Calloti doesn't even make sense....according to evolution, it is about the survival of the fittest which means killing someone is not wrong because you're just trying to get by and survive and heck who am i to judge u for killing.......if i ask an atheist how did we got here he/she could say evolution or i don't know and if i ask what happens when we die they simply don't know but they are quick to make a mockery of those that actually believe in life after death

And for all those Atheist who see the discovery of the Higgs Boson - the much sensationalised "God Particle" as some sort of vindication, a pat in the back. I'll only say 'puleeazzzze'


That was a victory for physics and has little impact in the 'God argument' and for crying out loud the Higg Boson is the means by which particles acquire mass. it does not in anyway address the issue of how the particles came to be (at least to my knowledge).

I ate beans, Yam, rice , Garri and it contributed to my growing to be the big boy that I am now.

Thus that make beans and yam my father or Mother ?



I lost my Dad this year (and God bless his Soul). As far as I know the old man at one point or the other must have practiced as much as seven or more religion. He believes absolutely in Science.

One thing he is quick to point out is that all religions do not necessarily have to negate each other if not for the pride of men, (ok, I digress)

He actually always argued that findings about evolution and all sorts do not necessarily counter the fact that God exists, in as much as he holds them to be true. Its one thing to make a discovery, its another to make the right inferences from it.

I wouldnt wanna talk on this much coz in the process,it might lead to blasphemy..and.dats sin.In latin IMGO DEI..means IMAGE OF GOD...base on this,me think deism is beieve in almighy God while atheism is the opposite..

tevinsolt: Calloti doesn't even make sense....according to evolution, it is about the survival of the fittest which means killing someone is not wrong because you're just trying to get by and survive and heck who am i to judge u for killing.......if i ask an atheist how did we got here he/she could say evolution or i don't know and if i ask what happens when we die they simply don't know but they are quick to make a mockery of those that actually believe in life after death

The fittest survive not the strongest! Social animals also show as much advantage in surviving. Morality is a bigger discourse.

pak: And for all those Atheist who see the discovery of the Higgs Boson - the much sensationalised "God Particle" as some sort of vindication, a pat in the back. I'll only say 'puleeazzzze'


That was a victory for physics and has little impact in the 'God argument' and for crying out loud the Higg Boson is the means by which particles acquire mass. it does not in anyway address the issue of how the particles came to be (at least to my knowledge).

I ate beans, Yam, rice , Garri and it contributed to my growing to be the big boy that I am now.

Thus that make beans and yam my father or Mother ?



I lost my Dad this year (and God bless his Soul). As far as I know the old man at one point or the other must have practiced as much as seven or more religion. He believes absolutely in Science.

One thing he is quick to point out is that all religions do not necessarily have to negate each other if not for the pride of men, (ok, I digress)

He actually always argued that findings about evolution and all sorts do not necessarily counter the fact that God exists, in as much as he holds them to be true. Its one thing to make a discovery, its another to make the right inferences from it.

What's your point?

I don't understand why most theists unnecessarily assume atheists accept a magically world sprung out of emptiness. Its a bad argument!

Kay 17: I don't understand why most theists unnecessarily assume atheists accept a magically world sprung out of emptiness. Its a bad argument!

That is because they are the most speculating beings on the faces of the earth!

wiegraf:
What's your point?

I made two previous post on the thread (page 2) and I agree the third post will only make sense if seen as a continuation of the other ones. You can check them

Kay 17:

The fittest survive not the strongest! Social animals also show as much advantage in surviving. Morality is a bigger discourse.

lmaooo fittest not the strongest.....actually "strong" fits into term "fittest" a child pointing a gun at an elderly is not a situation of who is strong or not but the case of two men with varying strengths competing for food or water tell me who wins

tevinsolt:
lmaooo fittest not the strongest.....actually "strong" fits into term "fittest" a child pointing a gun at an elderly is not a situation of who is strong or not but the case of two men with varying strengths competing for food or water tell me who wins

He is right and you are wrong. The fittest survives not the strongest!

Kay 17: I don't understand why most theists unnecessarily assume atheists accept a magically world sprung out of emptiness. Its a bad argument!

and I think that's the essence of a thread such as this.

You have the opportunity to explain where from the atheist view point the world sprung out from so that we can stop speculating . . .or am I missing something about the definition of an atheist

Mr_Anony:
but clearly the phrase is not synonymous with the universe.

Well i don't know that. I've already explained to you what would help me decide.

Mr_Anony:
Your argument here just got worse. I have satisfied your request. the electron is an entity yes, the electron does not constitute of elaborately interconnected parts yes. (Those are enough to make it an exception to the rule)

No you haven't. The electron is not really an entity in the way that say a chair can be considered an entity. It exhibits features of both a wave and a particle. If you wish to assert that it is an entity, then I'll simply assert that it is a wave.

Mr_Anony:
Based on my argument, does this mean that the electron is not designed? It doesn't follow. much like saying all men are mortal does not automatically mean that all that are not men are immortal.

Please come up with a better contention or accept the argument.

Though since you've proposed the electron, you're saying that it is either intelligently designed or it isn't intelligently designed. Now which is it? And why?

I see that you're still yet to answer this same question that I've been posing for a long while now. Here it is again.

thehomer:
How do you decide that an entity "works according to a systematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts"?

If I presented you with an entity that "works according to a systematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts" would you say that it too is intelligently designed?

the books in the Bible were written by different men over the course of many years and it aligns perfectly which shows that there is someone who transcends time that authored the writing the writing of those books, what are the odds that many things in this book has happened thus far when they are well documented

pak:


and I think that's the essence of a thread such as this.

You have the opportunity to explain where from the atheist view point the world sprung out from so that we can stop speculating . . .or am I missing something about the definition of an atheist

Dude, does any human have answer for that? It is like asking the Theist where their creator sprung from. Please, stop pointing to Atheist to find you answer of what is bothering you as Theist. We can only point to reality not imaginable world full of speculations. What Atheist is about are reality and reasonable ideas which point to facts!

tevinsolt: the books in the Bible were written by different men over the course of many years and it aligns perfectly which shows that there is [b]someone who transcends time [/b]that authored the writing the writing of those books, what are the odds that many things in this book has happened thus far when they are well documented

That same one keeps hiding from his creation because he thinks they will harm him or he will harm them? Who is now silly among both?

tevinsolt: the books in the Bible were written by different men over the course of many years and it aligns perfectly which shows that there is someone who transcends time that authored the writing the writing of those books, what are the odds that many things in this book has happened thus far when they are well documented

By what means do you know the authors or their motives? Do you suggest a divine source compiled the Bible?

all4naija: He is right and you are wrong. The fittest survives not the strongest!

i never mentioned strongest i said fittest but he decided to bring it up but nevertheless they go hand in hand

tevinsolt:
lmaooo fittest not the strongest.....actually "strong" fits into term "fittest" a child pointing a gun at an elderly is not a situation of who is strong or not but the case of two men with varying strengths competing for food or water tell me who wins

In that case, the greater strength has an advantage. But in another scenario as who is likelier to survive a famine btw a slim small man and a muscular huge man, the smaller guy has the advantage. Fit varies to circumstances.

tevinsolt:
i never mentioned strongest i said fittest but he decided to bring it up but nevertheless they go hand in hand

Okay! I thought you agreed with the strongest survives idea because they(the fittest and strongest) are just different things, generally.

Uyi Iredia:



There is no need for any criteria of any kind. All we need to know is that there is a considerable amount of interacting components.

By that reasoning, a volcano lava flow is intelligently designed. Would you agree?

Uyi Iredia:
This doesn't appropiately reply my statement. I pointed out something that could be used as evidence and all you do is ask non-sequiturs.

It is not a non-sequitur. If there was never a state of nothingness, then your question is pointless.

Uyi Iredia:
People can REPLY statemants. I said time is abstract I never said it always existed. I note that you still fail to answer the statement about God being a necessity.

While I can respond to a statement, I cannot answer a statement. Let's be clear. When we're talking about time, we're talking about it with respect to how it is used in physics so don't start equivocating.

Uyi Iredia:
Come clean. Are you subtly trying to say my point was useless ?

No I'm asking you if consciousness makes sense to you without a physical component.

Uyi Iredia:
You should know the main one. The one by Aquinas. Now answer it.

Why don't you simply state it? I don't want to start guessing at what you're trying to say.

Uyi Iredia:
You'll have to state them again. I do not have the time to go searching them out.

thehomer:
Computers and phones have groups of makers so are you proposing multiple Gods or just one? Then the fatal flaw of that claim is that humans are nothing like computers or phones.

all4naija: Dude, does any human have answer for that? It is like asking the Theist where their creator sprung from. Please, stop pointing to Atheist to find you answer of what is bothering you as Theist. We can only point to reality not imaginable world full of speculations. What Atheist is about are reality and reasonable ideas which point to facts!

Please be patient with me all4Nig,
I thought you must have read the responses I made to you in the previous page but apparently you didn't.

I made this point in my 2nd post

You see a lot of atheist argue that burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism but I totally disagree, it cuts both ways. The only group that can shift that responsibility is the agnostics.


Sincerely, my bro (from my perspective). Your statements move you closer to an agnostic than an atheist. correct me if am wrong.
Cos for me if someone tells the theist, that he beleives that there is no god. The first response he should naturally expect is 'then what is the SOURCE of all existence. I really don't know why you sound surprised by my questions

Uyi Iredia:

I'm pointing out that the progress first started with a realization that God created order & harmony when he designed the universe and that we could use organized science as a tool to inquiring into his creation. Christianity was the religion which bounded most of the people who founded the sciences which we now know today. When you talk of present day methodological naturalism you are simply moving into the 19th century when it gained its stronghold.

You'll still be committing the genetic fallacy if your conclusion is that science progresses today because some 17^th century scientists believed in some God.

pak:


and I think that's the essence of a thread such as this.

You have the opportunity to explain where from the atheist view point the world sprung out from so that we can stop speculating . . .or am I missing something about the definition of an atheist

Reality itself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for reality, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore reality is self existent. As a result subjects of reality are equally self existent either potentially or in actuality.

The appearance of designs and orderliness is directly attributable to the Universe's personality, which may be called physical laws which we in turn are compelled by necessity to follow. That's why our cars follow the relevant laws of motion, our houses gravity, and our inventions are more or less discoveries of how the Universe accommodates our ideas.

In order words, it has always being here

Kay 17:

Reality itself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for reality, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore reality is self existent. As a result subjects of reality are equally self existent either potentially or in actuality.

The appearance of designs and orderliness is directly attributable to the Universe's personality, which may be called physical laws which we in turn are compelled by necessity to follow. That's why our cars follow the relevant laws of motion, our houses gravity, and our inventions are more or less discoveries of how the Universe accommodates our ideas.

In order words, it has always being here

God bless you my brother, That was the clearest I've ever heard an atheist try to place his/her position without resorting to anger (you know the 'bolekaja' mentality). Really we should have a drink or two together sometimes cos definitely Nland won't suffice to trash this out. . . .

Anyway before I post my rebuttal, I'll like to know if my friend all4nig (who is patriotic to his country but not loyal to God, sounds odd - but then I digress) agrees with your postulation.
SO all4nig, pls are you there ?

all4naija: That same one keeps hiding from his creation because he thinks they will harm him or he will harm them? Who is now silly among both?

now ya starting to sound like a kid........ he is holy and he cannot behold sin he left his glory and dwelt among men so that we could be washed and be able to grace his presence and you are here saying he is hiding from his creations? what an absurd thing to say, wake up my man!

pak:


I made two previous post on the thread (page 2) and I agree the third post will only make sense if seen as a continuation of the other ones. You can check them

You may misunderstand. I read them, but can't see any good points there.
From the way you write I'm taking you assume yourself an intelligent person. Don't know you, but I'm going to go with this assumption. To save time, I will make another as well.

pak:
Its easier to believe in David Blaine's magic than to believe everything we see just came out of nothing (haba !)

Is god complex? I assume you think so.
What made god?

pak:
You see a lot of atheist argue that burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism but I totally disagree, it cuts both ways. The only group that can shift that responsibility is the agnostics.

In fact, as far as I am concerned the position of the atheist requires a far more larger set of assumptions, irrationality and blind belief than almost all the religions of the world. Ironic huh

The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. Simple. We atheists sit in our houses minding our business then some theist comes in and tells us $deity says that we, or our friends and family, cannot get married to the person we love. Why? Because $deity. Or they kill diplomats because a film violates rules laid out in their book of fairy tales (yes, really, years from now our descendants will wonder what in the universe possessed us) written 1400 years, on the authority of said $deity. Note how these 'crimes' do not hurt said theists in anyway. It is now the burden of the theist to prove sky (well now he hides beyond the big b.ang) tyrant exists. They are the ones making the claim, and using these completely unfounded, no evidence whatsoever, claims to discriminate, persecute, kill etc.
If they don't justify their claims that would be a blatant disregard for human rights, no?

wiegraf:
From the way you write I'm taking you assume yourself an intelligent person. Don't know you, but I'm going to go with this assumption. To save time, I will make another as well.

I don't know what to make of this statement, sounds derogatory to me. I think there was no need to include that, you should have just gone ahead to make your point.

wiegraf:
The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. Simple. We atheists sit in our houses minding our business then some theist comes in and tells us $deity says that we, or our friends and family, cannot get married to the person we love. Why? Because $deity. Or they kill diplomats because a film violates rules laid out in their book of fairy tales (yes, really, years from now our descendants will wonder what in the universe possessed us) written 1400 years, on the authority of said $deity. Note how these 'crimes' do not hurt said theists in anyway. It is now the burden of the theist to prove sky (well now he hides beyond the big b.ang) tyrant exists. They are the ones making the claim, and using these completely unfounded, no evidence whatsoever, claims to discriminate, persecute, kill etc.
If they don't justify their claims that would be a blatant disregard for human rights, no?

First off, why are you putting a dollar sign before deity ? Are you a PHP programmer
C++ programmers believe in God, PHP programmers dont. No wonder you write shitty codes (Ok, I digress . . . )

Sincerely bro, Its my turn to ask 'What's your point ?'
We are not here to talk about the behaviour of those that believe in God or why they kill diplomats or tell you not to marry or even God's nature for that matter. We can always pick them up on another day.
The bone of contention on this thread is the issue of the 'existence of God'.

So pls lets try and stick to the topic just like Kay did, which I appreciate.

wiegraf:
The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. Simple.

Kay pls help me out (You seem to be like one of the most intelligent here) but I think in my own little way and in the simplest of definitions that Atheist are ppl who claim that God does not exist as in they do not believe in the existence of dieties.(or am I gettin somethin wrong ?)

Kay, Pls can you do me a favour,

Just replace the word reality with God in your statement below and see what you get

Kay 17:

Reality itself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for reality, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore reality is self existent. As a result subjects of reality are equally self existent either potentially or in actuality.


In order words, it has always being here

Infact, I'll do it for you.

Kay 17:

God Himself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for God, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore God is self existent.


In order words, God has always being here

If its not difficult to believe in the self existent nature of reality, then why is it strange to believe in the self existence of a deity.

That's because reality is a background.

God is only useful as a creator

Kay 17: That's because reality is a background.

God is only useful as a creator

Lets not get beyond ourselves here. As far as Theism is concerned, there is a large spectrum. You can't lump all theist belief into one aside from the basis that all matter in the Universe came from ONE SOURCE.

How that SOURCE gave rise to other existence and the visible world is another issue.
Whether the source is omnipotent or omniscient, or is actively involved in/influences the affairs of the universe is as I said earlier is a topic for another day

pak:
The only thing surmise is that there is really no true Atheist (maybe save the mad men under the bridge).

In fact, as far as I am concerned the position of the atheist requires a far more larger set of assumptions, irrationality and blind belief than almost all the religions of the world. Ironic

Are you implying I'm a mad under the bridge hypocrite? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Is that meant to be derogatory?

pak:
I don't know what to make of this statement, sounds derogatory to me. I think there was no need to include that, you should have just gone ahead to make your point.

It was meant to be derogatory, but you took it well so I'll give you points for that.


This is what is in the op:
"Let's discuss atheism vs deism. Merits and logic of both sides . If some theists would like to chip in their own two cents, they are free, however buzugee, rastamouse and snthesis(for a different reason than the other two) can watch from the sidelines. If Davidylan wants to join in, he'd better be civil. Okay 3,2,1, let the games begin!!!"

pak:
The bone of contention on this thread is the issue of the 'existence of God'

I think this thread is about comparing the logic of both atheism, deism. 'existence of God' is related, but not the main topic.

You took it to

pak:
You see a lot of atheist argue that burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism but I totally disagree, it cuts both ways.

Certainly not related to the topic, maybe indirectly though. Anyway, you have brought the "burden of proof" to the fore.
I respond with a post about the burden of proof, complete with examples to show why the claimant is the one who has back up his assertions, then you do this.

pak:
Sincerely bro, Its my turn to ask 'What's your point ?'
We are not here to talk about the behaviour of those that believe in God or why they kill diplomats or tell you not to marry or even God's nature for that matter. We can always pick them up on another day..

There is more, but I'll leave it here, for now...

And if you're a programmer need you ask about the $?