₦airaland Forum

@ OP -

This is brilliant, i just love the thought behind this thread and i would love to see the view of that eminent and brilliant philospher / confusionist, PASTOR AIO on this.

However let me just say this: We do exist - even if we are only the thoughts and mental projections of a universal mind (God), those thoughts are existent; in much the same whay as your imaginations exist as imaginations. Your imaginations are not nothing: they are something: and they are called: imagination. That is what they are. If they were nothing, you would not experience them in your mind at all.

One safe pointer to our existence is the observation of things not placed there by ourselves but by other beings like us who are no longer on the scene. For example: the pyramids at Giza.

If those pyramids were a function of the mind/ perception of the persons who built them only, then when they died and left the scene, newcomers such as ourselves would not perceive the structures to exist at all. Much less as pyramids.

Thus the structure is there independent of our perception.

Just as the sun is there independent of our perception.

mazaje:
If I were a Theist

1. I would have believed and held deeply unto answers given to me by someone else and accept them as the facts.
2. I will be homophobic.
3. I would have been judgmental and disrespectful towards others by looking down on them just because they do not share my beliefs.
4. I would have been very superstitious and believe in things that do not agree with the reality I see around me.
5. I would be less curious about the origins of the universe and life - certainly less open-minded to new ideas and avenues of speculation. Because back in the days I was less curious and accepted everything I was told and the god did it mantra seems to explain away everything even though  the god did it answer sometimes did not explain anything to me personally.
6. I would have been somewhat anti-science - let's face it, it's a war of considerable animosity even if some scientists somehow are able to compartmentalize their religion and their work
7. I would have been depending on prayers to help me out when in need or in trouble.

I take very serious exception to the above.
What is meant by this?

Are you suggesting to me that Theism necessarily comes together with –

1. Believing in answers given by other people? (I am a theist and very few people can make make this claim about me. . . I grind out my own ideas everyday. . .).

2. Being homophobic? (Of course you are aware that there are gay anglican priests who are of course theists. Also the Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa is pro gay rights. But what the hell. . . must we all be the same? Must I support gay behaviour if I find it repulsive? Must I? What has that got to do with atheism or theism?)

3. Being Judgmental and Disrespectful (Really? Are all theists this way? Was Pope John Paul this way? Was Mahatma Ghandi this way? Wwas Mother Theresa this way? All of them are theists. . .)

4. Being Superstitious (Would you describe all theists as superstitious? Does Pastor AIO strike you as superstitious?)

5. Being less curious about the origins of the universe and life? (Don’t you dare try this one. . . the vast majority of inquisitive scientists who have made the greatest strides in deciphering the universe have been theists. Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Isaac Newton, and a zillion others were all theists!)

6. Being anti-science (as above! . . . too many great scientsists have been theists for you to make this FALSE claim.)

7. Depending on prayer. . . what is wrong with prayer?. . .Besides Deists are theists and they do not necessarily depend on prayer. . .

YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE ENTIRELY FALSE AND SHOW A DELIBERATE MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THEISM.

Chrisbenogor:
If it did not hold in reality then I am not even ready to entertain it, I have seen myself grow and grow especially on this forum and I am now able to even make fun of so many things while skipping things I am beginning to find really unnecessary such as the oneness of infinty and talk like that. I am able to connect with theists around me and not try to convince them but just show them that I am not crazy to be skeptical. My relationship with my parents and siblings have taken another turn not for the worst but with loads of understanding, a simple I do not believe in your God is enough these days and I am usually left alone. Just last night a poor bat got missing and hit the window while flying and while I could see a stranded animal, my sisters were screaming blood of Jesus. . . . . . . . the stories are endless, I now know that I am responsible for my actions when I hurt people and I work hard to earn their trust and not hope that some imaginary being would forgive me for stealing deep sights knowledge box. . . . . .

I AM STILL CERTAIN THAT ATHEISM FOR MANY HERE SIMPLY MEANS A REJECTION OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS IDEAS OF GOD AND EXISTENCE AND NOT A PURISTIC REJECTION OF THE CONCEPT OF A CREATOR.

ToneyB - Pardon me if i missed it somewhere if you have already addressed it, but what is the reason that the gospels themselves cannot be taken as historical proof of Christ's existence?

Because we are not talking abvout just one book, but a great many gospels written about this same man by many different people, out of which just four were selected by the church.

Each book helps to historically corroborate the other. You are seeing things as though the bible is one book and so cannot corroborate itself. You know that is untrue. It is a collection of different books written by differernt people at different times.

Aside from the four gospels you know there are gospels written or attributed to Thomas, Mary, Judas, etc.

Is it not improbable that so many DIFFERENT people would write about the life and deeds of one man who never existed?

The Atheist asks "where did God come from" unaware that the very same question applies to his atheistic dogma: to wit - "where did energy/ matter come from?"

beneli:
The bottom line is that i believe that God created and you believe that creation is a random occurence. Fine. Now back to the topic of this particular thread: Why did God create?

"Creation" being a random occurence already presupposes things to be existing in order for them to then take preceise form as a consequence of randomness.

Tudor -

I am certain that many people may at one time or the other make mistakes or overshoot themselves. I firmly believe it is possible to call one another to order or point out wrong asumptions without resorting to vulgarities.

The mind that is only able to communicate through vulgarities is abysmally low, unschooled, unrefined and ranking certainly with motor-park touts and plebians of the most infantile description.

There remains no justification for your calling people “b.itches.” This does nothing but show the poverty of your background, and the complete absence of the fibre of class, which of course is a concept alien to your unschooled mind, if at all the word “mind” may be applied to pedestrian loutish persons such as yourself. 

Whatever may be the case, whatever the issues that you may have with the next man, your responses call you out as a person of inferior and untrained manners and cast a huge shadow of doubt over your education and exposure.

It is apparent to my mind that a man who will not hesitate to bandy words such as “bi.tch” about at the slightest, or no provocation is absolutely puerile in his thinking.

If you have studied psycology, you will be aware that such appellations are actually an affrirmation of the view that a man has of the female members of his own family. I can only conclude therefore, that family matters are not in an altogether salutary state for you: especially as regards your female relatives.

As far as the "Sex at the Atlar" thread is concerned, i cannot apologize for the richness of my imagination, or the deep historical, cultural and philosophical issues raised there: nor can i regret the profound contributions of Jesoul, M_Nwankwo and Tayotoyin to understanding the philosophical aspects of the Positive and Negative aspects of Duality inherent in divinity and how those abstract concepts relate to sexual spirituality.

However, it would be idiotic of me to expect that a person whose favourite pastime is insulting females, would apprhend the issues in the dialectics.

Or the humour and sarcasm denoted, either.

Huxley. . . ? ? ? ? ? ?

mazaje:
no, thoughts are not physical things. . .

Great. So non-physical things exist.

You will therefore agree with me that a diatribe against theism on account of the fact that it centres around a non-physical factor is moot.

You're such a pissy little bitc*h

This is from you Tudor, to Maven who did not insult or call you names. Granted she wrongly assumed that being female is a rational public minus, but i cannot see how that justifies your tirade in calling her a b.itch.

Truth is: not much need be said: it is glaring to the world what sort of man would use this language on a woman in a public forum for literally no reason.

And look at your post to me, full of vulgar sexual insults fit only for juveniles in a ghetto high school.

Men, i tire for you o.

No class at all.

Men who call women bitches are low life skunk.

Period.

@ Poster - Look to your Conscience, simple.

@Huxley - Where u been?

Wirinet -

You stated in a thread i opened some time ago that you do not regard emotions as physical things.

How do you reconcile a belief in non-physical things with pure materialist atheism please?

Mazaje what is a thought.

I ask my question carefully: i do not ask where thoughts come from, which you will assert to be the brain. I ask what the thought itself is.

Is it a physical thing?

I repeat for emphasis: i do not ask where thoughts come from: i ask what thoughts are.

Well its strange that someone so insignificant and boring as MAVEN could have elicited from you by far the longest post i have ever seen you make Tudor.

P.s: Men who call women bitches are low life skunk.

And that my friend, is what you have always been. You always come out strongest when insulting women. I am beginning to think you had a Freudian problem with your mother, since you admitted she steered you to atheism by proclaiming you the reincarnation of Christ at a young age.

What the hell is that "f" still doing beside your name?

Juvenile.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=370932.msg5178154#msg5178154 date=1261649107]Few days ago I was involved in an accident where I crashed my car and it was basically a heap of metal afterwards. I remember a friend telling me I might claim to be an atheist but when faced with death I'd call out to God. Lo and behold when I was being somersaulted in the car, my only thoughts were "Fukc I am about to die how do I get out of this shiit". Infact I had not one single thought of heaven, hell, jesus, angel micheal or holy spirit neither did my mind go to prayer. Luckily for me I was able to come out with just tiny lacerations to my abdomen and legs.

If I were religious i'd have found a way to link God to my escape but had I died then my family woulda blamed the devil and the enemies.[/quote]Tudor, am really sorry about your accident. Hope all is well.

Why do we study ancient history?

Yep: Just the way they might be interested in watching our "primitive" ways.

***doing a mazaje impersonation**** . . . . . "O you people and your deluded fantasies, your deluded fantasies and myths. . ."

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=370846.msg5178312#msg5178312 date=1261651503]Unfortunately it doesn't stop at just knowing about that 'something' people now feel the need to characterize that 'something' however they see fit with several crap like having sons and daughters, answering prayers., intelligent, alive e.t.c and expect us to accept it as truth and rule our lives by it. . .that is unacceptable.[/quote]O please scoff off: are you not the same clown who admitted in the other thread just yesterday that there are "elements of intelligence" in the first cause and you come here declaring that beliveing in an intelligent God is "unnaceptable."

What the hell do we know about existence to qualify us to go about pompously declaring that although we ourselves are intelligent, whatever brought us here could not possibly be intelligent.

You must be Omniscient to know that, and since you have no shred of evidence for that belief you are just as dogmatically deluded as any one else.

Joker.

^^^^Well i cant really argue with that given the run of human history replete with barbarisms, but you must still admit that the human stands higher than the animal in several respects including intelligence and an innate passion for wonder which is the wellspring of ambition that drives great acheivements like landing on the moon.

We are thirsty to see the universe and solve all its riddles which is not something that the animal can claim.

That thirst is partly what Beneli was referring to as being a thirst for God.

^^^ Correct. There is duality in exstence. Positive and Negative elements are eternal. So yes, you have a point.

^^^ Ok, got it.

JeSoul:
Thanks for the terse response. Please indulge me a lil longer . . . so what practical steps do you take in order to limit the hindrance of, or side-step this stumbling block?

Thoughful words Jesoul. I think keeping intuition and spirituality alive are key.

But I will never subscribe to jettisoning all reasoning simply on account that faith is what is required.

I am certain that a "balanced diet" of intuition and reason is possible.

Toney - stop fixating on the Abrahamic legends. Every tribe has its legends and we needn't presume Jewish legends to be any truer than Yoruba or Igbo legends.

As to why God would create, you need to first understand what God is.

I will be doing some extensive posts on this thread on that question.

But let me first give you the summarized answer i gave Tudor on that thread -

In my view, creation is nothing but the intrinsic self-expression of the mind of the creator. I believe that the natural outward radiation of the substance of divinity is what emerges as creation.

God being a compound element, comprises an infinite mind that contains infinite permutations of existence.

This infinite mind being self-existent continuously pulsates in the reality of its live nature and that emitts steady streams of creation which is nothing but the replica of the infinite permutations of existence contained in the universal mind.

Accordingly i do not subscribe to the belief that man was created for the purpose of worshipping God per se.

I think that man is a natural manifestation of the mind of God, and in living (and living fully), God's thoughts reach expression and reality through man (and through everything else in existence).

Kunle, is there not a slight contradiction in a human becoming an "all powerful being" and at the same time deferring to a more powerful, and perfect God?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=79465.msg5173263#msg5173263 date=1261580540]I clearly stated we are able to re-create intelligence because we can arrange stuffs in an order manipulating the forces and laws of nature to acheive the end result.[/quote]And this again contradicts and belies -

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=79465.msg5173263#msg5173263 date=1261580540]what stops nature from arranging the elements in a particular order to bring about the end result as we have it today. . .[/quote]O, SO "NATURE" goes about arranging things just like we do eh? Another gaffe. If we need intelligence to arrange things why wouldn't nature need intelligence to perform its super-arrangements?

Extrapolate backwards and you'd find the source of all elements and you'd get to that point including the elements responsible for your intelligence.

Whoa, he finally and unwittingly admits that the first cause contains intelligence.

Enuff of this merry-go round jaare.

VALIDATOR:
Did you see late Pastor Mrs. Bimbo Odukoya there in hell? I learned a Nigeria pastor (Obadare) went earlier this year and saw her wailing in anguish.
If you didn't see her then you need to speak with Pastor Obadare so that he may teach you how to see hell in HD (High Definition) so that you may see clearer images.

LOL!

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=1752.msg5171806#msg5171806 date=1261567747]And for the likes of deep sight who disregard the abrahamic faiths I also would be interested in what they think man was created for.

Anybody pls indulge me.[/quote]Thanks for the question Tudor.

In my view, creation is nothing but intrinsic self-expression of the mind of the creator. I believe that the natural outward radiation of the substance of divinity is what emerges as creation.

God being a compound element, comprises an infinite mind that contains all and infinite permutations of existence.

This infinite mind being self-existent continuously pulsates in the reality of its live nature and that emitts steady streams of creation which is nothing but the replica of the infinite permutations of existence contained in the universal mind.

Accordingly i do not subscribe to the belief that man was made to worship God per se.

I think that man is a natural manifestation of the mind of God, and in living (and living fully), God's thoughts reach expression and reality through man (and through everything else in existence).

The very existence of any meaningfulness in our lives, such as family, love, ambition or other reference points for meaningfulness, is evidence that life is not accidental, by chance, or meaningless.

Meaningfulness is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature.