₦airaland Forum

hahn:
Which god are we talking about here?

Which God do you disbelieve in?

For the struggle. Give it to Fela

https://venturesafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/fela-kuti.jpg

Another GEJ in the making.

The onlookers are not cheering him

wiegraf:
"Do you believe pigs can fly?"

"No"

"Do you believe piglets fly?"

"......"

Youve been told repeatedly, time and again, on this thread as well, what god is by at least tens of atheists over a few years now, yet you still insist we have not been clear. That is rude, brah, so no indignation please

Your obtuseness is also why I won't expatiate on the example I give above. Even if it's simplistic, you will fail to comprehend the most basic things and produce totally unnecessary and inane points into the conversation

Do you believe pig fly. This does not have anything to do with this :

FOLYKAZE:
the question

Do Atheists Disbelieve In Impersonal God?

Reason.

dalaman:
I don't really have time for his nonsense that's why I stayed away.

How is it nonsense?

That moon is not god and I told you that have nothing to do with impersonal god?

Or that I refused to define god in impersonal god thread?

Common, tell us you have no reasonable thing to contribute.

frank317:
you clearly dont know what u want but dont know u dont know what u want.

i told you that you will eventually shoot urself in the leg. Now u are just ranting and making ur thread look silly. You have refused to make one single point.

Mermaids are water spirit

I dont believe in spirits therefore mermaids mean nothing to me. To me mermaids dont exist.

how easily can this get?

the queston

Do Atheists Disbelieve In Impersonal God?

Reason.

Address that Ogbeni or leave

malvisguy212:
I don't believe God is impersonal. The secret attraction of this presumption is that it is easier to ignore a force than a God who thinks and feels and judges. If we can feel and love, our Maker can do all that and more. If God seems impersonal,it suggests not the shallowness of God's nature, but the
shallowness of our relationship with him. God is warm. His standards are granite. His heart is soft.

Christian theologian have argued that Jehovah is not a personal being.

Well impersonal god has nothing to do with Jehovah. Brahman is a good example of impersonal god. Whole jehovah is personal (though some theologian negates this)

Gayjesus:
Personally for me I think only stupid people(forgive my language) use the word "god". Be it an energy or whatever,it is useless to humans.

Some people have status they bow to but they run to the doctor when they fall sick. What is the use of a impersonal god when it cannot help us in any shape or form.

If someone eventually proves a personal god exists,the next question will be how it works,how did it get his powers.I will like to know and get the power for myself,not worship or have a gay relationship with it.

Chai.

What has this got to do with what I said?

Well you have a point. You make it clear that you just hate the word 'god'.

Gayjesus:
You should say do Atheist "KNOW" there is a personal god. "Believe" is similar to faith,which we cannot prove. I do not believe in personal or impersonal god. That's me personally. Knowledge is key for me,I don't do long distance relationship.

Cool.

Do you read the OP or only read the topic and started asking me to define god in your intial post?

Iatheism is disbelieve in the existence of god. I know this and stated it clearly in the OP.

But the problem I have with the definition starts with god. As in what is the meaning of this god? Is atheism resisted to monotheism, or extend to pantheism and other ism? Is atheism extend to all concepts of god?

Johnydon22 then defined the god in that context as "personal god". I could not engage him further which prompted me to ask if he and other atheists disbelieve in impersonal god. Can you pls tell me this question is not right?

Platteon, dalaman and frank317 do not know what impersonal god is but in that attempt to derail the thread turnaround to ask me to define god. Where will I start from?

This same question have been treated on yahoo answer. And it was treated fairly. No one ask anybody to define god. Even I got to learn different terms and concepts.

Atheists might know impersonal god. I have nothing to achieve asking if they know. I asked if they disbelief and reasons for their position.

plaetton:
Your threads are usually idiotic.
I seldom participate.

Your threads are rarely about mature input and discusions of facts and opinions, but are usually about childish pontifications , where you sit majestically to award pass or fail marks to contributors.

Asking whether atheists believe in personal gods is silly enough, .. Pontificating about , and casting insults about who got it right or wrong portrays even a deeper silliness and immaturity.

However, I will excuse your impetuosity of youth.

This is another fallacy.

I did not insult anyone in this thread. I carefully return insults but I try not to make things personal. Show me plaetton where I insulted you or other atheists.

Secondly, the thread is not asking question about atheism and personal god. I am asking you about impersonal god and your stance on it. This you have failed to address only to ask incoherent questions. What has god been idea or title got to do with the thread? I believe I didnt give you means to divert the thread makes you run away.

plaetton:
Funny how we are all saying the same thing to this failed thread.

Do atheists disbelieve in impersonal god?

Last time I checked, you didnt address the question than rant about if god is idea or title.

What has that got to do with the OP?

Gayjesus:
That I already know. I asked why you kept using it as if you weren't the Original Poster?

The post and poster are two different things.

And I dont remember posters are not allowed to us the word OP.

Gayjesus:
Kindly enlighten us on what a personal god is? If that is not too much to ask

The OP question is "do atheists disbelieve in impersonal god?".

And you are here asking me to educate you on "personal god".

I assume you dont know they aint different entities.

On the sub, keenn will help

keenn:
The concept of God has being 'personal' connote a force that is self conscious and can influence Activities according to his/her/it/their will.

This definition will bring about the need to appease/pray/worship/adore/glorify this/these god(s)

The reverse is the case for impersonal god.

PassingShot:
Explain yourself pls?

NOI in the last tenure claimed that previous government create 1 million job for youths. We both know this reality happens only in her paali.

Where is this 400,000 newly created jobs?

Gayjesus:
Why don't you educate us?

You kept using the word OP,are you not the OP. Is that a new slang you learned recently sir?

OP means Original post.

What should I educate you on? Impersonal God? Meet keenn

frank317:
lol... u obviously have comprehension problem, seriously.

I can laugh that off

frank317:
why should i believe in Zeus?

Who asked you to?

frank317:
does it put money in my account?
Those who worshiped Zeus must have believed he helped them in a way... why should I worship Zeus? Why should i Believe Zeus is a God. i dont give a f**k about Zeus. it makes no sense.

lol.

I don die with laugh.

What has this got to do with the OP?

Ogbeni you have derailed enough. I am now cool with the comic relief. Can you now leave pls?

Sun been god has nothing to do with impersonal god.

Zeus is not impersonal god.

The OP is not begging you to belief but asking for reasons. Since no atheist can provide this answer (how can you when you dont even know), can you pls leave just like others who run along with their tails?

While you leave, reach out to keenn to educate you what impersonal god is. Then you can come back when you know.

So now it is either I ignore you or you come forward to discuss impersonal god.

Cheers

Passingshot

Pls do not return us into paper reality of past government.

Gayjesus:
Does your personal god put money into your bank account?

Is there a special benefit you get from this personal god that other people don't get?

I'm curious to see the point of believing if I have a personal santa

lol

I said it

frank317 abeg see.

What has this got to do with the OP?

frank317:
i used ur own example against u, yet you are still shamelessly ranting.

lol

Na I was not the one who defined God as something that is worship and later says Zeus that is worship is not god but nothing.

Chairman. . . .work plenty to do here

frank317:
Zeus are Gods... Just like u said annunnaki are ett beings (for clearity sake since u are plain dumb)


I dont believe in Gods exist (i have to use the wrong english or ur own mistake so that u wouldnt be confused)



mumu... what u asked me to define is ETT (God) in this case and not Anunnaki (Zeus). And when you asked me what Zeus meant to I practically told you Zeus means nothing to me.

u are plain dumb please accept

zeus is not god, it is nothing.

We need to put that into our updated dictionary.


Lol

frank317:
I am just managing ur dumbness... others obviously dont have the patience... you bring this up? this shows how shallow your thinking is. Nobody wants to comment on your thread and you dont even realize that it is because they know your dont even know what u are saying.

Lol

Maybe you mean the OP is beyond atheists in nairaland.

No single attempted to address the OP but only drive away from the discussion into fallacy.

1. Dalaman who openly declared god as non existent turn around to ask what god is.

This is like declaring water is not on mars. And later you turnaround to ask what water is. Why are you saying it is absent when you dont even know what it is?

What makes me wonder is how other atheists fall into this red herring.

2. Gayjesus had said in his thread that god is not existing. He came around to ask what god is all over again. I thought he knew what god is before he said on his thread the it does not exist. His attempt diverting the OP into what god is fails.

3. Plaetton reel out his red herring in an attamept to divert the discussion. He came around asking if god is a title or idea. I hope he knows this before asking me again. All along, the thread is about impersonal god and not definning god. This equals failure.

4. You ran in ignorantly taking sun been called god as impersonal god. What has sun been called god have to do with impersonal god? It is clear as the daylight that you dont know what impersonal god is. Dalaman also came in calling moon god. What has sun and moon got to do the OP?

5. Johnydon22 disclosed he doesnt know what impersonal god is. He was feed but came on remarking something he knows very little about. What has infinite consciousness got to do with Brahman? Even with his little attempt at the topic, he ran away.

6. keenn is the only person that knows what impersonal god is. He defined it in a simple term and only person that address the OP. I do not have anything against his submission which is the reason why I didnt drag him along. And I am not too sure he is an atheist.

How come keenn was the only one that address the OP by defining impersonal god. He didnt open ground for debate with his submission. But he is the only intelligent individual who see sense in the OP. The remaining atheists do not know what impersonal god is and could only rant around what god is which have nothing to do with impersonal god.

So bro, impersonal god is beyond atheists. You dont know it so ran away from it.

frank317:
holy shhitt

this is getting out of hand... i must be chatting with psycho

Abeg park well make I see road pass.

You are too dumb to discuss intelligent matter with.

See how your fellas run and left you here alone to wallow in your ignorance.

frank317:
mumu... so did i ever tell you i believe gods exist?

Did you even notice the silly question you asked me when i told you Zeus means nothing to me?

You dont understand simple english ni?

How does what you posted here correlate with what I said?

FOLYKAZE:
Anunnaki are extraterrestrial beings.

I dont believe in ETT exist

Therefore when asked to define Anunnaki you say Anunnaki is nothing because you dont believe in ETT

Which kind mumuness is that?

Read my post again and see how silly your post all since yesterday is

Anunnaki are extraterrestrial beings.

I dont believe in ETT exist

Therefore when asked to define Anunnaki you say Anunnaki is nothing because you dont believe in ETT

Which kind mumuness is that?

frank317:
lol

Damn.. you have issues man. You might run crazy thinking like this. Pls stop embarrassing yourself

I wish there is an objective judge whocould tell who is really dumb.

You are contradicting yourself and took that as intelligent argument.

Zeus is a greek god. It is know as god genereally even if you dont believe in it.

Denying the obvious makes you look silly.

frank317:
ok


Yes... agreed


alright


Zeus does not possess any quality. To me, Zeus does not deserve being worshiped and revered because reasons why people do this is illogical to me. It is not God to me me despite it being worshiped and revered by others. why are u confused?


Zeus is nothing to me.

What is god to you which you disbelieve in it existence?

Nothing?

Do you disbelieve in the existence of Nothing?

johnydon22:
I will like to pretend you didnt see this post on the first page… Please i wouldn't like you to mention me again asking for my stance or asserting that i haven't made my stance clear even right from the first page.

"No i don't believe in impersonal Gods either" i hope am clear now

Lol.

I didnt see the post earlier.

But can you give us reason you dont believe in impersonal god?

And less you forget, what you wrote about Tao, Brahman and Ein Sof shows you dont even know what these gods stand for.

You obviously dont know what Tao is. Tao is about balancing yin and yang. The path of this balance is tao. Failing to keep balance in nature leads to wat we call chao and destruction of our home planet. This principle is everywhere. But tao to taoist is god. How you deny the existence of tao in natural world?

What you wrote and concluded for on Brahman is incoherent. Brahman is reality which can be experienced with pure consciousness (atman) without our physical sense organ. Hindi philosophy holds that what we call reality is an illusion (Maya) which have been distorted by our brain. Beyond our eye, there is a reality (Brahman). Practising Yoga is the way you can experience this.

What you wrote on Ein sof is fallacy. You dont even know what Ein sof stand more than infinte consciousness gilbberish.

So on what ground did you rule your conclusion on when you dont even understand basic principle of what this Gods?

And dont forget, they are not worshpped.

They are not revered or sacrifice given to them.

They dont care about human activity.

johnydon22:
I will like to pretend you didnt see this post on the first page… Please i wouldn't like you to mention me again asking for my stance or asserting that i haven't made my stance clear even right from the first page.

"No i don't believe in impersonal Gods either" i hope am clear now

Lol.

I didnt see the post earlier.

But can you give us reason you dont believe in impersonal god?

And less you forget, what you wrote about Tao, Brahman and Ein Sof shows you dont even know what these gods stand for.

You obviously dont know what Tao is. Tao is about balancing yin and yang. The path of this balance is tao. Failing to keep balance in nature leads to wat we call chao and destruction of our home planet. This principle is everywhere. But tao to taoist is god. How you deny the existence of tao in natural world?

What you wrote and concluded for on Brahman is incoherent. Brahman is reality which can be experienced with pure consciousness (atman) without our physical sense organ. Practising Yoga is the way you can experience this.

What you wrote on Ein sof is fallacy. You dont even know what Ein sof stand more than infinte consciousness gilbberish.

So on what ground did you rule your conclusion on when you dont even understand basic principle of what this Gods?

And dont forget, they are not worshpped.

They are not revered or sacrifice given to them.

They dont care about human activity.

wiegraf:
Obviously, if you could comprehend the meaning of the terms you bandy about you wouldn't ask such daft questions, hmmm?

Atheists, do you believe in god?

Long may it continue

Sorry dude, I comprehend the term atheism.

Maybe if you read the OP gently and comprehensively, you will see the angle I am driving at.

Atheism is disbelieve in God. This is all athesm is about.

The question now is what is God?

how can you tell me there is no water in mars when you dont know what water is?

How can you tell me a soup is salty when you didnt taste from it?

How can someone that claim there is no god turn around to ask me what is god again?

This rhetoric questions from dalaman, gayjesus and frank317 who only want to save face because they obviously dont know what they are saying.

You cant tell us something dont exist when you dont even know what that something is.

Just like atheism, I expect much explanation on what you guys mean by God. I know God mean lot of things to different religion. I think I have engaged you on that when you were confusing theism with monotheism. You made the mistake of defining the God in atheism as supreme monotheistic God.

This thread is opened because another atheist define God in the context of atheism as personal God. If we should agree with him, what happen to non-personal or impersonal God?

Does that mean definition of atheism is disbelieve in personal God? What happens to impersonal God? Do you believe or disbelieve it too? Reasons.

This is a very simple question. You guys can share likes and throw insults but pls answer the simple question begging for simple answer.

Johnydon22 defined the God in atheism context as personal God. What then is his stand and other atheists on impersonal God?

frank317:
Stop trying to change the topic.

Zeus is not God to me. I think this is what u should know, i owe u no explanation. I dont believe Zeus is a God despite people believing so.I don't worship Zeus. The concept is meaningless to me and I cannot rever it and worship it as supreme.

You are only running from your shadow.

God to you is something that is been worshipped and revered.

Zeus is/was been worshipped and revered.

But you are telling us Zeus is not God to you even when it possess the qualities you listed.


So tell us what Zeus is if it is not God to you. Simple question begging for simple answer. What is Zeus to you if it is not God?

frank317:
U must be the dumbest person on planet earth.

Are u trying to imply that because I said God is something that is being worshipped that means I worship Zeus?
Dont people worship Zeus in actuality? Do people not worship things and rever it, there by calling it God?
I am an atheist because I believe that that thing that is being worshipped and revered aka God aka Zeus is not real and the basis for worshiping them is illogical to me therefore I disbelieve Zeus (despite it being worshipped and revered) as God.

Where did I say you worship Gods?

If Zeus is not God to you, what is it?

frank317:
How can I make this guy understand.

Folykaze: frank, why don't you worship Zeus and Jehova, people actually worship Jehovah u know.

Frank: ohh I dont worship them because I dont believe they exist. I think the basis why people acknowledge them as existent and as God is illogical to me...so count me out.

Another fallacious argument.

Folykaze didnt ask you why you didnt worship Zeus.

You asked to define God according to your understanding

And you said God is anything that is worship and been revered.

you later came and said Zeus is not God to you. Meanwhile this is contradictory to your defintion of God as something that is worship and revered which Zeus fit into.

The fact that you are contradicting yourslef shows that your argument is false.


If Zeus is not God to you, what is it?