shifting the burden of proof which is what you're doing above.
You then wield Dawkins' name as some sort of talisman. You really need to learn to support you arguments. After all, you're the one reading the book yet you're unable to tackle any of the arguments in it as I've shown above.

1. I wield Dawkins name because Dawkins wrote the book and by and large, he is the most prominent atheist evangelist.

2. You have been unable to make just ONE meaningful argument to support your position. You keep running round discussing the identity of God, when your primary concern should be His ontology. did he create the world? what evidences support your position? Like many others, I find it absolutely ridiculous that you keep taking about the existence of several gods to ignore the bigger question on the plausibility of the material world having a super-intelligent creator. If we can agree on that, then perhaps.

3. Contrary to your assertion, the burden of proof lies with both parties, except of course this discussion has stopped being an intellectual exercise. IF you say that there is no God, present us with your proof and evidences. If you say that the material world we see could not have been produced by a super-intelligence, provide us with your proof and evidence. The onus lies with both sides.

@noetic16
maybe you have not heard of Bertrand Russell, Ayn Rand,
or even more relevant , Carl Sagan
Just google Carl Sagan. That's is a nice start.

1. "when your primary concern should be His ontology." By discussing his ontology you are already assuming his exists. This is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

2 "Plausibility of the material world having a super-intelligent creator"
Onus is on both sides, that I agree, but you also need to talk a walk further into this intellectual path. Let me contextualize it

I say Santa exists and you say no.
What happens next?
A. I will provide evidence he exists e.g. gifts during christmas, my mother says he exists etc
B. you on the other hand, will disprove *my* claims. e.g. gifts are from your parents not Santa, mothers lie sometimes etc

The Onus is on both of us. But We are in point A. at the moment.

3. Forget many Gods. None Exists.


I think we all need to agree on terms of engagement. If we are to use English words like ESOTERIC then we must agree what definition we will use. Otherwise, if you create your own meanings for words you can say anything you like.

Why we atheist do not follow RD as you do Jesus is simple.

1. If RD was caught doing something that is clearly immoral, we will join you in shunning the person. But The God Delusion will still be an important book.
2. If Isaac Newton was a devote Christian, gravity is still, well gravity.
3. In other words, we celebrate and honor the person, but what is important is the work. itself. It less important who discovered something but important that is was discovered and that it works. And whatever is discovered stands to be challenged.
4. The bible, a book is a collection of anecdotes/or memes. unlike bible reader, atheists are not compelled to agree with everything the book says, they can pick what anecdotes make sense and discard others. Because books are not written by Gods but my humans. Humans can get some things wrong. Other humans can explain some things better than others.

you seem to be an intelligent man, in spite of everything you say here,
when you go to the doctor, and he tells you something you question it, for how long? no but last time I was given drug X why are you giving me Y, etc,
you research. and find alternative viewpoints and you think about them.
the difference here is that , we are applying the same analytical effort when it comes to religion. you are not. simple. if you applied it. we would not be having this debate.

noetic16:

Any  could have said the above.
So please display some elements of intellectualism and give cogent reasons and arguments to back your claims. After all, you pose around claiming to be intelligent. why are u of this opinion? what are your arguments? Give me your best 3 reasons for this belief.

I've been backing up my claims for a while now but it seems you wish to run from what you're supposed to do. e.g If I see no reasons to believe in leprechauns or Shiva, is it not up to you who believes in them to tell me why you do? When you keep on vomiting the notion of a super-intelligence creator, please describe this creator you're talking about.

noetic16:

Rubbish.

what is the ontology of your spaghetti deity?

I just gave it to you. Or isn't it enough? If you think that isn't good enough for the mighty FSM, then realize that your God too fails woefully.

noetic16:

This is called ESCAPISM and typically salivating at the prospect of having your ignorance exposed. Your answer to the question explains the omnipotent posture of God, not just to you but to other atheists and ignoramuses around. ,  . . .So I will repeat the question . . . . and please have the courage to answer it.
you can walk, why have you not chosen to walk from lagos to kano? You can eat, why have you not chosen to eat a life-lizard? you can swim, why have you not chosen to swim a deep sea infested with sharks? you can sleep, why have you not chosen to live in the same room with an untamed lion?

No, you're running away from what it means to be omnipotent and what it means to love someone. I've answered your poor questions but you seem to have failed to understand my examples and their questions.
Here they are again. Please take the time to understand the examples and answer the questions. Don't run away.

thehomer:
You're still looking at this the wrong way. If your child asks you to save them from severe pains and suffering (which you can by in this case taking them to a hospital), what do you do? Do you stand around looking at them? What if they ask you for a toy car (which is cheap and you have the funds), do you provide it?
The point is that in a clear situation with serious consequences, and you're able to do something, what do you do? Your God is supposed to be omnipotent yet does nothing why?

Source

noetic16:

I knew u would fall for that

John 3:16 describes an action of God for mankind, influenced by LOVE.
You claimed that God is GOOD to all of mankind  . ,  . .  , Its unscriptural.

No, this was what I said word for word. You may go back and read it.

thehomer:
What is this? You want me to show you where God is supposed to love all humans? Wait you really [/b]believe that the Christian God isn't supposed to love all humans? If you're this ignorant of Christianity, then I really cannot help you.

Source

I never said he was good to all of mankind but that he is [b]supposed to be good to them since he is supposed to love them.
It seems the trap you set has managed to ensnare you.

noetic16:

1. I wield Dawkins name because Dawkins wrote the book and by and large, he is the most prominent atheist evangelist.

That is not needed because no one is making an argument from authority. You need to address the actual arguments rather than trying to address someone who isn't present.

noetic16:

2. You have been unable to make just ONE meaningful argument to support your position. You keep running round discussing the identity of God, when your primary concern should be His ontology. did he create the world? what evidences support your position? Like many others, I find it absolutely ridiculous that you keep taking about the existence of several gods to ignore the bigger question on the plausibility of the material world having a super-intelligent creator. If we can agree on that, then perhaps.

On the contrary, I've made multiple arguments along multiple lines which pretty much destroy your poor attempt at criticizing the book. You may join the queue of those who have failed woefully in their attempted criticism of the book.
You want me to care about the ontology of your Christian God when you're unable to address the ontology of the FSM?
If you really want a super-intelligent creator, I give you the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster.

noetic16:

3. Contrary to your assertion, the burden of proof lies with both parties, except of course this discussion has stopped being an intellectual exercise. IF you say that there is no God, present us with your proof and evidences. If you say that the material world we see could not have been produced by a super-intelligence, provide us with your proof and evidence. The onus lies with both sides.

I know that but it is more on you than myself at least until you're able to identify the God you're talking about. The word God refers to so many deities that I simply want you to pick the one you're referring to here.

Just passing by. The burden of proof lies only on the theist to prove the existence of God. The christian (for example) cannot prove his God because he has hidden him and made him incapable of detection. This invisibility of God is ironically celebrated as proof of his presence. All that is required to know God is faith. As anyone knows, faith is an unreliable argument because it is subjective. That same faith is what the muslim uses to prove his God which the christian doesnt believe in. That same faith is what the traditional worshiper uses to hold on to his God which the the christian does not believe in either. Some muslims have enough faith to blow themselves up with other innocents, expecting the promise of heaven and certain pleasures.
When a christian calls his God a spirit, and says he cannot be understood by human reasoning, neither can he be seen with the eyes, nor heard, when the christian is asked to prove his faith and he tries to avoid it, he is only hiding his God. In reality, the christian in making an honest attempt to prove his God will only end up disproving him.
We all know God used to talk to people and Moses saw God and spoke to him face to face as you would a friend (many have tried to deny this passage) Ex 33:11. God doesnt seem to do these things anymore.

Back to the burden of proof, the atheist does not believe in God as you have presented him. It is a case of saying I cannot believe in this so-called God you speak about. How do you then ask someone to prove that something he does not believe in does not exist ? You assert that he exists and so the onus is on you to prove it. It is sad that many folks are trying to distort the meaning of atheism, but it simply is a lack of belief in God(s). The cure for atheism is proving the existence of God.

Lets use the analogy of Russel's Teapot.

in 1952, Russell wrote:

   Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Asking someone to disprove an entity he sees no evidence for is unreasonable. On a humorous note, the next quote is from the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy by Douglas Adams. It shows what logic can do to God.

Hitchhiker's Guide of the Galaxy
written by Douglas Adams

   The Book: The Babel fish is small, yellow, leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
   Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the NON-existence of God.
   The argument goes like this:
   `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
   `But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
   `Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
   `Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing

globexl:

@noetic16

My case, along with other athiests is that the idea of god is created and dwells in the cozy realms of the human mind.

This is the fallacy of the ignorance displayed in many atheist arguments. How do you explain the esoteric nature of Christianity? how do you explain the personal experiences that people have with God? how do explain the role of dreams and visions that describe a future event, and these events subsequently come to pass? How do u explain the fact that it is impossible for the human brain to generate such information on unlikely and unprecedented future event?

You can scream repeatedly for all I care, but the fact remains that there are numerous minute of suggestive evidences that illustrate the existence of a realm beyond the physical. . . .a realm that postulates the existence of God.

You are ignorant of these things , my friend.

zataxs:

@noetic16
maybe you have not heard of Bertrand Russell, Ayn Rand,
or even more relevant , Carl Sagan
Just google Carl Sagan. That's is a nice start.

I have actually, . . . . but thanks for the reminder.

1. "when your primary concern should be His ontology." By discussing his ontology you are already assuming his exists. This is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

This is NOT a flaw. I know he exists, based on secrets deduced from personal experiences and revelations. unlike you, I am NOT guessing.
do u have any evidences that suggest that God does not exist?

2 "Plausibility of the material world having a super-intelligent creator"
Onus is on both sides, that I agree, but you also need to talk a walk further into this intellectual path. Let me contextualize it

I say Santa exists and you say no.
What happens next?
A. I will provide evidence he exists e.g. gifts during christmas, my mother says he exists etc
B. you on the other hand, will disprove *my* claims. e.g. gifts are from your parents not Santa, mothers lie sometimes etc

The Onus is on both of us. But We are in point A. at the moment.

So where is your evidence that God does not exist?

you seem to be an intelligent man, in spite of everything you say here,
when you go to the doctor, and he tells you something you question it, for how long? no but last time I was given drug X why are you giving me Y, etc,
you research. and find alternative viewpoints and you think about them.
the difference here is that , we are applying the same analytical effort when it comes to religion. you are not. simple. if you applied it. we would not be having this debate.

have you questioned your own belief systems? why do u in spite of the enormous flaws in the atheistic doctrine continue to subscribe to the notion that the universe was uncreated? where is your evidence or superior argument?

thehomer:

I've been backing up my claims for a while now but it seems you wish to run from what you're supposed to do. e.g If I see no reasons to believe in leprechauns or Shiva, is it not up to you who believes in them to tell me why you do? When you keep on vomiting the notion of a super-intelligence creator, please describe this creator you're talking about.

You miss the point completely.

If I believe in Shiva or leprechauns, I would consider it a measure of competence to tell you the basis of my belief.
IF I dont believe in Shiva or leprechauns, I would also consider it a measure of competence to tell you the basis of my disbelief.

If however I have no idea as to who Shiva or leprechauns is, then I would neither believe nor disbelieve.
By disbelieving in the plausibility of the material world being a product of super intelligence, you are postulating a presumably informed opinion. why are you not neutral? if you disbelieve in something, there must be cogent reasons for such.

I just gave it to you. Or isn't it enough? If you think that isn't good enough for the mighty FSM, then realize that your God too fails woefully.

and u think that its just okay to say that FSM is ultimate? . . . . . .I am disappointed. . . . .this is a new low for u.

No, you're running away from what it means to be omnipotent and what it means to love someone. I've answered your poor questions but you seem to have failed to understand my examples and their questions.
Here they are again. Please take the time to understand the examples and answer the questions. Don't run away.

I already answered your question. God is omnipotent, but He aint a robot. This implies that He has a mind of his own to do things according to His plans. Are u able to see the bigger picture? what if there is a better life awaiting the hospitalised person? what do u know of the supernatural?

and please stop evading my question ,  . . .if you dont walk from lagos to kano, does this mean you are disabled?
If God chooses not to heal a sick person, does this mean He is not omnipotent?

No, this was what I said word for word. You may go back and read it.
I never said he was good to all of mankind but that he is supposed to be good to them since he is supposed to love them.
It seems the trap you set has managed to ensnare you.

ridiculously LAME. stop making assertions you are ignorant of. The truth is you know next to nothing about God or the bible. Do some reading, get informed and then come back for a debate.

That is not needed because no one is making an argument from authority. You need to address the actual arguments rather than trying to address someone who isn't present.

On the contrary, I've made multiple arguments along multiple lines which pretty much destroy your poor attempt at criticizing the book. You may join the queue of those who have failed woefully in their attempted criticism of the book.
You want me to care about the ontology of your Christian God when you're unable to address the ontology of the FSM?
If you really want a super-intelligent creator, I give you the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I know that but it is more on you than myself at least until you're able to identify the God you're talking about. The word God refers to so many deities that I simply want you to pick the one you're referring to here.

. . . . . okay

If however I have no idea as to who Shiva or leprechauns is, then I would neither believe nor disbelieve.

@Noetic the above statement of yours is wrong. Reconsider the statement.

jayriginal:

Just passing by. The burden of proof lies only on the theist to prove the existence of God. The christian (for example) cannot prove his God because he has hidden him and made him incapable of detection. This invisibility of God is ironically celebrated as proof of his presence. All that is required to know God is faith. As anyone knows, faith is an unreliable argument because it is subjective. That same faith is what the muslim uses to prove his God which the christian doesnt believe in. That same faith is what the traditional worshiper uses to hold on to his God which the the christian does not believe in either. Some muslims have enough faith to blow themselves up with other innocents, expecting the promise of heaven and certain pleasures.
When a christian calls his God a spirit, and says he cannot be understood by human reasoning, neither can he be seen with the eyes, nor heard, when the christian is asked to prove his faith and he tries to avoid it, he is only hiding his God. In reality, the christian in making an honest attempt to prove his God will only end up disproving him.
We all know God used to talk to people and Moses saw God and spoke to him face to face as you would a friend (many have tried to deny this passage) Ex 33:11. God doesnt seem to do these things anymore.

Back to the burden of proof, the atheist does not believe in God as you have presented him. It is a case of saying I cannot believe in this so-called God you speak about. How do you then ask someone to prove that something he does not believe in does not exist ? You assert that he exists and so the onus is on you to prove it. It is sad that many folks are trying to distort the meaning of atheism, but it simply is a lack of belief in God(s). The cure for atheism is proving the existence of God.

Lets use the analogy of Russel's Teapot.Asking someone to disprove an entity he sees no evidence for is unreasonable. On a humorous note, the next quote is from the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy by Douglas Adams. It shows what logic can do to God.

1. Your attempt to lay the burden of proof at the feet of the theist constitutes intellectual LAZINESS. Anyone with the guts to make an assertion should also be able to defend such assertions. This is commonsensical in lieu of the fact you are making known your own position known that perhaps a super intelligence does not exist . .  .  .you are as guilty as the theist who claims that God exists without providing any corresponding evidence.

2. Faith is essential in knowing God, but it is not the only truth herein. The beauty of nature around you and the intelligence and order of our collective existence primordially suggests the work of a more intelligent being. This is not an assertion, it is just the product of primary logical foundation  to reason, such that implies that intelligence begets intelligence.

3. You demonstrate no understanding of faith. Contrary to your illusion above, faith is not an abstract mechanism that serves as a vehicle to reach God. Faith is an important seal in the relationship between man and God. take for instance a dog has faith in his master that he will be fed on a daily basis. The same way many residents in the western world exercise faith in the judicial system.
If you study the teachings of Christ with regards to faith, you would realise that before he asked anyone to live by faith, he first taught them the essence of a relationship with God, informing them of their primary expectations. Faith is established only once a relationship is established.
Abraham was called by God to leave his father's house to the unknown. That could not have been the first time he would hear God's voice.

4. It is absolutely LAME to impugn bible teachings. The bible was clear on what face to face meant. . . . . .God appeared to Moses in the form of a CLOUD (Exodus 33:9-10). do some reading on the bible and educate yourself.

jayriginal:

@Noetic the above statement of yours is wrong. Reconsider the statement.

okay . . .do u believe in the existence of mamajubajingi?

noetic16:

You live in a world of your own imaginations. At your convinience you make ignorant assertions just to suit your arguments.
Have u ever thought about analysing the ontology of the three different gods/God you listed? perhaps there are still many truths you are ignorant of.

Lol, I already analysed, and the three different gods mentioned were all created by men and they all exist inside the minds of people who believe in them.


Have you ever thought about analysing the ontology of Zeus or Quetzacoatl? Perhaps there are many truths you are ignorant of about Quetzacoatl.

noetic16:

okay . . .do u believe in the existence of mamajubajingi?

Yes!!! I had a personal revelation about the almighty Mamajubajingi. She came to me while I was praying and she said a guy nicknamed Noetic will bring her name up today on Nairaland.

It's the same type of esoteric relationship that christians have with their god.

^^^ 

So you see, your belief is from knowledge

When i consistently have dreams that play out in reality in exact detail as appeared in my dream, and when this has happened consistently since my childhood and continues up till now (I am in my thirties) this tells me that there is a super-structure about this reality beyond that which is observable with our physical senses.

Can't prove that to anyone but myself though.

^^^

In a situation whereby this is the case for hundreds of millions of people all over the world. How then can anyone dismiss the case of there being a supernatural existence?

noetic16:

okay . . .do u believe in the existence of mamajubajingi?

I do not know of any such thing. Therefore, I do not believe. My non belief has no effect on whether such a thing exists.
However, Mazaje has had a revelation details of which he gave here. As it is a subjective revelation, it is proof only for himself and not for others.

Deep Sight:

When i consistently have dreams that play out in reality in exact detail as appeared in my dream, and when this has happened consistently since my childhood and continues up till now (I am in my thirties) this tells me that there is a super-structure about this reality beyond that which is observable with our physical senses.

Can't prove that to anyone but myself though.

This is a very bold claim. In anycase you do agree on its subjective nature so lets leave it at that.

Deep Sight:

When i consistently have dreams that play out in reality in exact detail as appeared in my dream, and when this has happened consistently since my childhood and continues up till now (I am in my thirties) this tells me that there is a super-structure about this reality beyond that which is observable with our physical senses.

Can't prove that to anyone but myself though.

C'mon Deepsight,
Dreams are subjective and can be given any type interepretation. No two persons can have the same interpretations of the same dream.Your subjective experiences do not point to any thing other than what YOUR mind makes of them.
Electromagnetic waves are beyond our observable physical senses, so are sub-atomic particles and many others that we are yet to even discover. SO? We built instruments to detect them.
There are definitely many super structures about  our realities we are yet to fully grasp. That is true. We are hearing theories of a multiverse(many layers universes on top of each other). Your obsession is how it started and who started it. The truth is that we dont know. Period. Anything else is just speculation and fantasy. Is it possible to picka point where infinite space started and where it ends? It is possible to pinpoint when time began and wher eit may end?

@neotic16:
You are contradicting yourself so much on this thread. Earlier, you stated and i quote again" The holy spirit is the active spirit of god that dwells in the BELIEVER".
BELIEVER being the key word here.
You have repeated it again by saying that " many people (I assume, christians) experience god",
Implying once more that the beliefe and experience of god is PURELY subjective. Right?
WE both AGREE on these statements of yours and I'm happy for you that the holy spirit dwells in you and you experience god. There is nothing wrong with that. By the same token, you will agree with me too that a lot of people in the world, my self included, do not smoke that opium(sorry to use that word) and therefore are not subject to , and are free to deny the same indwelling holy spirit and godly experience as you do. Is anything wrong with that? Can you live with that?
That sums up the ongoing Athiest-Thiest chasm that is going on this forum and in world. Is it not?
What else are you trying to add. You seem to be running around in circles.

@noetic16 you should like a child trapped and falling with your own shoe lace that you are tying to impress the girls.
Maybe it will help if you actually read what you are writing ( preview) and see if it makes sense to you before hitting the reply (click once, then wait) button.

Jayrigina;, what i shared is not a 'claim' - Its just my experience which i am relating. But as you said, its my experience and no one else's. So its for me alone, and I understand I cannot lend it to anyone else as proof of anything.

But I know.

C'mon Deepsight,
Dreams are subjective and can be given any type interepretation.

My dreams are extremely precise and manifest also in precision. Its been a life long experience. I narrated a very simple instance here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-436863.0.html#msg5953393

But as already noted, its my experience and mine alone, and not intended to convince any other person of anything.