₦airaland Forum

^^^ For posterity: I stand completely by my arguments on the thread quoted above and related threads though the thicko above is trying to misrepresent those arguments.

Purist: LOL. . . You seem to be getting some form of gratification from simply echoing my words in the opposite direction. I won't indulge you any further.

Feel free to have the last word.

Much obliged: you are a lying and slanderous dunce and thicko.

Finally: I completely stand by my arguments on the thread you linked and the other related threads.

Purist: Seriously, Enigma, when did you turn into this? You used to be one of the sanest Christians on this forum. Now you're just sitting comfortably on the other extreme.

I am the same as I have always been. You are suffering from a certain syndrome that a number of evangelical atheists and sciolists (not necessarily atheists) suffer from when they realise that Enigma is more than capable of puncturing their pomposity and showing up their limitations.

If I had never engaged you sciolists and evangelical atheists, you would have continued to hold me in "high esteem".

{{{That reminds me of the recent "catholic" debates and how a poster said he had had the same negative damascene perception of me lol}}}}

Purist: You are a rather skillful liar, I must admit. Attempting to turn the tables by asking me for "evidence" will not do you any good. Your numerous lies about atheism being a religion on the back of a US court pronouncement are well-documented on this forum. Heck, even you just admitted to having more links to show where you have peddled these lies.

Again, your lie on this thread that you were only "using an American case to explain that (evangelical) atheism has even been held at law to be a religion" is also still there above for everyone to see. This is a patent lie that I cannot even imagine that you'd try to defend it. An extreme oversimplification of your position at best, but a lie, still. All these lies while keeping a straight face and you still have the gumption to demand "evidence"? Are you having a laugh?

It's funny to observe the way you're desperate to wriggle your way out of this rather that owning up to your sins. I guess I'm simply expecting too much from a religionist. I can only shake my head.

Ah, see!

You have yourself now conclusively proven yourself to be a LIAR

But then that was always the way of thickos; once they can not measure up on a substantive debate they resort to your kind of lies and desperate tactics.

^ You see that you are the unashamed liar now.

So where is the evidence of this "legendary" lying with straight face on my part.

As I said before, on the substantive matter you are too thick and dense and too much of a dunce to be able to understand let alone present my argument. I will not even waste my time in that regard.

However, you could show me to be this "legendary liar" ------ by producing evidence.

Addendum: apart from being a thicko and a dunce, the mumu is also a liar and a slanderer otherwise by now he would have produced evidence of his accusation about me lying and keeping straight face ------ which is supposed to be "legendary".

Purist: Look, my business here is done. I already elaborated your argument in detail and recalled all that transpired on that thread including what led to the post I first responded to on this particular thread. I have shown how you dubiously attempted to accuse me and others of appealing to authority when all we did was quote the words of people that buttressed our points. It's all there for everyone to see and reach their conclusions accordingly.

Be assured though, that whatever intelligent conclusions that will be reached by anybody will certainly not portray you in a good light. There's no wriggling your way out of this one this time.

You are too thick and too much of a dunce to be able to present my argument properly; so I couldn't be bothered.

Logicboy03: Yes, even the christians here have started moving away from that position. Some have tried to move on to claim that EVANGELICAL atheism not atheism on its own is a religion.

Of course, there is no such thing as evangelical atheism.

After I showed that the American Court of Appeal and Supreme Court ruled that atheism is a religion, Kay asked and I responded:

Kay 17: 3. Which do you contend to be the religion?? Atheism or evangelical atheism??

Enigma: I prefer to be specific to evangelical atheism. The reason is simple: to distinguish the kind of atheism of passive atheists, dogs, cows, monkeys etc from the active evangelising and miltant atheism that is evangelical atheism. Afterall, atheists sometimes proffer the duplicitous argument that atheism is simply a lack of belief in God; well that is true of dogs, cows, monkeys, passive atheists etc but you don't see them going to court to declare their form of atheism to be a religion.

From here https://www.nairaland.com/966459/arming-faithful-against-logic/3#11173552


Now this exchange is making me laugh because the evangelical atheists are desperate and want to bully, bamboozle non-discerning people into not seeing that they too are now religionists.

Nah, don't work with someone like me I'm afraid; evangelical atheism is now a religion and evangelical atheists are religionists --- some of them fundamentalists aka fundagelical atheists at that.

^^^ OK now you have the thread and link: show us the "cases" that atheists brought up to refute me.

Oh, by the way and for the avoidance of doubt: I stand completely by the arguments I made on that thread and the related threads about atheism being held to be a religon.

Logicboy03:

I didnt contradict anybody. Your lies were numerous on that thread. Nice try.

The best thing for you would be to shut up and save face.

Look, earlier I deliberately saved your blushes i.e. saved you embarassment when you pretended you could not find the thread. Remember that you in fact lied that the atheists brought up many cases. But I let you off.

If I was afraid of the link being brought up, why did I challenge you to bring the link up?

^^^ And you contradict one another on what I said about atheism being held to be a religion, lol.

Anyway, remember that my warning and condition to you still stands.

Purist: LOL. . . keep trying to deflect attention. Maybe someone will fall for your gimmicks. Just hope.

Meanwhile, your ability to tell lies and still keep a straight face when confronted with it is quite legendary on this forum. You, sir, deserve a medal.

And in those very words you are lying as is natural to dunces.

Otherwise, point to my lying and keeping a straight face.

Cool that the link is there; I can in fact give quite a number of other links where the issue was again discussed ---- specifically in two and peripherally in the others.

I am never afraid of what an intelligent person will make of my posts; and I am never bothered about what a dunce makes of them.

"Those who matter do not mind; those who mind do not matter."

Purist: . . . .

At least you did not deny that you told lies. Lying Christian. Oh wait, isn't that a tautology? . . .

As I said, any intelligent person can go to the link and make their own conclusions; they can also decide whether/when I was "lying".

It is irrelevant that some dunce makes a false accusation against me -- neither here nor there.

^^^ You always were a dunce and remain a dunce. Yep the link is there; in fact this is where my involvement started:

https://www.nairaland.com/966459/arming-faithful-against-logic/1#11156971

I am happy for any intelligent person (can't be bothered about dunces) to read through and form their own conclusions.

dfav: . . . . More comments are welcome

As you said, the Old Testament required that (some) tithes be shared with widows, orphans etc --- in other words with the needy. Similarly, the Old Testament says that he who lends to the needy lends to God.

All of these is mirrored when Jesus taught that helping the needy, the homeless, the prisoner, those in need of clothing etc ---- is giving to God.

We should therefore be wary of manipulative false teachings saying that only giving to pastors will bring a "harvest". Such teaching is oftrn couched in nice sounding but poisonous soundbites like: "the 'anointing' into which you sow determines the size of your harvest".

^^^ Good job.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol, sounds like something cool, will look it up [/quote]A propos the cat per Albert Einstein: "Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation."

[quote author=Mr_Anony]. . . Lol, If there is no conscious observer, is there a universe? Isn't it funny is so finely balanced such that it gives rise to beings conscious of it . . .[/quote]Compare Schrödinger's cat.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]. . . . I think you are missing the point. The point is that not only will life not exist, the universe would be so radically different from how it is. This is not merely about the amoeba but puddle and land around it as well as the entire planet that hosts this continent that hosts this peice of land that holds the puddle that holds the amoeba. All will be gone because of a very small fractional variation. I'd say that's a bit more than puddle thinking wouldn't you?. . .[/quote]Reading again the answer proferred to this your point, I think that answer stems from what some of them call 'anthropic coincidence' or 'anthropic principle'. However, the question remains whether the conditions are such and will be such irrespective of the observer.

An open minded person: we do not know who or what started the cosmos; there are lots of possibilities and maybe even a creator or God.

A closed minded person: we do not know who or what started the cosmos; but it cannot be God.

I'll get me coat.

ifeness: "If the theory is true"? Everything is possible! I know we have been taught many wrong things in our schools and religious places. I know this is only a debate,but the truth cannot be told but realized by every individual. If you wanna know more about the multiverse( where the higher conscious beings resides) ,you will need to let go of all belief systems and increase your frequency.

Yep, (in light of post above) 'directed panspermia' is now on its way to the thread - as I had expected; in fact reading back I see that there were a couple of indirect references to it or to a similar concept at least.

On another note, I see a claim that in a multiverse theory there would be no 'space' between universes but a 'void'! Obvious question: what is this 'void' or what is a 'void'?

Further, it also touches on the perrennial question of what is the known universe itself expanding into. I vary that a little: the 'singularity' itself existed in what dimension --- some 'space' or some 'void'? And at the big slam itself the 'singularity' expanded into what exactly?

Logicboy03: 1) You indirectly accepted Davidylan's lie about an atheist (me) appealing to science by quoting his comment and then going on to complain about scientism and other atheists appealing to science.

2) Atheism is not a religion. I and other atheists explained that the case showed that atheism is treated like a religion when it comes to free speech/freedom of expression purposes. Simple. Atheism is not a religion


3) The thread is long agao. I dont have time to be digging up threads at your will.

Whenever you find this case please bring it up --- except it does not exist.

And in that specific thread, I showed that all the lay people and sadly even the lawyer among them were ignorant and arguing blindly. And it was quite easy to do too. Still makes me laugh when I remember that thread (and a couple that preceded it on a similar point actually).

Logicboy03: Wait, even Anony has clearly moved away from Davidylan's lies of me appealing to authority. You then go on to agree with him and then give an example where you brought up an American court case first to claim that atheism is a religion (by misinterpreting the case) but atheists rebutted you with the case and more cases. Mtchew

I will indulge you on this occasion since you were at least not rude.

1. I said nothing about accusations of you and appeals to authority; it is not my business and I am not interested.

2. Find any decent lawyer; show them my explanation of the American cases that I brought up (with thanks to toba) and ask them if I misinterpreted them.

3. It is totally false what you say that the atheists brought up any case to rebut the point that atheism was held to be a religion. Please name or point to just one case that they brought up.

davidylan: didnt want to waste time earlier defending this. Obviously you are this strident because it exposed the hypocrisy of cyrexx quoting Sagan to insult christians only to find out fellow atheists are the worst offenders.

What do you mean by "reputable scientists" if that wasnt an appeal to authority? Puhlease.

The double standards of the Nairaland evangelical atheists should be rather glaring to any perceptive person.

On the science, obviously the question you have posed to them repeatedly of what experiments they themselves have conducted quite exposes them as nothing but people of faith; and not even faith in science, properly speaking, but simply in scientism.

In another respect, I remember one of them quoting some American nonces and at the same time complaining that a couple of us were using an American case to explain that (evangelical) atheism has even been held at law to be a religion.

Especially considering that the name of Carl Sagan has been mentioned at some point, I am surprised that 'directed panspermia' has not come up yet!

Some things are simply too daft to be taken seriously.

In any event, assuming even that a multiverse theory is true, will the problem of infinite regress not still come up?

I think it is necessary to put things in context. Funny as it may sound I would say that distinctions should be drawn between "tattoo" and "tattoo".

Probably, people are worried about some tattoos among oyinbos especially that could associate its owner with certain communities (e.g. bikers) or certain lifestyles (perhaps undesirable lifestyles).

But if we take things at basics, some of our own communities have always had cultural tattoos; I know that the older women in many Yoruba communities will still have the traditional tattoos on their arms. Other peoples in other parts of Africa also have different cultural tattoos.

I think this should be borne in mind ---- in addition to other questions like what kind of tattoo and for what purpose does a person want/wear a tattoo(s) etc etc.

FXKing2012: And what is the difference between the Law and the Word of God? The Word of God (the Bible) is the Law we live by.

Arguing with unbelievers is forming a union/relationship/marriage with them so MUST be avoided.

There is a website where all those cooked-up contradictions has been refuted, if you are jobless or keen enough to search for the so called contradictions then you should also be jobless or keen enough to search for where the so-called contradictions were refuted. But that is if you truly wanna learn and not just up to mischief.

In fact for blacmailers, you don't need a response beyond "get thee behind me, satan".

FXKing2012: I dont owe it to u or anybody for that matter to defend the Bible. In fact, the Word of God does not need defending.

Correct! The Bible does not say that a Christian has to give an answer to every nonsensical thing or stoopid question put to him ----- no matter that misinformed people with poor comprehension or fraudulent and duplicitous people like to quote the passage about giving reason for one's hope.

^^ And when some of them realise that the prosperity "gospel" is a bankrupt sham and fraud, they become atheists!

Thankfully, many others are wiser to think deeper and to move on to a more mature understanding of Christianity.

^^^ Dem jus dey yarn opaks.