MYND44ISANIDIOT:
Spare me that talk please. Go tell that to your government and politicians.

they have the same mindset as you, that's why Nigeria is still bleeped up.
you and Nigerian politicians are the same.

so an average man needs like 10 to 15 cups of rice per day. (on a rice diet).

daz Mr Ibu naa...

frank317:


I really don't care if I am an atheist or agnostic... I just know that theists who say God exists have not been able to prove him and so if he also has refused to show himself since I have been alive, he does not exist.
The prove that God does not exist is in the fact that out of billions that have lived and died, none has seen him... This is enough for me and I don't need to say he might possibility be real since his existence or not adds no value to my life.
Any one who makes silly assumptions i will tell them they lie.

then you are atheist since you KNOW god does not exist.
which contradicts your agnostic claim here :

frank317:



Knowing God does not exists or the God exists is not possible... This is because no one was there when it all started.

although your proof is invalid, since absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

OLAADEGBU:


I should be the one asking you that question since you believe in it.

I should be the one asking you that question you asked since you believe in it.

OLAADEGBU:

It's called an afterlife. Do you have one?

it's called reincarnation, will you come back as a man or a lower life form?

OLAADEGBU:


Do you remember what you were in your past life?

Do you know what life after death looks like?

OLAADEGBU:


See 10 reasons why I believe reincarnation cannot be substantiated.

1. It is contradicted by Scripture (Heb 9:27).

2. It is contradicted by orthodox tradition in all churches.

3. It would reduce the Incarnation (referring to Christ's incarnation) to a mere appearance, the crucifixion to an accident, and Christ to one among many philosophers or avatars. It would also confuse what Christ did with what creatures do: incarnation with reincarnation.

4. It implies that God made a mistake in designing our souls to live in bodies, that we are really pure spirits in prison or angels in costume.

5. It is contradicted by psychology and common sense, for its view of souls as imprisoned in alien bodies denies the natural psychosomatic unity.

6. It entails a very low view of the body, as a prison, a punishment.

7. It usually blames sin on the body and the body's power to confuse and darken the mind. This is passing the buck from soul to body, as well as from will to mind, and a confusion of sin with ignorance.

8. The idea that we are reincarnated in order to learn lessons we failed to learn in a past earthly life is contrary to both common sense and basic educational psychology. I cannot learn something if there is no continuity of memory. I can learn from my mistakes only if I remember them. People do not usually remember these past “reincarnations.”

9. The supposed evidence for reincarnation, rememberings from past lives that come out under hypnosis or "past life regression" can be explained—if they truly occur at all—as mental telepathy from other living beings, from the souls of dead humans in purgatory or hell, or from demons. The real possibility of the latter should make us extremely skittish about opening our souls to "past life regressions."

10. Reincarnation cannot account for itself. Why are our souls imprisoned in bodies? Is it the just punishment for evils we committed in past reincarnations? But why were those past reincarnations necessary? For the same reason. But the beginning of the process that justly imprisoned our souls in bodies in the first place—this must have antedated the series of bodies. How could we have committed evil in the state of perfect, pure, heavenly spirituality? Further, if we sinned in that paradise, it is not paradisical after all. Yet that is the state that reincarnation is supposed to lead us back to after all our embodied yearnings are over.

https://bible.org/question/what-does-bible-say-about-reincarnation

why reincarnation is substantiated.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.hinduwebsite.com/reincarnation.asp&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiN9bj2jIPdAhVJbVAKHQwjBKQQFjAMegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw1iqKL80kplYhoSuBqLj5jI

OLAADEGBU:


But not universally.

so, neither is the soul, nor heaven, nor hell, nor life after death, nor Adamic nature...

OLAADEGBU:


It shows a recurring cycle of existence which cannot be substantiated in reality.

it is substantiated in Hinduism.

OLAADEGBU:

What do you think that silver cord connecting each person represents?

link to the next life?

what's the deal with the Indian picture?

frank317:


They are almost the same thing bro... Not believing means something is not right, something is wrong. And if something is wrong, something is false.
The difference is really not much and should not be a matter of such a long debate. I am stressed out already for such little difference.

I don't believed theist have seen any God. I know no one knows how or what created the world, therefore I think theists are false. And I can confidently say there is no God until one is proved.
I don't see a big deal in this assumption. The evidence of no God is in his inability to show up or do something just the way I look at the cupboard and see no monster, thats how I look around and see no God.

There theist lie

the difference is much. one is agnostic, the other is atheistic. one doesn't have burden of proof, the other has a burden of proof. you can't have the burden of proof and not have the burden of proof at the same time.

not believing something does not mean it is not right. it means you are in doubt. you can doubt something and it still turns out to be true. when you say something is false, it means there is zero chance that thing is true. it means you know it is false and you should be able to prove it.

you say you don't believe theist have seen any god. so it means you're doubting since none have shown you convincing evidence. that you don't believe them does not make their show their claim is false.
if you said it is a lie that theists have seen god, or no theist have seen god, then you are saying it is a confirmed fact that theists have not seen god. you would have to prove this fact.

@bold, that's an attempt to prove god does not exist right there.
you say the theist lie, so that means it is a fact that god does not exist and you KNOW this fact. which conflicts with you saying that YOU DON'T KNOW. because if you KNOW theists are lying, it means you KNOW that there is no god. burden of proof therefore falls on you also.

frank317:

I can also say they are wrong because they don't have any proof.

then you would have to prove they are wrong since you've made a claim yourself. you've put yourself under the burden of proof.

frank317:



Oga when u don't believe their conclusion u have already said their conclusion false. And i know for sure that their conclusion is false because I already know they don't know. I already know no one can know.

you not believing their conclusion is not equivalent to their conclusion being false.

saying I don't believe is different from saying you are lying.

saying I don't believe means you are skeptical and waiting for evidence to convince you.(you allow the possibility of the statement being true or false).
saying you are lying means the statement is false. (there is no possibility of it being true).

frank317:


So why should I even dismiss their claim without proof of it being false?

you can dismiss their claim when they don't have evidence without proof of them being false because you are not making any claim. it is the person making the claim that has the burden of proof.

frank317:

In other word, we should not dismiss empty assumptions even when we recognize it as empty?
So ur whole argument is that empty assumptions should be accommodated. Lol. So both of u never get to visit this neighbours cupboard and ur friend keep on pestering ur life with this so called handsome monster what do u do... U keep on patting him on his back that he may be right?
Sorry... I am not that kind of person.


So assumptions that are totally ridiculous and can never be confirmed should be entertained? Going by ur statement I can tell u that I have a red lion with three heads that give me money every week under my bed without any proof.. In fact my proof is the money in my hand and u will tell me that my assumption could be true?
By the way what do u mean by "he is lying but his assumption could be true". I can see u want to just win this argument.
U don win. I give up.


The proclaimer gives no evidence and false evidence and u are asking me to entertain him? If u judge and someone tells u I killed his brother with little or no evidence wouldn't u dismiss his claim? Would u keep me remanded until he gets evidence any time he feels like? Will u say absence of evidence is not and evidence of absence and tell me to continue being under custody until accuser gets a real evidence or not?
If the judge dismiss his claim based on no evidence or false ridiculous evidence, and even go ahead to set me free as a free man does it mean he has gotten hard and concrete evidence that I am not the killer?
Someone tells u there is God and u ask ally necessary question and can't get any reasonable answer for all ur life and u say it should not be dismissed and rejected?


Oga when u don't believe their conclusion u have already said their conclusion false. And i know for sure that their conclusion is false because I already know they don't know. I already know no one can know.

I never said you should not dismiss them.

you CAN dismiss empty assumptions.

saying it is false without proof of it being false is what is the issue.

you can't say something is true without proof, you also can't say something is false without proof.

if anyone says anything without proof, you CAN dismiss their claims.

when you are listening to a claim, you can dismiss the claim based on no evidence.

but when you make a claim, you have to bring evidence or your claim is dismissed as an empty assumption.

ajl:


Which planet are you from? Wondering about elephants in Nigeria. Show that you have no clue about your country, if you are Nigerian..

shouldn't be surprising.

there is no conservation efforts here.
everything is to kill.

very soon we won't have wild life in Nigeria if nothing changes.

gidgiddy:
This is news to me. I never knew Igbo land had elephants. Even the Monkeys we used to have in my village when I was a kid have all disappeared

lala's boys been wiping all of them out.

frank317:

Fair


They assumption u are erroneously making here is that the person who said there was a monster had already looked into it before telling me there is a monster

Listen attentively:

If u have a cupboard in ur house and while at work u tell me that there is a monster in ur cupboard... I will ask for evidence and even if u cant prove it, I will still leave a chance that u might be telling the truth.
Buy if you tell me there is a cupboard in ur neighbours house and I ask... Have u been to his house? No. Did he tell u there is a monster? No. How does the monster look like? I don't know but I know must be handsome. How did u know that there is a monster that is handsome in ur neighbours cupboard Because my neigbour acts like he is scared of something.
Oga I will tell it to ur face that u are lying despite not checking (or despite my position being I don't know). Its called common sense.


I am not doing this again. But let me put this in quickly:
Where both know or both don't know... The observer can confidently arrive at the same position. Its simple. I am only confident because I know we both don't know.


Why should anyone be making conclusive statement on false evidence? What kind of thinking is that?


And why do u dismiss their evidence u are automatically saying what?

even if the person hasn't looked into the cupboard, the person's claim is just an empty assumption. you can't say it is true or false except you know.

you can tell him that he is lying and his assumption could be true, telling that he is lying implies that you know what is in the neighbour's cupboard. it is more appropriate to tell him you don't believe him as he is making an empty assertion.

it is erroneous to make a conclusion on false evidence, it is also erroneous to make a conclusion based on no evidence.

when I dismiss their evidence, I am saying their evidence does not back their conclusion, and I don't believe their conclusion because their conclusion is an empty assumption. saying their conclusion itself is false implies that you know for sure that it is false, even when you don't know.

sinequanon:


Let's not play games!

I am sure that you get the point!

The primitive folk would equally have thought that writing in the sky with pink smoke is "not possible".

And what if the, as yet undiscovered, nature of dark matter means that it IS possible to shift space around on a cosmic scale? General relativity has already shown that what we used to think of as "alignment" can actually curve in the presence of matter. There's already space contraction and time dilation in relativity and entanglement in quantum physics, without a model to explain their combinations. These things are today's "pink smoke".

However, there is nothing unusual in what you are saying. History and archaeology have recorded the tendency of mankind to worship what it cannot understand. Modern Western science, with all its flaws, is a move away from that.

It is all relative. I was once sitting on a train opposite a hippie. He picked a spider off the floor and dangled it in the air and addressed nobody in particular, "you, know", he said, "to him, we are god" (referring to the spider). That was years ago, and I still recall what he meant. Imagine a creepy-crawly that, for example, lives its life under four stones in some untouched woodland. It may think of its "universe", the woodland (if not just a few trees and rocks) as VAST. It knows nothing of the mountains, the deserts and the oceans, and maybe nothing of man and his world. All those things are at best vague shadows or imaginings in his distant vastness, much like our dark matter (a scientifically estimated 85 per cent of "OUR universe" ). Are we god because we can mow down the woodland or plant trees in a straight rows?

And, if you believe in evolution, humans were supposed to have evolved from unicellular organisms. What was our "universe" then?

What else has evolved out there? Just because our solar system seems isolated, like that creepy-crawly in a woodland, does not mean some other intelligence may not "pass by", much as we would through a woodland. It could be something we can't even see, consisting of dark matter, for example, and of "huge size" with an intelligence that makes aligning the stars like a quick game of marbles. That doesn't make it god. That only demonstrates the limit of our own human perceptions and abilities. In a vast universe, maybe we are just like creepy-crawlies living among a few rocks called the planets of the solar system.

I get the point. although I'm sure we are a bit knowledgeable about today's pink smoke that we could know when something that breaks universal laws happens.

uchkochi:
MARINE SPIRITS...WHAT ARE THEY?HOW TO IDENTIFY THEM, DEFEAT THEM AND BE FREE FROM THEM.

When you hear marine, the first thing that comes to your mind is water or river. You are not wrong, marine spirits are water spirits or spirits that comes and dwells in the river. Beloved they are real, they execute their plans by possessing either a man or a woman. The marine kingdom is one of satan's department headed by a queen, popularly known as the queen of the coast. The earth is divided into the air, the land and the sea. When God made man in Genesis, He gave him dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 1:28. God will never ask man to dominate his fellow man, so what God meant was that man will have dominion over the spirits in the sea(marine spirits), spirits in the air(witch craft spirits), and on land.

There are two types of marine spirits; we have the conscious mariners and the unconscious mariners. The conscious marine agents are those that know they are possessed, while the unconscious mariners don't know that they are possessed. Marine spirits possesses females more than males, they do so to oppress men and scatter homes, since the man is the head of the home. Their primary tool is sex. They are extremely fashion-crazy, they dress to attract on purpose, they walk to attract on purpose. This marine spirit pushes single ladies to date married men without any remorse. They take delight in breaking the hearts of their victims so as to render them emotionally unstable, once a person is unstable emotionally he is sure to make wrong decisions about other things. They neutralise the will-power of their victims through sex. They are very unstable in relationships, they cannot keep a relationship for too long, they pretend a lot and changes their voice to fit the mood they are in.

Falling in love with a lady possessed with this spirit is the worse thing that can happen to a man, because the moment he decides to end the relationship, she begins to behave well, the moment the man changes their minds, she starts tormenting the emotion of the man, constantly frustrating the man. Those who are possessed with the marine spirits without knowing can easily be delivered by getting close to the things of God and His word. Lesbianism, homosexuality and pornography are also marine initiations, they are also party freaks. This spirit push young, talented, beautiful girls into "runs". The truth is this with God all things are possible. Deliverance is possible only when the mariner is willing to be delivered. Once that person is willing, that person must go to a bible practicing church for the power of the queen of the coast to be broken. Then the person must be born again and take God's word seriously. Self deliverance is also possible with this knowledge, you can pick up the bible and ask Christ to come into your life. Once He enters, the rest is history. I break every trace and strong hold of marine spirits from your life in the name of Jesus.

OMEGA GOSPEL NETWORK.(CYBER/MOBILE CHURCH)
+2348034868232

marine spirit is not a Christian ideology.

where did you get yours from?

thats solar energy for about 100,000 people. nice.

frank317:

How is it misleading? If someone tells u there is a monster in the cupboard and u open is and see not monster, will it be misleading to say there is no monster in the cupboard?
What is the right response to this claim?


When u conclude it proves NOTHING haven't u indirectly concluded that they are false? If u accept they are false are u saying their is God? Oga there is no need being political about this... If someone lies that there is God and can't prove it and u dismiss it, reject it, say its not enough evidence.. U are automatically saying there is no God to the there is God claim...
Even if God exists he will not bite u for calling a spade a spade based on observation around u.

if someone says there is a monster in the cupboard, and I open the cupboard and see no monster, I have proven that there is no monster in the cupboard. saying there is no monster in the cupboard is correct because I KNOW that there is no monster in the cupboard. my position is not that I DON'T KNOW, my position is that I KNOW.

if however, I can't check the cupboard, I won't be able to prove that no monster is in it, and my conclusion would be I DON'T KNOW. I cannot conclude that there is no monster in the cupboard because I can't prove it. I can only ask for evidence and examine them and dismiss them if the evidence is faulty. me dismissing did not mean there is no monster in the cupboard, me dismissing them means that the evidence supporting the claim is not convincing, so I remain in my I DON'T KNOW position.

you who say that your position is that you don't know, can't use a conclusive statement because a conclusive statement implies that you know.

if they prove nothing, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are false. it only means their evidence is false.
if I say that the proof of the earth being spherical is that grass is green, and you say my evidence is false, does it mean that the earth isn't spherical?

you are not automatically saying there is no god, you are automatically saying that they haven't been able to prove god and so their claim is just an assumption.
if you say that there is no god, you make a conclusive statement, you have moved from your I don't know position to an I know position.
you've moved from you don't know if god exists to you know god does not exist.
and once you are in a position of knowledge, burden of proof lies on you also.

frank317:

U are deliberately ignoring my point just to repeat something I have already cleared. We should be past this by now my dear Gggg.
Atheists who say no God are only responding to theists who (we have accepted do not know how the world started) say there is God. Atheism is not concerned about how the world started... For me, it could be started by a rolling ball for all I care but I know we all do not know. Atheism arose because of false claims from theists all over the place. We are the voice of reason that is asking the right question... You say there is God who does blah blah blah, prove it! If they can't we conclude that they remain ignorant and reject their "there is God claim" bexause, as we know, no one knows.
Of course if there is God and he has not proven himself, it matters not if we believe or not and that's not the atheists business. Our business is that when someone claims there is God and can't prove it, he lies or he is wrong that there is God... And the fact is that based on the knowledge available to us, based on. Human effort, we have sensed no God... So the appropriate status quo should be, no God until one is found.

I am not repeating this explanation again.


No I say because they don't know and can't prove their assumption, they are wrong. This is a valid conclusion I am sure. We are directly responding to theists and not concluding on the situation of the universe itself. We have no knowledge of that.
Recall when theists say there is God, they over blow it, call it names, pray to it, worship it, claim he loves and helps them, sacrifice to it... All these indicates they have formed a false God concept and we say this false God concept does not exist. Hence the statement no God.

If we already accept that no one knows how then can't I confidently dismiss false claims.
Again.. Atheists saying no God are responding DIRECTLY to theists who make false claim that their is God. If God exists and has not been found of thousands of years so far... We will continue saying no God as a counter to all false assumptions until he is found. We cannot not pretend a God no one has ever ever seen exists.

If u have a question pls ask, but I beg u, do not related the same absence of evidence blah blah blah... Its irritating.

then saying no god is misleading, because saying there is no god is conclusive, and I'm quite certain some use it conclusively.

saying that theists evidence prove nothing is enough. you can dismiss their claims based on the fact that they do not have evidence.

frank317:

What does it equate? On what basis am I even rejecting their assumption? Isn't it in the basis that no one knows how the world came to be? If I accept that no one knows what else should I do with false laughable assumptions with no prove from year to year?


How can they be right when 1. No one knows how or what started the universe. 2. They are just assuming based on ignorance. 3. Their ideas are as laughable and ridiculous. 4. They have no prove just emotional appeal.
If we agree we don't know, why shoulnt I reject assumptions from someone as ignorant as I am?


Dismissing their claims means rejecting it and calling it false. If I cannot reject and call it false, then I cannot dismiss it.


I am only saying God doesnt exist based on the false ignorant assumptions that were put up to me. Yes its an assertion of fact, and the fact that there is no prove of any God.
When man says there is God with no idea what God is... He is definitely wrong

it equates to you rejecting their idea and nothing else. if you state that NO ONE knows, how do you make a statement of knowledge.
1. you claim no one knows.
2. you also say no god exists.

if NO ONE knows, then how did you know god does not exist?

argument from theists ignorance, is also argument from ignorance.

you say because they don't know therefore it doesn't exist. that is false. that they don't know does not mean it doesn't exist.

absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

sinequanon:


You still sound as if you are hedging your bets!

Anyway, I hope we have settled the definition of the experiment and there won't be any significant adjustments to it.

All I think we have so far is an entity, somewhat more "powerful" than we expect.

Let's do a thought experiment...

A scientist discovers the language of a primitive tribe of people living in isolation in a forest. The scientist arranges for a fleet of fighter jets to fly over this isolated forest, blasting out a message in pink and green smoke that it is a message from god. The primitive people have never seen a bicycle before, let alone any powered technology like a fighter jet. Are they justified in thinking that the message is a message from god?

they would be justified.
however, you can't compare blasting pink smoke to realigning stars. realigning stars is not possible.

sinequanon:


It's OK, I am not trying to be obtuse. I just don't want LARGE gaps in the description.

So, say we predicted for September 1st, the position of thousands of stars in the sky, but when we look out that day, the stars are way out of position, and they spell out in all the languages you have specified, "THIS IS A MESSAGE FROM GOD TO MAN. I WANT YOU ALL TO BE GOOD, ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH AND TO END VIOLENCE." And the resolution of the letters is at least as good as the resolution of the words on a computer screen for anyone to read.

So, I am going with the spirit of what you are saying ( if you don't mind the pun).

But does it actually mean evidence of god?

what else could it be?

Glycolysis:
OK....I do appreciate your openness & sincerity here.

thanks.

sinequanon:


Is that it? Is your experiment defined? Or are you going to add more later.

(Note: I am not asking anything that would not be required in a scientific experiment. You wouldn't be supposed/able to add extra rules and to reject results in a real scientific experiment.)

in recap,

god realigns the stars to give specific description of himself and specific information about what he wants in major languages that are understandable without middle men. this would be seen all over the world and would be recordable by anyone.
the message is written one language after another to ensure uniformity all over the world.

Glycolysis:

I guess you saw were I said from my personal experience ,right ?
I could only speak for the one I know,which I stated clearly ,that others could also have their views & opinions too....

But,can YOU,without doubt,agree that a supernatural being (s) does exist ?

not without a doubt, bit I accept the possibility of the supernatural.

sinequanon:


Let me show you why you need to be precise.

An astrologer could have stepped forward and claimed that, yes, god has aligned the stars and written a message written in an ancient "major language" which too many of us have forgotten, and it says [consults chart..] "blah, blah, blah.." (ehm.. face north-east three times a day, call my name, cross your heart and declare yourself my humble servant.) In fact, the astronomer claims that all the really major languages of god have died out.. god still writes in them, but we have forgotten them..

Then you would start adjusting your experiment (shifting the goalposts) because you have not been precise enough. Then you'd probably try to blame me for exploiting the gaps in your experiment.

But, I am giving you the opportunity in advance to be more specific..

by major languages I mean: English, French, Spanish, Swahili, Chinese, Hausa,...
and there would be no need for astrologers to interpret anything. astronomers would just look at it and read it like they read books. it could even be visible in the night sky so that common people would read it also.