₦airaland Forum

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"

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.)"

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)

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!

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.

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."

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.

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."

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

KingEbukasBlog:
Not all entities who are worshiped are deities .

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.

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.

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.

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

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

DoctorAlien:
It seems you think that you only believe things that have not been proven, and that the presence of proof throws the need for belief out of the window, even though the definition of the word "belief" might suggest otherwise. Anyway, what do you have to say in relation to the spherical shape of the earth about those who, in the face of sufficient proof of the spherical shape of the earth, continue to proclaim that the earth is flat?

ScepticalPyrrho:
If anyone haven't found God (literally), and believes anyway; that is an illogical position.

alBHAGDADI:
Why are you confusing yourself?

He had already given that land to the Israelites long before those giants came to settle there.

Stop making it seem as if the land was given to them after the giants already possessed it.

Islam is not making you use your brain. If you think outside of Islam for once, you won't die.

alBHAGDADI:
Stop being a joke.

Abraham was given that land by God for his children's inheritance. Jacob built an alter there which is where the temple is today. That land was already Abraham's way before those intruder giants occupied it illegally.

It is the same illegal occupation you Muslims are doing with your mosque in that holy Mount.

DoctorAlien:
Kiss the truth. You atheists will refuse to believe that God exists even if He proves Himself.

lagostokd:
Now you've changed your narrative from 'Lebanese, Palestinians, Egyptians, etc' to 'people live on the the land prior to the arrival of the Jews'.

I talked about those 'people' in my previous reply but seems you ignored it.

If you understand spiritual things, you'll know that the enemy always try to put in place stumbling block for the people of God whenever God promised to do something but through God, we're always more than conquerors through Christ that strengthens us. Even with the stumbling block of giants in the promised land, the people of God still possessed their rightful inheritance. After the defeat of the giants, the enemy still planted other 'tribes' to be stumbling block but the people of God always come out victorious

joseph1013:
#Copied��

Do you have a few minutes to spare?
~ by Nicole Douglas

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

*John*: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

*Mary*: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

*Me*: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"

*John*: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."

*Me*: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

*John*: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."

*Me*: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

*Mary*: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

*Me*: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

*John*: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

*Me*: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

*Mary*: "Oh yes, all the time..."

*Me*: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

*John*: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

*Me*: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

*Mary*: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."

*Me*: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

*John*: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

*Me*: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

*John*: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

*Me*: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

*Mary*: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

*Me*: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

*John*: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

*Me*: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

*John*: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit out of you."

*Me*: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

*Mary*: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

*Me*: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"

*John*: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

*Me*: "Who's Karl?"

*Mary*: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

*Me*: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

*John*: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

..... *From the Desk of Karl*.....

_*1. Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.*_
_*2. Use alcohol in moderation.*_
_*3. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.*_
_*4. Eat right.*_
_*5. Hank dictated this list Himself.*_
_*6. The moon is made of green cheese.*_
_*7. Everything Hank says is right.*_
_*8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.*_
_*9. Don't use alcohol.*_
_*10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.*_
_*11. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you.*_

*Me*: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

*Mary*: "Hank didn't have any paper."

*Me*: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

*John*: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

*Me*: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

*Mary*: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

*Me*: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"

*Mary*: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

*Me*: "How do you figure that?"

*Mary*: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

*Me*: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

*John*: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

*Me*: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

*John*: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

*Me*: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

*Mary*: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from outer space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

*Me*: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

*John*: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

*Me*: "We do?"

*Mary*: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

*Me*: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

*John*: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

*Me*: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

*Mary*: She blushes.

*John*: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

*Me*: "What if I don't have a bun?"

*John*: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

*Me*: "No relish? No Mustard?"

*Mary*: (She looks positively stricken.)

*John*: (He's shouting.) "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

*Me*: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

*Mary*: (Sticks her fingers in her ears.) "I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

*John*: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

*Me*: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

*Mary*: (She faints.)

*John*: (He catches Mary.) "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car and sped off.

~ by Nicole Douglas

KingEbukasBlog:
He is expected to refute the premises of the argument . Please don't tell me you've joined them too in this silly thinking

hopefulLandlord:
he said "he did it" is a claim NOT a proof

Emmanystone:
But, God said he did it, but, you, the scientist said it's a lie, so tell me how it came to be.

KingEbukasBlog:
You always dont have a good understanding of the argument before you start making baseless arguments and accusations.

KingEbukasBlog:
Yeah , that's how to refute logical arguments - wrong , correct, therefore wrong . What a joke . Please don't embarrass yourself bro. Good night

alBHAGDADI:
That Lang was given to Abraham by God for his children to inherit. So, the people occupying it were doing so illegally.

Genesis 12:1

The LORD had said to Abram, "Go from your country, your people and your father's household to the land I will show you.

lagostokd:
And who were they? The original owners?

Akin1212:
Genesis to revelation.
The people who listened then when I preached it now say I wasn't reading it with the spirit of God then. I wonder why they didn't discover I didn't have the spirit then.

Those who didn't know me too have an opinion of the spirit I had when I was a Christian. It's all messed up. I swear.

Their common statement that annoys me is that you need the spirit to interpret the bible which was written in English. Why didn't they write in the language of the spirits or the ones they speak in heaven.

Akin1212:
I read the Bible well before I became an atheist. In fact, the bible is responsible for my denouncement. You may say I didn't have the spirit of God to understand it, hear this, if I can't understand the Bible with my own physical mind then the validity is zero. And since we cannot understand it with our physical mind, why write it in a physical language? You see that nothing adds up? Thank you.

vaxx:
if you want my says on the issue, start a new thread or start from the very thread, you were sccusing me of insulting you...I don't wish to derail this thread....I will like to read Christian opinion....

vaxx:
no let's honour the thread..... Look at the word maybe in your clause

vaxx:
you have start with wrong premises there is big difrences between subjectivity and objectivity.....all opinion are subjective but general proven evidence like chemical formula for water is h20 is objective......

budaatum:
I will start with, all opinions may be subjective but not all subjective opinions are objective.

vaxx:
first of all you are overlapping, that topic was not where we had a discussion about subjective and objective argument...... It was another thread I created..... Name .....why is there something rather than nothing....



Why are you using the "WE"

You are the only atheists in that thread that challenge me on the subject .....objectivity vs subjectivity..... Which I arguably do justice to the topic by telling you there is nothing like objective opinion...... All opinion are subjective....... I created a lot of examples in which you yourself reject....


If you are interested in my opinion again, you can create a thread on it and give me a mention..