Budaatum's Posts

Nairaland Forum › Budaatum's Profile › Budaatum's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 (of 1631 pages)

Christianity Etc › Re: No, The Muslim Jesus Is Not Even Close To The Jesus Of The Bible by budaatum: 10:19pm On Nov 12, 2017

lagostokd:
study and get knowledge

Here's one for you. It might help you understand how your giants came about. But I'd advise you read Jack and the beanstalk instead. I suspect it would do you much more good.

Christianity Etc › Re: No, The Muslim Jesus Is Not Even Close To The Jesus Of The Bible by budaatum: 12:59am On Nov 12, 2017

lagostokd:
Why can't you stop being lazy and read about giants who once lived on this earth? The internet is an open library!

Don't take it personal, just be open minded; study and get knowledge

Next you'd be telling me to go read about unicorns with golden horns!

If you really want to know about the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinians, you would have to dig much deeper than a few links to a website. There's a lot of proper books out there, but ensure you read widely so you don't just feed yourself one side of the story.

And please, do yourself some credit. Any book that mentions "giants" and literally means "giants", I advise you drop it in a dustbin.

Christianity Etc › Re: No, The Muslim Jesus Is Not Even Close To The Jesus Of The Bible by budaatum: 10:49pm On Nov 11, 2017

lagostokd:
Only lazy history students will even mention 'Palestinians' in the first place

You know very well that your only history book is your bible so stop trying to shove it down other peoples throat as if you're being objective! Giants my ass! You read that in a history book?!

You're trying to hide your ineptitude and ignorance in condescension and insults, but you need to go learn some. You're rather poor at it!

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: No, The Muslim Jesus Is Not Even Close To The Jesus Of The Bible by budaatum: 10:42pm On Nov 11, 2017

Oh, I get it. You want me to go prove that Yahweh and Allah are the same thing? Oh sorry. What do I know except they both hold on to Abraham, both created the world, and Adam and Eve, and Mary, and Jesus, and the angel Gabriel, and both refer to the same areas and talk about the same god and lots more that's pretty the same in both books that describe them. The later book even claims the first book is one of its texts, albeit they claim its current version has been corrupted. But, I guess different folks make up the gods that suit them. It sure would explain the differences.

P.s. I don't have to read slowly, specially not what I write.

lagostokd:
I want you to read your post again, this time read it slowly

Yet, you are wrong! First Yahweh is not Jesus. Second Yahweh has the same values as Allah. And third, a Muslim and Christian who does not have the value called love of God and his fellow beings is worse than a dog (no insult to the dog is intended)

I will like to ask you some questions from your post

1. Who is Yahweh?

2. Who is Jesus?

3. What are the values of Yahweh?

4. What are the values of Allah?

5. Where was it written that 'a Muslim who does not have the value called love of God and is fellow beings is worse than a dog'?

6. Where was it written that 'a Christian who does not have the value called love of God and is fellow beings is worse than a dog'?

Your answers will address your initial post

Christianity Etc › Re: No, The Muslim Jesus Is Not Even Close To The Jesus Of The Bible by budaatum: 10:28pm On Nov 11, 2017

lagostokd:
Your response is clear enough. Now, you claimed they 'stole' it; who should they return it back to since the giants are all dead?

I said they stole it from the very beginning. I'm sorry, but how can you claim to "know people like me" when you can't bother to read the only evidence you have for my existence? I even accepted your "giant" claim, but you refused to read it and make allegations about knowing me!

I haven't said it should be returned, least not to "giants" of some 2000 years ago plus. However another theft occurred in 1947, and this time, from the Palestinians. So, if you're thinking of giving it back, give it to them thank you very much.

The Balfour Declaration

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: No, The Muslim Jesus Is Not Even Close To The Jesus Of The Bible by budaatum: 9:30pm On Nov 11, 2017

lagostokd:
The problem with people like you is not being open to knowledge different from what you believe.

I pointed out in my previous post that Giants were the one occupying the land and not Arabs as you claimed but you never responded in that line

You know me, or people like me? I honestly believed I was unique.

Be that as it may be. I quote a list of the inhabitants of the land according to Genesis 15.

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates - the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaite, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."

The Rephaites, known as Phoenicians by the Greeks, were one of the groups of people who occupied the land that is described as "either a people of greater-than-average height and stature (possibly giants), or to dead ancestors who are residents of the Netherworld".

The point however is that the land the Israelites eventually stole belonged to some people whom they stole it from.

Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism: An Irrational Worldview by budaatum: 4:31pm On Nov 11, 2017

KingEbukasBlog:
The point is : Deification is a man-made concept . And this is what an atheist rejects . An atheist simply asking you not to deify any entity.

Now, for the second part, and I've said this before, but you kind of skipped right past it.

Are you admitting humans create things - a concept, spirit, idea, first causer, Yahweh, big bang, (in some instances), etc - in their own heads, deify those things and hence call it gods and that outside the ability of humans to form things in their heads those things really do not exist?

Or do those things (as mentioned above), prior to deification, exist in actually reality?

Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism: An Irrational Worldview by budaatum: 3:48pm On Nov 11, 2017

KingEbukasBlog:
Exactly . That's why I defined atheism as the rejection of deification of an entity . Deification makes an entity a god , it may involve rituals , it may be from a personal perspective , it could be for any reason . An atheist can choose to see the First Cause as the First Cause, not a God since there is no entity seen as a God or deity to an atheist .

You however fail to grasp the creation of imaginary things that are deified. I would, and have said first cause is just another name for a deity, as is intelligent design. Users of those phrases are merely attempting to sneak them under the atheist's radar. Just as you are.

Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism: An Irrational Worldview by budaatum: 10:12am On Nov 11, 2017

KingEbukasBlog:
To an atheist , there are no deities because he sees nothing as a deity be it a physical and non-physical entity .

Example
Before Saul , there were no kings in Israel because no Israelite was enthroned as a king . No one is Israel was conferred a kingship title

Apply this to the position of the atheist, there are no deities because no entity -physical or non-physical -has been conferred the deity or godhood status .

Read this over and over again till you understand it.

There were no kings in Israel, so Israelites had no kings. Are you suggesting an Israelite of the time would claim there were no kings anywhere?

If you are, and I suspect you aren't, but if you are, applying it to deities it means there are no deities, anywhere, least not until you confer them with the title, that is. Are you saying humans create gods, by any chance?

A non-related question please are you seriously asking me to invest my time in your words by reading it over and over again? Are you trying to deify them by any chance? Just wondering.

Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism: An Irrational Worldview by budaatum: 8:33am On Nov 11, 2017

superhumanist:
Does your god not call atheists "fools"?

Has your god not prepared hell for them?

Does your religion not ask you to discriminate against them?

The case is quite simple. Your god is hostile to atheists and atheists are hostile to you.

Not true sir. Their gods do not exist so they can't quite say anything. They themselves have written words and placed them in the mouths of their imaginary gods to give their words some semblance of divine authority. It's an age old trick used from antiquity to ensure the words their sort utter and the deeds they perform get to be obeyed and accepted as right and proper.

Once the mask is removed, you'll see they are the ones who discriminate and are hostile and created hell.

The battle is not against their gods, but against them. Its why they resist so much. The battle is theirs, and their gods are the proxy figure they wish you contend with!

Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism: An Irrational Worldview by budaatum: 8:21am On Nov 11, 2017

UyiIredia:
No, he understands. He is just a bloody liar like many other atheists. Nigerians just copy things from the West same with our atheists. Earlier on, atheists didnt argue this crap. I dont recall Tai Solarin arguing whether atheism was ONLY lacking a belief in God or belueving in no God and he was an agnostic atheist.

First, I commend you for coming up with your idea of god, from Nigeria, is it? It would be a shame if you worship some non-Nigerian gods like Yahweh for instance. You are a true Buy Nigeria Nigerian and I commend you for your honesty.

It seems that the atheist has a huge bearing on whether there are gods or not. I never would have thought that could so much be the case. I would have thought an existing god would be way above whatever opinion humans held in their heads, but I guess since that's the only place where gods do dwell, the foundation for them cannot but be shaky.

Tai Solarin lived in a time when it was unfashionable not to believe in God. The opprobrium he experienced for mere being agnostic is sufficient for a weaker person to keep silent on such views on deities. I'm glad he was brave enough to stand his ground, albeit it as an agnostic atheist.

I, however live in a different time where I am not shackled by religious stupidity that creates a fear in one such that one must not express oneself as one sees fit. I'm exposed to much greater information than was available in Tai's Nigeria and so the wool can't be pulled over my eyes. You, yourself posted the definition of wiki, where it mentioned a class of atheist who is narrow. Well, you are very welcome to the world of one. It is after all written that one should not be afraid of those who kill the body, so what is there to fear?

If I were to joke about it, I'd claim god is dead, but joke it would be since a thing that never existed or lived just plain can't die. It is dying though, at least the idea is, in the minds of more people, and especially in the minds of more Nigerians than ever before. A time is surely coming, despite the numerous preachers and worship buildings, when trees of knowledge will consciously be cultivated and it's fruit plucked and freely eaten and people would understand that their naked state was in one of slavery.. Then, my dear little man would you (well, perhaps not you exactly, but others, surely), will free themselves and begin to grasp what your gods actually have to teach you. Then I guess would your sort abandon your beliefs which you hold so strongly, for actual knowledge.

In the meantime, I do confess, amuse me please. Amuse me.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Are Sub-saharan Africans Intellectually Inferior To Other Races? by budaatum: 1:22am On Nov 11, 2017

KingEbukasBlog:
There are strong historical evidences for the resurrection of Christ . I'm yet to study them though .

Studied them yet? Seen them even? Show me!

Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism: An Irrational Worldview by budaatum: 11:21pm On Nov 10, 2017

KingEbukasBlog:
Universe is god to a pantheist
Ancient Pharaohs were gods to the Egyptians
Ancient Emperors were gods to the Chinese and Japanese
Mary the mother of Jesus is a goddess in Collyridianism
The Sun and Moon are gods to pagans

Ignorance from an atheist :

And stones are gods to some. And someone deified their girlfriend recently. And if they all limited themselves to that, I really have no problem. But you lot then do a Nebuchadnezzar, and claim some invisible non-existing thing is not only your god, but that I too should acknowledge its existence and worship it! And I say, tufia, god forbid that I should worship any other gods but me! After all, since we all seem able to make up god entities as we wish, why can't I? Not that I need your permission, mind.

But I'd like to hear the opinion of the person who called you on me to see what he thinks about your god version. I'm sure he didn't mean all these gods you've mentioned!

Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism: An Irrational Worldview by budaatum: 7:16pm On Nov 10, 2017

UyiIredia:
IMPLICATION!

Abeg KingEbukasBlog come o! Food don done.

I think you think you are discussing with some child who has a need to regard your opinion? Just so you know, I am rolling on the floor laughing my head off. If I were you, I would have called god, and not KEB.

Christianity Etc › Re: "I Lack Belief In A God." By Matt Slick by budaatum(op): 6:46pm On Nov 10, 2017

Josephjnr:
Belief is different from awareness. Belief as seen in my dictionary is "Mental acceptance of a claim as likely true." Please, revisit your write up.

I agree with the above statement. The claim is likely true. It leaves allowance for the claim not being true.

c.f Re: Hello Heathens!

Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism: An Irrational Worldview by budaatum: 6:38pm On Nov 10, 2017

UyiIredia:
All atheists must believe there is no credible evidence for deities.

One really should not have to believe in the evidence if it is credibly evident. It obviously isn't to you, hence your choosing to believe it, or not. That is your choice.

I do not believe there are no gods. Having checked the evidence available to me, I have come to the conclusion that there are indeed no gods, and I have no reason to not say so.

I after all would not believe in gods who evidently exist! I would unequivocally know that gods exists, and claim so. Or would you claim I were ignorant or arrogant or blind to my own cognitive bias and fallacies, if I were to say, "I know gods exist", as opposed to the not quite so sure, believing gods exist?

You may insult me in whatever way pleases you (though you might wish to mind appearing blind to your own cognitive bias and fallacies). But your opinion has no bearing whatsoever on me. It is just another belief you have. Reality has nothing to do with your position.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism: An Irrational Worldview by budaatum: 4:56pm On Nov 10, 2017

UyiIredia:
There is no way that you can seperate atheism from belief as long as it is named. As long as atheists have REASONS for not believing those REASONS ARE BELIEFS having to do with atheism and therefore atheism can be defined as a belief. Why do you atheists not get this?

I find it amusing when people attempt to impose their world view on others. I just can't but wonder why the greatest idea of the 20th century flew completely over their heads. If it had, and they'd bothered to look up at the time, there is no way Einstein's theory of General Relativity could have passed them by without their realising that each individual has eyes with which they see and no two individuals have to see things the same way.

Do read my view on 'belief' here if you can be bothered.

Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism: An Irrational Worldview by budaatum: 4:27pm On Nov 10, 2017

KingEbukasBlog:
We've been on this before and you are unwilling to see how

KEB please be educated

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

And please, if you will, move your argument to the thread you created for it so as not to derail the discussion of this thread.

Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism: An Irrational Worldview by budaatum: 4:05pm On Nov 10, 2017

KingEbukasBlog:
We've been on this before and you are unwilling to see how irrational and deficient the definition of atheism is . I'm actually showing this to donnffd like I've done to you before .

As an atheist , you are not saying that the entities like The Universe , Moon , Sun , First Cause that have been deified or seen as God/god don't exist or need to be proven to exist , but you are rejecting the deification of these entities .

The donffdd's talk is the one of a materialist not an atheist . Many mistake materialism for atheism and that's the problem . If you want me to rebut materialism using idealism , I'd be glad to .

You are merely attempting to paint the atheist into some sort of antideist, an adeist, I suppose but you need to understand what I am saying, instead of painting what I say into what you think I'm saying!

Whether you deify the moon and the sun is irrelevant, they do exist! And an argument about whether they are gods or not deserve the same attention given to those who deify a stone, or a teapot.

The argument for a first cause or causer is however rather different and twofold. First is the claim that a non-existing entity exists, the second is that it is a god. I, as an atheist, refute both claims, and not only the second, as you so blindly wish to claim.

I have bothered to present my position on a first causer in another thread.

2 Likes

Christianity Etc › The First Cause by budaatum(op): 3:46pm On Nov 10, 2017

Let me state that if there is an action that was the very first thing that occurred prior to the current state of existence, tautology is the only reason to argue that it must not be called a first cause, for the sake of common understanding. However, the general assumption for the premise of a first causation is that nothing existed prior to the causing, and a certain prior existing causer caused all that exists to exist.

I hope the fallacy in the above is obvious. The assumption is that, Nothing a priori existed but the first causing thing existed prior to that which it caused. In an attempt to avoid a nothing from nothing position, one is presented with an infinite regression, which is dealt with by suspending the rules that are at first asserted and applying them arbitrarily at time t to suit, or claiming an infinite regression is impossible which is untrue.

Someone on here corrected the first cause position for us by adding the expression, " as we know it". That is, what is observable in the current state of existence, time t = 1 points to a beginning, time t = 0, of the current state of existence time t = 1, but that a time t = -1 may have existed - a prior state out of which the current state came into being.

My argument is that while there is a current state where time t = 1, there was a prior state where time t = -1 and so on out of which all that existed at time t = 0 came into being, and which is observable today. It is not implausible afterall for all that existed at time t = -1 to have reformed in such a way as to leave no evidence of its prior existence except for that into which it has become at time t = 0, and which is observable today, at time t = 1.

I therefore suggest that the so called first cause state is mere fallacy, as a state time t = -1 must have existed prior to the current state.

I also suggest that the insertion of a first causer is an attempt to fill a gap as a matter of convenience.

Please note definitions below.

First, being before all others with respect to time, order, rank, importance, etc., used as the ordinal number of one

Cause, a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect

2 Likes

Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism: An Irrational Worldview by budaatum: 2:09pm On Nov 10, 2017

KingEbukasBlog:
Let's go with your definition of atheism and see how rational it

"An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of a God and rejects it, its as simple as that."

Let's use this definition with some entities that have been conferred that godhood status or deified or seen as a God . Let's go . Very simple and easy exercise

1."An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the universe and rejects it, its as simple as that."

2. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the Sun and rejects it, its as simple as that."

3. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the Moon and rejects it, its as simple as that."

4. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the First Cause and rejects it, its as simple as that."

Do you see how irrational your definition is ?

So, to you, an atheist rejects things that are actually there like the sun and the moon? Show me one atheist who is as you describe please!

Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism: An Irrational Worldview by budaatum: 11:14pm On Nov 09, 2017

Does Logic Presuppose the Existence of the Christian God?

Do the laws of logic prove the existence of God?

2 Likes 1 Share

Christianity Etc › Re: Hello Heathens! by budaatum: 12:48pm On Nov 09, 2017

hopefulLandlord:
In all honesty, there is not one single Christian argument when put to the rigors of reason and rationality and/or science that is even the slightest bit convincing in any way whatsoever. The whole foundation from start to finish is on sinking sand. It can only be believed by the monumentally naïve or the willfully dishonest or someone who just lacks the capacity to think critically.

Christianity seems to have a way of stunting your ability to think outside the box, but not stunting your ability to rationalize why you're inside the box.

that's the problem, isn't it? Because if there were clear and compelling evidence in support of the notion that there is a god and we understand what it wants from us...well, we wouldn't need any arguments at all.

Instead, what we get is the a la carte menu approach to argumentation. Pick one from each column, continue until you throw up (or convert). Don't like the Ontological Argument? How about the Kalaam? Or the Argument from Design?

The more arguments there are, the less likely it is that god exists. Because each successive one is an attempt to rescue the failures of all the previous arguments. Failure upon failure upon failure.

The problem with those arguments is that they're not relying on empirical evidence that obligately points to the presence/intervention of a supernatural something-or-other.

They're using observations about of the universe and declaring that the only way it could have gotten the way it is is through divine intervention. To which I always reply, "Aliens".

"Evidence" is the fuzzy word here. In order to count as evidence in favor of a deity, it has to both reject the null hypothesis "no god needed/exists" AND it has to also reject alternative hypotheticals (aliens, et al.)

If their "evidence" in favor of the existence of a deity could be used in favor of the existence of universe-building aliens, then it's not "evidence". That's why the KCA, Fine Tuning, Watchmaker, and other arguments of that ilk fail. Because "aliens"

Christianity Etc › Re: Hello Heathens! by budaatum: 10:38pm On Nov 08, 2017

DoctorAlien:
You're trying to make this a face off between the words "believe" and "know", which is not what I'm on about. I'm simply trying to show you that the presence of proof does not jettison the need for "belief", because component 1 of the definition of belief by Wikipedia states that "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty(i.e. with there being proof.)"

Our entire discussion is based on facing off belief against knowing!

And I am suggesting to you that both components of the wiki definition go together, for me.

Hence, Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.

It shows that when I believe a thing, I am saying I think it might be so but I have no empirical evidence so that I can say it as a factual certainty. The statement, "I believe it is raining", does not hold the same certainty with the statement "I know it is raining". If it is not raining, you could claim my believing was in error, but my statement of knowing was an outright lie.

DoctorAlien:
Are you saying that it is insufficient for you to have a state of mind in which you think something to be the case (true), with there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty(i.e. with there being proof)

I am certain I described such as you describe as a fool, or having a screw loose. If there is evidence that a thing is so, why refuse to accept it as being so?

budaatum:
With regard to the "spherical shape of the earth and those who, in the face of sufficient proof of the spherical shape of the earth, continue to proclaim that the earth is flat". I would (assuming the earth is truly spherical), conclude that such individuals might have different understanding of the words that denote the things called "earth", "spherical", "is" and so on, such that it is not spherical according to their understanding of the words. Or I might conclude that such individuals have screws loose in their heads, or they are just plain liars. If such an individual took the same attitude regarding crossing a road with fast moving vehicles going by constantly. They would see a car approaching and walk right into its path!

I can think whatever I want, but to think a thing to be true, it must either be true, or I think it is true. I would not think a thing is true if all the evidence suggest to me that it is not true. Nor am likely to believe a thing to be true when the evidence suggests otherwise.

budaatum:
I tend to believe things that I have sufficient reason to presume is likely to be so. If I know (as in, if I have sufficient evidence) that those things are exactly as I think they are, I tend not to limit myself to mere belief that it is so since I emphatically know that it is so.

And we are done here. Further discussing the topic will only involve us going round again, and I've already bored you! Enjoyed it though so thanks.

Christianity Etc › Re: Hello Heathens! by budaatum: 1:25pm On Nov 08, 2017

DoctorAlien:
Wikipedia(and Oxford dictionaries) tells us that to believe something is to think that such a thing is true(whether or not there is proof that it is true.) So the sentence in red above makes no sense, because what you're saying is "I must think something to be true in order to think it to be true."

That is precisely what I am saying. It does not make sense to believe a thing just because it is what I think. When a superior thought appears to one one abandons the old belief and adopts a new one.

Born againism is an example of this process.

DoctorAlien:
Component 1 of the definition of belief by Wikipedia states that "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty." So I don't understand what you mean when you say that belief is insufficient for you.

You do understood what is meant by the two components! You said it above and in the following:

DoctorAlien:
Wikipedia says that "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."

What one believes may sometimes correspond with the facts but it is not a requirement for believing.

One can believe whatever one wants whether it corresponds to reality or not.

Compare that with the following:

To know a thing is to be is a familiar with, have awareness of, or understanding of that thing, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.

Don't you wonder why belief hasn't got this definition knowing has? It, I bet, is the sense in which it is meant. I would rather know my God exists than merely believe in its existence.

P.s. I am not advocating that others must have the same relationship I have with my god!

Christianity Etc › Re: Global Study: Atheists In Massive Decline, Only 1.8% Of World Population By 2020 by budaatum: 9:53pm On Nov 07, 2017

KingEbukasBlog:
Can I saw throw 'non-belief in a deified First Cause' into the mix to show that you are not saying anything new ?

Non comprende.

Christianity Etc › Re: Global Study: Atheists In Massive Decline, Only 1.8% Of World Population By 2020 by budaatum: 9:52pm On Nov 07, 2017

KingEbukasBlog:
Not all entities who are worshiped are deities .

Agreed. And some deities are not worshipped.

But all things deified are deities to the deifying individual.

Agreed?

Christianity Etc › Re: Hello Heathens! by budaatum: 9:42pm On Nov 07, 2017

DoctorAlien:
Wikipedia says that "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty." This definition can be separated into two components viz:

1. "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."
2. Belief is also "the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."

Belief is essentially a state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, just that one can have that state of mind "with or without there being conclusive empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."

Component 1 above actually proves my argument, which is that belief is something that can be had even "with there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty" i.e. even with there being proof.

I submit then that it is possible(i.e. the probability is not zero) for an atheist to not "have the state of mind in which he thinks it to be the case"(i.e. it is possible for an atheist to not believe) that God exists, even when there is proof that God exists. Ferdinand Magellan achieved a demonstration of the earth's sphericity which Wikipedia called "practical". Yet there are people today who do not have the state of mind in which they think it to be the case(i.e. do not believe) that the earth is spherical.

Thank you for checking wiki. The operative word there is "think". I must think something to be true in order to believe it to be true. Unless I am stupid and believe in all sorts with no reason, including my thought, that a thing is true. But I may think a thing is true, and believe it to be true, but it may be false. I have believed things in the past only to find that it was not so and I believed in error. That is why, for me, believing things is insufficient.

Imagine I think there is not a car coming down that busy road. Imagine I step into the road but my thought was in error, and a car is coming down that road. Would anyone in fact ever cross a road on a thought, a belief, or both? Would anyone rather not seek out empirical evidence that the road is certainly clear before they crossed?

Applying this argument to the existence of God is not as straight forward as road crossing however as both sides of the argument cannot agree on what God is for starts, not to talk of agreeing what evidence to accept for proving God's existence.

If we were standing by the roadside waiting to cross and a car was approaching and I insisted on crossing, because I thought and believed, that a car was not approaching. You would ask me to go ahead and cross, and the splattering of my brains on the road would be evidence that a car was coming. We unfortunately can't perform that experiment for the existence of God, so, it makes sense that a believer believes there is a God. In the expression, the believer however is stating that he or she thinks there may be a God at best and is willing to believe there is a God, but they do not exactly know. The convinced believer ought not be a believer. They ought to be knowers and boldly say "I know God exists", and damn anyone who does not accept their evidence for the God that exists for them.

The same applies to the atheist by the way. I find it odd that atheists say they do not believe that God exists. An atheist would argue that they base their opinion on facts and evidence. So why is it that most would claim not to believe that God exists if all the evidence they have checked proves to them that God does not exist? They either use the expression involving 'belief' because that is the word they know to use perhaps because they learnt it culturally, or because they are not sure conclusively that there is no god, which makes their position agnostic at best. If they knew God does not exist, I guess we'd call them knowers too, but of the atheist sort, as opposed to the Christian knower, I suppose.

Now, the last part of you argument refers to those who refuse to accept a thing to be true despite evidence proving a thing to be true. (please note that I now use the stronger 'know', in place of what I would call, the weak, 'belief'. My crossing the road describes such a person, I am sure brains splattered on the road would prove such a person wrong. However, that is not the case with the existence of God. The atheist - the knowing type as opposed to a believing one - would have checked all the available evidence before coming to the conclusion that there is indeed no gods. So, they are not refusing to accept the evidence for God's existence. They are saying that evidence, as it is, does not prove God's existence.

You may wish to see my counter position on this thread

Christianity Etc › Re: The Failure Of Christian Deism by budaatum: 8:50pm On Nov 07, 2017

ScepticalPyrrho:
Have you been privileged to see how planets are formed?

Did you see a God creating the rivers?
Have you ever heard of cross-breeding of different species?
Haven't you heard or seen animals giving birth to mixed species?

But you can get videos that shows how stars are formed, why rivers flow down-streem.

If there must be a God, then there must be God's God.

See how planets are formed? Of course not! Nor did I see God creating the rivers! But he did, you know, he did create the rivers and everything else. Don't you know that?

Cross breeding, like dog and cat producing a dogcat, or catdog, or tacgod? Of course not. Ditto mixed species! But if those things exist, they are evidence for the iniquities of humans, or the work of satan, at the least!

Video? I beg, get outahere. Nollywood is on video but you will not claim that witch is not fiction, or would you!? Next you'd be showing me video showing human beings on the moon!

Maybe there is a god's god, but I believe in the one God, the Creator of heaven and earth. The Lord Almighty. My God!

Pschew (that's the sound of me kissing my teeth). Like my bible book has not warned me of your sort trying to destroy my faith in my one God!

At least, that's how my belief would go. And please, do not attempt to present me with all that atheist mumbo jumbo stuff you atheists call evidence, you illogical irrational individual.

I will pray for your soul.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Failure Of Christian Deism by budaatum: 5:23pm On Nov 07, 2017

ScepticalPyrrho:
Well said.

You can't claim that your believe is based on logic either. We have guys on this forum claiming to have their belief backed up by logic; which I find irrational.

My good sir, but my believe is based on logic, as far as I understand the meaning of logic. Albeit that what I refer to as logic may seem illogical to some others.

For instance, I am a rational individual, at least so I believe. A house does not build itself, nor do roads suddenly appear, so I safely conclude that things are created, and so there must be a creator of those things.

I then look at the universe. Rivers do not flow uphill, nor do dogs give birth to pigs. Everything is right and proper. And I eat three round meals a day. And often at times without having done sufficient work to provide me with those meals. O but for the grace of the gods go humble I in this massive universe.

Ah! There must, at the very least, be one god jo! And it must be the one that I worship. Or do you think rational me would chose the wrong god?

I insist, I am, not only rational, but indeed, logical too!

Christianity Etc › Re: Global Study: Atheists In Massive Decline, Only 1.8% Of World Population By 2020 by budaatum: 4:45pm On Nov 07, 2017

KingEbukasBlog:
@4kings

You are smart enough to see how deficient the current definition of atheism is .

Non-belief in God/gods

Replace 'God/god' with entities that have been deified .

Non-belief in universe(universe deified by pantheist as God )
Non-belief in Sun (The Sun deified by pagans )
Non-belief in the Moon (The Moon deified by pagans)
Non-belief in Julius Caeser (Caeser was deified after his death)

etc

How does this make any sense ? You reason am na

Oh, come on. Surely you understand that he means that first you have to see the thing itself as a god!

Hence, the proper expression a la KEB would be:

Non-belief in a deified universe
Non-belief in a deified Sun
Non-belief in a deified Moon
Non-belief in a deified Julius Caeser

Which makes you an atheist, regarding these deified entities, so far as they are seen as deities by some others.

Today, I went to the bank. There's money in my account, but no where close to the million pounds I believed I had and with which I planned to buy a spanking brand new red Ferrari. I deified this money. It is why I applied 'belief' to it, as odd as that sounds. I am therefore, and for today only, a million pounds I believed I had in my bank account atheist.

By reason a la.............

Christianity Etc › Re: Global Study: Atheists In Massive Decline, Only 1.8% Of World Population By 2020 by budaatum: 4:32pm On Nov 07, 2017

4kings:
I deify my babe(an entity) in bed, does that make me a theist?

Yes it does, according to KEB's very loose definition.

You are a babe theist in so far as you deify her, and moreso if you choose to worship her, which by her being 'your babe', and 'deified', you must do!

Do note, you may or may not develop a religion around her to worship her (though, I can't see how you wouldn't), and when you dump her, you will become a babe atheist as far as this particular babe is concerned.

1 Like

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 (of 1631 pages)