₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: lol...that story is a good story for sucking out tithes!

Well like I used to tell people then, I'd make a good pastor but I'm not evil enough .

Ihedinobi: Not sure what you mean.

I mean I'll bet you didnt know debosky was a christian before now. Its a wager and I could lose it but I think Im safe.


So, did you know ?

Oh, and about the borrowing a leaf, it simply means that you dont have to see red whenever its a theist vs atheist matter. debosky has held his own against atheists but his approach is different.

Concerning the OP, years ago, my friend dragged me to a church. I went reluctantly but the sermon was somewhat related to the OP.

The pastor preached about faith and how unbelievers (not necessarily atheists) had more faith than christians.

He went on about people gathering money to leave the country by trekking through North Africa (Morocco and Libya to be exact) and how after having seen dehydration and death, they get repatriated and still, they look for money to embark on that journey. He said its their faith that makes them keep coming up for beatdowns. The faith that things will get better once they leave the country.

Being a pastor, he couldnt help but relate it to tithes and offering: how people dont have enough faith and how they prefer to give excuses of how their businesses are suffering and how they need the money to progress.

Punchline: unbelievers would "rag" that money somehow with the belief that "e go better" but God's own wont give to him, instead they would make excuses rather than sow a seed.

EDITED

again Ishi!

Ihedinobi: My brother, you're pretty good at playing devil's advocate . . .

I'll wager you just discovered this.

You might want to borrow a leaf tree

debosky: For example, giving 'evolution' as the process by which humans exist today (argument against creation by God) isn't the same as offering another candidate to take the place of God.

debosky, would it be out of place for a "fool" like me (Psalm 14:1) to say God bless you for the above (and to ask "How you dey? ) )?

Ishi

Logicboy03: How can one believe in a negative?

Is there a disbelief in astrology a belief?

I believe in X.....

I dont believe in X......

Thats why I say slow your rolls

A disbelief in astrology isnt a belief in astrology, no!

But Bella has the wrong idea and you addressed it too abruptly (in my humble opinion). Again, thats why I say slow. Its not just Bella, a lot of folks have that misconception.

[quote author=Bélla3]kmcutez chai you havent been treating him well? In less than a week since ishilove left, he has turned into an old white man[/quote]

davidylan: this is illogic at its best. A negative does not necessarily mean "non-existent". So a disbelief in God for example is a BELIEF that God does not exist.

Foul dear David, Foul!

A disbelief in god is nowhere near saying that God does not exist. Not by a long shot brother.

[quote author=Bélla3]the least you could do is save me your insults, thank you.


We arent born atheists, we are born 'indifferent'. Am sure they mean two different things.[/quote]Bella, can an 'indifferent' person say he/she believes in God ?

I know he can claim he/she doesnt care, but if we were to hold down such a one, can that person say he/she believes in god ?


Regardless of your answer, I will put one thing to you.

An atheist isnt one who asserts there is no god, an atheist is one who doesnt believe in god. Its not the same thing if you think about it.

Logicboy03: Atheism is a belief?

[quote author=Bélla3]a belief that 'there is no god'?[/quote]

Logicboy03: That is a disbelief. A belief has to be a positive notion on something. A disbelief is a negative. "no god" is a negative.

Slow your rolls LB.

A belief that there is no god is a belief that there is no god.

Chew and swallow. I know where you are headed and where your heart is, but in your haste, you allow peeps to trip you up.

musKeeto: You're Igbo. Are you aware we had a four day week, 7 weeks per month and 13 month calendar which was roughly 364 days a year. The calendar we use today has 365 days. Was ours influenced by the white man?

In no particular order

Afor, Nkwo, Orie

cant recall the last one (and I wont cheat by calling my friends) must be the strong waters Im imbibing

prairie: you are the slave, what are u doing in the uk sef, come bak to ur village and farm. Funny thing is that atheism started from d same white people, going by that mister, we are def in the same shoes

QFT

Theres a certain theist who unscrupulously and dubiously screams "evangelical atheist " all over the place. He quote mines unabashedly and hardly respects truth.

Well now we have a theist claiming to be "in the same shoes".

Ha!
Could it be true after all has been said and done, that the theist can only make sense of atheism by casting it in the same discredited light of theism ?

Wonders they say shall never end!!


Finally, the mystery is understood.

^^^

Apologies!

I noticed a red message telling me I had a PM (its still there as I type). I went to my box and couldnt locate it so I thought it might be a nairaland bug.

Ive sent you a mail.

MacDaddy01: Jayriginal's obituary

Jayriginal, died in the first weekend of his marriage after a heart attack from a 2day nonstop se.x with his partner. He was found handcuffed to the bed with a minibible used as a gag in his mouth. Ironic that he was an atheist who died with the word of god in his mouth.

LMFAO!!!

Had to picture that.

madone: You watch too much of nollywood

Nollywood cannot give you this good a high!!!

He has to be on some other ish.

MacDaddy01: You, yes you. I caught you lying. I told you that I didnt believe your story


Someone pointed me to a pic of you on the interview page. You were black.
Then on your profile, you are now light skinned



Mrs Micheal cakesoap Jackson

Leave Ishi alone. The girl is mine!

SimonAndal: Well then research! I've been having a shitty day, and really need someone to blow my trumpet.

Good God !!!

MacDaddy01: That has many meanings

So what are you asking for exactly?

SimonAndal: Oh my god, you dirty, perverted man! Not do me do me, do me. My stats.

(although I'm not averse to the other.......*wink*)

I'm still on page 1 but I cant help but wonder if Simon has been "done".

jayriginal: It can disprove a certain kind of god though, provided the god created everything (in a few days) and "saw that it was good".

I sense that this explains Dr David's vehement opposition to evolution. To the point in fact that the good Dr infact asks why (surprisingly so) apes are still around if evolution is true.

. . .

brandy waning

sobriety returning

. . .

DeepSight, lol

jayriginal: Ok, heres the part where I try my hand at amateur psychology.
I get the impression that you have made a deep study of the major religions possibly some occultism as well. I think that the best parts of these religions have made an impression on you and these you have inculcated as well as many ideas original to you. I'm also pretty sure you have studied some atheist material as well. A fine blend of the best of the best, a dose of original thinking, soul searching and meditation and the man is born. We now call him Deep Sight.
https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9223408

Bumped while reviewing.

Quite mistakenly

An observation on the thread "The Improbability of God"

Jenwitemi: I think it is much more apt to change the title of this thread to, "The Improbability of The Jewish/Christian/Islamic God". Because, as i suspect, when atheist make claims that there is no God, they are always meaning the "One True Gods" of the world religions, especially those of the Abrahamic faiths, the 3 middle eastern desert dogmas. Those "Gods" that exist only on the pages of the scriptural texts of these religions. These scriptural Gods can be easily disproved as being responsible for the creation of this reality by the atheists.

https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9200041

Read in line with my earlier comments.

I was replying as I went but I see thehomer quite answered your queries

thehomer: There is a huge difference between those two statements. The first can be compared to saying that the theory of gravity doesn't need God and the second to saying that the theory of gravity disproves God. Now you wish to run from your previous claim that Dawkins said the theory of evolution disproves God but this is what you said here.


Your mind seems fixated in the idea that whenever Dawkins critiques the idea of a God, the conclusion he must be drawing is that he doesn't exist but that isn't what he was doing at that point.


The paragraphs preceding that quote clearly show what that statement was referring to which is how different species appear to clearly fit in with their environment. It then follows that what he was referring to as "the prerogative of God" is the apparent existence of design in living creatures and not the existence of the universe. How on earth could you have made such an error?


Can nothing actually exist? Merely saying that God did it isn't an explanation. Wait so Dawkins himself said he isn't concerned about the beginning of the universe yet you think that the point of his article was to address it?


If you don't understand what he was saying then obviously, you cannot argue against it because all you've done here is to either construct strawmen or show your failure to understand what he wrote. You clearly haven't heard about the argument from design that is held up as evidence for God. Please take the time to look at it. That argument was destroyed by the theory of evolution.

He is quite right you know?

Deep Sight: And here is the quote you have been waiting for:

Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God.

You are sorely and surely mistaken here my good friend. This then is why I point out to you that your arguments for god and the theists arguments for god are quite different. It probably also explains why thehomer as a matter of principle will usually ask for a definition of "god".

In general and without explanation, the word god is generally understood to be the one of the popular religions. That is not your kind of god. You however come rushing in trying to amalgamate the two and impose your own definition. Not so Sir.

Now concerning the quote above, namely that "Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God.", god here is understood mainly to be the Abrahamic one. The one that created man whole in his image and rested. In other words, no evolution as Dr David argues here. It is that kind of god that excludes evolution that Dawkins is arguing about. You are on record as holding on to the theory of evolution. Your position is that evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive (correct me if I am wrong).

This "god" Dawkins is arguing against isnt your type of god. I am pretty certain he can never say that evolution disproves "god" in the widest sense. It can disprove a certain kind of god though, provided the god created everything (in a few days) and "saw that it was good".

MacDaddy01: https://www.nairaland.com/1196280/dawkins-vs-deepsight


[s]I did my best. Your comment was disjointed and needed proper editing for a rebuttal (quoting and bolding)

After reading your comments, I have come to the conclusion that you are full of elitist shyt. Nothing you wrote there proves that Dawkins is a dunce. [/s]Rather, you have a hatred for him.

I need to come in at this point.

DeepSight, that you have a "hatred" as LB put it for Dawkins seems obvious to me and Ive mentioned that before. That hatred leads you to chase shadows.

See here, I will repeat my post to you

jayriginal: Deep Sight, I'm surprised at your bile. First of all Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent man and his credentials and credibility are superior to yours (for now at least). That is not to say that you are unintelligent in anyway but to go around bashing him in such a manner is unworthy of you.

From some of your posts, I have been led to believe that you are a man of science (I may be mistaken). You are not wrong for holding contrary views (indeed it is healthy) but your manner of expression in this post leaves a lot to be desired.
I read the article from Dawkins and I didn't get any of the impressions you got. This may be partially due to the fact that I am not a man of science, but its also largely due to the fact that a lot of your rebuttals come from errors of logic and semantic misconstruction (whether deliberate or not).

As KAG pointed out Dawkins may not be the best Philosopher. You made a point somewhere

1. It is well known that the theory of evolution addresses the development of living things and says nothing about the development of the universe and support systems for such living things.


2. The question therefore remains the source or cause of the entire super-system.

These are not quite rebuttals. Dawkins never claimed to have all the answers. If you read the article properly, you would have met this

The details of the early phase of the universe belong to the realm of physics, whereas I am a biologist, more concerned with the later phases of the evolution of complexity

Your post is filled with many instances of this, rebutting or seeming to rebut claims that weren't made.

I'd prefer a more robust debate. We can all learn more from it.
https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9187779

Now everybody has a point to make. If I recall rightly, Enigma says that hearing from Dawkins on theology is like hearing from a lion on vegetables. On your own part, you say he is not addressing the "koko" which is to say, he is not talking about the very beginning but he starts from an existing process and concludes "there is no god" without addressing where that process commences from.

Its all fine and dandy but as I believe I've mentioned before or hinted specifically to Enigma (since he has a tendency to take things very literally), "tender your theology degree". And for the rest, tender your philosophy degree. Every man with thought is a philosopher. A fart could be said to be a product of philosophy (I dare anyone to argue the point).

Bottom line, in my opinion, it was the title of his book that won him this many enemies such that he has been so castigated.

I remember our discussion on the "theoretical" possibility of an eye from "bare skin". You seized upon that, ignoring what Dawkins later said regarding that matter (to my disappointment).

All in all, like I said on the "Darwins Day" thread (I think), your argument is different from that of the theists. Arguing god will not bring it into existence if it is neither will it take god out of existence if it isnt.

A theist says my god did it. You say "a" god did it . That leads to different arguments. In that case then, you ought to hold your own separately because its not the same thing.

Back to Dawkins, he does not conclude that based on evolution there is no god. In fact his article isnt even titled "The Impossibility of God" its titled "The Improbability of God". That says a lot. Dawkins does not assert that there is no god, he just thinks it unlikely. A fine point misunderstood by theists and which had them hooting that he couldnt say there was no god.

Hate him if you will, but dont let that lead you to misunderstand him.

Deep Sight: JAY BRO! ! ! ! ! Longest time, u no gree wish me happy new year? Just because of of some small yabbis Abeggiiiii! Where u don dey na?

Anyway your comment above brings some illumination to some of what you have said in the past regarding atheism and agnosticism and I can see where you are coming from.

Common lets be in touch. How's practice?

No vex bros. Happy New Year!

I was in Lagos over the weekend and thought about you and Toba.

I did mention you on one thread though. You probably didnt see it. Anyway, I'm fine. I resolved not to get too into this religion stuff again cos it eats into ones time. Thats especially important for me. I can use the time to see to some pet projects of mine. Nairaland as a whole is quite distracting. These days I try to keep my comments and arguments short.

plaetton: ^^^^^
Let me interject and help out Anony here.

There is a clear difference between not believing in something, and, asserting with absolute conviction that the thing in question does not exist.

Thank you.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Please try and watch the video.[/quote]I'll try when I can.

Again the wordplay changes nothing. I see no difference between not believing that God exists and holding that God does not exist. But then perhaps there is something I am overlooking.

Please could you make clear to me the difference between not believing in God's existence and believing that there is no God?


EDIT: For instance if I say "I believe that Jayriginal is a girl", it follows that I should declare that "jayriginal is a girl" because that's what I am convinced you are.

What doesn't follow is if I say "I don't believe that jayriginal is a girl" only to follow up my statement with "I don't hold the position that jayriginal is not a girl". It makes absolutely no sense

"I dont believe Anony wrote this post" is definitely not the same as "Anony did not write this post". Do you get the point now ?
Its not so subtle that you cant get it after a little reflection.
Beware of equivocation.

You must have heard of accused persons escaping "justice" due to lack of evidence. Does that make them "innocent"? Think about that.


[quote author=Mr_Anony]If I recall correctly, the phrase Stein used was "legitimate pursuit" Not "serious contender". You a loading their claim to make it sound like something else.

If a person says that something is possible he doesn't necessarily mean that such a thing is a 'serious contender' compared to another theory, but yes he definitely means that such a thing can be legitimately explored.[/quote]If you were on the other side of the fence, you would utter something about being "petty with words" and "wordplay" changes nothing. Considering the fact that you are trying to prove that allowing for a possibility is the same as deducing the fact of that thing, you ought to be careful.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]For your information, almost every scientific theory there is that has not yet been proven is described as possibility. It doesn't mean it is not a proposed theory. You are just being petty over words here.[/quote]I really dont see how you can accuse me of being petty over words. There is a clear difference between allowing for the possibility of something and deducing something.


I doubt you understand what you just wrote.

I cited one atheist as a case study but that doesn't mean I arrived at the conclusion based solely on Mr Dawkins.

Ok, but find your comments below.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Conclusion:
Watching that video showed me something very important: It is not that the there is no evidence for God as the atheist would like to believe, It is just that the atheist is fanatically committed to a naturalistic worldview (which by the way, he has no justification for as it cannot explain all the aspects of his reality) and for that reason, even when he sees evidence for God staring him in the face, he refuses to acknowledge him.[/quote]

By the way it is interesting how you say that "there is no one position in atheism". I thought atheism itself is the position that there is no God.

This is the part that really interests me because I have argued on this forum that this is incorrect. I have argued this with theists, deists, atheists and "agnostics". Its a common misconception. An atheist is one who does not believe in god. It is a very general term and not specific for those who declare that there is no god. So you guys are jubilating because Dawkins refused to declare god non existent when he is supposed to be an atheist. It shows you dont know what you are wrestling with.

This misconception leads to warped arguments all the time. Warped arguments and phantom chasing.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Perhaps it is time to say what I think of the video:

Dawkins was asked what he thinks of the possibility that life was intelligently designed. He answered by citing the possibility that an alien intelligent life form could have seeded life on earth. He even suggests that we might see a signature for this designer in the complex mechanisms of molecular biology.....[/quote]The matter seems clear to me.

...Now pause for a minute and let that sink in...

Maybe you should have paused a little longer.

Dawkins makes it clear that a creator could exist but it would have most likely evolved in a Darwinian manner i.e. it must have a naturalistic explanation (notice how Richard paints everything with his Darwinian evolution brush).
Ben Stein notices this and points out that Dawkins doesn't really have a problem with a creator. He only insists that the creator must be naturalistic/material.

Also seems clear to me.

Ben goes on to press him on the question about the belief in any gods whatsoever to which he replies that such an assertion would contradict everything he has been saying (he completely forgot that he had just proposed physical gods from another planet)

Now considering the bolded so far, is it really true that he "proposed" ?

Now to the problems with Dawkins' logic.

1. Dawkins accepts the possibility of an intelligent creator, he only insists that such a creator would have evolved as well as us. This doesn't help us at all because all it does is introduce an infinite regress of design and evolution. At some point you must end at a first intelligent life that did not evolve (The very kind of intelligent life Richard dawkins rejects). Puzzling isn't it?

2. Dawkins is right in deducing an intelligent designer as responsible for a complex life, but then there is no reason to insist that this intelligent life must have evolved. The only reason why Dawkins would think this is because of his bias emanating from a Darwinian/materialist worldview.

One one hand you say he "accepts the possibility" of an intelligent designer and on the other hand, you say he is right for "deducing an intelligent designer". Am I missing something ?
Before todays game I accepted the possibility that we would beat the Ivory Coast. I certainly did not deduce it. Since when have the terms become interchangeable ?

Conclusion:
Watching that video showed me something very important: It is not that the there is no evidence for God as the atheist would like to believe, It is just that the atheist is fanatically committed to a naturalistic worldview (which by the way, he has no justification for as it cannot explain all the aspects of his reality) and for that reason, even when he sees evidence for God staring him in the face, he refuses to acknowledge him.

The conclusion of that video was very telling: When Dawkins is asked what he will say to God after his death, Dawkins says he'll ask why God took so much pains to hide Himself.
Dawkins forgot that he had just suggested that "the details of molecular biology might hold the signature of a designer". Clearly the evidence of God lies before Dawkins. Pity he would rather it was aliens.

You arrived at that conclusion from one atheist ? One who you and others have thoroughly misconstrued. I shouldnt be surprised though. If one says "that isnt the default atheist position", another will find an opportunity to use it as an argument. It is quite common. There is no one position on atheism. It is the theists particularly that see Dawkins as the atheist figurehead/role model/leader or whatever.

I think I know why. Its not so much what he says or writes as the title he gave his book "The God Delusion".

Ouch!!

That must have hurt and he sold lots of copies. In that DeepSight is right. Controversy sells or at the least creates awareness (which is easily translated to sales). In any case, I'm sure that is what angers most.

Pebbles; mostly.


EDIT:
I have to say here that I didnt watch the video. I simply relied on your post which I have quoted here.