GraceSmile1:






If they reveal it you people will say they are creating lies.
Rather than look for excuses.
Lift up your voice to God for protection and cure
#peace

But what if it is God that allowed this virus in the first place, though? What if the spread of the virus is his will, part of his plans, his working in mysterious ways?

Favysoma:
because he's stupidly answering Satan...so I wanted to show him how stupid he thinks

Satan is a random word. That you as a believer associate that word with an evil person in your religious beliefs, doesn't mean some other person associate that word with same evil person as in your religious beliefs.

The word "Satan" could mean anything to anybody. So, slow your roll woman.

And at least, you should strive to be more better. You're supposed to be a Christian, that's "Christ-like". Why calling your fellow human being "stupid" because he doesn't agree with your views or beliefs? How's that Christlike of you?

Satan66:


Religious people like favysoma are usually unintelligent.
If I had a dollar for every time a religious person has claimed atheist believe in Satan I'd be richer than bill gates.

Not only you. I'd be damn richer too.

Favysoma:
but u believe there is Satan?��

He doesn't believe in the existence of God, why will he then believe there's Satan?

lonelydora:
Well, as a Christian, I have no option than to believe the man of God.

That was how they were doubting Noah until flood came.

That was how they were doubting Elijah until there was no rain for years.

That was how they were doubting Daniel and David too.

Let's just wait for 21days before we make any conclusion.

God's ways are different from man's ways.

LMAO!

Absolute fuckery, this is.

Nitrogen will not like this slander against Lukaku!

He will not take it!

MadeINchenzen2:
perhaps u want to justify the fact that u disowned ur family... now you're living alone.

Go back home and ask for forgiveness. Dont be a bad girl. Men thinks of girls who lives alone as prostitutes. 1 word for u. Be wise

You'd do well not to generalise and avoid projecting your myopic view and mindset as the thinking of everyone.

MadeINchenzen2:
There s no such thing as adulthood for girls. Ideally a lady ought to be with her family until she s married. There are dangers of living alone away from family. A sane society should frown at that. It is rare to find a sensible lady living alone, single.

my thoughts!

Wonderful! SMH.

MadeINchenzen2:

what do you think guys?

Is it okay for a lady to move-out to live alone on a rented apartment as a single person. Than stay with her mum, dad and siblings?

Usually it is prevalent with most guys especially when they get to a certain age, probably after school or perhaps because of an essential need for some privacy and a sense of responsibility.

In my own thought. I think it is dangerous and untimely for a single lady to leave her family to live alone before she s married.

@bolded.... SMH.

OdefaGirl:
God help us wipe out this Virus all over the world....
I know you can do it even when so many people may not believe, it still doesn't change the fact that you are God all by yourself.

One gotta ask though, why did this God let this virus to happen in the first place? He could have easily stopped it, couldn't he? Or he didn't see it beforehand, the omniscient god?

Maximus69:


I never intended dragging issues with you but it's just to prove that what those misinformed churchgoers infused in your brains about God was misconceptions.

So if you don't feel like understanding what the Bible really teach it's OK!

It's a free world. Nobody can force you to believe in the existence of a Creator neither can you pluck out his image in the brains of those who grasped the concept!

Oh! Trust me, I do know and understand what the Bible really teach. And it's all bullshits and absolute bunkum!

But then, you wouldn't know this or acknowledge it because your brain have been indoctrinated with all that stuffs and what more, you're so good at selective, cherry-picking of Bible passages.

Maximus69:


It's the misinformed churchgoers that has given people various misconceptions making you guys to see God as the one who should be responsible even for the calamity mankind brought upon themselves!

Loooool! Yeah. please shift! I do not have the strength for a back and forth with a Jehovah's witness, abeg.

plaetton:

Of course.
What else can you say ?

If god does his things whenever he wishes, after several thousand years, then pls tell me why generations of humans like you , spend your short lives praying and beseeching gold , even trying to bribe him at times, to change situations for your personal benefit ?

Are you not indirectly admitting that religion is a big waste of time, because no matter how much you worship, pray, fast and sow seeds, the will of God, which takes thousands of years to unfold, cannot ever bend for the whimsical yearnings of mortal humans ?

Word!

You claim to be intellectual and scientifically oriented, yet you fail to follow the traditional scientific process to determine your knowledge. Have you even read the Bible before to know what it says about these things? I guess NO, because you feel you are all-knowing, so you don't need to look at a "book of fairy tales" to exercise your thinking. You are seriously dumb, no amount of gibberish you type here can disprove that.

Read outside and beyond the Bible!

This is what happens when you take the Bible as the be all and end all...

What do you even know about the origin of the Bible? It's plagiarised content?

So much for the Bible being the words of a perfect, all-knowing God.

LordReed:


You make your god sound like a wuss. So the god that made the universe will remove sickness and disease then someone else will bring it back? Like what kind of stupid weak god is that?

These guys don't think things through before they post.

Joshthefirst:
Dont mind him.

God has set a time for complete eradication of evil in this world, and he won’t just eliminate sickness, he’ll eliminate sin completely. He’ll eliminate murderers and rapists and thieves, but he’ll also eliminate liars and blasphemers and adulterers as well.

God still let’s the play go on so that plaetton and his cohorts will repent of their sins and be reconciled to him through Christ, but they continue to insult his patience. Meanwhile millions of people around the world are turning to Christ.

Make no mistake plaetton and other mockers, the God who gave you minds that you use to imagine vain and foolish things will appear on the scene. But when the director openly appears on the scene, it means the the play has come to an end.

Loooool @ the bolded.

An omniscient god still let the play to go on, with the hope that Plaetton and other atheists, unbelievers, will turn to him eventually at some time in the future?

Dude, do you take time to think through what you type before posting? Like does it make sense to you?

An omniscient god, who ostensibly knows the beginning from the end, the end from the beginning, he knows everything, even before they happens, he most obviously knows already whether Plaetton and other unbelievers like him, will actually come back or not, but this God is waiting for such a time when it will happen, when he could as well quicken the time and speed things up fast, save his "innocent children, believers" from needless suffering.

So much for an omniscient god.

How come no one has said anything about Lingard's assist for Fred's first goal?

At least, that's something. That's a positive.

Arsenal fans talking like they actually stood a chance to win the Europa league and gain a backdoor ticket to the UCL next season.

godofuck231:
she looks like malnourished African chicken, who's paying millions for the laps of an African chicken

You'd be surprised there are people who actually pays millions for the laps of an African chicken.

nlPoster:



Comprehension is most likely your problem, I just explained women's clothing has more variation in material than men's, therefore yes a woman might have to adjust her dress more frequently than a man does.

The issue of you being seduced came up because you seem to be spending a lot of your time watching women adjust their dresses.

once again, you fail to comprehend the point in my initial post and instead, went on rambling an entirely different thing.

But that's fine.

Variations in women clothing style and design, I know that.

My point is, you'd do yourself a whole lot of good putting on clothing that will give you minimal stress when walking or sitting in public. Fine, you have to adjust the clothes, no problem. Why stress yourself wearing clothes that you will have to be adjusting like a mad person?

And no, I don't spend time watching women dragging with their clothes they wore with their own hands. How you arrive at that conclusion, shows a lot about you trying to project an habit of yours on me.

nlPoster:


Women's dressing is different from men's dressing.

For one, ladies have a wider range of fabrics and designs.

A dress might need adjusting if it stretches or shifts, perhaps you should focus on other things and let the women adjust their dressing as necessary.

And no, not all women are trying to seduce you, it's not that hard to know the ones who are.

Even iro and buba, one of the safest and most dignified dressings on the planet, sometimes needs adjusting if the woman has to check her wrapper. Luckily in the olden days, all you see is the pantaloons and ancient skirt underneath, so it wasnt seductive.

Lol.

Maybe comprehension is your problem, because I don't see where in my post I said or implied that they are trying to seduce me with their dressing.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if some women's dressing is to seduce men. Not my business. And infinitely less of my problem.

I was just wondering, why all that stress wearing clothes that you know quite well are uncomfortable in, especially if you can't quite handle those starry eyes while walking in public and engaging in a tug of war with the dress you pick with your own hands to wear.

Tamaratonye1:

Lol

I apologize if I come off as "sheer lazy" this minute because I'm sincerely occupied and typing on my smart phone is stress.

When I get home to my PC, we'll find out what your problem really is.

You'll do well to spare yourself the stress of engaging Budaatum. It's like chasing the wind. The person behind that moniker is neither here nor there.

Ivebeenbanned:

Its like most men are actually really stupid. These dresses are supposed to have a certain length. Mini skirts espouses the thighs to a certain level. That's how we want it. But when something pushes up, we drag it down it its original length. You get? Now Bleep off and go lust over the women you're pretending to criticise.

Relax madam. I'm not responsible for your frustration in life.

GreatResearcher:
A perfect God search through millions of people in Israel and found one man who he says is perfect and qualify to rule Israel.
He sent his servant to anoint that man as king of Israel. The man was anointed as king.
The same perfect and all knowing God who knows the future and he even created the future regretted for picking that man as king.
Told his servant to go and collect the kingship from the man that the man isn't qualified to be king.

What a perfect God.

Indeed! A perfect, all-knowing, omniscient God he is, who knows the beginning from the end, the end from the beginning...

The Bible though. A mythical fairytale book for adults afraid to actually think.

I don't seem to understand what goes on in the mind of some females. It beats me. Honestly.

They will wear clothes that reveals their cleavages, those V-neck, low neck dresses and when walking around, from time to time, will be tugging at their dress, pulling it up, to cover their cleavages, perhaps as a result of starry eyes. But then, before stepping out from the house, they knew the dress will expose their cleavages, but still went on to wear it.

Or those ones that wear short skirts, gowns, that hangs above their knees, mini-skirts, those tight, body-hugging dresses that tend to lift up as they move and hence why they will be dragging it down time and again to cover those part above the knees that have been exposed. They knew that will happen when they put on that dress, yet still put it on. And end up fighting with the dress, engaging in a tug of war with it in public.

This na normal something. Come Uyo, come see clogged drainage.

Mehn! I don't even understand how sane people will be doing everything to destroy their environment with their awful waste disposal habit. Dumping wastes, be it plastic or leather or whatever in the gutter. The road sweepers too, have part of the blame here, with the way they sweep sand and dirt into three gutter.

Tamaratonye1:

As Christianity currently enjoys an unequalled social, political and financial power over any other religion in all the developed nations of the world, and given that Christian churches have a long history of supporting dictatorships to maintain the status quo in many countries, it could well be argued that the vilification comes as thoroughly justified criticism.

No Abrahamic religion unequivocally or unreserevedly supports the freedom of worship of others, and as you failed to mention, they can also be especially intolerant of the non-worshipping atheists.


Uh... You know the UN is mostly controlled by the USA right? The same USA that had a black president, almost had a female president (won the popular vote by over 2 million votes,) but have yet to see an atheist even be considered to be accepted by eithir major party to run for president?

We are so far away from any sort of major position of power being held by someone that is openly atheist I do not expect to see an atheist president for US or any other major office of power within the next half century.

Your religion wants to vilify atheist because of the threat they pose, not to actually hold any offices of power, but that the atheist position, (not a theist,) is so dangerous because ultimately no religion has any sort of actual reasonable counter or response to that position. It strips away the "absolute" authority that religions force onto their followers for total unquestioning loyalty and compliance. Why do you think you theist fear atheist more then islamic extremism that has real world impact and those people are all too happy to kill you for what you believe?


The bible may well have something like said this, do you have a reference?

In any case, it may as well have also said 'water is wet'. This is not soley a prophecy of insurrection against Christianity, its a recurring political situation that has occurred countless times throughout history beginning long before this particular piece was written. Nothing new here.

Tyranny and rebellion have long been features of human activity and in all cases the rebellion of the oppressed has been reasonably justified.

Volatile social circumstances can lead to situations where "each person will start demanding all the good things of life", Do you mean "good things" such as individual rights and freedom from persecution and discrimination, adequate income, food, housing, health services and safe working conditions perhaps? Most rebellions don't just happen in a vacuum.

Do you have a bible reference for the words 'security agents' ? You mean security agents like the Stasi of East Germany, or the CIA, or those of Mossad? Maybe the Spanish Inquisition, whom nobody expects?


I suggest you read some history, because millions and millions of people have been killed in wars started by religion. For example, Cromwell and the Crusades.

Your statement is in direct opposition to reality.

If one follows the claims of the New Testament there is no proof that there are any Christians in the world today at all. Where are the miraculous deeds that Yeshua promised his followers could perform with faith in his name to bring glory to his god? The healing, the resurrections, the bringing of rain etc.
The only healing I have witnessed has involved medical science.

There have been no resurrections.

The only rainmaking has been a result of seeding certain clouds with silver iodide (discovered by Bernard Vonnegut, brother to sci-fi writer Kurt).

Where is all this Christian love? I refer you to my other post about how Christian world dominance would prevent the earth becoming hell. Surely there would be oasis of peace and harmony somewhere in the world that we could aspire to, given the numbers of those who follow the Way?

I think what you mean is that you think of Christians as a family of peace loving worshippers who just want to be left alone, while invoking the right to invade everyone else's life to proselytise and preach, like you do right here on the Nairaland. Yeah?

the bolded is the hypocrisy endemic in Christianity and my major problem with that religion.

This hypocrisy stinks.

Tamaratonye1:

I know it's hard for mythology fanboys like you to grasp elementary concepts, but one you should be learning quickly, is that the assertions of your mythology do not constitute fact. The assertion that your cartoon magic man even exists, is one we've been waiting for mythology fanboys like you to support with something resembling proper evidence. And by proper evidence, I do NOT mean regurgitating the very same assertions from your mythology we've been waiting to see supported with evidence, or peddling vacuous and risible apologetic fabrications that you've manifestly extracted from your rectal passage.

Another concept you should be learning quickly, is that a favourite discoursive tool of those of us who paid attention in class, is reductio ad absurdum. Namely, take an assertion presented to us, treat that assertion by hypothesis as purportedly constituting fact, then demonstrating that treating that assertion in said manner leads quickly to internal contradiction, absurdity and paradox. Applying this famous and robust discoursive technique, does NOT imply that we regard your assertions as true, when we subject your assertions to said treatment. Indeed, reductio ad absurdum has been a staple method within the world of pure mathematics for centuries, and as a corollary of having been deployed in that discipline, we are assured of the essential soundness of the technique.

As a further corollary of the above, just because you treat a merely asserted concept from your mythology uncritically as fact, doesn't mean anyone else here shares your strange predilection. Indeed, it's precisely because those of us who paid attention in class, learned the proper rules of discourse, as opposed to the bastardised version thereof adopted by pedlars of apologetics, that we regard all assertions as a free-fire zone for the deployment of discoursive weaponry. We don't care how "sacred" you think your assertions are, or how much they should be shielded from scrutiny, they will all receive the same discoursive artillery bombardment here.

As for your assertion that "divine wrath" is hard for us to grasp, those of us who paid attention in class are already laughing at you. The reasons for this will become apparent shortly.


The irony of being castigated on this matter by a mythology fanboy, is truly delicious to savour.


Except that, oh wait, what we're dealing with here, is the usual piling of assertion upon assertion by mythology fanboys.

First there is the assertion that your magic man even exists, which on its own is seriously problematic. Not least because your magic man is defined in your mythology, as an entity possessing internally contradictory attributes. The likelihood of any entity thus defined actually existing is vanishingly small for obvious reasons. Which on its own points to "sin" being a synthetic, fabricated offence against an imaginary entity.

Second, there is the assertion that the assorted individuals described as being subject to wholesale slaughter in your mythology, were "deserving" of their fate, an assertion that itself is massively questionable, not least because, if your magic man doesn't actually exist, then the requisite passages of said mythology are nothing more than self-justification propaganda on the part of the raving hordes performing the slaughtering. Even if your magic man does actually exist, your mythology presents two contradictory assertions within its pages, namely [1] that your magic man presented "thou shalt not kill" as a purported "commandment", then followed this by exhorting his raving followers to kill on a large scale. If you cannot recognise this as massively contradictory even on an elementary level, it merely demonstrates that your mythology fanboyism has corrupted and perverted your own reasoning beyond recognition. Then of course, we have the other assertion that mythology fanboys like you are so fond of, namely that your merely asserted magic man is purportedly the source of all morality, an assertion that falls flat on its face the moment said magic man exhorts his followers to commit mass murder.

Returning to the assertion that the victims of said slaughter purportedly "deserved" their fate, well this is both risible and dangerous. Such an assertion can be pressed into duplicitous service by the devious, to "justify" exterminating large numbers of people on the basis of any number of specious pretexts, and indeed, historically, was pressed into this very service by mythology fanboys in the past, frequently for naked personal gain. And indeed, naked personal gain was explicitly dangled in front of the raving followers of your magic man, according to easily referenced assertions in your mythology.

Which all, of course, pales into insignificance alongside the massive and blatant disconnect, between asserting that such behaviours are inexcusably criminal for humans to pursue, but purportedly "righteous" when ordered by your magic man, a hideously obscene piece of special pleading that should be obvious to a five year old.

If anything, the requisite assertions in your mythology point to the enormous dangers inherent, in allowing any entity to act as judge, jury and executioner simultaneously. But we're familiar here with the manner in which mythology fanboys erect convoluted apologetic fabrications, in an attempt to paint a fake veneer of "respectability" to the blatant manufacturing of synthetic excuses to hand-wave away entirely proper objections to the travesty of discourse, that is the entirely arbitrary declaration of special, "privileged" status for your magic man, on the basis of nothing more than mythological fiat. Because, at bottom, that's all you have - blind assertion to the effect that your magic man purported possesses the special, "privileged" status exempting said magic man from the same constraints which are simultaneously asserted to be proper to apply to us. This is nothing more than "one law for the powerful, another for the powerless" writ large. And your inability to recognise, this, points rather to your failure of basic intelligent reasoning.


The latter, of course, being one of the assertions presented in your mythology - namely, that the victims of this gleefully pursued mass murder, were subject to said slaughter because they dared to have a religion other than that of their murderers. You didn't think this through very hard, did you?


A specious and mendacious fabricated sophistical elision, to try and hand-wave away the hideous reality of the situation of the slaves in question. Numerous historical examples can be pointed to, demonstrating that hideous reality, which in some cases involved kidnapping, and in many cases lethally brutal exploitation. But I'm aware of the manner in which mythology fanboys like you ignore inconvenient historical facts that destroy your apologetics.


Either way, the assertions are risible. Oh wait a moment, there is NO mention at all of the "Satan" character in Genesis, and indeed, the earliest explicit reference to such an entity doesn't appear until 1 Chronicles 21:1, so I'm tempted to treat this as another mythology fanboy ex recto fabrication.


Oh really? So why was the snake in the Genesis fairy tale not explicitly described therein as having found its voice in accordance with your apologetic assertion? For that matter, why is there NO explicit mention of the "Satan" character until we reach 1 Chronicles 21:1?


Oh this is going to be fun ...

This for starters
Misogynistic - a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.
Genesis 3:16
Exodus 21:7
Numbers 3:15,28
Exodus 23:17
Exodus 20:17
Judges 1:12–13
Leviticus 6:14–18
Numbers 5:15–31
Jeremiah 8:9–10
Exodus 22:29–31
Leviticus 12:1–5
Judges 8:30–31
Leviticus 27:1–7
Nahum 3:4–6
Numbers 36:8–12
2 Samuel 12:11
Deuteronomy 22:20–21
Numbers 31:17–18
Numbers 30:1–8,16
Numbers 31:25–35
Deuteronomy 24:1—4
Judges 5:30
Job 25:4
Ezekiel 36:16–17
Job 14:1–4
Lamentations 1:8–9
Isaiah 19:16
Hosea 9:1

Infanticidal - the act of killing an infant; the practice of killing newborn infants; a person who kills infants.
Isaiah 13:18
Hosea 13:16
1 Samuel 15:2–3
1 Samuel 22:19
Psalm 137:8–9
Isaiah 13:11–18
Numbers 31:17
Jeremiah 13:14
Deuteronomy 13:6–11
Jeremiah 19:3–9
Deuteronomy 28:53
Deuteronomy 3:3–6
Deuteronomy 2:31–34
Hosea 9:11–16
Ezekiel 9:4–6
2 Kings 2:23–24
Exodus 12:29
Leviticus 26:21–22
2 Samuel 12:13–18

Genocidal - relating to or involving the deliberate killing of a large group of people of a particular nation or ethnic group.
Deuteronomy 20:16–17
Deuteronomy 2:32–34
Genesis 6:6–8
Deuteronomy 7:1–2
Numbers 21:2–3
Deuteronomy 2:32–34
Deuteronomy 20:10–19
Deuteronomy 3:3–6
Judges 18:1–28
1 Samuel 15:7–8
1 Samuel 15:2–3
Numbers 31:7–40
Joshua 8:25–28
Joshua 11:12
Joshua 6:21
Joshua 11:16–20
Joshua 11:21–22
Joshua 11:10–11
Judges 1:22–26
Deuteronomy 13:12–15
1 Samuel 27:8–9
Deuteronomy 7:16
Joshua 10:28–40
Jeremiah 50:21

Now let me guess...."Oh but context": "It's a metaphor" "It doesn't really mean that" " Hang on , let me get my Hermenutic goggles and give you several references from random places that contradict that verse...a bit..."

Dear oh dear...someone else can carry the slavery bag....

At the end of the day, your issue is not so much about what atheists fail to grasp about your concept of a god, as much as about what you fail to understand about atheists and how they think and rationalise.

My goodness! What a response!

TheExecutioner:
Time, space and matter are the three major components of what we call reality.

Those 3 components could only come into existence at the same instance and not on different occasions.

For example, if only matter exists but you don't have time or space, where would you keep the matter and when would you keep it?

The Bible is the only religious book which recognises that time space and matter came into existence simultaneously.

The very first chapter of the Bible states that time, space and matter came into existence at the same time:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning(time) God created the heaven(space) and the earth(matter).

In just the first 10 words of the Bible we have God bringing together the 3 elements of reality: time, space and matter together simultaneously.

No other Book or religion other than the Judeo-Christian faith has accomplished this feat.

Oh wait! It has to be the Bible. Of all holy books in the world, it has to be the Bible.

How wonderful!

Tamaratonye1:

I'm sorry but this is hands down the stupidest thing you've said so far, no mean achievement either. Science is amply defined form a cursory Google search, and no one has to embrace anything, it's success as a method is manifest to anyone with an ounce of integrity.


From rank stupidity to rank dishonesty.

[1] The foundation of science is objective evidence, and open minded rigour.
[2] Atheism is not synonymous with science, atheists just have no biased reason to deny scientific facts the way you superstitious theists do.
[3] Atheism doesn't deny anything, it is just the absence of belief in any deity or deities.
[4] You mean proof not prove, and the lack of proof for deity, scientific or otherwise, is not the basis of atheism of anyone I have met here. They disbelieve because, as do I, because no religious apologist can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, nor produce a single rational argument to support their belief.
[5] If something beyond the physical or material exists then demonstrate some objective evidence for this claim, otherwise I will continue to disbelieve your claim for a deity.

Science can't detect non existent or fictional things, that is an objective fact, this is not a limit of science, and each time you place your deity in the category of things science cannot detect you score a spectacular own goal, it is rank stupidity that compels you to keep repeating this fatuous own goal even after it's been explained to you people?


It is your claim that a supernatural deity exists, so the burden of proof is entirely yours, and you can piss and moan about that all you want, I don't care. Just what you hope to achieve with this nonsensical facile claim is unclear, but it seems little more than puerile trolling to me.


Whoever he was I sympathise, as most of you are pretty stupid anyway, which makes educating you guys on even basic facts almost impossible, and pretty thankless. But I will try one more time anyway, what that "guy" produced there is an argument based on two known logical fallacies, the first is a false equivalence fallacy by making a specious analogy between dreams and a fictional deity. The second is a poisoning of the well fallacy, by making a puerile suggestion that if science is fallible it is unreliable, which is almost as hilarious as it is stupid, it is definitely logically fallacious.


Already covered in the last response, it is another repetition of the same logical fallacies, and evil and good are also subjective terms quite obviously.


Sigh, it can't tell us which is best colour either, what a truly asinine non-sequitur.


Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that is real? Dear oh dear, do you seriously think repeatedly lying about what atheism is, is impressive? I don't believe claims unless they are sufficiently supported by objective evidence, contrary proofs or evidence are not necessary, and demanding this as you have suggested here, is of course the very definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Science is not relevant to this basic epistemological requirement.

I don’t think you really need answers. I think you believe you have all the answers. Your ideas and fall back to “god” give you all the answers you need.

When you get to the point of “...I need truth (or at least a way to distinguish fact from fiction)”... then perhaps you’ll engage in a more rational manner.

WHAT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE CAN YOU DEMONSTRATE FOR ANY DEITY?

That question is all you need to concern yourself with, as it is the beginning and the end of all claims for a deity.

@bolded, this is gold! Couldn't have put it any better.

liverpool72:
Dear what will be wil be.
just surrender ur life to Christ and u never remain the same.
Jesus is coming back again.

@bolded, and you "know" this how?

realmindz:
Great tribulations.
Lol, religion is a serious problem.
People are still expecting stars to fall down, jesus to fly down from the sky fighting demons with swords and chariots. People are still expecting scrolls in the world of iPads.

Religion is a mental problem

A serious problem, I tell you. The brainwash and indoctrination is deep.