₦airaland Forum

KingEbukasBlog:
The empirical nature of evidence is that it is well documented . You can experience these things by yourself to make your deductions .

Can you provide such evidence then?

KingEbukasBlog:
There have been thorough investigations to prove that these cases are real especially of haunted houses . For astral projection , there are methods one can use to actually experience it . You can astral project if you want to . Your experience can compel you to abjure your beliefs . Even people who were once skeptical about astral projection have now recanted their opinions about it .



This certainly does not seem like who wasn't arguing for all atheists .

CoolUsername : Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence of disembodied minds existing and since God is one, it is very very unlikely that God exists.




How did this elude you ? You are the one claiming that it does invalidate claims that God exists while there are those who accept unembodied minds exist yet reject the existence of God . It is expedient that you make that inquiry not me .



Theism is not dogmatic either . There are a thousand and one concepts theists don't agree on .



Your argument bespeaks irrationality ; argument from personal incredulity : I don't see how intelligence , consciousness or cognitive activities can exist outside the brain therefore such do not exist . I mean like you said , you are arguing for your atheism not everyone else .

It's simple, if you believe that unembodied minds exist, then show empirical, repeatable evidence. If you can't, then your argument is completely baseless and so is that if atheists who believe in all that nonsense.

Horlufemi:
All we are saying give us YOUR ANSWER

Are you scared?

This would be my last response to you until you read that thread.

I've debated people on this site countless times, you can check my post history. I have encountered all those questions before. I can categorically tell you that I'm not scared. So read the argument.

If you can't do that, then you were never serious about having a debate.

KingEbukasBlog:
It is apparent your reasoning is poor

-_________________-

KingEbukasBlog:
There are well documented cases of astral projection , ghost visitations , haunted houses etc . Science has limitations . These things can only be experienced . Atheists themselves have experienced these things yet they don't accept the existence of God . Your argument is tenuous and untenable . I believe you think your argument is reasonable because you are oblivious of how these things can be experienced .

These 'well documented' are anecdotes until they are substantiated by the method. There are anecdotes of bigfoot sightings and such but these aren't enough to make any conclusion.

KingEbukasBlog:
The point is : since there are atheists who accept that unembodied minds exist yet reject the existence of God , then your argument is weak . Here is the real contentious issue : why do these atheists acknowledge this type of minds exist yet reject the existence of God ? A reasonable response please ?

How does this make my argument weak when I never claimed to be arguing for all atheists?

Why don't you ask them why they are atheists, then?

This is exactly why I said that atheism is not dogmatic; beliefs have nothing to do with mine.

Better still, they should provide empirical evidence of the brain violating the laws of thermodynamics, they should explain why brain damage causes personality changes, if not, their belief is unfounded. The fact that a person is an atheist doesn't make them immune to irrationality.

KingEbukasBlog:
My brother , these twists and turns will lead you no where . Not all religions involve the worship of some god or superhuman like you claimed . Deists repudiate religious dogma yet some believe that the creator though he does not intervene in the universe ought to be worshiped . Religion must not involve worship or deification of some force or entity . There are some who think any form of dogma should be labelled a religion . That's why some would say atheism or science is a religion . Not religion in the conventional sense which involves the deification and worship of some god or gods .

Comprendre monsieur ?

Sure, sure. I can be flexible with the definition of religion. But theism, deism, and atheism are not religions. Science cannot be called a religion either; it's just a method for solving problems.

Horlufemi:
I'm not arguing. I'm asking you a question you are arguing with yourself. You are still avoiding​ the questions.

Next!

No you asked me 4 or 5 questions that can easily be googled it read up. I don't actually care what you think of the theory of evolution for example - it's an established scientific fact, I'm just trying to show you the reasoning behind my atheism.

KingEbukasBlog:
How is Karma a controlling power ? Please just admit your definition of religion isn't proper and satisfactory .

But it determines the circumstances that one may be reincarnated into, doesn't it?

Horlufemi:
Hypocrite.....

I beg you in the name of Atheism

Address my questions?

I'm still looking for Atheist who will address them and give me a testable and verifiable answer.

Another atheist bites the dust.

What the heck is this about? I've argued this same argument countless times. I'm don't think it's necessary to repeat myself. Read the link, if you still have a good argument then show me. I debated someone who was taking a similar deistic stance. We both covered a lot of ground with that argument. But these arguments require thought and time. So read the arguments that are already there, if you still have arguments that prove existence of God that are worth my time, then bring them up.

KingEbukasBlog:
I've proven my point which is pellucid for all to see . There are atheists who acknowledge the existence of unembodied minds like the souls of men and immaterial beings in the astral realm yet they reject the existence of God . I gave you two atheists - ifenes and billyionaire - who have this same view . And instead of countering their claims , you turned a blind eye .

Your argument is clearly an argument from personal incredulity :

1. I can't see how it is possible for unembodied minds to exist

2. Unembodied minds don't exist .

3. God is an umembodied mind

4. Therefore , God does not exist .

Come up with something better please bro . Haba na

More like, it's proven that minds are products of a material brain. We observe that people undergo personality changes after sustaining brain damage.

Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence of disembodied minds existing and since God is one, it is very very unlikely that God exists.

KingEbukasBlog:
What kind of shallow reason is that . Gosh man . I expect much better from you .

Don't involve yourself in this conversation, you've had your chance to prove your point. Now let him read the argument and arrive at his own conclusions.

KingEbukasBlog:
In Buddhism ? Which 'controlling power' does Buddhism as a non theistic religion believe in ? I don't think I remember any . But you can remind me

They believe in karma, don't they?

Horlufemi:
You are confused

Address my questions and stop dodging. I'll wait till you get to a place where you can answer my questions. I have no business with your link. Don't waste your time in trying to prove there is no God to me. I've been there. I'm an ex-atheist

ADDRESS MY QUESTIONS CONVINCINGLY

Your questions are not new. Some of them are really weak. I've answered them time and time again. I'm not going to type the same long-winded response when I answered similar questions about a weak ago. If you're too lazy to simply click a link then don't ask me questions that a simple google search can answer.

KingEbukasBlog:
So which superhuman , personal God or gods being worshiped in religions like Buddhism , Confucianism etc ?

They believe in some form of 'controlling power', don't they?

Horlufemi:
Lolz, I know what religion by the dictionary is.

re·li·gion- /rəˈlijən/ noun 1. the belief/non-belief in and worship/non-worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

They are Atheism and Theism are two sides of the coin of religion. You are all distracted and closed minded.

There is evidence of a creator everywhere, but atheists just choose not to think so because they​ want to see the creator physically. Theists believe in a God they don't hear from, but they know that he exists.

The basic truth is that life/universe cannot happen by accident and we should stop concluding there is no God just because we haven't seen him.

You can only convince me when you can explain the following with testable proof.

1. What was before the "big bang"
2. Energy can't be created nor destroyed. How did it get here in the first place?
3. How life came from non-life. Life is here and it's extremely complex. Statistically impossible. It's also pointless. Humans made from exactly the same molecules in the universe now observing the universe. This makes no sense. The universe is a cruel place for life. It shouldn't be here but it's here.
4. Information in the DNA. All information come from a mind - no exceptions (If you agree). To be clear I'm dropping two analogies. A slab (DNA) of concrete with an article (genes) engraved on it. It is two things concrete with information but one thing physically, just concrete. Where did the information come from. Whose mind?
5. Cambrian explosion. Evolutionist claim that species chameleon form but from evidence there's no transition from species of prior age to that of the Cambrian explosion. It all seems they where dropped off

Most of you are Atheists because religion failed you. You need to go to where the evidence leads.

I've been an Atheist but now I believe strongly in a creator and not the one all these crazy theist blindly follow.

Atheists are just anti-theists. "Opposite polarity" of the theist religion. Y'all act the same way as theists. And also hypocrites

I'm waiting

The simple reason why God almost certainly doesn't exist is because God has attributes that cannot exist without matter and energy, such as intelligence and consciousness.

I'm really not in a place where I can answer your list of questions but I can link you to where I recently had a similar debate with someone else.

https://www.nairaland.com/3766722/there-been-anyone-became-atheist/1

Horlufemi:
When you deceive others, its alright but when you deceive yourself it's a serious problem. So keep deceiving yourself!

Aethism is just one of the many religions.

re·li·gion- /rəˈlijən/ noun 1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

KingEbukasBlog:
King Ebuka : But bro, there are atheists in Religion ?

Maybe its an oversight or you don't understand . I hope its the former . Because the question didn't even get close to implying that atheism is a religion

Your question could have been worded better.

KingEbukasBlog:
But bro , there are atheists in Religion right ?

Does that make atheism a religion?

They say that there are no stupid questions but damn, son.

Horlufemi:
Take it or leave it. All religions are a distraction, turning people away from God. All of them including Atheism.

He who has an ear let him hear.

Think!

Atheism ≠ Religion

KingEbukasBlog:
Why is your post riddled with red herrings ? This is unlike you . Please go back and provide germane responses then we can talk .

Is this the best you could come up with?

This story isn't true. It is a satire based off the actions of Utah declaring pornography to be a public health.

Quoted from the article:

"This story is a spoof of the BBC article Utah declares porn a public health hazard."

I don't know who created the universe but I believe that it's very unlikely - in fact, I'm almost certain that Vegeta didn't create the universe. There is no evidence that points towards the existence of Saiyan Prince Vegeta.

If the logic of this argument is sound then this thread should never have been made.

KingEbukasBlog:
The cosmic designer is conscious and intelligent as an incredibly simple umembodied mind [immaterial body].

This makes no sense, how can a mind exist without a brain? How can consciousness function without sensory input? The mind is the product of the complex interactions of our firing neutrons. You can disprove this claim by showing us instances of the brain violating the laws of dynamics. If not, then it is provably a material product.

KingEbukasBlog:
Only in our universe can minds be embodied. Being conscious makes It self aware , aware that It is eternal , self existent , self sufficient ; It is aware of everything minute even picayune details of any activity that goes on in and outside the universe etc . Being intelligent makes it possible to create complex systems like the universe and everything in it Example : Minds with material bodies like humans that can think and express freedom of will like It does . Will makes it possible for God to create the universe and in any possible way . I.e if God had to chosen to create a 5 dimensional universe It would have done so .

The trial-and-error, blundering, saw-tooth chart that represents evolutionary progress disproves your claim of intelligent design. Ask complex structures evolved gradually from simpler through simple, demonstrable natural processes

KingEbukasBlog:
Your response would have made sense if the cosmic designer was said to have these attributes while possessing a material body.

What does it mean to have an immaterial body? You either have a body or you don't. Care show us empirical proof of 'immaterial' bodies?

KingEbukasBlog:
Agnostic atheism is fallacious . It is an appeal to ignorance fallacy . There is nothing logical about a fallacy . There is no God because there is no evidence for God or it has not found one yet so it leans towards the non existence of God . That's why there's 'atheism' [rejection of the existence of God] attached to it .

The agnostic atheist stance is simple. It says: 1. It is highly improbable for God to exist. 2. There is no evidence supporting the God hypothesis. The same way you lean towards the non-existence of Sherlock Holmes, Batman and Vegeta is the same way I mean towards unbelief. The chances of God existing and God not existing are not equiprobable just the same way the chances of Russell's Teapot existing and not existing aren't equal or even close to equal.

KingEbukasBlog:
Again , if you reject the existence of a creator , how can you rely on a brain that you believe came from random unguided process to elicit rational thoughts and acknowledge the existence of God if it finds one . Isn't that irrational ?

The human brain is evolved to survive. It is very good at doing that although it has a pitfall: rationality and empiricism are not always the preferred line of thinking in the heat of the moment, hence irrationality survives to this day, religion and superstition are just vestiges of that. The good news is that we have empiricism, the empirical method limits the interference of our irrationality when perceiving our environment, and I know this because it works. Look around you and see what empiricism and objectivity can produce when applied: marvelous and mind-bending technology. Faith has never answered any question about the universe but has only served to satiate our curiosity. If Louis Pasteur had accepted the belief that disease was caused by evil spirits then he would never have discovered germ theory; how different would the world of today be if that had happened? The bottom line is that faith is not a reliable way of coming up with conclusions about reality. It just makes you pretend to know things that you don't.

KingEbukasBlog:
Atheism : In the beginning , there was nothing ; Now we have everything including intelligent conscious mind that can express will . Atheism has to be only for the retardedd honestly .

The thrashings of a fish out of the water

KingEbukasBlog:
Rejecting the existence of God seems to give you comfort apparently . You seem to be afraid of God's existence , so you are quick to reject His existence because it gives you comfort.



If you think the "God hypothesis" failed Occam's razor then multiverse cosmology raped and violated it . But you are quick to embrace it

List these attributes . Let's scrutinize them .



I didn't know your rejection of God's existence was based on humanity's current scientific ignorance



God of the gaps arguments ? What then is I don't know but its not God arguments called ? Not-God of the gaps argument



And you pretend like you know there is no God .



Lawrence Krauss was certain of his knowledge of the universe's beginning . He claimed in his book 'Universe from Nothing' that he has answered the question : Why does something rather than exist .

Sean Carroll seems to be certain that his model for is more likely to be possible than the existence of God . yet he has no shred of evidence



I don't know why this is difficult for you and your ilks to understand. You can't be an atheist -one who rejects the existence of a cosmic designer- and then claim that you don't know . You don't know but its not God . Is that the Not-God of the gaps argument ?

The fact that nobody has a clear picture of the beginning of the universe doesn't mean that it isn't very unlikely that God exists. It also doesn't make it as plausible as a cyclical universe or a multiverse or whatever. The God hypothesis is closer in probability to the Flying Spaghetti Monster than it is to any of the modern hypotheses that scientists have talked about.

You asked about the attributes of God that make it so improbable. I'll list them:
- Consciousness
- Intelligence
- Will

These are the attributes that evolved over eons within our material universe. It is wishful thinking at best to give these three attributes to the the universe precursor.

That is why atheism (agnostic atheism, which is the stance of most atheists, you don't have to be obtuse about this, I know you know) is orders of magnitude more logical than theism. It doesn't pretend to know things that it doesn't know.

HardMirror:
Ebuka intellectual? He uses synonyms of simple words in other to sound intelligent, but intelligence is not a function of vocabulary but the logic in aguement. Infact use of sultry vocabulary is just a way of swaying people with low self esteem. An intelligent man keeps his words simple and easy to understand because he is not afraid of people understanding and challenging his argument. Only egoistic dolts use vocabulary to sheild the stupidity of their argument. Show me just one intelligent post by ebuka

That's why I described it as intellectual-sounding sophistry. His arguments look good from far but are in fact, far from good. Almost like every single argument for the existence of God'.

KingEbukasBlog:
Cyclical , "Mother and Baby Universe" , Ekpyrotic universe , Smolin's Evolutionary Cosmology(fecund universe) all these bull-crap were conjured to circumvent a beginning . You seriously embrace these ridiculous theories yet have to guts to call someone who accepts the most rational explanation of the universe which the existence of cosmic designer deluded ?




You don't know how the universe came about but you are certain that it is not a conscious cosmic designer ? You people just don't realize how extremely foolish atheism is . Are all these theories not inventions of men ?

Just like Kay17 speculated that multiverses could exist ( idea FIRST gotten from Naruto and other science fictional stories ) but blatantly rejected that a cosmic designer exists .

This is simple but you guys are too slow to understand : if you are ready to embrace the possibility of these ludicrous theories branded as scientific without any shred of evidence then you have no right no audacity to ask for evidence for God .

"I don't know" by the atheist is being shallow and evasive .

This is the problem you have. You seem to be afraid of uncertainty, so you are quick to hang on to whatever answer gives you comfort. The God hypothesis completely fails the Occam's Razor test by postulating an entity with attributes that are borne from within the universe that it supposedly created.

I didn't know that your faith was based on humanity's current scientific ignorance. Isn't that what we can god of the gaps argument? All you've confirmed is that you pretend to know things that you don't know.

We may very well exist in a multiverse and the universe may not have had a beginning since time didn't exist before the Big Bang but those are just hypotheses (not theories, like you erroneously called them). Nobody hooks on to them dogmatically.

I'm sorry that I don't know the origins of our universe but the truth is that nobody does. We just have a lot of people who pretend to, which is what you're doing now.

KingEbukasBlog:
Struggling with doubt ? Considering the LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY , the height of irrationality , that the universe with its grandeur came from nothing UNCAUSED and all these came from random events and accidents without being orchestrated by a conscious creator ? When I'm not mad

The Universe could be cyclical or could have existed forever in some way, I don't know. What most atheists are saying is the universe came from 'something' which we know nothing about. But you claim that a conscious being created all? That's far less likely than my stance. I'm ok with saying that I don't know when I don't, why do you choose to pretend to know things that you don't know?

KingEbukasBlog:
Pained much ?

I just find it amusing. You oscillate between intellectual-sounding sophistry to bottom-of-the-barrel cheap shots. But that is to be expected from someone who is struggling with doubt.

KingEbukasBlog:
Big fat lie . You used the oldest dirtiest chicanery the atheists use here : pose as a christian for a while and then claim the debates made you have a rethink

Just like the one we exposed here : https://www.nairaland.com/3299206/exposed-atheist-truthman83-lied-deceived

How low can one go?

KingEbukasBlog:
He also claimed that he communicates with aliens . Maybe he met Thor and Loki, do you think he has been to Asgard ?



My arguments have been cogent . Nothing was refuted . The Stewie guy was just ignorant that's all . I mean we all were at some point and even obdurate about our views .

I'm just not interested in engaging him. He isn't perpetuating damaging lies like "Hitler was an atheist" or "Stalin, Lenin and Mao killed for atheistic purposes" so I really don't feel the need to intervene. Just the way if you only stuck to your talk of stone age hyperspace portals or whatever I won't have gotten on your case. But your constant trolling (some of your posts show you know better than some of the things you say when trying to prove a point) makes you fair game for humour.

You're definitely not Christian. You probably aren't even deist but you would take whatever stance that would let you 'win' the argument for that day. In other words, you're easy to make fun of.

KingEbukasBlog:


You had a chance to ask the atheist Billyonaire how he was able to accept that consciousness exists without matter since He claims to astral project but rejects the existence of God . Its funny that no atheist criticizes him for his claims or even dare question him to prove his claims .

Una hypocrisy no be here oo . .

I understand . The ministry has to go forward

Ha fa na ?

If he claims to astral project, he may very well be telling truth. The question is if he truly projects his consciousness. Until there is empirical evidence, there's nothing really to debate. His claims simply aren't damaging enough to warrant stiff criticism.

I was just poking fun at the way your arguments were getting prematurely aborted.

Murder is wrong, generally speaking. Mitigating circumstances do exist though. For example, murder during self defence, defense of another, consensual assisted suicide (euthanasia), abortion (if that can even be described as murder), etc. are, in my opinion sometimes necessary actions in life. That said, I do not support the death penalty because I don't feel we have a judicial system that is effective enough to take such an irrevocable decision.