budaatum:

There are also some who think Trump will be sworn in as the President of the USA on 20 January 2021. Thankfully, only buda thinks for buda.


Then those religious people need Jesus Christ to spit on the ground and make some mud to rub in their eyes so that their blindness be cured and they see. Unless of course the atheist is behaving like a lunatic. In which case, it is the atheist who needs Christ to chase the demons out of him or her into pigs.

Religion is like school. You congregate before the altar to learn how to read from the pastor teaching in a class. Unfortunately, there is no graduation date so most sit there repeating the class until they are brainwashed and unable to think and reason for themselves. If they read the book they'd see Jesus never enslaved his students to the pew.

C.f. [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+9%3A1-6&version=GW]Luke 9:1-6[/url], [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A1-10&version=GW]Luke 10:1-10[/url], [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+1%3A3-10&version=KJV]Acts 1:3-10[/url]

Well,I don't really need Ihedinobi or Jesus or both to teach me what has no meaning!!!

HellVictorinho:

Well,I don't really need Ihedinobi or Jesus or both to teach me what has no meaning!!!

I don't see either of those two on my list.

budaatum:

Same reason I'd quote the Quran, or Plato, or Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart or Homer. Because I read them and learn.

As is understood, "Humans shall not live by the bread in only one book or they will be malnourished". [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A4&version=KJV]Matthew 4:4[/url]

budaatum:

I don't see either of those two on my list.

Yes,they are not on your list.
But I don't need them to teach me what's meaningless, anyway.

HellVictorinho:

Yes,they are not on your list.
But I don't need them to teach me what's meaningless, anyway.

Why are you telling me? Did I send them to teach you?

budaatum:

Why are you telling me? Did I send them to teach you?

I'm telling you because you talked about learning the other time.

HellVictorinho:

I'm telling you because you talked about learning the other time.

"Talked about", and not, "told you" to learn to read and to reason with your own mind and brain as Jesus, amongst many others, taught.

But you do not have to. As you may have noted, there are many who survive and even thrive without the proper use of their minds and brain.

LordReed:


Yes, especially the foaming in the mouth part.

Why do you doubt it? I'm not sure also why you doing the "foaming in the mouth" part. Why does any of this surprise you?

HellVictorinho:

You misinterpreted what I said because you didn't agree.
You said I said bla bla bla simply because you can't see beyond what you see.
But why should I give a damn?
Furthermore, there are factors that affect the choices you make.
It's also impossible for you to determine the options available.
Those options are determined by chance.

HellVictorinho:


It's obvious you can't teach me what I asked you to teach me!!!!
But I will teach you the factors that affect the choices you make!!!
Those factors are what you see, what you hear and what you feel!!!
Furthermore, you don't determine any of those things !!!!
They are determined by chance!!!!!!

As I already said, I don't think there is anything more to discuss in your objection to my response to the thread, so I'm not making any further comments on that.

As for the issue of free will, I don't see why free will has to include the ability to determine the options from which you choose. If you possessed such an ability, wouldn't you be God essentially? Free will is a characteristic of moral creatures. As such, it does not include the ability to "will" reality. It is only the ability to "respond" intelligently to reality. That there are factors that affect our choices only underlines our creaturehood. We have a very limited ability to determine our circumstances, but we are fully responsible to make our choices in response to them.

As for teaching you anything, I'm pretty sure that you made no such request. You simply dismissed my whole response to the thread with an absurd claim and kept repeating and multiplying claims after. It's hard to teach anybody anything when they are teachers themselves.

When you say that the factors that affect our choices are determined by chance, that is yet another bold claim on your part. Why this claim should be accepted as true remains to be seen, just as is the case with all your other claims.

Ihedinobi3:


Why do you doubt it? I'm not sure also why you doing the "foaming in the mouth" part. Why does any of this surprise you?

Because I have not seen it since you have I'd like you to show me, along with the foaming in the mouth part.

LordReed:


Because I have not seen it since you have I'd like you to show me, along with the foaming in the mouth part.

Even if indeed you hadn't, you haven't seen many things. Do you want proof for all of them? And what's this about the "foaming in the mouth" part? Are you having trouble with a metaphor?

Ihedinobi3:



As I already said, I don't think there is anything more to discuss in your objection to my response to the thread, so I'm not making any further comments on that.

As for the issue of free will, I don't see why free will has to include the ability to determine the options from which you choose. If you possessed such an ability, wouldn't you be God essentially? Free will is a characteristic of moral creatures. As such, it does not include the ability to "will" reality. It is only the ability to "respond" intelligently to reality. That there are factors that affect our choices only underlines our creaturehood. We have a very limited ability to determine our circumstances, but we are fully responsible to make our choices in response to them.

As for teaching you anything, I'm pretty sure that you made no such request. You simply dismissed my whole response to the thread with an absurd claim and kept repeating and multiplying claims after. It's hard to teach anybody anything when they are teachers themselves.

When you say that the factors that affect our choices are determined by chance, that is yet another bold claim on your part. Why this claim should be accepted as true remains to be seen, just as is the case with all your other claims.

You say life makes perfect sense but you
can't state how.
So, what makes you correct?
Disagreement is not correction.

budaatum:

"Talked about", and not, "told you" to learn to read and to reason with your own mind and brain as Jesus, amongst many others, taught.

But you do not have to. As you may have noted, there are many who survive and even thrive without the proper use of their minds and brain.

I still think religion is unnecessary.

Ihedinobi3:


Even if indeed you hadn't, you haven't seen many things. Do you want proof for all of them?

Irrelevant.

And what's this about the "foaming in the mouth" part? Are you having trouble with a metaphor?

All I want is an example of an atheist foaming in the mouth while denying that USSR and China had/have atheistic governments. I understand the metaphor well enough.

Ihedinobi3:



As I already said, I don't think there is anything more to discuss in your objection to my response to the thread, so I'm not making any further comments on that.

As for the issue of free will, I don't see why free will has to include the ability to determine the options from which you choose. If you possessed such an ability, wouldn't you be God essentially? Free will is a characteristic of moral creatures. As such, it does not include the ability to "will" reality. It is only the ability to "respond" intelligently to reality. That there are factors that affect our choices only underlines our creaturehood. We have a very limited ability to determine our circumstances, but we are fully responsible to make our choices in response to them.

As for teaching you anything, I'm pretty sure that you made no such request. You simply dismissed my whole response to the thread with an absurd claim and kept repeating and multiplying claims after. It's hard to teach anybody anything when they are teachers themselves.

When you say that the factors that affect our choices are determined by chance, that is yet another bold claim on your part. Why this claim should be accepted as true remains to be seen, just as is the case with all your other claims.

The things determined by chance are the things that happen by chance or the things that happen as a result of the random movement of elementary particles.

LordReed:


Irrelevant.



All I want is an example of an atheist foaming in the mouth while denying that USSR and China had/have atheistic governments. I understand the metaphor well enough.

Why should I care what you want?

HellVictorinho:

The things determined by chance are the things that happen by chance or the things that happen as a result of the random movement of elementary particles.

HellVictorinho:

You say life makes perfect sense but you
can't state how.
So, what makes you correct?
Disagreement is not correction.

To the first, I'm not sure what your definition is supposed to accomplish here.

To the second, you are the one challenging my position. If you have a problem with what I said, go on and state what it is. I will not repeat myself just because you couldn't care less what I have to say. You don't want to hear "God said..."? You should find someone else to bother then.

Ihedinobi3:


Why should I care what you want?

You made a claim and I asked you to backup your claim, don't make it about me.

LordReed:


You made a claim and I asked you to backup your claim, don't make it about me.

Oh it is about you alright. Unless there is some good reason why I should go to any trouble at all to produce proof of something so common in conversations about persecutions of atheists and other people under Christian rule or persecutions of Christians and others under atheistic rule, I have no intent to trouble myself. I suspect you're just being frivolous and thinking to dictate my time and energy.

Ihedinobi3:


Oh it is about you alright. Unless there is some good reason why I should go to any trouble at all to produce proof of something so common in conversations about persecutions of atheists and other people under Christian rule or persecutions of Christians and others under atheistic rule, I have no intent to trouble myself. I suspect you're just being frivolous and thinking to dictate my time and energy.

Gosh! LMFAO! Look at this awesome bait and switch. You claimed that atheists deny the atheist nature (with foaming mouths too) of the USSR and China governments, when challenged and asked for proof, you switch to its persecution of Christians.

You are obviously dishonest but I gave you enough rope to hang yourself.

LordReed:


Gosh! LMFAO! Look at this awesome bait and switch. You claimed that atheists deny the atheist nature (with foaming mouths too) of the USSR and China governments, when challenged and asked for proof, you switch to its persecution of Christians.

You are obviously dishonest but I gave you enough rope to hang yourself.

Very funny. This early in the morning you are having trouble understanding what you read. I said that this "evidence" that you have never seen is ever present in discussions about persecution of all kinds of people under all kinds of regimes. That's why I think that you are being frivolous. Someone who claims not to see something that is so ubiquitous is one who will deny it when it is shown to them. So, I would say that the dishonest one here is you.

Ihedinobi3:


Very funny. This early in the morning you are having trouble understanding what you read. I said that this "evidence" that you have never seen is ever present in discussions about persecution of all kinds of people under all kinds of regimes. That's why I think that you are being frivolous. Someone who claims not to see something that is so ubiquitous is one who will deny it when it is shown to them. So, I would say that the dishonest one here is you.

If your claim was so ubiquitous then it won't be hard for you to post evidence of it but instead you dodge, weave and attempt a bait and switch. You lied, plain and simple.

LordReed:


If your claim was so ubiquitous then it won't be hard for you to post evidence of it but instead you dodge, weave and attempt a bait and switch. You lied, plain and simple.

LOL. As I said, you keep presuming to order me around: You suppose that I would just jump once you say so. Why should I give you proof of something so ubiquitous?

It is a simple enough matter. If you personally do not consider the atheism of the governments in question a debatable matter, then it is sufficient for you to say that you don't. Assuming that I may be lying about other atheists is tantamount to associating atheism itself with the admission that the governments in question were atheistic. In other words, it would be like saying, "no Christian could claim not to believe in Jesus Christ." Obviously, different atheists hold different views of all sorts of things even if you all agree in your rejection of the existence of God. This is something that you lot also rail about with bulging veins in your face and neck (you can ask for proof for that too).

So I won't waste my time providing proof that I know that you don't care about. You get a kick out of ordering me about, and I have no desire to indulge you this time.

Ihedinobi3:


LOL. As I said, you keep presuming to order me around: You suppose that I would just jump once you say so. Why should I give you proof of something so ubiquitous?

It is a simple enough matter. If you personally do not consider the atheism of the governments in question a debatable matter, then it is sufficient for you to say that you don't. Assuming that I may be lying about other atheists is tantamount to associating atheism itself with the admission that the governments in question were atheistic. In other words, it would be like saying, "no Christian could claim not to believe in Jesus Christ." Obviously, different atheists hold different views of all sorts of things even if you all agree in your rejection of the existence of God. This is something that you lot also rail about with bulging veins in your face and neck (you can ask for proof for that too).

So I won't waste my time providing proof that I know that you don't care about. You get a kick out of ordering me about, and I have no desire to indulge you this time.

Bwahahahaha! Look at you squirming like a worm to get out of the shít you put yourself in. You made a false claim and when called out on it you begin a song and dance. Tell me which would have been easier, providing evidence for the claim you made or typing several posts so as not to provide the evidence? Quite clearly you were caught out in a lie but rather than own up to it you wriggle like a worm in shìt. LMFAO!

LordReed:


Bwahahahaha! Look at you squirming like a worm to get out of the shít you put yourself in. You made a false claim and when called out on it you begin a song and dance. Tell me which would have been easier, providing evidence for the claim you made or typing several posts so as not to provide the evidence? Quite clearly you were caught out in a lie but rather than own up to it you wriggle like a worm in shìt. LMFAO!

Previous encounters with you have shown that you don't mind being dishonest. So, there is no reason to take your accusations seriously.

This is an example from Facebook. No identifying features (including links) included.

Christian: "okay great. At least we both know that we are trading in absurdities.
Your atheism threatens the lives of believers. Just look at how atheistic governments
slaughtered religious peoples in various countries in the world in the 20th century.
I cost you money. You cost me my life. Is that a fair trade to you?"

Atheist: "To think I actually thought you were being serious... How many people actually
lost their lives during the Christian inquisition...or due to religious leaders promptings or
prosecution...even as recent as this year...compared to your so called "atheistic" governments
(which weren't actually atheistic since the state was the religion)?? I believe even you can find a
better argument…"

Other examples:

"Stalin was not an atheist. He believed in spirits."
https://www.nairaland.com/876060/evangelical-christians-want-start-world#28990940

"Atheism has nothing to do with the repression of others, it is simply a lack of belief in gods. Somebody repressing religion? Then likely that person is pushing another religion on you, like a state or personality cult. Mao, stalin, Kim, Hitler (a catholic though) and Nazism, Fascists (though most were religious as well). Note, all these are RELIGIONS. They espouse their dogma and demand you don't ask questions, that pretty much is textbook religion."
https://www.nairaland.com/1082872/youd-been-born-china-wouldnt#12676006

"I'll have you know they promoted their own ideologies. Hitler promoted Nascism, Mao promoted Maoism, Even Musolini promoted Fascism.

They never promoted atheism, never for once. As a political scientist, not once was it mentioned that these men promoted atheism. All what they promoted were what I mentioned. And they saw religion and an enemy so they chose to wipe out its adherents. The same thing done by the early church."
https://www.nairaland.com/2988881/atheism-terrorism-annihilation-quest-atheistic/2#43944201

"1 Atheism Is Responsible For The Worst Genocides In History

This misconception attempts to place the blame of inhuman acts like the Holocaust on
atheism because many dictators of the age were atheists. This is known as the Atheist
Atrocities Fallacy and is most often used by theists to prove the evil of atheism with
statements like, “Well, what about stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler? They were atheists, and
they killed millions !”

Those dictators were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, but that’s not
because they were atheists. In fact, Hitler wasn’t an atheist; he was a devout Christian
by his own testament. stalin was an atheist, but he never killed anyone “in the name of
atheism” but rather solely to achieve political or nationalistic goals."
https://www.nairaland.com/3379782/10-common-misconceptions-atheism#49795105

https://michaelsherlockauthor./2014/10/21/the-atheist-atrocities-fallacy-hitler-stalin-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/ (content also quoted at https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/10/the-atheist-atrocities-fallacy-hitler-stalin-pol-pot/)

Since this argument was popularized by Richard Dawkins (you tend to see his name associated with it quite often), you can see why it is disingenuous of you to pretend that you've never seen it before. It's common enough in debates between Christians and atheists.

I'm guessing you will be tripping all over your ballooned ego now, but I have offered this just in case someone else out there with less experience than you needs to know the true state of things. I didn't owe you this answer. You were being horribly dishonest asking the question in the first place. And now, your dishonesty is proven.

Ihedinobi3:


Previous encounters with you have shown that you don't mind being dishonest. So, there is no reason to take your accusations seriously.

LMFAO! Its always like pulling teeth with you. It took you 8 posts to accede to a simple request.

This is an example from Facebook. No identifying features (including links) included.

Christian: "okay great. At least we both know that we are trading in absurdities.
Your atheism threatens the lives of believers. Just look at how atheistic governments
slaughtered religious peoples in various countries in the world in the 20th century.
I cost you money. You cost me my life. Is that a fair trade to you?"

Atheist: "To think I actually thought you were being serious... How many people actually
lost their lives during the Christian inquisition...or due to religious leaders promptings or
prosecution...even as recent as this year...compared to your so called "atheistic" governments
(which weren't actually atheistic since the state was the religion)?? I believe even you can find a
better argument…"

Other examples:

"Stalin was not an atheist. He believed in spirits."
https://www.nairaland.com/876060/evangelical-christians-want-start-world#28990940

"Atheism has nothing to do with the repression of others, it is simply a lack of belief in gods. Somebody repressing religion? Then likely that person is pushing another religion on you, like a state or personality cult. Mao, stalin, Kim, Hitler (a catholic though) and Nazism, Fascists (though most were religious as well). Note, all these are RELIGIONS. They espouse their dogma and demand you don't ask questions, that pretty much is textbook religion."
https://www.nairaland.com/1082872/youd-been-born-china-wouldnt#12676006

"I'll have you know they promoted their own ideologies. Hitler promoted Nascism, Mao promoted Maoism, Even Musolini promoted Fascism.

They never promoted atheism, never for once. As a political scientist, not once was it mentioned that these men promoted atheism. All what they promoted were what I mentioned. And they saw religion and an enemy so they chose to wipe out its adherents. The same thing done by the early church."
https://www.nairaland.com/2988881/atheism-terrorism-annihilation-quest-atheistic/2#43944201

"1 Atheism Is Responsible For The Worst Genocides In History

This misconception attempts to place the blame of inhuman acts like the Holocaust on
atheism because many dictators of the age were atheists. This is known as the Atheist
Atrocities Fallacy and is most often used by theists to prove the evil of atheism with
statements like, “Well, what about stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler? They were atheists, and
they killed millions !”

Those dictators were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, but that’s not
because they were atheists. In fact, Hitler wasn’t an atheist; he was a devout Christian
by his own testament. stalin was an atheist, but he never killed anyone “in the name of
atheism” but rather solely to achieve political or nationalistic goals."

https://michaelsherlockauthor./2014/10/21/the-atheist-atrocities-fallacy-hitler-stalin-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/ (content also quoted at https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/10/the-atheist-atrocities-fallacy-hitler-stalin-pol-pot/)

Since this argument was popularized by Richard Dawkins (you tend to see his name associated with it quite often), you can see why it is disingenuous of you to pretend that you've never seen it before. It's common enough in debates between Christians and atheists.

I'm guessing you will be tripping all over your ballooned ego now, but I have offered this just in case someone else out there with less experience than you needs to know the true state of things. I didn't owe you this answer. You were being horribly dishonest asking the question in the first place. And now, your dishonesty is proven.

So out of 5 examples you cite only 1 actually denies atheistic governments (and the person is certainly NOT foaming in the mouth) and it is from an unsourced Facebook post so we cannot verify it. The other 4 do not claim that the governments of USSR or China were not atheistic, they certainly make other claims apart from the one you specifically levied against atheists. Your claim that this was a common occurance is unsupported and the main claim can not be verified.

The claim that you say is popularised by Dawkins is another attempt by you to do a bait and switch.

My ego plays no role in this because it is a historical fact that USSR and China had/have atheistic governments, anyone claiming the contrary is the one whose ego may be bruised. You on the other hand wanted to gaslight with your spurious claim.

LordReed:


LMFAO! Its always like pulling teeth with you. It took you 8 posts to accede to a simple request.



So out of 5 examples you cite only 1 actually denies atheistic governments (and the person is certainly NOT foaming in the mouth) and it is from an unsourced Facebook post so we cannot verify it. The other 4 do not claim that the governments of USSR or China were not atheistic, they certainly make other claims apart from the one you specifically levied against atheists. Your claim that this was a common occurance is unsupported and the main claim can not be verified.

The claim that you say is popularised by Dawkins is another attempt by you to do a bait and switch.

My ego plays no role in this because it is a historical fact that USSR and China had/have atheistic governments, anyone claiming the contrary is the one whose ego may be bruised. You on the other hand wanted to gaslight with your spurious claim.

You almost surprised me, but you didn't.

Obviously, I don't believe it was any kind of simple request. Your "simple request" was like asking for proof that Roman Catholics have a pope. I told you that this is a very common tack that atheists take. You didn't need proof from me. You yourself have debated atheists as a Christian in the past too.

As for providing only 1, as I said, you're notoriously dishonest.

But I'm done with this foolishness. I had two options right from the beginning: to ignore you or to persuade you to not pursue a meaningless path. Perhaps because I retain hope for you, I decided to engage you. I did say that you would not care for the so-called evidence you were asking for. You can't prove that the sky is blue to a man who can see it. If he rejects the evidence of his own eyes, why would he listen to yours? Right now, I'm not going to respond anymore to anything you have to say about this matter, not to your new false accusation about a bait and switch or your reiteration of your false accusation. It is obvious that this is a common argument that atheists make. It is obvious that the samples I provided are demonstrative of this argument. I never had any responsibility to provide any proof and I still have none to persuade you to accept them. Wallow in your lies for all they are worth. Yours is the reward for your choices.

Ihedinobi3:


You almost surprised me, but you didn't.

Obviously, I don't believe it was any kind of simple request. Your "simple request" was like asking for proof that Roman Catholics have a pope. I told you that this is a very common tack that atheists take. You didn't need proof from me. You yourself have debated atheists as a Christian in the past too.

As for providing only 1, as I said, you're notoriously dishonest.

But I'm done with this foolishness. I had two options right from the beginning: to ignore you or to persuade you to not pursue a meaningless path. Perhaps because I retain hope for you, I decided to engage you. I did say that you would not care for the so-called evidence you were asking for. You can't prove that the sky is blue to a man who can see it. If he rejects the evidence of his own eyes, why would he listen to yours? Right now, I'm not going to respond anymore to anything you have to say about this matter, not to your new false accusation about a bait and switch or your reiteration of your false accusation. It is obvious that this is a common argument that atheists make. It is obvious that the samples I provided are demonstrative of this argument. I never had any responsibility to provide any proof and I still have none to persuade you to accept them. Wallow in your lies for all they are worth. Yours is the reward for your choices.

Bwahahahahaha! Isn't this hilarious. You post someone saying Stalin is not atheist as proof of the claim that atheists say the government of USSR was not atheistic and I'm supposed to accept that? LMFAO!

You were so obviously gaslighting, its that simple.

Ihedinobi3:


To the first, I'm not sure what your definition is supposed to accomplish here.

To the second, you are the one challenging my position. If you have a problem with what I said, go on and state what it is. I will not repeat myself just because you couldn't care less what I have to say. You don't want to hear "God said..."? You should find someone else to bother then.

You went against my statements concerning life before I asked you to state how life makes perfect sense.

HellVictorinho:

You went against my statements concerning life before I asked you to state how life makes perfect sense.

I "went against" your "statements" concerning life? What were these statements of yours responding to?

I must have missed this request you made. Could you link it in your next response?

Ihedinobi3:


I "went against" your "statements" concerning life? What were these statements of yours responding to?

I must have missed this request you made. Could you link it in your next response?

At the beginning,I was only stating that life was absurd.
I was not really responding to your statements concerning the topic someone created the other day.
Although you didn't agree, that doesn't mean you should have misinterpreted what I stated.
Ultimately, the onus is on you to state how life makes perfect sense.

HellVictorinho:

At the beginning,I was only stating that life was absurd.
I was not really responding to your statements concerning the topic someone created the other day.
Although you didn't agree, that doesn't mean you should have misinterpreted what I stated.
Ultimately, the onus is on you to state how life makes perfect sense.

You quoted my post in order to not respond to it? I fear I'm still confused about what you're saying.

Could you quote this misinterpretation that I made of your post?

I don't see the link to the request that you said you made. Perhaps I didn't miss it after all and you were at least mistaken about that?

How is the onus on me to state anything to you?

Ihedinobi3:


You quoted my post in order to not respond to it? I fear I'm still confused about what you're saying.

Could you quote this misinterpretation that I made of your post?

I don't see the link to the request that you said you made. Perhaps I didn't miss it after all and you were at least mistaken about that?

How is the onus on me to state anything to you?

I quoted your post because I wanted to quote it.

According to you,I think everyone's life is absurd but that's your misinterpretation.

If you don't wanna state how life makes perfect sense,then don't do it.
I actually think you can't do it.
But I still don't really care.