|
|
|
skyone (m)
|
Therationa, Therationa, Therationa, how many times have i typed ur name, i suppose 3.
Please for life safe, stop waisting all your precious energy and time reading vague and rubbish books produces by demonic poeple, you may run mental. Joke apart, i'm serious.
It's of no benefit to your life, concentrate on how you will leave this world and make Heaven. I talk my own o
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seun (m)
|
What makes the book demonic?  |
|
|
|
|
|
JeSoul (f)
|
What makes the book demonic? what skyone's saying is any that book that denounces the Lordship and sovereingty of God almighty is anti-christ and therefore of the devil. . . Anyways therationa all we christians in here can do for you now is to pray and hope that your eyes may be opened to the truth of the gospel. It seems to me like you're trying so hard to not believe in something you know deep down to be right. because knowledge of God is inherent in every single human being, it's just that some have refused and rejected this knowledge. and others have "reasoned" themselves away from it. |
|
|
|
|
|
imhotep
|
These authors are free to write.
We are also free not to read what they have written.
When they question God, their own authority automatically comes into doubt. Point one finger, three fingers point back at you!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
4Him (m)
|
these books are counter productive to those who write them. They simply solidify the belief that christianity is THE TRUTH and is thus a grave danger to the machinations of the devil.
I wonder why there are no books on de-converting from i.slam or buddhism or ogun worshipping. Could it be that the spiritual emptiness of those religions pose no threat to the kingdom of darkness?
You can only fight the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
therationa (m)
|
4HIM, I think you are mistaken yet again. Some of these books have attracted a huge following not least in the USA. Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" was in the New York Times bestsellers list for more than 52 weeks - a major record for any book. It was No 1 for many weeks as well. Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens's books have also done very well on sales and have help galvanized the voices of the irreverent in USA and the world. The godless are now finding their voices and are no longer prepared to be pushed into a corner by the superstitionists. The population of the godless in the USA is about 15 - 20 million. This is a minority but still a very large number and rising all the time. On the questions of books about de-converting from i-slam, I know of a few; here we go; Ibn Warraq "Why I am not a M-uslim" http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-Not-Great One/dp/1591020115/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202811053&sr=8-1 Ayaan Hirsi Ali "Infidel" http://www.amazon.com/Infidel-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali/dp/0743289692/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202811925&sr=1-1 |
|
|
|
|
|
imhotep
|
@therationa
Are you looking for a way to ultimately justify homosexuality, like bawomol or bawomolo???
|
|
|
|
|
|
therationa (m)
|
Imhotep,
Was homosexuality mentioned anywhere on this thread? We are talking about BOOKS, if you have not got the drift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
imhotep
|
Imhotep,
Was homosexuality mentioned anywhere on this thread? We are talking about BOOKS, if you have not got the drift.
It is precisely these BOOKS (and other documents with similar ideas) that homosexuals use to defend their position. That is why I wonder where exactly you are heading to. One question -> Why does anybody have to believe these authors??? |
|
|
|
|
|
therationa (m)
|
Imhotep, Whilst "Homosexuality" is another subject, I challenge you to tell me which of this books is SPECIFICALLY about homosexuality. The titles are a clue.  Just like ANY books on the market YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BELIEVE THEM. If you have a free unadulterated mind you should be able to assess them for the merits (or otherwise) they contain. Any more than no one has to believe in the bible (or koran etc) Hopefully, believe should derive from OBJECTIVE analysis of the books. |
|
|
|
|
|
imhotep
|
Imhotep, Whilst "Homosexuality" is another subject, I challenge you to tell me which of this books is SPECIFICALLY about homosexuality. The titles are a clue. Just like ANY books on the market YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BELIEVE THEM. If you have a free unadulterated mind you should be able to assess them for the merits (or otherwise) they contain. Any more than no one has to believe in the bible (or koran etc) Hopefully, believe should derive from OBJECTIVE analysis of the books. I will not go into any argument with you. Neither will I read any of those books. God is not True because we believe in Him. We believe in Him because He is True. |
|
|
|
|
|
stimulus (m)
|
I notice my initial posts in this thread have been deleted. No worries - it confirms a sneaking suspicion that the "godless" are simply restless. The reason why I initially made reference to Anthony Flew's book ' There IS A God' was not so much to push for the debate in favour of the Christian worldview of theism. I didn't want to carry an argument forward on this thread - and that was why I 'complied' with the initial request to not further a discussion thereto. The whole point was to show you that Anthony Flew himself as a celebrated (former) atheist could not rationally sustain his denial of the theistic worldview. For him, the figures just do not add up to hold an atheistic ideology. However, rather than see our (i.e., the Christian) presence here as a threat, it may help to discuss (or at least make observations to) the recommendations listed in the original post. Simply put, they are what some atheists themselves have described as "militant/fundamentalist atheism" - and that was why I recommended Anthony Flew as a direct answer to such a mindset. If you truly know the authors in your list (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, et al), you'd have a pretty good idea of what I posited. It is not so much that these chaps try to favour sanity in their intellectual exercises; rather and above all, they have an unwritten code of ethics - the "unethical" brashness to reason unscientifically against the legitimacy of religious (more specifically, "Christian") convictions. That is why imhotep's question is a necessary question to be addressed by those who seek to congregate themselves as disciples of Richard Dawkins et al. Nonetheless, these gentlemen may have remained on the bestsellers' for a while - until apologetical publications were offered to the public reader to highlight the gaps in these celebrated atheists' arguments. I have just enjoyed two by Alister McGrath: (a) Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life  (b) The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine  These are direct responses to Dawkin's grievances against Christianity; and when you peruse McGrath's responses, you would feel very sorry for Dawkins. Of course, this is not my attempt to directly challenge your effort here; but like imhotep asks: " Why does anybody have to believe these authors?" Why these authors in particular? Do I suspect that atheism really has problems with itself since these authors have given themselves largely to argue against Christianity (rather than "religion")? Dear therationa, you would have to admit just one thing: your efforts have not been about examining the claims of "religion". Like every other apprentice atheist (or atheistically-inclined person), your problem has been with Christianity, rather than with " religion". The amazing thing is that when Christians have invited you to a rational and spirited discussion based on your own assumptions, your threads quickly die off prematurely. |
|
|
|
|
|
therationa (m)
|
Why are you guys getting hot under-the-colar (pun intended ). I was simply advertising some irreverent books for people interested in finding out the alternatives to god-belief. I was not making any slurs or accusations on anyone. So I think you guys have missed the point. between Stimulus, you posted about Flew earlier, not on this thread, but on my other thread about resources for non-believers. |
|
|
|
|
|
waleab
|
God is not True because we believe in Him. We believe in Him because He is True[/size][size=8pt][size=8pt][/size]. brilliaaaaaaaaaaaaant. i rest my case |
|
|
|
|
|
stimulus (m)
|
@therationa, Why are you guys getting hot under-the-colar (pun intended ). Ha!  I don't think the responses so far should be interpreted that way. I was simply advertising some irreverent books for people interested in finding out the alternatives to god-belief. I was not making any slurs or accusations on anyone. So I think you guys have missed the point. I don't think you've necessarily slurred anyone though. between Stimulus, you posted about Flew earlier, not on this thread, but on my other thread about resources for non-believers. True - found it here. (How quickly this motherboard moves!)Apologies yet again for the mix-up. |
|
|
|
|
|
bawomolo (m)
|
God is not True because we believe in Him. We believe in Him because He is True
circular reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stimulus (m)
|
It is easy enough to make such accusations - afterall, it has become the norm for the "godless" to define their rational in unethical verbiage. |
|
|
|
|
|
stimulus (m)
|
circular reasoning. It is precisely the tool that you guys have been applying for ages and yet have not been able to rationally stay your course in any discussion. WHY is it so difficult for you bawomolo, therationa and your friends to gracefully acknowledge the invitation to discuss your presumptions? Besides, my dear bawomolo, you disappointed me greatly - I was seriously looking forward to your philosophical argument and was hoping to see how sound your philosophical ideas were. Of course, I'm not bending your neck backwards to force a philosophical debate with upon you; just an observation that I've seen the same pattern again and again with those who typically have made premises that they were not able to sustain. |
|
|
|
|
|
bawomolo (m)
|
It is precisely the tool that you guys have been applying for ages and yet have not been able to rationally stay your course in any discussion. WHY is it so difficult for you bawomolo, therationa and your friends to gracefully acknowledge the invitation to discuss your presumptions?
this isn't a thread involving atheists vs theists. this is a thread for atheists/agnostics to share resources. circular reasoning among theists(especially christians) is a topic i would touch later on.
Besides, my dear bawomolo, you disappointed me greatly - I was seriously looking forward to your philosophical argument and was hoping to see how sound your philosophical ideas were. Of course, I'm not bending your neck backwards to force a philosophical debate with upon you; just an observation that I've seen the same pattern again and again with those who typically have made premises that they were not able to sustain.
you obviously didn't expect me to entertain IMHOTEP's thread. philosophical proof is an oxymoron to start with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stimulus (m)
|
@bawomolo, this isn't a thread involving atheists vs theists. this is a thread for atheists/agnostics to share resources. I respect that. circular reasoning among theists(especially christians) is a topic i would touch later on. I look forward to that, and hope to see you stand to discuss what you propose. you obviously didn't expect me to entertain IMHOTEP's thread. Maybe not; and for what reasons you'd have commented therein is a mystery to observers like me. philosophical proof is an oxymoron to start with. You should have realized that before hinting to apply it in your cause. |
|
|
|
|
|
imhotep
|
you obviously didn't expect me to entertain IMHOTEP's thread. philosophical proof is an oxymoron to start with.
An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms. What distinguishes oxymorons from other paradoxes and contradictions is that they are used intentionally, for rhetorical effect, and the contradiction is only apparent, as the combination of terms provides a novel expression of some concept, such as " cruel to be kind". @bawomolo Please analyse the five proofs of the existence of God, and highlight for us the oxymorons you found in them??? |
|
|
|
|
|
stimulus (m)
|
@imhotep, I could almost have prophesied that you'd show up here! An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms. What distinguishes oxymorons from other paradoxes and contradictions is that they are used intentionally, for rhetorical effect, and the contradiction is only apparent, as the combination of terms provides a novel expression of some concept, such as "cruel to be kind". You've far excelled my attempt to offer a simplistic dictionary meaning, thank you. @bawomolo
Please analyse the five proofs of the existence of God, and highlight for us the oxymorons you found in them??? Hmm, would that be such a task for our dear friend?  |
|
|
|
|
|
4Him (m)
|
@ therationa, I think you are mistaken yet again. Some of these books have attracted a huge following not least in the USA.
Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" was in the New York Times bestsellers list for more than 52 weeks - a major record for any book. It was No 1 for many weeks as well. That a book "attracts a huge following" is not a sign that it has anything truthful to say. Several works of fiction have attracted a huge following too, they have been bestsellers and even gone on to become major motion films . . . does that mean they are anything but fiction? May i remind you that the same NY bestsellers list regards the bible as the bestselling book of all time. Let me also remind you that the "huge following" ur godless books attract is down to desperate people like you who will graps at just about any straw to justify their stance. These are people who are confused and constantly need to assuage their seared consciences that they are on the right path. They are the ones who have no rational oppinion of their own but need to rely on Dawkins for proof that God does not exist. The "protocols of the elders of zion" has attracted a huge following in m.uslim countries . . . does that make the book true? |
|
|
|
|
|
bawomolo (m)
|
Please analyse the five proofs of the existence of God, and highlight for us the oxymorons you found in them???
this is not the thread for such arguments. this would be last response on the topic of "philosophical proof"
the same arguements can be used against the proof of God, since something can't come from nothing, where did this so-called God come from?
The arguements are all extremely flawed. The first 2 create an assumption, infinite regressions are impossible, then ascribe Godhood to the item the violates their rule. However nothing in the arguement precludes 5 first movers each without a prior mover or 7 first causers. They provide no reason to believe a particular religion has a true picture of these mover and causers.
The 4th and 5th arguements are undone by examining the universe around us. It is very poorly designed, especially the occupants in it, and lacks anything approaching perfection.
The Scottish philosopher David Hume defeated all these arguments more than two-hundred years ago. The common fallacy in the first two arguments is that you use a principle of practical reason which applies to individual things (i.e., 1. that everything that begins has a cause; and, 2. that everything is contingent), and then you apply it to the set of all things.
It is like saying that, Since each person must have a reason for getting on the bus, there must also be an independent reason why the set of all-people-on-the-bus are on the bus. But such an explanation is not needed once the reason why each person is on the bus is given. If we can trace back the cause of each individual thing, then we don't need an additional cause for 'the set of all things.' Since 'the set of all things' is the universe, it follows that the universe does not need a cause so long as each thing in the universe has a cause.
Given what we know about quantum mechanics, 'each individual thing' can be defined as the interaction of many quarks and other fundamental particles. Since these particles can spontaneously come into existence ex nihilo, everything is sufficiently explained.
David Hume, in his 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, wrote:
It is pretended that the Deity is a necessarily existent being; and this necessity of his existence is attempted to be explained by asserting, that if we knew his whole essence or nature, we should perceive it to be as impossible for him not to exist, as for twice two not to be four. But it is evident that this can never happen, while our faculties remain the same as at present. It will still be possible for us, at any time, to conceive the non-existence of what we formerly conceived to exist; nor can the mind ever lie under a necessity of supposing any object to remain always in being; in the same manner as we lie under a necessity of always conceiving twice two to be four. The words, therefore, necessary existence, have no meaning; or, which is the same thing, none that is consistent.
But further, why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being, according to this pretended explication of necessity? We dare not affirm that we know all the qualities of matter; and for aught we can determine, it may contain some qualities, which, were they known, would make its non-existence appear as great a contradiction as that twice two is five. I find only one argument employed to prove, that the material world is not the necessarily existent Being: and this argument is derived from the contingency both of the matter and the form of the world. "Any particle of matter," it is said, "may be conceived to be annihilated; and any form may be conceived to be altered. Such an annihilation or alteration, therefore, is not impossible." But it seems a great partiality not to perceive, that the same argument extends equally to the Deity, so far as we have any conception of him; and that the mind can at least imagine him to be non-existent, or his attributes to be altered. It must be some unknown, inconceivable qualities, which can make his non-existence appear impossible, or his attributes unalterable: and no reason can be assigned, why these qualities may not belong to matter. As they are altogether unknown and inconceivable, they can never be proved incompatible with it.
Add to this, that in tracing an eternal succession of objects, it seems absurd to enquire for a general cause or first author. How can any thing, that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time, and a beginning of existence?
In such a chain, too, or succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it, and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer, that the uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind, and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I shew you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable, should you afterwards ask me, what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts.
read up on david hume and refrain from disturbing this thread
|
|
|
|
|
|
imhotep
|
@stimulus
How you dey jare.
bawomol(o) has unsuccessfully tried to evade the issue by meandering in a serpentine trajectory.
Throwing weak punches at the five proofs does not mean that you have proved the non-existence of God.
David Hume's book was written by David Hume, it did not evolve from quantum particles.
The Universe was created by God. You cannot take that away from Him, no matter how hard you try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
imhotep
|
@bawomol(o)
We are still waiting for you to highlight the oxymorons you observed in the five proofs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
imhotep
|
@bawomol(o)
Please read what Kant had to say about your uncle, David Hume. Note the concluding lines - >
It may be said of David Hume that he initiated the attack on pure reason. My own labours in the investigation of this subject were occasioned by his sceptical teaching. He argued that without experience it is impossible to know the difference between one thing and another; that is, we can know a priori, and, therefore, the notion of a cause is fictitious and illusory, arising only from the habit of observing certain things associated with each in a succession of connexions.
On such principles we can never come to any conclusion as to causes and effects. We can never predict a consequence from any of the known attributes of things. We can never say of any event that it must necessarily have followed from another; that is, that it must have had an antecedent cause. And we could never lay down a rule derived even from the greatest number of observations. Hence we must trust entirely to blind chance, abolishing all reason, and such a surrender establishes empiricism in an impregnable citadel.
My investigations led me to the conclusion that the objects with which we are familiar are by no means things in themselves, but are simply phenomena, connected in a certain way with experience. So that without contradiction they cannot be separated from that connexion. Only by that experience can they be recognized. I was able to prove the objective reality of the concept of cause in regard to objects of experience, and to demonstrate its origin from pure understanding, without experimental or empirical sources.
Thus, I first destroyed the source of scepticism, and then the resulting scepticism itself. And thus was subverted the thorough doubt as to whatever theoretic reason claims to perceive, as well as the claim of Hume that the concept of causality involved something absolutely unthinkable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
therationa (m)
|
Imhotep, Please, can you refrain from debating on this thread? Thanks for your cooperation |
|
|
|
|
|
imhotep
|
Imhotep, Please, can you refrain from debating on this thread? Thanks for your cooperation Unfortunately you do not have any right to make that demand. And I have a right to ignore your demand. Non of you scientific atheists has been able to prove that there is no God to believe in. So, do you see the problem with posting about books on ' non-belief' |
|
|
|
|
|
stimulus (m)
|
@imhotep, @stimulus
How you dey jare. Bros, I just dey kampe! I've actually enjoyed the discourses we've had with atheists - and what is more is that I've come to respect a few of them for their sane manner of discussing issues (even though I may not agree with them on many points). Of course, I'd rather not call names just yet; but I especially savour the brilliance and good spirited nature of the debates, compared to the very mindless and caustic rants I've seen in some other forum/blog where I'd attempted to enter discussions with the atheistically inclined. Of course, not only have the debates intrigued me on many points, but also helped me to harvest a plethora of resources I'd never considered before. For this, my thanks are due to all discussants on either side of the debate for keeping it sane, simple, and serious! On the other hand. . . I'd rather that we take it easy and condescend to this request: Please, can you refrain from debating on this thread? The reason why I'd rather ask us to respect such an appeal is that believers are reasonable people who can listen to people. Maybe I'm missing something here; but I'd rather we observe that therationa and others of like-minds have their basic rights to enjoy sharing their ideas on the Forum. I must admit that even though we do not agree on several issues, at least some of them have impressed us enough to be willing to consider our discussions in other threads. Just this one thread (IMHO) should be respected as properly suited to those who have a legitimate claim to share their thoughts on "non-belief" (as Christians and Mus lims have had their threads in the past). Can we do this for them, please? I trust you'd kindly consider. Many blessings.  - - - -
@therationa,
Please forgive me for showing up again in tis thread - it was just to throw in the above appeal. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
