pilgrim.1:

Chris, this is where you're misreading issues. You've been on this same ideology far too long and should move on. Often times when I try to reason with people, it's not about punches or making anyone look foolish. Yes, we all react sometimes - and I've shown appreciation for other people's posts, regardless whether they are theists or atheists. When some atheists seek to engage in discussions, they often seek to parade themselves as the "rational" discussants with a spleen on the chip of their shoulders to make others look foolish. This recurrent attitude does not help the atheist, nor infact anybody at all regardless their worldview. If someone would like to put their views across, they could do so - just because others may not agree with them does not warrant a default resort to invectives.

No vex - at least I explain the grammar wey I use na. .
If that one no do sef, I still come back to explain for the bobo say wetin he dey vex for no dey brun person for im backyard, abi?

I no be any 'police'. As for the logic, you sef for tunr to the prevo page and see how me sef tanda. But after they explained, and then KAG delivered a classic response, I breathe easy for where I sidon.

Oooh, U sef. . . I go report olopa for you o!
I don tell you bifor: I wo-wo (abi na 'wor-wor')

I no wan continue to make excuses, but one day I go post am.

Just try and be subtle in your responses, its just the way you come across really. Errrrrmmmmm ya I agree the atheist sees his position as rational and maybe I am biased at this point but I think that is true, personally when faith is added to the mix rationalism goes out the window ( na so I see am if you like write edo dictionary because of this one )

No worry I specialise for wor-wor girls of all flavours, whether na ó-wor-wor, dí-wor-wor my personal oyokrometer go detect and tell me wetin to do

What tonyeb said about the pink flower is all too true,she has a penchant for veering offtopic and find a bizarre way to relate it to her stance. Just look at the 'why i'm not an atheist thread'- she just kept going round and round recycling the same ol' same ol'

@pilgrim
glad you finally truthfully dismissed my point admitting you don't agree instead of mis-quoting me in japanese.

Chrisbenogor:

Just try and be subtle in your responses, its just the way you come across really.

Okay, that's great - I'll try.

Chrisbenogor:

Errrrrmmmmm ya I agree the atheist sees his position as rational and maybe I am biased at this point but I think that is true, personally when faith is added to the mix rationalism goes out the window ( na so I see am if you like write edo dictionary because of this one )

That's fine as well. Me on the other hand, I'm learning to be far removed from being polarised and look more at what's being said than who's saying it - primarily, my inferences are not (or should not be) drawn on the assumption that just because someone happens to be self-identified as an 'atheist' I could not take the time to see reason with him/her.

Chrisbenogor:

No worry I specialise for wor-wor girls of all flavours, whether na ó-wor-wor, dí-wor-wor my personal oyokrometer go detect and tell me wetin to do

Lol, na dat one dey make me shy so tay I don delay showing ma face! 'Specialists' like you na de reason why I dey count my steps!

Tudór:

What tonyeb said about the pink flower is all too true,she has a penchant for veering offtopic and find a bizarre way to relate it to her stance. Just look at the 'why i'm not an atheist thread'- she just kept going round and round recycling the same ol' same ol'

I don't think it's worth even trying to back-pat on this matter. You know what tonyeb said in his mistaken assumption is patently false, and to make that a thread to hang your trousers only puts you in a sob cublicle.

Tudór:

@pilgrim
glad you finally truthfully dismissed my point admitting you don't agree instead of mis-quoting me in japanese.

What are you talking about? Do you know Japanese before assuming I was misquoting you in that language? Lol, I did not dismiss your point (sorry if you read it so) - I rather discussed it. And if you were unable to cope, try not being so hysterical as to write off a thread hastily. . better thing to do is observe, scratch your head, and move on.

Me I never still understand this thread oh

Hello all

i really enjoyed this post by esensed and all the contribution thus far.

Tudór:

What the HELL are you talking about ?
You're just tripping all over and confusing yourself.

Let me make it simple for ya using your logic- Charles dickens wrote the story oliver twist. . .the story contains everything from the experience,thoughts to nature and character of the young boy oliver. THAT IN ITSELF DOES NOT MEAN THAT OLIVER TWIST ACTUALLY DOES EXIST.

Your god has not REVEALED himself,all we have are a couple of writings by deluded men who for all we know might be lying about their experiences.
If you wan't to reveal yourself do so in PERSON or people would be absolutely right in doubting your existence.

if i may comment,
You're just tripping all over and confusing yourself.

i dont see any tripping by esensed but its quite logical.

Let me make it simple for ya using your logic- Charles dickens wrote the story oliver twist. . .the story contains everything from the experience,thoughts to nature and character of the young boy oliver. THAT IN ITSELF DOES NOT MEAN THAT OLIVER TWIST ACTUALLY DOES EXIST.


sorry tudor, Oliver twist is a good & interesting piece to read however i believe that Oliver Twist existed? u surprised? take a look at this biograpphy of Charles Dicken's http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/dickensbio1.html
a piece from the above link

Charles Dickens was born on February 7, 1812, the son of John and Elizabeth Dickens. John Dickens was a clerk in the Naval Pay Office. He had a poor head for finances, and in 1824 found himself imprisoned for debt. His wife and children, with the exception of Charles, who was put to work at Warren's Blacking Factory, joined him in the Marshalsea Prison. When the family finances were put at least partly to rights and his father was released, the twelve-year-old Dickens, already scarred psychologically by the experience, was further wounded by his mother's insistence that he continue to work at the factory. His father, however, rescued him from that fate, and between 1824 and 1827 Dickens was a day pupil at a school in London. At fifteen, he found employment as an office boy at an attorney's, while he studied shorthand at night. His brief stint at the Blacking Factory haunted him all of his life — he spoke of it only to his wife and to his closest friend, John Forster — but the dark secret became a source both of creative energy and of the preoccupation with the themes of alienation and betrayal which would emerge, most notably, in David Copperfield and in Great Expectations.
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/dickensbio1.html

from the above, u will notice how Charles early background was and comparing it with that of Oliver Twist, one can see that Charles was Oliver Twist in a way. So i can say Oliver Twist really existed tho in another form.

Your god has not REVEALED himself,all we have are a couple of writings by deluded men who for all we know might be lying about their experiences.


Great! we can still appreciate them becos its the sum totality of who God personally revealed about Himself using human words, experience to present the bible. Take this two links on Charles Dickens Biography we have two different yet similar account that must be taken together to appreciate who Charles is. The different websites, person presenting, manner of presentation etc may differ but that doesnt negate that Charles Dicken Existed but rather exists.

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/dickensbio1.html
http://www.dickens-literature.com/l_biography.html

hi pilgrim i enjoy ur presentation. God Bless

3kings,yours and the twisted logic of pilgrim is becoming pitiful. . .

That the life story of oliver twist is similar to dickens does that make the being 'oliver twist' real? Did dickens spend time in an orphanage? Did he become a pickpocket for a criminal named fagin?
Did his mom die when he was given birth to?
Infact the only similarity is they both lived poor.

Like christians would like to use pseudo-science to back their ridiculous beliefs so would they use pseudo-logic to lie for jesus.

@3kings
i never argued charles dickens did not exist. So there was absolutely no need to post links to his biography.
We have pictures of him, seen his works/writings we even know where his bones are buried. I need no further proof.

Tudor, Tudor

well e no matter what u try to say but what i want you to understand is that, in your limited understanding, trying to prove that i dont exist because u dont see, feel, touch me is not enough to discredit me. like wise, u must KNOW THAT THOUGH YOU DONT SEE, FEEL, TOUCH GOD is not a prove that He does not exist but on the contrary, He EXIST EVEN THOUGH U REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIM.

Rom 1:18-32

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
KJV

3kings
Thanks, actually i'm not trying to DISPROVE your existence rather i pointed out PLAUSIBLE REASONS TO DOUBT your existence.
Now whether they're reasons enough for me or anyone else to disprove your existence is another matter entirely. . . .

Tudór:

3kings
Thanks, actually i'm not trying to DISPROVE your existence rather i pointed out PLAUSIBLE REASONS TO DOUBT your existence.
Now whether they're reasons enough for me or anyone else to disprove your existence is another matter entirely. . . .

which came first, the chicken or the egg

The goat.

Religion has actually convinced people that there`s an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do, And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever `til the end of time! , But He loves you.

closed book to all christians.

folami86:

which came first, the chicken or the egg

The amniotic egg.