Martinez39s:
, HealerH made his god's identity and attributes as abstract and elusive as possible, all in the cheap attempt to avoid any scrutiny and exposure of any flaw in his god concept. If someone points out something wrong with his implied god idea, he will simply say "that's not the god I am talking about."

So you cowardly avoided that last post.

I make the identity of my God abstract? God dey get identity?
Do you even know what an identity is? Tufiakwa.

You should ask me what's the nature of my God. It's simple. The nature of my God is my nature. You want to see my God, come see me. But when I'm no more, He ceases to exist "for me". (I told you I don't believe in life after death). Someone else might discover Him when I'm gone and He'll continue existing for that person. I won't be there to give a damn. For the moment, it's just He and I. What else do you want to learn kid?

1Sharon:


What is the name of your God?

The name of my God is Healer. Now do you believe in Him? .
Dumbness overload.

Martinez39s:




SMH. I leave you to your delusions and dishonesty. My hand no dey for your matter again.

Why didn't you comment on that part of my text you cancelled?
You ran out of ideas? ; D
Chai.

Ogbeni you made my Sunday. I got free entertainment from a goofball.

Entertain me one last time on this reflection I'm going to pose for you.
You know that if two scientists are debating on the authenticity of an experimental result, each of them is expected to back their claims with logical demonstrations conforming to scientific norms. Let's say the experiment was on this equation : " If 666x + √16+5² = 3, then x = 33."
One of the scientist claims that the equation is correct, meaning that x is equal to 33. The other refuses claiming that x is not equal to 33. And he demonstrated his claim and showed how he got 31 instead.
This is how scientific debates should be. And I've been thinking that's what we should be doing here. But the absurd thing about the one we have been doing on this topic is that the second scientist refused to say what x is. He refused the other person's answer but couldn't present his own answer. And this second scientist is our atheist.
If you refuse the proofs believers have been giving you that God exists, then give them a proof that God doesn't exist.

And listen carefully. This proof must be 100% a scientific result from you and not a deduction of hearsay. It must not be a continuation of someone else's experiment. Don't tell me, "The believer believes God is all loving and kind yet I read in his Holy Book that God killed people. So God doesn't exist". No. You must base your claims solely on your experiments just like the second scientist I talked about did. His experiment was not a continuation of the first scientist's experiment.

Now there you go. I want to see you blab around on this... Or avoid it like coward.

That state of that road is embarrassing.
You'll be traveling from Ghana to Nigeria. You leave Ghana, traverse Togo, traverse the Republic of Benin and you see no potholes on their international routes.
Then you enter Nigeria... I won't say you're going to see many potholes on the Lagos-Badagry international route. I'll rather say you'll see few roads on the pothole.
It's so embarrassing that when your Ghanaian and other West African friends with you ask you if this is Nigeria, you feel tempted to say "No, it's Biafra".

Martinez39s:
There is no confusion or irrationality in atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods and deities; this lack of belief is virtually due to the absence of solid evidence and sound argument for the existence of any gods or deities. No believer has ever presented any of these.

Awon sophist.
So atheists don't believe in God because of the absence of solid evidence and sound argument for the existence of God. By this you want to let us believe that atheists are eager to believe in God if there are proofs and evidence of His existence. That's to say they seek God too. Now I ask you, who's supposed to provide this evidence of God's existence? Believers? Why? If atheists are eager to believe, why depend on others to believe? What does these "others" have better than me for me to condition my belief on their evidence?
You're a poor sophist.
An atheist doesn't believe in God not because someone was unable to give him solid proofs of God's existence, but first and foremost, because he (the atheist) is unable to give himself solid truth of God's existence.
So if you're unable to give yourself solid proofs of God's existence whereas I was able to give MYSELF solid proofs of God's existence, why do you come asking me to share with you my proofs if not because you're a loser. Aren't you supposed to be ashamed? And when you approach me to ascertain how I got my proofs of God's existence, aren't you doing so because I'm your last resort to the knowledge of God? If you have any other resort, why ask me to demonstrate how I discovered God? What's the other resort you have.



look at this

Martinez39s:
If it turns out that my blind trust in the scientists' report that we breathe in oxygen is wrong, I lose nothing and my life moves on without any consequences on the eternal destination of my supposed soul...
god's existence is of utmost importance as a belief or disbelief in his existence has serious consequences, both to a believer's eternal destination and to his/her system of religious beliefs. Hence, it is pertinent that a proof of god be demanded. Besides, there are many gods out there. Wouldn't evidence be useful in locating the real god so that we don't worship the wrong god and end up in the ''hell fire''

I believe in God but I don't believe neither in the existence of souls, in eternal life nor in heaven/hell fire. This atheist believe in all these.
Ogbeni how can you be more religious than a believer?
Chai. I just realized you're not discussing "belief in God" with me. You're discussing " a religion's belief in God". And you have a problem having a personal relationship with God because your view of Him is conditioned by religion. Religion is nothing but people's opinion of God. And it's unscientific to depend on opinions when seeking a truth. The truth/God is, independently of any religion.
The ideas of eternal life or the existence of soul or of heaven is exclusive to certain religions and not to all believers of God. This is what these religions deducted from the experience they have made of God. Ogbeni grow up! Go have your own experience of God and stop depending on people's opinion.

Martinez39s:

Human life shows no evidence of divine presence or intervention

Gan gan.

You don't believe in God but you know what a "divine presence" and "divine intervention" feels like. You know what is "divine"? It's something that has to do with divinity, with "godnessness". So you haven't had an experience of God but you have had an experience of godnessness.
Never knew one can perfectly know what an egg is without knowing what a hen is. . Chai. Laugh don kee me.

Martinez39s:
Given these promises and the fact that abrahamic gods do purportedly intervene in human affairs (usually in a range of manifestations from direct utterances, or through a prophet, to supposed signs, miracles and wonders.) and clearly answers prayer as promised or as seen in instances in the holy book, it is safe to ask why grave injustice, great misfortune, and evil exist, even against ardent and kindhearted believers? Why all these despite his promises and instances of miraculous intervention in the bible and other holy books?

Nna nawa o.
What concerns me with your abrahamic religions? What concerns me with miracles? What concerns me with the Bible?
My friend I don't discuss God from a religious perspective. I'm on a scientific discussion of God

Martinez39s:
Why does the self-proclaimed almighty and great healer seemingly do nothing when christians, however young or old, perish painfully and die of terminal diseases despite their prayers to him and faith?

Ehmmmm. I think you should go ask Christians that. Whatever Christians say about God is based on the experience they had of Him. My experience of Him is totally different. The experience I made of God is one that rejects the pejorative meaning of suffering. What you call suffering is what I call life. I "celebrate" the birth of a new baby the same way I "celebrate" the death of a man. Life and death are things God created and none of them is evil, for nothing God created is evil. The only evil (and consequently the only suffering) in life is the one created by man.

Martinez39s:


"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
''Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
''Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
''Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?''
[right]--- Epicurus (BC 341-270)

Blah blah blah.

Martinez39s:
On a more serious note, HealerH didn't specify his god, but he did say ''And I'll tell you this truth, whereas I discovered God by His grace in me and also through my extraterrestrial reflection on his creation,... .
.

He also insinuated that pastors are given their wealth through god, and we know the god pastors claim to serve.

Eyaa. I repeated it many times... Common sense is not common.
In that line I was exposing an atheistic apology according to which atheists refuse to believe in God because of the lavish life some pastors are living. How absurd can that be? You don't even know if the person truly believe in God. Then you insist you won't believe in God because of their lifestyle. Is it the Pastor's lifestyle that conditions the existence of God or does God exist independently of whatever lifestyle and opinion people have of him.
Common sense is rare these days.

Martinez39s:

For someone who talks about an elusive god, it is important that you identify your god and communicate his attributes, so that people can properly scrutinize your god claim.

You're so confused.
Your text here make me want to believe you grasped the difference I made between "a god" and "god".
Why did you use the expression "your god"? Isn't it because you realised anything said about God is relative? And if all these opinions are relative, how did you get to make a totalistic conclusive remark from relative opinions? Don't you see you're a wack scientist?
And does scrutinizing "my" God means God doesn't exist? Since it is "MY" God, should the irrationality in my conception of God insinuate that "God" doesn't exist or that "my God" doesn't exist? Common logic.
Oh. Maybe you're trying to say "my God" is the only one true God that's why his nonexistence implies the nonexistence of God and consequently, the logic behind atheism. Show me where I made such claims in my tests.

hopefulLandlord:
Ontological proof is a stupid argument. I doubt you even know about 80% of what you've been writing here but simply blurt out words to sound knowledgeable

Y'all should get the hell out of my post if you'll keep discussing proofs of God's existence. This post was not created to discuss that. Let whatever argument you make here have it's source from my post.

I'll be spitting wisdom school.
I'm here for biz.

I said I discovered God with critical reasoning and I can boast about it before any atheist because what he was unable to do is what I did.

One lazy God-seeker came asking me to show them the God I discovered? Lol.

You called yourself a scientific thinker. Yet you ask me to show you a result of an experiment you never was present to witness. Are you telling me you'll believe this result if I present it to you?
I suppose No. I'm giving you a benefit of doubt of common sense. As a scientific thinker, you probably want to analyse the method I used to discover God and see if it respected the scientific norms of research. (This text in parentheses doesn't concern the current reflection but I'm putting it here to remind you of a very important absurdity I will be revealing in another commentator's post. The person criticised me for not taking metaphysical considerations in a reflection I did whereas everybody reading this post knows this post is targeted at atheism and atheism don't make room for metaphysics in a dogmatic way. Whereas the person I'm currently replying wants to know the scientificity in my discovery of God, another person wants to know why I didn't limit scientificity of reflection and give room to metaphysics. Confused people trying to drag me into their confusion)

Back to the current reply.
What are the scientific norms of research? I won't list them all. I'm just going to point out one that my critique is ignorant of. It is the norm which demands that the same apparatus/apparati used in an experiment be used in any other experiment that wants to ascertain the authenticity of the first experiment. Now the fundamental apparatus I used in discovering God is my reason. Someone is asking me to give them the result of my experiment so that they can verify it with their own reason. Anyone told you reason has a scientifically determined universal standard? Are you not a quack scientist for not knowing this?

I stated it clearly in my post that each person make their experience of God (discover God) in a relative way that can never ever be universalized. And in all my text, you never found me universalising any particular experience made of God.



Another person countered my scientific comparison of "adherence without proof" to one's maternity and to God. He said the two are two different things that should never be conpared. Lol.
This is the commentator I meant when I said someone criticised me for not making room for metaphysics in my analysis. Now let me hit him the akpako of wisdom.

First off, bear in mind the object of my reflections is the philosophy of atheism. And I stated in the beginning of my text that atheism is a failed attempt to discover God with reason and this attempt rejects FAITH (Metaphysics). I'm on this post to confront atheism on their own terrain. My terrain is fundamentally metaphysical (I'm one of the most profound metaphysicians to ever walk on earth. Help me drink 200 liters of water if you feel I boast a lot). I refused to use my main weapon (metaphysics) to confront atheism. I used pure science that was 100% percent constructed on reason.

I used universal laws of science/reason in my confrontations (I don't know where else to insert this peace of knowledge so I try to put it here. I hope it doesn't digress from the current discussion. It's about the nature of scientific method. Do you know, science don't give a damn what your result is. What interests science is the procedure that led to your result. That's why this fellow is not asking me to show him the God I discovered so he can believe in him but because he wants to analysis the procedures I used). Lemme show you one or two examples of a universal scientific law before going on.
1+1=2. This fact is true anywhere on earth (anyone who defies it does it through dogmatism). Anywhere on this planet, whatever you throw up must fall down to earth (whoever tells you otherwise is being dogmatic and tell that person to get the hell out of my post). Anything on this planet that is corporal must have mass and occupy some space. These are universal scientific laws. Atheists adhere to them and I decided to have this intellectual rendezvous with them on these laws.
Now the problem I discovered in atheism was not specifically on these laws: it was in the reverse version of the laws. If one of the universal laws of science stated that whatever is thrown up must fall down, the reverse version implies that whatever that fell down MUST have been thrown up. These is where atheists made a caricature of themselves.
To formulate this reverse version in words, it means that «anything that is in motion started from somewhere» and this "somewhere" must have an experimental proof before the experimental truth of it's destination can be accepted. Atheism rejects a definitive affirmation on the "somewhere" of existence because they all know it is above reason. It is purely metaphysical. Then they try their best to find out the "to where" (destination) of existence. Can someone come from nowhere and arrive at somewhere? Common sense is not that common fellas.
I think I've digressed a lot already on this commentary.

The bottom-line of my lines here is that I am criticising a scientific atheism with scientific reasoning. You're typing off-point if you start criticising me with metaphysics. And the scientific criticism I put forward to atheism on maternal certainty is that this latter is unscientific and inadmissible as truth because no one experienced their mom giving birth to them. We all simply believed and had faith that the woman we call our Mom gave birth to us.

Now if you suddenly realised that existence is fundamentally metaphysical and that one must bring in an absolute being from the back-door of reason and live existence in accordance to the principles of this absolute being, why not bring in the absolute being and live your life? Why do you refuse to do it yet you are certain it needs to be done?
If you're not certain it must be done, (that is, that one's existence is determined by his idea of an absolute being) why did you criticise me saying I shouldn't compare maternity certainty with divine certainty because the admission of the latter determines the teleology of one's existence? Are you not being confused and lazy?
And are you not being a quack scientist by refusing metaphysics in the universal laws of science yet admit metaphysics in this scientific reflection I did?

I don't run away from metaphysics. It's my specialty. I'm simply being scientific in my reflection because that's the language understandable to atheists. So if you want to criticise my reflections, remain strictly on scientific criticism. If you want a metaphysical reflection on existence, go create a trade on that and invite me. I promise to give you one of the greatest metaphysical lessons ever given. Just chose a side and stick to it. Stop being shaky.





And all these ones making debate about proof of God's existence and which religion is the true religion. Get the hell out of my trade!!! I'm not here to discuss God's existence you wannabes. None of your religions interests me. Go create your own trade and discuss your God and your religion. Stop making a joke of my wisdom!

I'm here to confront the rationality in atheistic apologies. Every comment should revolve around this topic and not your mediocre religions.

Peace

HealerH:
Lol.
I was banned for only 24 hours and see what incarnated ignorance had turned my post into. All I see is dumb comments everywhere. Did they really read my text? Did they understand it?
For a moment I feel ashamed of y'all.

But the captain is back and y'all wannabe captains should either sit down and see how a ship is navigated or hop the hell out of my ship.

My cordial apology to my admirers who've been messing my post while I was on a ban. I apologize for not replying fast enough and retracting your intelligence-gone-astray interpretation of my reasoning.

Please please and please. I didn't create this post to prove the existence of God. I'm too arrogant to do debates like that. Read the first lines of my post carefully. I clearly stated the purpose of this post.
And for the mono-directional sophists using religious shortcomings to criticize me. Show me any sentence in my text where I declared myself an adherent of a particular religion. I evoked Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Traditional Religions. Where did I make a sentence declaring myself a member of any one of these religions? Those using biblical passages to criticise my text. Did I tell you I believe in the Bible? Did I mention the Bible anywhere in my post? Why are y'all embarrassing yourselves?

I restate my stand. I'm on this post to expose the irrationality and the absurdity in Atheism. And I'm doing so with critical reasoning. None of you read anything dogmatic or religious in my reasoning.

If you're intelligent enough to counter my claims, do so by strictly referring your arguments to the topic I'm into. Stop running your intelligence like a bicycle na-enweghi brake.
Peace.

How do I create a topic where only myself can post?

If you have atheistic questions or apologies you would want me to reply to, post them here please.

Lol.
Don't mind that headline. My 5th name is Sarcasm.

So I'm creating this trade to expose the confusion and irrationality in atheism.

Mind you, I'm a lover of humans. I try my best to show humans the way... It's my way of healing the world. As a lover of humans, I'm not an enemy of atheists because I suppose they're humans. I'm only trying to show them the way for I see them like my little brethren that need to be educated.

Am I sounding too arrogant? Per favore. Atheism is a failed quest to discover God through critical reasoning. I discovered God through critical reasoning. Why I no go boast? You don't expect me to go around fire and not sweat.

So this is how I'll develop this post. I'll be updating it regularly with my new findings on atheism.

The absurdity in Atheism.


Atheist 1. : I don't believe all these fables about God. If God exists, he should talk to me directly about himself. Then I'll believe.

The Healer: This is normal. It's natural for man to experience something before believing in it. But man MUST not experience everything. It's not even a question of "Can or cannot, may or may not". No. It's a MUST. You must not experience all. Did you experience the Big Bang? Did you experience your mom giving birth to you (No human on earth has an EXPERIMENTAL proof that their mother gave birth to them. Don't even bring in DNA testing here because it's never experimental. A doctor going into the laboratory with your blood sample and coming out to tell you whatsoever about your parental roots is exactly the same thing like a priest coming down from the alter to tell you God exist. The two informations are second-hand knowledge to you. Since you rejected the priest's information because you didn't make the experience of God yourself, be smart enough to reject the doctor's information. The person you call your father and the one you call your mother are possibly not your parents. The only reason you call them your parents is FAITH. You BELIEVED. Now you reject it when it comes to God but accept it when it's about your parents. Wise fellow. Make you no die of too much wisdom o.



Atheist 2 : If God exists, why does evil exist?

The Healer: You see, I typed a very beautiful reply on this second question but after a 4th thought, I deleted it and decided to use another form of wisdom to answer the question. You know why I deleted the first reply? Because I used an Islamic philosophy about God and Evil. It's a very beautiful philosophy but I don't know how my Muslim brothers will react to it. Plus Pope Benedict has once evoked that philosophy at Regensburg University, Germany on the 12th of September 2006 and his speech on the philosophy was misunderstood. Actually, many Christians were killed in Muslim countries after the Pope's speech. I don't want my Christian brothers on Nairaland being killed because of someone's incapacity to understand my text. Well, let's go back to the topic.

God and Evil? Who told you evil exist? And how did the person define "evil" for you?
Normally, I should have an atheist reply my questions so I can show him the way through the reply he would give me. But I'll reply to the questions on their behalf them. I know say my reply will be so kush they will be wishing I become one of them. No atheist on Nairaland can give a wiser reply.

Of course Evil exist. People have stolen from me, I've lost a friend to terrorism, there are many more evils I can list but let's save the list.
Awon Athee, na this kind thing you dey call evil? How does it concern God. Lol.
God is a perfect Being and he created a perfect world. If you're seeing imperfections (evils) in the creation of God, join the line and collect your corrector-glasses.
See, the only evil in this world is the one created by man. God didn't create them, man did. And asking God to eradicate it is asking God to make you a Simulation... that kind animated pseudo-humans in games (Eg PES, FIFA, Sim City, etc). Those players you control with your pad in video games don't have any freedom of their own. You're their God, their Alpha and their Omega. God is not a game player. He's serious. He made use in his image so we're just as free as he is. Now blaming him for the abuse you make of your liberty is cowardice. Be responsible for your actions.

Atheist: Bu, bu, but God created me. So as a handiwork of God, whatever comes out of me, evil or bad, has their origin in God.

Yeah friend. God created you. But he created you in a particular way, and you should remain that way. Go look into the eyes of a six-month old baby. You'll see nothing but Good. That's how God created you and that's how you should be. That's the human factory settings. We learnt evil.

Now there's a second definition of evil I normally should ignore but I fear most atheists here are not intelligent enough to know it's a false definition of evil. It's the "natural evil". The one I just discussed is the human evil.
The natural evil is actually not evil. It is the anthropocentrism of existence that made people call it Evil. Something like Earthquake, Tornado, Storm, Tsunami, Flood. These things are called evil because they make man feel uncomfortable. As if this world was made for man and man alone. Man doesn't say rain, sunshine or oxygen is evil. Yet some beings die of these things. There are living beings that would die if exposed to oxygen. But since these beings aren't men, oxygen is not evil. That's how man reason. To see that these natural phenomena man calls evil are not evil, try to see the world from the perspective of God. That's actually why I told you to join the line and collect your lenses. From the perspective of God, you won't see only the Flood, you'll see the deserts too, you won't only see the Earthquakes, you'll see the Alps too. You'll see the entire world as one harmonious being. From the perspective of God, human rationality has it's limit. The only thing God sees in his creation is Good, no evil. Trying to form intelligent and rational by saying evil exist whereas you haven't seen the entire universe as a unique being is an insult, not even to God, but to scientists who pass months deep down the oceans of the earth contemplating the uniformity of the planet and to astronauts out their in the space contemplating the planet as one unique entity.

The thrid definition of evil (which itself is a false definition of evil) is corporal evil. It relates in some way to the second definition of evil. In this third evil, I'll be using the word "Bad" as a synonym of "Evil" for grammatical reasons. (You'll accept with me that it's more grammatically correct to say someone has a bad tooth than say the person has an evil tooth).

So you realise skin bleaching exists in Africa? Yeah. Because some people have been made to think that fair skin is Good and a dark skin is Bad (evil). I don't need to waste my time explaining that this is a wrong definition of evil nourished by ignorance. Yet I know at least 10% of you reading my text bleach your skins.
Know this: Whatever you are born into is not evil. Whatever you are born with is not evil. Are you born blind, you're not evil neither is the blindness evil/bad. The question is, "are you a human being?" Must someone have eyes to be a human being? When talking about corporal evils, try to differentiate "what you have" from "what you are".

Atheist 3: Imagine Pastor John has 5 private jets; Pastot Judas has 8; Pastor Zacharia even bought a Lamborghini for a sex worker. This people can't be men of God. So God don't exist.

The Healer: Lol.
This reasoning is so absurd that I don't want to say atheists use it. The intelligent atheists I know never use it. Na only wannabe atheists dey use am.
Lemme caricature the reasoning to reveal it's absurdity.
It's like saying : "Obi got a new bicycle, Ada got new rackets, even Nneka got a pair of shoes, how can their mom buy them such things? So my mom don't exist."

There's a difference between "a God" and "God". A God is a particular religion's (or a particular person's) experience of God. God is what He is independently of any religion or opinion.
Christianity's experience of God is resumed in the Incarnation.
(Wow. What a holy coincidence I'm typing this on a Holy Saturday... The day inbetween Good Friday and Easter Sunday. These three days resume Christianity)
In the Christian experience of God, God REVEALED Himself to be one of us. In Islam and Judaism, God don't have anything to do with the human nature. These are people's experiences of God. Even traditionalists have their experience of God that is very similar to the Christian experience of incarnation. The traditionalists believe God has something humane in him. That's why they believed he can be made to LIVE with man and that the departed souls of the saints are close to the Him. And I'll tell you this truth, whereas I discovered God by His grace in me and also through my extraterrestrial reflection on his creation, our forefathers (the traditionalists) discovered God through personal experiences and that's why each person had her "Chi" (Igbo). They didn't even do the heavy studies I did before knowing God. And unlike the atheists of today, the traditionalists don't deny the existence of their personal Gods just because someone else's God tells them to do evil.
So, you shouldn't base your take on the existence of God on someone else's opinion of God.


Atheist 4: Buddhists claim their God is the only true God, Christianity claims her God is the only true God, Islam claims the same thing. In fact every religion claims its God is the only true God. Yet, there's no uniqueness in what these Religions exhibit. They even seem to contradict themselves. The one true God can never inspire such chaos and religious contradictions. So God doesn't exist.

The Healer: Just negodu reflection a self-acclaimed rational being na-eme. Just look at. Tufiakwa. I tell you. Common sense is not common.

I'll reproduce this reasoning to expose it's absurdity. I'm going to use simple logic.
Imagine you have never seen a mobile phone before. You hear people say they use it but none of them accepts to show you what the phone looks like and how it functions.
You meet the CEO of Apple phones and he tells you his brand is the best, the CEO of Samsung tells you the same thing and all other brand claims the same. Yet they refuse to let you have an experience of their products. Is this a RATIONAL reason to claim that mobile phones don't exist?
My apology to the true atheists of the world. I know presenting this reasoning as an apology of atheism is an insult to their intelligence. I've studied the philosophy of the greatest atheists to ever live on earth and none of them identified himself with this reasoning.
I didn't want to present this reasoning as an atheistic apology but I saw this reasoning in the comment section of my post. So I decided to shed my wisdom on it.
This reflection is a lazy man's excuse for not believing in God. The person was sent into a laboratory to perform a chemical test. He didn't touch any of the specimens given to him. He asked the person at his left the result of his experiment. The person said 2CaCl²O (Don't waste your time ascertaining if the chemical equations I use exist). He asked the person at his right what he got and he said Cl2CaO². He asked two more persons and they gave different answers. Then he concluded that the correct chemical result doesn't exist. He's too dumb to know that all the participants at this experiment were not given the same specimens.

Another absurdity in this reflection is the fact that the low-budget atheist has zero sense of syllogism. This is how a syllogism goes.
1st premise : All men are mortal
2nd premise : A stone is not a man
Conclusion : A stone is not mortal.

This is what the low-budget atheist did.
1st premise : God cannot exist as a self-contradictory being.
2nd premise : Religions contradict themselves.
Conclusion : God doesn't exist.

The conclusion of a simple syllogism is determined by the second premise. And this second premise must have a reference to the first premise. Check the syllogism of the ajikpako of an athee and see if he observed the norm.

You probably will be wondering if truth-saying needs a methodology.
Truth-saying has always been methodological and scientific. People simply ignore the methodology.

Your capacity to say exactly what you see is what I want to reason with you and show you there's actually a method in truth-saying.

What is "Truth"? This is the greatest question ever asked. I think Pontuis Pilate asked Jesus that question too. And Jesus didn't reply. Well, we're not discussing "Truth" but "truth". What's the difference? The capital Truth is inaccessible to reason. Some call it God. No human knows it in a perfect way. It is kind of the answer to the deepest question of existence... Like: how did the Bing Bang started? Why are we on earth? Why is it that, of all the animals that have ever existed on earth, it is man that discovered Reasoning? etc.

But the small truth is the truth that depends on us. We kind of invented them. Actually if you're God, this truth might not make sense to you. For instance 1 +1 = 2.
Now calm your brain and reason this. Do you know that from the number 2 to infinity don't exist? Their existence is what Emmanuel Kant called a "necessary mistake". Why is it that they don't actually exist? Because everything that exists is unique in it's existence. You say 2 mangoes, 5 chairs, etc. But make a critical observation of those things and you'll realise no 2 things are perfectly identical. The proof is the fact that you say 12 mangoes yet when allowed to chose 1 mango from among the mangoes, you become selective. If the mangoes are 100% equal to themselves, you're not supposed to chose one over the rest. You would just pick whatever mango that your hand touches first. Humans invented numbers to easily manipulate things in an intellectual way.
Another form of the small truth is in nomination. Do you know, all names that have ever been given don't actually exist. Man invented them. Who knows, God who created the world probably don't use words like: "Goat", "Man" "Water", etc. Man invented names to avoid confusion when discussing with others. If you exist alone, you'll never have a need to invent a name for a dog or a goat. You just know them by their character. But when you need to discuss with someone about animals, you definitely need to know the names of the animals you are talking about to avoid confusion. Imagine that you want to talk to someone about dog and say "the animal that shouts". Tomorrow the person might see your Dad shouting at a dog and think you were talking about your Dad the other day.

The main knowledge I want to share about truth is on the nominal truth... The truth derived through the names of things. The methodology behind this truth is that you name the thing through what it exhibits. If I should formulate the methodology, I'll say "the thing makes the name, the name doesn't make the thing."
You can't get someone, NAME them "footballer" and automatically have them playing good football like Leo Messi. No. They must be playing football first before we call them Footballer. What does it tell you? The thing makes the name, the name don't make the thing.


Now join me in this reflection. If someone who is swimming is called a swimmer and someone who is playing a guitar is called a guitarist, would you see a man swimming and call him a guitarist? Very silly question, right? But you just shot yourself on the foot by admitting it's a silly question.
Haven't you ever seen someone bombing people and call them Muslims instead of calling them bombers (or terrorists if I should sound formal)? Haven't you ever seen someone taking bribe and call them "Lecturer"? instead of calling them "bribe-taker"?
A Muslim is someone that adheres to the Islamic religion not someone that adheres to bombing people. A Lecturer is someone that gives lectures not someone that takes bribe.

If you see a Muslim killing someone at a moment "T", give him a name that concord with what he is doing at that moment "T". Call him a Killer. If you continue to call him a Muslim at that time T, your nominal truth will be considered absurd. It'll be like meeting Pope Francisco and calling him a Bouncer because you know him as a bouncer some years ago. Call him what he is now - Pope.

So when you want to say the nominal truth about a thing, forget about the "Yesterday" or the "Tomorrow" of the thing. Name the thing in accordance with what it exhibits. This is the almighty formula for truth-saying.
It's called Phenomenology.