₦airaland Forum

choice.A:
I wonder what type of evidence you're asking for.

Now may I ask you to provide evidence for that?

Any kind of evidence that can be verified by a number of impartial and various observers should do.

Refuting a belief system will simply not do - and that is all I've seen so far.

Why not?

nightrider:
whats all this crap you people are saying, please forgive my english, you're all just going round in circles. GOD exists simple
he created the heavens and in the heavens he created angels, and an angel called lucifer revolted,

Evidence?

because he thot he was the most beautiful and should be praised the way God was praised.

God threw him down. And then he created the world.

And in the world he created every single life form there is including man.

And in man he created a being that he could love and be loved.In the garden gave man instructions

evidence?

lucifer deceived man into disobeying and according to God disobedience brings forth degeneration and death.

Lucifer didn't do any deceiving.

but God so loved the world (and that includes you) that he gave his only begotten son that who ever believes in him will not perish.

Couldn't God have found a better way? And perish in what, or by whose order?

man degenerated to a state of pure evil as a result of sin

God sent his son Jesus to die in place of man, because evil cannot abide w ith him, it must die.
jesus was wounded for our transgression, he was bruised for our inquities, the chastisement for our peace was placed upon him and by his stripes we are healed and made acceptable to God.

If lucifer had known he would not have inspired the death of Jesus.

Jesus died on calvary in israel , unfortunately for satan , Jesus only carried mans sin , he himself was sinless , a little piont lucifer
failed to realise. And as a result hell couldn't hold his spirit, on the third day he ressurrected and gave power to his disciples
He told them they would be hated, killed and persecuted but he would be with them through it all, he would love them and answer their prayers.,And that when they died they would come to be with them.

Lucifer was in rage, he persecuted christians, he did every thing he could to silence them, but the word grew .

Sounds like a very interesting myth, ever heard/read any of the Greek myths? Fascinating stuff too.

and many people came to believe even skeptical Jews.
and i came to believe and i was saved and i was healed in the name of Jesus in my room of my sickness.

What sickness did you have, and did modern medicine have any part to paly in your "healing"? Also, what about the many that were not healed, or will never be healed, are they proof of no God?

so i don't need logical arguments to prove the existence of God, because i know beyond any reasonable doubt that my sickness is gone cause i'm here typing and i've even gotten a great Job .

I'm happy for you, no really I am. Anyway gotta run (pun intended), here's to hoping I don't get my arse handed to me.

choice.A:
That has been the one weak excuse atheists give to the challenge of proving what they cannot sufficiently disprove. It is true that you cannot prove a negative, but only in a limited sense. In Mathematics, negative theorems can be proven, for when you state that (-1) + (-1) is not = +2, it is not sufficient to refute it; it is also necessary to both state and prove the opposite, which is, (-1) + (-1) = -2.

That's all well and good in mathematics, that's why it's often said "proof is for maths and alcohol". Tell me, how would you disprove the claim that a tiny teacup orbits the Sun? Remember, the teacup is too small to be picked up by even our most powerful telescopes*.

You'd recall my argument has always been along the lines that atheism cannot sufficiently disprove the existence of God; or, 'atheism cannot sufficiently prove the non-existence of God.'

/that's probably because neither atheism nor most atheists, have attempted to do either.

I've heard it countless times said that 'it is not the intended aim of atheism to prove' its refutations. Even then, for one to refute the claims of another requires logical proof: refutations or rebuttals alone will not be sufficient.

There are a lot of rebuttals and refutations to the deieties that have already been presented for examination, when a new one arises, there will be new refutations and rebuttals, but to ask atheists to disprove the existence of a generic, indescript God, is an impossibility in itself.

I'll give you another example:
As a Mathematician,
1 + 1 = 2 is always true in heaven, on earth and beneath the earth.

Can you prove that it's true in heaven?

But someone will come up and say that is not true. It will not be sufficient to refute the statement that '1 + 1 = 2 is always true,' but we want him to tell us why this claim cannot be true. I hope you see sense in that. Now, my answer will be something along these lines (depending on what ideology I ensconce):

1 + 1 = 1 is true; if as a philosopher I add a jug of water to another jug of water, what I get is not 2 jugs of water[b]s[/b], but 1 jug. For my answer to hold true, the question must be asked, in what sense could it ever be true that my answer is not '2 jugs' but rather, '1 jug'? I go on to provide the veracity of my claim that on the grounds of adding both jugs of water in a bigger single jug, then my claim is true. In this sense, I have not only 'refuted' the positive statement that '1 + 1 = 2 is always true'; but also adduced my own reasons for my own position. QED.

Actually, you didn't refute 1+1 = 2, because the jugs did not turn into one, the water in the two jugs were put into one jug, so the water in new jug increases in twofold, so you still get two jugs of water thereby still showing 1+1=2. However, I do see what you mean, the english language can be used to attempt an invalidation of mathematical constants I keed, I keed.

Again, different ideologies might come up and make their own positive postulations:

'1 + 1 = 1 is a biological truth' because 1 spermatozoon + 1 ovule = 1 baby.

the baby is merely a container that contains the fused parts of the parents ergo, it is two (see; chromosome, gene etc.)

'1 + 1 = 1 is a matrimonial truth' as 1 man + 1 woman = 1 couple.

"Couple" shows that it is still two.

But the above basic postulations (simplistic as they are) might be refuted by those who disagree. It will not be sufficient to refute them, but we want an equal and logical proof or deduction for the refutation to hold true.

I don't understand what you mean here, and I obviously didn't understand the purpose of the above exercise, well all I got out of it was that linguistic sleight of hands (for lack of a better word) can make any constant look wrong.

Now that sounds simplistic, but patiently apply that to your postulations and see if the mirror is opaque. What atheism says is that 'God does not exist,' and if that is a refutation, it requires a follow-up logical proof for it to hold true.

Perhaps I should expand a little, atheists say I've seen no evidence for a God, they are then presented with the Greek, Roman, Jewish, Egyptian etc Gods, and upon examining them are further convinced thatthey still lack any belief in any God(s). If unrefutable evidence for a God, any God is presented, then you can bet atheists would either convert to the religion of that God, or become deists.

It is this simple: one cannot prove the non-existence of 'God' by mere refutation: by merely 'refuting,' you have not 'proven' anything. I suppose if refutation alone carries any substance, then the statement is also true that "exu does not exist", and I don't need to prove it. _{which, of course, is not true and as meaningless}

One cannot prove the existence of any God(s) either, so,

I still believe that atheism does not sufficiently disprove the affirmations of theism; and if that statement does not hold true, I wait for equal logical inducements that can be subjected to the same tests atheism requires of theism.

Nor does atheism attempt to disprove the affirmations theism.

choice.A:
I've always patiently asked the atheists I know to give me a succinct statement of their ideology or worldview. In one line I hear from them that atheism is 'no-god', or the belief that God does not exist. That is what I have asked them to provide 'proof' for. It may seem a logical impossibility to require 'proof for a negative' from disbelievers; but to make a claim that something* does not exist sounds more like an affirmative, and therefore certainly requires rational proof for the statement to hold true.


*_{For the religiously minded, I'm not referrng to God here as 'something' - I was only speaking in general terms for illustrative purposes}.

Well, this atheist, and the many atheists I know don't make affirmative statements in regards to God's non-existence. The only way I know to define, and the only way I define atheism, is lack of belief in a deity. Theists say there's an invisible man in the sky, I say prove it or show me evidence. If the evidence or proof is found wanting, I reject their initial assumption.

Here's another way of looking at it: a person claims he can walk on water, would you be the one that has to disprove his assertation, or do you ask him to prove it? Let's take it a step further another person claims her invisible friend can walk on water (coupled with a host of other wonderful things) but you can't feel or touch her etc, would you believe her claim? If you don't, how would go about disproving the existence of her friend.

choice.A:
KAG,
I understand your concern and pique at religion,

No, my curiousty isn't simply piqued by religion, like I stated, it is piqued especially when a persons view changes radically.

but if you'd only looked a bit closer at my post you'd have seen it's not about that at all, even though you feel it's always about that, as in the case of Prof. Flew.

In retrospect I see that now.

Second, I'm well aware that there are more than 3 monotheistic views of God, but my context should be taken to point to the general groups that atheists often concern themselves about.

Okay.

Again, I did not assert that atheism ever had a doctrine to preach, and that should be clear from the play of words in the line "if atheism ever had a doctrinal stance" - if ever. I know passions run high when you read stuff like this, but at least you should try and read threads in context instead of taking them out of their contexts.

I didn't say you asserted atheism had a doctrine to preach, but you'll forgive me for taking this statement, "if atheism ever had a doctrinal stance, it was the denial of the possible existence of an 'intelligent designer' as explaining the origin of life.", at face value. It is certainly clear to me that you did assert that atheism had a doctrinal stance, and that was a misconception I attempted to clear up.

I did not see anything about Flew disproving or converting to religion or Christianity or Islam; he left his atheistic (no-god) position and that's what I wanted to point out, because all the talk about connecting this with an idea of affirming religion simply misses the mark.

Aye, understood.

Even so, atheism does not sufficiently disprove the non-existence of God. If there's just such a proof, I'm waiting patiently.

I'm sure you've been told this ad nauseam, but atheism and atheists make no attempt to disprove the existence of any Gods, besides you are asking for a negative to be proven by the disbelievers, and that for intents and purposes is a logical impossibility. As always, the burden of proof lies with those that assert there is a God (or ______)

choice.A:
Understanding Prof. Antony Flew

It is really amusing that when questions of a belief in God arise, all that the atheist does is to seek ever so sarcastically to pick holes in what he cannot sufficiently disprove.

False assertation.

The question is not about Flew's conversion to religion or even to any of the three monotheistic religious views of 'God.'

, but it usually is, and that's why it's often cited by christians and muslims. Also, there are more than three monotheistic religions.

When someone who was a confessed atheist abandons his views of the 'non-existence of God or a divine being,' we want to know what his new views are, especially when his statements are antithetical to what he formerly held. Whatever ideas of a 'God' that Prof. Antony Flew is now courting, it is clear that they are fundamentally non-atheistic. "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam," he says, and then adds: "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Now that is not atheistic dialect, considering that he had been anti-God for several decades.

Yes, and it is always piques my curiousty when views become diametrically changed.

It is well to realise that as a deist, Flew applied some scientific reasoning (aided by biologists' investigation of DNA) to arrive at his position. This may not be satisfactory to the general scientific community, especially those who seek to explain the existence of the natural world and almost everything else by some laws of natural or physical science. However, it is particularly up to Flew himself (rather than the religious community) to provide the skeptic and atheistic minds with "proof" of his deistic assertions. It should be well remembered that Prof. Flew is a philosopher, and not many philosophical questions can be sufficiently answered by recourse to natural science.

The atheistic community is understandably concerned by this twist of events championed by one who was a big name in their circle. However, in the field of rational thinking, Richard Carrier's material on the atheistic website assuring atheists that all seemed well is critically weak. Carrier's antidote was that Flew accepted only a 'minimal God'; but does that not sound really disappointing to the definition of atheism - the belief in 'no God' at all? There is no meeting point between a zero (no-god) and a minimum (possible existence of a God).

Actually that is not necessarily true, look up atheistic buddhists, atheists with pantheistic leanings, agnostic atheists etc.

More than that, if atheism ever had a doctrinal stance, it was the denial of the possible existence of an 'intelligent designer' as explaining the origin of life.

I'll have to disagree with your premise, because there is no atheistic doctrine. In fact, the only thing that binds atheists, is their lack of belief in the existence of any deities. It might come as surprise to yo that there are atheists that credit intelligent beings with the origin of life.

quote]That had been Prof. Flew's 'evangelistic campaign' for several decades as an atheist; and though he accepts Darwinian evolution, he doubts that the theory can explain the origins of life. Instead, he leans more towards the very idea that atheism attacks by admitting: "A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature."

[/quote]Good for him.

[quote]Prof. Flew has not arrived at a sound belief in a well-defined 'God' - at least, he might be faulted by atheists and skeptics alike on his lack of 'scientific proof' for his conversion. What he does relate to is that the evidence he has gathered gives the idea that belief in a God (or, at least, a super-intelligence) is possible as the "only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." What this could mean is that, those who have a problem with 'proof' and 'evidence' will need to tell us if the existence or non-existence of the Lock Ness Monster has been sufficiently proven.

"Proof is for math and alcohol", speaking of which, I wish I had one with a high proof % *sigh*, c'est la vie.

Just as the conversion of the 81 y.o. British philosopher does not say anything to the effect of 'disproving' Christianity or Islam, it does not 'prove' anything to the correctness of atheistic claims. Anyone reading the story clearly sees that Flew was rejecting atheism as insufficient and banckrupt in providing a rational explanation for the origin of life.

Are you kidding? I guess by the same token, the converts from christianity and islam to atheism, are clearly showing the insufficiency and bankruptcy of those religions in providing a rational explanation for the origin of life.

If converts were a good argument against religion or the lack of religion, I doubt there would be many christians left.

kismat:
@Seun

Whether God existed or didnt is something that can only be addressed by your sincere understanding and reasoning of what's surrounding you. Look at a sperm (whatever means necessary ) and imagine that sometime back, you were exactly of something similar. Not breathing, eating, talking, reasoning. Helpless. Lifeless. You are questioning the existance and trying to understand whoever gave you the chance to be who you are now. And Guess what, you'll die, thrown six feet under and be brought back to life to answer why you failed to use your logic to appreciate your creator.

Just picture how pissed you get when your kids/young ones don't listen to you. You didnt create them or give them life. Just taking care of them. Helping, wanting to make their life as easy and beautiful as you can and they go about not listening to you, drinking, stealing, commiting all sorts of vulgar acts.

Thats exactly how we human beings are behaving towards our creator. Trying to question, challenge, argue, understand and reason as if HE is a human being like us (knowingly how limited our intelligence is).

, and the only logical thing to do, is condemn your children to an infinite punishment, for their finite acts. Hail divine justice!

kismat:
Now compare that to the sky, do you see any pillars holding it? The stars (milky way), the moon, planets the Sun. Should the earth move just a centimeter to wards the sun and we all melt and should it pull back just a little from the sun and we all freeze.

That's obviously not true, as IIRC, the distance between the Earth and the Sun vary during an Earth year by more than a centimeter.

Look up the sky again at night and contemplate on the relativity of time! How we share the same darkness (night) and yet it takes millions of years to travel to the nearest star. How great is HIS creation. Compare yourself with this great and glorious universe, which is full of order and regularity.

Could elaborate a little, because I actually don't understand whta you mean.

kismat:
Which is great, creation of the universe or creation of Man?

Well I wouldn't use the word "creation", but I think the Universe is greater.

choice.A:
KAG,

You cannot say categorically that Ouija boards are fake.

I can, and I have.

I expected you'd have some personal experience to relate to buttress your claim.

Sorry, but I don't think my lack anecdotal evidence and/or hearsay invalidates any of what I posted, all studies show that it really is the ideomotor effect at work.

Well, I haven't tried it myself - and I would never touch it for anything. I was a hardened skeptic and didn't believe in such stuff - until I saw what it did to someone who actually bought it to 'try it out.' I wasn't there watching the events unfold, but barely 3 hours later she was found hanging upside down in her room - dead, and the Ouija board was never discovered. We live in a sick world that transcends the natural or physical. I followed your link, but if by just reading an article online convinces you that such phenomena is non-existent, I have nothing else to say than just these two:

1. Those who have no experience cannot claim that something is not true.

Yes we can. I have never experienced gobaa booba (an excrutiating phenoma that I've just pulled out of my arse), but Joe Bloggs trie to tell me that gobaa booba happens. If it goes against every logical sense, and its only evidences are hearsay and anecdotes, while science has better explanation, then,

Incidentally gobba booba is the ability to defy gravity, due to shooting steam out of your pooper, with that ability you can travel into space and visit other planets, you would obviously also be able to breathe in space, all you have to do, is buy set of magic beans for £10.99, and say an incantation, and yes the incantation is the important bit.

2. Those who want to dabble into the occult out of curiosity need not do so - the price is too costly afterwards.

Well if Chick is to be believed playing games like D& is dabbling into the occult, so I agree the price may be too costly, especially if you are a stdent, but there's a solution, spread the costs between friends, you have to go out and make friends though.

There are famines,weather changes,homosexuality in churches,antichrist,wars,lesbianism, Dont waste time, give your life to christ now.The trumpet will sound at any time.

If you think any of those things are new or exclusive to our generation, or infact our millenia, then you are sadly mistaken.

nightrider:
There is a God, who carefully thought out and planned this universe. He is not God because he created the universe, He was God before he created the universe./

Well he's starngely non-existent, and the evidence for his (why his he male) existence is as anedoctal as the evidence of Annunakis.

Everything is so carefully ordered night and day, seasons, birth, water to drink, food to eat, air to breathe. Anyone who sees these things and denies them is deceiving himself and living in his own reality.

How is that evidence of order, would breathing carbon-dioxide, not eating food, or not drinking water be evidence of disorder?
No, I posit that it's more likely that things can be described as orderly from a lone human perspective.

Hes not looking for people who will believe when they see him, he's looking for those who believe when they don't. Once a heart and not a mind believes then he will prove to that heart that he exists. But the heart has to believe first.

So you have to believe to believe?

He doesn't need to prove anything to the world, he doesn't need to show you a sign, he's God and we are not. Man can beat his chest all he wants in the shallowness of logic, philosophy and human theory.

Yes he does, surely if he had no problem doing them in biblical times, then he should have no problem doing them now.

One thing is sure
Death
and in that we will know that he who created life is real, but then it would be to late.

That makes sense to you? Reads like a badly written script to me.

It's always bemusing, when christians or muslims (and they are always the culprits) bring up cases of former atheists converting from atheism (and it's usually Flew's conversion), while ignoring the large amount of converts from their respective religion. Also, they seem think that bringing up stories of converts somehow makes a case for their particular dogmas.

nightrider:
These atheist all seem so confused, First theres no God" a big bang created this Marvellous earth"

The Big Bang did not create this "marvelous" Earth, and you'ld be haerd pressed to find an atheist that actually believes that.

then theres a God but not the christian God, this God is based on reason. What do they really believe.

If they believe in a God then they are no longer atheists, sounds like you are the one that's confused.

This whole Atheism thing is just another form of hatred for God and his Christ.

Oh please.

An escapist method because no one really wants to believe he is sinful and his sin condemns him to eternal damnation and that he needs a loving sacrifice by an eternal God who created him to save him.

Or, it could be, the entire thing makes little or no sense. Also, atheists are not the only ones that don't believe in "sin".

which God? I have never seen him, how do i know he exists? How do you know your great great great Grandfather existed did you ever see him.

Well, for one thing my great etc. grandfather's existence isn't supernatural and isn't out of the ordinary. Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

thats a daft analogy afterall am here. Is that right and how did your great grandfather exist?
Oh! sorry i forgot,Oxygen and carbondioxide mixed with nitrogen and created one big fart and he appeared.

Okay, ?

And how did these gases exist? In a vacuum, where did they come from?

What gases?

All religions in the world fight Christianity,

No they don't, and it could also be argued that christianity fights a lot of other religions.

because they all hate the fact that there is a Christ and that Christ loved us and died for us.

I don't hate the fact that there was a christ, infact I wish more christians would be like the christ portrayed in the gospels.

They never fight each other, they are perfectly at peace with each other. But they hate Christ. I think we should all look deeper.

Yes, because we all know that the Jewish and Islamic battles were simply tete-a-tetes, and the hindu-sikh wars were simply discussions on how to furher destabilise christianity *there's never a good roll-eyes smilie when you need one*.

exu:
That reminds of a very sad story someone told me about some armed robbers:

A night bus travelling from Calabar to Lagos and was apprehended by some armed thieves. The thieves asked the passengers if they had paid tithes; those who had were left with all their money intact, unfortunately those who didn't were made to pay 'a tithe' to the thieves.

The saddest part of this story is that the guy who told it to me said (with a smile on his face) that this was an example of "God looking after his people"- I guess he'd never heard of the Holocaust.

Strangely, or maybe not so strange afterall, many christians are bizarrely gleeful when it comes to a perceived punishment from YHVH, on unbelievers, apostates etc, it really is cringeworthy. Remember that thread about "God", that involved several christians extolling a God who would senselessly kill hundreds of people on the Titanic just because of an innocuous statement by a guy who wasn't even on the ship. Yet many christians wonder why they are viewed with derision.

I believe, actually I hope, Islam can be a peaceful religion, but the fact many of its followers can be so violent based mostly on the Koran, should hopefully make more people question the varacity and validity of Islam's holy book and Allah's knowledge.

Are Ouija boards fake?

Yes.

Have you contacted the dead? What happened?

So Ouija boards / Weegie boards / talking boards. Have you used one? If so what happend? Is it a load of crap? My friend used one and he said "I contacted a demon called Zo-Zo. He wouldn't go away, then the glass smashed!"

My friend never lies. Just what is it?

In my opinion, the ouija board works due to the ideomotor effect (see: http://skepdic.com/ideomotor.html), and I find it hard to believe that people still think a store bought novelty item actually helped them contact the "dead" et al. Here's a suggestion you can give to your friend, tell him to try contacting "Zo-Zo" (weird name, huh?) with a blindfold on.

Does it interfere with Religion?

Not that I know of, but religious belief certainly helps in making it work.

donnie:
layi,

I really admire you for the strong arguments you have put up.

I heard a story about a talkshow where a christian and a non-christian were arguing about the reality of Jesus and the gospel on televison. The non-christian said all sorts of blasphemies.

At a point the christain got fed up and he said, "In the name of jesus, i command you to come out of him"

Immediately, the man who was busy speaking blasphemies began to manifest, shaking all about the place right before the cameras.

That is what we will be seeing in these last days...not much of talking without action.

Bollocks.

nicetohave:
avail yourself of the opportunity to voice to her what you believe in and stand for, but as i said sorry if you don't seem to think it is necessary...........just mentioned it

Gotcha'. I guess I don't feel it's necessary at this juncture, simply because I haven't figured out what label fits me best.

davidylan:
Question is: Is man here by the actions of a divine being or are we a result of natural selection?

Natural selection, wheteher it was started by some kind of a supernatural being is debatable.

If so why have we not seen an ape change to a human by natural selection? Why are we yet to observe a half man half ape?

Why should we see an ape (ape in the colloquial non scientific usage) change to a human?It seems you are under the impression the evolving to humans is an evolutionary goal, well that's not the case. Also, what characteristics would you expect to see in a half man - half ape?

Is it possible nature designed the wonders and intricacies of the human body?

Yes

Who designed the solar system as we know it? The big bang?

Processes and occurences long after the big bang "designed" our solar system, however theistic proponents of the big bang theory believe their deity started off the process.

If we know that most molecules tend towards a state of entropy, how come nature was able to design such an ordered system we call the earth?

Life and everything on Earth, were able to come to be mostly due to that great big source of energy with a low entropy called the sun.

How did the dinosaurs come about? Why did they die out? Natural selection? Evolution?

They evolved . Scientists agree that the dinosaurs, like many of the organisms at the K-T boundary, died due to a global climatic change. I'm not sure all the details of what caused the climate change have been discovered, but a popular hypothesis is the one that asserts a meteorite crashed into the Earth causing the changes

Why are we yet to see the "evolution" of new "strains" of humans that are resistant to the diseases such as cancer and HIV AIDS?

There are humans that have "evolved" an immunity to AIDS, see: http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/517399.html. As for cancer, I think it is hereditary, if it isn't then immunity wont become a trait in humans.

Why has it been so hard to make clones of human embryos unlike those of animals?

I don't know the scientific details on why it is hard to clone human embryos, but I do know that generally cloning is hard, and is even harder when it comes to primates. See: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml

Is there really no evidence of the existence of God or are we just tryiing in vain to exclude Him from our lives?

If belief in God is irrational and not based on evidence, on what evidence do we then place our belief in evolution?

For instance, how do we talk of evolution when there is no physical evidence?

There are plenty of physical evidences for evolution, some include the fossil records, observed speciation, genetics etc.

nicetohave:
KAG im sorry but i think thats a simple question (wrongly presented though) which you should have used the opportunity to avail yourself of.

What was a simple question? The question that implied only somebody of a similar belief to hers could comment in this thread? Also, what exactly am I availing myself of?

layi:
Just say u want me to be wrong because u got no proof against what I've said.

I don't want you to be wrong, you are wrong.

The bombardier beetle does spit fire. Do your research well. I'll help u wit just a few links
www.thematrix.co.uk/texttopic.asp?index=3
www.aboundingjoy.com/beetle-fs.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

I can't even answer the other points u raised because u got no proof of anything.

I'm probably missing something, so could you point out where any of the sites agree with your assertation.

perculiarrose:
this question is for KAG... please r u a christain. if u don't believe in God then shut up.

Have we met somewhere, someplace, at some point? If not, then I'm pleased to make your acquaintance. If there's anything within reason and with good reason, you'ld like me to do for you, please don't hesitate to ask. As per your unusual request above, I'm sorry, but it lacks a good reason amongst other things, so I guess I won't be complying. Nice to meet you though.

layi:
See the features of Leviathan according to Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1
Unlike behemoth, who is huge, Leviathan is ferocious and terrifying and its spits fire. I know fellow Nairaland forumites might go (can an animal really spit fire?). Truth is, there is an animal that spits fire even today's world. Its called a a bombardier beetle. So its possible.

Actually, you are wrong. The bombadier beetle does not spit fire, and I seriously doubt any animal that ever existed would have had the capabilities to spit or breathe out fire. IIRC, the most likely candidate for the Leviathan, is the Komodo Dragon.

Biblical description of Leviathan matches that of kronosaurus - aquatic dinosaur.

I'm pretty sure the kronosaurus (whatever that is) lacked fire spitting capabilities.

Did evolution start from "thin air"?

No.

GentlBlunt:
What do you think is the main purpose of living?

Living, and whatever you deem necessary to lead a "good" life.

A well written and well thought out post, I know it wasn't addressed to me, but there are some parts that seem questionable.

Nnenna1:
Hey Nferyn ,

We're all in this argument together aren't we? And the fact you "believe" in your arguments proves something. Athiesm may be the antithesis of belief as we know it, but it is a belief in non-belief, and does have that human drive to prove to others, whenever possible that this belief in non-belief, is the only way to go.

I'll have to disagree with the above, yes it is the nature of many, to try to prove something, however ther are many atheists who just have no belief in a deity, in much the same way many have no belief in leprechauns. They don't have belief in the non-belief of leprechauns, they just lack a belief in their existence.

It's really not much different than any other religion in attitude, except that it is a free-thinking one, with no shackles or pressure. Christians, muslims, Judiasts etc try to bring out the "evil" in athiesm, as does athiesm in trying to show the ignorance in conventional religion. Some athiests I know of were brought up in agnostic or athiestic homes (as in any other religion) , thereby fueling their belief. I don't know, that's how I see it.

Actually, many atheists don't try to show ignorance in conventional religion, in fact many are apathetic to religion in general, until the acts of the religious forces them into debating the validity of religion.

All christians, (whether they like to admit it or not), have entertained the possibility of God's non-existence, as am sure, you have entertained the possibility of his existence. But our contrasting convictions have a better stronghold. No one has an absolute proof of God's non-existence, despite what we see. We haven't even used any of our devises to leave the solar system yet. Nor have we dug below 1% of the earth in which we live in. All our findings (in the physics realm) have been based on doppler effects and theories, and since, as of now everything seems to correlate, we are confident in it. Also, (although I don't see it), there might be the possibility that God does not exist because the physicality of it all seems to lean towards that direction, that all we see is all we get, right?

I agree wholeheartedly.

This is paragraph going to show my bias, but, as all religions (as far as I know) believe in the non-physical presence of God or gods, and anti-religions believe in proof, there's not going to be any resolution based on evidence. you're going to look for it and not find it. I've seen strange unexplained stuff that will make you laugh, and even if you saw a ghost that told you about God, you'll dismiss it as a hallucination. It's all faith. Even if there is no God, I think we should all live as if there is one. I still don't see the pleasure of living life without the presence (or, in your eyes, supposition) of God all around. It's pretty depressing thinking we're all just a bunch of advanced egg+sperm/atom+molecue beings that just came by chance when our parents performed the necessary act of reproduction by introducing one body part to the other as a part of a physical mechanism, with no purpose or meaning to life, only to end up dying and rotting into nothingness whenever some phyisical reaction collides with us, and that it all ends there. Or that we wouldn't really leave a legacy because in five million years the sun will darken and become a brown star and the earth will freeze out, and tada! the earth and human love and show is all over, that's all folks! If so, there's no point in restraint. We can all live like animals do, do whatever pleases us and not care at all: we'll all vanish to non-existence anyways. If that is our truth, I prefer to live under an illusion.

I see your point, reality is often a harsh pill to sawllow. However, despite assertations to the contrary, the lives of many atheists do have purposes, the purposes they design for themselves. Many atheists have come to the conclusion that life is only meaningless if you make it meaningles. With no need for an unforseen purpose created by an invisible man in the sky, many atheists adopt moral codes in line with empathy and the accepted laws of the goverment. Sure we can all live as animals, but why do that?

No offence, I think that the root of atheism is rebellion and pressure and the desire to break free. Most athiests are this way because the church/mosque/synagouge/shrine had infuriated them or their parents in one way or another. There is some grudge somewhere.

I disagree very strongly with your premise. Why is it hard to accept that many atheists have rejected religion because they found it wanting? on another tangent, would you accept that a former atheist/ agnostic turned christian, is only rebelling etc.?

I really see nothing else at all. I'm not proud of what christians have done in the past: catholics and the inquisition, crusades, and protestants with slavery and witch hunts, because these were not the true foundations of holiness. Christ would not have entertained any of this: he sat with sinners and prostitutes and laughed and joked with them. Being good and showing love to others in God, and being a fanatic are two different things. We love (tough love, just love, just plain old love) and leave the rest to God. And believe you me, this world needs a lot of that right now. No, I don't want to convince or change you. But I think you might want to consider the rationality in the irrationality of the other side. Pick a scriptural book, anyone (bible, torah, zohah, koran etc) , or all of them, and read them without devising arguments and trying to tear them apart. Don't even read them metaphorically. Read them as a coherent whole and as a trustworthy text, no matter how hard it is. Look for sanity in the insane, then you just might understand.

...and if after reading the/a religious text, the lack of belief in a deity still exists, what then?

nicetohave:
Please KAG, which is which? are you saying these references are not true, or they are unethical? if you say they are unethical what makes them so?

I'm saying, if accepted as historical truths, then they are testament to an unusually short-sighted, genocidal, and sometimes malevolent deity. The acts I mentioned are unethical, because of the whole murder and mass genocide can be deemed to be wrong.

Pat Robertson statement is a personal opinion, the article reads "suggests" now if that is true or not i don't know, i am not in the habit of supporting unsubstantiated comments, so i wont defend that, but we'll focus on the cited bible references..........shall we?

Despite the fact he claims to be a servant of YHVH, and often uses biblical verses to support his stances? In any case, you are right, let's focus on the biblical attrocities.

can you site as many unethical practises as you can please? and the monstorus and psychotic episodes, so we can dissect it together and see whats underneath?

A few examples: the whole world wide flood episode in Genesis (only applies to literalists)

Then the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, resulting in the death of "all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon" (exodus 12:29).

Done in the name of YHVH, Joshua 7:24; "...and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.

25And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.

and finally one modern episode as claimed by prominent christian: God smiting Sharon for ...erm... dividing "his" land http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1475112&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

God isn't psychotic. Be careful what u say

If the shoe fits.... In my opinion, the christian God is either non-existent, and has been used to justify a lot of unethical practises; exists, and is just as monstorous and laden with psychotic episodes, as many christians have presented him; or he/she has been sorely misrepresented by the many that claimed to have spoken for him/her. As far as I'm concerned, the initial seems closest to the truth.

And what about Ben Idahosa who died of a heart attack at a very young age? Or Bishop Oluputaife (I think) who was killed by Robbers?

They were both mocking Brahma, so Brahma took care of them. Mockest thou not the almighty Brahma.

My response in the other thread, equally valid here.

[Quote]
Mayb this will make u have a re-think

JOHN LENNON
Some years before during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:
"Christianity will end, it will disappear. I do not have to argue about that. I am certain. Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, Today we are more famous than Him" (1966)".
Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.[/Quote]

Lennon died about 14 years after that statement. If your psychotic God wanted to prove something, Lennon would have died immediately after he made that statement, from a bolt of lightening or something like that.

[Quote]
TANCREDO NEVES
During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency. Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died.[/Quote]

Here's a thought, how about you provide a worthy source that shows Neves saying the above.

[Quote]
CAZUZA
During a show in Canecão ( Rio de Janeiro ), whilst smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said: God, that's for you.
I can't even explain how he died.[/Quote]

Who the flying f**k is Cazuza?

[Quote]
THE MAN WHO BUILT TITANIC
After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be. With an ironic tone he said: "Not even God can sink it"
The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic.[/Quote]

Kudos to the poster that posted the snopes link.

[Quote]
MARILYN MONROE
She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show. He is a preacher and Evangelist and the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her.
After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said:
"I don't need your Jesus"
A week later, she was found dead in her apartment.[/Quote]

Codswallop.

[Quote]
BON SCOTT
The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang:
"Don´t stop me, I´m going down all the way, wow the highway to
hell".
On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his vomit.[/Quote]

...and XTC sang "the father, son and holy ghost, Is just somebody’s unholy hoax", they are all still alive.

[Quote]
CAMPINAS/SP IN 2005
In Campinas, a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend. The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter - holding her hand, who was already seated in the car: "MY DAUGHTER, GO WITH GOD AND MAY HE PROTECT YOU",
She responded: ONLY IF HE (GOD) TRAVELS IN THE BOOT, COZ INSIDE HERE IT'S ALREADY FULL"
Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died, the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the boot was intact.
The police said there was no way the boot could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the boot was a crate of eggs, none was broken.[/Quote]

In Hope Springs, a group of friends, drunk went to pick some friends. The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter - holding her hand, who was already seated in the car: "MY DAUGHTER, GO WITH ZEUS AND MAY HE PROTECT YOU",
She responded: ONLY IF HE (ZEUS) TRAVELS IN THE BOOT, COZ INSIDE HERE IT'S ALREADY FULL"

Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, they had slammed into another car. Everybody in the other car died. The family in the other car were all ardent christians on their way from church, however the strangest thing was that their pastor had prophesied that the year would be their year of "prosperity and breakthrough"; yet they died.

And the girl with the Hellenist mother? She and her friends survived the accident without a scratch, she (the girl) later became a priestess of Zeus. Unfortunately all the eggs she had in her boot broke, so she bought another crate.

Up ZEUS, up APOLLO!