For the sake of objectivity, clarity and intellectual emphasis, I asked myself: Why exactly am I not an atheist?

Here are the reason's I came up with . . .

1. An Atheist cannot substantiate his belief/disbelief:

An theist wonders why a religious belief should be based on faith, salvation and hope alone? A christian's claim of an experience/encounters with the Holy spirit, breakthroughs and miracles are not acceptable for verifiable and scientific reasons. , . . , , anyway this thread is not about christian beliefs.

The atheist reckons that all beliefs should be explicable scientifically, intellectually and logically. According to the atheist the christians cannot do this. But I find it difficult to reconcile an atheist's beliefs to proof or evidence.

So let us put the atheist belief under the same microscope:
what is the scientific, intellectual or logical evidence for the non-existence of GOD?
what is the intellectual, rational or logical basis for the non-existence of GOD?

The atheist yells: "The burden of proof is on the theist". . . .absolute RUBBISH. Any one who propagates an idea or belief/disbelief has the burden of proof. If u believe God does not exist, . . . . .simply prove it.

Over and over again as evidenced on this forum, atheists have refused to bring up this "evidence" of theirs that establishes the non-existence of GOD. It is as such safe to state that atheism is based on FAITH. faith and hope that GOD does not exist. because whatever assertion u cannot prove is a belief based on assumptions fuelled by . . . .

Atheism is as "guilty" as the religion it antagonises because it relies on FAITH.


2. Atheism Connotes Ignorance:

To discuss/debate a subject you need a basic understanding of that subject. To debate evolution, mathematics or politics, one must at least have an understanding of the subjects involved. It is from this understanding that beliefs and ideologies are created.

Take for instance I have a complete understanding of the ontological and implicit nature of obatala, orunmila and ifa (yoruba local gods) which explains my disbelief in these minute gods. I do not subscribe to their potency, relevance or reverence. In other words a belief/lack of belief/ideology is a product of comprehensive understanding.

An atheist believes in the nihilance/non-existence of GOD. So can the atheist demonstrate an understanding of the subject involved in this belief/disbelief.

Who is Jehovah God? What is His ontology? (ur ontological definition must meet the meta-physical requirements of the atheist community, otherwise it is unacceptable to nairaland christians)

3. The inconsistencies of the atheist's Evolution:

Evolution is used to lend credence to atheism, to buttress the belief that there is no GOD. Evolution is the platform that attempts to rubbish the creation story as recorded in Genesis. Evolution mixes LIES with facts. I will not emphasise on these "facts" (but let me state here that changes in the earth (and man) from the "primordial" man (to this age) can NEVER be used to propagate the evolution LIE)

Perhaps if evolution/evolutionists/atheists can answer these pertinent questions. . . . .then I might believe afterall.

the commonest law of biogenesis says life begets life. Biology buttresses this.
Yet evolution claims that the first substance of life were formed from non-living substances reffered to as "spontaneous generation". is this not a contradiction?

Darwin claims that all organisms on earth are descent from a common ancestor or a last universal ancestor.Whats the atheist's explanation for the mitochondria gene exception? what is the identity and nature of the last common universal ancestor?

Evolution traces life to phylogenetic tree that that postulates three domains of life namely bacteria, archea and eucaryota. What is the major consensus or common denominator to whom life can be traced to between these three?

Evolution claims that increasing complex chemical reactions that resulted from simpler chemical reactions are the last traces of life.
what was the singular first chemical reaction that kick started life?
and what were the substances that made up this reaction?
what was the structure of the first living things? what was the catalyst of this first chemical reaction? what were the components of this catalyst?

with regards to the pioneer formation of the RNA? how did it happen? which was the very first? what was its structure?


I await these answers with deep breadth . . , What if there are NO answers to these questions, does that make evolution and subsequently atheism false? YES, . . .a definite YES



4. Atheism Denotes Ignorance and jejune postulations:

What are the norms of debating? Simply pick holes in the argument of the opposing view and offer acceptable alternatives. I have asked several atheists the basis for stating that there is no GOD, the answer has been unanimous. . . .NONE.

An atheist claims that God did not create the earth and its components, . .who did? how? when? where?

It is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE to state that "i know 24264927*9629462429 is not 5, even though I dont know the answer".
For u to know that 24264927*9629462429 is not 5, it means u have a knowledge of mathematics. . . . . use that knowledge to work out the real answer.

It is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE to state that "I cannot prove the non-existence of God but can only pick holes in biblical assertions of the bible GOD"
For you to establish the "inconsistencies" of the bible, u must be able to offer concrete and intellectually acceptable alternatives. otherwise u are ranting.

The inability of the atheist community on nairaland/world to answer these basic pertinent questions is the basis of being regarded as "beclouded" critics.Critics who condemn (not on any intellectual or scientific basis) and yet have no alternative. This is despicable IGNORANCE that should not be transmitted to the next generation.


5. Whats There to loose?

An atheist claims there is no God, as such no eternity. When I die as a christian and then find out that there is indeed no GOD. , .what do i loose?. . . . .Absolutely NOTHING.

Whats there to loose if I DIE an atheist. . . .and then find out that there is a JEHOVAH GOD?
bear in mind that repentance is impossible in the grave. I will become a partaker in the torments of HELL which the bible describes in sordid details.

Atheism is a loose-loose situation , . . .


6. Any plus for atheism?

I have no SINGLE reason, not even half a reason to be an atheist.
This is what noetic-nairaland had to say about atheism.
noetic: atheism is an irrational state of mind, where the subject of one's disbelief cannot be substantiated.

This is butressed by the fact that atheistic belief/disbelief has:

No scientific evidence.
No intellectual driven reason.
No logical and coherent explanation.
No sensible alternative to the christian GOD postulations. and several more. . . . I have no reason to be an atheist.

noetic2:

For the sake of objectivity, clarity and intellectual emphasis, I asked myself: Why exactly am I not an atheist?

Here are the reason's I came up with . . .

I am not an atheist but let me try to reason as one and see if I can address some of the issues you raised from their own perspective.

1. An Atheist cannot substantiate his belief/disbelief:

An theist wonders why a religious belief should be based on faith, salvation and hope alone? A christian's claim of an experience/encounters with the Holy spirit, breakthroughs and miracles are not acceptable for verifiable and scientific reasons. , . . , , anyway this thread is not about christian beliefs.

The theist can also not substantiate his beliefs, the theist believes relies only on faith and we know faith in to God to be a belief that is not based on proof. The atheist does not believe in the God the theist tells him about , They do not say that there is no God(I can speak for my atheist friends here) but they say that the evidence we the theist provided for them as evidence for the existence of God is not evidence that is credible so they reject our evidence or lack of evidence and deny the existence of the God we talk about(The Christian God in this case) since we can not provided credible evidence to them.

The atheist reckons that all beliefs should be explicable scientifically, intellectually and logically. According to the atheist the christians cannot do this. But I find it difficult to reconcile an atheist's beliefs to proof or evidence.

Most atheist world view relies mostly on empirical evidence.

So let us put the atheist belief under the same microscope:
what is the scientific, intellectual or logical evidence for the non-existence of GOD?
what is the intellectual, rational or logical basis for the non-existence of GOD?

The atheist yells: "The burden of proof is on the theist". . . .absolute RUBBISH. Any one who propagates an idea or belief/disbelief has the burden of proof. If u believe God does not exist, . . . . .simply prove it.

Over and over again as evidenced on this forum, atheists have refused to bring up this "evidence" of theirs that establishes the non-existence of GOD. It is as such safe to state that atheism is based on FAITH. faith and hope that GOD does not exist. because whatever assertion u cannot prove is a belief based on assumptions fuelled by . . . .

Atheism is as "guilty" as the religion it antagonises because it relies on FAITH.

The theist who says there is a God is yet to provide any scientific, logical and intellectual evidence for the existence of God, how then do you expect the atheist to do that which you have been unable to do? When you as the theist provide a scientific, intellectual and logical evidence for the existence of God only then can you tell the atheist to disprove the scientific,logical and intellectual evidence for God that you have provided, since you are unable to provided any how do you expect the atheist to provide evidence to disprove what you have not provided evidence for?

2. Atheism Connotes Ignorance:

To discuss/debate a subject you need a basic understanding of that subject. To debate evolution, mathematics or politics, one must at least have an understanding of the subjects involved. It is from this understanding that beliefs and ideologies are created.

Take for instance I have a complete understanding of the ontological and implicit nature of obatala, orunmila and ifa (yoruba local gods) which explains my disbelief in these minute gods. I do not subscribe to their potency, relevance or reverence. In other words a belief/lack of belief/ideology is a product of comprehensive understanding.

An atheist believes in the nihilance/non-existence of GOD. So can the atheist demonstrate an understanding of the subject involved in this belief/disbelief.

I want you to prove that all the yoruba Gods do not exist at all. The atheist simply says he does not believe.(Most nairaland atheist are different though, they are more interested in mocking and confrontations)

Who is Jehovah God? What is His ontology? (ur ontological definition must meet the meta-physical requirements of the atheist community, otherwise it is unacceptable to nairaland christians)

You have to present the said ontology of Jehovah so that the atheist can examine it and know if it is worth believing or not.

3. The inconsistencies of the atheist's Evolution:

Evolution is used to lend credence to atheism, to buttress the belief that there is no GOD. Evolution is the platform that attempts to rubbish the creation story as recorded in Genesis. Evolution mixes LIES with facts. I will not emphasise on these "facts" (but let me state here that changes in the earth (and man) from the "primordial" man (to this age) can NEVER be used to propagate the evolution LIE)

Perhaps if evolution/evolutionists/atheists can answer these pertinent questions. . . . .then I might believe afterall.

the commonest law of biogenesis says life begets life. Biology buttresses this.
Yet evolution claims that the first substance of life were formed from non-living substances reffered to as "spontaneous generation". is this not a contradiction?

Darwin claims that all organisms on earth are descent from a common ancestor or a last universal ancestor.Whats the atheist's explanation for the mitochondria gene exception? what is the identity and nature of the last common universal ancestor?

Evolution traces life to phylogenetic tree that that postulates three domains of life namely bacteria, archea and eucaryota. What is the major consensus or common denominator to whom life can be traced to between these three?

Evolution claims that increasing complex chemical reactions that resulted from simpler chemical reactions are the last traces of life.
what was the singular first chemical reaction that kick started life?
and what were the substances that made up this reaction?
what was the structure of the first living things? what was the catalyst of this first chemical reaction? what were the components of this catalyst?

with regards to the pioneer formation of the RNA? how did it happen? which was the very first? what was its structure?

I await these answers with deep breadth . . , What if there are NO answers to these questions, does that make evolution and subsequently atheism false? YES, . . .a definite YES

Is this a rant about Evolution or are you presenting your case against atheism? I know more Christians that believe in evolution than atheist. Its difficult to find scientist that are Christians over here but most of the Christian scientist I see around all believe in evolution, they do not believe in creationism. There are a lot of Christians scientist in the USA that believe in evolution too. So it is not only atheist that believe in evolution.

4. Atheism Denotes Ignorance and jejune postulations:
What are the norms of debating? Simply pick holes in the argument of the opposing view and offer acceptable alternatives. I have asked several atheists the basis for stating that there is no GOD, the answer has been unanimous. . . .NONE.

I have seen them provided their reasons unless if you do not consider them to be reasons at all, I have seen atheist here say that they do not believe because the Christian has no evidence of God giving any moral law or commandment all what we the Christians have are words written in a book that were written by men, put together by men through a vote and interpreted by men. That is a case for atheism that some atheist have provided. The atheist works with what the theist has provided and came to the conclusion that it is false. Some atheist here have looked at the ontology of the Christian God and have come to the conclusion that he does not exist based on such ontology, Here is one from Mazaje.

[b]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[/b].

An atheist claims that God did not create the earth and its components, . .who did? how? when? where?

Some atheist have been able to create alternative explanations like the big bang theory. That is debatable but that does not mean that they haven't provided alternate explanations.

It is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE to state that "i know 24264927*9629462429 is not 5, even though I dont know the answer".
For u to know that 24264927*9629462429 is not 5, it means u have a knowledge of mathematics. . . . . use that knowledge to work out the real answer.

You don't have to provide the answer to 234566776*6554858746363 as long as you know it is not 5, the burdern of prove rest on the person that says it is 5. There are simply and complex maths 5*5 is a simple maths but 53647473636363*6363748489484/6737383893983 is a very complex mathematics.

It is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE to state that "I cannot prove the non-existence of God but can only pick holes in biblical assertions of the bible GOD"
For you to establish the "inconsistencies" of the bible, u must be able to offer concrete and intellectually acceptable alternatives. otherwise u are ranting.

Is it also acceptable for the theist to say that he cannot prove the existence of God? The atheist can not prove the existence or non existence of any God but he can go through the evidence that is given by the Christian to see if the Christians assertions are true, the Christian presents the bible as the words of a perfect God that is all knowing, all loving, all powerful and all mighty who created the universe. But the atheist takes a look at the bible and sees a lot of contradictions, a lot of inconsistency in the bible and on the part of God, a lot of historical and scientific errors, A lot of merciless and sometimes wicked acts that were carried out by God directly or indirectly, some little editing and very different translations and mixed up messages that result for the different translations and concludes that this is not the word of a perfect God who is all knowing, all loving, who created the universe because if it is, it will not contain any errors or contradictions, merciless or wicked acts from God who is said to be merciful and loving. A perfect God the atheist believes will not allow inperfectnion into his holy book. The atheist also say that the bible was written by men not God.

The inability of the atheist community on nairaland/world to answer these basic pertinent questions is the basis of being regarded as "beclouded" critics.Critics who condemn (not on any intellectual or scientific basis) and yet have no alternative. This is despicable IGNORANCE that should not be transmitted to the next generation.

The Christians here have neither been able to answer any the questions they are throwing at the atheist, every body is just throwing mud all over the place. No body has been able to answer anything.

5. Whats There to loose?

An atheist claims there is no God, as such no eternity. When I die as a christian and then find out that there is indeed no GOD. , .what do i loose?. . . . .Absolutely NOTHING.

Whats there to loose if I DIE an atheist. . . .and then find out that there is a JEHOVAH GOD?
bear in mind that repentance is impossible in the grave. I will become a partaker in the torments of HELL which the bible describes in sordid details.

When you make such an assertion I believe you are asking for more questions than answering because the atheist will then ask you to prove or provided evidence that there is life after death. You will then point to the bible but the atheist will disregard it and say that the bible is not to be believed because it has a lot of errors and contradictions in it.

Atheism is a loose-loose situation , . . .

Atheist do not believe that their situation is a loose-loose. If they do i believe they will be theist so that they can be safe in case it doesn't turn out their way.

6. Any plus for atheism?

I have no SINGLE reason, not even half a reason to be an atheist.
This is what noetic-nairaland had to say about atheism.
noetic: atheism is an irrational state of mind, where the subject of one's disbelief cannot be substantiated.

This is butressed by the fact that atheistic belief/disbelief has

No scientific evidence.
No intellectual driven reason.
No logical and coherent explanation.
No sensible alternative to the christian GOD postulations. and several more. . . . I have no reason to be an atheist.:

Disbelief does not need to have scientific evidence. You as a Christian has not been able to provided scientific evidence for your own beliefs, how then do you expect the atheist to provided scientific evidence for his own disbeliefs? They atheist have provided a lot of intellectual driven reasons for their disbeliefs and I have provided some of them here. They have also provided very logical and coherent explanations for their disbelief. They also have provided sensible alternative to the Christian postulations. The fact that you do not agree with them does not mean that they haven't provided them.

@ dalaman

Nice write up, you provided a case for atheism that I believe some atheist can not even do. _{Are you sure you are not an atheist?}

dalaman:

I am not an atheist but let me try to reason as one and see if I can address some of the issues you raised from their own perspective.

The theist can also not substantiate his beliefs, the theist believes relies only on faith and we know faith in to God to be a belief that is not based on proof. The atheist does not believe in the God the theist tells him about , They do not say that there is no God(I can speak for my atheist friends here) but they say that the evidence we the theist provided for them as evidence for the existence of God is not evidence that is credible so they reject our evidence or lack of evidence and deny the existence of the God we talk about(The Christian God in this case) since we can not provided credible evidence to them.

Most atheist world view relies mostly on empirical evidence.

The theist who says there is a God is yet to provide any scientific, logical and intellectual evidence for the existence of God, how then do you expect the atheist to do that which you have been unable to do? When you as the theist provide a scientific, intellectual and logical evidence for the existence of God only then can you tell the atheist to disprove the scientific,logical and intellectual evidence for God that you have provided, since you are unable to provided any how do you expect the atheist to provide evidence to disprove what you have not provided evidence for?

I want you to prove that all the yoruba Gods do not exist at all. The atheist simply says he does not believe.(Most nairaland atheist are different though, they are more interested in mocking and confrontations)

You have to present the said ontology of Jehovah so that the atheist can examine it and know if it is worth believing or not.

Is this a rant about Evolution or are you presenting your case against atheism? I know more Christians that believe in evolution than atheist. Its difficult to find scientist that are Christians over here but most of the Christian scientist I see around all believe in evolution, they do not believe in creationism. There are a lot of Christians scientist in the USA that believe in evolution too. So it is not only atheist that believe in evolution.


I have seen them provided their reasons unless if you do not consider them to be reasons at all, I have seen atheist here say that they do not believe because the Christian has no evidence of God giving any moral law or commandment all what we the Christians have are words written in a book that were written by men, put together by men through a vote and interpreted by men. That is a case for atheism that some atheist have provided. The atheist works with what the theist has provided and came to the conclusion that it is false. Some atheist here have looked at the ontology of the Christian God and have come to the conclusion that he does not exist based on such ontology, Here is one from Mazaje.

Some atheist have been able to create alternative explanations like the big bang theory. That is debatable but that does not mean that they haven't provided alternate explanations.

You don't have to provide the answer to 234566776*6554858746363 as long as you know it is not 5, the burdern of prove rest on the person that says it is 5. There are simply and complex maths 5*5 is a simple maths but 53647473636363*6363748489484/6737383893983 is a very complex mathematics.

Is it also acceptable for the theist to say that he cannot prove the existence of God? The atheist can not prove the existence or non existence of any God but he can go through the evidence that is given by the Christian to see if the Christians assertions are true, the Christian presents the bible as the words of a perfect God that is all knowing, all loving, all powerful and all mighty who created the universe. But the atheist takes a look at the bible and sees a lot of contradictions, a lot of inconsistency in the bible and on the part of God, a lot of historical and scientific errors, A lot of merciless and sometimes wicked acts that were carried out by God directly or indirectly, some little editing and very different translations and mixed up messages that result for the different translations and concludes that this is not the word of a perfect God who is all knowing, all loving, who created the universe because if it is, it will not contain any errors or contradictions, merciless or wicked acts from God who is said to be merciful and loving. A perfect God the atheist believes will not allow inperfectnion into his holy book. The atheist also say that the bible was written by men not God.

The Christians here have neither been able to answer any the questions they are throwing at the atheist, every body is just throwing mud all over the place. No body has been able to answer anything.


When you make such an assertion I believe you are asking for more questions than answering because the atheist will then ask you to prove or provided evidence that there is life after death. You will then point to the bible but the atheist will disregard it and say that the bible is not to be believed because it has a lot of errors and contradictions in it.

Atheist do not believe that their situation is a loose-loose. If they do i believe they will be theist so that they can be safe in case it doesn't turn out their way.

Disbelief does not need to have scientific evidence. You as a Christian has not been able to provided scientific evidence for your own beliefs, how then do you expect the atheist to provided scientific evidence for his own disbeliefs? They atheist have provided a lot of intellectual driven reasons for their disbeliefs and I have provided some of them here. They have also provided very logical and coherent explanations for their disbelief. They also have provided sensible alternative to the Christian postulations. The fact that you do not agree with them does not mean that they haven't provided them.

Whats the meaning of all this?. . . . .I did not ask for an opinion. . . .all u were required to do was to answer the questions in RED. . . .is that a problem?

bindex:

@ dalaman

Nice write up, you provided a case for atheism that I believe some atheist can not even do. Are you sure you are not an atheist?

hehe are you looking for recruits?  abeg leave Dalaman jare 

noetic2:

Whats the meaning of all this?. . . . .I did not ask for an opinion. . . .all u were required to do was to answer the questions in RED. . . .is that a problem?

You ask questions that you have no answers for and you talk about objectivity?

bindex:

@ dalaman

Nice write up, you provided a case for atheism that I believe some atheist can not even do. _{Are you sure you are not an atheist?}

because we don't have to do it.  Theists make a mockery of how ridiculous each other's Gods are anyway.  This is seen in the Allah vs Jesus arguments in this section. 

as for noatheism - dude is just an attention LovePeddler. Evolution has no direct correlation with atheism.

I would get back to him as soon as i prove Zeus is real. My contacts in greece are working fast and hard.

dalaman:

You ask questions that you have no answers for and you talk about objectivity?

Lol, is that not the very same thing people have observed about atheist discussions? Are you being objective at all?

However, I don't know if you're just teasing here or just saying this wishfully:

dalaman:

The atheist does not believe in the God the theist tells him about , They do not say that there is no God(I can speak for my atheist friends here) but they say that the evidence we the theist provided for them as evidence for the existence of God is not evidence that is credible so they reject our evidence or lack of evidence and deny the existence of the God we talk about(The Christian God in this case) since we can not provided credible evidence to them.

While I appreciate the sense you make here, I would seriously contest the highlighted part. Having read through some of the arguments of self-identified atheists on this Forum, it is obvious that their arguments is simply that there is no God - that includes ANY God or god. It does not matter whatever "evidence" one proffers, the atheist does not stand to say that he is not sure about the existence or lack of existence of any God/god(s) - he denies them entirely.

However, only recently are we beginning to see a sort of redaction, or  more correctly a 'reductionist' position with atheism. As such, many atheists fancy flirting with the idea that "there probably is no God"; but at the bottom of it all, what they really are arguing is the denial of anything supernatural. An atheist who's quite informed does not have to narrow his arguments solely on Christian theism - which is why I often wonder why they rarely question the claims of atheistic religions involving belief in "gods", spirits, etc - whatever meaning may be given to such terms in those atheistic religions. I trust that the atheist is not simply one that does not believe in the Christian theistic worldview of "God"; but rather, he/she is someone who does not believe in ANY 'God/gods' or the supernatural - 'ANY gods', regardless whatever religion espouses them.

On the other hand, we know that not all atheists make a hard claim of the denial of any deity or the supernatural - some tend to be self-identified as "agnostic-atheist", and we can allow them have their say as best defines their own worldviews. However, for purposes of discussing on Nairaland, we know that the one thing many atheists argue is funnelled down to just one thing: the denial of the existence of any 'God/god' and the supernatural.

pilgrim.1:

Lol, is that not the very same thing people have observed about atheist discussions? Are you being objective at all?

However, I don't know if you're just teasing here or just saying this wishfully

It's true, but the Christians has to provide some evidence and present it to the atheist so that the atheist can disprove it, no Christian has done that so far on nairaland.

While I appreciate the sense you make here, I would seriously contest the highlighted part. Having read through some of the arguments of self-identified atheists on this Forum, it is obvious that their arguments is simply that there is no God - that includes ANY God or god. It does not matter whatever "evidence" one proffers, the atheist does not stand to say that he is not sure about the existence or lack of existence of any God/god(s) - he denies them entirely.

There are some militant atheist here on nairaland who forcefully declear that there is no God at all, there are others that declear that there is no God based only on the fact that no believer in God has ever provided any evidence to support his assertions that there is a God, toneyb said that when Christian tell atheist to look around them and see the "evidence" that is not evidence for him that is only evidence for vision and environment he said. Tudor on the other thread said "we'have never seen,heard,smelt,tasted or experienced him. We have not seen his works and no evidence whatsoever to confirm those attributed to him.
If indeed you have seen,heard tasted or felt god/allah, then PROVE IT TO US.simple ". While others deny the existence of all Gods without ever stating their reasons some have stated their reasons and the reason all boils down to the lack of evidence, Christians point to the bible and the atheist say that the bible was written by men and contains a lot of errors and contradictions.

However, only recently are we beginning to see a sort of redaction, or  more correctly a 'reductionist' position with atheism. As such, many atheists fancy flirting with the idea that "there probably is no God"; but at the bottom of it all, what they really are arguing is the denial of anything supernatural. An atheist who's quite informed does not have to narrow his arguments solely on Christian theism - which is why I often wonder why they rarely question the claims of atheistic religions involving belief in "gods", spirits, etc - whatever meaning may be given to such terms in those atheistic religions. I trust that the atheist is not simply one that does not believe in the Christian theistic worldview of "God"; but rather, he/she is someone who does not believe in ANY 'God/gods' or the supernatural - 'ANY gods', regardless whatever religion espouses them.

True, I agree with this completely.

On the other hand, we know that not all atheists make a hard claim of the denial of any deity or the supernatural - some tend to be self-identified as "agnostic-atheist", and we can allow them have their say as best defines their own worldviews. However, for purposes of discussing on Nairaland, we know that the one thing many atheists argue is funnelled down to just one thing: the denial of the existence of any 'God/god' and the supernatural.

I also agree with this, I think and (I might be wrong though) that they deny the existence of God/gods based purely on the assertions made by those who believe in God and the evidence or lack of evidence we have put forward. They do not say that there is no God because they know that there is no God, they deny the God hypothesis (a word that is mostly used by atheist) based on the unconvincing evidence that is presented to them. So they conclude that men created all religions.

Most of us aren't atheists for any other reason than we don't find gods,  yours and the Hindus and the Muslims and the myriad of other deities from less popular religions credible.  The main reason Christianity gets more talk time is that it's the most of us were former Christians who were made to believe and accept all its stories and assertions without question.  If we were in Arabia or based in India, the chances of it focusing on Christianity would be quite low if we want to disprove the existence of any god.



If you want to be convincing or you want to be effective in 'your work' then put up a few balls and provided scientific, rational and logical evidence for your god then we can go ahead and disprove it. So far you have provided NON.

You don't need to always depend on the Bible or Christians to prove that there is no God, all you need to do is to give us the scientific evidence that shows that there is no need for an infinite God for the origin of the universe, the origin of life (especially human life), the missing links in the fossil records and what dinosaurs evolved from for starters.

Hi dalaman,

dalaman:

It's true, but the Christians has to provide some evidence and present it to the atheist so that the atheist can disprove it, no Christian has done that so far on nairaland.

Just a salient point here: you assume far too much and arrive at a narrow conscript. Why does the atheist assume that it is his prerogative to "disprove" the claims of theism - whether Christian or any other? Does that not in itself suggest that you really haven't grasp what atheism is in essence? It is not about whether a particular deity exists or not, but whether ANY evidence could point to the reality of the supernatural. It is not only the Christian that believes in the supernatural, but other theists as well do - which again would in essence draw in the claims of atheistic religions involving belief in 'gods, spirits', etc. If the 'atheist' whom you hoot for is going to be quite informed about the realities of our world, what would be his focus - to "[b]dis[/b]prove" this reality? It's like you already made up your mind even before asking for a dialogue.

dalaman:

There are some militant atheist here on nairaland who forcefully declear that there is no God at all, there are others that declear that there is no God based only on the fact that no believer in God has ever provided any evidence to support his assertions that there is a God,

It could be taken in precisely the same way as you assumed earlier - to say that there is NO evidence does not mean that the Christian has not made any attempt to provide such an evidence; at best, it is rather that the atheist does not agree with the evidence thus proffered. To assume there is "no evidence" is to arrive at a dogmatic position before even investigating evidence for the reality of the major claim that the atheist is averse to: the supernatural.

dalaman:

toneyb said that when Christian tell atheist to look around them and see the "evidence" that is not evidence for him that is only evidence for vision and environment he said.

Could that also not be read as the preference of toneyb? If that is so, then he's not asking the right questions; rather, he might have been musing about ideas that tend to polarise towards his own idiosyncracies - and yet, he goes on to acknowledge that is "evidence" - but only in terms for vision and environment. This is what I meant in the previous paragraph: it is not an argument that there is "NO evidence" whatsoever; rather, it is about what type of "evidence" such a person is asking for.

dalaman:

Tudor on the other thread said "we'have never seen,heard,smelt,tasted or experienced him. We have not seen his works and no evidence whatsoever to confirm those attributed to him.
If indeed you have seen,heard tasted or felt god/allah, then PROVE IT TO US.simple ".

Just in the same way as above for toneyb - here Tùdor narrows evidence for what could only be 'seen, heard, smelt, tasted, or experienced' - and he assumes that if he himself has not experienced the supernatural for himself, then no one else might have had that experience. If one provides an experience to him which the claimant has had, would that not be easy enough to reject out of hand simply because Tùdor has not had that experience for himself? Such an idea is narrow and a very queer way to assume 'evidence' for the reality of our world. At least, I know indeed of a researcher (not a Christian, as far as I know) who has tried to investigate evidence for the reality of our world that are outside the ambit of naturalism - and when he invited Richard Dawkins to consider such an evidence, you can't imagine Dawkins dishonest disinterest. Such incidents only make some enquirers believe that such atheists (not all atheists) are not honest in their claim to be "interested" in any evidence for the supernatural.

dalaman:

While others deny the existence of all Gods without ever stating their reasons some have stated their reasons and the reason all boils down to the lack of evidence, Christians point to the bible and the atheist say that the bible was written by men and contains a lot of errors and contradictions.

The "reasons" in themselves do not point to a lack o 'evidence'. What is supposed is that the atheist is looking for pointers to an affirmation of his naturalism, not because he's honest about thinking outside his own box. Any source today that an atheist may point to is also written by men - and in many other fields of enquries and worldviews, we find grounds for contradictions and disagreements. This situation does not point conclusively to a "lack of evidence", but rather a limp excuse to sit cozy in one's naturalistic worldview so that responsibility is shifted to the believer in supernaturalism.

dalaman:

I also agree with this, I think and (I might be wrong though) that they deny the existence of God/gods based purely on the assertions made by those who believe in God and the evidence or lack of evidence we have put forward.

Yes and no. It's alright to deny the "existence" of what does not square with one's worldview(s) - which is descriptive of what you just stated above. The atheist could deny the "existence" of God based purely on his own disagreement with the assertions or claims made by those who believe in God (which includes others besides Christians). That in itself does not mean therefore that the atheist is justified in denying the "existence" of God. I do not deny the "existence" of other gods or lords or the supernatural that are not within the subject of my worship and life of faith; but even though I acknowledge the possibility indeed of their "existence", it does not mean that I'm an adherent of such worldviews. For someone to therefore deny the "existence" of what he does not know beyond his own narrow experience is not an intelligent attitude to open-minded research into the reality of our world.

dalaman:

They do not say that there is no God because they know that there is no God, they deny the God hypothesis (a word that is mostly used by atheist) based on the unconvincing evidence that is presented to them. So they conclude that men created all religions.

Even so, they are still wrong. If an atheist comes to the conclusion that "men created ALL religions", he is making a positivist statement or claim - and he therefore has to 'prove' that every single religion in the world (including the claims of the supernatural) from the very history of man was indeed created by men! This would also mean, by extension, that he provides proof and evidence about his own conclusions about the supernatural, whether or not such a phenomena exists. If he says again that the supernatural does not exist, he would also have to show how he arrived conclusively at such a claim - using the same approach of his acclaimed idea of "science" to verify such observations. He cannot expect to make bland statements by "faith" and expect also by "faith" that such claims cannot be questioned, and then keep making excuses to shift responsibility to others for his own "faith-statements".

The 'GOD' hypothesis was invented and made up by religion. I as an atheist choose not to subscribe to your flawed theory based on lack of evidence,yet you expect me to provide evidence for your OWN hypothesis. . .how crazy is that?
What is asserted without evidence can also be summarily dismised without evidence.Shikena!

Tùdor:

The 'GOD' hypothesis was invented and made up by religion. I as an atheist choose not to subscribe to your flawed theory based on lack of evidence,yet you expect me to provide evidence for your OWN hypothesis. . .how crazy is that?

Indeed it's unreasonable for you to ask another person to answer your own questions - which is what you just did above. If you notice, I was not making an argument based on "God-hypothesis" - my discussions are asking the typical atheist who assumes far too much of the hard claim of "there is NO God" to consider his own dogmatic hypothesis. One way I have approached that is to look at the basic claim of such hard core atheism (naturalism) and bring him/her round to mirror his own naturalism in the reality of phenomena that are supernatural.

Tùdor:

What is asserted without evidence can also be summarily dismised without evidence.Shikena!

True - which is why the same can be applied to your type of atheism.

@dalaman,

Let me clarify my reply with some example for your consideration. I had stated:

pilgrim.1:

At least, I know indeed of a researcher (not a Christian, as far as I know) who has tried to investigate evidence for the reality of our world that are outside the ambit of naturalism - and when he invited Richard Dawkins to consider such an evidence, you can't imagine Dawkins dishonest disinterest. Such incidents only make some enquirers believe that such atheists (not all atheists) are not honest in their claim to be "interested" in any evidence for the supernatural.

This is a reasonable claim which should be substantiated, so I don't run the risk of merely asserting it emptily. So, please consider the following, as I had in mind a fellow British biologist - Dr. Rupert Sheldrake:

[list][li]Dr. Sheldrake had pointed out that Dawkins (who often asks for “evidence” in reason) was NOT interested in any such evidence; and suppressedscience.net notes the following –

Unfortunately, Dawkin’s behavior with respect to observations and evidence submitted to him by Sheldrake demonstrates little evidence for “reason or respect for evidence”- it rather suggests that Dawkins is a materialist fundamentalist who “profits from obscuring the truth”.

Please observe: suppressedscience.net is not quoted here as if it were making a case as a ‘creationist’ media; so the thinking atheist should keep that in mind.[/li][/list]

[list][li]An article republished in Skeptical Investigations (skepticalinvestigations.org) by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake was first carried in the Network Review No 95, Winter 2007, Journal of the Scientific and Medical Network. The article (‘Richard Dawkins Comes to Call’ – also published in Dr. Sheldrake’s website) was perhaps in reference to the incident just cited above in suppressedscience.net, where Dawkins is reputed to have stated: “I’m don’t want to discuss evidence” (sic). More surprising was that the director of Dawkins’ Channel 4 programme “confirmed that he too was not interested in evidence”. In the end of that article, Sheldrake made this poignant observation:

’Should science be a vehicle of prejudice, a kind of fundamentalist belief-system? Or should it be a method of enquiry into the unknown?’[/li][/list]

Just so you might understand where I was coming from in my observation earlier. If there's something you may not be clear about in other areas, please don't hesistate to let me know. Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

Hi dalaman,

Just a salient point here: you assume far too much and arrive at a narrow conscript. Why does the atheist assume that it is his prerogative to "disprove" the claims of theism - whether Christian or any other? Does that not in itself suggest that you really haven't grasp what atheism is in essence? It is not about whether a particular deity exists or not, but whether ANY evidence could point to the reality of the supernatural. It is not only the Christian that believes in the supernatural, but other theists as well do - which again would in essence draw in the claims of atheistic religions involving belief in 'gods, spirits', etc. If the 'atheist' whom you hoot for is going to be quite informed about the realities of our world, what would be his focus - to "[b]dis[/b]prove" this reality? It's like you already made up your mind even before asking for a dialogue.

Well stated.

This has been the point other NL christians including daviddylan and olaadegbu have been making.
Why should anyone sit back and await the evidence of the other? It is for the sake of knowledge that we all seek evidences/proofs from all those buttressing ANY argument. If God does not exist. . . simply prove it, . . , . .I don't know why this is so difficult for NL atheists.

noetic2:

Well stated.

This has been the point other NL christians including daviddylan and olaadegbu have been making.
Why should anyone sit back and await the evidence of the other? It is for the sake of knowledge that we all seek evidences/proofs from all those buttressing ANY argument. If God does not exist. . . simply prove it, . . , . .I don't know why this is so difficult for NL atheists.

Atheist need to disprove the existence of god in the same way that Christians need to disprove the existence of Zeus, Dionysus, Sussicorn, Taqata. Once I see evidence that disproves the existence of these gods( Zeus, Dionysus, Sussicorn, Taqata) then I shall show you the evidence that disproves your god.

Pilgrim you're extremely wrong.
If there were no communists,anti-communists will be non-existent. No terrorists therefore anti-terrorists would be unnecessary.so also if religion didn't exist there'll be no atheists.
With every new ideology,there'll be those who dnt subscribe to the idea.
Atheists like me dont have a dogmatic hypothesis as you claim,we just choose to disbelieve the hypothesis of a god put forward by religionists based on your lack of evidence.
You can't expect me to prove your own postulations,do you?
If you present the idea of a god,i choose not to acknowledge based on your lack of evidence,you can't call that my dogmatic hypothesis. Thats wrong.

huxley2:

Atheist need to disprove the existence of god in the same way that Christians need to disprove the existence of Zeus, Dionysus, Sussicorn, Taqata. Once I see evidence that disproves the existence of these gods( Zeus, Dionysus, Sussicorn, Taqata) then I shall show you the evidence that disproves your god.

What evidence "disproves" the EXISTENCE of God, huxley2?

Just so the discourse does not get lost in this kind of mix-up statements in your quote, let me remind you: Christians do not "need to disprove" the existence of any of those 'gods' you mentioned - that is not a "need" that defines the veracity of the Christian faith. Atheists such as yourself may see a "need to disprove" the EXISTENCE of any 'god' - and yet you have never been able to credibly satisfy that need!

On the other, I as a Christian understand that my worldview does not have any such "need" which the atheist often dreams of. How is that? For one thing, I know that the Biblical faith does not set out with a "need" to disprove the EXISTENCE of such deities - but it reminds us as Christians to approach this enquiry with this mindset:

[list][li]'For though there be that are called gods,
whether in heaven or in earth,
(as there be gods many, and lords many,)
But to us there is but one God,
the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him;
and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things,
and we by him"
~~ 1 Corinthians 8:5-6[/li][/list]

This is echoed throughout the Bible, and the informed Christian understands he/she does not have the atheist's "need to disprove" the EXISTENCE of such gods as may suit your worldviews.

Hi pilgrim.1,

Let me begin by saying that I am not an atheist I am just trying to present most of the arguments that they are have been presenting and I also get some talking points from my colleague and very good friend here who is an atheist.

pilgrim.1:

Hi dalaman,

Just a salient point here: you assume far too much and arrive at a narrow conscript. Why does the atheist assume that it is his prerogative to "disprove" the claims of theism - whether Christian or any other? Does that not in itself suggest that you really haven't grasp what atheism is in essence? It is not about whether a particular deity exists or not, but whether ANY evidence could point to the reality of the supernatural. It is not only the Christian that believes in the supernatural, but other theists as well do - which again would in essence draw in the claims of atheistic religions involving belief in 'gods, spirits', etc. If the 'atheist' whom you hoot for is going to be quite informed about the realities of our world, what would be his focus - to "dis[/b]prove" this reality? It's like you already made up your mind even before asking for a dialogue.

I do not agree to any thing I am just presenting the case that atheist have made that is way I admitted that I might be wrong when stating some of the case, my friend (atheist) friend here saw me reading the post and told me what he believes and I typed it based on his reaction to the first post. I again agree with what you have said.

It could be taken in precisely the same way as you assumed earlier -[b] to say that there is NO evidence does not mean that the Christian has not made any attempt to provide such an evidence; at best, it is rather that the atheist does not agree with the evidence thus proffered. To assume there is "no evidence" is to arrive at a dogmatic position before even investigating evidence for the reality of the major claim that the atheist is averse to: the supernatural.

I said the atheist believes that the evidence is not credible, I also said that when Christians(I speak about Christianity because I believe that is the theism we are talking about here) presents the Bible as his evidence the atheist say it is not evidence enough or evidence at all because of some of the problems that are associated with the bible like contradictions, historical and scientific inaccuracies and the somewhat contradictory nature of God himself that is portrayed in the Bible. Even though I agree that the bible is evidence for the Christian faith, the atheist disagress based on the problems I have outlined.

Could that also not be read as the preference of toneyb? If that is so, then he's not asking the right questions; rather, he might have been musing about ideas that tend to polarise towards his own idiosyncracies - and yet, he goes on to acknowledge that is "evidence" - but only in terms for vision and environment. This is what I meant in the previous paragraph: it is not an argument that there is "NO evidence" whatsoever; rather, it is about what type of "evidence" such a person is asking for.

True. I completely agree with your point but I believe the atheist might look at it differently.

Just in the same way as above for toneyb - here Tùdor narrows evidence for what could only be 'seen, heard, smelt, tasted, or experienced' - and he assumes that if he himself has not experienced the supernatural for himself, then no one else might have had that experience. If one provides an experience to him which the claimant has had, would that not be easy enough to reject out of hand simply because Tùdor has not had that experience for himself? Such an idea is narrow and a very queer way to assume 'evidence' for the reality of our world. At least, I know indeed of a researcher (not a Christian, as far as I know) who has tried to investigate evidence for the reality of our world that are outside the ambit of naturalism - and when he invited Richard Dawkins to consider such an evidence, you can't imagine Dawkins dishonest disinterest. Such incidents only make some enquirers believe that such atheists (not all atheists) are not honest in their claim to be "interested" in any evidence for the supernatural.

After reading your second rejoinder I fully understand what you are saying and I also agree with it.

The "reasons" in themselves do not point to a lack o 'evidence'. What is supposed is that the atheist is looking for pointers to an affirmation of his naturalism, not because he's honest about thinking outside his own box. Any source today that an atheist may point to is also written by men - and in many other fields of enquries and worldviews, we find grounds for contradictions and disagreements. This situation does not point conclusively to a "lack of evidence", but rather a limp excuse to sit cozy in one's naturalistic worldview so that responsibility is shifted to the believer in supernaturalism.

Don't you think you are presupposing something here? There are very open minded atheist and I have meet a some of them. They are willing to go with anything that can convince them, infact I know atheist here that have never practiced or have never being exposed to any religion in their lives, their parents were atheist who did not expose them to any religion and they grew up with non beliefs, so I don't think it is right for you to say that some of them don't like thinking out of the box, There are a lot though who do not like thinking out of the box and are just happy to disbelieve anything and throw silly excuses at everything that has a supernatural claim without wanting to "test" it or examine it and see if it's true or not. Some have tried but dismiss the claim based on the lack of evidence I have been talking about.

Yes and no. It's alright to deny the "existence" of what does not square with one's worldview(s) - which is descriptive of what you just stated above. The atheist could deny the "existence" of God based purely on his own disagreement with the assertions or claims made by those who believe in God (which includes others besides Christians). That in itself does not mean therefore that the atheist is justified in denying the "existence" of God. I do not deny the "existence" of other gods or lords or the supernatural that are not within the subject of my worship and life of faith; but even though I acknowledge the possibility indeed of their "existence", it does not mean that I'm an adherent of such worldviews. For someone to therefore deny the "existence" of what he does not know beyond his own narrow experience is not an intelligent attitude to open-minded research into the reality of our world.

I agree with you here, so I will wait and see how the atheists here will respond to this.

Even so, they are still wrong. If an atheist comes to the conclusion that "men created ALL religions", he is making a positivist statement or claim - and he therefore has to 'prove' that every single religion in the world (including the claims of the supernatural) from the very history of man was indeed created by men! This would also mean, by extension, that he provides proof and evidence about his own conclusions about the supernatural, whether or not such a phenomena exists. If he says again that the supernatural does not exist, he would also have to show how he arrived conclusively at such a claim - using the same approach of his acclaimed idea of "science" to verify such observations. He cannot expect to make bland statements by "faith" and expect also by "faith" that such claims cannot be questioned, and then keep making excuses to shift responsibility to others for his own "faith-statements".

One(mazaje or toneyb) atheist here has made that point he said that, the theist does not have any evidence of any God revealing or creating any religion, then went ahead to say that all religions were created by men because men wrote all the religious text, choose what should be considered the word of God/gods, readacted the holy text, interprete the holy text and ascribe it to God/gods and also the continous change in the nature of God. This is the case that the atheist have made, they say the theist has no evidence to show that any God created any religion but he has his own evidence to show that men created religions. I might not agree with it but that is his position and the evidence he has been able to present.


I am already tired of speaking for the atheist so I will allow them to speak for themselves.

pilgrim.1:

What evidence "disproves" the EXISTENCE of God, huxley2?

Just so the discourse does not get lost in this kind of mix-up statements in your quote, let me remind you: Christians do not "need to disprove" the existence of any of those 'gods' you mentioned - that is not a "need" that defines the veracity of the Christian faith. Atheists such as yourself may see a "need to disprove" the EXISTENCE of any 'god' - and yet you have never been able to credibly satisfy that need!

On the other, I as a Christian understand that my worldview does not have any such "need" which the atheist often dreams of. How is that? For one thing, I know that the Biblical faith does not set out with a "need" to disprove the EXISTENCE of such deities - but it reminds us as Christians to approach this enquiry with this mindset:

[list][li]'For though there be that are called gods,
whether in heaven or in earth,
(as there be gods many, and lords many,)
But to us there is but one God,
the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him;
and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things,
and we by him"
~~ 1 Corinthians 8:5-6[/li][/list]

This is echoed throughout the Bible, and the informed Christian understands he/she does not have the atheist's "[b]need to disprove" the EXISTENCE of such gods as may suit your worldviews.[/b]

You should be able to prove or provide evidence that your god is greater or better than the other gods don't you think so? You should be able to show that all things came into being by your god and not the islamic god.

@Dalama

Are you sure you are not an atheist?

@Tùdor,

Tùdor:

Pilgrim you're extremely wrong.

Thank you for your concerns. I'm glad to be told sometimes that I'm "extremely" wrong, and then I want to see how my discussant shows the case. I still don't see how you've demonstrated your assumption about my being wrong, though. Yet, let me address the basic flaw in yours:

Tùdor:

If there were no communists,anti-communists will be non-existent. No terrorists therefore anti-terrorists would be unnecessary.so also if religion didn't exist there'll be no atheists.

This is basically not saying anything for your own "proof" or 'evidence' for the the non-EXISTENCE of God or gods or even the veracity of the supernatural. What you're basically saying is that if "something" did not exist, then the antithesis would not exist. As a matter of consequence, since the antithesis exists, then that "something" actually does exist. Which is a very interesting logic that destroys your premise - because you're leading us to believe that the claim for the EXISTENCE of God is a veritable statement, whereas your counter-claim of the NON-EXISTENCE of God was necessitated by the veritable statement. That being so, how have you "proven" that I was 'extremely wrong?'

Tùdor:

With every new ideology,there'll be those who dnt subscribe to the idea.

Not subscribing to an ideology does not constitute "proof" or "evidence" for your claim that something does NOT EXIST.

Tùdor:

Atheists like me dont have a dogmatic hypothesis as you claim,we just choose to disbelieve the hypothesis of a god put forward by religionists based on your lack of evidence.

I'll be genial enough to allow you hold your own claim, not because you're thereby justified; but more because you have not tendered a satisfactory evidence for the DENIAL of the "existence" of the supernatural.

Tùdor:

You can't expect me to prove your own postulations,do you?

No, I haven't asked you to do so. I've only entered this discussion with a different approach that you were not prepared for prior to your reading my comments. Rather than ask you to 'prove' my own postulations, I'm asking you to re-examine the veracity of your own dogmatic position - the position that arrogates to itself the necessity or "need" to "disprove" anything that does not fit into your own worldview.

Tùdor:

If you present the idea of a god,i choose not to acknowledge based on your lack of evidence,you can't call that my dogmatic hypothesis. Thats wrong.

Again, wrong. My approach is to invite you to examine your own comfort zone and prod you on to thinking outside your own cozy worldview.

bindex:

You should be able to prove or provide evidence that your god is greater or better than the other gods don't you think so? You should be able to show that all things came into being by your god and not the islamic god.

I think you're typically shifting grounds here, lol. Even if I provide you such a 'proof' or 'evidence', how does that help your own claim and position improve any nearer to its own affirmation? The basic question here is about EXISTENCE and the supernatural. That is what I've been asking you guys to consider - whether one deity is "greater or better" is a matter about qualities that are relative, and not about whether such a deity exists or not. Now when you as an atheist assumes a position to deny existence of anything that does not fit your worldview, you're making a categorical statement that requires proof and evidence. It assumes that you've carefully investigated your idea to have come to that dogmatic conclusion that God DOES NOT exist, not whether he is "greater or better".

Dalaman, how could you agree with pilgrim?
I stated honestly i've never seen,heared,tasted or smelt your god neither have i experienced him yet she called that narrow. How ridiculous!
If she indeed has seen or experienced god,do show us.
What if i said i saw aliens who landed in my room last night and they have asked us to worship them,how would you prove me wrong? The fact they didn't land in your room doesn't mean they didn't drop in mine.

bindex:

@Dalama

Are you sure you are not an atheist?

Do you want me to become one?

@dalaman,

Many thanks for your reply.

dalaman:

Let me begin by saying that I am not an atheist I am just trying to present most of the arguments that they are have been presenting and I also get some talking points from my colleague and very good friend here who is an atheist.

I understand and appreciate your dialogue. Not that I considered you an atheist (as long as you haven't self-identified as such), but my approach was more reflective in consonance with the strain of your outlook on their behalf.

dalaman:

I do not agree to any thing I am just presenting the case that atheist have made that is way I admitted that I might be wrong when stating some of the case, my friend (atheist) friend here saw me reading the post and told me what he believes and I typed it based on his reaction to the first post. I again agree with what you have said.

Okay. Again I well-appreciated your observations even though I did not consider you an atheist. My apologies if you read my seemingly addressing those concerns as though you were mistaken for one.

dalaman:

I said the atheist believes that the evidence is not credible, I also said that when Christians(I speak about Christianity because I believe that is the theism we are talking about here) presents the Bible as his evidence the atheist say it is not evidence enough or evidence at all because of some of the problems that are associated with the bible like contradictions, historical and scientific inaccuracies and the somewhat contradictory nature of God himself that is portrayed in the Bible. Even though I agree that the bible is evidence for the Christian faith, the atheist disagress based on the problems I have outlined.

I got you the first time. However, like I said, my approach is rather slightly different. I wasn't droning like the typical 'Christian apologist' some atheists here are acquainted with; that was why I broadened the context (as it should) and took their concerns out of their cozy boxes.

dalaman:

True. I completely agree with your point but I believe the atheist might look at it differently.

Certainly, I'm just guessing what that might be - so I'm eagerly waiting.  Bobs, you're a very, very smart dude.

dalaman:

After reading your second rejoinder I fully understand what you are saying and I also agree with it.

Lol, okay.

dalaman:

Don't you think you are presupposing something here? There are very open minded atheist and I have meet a some of them. They are willing to go with anything that can convince them, infact I know atheist here that have never practiced or have never being exposed to any religion in their lives, their parents were atheist who did not expose them to any religion and they grew up with non beliefs, so I don't think it is right for you to say that some of them don't like thinking out of the box, There are a lot though who do not like thinking out of the box and are just happy to disbelieve anything and throw silly excuses at everything that has a supernatural claim without wanting to "test" it or examine it and see if it's true or not. Some have tried but dismiss the claim based on the lack of evidence I have been talking about.

Hehe. .  nope, I wan't presupposing here at all. If I were, I wouldn't have entered the discussion in the first place. Notice I didn't make a sweeping generalization of all atheists - if I did, that indeed would have been preposterious of me. However, in taking care to observe that not all (that is "some", I granted in hindsight that atheists are not clones of one another - there are atheists who disagree with other atheists on many things. Yet, my observation was more to the point that the attitude of some self-identified atheists on Nairaland is that if something does not square with their naturalism, it just is not credible enough and thus is grounds enough to reject the possibility of the EXISTENCE of what is supernatural.

dalaman:
I agree with you here, so I will wait and see how the atheists here will respond to this.

You anticipated me.

dalaman:

One(mazaje or toneyb) atheist here has made that point he said that, the theist does not have any evidence of any God revealing or creating any religion, then went ahead to say that all religions were created by men because men wrote all the religious text, choose what should be considered the word of God/gods, readacted the holy text, interprete the holy text and ascribe it to God/gods and also the continous change in the nature of God. This is the case that the atheist have made, they say the theist has no evidence to show that any God created any religion but he has his own evidence to show that men created religions. I might not agree with it but that is his position and the evidence he has been able to present.

I already saw such ideas expressed - not only by mazaje and toneyb. Even so, you would observe now that my approach is to come to terms with the underlying ideology of such atheists. It is not so much "evidence" they're after - for if they are really after evidence for ANY God anywhere at anytime, they would not easily denial the EXISTENCE of such a being. It's alright for them to discredit and disregard the 'evidence' set forth by Christians any which way; but such denial does not constitute proof for their own equally positivist assertion what "IS" and what "IS NOT". When someone says 'I don't know', he has not acted like the conclusive atheist who assumes that something DOES NOT exist - the latter is assuming he knows that something actually "does not" exists, no matter what 'evidence' is presented to him. Therefore, we want such an atheist to do us the favour of demonstrating the "science" that led him to deny the EXISTENCE of any Being who might be called God, even if he does not agree with the concept of 'God' in any religion. He cannot excuse responsibility to do so and claim weakly that one cannot prove a "negative" - that is a whimper and not intelligence. Has anyone wondered why Dawkins went from "God does not exist" to "there is PROBABLY no God"?

dalaman:

I am already tired of speaking for the atheist so I will allow them to speak for themselves.

Lol, thank you again for your dialogues. Interesting, and much appreciated.

@Tùdor,

Tùdor:

Dalaman, how could you agree with pilgrim?

 
Well, I don't know how he could have agreed with me; although if he never did, I still would have considered his reply very intelligent indeed, just as I observed in my reply to his.

Tùdor:

I stated honestly i've never seen,heared,tasted or smelt your god neither have i experienced him yet she called that narrow. How ridiculous!

I don't think it's ridiculous what you stated - infact, and honestly, I think it's quite interesting and worthy of consideration. Which was why I tried to address it precisely and wondered if knowledge about the realities of our world are derived through ONLY those approaches. Suppose someone else (not pilgrim.1) tries to present some kind of 'evidence' for what is beyond the naturalism of atheism, what would you say to such an atheist who is not willing to consider such an evidence - simply because he fears his naturalism may have to be adjusted? Such a scenario was why I posted the example of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's (Ph.D) experience with Richard dawkins.

Tùdor:

If she indeed has seen or experienced god,do show us.

I have experienced God for myself - and have also shared a few in my testimony on Nairaland. Of course, that is my subjective experience, not yours - so I understand that it may be rejected out of hand even before considering it. My experience may not be yours; and yours definitely may differe from mine - which is why I'd like to also consider this next line in yours:

Tùdor:

What if i said i saw aliens who landed in my room last night and they have asked us to worship them,how would you prove me wrong? The fact they didn't land in your room doesn't mean they didn't drop in mine.

I won't believe you if that's what you are claiming - whether or not you believe in your own assertion. Do you? Of course, perhaps that is a hypothetical case, and yet I would say that I won't disbelieve you merely for stating it so. Why would it not be difficult for me to believe you? Simple: I don't have any credulous reason to deny the possibility of the EXISTENCE of aliens - and I've tried to discuss a few of these in a thread (Our Orphic World).

_______________________

Edit:
I beg your pardon, Tùdor - the first line of the last paragrasph there was a typo: pls let me highlight and then correct -

pilgrim.1:

I won't believe you if that's what you are claiming - whether or not you believe in your own assertion.

I actually meant to say: "I won't disbelieve you". I hope that clears things up.

pilgrim.1:

I think you're typically shifting grounds here, lol. Even if I provide you such a 'proof' or 'evidence', how does that help your own claim and position improve any nearer to its own affirmation? The basic question here is about EXISTENCE and the supernatural. That is what I've been asking you guys to consider - whether one deity is "greater or better" is a matter about qualities that are relative, and not about whether such a deity exists or not. Now when you as an atheist assumes a position to denial existence of anything that does not fit your worldview, you're making a categorical statement that requires proof and evidence. It assumes that you've carefully investigated your idea to have come to that dogmatic conclusion that God DOES NOT exist, not whether he is "greater or better".

I don't think I am . Now i will like to consider what you have said and say a few things about the existence of the supernatural. I take atheism to assert that when all the evidence for and against is weighed, the best conclusion to draw is that there is no god but theism in contrast is the doctrine that there is good and sufficient reason to believe that god or the supernatural exists. All gods are fictional constructs invented or created by clever humans for a variety of purposes usually ranging from psychological comfort, emotional comfort, hope and some times for entertainment. According to the god hypothesis or concept god has some defining characteristics. He is a person, supremely powerful,  morally perfect, all-knowing, the uncreated creator of the universe, specifically concerned with human beings, the only deity, and essentially immaterial or non-physical.

It is important to spell these criteria out somewhat more carefully. The god whose existence I deny is supposed to be a person to have a mind, will, intelligence, purposes and desires. I am not interested in debating the existence of an impersonal god, who could be identified with nature, or fate, or any other vague "something" that is supposed to run the universe. I am more interested in debating the existence of who has the qualities I have listed above. God's supreme power or omnipotence means simply this. There is no possible state of affairs which God could not bring about, if it should please him to do so.

The moral perfection of this deity will, I think, be easily enough granted. god, as generally conceived, inflicts no unwarranted harm and can never justly be blamed for anything.That god knows all things is also part of the standard definition. If god exists, there is no fact of which he is ignorant. God's status as the supposed creator of the univere should also be relatively unproblematic, but I would like to stress an important point here which is that in postulating god as creator the believer in god claims that god's existence explains something about the way things are and belief in god is thus supposed in some way to make the world more intelligible and better. God is also thought or belived to have a special interest in human affairs. He is not taken to be some kind of disinterested observer but is supposed to love humans protect those who call on him and help them by providing for them or being there for them all the time, he is also offended by their misdeeds, and to be particularly upset if some humans do not believe is his existence.

Now here is my case for atheism. Here is my grounds for thinking that there is no personal god who is the all-powerful, all knowing, morally perfect, omniscient, immaterial creator of the world who holds a special concern for the lives of humans. We should (where possible) avoid accounts of the world which claims the unusual or hitherto unknown things in order to explain what can be explained in terms of more intelligible and well-understood things. For example, suppose that I hear an odd sound in the my roof and you tell me that it is due to a mammy water who has taken up residence in my roof. Without a whole lot of evidence, your hypothesis should not be taken seriously because any reasonable person would naturally prefer an account of this noise that does not require mammy water and it makes due with well-understood things, well understood things like my faulty ventilation fan in the celing being the cause of that noise or expanding ceiling joists or loose botls and nuts or some other explanation. Suppose however, that we engage in an investigation and the investigation reveals no mammy water, but also nothing else that could easily explain the noise coming from the roof.  Then you account for these facts by saying that the mammy water is naturally shy and has fled, fearing discovery. I must say that, although this hypothesis, or this pair of hypotheses, do have the virtue of being consistent with all the known facts, it remains suspect, because it relies on something so remote from the general order of things. Assuming, as I think you will grant, that mammy water are not the kind of thing one typically runs into.

I must stress that the Principle I am using here does not mean that we are never justified in introducing novel explanations but they have to be able to be surpported. Science frequently makes progress by introducing some new kind of object, event or process, but still the appeal to the unknown or unfamiliar is generally a last resort, and the Principle I am using here is that we should shun all such accounts when there are more familiar forms of explanation available to us or in the absence of such explanation he who makes and explanation should be able to provide reasonable evidence for his explanations.

Here is what Toneyb wrote on another thread. "God qualifies as something very mysterious, unintelligible and unfamiliar in the relevant sense. God is not visible, tangible or otherwise detectable by empirical means that we know or use. God is supposed to act in space and time but without having any location in space and time himself. His essence is according to the belief, ungraspable and fully beyond the comprehension of the finite human minds and understanding and yet belief in this incomprehensible being is supposed to make the present state of the world more intelligible? Everything observable in the world is supposed to be created by God according to the belief, but God Himself is uncreated. Furthermore, events in the observable world can generally be accounted for without introducing God as an explanation. Thunderstorms, earthquakes, plagues, eclipses, the variety of natural species, and even the origins of life itself all have detailed atheistic or natural explanations(some which i do not agree to), notwithstanding the fact that theese things were once thought to be the immediate work of God.

The use of god as an explanation for anything always bound to be problematic because are always told a great deal about him, but never enough that claims that his existence can be put to the test. Mazaje makes this VERY interesting point. He said " The god hypothesis does no real explanation at all because it can be used to account for anything in exactly the same way". He gave an example of a farmer who prays to god for rain to help his drought stricken crops. Suppose it then rains. The happy farmer explains this as the act of God in response to his/her prayer. But suppose it doesn’t rain. The farmer explains this as god having had other reasons for withholding rain 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. Another reasons or case for atheism is the inconsistency on the part of the believer, the believer denies the reality of every other culture's god or gods although they may not wish to admit it, believers must hold that all other deities are illusory, and that people who believe in them are in the grip of a massive error or delusion. The believer will argue that whatever appears to be explained by these alternative deities can in fact, be accounted for by natural processes, or perhaps by the actions of his god whom he takes to be something very familiar and not in need of any explanation. If a Moslem tells a Christian about the divine healing abilities of allah, the Christian will dismiss it and try to look for medical explanations for the muslims claim but he refuses to apply the same reason when it comes to his own god and his claim of the supernatural.

There are otherr cases for the denial of the supernatural, I still assert that prayer which is supposed to be an evidence for the divine does not work. There is no evidence to show that people who pray do better than people who do not pray, there is no evidence to show that Christians who are prayed for get well faster than non Christians who are not prayed for. There is no evidence to show that Christians who pray to god for prosperity, prosper better than those who do not pray, there is no evidence to show that god protects those who pray to him more than those who do not pray to him. There is no evidence to show for any supernatural interferance in this wolrd, If there is then please go anead and provide it.

Another argument for God is that from design according to this argument, the universe shows an impressive degree of order, coherence, and structure that is highly unlikely to be the product of random chance or anything like that. There is instead a remarkable fitness in the way that organisms are adapted to their environment and the way that processes in the universe are appropriately suited one to another therefore, the argument concludes, there is some kind of intelligent designer who is responsible for the remarkable order, structure and coherence of everything and who is very intrested in what he has designed. But this hypothesis of a divine designer is difficult to take seriously for several reasons. First if we are in a position to recognize the wonderful design of the world, we are also entitled to critique the design work. It is obvious to say that, the human body could be much better designed. Replaceable lung filters to prevent lung disease, absence of congenital diseases, very strong lined arteries to avoid arterial blockage, an improvement on our absurdly inefficient digestive system, and so forth. The world is self contains a lot of things that are always on the need to harm humans, bacteria, viruses, natural disaters, are always on the move to kill and destroy humans. With problems like this in the design the supposed designer of humankind is by no means an imperfect craftsman. But he would likely get a 'C' in an industrial design course. There is still no evidence for the supernatural, all the claims of the supernatural and how it functions have yeilded nothing positive in favour of the super natural. If only things like prayer work we will not be here having this conversation.

Pilgrim.
Good. Now can you then tell me why you don't believe in the supremacy of zeus, allah or buddha? What 'credulous reason' do you have not to believe in them?

@bindex,

bindex:

I don't think I am . Now i will like to consider what you have said and say a few things about the existence of the supernatural. I take atheism to assert that when all the evidence for and against is weighed, the best conclusion to draw is that there is no God But theism in contrast is the doctrine that there is good and sufficient reason to believe that God or the supernatural exists. All gods are fictional constructs invented or created by clever humans for a variety of purposes usually ranging from psychological comfort, emotional comfort, hope and some times for entertainment. According to the god hypothesis or concept god has some defining characteristics. He is a person, supremely powerful,  morally perfect, all-knowing, the uncreated creator of the universe, specifically concerned with human beings, the only deity, and essentially immaterial or non-physical.

It is important to spell these criteria out somewhat more carefully. The god whose existence I deny is supposed to be a person to have a mind, will, intelligence, purposes and desires. I am not interested in debating the existence of an impersonal god, who could be identified with nature, or fate, or any other vague "something" that is supposed to run the universe. I am more interested in debating the existence of who has the qualities I have listed above. God's supreme power or omnipotence means simply this. There is no possible state of affairs which God could not bring about, if it should please him to do so.

The moral perfection of this deity will, I think, be easily enough granted. god, as generally conceived, inflicts no unwarranted harm and can never justly be blamed for anything.That god knows all things is also part of the standard definition. If god exists, there is no fact of which he is ignorant. God's status as the supposed creator of the univere should also be relatively unproblematic, but I would like to stress an important point here which is that in postulating god as creator the believer in god claims that god's existence explains something about the way things are and belief in god is thus supposed in some way to make the world more intelligible and better. God is also thought or belived to have a special interest in human affairs. He is not taken to be some kind of disinterested observer but is supposed to love humans protect those who call on him and help them by providing for them or being there for them all the time, he is also offended by their misdeeds, and to be particularly upset if some humans do not believe is his existence.

[size=14pt]>etc.<

>etc.<

>etc.<

>etc.<[/size]

Awww. . . poor you, lol. Dear bindex, I'm very well-acquainted with the 'story-line' above, and have discussed it several times with a few atheists here and outside Nairaland. I don't have the stomach to run round yet again in a circle with that cut-and-paste argument (without your leaving any links of acknowledgement) between Doug Jesseph and Wlliam Craig cut out from the The Secular Web website. . . . unless you're trying to tell me you are Doug Jesseph himself.

However, it still amazes me that your best shot for the denial of the existence of the supernatural is an argument from Jesseph that does not address that simple question. What in the world am I to do with that excuse?

Tùdor:

Pilgrim.
Good. Now can you then tell me why you don't believe in the supremacy of zeus, allah or buddha? What 'credulous reason' do you have not to believe in them?

@Tùdor,
Again, many thanks - and here are my answers:

1. It all depends on what you mean by "believe in".
I don't 'believe in' Zeus, Allah or Buddha because obviously I'm not an adherent of the religions or worldviews prescribed by them.

2. That I don't "believe in" does not mean I "deny" anything about their existence - implied or otherwise. I've not argued that neither Zeus, nor Allah nor Buddha existed/exists; and again, I haven't affirmed their existence either. My approach has already been enuciated from the context of my own Christian worldview - "there may be" such as thus described, but my devotion is not to them (1 Cor. 8:5-6).

3. Consequently, it is not a "need to disprove" any so-called deities that defines the veracity of my Christian worldview. For instance, I cannot set about with a "need to disprove" Buddha's existence; the atheist may feel so polarised towards that 'need', but where has he satisfactorily "disproven" Buddhism?

4. Now, more to the point is not about believing in "the supremacy" of any deity - the basic question here has been about EXISTENCE. This was why I observed earlier to bindex that my discussions so far were not "a matter about qualities that are relative", which would include here your idea about 'supremacy'. It's a question first about settling your denial of EXISTENCE of what is outside naturalism before assuming qualities of supposed deities within existence.


Now, in fair turn, Tùdor: I must observe that you typically did the same thing as we've noted about atheists' discussions - broach something for query when you have no answers yourself! Do you have answers about the "existence/non-existence" and/or "supremacy" of the deities you mentioned? You're asking someone else to provide answers to questions about issues you do not believe in - is that not the same weakness we have observed about typical atheist logic? It makes me wonder that since you cannot proffer satisfying proof or evidence for the typical atheist positivist claim about phenomena which lie outside his worldview of naturalism, the best (and perhaps the weakest) cop-out is project quesries about issues he does not understand nor even is willing to consider. Since I'm not a Buddhist, are YOU one? If you're not one, what is the substance of asking for answers from others about the supremacy of what you do not proclaim your devotion to?

pilgrim.1:

@bindex,

Awww. . . poor you, lol. Dear bindex, I'm very well-acquainted with the 'story-line' above, and have discussed it several times with a few atheists here and outside Nairaland. I don't have the stomach to run round yet again in a circle with [size=18pt]that cut-and-paste argument (without your leaving any links of acknowledgement)[/size] between Doug Jesseph and Wlliam Craig cut out from the The Secular Web website. . . . unless you're trying to tell me you are Doug Jesseph himself.

However, it still amazes me that your best shot for the denial of the existence of the supernatural is an argument from Jesseph that does not address that simple question. What in the world am I to do with that excuse?

Bindex cuts and pastes ANOTHER "argument" without citing sources?