UserX18:


This is the definition of Folly.
It is the evidence of God’s existence. They are foolish, God is very mercify, to even allow them which proclaim there is no God to be alive, unto this day.
“Only a fool says in his heart, there is no God”

That is why the wisdom of man, is absolutely foolishness is the eyes of God.
What we are getting wrong is that, they are not really intelligent, they represent folly and cowardice.

Do you not know it takes great Courage to believe in God..

Indeed it is extreme folly my brother. With one mouth they claim God does not exist and with the same mouth they demand for evidence for the same God whom they already declared does not exist.

Its shocking oo to say the least.

For something not to exist it means it is totally erased from ones subconscious and not even to be thought about but these guys spend the bulk of their time demanding for evidence all over the place yet claiming God does not exist at the same time. So if something does not exist, what evidence would they then recognise as coming from that non existent God?

Since they claim God does not exist, this also means that evidence for the same God should also not exist right? So where would anyone manufacture a non existent evidence for a non existent God from?

They really do think themselves to be wise while all they do is display their folly everywhere.

Butterflyleo:


Indeed it is extreme folly my brother. With one mouth they claim God does not exist and with the same mouth they demand for evidence for the same God whom they already declared does not exist.

Its shocking oo to say the least.

For something not to exist it means it is totally erased from ones subconscious and not even to be thought about but these guys spend the bulk of their time demanding for evidence all over the place yet claiming God does not exist at the same time. So if something does not exist, what evidence would they then recognise as coming from that non existent God?

Since they claim God does not exist, this also means that evidence for the same God should also not exist right? So where would anyone manufacture a non existent evidence for a non existent God from?

They really do think themselves to be wise while all they do is display their folly everywhere.

Point made.

johnydon22:
We are all used to the normal narrative of demanding for evidence on the subject of God.

True the onus lies on the positor not the negator to present proof.

But to arrive somewhere one thing must be substantiated.

E.G: In science, a good theory is one that makes predictions that can either be confirmed or falsified.

If this predictions are confirmed, the theory garners a degree of proof to its merits.

If falsified based on this prediction, it is discarded.

In this example, the primary factor is is prediction.

What to expect

So atheists, what do you consider to be the thesis that must be confirmed for the theory of God to make sense?

Theists, what do you consider the greatest pointer that suggests the existence of God?

Your entire thread and question is a non sequitor.

How can you be asking ATHEISTS what they would consider as evidence for Gods existence?

Have you forgotten what atheism is?

Atheism is defined Less broadly as the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

So if atheists declare that absolutely no deities exist and God is a deity then where would evidence for a non existent deity come from? Shouldn't such evidence also be non existent?

This thread is an embarrassment to logic.

UserX18:


If you don’t believe in any God, why are you now asking “Which God” please is that reasonable, oh i don’t believe the earth is round.. I dont believe there are other planets, then I’ll ask you questions about “which planet”? Is that reasonable please?
Is it wise and reasonable to debate something that you absolutely do not believe exists.? Please Be REASONABLE HERE!

The Muslims have their own faith, they are serving something of course, I will not want to argue about their faith, because I do not believe in the Q’uran. Anyone who will want to argue or debate about their faith, and that person does not believe in the Q’uran, it will be folly.

The God that created the Heavens and the Earth.

Oga why are you going strawman?

I comment jeje and you quoted me and ask questions if I've tried God and intervene, if I know his laws and character bla bla bla and I ask which God are you talking about and you are going strawman.

I've seen Christians arguing with Muslims about Allah they don't believe in and vice versa, I've seen people arguing about comic superheroes characters they believe doesn't exist, so oga I'm not getting your point, what you don't get is these things are public matters, there's no law stopping you from arguing, debating or have interest in them, I personally have interest in philosophical, theological debates.

tintingz:
Oga why are you going strawman?

I comment jeje and you quoted me and ask questions if I've tried God and intervene, if I know his laws and character bla bla bla and I ask which God are you talking about and you are going strawman.

I've seen Christians arguing with Muslims about Allah they don't believe in and vice versa, I've seen people arguing about comic superheroes characters they believe doesn't exist, so oga I'm not getting your point, what you don't get is these things are public matters, there's no law stopping you from arguing, debating or have interest in them, I personally have interest in philosophical, theological debates.

No I’m not going strawman, the people you call Christians, I don’t know them, Christians are not very much, just they way you think, they are few, take a look at it, you don’t believe the Q’uran, you don’t believe in their various washings, and cleansing, you do not know what their beliefs is all about, and you argue it with them, is that reasonabl, what makes one a little wise is the ability to reason. Whether right or wrong. Please just try and reason. It’s blind arguing what you don’t know about.

tintingz:
Oga why are you going strawman?

I comment jeje and you quoted me and ask questions if I've tried God and intervene, if I know his laws and character bla bla bla and I ask which God are you talking about and you are going strawman.

I've seen Christians arguing with Muslims about Allah they don't believe in and vice versa, I've seen people arguing about comic superheroes characters they believe doesn't exist, so oga I'm not getting your point, what you don't get is these things are public matters, there's no law stopping you from arguing, debating or have interest in them, I personally have interest in philosophical, theological debates.

Even after reading the Q’uran, they’ll tell me I don’t understand it the way they do(which of course might be true) Then I’ll bring some true facts about (salvation) they can’t deny then if they don’t accept, I’ll leave them.
So I’m not stoping you from arguing anything, just be reasonable when arguing. One who desires not to reason, such one shouldn’t bother debating. It is folly.

UserX18:


No I’m not going strawman, the people you call Christians, I don’t know them, Christians are not very much, just they way you think, they are few, take a look at it, you don’t believe the Q’uran, you don’t believe in their various washings, and cleansing, you do not know what their beliefs is all about, and you argue it with them, is that reasonabl, what makes one a little wise is the ability to reason. Whether right or wrong. Please just try and reason. It’s blind arguing what you don’t know about.

You are still going strawman, Christians are not few, are you saying Buddhists are much than Christians? I don't understand you.

Secondly, you don't even know if I was in a religion before, you're just making fallacious statement.

UserX18:


Even after reading the Q’uran, they’ll tell me I don’t understand it the way they do(which of course might be true) Then I’ll bring some true facts about (salvation) they can’t deny then if they don’t accept, I’ll leave them.
So I’m not stoping you from arguing anything, just be reasonable when arguing. One who desires not to reason, such one shouldn’t bother debating. It is folly.

Are you being reasonable when you argue with Muslims in the first place, are you reasonable thinking your religion is the truth and where salvation is?

You are just being hypocritical in your argument.

Your arguments are flawed, you have no point.

mizk the atheist

come give your opinion

mizk the atheist

come give your opinion

mizk the atheist

come give your opinion

mizk the atheist

come give your opinion

mizk the atheist

come give your opinion

I wanted to ignore you as usual but the reply was cringe worthy and the amount of naivety crumpled into one post with so much confidence was just too much to bear.

Butterflyleo:


Your entire thread and question is a non sequitor.

I am not sure you know what non sequitur means and when this fallacy of ambiguity is committed. My OP was the original premise of this thread and a premise cannot be non sequitur to itself.

It may be argued that a premise commits the fallacy of begging the question, false equivalency, ad hoc and many others but a premise is never non sequitur to itself.

Understand how a word is used before applying it.

How can you be asking ATHEISTS what they would consider as evidence for Gods existence?

Have you forgotten what atheism is?

Felixomor understood the thread and went on to bring out his submission.

Atheist lacks belief in God and on this ground of non-belief only evidence of subject can be sufficient to nullify disbelief. I know what Atheism is much more than you do or ever will.

There is a sun, everyone knows this, nobody disbelieves the existence of the sun. Why? because the sun is evidential, it is not on the purview of belief, it is on the purview of stiff certainty.

Some people believe in God.
Others don't.

Why?
Because of lack of such stiff evidence to convince them otherwise.

There a question on what such of evidence is needed is not only valid but necessary.

I don't understand how this could elude someone. Its quite elementary.

It is because of unbelief that proof is necessary.

So if atheists declare that absolutely no deities exist and God is a deity then where would evidence for a non existent deity come from? Shouldn't such evidence also be non existent?

There is a hypothesis mostly peddled by conspiracy theorists about an extra planet, the size of uranus called Planet X.
The scientific community and every sane human disbelief the existence of this hypothetical planet X because this hypothesis lacks suggestive evidences to its merit.

So the unbelief of the scientific community about planet X is based on the lack of evidence of planet X.

If you ask what sort of evidence is required, the answer is:

- gravitational perturbation on the orbit of Pluto and neptune due to gravitation interference expected from a body as large as the supposed planet X
- Behavior of transneptunian objects suggesting presence of a sufficient gravitational source.

This is same premise this thread is derived.

An atheist disbelieves the existence of God(s) on the basis of lack of evidence;

The question then says;

What sort of evidence do you need to validate the suggestion of God?

Felixomor please wasn't this as straight as it should be?

I'm really tired of dealing with moro_ns. I hate sounding condenscending and campaign against the use of insults but dammn, people can just take the bar too low to deal with.

This thread is an embarrassment to logic.

When opening this thread i did not think i'd have to explain to someone why the question is not only valid but necessary, the thread was self-explanatory.

I do not know how you see or read your own words or your own application of logic but one thing is certain, your application of logic is upside down.

I will go back to ignoring you now until i am convinced that reason and perception is in coincide with original argumentative premises.

UserX18:


You don’t believe God exists, and I should answer how he has proved Himself to me?
If you don’t believe that God exists, how will you believe, the proofs He has given me?

I don't get it... When u say God exists... Di u also mean he created me or just u alone?
Oga how did the God that created the two of us reveal himself to u.
Since u don't believe a three headed red elephant exists why did u ask me those questions u asked about it?

If you don’t believe Charle’s law exist, how will you believe it’s procedures?

For ur mind people who don't believe in something can never be convinced? What are u even about? Do u even understand the word 'prove'

No, it isn’t laughable, how will the scientist prove Charle’s law to you, won’t you be present, your mind, and heart must be there present with the scientist, you’ve also taken part in the experiment..

It's only when it comes to God u guys bring in a lot of useless gimmiks and play around words. Every day scientists use experiments to prove their findings to doubters... If everybody believe in everything what then is the need of proving anything to anyone at all?

Yes you can tell the person it’s false. And when the person proves to you, that it is true, you still believe it doesn’t exist it is folly, but when the person proves to you that it is true. And you decide not to believe it is okay. But note, He exists.

Oga we talking about a creator who created us all... Stop making him sound petty with silly excuses. Isn't it quite pathetic that thus so called creator requires u to prove him to me in the first place?

felixomor:


Even if God strikes you dumb.
Other atheists will still call it coincidence.
So whats the use?

It is proof for atheist buda, and not proof for all atheists! God will have to prove itself individually to every atheist, I'm afraid. But it's the Almighty God, so hardly a problem.

felixomor:
An atheist professor died and came back to life and now believes in God.
The moment he came back, his fellow atheist professors denounced him and Called him "mad".

I too would call him mad! And I expect to be called mad if after my experience above, I go about telling atheists who did not witness it in its verifiable entirety that there is God o.

felixomor:
So thats how your story will be if God strikes you dumb,
Its evidence to u.
But Your fellow atheists will still call u stupid.

And so they must if they did not witness it. Even I would call me stupid having witnessed it; stupid for trying to convince people who didn't that it happened as I stated.

But that's the price of having information that is unverifiable by others. If people believed any odd stuff I say without me providing evidence for it, then they themselves are the stupid ones for believing me.

budaatum:

It is proof for atheist buda, and not proof for all atheists! God will have to prove itself individual to every atheist, I'm afraid. But it's the Almighty God, so hardly a problem.


I too would call him mad! And I expect to be called mad if after my experience above, I go about telling atheists who did not witness it in its verifiable entirety that there is God o.


And so they must if they did not witness it. Even I would call me stupid having witnessed it; stupid for trying to convince people who didn't that it happened as I stated.

But that's the price of having information that is unverifiable by others. If people believed any odd stuff I say without me providing evidence for it, then they themselves are the stupid ones if they believe me.

Read the bolded you just wrote
Read the op and read my initial post again till u assimilate it.
And in case u dont know
You sound like the minority of people who still deny that the Holocaust never happened.
To them, the evidence all around is not enough.

So also,
remaining in the minority of humans who dont believe In a creator is a choice. Your choice.

johnydon22:
I wanted to ignore you as usual but the reply was cringe worthy and the amount of naivety crumpled into one post with so much confidence was just too much to bear.

The blindly naive one is actually you and I will show you.

I am not sure you know what non sequitur means and when this fallacy of ambiguity is committed. My OP was the original premise of this thread and a premise cannot be non sequitur to itself.

It may be argued that a premise commits the fallacy of begging the question, false equivalency, ad hoc and many others but a premise is never non sequitur to itself.

Understand how a word is used before applying it.

Non sequitur may refer to: Formal fallacy, an invalid argument whose conclusion is not supported by its premises

1) you are an atheist

2) you are asking fellow atheists for what they would accept as evidence for God.

Premise here is that you are an atheist and you shouldn't be asking for evidence for God from fellow atheists because all of you do not accept the existence of God or gods. What you are doing here is simply beer parlour gossip because on your part as the OP you have your own set parameters as an atheist with which you view their evidence which has been preset on rejection while they have same to you and to each other.

Atheism is not simply a lack of belief. Your lack of belief is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods or there is God. Atheism is not a rejection based on lack of evidence, it is rejection based on fact based evidence for the atheist. This means that the atheist already had his own evidence which brought about his rejection of ANY assertion that there is God or are gods.

Learn to know what you are talking about before you do.

Feliximor understood the thread and went on to bring out his submission.

Atheist lacks belief in God and on this ground of non-belief only evidence of subject can be sufficient to nullify disbelief. I know what Atheism is much more than you do or ever will.

Felixomor only indulged you and he clearly showed you how useless your thread is with his answer. Again I repeat, atheism is not simply a lack of belief, it is a rejection of an assertion. Only a rejection of an assertion can bring a lack of belief. You believe what you know, see, feel, touch, hear as empirically minded atheists and reject otherwise.

There is a sun, everyone knows this, nobody disbelieves the existence of the sun. Why? because the sun is evidential, it is not on the purview of belief, it is on the purview of stiff certainty.

Some people believe in God.
Others don't.

Why?
Because of lack of such stiff evidence to convince them otherwise.

You are speaking from both sides of your mouth here and its as if you have forgotten you are an atheist. Are you an agnostic? I said earlier that atheists are empirically minded and you just confirmed it here by your own comment. God is not the sun. God is a spirit. So let me ask you. Do spirits exist? If your answer is no then you have no basis for comparing God with the sun and no basis for asking for evidence of same. If your answer is maybe or you are not sure aka you don't know then should you be asking for alternative view to convince you. So which are you? An atheist or an agnostic?

You are an atheist so stick to speaking for those who DO NOT BELIEVE GOD EXISTS and not for those who do believe .

There a question on what such of evidence is needed is not only valid but necessary.

I don't understand how this could elude someone. Its quite elementary.

It is because of unbelief that proof is necessary.

I would advice that you go back and critically analyse your own atheism since you feel like repeatedly going around with the word UNBELIEF.

If atheism is an unbelief then that means that there is a belief already existing. Atheism is not simply a lack of belief. It is not the default position.

The theist affirms the statement,"There is a God."

The agnostic says, "I do not know if God exists" or "You cannot know God exists."

The atheist affirms the statement, "There is no God."

So which are you? An atheist or an agnostic?

If you have a position of no belief in a thing then you should not be debating a "no belief" because there would be nothing to debate about. Also you would not be asking for evidence of this "no belief" because there would be none to offer.

There is a hypothesis mostly peddled by conspiracy theorists about an extra planet, the size of uranus called Planet X.
The scientific community and every sane human disbelief the existence of this hypothetical planet X because this hypothesis lacks suggestive evidences to its merit.

So the unbelief of the scientific community about planet X is based on the lack of evidence of planet X.

If you ask what sort of evidence is required, the answer is:

- gravitational perturbation on the orbit of Pluto and neptune due to gravitation interference expected from a body as large as the supposed planet X
- Behavior of transneptunian objects suggesting presence of a sufficient gravitational source.

This is same premise this thread is derived.

An atheist disbelieves the existence of God(s) on the basis of lack of evidence;

The question then says;

What sort of evidence do you need to validate the suggestion of God?

Felixmor please wasn't this as straight as it should be?

I'm really tired of dealing with moro_ns. I hate sounding condenscending and campaign against the use of insults but dammn, people can just take the bar too low to deal with.

When opening this thread i did not think i'd have to explain to someone why the question is not only valid but necessary, the thread was self-explanatory.

Take all the above to the science section. God does not submit to empirical science. God is a spirit remember? Or when did science suddenly embrace science fiction aka pseudoscience?

You are all over the place in your attempt to make sense of your own OP which is a logical fallacy coming from an atheist so now you attempt using physical, tangible things to compare spiritual, beyond physical senses experiences. Laughable.

I do not know how you see or read your own words or your own application of logic but one thing is certain, your application of logic is upside down.

Its clear you cannot see how you are the one with an upside down logical position by asking for evidence of God from fellow atheists despite you also being an atheist. What a shame!

I will go back to ignoring you now until i am convinced that reason and perception is in coincide with original argumentative premises.

When you pick up your reason and perception from the floor where you dropped it, then perhaps you would begin making sense first to yourself prior to impressing me.

frank317:

I don't get it... When u say God exists... Di u also mean he created me or just u alone?
Oga how did the God that created the two of us reveal himself to u.
Since u don't believe a three headed red elephant exists why did u ask me those questions u asked about it?


For ur mind people who don't believe in something can never be convinced? What are u even about? Do u even understand the word 'prove'


It's only when it comes to God u guys bring in a lot of useless gimmiks and play around words. Every day scientists use experiments to prove their findings to doubters... If everybody believe in everything what then is the need of proving anything to anyone at all?


Oga we talking about a creator who created us all... Stop making him sound petty with silly excuses. Isn't it quite pathetic that thus so called creator requires u to prove him to me in the first place?

Of course he created Everything.
If I tell you how God revealed himself to me, are you going to believe? Because you don’t believe what Revealed himself to me even exists. If I tell you, will you believe, or you just want find pleasure in disputing emptiness.

They can only be convinced when they open their mind, they can only be convinced if they’re courageous, cowards and fools cannot be convinced, because a Fool thinks in his heart that He is the wisest.
What are the useless gimmicks I brought in.
No..He requires me to prove to you that it is folly, that there are evidences of his existence and yet you disaprove it.

You are yet to know you do not believe in anythinf. You do not hold on to anything.

tintingz:
You are still going strawman, Christians are not few, are you saying Buddhists are much than Christians? I don't understand you.

Secondly, you don't even know if I was in a religion before, you're just making fallacious statement.

Christians are few, because I know who a Christian is, The ones you see most often are false Christians. Christians are few in this world today.

Do you even know the definition of a Christian...?

tintingz:
Are you being reasonable when you argue with Muslims in the first place, are you reasonable thinking your religion is the truth and where salvation is?

You are just being hypocritical in your argument.

Your arguments are flawed, you have no point.

Did you see me arguing with a Muslim about his religion, you are using “the people who you think are Christians, to judge me”

Now, i can say my religion is the truth and where salvation is, I’ll bring facts and proofs. (To such a one that believes in the existence of God)

UserX18:


Of course he created Everything.

If I tell u a three headed red elephant revealed he created everything will u believe me or doubt me or ask me how?
Should I consider u foolish for not believe, or for doubting or for asking how?

If I tell you how God revealed himself to me, are you going to believe?
I will not just believe if u don't prove it.. U could be lying.

[quote]

Because you don’t believe what Revealed himself to me even exists. If I tell you, will you believe, or you just want find pleasure in disputing emptiness.

I don't believe that what revealed himself to you exist yet u tell me it created me. Saying it created me makes me inquisitive. How can I not believe in something that created me? Should I even be capable of that?
You can tell me a thousand times like u told me he revealed himself to u, I will not believe except u prove it to me... I can ask u a question to ask that creator that revealed himself to u and u ask it... If u answer accurately I will believe.

They can only be convinced when they open their mind, they can only be convinced if they’re courageous, cowards and fools cannot be convinced, because a Fool thinks in his heart that He is the wisest.
What are the useless gimmicks I brought in.
No..He requires me to prove to you that it is folly, that there are evidences of his existence and yet you disaprove it.

A fool is only the person who goes about believing every nonsense that comes from ur mouth. A fool is someone that believes in something he cannot prove to a doubter.
Why didn't u believe that a three headed red elephant created u when I told u... Yet u want me to believe ur God created me just because u said it. Wise man disprove the fact that a three headed red elephant created the world.

You are yet to know you do not believe in anythinf. You do not hold on to anything.

How does that make u different from me.. U that believe in nonsense what special ability do u have that I don't have?

UserX18:

If you don’t believe in any God, why are you now asking “Which God” please is that reasonable, oh i don’t believe the earth is round.. I dont believe there are other planets, then I’ll ask you questions about “which planet”? Is that reasonable please?
Is it wise and reasonable to debate something that you absolutely do not believe exists.? Please Be REASONABLE HERE!

It's your "Please Be REASONABLE HERE!" That makes me jump in. I assume that if you can ask others to be reasonable then you are capable of reasonableness so please consider the following.

If say you do not believe in the existence of other planets and I told you there were 196, I expect you to ask me where they are and what are they called, despite your not believing in their existence. I also expect you to go do some further research too. My reason for thinking so is that I do not believe you are stupid enough to think that what you believe is the whole truth. And besides, you'd wish to correct my error, or won't you?

So yes, I would expect you to ask me about the 196 planets I claim exist. And if I insist, I expect to be challenged about my claim. If you don't challenge me, I might go and place my 196 planet claim on the school curriculum and teach my stupidity to your children. Trust me, you'd see the detriment of your not challenging me when your child starts repeating my 196 planet claim amongst intelligent people who know better. They may not correct your child, but they sure would form an opinion of said child based on an unverifiable 196 planet claim.

UserX18:

The Muslims have their own faith, they are serving something of course, I will not want to argue about their faith, because I do not believe in the Q’uran. Anyone who will want to argue or debate about their faith, and that person does not believe in the Q’uran, it will be folly.

I think the issue here is your need to "argue" . Can I ask you to do me a temporary favour and consider that I am not arguing with you here, but "discussing" ? You are more likely to benefit me more by doing the latter rather than the former, and I thank you in advance. I'd also have wished to ask you to consider what you mean by "believe" , but I assume that's too much to ask. Consider the following however.

Imagine that when you asked me for evidence of my 196 planet claim, I answered with "I believe there are 196 planets", perhaps because I read about them in some book, would you not look at me funny? Now imagine you asked me to name them and I started with Earth, Mars, Ganymede, Jupiter, Callisto, Io, Amalthea, Elara, Saturn, Metise, Sinope, Europa etc, and name 196 bodies that I claim are heavenly. Wouldn't you see where my error lay if you knew where I got those 'planets' from?

One "discusses" with others in order to 'learn about', is my point here. "Believing" however, is the closing off of one's senses to contradictory evidence without considering whether any validity lay in the claim made. It is my opinion that if I were to behave in that way - not consider the opinion of others - then I must indeed be, or end up becoming, a stupid person.

Is it not better we agree or define God, before we start looking for evidence to admit or dismiss...

I suggest we know or define what we are looking for before going out in search of it..

Well, to me, God is the personification of totality of the consciousness of the universe fully embodied..

Does consciousness exist? Yes it does.. The name is not important... The igbos has decided to call it Chukwu, the yoruba calls it Eledumare, the Bini calls it osanobua, the Romans calls it Jupiter and the babylonian calls it marduk, the Indians calls it vishnu.. Etc, same consciousness different nomenclature...
Same as all the other forces of nature's which has also been personified..
Most of all the written words shows how humans are connected to these forces, which follows certain laws and principles..

I do not need to reread what I wrote felix. I read it before posting it! I also read yours. You, however seem to have misunderstood mine.

There is verifiable evidence for one to know whether the holocaust happened or not. One does not have to believe it happened or not, but ignoring the evidence is just plain stupid.

To a "believer", the evidence for the existence of God is as compelling as the evidence for the holocaust. But I am afraid that both evidences are not of the same quality, as one requires belief for accepting former while belief is not required for the latter. One can know whether the holocaust happened or not, but ask yourself why believers don't seem to know whether gods exist or not!

Do note, I do not believe the holocaust happened because I know the holocaust happened. There is enough evidence showing it did, and equating the evidence for the existence of gods with the evidence for the holocaust is lame at best, or a misunderstanding of what constitutes as evidence.

felixomor:


Read the bolded you just wrote
Read the op and read my initial post again till u assimilate it.
And in case u dont know
You sound like the minority of people who still deny that the Holocaust never happened.
To them, the evidence all around is not enough.

So also,
remaining in the minority of humans who dont believe In a creator is a choice. Your choice.

The jews use Lord for this consciousness and also use different symbols for the other forces of nature, laws and principles.. For example, the symbol for wisdom is a woman, so a Virgin woman will mean divine wisdom and an Oloshoo will mean common wisdom or common sense.. Same also different numbers mean different things also.. The number 7 denotes perfection..

So the expression "7women" will mean something like perfect wisdom. Most of these stories are told using symbols and numbers.. And the stories told in form of parables and metaphors..

The fact that the jews decided to use names like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and moses does not make it any more superior to the Bini who decide to use ogun, oromila, olokun etc in their own stories and parables.. The bottom line is that the message in both story is consistent and the same.. Or the babylonian decides to use marduk Enlil, Inanna etc.. The message is the same..

It is the Romans who came later on in history and stole the Jewish scriptures and added their invented man God to basically deceive the world and lead this world to a dangerous and evil path.
They have now infected us with this bull sheet and taken us far away from the path of our ancestors..

Since then we have not known peace and prosperity..

We have to find our way back to our roots and heritage.. That is the only way we can blossom.

God is not a beaded white Jewish man, his baby mama and son up in the sky..

UserX18:

If I tell you how God revealed himself to me, are you going to believe?

I often suspect that when believers are asking one to believe, they actually do not mean "believe in God" , but believe them! Why should anyone believe God revealed himself to you? Of what business is it of anyone whether God revealed himself to you or not? In fact, why are you here telling anyone that God revealed himself to you? Is it because you are more worthy of being revealed to?

If God revealed himself to me, he'd probably be doing so for a reason, and I suspect that reason would be way more than my merely proclaiming it on Nairaland. I'd expect something like "buda go and cure the world from poverty, or death" in fact. And if I were to ask for the power to do so, which I would, I expect to be given a rod and an Aaron to assist me. Anything less is probably me hallucinating or blatantly lying! And if I am asking people to believe in my lies, then my intention can only be so I can make them stupid and exploitable.

budaatum:
I do not need to reread what I wrote felix. I read it before posting it! I also read yours. You, however seem to have misunderstood mine.

There is verifiable evidence for one to know whether the holocaust happened or not. One does not have to believe it happened or not, but ignoring the evidence is just plain stupid.

To a "believer", the evidence for the existence of God is as compelling as the evidence for the holocaust. But I am afraid that both evidences are not of the same quality, as one requires belief for accepting former while belief is not required for the latter. One can know whether the holocaust happened or not, but ask yourself why believers don't seem to know whether gods exist or not!

Do note, I do not believe the holocaust happened because I know the holocaust happened. There is enough evidence showing it did, and equating the evidence for the existence of gods with the evidence for the holocaust is lame at best, or a misunderstanding of what constitutes as evidence.

So what you know is different what you believe?

Eiya.
Anyway.
For us, we believe what we know
And we know what we believe.

Sad to know your case is different.

frank317:

If I tell u a three headed red elephant revealed he created everything will u believe me or doubt me or ask me how?
Should I consider u foolish for not believe, or for doubting or for asking how?

Good thought, you see this is what I stand by, this is what I hold on, The Word of God. It stands true, it always stand true. There’s no lie in it. So I’m different from you, i do not believe in a nonsensical thing. It makes absolute sense.

budaatum:

I often suspect that when believers are asking one to believe, they actually do not mean "believe in God" , but believe them! Why should anyone believe God revealed himself to you? Of what business is it of anyone whether God revealed himself to you or not? In fact, why are you here telling anyone that God revealed himself to you? Is it because you are more worthy of being revealed to?

If God revealed himself to me, he'd probably be doing so for a reason, and I suspect that reason would be way more than my merely proclaiming it on Nairaland. I'd expect something like "buda go and cure the world from poverty, or death" in fact. And if I were to ask for the power to do so, which I would, I expect to be given a rod and an Aaron to assist me. Anything less is probably me hallucinating or blatantly lying! And if I am asking people to believe in my lies, then my intention can only be so I can make them stupid and exploitable.

There’s something you’re not getting, I do not ask for you to believe me. His word is there. God has revealed himself to everyone, it is left for you to choose to believe it or reject it. You’re to believe his word not mine. His word stands true. Because you do not even believe nor understand the God, for this selfsame reason will you bring such examples. I didn’t tell a lie to you. God has revealed himself to me, I believed, that made me a believer, he revealed himself to you, and you reject it and even say he doesn’t exist, that makes you an Unbeliever.
His word is true, since there’s no lie in it, I have no reason to reject it.

sonmvayina:
The jews use Lord for this consciousness and also use different symbols for the other forces of nature, laws and principles.. For example, the symbol for wisdom is a woman, so a Virgin woman will mean divine wisdom and an Oloshoo will mean common wisdom or common sense.. Same also different numbers mean different things also.. The number 7 denotes perfection..

So the expression "7women" will mean something like perfect wisdom. Most of these stories are told using symbols and numbers.. And the stories told in form of parables and metaphors..

The fact that the jews decided to use names like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and moses does not make it any more superior to the Bini who decide to use ogun, oromila, olokun etc in their own stories and parables.. The bottom line is that the message in both story is consistent and the same.. Or the babylonian decides to use marduk Enlil, Inanna etc.. The message is the same..

It is the Romans who came later on in history and stole the Jewish scriptures and added their invented man God to basically deceive the world and lead this world to a dangerous and evil path.
They have now infected us with this bull sheet and taken us far away from the path of our ancestors..

Since then we have not known peace and prosperity..

We have to find our way back to our roots and heritage.. That is the only way we can blossom.

I do not understand if you’re talking about the bible, please make me understand.
If yes, have you seen an inconsistency? If yes please point it out.

If (no) End;