vaxx:


The bone of argument here is, do christain recognize the existence of other gods? In which I answer in affirmative yes. Whether it is demons or satanic , it is just part of teaching embedded in Christian theology.

Christain recognise[b]d[/b] other gods and term them as smaller gods(maybe in form or Satan or or demon).that is while there is this unique way making letter g in capital for the bigger God while small letter for the smaller gods.

budaatum:

I'm beginning to think you intentionally don't proofread what you post because it gives you wriggle room when cornered.

Ask any Christian and they'd tell you there is only one God. To them, there are no other gods but God. And they will inform you that god is not God, which is illogical, but that's Christianity for you. And satan or the devil is most definitely not a god in Christianity!

vaxx:
Yes ,i am aware Einesten kind of God ideology is akin to that of Spinoza .an impersonal kind of God rather than an anthriphormophic one which is very related to Yoruba tradition.


I am also aware he believes in something higher than physics.

LordReed:


The implication of his word wasn't that there is something greater than physics. He was implying that arrogance that let's you say you know should be avoided whether as a theist or atheist. [b]That what we do not know is yet greater than what we know [/b]and we should enjoy the journey of discovery like a baby enjoys finding out new things. No supernatural beings or realms was implied.

vaxx:
And this is the point I am emphasising, physics we know and what is it that we are yet to know that is greater than what We know?I

LordReed:


You can't make any leaps or conclusions on the nature of what we don't know because we don't know.

vaxx:
This is an honest answer, and Albert Einesten while acknowledging that, agree precisely this unknown peherps is greater than what We already have the full knowledge about.

Obi1kenobi:


A lack of belief in gods is no different from a lack of beliefs in fairies and unicorns. Infact, theists by nature are atheists to other deities other than those they worship.

vaxx:
It seems you are loosing grasp of your argument now when evidence is thrown at your face.

The bone of argument here is, do christain recognize the existence of other gods? In which I answer in affirmative yes. Whether it is demons or satanic , it is just part of teaching embedded in Christian theology.

Christain recognised other gods and term them as smaller gods(maybe in form of Satan or demon).that is while there is this unique way making letter g in capital for the bigger God while small letter for the smaller gods.

Throughout the old testament, Yahweh was seeing constantly fighting this smaller gods. And if you are familiar with Jewish history, you will notic YAHWEH is also called EL who was the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon. The quaternity was El his wife Asherah and their children Ba’al and Anath. All the west Asian tribes (of whom the Hebrews were one) worshiped these four in various forms and guises.

And as monotheism developed all three were deposed and El alone retained as the Supreme God. El is also the one and only Allah according to the Muslim

Yes Yoruba christain regard Yoruba orishaas as demons and gods that is lower in rank to compare with Yahweh.

LordReed:


Sure, given the size of the universe any statement of quality or quantity of our knowledge would be an understatement.

vaxx:
come to rethink about this. isn't this line of thought sound irrational, so because Dele giwa was killed by a letter bomb as make him alive concerning other potential causes of death (fire, stab wounds, illnesses, gun shoot etc.). Such a way of thinking is absurd.

chemystery:
Christians recognise other gods as nonexistent. Any other thing you are saying is indicating that Christians regard Satan as a god which is not true. There is just Yahweh and his enemy Satan whom christians don't recognise as a God or god. Other standalone gods are nonexistent to Christians. Even after showing you a common christian song that clearly indicated that christians believe all other gods are works of men yet you still prefer to be lying to yourself. I'm tired of going in circles with you. You can keep lying to yourself if that gives you a satisfaction that you won the argument. Suit yourself bro.

vaxx:
I like your line of reasoning, and this is why esteem figure such as Albert Einesten find it illogical/irrational to be an athiest.

chemystery:
Christians recognise other gods as nonexistent. Any other thing you are saying is indicating that Christians regard Satan as a god which is not true. There is just Yahweh and his enemy Satan whom christians don't recognise as a God or god. Other standalone gods are nonexistent to Christians. Even after showing you a common christian song that clearly indicated that christians believe all other gods are works of men yet you still prefer to be lying to yourself. I'm tired of going in circles with you. You can keep lying to yourself if that gives you a satisfaction that you won the argument. Suit yourself bro.

LordReed:


That is not true. Einstein himself was an atheist, an agnostic one.

budaatum:

Yes, this way of thinking is absurd, if just because of the implied false equivalence! Isn't there a fallacy for that? What killed him is not the issue here but whether he is dead or not!

Do you know that bad writing reflects bad thinking?

vaxx:
i need to rest. Asking you for a further evidence may require a long back and forth excuses which I am just piss off for now.

LordReed:


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2687/4496554935_0b573db853_o.jpg

https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=G_iziBAPXtEC&pg=PA340&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion

vaxx:
lol. I can give you more than a full page of thread as a link to state otherwise. As I said I need to rest.

budaatum:

I should learn from you. He does this always!

chemystery:
Christians recognise other gods as nonexistent. Any other thing you are saying is indicating that Christians regard Satan as a god which is not true. There is just Yahweh and his enemy Satan whom christians don't recognise as a God or god. Other standalone gods are nonexistent to Christians. Even after showing you a common christian song that clearly indicated that christians believe all other gods are works of men yet you still prefer to be lying to yourself. I'm tired of going in circles with you. You can keep lying to yourself if that gives you a satisfaction that you won the argument. Suit yourself bro.

LordReed:


When you are ready post the link.

Gratefulheart1:

Agnosticism is the only valid view about the non-existence of God while atheism is outrightly invalid based on theory, logic, facts or evidences. The worst view or proof anyone can have about the non-existence of God is 50/50 I.e maybe or maybe not he exists uncertain but to categorically say God doesn't exist is impossible and 100% wrong, that is why atheism itself is based on 100% falsehood. There no discovery, proof, evidence, research, in the past, now or in the future that can prove that God doesn't exist. There is no way to prove God doesn't exist, that is why atheism is false and invalid only agnosticism seem valid and logical.

vaxx:
I will be posting links of books to you. But till then enjoy a Wikipedia read on why Albert Einstein is not an athiest

/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

LordReed:


You must not have read it.

Religious beliefs Edit
Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including "agnostic",[5] "religious nonbeliever"[3] and a "pantheistic"[9] believer in "Spinoza's God".[2] Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."[10]

vaxx:
check my arguments here. I made it straight forward that Albert Einesten kind of believe is Spinoza and far from atheism. I said he believes in impersonal kind of God which athiest reject.

You claiming he is an atheist is what I am refuting . He crtiticise atheism in many of his speech and I shall be sending the links to you as soon as I can.

LordReed:


OK. I think I see what's happening. Einstein was kinda reluctant to commit himself to labels. He didn't want to be seen as an anti-theist while not believing in an anthropomorphic god and liked Spinoza's ideas while being agnostic.

Maybe we can agree he was an agnostic pantheist?

vaxx:
He rejected atheism completely and that is my stand....and According to a biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate atheists than religious people.[27] Einstein said in correspondence, "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."[27][28] Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."[29].

I just said his veiw toward God is akin to that kind of Yoruba tradition (spinoza) who veiw element of God in both known and unknown entities.

vaxx:
I can see you begin to sound like someme who loose grasp of his understanding now but will be comfortable to look for mistake where none exist, yes it is a part of twin fallacy people of your kind committed. Rejecting without explaining, you must have taught to have provoke some point by pointing out the the flaws while not using the same standard to judge yours. It only show inconsistency between your knowledge claims and that of your reasons.


wordism will not even save you here , since you are operating an objection with inconsistency between your line of knowledge and reasons, rebuking one side of argument without stating what it suppose to be. you will be close mind to see you are failing to address the point you quoted me of. . In which case i am pointing out to you that any implementation of an inconsistency would be a violation of the Rules (or a rule) of Pragma Dialectica which you are commiting.

Myths were not just stories, they were the models for human behavior. They taught people how to live; the consequences of right and wrong.
Though told via worlds of gods and kings, many of the myths apply to everyday people and everyday life. And many still apply today, precisely because they are timeless paradigms. And those who are smart had annexed the benefit of this myth to better their life.

Why shouild I impress you? Am here to refute your fallacious claim you quoted me of, I am of the opinion you have a myopic knowledge of the importance in appealing to authority in a straight debate, it is non-fallacious precisely when it makes sense to believe the person offering the information is reasonably expected to be knowledgeable on the topic. In other words, it's a question of what for us would qualify as an "authority." Arises.and since Carl saga and Albert Einesten in this category qualify , it make absolute sense to cite them as evidence.i may be schooling you here. Even In law, an issue regarding constitutionality requires appeal to the authority of the Supreme Court of The state. Notice that in this case not only appeals to a legally established authority, but the decisions are derived from more than one authoritative individual using them.

And your inability not to recongnise this importance shows you still needs lots of work to do. (Human development.

Obi1kenobi:


You're trying too hard, lad. Your attempted verbosity here is making your comments rather disjointed and incoherent. Too many words saying nothing at all worth arguing.



I've told you your grandiose, pompous preening doesn't interest or impress me. You can keep "schooling" whoever you think in your fantasies. I wasn't here to argue convoluted nonsense about what intellectuals, whether Sagan or Einstein or Stephen Hawking or Bohr or whoever believed. This is not a face-off between what Einstein thinks and what Stephen Hawkings thinks, or between what Aquinas thinks and what Kant thinks, which is why I sought to leave out the pointless appeal to authority. It's about what some Nairaland posters think. It's a digression, but seeing as arguing coherently along a line of inquiry seems hard for you, of course you don't understand the digression. Argue in your own words with your own convictions.
Your Supreme Court point is some hilarious shiit. You're on an anonymous internet forum. You try far too hard to sound sage and profound.

vaxx:
I know it perfectly well when the opponent lost it all and has nothing to say .

It will be tantrum and gibberish, while wordism follow.

Obi1kenobi:


The classic act of projection. Spouts a lot of incoherent gibberish trying hard to impress us with highfalutin language and claims it's someone else doing so.