₦airaland Forum

Boomark:
Please answer my question first.

I will use your answer to answer your own questions. Don't use questions to dodge the blunders you have already committed. I have seen a lot on this nairaland.

My friend. There's nothing you can use to justify a scripted talk in teaching the gospel to people.

Yeah, you can come together to prepare for a teaching. We do that very well in Sunday school preparations. A head teacher teaches other teachers so that they would understand the topic very well before teaching it on Sunday but there's no scripting of any kind.

I can't see any relevance of your questions to the matter at hand.Every teaching naturally aligns with the Bible. The Holy Ghost speaks His Words through the teacher, and the Holy Ghost cannot contract Himself.

I don't understand your question. We talk about alignment only. Not whether something you teach is in the Bible or not.

Boomark:
# That they rehearse before they teach.
# That men are teaching them all things
# That Jesus said the spirit will reveal all things to us.

Were you not the one that said these things or you didn't know when you were laughing and typed all these things that are full of errors. Absence of the spirit in deed?

Question:
So
1. Tell me just one thing which the spirit of God told you that is not in the bible?

I want to know part of the all things which the Spirit of God did not reveal to the the Apostles which was reserved for you alone..

So, how does that address the matter of a scripted talk? How does that absorb you of the need for inspired teachings?

jaephoenix:
a
So who created this very complex and powerful entity that created all those?

Have you now agreed that all these things were Created?

jaephoenix:
Jesus the son of Andromeda!
Is that how you challenged and won an AI?
lol 😆
Please show us a screenshot of the debate.
That is how you ranted that you floored me

I have provided proof of your flooring. Go and and disprove me.

Judas1X:
Hello .

I should probably correct you and let you know that I'm not entirely a biased guy. The fact that I enjoy coming down hard on Christians doesn't mean I'm not capable of deciphering strong logical arguments from the weak ones. I've read everything you wrote here and I agree what the angle you're pushing,... but Fxmasterz sounds like a pussy azz nigga to me. Look how quickly he folded when you tried to make the debate as official as possible . These low rent apologists don't recognize what a real debate is. Nairaland don make them feel say na by trolling and insults. That's why I refuse to debate them normally myself. I still make my reasoned arguments, but I also make sure I insult them mercilessly for hours unending until they fold like wet tissues.

But this one that StillDTruth StillDFool is running upandan like a headless chicken trying to stop people from replying to you, e be like say you really did a number on him. Kudos .

You're just running your mouth wild on this thread without any meaningful contribution other than to abuse people and call them names. What sort of human being are you? Do you have any moral training at all?

jaephoenix:
My friend, we're here to discuss the bolded above. Put the long talks aside. Now face the topic since you have now admitted you do not believe in the existence of a Creator. I can't tell you who the Creator is until you first believe there's a Creator

The above is your quote.
You're a very dishonest man. You used this antics on me. Kept denying something you said

You're very unintelligent my guy. I'm ashamed of you.

So, you don't know the difference between believing in a Creator and believing there's a Creator?

Show me where I said you should believe in a Creator!

You're a very unintelligent and dishonest atheist!

MrBrownJay1:
you are right... religion IS indeed fallacy with not a single iota of proof, while science is the opposite.

How did you prove science? By going to where the proofs are. Isn't it?

jaephoenix:
Please bring screenshot I beg you

You were perambulating all through the discussion. You couldn't even take any meaningful position. You always replied me addressing what I didn't say and leaving the real matters unattended to. I constantly reminded you of what we were discussing during the argument. Lastly, you were inferring what I didn't say, and I responded to you in the first screenshot below to show me where I said what you inferred. You couldn't even address the issue.

After I asked you to show me where I said what you said, you absconded. You didn't reply again since you had nothing to say. 5 days after that you quoted me with an empty quote. I have screenshot that quote so that your lying and deceitful self would not go back to add flesh to that empty quote and bring it here as evidence of a response. You're an unrepentant liar. You first lied that we had no such debate, then when you were exposed, you lied again that you weren't defeated. Now, show me the post you made in response to the last question I asked you bellow? That was the same way you were lying on that same thread that you didn't call me a retard until I exposed you. What else can an atheist do than to lie and walk deceitfully. You of all atheists here are the most shameless.

jaephoenix:
Whats the name of the fallacy? Or did you learn what fallacy is today?

Go and find a dictionary. I'm not using a legal term. I'm simply speaking English. If you want to give it a name, go find a lawyer.

jaephoenix:
Then point us to those intelligent theists. This dress on Nairaland are just misfits

Meanwhile, you don't measure up to anything when intelligent atheists are being considered.

Judas1X:
Dude stop being a wuss.
You don't need a lawyer. This is a debate, not the law court. Have you never watched a real debate in your miserable life? Who are the parties involved. Can you name them?

Who is this pestilent fellow that's full of cursing and all vulgarity? Is this how filthy atheists can be?

Judas1X:
Jessicarabbit, pls don't debate this subhuman battling with AI. It is obvious that he is mentally compromised. Might as well debate with a basket.

At least AI is more intelligent than you. While the AI put forth a solid rebuttal before taking a bow, you couldn't even put forth a single rebuttal. You're a mere noise maker

Judas1X:
Preparing? Dude, he ran away !

Are you still here? I didn't run away. I've been busy but I'm now back online to read all my mentions.

MrBrownJay1:
here is the reality of life:
if you take away science today from everybody's mind and throw away all the science books etc, then in 100years, there will be the exact same science/books back in people's life because science is eternal (you cant fake it)... but if you take away religion and religious books from this world, then in 100years there will be a new bunch of holy scammers with new gods and strategy and brand new scam to try to enslave people. FACT!!!!

That's not fact. It's fallacy.

Please face the topic and don't detail the thread.

jaephoenix:
So a thread where I explained how deja vu works is where you floored me? Lol 😆
Ahahahahahahahaha
Did you learn that word 'floored' today and maybe want to use it in a sentence? Cos the only thing I saw in that thread was me schooling you on how the brain works.
Please how did u floor me? Hahahahahaha
And please what did you teach me? Be specific

Come on go and sit down. We were arguing about purposeful designs and the existence of a Creator before you ran away as everyone who goes through the thread can see. Why do you love lying and dishonesty this much? You can't speak a single truth in your life ? Should I bring screenshots to disprove you?

JessicaRabbit:
Well then, I reject this format.

The idea is to have referees who have no stake in this debate. StillDtruth is not one of those people. If I wanted, I could call in Maynman or AntiChristian or Judas1x. But I don't need them here. If I need someone who leans more to one side of the debate than the other, then what's the point of making it an exclusive debate? We can as well make it a free for all where everybody can just butt in and argue against each other.

I personally don't need a lawyer. I'm more than capable myself of pointing out fallacies in others' argument without having someone else do it for me. That's the point of having referees, or a jury if you will. They will vote in the end to decide a winner based on the logical framework of their argument.

If you're not willing to reconsider this, then I'm not having this debate.

If you reject the format then you're not being sincere about engaging in a honest debate. This shows you really want to break the rules and get away with it.

kingxsamz:
Oh, I must believe in this creator which you claim very much exists before you can provide any proof? 😂😂😂
Is this how you "destroyed" Atheism?
Oga, it's either you provide proof of this creator you've been rambling about or you sit aside.
Like I said, if you won't provide proof of what this creator is, what it consists of, where it resides, how it operates and how you came across such information, you're only wasting your time.
I don't need anyone to believe I have a flying horse before I show them proof, I can simply just clear their doubts by showing them undeniable evidence.
🤷🏾‍♂️

Can you show me where I said you should believe in a Creator?

Is this thread about proof of what the Creator is? We're talking about the existence of a Creator only. If you have nothing to say, shouldn't you sit back and read what others have to say?

Boomark:
Question:

1. Tell me just one thing which the spirit of God told you that is not in the bible?

Let's see if you were laughing in ignorance or not about all truth.

How does that question relate with me?

StillDtruth:
I can't and will not always be here at the material time to point out any infraction she may make before you respond. And i'm about signing off now to do somethings things and will only come in when i.want to play here.

And you have a very big weakness going against her, she is not the ordinary people you argue with, she knows how to argue and decitfull arguments which sound reasonable but are all invalid arguments because they break many rules of debates which she knows including ones she does not know.

Then you have a second problem. She does not fight fair, she always, always fights dirty and Lies when she sees she is going to lose.

And atheism is built on Lies, so if you cannot spot or prediict the lie in advance, you would walk into trap for she guarantees that she will Lie and throw every dirty trick and misrepresentation and distortion of facts and natural Truth, so the debate will never ever be fair as you have already seen she did even from the beggining.

I recommend you do not engage her for she is not the normal people you engage.

Thanks for the heads-up. I understand the situation about you rejecting my invite.

I'll be very much at alert against her antics since I'm now aware of them. The Spirit of God would raise a higher standard against her.

I have challenged AI before challenging Atheists here. Even AI gave in. Screenshot posted below. Atheism is just lies upon lies upon lies. The more you're able to quickly spot the lies and deceits, the quicker atheism falls.

Thanks again.

JessicaRabbit:
This is not what we agreed on my dear.

We agreed to have two or three unbiased referees to supervise the debate. Think of it like a jury. None of them should be allied to one side to check the other. You're trying to make this a free for all where any and everybody can shoe in his unsolicited opinion, and I'm not having it. This is strictly between the both of us.

And DeepSight is also a lawyer. If you really need a lawyer to be involved, why involve one who has a history of dishonesty and incompetence (StillDtruth), as opposed to one who is probably one of the most revered and respected intellectuals to ever grace this forum in DeepSight.

StillDtruth is heavily biased, and if you think he isn't, then I might have to start wondering if YOU are actually interested in having this discussion. DeepSight and budaatum to the best of my knowledge are objective commentators, but if you reject them, fine. You'll also have to respect my decision to reject StillDtruth as well.

StillDtruth is my own personal referee. Not yours. He alerts me when you break a rule. He's not here to judge us or decide the outcome of the debate. Hope I'm clearer now? You might need someone Ike him beside you too who'll alert you when I break a rule.

JessicaRabbit:
Emphasis on unbiased referees.

You really believe that a guy who desperately hates atheists is a right choice? Really? 😂😂😂

He's not here as a judge but as a check for rule breakers.

JessicaRabbit:
Well I reject yours too. Can we try this again?

I have many more to pick from.

Mine is just a lawyer to check you when you break the rules. Nothing more. You might need someone to check me too.

I've not yet nominated a judge. You can try again with others on your list.

JessicaRabbit:
Okay.

As for the independent referees. I nominate budaatum and DeepSight.

Budaatum is unallied to both Christians and Atheists to the best of my knowledge. Plus he frequents these parts a lot and definitely won't have any stakes in the outcome of this debate.

As for DeepSight, I've never interacted with him personally, but I follow and observe his posts. I believe he's a deist (correct me if I'm wrong DeepSight 😁). Plus he's a fierce intellectual who's been active since around the early Nairaland days and has a track record of arguing with both Christians and Atheists alike.

I'll try and reach out to them, and if they decline. I have a couple more people to call upon as referees.

You can also make two nominations if you want.

Your nominees are in no way neutral. I reject them.

StillDtruth:
Easy man. How well do you know the rules of debate?

She knows them more than you, so, you would be in trouble if she breaks one and you don't know it.

You're a lawyer. You can join the debate and be our referee. I'll try my best to spot infractions as they come.

Thanks in advance.

JessicaRabbit:
No, no, no, no. Lol. I'm not taking this highly ambiguous response from you as a concrete agreement. I'm trying my best to avoid a debate that might devolve into trolling or pointless back and forths here. "Matured reasonings" is a phrase that sounds profound but means precisely nothing. It's just a placeholder for actual substance. Be direct with your words. Are you accepting the conditions I outlined, or are you simply paying lip service to the idea of "matured reasonings"? Can you respond with a simple "yes" or "no" to the following questions?

1) Do you agree to avoid logical fallacies, emotional appeals, and straw men? And are you willing to address them properly if you're called out for committing any of the above?

2) Do you agree that empirical evidence and scientific consensus are acceptable benchmarks for truth claims?

3) Do you agree to refrain from sentimental arguments, red herrings and unprovoked personal attacks?

4) Are you willing to have our debate moderated by objective, intellectual referees to ensure fairness and call out fallacies?

Let's establish a clear understanding before proceeding please!

Yes to all.

All arguments must be contained within the limits of the stated facts. No derailment.

JessicaRabbit:
You do realize that most atheists have better things to do than to sit on their ass all day to engage in eternal rounds of "prove the existence of God" bingo? We have lives, we have careers, and we have Netflix shows to binge. Me personally, I have a work calendar that's more crowded than a wedding reception in Lagos. In past debates, I've taken up to a month to respond to my opponent, not because I was "floored" or "ran away," but because I have priorities. Nevertheless, if you want to dance, we'll dance, but under the following conditions. Logic will be our guide: No logical fallacies, no emotional appeals, no straw men. Also, and this is very important: we must stick to the rules of reason and evidence. Empirical evidence and scientific consensus will be our benchmarks for truth claims. No sentimental arguments, and no unprovoked personal attacks that don't contribute to the discussion in any way, shape or form.

For the sake of fairness and to prevent butthurt or dishonest narratives from being peddled, I would propose that we enlist at least 3 mature, intellectual and objective monikers as our referee and judge. Someone with no stakes in this argument and who can call out fallacies, ensure we stick to the rules, and declare a winner (or a stalemate, if that's where the evidence leads). So, if you're ready to put your argument through the wringer, I'm game. But don't expect any free passes or special treatment. I'm as strict as they come when it comes to upholding the rules of logic and the scientific method.

Please respond accordingly to this post, accepting the aforementioned conditions. If you accept, then give me a mention and I'll proceed to respond to the arguments presented in your OP. Thanks.

The rules are already my unannounced rules. Matured reasonings. You're welcome to the challenge.

kingxsamz:
"What atheists are known for" is not Atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. There are atheists who believe the earth is flat. There are those who believe evolution is a lie. No matter the kind of argument you have with any atheist about life, he/she will present their own opinion about that topic. Now, using that argument you had to make a generalization about atheists and athesim is lame.
I'm an atheist and I'm sure you already know that.
And no, I don't believe in any "creator" whatever that means>
. If you know there's one, provide evidence. You must tell me what this creator is, what it consists of, where it resides, how it operates and how you were able to come across such information. If don't provide all of this then anything you say will be based on assumptions which is meaningless. ✌🏾

My friend, we're here to discuss the bolded above. Put the long talks aside. Now face the topic since you have now admitted you do not believe in the existence of a Creator. I can't tell you who the Creator is until you first believe there's a Creator!

jaephoenix:
I know being a theist makes one to be dishonest but you, my friend, have taken this dishonesty to a whole new level.
Please can you post the thread you floored me? The last thread we collided was this
https://www.nairaland.com/8183255/check-it-98-atheists-poor

And it was on Elon Musk's religion(or non -religion), where we didn't agree which it was. And I didn't run. And no, atheists don't just rush into arguments cos another atheist is there. There are some debates here I just don't fancy, or I'm not interested in, or its too boring. I won't just jump into it cos another atheist is there(especially now I want to start limiting my 'social media out-time')
So where did the flooring come into this?

Back to the topic, I wanna ask some questions before I commence. Do you believe in evolution?
I highlighted the question so you won't say you didn't see it.

Do you believe a fetus is a complex design? If you do, then who created it?

You talked about the eye. Are you aware it was a simple structure before it gradually evolved into the complex structure we are now using? If you don't know, please read up. I can't teach you everything. Same with many structures in the body. In fact some structures like pineal body, appendix, coccyx have evolved into completely useless structures.
Now there exists different types of eyes due to adaptation or evolution, like I pointed above. Example, the dominant preserved group among the early Cambrian arthropods, however, was the trilobites, which were well equipped with compound eyes from their very beginning. Humans didn’t have complex eyes at first.
Also can you point out those purposeless designs stemming natural processes ?
Also while we are at it, please can you tell us who created such an intelligent, purposeful creator? I mean such complex and powerful creature can't be a product of purposeless natural design(according to your logic)

Cha!!!

Lying atheist, I'll pull out the thread now.

This is the thread where you were floored. Very, very dishonest fellow:

https://www.nairaland.com/8177501/experience-graveyard/3#131416294

Your questions are irrelevant. Except you can't read, you would have noticed that I covered details regarding your questions in my first post. Telling me to go read is the hight of empty pride and hypocrisy. You'll teach me what I already taught you? Or you can't see my talk about natural selection and incremental adaptive changes?

This thread is about establishing the fact that there's a Creator. I'm not here to tell you who the Creator is. Yes, I believe in Evolution but I don't believe that evolution itself was not set in motion by a Creator.

jaephoenix:
Ok. So those structures and phenomena are interesting…
If you suggest they were designed, then you have a problem. The problem is they were poorly designed. The immune system for example attacks some body organs, and there are no fail-safe mechanisms to curtail such attacks. So we end up with autoimmune diseases caused by the body itself. Then you have cellular diseases due to inborn error in metabolism, carcinogenic processes etc. These were products of this 'intelligent design'. Also human birth is a messy process. You have an anus sited about 10cm from the vagina, thus you see a baby popping out and covered with feces. Even the DNA is easily corrupted to code diseases like sickle cell, thalassemia etc.
I can go on and on about the errors in this very 'intelligent design' but my point is there is no intelligence in all these

How many times would I have to tell you that imperfection does not in anyway disprove the existence of a Creator? If a car has some defects, would that mean the car has no manufacturer?

jaephoenix:
I don't know if there is a creator. Science is yet to prove it. And you cannot prove it. So rest

Counter me. I presented some clues up there.

kingxsamz:
No, coming on here to claim you "destroyed" athesim with arguments that has nothing to do with athesim is what's lame.

Please desist from making such inane statements.

Please you need to cover yourself in shame.

Openly denying what atheists are known for? Atheists argue delay in favour of evolution against Creationism with a tone that suggests that since there's no Creator, then there's no God. Who doesn't know this?

Our argument today is that there's a Creator. Atheists believe that there's no Creator. Do you believe there's a Creator? I'm asking you this question for the umpteenth time tonight.

1. DNA and Genetic Code: DNA's double helix structure, nucleotide sequence, and genetic code allow for the storage and transmission of genetic information. This complex system enables life's diversity and adaptability.

2. Cellular Machinery: Molecular motors (e.g., ATP synthase), pumps (e.g., sodium-potassium pump), and factories (e.g., ribosomes) work together to maintain cellular homeostasis, regulate processes, and facilitate life's essential functions.

3. Planetary Fine-Tuning: The Earth's:
- Distance from the Sun (allowing liquid water)
- Atmospheric composition (regulating temperature and protecting from radiation)
- Magnetic field (deflecting harmful radiation)
- Axial tilt (enabling seasonal variation)
- Water content (supporting life)

all demonstrate precise calibration for life to emerge and thrive.

4. The Brain and Nervous System The brain's:
- Neuronal structure and synaptic connections
- Information processing and transmission
- Consciousness and self-awareness
- Control over bodily functions

exhibit remarkable complexity and functional design. All purposely made to perform pre-intended functions.

5. The Immune System: The immune system's:
- Recognition of pathogens and foreign substances
- Activation of immune responses (e.g., inflammation, antibody production)
- Cell-mediated and humoral immunity
- Immunological memory

demonstrate a highly specialized defense mechanism. Purposefully designed in all complexity to defend the body.

6. The Water Cycle: The continuous process of:
- Evaporation
- Condensation
- Precipitation
- Runoff
- Infiltration

regulates Earth's climate, sustains life, and maintains ecological balance.

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field: The magnetic field:
- Protects from harmful solar and cosmic radiation
- Regulates charged particle flow
- Influences Earth's climate and weather patterns

also demonstrates a purposeful design for life's protection.

These explanations further highlight the intricate complexity and intentional functional design within each example above, further supporting the argument for Creationism.