XXXXTENTACION:
Ever heard the story of the 5 blind men that went to find out what an elephant looked like...
If your God existed we would not be argueing about him on a public forum...

As I dey like this,


Nah to survive I dey reason



Wetin remain for this life?

You believe
You no believe


las las

You go payin

hupernikao:


Hope you are good.

When does telling someone he is untrained psychologist become an insult. That is the best way I can describe your attitude and capability. It is descriptive not insulting. You must get the difference well.

You are a religious fanatic you can take this as a description...

XXXXTENTACION:
You are a religious fanatic you can take this as a description...

Yes Sir. At least I have a conviction. Not troubled upandown, sideways. I dey kampé. Eternal conviction. No lëlė.

But you and your folks here, are struggling with conviction. You don't even know where you belong but claiming atheist that you are not. This is the reason I coined a best description for you (untrained psychologist). But you are angry.

hupernikao:




Yes Sir. At least I have a conviction. Not troubled upandown, sideways. I dey kampé. Eternal conviction. No lëlė.

But you and your folks here, are struggling with conviction. You don't even know where you belong but claiming atheist that you are not. This is the reason I coined a best description for you (untrained psychologist). But you are angry.

You dickhead fanatic you could have easilly addresed them as Agnostics... Things would be easier if people practiced what they preached... If your bible teaches you to be calling peope improper names then I wish you goodluck...

hupernikao:

This is the reason I coined a best description for you (untrained psychologist).

May I ask you, why specifically that term?
And how you came about to conclude it as the fitting descriptor?

XXXXTENTACION:
You dickhead fanatic you could have easilly addresed them as Agnostics... Things would be easier if people practiced what they preached... If your bible teaches you to be calling peope improper names then I wish you goodluck...

Pèlé.

A stranger don't teach the owner of the house what the house principle is. How do you even know what the Bible teaches when you have never been exposed to its truth before.

Your issue is still reflective in your comment. Always feeling you know the scriptures but have no single knowledge of it. When you are supposed to be learning, you are jumping rope looking for self adulation.


Forget using strawman argument here. You are untrained, very untrained in the discuss you are in. And I have pointed that out to you severally. You need to humble yourself and learn rather than seeing things as abusive. If I call a man who is unlearned as unlearned, i are only stating the obvious. That's what I have helped you see. Please open your eyes to see it.

Until you see this, you won't know how badly taught you are when it comes to conviction and understanding of the discuss.


So like I said, help is around you to take you away from your untrained psychological disposition. Rather than look for fake identification, be truthful to yourself and take the change require of you.

hupernikao:


Pèlé.

A stranger don't teach the owner of the house what the house principle is. How do you even know what the Bible teaches when you have never been exposed to its truth before.

Your issue is still reflective in your comment. Always feeling you know the scriptures but have no single knowledge of it. When you are supposed to be learning, you are jumping rope looking for self adulation.


Forget using strawman argument here. You are untrained, very untrained in the discuss you are in. And I have pointed that out to you severally. You need to humble yourself and learn rather than seeing things as abusive. If I call a man who is unlearned as unlearned, i are only stating the obvious. That's what I have helped you see. Please open your eyes to see it.

Until you see this, you won't know how badly taught you are when it comes to conviction and understanding of the discuss.


So like I said, help is around you to take you away from your untrained psychological disposition. Rather than look for fake identification, be truthful to yourself and take the change require of you.

I think I sent an email recently...


May I know if you have replied?

hupernikao:


Pèlé.

A stranger don't teach the owner of the house what the house principle is. How do you even know what the Bible teaches when you have never been exposed to its truth before.

Your issue is still reflective in your comment. Always feeling you know the scriptures but have no single knowledge of it. When you are supposed to be learning, you are jumping rope looking for self adulation.


Forget using strawman argument here. You are untrained, very untrained in the discuss you are in. And I have pointed that out to you severally. You need to humble yourself and learn rather than seeing things as abusive. If I call a man who is unlearned as unlearned, i are only stating the obvious. That's what I have helped you see. Please open your eyes to see it.

Until you see this, you won't know how badly taught you are when it comes to conviction and understanding of the discuss.


So like I said, help is around you to take you away from your untrained psychological disposition. Rather than look for fake identification, be truthful to yourself and take the change require of you.

Leave that guy with his case...

I don't think he's stupid for saying his mind....

Different people have different versions of what the Bible says....


The absence of faith is independent of your view of what the Bible says...

In other words,
He has his own view which says that the Bible is wrong about God's existence....

IMAliyu:


May I ask you, why specifically that term?
And how you came about to conclude it as the fitting descriptor?

A man that goes into a boxing ring to fight without knowledge of how to fight or use the right kit is called òtuu (yoruba). You don't need anyone to tell you he is untrained by the time you see how he responds to blows thrown at him. You won't need extra info when you see how he jogs, how he clench his fist and how he withstand the pressure.

That perfect description of being untrained is evidence in those I refer to as untrained psychologist.


Atheism is not about using sense or psychology. Infact atheism is not about science, it's a conviction. But it has been turned to such here on NL by those who don't even know that there are atheists who don't even have access to internet not undergo study of science. Yet hold an unmistaken conviction about their stand.


It's an untrained or unlearned one who is confused that tends to find his basis of atheism in science. He isn't taught, or missed his classes. He is an untrained psychologist. Because he tends to use sense and logic to drive atheism. He will fail.


Lastly, the large portion here are worse than above. There unconvicted stand was drawn from exposure to false information, doctrine and teaching from the bible likely due to their background and environment.

But using such localized experience to assume a position of knowledge will be badly exposed.

As seen here. An anger drawn from your past experience of being scammed or lied to by a sect can't be a justification for atheism. It just showed a man, confused and looking for another umbrella to shield. That umbrella is found online here as atheism by such folks.


But the reality is:
even though a fox and cat can eat from the same plate at times, they can never be the same animal. It's a matter of time before each finds his own level.

Hypernikao people like you are the ones who give christianity a bad name... You come online to insult people and you want thesame people you insult to listen to you...

hupernikao:


A man that goes into a boxing ring to fight without knowledge of how to fight or use the right kit is called òtuu (yoruba). You don't need anyone to tell you he is untrained by the time you see how he responds to blows thrown at him. You won't need extra info when you see how he jogs, how he clench his fist and how he withstand the pressure.

That perfect description of being untrained is evidence in those I refer to as untrained psychologist.


Atheism is not about using sense or psychology. Infact atheism is not about science, it's a conviction. But it has been turned to such here on NL by those who don't even know that there are atheists who don't even have access to internet not undergo study of science. Yet hold an unmistaken conviction about their stand.


It's an untrained or unlearned one who is confused that tends to find his basis of atheism in science. He isn't taught, or missed his classes. He is an untrained psychologist. Because he tends to use sense and logic to drive atheism. He will fail.


Lastly, the large portion here are worse than above. There unconvicted stand was drawn from exposure to false information, doctrine and teaching from the bible likely due to their background and environment.

But using such localized experience to assume a position of knowledge will be badly exposed.

As seen here. An anger drawn from your past experience of being scammed or lied to by a sect can't be a justification for atheism. It just showed a man, confused and looking for another umbrella to shield. That umbrella is found online here as atheism by such folks.


But the reality is:
even though a fox and cat can eat from the same plate at times, they can never be the same animal. It's a matter of time before each finds his own level.

I don't really see how this = untrained psychologist

I have no intent to offend, but I'd say it's you who is trying to psycho analyse, people here without a license, unless you yourself are a trained psychologist.

On the subject of the lack of conviction, if you peer into the views of a lot of atheists here, you'd discover that they are really just agnostics.
They are people who've had their belief systems and idea of truth blown into the water by conflicting information and reality, got disillusioned and never found a way to reconcile the two.

So is agnostic the better descriptor in my opinion.

Some cling to science as it is a system of enquiry into the world, that has been more successful at separating facts from human fiction, more than anything else, if the truth of the question of God's existence and which is true God is to be answered independent of the fallibility of man and his convictions, it should be by a structured method of enquiry, which so far only science seems to be offering.

And concerning your reasoning on the convictions of a theoretical true Atheist, what would a true Theist look like?

IMAliyu:

I don't really see how this = untrained psychologist

I have no intent to offend, but I'd say it's you who is trying to psycho analyse, people here without a license, unless you yourself are a trained psychologist.

On the subject of the lack of conviction, if you peer into the views of a lot of atheists here, you'd discover that they are really just agnostics.
They are people who've had their belief systems and idea of truth blown into the water by conflicting information and reality, got disillusioned and never found a way to reconcile the two.

So is agnostic the better descriptor in my opinion.

Some cling to science as it is a system of enquiry into the world, that has been more successful at separating facts from human fiction, more than anything else, if the truth of the question of God's existence and which is true God is to be answered independent of the fallibility of man and his convictions, it should be by a structured method of enquiry, which so far only science seems to be offering.

And concerning your reasoning on the convictions of a theoretical true Atheist, what would a true Theist look like?

I guess agnostic aren't one who vowed to oppose God or those who hold belief in God just because he felt disappointed or hurt by same God? The ones you called agnostics here have much of their conviction from the description above. I will rather stay with the narrative of calling them untrained psychologist who is trying to fit into an identity.

If they claim to be agnostics by themselves, we can start looking at that direction of discussion.

But claiming to be atheist when they are not is like a bicycle rider who want to take the driving seat of a lorry. The end point nah accident.

IMAliyu:
.

And concerning your reasoning on the convictions of a theoretical true Atheist, what would a true Theist look like?

There is no theoretical atheist per say. Maybe we have on NL. On ground, there is nothing like that, Not all these ones here that won't know when "oh God help me" will come out of their mouth by reflex when in trouble. .

A true atheist can't make such mistake. He is programs in absolute opposite of the one who believe in God.

For a true Theist, well, I will rather speak as a or for a Christian than as a or for Theist.

You have tried. God bless you


ATHEISTS ARE THOMASES.

hupernikao:


There is no theoretical atheist per say.

Who is a theoretical atheist?

LordReed:


Who is a theoretical atheist?

Bros, but you read me nah. You need to read the comment I quoted. He was the one who mentioned that. My response was what you quoted. Personally, I don't refer to any atheist as theoretical. But I know there are untrained psychologist here claiming to be atheist.

hupernikao:


Bros, but you read me nah. You need to read the comment I quoted. He was the one who mentioned that. My response was what you quoted. Personally, I don't refer to any atheist as theoretical. But I know there are untrained psychologist here claiming to be atheist.

He mentioned "theoretical true Atheist" which was a reference to your attempt to gatekeep who is a true atheist and who isn't but you changed it to theoretical atheist. Were you confused by his question?

LordReed:


He mentioned "theoretical true Atheist" which was a reference to your attempt to gatekeep who is a true atheist and who isn't but you changed it to theoretical atheist. Were you confused by his question?

Well, like you saw in my response. I only know atheist, I don't subscribe to theoretical ones. Or better still, I don't subscribe to true or false atheist. It's either you are an atheist or you aren't.

hupernikao:


Well, like you saw in my response. I only know atheist, I don't subscribe to theoretical ones. Or better still, I don't subscribe to true or false atheist. It's either you are an atheist or you aren't.

But you are the one saying some people are not atheist.

LordReed:


But you are the one saying some people are not atheist.

I am not just saying it. It's obvious.

Yet they are not atheist, not even theoretical (if I am to use your line of thought). They only come under the umbrella of atheism to find identification.

hupernikao:


I am not just saying it. It's obvious.

Yet they are not atheist, not even theoretical (if I am to use your line of thought). They only come under the umbrella of atheism to find identification.

LoL @ your line of thought. Dude, are you forgetting I asked you what a theoretical atheist is so how can that be my line of thought? The question that was asked of you what the criteria for a "theoretical real atheist" would be since you seem to be able to distinguish between real atheists and false ones. You changed it to theoretical atheist indicating you are confused by the question. IMALIYU is not asking you for theoretical atheist he was asking you what your criteria for who a real atheist is, he used the qualifier theoretical because you are the one theorising about real and false atheists. Put another way he was asking you how do you know who a "untrained psychologist" masquerading as an atheist is.

LordReed:


LoL @ your line of thought. Dude, are you forgetting I asked you what a theoretical atheist is so how can that be my line of thought? The question that was asked of you what the criteria for a "theoretical real atheist" would be since you seem to be able to distinguish between real atheists and false ones. You changed it to theoretical atheist indicating you are confused by the question. IMALIYU is not asking you for theoretical atheist he was asking you what your criteria for who a real atheist is, he used the qualifier theoretical because you are the one theorising about real and false atheists. Put another way he was asking you how do you know who a "untrained psychologist" masquerading as an atheist is.

You need to go and reread what he asked. He wasn't asking me for criteria of "real atheist". He spoke about a Theist. Go read it again.

Secondly, I told you that I don't hold a thought if real or fake atheist. I only know there are atheist and anyone who doesn't fall into such category but trying to be one is not a false atheist, he is no atheist at all, and the best description of such based on their general attitude is "untrained psychologist".


And on your last question.
You yourself know them, they are here. Even more than the atheist they try to identify with.

hupernikao:



You need to go and reread what he asked. He wasn't asking me for criteria of "real atheist". He spoke about a Theist. Go read it again.

Secondly, I told you that I don't hold a thought if real or fake atheist. I only know there are atheist and anyone who doesn't fall into such category but trying to be one is not a false atheist, he is no atheist at all, and the best description of such based on their general attitude is "untrained psychologist".


And on your last question.
You yourself know them, they are here. Even more than the atheist they try to identify with.

When someone tells me they are an atheist I don't go about psychoanalysing them to to know if they are what they say they are. The only criteria for being an atheist is lack of belief, how you can tell someone doesn't lack belief when they say they do must be a skill unique to you.

Kobojunkie:
So you know you don't belong to Jesus Christ but you pretend you can preach to others in His name?

God can use anybody to pass His message to people.

1Sharon:


Do you know what atheism is about?

Do you even know what your own religion is about?

If Indians colonized Nigeria, you'd be shouting about Krishna right now, so just pipe down.

Great Britain did not colonise up to 20% of the entire countries in the world, yet Christianity is the religion with the highest population of followers in the world.

Rosement:

God can use anybody to pass His message to people.

Which God?

According to Jesus Christ, His mandate to go teach the Gospel, the New Covenant Law of the Kingdom of God is given to His followers who know Him....not just to anyone or anybody.

Rosement:

Great Britain did not colonise up to 20% of the entire countries in the world, yet Christianity is the religion with the highest population of followers in the world.

Because the people that are keeping christianity alive have a high population than the people that gave them the belief.

Ask yourself why Britian has moved on from Christianity, while Nigerians in Africa think they can be more Christian than the people who gave them the religion.

1Sharon:


Because the people that are keeping christianity alive have a high population than the people that gave them the belief.

Ask yourself why Britian has moved on from Christianity, while Nigerians in Africa think they can be more Christian than the people who gave them the religion.

We Christians are not surprised because the Bible has told us about these things already.
Matthew 20:16,
So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
Matthew 24:12-14
12. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Let's take a look at the five most populated countries in world.
1. China
2. USA
3. India
4. Indonesia
5. Pakistan

China - China did not receive Christianity through colonisation, yet today, it is estimated that Christianity is the fastest growing religion in China
The first documentation of Christianity entering China was written on an 8th-century stone tablet known as the Nestorian Stele. It records that Christians reached the Tang dynasty capital Xi'an in 635 and were allowed to establish places of worship and to propagate their faith. A lot of China Christians suffered because of their religion but yet they stood their ground.

India - Though India was colonised by British rulers, Hinduism still has the highest population of followers in India, followed by Islam.

USA - Though Christianity was introduced to USA by the European colonies, the right of religion was established a long time in USA.

Indonesia- Indonesia contains the largest Muslim population of all countries in the world.

Pakistan- Pakistan is a Muslim country.

Rosement:

We Christians are not surprised because the Bible has told us about these things already.
Matthew 20:16,
So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
Matthew 24:12-14
12. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Let's take a look at the five most populated countries in world.
1. China
2. USA
3. India
4. Indonesia
5. Pakistan

China - China did not receive Christianity through colonisation, yet today, it is estimated that Christianity is the fastest growing religion in China
The first documentation of Christianity entering China was written on an 8th-century stone tablet known as the Nestorian Stele. It records that Christians reached the Tang dynasty capital Xi'an in 635 and were allowed to establish places of worship and to propagate their faith. A lot of China Christians suffered because of their religion but yet they stood their ground.

India - Though India was colonised by British rulers, Hinduism still has the highest population of followers in India, followed by Islam.

USA - Though Christianity was introduced to USA by the European colonies, the right of religion was established a long time in USA.

Indonesia- Indonesia contains the largest Muslim population of all countries in the world.

Pakistan- Pakistan is a Muslim country.

Bla bla bla.

Madam you cannot be more Christian than the people that gave you the religion, calm down.

You are a product of colonization

1Sharon:


Bla bla bla.

Madam you cannot be more Christian than the people that gave you the religion, calm down.

You are a product of colonization

John 6:37, All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

I was giving to Jesus by the Father (God). The colonisation was just the means by which Christianity came to Nigeria, whether Nigeria was colonised or not, I would have still heard about Jesus and decided to follow Him, my dad was not a Christian from birth but he converted.

There are countries that were never colonised but yet a large percentage of their population are followers of Jesus, does that not ring a bell?

LordReed:


When someone tells me they are an atheist I don't go about psychoanalysing them to to know if they are what they say they are. The only criteria for being an atheist is lack of belief, how you can tell someone doesn't lack belief when they say they do must be a skill unique to you.

..

Mainly, Lack of belief in God. You need to complete it.

So in your mind, those you are speaking for here truly lack a belief in a god?

The once that will soon port to another form of worship.

Well, sorry. I am a detailed person, I pay attention to what people say in their loose times, and do to be sure of the conviction they hold. It's not enough to just type or say something, it must be seen in you even in your worst and best of times, that's conviction.

The first bundle of those you speak for now only lack belief in a god because they couldn't receive the"promised bundle of prosperity and magic money the priest assure them". Let churches start giving out social or financial benefits today, you will see them lick the wounds. No conviction.

The other bundle is just confused and need to show as knowledgeable. These ones aplenty here.

They are just rebels not atheist. Hence when they speak as atheist they sound more like an untrained psychologists. Go ahead and test their conviction yourself.

hupernikao:
..

Mainly, Lack of belief in God. You need to complete it.

So in your mind, those you are speaking for here truly lack a belief in a god?

The once that will soon port to another form of worship.

Well, sorry. I am a detailed person, I pay attention to what people say in their loose times, and do to be sure of the conviction they hold. It's not enough to just type or say something, it must be seen in you even in your worst and best of times, that's conviction.

The first bundle of those you speak for now only lack belief in a god because they couldn't receive the"promised bundle of prosperity and magic money the priest assure them". Let churches start giving out social or financial benefits today, you will see them lick the wounds. No conviction.

The other bundle is just confused and need to show as knowledgeable. These ones aplenty here.

They are just rebels not atheist. Hence when they speak as atheist they sound more like an untrained psychologists. Go ahead and test their conviction yourself.

LMAO! How does being an atheist preclude one from receiving material benefit from a church organisation? And what has conviction got to do with it? What conviction is an atheist supposed to have?

BTW I am not speaking for anyone, my post was solely directed at you and your ability to detect false atheists.