₦airaland Forum

elated177:
You do not believe YHVH exists, therefore, you do not believe his Commandments. What are you doing here on this particular thread?

Not your problem.

[quotr]
Oh! You oppose everything about YHVH!
Lol...delusion of the worst kind. No one can oppose YHVH of Hosts. Ask Satan, your father and master, what he suffered the last time he tried to oppose the will of YHVH Almighty.[/quote]Don't worry, you will join me on the dark side soon.

For Darkseid

YHVH of Hosts neither needs your permission to exist nor owes you any explanation.

You said this not me

Listen, Johnydon22:

I hope it is something meaningful now

Isaiah 57:3-4 But you - come here, you children of a sorceress, you offspring of adulterers and prostitutes! Who are you mocking? At whom do you sneer and stick out tongue? Are you not a brood of rebels, the offspring of liars?

Typical. Said absolutely nothing over a long comment.

peggywebbs:
It also shows how small your brain is. Even your mere parents on earth, unless you are an ingrate of a child, I'm sure a reasonable child appreciates their parents.

It is one thing to be appreciative of your parents and another for that to be the reason your parents had you.

Even children appreciate their mothers that carried them and went through labour for nine months. If you can thank and keep praising your parents for their impact in your life. Is it out of reason to praise the person who gave life to every single living thing on earth including you.

Refer to the above.

To make things sorely to feed your own need for praise and massage such fragile narcissistic ego betrays a lot of insecurity and severe emotional problem.

You paint God as one that is infinitely petty, has a serious emotional problem, narcissistic, egomaniac and probably needs help.

Mtchew. It's obviously God you're not upset with.

Correct. I have no reason to be.

Go and deal with your issues and stop hating on a God you have never even met.

Above, you said it is obvious I'm not upset with God, here you are accusing me of God hating.

You have to make up your mind.

If people say they love their God. Leave them be, they don't have to follow your shallow mindedness.

It is one thing to love your God and another to assert the reason why you were created is to provide emotional succor through constant praise to a seemingly emotionally fragile being.

That's super weird.

Seems you are just replying some argument in your head and not mine.

Sounds like God has a severe emotional problem, low self esteem and absolute narcissism to a very dangerous level.

That's a very small petty God

muykem:
The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank.

Thank you Doctor for treating my ailment
Thank you Taxi Driver for your service
Thank you Caterer for the delicious meal I just ate
Thank you my friend LordReed for your help during my Papa's burial last week.
Thank you Waiter for the drink
Thank you Police man for protecting me


How difficult can this be really?

Or you mean when they are feeling to thank something that didn't do anything for them and figure they should just thank the "people" that actually did something meaningful for them?

Image123:
Are all Christians true Christians? BTW, you mean to say "No true Scotsman".

Is that a question for me?

Are all CHRISTIANS true CHRISTIANS?

Lol. Read that question again and again.

LordReed:
What I see quite often is an attempt to foist unto the atheist that is saying "I don't believe you", the counter claim "god does not exist" and then requiring proof. Example:

Buhari is Jubril
How do you know?
Because they have the same type of nose
That does not prove Buhari is Jubril
Why don't you prove Buhari is not Jubril?
Because I didn't claim Buhari is not Jubril
You don't want to prove that Buhari is not Jubril

I have seen this too.It's funny. I simply remind the person that my position is of a skeptical nature to his not a counter claim. If he insists on the folly, I ignore the whole thing.

I'm only on this post addressing the atheistic part of the mistake.

Not realising that "There is no God" is a counter claim that requires "Reason" (proof) as much as "There is a God"

Image123:
No true Christian will commit suicide. That someone is named Michael or goes to church doesn't make him a Christian. There are many atheist bearing Chukwu and Oluwa whatever. We have many real atheists full of depression and committing suicide almost as a pastime.

True Scotsman.

That's hilarious

LordReed:
How to contradict yourself in a nutshell.

Sssssssshhh, 4 is God.

OLAADEGBU 2019

DeSepiero:
I can agree.

How do you see these views:

I don't believe that God exists
I believe that God does not exist.

Do you feel they're same - atheism?

I don't feel they can be called same. Yes, both positions are atheistic but the steps differ.

Unbelief is the absence of belief.
Belief is an act of acknowledging a contingent.

One is an atheist by an inaction. Absence of.

One is an atheist by active excercise. Presence of.

MrPresident1:
No. I will not have you litter the forum with academic trash with no use in the real world

It is already done. Would you have me delete the post?

MrPresident1:
Academic thrash

Of no use in the real world

That's why we have you watching out and waiting for Christ's second coming.

What could be more useful than that?

So, why not go back to being useful while we wallow in the canal useless academic trash?

Fair?

My dear fellow atheist, let's get something straightened up here because I've noticed you guys mix things up a whole lot.

A claim can go either way - Negative or positive.

God exists - is a positive claim for which one can rightly assert demands evidence, either logically deductive or empirical, which ever way you think is necessary.

God does not exist - Is a negative claim for which one should also have evidence for, either logically deductive or at least empirical falsification.

God does not exist isn't a response to God exist, it is in itself a counter claim, not a response.

There is a difference between responsorial unbelief and outrightly claiming the negate.

"I have a ball"

"I don't believe you" - This is a response to my claim demanding substantiation.

But

"I have a ball"

"No, you don't" - this isn't a response to my claim, it is in fact outrightly making a counter claim on the negative.

There is no God or God(s) isn't a response to "There is a God" it's a counter claim.

So, please, remember that the burden of proof falls on either side of a claim.

"I don't believe you" is a more appropriate term for a non-negating unbelief.

You people seem to conflate these things a lot. Absolving yourselves of the burden of proof of your counter claim while using arguments for a responsorial unbelief.

You can't have it either way.

It is either you say, I don't believe there is a God as a response to the claim that there is one.

Or you use, "there is no God" as a direct claim otherwise requiring evidence or reason on your part.

OLAADEGBU:
2 + 2 = 4. What other consistent logical path are you looking for?

Why is it 4?

How did you get 4?

That's the mathematical (logical) problem.

OLAADEGBU:
There can only be one answer to 2 + 2. What other convincing argument are you open to?

Of course they can be and that answer must at least follow a consistent logical path.

2 + 2 is a logical problem.

So, I'm open to the answer you think best fits the question.

Bring your argument, let's scrutinize it and see how best your approximation remains consistent.

OLAADEGBU:
You don't know but you know for sure that it wasn't God, right?

Nope. I haven't said that either.

I am open to a convincing argument. This is what I said.

OLAADEGBU:
What are you saying?

I thought what I was saying was clear enough; I'm saying what you are saying atheists say is a strawman

What is the origin of the universe?

I don't claim to know that.

I'm open to a convincing argument

dalaman:
Whites have used Christianity to enslave African Americans throughout the history of the USA. .

What has that got to do with this?

Abdulgaffar22:
The venus flytrap shown above is a carnivorous plant which has a trapping system for catching its prey—chiefly insects and spiders— and a digestive system for digesting the prey ( using some cocktail enzymes) and then absorbing the resulting nutrients.


The trapping system is formed by the terminal portion of each of the plant's leaves, which is triggered by tiny "sensitive hairs" on their inner surfaces.


When an insect or spider crawling along the leaves touches the sensitive hair, the trap prepares to close, snapping shut only if another contact occurs within approximately twenty seconds of the first strike.

The requirement of surplus triggering in this mechanism serves as a safeguard against wasting energy by trapping objects with no nutritional value, and it is only when the leaves are touched multiple times that digestive enzymes are activated. This is to ensure the trap has caught a live insect worthy of consumption.


Once the trap is tightly closed, digestive enzymes dissolve the insect, and the plant absorbs the nutrient-rich "soup". Seven to ten days later, the trap opens, ready for another meal.

Like other plants, venus flytraps photosynthesize: they get energy from the sun. So why do they trap and digest insects?
The answer lies in the soil. Most plants absorb nutrients from the soil where they grow, and therefore they can't survive in a wet, acidic soil which lacks adequate nutrients. But Venus fly traps are different from most plants. They are able to live in such a poor soil by obtaining most of the nutrients they need from the insects and other small animals they capture.

The bolded text makes the carnivorous nature of the venus fly trap a necessity something you will try to confuse yourself over in the proceeding points.

You have shown here that due to its carnivorous nature, it can survive in poor soils that many plants won't necessarily thrive on, this shows that it's feature is a necessary survival mechanism.

Evolutionary consideration would mean that its ancestors didn't grow on poor soils, change in atmospheric or soil condition necessitates surivial of plants that are quite by chance adapted to survive (not intentionally) and extinction of those that can't.

Natural selection.

But the most important question is this ; how did trapping system and the digestive system of this plant came to exist ?

Did they come to exist by necessity ?
Or did they come to exist by chance ?
Or did they come to exist by design ?


It is not by necessity because not all the soil on the earth lack adequate nutrients. Hence, if the Venus fly traps cannot thrive in a soil with low nutritive value, it can still survive in other soil with high nutritive value. Therefore, there is nothing necessitating the growing of venus fly traps in a poor soil. This implies that trapping system and the digestive system of this plant did not come to exist by necessity.

When you purposely confused yourself, make ridiculously flawed basis for your arguments, you tend to continue with that chain.

First quoted comment above shows it is a necessity. You argue that not every soil on earth lack adequate nutrient to question why the venus fly trap doesn't just grow else where.

That obviously flawed attempt at oversimplifying global ecology is annoying.

Few reasons why venus fly trap don't just migrate to another suitable soil.

1. Plants are not locomotive
2. There are large extent of water and desert between lands and continents
3. Change in ecosystems are significant contributors to natural selection
4. Venus fly trap are at least not as intelligent as an animal
5. Why does it need to migrate to a richer soil when it is already evolved to survive without one?

Did two systems come to exist by chance ? The trapping system that catches the insects would be useless if there is no digestive system to dissolve and absorb the nutrients from the body of the insects. Similarly, the digestive system that dissolves the body of the insects would be useless if there is no trapping system for catching the insects. This shows that both systems are complementary to each other. And simultaneous existence of two complementary systems is beyond the work of chance.

Why?

If it is neither by necessity nor by chance, then the trapping system and digestive system of a venus fly trap must exist by design.

And thus all the willful flawed rigmarole just to arrive at this conclusion.

But design required deliberate planning. And deliberate planning exist only in a mind . This cosmic mind is what many people portrayed as God

Excellently flawed argument that require gross misrepresentation of the evolutuonary doctrine or oversimplification of global ecosystem.

Kudos

sonmvayina:
It is Christians who created the fear.. There is none such in the old testament.. God was both responsible for both good and evil.... Singularity of a dual concept, Christianity believes in two different God's, one responsible for good.. The other for evil...

It's awfully convenient. Everything is God's plan until shi_t goes south then that's totally the devil's fault.

budaatum:
Not true. Least not in the case of those who understand scripture. They could walk even in the valley of the shadow of death and fear no evil.

And before you pick on "shadow", its metaphorical speak, not literal shadow.

haaa!!!

Scholar8200:
sweeping generalisation sir; how many of them (in your state, to start with) do you know?

I'm going to conduct a census for you. How's that?

Moreover, the post premise is from a context that such paranoia is apparent and readily observed in Christians.

OLAADEGBU:
Bolster your faith — even if you have none! Watch “The Atheist Delusion:” www.AtheistMovie.com

You are still listening to yourself instead of actually listening to what people say?

Again, saying that something came from nothing is not an atheistic position, at least not mine.

Ex nihilo is more a creationist position.

1Sharon:
Then you aren't a true Christian. A true Christian is "woke"

The kingdom suffereth violence and blah blah

We wrestle not with the flesh

Wickedness in high places

This world belongs to the devil

Powers and principalities

A true Christian is ruled by fear.

Got it.

I can't be one.

1Sharon:
If you aren't paranoid' your spiritual eyes aren't open

I'd then dare say that spiritual blindness is rather liberating.

Spiritually open eyes is more so a cage of paranoia bars

LordReed:
It is so debilitating and paralyzing to some of them that they don't even seek for real solutions to their problems instead they fall into the hands of charlatans disguised as holy men selling the snake oil called faith.

I am very disturbed about it. I feel a great swell of pity for the poor souls.

OLAADEGBU:
See who is talking.

Lol. That's basically untrue

budaatum:
They are like:

True

Have you heard of the anti-christ?

It was George Bush. No. Obama.

Or is it Trump?

Uuuhm, It was Pope John Paul, naaah, Benedict fits much better. Hey, what about Francis? Eheeeh, you got it.

The life of an average Nigerian Christian is one filled with perpetual fear and suspicion.

1. Fear of marine kingdom
2. Fear of ogboni, ekanka and amok
3. Fear of Witches and wizards
4. Native doctors and traditionalist
5. Demons and vampires that walk the night
6. Evil manipulation that tied that lady's wombs
7. What about that uncle that destroyed your destiny spiritually.
8. Oh, your mother inlaw that quite possibly eats your children in the womb
9. What about those charms buried in the village? Ancestral curses? Padlocks without keys lying carelessly about? Or, that sacrifice lying on a crossroad?

A Christian sees a threat everywhere.
A life that constantly finds new fears to adopt that I'm forced to pity such a life.

A Christian believes he or she serves an all powerful God that can do anything, but doesn't hesitate to jump at the slightest sight of even the least convoluted sights.

A hilarious irony that beggers reason

An incessant paranoia utilized by the men of God to keep the people perpetually in their grasp.

If you lose the fear of demons or witches or mamiwater, of what use is that man of God that calls down fire and brimstone?

If your life is not ruled by fear of everything, of what use is that pastor that promises you divine protection once he lays his hands on you?

I have never seen a people so ruled by fear, suspicion and unhealthy paranoia like I have noticed in the lives of Nigerian Christians.

solite3:
There was no singularity, it is just a way of scientists saying they do not have the answers on how the universe came to pass.

Lmao. So, you are both simultaneously doubting the big bang and using its tenets to advance your argument.

You have to make up your mind then.

solite3:
check there is evidence that the universe has an origin.
The singularity theory is just an attempt to explain its origin.

Lmao. You are not saying anything. For a universe to emerge from a singularity, the singularity must exist prior to the big bang.

tartar9:
Yes...and for it to have a beginning it has to have an external cause...unless the universe has always been existing,but this can't happen since we'd be having an infinite sequence of cause and effect.

And you think an infinite loop of cause and effect is less logical than a linear chain of eternity?

I haven't had an argument from design all figured out yet...still thinking about it,and it seems your objection is correct.Expect a robust reply soon

Lol. Most people haven't.

budaatum:
It is not a premise that my evolving mind shares since nothing in the entire universe has been shown to be eternal or unchanging. The sun isn't eternal and is changing as is the universe, and God, which is what the op is trying to prove with his argument, has obviously changed and will continue to change over time.

Actually No, you are assuming the God the OP is talking when the OP doesn't at all imply any particular deity. The OP's argument is based on God as an ontological necessity. (Assuming that the OP is talking about the Jewish God or any God in religion is a strawman)