chemystery:
Say no to theism. Say no to an evil god that kills his own creation
Their evil god was the first in history to solely carry out mass murder.

But they prefer to look the other way and shove that under the carpet. Wicked god shepherding wicked and biased set of fraudsters

The view that god/gods is/are evil is dystheism NOT Theism .

Please carry your ignorance commot from here .

felixomor:


Try to address the topic of the thread.

Lol . He understands that addressing the thread means agreeing atheism is a false belief , evil and dogmatic . . Look at him throwing red herrings upandan . Trying to distract us .

This thread is still inchoate . Poor Network

Please bear with me

Post 3

Atheism is a false belief ! Logic and reason has destroyed atheism !


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0&t=32s



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPCzEP0oD7I&t=36s


Evolution does not disprove God ... NOTHING DOES !!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOJRSmrrM0o

Atheism is Dogmatic ! And Atheists are not people who are open-minded


Let us now look at the standard dogmatic atheist statements earlier presented in this essay and see how each is flawed and unscientific.

A There is no scientific evidence for a Creator.

B Science proves there is no Creator.

C All things have naturalistic explanations.

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR A CREATOR is a scientifically inept statement. Science assumes all things have naturalistic explanations in accord with Occam’s Razor. Claims that science has found no evidence for a Creator implies that scientists are engaged in research to prove or disprove a Creator. Dogmatic atheists peddling this slogan open themselves up to a simple question that exposes their ignorance and presumptions: What scientific research going on now is specifically looking for evidence of a Creator? (The answer is none.)

SCIENCE PROVES THERE IS NO CREATOR is not only scientifically inept but stupid. Since science is not attempting to prove or disprove a Creator and there is no scientific research being done based on such a hypothesis, then science is proving nothing that justifies such an outlandish statement. It is no surprise that the proponents of this particular slogan become extremely defensive when asked to share this “proof” that there is no Creator. Dogmatic atheists repeatedly fall back to claiming, like the cynics they are, that they have no Burden of Proof although they claimed they have proof. The irony here is that if they had such proof, then it would be easy to prove it, so why the defensive emotional anger? The answer is self-evident, the dogmatic atheist was called on his bluff, and like a poor card player cannot maintain his cool. The intellectual hypocrisy to claim on one hand that science proves something and to become defensive and not explain how science proves it is the product of an immature and emotional mind, and such people are the ones who give science a bad name in many circles. While the dogmatic theist will hide his own ignorance and intolerance behind largely misrepresented scripture, the same holds true for the dogmatic atheist who hides behind misrepresented science. Although the dogmatic atheist will claim they have no Burden of Proof because negatives cannot be proven, the opposite is true. An affirmative statement that something can be proven not to exist is workable. The statement that science proves there is no Creator can be demonstrated if the Creator is defined in a falsifiable way and the definition shown to be fundamentally flawed. This paper will now put forward just such a definition and an examination of the definition in light of modern scientific findings. If science proves the definition flawed, then that definition is invalid.

Definition: The Creator is defined as the creator of the physical universe and the originator of biological life.

Such a definition avoids the abstractions so common in theological definitions. The above definition contains two parts and both can prove a Creator does not exist if scientific naturalistic explanations can be produced. Remember one works within the definition.

If natural forces triggered the Big Bang, then that part of the definition of the Creator being the creator of the physical universe would be refuted. Unfortunately for the dogmatic atheist, no such explanation or demonstration exists; the present Big Bang Theory, although helpful, is not the final word. What happened before the Big Bang is based solely on speculation, and it is this unknown region leading up to the Big Bang that is open to speculation -- it is here that there is room for the intervention of a Creator.

There are many unanswered, and possibly unanswerable, questions concerning the Big Bang, here are a few:

a) What conditions existed before the Big Bang?

b) Where did the energy and matter that existed before the Big Bang come from?

c) What triggered the Big Bang?

d) How and why did the universe expand?

The Big Bang was a singularity, where the laws of nature do not exist; as such, there is no naturalistic explanation and that leaves room for a Creator.

If the self-replicating molecule can be produced which triggered life and natural selection, then the second part of the definition of the Creator being the originator of life would be refuted.

Although one hears that one cannot prove a negative, the fact remains that negatives can be proven by invalidating evidence. All that is needed is a hypothesis, model, theory, or a mere statement to be invalidated. Invalidating evidence is evidence that contradicts a hypothesis, model, theory, or statement. This can be cleared up with an example: if someone claimed there was a graveyard under his new lawn, then this claim can be either validated or invalidated by digging up the lawn. Finding nothing would be invalidating evidence. Depending on how one defines a Creator, there is no invalidating evidence against the possibility of such an entity.

ALL THINGS HAVE NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS is an equally inept statement. There is far more unknown than known about nature as any scientist will state for the record. There are plenty of things without explanations. For example, the origin of the Big Bang and the origin of life are rooted in speculation. How does a Big Bang happen? How did life begin? What was the first self-replicating molecule? What was it composed of? These are just a few of the legion of unanswered questions in science and to claim that all things have naturalistic explanations is to expose one’s scientific ignorance.

Carl Sagan wrote the following concerning the question of atheism, God, and science:

An [dogmatic] atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists…."

http://www.deism.com/dogmaticatheism.htm

Evil atheism .

Atheism begat malevolence , Atheists gloat over misfortunes of people who believe in God

Here is a thread showing atheists worldwide calling for the massacre of people who believe in God

https://www.nairaland.com/3176513/atheist-murderers-past-present-murderous


Have you wondered why atheists never congratulate your on your testimonies ? They always criticize your testimonies about God's goodness in your life. And anytime anyone who believes in God shares his grief about his misfortunes , atheists come in their numbers to mock and ridicule you and the unfortunate predicament you are facing . This is because of their unbelief in the existence of God . They believe life is meaningless and purposeless that's why they celebrate when you are miserable because they don't want you to be happy .

Please beware of this evil and false belief called atheism ! It is dangerous ! It can destroy you !

Beware !

Bigotry ! Bigotry !! Bigotry !!! Atheism begat Bigotry !

Atheists are very bigoted . They are intolerant of your beliefs . They have been asked to mock and ridicule people who believe in God .

Here is Richard Dawkins calling on atheists to mock and ridicule people who believe in God



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51rR4aC9aMg




This is a blatant display of bigotry . Why are these people filled with so much hatred and anger ?

Atheism is Inherently Evil , Very Evil

1. No Good , No Evil : Atheism is responsible for the most evil and nefarious acts in the world . Atheists believe that since there is no God , there is no right and wrong .

Even Richard Dawkins has openly stated that in an atheist's world which does not involve God , there can't be good and evil , He said :

"So, in a world without God, there can be “… no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

2. Subjective Morality is Dangerous Atheists subscribe to a dangerous type of morality , the subjective morality . With subjective morality , atheist mass murderers justified their wicked acts against humanity . Any wicked act can be justified because morality is viewed from a personal perspective . It is arbitrary most times .



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU&t=133s




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiw8GB3cZ5M



3. Inherently Evil Ideologies Inherently evil ideologies were founded by atheists due to their unbelief in the existence of God . Here are 4 common ideologies invented by atheists :

A Nihilism : This sees life as having no meaning , without purpose . It views the world as irrational and absurd . Atheists subscribe to this worldview. Nihilists who are atheists are responsible for the disruption of social order , iconoclasm etc . Nihilists are liable to commit suicide . They also have a strong impulsion to destroy and rebel against authority

A Communism : Communists governments hated people who believed in God . They tortured , persecuted and destroyed the lives of mostly Christians .

C Marxism : The founder , Karl Marx believes that before any revolution occurs there must be bloodshed .

D Juche Ideology The Juche Ideology was developed by the North Koreans and has been used against people who believe in the existence of God . Due to this Ideology founded based on the belief there is no God , people who believe in God has been subjected to abhorrent torture and horrible deaths . According to various media reports , there are death camps scattered accross North Korea where despicable acts are being committed against mostly Christians .

You can visit this site to see the abominable acts atheists do to Christians due to their belief in God : http://www.northkoreanchristians.com/

dalaman:



Stay in one place. Stop calling deist. God is immanent yet immaterial? Isn't that a contradiction ?

How is it a contradiction ?

ScepticalPyrrho:
Rationalism is an old concept. You can't rely on an the abstract for proof of God's existence.

Do you forget what existence means?

I can imagine anything thanks to our complex brains. But does that make objects of my imagination real?

What you know as against what you conceive in the mind isn't the same. The human mind can do better than Yahweh if you want a fantasy contest.

Rationalism doesn't make you know a god. It only helps you create one in your head.

Empiricism is as old as rationalism . I think its older than rationalism because people have always depended on their senses which is in fact prone to errors .

Rationalism involves making deductions too and when we deduce , we are not creating imaginations we are simply drawing conclusions from already known facts .

dalaman:


I don't want to appeal to authority, else I can also drop many scientist and their theories which suggest that the universe is eternal and ask you to disprove it. I am not here for a game. You just gave reasons why you disagree with his position that the universe did not create itself. You didn't disprove his claims. Am very sure if I present your objections to him, he will counter them.

Models for an entire universe have no evidence to back them up . So there is nothing to rebut . Its as simple as that .

Will there ever be a time where the universe will cease to exist and there will be absolutely nothing? Yes or no?

I don't know from science's perspective . But it does not affect my argument . Apparently , the question is a red herring .

hopefulLandlord:


Dr. Sean Carrol is a good example

You mean after he openly admitted that his model of an eternal universe has no evidence to support and that observational data point to a finite universe ? Why didn't he object Stephen Hawking's statement : Laws of physics predict that the universe had a beginning .

Atheists are just thriving in criticism and then ignorance of some people . You say things and hope your interlocutor does not understand or is not cognizant of your claims . Pathetic .

dalaman:


You did on that thread, but you refused to do so on the other one.

You just defined God as nothing.

If God is immaterial then how does he have material attributes? For example you claim that he communicates with people allegedly, he even speaks with some. Many say that they hear his audible voice. These are material things. Speaking is a material act. Voice is material. How is your God immaterial but then exhibit material tendencies?

I have told you so many times about theophanies - the visible or material manifestation of God . As we see in the bible : the burning bush , the pillar of cloud , the pillar of fire , the divine visitation to Abraham etc .

Also , God is omnipotent and immanent . God's immanence makes it possible for It to manifest and encompass the material world . God's immanence made it possible for the unification of the divine Nature and Human nature in the person of Jesus Christ . That also makes it possible for God to dwell in us and communicate to us through any means . Some deists reject this attribute of God that's they believe God does not intervene in the affairs of the universe or humans .

dalaman:


You don't know for a fact that the universe began to exist. It is just a hypothesis. There is no consensuous on that even among scientist. Famous Cosmologist when asked as a matter of fact if the ubiverse began to exist have stated that they don't know for sure if the universe began to exist as a mater of fact or not. They just say that they don't know if the universe began to exist or is eternal.



Give me an example of something in nature that you have ever seen began to exist originally as a matter of fact. Have you witnessed the universe began to exist? What about life? Have you seen life began to exist from its origin? What about stars? Have you witnessed any star begin to exist? How then do you know that they have a cause since you've never witnessed them come.into existence? Why make bogus assumptionsover what you've never witnessed? That you have an assumption which you feel is an answer doesn't make it true.

With science , we have determined the age of the universe .

For the one millionth time , prove that Stephen Hawking is false about a finite universe here .

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

I was able to disprove his claim that the universe created Itself with reasons . So I'm waiting for your reason .

If the universe is not eternal then when will it end? Will there ever be a time when everything will dissappear and there will be nothing?

Because we can't ascertain the time the universe will cease to exist does not mean its eternal . Because I don't know when you will cease to exist , does it make you eternal ?

You have conveniently avoided my refutation of an eternal universe with a cavil , a very petty objection . A blatant red herring as we will surely see in your next post .

chemystery:

So after this long epistle you can't prove to me that a substance called whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua does not exist. If you can't, or are sure it doesn't exist because i have not defined it or tried to prove it does exists, then the onus is on you to prove god's existence first but i was disappointed not finding any within this long epistle

Read the post and rebut . I rebutted your post by posting the right analogy . You have not refuted that post and the latest post to you . Its obvious that you have nothing reasonable to say just like your ilks .

Atheist logic : Evade logical thought that disproves my foolishness and use to the pooh pooh fallacy as a way of escape .

dalaman:


Our ignorance is God. Someone here said God is the process that started the universe. I once asked KingEbukasBlog to define God and he ran away. He refused to define God. He doesn't want to use the traditional christian definition because he knows it will be taken down.

Liar oshi !

I defined God on this thread which you made over 50 posts
https://www.nairaland.com/3553021/conclusion-atheism-illogical-atheist-delusion

hopefulLandlord:


it is called fallacy of composition

The universe as a whole began to exist . Are you back to insecure mode where you just name a random fallacy to appear like you understand the discussion ?

hopefulLandlord:
also notice how Kingebuka used the word "Creator" and "God"? using them as though they mean the same thing, its a sleight of hand trick

The appellation of the creator is God .

dalaman:


You are only making assumptions that the universe must have a creator because humans have the ability to create things. It is only o that basis that you assume that the universe must also have a creator. The glucose isnt a human society and it isn't meant to behave as such. What if all yor assumptions about the universe is totally wrong? As a theist out want the universe to act in a certain way and if it doesn't then it must have a creator. Brilliant reasoning.

It has always been cause-effect , that means it is possible that something would not exist ; if infinite regress of causes is possible , then there will be no universe . And something can't come from nothing . But we have the universe which began to exist , therefore the universe has a cause . Thankfully , this brilliant reasoning that led to the ever tenable Cosmological Argument .

1. Whatever began to exist must have a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore , the universe has a cause .

The universe is not eternal . Everything including energy came into existence in the big bang . And if you think that the universe has existed in different forms from past infinitude , you have provide a reason for this behavior from the eternal past , and how information was being passed from one form to another . That means our universe (U-A) has an explanation , its precursor (U-B) has an explanation , U-C till U-∞ and science is defeated . Evidently , it is pure madness to even assert that the universe is eternal . And this method is super-complex , so we need the obvious : Occam's razor . Choosing a more simple explanation which is God : A simple eternal being , an agent of causation .

dalaman:


Man deducing what he feel is a creator remains man's idea and invention. Until the creator come forward and tells man about itself assuming there is one or more creators that assumption remains a man made one.

Like someone told you that in the first page , you will only make assumptions of what you expect the creator to do and if the creator does not do it , it becomes evident that God does not exist ? Have you been drinking sir ? .

What if you are wrong about the creator ? You as an atheist want the creator to be a certain way , and if the creator is not that way , therefore the creator does not exist ?

Brilliant reasoning sir !

chemystery:
I know you are good with badmouthing, please, i'm not good in that. Why not use more superior analysis to debunk my analogy instead of badmouthing as a defense mechanism. If you can't, can't you just pass by. Gerrit?

Ebuka prove that a substance called whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua does not exists. Is it not my duty to define whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua, then prove it's existence before asking you to prove it doesn't exist?
The onus probandi remains on the theist to prove god's existence.

Your analogy was simply false . I gave you a proper analogy devoid of sentiment . Both groups have their part to play in providing reasons why they think there is or there is no God .

If I say that "whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua " is a word in English language , you can prove that "whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua " is not a word in English language using an English Dictionary (latest version) . I can prove that my books are not made of stone tablets .

Stephen Hawking claimed God does not exist because the universe created itself -this is his reason . The simple rebuttal is that something cannot create itself , a logical absurdity .

Some atheists claim that laws of physics caused the existence of the universe and everything came from natural processes . But laws do not create anything , they simply describe what happens under certain conditions .

Some atheists claim the universe is eternal as a way of explaining away God with no evidence . And they still can't explain how an eternal universe precludes infinite regress and the existence of God . They cannot provide any logical explanation to how God couldn't have co-existed with the universe from past infinitude .

These are atheists who have attempted to prove there is no God . And they have failed and will continue failing woefully because you cannot explain the universe without a creator . You can't explain the existence of laws without a law maker . You can't explain the existence of a contingent entity without a non-contingent necessarily existing entity .

Its like trying to explain that thoughts can exist without a mind or that codes can exist without a programmer . Isn't that ludicrous ?

ScepticalPyrrho:
You need to take a class on Logical Reasoning.

This has nothing to do with my post . This a vacuous empty cop-out .

All what you atheists do is to regurgitate nonsense from atheist websites . You support empiricism , I support rationalism . Rationalism has depth because it can logically delve into realms our senses can't decipher .

CatfishBilly:

Wow. Bro.
Savage, you are.
No chill, you have.
Sheesh!!!!

Another proof that you are no doctor , just a google specialist . Attention Deficit Disorder has nothing to do with attention seeking .

Duck-sound doctor !

chemystery:

You are busy faulting my analogy. I only gave you a general overview maybe i should break it down further.
Before the cause of lightning was known, the theist said Zeus was the cause of lightning but the atheist said he doesnt know the cause neither does the theist. But there is no proof of zeus causing lightning. What the atheeist dont know is what causes lightening but he knows really well what could cause it can never be a god. And this we know today.

I was shocked you went further to say Z doesnt exist. Bro that is an analogy and you dont expect it to cover precisely everything concerning the god argument. The essence of the analogy is to let you know this: that i don't know the value of Z doesnt mean i can't detect a wrong value of Z when i see it base on existing mathematical logic. Going further to say that since there are three unknowns, then the solution cannot be determined with existing equations. Even if there is an existing solution by substituting arbitrary odd values, i can never get an even number. All these maths logic gives me the authority to disprove and debunk any answer except you prove logically beyond iota of doubt.

Theists: I dont know the solution but i feel it's 50

Atheist: I don't know the solution, but all mathematical logic points that it can NEVER be 50 or any even number. And since Mr. Theist cannot prove that it is 50 using any existing or non-existing mathematical logic, then I strongly conclude it is NOT 50!

Continue your dumb false analogies .

Theism : x+ y = z

Atheism : x+y = p

Both groups have to provide proof that x+y = p or z . If sum is p , provide proof ; if sum is z , provide proof .

dalaman:


You've just proven my case that God is a man made idea and creation . To you God is the process through which everything started. That is an idea and conception that you just created from your mind. You also admit that there are different concepts and definitions of God which is true because God is a man made creation and idea, that is why there are different conceptions of God, all made by men based of different reasons.

Your arguments are so poor and irrational . Man deducing a creator's existence does not mean that man created God . With your logic , since man created the idea that God does not exist , therefore God exists .

dalaman:


Do you have evidence to show that extra terrestrial life exist? Yes or no? I don't have time for endless assumptions. Of you have evidence point to it if arguments and not evidence is what you have then move along.

You claimed that I don't argue straight and it seems yours have interwoven curves . Continue .

CoolUsername:


I've given you my stance on this matter. You think otherwise, show me - with this easy example - how it can be done.

You accuse me of using evasion tactics when you clearly evaded my first question. Kind of seems like a ploy to evade this one. I don't think it's possible to prove a non-existence, while you do, so why can't you do it?

I gave you names of people who did so . They are highly respected by atheists . Follow their footsteps and provide your own reasons . I'm waiting

CoolUsername:


If you feel that it is, then prove the non-existence of Superman.

Evasive tactics . Please can you provide reasons or evidence to why you believe God does not exist . Let's scrutinize them . Stephen Hawking's IQ could be double of yours and he gave his reasons why he believes there is no God . Richard Dawkins has his own reasons . All their reasons have been criticized and thrown into the trash can where they belong .

Please provide yours and stop wasting our time .

dalaman:


Show that extra terrestrials exist or be quiet.

No sir . Don't evade the question . Does this mean extra terrestrial life does not exist simply because we have arguments for and against its existence ?

dalaman:


If God exist we won't have arguments for or against.

There are arguments for or against the existence of aliens . Dalaman , does this mean extraterrestrial life does not exist ?

Your argument is so poor , I can't believe you actually think this is a good argument . Its shallow thinking bro , stay away from it . Oh and again , you are an atheist , no wonder you embrace it .

CoolUsername:
I only lack belief in the existence of God due to the absence of evidence.

I also lack the belief in the non existence of God due to absence of evidence .

This is a blatant repulsive abuse of logical thinking , an appeal to ignorance .

CoolUsername:
PS: Stop using your alt account to like and share your posts.

Dalaman follows this account , ask him if I'm doing that .