₦airaland Forum

Glycolysis:
Go & join the kids class on the history of colonialism & missionary impact in the black Continent...
I guess it will help you...

History as written by your oppressors and enslavers is what you take as sacrosanct abi? Well done.

Gggg102:
belonging to the I don't know group means you are agnostic.

you can't say the universe was created and there is god because you don't know.

you can't say the universe was not created and there is no god because you don't know.

you are waiting for evidence from those who make assumptions before you reach a conclusion.

You've failed to show where I've said that the universe wasn't created. Am an atheist because I don't believe in the existence of Gods. There is no evidence provided to show that the universe was created. Only empty assumptions.

Glycolysis:
Many atheist don't know the difference between missionaries & colonialists

They were the same. The same missionaries that came also colonized us.

Gggg102:
if the universe is created, it automatically means there is a god that created it. nothing have been spinned.

there are two assumptions.
creator and no creator.
you can either believe there is a creator, believe that there is no creator or be skeptical about both positions.
which are you?
I want you to state which group you fall under.

it is an assumption. same with the assumption that there is no god.

I belong to the I don't know group. Was the universe created? I don't know. There aren't only two assumptions. There are only two assumptions according to you. There is the 3rd position which is the I don't know position which i belong to. I don't know if the universe was created because no objective evidence has been provided in that regard . So I don't know is my position.

DP

Gggg102:
there are 3 positions there. now you accept that the first two positions are assumptions.
that would put you in category 3.

if you WANT TO KNOW, it means currently YOU DON'T KNOW, that would make you agnostic.

theism and atheism are positions of knowledge.

theists claim to KNOW that there is god.
atheists claim to KNOW that there is no god.

nobody can provide facts for you. neither the theist that says god created the universe not the atheists that say nothing created the universe.

I've told you that you should prove there is no 'creator of the universe'. that would disprove the concept of god once and for all.

if I tell you a specific god and you prove he doesn't exist, that would only prove that god does not exist. it would not prove that there is no god.

if you prove that all the uncountable gods known to man do not exist, you would only prove those gods do not exist. it would not prove that there is no god. the real god could be unknown.

I want to know if the universe is created, how you have spinned it to me wanting to know about God is what I don't understand.

The existence of the universe is something that is separate from the God hypothesis in my opinion. I understand that God believers always want to tie them up but they are seperate. How should I prove the no creator when that is only an assumption that you've put forward. You want me to disprove your assumption?

Real God you say? If the real God is unknown then how do you get to know that it's real or that it exist?

Gggg102:
there are only 3 claims in regards to the existence of the universe.

1. the universe was created and god exists.
2. the universe was not created and god. does not exist.
3. you don't know so it could be 1. or 2.
which one are you?

nothing can be shown to exist without human input.

you've made a claim that god does not exist though. and that claim should be proven else it is just an empty assumption.

do you believe that the universe was created? or it wasn't created? or do you not know if it was created or not?

Why must I believe or accept any assumption about the universe. I don't want to believe anything, I want to KNOW. The two positions or claims you've stated about the universe are all empty assumptions. NONE of them is factual. I don't want any assumptions. I want facts. And the reality is that nobody can prOvid the facts to me.

Which God out of the many God hypothesis do you want me to disprove? There isn't only one God. So your talk about disproving I'd makes no sense since there are many different versions and ideas of God. Which one should I disprove out if the uncontable versions we have around?

Gggg102:
that the universe was not created is also an empty assertion you've not proved.

you've already asserted that the universe has no creator, so you have to prove it also. otherwise, your assertion is empty.

Can you show me where I asserted that the universe was not created?

these arguments would only work if you were an agnostic(you don't know if god exists or not) but you are an atheist(you KNOW god does not exist) so you should prove it.

the sun is independent of man but if you had no idea what the sun is, how would you point to it? you can't show sun exist without human input. you said it yourself. you, a human, has to point to the sun. that is human input. god is said to be independent of man but if you had no idea what god is, you can't point to him.

Which human input is needed to show that the sun exist? I can even point to the sun to my dog and it will see it for itself. It will know that am pointing to something it can see and feel. God is independent of man you say? Then point to it let's see it or tell us how we can encounter it.

how can you point to something if you have no idea about it's existence?

telling you about the existence is also showing you.
do you ask anyone to show you an atom?
you were told about atoms. most of your scientific knowledge you received from being told, you were not shown directly. it is not everything that can be shown like the sun because not everything is material and not everything can be shown directly.

I'm not sure god exists. I only entertain the possibility because I don't know. you on the other hand dismiss the possibility completely because you KNOW.

Telling me about something is not showing me that it exist. Telling and showing are two very different things. God is a human invention and humans have been inventing different Gods throughout their history. Humans have even used different things that exist in nature (stars, moon, sun, rivers etc) as God.

I know that Gods are human ideas, I know that humans have created different ideas and versions of Gods, I know that Gods have not been shown to exist on their own without human input. If God is immaterial, can you tell me how you got to encounter it, so that I can also encounter it and know about its existence.

Gggg102:
you've made a claim that the universe was not created. you've made a claim that there is no creator. you've made a claim that there is no god.

nothing creating the universe is also an assumption since nobody has shown that nothing created the universe.
nothing creating the universe is an idea based on the assumption that the universe was not created. this is an empty assumption that has no evidence to support it. how can I prove that the universe was created when the non creation of the universe is only but an assumption on the part of those who float the hypothesis?

I've not made any claim about the universe. I only said God is a human idea , there are many differnt versions of God and no God can be shown to exist on its own without human input.

I've not made any statement about the existence of the universe. I've only talked about God so far. You are the one equating the existence of the universe to God by saying that God created the uinverse, which is just an empty assumption on your part. Your evidence that the universe was created is what? First show that the universe was created then we can move to saying that God created it. Until you do that I have nothing to say about your empty assumptions.

Gggg102:
I agree. creation of universe is an assumption.
you also assume that the universe was not created. you too have not shown that the universe wasn't created. until you show that the universe wasn't created, everything you say remains an assumption.

both our positions are just assumptions until one of us provide proof.

there are various versions of god but they all have the same underlying principle; the creation of the universe. if you can prove that the universe was not created and therefore needed no creator, you have effectively proved god does not exist.

I have made no claim with regards to the existence of the universe in anyway. The creation of the universe is an assumption since nobody has ever shown that the universe was created. God creating the universe is an idea based on the assumption that the universe was created. These are all empty assumptions that have no evidence has been provided to support them. How can I prove that the universe was not created when the creation of the universe is only but an assumption on the part of those that float the hypothesis?

Gggg102:
since creator of the universe applies to every version of god, proving that there is no creator of the universe will prove that there is no god.
proving every single known god does not exist doesn't not prove that creator of the universe does not exist.

Creation of the universe is an assumption. You've not provided evidence to show that the universe was created at all. You are just saying that it was created based purely on empty assumption. You'll have to show me that the universe was created first then tell me to disprove the creator hypothesis. But since you haven't shown that the universe was created, I have no need to disprove your assumptions.

you could prove all known gods do not exist, but it could still be the case that god exists even if he is unknown but once you prove that there is no creator of the universe, it would be proven that there is no god either known or unknown.

I am not interested in disproving an empty assumption. We will first talk about the universe having a creator when you show with evidence that it was created. When you do that then you can tell me to disprove that it has a creator, since you haven't done that then I am not interested in disproving an empty assumption on your part.

the sun has to be in your mind for you to point to it. the sun exists independent of you but if you have no idea of sun, you would not be able to point to it. the same can be said about god. he exists independent of human experience and also exists in the mind of humans.

for man to be conscious of something, it has to exist in his mind.

everything that exists in reality that we know of exists in our ideas.
you cannot know something exists if it does not exist in your mind.

The sun exist independent of man, I can point to it. It's existence is unequivocal and very objective. It exist independent of man and can be shown. God / God's do not exist independent of man. No God can he shown to exist on its own without human input. Show me a God that exist on its own without human input. Just pointto it the way you'll point to the sun. Sun exist on its own, Gods are ideas that rely on human input you are hear telling me about a God, why don't you just show it to me and allow it to do the talking by it self, that's if you believe in the God version that talks.



atoms exist in reality, we are conscious of the existence of atoms, we have an idea of atoms. they exist in our minds.

Atoms are even analogous to god.

atoms exist reality.
we had the idea that atoms exist.
we tried to find these atoms.
we made errors on the way (inaccurate models)
that our models of atoms were wrong did not mean atoms did not exist.
we haven't seen an atom but we have models that may or may not be correct.
regardless of this, we are sure that atoms exist.


god exists reality.
we had the idea that god exists.
we tried to find god.
we made errors on the way (inaccurate models of god).
that our models of god was wrong did not mean god did not exist.
we haven't seen god but we have models that may or may not be correct.
regardless of this, we are sure that god exists.

If God exist then point to it or show how it exist. You are sure God exist? Show how it exist so that I too can be sure it exist .

Gggg102:
creation of the universe is the foundation of god. if you can destroy the foundation no building can stand again. if you prove that there is no creator of the universe, you have proven that no concept of god can exist.

if you only disprove specific gods, you only prove that that building is not sound. it does nothing to the foundation. another building can be built on the foundation. the fact that the foundation remains show that there is a building that is right for the foundation. all the gods you disprove are just wrong buildings. the right building exists even if we are not aware of it.

destroy the foundation and nothing else can stand.

Creation of the universe is an assumption on your part. You've not shown that the universe was created in anyway. You are only assuming that it was created. Until you provide evidence to show that the universe was created, everything you say remains an assumption. As for God or Gods there are various versions.

Gggg102:
creator of the universe is the deist version of god. it is also a general characteristics of theist god. most agree that god created the universe. if you can prove such god does not exist, then you have successfully validated your atheism, if you can't, your assertion that there is no god is empty.

what you are trying to do is disprove gods one after the other. even if you do this successfully, it is not proof that a god doesn't exist at all. it is only proof that those specific gods don't exist. a god could still exist regardless. disproving all known gods would only mean all those gods are fake. it would not mean god doesn't exist.


we wouldn't know if the sun existed if it did not exist in human minds. if humans had no idea of the sun, we would not know it exists. that something exists in ideas does not equate not existing in reality. something can exist in ideas and in reality.

Creator of the universe is almost every version of God. Allah is the creator of the universe according to the Islamic version of God.

The sun exist independent of human beings. I can even ppint to it. A chimpanzee cam identify it I believe, even a dog as well I believe.

Give me example of something that exist in ideas and in reality as well apart from God.

Gggg102:
I already gave a version. creator of the universe.

humans do the proving. if no human talked or had an idea of what sun is, there would be no proving of sun.
if no human talked about or had an idea of what god is, there would be no proving of god.

that god exists as ideas in people's minds does not mean he doesn't exist.

Creator of the universe isn't a version of God or Gods because most or even all the God/ Gods versions are said to have created the universe. Panthoen of Gods created the universe according to some accounts, a single God with different attributes created the universe in some other accounts. A version that creates is empty because all God versions created the universe according to their various tales. Which specific version out of the many God versions do you want me to disprove? Saying God that created the universe is empty since all the variius versions are all attributed with the creation of the universe.

The sun exist regardless of what any human says about it. At least any body that has eyes, is lucid and not under the influence of any thing can see it or feel it's heat.

Gggg102:
nothing can be shown to exist without human question. the different versions of gods could point to a subconscious knowledge of god.

that worship of different things occurred in man could be a pointer that humans subconsciously knew that there is a supreme force.

the atheistic position is not the lack of evidence of god, it is the evidence of lack of god.

what is your evidence of lack of god.
you ask the theist to give unequivocal evidence that god exists, you also should give unequivocal evidence that god doesn't exist.

What do you mean that nothing can be shown to exist without human input? What human input does it require to show that the sun exist? Can you tell me?

The worship of different Gods throughout human history shows that people are simply attracted to the God idea and people easily form the idea. That is the reason there are many different Gods throughout human history.

What is my evidence for lack of which God? There are many different Gods, so which one am I to disprove and show lack of evidence for? Is it the the various Gods of polytheism or the various version of monotheistic God?

Which version of the Gods am I to disprove when there isn't just one God idea that exist amongst humans?

enilove:
That is why you should believe .Those engaged in it know why, because it works for them.

There are charms that can make you to do things you don't imagine doing.

I am telling , this world is not all you see with your naked eyes.

It's a lie it doesn't work. It's just like our own African juju. When the European came despite all the juju of the Mayans and Aztecs, they were conqured and totally defeated like rats by the conquistadors. Go and read Pizzaro'so book.

The Incas and mayans were totally defeated despite all their juju by the Europeans who had guns and superior weapons.

Same with our ancestors, their juju could not help them when they were invaded and enslaved like rats.

Juju is false, of it works the whites would have been worshiping Oludumare and speaking yoruba and igbo.

enilove:
Read :

Inca culture
The Inca culture sacrificed children in a ritual called qhapaq hucha . Their frozen corpses have been discovered in the
South American mountaintops. The first of these corpses, a female child who had died from a blow to the skull, was discovered in 1995 by Johan Reinhard. [2] Other methods of sacrifice included strangulation and simply leaving the children, who had been given an intoxicating drink, to lose consciousness in the extreme cold and low-oxygen conditions of the mountaintop, and to die of hypothermia .

Maya culture
In Maya culture, people believed that supernatural beings had power over their lives and this is one reason that child sacrifice occurred. [3] The sacrifices were essentially to satisfy the supernatural beings. This was done through k'ex , which is an exchange or substitution of something. [3] Through k’ex infants would substitute more powerful humans. [3] It was thought that supernatural beings would consume the souls of more powerful humans and infants were substituted in order to prevent that. [3] Infants are believed to be good offerings because they have a close connection to the spirit world through liminality . [4] It is also believed that parents in Maya culture would offer their children for sacrifice and depictions of this show that this was a very emotional time for the parents, but they would carry through because they thought the child would continue existing. [4] It is also known that infant sacrifices occurred at certain times. Child sacrifice was preferred when there was a time of crisis and transitional times such as famine and drought. [3]
There is archaeological evidence of infant sacrifice in tombs where the infant has been buried in urns or ceramic vessels. There have also been depictions of child sacrifice in art. Some art includes pottery and steles as well as references to infant sacrifice in mythology and art depictions of the mythology.

Moche culture
The Moche of northern Peru practiced mass sacrifices of men and boys. [5]
Timoto-Cuica culture
The Timoto-Cuicas offered human sacrifices. Until colonial times children sacrifice persisted secretly in Laguna de Urao (Mérida ). It were described by the chronicler Juan de Castellanos, who cited that feasts and human sacrifices were done in honour of Icaque , an Andean prehispanic goddess.

These are old practices. The ancient Jews used to do it. Abraham wanted to sacrifice Issac. Yahweh told Moses to kill people and burn sacrifice themy as burnt offering unto him.

sinequanon:
ok, you've just shot yourself in the foot. I rest my case.

How? By showing your statement to be totally false? If that's what you mean by shooting myself in the foot then yes, I've shot myself in the foot.

sinequanon:
No need to sound like one of those uneducated ranters.

Scientific journals do not make declarations about definitions of science. That belongs to the field of philosophy. Is that all you are asking for, a statement by a philosopher?

You have nothing to back up your claim. It's empty. An opinion of an unknown person on rationalwiki without any reference isn't something to be taken seriously.

Any way unequivocal evidence is very well admitted and used in science because recently a group of about 600 scientist came out and declared that unequivocal evidence shows that climate change is man made.

https://phys.org/news/2013-10-unequivocal-evidence-global-man-made.html

sinequanon:
I am glad that you agree.



We can simply wiki it...

Scientific proof
It is often said that proof is for alcohol and mathematics, as these are really the only areas where proof has any real meaning. "Proof" is something that the opponents of science are always clamouring for, yet is NOT ACTUALLY SOMETHING SCIENCE SUGGESTS it will give — specifically in the common sense definition of "proof" that suggests that a claim has been proven 100%.

Surprisingly to some, SCIENCE DOES NOT DEAL IN PROOF, in spite of the word being associated with science...

What is this nonsense? I asked you to show me the scientific declaration that says unequivocal evidence isn't scientific and you are giving me someone's opinion from rationalwiki not even Wikipedia. You are not serious.

If you have no scientific declaration from scholars in serious scientific journals, then I have nothing to say to you but dismiss it as false.

Gggg102:
what's the proof of your realization.

wouldn't you ask for proof of I said: above all I am a theist because I came to realize god is real and we have a little bit of his consciousness in our mind, idea, conception, imagination. god created human and different religions created different gods because they know subconsciously that god exists are trying to find god so they express their subconscious knowledge albeit inaccurately.

Sure I'll ask for proof, but no God can be shown to exist on its own without human input. The different versions of Gods and their histories all point to the fact that they are all created by humans.

Humans started by worshipping agents of nature ( stars, moon, rivers, mountains, lightening ) as Gods before they moved to humans then invisible beings. This is very well documented in human history.

Gggg102:
I could go into your room, open your closet and have a look inside. and the evidence is that I would not see an adult male elephant inside.

what is your proof that there is no god?

God is a human idea and conception as such there is NO one God. There are different ideas and versions of God based on this human ideas. Some believe in polytheism (many Gods) others believe in monotheism (Single God).

So which version of God should I disprove when there are many different versions?

So which of the God or Gods

sinequanon:
It is an appeal to what is known as "Western science".

Your appeal is flawed, hence the discrepancy.

Unequivocal evidence has nothing to do with with western science.

Let us first be clear, before I show you. You are using the term "unequivocal evidence" to mean valid evidence that can be interpreted in only one way, i.e 100% proof, right?

Yes, leaving no doubt. Show me the scientific declaration that says full proof that leaves no doubt isn't scientific.

Gggg102:
this can only make you agnostic at most.

for you to assert as fact that god does not exist, you should be able to prove that god does not exist.

What is the evidence that there is no adult male elephant hiding inside my closet at the moment ? Lack of evidence that there is one.

Gods are man made ideas, conception, ignorance and imaginations.

sinequanon:
Your use of the term "unequivocal evidence" seems to be an appeal to science. How do you measure the "unequivocal" nature of "evidence", otherwise? It is then odd that you would dismiss scientific recognition of anything.

Appeal to which science? You said science doesn't recognize it in one sentence and in another you say it's an appeal to science? Are you making things up or what?

Where is the scientific declaration that says unequivocal evidence isn't scientific? Show me it to me pls.

sinequanon:
I stopped right there. The notion of "unequivocal evidence" is not recognized even by scientists. Scientific evidence comes with a "confidence level", never 100%.

So what if it is not recognized by scientist? There is no unequivocal evidence that any God exist. That is one of my reasons for not believing in any God.

Above all I am an atheist because I came to realize that Gods are human ideas, conceptions, imaginations and ignorance. All Gods ate a human creation that is why there are many different Gods and many different religions created after the various Gods.

Why am an atheist


*There is not one iota of unequivocal evidence that any God exists. . . .God remains just an idea, a conception, a perception and a claim that requires belief to sustain it.

*God cannot explain all that exists because God itself cannot be explained. This claim just gratuitously swaps one mystery for another.

*Religions do not fully explain any mechanism or process whereby God created anything. It is effectively an appeal to magic they tell you to just believe. For example how exactly did God create the planet, all you get are just wishy washy appeal to magic.

*Religious faith is generally indistinguishable from gullibility. Trust and faith as human concepts, are normally based on experience and reason. Religious faith is necessarily based on belief in unproved and unknowable things.

* Religious faith has never been tested objectively and shown to work.

*A God or anything that exists outside the realm of natural reality is necessarily unknowable, unintelligible and incoherent. It is therefore irrational to believe in something that is said to be supernatural and beyond the ability to be tested and be objectively shown to be real.

*Religious scripture:
* is completely man-made
*contains many translation, historical and scientific and interpretation errors
* is often self-contradictory
* often contradicts known facts
*promotes conversion by violence
*contains many narratives that are purely mythical
* calls for punishment and death to unbelievers, why should people be punished for unbelief in stories that lack evidence?
*contains virtually no specific and unequivocal predictions
* is always subject to personal interpretation and opinion
* Was written by ancient men that didn't know much about the world and the universe in general
*contains only vague predictions beyond its own time
*contains many failed prophecies, predictions and unfulfilled promises of God
*Isn't universally objective as should be assuming it is from a divine source that wants to pass a message to humans.
*Scripture contains too much that is vague, metaphorical and symbolic to be instructions from a divine being to humans. A perfect being would be expected to be able to communicate much better than that.

*In order to render most of scripture useful, it must necessarily be interpreted. This makes it easily twisted to support nefarious purposes.

*The problems with scriptures outweigh any good messages they may contain. If read at all, they should be considered opinion and philosophy and that's all that there is to it.

*Morals are based on human sympathy, empathy, what will lead to a stable and less chaotic society and not on divine guidance. it varies from culture to culture, period in history and is always evolving. Establishing moral codes based on theism is unnecessary, riddled with contradictions, and fraught with danger. Reason is what humans are supposed to use to guide them when making moral choices and decisions not ancient rules written by people whose civilization and way of life is outdated.

*Religion is divisive in that it pits groups of otherwise indistinguishable people against one another. There are already more than enough differences for humans to fight over. And religion is the most intransigent of such divisions because many people feel it is a divine duty to revile those who believe differently than they do even if they don't see the reason in it. God hates the disbelievers or the disbeliever are condemned is what is written in most scriptures.

*Religions are generally intractable when it comes to substantive compromise with other religions or belief systems.

*All suggested ways to perceive God rely on internal mechanisms that are subject to personal desires, suggestion, and mistakes. On the question of communicating with God, religion insidiously asks us all to deceive ourselves. If God or Gods communicates to people as they claim then why are they always receiving and sending different messages that are mostly contradictory even within the same religious group?


*Every culture that has existed has had God myths and other superstitions. This is often used as an argument for the existence of God. Rather than indicating that there is a true God, this indicates that people are simply attracted to the idea and people easily form the idea.


*Goodness, truth, wisdom and all other purported attributes of God are human concepts. When applied to a presumed entity so completely different in kind as to be supernatural, they are meaningless. The idea of God is thus incoherent.

*Infinity is a concept humans cannot comprehend except in a limited mathematical sense. If God is infinite, this also renders him unintelligible.

*Belief in an afterlife is insidious, besides there is no evidence to show the human consciousness survives bodily death.

*Organized religion wastes untold amounts of money and resources that could be used to care for people, promote real knowledge, and advance the human race.

*Theism puts God above people thereby making people subservient, unimportant and expendable.

*Religion relies on guilt, fear, uses threat and outlandish promises to gain obedience.

*Religion is like racism because it segregates people.

*Theism generally precludes any possibility of testing God or questioning his existence substantively and objectively. It is something like the wizard of Oz saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

*The methods used in proselytizing for religion bear an unmistakable resemblance to the methods of confidence men. But the scriptures consider this the great commission of mankind.

*There are many good rational and logical arguments against theism but not one argument in favor of it that doesn't rely on a fallacy, assumption or special pleading.

*There are so many Gods put forth by thousands of religions that no one could ever be certain of picking the correct one, assuming that one exists.

*Prayer is totally subjective and cannot be shown to have any more efficacy than pure chance.

*There is no discernible difference between believing in God and having an imaginary friend.

*People generally rely on facts and evidence in every human endeavor except religion.

*Unequivocal miracles do not occur. example Gods do not heal amputees and restore their amputated limbs or babies born with down syndrome.

*God supposedly speaks directly to the human spirit. This must be, at least partly, the same concept as mind. People who receive messages in their minds are invariably delusional.

*There is no positive correlation between belief in God and being a moral person.


*Religions have a long history of misogyny.

*Religious dogma is practically immune to the incorporation of new facts. The best it can do is strained reinterpretation.

* Children have to be indoctrinated with religion at a very early age.

*The argument that God cannot be proven not to exist is irrelevant when one considers that to do so requires that the concept of a supernatural God be intelligible and coherent, which it is not.

*There is a well known argument commonly called "The Problem of Evil". It basically says that if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God exists, unnecessary or gratuitous evil would not exist in the world. Thus if God sees this type of evil and does nothing he is either not omnibenevolent because he doesn't care or not omnipotent because he is unable to stop it. There are many counter-arguments that have been used. However the only one that really could defeat the Problem of Evil is if one says that we cannot apply human standards to decide what is or is not gratuitous evil. This may well be true, but that argument renders God unintelligible and meaningless to humans. Either way, the concept of God seems to be highly doubtful.

*Theists claim that God has given humans free will. However, this free will is anything but free. The choices are forced on pain of death and eternal suffering. It is equivalent to having a slave and saying something like: "I grant you your freedom to leave at any time. But if you do, I will torture you mercilessly and kill you as slowly as possible."

enilove:
Even in America there are ritualist , witchcrafts , Satanists etc.

As a christian , I don't lie . I know what God says in His book :

Revelation 21:8 KJV
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

There are ritualists in America that do what? Show me and American ritualists and what he does. You are a liar and Christianity is founded on lies.

enilove:
Jesus was a miracle worker which the Jews acknowledged as true.

I have received miracles from God Almighty which doctors could not do.

You people believe charms , voodoo, magics and witchcrafts but don't believe God and miracles.

Do yo think ritualists are fakes too ?

You have so much to learn .

Ritualist are also fake. You are a slave to superstitionsee and mythology.

You have received no miracle anywhere. You are only telling lies. Nothing you have gone through or survived that those that do not believe in your God haven't gone through or survived.

enilove:
Stop allowing yourself to be fooled that miracles don't happen.

Go and view the one frank317 calls fake and come here to make your judgement.
It is a real miracle that cannot be disputed because it involves a baby.

Miracles don't happen. Even the baby hasn't been healed, the baby is still suffering so what nonsense are you talking about. The baby can be made to act by giving the baby drugs to make the baby weak and appear as if it's dead. A pastor was caught doing that and the video went viral on Facebook.

enilove:
Unfortunately , that is the God that will judge you and purnish you for your wickedness like those you mentioned above ,and finally in hell for eternity.

When the wicked are been purnushed for their evils , who are you to judge?

The governments of ths world kill , pardon , protect , blesses , promote and honour people depending on what they perceive to be the portions of its citizens for smooth running of its governance.
How much more the heavenly government.

Leviticus 18:22-30 KJV
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind (Homosexuals): it is abomination.
[23] Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
[24] Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
[25] And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
[26] Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
[27] (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled
[28] That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
[29] For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
[30] Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God.

That is the God you imagine that will judge him. You are a religious slave. Allah will judge you and burn you in helping for refusing to worship him and believe in Mohammed his last messenger.