Deleted

Double post.

CrazyMan:
You've already made up your mind that miracles don't exist, so why seek for more proofs...its very obvious that even if all the christians here share their story with you, it won't change anything because your mind is already made up.

You've said it times without number that don't believe in religion, you don't believe in Jesus, you don't believe in God, christianity is a fraud bla bla bla...so why ask for proof? Why do you keep bothering Mr Anony? Why ask people to prove something you've already made up your mind to debunk? If christianity is a fraud what are you still doing here? Who are you trying to prove a point to?

Atheists ask for proof because they want to know the truth. We don't dismiss your beliefs about Jesus out of hand because we know there is a possibility that you are right. But we are not going to just accept them without anything to back them up, hence the need for evidence. Otherwise, how do we know your god is the correct one and not the Muslim or Guru Maharaji god? How do we know there's only one? How do we know the Hindus or Ifa worshippers aren't the ones who've gotten it right? How do we know there is a god at all?

You ask christians questions...and then you criticize them for the answers they give...if you're so wise and intelligent as you claim to be, why waste your time with uneducated characters on this forum?

A real scientist never stops asking questions. The greatest insights can come from the least expected places. If a stopped clock can be right twice a day, so can a random nairalander.

I'm a christian for example,...don't you think it would be very foolish and rude for me to walk into the islam section an begin to demand answers to questions I know I won't believe no matter how hard they try to prove to me?

Its only rude if your only intention is to troll and cause offence. If your intention is to share knowledge, teach and learn from others, there is nothing wrong with it.

If I've chosen christianity, then don't you think it would be sheer madness spending my life to convince a muslim that he's on the wrong side of the road...he has a belief and I must respect that...

Its not madness if you have good reasons to believe that that that Muslim is wasting his time and resources on a pointless endeavour. In fact, showing him the error of his ways is the good and decent thing to do. I'm sure we can all agree that religion is the cause of much suffering and misery. Where we differ is your belief that there is some benefit here or in the afterlife from being religious. If we know that to be untrue, is it really wrong for us to encourage people to abandon religion and use the time they have more productively?

Also, that I'm a christian doesn't mean I would mock a buddhist or hindu for worshiping a cow.
It doesn't mean I would mock the jews for practicing judaism at this modern age...you should know that we have eyes, we have heads, we have brains...so do yourself a favour and respect other peoples beliefs...

I admit that atheists have dished out their share of insults here on Nairaland. But this is largely a reaction to the insults that they themselves have received from religious people. I'm not saying that its right, I'm just giving an explanation. The other side is just as dirty as we are.

Even world renowned atheists still respect other people's beliefs...they exhibited maturity and self respect...they don't expose their stupidity publicly.

If you were half intelligent as I thought you were, then you should know that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions and beliefs...and because someone's own differs from yours shouldn't give you the right to make a mockery of it...if you say Jesus doesn't exist, fine. He didn't exist to you...but respect people who choose to believe that he existed.

Whether or not God exists is not a matter of opinion. Either he does or he doesn't. You cant say "he exists to me" and expect others to accept that because that is not a rational statement. If you say something irrational on Nairaland, you are going to be challenged. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should restrict yourself to reading christian books.

To be successful in life, you must learn to respect people regardless of their tribe, their religion, their race...etc etc. The earlier you know this, the better it would be for you.

Agreed.

MacDaddy01:


Look, just confess. You want to bugger me.


Unfortunately, I am not gay. You really need to calm down.

_
I've got a list of the people I want to bugger, and you come in at number 1274. True story. So chillax, when I come for you you'll know.

On another story, since nobody wants to/can debunk (you've infected me with this word) your pink horse thingy theory, I call the testosterone match over! Seriously guys, live and let live. If some people want to serve and pay obeisance to a flying spaghetti monster, or the shinigami, it's their constitutional right to do so. Same way it's mine (in developed countries) to bugger my fellow man.

Evil Brain: Atheists ask for proof because they want to know the truth.

With the way you guys sound here on Nairaland, its very obvious that you already know the truth...so if I may ask, what other truth are you guys seeking for?

Evil Brain: We don't dismiss your beliefs about Jesus out of hand because we know there is a possibility that you are right.

Nope I won't agree with you...the childish way most of you rant insults and curses here gets me pissed of at times.

If you have an second thoughts towards the existence of Jesus, then feel free to ask questions and refrain from insults. That's how matured people behave.

That you don't believe in Jesus should give you any right to insult him or people who believe in him.

Evil Brain: But we are not going to just accept them without anything to back them up, hence the need for evidence.

What do you need evidence for...the bible is there for you to read. If you don't believe the bible then what other proof can a christian come up that would make any sense to you?

Evil Brain: Otherwise, how do we know your god is the correct one and not the Muslim or Guru Maharaji god? How do we know there's only one? How do we know the Hindus or Ifa worshippers aren't the ones who've gotten it right? How do we know there is a god at all?

That's what I posted earlier...everyone is entitled to their beliefs. You guys should respect that. If you choose not to believe in a religion, fine...but to go as far as challenging them for an unnecessary debate just to make a mockery of them is totally wrong.

Evil Brain: A real scientist never stops asking questions. The greatest insights can come from the least expected places. If a stopped clock can be right twice a day, so can a random nairalander.

True...but there are hundreds of questions that can be asked by them (scientist) so why point all your fingers on christianity as if God personally offended you.

Why spend all your time and resources just to prove the bible wrong? Since you already believe its false, why waste your time on it?

Evil Brain: Its only rude if your only intention is to troll and cause offense. If your intention is to share knowledge, teach and learn from others, there is nothing wrong with it.

Sadly, the reverse is the case.

If this section was purely for sharing and gaining knowledge, I wouldn't be complaining. Macdaddy, you (evil brain) and most atheist here run your mouth freely on christians. You'll come as wolves in sheeps clothing pretending to ask an innocent question.

When people give out their honest views, you would reply them with insults.

I see that as childishness...why must you insult someone's personality simply because his views is different from yours? That I disagree with you shouldn't give you the right to insult me or the God I worship.

If you guys want a clean debate that would be educative as you claimed, then you must learn to respect people's opinions.

Evil Brain: Its not madness if you have good reasons to believe that that Muslim is wasting his time and resources on a pointless endeavour. In fact, showing him the error of his ways is the good and decent thing to do. I'm sure we can all agree that religion is the cause of much suffering and misery. Where we differ is your belief that there is some benefit here or in the afterlife from being religious. If we know that to be untrue, is it really wrong for us to encourage people to abandon religion and use the time they have more productively?

Do you know that the most difficult part of business is minding your own...

Whatever God an individual chooses to serve is none of your business. If you feel he's wasting his/her time, then a little chat or debate would be ok.

But once he's clear to you about the path he has choosen, you must respect his decisions and refrain from further questions...cos any further issue raised on that same subject would only lead to unnecessary arguments which might end up in fisticuffs.

Evil Brain: I admit that atheists have dished out their share of insults here on Nairaland.

Good...so you guys got to learn some attitude here, cos we can't tolerate this any more.

Evil Brain: But this is largely a reaction to the insults that they themselves have received from religious people. I'm not saying that its right, I'm just giving an explanation. The other side is just as dirty as we are.

You provoke us and we react...

Isaac Newton's law even confirmed it..."For every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction"

Refrain from insults and this section would be the most educative on nairaland.

Evil Brain: Whether or not God exists is not a matter of opinion. Either he does or he doesn't. You cant say "he exists to me" and expect others to accept that because that is not a rational statement. If you say something irrational on Nairaland, you are going to be challenged. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should restrict yourself to reading christian books.

I'm not complaining about being challenged...I'm asking you guys to learn to respect people's beliefs, views and opinions...

If you must challenge someone, do it with the motive of learning from the person...not with pride and arrogance as most of you here behave. If you say we're here to learn, then prove it by your actions. Cos this attitude most of you display really gets me pissed off.

@crazy, while I symphatize, sort of, you're starting to sound like you endorse censorship, imo that is never a good thing. Some threads are started just to flame, true, and I'd recommend you simply ignore those. This one in particular was not. It has valid points that were never addressed (excepting some apocryphal stories). In fact the op was initially mocked by theists, though they were just playing around with him, actually seems they still are by ignoring him. But regardless, turn the tables around, imagine someone saying that xtian arguments must be approved by atheists before they can be made. Say my disdain for seeing quotes, imagine if I went around demanding there be no quoting in every thread. Think of a certain neighboring section.
If a thread offends you, prove it wrong, preferably with your deeds, then move on. Violating freedoms is wrong just about all the time (except maybe when direct harm is being incited, like mob violence being instigated). That's just my opinion though

wiegraf: @crazy, while I symphatize, sort of, you're starting to sound like you endorse censorship, imo that is never a good thing. Some threads are started just to flame, true, and I'd recommend you simply ignore those. This one in particular was not. It has valid points that were never addressed (excepting some apocryphal stories). In fact the op was initially mocked by theists, though they were just playing around with him, actually seems they still are by ignoring him. But regardless, turn the tables around, imagine someone saying that xtian arguments must be approved by atheists before they can be made. Say my disdain for seeing quotes, imagine if I went around demanding there be no quoting in every thread. Think of a certain neighboring section.
If a thread offends you, prove it wrong, preferably with your deeds, then move on. Violating freedoms is wrong just about all the time (except maybe when direct harm is being incited, like mob violence being instigated). That's just my opinion though

I wasn't specifically referring to this thread...I was just speaking on a sad omen I've discovered here on Nairaland.

CrazyMan:
I wasn't specifically referring to this thread...I was just speaking on a sad omen I've discovered here on Nairaland.

Em, yeah, actually you were
The same arguments still stand though. You just need to remain level headed. Again, just my opinion

On a random note, in general with censorship, it's my view that it's all or nothing. Either you censor arbitrarily, or you let everything in. Obvious exceptions to the case in the real world would be nazi's and holocaust deniers in some countries (eg germany), and other hate groups like the clan. Left to me though, everything would be allowed. Everything. I'd leave it to individuals to decide what they let in and out.

MacDaddy01:



I believe in miracles, I just dont believe in religious miracles.


For instance, i would be a miracle for Arsenal to win the chmapions league and a miracle for you to have commonsense

If arsenal winning the CL would be a miracle then u might as well just stop hoping for that miracle to take place...because it won't .....lol......

But seriously u aint a realist if u don't believe in miracles.....

MacDaddy01: I had a discussion with Mr Anony that was quite interesting.


Anony said that my atheist worldview would deny miracles (eg ressurection of christ, water into wine, miracle healing by pastors) if even there was evidence for miracles. I said that miracles are non-existent in a sane world and reality. I argued that I wasnt holding a worldview but a factual stance based on reality. Historical evidence and biology shows that humans dont rise from the dead. Anony argued that his evidence is the bible but I then replied that the bible is not evidence. Anony said that my worldview does not allow me to accept other kinds of evidence.

Anony kept saying that my world view was close minded and that my world view is skeptical to the reality of miracles. I then formulated a counterargument for a good rebuttal; The Pink Unicorn Argument. Anony was claiming that I do not have a clear cut case against the evidence of miracles.


I asked Mr Anony if I brought a horse painted pink and with a horn glued to its forehead (all done iin a professional manner), would he believe that it was a unicorn? Remember, the horse is professionally designed and so you cant tell by looking and touching because it looks so real.


a) Anony said yes.
Then, Like the people who were decieved by Jesus that he was god/son of god, Anony would believe something (the unicorn) based on flimsy evidence. Why avoid scientific testing, biology and historical evidence to debunk the Unicron and magic?


b) If Anony had said no.
Then, Anony would be denying the existence of a unicorn based on the exact same reason why I do not believe that Jesus ressurected from the dead

-Historical evidence; no reliable record of a person coming back from the dead and no relaible record of unicorns

-Biology; dead bodies can not be fully reanimated and unicorns would have been found by now due to their size and the fact that the whole world has been mapped.

Hmm.........Ok, so here goes.

You paint a horse pink and glue a horn to it. You do it so professionally well that it is fool-proof and can pass for real. I can't tell by looking or touching, the paint can't be washed off and feels like skin. The horn too feels so genuine and can't be removed or taken off. I test it in all the ways I can, I even get other people to scrutinize it and I still can't disprove it, I will have to accept it as a pink unicorn.

Notice that from my point of view, I cannot know any better. For me to know that it is not a pink unicorn, I must have knowledge of how you did it and that knowledge is only available to you.

Notice also that I have not avoided scientific testing, in fact it is based on the results of my scientific testing that I accepted your pink unicorn.

At this point, the argument that there has never been a pink unicorn in history is very weak because for all I know, standing before me is a living breathing pink unicorn and I cannot deny that fact. That is what it means to be a rational skeptic.

An irrational skeptic will continue to deny even when he no longer has any reason to. His argument is usually in the form of:
"I find X absurd therefore it is absurd."
When X has been proven to not be absurd, his argument becomes...
"...but X is highly unlikely therefore it is impossible or it must be random chance"

As far as I see, the only reason why you deny miracles is because you start from the first premise that miracles do not exist and that is an unchallengeable fact in your worldview. For this reason, even if a miracle kicked you in the head, you would not accept it.

Case in point: Delafruita's story about his dad's condition.
Your answer was

sinsitis is curable. End of story. #next miracle

You didn't even consider the story on it's merits. His point was not about it's curability but how it was cured.
I find X absurd therefore it is absurd

Plaetton was even more gracious than you were but being of similar worldview, his response was:

Even if the zemzem water had somehow, made him better, it was either a mere case of serendipity or it could be that perhaps the the water itself contains trace minerals and other anti-oxidants that have curative properties.......

X is highly unlikely therefore it is impossible or it must be random chance

Do you see the point I was making here?

I am not saying Delafruita's story is true or is not true, what I am pointing at is how your worldview shapes your arguments.

Now that I have shown you what worldviews are about,
I hold a christian theist worldview which means that I see everything through the tint of my christian glasses. For me, God is a given and an unchallengeable fact.
You on the other hand hold an atheist worldview which means that through your atheist glasses, God and the supernatural do not exist. For you it is equally an unchallengeable fact, the supernatural is not part of your reality.

Since neither of us is an objective observer (in fact no one really is), the only way we can now resolve issues and find truth is to use logic. We have to point to what follows from a Christian theist worldview and what follows from an atheist worldview.

For example: If it is true that from order we infer an order-giver, therefore if the universe is ordered, there must be an order giver (within my worldview, this makes sense since God is the ultimate order-giver).
For you to say that there is no such order-giver, you must tell us what else to infer from order or that the universe is not ordered.

I hold that based upon your worldview, disorder and meaninglessness must follow from the absence of the order-giver(God)...........unless you have something else to show us

Mr_Anony:

Hmm.........Ok, so here goes.

You paint a horse pink and glue a horn to it. You do it so professionally well that it is fool-proof and can pass for real. I can't tell by looking or touching, the paint can't be washed off and feels like skin. The horn too feels so genuine and can't be removed or taken off. I test it in all the ways I can, I even get other people to scrutinize it and I still can't disprove it, I will have to accept it as a pink unicorn.

Notice that from my point of view, I cannot know any better. For me to know that it is not a pink unicorn, I must have knowledge of how you did it and that knowledge is only available to you.

Notice also that I have not avoided scientific testing, in fact it is based on the results of my scientific testing that I accepted your pink unicorn.

At this point, the argument that there has never been a pink unicorn in history is very weak because for all I know, standing before me is a living breathing pink unicorn and I cannot deny that fact. That is what it means to be a rational skeptic.

An irrational skeptic will continue to deny even when he no longer has any reason to. His argument is usually in the form of:
"I find X absurd therefore it is absurd."
When X has been proven to not be absurd, his argument becomes...
"...but X is highly unlikely therefore it is impossible or it must be random chance"

As far as I see, the only reason why you deny miracles is because you start from the first premise that miracles do not exist and that is an unchallengeable fact in your worldview. For this reason, even if a miracle kicked you in the head, you would not accept it.

Case in point: Delafruita's story about his dad's condition.
Your answer was
You didn't even consider the story on it's merits. His point was not about it's curability but how it was cured.
I find X absurd therefore it is absurd

Plaetton was even more gracious than you were but being of similar worldview, his response was:
X is highly unlikely therefore it is impossible or it must be random chance

Do you see the point I was making here?

I am not saying Delafruita's story is true or is not true, what I am pointing at is how your worldview shapes your arguments.

You are a real dishonest person when it comes to debates. I told my friend that you would use Delafruitas common to butress your failed excuse and you did.


Plaetton's argument was exactly the same as mine. He just went further to explain the ways the disease could be cured, either by drinking water with certain properties or as a result of the accumulated effect of medicine taken over time. The end result was that sinusitis is already curable.



Concerning rational skepticism, basic history, geography and biology will tell you that unicorns do not exist. A rational skeptic will not ignore basic common sense.

I put a horse painted as a pink unicorn. Even without touching the horse, a rational skeptic knows that it is a hoax. Basic biology, history and geography will tell you that the whole world has been mapped and such a LARGE LAND animal would have been discovered long ago.

Furthermore, a rational skeptic with a basic knowledge of science would ask where the unicorn was found and what breed of horse it is and why would a unicorn have horse-like features instead of a bull or a goat. Such questions will lead you to the fact that it is a hoax. another question would we why is the unicorn tame? Surely, an animal that has hardly been seen by humans would not be comfortable around humans.

An irrational skeptic will continue to deny even when he no longer has any reason to. His argument is usually in the form of:
"I find X absurd therefore it is absurd."

Your above quote is wrong. A rational skeptic uses a prerequisite of X to debunk X itself. For instance, since the flying spaghetti monster does not exist, flying spaghetti miracles do not exist.

Mr_Anony: Now that I have shown you what worldviews are about,
I hold a christian theist worldview which means that I see everything through the tint of my christian glasses. For me, God is a given and an unchallengeable fact.
You on the other hand hold an atheist worldview which means that through your atheist glasses, God and the supernatural do not exist. For you it is equally an unchallengeable fact, the supernatural is not part of your reality.

Since neither of us is an objective observer (in fact no one really is), the only way we can now resolve issues and find truth is to use logic. We have to point to what follows from a Christian theist worldview and what follows from an atheist worldview.

For example: If it is true that from order we infer an order-giver, therefore if the universe is ordered, there must be an order giver (within my worldview, this makes sense since God is the ultimate order-giver).
For you to say that there is no such order-giver, you must tell us what else to infer from order or that the universe is not ordered.

I hold that based upon your worldview, disorder and meaninglessness must follow from the absence of the order-giver(God)...........unless you have something else to show us

Nonsense. Stating facts is not a worldview.


There is no evidence for Yaweh. That is a fact. That is not a worldview.

I believe in Yaweh. That is a worldview based on faith and not fact.


Other facts whic are not worldviews;
-There is no evidence for spiritual world
-There is no evidence for spiritual miracles
-The bible is full of errors




If there is evidence for god, you wouldnt call your belief in him "faith".

MacDaddy01:


You are a real dishonest person when it comes to debates. I told my friend that you would use Delafruitas common to butress your failed excuse and you did.


Plaetton's argument was exactly the same as mine. He just went further to explain the ways the disease could be cured, either by drinking water with certain properties or as a result of the accumulated effect of medicine taken over time. The end result was that sinusitis is already curable.

Lol, Why of course I am only dishonest when I don't agree with you......

As I said you and plaetton share the same worldview so of course you'll say the same thing. I was only pointing at your methods of arriving at your answers

Concerning rational skepticism, basic history, geography and biology will tell you that unicorns do not exist. A rational skeptic will not ignore basic common sense.

lol, history,geography and biology can only tell you what exists. They cannot tell you what does not. If they could, new discoveries would be impossible.....unless you want to claim that we have reached the limits of our knowledge.

I put a horse painted as a pink unicorn. Even without touching the horse, a rational skeptic knows that it is a hoax. Basic biology, history and geography will tell you that the whole world has been mapped and such a LARGE LAND animal would have been discovered long ago.

If a skeptic will come to his conclusion without even bothering to test the phenomenon in front of him, then he is an irrational skeptic. In fact a blind fanatic. He can only know it is a hoax if he has ultimate knowledge about this issue.
.....and yeah the whole world has not been completely mapped yet.

Furthermore, a rational skeptic with a basic knowledge of science would ask where the unicorn was found and what breed of horse it is and why would a unicorn have horse-like features instead of a bull or a goat. Such questions will lead you to the fact that it is a hoax. another question would we why is the unicorn tame? Surely, an animal that has hardly been seen by humans would not be comfortable around humans.

Lol, the tests you are requiring here are unreasonable tests. You are asking for explanations outside it's definition.

A pink unicorn is simply defined as a creature that resembles a horse except that it has a horn and it's skin is pink.

where it is found and how friendly it is to humans are irrelevant to whether it is a pink unicorn or not. so is asking why it's features are horse-like and not cow-like or goat-like. That's like someone who has never seen a leopard before upon seeing one, asking why it's features are cat-like and not dog-like or monkey-like....and therefore the leopard is a hoax. That's poor thinking.

Your above quote is wrong. A rational skeptic uses a prerequisite of X to debunk X itself. For instance, since the flying spaghetti monster does not exist, flying spaghetti miracles do not exist.

This statement is true except for the bolded......remember I said:

An irrational skeptic will continue to deny even when he no longer has any reason to. His argument is usually in the form of:
"I find X absurd therefore it is absurd."

since I was describing an irrational skeptic, all you have really done is to agree with me by saying what a rational skeptic is.

So where was I wrong about what I said again?

MacDaddy01:
Nonsense. Stating facts is not a worldview.
There is no evidence for Yaweh. That is a fact. That is not a worldview.
I believe in Yaweh. That is a worldview based on faith and not fact.
Other facts whic are not worldviews;
-There is no evidence for spiritual world
-There is no evidence for spiritual miracles
-The bible is full of errors
If there is evidence for god, you wouldnt call your belief in him "faith".

lol, all you have just done is proclaim that your worldview is factually true. Nothing new there everyone does the same thing. Come back when you are ready to debate logically.

Mr_Anony:
lol, all you have just done is proclaim that your worldview is factually true. Nothing new there everyone does the same thing. Come back when you are ready to debate logically.

NO PUN INTENDED

Evil Brain: The Pink Unicorn argument is basically identical to the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument which was first proposed by the great Bobby Henderson seven years ago.

Back then the Kansas Board of Education was considering including creationism and Intelligent Design in the school curriculum alongside evolution. Mr. Henderson argued that he believed that the universe was created by an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent being that closely resembled spaghetti and meatballs. He pointed out that there was just as much evidence that the FSM created the world as there was that god did therefore both theories are equally valid. He then demanded that the FSM theory also be taught in schools and that it be given equal time in classrooms with Intelligent Design and Evolution.

Basically if you accept one outlandish idea without evidence, then you should be willing to accept others. And if you reject one, you should be willing to reject others. Otherwise, you are not thinking rationally.

You see, arguments such as that of the Flying Spagetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn are puerile and I must say: very childish arguments. These arguments make a silly mockery of the people who make such arguments and here is the very simple reason: in seeking to make a caricature of sound and serious questions of theological/ cosmological relevance, such infantile arguments entirely side-step the core cosmological question at play in these discussions: to wit: how did the universe come to exist?

Now that is the pith of the matter: and not puerile imaginations of flying food monsters. Any person who approaches the discussion in such a fashion simply has no idea what he is discussing.

The Theists position is that The universe is caused by pre-existent intelligence. Now, if this is true, it would not become less true by reason of such arguments as an infinite regress; or the failings of religious notions of God.

The Atheists position is that there is no reason to accept the existence of a pre existent creative intelligence: or if an agnostic atheist: simply that he does not know and cannot know.

Within these positions there is a simple and clear issue to be discussed: the cause of the universe. It is a lucid and sound issue and in no way should provoke nonsense such as FSM into the discussion. Any person who does so is simply a village clown, a veritable foo.l; and absolutely not to be taken seriously.

Now the initial premises should be simple enough: It should start with causality: If the theist says that the universe is caused, then the first question should be if indeed the universe required a cause. As such we will have to look at the laws of motion in particular, and physics in general. We would also need to contemplate the nature of existence and see if it is a correct position to state that the universe needs no cause. Most atheists I know on this forum have been content to stifle the discussion at this stage: and in doing so they adopt a position contrary to known science; for known science discloses causality for material phenomena.

Nevertheless i do not intend to discuss the pros and cons here. My onlty intention is to show the proper line of argument in this matter, and to show how stupendously st.upid it is to advance arguments such as FSM. Such childishly misses the issues.

Now after the issue of causality, the next question would have to be what caused the universe - if it was caused. The debate would then be about if that cause is a lifeless principle inherent in reality or if it is a principle or entity imbued with life and intelligence as the concept of God suggests. In doing so, it will then be apt to look at what we know of the universe and also discuss the probability and the possibility of the evolution of complex systems and complex life and energy in an unguided universe.

This is the sensible way to debate this issue.

Pink unicorn and fsm have nothing to do with first cause or infinite regress, etc. They're meant to demonstrate who the burden of proof rests with. They also illustrate how absurd unverifiable claims are. Mac's variant is meant to illustrate the importance of being critical.

MacDaddy01:



Nonsense. Stating facts is not a worldview.


There is no evidence for Yaweh. That is a fact. That is not a worldview.

I believe in Yaweh. That is a worldview based on faith and not fact.


Other facts whic are not worldviews;
-There is no evidence for spiritual world
-There is no evidence for spiritual miracles
-The bible is full of errors




If there is evidence for god, you wouldnt call your belief in him "faith".

Gbam!
Religous faith is a worldview.
Saying that there exist no empirical proof for the existence og god cannot be a worldview.

Deep Sight:

You see, arguments such as that of the Flying Spagetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn are puerile and I must say: very childish arguments. These arguments make a silly mockery of the people who make such arguments and here is the very simple reason: in seeking to make a caricature of sound and serious questions of theological/ cosmological relevance, such infantile arguments entirely side-step the core cosmological question at play in these discussions: to wit: how did the universe come to exist?

Now that is the pith of the matter: and not puerile imaginations of flying food monsters. Any person who approaches the discussion in such a fashion simply has no idea what he is discussing.

The Theists position is that The universe is caused by pre-existent intelligence. Now, if this is true, it would not become less true by reason of such arguments as an infinite regress; or the failings of religious notions of God.

The Atheists position is that there is no reason to accept the existence of a pre existent creative intelligence: or if an agnostic atheist: simply that he does not know and cannot know.

Within these positions there is a simple and clear issue to be discussed: the cause of the universe. It is a lucid and sound issue and in no way should provoke nonsense such as FSM into the discussion. Any person who does so is simply a village clown, a veritable foo.l; and absolutely not to be taken seriously.

Now the initial premises should be simple enough: It should start with causality: If the theist says that the universe is caused, then the first question should be if indeed the universe required a cause. As such we will have to look at the laws of motion in particular, and physics in general. We would also need to contemplate the nature of existence and see if it is a correct position to state that the universe needs no cause. Most atheists I know on this forum have been content to stifle the discussion at this stage: and in doing so they adopt a position contrary to known science; for known science discloses causality for material phenomena.

Nevertheless i do not intend to discuss the pros and cons here. My onlty intention is to show the proper line of argument in this matter, and to show how stupendously st.upid it is to advance arguments such as FSM. Such childishly misses the issues.

Now after the issue of causality, the next question would have to be what caused the universe - if it was caused. The debate would then be about if that cause is a lifeless principle inherent in reality or if it is a principle or entity imbued with life and intelligence as the concept of God suggests. In doing so, it will then be apt to look at what we know of the universe and also discuss the probability and the possibility of the evolution of complex systems and complex life and energy in an unguided universe.

This is the sensible way to debate this issue.

I keep reminding you that this is the ridiculous, I mean religilous, sorry again, the religious section.
If the FSM argument is childish, what would you say of Yahweh did it argument, or the man from clay argument, or the talking snake argument.
Are they not in the same category of childishness? Well, that is excactly what the FSM argument aims to prove. Nothing more.
If you can hold on to one ridiculous notion to explain the origin of the universe, then why I can't I do the same?

^^^^
@ DeepSight

Theres nothing wrong in using humour to advance a point. There are a lot of people who find it much easier to understand such principles when explained in that way.

You seem to be suggesting that we show more reverence when discussing god and the universe. But the question is why? The universe will continue as it is whether we make jokes about it or not. And why should we revere god when he doesn't exist. Do you show the same reverence when discussing the existence of Orunmila, Obatala and Yemoja? Do we also have to revere Minerva, the goddess of love? Or Thor, the God of thunder? What about Diego Maradona, who is worshipped as a god in south America?

If you want to kill the FSM/Pink Unicorn argument dead, all you need to do is provide one piece of valid evidence of the existence of god that doesn't also apply to the FSM.

Until can do that you have no grounds to complain.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, Why of course I am only dishonest when I don't agree with you......

As I said you and plaetton share the same worldview so of course you'll say the same thing. I was only pointing at your methods of arriving at your answers

Wrong. Delafruitas miracle was never a miracle in the first place. Sinusitis is curable. Liquids alone can cure sinusitis. The special water that her father drank could have cured it. In short, Sinusitis, depending on the type has many cures.

You dishonestly went ahead to push forward Delafruitas claims of miracles when you thought that I couldnt debunkn his claims. There was no need to argue it out. Simple- sinusitis is already curable.

Mr_Anony:
lol, history,geography and biology can only tell you what exists. They cannot tell you what does not. If they could, new discoveries would be impossible.....unless you want to claim that we have reached the limits of our knowledge.

Biology can not tell you that zombies do not exist? lol. Do humans come back from the grave to eat corpses?


As for your claims, Biology tells you that there are no known breeds or species of horses that have horns. Where would I get an horse with a horn from? London? Nigeria?

Mr_Anony:
If a skeptic will come to his conclusion without even bothering to test the phenomenon in front of him, then he is an irrational skeptic. In fact a blind fanatic. He can only know it is a hoax if he has ultimate knowledge about this issue.
.....and yeah the whole world has not been completely mapped yet.

Google maps, satelites etc. They cover the whole world using lattitudes and longitudes. We are talking land animals and not what is at the bottom of the sea.

There would be no need for me to touch the horse dressed as a unicorn. Why? A rational skeptic already knows that there are no known breeds of horses with a horn.
All I would ask is where the person got such an animal from. Any answer would be a lie because, he would either be dead or the place has no such horses because they have been explored

Mr_Anony:
Lol, the tests you are requiring here are unreasonable tests. You are asking for explanations outside it's definition.

Really? A unicorn has no standard definition since it is imaginary in the first place. I will debunk you below

Mr_Anony:
A pink unicorn is simply defined as a creature that resembles a horse except that it has a horn and it's skin is pink.

A unicorn could be a horse, a goat or a bull. Heck, even rhinoceroses have been called unicorns. o and do your reasearch before speaking nonsense here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn#Single-horned_goat

Mr_Anony:
where it is found and how friendly it is to humans are irrelevant to whether it is a pink unicorn or not. so is asking why it's features are horse-like and not cow-like or goat-like. That's like someone who has never seen a leopard before upon seeing one, asking why it's features are cat-like and not dog-like or monkey-like....and therefore the leopard is a hoax. That's poor thinking.

A unicorn is a wild animal since no one in recordable history has claimed to have raised a unicorn. Seeing a tame one should raise some suspicions. Asking when and where it was found will put the hoax to shame.

A leopard has always been described as a cat with spots. A unicorn has been described as a goat or a horse. Asking why it is a horse and not a goat is very valid. Your ignorance has been exposed.

Mr_Anony:
This statement is true except for the bolded......remember I said:


since I was describing an irrational skeptic, all you have really done is to agree with me by saying what a rational skeptic is.

So where was I wrong about what I said again?

Nonsense. A rational skeptic can not be a christian.

Do you wonder why atheists and non-believers are called skeptics?

Deep Sight:

You see, arguments such as that of the Flying Spagetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn are puerile and I must say: very childish arguments. These arguments make a silly mockery of the people who make such arguments and here is the very simple reason: in seeking to make a caricature of sound and serious questions of theological/ cosmological relevance, such infantile arguments entirely side-step the core cosmological question at play in these discussions: to wit: how did the universe come to exist?

Now that is the pith of the matter: and not puerile imaginations of flying food monsters. Any person who approaches the discussion in such a fashion simply has no idea what he is discussing.

The Theists position is that The universe is caused by pre-existent intelligence. Now, if this is true, it would not become less true by reason of such arguments as an infinite regress; or the failings of religious notions of God.

The Atheists position is that there is no reason to accept the existence of a pre existent creative intelligence: or if an agnostic atheist: simply that he does not know and cannot know.

Within these positions there is a simple and clear issue to be discussed: the cause of the universe. It is a lucid and sound issue and in no way should provoke nonsense such as FSM into the discussion. Any person who does so is simply a village clown, a veritable foo.l; and absolutely not to be taken seriously.

Now the initial premises should be simple enough: It should start with causality: If the theist says that the universe is caused, then the first question should be if indeed the universe required a cause. As such we will have to look at the laws of motion in particular, and physics in general. We would also need to contemplate the nature of existence and see if it is a correct position to state that the universe needs no cause. Most atheists I know on this forum have been content to stifle the discussion at this stage: and in doing so they adopt a position contrary to known science; for known science discloses causality for material phenomena.

Nevertheless i do not intend to discuss the pros and cons here. My onlty intention is to show the proper line of argument in this matter, and to show how stupendously st.upid it is to advance arguments such as FSM. Such childishly misses the issues.

Now after the issue of causality, the next question would have to be what caused the universe - if it was caused. The debate would then be about if that cause is a lifeless principle inherent in reality or if it is a principle or entity imbued with life and intelligence as the concept of God suggests. In doing so, it will then be apt to look at what we know of the universe and also discuss the probability and the possibility of the evolution of complex systems and complex life and energy in an unguided universe.

This is the sensible way to debate this issue.

LOL! Bros Deep Sight, calm down abeg.

I've come to observe that you seem to get worked up when certain religious concepts are challenged. I have seen a similar reaction to the prayer concept in the past.

The FSM and IPU arguments are perfectly reasonable arguments that simply seek to expose the absurdity of favouring one wild claim over another equally wild claim. Nothing to do with cosmology or infinite regress.

Perhaps, somehow, you sometimes see these kinds of arguments as an affront to your deist beliefs (I fail to see the connection though), but one thing you should realise is that the deist god remains irrelevant and insignificant to most people here. Thankfully, it is non-interventionist, so most people can't really be bothered. You really should take a chill pill bro.

Delafruita:
this makes sense.i dont doubt it because i cant disprove it.

i have another example

i personally know someone who had an ulcer in her left foot.she used to sit on a chair at the bus-stop and some peeps begged on her behalf.her parents lived in the area but they never used to beg along with those peeps but we knew they were her parents.the sore was so bad i could never bear to look at it.then someone takes her to prophet joshua's church,she gets a slappiverance(just kidding) and she's cured.i dont live in that neighbourhood anymore so i dont have the latest update on her but i know the incident caused quite a stir in my neighbourhood around the time.the girls sore didnt vanish,but within a space of few days,it healed up and the girl began to walk.some people said joshua used "juju",others said it was magic.but whichever way,the reality is her sores vanished

This details of this story are insufficient to form a proper opinion. Had she been getting any treatment prior to visiting the church? What exactly did they do to her at the church? Did you personally witness her healing? Did you see her walk after this supposed visit to the church? etc.

Delafruita:
there's someone i know who contracted hepatitis B.it so happens that there were 3 guys living in a flat as students and one of them died of hepatitis B.then another one fell sick and was diagnosed of typhoid.after a few weeks,the diagnosis changed to hepatitis B.he was placed on palliative treatment for 6months and was told he'd have to manage the ailment for the rest of his life because there is no cure.luckily,the virus hadnt done too much damage and he quickly got better.he had to maintain a strict diet and keep taking his drugs.2years later he fell ill and the first suspect was the hepatitis.his doctors performed LFT to know what next to do and suprisingly there was no trace of hepatitis in his system.the doctors ran the test again and it was the same thing.then his girlfriend reminds him of the day she forced him to church and he drank anointing oil and she tells him thats what did the miracle.till today he doesnt agree with her but a part of him recalls that day and the look on the doctor's face when she said "this is definitely a miracle".who was that person?Me

(1) So even though you just admitted that you maintained a strict diet and kept taking your drugs, somehow, you still believe that the anointing oil did the trick??

(2) What's the time frame between the period you drank this anointing oil and the time the Hepatitis B disappeared from your system?

(3) So, somehow, this anointing oil could completely clear all the Hepatitis B in your body, but could not prevent you from getting ill again? Or was the anointing oil specifically pastor-made for the Hepatitis B?

Purist:

This details of this story are insufficient to form a proper opinion. Had she been getting any treatment prior to visiting the church? What exactly did they do to her at the church? Did you personally witness her healing? Did you see her walk after this supposed visit to the church? etc.

she didnt get any treatment.dude,its an ulcer.the only medicak option is to amputate

as is common with jishua's church,they showed the clip on TV.it was the usual blabbing in tongues and deliverance prayers.

yes i saw her walk.she started to walk after the visit to SCOAN

e:
(1) So even though you just admitted that you maintained a strict diet and kept taking your drugs, somehow, you still believe that the anointing oil did the trick??

(2) What's the time frame between the period you drank this anointing oil and the time the Hepatitis B disappeared from your system?

(3) So, somehow, this anointing oil could completely clear all the Hepatitis B in your body, but could not prevent you from getting ill again? Or was the anointing oil specifically pastor-made for the Hepatitis B?

am going to assume you are intelligent.thats why i would propose you read the post again and then you will realise how completely ridiculous ur questions are

Delafruita:
she didnt get any treatment.dude,its an ulcer.the only medicak option is to amputate

as is common with jishua's church,they showed the clip on TV.it was the usual blabbing in tongues and deliverance prayers.

yes i saw her walk.she started to walk after the visit to SCOAN



am going to assume you are intelligent.thats why i would propose you read the post again and then you will realise how completely ridiculous ur questions are

let me just come out and say that your stories are lies, Delafruita.


Miracles my foot. I can make a story and shift all goalposts to make it sound like a real miracle too.

Delafruita:
she didnt get any treatment.dude,its an ulcer.the only medicak option is to amputate

as is common with jishua's church,they showed the clip on TV.it was the usual blabbing in tongues and deliverance prayers.

yes i saw her walk.she started to walk after the visit to SCOAN

Is there a way to access the clip of this alleged miracle? On YouTube for example?

Delafruita:
am going to assume you are intelligent.thats why i would propose you read the post again and then you will realise how completely ridiculous ur questions are

I just read your post again and I do not think my questions are "completely ridiculous". If you do not wish to answer them, simply say so.

Here's the part your post that elicited my questions by the way:

till today he doesnt agree with her but a part of him recalls that day and the look on the doctor's face when she said "this is definitely a miracle".who was that person?Me

I'm simply questioning that "part of him."

wiegraf: Pink unicorn and fsm have nothing to do with first cause or infinite regress, etc. They're meant to demonstrate who the burden of proof rests with. They also illustrate how absurd unverifiable claims are. Mac's variant is meant to illustrate the importance of being critical.

No: this is wrong: the FSM argument does have everything to do with causality because it asks the question as to whether a ridiculous conjuration such as a food monster could not be the cause of the universe. That is manifestly silly.

Intelligent design as a notion is not limited to Religious precepts as you know, and as such, cannot and should not be attacked with reference to the ridiculous notions of the ontology of God proffered by any religion.

And yes, asking why the universe may not have been created by a monster consisting of processed food such as pasta and meatballs, is beyond puerile: and you know it: it is plainly daf.t.

You cannot expect that to be taken seriously in any serious discussion, can you?

Deep Sight:

No: this is wrong: the FSM argument does have everything to do with causality because it asks the question as to whether a ridiculous conjuration such as a food monster could not be the cause of the universe. That is manifestly silly.

Intelligent design as a notion is not limited to Religious precepts as you know, and as such, cannot and should not be attacked with reference to the ridiculous notions of the ontology of God proffered by any religion.

And yes, asking why the universe may not have been created by a monster consisting of processed food such as pasta and meatballs, is beyond puerile: and you know it: it is plainly daf.t.

You cannot expect that to be taken seriously in any serious discussion, can you?

And yes, asking why the universe may not have been created by a monster consisting of an invisible old man or spirit is beyond puerile: and you know it: it is plainly daf.t.

plaetton:

I keep reminding you that this is the ridiculous, I mean religilous, sorry again, the religious section.
If the FSM argument is childish, what would you say of Yahweh did it argument, or the man from clay argument, or the talking snake argument.
Are they not in the same category of childishness? Well, that is excactly what the FSM argument aims to prove. Nothing more.
If you can hold on to one ridiculous notion to explain the origin of the universe, then why I can't I do the same?

In addittion to my comments to wiegraf above, I must say to you that once the discussion is the existence of God, it is altogether insufficient to make such an argument because the question of the existence of God is about causation for the universe.

For this reason that which should be of concern would rather be [x] the question as to whether the universe is caused and [y] if caused, what caused it.

It is crucial to note that in this respect the core ontological attributes of God advanced by religions are -

[1] - - - An eternal uncaused element

[2] - - - Trancendental

[3] - - - Being

[4] - - - Purpose

As such, it is against THESE attributes that such an argument should be made: namely to say that it is wrong to advance the idea that the universe was caused by an eternal uncaused transcendental being imbued with purpose.

That would be the sensible way to address the debate, and certainly not the silly mockery of a non-starter which asks why the universe is not created by a monster consisting of processed food [pasta] and meatballs.

Such is irredeemably silly, and verily discloses the asker as nothing but a philosophical nit wit, and also, a real life nit wit.

Deep Sight:

In addittion to my comments to wiegraf above, I must say to you that once the discussion is the existence of God, it is altogether insufficient to make such an argument because the question of the existence of God is about causation for the universe.

For this reason that which should be of concern would rather be [x] the question as to whether the universe is caused and [y] if caused, what caused it.

It is crucial to note that in this respect the core ontological attributes of God advanced by religions are -

[1] - - - An eternal uncaused element

[2] - - - Trancendental

[3] - - - Being

[4] - - - Purpose

As such, it is against THESE attributes that such an argument should be made: namely to say that it is wrong to advance the idea that the universe was caused by an eternal uncaused transcendental being imbued with purpose.

That would be the sensible way to address the debate, and certainly not the silly mockery of a non-starter which asks why the universe is not created by a monster consisting of processed food [pasta] and meatballs.

Such is irredeemably silly, and verily discloses the asker as nothing but a philosophical nit wit, and also, a real life nit wit.

Need you here to discuss somethings about causality: [url]nairaland.com/1055914/pure-nothingness-existence-god[/url]

Deep Sight:

In addittion to my comments to wiegraf above, I must say to you that once the discussion is the existence of God, it is altogether insufficient to make such an argument because the question of the existence of God is about causation for the universe.

For this reason that which should be of concern would rather be [x] the question as to whether the universe is caused and [y] if caused, what caused it.

It is crucial to note that in this respect the core ontological attributes of God advanced by religions are -

[1] - - - An eternal uncaused element

[2] - - - Trancendental

[3] - - - Being

[4] - - - Purpose

As such, it is against THESE attributes that such an argument should be made: namely to say that it is wrong to advance the idea that the universe was caused by an eternal uncaused transcendental being imbued with purpose.

That would be the sensible way to address the debate, and certainly not the silly mockery of a non-starter which asks why the universe is not created by a monster consisting of processed food [pasta] and meatballs.

Such is irredeemably silly, and verily discloses the asker as nothing but a philosophical nit wit, and also, a real life nit wit.

[1] - - - An eternal uncaused element. The spaghetti monster caused the big bang and is an eternal creator.

[2] - - - Trancendental. The spaghetti monster is beyond humans and then universe.

[3] - - - Being. The spaghetti monster is a noodley supernatural being.

[4] - - - Purpose. The spaghetti monster brings love and kindness to humanity. He is the pasta of life.



See how a belief in God works in any religion?