₦airaland Forum

Mazaje is a hausa word that means "Strong man". . . . .

Jenwitemi:
The agnostic, definitely. He or she leaves the door open for possibilities. This is not, however, the case with an atheist who thinks he or she has all the necessary data to explain all reality, when he actually knows next to nothing.

My man you sure say you no dey lie for here?. . . .

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk?fs=1&hl=en_US"[/flash]

^^
I will post another one later on. . . .

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBDFe3mDtk?fs=1&hl=en_USt[/flash]

Deep Sight:
Hmm. Dont deceive yourself, OP O. There are millions of fantastically kind and good natured Nigerians. Born Agains inclusive. So many of them, I tell you.

I dont have the energy to go into details now, but i will never forget about 15 years ago i was stranded in Abuja. It was a perfect stranger called Benjamin - who was poor as a rat who gave me a home to sleep in and transport money the next day back to lagos.

I made a commitment to name my first son Benjamin, after him.

It was another perfect stranger in the bus back to Lagos that took care of me and after I had nothing else, personally delivered me to my home in Lagos.

I took my family the next day to go and thank him, only to be told he passed away that night.

vedaxcool:
Oh, did someone hear my goat bleat? it sounds very nasty and happens to be an atheist?

Did some one happen to see or hear about a cradle robber that consummated a marriage with a 9 year old baby girl? It sounds very nasty but it happens to be the founder of Islam the delusion you have been brain washed to be holding tightly unto. . .

vedaxcool:
@Deepsight, no Inesqor, na so dem they behave they go first claim logic but when you don corner them de go claim spirit.

@Inesqor, u raised certain issues that at best showed you are truly not answering the core issues

1. some  Christians claim that the writers of the 4 gospel wrote by inspiration not by being eyewitness

2. Other claim they were actually eyewitnesses, to the event of Jesus A.S life

Now which is it, inspiration business or eyewitnesses

Any of the two directs the following questions at us:

1. when was the Nt actually written?
 this questions has long been answered by Biblical Scholars and they claim the NT came to existence about 70 -100 years after Jesus but we read the following : That the most ancient Manuscript in existence today were written some 200 - 400 years after Jesus they are known as the codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinitcus. Now clearly non of this were written by any of Jesus desciple or any eyewitness in his time and as often said, the NT was composed out of Oral traditions then the 4 came and started books out of the oral traditions.

2. Who wrote the NT?
 Looking at the time it was composed the NT was likely written by anonymous individuals and funny u think that this validated you eyewitness claims:
Certain apostles argued about who among them should be most important when Jesus acquired his kingdom (Mark 9:33-37).
The apostles deserted Jesus after his arrest (Mat 26:56).
After the arrest of Jesus, one of the apostles denied even being acquainted with him (Mat 26:69-75).
Some people thought Jesus was crazy (John 10:20).
Jesus could not seem to perform miracles in a certain geographic location (Mark 6:1-5).
Jesus spent his early life uncertain about the precise nature of his ministry (Luke 2:51-52; 3:23).
Jesus confessed ignorance about certain future events (Mark 13:32).
Jesus had moments of bitterness (Mat 26:36-46).
Jesus uttered a cry of despair from the cross (Mark 15:34).

couldn't they have gotten all this stories from other sources such as the oral traditions I talked about?

Again you wrote about his disciples forsaking him, the question comes how do they now become eyewitness to the event that occur before Jesus alledged crucifxion? since we read they deserted him. this would mean they were not eyewitness atleast to the event before his crucifixion.

3. you simply Ignored the Fact that there are contradiction between certian naratives u just go and read the Geneaology of Christ where two different list ends at the same name, at one point we the number of names between Abraham to David differs for mathew and Luke, again we from david downwards we Read an ancestry through Solomon for Mathew and an ancestry through Natan for Luke, the question is what is going on? isn't this an indication that one of them must be lying?
doesn't this logically invalidate your false claims?

Shut up and get out of here, who wrote the koran?. . . .Hope you know that the koran also started appearing long after the death of mohammed the cradle robber. . . .

So we can say that all four Gospels and the book of Acts were written during the eyewitness period-during the time when eyewitnesses were there, could comment on the text, could correct what was written, could refute it or accept it.

None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts, but the gospel of Luke explicitly is not an eyewitness account in the very first passage. By analogy, this significantly reduces the probability that any of the other gospels were eyewitness accounts. All four of them claim events that are unlikely to have happened but are very likely to fit the wishful thinking of Christians.

The confusion is entirely yours, mazaje. It is a logical and progressive argument. We began by discussing the existence of the man, and then transitioned into the reports about him as recorded in the gospels.

How do you know that the reports about him in the gospels are true, when the gospels have already been shown not to be reliable accounts?. . . .The inconsistencies and contradictory account of events in the gospels alone is enough to show that the authors of the gospels do not know what they were writing about. . .

Your argument here is baseless and a little childish, sorry. The POINT being made with you and your associates was that if I must play the devil's advocate here, whoever wrote the gospels (whoever they really were) definitely intended to tell a story about this man Jesus, and also make references that they WERE the ones with Him (e.g. Matthew and John the beloved). So if I am to craft an impersonating story, will I leave so many loopholes to paint[b] myself, my accomplices and my own cause[/b] in a bad light?

The part I highlighted is completely false, read the gospels again and you will see that non of what you have written is true, the gospel of Matthew is a second or third person narrative, and the author in NO way or form implies that he was close of Jesus or has ever meet him, he was just reporting a story that's all. . . . The gospel mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that he was writing it or wanted people to know that the author was ever with Jesus at any time. . . .He is a passage from the gospel of Matthew. . .

Mat 9:9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

Does this look like Matthew writing about himself or some body writing about Matthew?. . . .

Here again:

uainted with him (Mat 26:69-75).
Some people thought Jesus was crazy (John 10:20).
Jesus could not seem to perform miracles in a certain geographic loc[b]Certain apostles argued about who among them should be most important when Jesus acquired his kingdom (Mark 9:33-37).
The apostles deserted Jesus after his arrest (Mat 26:56).
After the arrest of Jesus, one of the apostles denied even being acqation (Mark 6:1-5).
Jesus spent his early life uncertain about the precise nature of his ministry (Luke 2:51-52; 3:23).
Jesus confessed ignorance about certain future events (Mark 13:32).
Jesus had moments of bitterness (Mat 26:36-46).
Jesus uttered a cry of despair from the cross (Mark 15:34).[/b]

You are yet to establish that any of the gospels were written by any disciples of Jesus so your point here is MOOT, NON of the gospels says tat it was written by any of the disciples of Jesus.

As you have said, they were very educated Greek speaking authors. Even Homer in the Iliad and other great works, for instance won't make such a silly blunder. And now we have a group of (obviously talented) individuals. Have you not thus shot yourself in the belly by making such a claim?  The devil's advocate should crumble at that point, then.

All four of the gospels are written in Greek, and the direct disciples of Jesus were Aramaic speakers, generally uneducated, and it is unlikely that they knew Greek. The gospels of Matthew and Luke were apparently spin-offs of the previous gospel of Mark, a point that can be discerned by examining their shared structure, something that independent eyewitnesses would be very unlikely to do unless they were plagiarists of each other.

No, you are wrong. John the beloved, at least, clearly states that he wrote that book. Luke said same. And that is[b] in the least[/b].

The author of Luke never stated who he was, church tradition says the author of the book was Luke, the author never says who he was. . . .According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.

Hold your own, man. Show me what you've got cos your arguments here are more spurious.
Haha the Kanye West thing was a joke on the moment's spur.

Spurious, eh? Interesting. . . .Nothing do you my man. . .

Meanwhile I hope your arguments will at least be honest this time. I guess that's something you are/were known for. 

My arguments are honest enough for me. . .I doubt if they can ever be honest enough for you, but all the same nothing do you. . .

InesQor:
Stop being so duplicitous. You know very well that Josephus is, in historical circles, agreed to have written about a MAN called Jesus. That is the argument at this point and not about whether he is/was Son of God or anything else he did. You are falling into the same dank hole that Deep Sight always falls into, which blinds him to reason.  

This statement is not entirely true because the writing about Jesus from Josephus is still in dispute. . . .But lets move on, so what if Josephus says that a man name Jesus lived? How does what he wrote about Jesus come close to what is found in the gospels?. . . .

Who else is the Christus of whom Tacitus wrote and spoke about the Christians [/i]who took after him?   Are you serious? You know another [i]Christus [/i]who was crucified and a group of people called [i]Christians [/i]took after?

Its clear that you don't want to touch the point where Tacitus said that the whole story was a mischievous superstition.

This point of yours is MOOT. The fact that they wrote [/b]about the man [b][i]at all lends credence to his existence.  

I am not interested in his existence, I am more interested in the claims of what people wrote about him in the gospels, his existence is completely different from the claims that were written about him by other, I hope you know that there is a VERY BIG difference. Back during the 1st century people were busy making all kinds of claims about themselves, even Josephus wrote that the Roman emperor Vespasian was the messiah and we know that Vespasian existed, but I am more interested in the claims not the existence of the figure, Mohamed the prophet of Islam truly existed no doubt, but does that mean that all that was written about him in the hadith is true?. . . .

You are either being ignorant here, or a plain liar. The gospels are either eye-witness accounts or ELSE second-hand eye-witness accounts.

Not true, The story was first widely published long after the alleged events by a publishers and promoters who had a vested interest in the "Leadership by Four People" then known as the "Tetrarchy". The 4 gospels were commensurate with the political environment, and the legal environment in a Roman court of law in which "Eyewitness status" might be challenged. Historical propaganda authored and published at that time would have us believe the stories were legitimate, but the Arian controversy suggests otherwise.

No historian would say that all four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and neither am I doing so. Not even the earliest Church historians claimed as much. Mark's Gospel was written-according to a reliable very early tradition-by a companion, a disciple of the apostle Peter, who was an eyewitness. So you have a secondhand [/i]eyewitness account. [i]Luke says in his Gospel and in Acts that he wrote on the basis of eyewitness accounts. He interviewed eyewitnesses and collected written material on the basis of eyewitness accounts, and from this he wrote his own historical Gospel.

2 things:

1. How do you know that the tradition is reliable? How do you know that the author of the gospel wasn't telling lies? The author of the gospel of mark which is the first gospel that was written and from which all the others were copied from, did not state who he was, he did not say where he got his information from and never mentioned any of his sources, so why accept what others wrote and ascribed to the author, when the author himself never made any such claims?. . . .

2. Who ever the author of Mark is wasn't writing any actual history, he was writing an account based on hear say which is very unreliable since he never stated that he was an eye witness to any of the events he wrote 50-60 years after they had happened.

The only two Gospels that may be in the strict sense of the term eyewitness Gospels are Matthew-because he, according to a reliable tradition, was in fact the disciple Levi Matthew-and the Gospel of John, where the author himself and his epilogue at the end of the Gospel both say quite clearly that this was an eyewitness who wrote that Gospel.

Again how do you know that the tradition is reliable?. . . .The author of the book of Matthew never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by an apostle - but it never says so, and it mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that HE was writing it. Was "Matthew" present at the manger when Jesus was supposedly born? Did he witness the 14 generations between Abraham and David, the 14 between David and the Babylonian Captivity, and the 14 between the Babylonian captivity and baby Jesus? Did he sleep between Joseph and Mary so he'd be sure that Joseph never actually had sex with Mary until after Jesus was born?

Was he privy to the conversation between Herod and the wise men? Did he, too, get to watch the dream Joseph had that he should flee to Egypt?

Did Matthew watch "the Transfiguration" he records in Matthew 17? Perhaps he forgot to include himself in the list of disciples Jesus took to that mountain.

It is not just disingenuous, but downright deceitful to claim that the writers of the four canonical gospels were eyewitnesses of what they wrote. There's no freaking way they could have witnessed much of what they wrote, assuming any of it actually happened. But the most damning fact of all with regard to claims of "eyewitness testimony" is that all of the documents are anonymous. They do not reveal who claims to have written them. They are not signed, and they do not bear any chain of custody. They just appeared anonymously and began circulating some 50-60 (being generous) to ninety or more years after the dates of the events they allegedly cover.

InesQor:
@mazaje: Imma let you finish, but. . . haha just kidding. Finish up. I need to sleep. Will reply them all later.

You gonna do me like Kanye abi? Nothing do you. . .Sleep tight man. . need to get some sleep as well. . .We will continue tomorrow hopefully. . .

InesQor:
Finally, if you and your associates decided to concoct a hoax, focusing on a person claiming one-ness with God, would you agree to the fabrication of details that made this person seem susceptible to the same human frailties as you and I? If you personally were going to play the part of an apostle in this hoax, would you tolerate the fabrication of details that made you look selfish and petty? Such details were incorporated into the New Testament autographs:

This is a very False premise because

1. NOBODY knows who wrote any of the gospels. . . .The gospels were written about 60-100 years after the death of Jesus, by very educated Greek speaking authors, whose identity remains UNKNOWN till this day. . . . . .So it is wrong to claim that the gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus, because the gosples do NOT make such claims themselves . . . .By the way, who was the first Christian to refer to all four gospels as holy scripture, and who was the first Christian to call all four gospels by their current names?. . . .  

[list]
[li]Certain apostles argued about who among them should be most important when Jesus acquired his kingdom (Mark 9:33-37).[/li]
[li]The apostles deserted Jesus after his arrest (Mat 26:56).[/li]
[li]After the arrest of Jesus, one of the apostles denied even being acquainted with him (Mat 26:69-75).[/li]
[li]Some people thought Jesus was crazy (John 10:20).[/li]
[li]Jesus could not seem to perform miracles in a certain geographic location (Mark 6:1-5).[/li]
[li]Jesus spent his early life uncertain about the precise nature of his ministry (Luke 2:51-52; 3:23).[/li]
[li]Jesus confessed ignorance about certain future events (Mark 13:32).[/li]
[li]Jesus had moments of bitterness (Mat 26:36-46).[/li]
[li]Jesus uttered a cry of despair from the cross (Mark 15:34).[/li]
[/list]

If you were fabricating events for a text which you planned to stuff down the throats of gullible people, would you include these nine items?

But in the case of the gospels, Church tradition was what determined the authors of the gospels, not the authors themselves. . . .So your premise is faulty. . .

I contend that statements (1), (3) and (4) on our logic tree must be viewed as false based on all available evidence.

Therefore, the question asked at the beginning of this thread can be answered "yes" with near certainty.

If this is what you call logic, then am very sorry to say but your logic is a joke. . . .

(1) Jesus was not a man?

The existence of a man named Jesus was claimed by:
Josephus, the first century Jewish historian

This account is still disputed and there is evidence to show that it was an interpolation, even if Josephus talked about Jesus existing as a man he never claimed that he was what the bible says he was(son of God, died and was resurrected etc), so that destroys your argument. . . .

Tacitus, the first century Roman historian

Tacitus never mentioned any Jesus any where, he only talked about a Christus who was the founder of a religion, but also said that the whole narrative was a mischievous superstition. . . . .Mischievous superstitions aren't real are they?. . . .

The first century authors of the Gnostic gospels

These gospels were written in the 2nd to 4th century and are of no importance to the historical Jesus and the claims written about him. . . .They were written hundreds of years after the man Jesus died. . . .

The first century authors of the New Testament autographs

Non of the authors of the new testament has ever claimed to have seen Jesus, meet him or was together with him beside the author of 2nd peter a letter than has been shown to be a forgery. . . .None of the 4 authors you have up there even claim to be based on eyewitness account to anything Jesus did. That is just a fantasy made up by believers.

These four sets of authors did not share a common background, philosophy or religion. Why would they independently invent or perpetuate the invention of a fictitious character who would have been a virtual contemporary for each of them? Furthermore, even if one or more of them did invent such a character, why wasn't the hoax unmasked by eye-witnesses; why didn't someone stand up and say, "This man Jesus never existed"?

Are you arguing about the existence of the man Jesus or the accuracy of what was reported about him in the New testament? You seem to be confused. . . . .

InesQor:
Please present your logical evidence that this can be done of Mohammed, and stop pussyfooting

Logic, please. . .There is no such thing in what you have presented for Jesus, all I can see is just some comical ramblings that make no sense at all. . .I will address a few of them in my next post. . .

aletheia:
In the Greek mythology or folk memory; Greeks are descendants of Iapetus or Japetus through his sons; but looking at the table of nations in Genesis 10 in the Bible (which is the touchstone of truth); we discover the that Japheth the son of Noah is the ancestor of the Greeks.

The bible is not the touchstone of the truth. . . .Do you have any DNA evidence for this claim that Japheth is the ancestor of the Greeks?. . . .

Thus it becomes apparent how through the embellishments of been passed orally from generation to generation: Japheth the man becomes transmuted into Japetus the Titan. And so we see within the myth or folk memory of Iapetus; seeds of the truth about Japheth as the ancestor of the Greeks.

What is is apparent here is your own confirmation bias. . .You completely accepted biblical mythology and its embellishments at the same time hypocritical questioning Jewish folk-are as mere mythology. . . According to biblical mythology some guy named Japheth was the father of the Greeks, while according to Jewish folk-are some Titan was the father of the Greeks. . . .How do you know this for sure?. . . .

#1. The internal testimony: Though spanning several thousand years and scores of writers; its theme and message is consistent.

Very False, the OT is NOT consistent with the NT, hence NO internal harmony. . . .The God portrayed in the OT is completely different from the God portrayed in the NT. . . .The message of salvation are both different, Concepts like hell a permanent place of torture after death does not appear in the OT, The Jews who own the OT are still alive today and they do not believe in any part of the NT at all. . . .Infact they believe that Christians only hijacked their OT , used at as a foundation for setting up their new religion and turned it into something else. . . . .A simple reading of the bible will show an evolution of the God of the bible, his morality and the inconsistencies of the nature or character of the said God. . . .

#2. The external testimony: History bears witness to it's veracity. There is no archaeological finding that contradicts it. The manuscript evidence for the faithful transmission of its text shows that it remains unchanged apart from minor copyists errors.

Lets take two of the major events in the bible, Exodus and the Noah's flood, No historical or archeological evidence supports any of the biblical narrative for the exodus, No historical or scientific evidence supports a global flood that happened about 4000 years ago. . . .

#3. My personal experience: I am a witness to the transforming power of Jesus in a man's life. He saved me.

What did Jesus save you from?. . . .

InesQor:
Actually the mathematics here (read: boolean algebra) is not as complex as you say. Maybe your bias obturates your reasoning?

I guess going by this methodology it can be shown that Mohammed the prophet of Islam is truly the messenger of Allah who ascended into paradise on a winged beast. . . .I once saw a debate where William Craig was trying to show that the alleged story of resurrection of Jesus was true using some mathematical formula. . . .These guys are so funny. . . .

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/ras_rbg/Vesti/12923592852045675752.gif

This is hilarious. . . .

Muslims do NOT want to integrate, they only want the Europeans to bend over backwards and accepot their primitive way of life, something the Europeans have droped centuries ago. . . . .If Muslims do not want to integrate they can always go back to their home contires. . . .Muslims do not accept non mumslims and give them equal rights in their own countries, so why they heck and they crying about discrimination?

Jenwitemi:
I don't worship any aliens oh, my man. I only believe that they exist and they originally created our physical bodies before the process of self-replication of the bodies was set in motion.

If aliens celebrate xmas? I don't know, nor do i really care.

These aliens can come from anywhere and everywhere. The vedic literature says that there are four hundred thousand different species of alien humanoids in this universe alone. Is that accurate or not? I don't really give a rat's behind. I only believe that they exist and have always been here. But don't let us derail this thread by going off topic.
Aliens have purpose, by the way.

And their purpose is to create physical bodies for humans, abi? Nothing do you my man. . .Enjoy the holiday. . . .

Pastor manning at his best. . . .Obama is a love-vendor nigga and a mack daddy. . . .

Jenwitemi:
Meaningless and purposeless CHANCE is the God of the atheists.

What is this worshiper of aliens saying?. . . . . . . .Jenwitemi my man. . .Do aliens celebrate Christmas?. . . By the way the aliens you believe in, which planet or solar system did they come from?. . .

Krayola:
I think any world view that gives life (on earth), or humans, some special standing in the entire universe is most likely distorted.

That seems to suggest that if some comet landed on earth and wiped out all life, the universe would have been a failed venture. Dunno about that. . . What would the universe do differently if life on earth were wiped out?

NOTHING. . , The universe will still be the way it is even if our entire solar system goes away(something that will eventually happen). . . .

@ Justcool. . .I really appreciate your rejoinders. . .That was what I expected for aletheia but he just kept running round and round in a circle. . . .

justcool:
@mazaje

Everything that exists has purposes, actually not just purpose but many purposes. The fact that some people do not know the purpose of a thing does not mean that that thing is purposeless. At this point science has evolved to the stage that it can tell you, at least one purpose, of every physical thing in the universe. Lets us quickly go through the things you listed as being purposeless.

Don't get me wrong because I never stated that any thing was purposeless, I just wanted him to tell me the purpose since he claimed to have special knowledge. . . .The primary purpose of every living thing on earth and in other parts of the universe if there are any is SURVIVAL. . . . .

The universe is designed for the life in it to thrive; for the creatures in it to evolve, or come into being. Everything in the earth is so precisely geared to accommodate life.

This is a VERY FALSE statement. . . .Scientists currently believe that 96% of the universe is either dark matter or dark energy, meaning that a scant 4% of the universe is even conceptually accessible by us. Of that 4%, virtually all of it is comprised of empty space some two degrees above absolute zero, which is instantly lethal to living beings. So essentially the universe is almost entirely off-limits to humanity and other living beings, and of that which is not off-limits, almost all of that is trying to kill us or destroy life. Life can not survive out there in space in its natural form, so the nation that the universe was created or designed for life is false. . . . .

aletheia:
@mazaje: Like I said:Now you are throwing around terms in an attempt to mask the inconsistencies in your position.

Nope I am not. . . .

First you agree that:
I then invited you to consider these examples of created objects:^By inductive reasoning if the ESA observatories that you used to observe the cosmos are created and have a purpose, why is it that the universe or mountain lion that are way more complex and which you agree are created, purposeless? My mum would not understand the purpose for the LHC at CERN but that doesn't mean it is is without purpose.

Where did I say that the mountain lion is with out purpose? I WANT you to tell me the purpose of the life of a mountain lion. . . .It seems you don't even know the purpose of your own life cos i have asked you to tell me and you haven't. . . . .

^You and I know that if I told you what I believe the purpose of the mountain lion and rattle snake is: you would not accept my answer.

Why wouldn't I accept your answer?. . ,

So are you saying that design can arise by random chance?
Did this:

---

[img]https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?action=dlattach;id=29088;type=avatar[/img]

---

come about by chance?

The image you have above was designed for a purpose, Its purpose is to depict a unclothed woman. what was the universe designed for and for what purpose since you claim to know that it was designed for a purpose?

You say this:And then turn round to say this:Not only do you misidentify yourself (implying that you are uncertain as to what you actually believe) but you go ahead to state that you know. Atheism has everything to do with creation. You believe the Universe was created. . .meaning it had a Cause. That First Cause is what men call God(s).

There are a lot of Gods that people worship that have nothing to do with the first cause. . . . .

So you are inconsistent when you say the Universe was created but you don't believe God(s) exist. You vacillate between atheism and agnosticism and existential nihilism because your beliefs are still in a state of flux and yet to settle.
If I told you that; wouldn't I be expressing just my opinion according to you?

I don't believe that the Gods of man made religion(your God inclusive) exist, because non of the said Gods can be show to exist on its own independent of human thoughts, human writings, human conception, human cultural traditions and cultural acceptance, human mythologies and writings and human beliefs. . . .Non of such Gods exist in reality out side human belief or human workings. . .According to the religion your subscribe to, the mostly unknown writers of the bible said that their God once lived with them and appeared to so many of them, they wrote that he fought battles with them, wrote on walls, addressed millions of them through public speech, set up a contest with other Gods to show that he was real and all others were false etc. . . .I wonder why such a God that knows how to write on walls or on stone tablet for all to see fails to write any part of the bible. . . .If such a God can address the whole world through a public speech people will know that he exist in reality, no?. . .A simple reading of the holy books of God(bible koran etc) all say that such Gods do not exist in reality. . . .They are just a creation of men and nothing else. . .

Pastor AIO:
This thread has been made infinitely more interesting but mazaje's declaration of his beliefs.

I think that a creation is an intended thing.  Someone/something/s had the intent to create a world.  Interestingly I am also of the position that it is impossible to epistemologically grasp the creator.  I've said as much in the past and I will not even entertain discussions of such.  However I am a theist.  

What I do 'know' is that I live in a world saturated with Intent.  I believe that the world operates teleologically.  I believe also that my whole being is also saturated with intent.  I also believe that if I do not satisfy this intent that I will remain unfulfilled in life.  

In fact I've said that I believe that adhering to the creators intent is the purest form of worshipping the creator.  One does not have to have an epistemological notion of the creator to do this.

Lol, let me pre-empt you.   In this world of conflicting intents how do we know which one is the creator's?  Good question.

What is the creator(s) intent and how do you know that the creator(s) demand worship?. . .

toba:
Wow so we still have honest atheists? I find difficult to understand how anyone in hs/hr right frame of mind would give so much credit to the 'big bang' to provide all answers about the universe. this absolute dishonesty.
Mazaje u are atheist poster of 2010

The Big Bang has a lot of evidence to support it, any evidence to support the creation story that is found in the bible which you happen to accept and also believe can provide the answers to the universe?. . . .You are calling other dishonest for believing the BB which has some evidence to support it at least, when your own position does not even have any evidence to support it beside mere belief. . . .

aletheia:
^How is it a fallacy? You just claimed to be an agnostic

It is a fallacy because you are just begging the question. . . . .

. . .and yet you are certain that the mountain lion is without purpose. Do you see the inconsistency of your position. That the mountain lion's purpose eludes you does not mean that it is without purpose.

I only asked you to tell me the purpose of the life of a mountain lion. . . .Whats the purpose of the life of a a rattle snake some where in the Arizona desert?. . . .Pls tell me. . .

If you must be consistent to your agnostic position: you cannot dismiss this statement as fallacy:

I want you to tell me what their purpose is. . . .

By your words; if you agree that the [b]Universe is a product of design then

. . .[

I never said the universe was designed,I only said that I believe it was created rather than it appearing as a result of chance. . . .The universe does not look as if it was designed for anything. . . .If you thionk it was designed, then what was it designed for?. . .

without purpose there is no reason to exist. The mountain lion is part of the universe. The instruments used on the ESA observatories are several orders of magnitude less complex than the mountain lion; and yet you cannot say that they are without purpose. . .or can you? If there was no purpose to the ESA; would it exist?

This is a fallacy. . . .Lets just start with our solar system. . .What is the purpose of the 12 planets surrounding planet Jupiter? What is the purpose of asteroids, comets, and the asteroid belt that exist in our solar system? What is the purpose of all the dwarf planets in our solar system? What is the purpose of planet Venus?. . . .What is the purpose of all the billions of stars in our galaxy alone that are just moving away from each other and expanding into space?. . . .The mounting lion is part of the universe and its purpose is what? or is it everything in the universe that has a purpose? What is the purpose of some gas giants(big stars) that have no planets orbiting around them? They are just there(kind of dead but still part of the universe), what exactly is their purpose?. . . .

The only consistent position for you to take is: I do not know. And seek the truth outside of your self.

Yes and I repeat, I dont know is the most rational position to take, you claim to know that everything that is alive has a purpose, so pls tell me what is the purpose of a hurricane and the purpose of your life here on earth. . . .

Purist:
@Mazaje

I think you're better off labelled an agnostic - Strong Agnostic.  Atheism is barely compatible with the concept of creation - if at all - as such adoption would inevitably negate the very essence of the atheistic stance.  Or better still, an Agnostic Deist, since you believe the universe was created, only that you don't and won't give a hoot who or what this creator(s) is/are, or has to offer because it is your belief that such knowledge is beyond the limits of our scope.

I am an atheist because I know that all the Gods people worship are a creation of men. . . .Read the bible, the koran and the Hindu verdes, all these are the work and creation of men. . . .Such Gods do not exist in reality, the exist only in the minds of those that subscribe to the belief systems. . . . .Atheism has nothing to do with creation, atheism is simply the lack of belief in Gods, not the lack of belief in weather the universe has a creator/creators or not, what if the creator/creators of the universe are lifeless(its very possible) or something(s) that is long dead?. . . .What has creation got to do with atheism?. . . .

aletheia:
This is interesting. When did you arrive at this epiphany? You do realize that your belief requires a Creator?

That has always been my position all of the time. . . .I have studied astronomy, I have had the opportunity to see the cosmos at very close range with the aid of the ESA observatories, I have visited the European space astronomy centre in Madrid spain and with was opportuned to see the cosmos clearly and closely with the aid of their onservatories, I can confidently say that what I saw can hardly be a result of blind chance. I don't know what created all the things (I saw, I saw uncountable stars and now it has been discovered that many of the stars are solar syatems with planets revolving round just like our own sun) and I really don't care because its something that I can never know, It could be anything or a group of things that created the universe, I can never know, so I wont waste my time trying to know, since its something that is impossible for me to know. . . .By the way why must it be only a creator? Why not creators?. . . .How do you know that only one creator created the universe, can you demonstate to us how you know that for sure?. . . .

i]But it does matter![/i]

It doesn't matter at all, By the way what is the purpose of life?. . . .

There's no escaping reason, no evading purpose, because we both know, that without purpose there is no reason to exist. It is purpose that created us, purpose that connects us, purpose that pulls us, that guides us, that drives us, that binds us, it is purpose that defines.

This statement is a complete fallacy. . . .What is the purpose of the life of a mountain lion sitting right some where along the high mountains of pakistan? What is the purpose of the life of a bacteria or a rattle snake living in the desert?. . . .What is the purpose of your life?. . . .

Deep Sight:
Mazaje's statement is most heartwarming especially coming from him.

Kudo's to you Mazaje for your honesty and for not balking at stating things the way you directly feel without any grandstanding whatsoever.

You should know my position, I am in the I DON'T KNOW category because I believe that NOBODY truly knows anything with regards to what created the universe, why the universe was created or how the universe came about. . . .Any body that says anything is ONLY guessing or expressing an opinion, unless if that person is able to provide evidence for his/her position to which NOBODY has even done that, I dont think there is any body that can ever do that. . . . .All what we have masqurading as evidence are mere arguments and counter arguments which all amount to NOTHING. . . . .I don't believe that it is either God or nothing, I don't know is the best and most rational position to take IMO. . . .

Here is a video that completely expresses my position as to the existence/creation of the universe. . . .I would have made this video myself because the guy says what exactly is in my mind. . . .Pat Condell you remain the greatest. . . .

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovg0eYjM64w?version=3"[/flash]

I don't know if there is a creator or not, but I personally believe that the universe was created and NOT a result of blind chance,  it doesn't really matter much to me if the universe has a creator or not any way. . . .

Basically the purpose of this thread is to show that some God or what ever creator created the universe, right? OK, lets agree that a creator created the universe, so deepsight, its now your turn to tell us how we can know this creator, what it is, its nature, why it created the universe and for what purpose it created the universe. . . . . .

Uyi Iredia:
from the 1st video

*1 >>> i do not agree that religious faith implicitly means submission to authority >>> not in the way the video depicts >>> so. would you agree that a lack of belief is submissive to authority ? >>> authority meaning logic and critical thinking >>> a position atheists tend to posit as the sole means of inquiring into reality

Religious faith predicates itself solely on submission to authority, a higher authority in this case. . . . It is also possible for lack of belief to be submissive to authority, but it really depends on the type of authority in question. . . . .

*2 >>> do you believe that the term "a child's critical thinking is not developed" >>> if so, why ? cuz i'd prefer the saying that "a child's critical thinking is developing" >>> children are able and capable to think critically

Yes, a child critical thinking is not developed because a child depends in its parents and others around him/her to help shape the way they think, act and behave. . . . .

*3 >>> must a middle ground of balanced self-importance solely atheistic ? or does it tend to atheism ?

I don't really understand what you are saying here. . . . . .

*4 >>> when i say atheism is a religion >>> i refer to the fact this lack of belief is shifting from a personal stance *i'm thinking closet atheists and militant atheism* to an outwards stance and hence it is being characterised by elements similar to religion >>> i repeated it in various ways that this was the reason for my castigation >>> if you lack a belief in God >>>> or you have belief stance whatsoever on God >>> would you, for example be caught making a video such as the one depicted ?

Yes, i would just for enlightenment perhaps or just to share my inner most thoughts. . . .

from the 2nd video

*1 >>> why is it assumed that a lack of belief is the default position ? >>> is this logically and scientifically demonstratable ?

Hmmmm, I am in the loss of how to answer you here, its quite clear, lack of belief is the default position because all beliefs have to be thought and acquired through teaching,and the teaching process is always biased and in favor of one particular line of faith over all the others. . . ,

*2 >>> would you agree that an indeterminate stance on a statement is a belief ? >>> being even moderately skeptic is a belief

It depends, so i will not completely agree or disagree. . . . .

*3 >>> do you agree that the lack of belief effused by the author of the video you posted is based on materialism and is predicated on a scientific worldview >>> by materialism i mean the belief that only matter exists >>> by scientific worldview i consider [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logical%20empiricism?o=100074&fromRef=true]logical empiricism[/url] >>> i think that most atheists are so because their worldview is dictated by the lens of logical empiricism

Yes I agree, but I think you are kind of getting it all wrong. . .It is not just about materialism. . . .

*4 >>> given the claim that God exists >>> and the fact that atheists debunk various evidences advanced to back this claim up >>> would it be wrong to state that atheist are in a position to positively assert that no God exists >>> which invariably means they equally make aclaim that needs to be backed up >>> this is the reason why i disagree when atheists tell me that i need evidence >>> an analogy shoyuld be the fact that in the court of law both the plaintiffs and defendants need to provide evidence or backings for their stance whether or not a claim is being made

The problem here is that NO theist has ever provided any evidence to show that his/her God exist, all the theist has to show are claims, once those claims are debunked then it should be enough. . .But the fact is that the claimant should be the one to provide evidence for his/her claims. . . .

i might not be able to repkly you till next year >>> sometime around Jan 7 >>> but a Happy New Year is in order

Happy new year to you too. . . .Enjoy the holiday. . .