₦airaland Forum

These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. Proverbs 6:16-19

You were not!

For you are presuming you existed before you were born.

HappyPagan:
What do YOU see?

Certainly I know the difference between toys and the things in nature that we came to meet eg the sweetly arranged savannah in Ogun state while the bushes look manicured with Gigantic Shears, the Ocean oh, the ocean, not to talk about the natural beauty in Obudu or is it the natural AC in Kaduna? And that is just in Nigeria alone.

I see things man is trying to copy meaning some other Greater Person has done all this artistry that man is copying from.

OtemAtum:


You don't know that all gods who want to come to the world to manifest must be born through a father and a mother? Messi and Ronaldo, gods of football have parents. Michael Jackson, god of music had parents. Jehovah your god in both is first and second reincarnation to the earth have parents. Allah also had parents. Same as Ogun, Sango, etc. A god must be born in the form of a human being if he wants to manifest on earth in the homosapiens era.
The other part of your post is very funny. ROTFLMAO.

Read about Jehovah your god's parents here.
Memucan was his father in one of his reincarnation. Memucan was a hunter back then.

1. Yahweh was a homo sapiens born in the 37,517th year of the homo sapiens era in a land now called Israel.
2. The father of yahweh was Memucan, a fierce hunter, who killed all manner of wild animals in the forest.

A god that is born. I understand.

I prefer the One that is not born, The very First of Persons, who Created All and Everything is His Creation or children.

Atheism directs most of its arguments toward Christianity and the Bible. Why? That's because Christianity is the best (in fact, ONLY) way through which man can get to know God personally. So the enemy and his cohorts are on the rise, seeking to distort the truth of God's word with worldly philosophies to deceive the willing. Be careful, believers and those who seek to accomplish God's will.

The Only Way! and typical of All of God's Things, They Are the Most Attacked! Which made me even see Him more and more and loved Him more and more!

HappyPagan:
Who says the way you practice Christianity is the right way? Are you saying the Holy Spirit isn't responsible for this foolishness?

Do you consider the acts of your fellow Christians foolish?

Those are not Christians. Those are people doing theatre art, Mount Zion movie productions.

HappyPagan:
Cool opinion. Why do you think so?


What creations? Everything you see around you was designed by man - the device in your hand, the network through which you are able to communicate, the letters you see and type, the language you speak. What did God design? What is God's purpose?


Does God exist, because an airplane or bird does?


Did God come by mindless chance?


What's your argument for God's existence? You are just ranting.

Wow, see the madness!

We are talking about the whole what we see in this world, this one is talking about toys! Choi

They download the app of how to be sanely-mad!

OtemAtum:
Even Jehovah your god who is currently in his spiritual cage knows that the brain of me Otem is a thousand times more advanced and developed than his own. As for your fiery fairy furnace, it can only burn fairies and not me, the master of Jehovah your god who is in our cage.

You don't mean it?

You, who your mother bleeped a certain man and shat out of somewhere around her yansh area, kept a Mighty and Invisible person, in a cage, like a laptop to a laptop bag?

Ehen, are you the madman I see on the way to work talking to broken and discarded bottles and boxes at NEPA junction? I think you so! Ok, you also know how to use Nairaland, interesting.

I understand now!

MuttleyLaff:
Due to operating in a different time zone. When its 7:55am where you are, it is 3:55am, where Tamaratonye5 is

Oh, thanks. That explains many many things and why she is not capable of holding a normal and proper debate with the usual binds and expected response time, so that it could be received as her truest thoughts on the subject and not afterthought.

Which I think many of her responses here have been Afterthoughts or Copy and Paste while hiding under the cover of Foreign Territory.

If she can not attend to issues promptly, then all she says here are not true and cannot be believed for no reasonable person desires to act on a Lie eg telling people that you can now travel outside the shores of Nigeria like you are going to your village, no passports or visas, just point yourself to any country of choice and move.

And do you see how she fears Natural Truths but
loves Test Tubes and Lab Conjectures and Speculations?

As if we live inside their laboratory where they are gods, changing the climates of their laboratory world and doing all that they like there. Yet she thinks it good thinking that after all their exertion of godship in their laboratories, they are now gods of the sun and the sun would obey their Instruction or the for the tap water in their labs, they can control the seas and floods. And then they get mad when we call them foolish.

Coupled with the laughable that an Explosion Created Things , oh Crazy.

Thank God she is a Chemistry and Science student, therefore scientifically, can an Explosion Ever ever Create any thing?

Is it not the job of an Explosion to Destroy or Scatter or Disintegrate? I am a science student too.

, when we call them crazy now, they'll start to shake like one racked with a bolt of epilepsy, gbidigbidigbidi!

Tamaratonye5:
. This is hands down the most incoherent rant I've ever witnessed yet on any of the countless online fora, lol. Your rant about my name being the icing on the cake. The name is right there (Tamaratonye), glaring and not hiding unlike your god, wtf are you blathering about? A word of criticism if I may, unless you were being ironic, Dtruthspeaker is about as unsuitable a pseudonym as I could imagine for you. Have you considered Dblindpreacher? It seems more apropos to your posts.

As per the highlighted - yes you do, and that is the standard expected by the one who is not convinced. You just don't like it when atheists request more than just "gotta have faith" because, let me tell you: deep down inside, you know there is zero evidence of a god.

But in the interests of fair play, if we’re talking about truth-values of assertions, and their conversion into true or false postulates, there are two currently known reliable method applicable to said assertons, viz:

[1] Error free derivation in a relevant formal system (see, for example, various subsets of pure mathematics);

[2] Correspondence with observational data (see, for example, the physical sciences).

If you want to bring a different methodology into the arena, you have to establish that said methodology is reliable first, before demanding that we accept it. Failure to do so will simply result in much ridicule aimed at your direction.

It also became problematic when you already exposed your agenda to an embarrassing extent below:


As someone who paid attention in chemistry class, I resent your implication that experiments in test tubes fail to meet rigorous standards in this matter.

Summary: You are just afraid of the failure of your assertions to meet the relevant criteria, so you’re seeking in advance to skew the operation of the arena of discourse by handing special privileges to your assertions.

I noticed you come out here in the morning, so I am going to raise a Thread just For You, and I'll battle you there.

i give you the option of laying the Rules of Engagement. (Which you will refuse as is your practice)

Should you reverse the choice of the Rules of Engagement to me as you usually do, I thus set and Choose, All the Rules of Natural Truth, the Evidence Act, Natural Law, The Objective Ordinary Reasonable Man and Prohibition of All Fallacies of any kind, And Directly Answering Reasonable Questions put forward to you in a Positive way that Resolves the Question eg what is your name? Answer= my name is Tamaratonye (which you hate doing).

Ehen, no after-thoughts and You Must stay online to proceed with the argument expenditiously.

Put forth your own Rules of Engagement that I may meet you therein. (Even this one, argument go still enter am )

Thank God tomorrow na weekend so she no go get reason to dey talk only once a day like malaria medicine.

Tamaratonye5:
. This is hands down the most incoherent rant I've ever witnessed yet on any of the countless online fora, lol. Your rant about my name being the icing on the cake. The name is right there (Tamaratonye), glaring and not hiding unlike your god, wtf are you blathering about? A word of criticism if I may, unless you were being ironic, Dtruthspeaker is about as unsuitable a pseudonym as I could imagine for you. Have you considered Dblindpreacher? It seems more apropos to your posts.

As per the highlighted - yes you do, and that is the standard expected by the one who is not convinced. You just don't like it when atheists request more than just "gotta have faith" because, let me tell you: deep down inside, you know there is zero evidence of a god.

But in the interests of fair play, if we’re talking about truth-values of assertions, and their conversion into true or false postulates, there are two currently known reliable method applicable to said assertons, viz:

[1] Error free derivation in a relevant formal system (see, for example, various subsets of pure mathematics);

[2] Correspondence with observational data (see, for example, the physical sciences).

If you want to bring a different methodology into the arena, you have to establish that said methodology is reliable first, before demanding that we accept it. Failure to do so will simply result in much ridicule aimed at your direction.

It also became problematic when you already exposed your agenda to an embarrassing extent below:


As someone who paid attention in chemistry class, I resent your implication that experiments in test tubes fail to meet rigorous standards in this matter.

Summary: You are just afraid of the failure of your assertions to meet the relevant criteria, so you’re seeking in advance to skew the operation of the arena of discourse by handing special privileges to your assertions.

See, yadayadaya, chitty chitty chat chat

You do not want to Stand by Anything and fall with it.

I understand it is the Law that a man should not be compelled to convict himself, in this case, herself

So, this matter is hereby struck out for lack of cause of action and want of diligent prosecution!

Registrar, please call the next case!

Corolla or Camry or Prado can never ever know Mr Toyoda until Mr Toyoda comes to them to say "hello, I am your Creator!".

I have those 2 songs, have you tried "Aftermath" Album?

I Love Hillsong music and I always look out for them Only after I have soaked every new one I picked into my soul.

Have you heard mountain, awakening, Behold? Let me stop.

Dis whole argument no make sense.

She dey challenge Christians, dem answer, dem go rechallenge am, she no go answer but go answer by rechallenging the rechallenge, like table tennis wey ball no dey drop make person catch point.

But ball no gree drop nor person miss. We just dey turn our head or eye from one person to the other, till neck and eye dey pain person.

Very Boring!

Abeg make this travel go past.

Tamaratonye5:
That's risible nonsense. I think you mean an inverse fallacy as well. Fallacies that appeal to ignorance to reverse the burden of proof though are argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, which is what your question was of course, an appeal to ignorance fallacy, to reverse your burden of proof for your belief, and move it onto those who don’t share that belief. It's your belief, so the burden of proof is logically and epistemologically entirely yours. I'm also getting a sense you're trolling now.

Mister man, as per the quotes above, you're going to have to join the dots for me. You asked why I didn't believe in a deity. I answered because there is no objective evidence, then asked you what objective evidence you could demonstrate for your god claim. You then used irrational sophistry to obfuscate, and avoid answering, instead demanding someone who don’t believe give a pro tem definition of what she will accept as evidence, which is absurdly irrational and dishonest. I politely pointed out that since it's your claim a deity exists, it is for you to define and demonstrate what evidence you have. Bizarrely and equally dishonestly, you tried to label this irrational?

Of course you have already failed to offer any objective evidence, and it was clear to me, as I have seen such sophistry many times on here, that you were asking a loaded and irrational question so you could circle back to it and pretend the blame for you failing to demonstrate any objective evidence was somehow the fault of atheists who set an unacceptable standard.

[1] I shan't waste any time defining objective evidence, as it is a self defining phrase.

[2] I set the same standard for all claims, not just your god claim, so there is demonstrably no bias on my part.

[3] You are undoubtedly heading for a special pleading fallacy, that asserts your god claim be ring fenced from this standard, I've seen it many times before.

[4] Number 3 illustrates fairly obvious bias on your part, and not on the part of the atheist here.

[5] If you discard the need for objective evidence to support claims, what then is your criteria for disbelieving anything?

[6] What justification can you offer for making an irrational exception for your god claim, and deciding it need not be supported by objective evidence?

[7] What rational justification can you offer for cherry picking which scientific facts to believe, based on whether they contradict your religion's archaic creation myths or not?

[8] Since you've indulged in sophistry regarding the burden of proof so early in the debate, what evidence would you accept that invisible garden fairies, undetectable in any empirical way, are real?

Any statement spoken in truth to bring about a change, even though adverse is not a Troll (now you go fight dis one)

"It's your belief, so the burden of proof is logically and epistemologically entirely yours"

And I very clearly answered that I was going to respond to and discharge the burden BUT how are we going to know that my burden has been Rightly Discharged and shifted to you, if We Do Not Have A Standard for Determining when we can both agree that the burden has passed. (U go still fight dis one too, infact I know say you go fight d whole thing I don talk as Miranda say "every word or statement you make shall be used against you" whether properly or not)

Especially as Atheist such as yourself are known to Always Change their Argument and Position, Lie and Breach every Standard of Reasonable Healthy arguments that lead to a proper and concluisive end, not an argument till eternity which is not profitable to any reasonable person but an Atheist or Satanist or Hater of Truths.

So All these grammar was just to obtain from you what are Truths to you, Established Truths, like You can not walk through walls Truth or can you? Or you can not live in the sea as a fish or you can not fly as a bird Truth.

I Stand on Truths seen in Nature and on Natural Law, I stand on it and I will fall with it.

But you have not disclosed your own Truths and neither are you willing to commit yourself to Any Certain Ground nor do you wish to stand or fall by anything.

So how can we know that what you say is True and it should be acted upon?

And I had commited myself to answering whatever reasonable question you may profer but you are not willing to disclosed your own grounds of standing for testing and verification as you wish to do to me.

For clearly we have opposing grounds, I Believe in the Most High, Creator of All, whom we call God, including all that represent Him, you believe in big-bang (I think, for you said so to another person)

So you have a case against me, I have a case against you.

On what basis of Truths are we going to measure the validity of our cases, for the basis must be upon Truths, Natural Truths, Seen and Proven by Nature, (Like if you walk into the sea until you the water covers your natural head, for one hour, you shall die Truth) Not Lies and Imaginations and conjectures which we have seen have killed people or put them in trouble.

I would have raised up a thread challenging you directly but I can see that you do not positively and directly answer a question put to you eg if i asked what is your name? Instead of answering " My name is Susan, nnenna etc, You shall answer "what is my name or what do you want to do with my name or some other evasive and counter response.

If you you are using this thread to practice evasive maneuvers, you've done a great job and there is nothing to be gained in arguing with you.

But I think you are doing more than play evasion but you are also trying to show the weak strength of your conviction by hiding and preventing your weaknesses from being challenged, which itself, is the Proof of Weakness for it is Seen, A True Strong Man Opens Himself to Challenge Both Weakness and all like Goliath did BUT a fake and false "strong" man only shows his strength and hides his weakness, THUS, HE IS WEAK!

That is the difference between I together with the All Mighty and weak you.

Whilst We Are Always Ready for a Challenge Anywhere, Anytime, day or night you have to adequately prepare ensuring that the circumstance is favourable to you (meaning there should be some chances to cheat and play unfair).

For your convictions can never be established on a fair fight, which is why you are not willing to commit, even when I have clearly asked you to lay the rules of engagement, so that I would show Nairaland, that your convictions are founded on a Lie and not On Truths!

But you love to make a contention out of a contention and in the end, many words fly all over the place and nothing is resolved.

I am sorry I do not participate in vain arguments and arguments to eternity.

For if you asked me, bonafide, what is my name, I would clearly answer you Dtruthspeaker.

MuttleyLaff:
Extremely right on the money apt responses. I just wanted you to spell out your submission. Thank you very much

I appreciate it

MuttleyLaff:
Out of creating a test suite with at least two test cases, the test data will be used to test and/or check the accuracy of the comment(s) in your post.

1/ Since, in your humble opinion, all the examples of faith recorded in the Bible are based on knowledge, please explain how Abraham faith(s) was/were based on knowledge
2/ Since you advanced that "And the players possess Certain Specific knowledge about the Event!" then what Certain Specific knowledge did Abraham possess about the Event centering around him asked to go sacrifice his only begotten son, Isaac?

Sorry I did not see this till now,

1/ Since, in your humble opinion, all the examples of faith recorded in the Bible are based on knowledge, please explain how Abraham faith(s) was/were based on knowledge
________________________________________________
One, Abram knew and Understood something about God for him to Pack Up and Relocate to Any Place the Lord would direct him to.

Which I thereafter supplied to be that, Abram was seeking God out and God answered him and thus having found Who he was looking for, he obeyed.

He still maintained that Knowledge and Understanding of God up to where God was testing him on how far and strong and long his knowledge of God was, which is why, He tested the reins of his heart as David would say, and as God would say, "to see what He would do!"

And the Specific knowledge is that Abraham Knew many things about God which includes that He knew specifically that God is Good, God is God and Mighty, He knew that God would not put him into trouble and that if God told him to go to a certain place, that that place would be Good, that God keeps His Word, among other Knowledges he thereafter possessed and took hold of.

This is my humble submission.

Tamaratonye5:
I beg your pardon, what is it about "created’ you don’t understand?

See, more fallacies! You are truly a queen of fallacies.

He Clearly asked,

jamesid29:
Really not trying to derail the thread, just want you to quickly clarify the bolded. What do you mean by the universe wasn't created?

You have turned surgeon and excised the word "created’ and asked your own question, to he who asked you the question in the first.

Queen of fallacy indeed!

Tamaratonye5:
Well I might ask the same of you, since it is your belief, but let's start here…

Andl Your first answer is a fallacious, the Reversal fallacy, Shifting the burden, may be Tu Quoque.

Even to have a simple identifiable basis or standard of proof or what you would accept as Conclusion Proof is contentious, already.

cornelboy:
see you hahaha you think David did not know the Law and 10 commandments when he cunningly take Uriah's wife, send him to war and kill him
Some times one knows the good thing but because of one's weak flesh he/she chooses to do bad.

I strictly follow what the Bible teaches, the "word of life and truth".
Do you often study your Bible or just read one verse in one year and come here to talk about what your not sure of

You demanded 2 things,

cornelboy:
(1) you think that you know the truth Or you believe on (2) what you were told, not from the Scripture

I have answered to the effect that That Truth is Seen and Experienced in Nature.

Now you have Raised a Fresh Issue, no, 7 Fresh Issues of David and the Commandment and Uriah's wife and Weakness of flesh and Strict adherence to the Bible and Finally Accusing me of Reading the Bible once a year and Accusing me of talking about what I am not sure of.

From 2 simple issues Straightway to 7 Fresh issues and you expect me to think you are not an insane person?

Men, I bounce!

Can Camry create you?

Vic2Ree:
I'm curious. What is your understanding of winning an argument? Why do you believe an argument needs to be won?

The full answer is quite lengthy, but to summarise it, it goes this way.

Because we do not know everything, we are always seeking to learn, and people have a Duty to Share the Truth known to them but they do not always do so or they could be wrong which in times past have put us in varying degrees of danger, so we have learnt to test, probe and ascertain what we have received as True.

Because, when a thing is True, we can rely and act on it.

Therefore an argument does many things which when a proposition is accepted, the giver is pleased and the recipient has Learnt (win/win)

If unaccepted on invalid grounds it is still a (win/lose).

If unaccepted on valid grounds, thus rejected, it is a (win/win) if the giver is smart to know that he has just Learnt what he did not know but a lot of Nairalanders suck at this and rather than be thankful for the Learning, they vehemently fight to reject it and draw blood.

When People say a thing, we listen to act on it, lest we are burned for not taking heed to the warning sent our way before damnation as we have also previously Learnt Also, for no one knows Everything.

Tamaratonye5:
Hi Vic2Ree . Nice to see someone rooting for me lol. Either way, I'm really not trying to "win" an argument. Just want to have an honest discussion. Even if I fail to convince my co-discussant/s, I can at least hope to convince uncertain viewers who might be reading the chat. Thanks.

Unfortunately a stalemate does not sway anyone, only a win.

Tamaratonye5:
Hi Dtruthspeaker …lol. I actually have no problems with invisible deities. I also have no "problems" with unicorn. Sometimes my garden fairies and I will have issues, but they’re quite reasonable

I am an atheist because theists and religious apologist can't demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. Also the arguments presented are often irrational and flawed. I can have no problem with deities or creation since I don't believe the universe was created, and I don’t believe in any extant deity. Can you answer these for me;

[1] Which god are you referring to, please? There are many creation myths.

[2] What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thanks.

Before I proceed to answer your questions, by Your 10 Commandments up there and other Laws Providing for Conclusive Proof of Truth of a matter, let us get this out of the way, what is your measurement and standard of Proof of Truth?

Is it by Natural Truths like that popular Rock we call Zuma Rock in the place we call Abuja Truth?or

is it by speculative and Test Tube standards of truth like saying in the next 10 years a woman can be the president of Nigeria?

Xavfra:
If what I say is seen as foolishness, I love it.... I'll keep saying it...


I ain't got no time to insult you....

I did not Insult you, I simply raised an observation even if adverse.

Honourable of you not to insult but that does not stop your mouth and anus from always doing the same thing.

TimeTraveler369:
If all Christians are like you and the OP, then I think it is a religion of lunatics.

Everything must be Wrong with you if you, a full grown man, like yourself, goes on the street and ask any adult, please what is 1+1=? whether they would not call you insane.

If you want me to answer the question, you must disclose your true intention and purpose.

But since your intention and purpose is not good, you can not disclose it.

johnydon22:
If man is evil by nature, what does that say about God?

Because, God must have to contain an infinite amount of evil to consistently Chun out creations that are inherently evil.

Thank God you said "if".

Xavfra:
If you believe in god, then hold him responsible for man's evil nature

Your foolishness is boundless!

Like when you hold Him (if you can hold Him) that it would stop Him from Beating Life out of You! Or

Like you held your mother when you ate her meat and that stopped her from welting your back and face with slaps and canes.

cornelboy:
you think that you know the truth Or you believe on what you were told, not from the Scripture

as I have seen, I do say, for If there was no Scripture, Would you not know that Good is better than wickedness?

Or do you need any one to tell you that if you do not eat, you shall die?

TimeTraveler369:
Consider me a novice - someone who was birthed an Atheist, not that I am one, but for the purpose of our thought experiment.

Sir, with due respect, please answer me.

1. Is God a Christian?
2. Was Jesus(RIP) a Christian?

Thank you for your anticipated response. The answers should be Yes or No. If you need to explain, then make it brief with zero rhetoric, innuendos or cacophonies.

Ah broda do not do this to thyself, how can a Full Grown Adult not know 1+1= ?

Please, do not do this thyself and I will not be the one to pour Shit upon thy body!

Foolish Stupid People.

Let me go and ask my Prado if it knows who is Creator is, may be it would answer me.

I"LL be back!