₦airaland Forum

LightandDarkness:
Labels labels labels. I think there are some christian deists, I think there is one that is active on nairaland-you can be both. Congrats on coming out, there was a time I thought i needed to do it but why?, it's not anyone's business what you believe.

Christian deists? How does that work?

UyiIredi:
From Christianity to deism to Christianity and back, rinse and repeat 2 more times. My reconversion to Christianity is linked to a state of psychosis. I suffer from schizophrenia with bipolar disorder.

That said, despite reconverting I am not the same person again. Even if Jesus appears to me tomorrow and changes my mimd I won't be the same Christian I was before. A healthy dose of skepticism matters.

Last month, I told my sister that I am a deist and starting 2 weeks ago said it to family and friends on Facebook. I argued a bit about it with my grandmum this morning. The reactions have
been negative as expected but quite heated, not to bitter sha. At least, I am a deist not an atheist (atheists dey try) but still . . . it is not going to be easy. Nigerians are very religious.

From Christian to deism then back to Christianity now back again to deism.

I think you will be back again to Christianity and then back again to deism or many you will try pantheism next ...

Please are you same as Uyilderia or something

malvisguy212:
thank you bro, I've been busy all this while, am back now.

maby you shoul ask the op if he is a Christian or a Jew.

Yeah good idea.

OP are you Christian or Jew?

felixomor:
Wow.
This comment will benefit the atheist I was addressing, more.

Perhaps it would benefit the person more, I didn't read the post at first

malvisguy212:
hey, long time bro, good to see you........to your post, what about Jews, are there Muslims than Jews in Israel ?

There are far more Jews in Israeli. Long time no see my brother, I've missed you really

ysyowel:
;DTheir is no god but YWH

Everyone says that about their God

newsynews:
YAHWEH THE GOD OF ISRAEL IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD.
Yahweh made it clear, that the gods of the nations around Israel are pagan gods.

REPENT MUSLIMS YOU ARE FOLLOWING A FALSE GOD. COME TO ISRAEL'S GOD AND ISRAEL'S MESSIAH YESHUA

Ironically do you know there are more Muslims in Israeli than Christians..

felixomor:
When atheists speak of "rational thinking".....
Phew

I am sure you are the Father of rational thinking. Enjoy it.

The world really is not as serious as you take it, you are very emotional about this whole thing.

Get a grip brother

hahn:
My life has been better o

There is this pastor(female) that pastors the church next door. That was how she placed a curse on me that I will never succeed and my wife will never give birth. We passed her yesterday and she was too ashamed to walk by us with wifey's big belly everywhere. I am sure she now believes what I said is true when I told her that her god is a non existent failure

the two curses cancelled each other

4kings:
Freethinking deist.

tags are no longer my thing

KingEbukasBlog:
Let's be honest here bro . You've watched debates between atheists and theists - with theists like Dr Craig , Alvin Platinga , John Lennox etc and atheists like Lawrence Krauss , Richard Dawkins etc involved . No one mentions the bible , visit DrCraig's website where talks about theism philosophy and science @

I am sure they do. This is Bill Nye on the Noah's story


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe0rCrkh_oA

The direction of an argument takes depends on the premise presented, if the theist arguing brings up a biblical or Quranic argument, an atheist or agnostic can attack that head on during refutation.

You can't be talking of Jesus rising from the dead and I am busy talk about Quantum fluctuations.

reasonablefaith.com I don't think you'd see any question concerning God from an atheist answered with a bible quotation or religious talk but when its from a religious person , he does so to reveal or explain the bible's position on that issue raised .

if you reveal or explain the Biblical position on the issue raised. Can't someone then perhaps atheist or agnostic based on that premise attack that biblical perspective?

Its simple bro.

You don't discuss religion with an atheist , its not necessary since atheism does not question religion just God .

Are we going to pretend like we dont know some religions are dependent on the concept of God and some aren't?

As a Christian , I bring the bible when an atheist makes a claim that should involve using the bible .

Should the atheist now quote Einstein's relativity in reply to your biblical connotation?

Give me an example of a religious person using religion to prove God

There are several of such threads here on nairaland who ever have time can dig it up, in fact we also have threads directly telling the atheist "You are going to hell"

We shouldn't even be having this discussion.

Oh God!!!

KingEbukasBlog:
When religious people argue they are making a case : my religion is better . Most theistic religions argue for the reasons for deifying entities .

So religious people don't use their religious beliefs as an argument against atheists?

KingEbukasBlog:
Of course , the same way I'm allowed to dance on the main road unclad

perhaps

Because our time is being wasted . What's the point when other adherents of religions and even the deists can do the same ? And when these guys do it , we immediately understand their reasons .

as are obviously saving our time debating who is allowed to criticize religion or not

Thank God you know . Its understandable when a deist and other theists criticize religions . But when an irreligious atheist does it , I don't know , it just does not make sense .

Below answer of yours answers this perfectly

johnydon22:
But you are also free to be a religious skeptic whether you are an atheist or not, yes?

KingEbukasBlog:
Yes of course

You do realize that he can't escape claiming that it questions the existence of God . See what I'm talking about to be clear

Can a religious person also claim that his religious beliefs and ideas proves the existence of God?

You and I cannot deny people always use religion to ferry God, to deny this is to live in denial.

So if a theist can use religion to argue for God, someone else can also do same to argue against it.

The fair jurisdiction is: if an atheist cannot use religion against God when in such an argument centered around religion and God then a theist cannot use religion for God.

KingEbukasBlog are religious people also allowed to argue for the existence of God based on the tenets and claims of their religion?

Or should they only talk about God via cosmology and directly "God"

KingEbukasBlog:
It is not case closed . All I'm saying is that it does not make sense to argue endlessly about religion when it does not have anything to do with the existence of God that's why I called it 'stupid' .

I thought we have established the fact that one can talk about religion independent of the premise of Gods existence.

Time wasting , makes no sense , no purpose so why do it ? Why can't we always talk about God like we are doing now ?

Someone might just want to be a religious skeptic, aren't they free to be anymore?

To prove my point , I'll mention you whenever an atheist opens a thread about religion .

are they not allowed to be religious skeptics?

If they are allowed then on what ground are we raising the alarm.

He has to give us reasons or else its just empty fruitless unnecessary arguments he wants to engage in . But of course , his reasons would be that it questions the existence of God and we are back to square one .

There is a symbol in Catholic liturgy, a ship and a sea. This symbolizes that the church is a ship that ferries humans across the sea of worldly attachments to heaven.

So an atheist attacking the concept of God may do so often due to the fact that the concept of God is always ferried across a ship of religion at least in theism.

I'm sure if he wants to attack deism he won't also bring up the Quran or veda as points to use.

We are about heading back to where we started

CatfishBilly:
Jesus Christ.
What part of "My position of the fine tuning argument was based on your stand that earth was designed perfectly to support life not the plausibility of extraterrestrial life" don't you understand?

LMAO

KingEbukasBlog:
Yes of course

Then the case is closed brother.

We can now see it is neither stupid or misplaced for an atheist to discuss/talk about religion.

I think the whole point can be summarized thus: It is infantile to employ religious skepticism as a means to negate the existence of God but you can still be a religious skeptic whether you believe in God or not.

KingEbukasBlog:
Thank you my brother !!

You dont argue against God's existence by being skeptical of religion - that has been the point oo .

But you are also free to be a religious skeptic whether you are an atheist or not, yes?

spacetacular:
I need you to speak the truth. Being one of a kind with catfishbilly does not mean you have to brush aside his ridiculous assertions but when I make same you latch unto them.

He makes and has made some rather fantasy riddled claims and you suddenly could not read.

Please take people up on their arguments, I am not one with anyone. I am me, I have my own ideas and opinions.

Please focus your arguments and don't try to define a set of people based on an assumption derived from 1.

This will be my last reply to you here unless I am presented with something worth my time

spacetacular:
You should be able to locate your comments yourself. Why were you arguing with Mr king whose stand was a finite universe while you stood for an infinite one using Hawkings?

When he pointed out your error you simply said "it wasn't as simple as he thought".

Your comments are right here.

You are yet to show the post, please KingEbukasBlog help me correct this, I am tired of replying this outright misrepresentation due to lack of attentiveness

KingEbukasBlog:
Just like Felixomor told you , if it cannot be tested ,

it can be falsified actually, the postulation of a cosmos of infinite circle can be calculated by determining the distribution of matter in the universe, if the present matter passes a certain critical state then it could be calculated whether the universe would stop expanding and contract.

So just as a good theory, it has every opportunity to either be falsified or supported by observations and mathematical deductions.

then what's the purpose of assuming ? Its funny that your reasoning on God does not extend to your fantasies and speculations

Can God be tested scientifically?

spacetacular:
Still fantasy! The earth had just the right composition? WHY? why was this so? Why Was This composition JUST RIGHT?

again you make another fantasy Laden comment by saying THERE COULD BE OTHER LIFE FORMS ON OTHER PLANETS and used this assumption or fantasy to arrive at the conclusion that my fine tuning theory does not fly.

Johnydon22, the comment by catfishbilly proves my point.

Fantasy is science fiction and not fact. Perhaps they will listen to you when you tell them.

Please stop mentioning me every opportunity you get, take people up on their assertions and argue.

The way to argue is, if you negate a postulation then you provide reasons.

I see no reason why I am needed here unless you want me to discuss with you on the arguments of fine-tuning.

spacetacular:
You are loosing track of the number of conflating positions you have taken. Even Ermacc pointed the same thing out to you.

Let me take you up on this now, I will like everyone to watch.

Coolusername, hopefullandlord, KingEbukasBlog. I have been trying to avoid this as much as possible now let me finish this in front of you all once and for all.

Now I'd like you to present a post of mine where I made an absolute assertion of the universe being either eternal or not eternal.

Its no longer funny, I will be waiting for you to show us that post

johnydon22:
I don't suppose you have somehow managed to find a unified theory that brings Quantum mechanics and relativity together?

Because if you haven't, scientific cosmology have not arrived at a conclusive answer on the universe having a beginning or an end, The big bang cosmological model does not preclude an eternal universe.

Perhaps you'd want me to clear you up on that?

I am always happy to teach the tiny science i know especially astronomical physics and cosmology

Feliximor this is my first reply to you about the argument for cosmological beginning right?

Please try and correct the over excited spacetacular to stop misrepresenting arguments due to her over excitments and lack of assimilating presented points.

felixomor:
Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen etc

Hydrogen and Helium more like it brother. Carbon and Oxygen are second generational, they are starborn.

felixomor:
Of course.

LOL.

spacetacular:
Who was Erwin Schrodinger? An atheist

Why did he theorise the multiverse? He wanted something to replace God and disprove the origin of the Universe from an eternal being.

Why do you enjoy dodging things that put you in a quagmire? Was the multiverse theory not a produce of fantasy? Is fantasy scientific fact or fiction?

This same science fiction of the multiverse theory was used by Jackfizzle to argue against God as if it was a scientific fact which he first claimed to hold dear.

Do you see why you should not dodge it? Correct your fellow atheists and appeal to them to stop dwelling on fiction when presenting arguments. It is laughable!

Oh God!!!

Ok ok please I have heard you. Thank you for you wonderful contributions

felixomor:
No, everything wont be the same age.
That is why I said, at the level of the core elements
That is where everything will remain at the same age.
Because elements will only change from one form to another.
The age of their forms will differ
The core will remain same

Core elements would be?

spacetacular:
[/b]

But you have been arguing with certainty all along. Why this last comment now?

Now it is obvious you have not being reading any of my posts here before commenting on them. Jesus Christ!!!

Please refer to all my posts on this thread, read them again and also to the discussion with KingEbukasBlog who I am willing to hope might correct your wrong representations of my argument.

Please I advice you read posts and understand them before hoping to jump to reply, such excitements are unneeded.

This has being my argument from the very first time the argument for the age of the universe was raised, maybe if you paid keen attention (not just wanting to reply) you would have noticed.

This is exactly why I ignore your posts, its always consonant in terms of reconciliation with the posts you hope to reply.

felixomor:
If 15 billion is correct
Then Yes at the level of the core constituting elements.

So everything should be the same age then?

KingEbukasBlog do you also agree with this before I write my reply?

felixomor:
If it cant be tested,
Then stop assuming.
You are only desperate to replace "God", or "first cause" hence your "previous universe" assumptions

God can be tested i guess?