LordReed:
Can you not just state the myth of atheism instead of this convoluted idea you are presenting here?

It is not convoluted. It's a simpe ad hoc definition of God. If there is a God then he is outside the Universe. If there is only a Universe then there is no God.

Myth No. 2:
------------------

Many atheists claim that atheism is free of "additional" assumptions. See e.g. https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ , e.g. they state: "Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

The underlying myth is subtle but still clear to observe. To keep in the pseudo-humorous analogy used at this web page (see above): They state: to believe in a God means to do something actively, something "in addition". And not to believe in a God simply means not to do it or not to assume anything "in addition". With other words: atheism is the "default" perspective.

This sounds, on the first glance, convincing, and also in tune with Immanuel Kant's statement: to assume the existence of a God is an additional assumption. This is certainly correct. But why it is still a myth?

The myth lies in the underlying subtle redefinition of what is "default".

They illustrate it with the analogy of collecting stamps or not collecting stamps. It sounds simple and convincing and funny. But who says that this analogy is the correct one? This question is neither discussed nor analyzed.

Two other possible analogies:

(a) There is a person who has a mother and a father. He does not know who his father is. He has never seen him and has no idea where he is. So, not-believing in the existance of his father is not the "default" position clearly.

(b) There is a person who can see things which other people cannot see. He might be crazy but it also might be that he has a special gift. To stay completely unbiased here and to include all possibilities, let's say it could be that a person can see Bigfoot, or another person claims that he talks to God and God answers, another one says that he has seen UFOs and another one says that he can know what other people feel. Whether the person is crazy or whether he can really see things which others do not see is irrelevant here. This rather refers to the discussion about "evidences, facts, etc." and is discussed elsewhere.
Anyway, not-to-believe that such a person can see things which others cannot is not the "default" position. It is one of two possible assumptions!

The same for God. To assume that he exists or that he does not exist is not a question of a "non-default" versus a "default" position. It is only a decision between two possible assumptions. To "define" one of both as "default" and the other as "extraordinary" (and implicitly as unnecessary) contains an unsound additional(!) assumption, that is: a hidden evaluation of the quality of the two possibilities, or to say it clearly: it as biased position.

With other words: atheists should admit that they believe:
1. We do not assume the existance of a god, gods, etc.
2. We assume that our position is on a qualitatively higher level compared to the opposite position.

Then, many people on this planet would be more happy. Instead many atheists (not all) rather like to omit the second assumption. They maintain the statement that they have the "default" position and it is intrinsically the better one.

-----

To continue, please see the next thread in Nairaland-Forum ("The 5 Myths Of Atheism Uncovered, Part 2":

https://www.nairaland.com/5440495/5-myths-atheism-uncovered-part

This thread here I will not contribute further but you are of course welcome to continue to discuss.

-----

To continue from the first part "The 5 Myths Of Atheism Uncovered":

Before mentioning the Myth No. 2 we have to agree first on a simple "model" of reality so that we use the same terminology.

Let us consider this Universe as an abstract mathematical philosophical object. Don't worry. I will not introduce any weird theories or freak assumptions. I will just employ common sense. It is necessary to define few words. Otherwise there might be millions of side discussions about unrelated topics.
The details of the Universe, its structure, size, extension, principles, what it is, etc. are all irrelevant here. Let's assume that this object "Universe" has an abstract boundary. Again, no attempt to explain or understand anything is made here. The "boundary" is no physical boundary, it only signifies that this Universe is some abstract object.

Because science does not know if there is only one Universe or may be multiple ones, let's generalize this object "Universe" to all possible existing real Universes and still call it "Universe" (Of course: concepts like "real", "existing", etc. are highly interesting topics, which are far from being solved. But this is not considered here).

Can we agree on this picture? If not, the next step will be impossible to do.

Next step would be:

There are basically three possible cases:

1. There is the Universe and that's it. (Here the question arises, what caused it, because if some natural law caused the Universe then per definition this cause must be a part of the Universe as defined above. But may be nothing needed to cause it.)

2. There is the Universe and outside the Universe there is God. God created the Universe. (Then of course the question arises: who created God? - but this is another thread in the Nairaland-Forum about that. I would say: Nobody created God. Then the question arises: what caused God? But may be nothing needed to cause him.)

3. There is the Universe and outside are many Gods or Energies or whatever. This case is not further considered here.

The point here is to state: When there is a being outside the Universe, then this is "God". If there is anything inside(!) the Universe, it is per definition not "God". With other words: the primary criterion for a being God or not is to be outside the Universe.

I want to stress that the question "who created the Universe" is not a "proof" of God or similar! Case 1 or 2 are philosophically identical, one is only shifting the question of origin from Universe to God or vice versa.

Can we agree on these points so far?

LordReed:


Has anyone ever gone to a court and won a case by saying "god told me"?

I think there is a misunderstanding. I was using the analogy, i.e. a court session, to explain this issue about evidences, God etc.
On the one hand there is the issue about evidence, God, etc. and on the other hand there is the analogy, where e.g. a crime is investigated and the judge has to judge about that.

It makes no sense to mix these two things. Of course it makes no sense to say "God told me" at court!

---

There are many interesting points which came out of this thread, but I would like to come back to the initial post.

When I introduced the term "myths of atheism" my point was to highlight the difference between two types of atheists:

1. Those who choose their world view based on thinking and a deliberate decision. They know that they do not know everything and that they might be wrong. They are able to discuss with other persons without offending them. They are able to compare world views philosophically and logically and see all advantages and disadvantages. Most importantly they realize that their world view and any world view is based on axioms.

2. Those who think that they are 100% right and it is impossible that they could be wrong. They assume a right to offend others and arrogantly judge about other world views. They are incapable to philosophically compare world views, because they are unable to "see" their world view and its set of axioms from a higher, independent perspective. Therefore they judge other world views based(!) on their world view, which of course makes no sense.

From this second group usually "myths" arise, i.e. assumptions or conclusions which are based on obvious or hidden internal errors. This is a consequence of their inability to "see" their own world view from a higher perspective.

tintingz:
Ofcos there are good Atheists and bad ones same for Christians and every other religions.

But...

Atheists/Atheism don't have dogmas they follow, no Bible or divine text to justify their actions.

But in Christianity, they have Bible and dogmas, their actions can be justify from their dogmas.

So the problem is not about the people per se, the problem is about dogmatism, these are the things that influenced the people.

Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have debated this before, Sam Harris gave a very valid point on this.

And I think you're being bias, how do you conclude the Christians that did evil are/were not real Christians?

Regarding being biased: Good point. I have to clarify it.

I would "classify" people who claim that they are christians in the following groups:

Christians:

1. Real christians.
The definition is in principle simple: Bible/Rom. 8:14 "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.", Hab. 2:4 “... the righteous shall live by his faith.". The Bible states that a "christian" (follower of Jesus Christ, son of God) are those persons who deliberately and actively believe and trust in Jesus and "follow" him daily in their lives and "try" to live as Jesus requires from his followers. The word "try" is inside quotation marks because this issue is a big thing and fills a lot of space inside the Bible, because it is not simple to live a good live. It is hard work and everyone fails from time to time. Critics of christians often think that christianity means to live a perfect life where 100% is perfect. This is idiotic and not what christianity is about.
A real christian will fail and do evil things from time to time. A real christian will realize such things ideally sooner than later. Then he will ask God for forgivness and the people he hurt. God will forgive him or her and the follower will "try" (again) not to do this evil action again.

I have to say, that this definition above is not shared by all christians. Some would define rather: a christian is someone who has been baptized. I personally reject such a definition. Some would define: a christian is someone who is a member of an official church. I personally reject this definition. And may be some would define: a christian is someone who claims to be a christian or whose parents are christians and hence he is christian. I also reject these definitions.

2. Real christians, but who are either very immature or on a wrong path.
Such persons in principle follow Jesus and believe in Him but they misunderstand many things and fail to realize their actions. They hurt others, insult others, lie, do not ask for forgivness, they do not love but have a lack of love, etc.
Such persons are hard to distinguish from false christians. One only can hope that they realize some day their actions and change. If not, it will depend on the degree of "wrongliness". God will judge.

3. False christians.
These people claim to be christians but are not. They talk like christians and try to behave like christians but they are not. They do not now God in their hearts. Sometimes they even prosecute real christians in the "name of God". This is not an unusual case: When Jesus lived, his biggest opponents were the religious people, the "official believers". They hated Jesus. In medieval times so-called christians inside the Roman Catholic Church killed hundreds and thousands of people, often in the most evil way this world knows. They killed non-christians and christians.

One might argue now: how do I know that these evil persons were not "immature christians"? I do not know. God will judge. But my personal opinion is: someone who does such evil things cannot be a christian.
Jesus commented clearly about such persons: Luk 13:26-27 "But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!’ "

LordReed:


It depends on the nature of the god's "reign". If it is as tyrannical as expressed in the OT of the bible, I expect there to be resentment against the god and at least covert resistance to some of the rather nasty practices.

If the god turns out to be truly benevolent such that everyone experiences a sort of paradise then I think everyone would have no cause to rail against the god.

Next would be this point:
Again I adisagree. If God would live physically visible here in this world, and I believe that he is benevolent and great, then a majority of people will 1. hate him, 2. wage wars against him and his followers, 3. accuse him and 4. definitely not accept his reign.

LordReed:


So by what means do you propose that we substantiate your god claims? We have already ruled out personal experience as too weak, we need more substantial means.

First regarding this point:
No. We have not ruled out that personal experience is too weak. You ruled it out but I have not agreed.

You mention a court as an example and that the claims of christianity would not hold before a court. I disagree. In a court session there might be the party which mentions clear hard facts, samples, tissue, documents, fingerprints etc. and comes to a conclusion. But there might be the other party which raises issues like consciousness, good and evil, previous provocations, words, feelings, experiences, i.e. "soft" facts.
Eventually the judgment or sentence will be based on a deliberate choice of the judge. He or she will decide based on all facts, hard and soft.

In the same way every human being is in a position similar to a judge. One might judge only on "hard" materialistic facts, but the question is, is it just, is it correct? Does it map reality (the entire reality) correctly?

*
Nobody interested to pray together and discuss together biblical topics in a smaller circle?

*

*
To the recent posts about nazis, atheism and christianity: Sorry, I introduced this problem in one of my first posts!

Sorry also for my post where I asked "and what are they?"

In my original post one week ago I wanted to respond to an accusation that christians killed innocent people and commited evil things in the middle ages. I wrote that in fact many so-called christians (and these were not christians) did unbelievable evil things especially in the medieval times. What I wanted to express is that many atheistic regimes also did many evil things, e.g. in the Soviet Union. I wrote this to say: "hey, when you accuse christians generally then one could(!) also accuse atheists generally."

My intention was NOT to insult anbody or say that all atheists are evil.

Anybody, from any world view, who does evil things does evil things. Evil actions are evil independent by whom they are committed.

Some nazis were atheists, some were christians (or claimed to be christians), some were something else.

There are nice atheists, and evil atheists. There are nice christians and evil christians. Can we agree on that?

tintingz:
The Nazists were not atheists.

And what were they?

LordReed:


It is you making a claim that your god is omnipotent, that this god is the lord of this universe, that it created this titanic structure we all live in yet is it so limited in operation when it comes to establishing positions and outcomes that match its power in the lives of the people it supposedly created. One wonders whether it is the same god you are describing or a different one. Your god can create a planet but cannot create a temple. Your god can speak things into existence but cannot establish something as simple as as telephone or any other communication channel that is unambiguous.

I don't know of an atheist on NL that makes the claim that they are 100% certain about the operation of this universe, what most of us say is you cannot hold as true any supernatural claim that you cannot substantiate. This includes gods, angels, devils, spirits, souls, miracles and other fantastical acts, etc. If your worldview includes these things and says they are real then they need to be substantiated.

Yes you did not type "the presence of god will compel obedience", you typed "If he were physically visible in this world, everyone would be impressed by his presence and everyone would "love" him, i.e. try to climb in some career, etc.." I would like you to point out the difference.

...to continue my post:

Secondly, what would happen if God, and assuming that he is a super-being, who was able to create a titanic Universe with everything in it, if he would live physically visible in this world. What would be the consequences? What do YOU think?

LordReed:


It is you making a claim that your god is omnipotent, that this god is the lord of this universe, that it created this titanic structure we all live in yet is it so limited in operation when it comes to establishing positions and outcomes that match its power in the lives of the people it supposedly created. One wonders whether it is the same god you are describing or a different one. Your god can create a planet but cannot create a temple. Your god can speak things into existence but cannot establish something as simple as as telephone or any other communication channel that is unambiguous.

I don't know of an atheist on NL that makes the claim that they are 100% certain about the operation of this universe, what most of us say is you cannot hold as true any supernatural claim that you cannot substantiate. This includes gods, angels, devils, spirits, souls, miracles and other fantastical acts, etc. If your worldview includes these things and says they are real then they need to be substantiated.

Yes you did not type "the presence of god will compel obedience", you typed "If he were physically visible in this world, everyone would be impressed by his presence and everyone would "love" him, i.e. try to climb in some career, etc.." I would like you to point out the difference.

Firstly, reg. "If your worldview includes these things and says they are real then they need to be substantiated."

What do you mean with substantiated? Do you mean "scientifically evidenced by methods employed by natural sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.)"? If yes, then I only can answer. I cannot and I did write this before. May be I disagree with other christians in this point. I personally think that God cannot be evidenced with methods of natural sciences. We have already discussed that. You wrote that this is a "weakness" and I replied, that it is not a weakness. The two world views are based on a very different set of axioms. May be we should compare later our definitions of atheism (or more precisely materialistic atheism, because there are several types of atheism) and christianity.

My point is that one cannot judge or evaluate one world view by using the axioms of the other. This is scientifically not sound! One can do it, of course, but the results are not really helpful, from both sides!

The only thing which is sound is to acknowledge that one has to choose(!) deliberately one world view, and then, inside this world view one can perform tests. And I know that materialistic atheism is a self-consistent world view with many arguments in favor for it. But it cannot map many aspects of reality. The attempts to map aspects like "love", "evil", "good" onto the materialistic world view are interesting but very artificial. They do not match reality. One can try to live a life where love is just a biochemical response but without intrinsic value, where "good or evil" is just a social local definition, an emergent property of society, without real "substance". One can try to life like that, but eventually it will fail. Sooner or later one has to live like a spy with two identities. In one life, one is sure that the material Universe is all there really is. In the other life on lives as someone who thinks that love, friendship, good or evil, immaterial things are indeed relevant.
This is not a proof for my point. It is an idea, a momentum.

Inside the christian world view the perception of this world is completely different. It is also self-consistent. And not by just adding fantasies and blindly believing things. This is not christianity.

I have to continue later because of an appointment.

Blabbermouth:
To you, @alxb19.
I have been so long away from nairaland but today I décided to peep in.
The 90% confirmation you have about your God is too little and I would personally advise you to seek for a personal encounter, it is far solid than miracles and wonders when it comes to solidifying your faith in your God.
Many of them that tried to bash you on this thread are not even strong atheist, if you fall in a nest of their kind, your conviction by miracle might not be enough to hold your ground.Once again, it's highly important to seek a personal encounter {beware, it should never be as a form of test}.

Also, go to their thread "Non-christain chat thread" and read from page 197 to 200. We had an encounter with many of them, and they fled, even as I speak the group is still unusually dry. {You will learn a great deal there, Go!!!}
They will tell you, "There is no God, simple reasoning and logic confirms it."
We then ask them, "(To the man, before any thing else, God is the Creator)According to simple reasoning and logic, what is the origin of creation and existence?"
This unsettles them and they become quiet and troubled.

From logic and reasoning, from physics and science God is made known.
Even from the Big bang, we would prove the hand of God,
From the creations shall things about the creator be known.
In all ultimate and infinite complexity is the God, but what is made manifest cannot be hidden.
God is known, and therefore cannot be hidden.
Big bang: The universe sprang up from an enormous explosion of light (concentrated on a source).

Newtonian Physics {logically and reasonably backed up}
1."Every thing will continue to be at rest or in motion except it is acted upon by an EXTERNAL FORCE."
2."Energy can only change state when an EXTERNAL FORCE acts on it"
Light is energy,and from scientific proof, THE EXPLOSION BEGAN. {I.e before the explosion, it was just energy in a ground state, and the universe had a beginning (the universe was never in a state of motion, I mean it was never iNfiNitely eXisTing as it was started by the explosion}.
If this explosion began, then it was acted upon by an EXTERNAL FORCE. Or else, logically it couldn't have began.
What is this EXTERNAL FORCE? Or rather WHO?
No time, we would have dissected everything with you and up your conviction from 90% to 98.999%.
But, think about what is written below...

"Let there be light, and there was light."
WHO SAID THIS AND WHAT HAPPENED AFTER IT WAS SAID?

Thanks. I will think about it.

LordReed:


It is so weak it cannot be used in a court of law.

Believers in god always seem to propose some unknown or immeasurable quantities as a parameter for their belief in god yet they are confident in these unknown or immeasurable quantities. It just defies logic, how can you be confident in ignorance?

Your descriptions of god make it seem like a ridiculous proposition. How is that you god in all its infinite wisdom can't scry out a set of actions that would cause it to achieve its purposes perfectly? Instead its needs all these poor arguments for its existence and supposed actions?

The argument for the hiddeness of god is just so damn weak because the presence of god will not force anything. You have parents did you always obey everything they said even when they were physically present with you? Also this god is said to be omni present and omniscient yet you still err. How are you able to then say the presence of god will compel obedience?

I completely understand what you mean. I also thought like that. I wrote that at the very beginning of this thread that I was a convinced atheist. I wrote that to stress that I do not need to be "reminded" about logic, evidence and ridiculous propositions. I know that.

So, why did I turn away from a purely materialistic, naturalistic model? I turned away because I realized that it does NOT fit my observations well enough.

A naturalistic world view is good, it has an intrinsic elegance. But the question is: is it true? I personally realized it might be true, but I think not, because my observations cannot accurately be described by it.

In this thread my intention was not to convince anyone or try to argue that God indeed does exist and everybody has to accept that. My intention was to make clear that there is a huge difference between persons (whatever world view they have) who deliberately choose a world view and who are fully aware that they are NOT intrinsically right. They can provide reasons in favor of their world view, but they know that it is impossible to 100% verify or falsify any world view! And on the other hand, persons, who claim that they found the 100% proof for their world view and the others must(!) be wrong. This I call a myth. And if people try to force other people to accept their world view, I call that evil (whatever world view is involved).

From my side I can say, that I am 90% sure that God exists. I choose the christian world view as a deliberate choice. Deliberately choosing a world view, not blindly accepting, not blindly following people, not blindly repeating words, but choosing a world view which seems correct, this is quite important, I would say.

Regarding the omnipotence of God. You argue that my argument is damn weak. Why should it be weak? Your claim is: if God existed and if he is omnipotent then he can find a solution to all problems without any cost and without any side effects?

I cannot give you a good answer to this question, because it is huge. I only can speculate here. My personal speculation is that "omnipotence" does not mean an idiotic notion of some artificially constructed ability to do anything(!) with exactly the results one wishes without any problems or side effects. From such a notion stupid critizisms were created in the past like: "If God is omnipotent then he should be able to create a stone, which is so heavy that he cannot lift it any more. But if he managed to do that, then he cannot lift it and hence he is not omnipotent." This is idiotic.
Any person in leadership knows that irrespective how much power you have, you cannot "achieve" everything you want.

By the way: I did NOT write that "the presence of god will compel obedience?" In contrary.

LordReed:


I am glad you acknowledged the weakness of your anecdotal evidence. I don't have much argument with people who take your position. The main argument comes when someone says we should feel compelled to believe because of their testimony and we say we don't operate that way, there must be a way to verify that these things experienced are actually the work of a god. Some dishonest people will insist that these subjective experiences are sufficient because they experienced them therefore it is true. The question now becomes how are you different from the mentally ill whose subjective experiences take on larger than life significance to them?

Also, I reject the notion that faith is essential to experiencing a god. No real thing operates that way. All real things are experienced regardless of your state of belief in them. In fact in your daily life there is hardly a time the question of whether you believe in the thing you are doing comes up. You wake up, you brush your teeth, you eat, you move, you drive, you speak, you think, you interact with people, all of these occur without you even needing to consider whether you believe or not. This I think would be how a real god would be experienced, like the air you breathe without need to mentally squint and cork your perceptions in a particular manner before you get it. The things that operate that way are usually illusions. A real god would need no arguments for its reality to be acknowledged just as we need no arguments for the reality of the sun.

I would not say that it is a "weakness". It is only different(!) to scientific evidence. What is mean is that in science an evidence is based on reproducible experimental confirmation under clear, systematic and logical principles. Science itself is a discipline with the goal to explore, "understand" the universe and ideally provide human society the ability to make use of its discoveries. The subject of investigation is the material universe. Per definition science omits any non-material elements and assumptions from its course.
However, if experiencing God requires "other" or further or "additional" elements and assumptions, then clearly science cannot "find" God. This is like in math fitting a theoretical formula to existing data. Lets say one wants to fit several data points with a fit curve with two open parameters. Such a fit procedure will yield the best fitted curve with two parameters.
Trying to experiencing God with materialistic scientific means is like a person who fits the data with two parameters and says: you see! There is no third parameter! I obtain only two. But: he started with two. How can he obtain three parameters when he used only two? It makes no sense. To check whether a third parameter yields a nonzero value he must use it from the beginning. He has to fit the data with a formula with three parameters.

One could argue: well, ok, I fit my experience of this world with my "two parameters" (which means an atheistic world view), and I find that they are sufficient. I do not need a "third parameter" (which means to firmly assume that there is a God).
May be you say that, but I then do not agree. In my experience of this world I need three parameters. I cannot understand this world any more with a purely materialistic atheistic model.

Secondly, I think our definitions of "faith" are different. How do you define "faith" and "believing"? I personally define "faith" and "to believe" as a firm assumption about the reality I am living in, however(!) without the direct possibility to proof it at that very instant.
For example "I believe now that I will still live tomorrow." That means I firmly assume it but I cannot proof it right now. Tomorrow night at 1 sec before midnight I will be able to say: "my assumption, i.e. my 'faith' was correct".

In the same sense, when I speak about faith in God, I mean that I firmly assume that he exists, but I cannot proof it right now.

I will be able to proof it when (1) he exists and (2) I will come to his "world" one day. If he does not exist then I will be wrong.

The question remains: if(!) God exists, why cannot he be experienced scientifically? Why a "third parameter", why an assumption which cannot be verified or falsified by hard evidence? You write, you reject such notion. Real things must be experienced like air we breathe.

That is a good question.

Let me ask you: what if God could be experienced that way? What if God were physically visible in this world? How would humans then behave? How would God behave? I personally think, that there would be only the following possibilities:

(a) God would try to enforce his reign and punish all evil people. Then basically there would be permanently a war against God.
(b) God would try to enforce his reign with super raw power. Then basically all people would just pretend and it would seem like a
wonderful world but beneath the surface always hatred and evil will wait.
(c) God would try to enforce his reign by changing people to robots who cannot do evil. That would be just a puppet show. I do not think that this is an option.
(d) God would just try to be a good example to people by good deeds and words and hope that mankind will eventually change. I personally do not think that people will give a shit on such "nice" actions. Evil people will grin at that and laugh and continue to do evil.
(e) God would just let humanity alone and go away. Great. People killing people, oppressing, raping, enslaving, exploiting, murdering. This would be hell.

Are there more options? May be. None of these above are really good options.

May be the only way is that God is not physically visible but only by faith. This would be like this story I saw once in TV, I think "Coming to America" with Eddy Murphy. The "Prince Akeem" comes to America to find his perfect wife for his life. He is a prince, of royal blood, in an African country "Zamunda". So he comes to America but "hidden" just as a simple regular guy and tries to find a job in a fast food restaurant. In this way he can find his true love. A girl which really loves him and not his money and his royal status.
May be it is like that with God. He can be experienced by those who really seek him. If he were physically visible in this world, everyone would be impressed by his presence and everyone would "love" him, i.e. try to climb in some career, etc..

LordReed:


This is called anecdotal evidence. If it were sufficient then the existence of aliens, Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Bushbaby, fairies, pixies, gnomes, goblins, etc will have been confirmed to exist because all of them have anecdotal evidence.

I agree. I just checked the definition of "anecdotal evidence": "Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony."

I see your point. My first reaction was to feel insulted to be put in the same category as those people who claim to have seen the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot etc.
But, of course, scientifically and logically I understand that it appears identical. In both cases, i.e. a christian who give a testimony about his world view, and a person who claims to have seen Bigfoot giving his testimony, the evidence to a third person is in both cases provided by testimonies only.

I think there are only two possibilities here:

1. One stays at the conclusion that God, aliens, Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Bushbaby, fairies, pixies, gnomes, goblins, etc. are all in the same category and are productions of human phantasy and that the testimonies fall in t the same category and hence all these phenomena are non existing.

2. Or: one actively tries to verify or falsify the various assumptions. I think hundreds of persons have tried to observe Loch Ness yet. I think there are also arbitrarily many "hunters" who try to find and catch Bigfoot. I guess it is in principle impossible to veriify or falsify these things.
I think with God it is a bit different. If God exists and if he is as I assume that he is, i.e. a loving person, then it is possible to get to know him by asking him. And then the individual chain of personal experiences starts.
Eventually every person then has to decide for himself of course. Some might say: OK, I asked God but he did not answer, or my "experiences" were probably only self-delusion and random incidents which my brain interpretes somehow. And some might say: This chain of incidents and experiences with God gives me enough evidence that my faith is real and God exists.
I can understand both cases, actually that are three cases, because in (2.) there are again two cases. I choose the case, where I assume that God exists due to my chain of personal and individual experiences.

Yes, I cannot provide harder evidence to you, only an "anecdotal evidence" or better "testimonial evidence".

NigPatriot:
My take; Christianity is dwindling while Churches in Nigeria are increasing. Such Paradox!!
Why did I say so, the aim of Christianity is the belief in Christ as the savior, being just like Christ. But today may churches are more concerned with just bringing crowd, raising funds, partnerships. The core is missing! The core is to be Christ Like

I agree.

*************************

This topic turned into a USELESS monogamy versus polygamy battle!


*************************

.

the emoticon after "assumption" came somehow by the forum system... I did not put it there.

GodWrites:
Sir A: Air exists.
Audience: Can you prove it?
Sir A: You can prove air exists by blowing up a balloon. By doing this, it proves that air has weight and air takes up space. Lastly, the air is just made up of mainly nitrogen and oxygen. These things all prove that air exists.

************
Sir B: God exists
Audience: Can you prove it
Sir B: *stammers for a while* God exist because the Bible said he exists.

That was how atheism was born.

Instead of inventing a lame myth, while not prove the existence of this God. You will be saving millions of atheists. We are not dogmatic. We are ever ready to believe in the presence of substantial evidence.

Finally!! Finally, someone who could summarize the major issue!! Thank you!!!

Firstly, Sir B, in your nice example did not provide a good answer. In fact, his answer I would call a "christian myth". Because how can the Bible proof that God exists. That makes no sense, because the starting point of christianity is to have this axiom ("assumption" that God does exist. When(!) He exists, then(!) it makes sense to consider the Bible as His Word, and not in the opposite direction.

So, why do I personally ("Sir C" if I may) stay with this axiom that God exists? Why do I apply this axiom in my life, as a world-view, and that means for me as a true model of reality, like a map or like a coordinate system? This is because of the following reasons:

- I was a hardcore materialistic atheist. One day I "found" God in my life. This is no evidence, I know. It could have been a singular emotional event without any significance.
- Moreover, I started to be a christian (someone who believes that God exists and that God has some further charactersistics, which I will need to describe separately some day, otherwise this sentence will become too long). During all my time as christian (approx. 20 years) and still I tested this path and my faith in God. I doubted and tested, I doubted and tested. What I have experienced in those 20 years including live altering experiences, miracles (yes, indeed, real miracles), answers, help from God - this is amazing!
Each single event in this chain of experiences one could interprete as possibly a random event or as an emotional moment or chance, but in the sum these amount of experiences makes it very vary very hard to simply reject as chance or illusion. I will say it scientifically: Presently, my degree of evidence and I mean with that: the statistical probability that God is real, from my experiences, is ca. 90%. Yes, I admit that I am not 100% sure. But I am 90% sure and that is quite good I would say.

Still this is an invitation for an online bible study and prayer group.

I am not sure if you are all set and there is no need for such a group?

LordReed:


There is no place in the page that said the age of enlightenment showed Christianity was delusional and that scientific progress clarified all such irrationalities.

OK, I admit I do not find a book or web page so quickly which states: "the age of enlightenment showed Christianity was delusional and that scientific progress clarified all such irrationalities."

Nevertheless I know, that I myself thought like that, when I was an atheist, and many others as well. And I am 100% sure that if one asks an ultra-atheist about that, he will also confirm it. Moreover I am sure that after a thorough search I would find concrete citations supporting my statement. But, OK, I cannot proof it right now.

Therefore, what one can state is. You think, there are atheists which do not think like this? OK, I did not doubt that. Actually, this was the main motivation to start this thread. Because one has to distinguish between:

- Axioms and assumptions a world-view is based on,
- Evidences and facts which verify or falsify a world-view and
- Myths either created by the supporters of the world-view (internally) or myths created by non-supporters about a world-view (externally).

I wanted to focus on the myths, especially the myths of atheism. Why? Because no one speaks about the myths of atheism. Usually atheism is considered as totally "myth-free", and that is a myth in fact.

So, if you are an atheist (are you?) who does NOT think that "the age of enlightenment showed Christianity was delusional and that scientific progress clarified all such irrationalities", then this is great!

This is the point I wanted to stress: One can have a clear world-view without(!) necessity to attack others. That is the idea of this topic.

We really should focus on ourselfes. Judging others is not right.

LordReed:


Seriously? You are posting a link to a german website? And not even a link to the specific page or article? You need to do better than this.

It has an English translation.

But the specific post is only in German, sorry: https://www.giordano-bruno-stiftung.de/termine?action=cal&id=2519&tab=cal_single

"EXIT: Warum wir weniger Religion brauchen" means "Exit: why we need less religion".

If you are interested to discuss about world-views, then the only way is to discuss on a philosphical "meta level". This has nothing to do with esoterics. With "meta" I mean a world-view-independent level, on which it is scientifically philosphically possible to discuss and compare without the axioms and assumptions of a specific world-view. Then it is possible to see(!) the axioms underlying the world-views.

Niflheim:
@op,


Did you just claim that North Korea is an Atheist nation?........................................THEY WORSHIP THEIR LEADER AND THE WORSHIP IS MODELLED AFTER THE WAY JEHOVAH WAS WORSHIPPED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT!!! YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME!!!


What they practice in North Korea is called Juche, AND IT IS A RELIGION!!!..................................................https://www.billionbibles.org/north-korea/juche-religion.html

Well I know that in communistic or socialistic countries (Soviet Union, DDR, China, North Korea) atheism is(!) taught in schools and Universities. One University course in the former Soviet Union e.g. is termed "Scientific atheism". Atheism is the(!) preferred and taught world-view.

LordReed:


Can you post link to someone who published such a statement?

No problem. The world wide web is full with publications and opinions in this direction. Since I was an atheist myself, I can say that I personally did think what I critizise here. I also believed that religion and especially christianity is a threat to The Age of Enlightment. And I talked with many people and read many books. I could of course retrieve these things, but this work I am not going to do. Only one example: https://www.giordano-bruno-stiftung.de/. One post says e.g.: "why we need less religion"? If you read their texts you will find that they try hard to smoothen things and to stress that they have no problem with religion and that they like tolerance etc. but if one reads everything in total(!), it becomes completely clear that their mission is to destroy all religion, because it *is* against the great achievements of the Age of Enlightment. I really do not see why I should specifically prove it. When I was an atheist I completely embraced this thinking. But may be I was a then a very aggressive atheist and those people which I liked and read their publications?

I can only say: I completely understand such thinking. It is completely consistent with atheistic and in particular naturalistic thinking. If the atheistic world view is correct, then christianity and religion is in fact a threat to the atheistic naturalism, which considers itself as a pure and solely intellectual world-view, free of any "additional assumptions" (this would be Myth No. 2, if I find time to write this). Then, of course, religion is a threat which must be eliminated.

I see. That are two quite different views. So, I guess Nigeria is partially strong and growing and partially dead.

Religiousness and hypocracy is a common phenomenon in christianity. There were always many many persons who claimed to be christians but were not. Either they believe more in membership than in Jesus, or they believe more in people than in Jesus, or more in rituals than in Jesus, or or...

LordReed:
LMAO! This person went on to manufacture a myth and attribute it to atheists. Even when I was a Christian I cannot remember an atheist saying that the The Age of Enlightenment showed that Christianity (and all other religions) are delusional and that scientific progress clarified all such irrationalities. Sure the age of Enlightment undermined the Christian religion in Europe but I don't know of any atheist that has said it destroyed christianity. What it did was give people more tools to exercise reason towards themselves and their environment. Of course the natural outcome of such freedom is the dying of superstitious beliefs but yet even some of the great thinkers of this period were religious, Isaac Newton for example.

Well, I know many atheists who do say that. Many atheists even think, and express it also, and publish it, that any religion nowadays and especially such persons like me are a threat to the great achievements of the Age of Enlightment.

Niflheim:
@op,

OBSERVATION NUMBER 1: "I was a deeply convinced atheist and a scientifically motivated materialistic atheist."..............................And you went from there to christianity? Which means you were never convinced in the first place, and it also means that you were never scientifically motivated!!!


OBSERVATION NUMBER 2: "But at the same time, atheists "used" this movement to destroy also some other things, which were not bad, and that is faith in God"...................................................................The christian crusades, did they not use it to destroy the faith of muslims in the muslim god? The British Colonization of Africa, did they not use it to destroy the faith of the Congolese in the Congolese gods? When the Australian aborigines were invaded by the English missionaries, did the missionaries not destroy their faith in the kangaroo gods?

BONUS QUESTION: The president of the Atheists Society of Nigeria is my personal friend, you claim you were an atheist? Then your name should be on our register, what is your real name?

OBSERVATION NUMBER 3: "is on the same level as the Roman Catholic church used terror and brutality"..............................................The same level? Killing of thousands of innocent women, plus torturing innocents? It is the same?

Reg. Obs. No. 1: So, you really mean that "once an atheist, always an atheist"? Or: a "real" atheist can never ever leave atheism? Wow!

Reg. Obs. No. 2: Did I write that the crusades were right? Did I write that colonialization was good? No. Let me clearly write: Evil things are evil, independent by whom they are committed or to which end they are done. The crusades were evil, colonialization was evil, killing of innocent women was beyond evil - I cannot say how much I hate those persons, who were involved in that, or any other brutality. Evil actions performed in the name of Jesus are so contradicting to Jesus!

Reg. Obs. No. 3: Ok, I admit, the crimes by the Roman Catholic Church were much greater. Ok, you are right. Atheists did not do any evil things, right? In the Soviet Union nobody was killed or "purged" because his faith contradicted Communism (which is congruent with Atheism)? In North Korea no christian is killed because faith in God is "stupid" and against the "Revolution" and hence must be destroyed? In the Nazi regime no SS officers interrogated christians, telling them e.g. to a christian: "You and your delusional Jesus. In few years and this is over." The Nazi ideology tried hard to destroy all kinds of religions and world views by their "superior" ideology.
You will say: but that were not atheists. Well, you accused all christians of all crimes which were done in the name of christianity. Then it is my right to summarize all crimes which were performed by convinced atheists.

To your bonus question: I never was member of the "Atheists Society of Nigeria" or any other Atheistic Society.

Firstly, I was an atheist myself. And not one of these I-am-atheist-because-I-read-a-book-once-but-cannot-think-myself-guys. I was a deeply convinced atheist and a scientifically motivated materialistic atheist. Since several years I am a christian, and again not an I-am-a-christian-because-my-parents-were-christians-guy or because I blindly believe something.

Myth No. 1:
---------------

The Age of Enlightenment showed that Christianity (and all other religions) are delusional and that scientific progress clarified all such irrationalities.

That is a popular and ever repeated myth of atheists, but it is still a myth. Actually, it is even a lie. It is certainly true that the preceeding Middle Ages in Europe and also the time of Absolutism and Monarchy and in particular the regime of the Roman Catholic Church during that times was terrible and evil. The increasing cry for liberty, equal rights, democracy and rational and intelligent thinking was a good and necessary movement. It was a great achievement of many good people to destroy Monarchy, Aristocratism, the dominance of the Roman Catholic church and unjust laws.

But at the same time, atheists "used" this movement to destroy also some other things, which were not bad, and that is faith in God, or seeing the world not just as a materialistic universe where things like love, ethics, etc. are irrational but explainable properties of matter.

Finally the successes and achievements of this good movement towards Liberty and Equal Rights was proclaimed as a solely atheistic success and a "Dawn of Atheism". Atheists were so succesful in this lie that nowadays it appears as the greatest triumph for mankind that the "Age of Enlightment" abolished all religion. And even more: They managed to inject such a strong notion into basically every society that "of course" everyone believing in God is "stupid" and retro.

To be clear:
I do not intend to attack atheists here. They have their right to choose their world view as freely as anybody else.

BUT: atheism is a world-view as any other world-view and cannot be proven or disproven as any other world-view. It is based on as many assumptions and axioms as any other world-view and religion. Atheism is NOT an assumption-free world-view. It is NOT proven to be more scientific. It is NOT the world-view of the intelligent people!

I have full respect before atheists and I do not intend to attack them. But when atheists use propaganda and lies to increase their impact, than this is on the same level as the Roman Catholic church used terror and brutality in the past to increase their impact. Both is bad and not allowed!

We all need more respect and understanding.


To be continued ...

I would be interested to know: how is Nigeria spiritually? How would God, the Father of Jesus Christ evalute NIgeria?

Is it strong, weak, dead, healthy, sick, free, completely in the hand of the devil, fighting, ... ?

I would like to add: I mean a bible study group online, e.g. here in this forum.

My plan is that up to 9 persons discuss and pray regularly.

This could be in this forum, or another web-based solution.

It should NOT be a debate group. It should be possible to "exclude" people from the group, for example when people just want to accuse others, or are filled with their personal views and try to "convince" everyone else using their "superior intelligence" (e.g. fundamentalistic atheists).

The idea is to discuss topics from the Bible, pray for each other, teach each other, sometimes a little bit to debate, but only as much as it makes sense.