hopefulLandlord:


Well! that would make them argue for a deity devoid of claims and doctrines and that would mean you're gonna present a god that doesn't want me to know him/her it/them which is a god that doesn't want to be bothered

which in turn proves my position. you're in a catch-22 bro

my definition of god which I gave Dalaman on the first page of this thread has no other claim than

1. such being created the universe
and
2. such being could be involved or uninterested with the affairs of his creation.

Gggg102:



my definition of god which I gave Dalaman on the first page of this thread has no other claim than

1. such being created the universe
and
2. such being could be involved or uninterested with the affairs of his creation.

Catch - 22 intelligently shrugged off.

awesomeJ:


Now you know Seun, and maybe have personal relationship with him. The basis for which you believe in his existence is defined to you. Right?

So if just cos I haven't met Seun, I start telling you that Seun really doesn't exist, he's only a product of your imagination, and you're in bondage thinking he exists.

Would that be anything short of me saying you're not intelligent enough to determine the realness of a relationship you have? When I keep insisting to you that contrary to your experience with Seun, my opinion on his non existence is what counts, wouldn't it be that I assume myself to be smart whereas I see you as so dumb as to still believe in Seun's existence?
That's it bro, that's why I see the insult you guys try to make to people's intellect.

Now the examples of smart people believing things you mentioned above don't have any correlation.

In the case of Tesla for instance, what experience did he have to prove the existence of those signals. Did he decode them via a radio receiver?

in our own case, I have given you some of the countless experience that we have of God's existence. Those are the proofs. You can't provide explanations to those experience, but you'd rather want to avoid them since they are undeniable to you.

My point about scientists is that their being smart doesn't mean they can't make bullsheet claims too, seems you never argued against that

Personal experiences are only convincing to those that claim to experience it and are not evidence until someone else either experiences or empirically demonstrates it to be true

The fact that a traveling Bedouin sees a mirage in the middle of the Sahara (and believes it) doesn't mean there is indeed a lake there. The fact that a schizophrenic person sees objects (and believes it) does not mean that the objects are truly there.

Christians/Muslims don't care about my personal experiences with a godless universe, or my personal experiences with superstitious thinking being realized to be just that.
Only Christian/Muslim "personal experiences" matter.

to be fair, the same could be said about most believers in other faiths and their "personal experiences." they tend to be more quiet in public about it, when they are in the minority, like non-xtian/Muslim faiths in Nigeria. but the same self-important "i felt it therefore it's real, and if you can't you're wrong" mentality can be found all over the world, in the names of thousands of gods.

This is for me the main reason why I dismiss these stories. People all over the world just happen to have an experience confirming THEIR religion. How convenient. And these obviously contradict each others religions.

DeSepiero:


Which work was done by Elohim? How do I verify his signature? What if it was Lucifer? or Odin? or Zeus? or Krishna?
Nairaland alone is not enough to know that Seun Osewa exist.

If I seek to know who is behind Nairaland I will know, my search will lead me to the founder. The same is true with the Creator and Designer of our world which we live in.

God has promised that if we seek Him with a sincere heart He will be found. If you seek to know the Creator who is blessed for ever more with all your heart, soul and mind, you will surely know Him.

Odin and all other gods you mentioned, cannot reveal themselves to you because they are not even real to begin with and they created nothing.

Gggg102:



my definition of god which I gave Dalaman on the first page of this thread has no other claim than

1. such being created the universe
and
2. such being could be involved or uninterested with the affairs of his creation.

It seems you've been barking up the wrong tree since we started this. I've been making it clear that my positive assertion on gods are limited to a god that wants me to know him/her/it/them

This I've repeated over and over so your definition is actually not relevant to this one we are having. you can easily scroll up and see I've been choosing my words very carefully

bloodofthelamb:


If I seek to know who is behind Nairaland I will know, my search will lead me to the founder. The same is true with the Creator and Designer of our world which we live in.

God has promised that if we seek Him with a sincere heart He will be found. If you seek to know the Creator who is blessed for ever more with all your heart, soul and mind, you will surely know Him.

Odin and all other gods you mentioned, cannot reveal themselves to you because they are not even real to begin with and they created nothing.

Elohim is real but Odin isn't real? How do you know Odin isn't real?

hopefulLandlord:


Personal experiences are only convincing to those that claim to experience it and are not evidence until someone else either experiences or empirically demonstrates it to be true

The fact that a traveling Bedouin sees a mirage in the middle of the Sahara (and believes it) doesn't mean there is indeed a lake there. The fact that a schizophrenic person sees objects (and believes it) does not mean that the objects are truly there.

Christians/Muslims don't care about my personal experiences with a godless universe, or my personal experiences with superstitious thinking being realized to be just that.
Only Christian/Muslim "personal experiences" matter.

to be fair, the same could be said about most believers in other faiths and their "personal experiences." they tend to be more quiet in public about it, when they are in the minority, like non-xtian/Muslim faiths in Nigeria. but the same self-important "i felt it therefore it's real, and if you can't you're wrong" mentality can be found all over the world, in the names of thousands of gods.

This is for me the main reason why I dismiss these stories. People all over the world just happen to have an experience confirming THEIR religion. How convenient. And these obviously contradict each others religions.

The fact remains that we have experience that common sense would judge to be beyond ordinary, and whether someone in another religion claims to have a similar experience or not it doesn't matter. our own experience already confirms strongly to us that the supernatural exists, and even if someone from another religion lays claims on similar experience, it only buttresses the point.

BUT it would be way off for some folks to start telling us we didn't experience what we experienced. That'd be gross. Did you enter my mind?

On the fact that someone else needs to experience the supernatural, before those experiences can be taken as proof, since you've mentioned that there are several others who claims experiences of the supernatural, are you not shooting yourself in the feet?

On mirage, it does not qualify for a suitable comparison. Because if I sight it at a particular marked spot, and then I approach the spot, I end up not seeing it, so I'd know it's an illusion. But when I've been bedfast and given up to die, and just by saying some words, I instantly becomes whole, each time I check my body, I'll know it's very real, and so would anyone who saw me. and it would be awkward on their part to try telling me that my healing is imaginary.

hopefulLandlord:


It seems you've been barking up the wrong tree since we started this. I've been making it clear that my positive assertion on gods are limited to a god that wants me to know him/her/it/them

This I've repeated over and over so your definition is actually not relevant to this one we are having. you can easily scroll up and see I've been choosing my words very carefully

I'm not arguing if such god is real or not.
I'm arguing that if you conclude that god isn't real, then you are no longer an atheist.

atheism means you are in a state of doubt.
(you do not believe that god exists).
this state allows for the possibility of the existence of god.

the moment you make a conclusion that such god does not exist, you do not allow a possibility of its existence anymore, so you are no longer an atheist.

edit: even if your positive affirmations is limited to the class of gods you quoted, it means you are not atheistic towards those gods.

Gggg102:


I'm not arguing if such god is real or not.
I'm arguing that if you conclude that god isn't real, then you are no longer an atheist.

atheism means you are in a state of doubt.
(you do not believe that god exists).
this state allows for the possibility of the existence of god.

the moment you make a conclusion that such god does not exist, you do not allow a possibility of its existence anymore, so you are no longer an atheist.

what then do I become?

hopefulLandlord:


what then do I become?

I do not know
but atheism does not cover you anymore

you are a believer(knower) of inexistence of god.

hopefulLandlord:

on incidences when Christians... claim that miracles and supernatural experience are proof for their specific God, I do not accept those claims as proof because all religions also claim the same thing.

awesomeJ:


The fact remains that we have experience that common sense would judge to be beyond ordinary, and whether someone in another religion claims to have a similar experience or not it doesn't matter. our own experience already confirms strongly to us that the supernatural exists, and even if someone from another religion lays claims on similar experience, it only buttresses the point.

BUT it would be way off for some folks to start telling us we didn't experience what we experienced. That'd be gross. Did you enter my mind?

On the fact that someone else needs to experience the supernatural, before those experiences can be taken as proof, since you've mentioned that there are several others who claims experiences of the supernatural, are you not shooting yourself in the feet?

On mirage, it does not qualify for a suitable comparison. Because if I sight it at a particular marked spot, and then I approach the spot, I end up not seeing it, so I'd know it's an illusion. But when I've been bedfast and given up to die, and just by saying some words, I instantly becomes whole, each time I check my body, I'll know it's very real, and so would anyone who saw me. and it would be awkward on their part to try telling me that my healing is imaginary.

OGA, stop this nonsensical preaching abeg

If your various experiences convince you your imaginary friend (whichever flavour you have) exists, then my lack of such experience also convinces me that your various imaginary friends aren't real

Stop this circumlocution

butterflyl1on:


You are confusing yourself. An atheist does not doubt that there is a God. An atheists declares there is no God or gods. That is an assertion and not an issue of doubt. To an atheist this is a fact and not just an issue of doubt.

^^^^
It is because of lies like this that certain discussions get derailed.

Gggg102:



on incidences when Christians... claim that miracles and supernatural experience are proof for their specific God, I do not accept those claims as proof because all religions also claim the same thing.

exactly!! but AwesomeJ is conflating experience as evidence while experiencing something doesn't in anyway mean its real and its only convincing to the "experiencer"

superhumanist:


^^^^
It is because of lies like this that certain discussions get derailed.

There are 3 classes of atheists and each holds a different position

1. Atheist

2. Agnostic

3. Agnostic atheist (the stupidest of them all).

If you do not understand anything one is saying kindly do not type until you do.

butterflyl1on:


There are 3 classes of atheists and each holds a different position

1. Atheist

2. Agnostic

3. Agnostic atheist (the stupidest of them all).

If you do not understand anything one is saying kindly do not type until you do.

All agnostics are atheists but not all atheists are agnostics. But continue with your lies.

hopefulLandlord:


exactly!! but AwesomeJ is conflating experience as evidence while experiencing something doesn't in anyway mean its real and its only convincing to the "experiencer"

experience cannot be equated to proof when same experience is used to arrive at different conclusions. cases like this, I'm usually against the Christians.


...but that is a different issue from what I raised.
mine is the definition of atheism.

hopefulLandlord:


OGA, stop this nonsensical preaching abeg

If your various experiences convince you your imaginary friend (whichever flavour you have) exists, then my lack of such experience also convinces me that your various imaginary friends aren't real

Stop this circumlocution

How do you reason now?

I say I harvest yams from my farms, and that proves to me that crops are planted.
You're there claiming smartness, and you can be convenient posting a counter argument that because you don't harvest yams from any farm proves that planting is imaginary. Come on.

or I drive my car on diesel, and that's proof that diesel is fuel. You're saying because you do not drive on diesel then it proves diesel is not fuel. kinda lame if you ask me.

DeSepiero:

Elohim is real but Odin isn't real? How do you know Odin isn't real?

I know and see the work of Elohim but that of Odin I know and see not.

hopefulLandlord:


exactly!! but AwesomeJ is conflating experience as evidence while experiencing something doesn't in anyway mean its real and its only convincing to the "experiencer"

Both you and the guy you quoted have a very faint point. The fact that all religions claim to experience the supernatural renders Christians' claims of the supernatural as evidence invalid?

Of course not.

Rather it buttresses the fact that these experiences are evidence for the existence of the supernatural. For if so many people claim to be experiencing the supernatural, how could you still think it's imaginary?

bloodofthelamb:


I know and see the work of Elohim but that of Odin I know and see not.

*derailing a little*

others may see the work of Odin or Sango or Zeus. do we say they are real because of that?

bloodofthelamb:


I know and see the work of Elohim but that of Odin I know and see not.

You can't be sure that what you behold is of Elohim and not Odin. Can you? How if yes?

awesomeJ:

Both you and the guy you quoted have a very faint point. The fact that all religions claim to experience the supernatural renders Christians' claims of the supernatural as evidence invalid?

Of course not.

Rather it buttresses the fact that these experiences are evidence for the existence of the supernatural. For if so many people claim to be experiencing the supernatural, how could you still think it's imaginary?

but it also creates the problem of which God is in charge of the supernatural. which is true. even if the supernatural is true, you still have a problem to face.

hopefulLandlord:


exactly!! but AwesomeJ is conflating experience as evidence while experiencing something doesn't in anyway mean its real and its only convincing to the "experiencer"

What your proof that water exist?

Maybe it does, but that's not the problem with atheists. Their position is that nothing supernatural exists. This based on people's vast experience is utterly wrong.

The issue of which God is true is beyond the scope of this thread isn't it?

Gggg102:

I do not know but atheism does not cover you anymore
you are a believer(knower) of inexistence of god.

I hear you

Gggg102:

I do not know but atheism does not cover you anymore
you are a believer(knower) of inexistence of god.

I hear you

awesomeJ:
What your proof that water exist?

don't pull solipsism here

awesomeJ:
What your proof that water exist?

don't pull solipsism here

DeSepiero:


What you call god wasn't powerful enough or smart enough to convince the world in 33 years yet you believe it created the world in 6 days.

Who am I that the only Potentate can't convince me?

You chose the adversary that is why you can't be convinced.

The Seed of Satan will always stand for their father, the prince of darkness.

He wasn't powerful enough yet all the armies which had ever matched on the earth, all the Navies that has ever been built, all the parliament that ever sat and all the kings that ever ruled put together have not affected the life of men on this earth as powerful as that this powerless man.

hopefulLandlord:


don't pull solipsism here

solipsism?look in the mirror bro.
I'm not the one calling other people's relationships-which I'm completely ignorant about, I'm not the one calling them imaginary am I?

So who's the one not open to others' viewpoint.
we said we ate rice, you're saying since you've never eaten rice, rice is only a product of our imagination. that's some solipsism bro.

awesomeJ:

solipsism?look in the mirror bro.
I'm not the one calling other people's relationships-which I'm completely ignorant about, I'm not the one calling them imaginary am I?

So who's the one not open to others' viewpoint.
we said we ate rice, you're saying since you've never eaten rice, rice is only a product of our imagination. that's some solipsism bro.

"When a man talks to an imaginary being, it is madness. When many men do it, it is religion."