chemystery:

How did you know these? Have you been an atheist before? Oh I forgot! NightWisp

"If a person continues to post wrong information after he has been corrected many times, at some point we have to assume that it is deliberate" -- Seun

What is NightWisp? I know because it is very clear to see. Nobody enters a default position. Everybody consciously chooses what they become and atheists choose to reject the God assertion with an assertion of their own that God does not exist.

So I ask again, since this is their assertion, why then do they still seek evidence for that which does not exist?

Gggg102:



even if all religions are scams, that in itself does not disprove god.

an argument for god existence is not limited to religion.


the atheist have no claim since they only don't believe.

you can't prove a no claim.

the atheist position if really they do not believe god's existence is that of sitting on a fence

The question is not to disprove god but to prove god.
Even you can't disprove the substance bnmki does not exist. That no one can disprove something does not mean such thing exist. For thousands of years, no one has been able to prove or provide evidence for the existence of gods. The question now is for how long will no evidence of gods become evidence of no gods?

P.S
Why not allow atheist tell you their position before you raise points against it. Instead you prefer to invent claims for the atheist and argue over your invented claims. I have seen several theists assume I believe in evolution or big bang! Even if atheist tell you their position, you guys will still want to deny that it isn't.

chemystery:

The question is not to disprove god but to prove god.
Even you can't disprove the substance bnmki does not exist. That no one can disprove something does not mean such thing exist. For thousands of years, no one has been able to prove or provide evidence for the existence of gods. The question now is for how long will no evidence of gods become evidence of no gods?

P.S
Why not allow atheist tell you their position before you raise points against it. Instead you prefer to invent claims for the atheist and argue over your invented claims. I have seen several theists assume I believe in evolution or big bang! Even if atheist tell you their position, you guys will still want to deny that it isn't.

At your P.S

Why this oftentimes does not work is because atheists themselves are riddled with many confusions. They will claim atheist today and when cornered they switch to agnostic atheism (which I find extremely laughable and silly) and when further cornered they claim agnostic.

They are a bundle of contradiction. Let me prove this to you now.

Which category do you fall into.

1. Atheist
2. Agnostic
3. Agnostic Atheist.

DeSepiero:


"If God should give atheists evidence..." that's gonna be a whole new argument because the nature of god comes into the question. I'm always indifferent in this case.

If God exists and is all powerful, and wants everyone to believe in it, will that be impossible?
Your query questions the nature of God.

My question is very simple, if God should provide you with an evidence, isn't there going to be a procedure so that you'll know whether it's God and not Nature?

Emusan:


My question is very simple, if God should provide you with an evidence, isn't there going to be a procedure so that you'll know whether it's God and not Nature?

A god that supposedly created me and wants to provide an evidence for me that it exists would know how to do that without my confusing it for another phenomenon or entity. it would be totally independent of me as this god must know me far better than myself and with this knowledge knows what would convince me even if I don't know

Emusan:


My question is very simple, if God should provide you with an evidence, isn't there going to be a procedure so that you'll know whether it's God and not Nature?

Procedure? Explain! However God wants to do it, all reasonable doubt should be satisfied by the evidence.

Swagzlord01:
the only reason why there is atheist is because some people have been over fed and they wouldn't understand what another man is going through... just a week starvation will bring an atheist back to his /her senses

Translation: God blesses the atheist so much that the atheist has no need to acknowledge the god. Just wait till god stops blessing the atheist and he, the atheist, will know there is a god.

Yep. That makes sense.

Seun:

My evidence against the existence of God is that despite numerous efforts by religious people to prove his existence, they've failed. If God existed, proving his existence wouldn't be so difficult unless he was deliberately hiding from us. If he's hiding, shouldn't we stop bothering him?

You are very wrong in assuming that all Christians have failed in their attempt to prove the existence of God. Because I haven't, and I know a couple others who haven't.

What's this proof we have of his existence?

Imagine you someone told you there was a guy interested in being friends with you. Guy lives in New York. There's no mobile phone, no telephone no Skype at the time. He doesn't write letters, but he'll receive them if you wrote.

Guy has a really great influence.

Now, if you wrote him say about 10 letters, and in each, you asked him for something specific-material or otherwise, and then each time, the thing you ask for reaches to you/happens.
Wouldn't that be enough proof for you that there really is someone at the other end receiving your letter?

Gggg102:



if you doubt I own a Bugatti, you are only expressing an opinion. if you know I don't own a Bugatti it is a fact you know. if you believe I do not I've a Bugatti you are taking an assertive stance and you can go out in public and shout out to the world I Don't have one.


if atheist doubt the existence of god, they can't prove his inexistence. they only feel it is highly unlikely that he exist. that does not change the fact of his existence or inexistence.

No, it "does not change the fact of his existence or inexistence", or your Bugatti. Though I guess when you drive by in your Bugatti with your exhaust fumes polluting my sensibilities, I'd be a fool standing there saying, "You don't have a Bugatti".

Now, imagine you are standing next to me, pointing to an invisible space while claiming that's your Bugatti parked up, and I just can't see it because I am an atheist where Invisible Bugattis are concerned. I get it. I have no faith, right?

awesomeJ:

You are very wrong in assuming that all Christians have failed in their attempt to prove the existence of God. Because I haven't, and I know a couple others who haven't.

What's this proof we have of his existence?

Imagine you someone told you there was a guy interested in being friends with you. Guy lives in New York. There's no mobile phone, no telephone no Skype at the time. He doesn't write letters, but he'll receive them if you wrote.

Guy has a really great influence.

Now, if you wrote him say about 10 letters, and in each, you asked him for something specific-material or otherwise, and then each time, the thing you ask for reaches to you/happens.
Wouldn't that be enough proof for you that there really is someone at the other end receiving your letter?

Yep, it would convince me. Until someone comes along, has no friend in New York, writes no letters, and gets the same things I get from my letter writings. Time to check if my letter writing has anything to do with what I'm getting, won't you think?

budaatum:

Yep, it would convince me. Until someone comes along, has no friend in New York, writes no letters, and gets the same things I get from my letter writings. Time to check if my letter writing has anything to do with what I'm getting, won't you think?

Only if those things happened each time, to everyone who never wrote any letters.

If they did, common sense would already help you judge that the letters didn't make the influence.

In the case that you attribute the happenings to the letters' influence, it would mean that the things you asked for were not ordinary things as might have happened to everyone at every of those times.

For instance, my request could be to make an A in MTS 415.
Sure there could be 5 other guys in the class who make As. But if you asked them, there'd be those who tell you how well they read, those who talk about their closeness to the lecturer, and I who tell you about my letter, given that I know it was all I did.

So, since not everyone in the class made an A, there was surely something that marked the few of us who did out. For some, it was their great efforts, for me it was my letter, so the experience will definitely convince me that someone reads them letters, and he's got some great influence too. And by the time each one of my other request happens, I get more solidified in the belief that it couldn't have just been mere coincidences

Gggg102:
in some old threads, I've seen atheist argue that atheism is the lack of belief in god.

they claim that they are atheists not because they 'believe there is no god' but because they 'do not believe there is god'

if it is so, this means they allow a possibility of the existence of god, and hence cannot assert that there is no god.

for example, John tells Bayo that David won a million Naira.

if Bayo states that this never happened, he is being affirmative and he is so sure that it never happened.

if Bayo states that he does not believe it happened, he is allowing a possibility of the event happening because a fact remains a fact regardless of belief (or unbelief). Bayo by virtue of his unbelief agrees that it is possible, but he does not think it happened.

if John repeated this claim to Seun, Bayo cannot say authoritatively that 'this is not true' but can only express his doubt.

for Bayo to state that John's statement is untrue, he has to have be present when the event was said to happen. but he only received information from John and can only disbelieve, allowing a possibility of the statement being true.

therefore atheist by their definition agree that god possibly exists, but only doubt because they have not been able to experience him.
they can't assert that there is no god.



cc hopefullandlord
dalaman
johnnydon22
...

Aren't you an atheist?

budaatum:
People define the atheist as they understand it, just like different people define their gods. I, am an atheist. I do not believe there are no gods.[/b]I know people deify things (concepts and ideas) and call them gods. [b]But as actual existing entities, I know there are no gods.

By responses I get for making such a bold assertion, you may understand why many people might limit themselves to stating a belief that gods don't exist.

Pls what do you mean by, 'I do not believe there are no gods?

How do you know there are no gods? What yardstick have you used to prove that there are indeed no gods?

DeSepiero:


You ruined your argument with a faulty conclusion.

Atheists don't only doubt because they have not been able to experience him.

In other words, amonsgt other things, they have experienced him yet still doubt or disbelieve him?

hopefulLandlord:

so one can reject their existence due to lack of evidence, right?

Yet there existed, but you rejected their existence because you couldn't see them, so also with YHWH who is a Spirit.

Now we can see microorganisms but still not with this eyes. You could have died disbelieving their existence without a microspcope. But, they were there.

What actually buggles my mind is, whether you guys don't realise how ridiculous your demands to see God are. God is a Spirit and we can't see excpet with this eyes and this eyes don't see spirits.

Satan just dey deceive una to believe you are smart by making this demands.

DeSepiero:


If God wants an atheist to believe in God, God will provide evidence and convince the atheist.

If the theist wants an atheist to believe in God, the theist will provide evidence and convince the atheist.

He did, He took up flesh and lived here for 33yrs. What elese do you want.

And, who are you to make such a demand of the Only Potentate?

butterflyl1on:




Just in case you did not notice, you just said that the existence of God could be possible and your rejection of God does not mean he does not exist so since this is the case all along why do you then Still try to assert that God does not exist if you actually held this position?

Double standard?

Hopefullanlord doesn't have a pronlem with gods of other religions, his problem is with YHWH and he hasn't pretended about that fact. That guy has a deomn living inside of him, trust me.

hopefulLandlord:


Just like if you provide all the claims on earth you still don't prove god's existence

I don't see how this is germane at all

evidence prove

lack of evidence do not prove.

chemystery:

The question is not to disprove god but to prove god.
Even you can't disprove the substance bnmki does not exist. That no one can disprove something does not mean such thing exist. For thousands of years, no one has been able to prove or provide evidence for the existence of gods. The question now is for how long will no evidence of gods become evidence of no gods?

P.S
Why not allow atheist tell you their position before you raise points against it. Instead you prefer to invent claims for the atheist and argue over your invented claims. I have seen several theists assume I believe in evolution or big bang! Even if atheist tell you their position, you guys will still want to deny that it isn't.

I can't disprove Bumki exist, if my position is that I do not believe in Bumki.


if my position is I believe there is no Bumki, I should be able to prove it.

chemystery:

The question is not to disprove god but to prove god.
Even you can't disprove the substance bnmki does not exist. That no one can disprove something does not mean such thing exist. For thousands of years, no one has been able to prove or provide evidence for the existence of gods. The question now is for how long will no evidence of gods become evidence of no gods?

P.S
Why not allow atheist tell you their position before you raise points against it. Instead you prefer to invent claims for the atheist and argue over your invented claims. I have seen several theists assume I believe in evolution or big bang! Even if atheist tell you their position, you guys will still want to deny that it isn't.

I did not formulate this position.
atheists (at least on nairaland) say atheism isn't a belief but a lack of one.

I've seen a comment- 'saying atheism is a belief is like saying abstinence is a sexual position. ' made by an atheist here. I'm not sure who it was though.

budaatum:


No, it "does not change the fact of his existence or inexistence", or your Bugatti. Though I guess when you drive by in your Bugatti with your exhaust fumes polluting my sensibilities, I'd be a fool standing there saying, "You don't have a Bugatti".

Now, imagine you are standing next to me, pointing to an invisible space while claiming that's your Bugatti parked up, and I just can't see it because I am an atheist where Invisible Bugattis are concerned. I get it. I have no faith, right?

as an atheist your position would be to refuse to believe I have a Bugatti


you cannot assert that I have no Bugatti except you change the position of atheism

hopefulLandlord:


This sounds like meaningless wordgames

Of course I can argue from such a position too! by countering whatever arguments is brought forward from the theist's side, isn't that what we do here? theists bring their bullsheet arguments for the existence of their imaginary friend and we counter it?

It seems to me that you're just pulling watered down solipsism

what are you trying to achieve by arguing from the atheist perspective?

what conclusion are you trying to reach?

chemystery:

The question is not to disprove god but to prove god.
Even you can't disprove the substance bnmki does not exist. That no one can disprove something does not mean such thing exist. For thousands of years, no one has been able to prove or provide evidence for the existence of gods. The question now is for how long will no evidence of gods become evidence of no gods?

P.S
Why not allow atheist tell you their position before you raise points against it. Instead you prefer to invent claims for the atheist and argue over your invented claims. I have seen several theists assume I believe in evolution or big bang! Even if atheist tell you their position, you guys will still want to deny that it isn't.

the point I'm trying to make is that atheists can't assert that there is no god. the definition of atheism does not allow for that.

if atheists believe that there is no god, this thread becomes unnecessary.

theist can argue because he asserts that god is real and has to prove it.

if atheist meant believing god doesn't exist, he can argue because he asserts that god does not exist and therefore has to prove it.

an atheist currently does not believe that god exist. there is no assertion here hence nothing to argue. you can't prove anything.

you can't state that god does not exist. that position is for those who believe there is no god.

hopefulLandlord:


This sounds like meaningless wordgames

Of course I can argue from such a position too! by countering whatever arguments is brought forward from the theist's side, isn't that what we do here? theists bring their bullsheet arguments for the existence of their imaginary friend and we counter it?

It seems to me that you're just pulling watered down solipsism

as an atheist, you can only counter as you stated.

you cannot state for a fact that god does not exist.
the moment you do, you've moved from 'I don't believe god exist' to 'I believe god does not exist' and you cease to be an atheist.

Emmanystone:

Yet there existed, but you rejected their existence because you couldn't see them, so also with YHWH who is a Spirit.

Now we can see microorganisms but still not with this eyes. You could have died disbelieving their existence without a microspcope. But, they were there.

What actually buggles my mind is, whether you guys don't realise how ridiculous your demands to see God are. God is a Spirit and we can't see excpet with this eyes and this eyes don't see spirits.

Satan just dey deceive una to believe you are smart by making this demands.

Stop talking like this, you disappoint me

With your first paragraph you're admitting that leprechauns, unicorns, fairies, fire-breathing dragons, mole people, invisible Space Monkeys that float around Adelbaran and mermaids all exist but we just can't see them?

2. Just like your believing Yahweh exists doesn't mean he's there!

3. I don't demand to see any imaginary friend, I know your imaginary friend does not exist! I've always asserted this. if a god exists that created me and wants me to know him I will know him/her/it without any fellow human telling me about him/her/it.

4.Yahweh has deceived you

Emmanystone:

Hopefullanlord doesn't have a pronlem with gods of other religions, his problem is with YHWH and he hasn't pretended about that fact. That guy has a deomn living inside of him, trust me.

stop lying
I reject all religious gods from head to toe

How many times have you seen me type "all religious gods are imaginary, gods like Yahweh, Vishnu, Allah, Olodumare, Chuckwu, Amadioha etc"? I'm sure you've seen that many times in the past but you either pretended not to have seen them or you pretend to only have seen your flavour of imaginary friend

to prove this, copy those gods as I've posted it, paste it on the search bar and you'll see my name everywhere

Gggg102:

as an atheist your position would be to refuse to believe I have a Bugatti

And again, I agree, though.......

budaatum:

.......... I guess when you drive by in your Bugatti with your exhaust fumes polluting my sensibilities, I'd be a fool standing there saying, "You don't have a Bugatti".

Gggg102:

you cannot assert that I have no Bugatti except you change the position of atheism

Do you mean.....

budaatum:
...... you are standing next to me, pointing to an invisible space while claiming that's your Bugatti parked up, and I just can't see it because I am an atheist where Invisible Bugattis are concerned[?]

I'm not changing my definition of my atheism. I see no Bugatti where you point to saying there's your Bugatti, so why would I not be emphatic in my assertion that you haven't got a Bugatti, at least not where you are pointing?

However, I'm now changing my mind, and I don't even agree any more that I am "an atheist where Invisible Bugattis are concerned". What I think now is that you have to be nuts if you are pointing to an invisible space and claiming that's your Bugatti! Either that, or a Bugatti to you means, 'empty space'. That, by the way, was why one of the first responses on this thread was:

dalaman:

What do you mean by God Bugatti? Give us a very clear and description of what you mean by God Bugatti.

I hope you don't mind please, dalaman.

Emmanystone:


Pls what do you mean by, 'I do not believe there are no gods?

How do you know there are no gods? What yardstick have you used to prove that there are indeed no gods?

Whether gods exist or not is not a thing I hold up to standards by which statements of "I believe" or, "I do not believe" apply. I have doneway too much research into the topic for that.

If I do not have money in my pocket, for instance, and know for certain that I do not have money in my pocket (because my hands are in my pocket and I don't feel money there), I would not say, "I believe that I have no money in my pocket", since it would be more accurate to say "I have no money in my pocket.

Now, just so we are clear, If I do have money in my pocket, for instance, and know for certain that I do have money in my pocket (because my hands are in my pocket and I do feel money there), I would not say, "I believe that I have money in my pocket", since it would be more accurate to say "I have money in my pocket".

Where gods are concerned, I have done the equivalent of putting my hands in my pocket and so do not have to 'believe' or 'not believe' since I 'know'.

Emmanystone:

How do you know there are no gods? What yardstick have you used to prove that there are indeed no gods?

Remember I told you about me joining in when my people worship Ogun and Owala and Obatala etc, and when I said I went to Church? And I said I went to learn about religions and gods? Well, let me now add that I've been to Mosques and Hindu and Buddhist Temples plus many other godlike worship places to do the same. But I don't just go to worship places to understand their gods just by watching them, I read their books too and worship with them and join in their studies and do a lot of other research about gods kind of like a surgeon who reads history, I too study history of the gods, psychology of gods, sociology of gods, archaeology of gods, and of religions as practised by adherents, plus Swedenborg and numerous others like him.

All that research has proved emphatically to me that gods are human creations, figments of their imaginations. That they do not really exist as entities outside the minds of those who believe in them, and that all civilisation from the beginning of time have created their gods in their own images but really don't know if their gods really exist.

If they knew their gods existed, they too would not believe their gods exist, they will know that their gods exist and would say so.

awesomeJ:

Only if those things happened each time, to everyone who never wrote any letters.

If they did, common sense would already help you judge that the letters didn't make the influence.

In the case that you attribute the happenings to the letters' influence, it would mean that the things you asked for were not ordinary things as might have happened to everyone at every of those times.

For instance, my request could be to make an A in MTS 415.
Sure there could be 5 other guys in the class who make As. But if you asked them, there'd be those who tell you how well they read, those who talk about their closeness to the lecturer, and I who tell you about my letter, given that I know it was all I did.

So, since not everyone in the class made an A, there was surely something that marked the few of us who did out. For some, it was their great efforts, for me it was my letter, so the experience will definitely convince me that someone reads them letters, and he's got some great influence too. And by the time each one of my other request happens, I get more solidified in the belief that it couldn't have just been mere coincidences

And I agree.

But if I get all the things you ask for in your letter without writing the letter, wouldn't it be odd for you to say that letter writing is the only way to get those things, so I too must become a letter writer?

Emmanystone:

What actually buggles my mind is, whether you guys don't realise how ridiculous your demands to see God are. God is a Spirit and we can't see excpet with this eyes and this eyes don't see spirits.

Its not about "seeing gods", please read what was written below!

hopefulLandlord:

A god that supposedly created me and wants to provide an evidence for me that it exists would know how to do that without my confusing it for another phenomenon or entity. it would be totally independent of me as this god must know me far better than myself and with this knowledge knows what would convince me even if I don't know

If there is evidence for gods like there is evidence for a pit in the ground, the person who refuses to acknowledge their existence will just fall into the pit!

budaatum:

And I agree.

But if I get all the things you ask for in your letter without writing the letter, wouldn't it be odd for you to say that letter writing is the only way to get those things, so I too must become a letter writer?

I keep getting this line from you guys though. Why do you often. infer that what I said is only letter writing works. I didn't say that, what I said was letter writing works. I never spelt any exclusiveness to its effectiveness. As a matter of fact, in the analogy I gave, I talked about those who got their good grades via other means than letter writing.

So getting you to write letters wouldn't be the point. The point would be that I have an undeniable proof that there's exists someone in New York who reads my letters.

Getting the fact of His existence established is first, thereafter, I may tell you all He's got to offer, and if they make enough sense to you, you may accept Him. If on the other hand, you're convinced you'd be better off without Him, it'd still be alright. But this time around, your rejection of Him wouldn't mean he doesn't exist, that fact would have been what we already established.