noetic:

@ mazaje.

lots of the same old stuffs.

will reply in detail in due course. . . . . .busy at the moment.

Nothing to say? maybe becos the same old stuffs are true?

@Mazaje
Abeg well done, the poor bloke has to go and refresh his brain washing. Him liver dey fail am.

duduspace:

Nothing to say? maybe becos the same old stuffs are true?

@Mazaje
Abeg well done, the poor bloke has to go and refresh his brain washing. Him liver dey fail am.

he has been repeating the same old word over the past few days, he has been sounding like a broken record ever since. . . i don hear ontology tire. . .even his fellow christians can not even agree on the basic ontology he subscribes to. . . .some of them ascribe something different to the same god. . .

@ mazaje
I was only being polite to say that I will respond as soon i could, cos in reality ur post is lacking in basic commonsensical analysis that would elucidate the "naturalism" concept which was the basis of this correspondence. your post was very uninspiring to warrant a response.

You are not competent enough to ascertain what is relevant or irrelevant in analysing the coherence of ur beliefs.
Do u believe in the existence of "fili-ban-gbaski"? ur continuos refusal to answer this question is called COWARDICE and sparks lack of objectivity and RATIONALITY of thoughts.

mazaje:

you believe in the unsubstantiated writings of unknown men who thought the world was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe and you say that naturalism is intellectually lazy? does christianity not thrive on intellectual laziness? does the bible not warn you not to seek for knowledge and accepet everything on based on faith? does christianity not label intellectuality as blasphemy? even the bible god did not want adam and eve to eat the tree of "knowledge" according to the bible. . .we have so many anti intellectual statements in the bible like man' cleverness is foolishness in the eyes of god. . . but the same man has shown that he is much more clever than the imaginary bible god. . .such statements are there to keep people in line because the writers of the bible know that their assertion can not stand for them selves. . .

why are you so ignorantly beclouded? this new chapter was opened to examine ur beliefs, which u postulated as naturalism.
why then are u subscribing to anti-biblical stuffs to make no point? I consider this uninteresting and very unintelligent.

what are the convictions of naturalism?
why is ur concept sustained on the perceived flaws of the bible alone?
dont u think it is STUPID AND INTELLECTUALLY LAZY to assume everything came into existence by an "uncreated" big bang and yet deny the existence of an uncreated GOD?
dont u think it is stupid to assume all things have no beginning, and yet the origin of pioneer micro-organisms cannot be established?
dont u think it sparks illiteracy to discard a postulation without an alternative? whats ur alternative for the biblical account of "creation" "sin" et all?

now to naturalism. . .the cause of lightning was once thought to be god's wrath, but it turned out to be the unintelligent outcome of mindless natural forces the same goes for earth quake. people once thought an intelligent being must have arranged and maintained the amazingly ordered motions of the solar system, but now we know it's all the inevitable outcome of mindless natural forces. disease were once thought to be the mischief of supernatural demons or due to the wrath of god(the bible says that alot), but now we know that tiny, unintelligent organisms are the cause, which reproduce and infect us according to mindless natural forces. in case after case, without exception, the trend has been to find that purely natural causes underlie any phenomena. not once has the cause of anything turned out to really be god's wrath or intelligent meddling, or demonic mischief, or anything supernatural at all.

another one of ur meaningless rhetoric.  this is just an attempt to divert the issues at stake.
how have u explained the meaning of your naturalism? whats the relevance of all that u just said to naturalism?


your assertions that demons cause disease reveals illiterate postulations. how? where did u deduce this from the scriptures?

The collective weight of these observations is enormous: supernaturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always lost; naturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always won. naturalism is the belief that there is nothing supernatural.

Is naturalism consistent with lying?
where and when was spiritualism tested? by whom?  WHY MAKE UP RUBBISH TO POSTULATE RUBBISH ?

you are just throwing words here. . .the basis of naturalism is that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature. . .does it require any sacred convictions?

what is the truth? what is nature's truth?  it doesnt require "sacred" convictions? but isnt it pointless if a belief has no conviction at all?
otherwise, do u know d meaning of a belief?

what do you mean that naturalism can not be substantiated?  . . .i have defined and given you the concept of naturalism. .

you must think u are addressing a bunch of uninformed atheists. how have u explained naturalism?

.naturalism can sand on its own. . .i for one just like ridiculing and pointing out the inconsistencies of all religions. . . .does christianity not depend on disproving others? christians always discard or try to explain all the super natural claims of other religions through natural means but fail to do that to their own faith. . . .you can't have it both ways. . .

NO it doesnt.

naturalism is what you see every day and everytime, while the whole christian concept relies on faith in unproven and unsubstantiated words of unknown men that are sometimes not in accrodance to the laws of the natural world. . .why do you keep throwing words around? do you really know what you are saying when you keep on using words like lack of conviction?

what do I see everyday and every time?

i believe you do not know what irrationalism means. . . .do some of the writers of the bible not concede that some of their writings are completely irrational and should be accepted based on faith alone because of how irrational they sound and appear?

sounds like u dont even know the meaning of faith. cos this u said is false.

because such a being does not exist. . . of course. . .it has stood the test of logic and objective analysis. . .even the bible discorages objective and logical analysis. . .it relys only on faith. . .christains have conceded that logic and objectivity belongs to science labs. . because christianity demands complete faith. . .why does the bible discourage logical thoughts and objective analysis?

mazaje, this is the only meaningful attempt u have made to answer a question.  How do u reconcile HIS non-existence to the ontology u subscribe to?

based on such ontology that god is impossible to exist, let me give you and example. . .amongst the ontology of the christain god is that he is perfect. . .but we know that if something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. and yet this "perfect" god created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "imperfect" humans. the ultimate source of perfection is god according to one of his ontology. what is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. [b]what is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, [/b]so god must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. a poisonous wild desert fruit can never grow on an good orange tree. a perfect god who creates imperfect humans is impossible. the bible says that god is Omniscient meaning he knows all things, but the same bible shows or says that the omniscient god is surprised. how is that possible? how can a god that knows everything be suprised? a god who knows everything cannot have emotions. the bible says that god experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger,jealousy, sadness, and happiness. we humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. a man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger, suprise and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. in contrast, the omniscient god is ignorant of nothing. nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react. we humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. the perfect, omnipotent god, however, can fix anything. humans experience longing for things we lack. the perfect god lacks nothing. an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect god who experiences emotion is impossible.

yes His ontology includes perfection. He made a perfect man, as told in the book of genesis.
have u ever of "sin"? thats what made man imperfect.

all others u said are rubbish and very unobjective attempts to digress the issue at stake.

No offence intended, I am very busy now, but the quality of ur response did not inspire a spontaneous response. Address the basic issues and stop gallivanting.[quote][/quote]

huxley:

I concur with Toneyb that the highlighted is pure brilliance.   In fact, the entire post is just great.   Well done mazaje.

This is not surprising considering that u have NEVER formed or defended any of ur googled or copied opinions, no matter how annoying or stupid they sound.

noetic:

@ mazaje
I was only being polite to say that I will respond as soon i could, cos in reality ur post is lacking in basic commonsensical analysis that would elucidate the "naturalism" concept which was the basis of this correspondence. your post was very uninspiring to warrant a response.

but you came back and answered a post that is so uninspiring to warrant a response? will you stop being a hypocrite? if it is so uninspiring to warrant a response why then did you come back and respond to it?

You are not competent enough to ascertain what is relevant or irrelevant in analysing the coherence of ur beliefs.
Do u believe in the existence of "fili-ban-gbaski"? ur continuos refusal to answer this question is called COWARDICE and sparks lack of objectivity and RATIONALITY of thoughts.

irrelevant again i must say. . .i will like you to tell me what the ontology of fili-ban-gbaski are, how my belief or non belief in him affects me as a person or the natural world. . . .

why are you so ignorantly beclouded? this new chapter was opened to examine ur beliefs, which u postulated as naturalism.
why then are u subscribing to anti-biblical stuffs to make no point? I consider this uninteresting and very unintelligent.

this statement is completely false. . .you said that you were ready to debate my reservations about the christian ontology of god. . . .do you know for sure who wrote genesis, exodus, job, daniel etc. . . were you not told they were written by the people that the books bear their names? there are many bible believing christians that do not believe that moses wrote any of the books of the pentateuch. . .scholars disagree with many of the biblical claim of authorship both christian and non christian. . .most of the books or parts of some of the books in the bible were written by unknown men and that is a fact. . . .

what are the convictions of naturalism?

my convictions on naturalism is best attested to by the world in which we live in. . . .the christian hypothesis actually predicts a completely different universe than the one we find ourselves in. for a loving god who wanted to create a universe solely to provide a home for human beings, and to bring his plan of salvation to fruition, would never have invented this universe, but something quite different. but if there is no god, then the universe we actually observe is exactly the sort of universe we would expect to observe. in other words, if there is no god then this universe is the only kind of universe we would ever find ourselves in, the only kind that could ever produce intelligent life without any supernatural cause or plan. hence naturalist atheism predicts exactly the kind of universe we observe, while the christian theory predicts almost none of the features of our universe. indeed, the christian theory predicts the universe should instead have features that in fact it doesn't, and should lack features that in fact it has. for example the bible in the book of ecclesiastes 1:5 says that the sun revolves round the earth or moves from place to place.

Ecc 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

there are other verses in the bible that says that the earth is unmovable. . . this is not the universe in which we live in, this is the universe that the bible says which is completely different from the one in which we live in because in the universe that we live in the earth revolves around the sun not the other way round, in the universe that we live the sun does not move from place to place. . . . therefore, naturalism is a better explanation than christianity of the universe we actually find ourselves in.

why is ur concept sustained on the perceived flaws of the bible alone?

my concept is not perceived on the flaws of the bible alone. . .here on the nairaland religious section i talk about the flaws of the bible because i interact with christains but on yanabi i talk about the flaws of the koran when stating my case for naturalism because moslems are the people i interact with over there. . . 

dont u think it is STUPID AND INTELLECTUALLY LAZY to assume everything came into existence by an "uncreated" big bang and yet deny the existence of an uncreated GOD?

where did i say that i believe in the big bang? but it sure makes a much better sense than the the idea of a personal god. . . . the idea of a personal god is only used most of the time to fill in the gaps for things we have not yet known. . .the god hypothesis does not really answer anything, it is just an excuse. . . .the general hypothesis is that god is not visible, tangible or otherwise detectable by empirical means. god is supposed to act in space and time, but without having a location in space and time. his essence is, according to the tradition itself, ungraspable and fully beyond the comprehension of finite human minds. and yet belief in this incomprehensible being is supposed to make the present state of the world more intelligible? everything observable is supposed to be created by god, but this god himself is uncreated. furthermore, events in the observable world can generally be accounted for without introducing a god as an explanation. as i pointed out in my previous post thunderstorms, earthquakes,  lighting, plagues, eclipses, the variety of natural species, and even the origins of life itself all have detailed natural explanations(some of which i don't really agree with), notwithstanding the fact that they were once thought to be the immediate work of god.we are told a great deal about him, but never enough that claims that his existence can be put to the test. imagine, for example, a farmer who prays to god for rain to help his drought-stricken crops. suppose it then rains. our happy farmer explains this as the act of god in response to a prayer but suppose it doesn’t rain. the farmer explains this as god having had other reasons for withholding rain so you see either way, the god hypothesis seems to do no real explanatory work. it can be used to account for literally anything in exactly the same way.

dont u think it is stupid to assume all things have no beginning, and yet the origin of pioneer micro-organisms cannot be established?

scientist have explained in details the origin of organisms even the origin of life. . . there is an on going project in havard university meant to address this. . .the publication will be out very soon. . .i will advice you to do some reading with regards to that. . . .i agree that everything has a beginning. . . .even the proponents of the big bang agree that the big bang it self is the beginning of space and time. . .lets assume that god is the one the created the universe and the beginning that it self does not answer anything because it leads to more questions like what did god do during that eternity before he created everything? If god was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? was he bored? was he lonely? god is supposed to be perfect. if something is perfect, it is complete, it needs nothing else. we humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If god is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. there is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. a god who is perfect does nothing except exist. by the way if you agree that everything needs a creator then the question is who created god? if god can always exist with out the need to be created then the universe can also always exist without the need to be created. . .by the way there's no reason to assume the universe functions like human society or that there was a "who" to begin with.

NO it doesnt

yes it does. . .consider, in a slightly different context, the response that christians typically make to such doctrines as the healing power of allah or vishnu. typically they will dismiss such claims for the mysterious powers of allah as nonsense, and they will explain away in the supposed case of healing by allah or vishnu in terms familiar to medical science. in all such cases as this, the christian believer is using a double standard. he uses the principle of conservatism to debunk alternative gods, but violates the principle when it comes to his own deity but principles are not like taxi cabs. you can't just use them to get where you want to go and dismiss them.

dont u think it sparks illiteracy to discard a postulation without an alternative? whats ur alternative for the biblical account of "creation" "sin" et all?
another one of ur meaningless rhetoric.  this is just an attempt to divert the issues at stake.
how have u explained the meaning of your naturalism? whats the relevance of all that u just said to naturalism?

do i need to accept a flawed postulation just because i do not know what the right answer might be? i dont know what the answer to 123487666788999 * 1276657899999999765 might be but i know for sure that it is not 5. . . .what is sin? what might be sin to your god might not be sin to the moslem god or the hindu god and vice versa. . .nothing like sin exist in the natural universe only wrong doing. . .and that itself is not as an offense to a supernatural deity but to humans. . . naturalism as defined by philosopher Paul Draper(which i agree with) is "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system" in the sense that "nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it." more simply, it is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes. the idea behind this principle is that natural causes can be investigated directly through scientific method, whereas supernatural causes cannot, and hence presuming that an event has a supernatural cause for methodological purposes halts further investigation. for instance, if a disease is caused by microbes, we can learn more about how microbes interact with the body and how the immune system can be activated to destroy them, or how the transmission of microbes can be contained. but if a disease is caused by demons, we can learn nothing more about how to stop it, as demons are said to be supernatural beings unconstrained by the laws of nature (unlike natural causes).

your assertions that demons cause disease[b] reveals illiterate postulations[/b]. how? where did u deduce this from the scriptures?

you just keep throwing words around. . .the problem is that you are quite ignorant of the things that are in the bible. . . how many times do you want me to keep showing you things that are inside the  bible? let me show you one example. . .

Matt 17:14 When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him.
Mat 17:15 "Lord, have mercy on my son," he said. "He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water.
Mat 17:16 I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him."
Mat 17:17 "O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me."
Mat 17:18 Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

it is enough to say that devils, demons, evil spirits, or any other fiendish creatures have never been known to cause seizures. even with my limited knowledge of biology i know that seizures are violent neurological events which come about as the result of some physiological abnormality, such as a brain tumor, or an imbalance in electrical activity. not by demons devils or satan. . .the writer of luke purports that that a woman’s crippled nature is also due to possession by a devil

Luk 13:11 and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all.

while there are multitudes of unfortunate factors that can cripple a person, spiritual possession has never been proven to be one of them.

Is naturalism consistent with lying?
where and when was spiritualism tested? by whom?  WHY MAKE UP RUBBISH TO POSTULATE RUBBISH ?
what is the truth? what is nature's truth?  it doesnt require "sacred" convictions? but isnt it pointless if a belief has no conviction at all?
otherwise, do u know d meaning of a belief?
you must think u are addressing a bunch of uninformed atheists. how have u explained naturalism?
NO it doesnt.
  what do I see everyday and every time?
sounds like u dont even know the meaning of faith. cos this u said is false.
mazaje, this is the only meaningful attempt u have made to answer a question.

the christian spiritual postulations have been tested and have failed. . .no open minded individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is so contradictory as that of yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. example the bible clearly states how prayer(spiritualism) is supposed to work. . .

Mark 11:24:Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

so many christians have tried this spiritual excercies and it does not work. . .many have prayed for healing, job, protection, good health, children, happiness, promotion etc with the believe but they died waiting for their prayers to be answered. . . keep in mind that the bible clearly says that christains should go to the church elders to pray for them and anoint them with oil when ever they are sick and they will be healed which it self is a spiritual exercise. . .

James 5:14-18 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. (KJV)

so many christians have tried that and ended up dead. . . i know 2 people that were close to me that tried it and ended up dead. . .so it has failed besides if it were working christians will not be going to the hospital because the bible does not say that christians should go to the hospitals it says go to the church elders and you will be healed. . .the fact that christains prefer to go to the hospitals when they are sick as supposed to the church elders for healing shows that that spiritual injunction is a failure. . .

How do u reconcile HIS non-existence to the ontology u subscribe to?
yes His ontology includes perfection. He made a perfect man, as told in the book of genesis.
have u ever of "sin"? thats what made man imperfect.

it is very clear unless if you are blind. . . .let me debunk another said ontology of the christian god which i know you agree with. . it is commonly said that the christian god is morally good and perfect. . he is very good and nothing bad comes out from him. . .people always say that the bible god is so good and is incapable of doing evil because he is morally good and perfect. . he is the source of all morality. . .and is morally perfect. but the bible says that the same god that is morally perfect and good does evil. . .

"Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, to whom you sent me to offer your prayer: If you remain quietly in this land I will build you up, and not tear you down; I will plant you, not uproot you; for I regret the evil I have done you."(Jeremiah 42:9-10)

a morally perfect god that is all good at the same time does evil is impossible. . . .

all others u said are rubbish and very unobjective attempts to digress the issue at stake.

No offence intended, I am very busy now, but the quality of ur response did not inspire a spontaneous response. Address the basic issues and stop gallivanting.

talk is cheap they say. . . .will thou hypocrite be consistent? if my post does not require a response why then did you respond to it?

This is an interesting debate i must say, you guys should try and have a civil debate without name calling please.

The guy who made the video used to be called,"John L Armstrong(which is his real name,by the way).He makes great and informative anti-religion videos debunking belief systems.
I am subscribed to his channel.

jagunlabi:

The guy who made the video used to be called,"John L Armstrong(which is his real name,by the way).He makes great and informative anti-religion videos debunking belief systems.
I am subscribed to his channel.

So how do i subcribe to his channel coz i really like that video on the first page so am interested?

Go to the utube page proper to watch the video clip.At the top righthand side of the page there is the subscribe button.Click it and you are subscribed.But log in before you do it.

manmustwac:

So how do i subcribe to his channel coz i really like that video on the first page so am interested?

mazaje:


where did i say that i believe in the big bang? but it sure makes a much better sense than the the idea of a personal god. . . . the idea of a personal god is only used most of the time to fill in the gaps for things we have not yet known. . .[b]the god hypothesis does not really answer anything, it is just an excuse. . . .the general hypothesis is that god is not visible, tangible or otherwise detectable by empirical means. god is supposed to act in space and time, but without having a location in space and time. his essence is, according to the tradition itself, ungraspable and fully beyond the comprehension of finite human minds. and yet belief in this incomprehensible being is supposed to make the present state of the world more intelligible? everything observable is supposed to be created by god, but this god himself is uncreated. furthermore, events in the observable world can generally be accounted for without introducing a god as an explanation. as i pointed out in my previous post thunderstorms, earthquakes,  lighting, plagues, eclipses, the variety of natural species, and even the origins of life itself all have detailed natural explanations(some of which i don't really agree with), notwithstanding the fact that they were once thought to be the immediate work of god.we are told a great deal about him, but never enough that claims that his existence can be put to the test. imagine, for example, a farmer who prays to god for rain to help his drought-stricken crops. suppose it then rains. our happy farmer explains this as the act of god in response to a prayer but suppose it doesn’t rain. the farmer explains this as god having had other reasons for withholding rain so you see either way, the god hypothesis seems to do no real explanatory work. it can be used to account for literally anything in exactly the same way.[/b]

Very nice post Mazaje.

yes it does. . .consider, in a slightly different context, the response that christians typically make to such doctrines as the healing power of allah or vishnu. typically they will dismiss such claims for the mysterious powers of allah as nonsense, and they will explain away in the supposed case of healing by allah or vishnu in terms familiar to medical science. in all such cases as this, the christian believer is using a double standard. he uses the principle of conservatism to debunk alternative gods, but violates the principle when it comes to his own deity but principles are not like taxi cabs. you can't just use them to get where you want to go and dismiss them.

Nice one Mazaje.

what is the truth? what is nature's truth? it doesnt require "sacred" convictions? but isnt it pointless if a belief has no conviction at all?
otherwise, do u know d meaning of a belief?

I don't get this comment at all. First why must our belief require "sacred" convictions? The fact that you may feel the need to have sacred convictions does not mean your beliefs are correct. Naturalism is based more on observation of what we as human beings observe. Consequently naturalism does not at any time claim to have an all encompassing "truth" about everything. It gives space for learning and adaptation of theories and postulations as time goes on. What is wrong with saying today "I don't have an answer for this or I don't know how this came about". Why should it be necessary to come up with stories the explain everything like the bible seems to do. This is even sadder when over time some biblical "facts" have been proven to be wrong. If you accept scientific facts like the earth going round the sun - which is not as the bible has it - then can't you accept the bible may be flawed? A belief system with the capability to accept new knowledge and grow is not pointless, on the other hand one that refuses to change and holds on dogmatically to ancient beliefs is one that is terribly flawed.

@mazaje

3 gbosas for you, I like the cruise missiles yu are launching at this guy while he is still shooting arrows that the hebrews shot a long time ago (while waiting for his god to rain down fire and brimstone on you). I hope the guy realises the deficiencies in his argument before he becomes a total hypocrite like our resident "Artful Liar".

@Tasma
Some people have to beleive because they just cannot bear to have a void in their understanding of how everything ties together and that is understandable. What I can't stomach is the hypocrisy that accompanies such a mindset in some people. There is a very big difference between believing because you don't have all the answers and perpetuating lies in the name of belief.
I know very intelligent and knowledgeable people who have belief but they accept the obvious inconsistencies in the "God concept" and are just afraid of what the world would become if people don't beleive in God anymore, to them it is more like opting for the best of 2 evils. Folks like Davidylan and Noetic are a whole different breed entirely, I find it hard to even refer to them as christians atimes cos they descend to despicable depths atimes to dodge the obvious inconsistencies in their god concept I do wonder if they are actually defending god or their own bloated egos.

Tasma:

I don't get this comment at all. First why must our belief require "sacred" convictions? The fact that you may feel the need to have sacred convictions does not mean your beliefs are correct. Naturalism is based more on observation of what we as human beings observe. Consequently naturalism does not at any time claim to have an all encompassing "truth" about everything. It gives space for learning and adaptation of theories and postulations as time goes on. What is wrong with saying today "I don't have an answer for this or I don't know how this came about". Why should it be necessary to come up with stories the explain everything like the bible seems to do. This is even sadder when over time some biblical "facts" have been proven to be wrong. If you accept scientific facts like the earth going round the sun - which is not as the bible has it - then can't you accept the bible may be flawed? A belief system with the capability to accept new knowledge and grow is not pointless, on the other hand one that refuses to change and holds on dogmatically to ancient beliefs is one that is terribly flawed.

very well said. . . .the bible on more than one place clearly says that the sun revolves round the earth or moves from place to place. . .notice the evolution in the christian belief. . . . god always seems to grow or evolves with humanity, when people grow and become wiser the bible god does the same too. . . . it first started with heaven as a solid and physical place above the sky. . . according to the tower of babel people wanted to build a tower high up to the heavens, god was afraid that people will be able to see him and do everything that they wanted so he confused their means of communication. . .when ever the windows of heavens opens up rain begins to fall. . . jacob experienced a vision of a ladder or staircase reaching into heaven with angels going up and down it. . . . . the ancient jews clearly thought that the earth was a 3 dimensional plane. . .the flat earth as a solid body, the heavens as a solid body where yahweh and his angels resides, and below the earth(shoel or hell). . .with the advent of science, the heaven that was thought of and written about as a solid place where yahweh and his angels reside suddenly became an invisible place. . . .the god that once lived with people and showed himself to them face to face as a man will communicate with his fellow man or the god that used to address the entire people of israel in a public speech as recorded in the book of judges or joshua in the bible suddenly became an invisible god who only interacts with people on a personal basis through the holy spirit that can not even send a single coherent massage to those he interacts with but keeps sending very different massages to different people all the time. . .hell or shoel that was thought to be under the ground suddenly became an invisible place as people became more aware. . .the whole web of lies and delusion is just sickening. . . .

duduspace:

@mazaje

3 gbosas for you, I like the cruise missiles yu are launching at this guy while he is still shooting arrows that the hebrews shot a long time ago (while waiting for his god to rain down fire and brimstone on you). I hope the guy realises the deficiencies in his argument before he becomes a total hypocrite like our resident "Artful Liar".

@Tasma
Some people have to beleive because they just cannot bear to have a void in their understanding of how everything ties together and that is understandable. What I can't stomach is the hypocrisy that accompanies such a mindset in some people. There is a very big difference between believing because you don't have all the answers and perpetuating lies in the name of belief.
I know very intelligent and knowledgeable people who have belief but they accept the obvious inconsistencies in the "God concept" and are just afraid of what the world would become if people don't beleive in God anymore, to them it is more like opting for the best of 2 evils. Folks like Davidylan and Noetic are a whole different breed entirely, I find it hard to even refer to them as christians atimes cos they descend to despicable depths atimes to dodge the obvious inconsistencies in their god concept I do wonder if they are actually defending god or their own bloated egos.

we are in the age of reason, the guy on the you tube video says it best. . . fear is the only reason people hold unto these ridiculous beliefs. . . . .

Where is noetic?

Tasma:

I don't get this comment at all. First why must our belief require "sacred" convictions? The fact that you may feel the need to have sacred convictions does not mean your beliefs are correct.

what are talking about? do u read at all?
what are the convictions of naturalism, even if none of them are sacred?
do u know the meaning of a "belief"?

Naturalism is based more on observation of what we as human beings observe. Consequently naturalism does not at any time claim to have an all encompassing "truth" about everything.

well this contradicts what mazaje postulated. , , , . . .sounds like naturalism makes no sense.

It gives space for learning and adaptation of theories and postulations as time goes on.

To learn what? on what basis?

All that u learn or are learning evolves around the notion that a GOD DOES NOT EXIST, so what are u talking about?
isnt that as biased as the "christianity" u antagonise?

What is wrong with saying today "I don't have an answer for this or I don't know how this came about".

there is nothing wrong with that saying. It only sounds stupid when said against biblical truths u have no alternative for.

Why should it be necessary to [b]come up with stories the explain everything like the bible seems to do. [/b]This is even sadder when over time some biblical "facts" have been proven to be wrong. If you accept scientific facts like the earth going round the sun - which is not as the bible has it - then can't you accept the bible may be flawed?

is that ur angst against the bible?

A belief system with the capability to accept new knowledge and grow is not pointless, on the other hand one that refuses to change and holds on dogmatically to ancient beliefs is one that is terribly flawed.

define "growth" in this context? define "change" in this context?

what u posted was next to nonsense.

mazaje:

but you came back and answered a post that is so uninspiring to warrant a response? will you stop being a hypocrite? if it is so uninspiring to warrant a response why then did you come back and respond to it?

2 things usually happen whenever I ignore u in a thread.
U go to another thread and lie about what transpired. e.g u came here to LIE that u corrected my use of words. Another time u lied about me not subscribing to an article i posted.
And the second thing that happens is, neutral observers (not misled hypocrites called atheists) tend to take ur uniformed postulations for facts.

So all I can do is to reply when I can, but it doesnt change the fact that ur posts spark . . . . . .

irrelevant again i must say. . .i will like you to tell me what the ontology of fili-ban-gbaski are, how my belief or non belief in him affects me as a person or the natural world. . . .

werent u taught never to answer a question with a question. Just tell me IF U BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF FILI-BAN-GBASKI?

this statement is completely false. . .you said that you were ready to debate my reservations about the christian ontology of god. . . .do you know for sure who wrote genesis, exodus, job, daniel etc. . . were you not told they were written by the people that the books bear their names? there are many bible believing christians that do not believe that moses wrote any of the books of the pentateuch. . .scholars disagree with many of the biblical claim of authorship both christian and non christian. . .most of the books or parts of some of the books in the bible were written by unknown men and that is a fact. . . .

how  does this relate to the topic at hand? pls be objective.

my convictions on naturalism is best attested to by the world in which we live in. . . .the christian hypothesis actually predicts a completely different universe than the one we find ourselves in. for a loving god who wanted to create a universe solely to provide a home for human beings, and to bring his plan of salvation to fruition, would never have invented this universe, but something quite different. but if there is no god, then the universe we actually observe is exactly the sort of universe we would expect to observe. in other words, if there is no god then this universe is the only kind of universe we would ever find ourselves in, the only kind that could ever produce intelligent life without any supernatural cause or plan. hence naturalist atheism predicts exactly the kind of universe we observe, while the christian theory predicts almost none of the features of our universe. indeed, the christian theory predicts the universe should instead have features that in fact it doesn't, and should lack features that in fact it has. for example the bible in the book of ecclesiastes 1:5 says that the sun revolves round the earth or moves from place to place.

what are u talking about?

u started by attempting to tell me ur convictions, what has that got to do with the universe?
WHAT ARE THE CONVICTIONS OF "NATURALISM"?

there are other verses in the bible that says that the earth is unmovable. . . this is not the universe in which we live in, this is the universe that the bible says which is completely different from the one in which we live in because in the universe that we live in the earth revolves around the sun not the other way round, in the universe that we live the sun does not move from place to place. . . . therefore, naturalism is a better explanation than christianity of the universe we actually find ourselves in.

very irrelevant. Solomon was the wisest man in his time, and he was giving his opinion on the constant changes that define life. His statement aint a biblical fact about the earth's movement. I believe u can do better.

But how does the earth's movement according to solomon, buttress or disprove the CONVICTIONS of "naturalism."?
Mazaje, pls be focused.

where did i say that i believe in the big bang? but it sure makes a much better sense than the the idea of a personal god. . . . the idea of a personal god is only used most of the time to fill in the gaps for things we have not yet known. . .the god hypothesis does not really answer anything, it is just an excuse. . . .the general hypothesis is that god is not visible, tangible or otherwise detectable by empirical means. god is supposed to act in space and time, but without having a location in space and time. his essence is, according to the tradition itself, ungraspable and fully beyond the comprehension of finite human minds. and yet belief in this incomprehensible being is supposed to make the present state of the world more intelligible? everything observable is supposed to be created by god, but this god himself is uncreated. furthermore, events in the observable world can generally be accounted for without introducing a god as an explanation. as i pointed out in my previous post thunderstorms, earthquakes,  lighting, plagues, eclipses, the variety of natural species, and even the origins of life itself all have detailed natural explanations(some of which i don't really agree with), notwithstanding the fact that they were once thought to be the immediate work of god.we are told a great deal about him, but never enough that claims that his existence can be put to the test. imagine, for example, a farmer who prays to god for rain to help his drought-stricken crops. suppose it then rains. our happy farmer explains this as the act of god in response to a prayer but suppose it doesn’t rain. the farmer explains this as god having had other reasons for withholding rain so you see either way, the god hypothesis seems to do no real explanatory work. it can be used to account for literally anything in exactly the same way.

God has never been used to fill the gap for the things we dont know.

Do u know how many times the words "may" "possibly" "could" are used in scientific peer-review articles or findings?
while illiteracy might be responsible for certain man-given attributes to GOD, it does not deny the existence or potency of GOD.

can u just hear urself, how ridiculous and unreasonable ur postulations sound. This can be implied from u

A big bang was not "created" but "could" be the origin of evolution and not an "uncreated GOD".
All things cannot be from GOD, but can evolve from micro-organisms, whose pioneer parent CANNOT be traced.
Life started from complex chemical reactions, but we dont know the first complex chemical reaction, its component simpler reactions or catalysts?
Does any of the above make any logical reasonable sense. or can they stand simple commonsensical test?

scientist have explained in details the origin of organisms even the origin of life. . .

must u tell LIES? WHERE? WHEN? HOW? WHAT WAS THE EXPLANATION?

there is an on going project in havard university meant to address this. . .the publication will be out very soon. . .i will advice you to do some reading with regards to that. . . .i agree that everything has a beginning. . . .even the proponents of the big bang agree that the big bang it self is the beginning of space and time. . .

while an unwitnessed, uncreated, disreputable and theorical "big bang"  could have led to the beginning of life, an "uncreated GOD" could NOT have.
how does that sound to u? it sounds very UNINTELLIGENT AND ABSOLUTELY STUPID to me.

lets assume that god is the one the created the universe and the beginning that it self does not answer anything because it leads to more questions like what did god do during that eternity before he created everything?

u are assuming eternity can be measured. NO it cant.

If god was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? was he bored? was he lonely?

creation was for HIS pleasure.

god is supposed to be perfect. if something is perfect, it is complete, it needs nothing else.

Again, u are assuming God needs u. No He does not.

we humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be.

I can speak for Christians. perfection is impossible, that's why we are given GRACE.

If god is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. there is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. a god who is perfect does nothing except exist.

ur assumptions are unintelligent in the least. whats the basis of this assumption?

by the way if you agree that everything needs a creator then the question is who created god? if god can always exist with out the need to be created then the universe can also always exist without the need to be created. . .by the way there's no reason to assume the universe functions like human society or that there was a "who" to begin with.

Isnt it ironic that an argument that a debate can be held conically on the premise of an uncreated GOd, and yet an "uncreated big bang" and "uncreated micro-organisms" are not refuted to be sources of life. This is very jejune.
God has NO beginning.  ever heard of an uncreated creator?

do i need to accept a flawed postulation just because i do not know what the right answer might be? i dont know what the answer to 123487666788999 * 1276657899999999765 might be but i know for sure that it is not 5. . . .what is sin? what might be sin to your god might not be sin to the moslem god or the hindu god and vice versa. . .nothing like sin exist in the natural universe only wrong doing. . .and that itself is not as an offense to a supernatural deity but to humans. . .naturalism as defined by philosopher Paul Draper(which i agree with) is "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system" in the sense that "nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it." more simply, it is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes. the idea behind this principle is that natural causes can be investigated directly through scientific method, whereas supernatural causes cannot, and hence presuming that an event has a supernatural cause for methodological purposes halts further investigation. for instance, if a disease is caused by microbes, we can learn more about how microbes interact with the body and how the immune system can be activated to destroy them, or how the transmission of microbes can be contained. but if a disease is caused by demons, we can learn nothing more about how to stop it, as demons are said to be supernatural beings unconstrained by the laws of nature (unlike natural causes).

u havent said anytin new. This is all about the denial of GOD.

U now see i was right, u are not saying anything new.

the[b] christian spiritual postulations have been tested and have failed[/b]. . .no open minded individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is so contradictory as that of yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. example the bible clearly states how prayer(spiritualism) is supposed to work. . .

please tell me where? when? how? why are u LYING?

no open minded and objective individual can throw away the existence of GOD on the basis of "evolution" "naturalism" and the "big bang". It stinks  

so many christians have tried this spiritual excercies and it does not work. . .many have prayed for healing, job, protection, good health, children, happiness, promotion etc with the believe but they died waiting for their prayers to be answered. . . keep in mind that the bible clearly says that christains should go to the church elders to pray for them and anoint them with oil when ever they are sick and they will be healed which it self is a spiritual exercise. . .

so many christians have tried that and ended up dead. . . i know 2 people that were close to me that tried it and ended up dead. . .so it has failed besides if it were working christians will not be going to the hospital because the bible does not say that christians should go to the hospitals it says go to the church elders and you will be healed. . .the fact that christains prefer to go to the hospitals when they are sick as supposed to the church elders for healing shows that that spiritual injunction is a failure. . .

very irrelevant.

How about the countless cases where this same principles u are discarding have worked? did this change ur beliefs?

it is very clear unless if you are blind. . . .let me debunk another said ontology of the christian god which i know you agree with. . it is commonly said that the christian god is morally good and perfect. . he is very good and nothing bad comes out from him. . .people always say that the bible god is so good and is incapable of doing evil because he is morally good and perfect. . he is the source of all morality. . .and is morally perfect. but the bible says that the same god that is morally perfect and good does evil. . .

a morally perfect god that is all good at the same time does evil is impossible. . . .

talk is cheap they say. . . .will thou hypocrite be consistent? if my post does not require a response why then did you respond to it?

Its called judgement. when a man receives judgement, he calls it evil, was he not forewarned?

mazaje, be objective and stop redefining GOD to suit ur uninformed and intellectually limited scope of reasoning.
kudos to u, I managed to reply u again. . . . thou LYING naturalist.

toneyb:

Where is noetic?

too busy to reply to mazaje's folly.

@ mazaje

u said this:

the basis of naturalism is that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature.

what is the truth? what are basic truths? what are the truths of nature?

@ mazaje

u also said this

naturalism is what you see every day and everytime,

what do I see every day and every time?

this is turning to pure comedy 

u subscribe to the basic xtian ontology of GOD, yet u dont believe in HIS existence. u havent reconciled both of these contradicting postulations.
Its like saying, "I know Lagos is a city in the south western part of Nigeria" and then in the same context saying "I dont believe there is a city called Lagos". is that not a myriad of contradictions?

please reconcile this beliefs!!!

noetic:

2 things usually happen whenever I ignore u in a thread.
U go to another thread and lie about what transpired. e.g u came here to LIE that u corrected my use of words. Another time u lied about me not subscribing to an article i posted.
And the second thing that happens is, neutral observers (not misled hypocrites called atheists) tend to take ur uniformed postulations for facts.

So all I can do is to reply when I can, but it doesnt change the fact that ur posts spark . . . . . .

i never lied you did all the things i said you did. . . .do you want use to go back to those arguments again?

werent u taught never to answer a question with a question. Just tell me IF U BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF FILI-BAN-GBASKI?

not until you tell me what his ontology is. . .fili-ban-gbaski could mean water. . .so i that case i will have to believe water exist. . .

what are u talking about?

u started by attempting to tell me ur convictions, what has that got to do with the universe?
WHAT ARE THE CONVICTIONS OF "NATURALISM"?

i have already told you that long time ago what more do you want? re-read my post. . . . . .naturalism best explain the world in which we live in. . .which requires no need for a god,naturalism is the belief that there is nothing supernatural, naturalism included secularism, agnosticism, scientific method of evaluation. .  .atheism. . . .big bang as the origin of the universe, evolution and natural selection (parts of which i agree with) as responsible for the variety of organisms. . .simple chemical reactions as the origin of life. . .natural disasters because we live in an unintelligible planet as opposed to natural disasters being caused by god or a perfect universe that is being controlled by one deity. . . .the fact that harm affects us all as opposed to the righteous being protected by their gods because that is not true. . .  

very irrelevant. Solomon was the wisest man in his time, and he was giving his opinion on the constant changes that define life. His statement aint a biblical fact about the earth's movement. I believe u can do better.

But how does the earth's movement according to solomon, buttress or disprove the CONVICTIONS of "naturalism."?
Mazaje, pls be focused.

there is no lie you guys won't throw around when lying for jesus as toneyb always says. . . .what is this nonsense you have written here? do you guys not go around telling people that the bible is the infallible, and perfect word of god? do you guys not go around saying that god himself inspired the writers of the bible to write what HE WANTS them to write? so what nonsense is this you are saying? did solomon not write the nonsense he wrote under the inspiration of the bible god as you guys love saying? why is it that when you guys see what is factually not true in the bible or things that completely senseless you resort to this kind of shenanigans?  here it is in the palms once again for you. . . .

Psa Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,  
Psa 19:5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course.  
Psa 19:6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.

here it is again in the so called psalms of david where he was inspired by the bible god to write things that are factually not true. . . . .by the way today we know that some parts of the universe are totally unaffected by our sun. so do you agree that the people that wrote the bible were inspired by the bible god to write down what he wants them to write down or not? you can't have it both ways. . . .

God has never been used to fill the gap for the things we dont know.

god has always been used to fill in the gaps in the bible and in most of ancient history. . .even the bible attest to it, the writers of the bible taught earth quakes, floods, tsunamis, lighting were all caused by god and the wrote extensively about it. . . now we know that is is a lie. . . no god causes tusnami, earth quake or lightning. . . .it has now been discovered that natural disasters like hurricane and typhoons can be made impotent by changing the atmospheric tempreture around the body of water once the begin to build and they will not be able to build again. . .the device that will alter the tempreture is what  scientist are presently working on and once they have completed their work, there will be no more hurricanes in places of the world that can afford to by the machines and use them. . . if god is what causes hurricane are you now telling me that humans can now alter his doing and intentions with scientific devices? same goes to disease and plagues that were once taught to be caused by god or demons. . . now we know that unintelligible micro organisms cause diseases. . . not gods or demons. . .

Do u know how many times the words "may" "possibly" "could" are used in scientific peer-review articles or findings?
while illiteracy might be responsible for certain man-given attributes to GOD, it does not deny the existence or potency of GOD.

can u just hear urself, how ridiculous and unreasonable ur postulations sound. This can be implied from u

A big bang was not "created" but "could" be the origin of evolution and not an "uncreated GOD".
All things cannot be from GOD, but can evolve from micro-organisms, whose pioneer parent CANNOT be traced.
Life started from complex chemical reactions, but we dont know the first complex chemical reaction, its component simpler reactions or catalysts?
Does any of the above make any logical reasonable sense. or can they stand simple commonsensical test?

better to have or believe "mays" and "coulds" or "i dont know" of people that have provided cure to cancer, malaria, tuberculosis, small pox, flu, natural blindness and deafness than to believe the nonsense postulations of ancient jews who thought the world was flat and the sun revolves round the earth or unknown men who taught that demons, evil spirits and gods causes diseases. . .by the way did your bible tell you the first complex reaction that took place which produced life? did the early jews not use their god to fill in the gap? what are your own proof of creationism as recorded in the two different creation accounts of genesis 1 and 2? its time you begin to answer those questions. . . scientist at least give people their works to review. . .was the bible ever peer reviewed? who wrote genesis? do you know the person that wrote genesis? do you not just believe in the words of that unknown person even though they do not make any sense?

must u tell LIES? WHERE? WHEN? HOW? WHAT WAS THE EXPLANATION?

haven't you ever heard of the word Abiogenesis? it is the scientific way of explain the origin of life. . .not that i  completely agree with it but it is far better than the rubbish that is written in genesis 1 and 2 that have no evidence or can not be tested and proven in any kind of way. . .all we have in genesis 1 and 2 are the thoughts of ancient men who taught that snakes could talk and eat dust. . . .

while an unwitnessed, uncreated, disreputable and theorical "big bang"  could have led to the beginning of life, an "uncreated GOD" could NOT have.
how does that sound to u? it sounds very UNINTELLIGENT AND ABSOLUTELY STUPID to me.

the big bang is just a theory meaning that it is very plausible. . . .it is better than filling the gap with god that is constantly evolving with the nature and behavior of mankind. . . when men were primitive so was god or so were all the gods. . . in the bible god sewed cloths of animal skin for adam and eve, he lived in the wooden ark of the ancient jews. . . he ate their meals and tasted it. . . he fought wars with them and shared the loot or booty with them. . .  now that man is sophisticated the gods are also trying to be but mankind seems to be far ahead of all of them. . . by the way which of the uncreated god created the universe? is it allah, yahweh, jesus, vishnu, zeues, gunhume etc? which of the so called uncreated gods created the universe?

u are assuming eternity can be measured. NO it cant.

what makes you say that it can't? who told you so? your pastor or the unknown men that wrote the bible?

creation was for HIS pleasure.

pleasure that turned out to be a debacle as it is written in the bible? what kind of pleasure is that if he is constantly killing, destroying and changing his plans all the time? it is good that you have conceded that killing is a pleasurable thing thing to the bible god because thats the only thing he is known for doing through out the old testament. . . .read the bible and it says that the bible god is always angry and dissatisfied with humanity. . .always fighting humans for one reason or the other. . . what kind of pleasure is that? did the bible god create humans to fight with them all the time the way the old testament says he did? is killing and giving out stupid and ridiculous laws his pleasure? if you read the old testament that is all what you will see. . .even the new testament is the same wahala even after coming to and was killed by humans and die on a cross like a chicken people still do not want to do what he wants them to do hence the endless battle with humanity. . . what an incompetent god you believe in . . .the same god complain so many times in the bible that he regrets making humans and yet he just can not kill them all have all the good pleasure that he wants? even after killing the "whole" of mankind in the mythical noah ark he still came back and continued his endless battles with humanity. . .what a god. . . .

u havent said anytin new. This is all about the denial of GOD.

U now see i was right, u are not saying anything new.

show me where god is then i will believe in him else be quite. . .the only evidence you have for the existence of your god is your personal belief nothing else, but so also do the moslems, hindus, bahis, buddist etc. . . .the only reason that i am engaging you is to let you see the reason as to why people do not believe in ancient man made deities. .  .when next some one tells you he does not believe in your deity you don't have to be hot headed about it and call him an irrational fool because that seems to be your attitude even when you do not even have coherent evidence and persuasive arguments but belief in some nonsense book that you did not even know who the authors were and what condition they were in before the wrote what ever they wrote. . .in fact you are not even reading their wittings in the original language they wrote it to better understand the prose and what they were actually writing all you have is translations that have been edited and re edited to rely on. . .

Isnt it ironic that an argument that a debate can be held conically on the premise of an uncreated GOd, and yet an "uncreated big bang" and "uncreated micro-organisms" are not refuted to be sources of life. This is very jejune.
God has NO beginning.  ever heard of an uncreated creator?

what is your evidence for this apart from meaningless rhetorics?. . . . . . . .

please tell me where? when? how? why are u LYING?

no open minded and objective individual can throw away the existence of GOD on the basis of "evolution" "naturalism" and the "big bang". It stinks

sure that is very true. . . the open minded europeans that brought the belief to us have discarded it long ago. . . the open minded americans are discarding it in droves. . . only the closed minded africans and other close minded people are desperately holding unto to it. . . .you mean the europeans that brought the belief to you and have almost all left it are close minded and not objective? the americans that are leaving it in droves are not objective? only the africans and some of the south americans that are at the bottom of the human chain are open minded and objective eh?

very irrelevant.

How about the countless cases where this same principles u are discarding have worked? did this change ur beliefs?

countless eh. . .  just go ahead and give me just one documented case. . .just one. . . that has been scientifically documented. . . .i dont want church testimonies. . .because we also have uncountable mosque testimonies too

Its called judgement. when a man receives judgement, he calls it evil, was he not forewarned?

when will you guys stop lying?. . . . was it not god saying and apologizing that he did evil unto the men? how can a perfectly moral god do evil. . .here is the passage again it was the bible god that was confessing of the evil he did not men. . .

"Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, to whom you sent me to offer your prayer: If you remain quietly in this land I will build you up, and not tear you down; I will plant you, not uproot you; for I regret the evil I have done you."(Jeremiah 42:9-10)

how do you read ur bible?

mazaje, be objective and stop redefining GOD to suit ur uninformed and intellectually limited scope of reasoning.
kudos to u, I managed to reply u again. . . . thou LYING naturalist.

that advise should be for yourself. . . . i have clearly shown that i can reason for myself while you endlessly believe and depend on the words of ancient jews that would have killed you if your tribe was living any where near them when they were writing their fantasies. . . keep on lying for jesus. . i can see you are very good at it. . . .

Noetic sure can babble rubbish, even a nursery school pupil can do better than this. A question please, does this guy have any tertiary education at all? I am quite disappointed at the last post, damn waste of space making no sense whatsoever. I'll list just a few howlers from this guy.

How can an educated person say this?

[Quote]
Solomon was the wisest man in his time, and he was giving his opinion on the constant changes that define life. His statement aint a biblical fact about the earth's movement. I believe u can do better.
[/quote]
If Solomon's statement isn't biblical fact, I wonder what is, perhaps Noetic's statements?

Another statement I can't even begin to fathom is

[Quote]
God has never been used to fill the gap for the things we dont know.
[/quote]

made in repsonse to this statement

[Quote]
events in the observable world can generally be accounted for without introducing a god as an explanation. as i pointed out in my previous post thunderstorms, earthquakes,  lighting, plagues, eclipses, the variety of natural species, and even the origins of life itself all have detailed natural explanations(some of which i don't really agree with), notwithstanding the fact that they were once thought to be the immediate work of god
[/quote]

Word of advise noetic, if you have nothing to say please keep quiet. People might start wondering if you're educated at all. On second thoughts, what is your discipline? I'm just a bit curious.

@ duduspace they most always give excuses no matter how nonsensical they are. . . take for instance the non sense and meaningless mostly unprovoked killings of people that was carried out by yahweh and his foot soldiers in the old testament or some of the ridiuclous laws like slavery or stoning to death disobedient children or cutting of the hands of women that go to rescue their husbands from his assailants. . .when christians are cornered and can not rationalize or provide meaningful answers to all the nonsense and stupidity they start saying ridiculous things like allah did the same in the koran too. . .or that god can not be understood, u need his holy spirit in other to understand all those things. . .or that the ways of god is different from that of men. . .what holy spirit does a person need to not know that it is wrong to advocate slavery or that it is completely stupid and irrational to stone to death disobedient kids or kill 42 children because they played with a prophet?. . . .then again they will say that jesus came and changed all those laws but the same bible says that god is not a man that he should change his mind. . . or that god is the same yesterday, today and forever. . .he never changes. . . the whole web of lies and delusion is ridiculous. . . . .

noetic:

too busy to reply to mazaje's folly.

You came and displayed your foolishness for everybody to see and then turn around and throw words around? I believe you must have read Duduspace last reply he said it best. As for the Solomon's debacle all I can do is just laugh. You completely discredited yourself there.

@mazaje

I find this particularly intriguing and a bit disturbing.

[Quote]creation was for HIS pleasure.[/quote]

in response to yur statement about god being perfect. WTF is this stuff about his pleasure? pleasure

Is he implying that human beings were created in a wanking fit from God? what a despicable God if this is what he considers pleasure, psychopath does not even begin to describe him.

God pleasuring himself, what a laugh.

duduspace:

@mazaje

I find this particularly intriguing and a bit disturbing.

in response to yur statement about god being perfect. WTF is this stuff about his pleasure? pleasure

Is he implying that human beings were created in a wanking fit from God? what a despicable God if this is what he considers pleasure, psychopath does not even begin to describe him.

God pleasuring himself, what a laugh.

sure god pleasuring himself with a laugh when he see the six million jews being killed by hitler or when he send a tsunami as christians believe to kill off about 300,000 people in asia. . . .or when he sits down and does nothing when small pox that also comes from him as christains believe wiped away about 500million people in the world. . . .read the old testament and you will realize that yahweh is really a blood thirsty and dangerous deity. . . .

noetic:

what are talking about? do u read at all?
what are the convictions of naturalism, even if none of them are sacred?
do u know the meaning of a "belief"?
well this contradicts what mazaje postulated. , , , . . .sounds like naturalism makes no sense.
To learn what? on what basis?

All that u learn or are learning evolves around the notion that a GOD DOES NOT EXIST, so what are u talking about?
isnt that as biased as the "christianity" u antagonise?

there is nothing wrong with that saying. It only sounds stupid when said against biblical truths u have no alternative for.

is that ur angst against the bible?
define "growth" in this context? define "change" in this context?

what u posted was next to nonsense.

It seems to me you have no will to learn at all. Well if belief in the biblical god makes you a happy person by all means carry on with it. It's unnecessary to justify your faith to anyone as you are clearly unable to carry on a coherent and civil discussion. Cheers

noetic:

I can speak for Christians. perfection is impossible, that's why we are given GRACE.

I can see that you that you throw lies around any time you feel it will serve you and keep you in your bubble of delusion. . . does the bible not tell you that perfection can be achieved? did jesus not tell his followers to be perfect?

Matthew 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect..

When will thou stop telling lies for jesus?

Huxley, you have been corrupted by association. I cant believe this topic came from you buddy!

Where is neotic?   .

^ or Neurotic bloke probably has a bad case of nerves.

toneyb:

Where is neotic?   .

perhaps on the islamic thread doing battle with the slaves of allah. . . .he has joined his brother in the lying for jesus movement davidylan. . . .

mazaje:

perhaps on the islamic thread doing battle with the slaves of allah. . . .he has joined his brother in the lying for jesus movement davidylan. . . .