DappaD: Welcome! Permit me to bring you up to speed. This question below already made the OP see the faults in his reasoning. Can you answer them yes or no? If no, then your own question has been answered by yourself.
Then again, for you to think that transportation from one place to another is a modern invention really says a lot about how most of you guys reason.
There were 8 people in the world after the flood which of them travelled with kangaroos to Australia?
DappaD: You skipped a very vital and important question yet again.
Your stance has been hinged on the notion that Marsupials are only found in Australia and that’s why they couldn’t enter Noah’s ark because of the distance between the Middle East and Australia. I wonder how you even reason, despite the several modes of transportation available at that time then you still asked this baseless question but let’s allow it. Now please answer the above questions? If we ever get to find out that the reverse is the case, then we can throw out your entire argument, yes?
I'll ask the other question, how did kangaroos get to Australia without leaving a trail of fossilised kangaroo bones?
FatherOfJesus: The purpose of argument is not to be right but to find out what is right. It doesn’t matter what you think is right. You argue like someone who wants to be right and does not want to learn. I don’t engage in such arguments of the blind.
As much as I don’t believe in the existence of God doesn’t mean that I believe everything in science. The reason for not believing in god is because there’s no evidence for it, people like you distort facts, deduce conclusions before providing evidence and then ignore vehemently any form of evidence against what you believe because you only want to be right irrespective of what’s right. I’m grown beyond that.
I’m not in for that abeg, I would attend to other mature opponents who are interested in sharing and accepting ideas instead of wanting to be right.
That is his MO, he will come, say something then declare himself victor without even waiting to engage in reasonable discussion.
budaatum: I don't think even you believe the God is narcissistic, or at least I hope you don't, because that would mean you are blind to the narcissistic understanding of the people of Biblical times.
It's like as if some tribe used to bash the heads of twins against rocks then someone blames the rock or the twins and not the basher. People do a similar thing with the Bible too when they claim it justified slavery for instance, instead of holding the justifier responsible for their own ignorance.
Atheists need to evolve to reading the books without the theistic lens that blinds them. They'd be fascinated to find that Jesus was an unbeliever like them, though, more diplomatic, since he knew the consequences.
It's hard buda, some of us are still carrying years worth of baggage that we don't know are there.
In my thoughts I think that if a god exists it couldn't be this narcissistic being they keep describing.
budaatum: I hope you've noted my hypocrisy. I do not need to concern myself with the existence of Gods since most arguments are about the text in a book that everyone can read. But if existence becomes an issue, I so love Jesus Christ.
Two commandments, he gave, "[url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12%3A29-31&version=KJV]be a Godist", and "be a Humanist[/url]", but despite literally teaching the more important, "[url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A45&version=KJV]Worship one another[/url]", and thereby placing the latter above the former, the Book believers would rather be the former than do the latter, which kind of turns most discussions into the sort one would have about "Marvel Avengers or Game of Thrones" with those who don't understand them, or mostly never watched them at all.
Anyway, it is not true that the God in the Bible is narcissistic. It is humans imposing their own narcissistic understandings on their Gods. Your wife clearly does not do this or I do not think you'd be able to maintain a home with her, but you will kindly forgive me for assuming to impose a "worldviews" on your family based on assumptions of "the literature from which they largely grow their arguments". Lol.
Of course my wife doesn't believe the god is narcissistic, if she did I doubt she'd remain a Christian any more. I readily admit that that attribute is one I am making based on what I have read and heard about the god. What the attributes of the god actually are I think I am open to discussion on.
budaatum: Unfortunately, as I'm sure you are finding, discussing "Marvel Avengers or Game of Thrones with people" is not the same as discussing Gods with those who insist on "worldviews" based on assumptions of "the literature from which they largely grow their arguments".
LoL! Yes it is difficult, that is why I just accede that the god exists even though I don't believe it to be so. I could insist I don't believe therefore there is nothing to be attributed to the god character, in which case there is no further discussion.
HellVictorinho: So, it's your question. I thought it was the Dtruthspeaker that asked me. I don't answer stupid questions by people like Dtruthspeaker. Well, LordReed ,I'll answer you because you are honest on Nairaland. You don't accuse people anyhow. You are not so proud. But keppler has decided to disturb my life. He thinks he's being smart but he's just being stupid actually. I was disappointed when budaatum agreed to his bullshit. Both of them attacked me for no reason. Damn! It's not a rap battle. I shouldn't be quoted baselessly.
Maybe you should get them to come do a rap battle with you. LoL!
keppler: Still wrong. Atheism is not the opposite of Christianity I never implied that Atheism is the opposite of Christianity
You wrote Christianity or atheism, are they the only positions on the issue?
There were atheists before Christianity Sure! Atheism rejects the concept of God before Jesus came (which maybe argued to be the foundation for Christian principles) but that is not the main issue. The main issue is that it rejects the idea of God as its presupposition, hence it has alternative for those philosophical questions. Many of the age long thinkers clearly answered such questions before. Though, a Christian worldview provides an explanation for why atheism exist and why they surely have alternative explanation to how the universe came to be
Atheism doesn't answer the question of how the universe came to be. Atheist have to find explanations elsewhere and best method known to us is science. This is why many conflate atheism with science.
Also who says God or no god needs to also answer how the universe was created? That is a nonsequitur No body says that but it is what is observed in real time. Theists (Christians especially) believes that God made the universe (as revealed in his word). The other clearly rejects the notion of God (and the Bible) and hence propose alternatives (such as the universe is eternal, it came from nothing, etc). But I get, folks don't want to be cornered just as evolutionists would avoid the question of the first life form, hence claim that it has nothing to do with the theory
It's not about being cornered or not. Evolution does not say anything about origins of life but you want to force it to, similarly atheism says nothing about origin of the universe yet you want to force it to.
keppler: This why I told you to ditch your assumptions when talking to me. Where have I told you I am an idealist?
Alright, I guess you did not read what I wrote well as I don't know how I imply that you are an idealist. I said your belief system are in ANTITHESIS to the idealist world view.
Did I not tell you that my worldview is not atheistic so why are surprised that my presuppositions are not based on disbelief?
1. We don't know.
2. We are a result of natural processes. You are not just being consistent and maybe not truthful with yourself. Your answers to the question proved that already. They are answers provided by those who start with the axioms that there is no God. 1. They gave many hypothesis which are being over turned by later understanding of the universe. But they all have an a priori belief that it MUST exclude God. This is consistent with atheistic worldview 2. Thought there is no prove that we are here through natural processes alone but such answer is necessary in order to exclude God as a creator who made the universe and made earth for living forms with laws governing the operation of everything. In fact, this second answer is enough to prove that it derives from atheistic worldview. All I need to ask is what are the natural process that you are referring to? If I limit it to our existence, how did the natural processes bring us into existence?
I don't think I want to have this conversation with you since you don't want to take correction because I don't know how many times I'll have to point out that there is nothing like atheistic worldview and I certainly do not have an atheistic worldview. If you cannot let go of this your grip on what has pointed out to be wrong then you are not worth having a conversation with.
According to the book the god can make humans out of dust. There are several billion planets in the universe with at least 40 billion earth like planets in our Milky Way galaxy alone and there are several million galaxiesjust like ours. So if the god wanted he has 40 billion people already, yet you think he is more concerned with the antics of 7 billion people?
aadoiza: REEDIOT'S silly IGG antics that expose his emptiness in 5 lines: 1. Aggression and use of expletives when you expose his mental vacuity in usually 1 or 2 posts. And then the mumu dead head goes on like a broken record, in a fashion similar to a programmed robot: 2. Shithead 3. Bwahahahahahaha 4. Arsehole 5. Childish posting of giffs and memes to disguise his stupidity. Only empty bastards like REEDIOT repeat same lines whenever dem open hin yansh.
keppler: I explained that to Buda already. So I'll just show that here also
Still wrong. Atheism is not the opposite of Christianity. There were atheists before Christianity. Also who says God or no god needs to also answer how the universe was created? That is a nonsequitur.
keppler: Though these are belief systems though you may think that the word "belief" in it makes it look religious rather than philosophical. And it stand in antithesis with the idealist concepts or worldview.
It's just that though, these belief system are not exclusive to you (I've seen some of this ideas on the net), they don't have anything to do with disbelieve in the existence of God. There are questions to be answered first which these usually serve as auxiliary. Those would answer existence of a real universe - realism as a whole. Could be framed as 1. If we exist in reality, that should be in a real time and space. This would suppose that our universe is real, then how and why did a real universe came to be? 2. How did we arrive here? These questions can now give room for those presuppositions
This why I told you to ditch your assumptions when talking to me. Where have I told you I am an idealist?
Did I not tell you that my worldview is not atheistic so why are surprised that my presuppositions are not based on disbelief?
budaatum: That's true. But surely, how you discuss them matters, won't you think?
I mean, why would you discuss on the assumptive premise of existence, a thing or being you do not believe or think exists, and which's existence has not been resolved?
Perhaps an example might be illustrative. Consider this, for instance. Can you see how one is misled?
Don't you think that claiming God is narcissistic implies or at the least leaves room for the inference of the existence of said God in order for it to be narcissistic?
No because I can attribute any personal qualities to fictional characters and not imbue them with an assumption of reality. When I discuss Marvel Avengers or Game of Thrones with people, there is no assumption that we've taken them to be real because we discuss them as if they are.
keppler: For the first paragraph, I believe this is desperation. If worldview is a form of belief system or perspective in which we see the world, then one can say that atheism is also a worldview because it starts with the disbelief in God and then answers other philosophical questions from such presupposition.
It does not. You assume that because an atheist is answering questions it means it his atheism that is answering. That is a wrong perspective because atheism speaks to one question, god belief or no god belief. How can such a position answer every other question?
keppler: Right! I know that you would find the word 'belief' to be out of place. I will rephrase it. What are your presuppositions about the world?
I presuppose that reality is real and not a dream or a simulation or any other form that essentially indicates that it is not real. I presuppose that my mind can experience this reality with a fair degree of confidence. I presuppose that other human beings that I encounter also have minds with a similar fair degree of confidence in their experience of our shared reality. I presuppose that our shared reality is fairly stable and will not be subject to topsy turvy or arbitrary occurrences.
There may be more but I think these are the most foundational.
keppler: Alright! I understand the issues of onus. Anyway, what are your belief system? Since I called those concepts generics, but it seems their maybe orthodox and unorthodox version of atheism
Belief system? What makes you think I have one? I don't find beliefs to be satisfactory and in some cases I think they are useless and only have utility to help us maintain certain biases we all seem to have.
Kokobilo87: Fool. I and basilico was talking about the press conference. She as usual a simpleton thought it was about the election and I told her to move on that the election has passed.
You the coconut skull that you are understands none of it. Remember when I told basilico that being smart is not easy in reference to AmazonTopaz and edi287. Well, you are getting close to PrideofLincoln1 level of stupidity
You are a real full dummy. Did AmazonTopaz quote you before you attempted to play the clown? You're a real dunderhead with his head stuck up his arse.
Kokobilo87: Fool, when you are given the questions before the press conference, you have list of journalists to call numbered in sequence. It is called cheating.
Arse wipe was AmazonTopaz talking of press conference or election? Unmitigated arse wipe.
budaatum: But surely it would depend. If say there were some argument about the actual existence of Harry Potter and Voldemort, then one might need to ask what you mean, especially if the word "believe" comes into the discussion, and if you go about claiming Harry Potter is a murderer who killed Voldemort.
How can a narcissist fictional God "flood the world killing all the babies and unborn fetuses", and "killed David's child because he committed adultery", and "killed all the first born of Egypt"?
Are the "flood the world killing all the babies and unborn fetuses", and "killed David's child because he committed adultery", and "killed all the first born of Egypt" fictional too perhaps, just like Harry Potter and Voldemort are fictional along with the fictional event that never took place?
Those events mentioned are stories, those who believe, believe they were real events. When I meet them were they are in their beliefs there is no standard that says I must believe it in other to discuss it. Just like I don't need to believe in actual Harry Potter in other to discuss the story elements.
keppler: It's still me, I'll discuss with this moniker
I intentionally asked you to answer within your worldview because I know that there's no such concept of good, bad, or human well being in an atheistic/materialism worldview. I'll start with some generics of such worldview: 1. No purpose, no meaning - nothing matters 2. There's nothing out there other than matter and energy 3. Humans are not different from other animals since they are the current product of evolution from other animals over eons of time
Now, with those above, why would you care about human well being? Would you care if a cat catches and eat a rat? For 'generic 3' to be consistent, why should anyone care if one human (an animal in such worldview) destroys another human (animal)?.
You said every intelligent and conscious being... Again, in such worldview of nothing except matter and energy, where and how did consciousness emerge?
If every human is a determinant of their morality, then what constitutes morality to human A may not go along with human B.
If we can't settle with individual morality yet, then communal morality may be begging the question.
So brother, your worldview is not just about a disbelief in the existence of God (as against the desperate new definition of "lack of belief". I have explained to many on this forum how even the american atheist website could not be consistent with such definition in even one article), it explains various concepts (with the presupposition of no God anyway), such as THE REASON why there is no reason for us to be here (funny right?), how we came to be, why we should not expect anything after death and so many concepts which it accuses theists of figment of their imagination. So, it's not just about the existence of God
First off you started with false premises. There is no such thing as Atheist worldview. There are worldviews that accommodate atheism not the other way around. Also you are under a misapprehension to say atheism means there is no purpose or meaning, not all atheists are nihilists. Finally reorient yourself when discussing with me, do not use blanket statements to address me, if you require my view on a matter ask me I will tell you. Do not assume my position on issues simply because I bear the label atheist.
With that said I'll wait for you to restructure your post accordingly or else we can stop discussing. Thanks.
wirinet: What he is saying is that AR-15s and other automatic weapons are useless against the US military. It can only be used by civilians to kill each other, in mass killings or in militia wars. The weaponry, training and tactics at the disposal of the US military is not something any civilian militia can withstand.
Just watch how the US Marines took out Al-Bagdadi and you will have a glimpse of the awesome power of the US military.
The militia that carried weapons more deadly than AR-15 to confront the US military were killed like flies.
Are you minding the arse wipes? Arguing they need AR15 to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, as if this is 1864 and totally missing the point that a regulated militia means regulations.
budaatum: Ah, now that explains it. You believed in the same God but just did not see God as a narcissist at the time but now you've shed yourself of beliefs it has now become clear to you that God is a narcissist.
Yet, I am confused. I thought you are an atheist. Is there a narcissistic God in existence or is it just your new belief that a narcissistic God, erm, shall I say, exists? Clarify please.
When I say Harry Potter killed Voldemort, doesn't it mean that I believe there is an actual Harry Potter, an actual Voldemort and an actual event took place during which actual Harry Potter killed actual Voldemort? Or do you understand I am referring to the story in which these fictional characters were portrayed?
Christianity Etc › Re: Ex-christian: Why I Stopped Believing Religion. by LordReed(m): 2:57pm On Mar 27, 2021
