₦airaland Forum

plus_Queen:
Is it by force?
must I answer any and every question posed by any and every one on nairaland.
abeg gerraway jo

True, you don't have to. It is better to stay quite and be thought wise than to open your month (or write) and show exactly the opposite.

plus_Queen:
And your Dan Barker does?
shifting standards eh?

Where did I say Barker constitute atheism? Did I even imply this? Show me please?

Get it now, NOBODY BUT NOBODY constitute atheism.

And try and answer my question about what xianity is.

pilgrim.1:
Please let me borrow the above line from you, erudite poet, just to illustrate a point about some (please, I said "some" of the most vocal atheists in our backyard. Often it is said that these people are passionate about truth and make a lot of noise about integrity. Uhm. . . I'm not quite sure that these are the finest points about this don of Oxford. So here:

Curled from the Telegraph.co.uk  ~~


             ________________________________________________________________

                                           [size=14pt]Dawkins does it again[/size]

             Here is a really ugly spat between Professor Richard Dawkins and my old friend
             the science writer Andrew Brown. In an article for the online Guardian*, Brown has
             accused Dawkins of circulating a "rather unpleasant little lie" about the philosopher
             Mary Midgley to whit, that years ago she gave a damning review to The Selfish Gene
             without having bothered to read the book.

             The allegation boils down to this: back in 1995, Dawkins told Brown that Midgley
             had confessed to reviewing his book without reading it. Brown thought this was
             utter nonsense: Midgley's damning review was very detailed and obviously based
             on the text.

             Later, Dawkins told Brown in an email that it was all an unfortunate confusion.
             Matter settled. But now, to Brown's amazement, Dawkins writing on his own website
             has again accused Mary Midgley of confessing to reviewing the book without reading it.
             Brown can hardly believe it:

                         What makes it almost literally incredible that he should write
                         this is that he links in that post to her original review, so that
                         anyone who bothers to click through can check the evidence for
                         his claim. It is true that some of the quote marks have fallen off
                         her quotes from his book, but I am sure that he recognises
                         his own words even if not everyone else does.

                         Mary Midgley wrote to him some weeks ago asking him to withdraw
                         the allegation. No reply. Well, he's a world-famous millionaire and
                         she's an elderly widow not nearly rich enough to wave lawyers at
                         anyone. But it is all rather sad for anyone who believes in the power
                         of reason.

            Some people posting under the article have suggested that it's a storm in a teacup.
            I don't think it is. Dawkins needs to clarify his position if he can.

             ________________________________________________________________


* the online Guardian*, article says:

     "Physician, heal thyself
      Richard Dawkins demands evidence for every factual claim
      and yet he cannot let go of an irrational belief about one of his critics"



I have often called for a a sensible handling of issues where the real questions of the day could formulate the issues we need to discuss. Okay, my apologies to those who may feel a bit distraught at my referencing Dawkins as if he alone is the highpriest of atheism. No, I don't think so - and there are quite a number of other folks who are as vociferous as the don of Oxford. Problem is that these folks will spend all their lives harping at theists (aye, Christians) as the most dishonest people on earth. We don't need to travel far to examine where these men stand on the scale of integrity. Imagine a man of his standing playing the hypocrisy of a school rascal. Baa!

Dawkins does not constitue atheism or make any claim to a moral high ground, as far as I know.  Unlike the faith-head who are in the habit of claiming moral superiority.  This is a very bad way to argue or debate.  I and many atheist have been asking the Christians to define what Christianity is.  But there fail to do so.  

I could mention all the frauds amongst the Christian leaders from the Ted Haggard, Jim Swaggart, Oral Robertson, Popov,  Bakers, etc, etc.  Does that speak for Christianity?

C'mon Christian, tell us what you really belief in.

Wordsmith:
@ topic,

i had decided a while to stay away from debates and all, but i couldn't help but express my disgust at the term "faith-heads". I find it offensive, derogatory and insultive. Like believers don't reason simply because of their faith. The problem with atheists and their ilk is the fact that they practice exactly what they accuse theists especially Christians of - hypocrisy, insult hurling, disrepect, and the most important of all - bigotry.


Perhaps, if i referred to an atheist as a morally bankrupt slowpoke or a fool as the Bible aptly put it, you would see the same goons climaxing with insults. . . arrant nonsense.



. . . And yes, i'm annoyed

The fact is Christianity has abandoned epistemological methods and opted for "faith" as its means of "knowing" the truth about reality.  So why do you find such characterisation offensive.  Is faith NOT a core part of your worldview?

When anyone tries to tie down Christians to determine what they really believe in and to explain how they came to such beliefs, they simply squirm out and avoid the issue.  I have asked many a times on this forum,  as recently as about five days ago.  Guess what, I got nothing.

What really do christian believe?

1)  Do they believe that a virgin gave birth to their god?  Can this be asserted on reason or on faith.

2)  Is the earth about 6000 years old?  Is there any evidence affirming such a young age?  If the world is much older, what does it mean for the Genesis narratives.  Do Christian continue to hold onto it on reason or on faith

3)  When was Jesus born?  Before 4BCE or after 6CE.  Is the bible infallible and inerrant?  Do you hold onto such views on reason or on faith?

4)  Did Noah put all sample of all animal life in a tiny boat to save them from a global flood?  Show us the evidence.

C'mon guys, show us the reasons that allow you to hold onto such palpable falsehoods and barbaric beliefs from the infancy of humankind. C'mon show us.  

If you want not to be called faith-heads, you have got to convince the world that your have not abandon the faculty of reason.  You can start by telling us what Christians really believe, if only that we do not misrepresent your position.


If you want, go ahead and call atheist morally bankcrupt, etc.  You will find scant evidence to substantiate your position. Ah,  I had forgotten that Christians rarely work on evidence.

You can start by checking the demography in US prison.  While this is not an argument for atheism, recent studies show Christians make over 75% of prison population, atheist less than 1%

One of the countries with the lower criminality in the world Japan.  What is their proportion of atheist compared to Nigeria?   C'mon, give us some evidence, if you know what that word means.

pilgrim.1:
Have you taken the time to understand that it was the same Lord Jesus Christ who said that not everyone who calls His name is actually living according to His Word?

Well, the least you can say then is that Jesus was a man of contradiction , erhm.

pilgrim.1:
Dear @huxley,

I wonder what the purpose of this thread actually is - whether in spirit it was truly aimed at understanding Christianity by knowing who a Christian or Muslim is; or to make a case for conversions from those positions to atheism. The thing that often makes me sit back and marvel at this drama is man's proclivity to revel in statistics of such nature. One could quote statistics of conversions, deconversions, interconversions, reconversions, or any other metanoia out there. But is that really the issue at the end of the day?

Just about the time I started asking serious questions in my former religion, indeed I came across a lot of people who had converted from atheism to Christianity as well as left Islam and became atheists. Among some of those who abandoned atheism and became Christians are few names that come to mind:

~ C.S. Lewis
~ Helen Joy Davidman (wife of C.S. Lewis)
~ Francis Collins (geneticist)
~ Alister E. McGrath
~ Nicholas (Nicky) Glyn Paul Gumbel
~ William J. Murray (son of American atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair)
. . . and later on I heard of:
~ Miranda Threlfall-Holmes q.v. here

I'm sure a Muslim who craves the wonder of statistical quotes would soon jump in here to give us an encyclopedic list of those who became Muslims (of course, by default no mention of those who left Islam and became atheists). . the wonder of it all is magical!

However, after the statistics, then what? I can relate in part to the experiences of C. S. Lewis who was tauted by atheists as having not been an atheist before his conversion! By that, I mean that so many Muslims themselves have said repeatedly that I was never a true Muslim before I became a Christian. The question would now be to understand the foundation of such assertions on all sides, viz:

~ who really is an atheist and what infact is atheism?

~ who really is a Christian and what infact is Christianity?

~ who really is a Muslim, and what infact is Islam?

Certainly, there could be so many more added to that list; but I restricted myself to those mentioned in yours for the present discourse. I believe that when we begin to ask the real questions here, the interest in statistics would fade to the background and we shall all gain insights that we never thought of formerly.

I would not be selfish to turn this interesting thread into a platform for telling my story; but I'm sure that most people would agree with me that it may be pertinent to mention aspects of it between making a point. As someone who has been on either side of the theisms under review, would it help to share a few matters between times as to clarify the view points here of what it means to be either a Muslim or Christian? Even though not many people would agree with what I have to say (especially Muslims who keep accusing me of knowing nothing about Islam befor I left), then at least I could say a few things about what it means to be a Christian?

It would help us better to move from revelling in statistics of metanoia to facing up to the real issues. If otherwise, perhaps it may be far more interesting for me to sit back and enjoy the drama as it unfolds.

Regards.

You made some good point. In fact I thought I had made the point in my original post but have just found that I forget to put it down, although it was in my mind at the time of writing.

Generally, the numbers do not count as arguments. What is more revealing are the arguments given for crossing the line in favour of a new position.

olabowale:
Yeah, May Kelly, give them a try as Huxley the agitator is agitating that you do. lol. I love this disbelieving guy called Huxley. He is crazy like a fox! Riteon, brother man.

Huxley laughed

May kelly:
As far as am concerned, those who move from church to church, mosque to church, mu.slim to christian, or from christian to chrsitian and so on are desperately looking for the truth (Jesus)

I thought Jesus said, "Whenever two or more people are gather in my name, I am amongst them". So why would one not find Jesus in one church when he is supposed to be in all churches?

By the way, it would be interesting if you attempted to answer some of the questions I posed. C'mon give them a try

How do you know who is (or was)  a Christian  or a Muslim?



If someone spent a good portion of their life living as a Christian (or Muslim) and then later transitions to a different position, does that mean that they were never truly a Christian (or Muslim)?

I hear this argument a lot from Christians, who claim that people who have moved away from Christianity were never truly Christians in the first place.  The have been many prominent Christian ministers, people who dedicated decades of their lives "serving god", only to transition to different positions and abandon christianity.  Such have been;

Dan Barker
Charles Templeton
John Loftus
Holden
Joseph McGabe
etc,
etc,

Were these people never truly Christians?  They all report their sincerity in their dedication fo their god whilst as Christians.  So although they may have tried their best, god never really opened up to them, unbeknown to them.  So they were living under the delusion that they were true Christians.

How many sincere Christians (or Muslims) today are living under the delusion that they are Christian, when deep down, god has not accepted them.  Are these the one who are at risk of leaving the faith?


Supposing you were to find out tomorrow that your Pastor has converted to a different position.  Does that mean he/she was never a Christian?

See [url=http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html] here [/url]  for a number of ex-christian ministers and other ex-christians and why they left christianity.

Most christian communities have this doctrine or teaching of backsliding (or losing/diminishing one faith). Can one lose something that one never really had in the first place? Can one backslide if one was never in the exhaulted heights of faith?

Emma4u2c:
Just in case you don't know this going to a place of worship all the days of your life from birth does not make anyone a christian. So there is really no point jioning issues with whoever the author is

Good question.  I shall raise it in another thread. Watch this  space

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Precisely what I was thinking you might come to:

I know people who have not had dreams of the sort you narrowly described, and yet they experienced events in their lives far removed from their daily conscious experiences. One should not assume that everything can just be narrowed the way naturalists tend to think.

That's quite simplistic and untenable in the reality of events that prove to the contrary. Oneirologists (those who study dreams) do not think that is what dreams are about, though. You may want to do a little study on that, besides the way naturalists think about dreams.

Lol, there are many people who have NEVER been religious and have had dreams ofa religious nature. There are also many people who have not been inclined to crime who have also dreamt about their involvement in scenarios as such. Others who were not ever involved in farming have found themselves running very large farms (speaking of myself). So, to have these ideas you have posed just doesn't satisfy the real purpose of issues like this.

You are right - naturalist tend to find natural explanations for things. Anything that can be explained naturally then is treated as natural. Thus things happening in our subconscious are natural, though we may not yet understand them. That is why I was a bit cautious in my comment;

Very good question. By and large, your dreams tend to be centred around things that occupy your wakeful moments - your job, your health, your family & friends, your existential thoughts (gods, satan, football, ambitions, etc), etc, etc.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Lol, I've heard so many people make such statement on the assumption that "faith-heads" are not reasonable people or do not reason at all. Please check again: the real issues when it comes to "reason" might surprise you, though. I haven't read Dan Barker that much; but those who assume that having faith is controverted to reason are living in illusion.

Dan Barker may argue long and hard - reasons best known to him, certainly; especially after 20 years walking as a faith-head himself. But hang on: there is another philosopher who walked for many years as an atheist, but recently came to the conclusion that there must be a God. Who's this? Anthony Flew. No, I have not said he's a theist or Christian. But one just wonders why this 'statistics' seem so exhilarating to many of us without asking the real questions of the day! I think it's just about time for people to get serious and stop ducking behind the palm shades of such stale news. Dan Barker hasn't proven that the supernatural does not exist - he may argue against it; but an argument in itslef is not "proof" against the object of his argument.

There is absolutely no doubts that for various reasons people routinely cross the line from one side to the other, for reasons beat known to them. For my part, I am usually more interested in the arguments that pursuaded them to move camps. I found the arguments from Barker very pursuasive.

I have not read any of Flews works, not even the work espousing atheism. He is one of the few contemporary philosophers writing on the subject that I have not read. Neither have I read any arguments for this conversion to deism, except the stuff I have read from the media. I understand he was convinced by the Argument From Design.

Have you got any more information about his position? I know there was a books ghost-published by some Christian writers detailing his conversion. Have you read it?

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

It's easy to pose such questions to others when you know you haven't done so yourself. I may be mistaken; and if you have, try this one:

Have you ever dreamed of Mr. Vilayanur in San Diego late last autumn? If not, why not?

Very good question.  By and large, your dreams tend to be centred around things that occupy your wakeful moments - your job, your health, your family & friends, your existential thoughts (gods, satan, football, ambitions, etc), etc, etc.

San Diego has never feature in my dreams, as far as I can remember. Neither has anyone from San Diego, never mind Mr Vilayanur.  Simply because, this city and its inhabitants are not part of my daily conscious experience.

Dreams are essentially your wakeful thoughts played out at your moments of rest.  So the poster dreaming about mosques is not surprising.  He is clearly a religious person and he probably comes across mosques, churches, and other religionist in the course of his daily life.

idupaul:
i only came here since it assumed a mosque direction, believe me if twas masquerades i saw i know where to go

Interesting

Why you don't try and answer the question I asked above, viz;

huxley:
Interesting. Have you ever had any dreams about Mr Cheungsui who lives in a small town in north eastern China?

If not, I wonder why?

idupaul:
malaria can make u have bad nights. its a proven fact

If that is true, next time you have "bad" dreams, you are better off going for a medical check up than coming here and asking to have the dreams interpreted.

Don't you think so?

idupaul:
Found out that i have malaria, prolly tha cause of the dream, started treatment already, cheers

It is likely that the malaria had nothing to do with your dreams. But as a general rule of living, you should always prefer the natural over the supernatural. The number of people who have died and are dying because they preferred the supernatural treatment and dispense with the natural treatment ( usually after attending religious crusades) is staggering.

pilgrim.1:
Hi Nimshi,

Hope you had a good evening yesterday.

I think that is where many people make the mistake. Certainly, all of humanity are created by God; but the qualifier there is how and in what context. This was why I carefully underscored the fact that Adam 'special' in the sense that he was distinct in the way he was created. If one is not careful to observe the specialty of these matter and dwell only on 'creation', then the whole point is missed - and will predictably lead to this inference:

No, the "sonship" of angels is not predicated merely on their having been created by God. As I remarked earlier, all of humanity are the creation of God - so also are angels as the creation of God. But you notice that each group of beings referred to as "son(s) of God" is based specifically on a special context. Which means that Adam being a special creation (in terms of the way he was created) could not be called "son of God" on the basis of :

~ the Mosaic covenant (upon which Israel became the 'son of God' - Deut. 14:1-2)

~ the New Covenant (upon which believers in Christ are called 'sons of God' - Galatians 3:26)

~ the nature of angels (for it is they who are called "ministering spirits" - Heb. 1:14)

~ the Deity of Christ (for He alone is referred to as "μονογενής" (monogenēs) - John 3:18)

All the above are referred to as "son(s) of God" based specifically on the nature and context of their connections to those terms. Adam is called 'son of God' not on the same basis as are the angels called 'sons of God', for Adam was not made a "flaming fire" - the same term used in describing angels in their nature (Psalm 104:4 and Heb. 1:14). However, Adam is 'son of God' by virtue of his having been specially created by God in the way described.

Hello Pilgrim,

How are ya? Are you done with ya exams now?

I have got a question about your flavour of Christianity, shall I?

Are you a biblical literalist? In other words, do you consider the Genesis accounts (for example) as literal historic events or do you treat them allegorically (metaphorically).

What do you make of Christians who interpret these accounts in a different way from you?

You may not answer them here if you want, or shall I open a new thread for these questions?

davidylan*:
Its more than fair. You must pass an exam to qualify for college . . . is this system fair to those with an IQ lower than 50, the guy with cerebral palsy, the law abiding citizen who can't afford college all for no fault of theirs?

To be entirely honest no one has an excuse or can claim they've never heard about Jesus. Its laughable to imagine someone like Huxley is planning to use that defence.

Here's what really gets me thinking . . . why do these people spend so much time and energy to prove God doesnt exist but yet are worried about entry into heaven?

Is it really fair? I doubt it, even by our own earthly standards. There are many problems with this way of thinking, some of which are the following;

1) If our existence on earth is really an exam, why isn't everyone presented with exactly the same options or questions? Why would god give Jesus to the people in the Middle East and wait 2000 years for knowledge of Jesus to reach South America, Japan, Southern Africa, Australia? By what standard were our great-great-great-great grandparents examined before the coming of Christianity in Africa?

Today, there are millions who have not heard of the word Jesus, ever. By what standards are they going to sit this exam?

2) Why would an exam be required, anyway, for an omniscient god. He is suppose to know our innermost thoughts and minds. If he knows our minds, then why is the exam necessary?

JJYOU:
i don't know where you reside. just type in ministries in america into google and see how many you get. there must be millions of ministries in america. so you conclude that a man refuses to join a voluntary organisation of 1100 members he must have something to hide. some places like atlanta and texas alone should have 100,000 ministries each. so every ministries there that didnt join the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability are crooks or have something to hide

this is sad. hope you will like for you and whatever organisation you belong to be judged by the same criteria you judge benny hinn and others you guys choose to hate?.

Where shall I start?

For a ministry of its standing, with the millions he receives from followers and the exception he enjoys from taxes, I think it behooves him to be a bit more open with his finances. I would not necessarily expect a small ministry to be in a position of defrauding as many as a large ministry, hence the more reason for transparency. But that is not to say that the size of the ministry is a determinant as to whether they are crooks or not.

He consistentl refusing to provide people whom he claims have been healed.


He makes prophecies that never come to pass. Like the one he made saying that Jesus was going to appear on stage with him in an African country. Man, what do you think of this one? Would you not have gone to the crusade to see Jesus, if you had believed in him?

John 14: 6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Is this true?  No one goes onto Father but through Jesus?  How about the millions of people who go about their daily lives without so much as acknowledging Jesus?  Are they not going to meet the Father?

If they cannot meet the Father, it follows that they will end up in hell.  Yes, the ordinary man, woman, child, who has been a law-abiding citizen, done humanitarian acts, served his country and people dutifully, will end up in the same place as (presumably) Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Charlemagne, Constantine, etc, etc.

Does this system of justice seem fair?

Ex-evangelical preacher, Dan Barker, has done it again.  He has followed up his popular book,
Losing Faith in Faith about leaving the faith with another book Godless.

Losing Faith in Faith was instrumental in opening the eyes of many Americans (and people Worldwide) to the dangers and intellectual dishonesty of religion.  Riding on the wave of recent publications from Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Grayling, OnFray, etc,  Barkers' works are much more personal accounts of living as a Christian evangelist for about 20 years, and the eventual turn around to atheism.

All I can say is that if a faith-head like Barker can make the transition to reason, so can anyone amenable to reason.

He has also been criticized by a number of Christian watchdog groups for not joining the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability . The Council is the leading accreditation agency that helps Christian ministries earn the public’s trust through adherence to seven standards of accountability. It has over 1,100 members, including Pat Robertson and Billy Graham. Benny Hinn refuses to join.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/main_miracles.html

Interesting. Have you ever had any dreams about Mr Cheungsui who lives in a small town in north eastern China?

If not, I wonder why?

Can god create an object that would be too heavy for him to lift?

I wonder why some christians would characterise him as a crook. Why would a man of god not be very obvious to god-followers and would engender some much bile from various christian camp?

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

You're not kidding me - we all do. Don't ever make the mistake of thinking me a saint or more intelligent. I have been really unpleasant at times; but I've learnt to seek to dialogue with people and am still a disciple of my own advice most times.

There are several reason why I hang around this forum;

1) It is rather good in some areas and I like to dialogue

2) I seek to understand people better and one way of doing that is to challenge people to look at things in rather unfamiliar ways. I don't claim to have the answers, but I can lay claims of having many questions. Am a bit socratic in my attitude to life, so if my questioning appear a little bit irritating I should blame it on the master.

3) Learn from others and share ideas

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Asking questions also involves how those questions are posed. I noticed that people are easily put off where issues are not addressed but the enquirer projects the idea that he simply wants to ridicule what he's enquirying about. This may not necessarily be your posture now, but it goes without saying that we all know the difference between a dialogue and a diatribe. In anycase, let me show you how you would have started out as inviting a dialogue:

The highlighted part does invite an enabling dialogue (at least IMHO), and I'm sure that those who are interested would then be able to enter into a discussion thereto. That is why I offered initially that people should be familiar with the term "deixis" when asking questions of this nature.

For answers, you might want to check references such as 1 Corinthians 15. There are answers there to these questions.

I see your point and you are absolute right. The bits you highlight was a lot more inviting that the goading tone of my earlier question. Hey, you live and learn, don't you.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Uh-oh! Lol, please pardon my ignorance - I've been much too long gone for a break to have known. Good to have been updated, though - so I'll keep in mind as I peruse other threads.

Lol, so which is it? At least I offered that I'm a Christian theist.

Um, that was not about naturalism but rather about the various shades of the adjectives added to the word to bring out various ideologies (such as metaphysical naturalism). It is the "-isms" of naturalism and not naturalism itself that the article seem to have highlighted.

You might be amused to take a look at some of my earlier post. Check the bottom of the main post here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-115292.0.html to see a list of some of my other threads and my tussles with 4Him, Stimulus, Imhotep, etc, etc. I must admit, it was quite fun and interesting.

The wikipedia article is rather a brief exposition of naturalism. I have got a very good book defending metaphysical naturalism by Richard Carrier.

Are a fan of Amazon.com? If you are, then just do a search for naturalism on Amazom and see the various defenses and criticism of this worldview.

pilgrim.1:
Hi @huxley,

I think some decorum is very necessary when you actually want people to discuss issues with you. The one thing I avoid in such discussions is the undertones of silliness (I don't mean any insults) that is often mistaken for brilliance. How is it that often id the case that people who are non-religious would take the stance of first projecting a misrepresentation of what they assume to be smart about?

Here's an example:

Have you ever heard of deixis? There actually is much we can learn and benefit one another; but as it so happens, I often find that there's always a knack with people to just say whatever comes to mind - not with an intent to actually be wiser at the end of the day; but rather to just be deliberately ridiculous. I don't think that is quite a pleasant attitude to adopt. Many atheists, sadly, are known for this attitude; and I had hoped that by now people would be a bit more open to dialogue and not just throwing words around.

I hope that there'll be a change in postures with a positive leaning. If otherwise, no worries. Do have a good day all the same.

Pardon me, but I did not think this was a rude question. I just realise that there was more to the original question that meets the eye.

And that is the question of the nature of humans in heaven. Are those lucky to get into heaven gonna do so with their flesh&blood bodies, or just as spirits/souls. If it is just as spirits/souls them why would Jesus be talking about entry into heaven with dismembered bodies?

Or do spirits/souls retain memory of bodily disfigurement in life? Thus armless souls, eyeless souls, penisless souls, etc?

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Wow! I apologise - I missed that actually, although I was wondering if there was a link somehow between therationa and huxley. Anyway, we all learn everyday.

Okay, good to know. Just as one could describe me as a theist with particular reference to Christianity and hence Christian theist, would I be correct by any stretch to think about you as an atheist with particular reference to metaphysical naturalism and hence atheistic naturalist?

Yes, therationa is tpaine is huxley. therationa was banned for taking a strong stance against the Mohammedans.


Christian theist and atheistic naturalist, while being precise, are tautological. A naturalist tends to be an atheist, although a deist might also describe herself as a naturalist. I like the following definition for naturalism from wikipedia.

Metaphysical or ontological naturalism is any worldview in which the world is amenable to a unified study that includes the natural sciences and in this sense the world is a unity. According to such a view, nature is all there is, and all things supernatural (which stipulatively includes spirits and souls and non-natural values) do not exist, or they are reducible to natural things. It is often simply referred to as naturalism, and occasionally as philosophical naturalism or ontological naturalism, though all those terms have other meanings as well, with naturalism often referring to methodological naturalism. This article presents only a basic outline of the definition and history of metaphysical naturalism and the major arguments for and against it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism)

JJYOU:
mmmmmmmmmmmm there cons in every religion. there are is islamic cons too but you guys dare not talk about them for fear of seun and the mullahs. most of you just sit down in some cyber cafes and talk about things you don't know. benny hinn is this and that. he gets tax relief. for your info everyone and i mean everyone that has anything that has to do with the good of the common man can apply for charitable status and file your audited accounts yearly. this part of the world is not like nigeria where people cook books.

if you really believe he is a crook take it upon yourself and report him to the IRS for investigation

I wonder why he hides his books from scrutiny by the evangelical body set up to clean up financial mismanagement. Other "reputable" pastors (notably Billy Graham) have joined and had their ministry examine. I wonder why Hinn would not submit to that. That alone does not mean he is a fraud, but it smacks of skeletons in cupboards.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Yes, most other questions will remain unanswered - until people invite a welcoming attitude to dialogue. However, I've just been thinking lately about something I've asked myself long ago - let me begin by asking this:

What really is your worldview - atheism, deism, or theism?

I thought I was rather tamed but persistent on this thread, but not unwelcoming. I know some of my other thread were a lot more strident. Just look at my post under therationa

As to my worldview, I identify myself as a naturalist (metaphysical naturalist). On the god question, I am an atheist. I do not consider atheism as my worldview, as I derive little from the fact that I am an atheist.