Jayriginal's Posts

Nairaland Forum › Jayriginal's Profile › Jayriginal's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 (of 97 pages)

Christianity Etc › Re: 30 Keys To Being An Effective Atheist by jayriginal: 11:55pm On Nov 16, 2011

Nairaland Fundamentalist Mantras/ Standard Arguments

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

^^^ For the full list. 666 grin

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN, a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I)
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

MORAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Person X, a well-known atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

MORAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
(2) That all changed once I became religious.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we're all going to not exist after we die.
(2) I'm afraid of that.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
(2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you silly atheists; it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
(1) Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys — you're obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth." John 3:16.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) I believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION, a.k.a. TOMAS DE TORQUEMADA'S ARGUMENT
(1) See this bonfire?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

PARENTAL ARGUMENT
(1) My mommy and daddy told me that God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
(1) Billions of people believe in God.
(2) They can't all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY
(1) Maranathra!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ECONOMY
(1) God exists, you bastards!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

BOATWRIGHT'S ARGUMENT
(1) Ha ha ha.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

DORE'S ARGUMENT
(1) I forgot to take my meds.
(2) Therefore, I AM CHRIST!!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM
(1) Telling people that God exists makes me filthy rich.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

MITCHELL'S ARGUMENT
(1) The Christian God exists.
(2) Therefore, all worldviews which don't assume the Christian God's existence are false and incomprehensible.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (I)
(1) Atheists are spiritually blind.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
(1) God exists.
(2) I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM META-SMUGNESS
(1) F.u.ck you.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MANIFESTATIONS
(1) If you turn your head sideways and squint a little, you can see an image of a bearded face in that tortilla.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION
(1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew.
(2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns.
(3) Therefore, God exists

ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL
(1) I DO believe in God! I DO believe in God! I do I do I do I DO believe in God!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NONBELIEF
(1) The majority of the world's population are nonbelievers in Christianity.
(2) This is just what Satan intended.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PAROCHIALISM
(1) God is everywhere.
(2) We haven't been everywhere to prove he's not there.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UPPERCASE ASSERTION
(1) GOD EXISTS! GET USED TO IT!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

Christianity Etc › Re: How To Talk To A Religiious Fundamentalist by jayriginal(op): 10:52am On Nov 16, 2011

Articles by Dan Barker, former Preacher (for 19 years shocked

Christianity Etc › Re: How To Talk To A Religiious Fundamentalist by jayriginal(op): 10:46am On Nov 16, 2011

Unless you have time to waste (in which case you are truly ready for your upcoming exams), I would suggest you avoid all those interesting side discussions and go on the offensive, hitting the jugular-the bible. It is the bible, after all, upon which all of fundamentalism rests. If the bible is true, they have a case. If not, their whole house of cards falls. I would have been very impressed if you had said something like, "You might have a point if the bible were reliable. I would be happy to believe what you believe, but I when I study the bible, as you recommend, I come away concluding that it cannot be the basis for any truth, and here is why, " If you would have pointed out some contradictions in the bible, using chapter and verse, that would have impressed me immensely. I would not have converted immediately to atheism (ha!), but my momentum would have been slowed. After all, bible reading is what fundamentalists are urging you to do, and if you tell them "Been there, done that," with specific examples, then they can't pretend that your problem is due to ignoring their "Good Book."
If you had quoted the bible to me, I would not have admitted that I was impressed. I would have fought back, claiming that you are taking things out of context or reading a bad translation or failing to see the big picture, wondering how in the world someone could read the bible and not fall in love with it. But the important thing is that you would have me on the defensive. I would know that you know that if the bible falls, my whole fundamentalist world view crumbles. I would also know that you have taken me seriously. You went right to my source and looked at it for yourself. I could not complain that you are afraid to look at "the facts."
I am not recommending that you become a bible scholar. Just familiarize yourself with some of the basics of bible contradictions, scientific and historical errors. [b]After all, as much as they trumpet the bible, few of them actually read it carefully. "Bible study," to a fundamentalist does not mean what it means to a scholar-it means "reading the words of God in order to feed on his wisdom." Bible study, to them, does not mean examining the manuscripts on which translations were based, or the fluctuating historical context in which those words were written in order to assess the reliability and worth of the claims that were written, or noticing the parallels with other religious texts, or noticing the evolution of the text (insertions, deletions, replacements, scribal mistakes), and so on. The fundamentalist takes the authenticity of the bible as a given, as a starting point. Then they read from it, often flitting from verse to unconnected verse, like a bee looking for nectar. (They are not all that sloppy, of course, but they all treat the text as "holy." wink

Bible "study," to a fundamentalist, is not study-it is worship.[/b]
In my new book, Godless, as well as my 1992 book Losing Faith in Faith, I detail a handful of useful bible contradictions (some discussed in great depth), which you might use as an easy starting point, if you are not too familiar with the "Word of God." I also lay out the arguments that weaken the likelihood of a historical Jesus, and the case against the resurrection of Jesus (a very important issue to fundamentalists).
Morality
Fundamentalists are extremely fixated on the "sin" issues. They imagine, as the bible teaches, that the only way to be truly good is to follow God's laws. We humans are born with an innate tendency to evil-"original sin"-and only Jesus can cure that. The world's problems are due to disobedience and selfishness and an unwillingness to submit to the rules that our loving Father has laid down for us. Most fundamentalists also believe in a literal Satan who tempts us away from the holiness of the family of God. Homosexuality, abortion, free love, adultery, drug use, cheating on tests, crime, and dozens of other "sins" are a direct result of our godless selfishness and arrogant waywardness. But if you are "born again," you become an entirely "new creature," and are now one of the good people, the "in crowd" of brothers and sisters of Jesus. Your life now has real love. It is more moral, more compassionate, and less "sinful" than the lives of nonbelievers.
That's what I used to preach, with no empirical support. It is a powerful insider's belief, a glue that separates "us" from "them." After all, don't you want to be a good person? Don't you want to be saved from sin? Don't you need real love in your life (as opposed to mere carnal, human love)? Wouldn't any good person desire to go to heaven?
You nonbelievers are outsiders, nonparticipants, unsaved, still trapped in your evil human nature, needing a make-over, a regeneration, a new birth.
So on that issue, here is something else you could have said to me that would have had an impact. It would not have changed my mind on the spot, but it would have been excruciatingly relevant. "You born-again Christians preach that faith in Jesus helps you to live better lives, but in fact, you are not more moral than nonChristians. Your lives do not have more happiness or meaning. As a group, you are not healthier. You have no fewer financial problems. You commit just as many crimes, take just as many drugs for depression, watch just as many X-rated movies, report no greater satisfaction in life, and actually have a higher divorce rate than nonChristians. You contribute less to charity." (If they ask for documentation, point them to such studies as conducted by the honest born-again sociologist George Barna, who concludes in his book The Second Coming of the Church that "We [born-again Christians] think and behave no differently from anyone else."
Show the fundamentalist that, as a nonbeliever, you are happy and ethical. If you contribute to charity or do volunteer work for a good cause, let them know it. Since even Jesus agreed that those who are not sick don't need the doctor (Matthew 9:12), you can simply say you are healthy, thank you. If salvation is the "cure," then atheism is the "prevention."
Also, point out that for all their talk about the need for moral absolutes, Christians do not agree on what those absolutes are. Take any current moral issue with which society is struggling, and you will find praying, bible-believing, devout church-going Christians on both sides of those issues. This is true of abortion rights, man-lover rights, stem-cell research, the war in Iraq, birth control, gun control, the death penalty, doctor-assisted suicide, the teaching of evolution, animal rights, environmental protection, state/church separation, and so on. Where is the "absolute moral guidance" they talk about? Why do bible believers not agree?
You don't need to get sucked into a long philosophical argument about moral absolutes or ethical relativism. Atheists and agnostics disagree about these things, and so do theists among themselves. You can just point out that even if they are right about the need for moral absolutes (they are not, but that is beside the point), there is no empirical support for their claim that Christians are better people.
- - - - -
There are other issues that may be more relevant to other types of Christians, but if you want to talk the language of a fundamentalist, then concentrate on the bible and morality. Don't let them think they have the upper hand. Don't allow them to pretend that you are the one with the problem. You don't have to talk with them, of course, and in many cases it is probably best to just ignore them. But if you think there is a chance the fundamentalist knows how to listen (and not just preach), then remind them that a true dialogue is a two-way street and that you are happy to listen to them if they will also listen to you.
Otherwise, get back to studying for that math exam.
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/2227

Christianity Etc › How To Talk To A Religiious Fundamentalist by jayriginal(op): 10:45am On Nov 16, 2011

I know how to talk to a fundamentalist. Well, I know how to talk to the kind of fundamentalist I used to be, so I guess I know how to talk to myself. But that is something.

I started preaching in high school, and by college I was really good at it. I would walk up to you on campus, convinced that you were inwardly seeking exactly what I had to offer, and ask if you were saved, knowing that you would be so happy to finally meet someone so interesting, someone whose life was together, unlike yours. I was breath of fresh air.

It would be your lucky day when God directed you to sit next to me on a bus.

Maybe you didn't consciously admit that you wanted the truth I was offering, but after sensing the Spirit of God in my words, you would realize that, "Yes, this is what I have been yearning for!" You were merely living in "the world," and I was handing you the privilege to leave that sad, lowly, hopeless, empty domain and move into God's fraternity. What a blessing that there were people like me on campus who had the goodness and courage to make you such a wonderful invitation.

It was more than that, of course, but you get the idea. You probably thought I was a kook, but I knew I was a humble servant of the creator of the universe, so laugh all you want. The bible predicts that we obedient messengers of Jesus would be misunderstood and persecuted. If you called me names, that proved the bible is true! It also raised my status in His eyes, which were more important than your eyes.

It was exciting to get doors slammed in my face. It was affirming to hear ignorant college students arguing with me, trying to use the flawed and misconstrued "facts" of mere science, which are always changing, to combat the transcendent truth of the bible, which never changes.

Not all fundamentalists are the same. They often fight among themselves about various doctrines. They also differ in their style. Some are peaceful, loving, gentle believers who are genuinely good people trusting that their joyful and meaningful lives will be attractive to you. They figure it is God who is the judge. Others are intrusive proselytizers who sense a duty and a right to confront you in order to change your sinful ways and bring you into heaven. Fundamentalists fall across the bell curve of personality types like the rest of us. Some are intelligent and informed. Some are more emotional. Some are more empathetic and compassionate, more kind and respectful than others. The one thing that unites them is their commitment to the authority of the bible, regardless of how they interpret the "truth" of that book.

Fundamentalists pretend to love you sinners while hating your sin, and fancy themselves as doctors (or agents of the doctor) who can fix what is wrong with you. Like many doctors, fundamentalists rarely imagine they can learn anything from the patient. They walk through life diagnosing what is wrong with everyone else, smiling with the certainty (some might say smugness) that they have the secret to life, and if you challenge the reality of their so-called relationship with Jesus, they will simply say "you don't know." (And that may be true. Most of you nonbelievers don't know what it is like to "talk with God." But I do know, which is why I can write about this. It's quite a powerful experience, which I can reproduce today, with all the attendant feelings of being in the presence of a superior being-but as an atheist I now know that "talking with God" is purely psychological and points to nothing outside of the brain.)

It would seem that a true two-way dialogue between fundamentalists and nonbelievers, with radically different approaches to epistemology, is difficult, maybe impossible. But I am going to tell you exactly what you could have said to me that would have made a difference, things that I now wish someone had told me years ago.

Before you jump in with arguments swinging, I want to caution you to back up. Ask yourself what your agenda is and how it relates to their agenda.

Their goal is to convert you. Therefore, by not converting, you have already won. If you are not the arguing type, don't worry. You can just say, "No thanks, I don't believe that. I am happy. I don't need what you offer." Then walk away. That might be more effective than squaring off for a prolonged one-way argument where they can show off how much they know, trying this and that (changing the topic), and feeling like a very important servant of God, going back to their church to boast, "I was unafraid to confront Satan face to face." If you simply walk away, you deny them the chance to feed their attention-seeking needs. They want to feel important and useful to God. They hate to be ignored.

And what is your goal? If your goal is to simply counter them and let them know there are happy, informed nonbelievers in the world, then that is easy. Just be yourself, say what you think, and don't worry if they change their minds. Be relaxed about it. You are not the one with the problem and you can't solve everyone else's problems. If you try too hard to change their mind, it can make you look uneasy, like you are "protesting too much," which they most certainly will take as a sign of insecurity. It can also validate their "war" (as the hymn says, "Onward, Christian Soldiers" wink

, hardening their resolve. Many nonbelievers are happy to live and let live, and don't care what fundamentalists believe. Most of us nontheists will complain only about the harmful behavior (not ideas) of believers, because people should be judged by their actions, not their beliefs. If a religiously motivated action is causing unnecessary harm, then moral people will challenge such behavior. Otherwise, belief is a private matter. Tell them a little of your opinions, then leave it at that.

If your goal, however, is to convert them, then you have a lot of work to do. Well, actually, we can't "convert" anyone. We all have to come to our own conclusions. If you were raised religious, like me, you know that your de-conversion came from inside, not from an atheist evangelist. But still, some of us atheists and agnostics do feel a need, or responsibility, to champion reason, science, and kindness, and would like to improve the world by persuading others to abandon superstition and dogma.

There is one other thing you should realize before you start talking with a fundamentalist, and this might save you a lot of grief and wasted time. Regarding religious and moral matters, fundamentalists have binary brains. Their mindset is absolutistic. There is no gray area in their skulls when it comes to Jesus and the bible. (I didn't say "gray matter," but maybe sometimes it feels that way.) To a fundamentalist, everything is black or white, yes or no, right or wrong. Jesus is reported as saying, "Because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold-I am about to spit you out of my mouth." If you use gray talk-relativistic, situational, tentative, hypothetical-it will translate to black. They claim to have 100% certainty and they will demand it of you. For this reason, fundamentalists are just as dismissive of liberal Christians as they are of atheists. If you say anything that admits less than perfect truth or absolute moral values, they will pounce on it and say, "Aha! You don't know!" If you say, "You don't know either," they will smile and reply that they have a personal relationship with Jesus, the author of reality, so it is you who is in the dark.

I used to say those things. And I believed them. I know that you can't shake that mindset with a few arguments on a sidewalk. However, there are some things you could have said to me which would have made an impact when I was a fundamentalist preacher.

http://www.secularstudents.org/node/2181

Christianity Etc › How To Respond To A Supercilious Christian by jayriginal(op): 10:03am On Nov 16, 2011

Not all Christians are supercilious, of course. Many are content to live and let live, and some even grant that science (despite its lack of supernatural entities) does some good. But Christianity as an organized, evangelizing movement has been on the offensive lately. Witness the new wave of evangelicals and their leaders such as Rick Warren, Lee Strobel, and William Lane Craig with their aggressive stance against scientific materialism and their bestselling books attempting to refute science. So, assuming you're an atheist, what do you say to the theist who asks, "You don't (chuckle) believe in a god (snicker)?"

Anybody familiar with the original article will see that the preceding paragraph is the same paragraph as the opening to "How to Respond to a Supercilious Atheist" by Alan Roebuck. By changing a few words, the same attack can be launched right back at him, and the rest of the article isn't much better. It appears to be a primer in projection. After all, when in doubt, just accuse them of being just like you.

Roebuck advises his fellow theists to take a different approach to defending the faith-instead of coming up with actual evidence, you should just tell atheists how our worldview is the one that is based on assumptions and presuppositions. He eschews using the First Cause argument and the defense of miracles because, "No matter what evidence you give, the supercilious atheist finds a way to dismiss it." I wonder if he has ever considered that it may be dismissed because it is not valid evidence.

The First Cause argument doesn't work because, at best, it can only be used to show that something created the universe, and that something is not necessarily Yahweh. It could be another god or a multitude of gods. Even that is questionable, though, due to the fact that they have yet to show that the universe itself is contingent upon some necessary being and not the necessary "being" itself. I would also advise theists to drop this argument from their arsenal, but not in favor of Roebuck's plan.

Roebuck states that, "it is not the case that your evidence for God is valid but nevertheless is cancelled out by his superior evidence against God." Gee, Sherlock, where can I find this "evidence against God?" How about the absolute penury of evidence for god? Theists have not yet grasped the concept of the burden of proof, apparently. It's really simple, so I find it astounding that it is so easily dismissed-the one who makes the positive claim (ie-god exists) is the one who has to prove that claim, not the person who is in the default position of suspension of belief due to lack of evidence (ie-as far as we know, god does not exist). As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, if you believe something without sufficient evidence, you are irrational.

Roebuck claims that atheism's vulnerability lies in the "false worldview" that we hold that only material, objectively verifiable things exist. First of all, this is not true. Not all atheists are scientific materialists. There are many who believe lots of different wacky theories that don't involve a god and there are others with other notions of how the universe operates. This argument is only applicable to a portion of atheists who also hold a materialistic worldview.

Roebuck then claims that scientific materialists assume this and have come to their conclusion before examining the evidence. (Is the projection evident yet?) The only evidence that exists is physical, material, verifiable, and falsifiable. The existence of god is none of the above. Any religious statement can be considered factually meaningless by virtue of the fact that it doesn't meet the falsifiability criterion. The only assumptions being made here are that god exists and it's up to atheists to disprove that. Obviously, Roebuck doesn't understand that this is impossible, and that is the very reason why we can say that no evidence for such an entity exists.

He uses an example of a blind man dismissing the existence of color because he cannot sense it, and likens that to the atheist who can't sense god. First of all, the blind man knows he is blind. He recognizes this sensory deficiency and doesn't believe that everybody on earth is also blind. Furthermore, Roebuck is demonstrating his lack of understanding of the functioning of the brain by asserting that color exists in some more than abstract sense. Color appears as it does to us in the small portion of the light spectrum that we are able to perceive. For other creatures, the world around them is entirely different, and we can study how this process operates, what causes disorders such as blindness or the inability to perceive color and from where it stems.

Is Roebuck suggesting here that atheists suffer from a sensory deficiency as well? Does he believe that theists have been endowed with a "sixth sense" that enables them to make contact with the supernatural? If so, I'd like him to demonstrate what part of our anatomy is causing this problem so that it can be rectified. Blindness stems from either the brain or the eye itself not operating properly. Where does "spiritual blindness" originate? Seen as how all of our senses are processed in the brain, and also have an external organ by which the information is received, he should be able to show where our malfunction is occurring.

Roebuck claims that the theist must challenge our "assumptions" to properly expose the atheist as a pedant, and says that first we have to define our criteria for making the determination that there is no valid reason to believe in god and how we know they are correct. He must be talking to different atheists than I, as most people that I know would respond with the criteria being objectively verifiable evidence, and that we know this method of validation to be the most accurate due to hundreds of years of making advancements as a society thanks to the scientific method.

He moves on to what kind of evidence would be needed to verify the occurrence of an actual miracle. This would be a difficult question because most people with a scientific mindset would not know what it would take because even unexplained phenomena could potentially be explained in the future. Not knowing the answer right now doesn't imply that the answer is unknowable. Besides, an omniscient, omnipotent being would know exactly what was necessary and could provide it if he chose. Unless, of course, we are his "vessels of wrath" created only to go to hell and demonstrate god's wonderful mercy.

He again misconstrues the position of atheists who allow for the possibility of the supernatural, although I personally feel that any knowledge of such a plane of existence is impossible to ascertain, by positing, "How do you know that a super-naturalistic explanation, involving a God who intervenes from time to time, cannot be the correct explanation? Wouldn't one have to be, for all intents and purposes, omniscient in order to know that God could not have been involved?" We don't know for sure that it couldn't be the correct explanation, and he is shifting the goalpost from his particular god to "a super-naturalistic explanation." This is a common tactic in apologetics, and it should be pointed out that he doesn't know that the supernatural being that started it all wasn't Zeus. As far as the omniscience goes, we can answer that we do not have to be omniscient to say that at this time, there is no evidence for such a being and no need to appeal to one. Making up an answer when there is none is called argumentum ad ignorantium.

He attempts to take on the issue of the logical contradictions inherent in the attributes that his god is given but misses most of the salient points. He deals momentarily with omnipotence and claims that god can do "anything that can be done." Didn't god make the rules to begin with? Could he not have made them different than they are? What's the point of having an omnipotent creator of the universe who was beholden to some other rules, and from where or whom did those mandates come?

He dedicates a measly three sentences to theodicy, and just says that a god who allows evil for some unknown reason could exist, but never ties it back into the real contradiction, which is how could that god be considered omnibenevolent? Again, god either created atheists specifically to be tortured for all eternity by no fault of their own, having been given the gift of faith or not, or he just chooses not to intervene for some mysterious reason. Either way, how can one argue that this being loves me? He will send me to hell purposely, either because it's my destiny, or because he just doesn't intervene because we need faith, which is a gift from him that we are supposed to somehow give ourselves. That's not circular or anything.

He moves on to what he calls "arguing presuppositionally", and gives an inadequate explanation of an axiom, which he then changes slightly to allow for the existence of god to be a non-axiomatic axiom. He claims that all knowledge is based upon one foundational principle that cannot be proven, but is intuited. He is muddying the waters here by the use of the word "intuit", as an axiom is just something that is self-evident. I feel he chose that word for the specific purpose of misleading the reader and priming them for the upcoming shift in definition.

He claims that axioms can be tested by deducing whether or not the system is "logically, morally, and existentially consistent." He asserts that the atheist worldview fails because the "nature of knowledge cannot be validated empirically." People have many different epistemological views, and the use of scientific methodology to determine the validity of anything is necessarily going to have some starting point and then system of experimentation. That is all we have with which to work, and he is attempting to negate the materialist worldview by using a point that he himself believes regarding his own-that not everything can be empirically validated.

He claims that one cannot live a purely naturalistic life as that implies that you define your own meaning, and that makes everybody's meaning invalid. We couldn't "stick to it when the going gets rough." I have no idea what kind of data he is using to determine this, but the search for meaning is an individual endeavor-even for the religious. People may claim that they "live for god", but in reality, nobody does. If all they are living for is the promise of an afterlife in paradise, then they logically would all just commit suicide to get there faster. Instead, what we observe is christians not following the dictates of their own belief system and living their daily lives in much the same way that we heathens do. They also use their families, their responsibilities, their hopes, dreams, and future endeavors as "meaning." Being handed a blanket "meaning" for your existence only serves to cheapen the very concept.

He claims the existence of god is axiomatic, but cannot be "intuited" like other axioms. These are, after all, "subtle and cosmic questions." If it is not self-evident, it is not an axiom. Period. He says that any proposition "must be judged true or false in light of what we already know to be true." I'm with him there, but how on earth does that prove the existence of god as axiomatic? His writing goes from merely ignorant to absurd at this point.

Perhaps the most amusing quote is this one: ", some people are content to believe without having any proof of their beliefs, and you can't argue with someone like that." You're telling me. Again, this is an example of projection at its finest. He claims that theism excels at "accounting for the facts of reality", but I'm not sure exactly what type of reality to which he refers. Reality is that which can be observed and generally agreed upon. Imaginary sky-daddys don't fall into that category.

His final snafu is that he comes around full-circle to admit that the foundation of religious belief is faith-that which is believed but cannot be proven. Did he not just spend 5 pages attempting to prove that his god belief is logically superior to a naturalistic worldview? I feel as if I missed the middle ten pages of this argument and walked into the conclusion of a completely different one. He claims that by pointing out our assumptions, theists can claim victory over atheists, but all he is really saying here is that he has the opinion that we do the same thing that they do. If that's true, why is it acceptable for them and not for us? It seems to be a very odd contradiction to say that atheists are wrong because we work from our presuppositions, but then to base your own worldview on presuppositions. How exactly can you determine whose presuppositions are correct? If they cannot be proven, how can anybody know? Given his own argumentation, how does he know that our supposed presuppositions, while I don't believe that a naturalistic worldview implies presuppositions, aren't the correct ones? Can we not take every argument here and turn it around on religion with no difficulty?

To put the nail in the coffin, his endnotes declare that the true impediment to our belief is that we hate god. This laughable notion is constantly used against us and is by far the most ridiculous assertion in their repertoire. It is nothing short of an attack that attempts to discredit our use of rationality by claiming that it is an emotional issue at its core. If anybody is rationalizing their emotions, it is the theist whose fear of death overwhelms him to the point that he makes up fairy tales to assuage the constant anxiety that life in an unknown, unpredictable universe can induce. This article was a pathetic attempt to discredit atheism, or more accurately, scientific materialism, by ascribing to it all of the properties of religion. That alone is enough to demonstrate the intellectual vacuity of their belief.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/how_to_respond_to_a_supercilious_christian

Christianity Etc › Re: What If Christians Go Berserk Because Of Insults To Jesus Christ ? by jayriginal: 8:14am On Nov 16, 2011

I spent hours yesterday replying this post only to see it disappear. Today I"ll keep it short and sweet.

frosbel:
What makes it the more surprising is that when we look through the verses of scripture to at least find one verse that will give us the permission to go berserk on unbelievers we find none .

Frosbel

Actually "scripture" is replete with God and his people killing those who do not agree with them

Leveticus 24:16-17, 23

16And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

17And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

23And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.

While we are at it, lets killl 405 practitioners of another religion because we dont agree with them.

1 Kings 18:40

40And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

Before you protest that those are old testament times, hear your master on the subject.
Mathew 5:17-19

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Dont bother quoting Paul with his new covenant lies.

frosbel:
Now you know why the bible says JESUS Christ is the Prince of Peace.

If we all emulated him, there will be perfect peace on earth.

Frosbel

Yeah right.
Mathew 10:34-37

34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Frosbel, Im sure you miss the old days. You'd like to kill anyone who doesnt agree with you. Too bad mate.

Christianity Etc › Re: Christ Spotted! by jayriginal: 7:50am On Nov 16, 2011

Jesus probably took several pictures when and if he was alive/existed (he did so many things, that if we were to record it, the whole earth will not contain the books that record his deeds in 33 years and his ministry of 3 and a half years). None of these pictures have seen the light of day, but we have a popular image of Jesus embedded in our subconscious.
Anyone who paints or draws Jesus,conforms to that image. The other pictures on toast, windows, etc also conform to that image. So does the one in this thread.

Christianity Etc › Re: Christ Spotted! by jayriginal: 7:41pm On Nov 15, 2011

^^ How were you able to recognize him ?
He must have a beard in one movie and probably not the other.

Christianity Etc › Re: Christ Spotted! by jayriginal: 3:03pm On Nov 15, 2011

Martian:
We have seen him on toast, we have seen him on wood, we have seen his image in random and mundane places but we have never seen a miracle quite like this one!!
I present the image of the lord jesus christ on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Classic

lagerwhenindoubt:
@Martian - not bad, now I dare you to try that with Prophet Mohamed - come on - I dare you

Nobody knows what the Prophet looks like. I think he forbade it because he did not want to turn into a myth like the biblical dude pictured behind the dog.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why Doesn't God Ever Answer Prayers? by jayriginal: 10:07pm On Nov 13, 2011

dekung:
Later we were advised to go and see one particular doctor. The doctor started his treatment on us and within three months, my wife got pregnant. My son is going to be three in January, thankfully.
What this has proved is that science and not prayers helped us. I f we stubbornly stuck to praying, we most likely would still be childless. My thinking id God (if she/he really exists) does everything possible to ensure people do not believe in him/her. I know tonnes of people who pray hard, fast always and are strong believers in God who wallow in abject poverty and have been praying to God for a better life for ages and nothing has happened for them that will show their prayers have been answered. I do not want to sound like an atheist here but my advice to anyone is to[b] embrace science and reason above some silly blind faith[/b]. Science has done so much for our world than we can ever imagine, for example without science so many people that I know WILL still be childless today. Why? IVF was what helped their hopeless situations and I must tell IVF has put smiles on lots of peoples faces, it has brought joy to so many homes. It may be expensive but I know with time the cost will go down with time. My NL people, IVF is a product of science not some blind religion. Through science birds have become a poor match for humans at flying, fishes are a poor match for us in swimming and tiny insect cannot compare with us in terms of viewing microscopic organisms. science has saved more lives that religion could match in a million years. Do you know how many people could have been left for dead or would have died? I can go on and on but I need to pause a little. My friend think up ways to solve your problems by yourself, solutions are right there in front of you. If you keep on waiting for God you probably may need to wait for ever because according to a yoruba saying 'Mo n bo wa Olorun, ko ya l'ogun odun' (When God say am coming, He probably may not be ready to move in the next 20 years )

Lets wait for the first person to come along and say that god inspired science or you to go and see your doctor.

chrisj2000:
Thank you very very much. I've shed. tears countless times for the level of ignorance in Nigeria.
Somebody can go on 7 days dry fasting without knowing the side effects. Dry fasting can cause stomach ulcer, and when they develop this any illness from fasting, that useless god cannot heal them. We must open their eyes.

Funny but true.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Truth Your Pastor Would Not Tell You About Tithes: Tithing Is Unscriptural U by jayriginal: 8:13pm On Nov 10, 2011

@Frosbel, this is what I asked you to do in the other thread about ways the flock were fleeced.

@Op, I found this link last week and printed it and gave a friend of mine who was burdened by the tithe extortion issue. The problem is that the text is so long that its easy to skip some important bits. You should do what I did; modify your post and highlight vital passages.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Ridicule Of Muslim Apologetics by jayriginal: 8:52pm On Nov 09, 2011

billyG:
jemmy1,sweetnecta & jayriginal Why are you and fellow your brothers the BOKO HARAM always causing trouble in nigeria?

If you have nothing to type, you should use your crayons. Go and play with your drawing book.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Improbability Of God by jayriginal(op): 12:15am On Nov 08, 2011

Jenwitemi:
Jayriginal, the only thing i got from your long long post is that, CHANCE is God. God(the bible/Quran Deities) is improbable as the creator, but CHANCE is. Sorry, but to me, you have not succeeded in factoring out of the creation equation, A GOD. In your epistle, all you did was add another one. CHANCE is the name of the GOD you propound.

Jenwitemi
that means you assumed that I am adopting evolution. I am not necessarily doing so, but I do hold evolution as a more reasonable alternative to the account in Genesis.
I posted this not because I adopt it, but because on nairaland, I have read several nonsensical accounts of evolution and I wanted to clear the air on the matter.

Because I reside in the south south of the country, I come across christians a lot. Therefore my general target is the biblical god (general I said).
I dont need fancy equations or theorems to prove/disprove the existence of a god/intelligent designer.
I couldnt care less how the universe came into being (seeing as there is no definite answer to that), I'm pretty sure though that the god of the bible had nothing to do with it (not as he is portrayed anyway)

Christianity Etc › Re: 30 Keys To Being An Effective Atheist by jayriginal: 11:19pm On Nov 07, 2011

^^^ Your point being ?

Christianity Etc › Re: True Riches by jayriginal: 11:15pm On Nov 07, 2011

^^ Meaning you adopt everything you post ?
Just seeking clarification.

Christianity Etc › Re: 30 Keys To Being An Effective Atheist by jayriginal: 12:10pm On Nov 07, 2011

Enigma:
To the clear thinker, a person who raises such things immediately marks himself out as an utter fool!

^^ The above alone, speaks volumes.

Gaming › Re: Comet Chess Club Ondo State/ekiti State by jayriginal: 10:12pm On Nov 06, 2011

^^^^ Legend of Idanre, I must greet you specially.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Improbability Of God by jayriginal(op): 5:43pm On Nov 06, 2011

I was reading a thread when my eye fell on this link (at the end of the post) and immediately I remembered my words here

jayriginal:
Permit me though to make a few observations and feel free to correct me if there is a need.

You have referred to yourself as non religious and I think you would rather be regarded as spiritual. However, I see the seeds of religion in your philosophy (I dont mean this in a derogatory way). . . .
You remember that somewhere in this thread, I had to step back for a while to ask you pertinent questions about your beliefs (resulting in this convo now).

I noticed and had to ask you a few questions which you never replied. I have found out one part for myself, purely by accident.

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.

I was very close to home and it wasnt that difficult to tell (I've been there as well). There were many pointers, many quite subtle and one particularly obvious one (karma). Its a well worn path you are treading.

Deep Sight:
@ mazaje - i am not a slavish adherent of anything fed to me by any one. You should have noticed that by now. It took me many years to arrive at my conclusions trust me. In the past i have been an Anglican, Jehovah's Witness, Rosicrucian, considered Islam, and almost Crossbearer. I have read the bible, the quoran, the grail message, and many Buddhist, Taoist, shintoist, and even hindu philosophies because i am a SEEKER.

Deep Sight:
@ Davidylan -

It appears you have misunderstood me. I did not say that i am a christian. To clarify, i am not a Christian.

I said i was born Christian. Translating from English to English, that simply means i was born into a Christian Anglican Family and grew up a Christian.

However i have keenly searched for the Truth all my life, and so have fully read the Bible, the Quoran, and many other works of faith seeking a round understanding.

So thats that. You still havent responded to the issue of the afterlife though.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=315294.msg4428004#msg4428004

Christianity Etc › Re: 30 Keys To Being An Effective Atheist by jayriginal: 4:23pm On Nov 06, 2011

plaetton:
You guys are actually mocking yourselves without knowing it. For some odd reason, You are under the illusion that if you can categorize or compartmentalize all the simple arguments that athiests make, then that somehow validates your own silly beliefs. What a joke.

Religious beliefs(at least the ones i read on this forum) are sooo far out ridiculous that even a 7 yrd old athiest can muster 30 easy arguments to debunk those purile religious claims. 30 or 100 points are sooo easy and so common sense that Buda atum or anyone can easily list and stereotype them. He is actually mocking you . he is just showcasing how easy it is to debunk religious nonsense.
I still cant figure why religious folks think athiesm is some kind of competing religion.
@davidlan:
the first time I debated with you, I sensed so much bitterness in you and I pointed it out. Your posts on this thread is very scary, to say the least. I hope there are just one or few of you in this world. You have tried to define love in your own warped view. Na wa o. I am lost for words.
If there is a god , he had better deliver humanity from people like davidlan.
@toba: You are an interesting guy, but you just love to categorize people into this segment or that segment. Do You have problems appreaciating diversity of beliefs(or unbelief)?

oyb:
do some tweaking, and it sounds like a manual written up for davidylan and noetic

Chrisbenogor:
That was funny, its good to see the religious folks happy, not that it lands any credibility to the existence of a God who is constantly relying on cheap shots from humans.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is There Any Gnostic Christian On Nairaland? by jayriginal: 1:25pm On Nov 04, 2011

chukwudi44:
St Augustine of hippo ,one of the greatest christians ever to live on earth.

It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word.
Saint Augustine (354-430)

on the Correction of the Donatists

Christianity Etc › Re: The Ridicule Of Muslim Apologetics by jayriginal: 11:48am On Nov 04, 2011

aletheia:
Now I understand what you are.
The fool hath said in his heart There is no God

¯\, (•͡.̮ •͡ ), /¯ Excellent !

Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Promise: Leave your wifes for my sakeand I shall give you a 100 wives by jayriginal: 11:44am On Nov 04, 2011

OLAADEGBU:
Here is a scripture atheist can use to support their assertions:

". . . there is no God" (Psalms 14:1)

At least you got something to use as an excuse.

Why not ? They learnt the skill from Men of God who use Malachi 3:8 as an excuse to fleece the flock. grin

Christianity Etc › Re: The Ridicule Of Muslim Apologetics by jayriginal: 9:38am On Nov 04, 2011

frosbel:
Here
You do take the Mickey , honestly

What do you know about the bible

aletheia:
The least you could have done is look up the relevant bible passage.
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

davidylan:
Peter must have been speaking about the likes of jayoriginal.

You guys are amazing shocked

.
First of all, when I saw this,

. . . . remind them of 2 Pet. 3:15-16 where Peter calls Paul's writings Scripture . . .

it struck me as odd. I have never come across anything like it in the bible. For one, the New Testament is not part of scripture (but that is a matter for another thread).
In any case I headed to the quoted passage, checked and lo and behold, Peter said no such thing.
He calls them epistles/letters. Of course I can see where you might want to argue otherwise but it cannot be resolved in favor of establishing letters of Paul as scripture.

However, I understand your motivation. It is the same motivation that homosexu@ls and lesbi@ns use to interpret the bible and justify themselves. Interestingly, you wish to deny them the same right.

Bravo.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Ridicule Of Muslim Apologetics by jayriginal: 9:17pm On Nov 03, 2011

chinedumo:
. . . . remind them of 2 Pet. 3:15-16 where Peter calls Paul's writings Scripture . . .

Peter did not call Paul's writings scripture because they were infact not scripture. He called them what they were; epistles (or letters if you will) !

Also, the next time you get material from the web, try and post the link as well.

http://carm.org/religious-movements/islam/methods-muslims-use-attack-christianity

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life? by jayriginal: 4:32pm On Nov 03, 2011

Evil Brain:
The answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything is obviously 42. I thought everybody knew that. Why are you so concerned about what it means anyway? Why can't you just enjoy the ride?

I believe I once told him that (if not him, someone else) but they never listen.

Why are you so concerned about what it means anyway? Why can't you just enjoy the ride?

He cant. There has to be more for him.

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
Douglas Adams

Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Promise: Leave your wifes for my sakeand I shall give you a 100 wives by jayriginal: 10:41pm On Nov 02, 2011

[quote author=tpia@ link=topic=794684.msg9469335#msg9469335 date=1320269668]^^ no need to be sensitive.

I'm sure you're already well aware of what i pointed out.

namely that its a sign of a mental malfunction to twist bible verses in the devious manner you just displayed.

its not a big deal as long as you already know your problem.[/quote]Clap for yourself. Jesus must be proud of you.

Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Promise: Leave your wifes for my sakeand I shall give you a 100 wives by jayriginal: 10:20pm On Nov 02, 2011

frosbel:
Can I kindly ask Sir , when you read that verse were you standing upside down.

That verse expresses the intending meaning in such a succinct manner that it is almost a sign of rascality to want to change the meaning into something else.

Just because you dont like it doesnt mean I changed the meaning. Are you perhaps hinting that you have been changing the meaning of the Quran in your posts ?

[quote author=tpia@ link=topic=794684.msg9469112#msg9469112 date=1320267694]^^ twisting the bible the way you just did, is nothing new, so dont feel like you reinvented the wheel.

its usually a sign of schizophrenia and personality disorder but you can deny that if you want to.[/quote]There there. You can still cherish your illusions.

Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Promise: Leave your wifes for my sakeand I shall give you a 100 wives by jayriginal: 9:53pm On Nov 02, 2011

wetu:
The scripture was written for Christians, to be used in conjunction with other scriptures. It was not written for the Islam courtrooms to defend Christianity. It was written in a way that it can confuse those who were not ordained to eternal life:

Really?

Christians obviously understand, in the light of other scriptures, that they will not receive many wives in this life or in heaven. But they will have many houses, brothers and sisters and mothers in the Lord. There is no such thing as wife in the Lord. I don't know what you guys want the scriptures to say but there's no hint of polygamy in Christianity. neither in this life nor in heaven:

In other words, Christ was right about everything except the wife bit ? shocked

Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Remarkably, you have a quote from Christ himself, but since it doesnt sit well with your perception, you jump to Paul to explain away the words of Christ. This is very typical. Looking without seeing.
Interestingly those passages do not help your case.

Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Promise: Leave your wifes for my sakeand I shall give you a 100 wives by jayriginal: 8:44pm On Nov 02, 2011

I dont see what the confusion is about. I believe the passage talks about certain "things" being forsaken. Jesus mentions compensation for these "things" if they were forsaken for his sake. These "things" include house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children and the compensation for these "things" shall be "hundredfold" or "manifold". In short, plenty.

I hear some say that wife was mentioned and not "wives. We know that the "things" there are going to be replaced "manifold more" or a "hundredfold more". Obviously then, its clear that the christian who forsakes his "wife" for christ, will receive plenty more (wives) in return.

I'd advice the Christians to stick to hundredfold because at least there is a limit. Manifold can be any sufficiently large number to a really large number. Infact manifold is a worse term for those Christians who want to pretend not to understand this relatively simple passage. The term manifold connotes many, of variety. In this context then, it is many wives of different shapes and sizes.

Oh and the promise is both for this life, and the afterlife.

Christianity Etc › Re: Islam Vs Christianity: A Shocking Story by jayriginal: 5:14am On Nov 01, 2011

^^^ What I am asking is whether or not there is some sort of backing from the Quran that is used to justify the killings.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Biblical Talking Bush by jayriginal: 5:10am On Nov 01, 2011

Jenwitemi:
Could be. You wanna explore?

Nope.

Christianity Etc › Re: Islam Vs Christianity: A Shocking Story by jayriginal: 12:35am On Nov 01, 2011

maipeople:
@Jayriginal: Of course yes, I agreed completely with what the original author say because I have read it before, but I can not present it as he does.

Thanks for your answer.
I am not especially knowledgeable about islam. I just know that in practice the situation is radically different from your proposal (and the OP).
Are you saying that there is no scriptural backing (Islam wise) for the slaughter of unbelievers (even if misconstrued) ? Are you saying that its all politics ?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 (of 97 pages)