₦airaland Forum

viaro:
That's not true. Not all atheists are honest to agree with that - and that definition is an embarrassing redaction to atheists who over the years came to realise that the denial of the existence of the supernatural is quite unreasonable.

And what makes the denial of the super natural unreasonable? What are the evidence to show that the supernatural exist? What can be asserted without evidence deserves to be dismissed without evidence. . . .

The example from Michael Martin - "Atheism, the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods" is a recent compromise where atheists today can feel comfy and hope not to be troubled by anyone who pulls them up for the default definition.

Ok atheism is the denial of gods and the supernatural. . .Your evidence to show that the supernatural exist is?. . . .We should believe that the supernatural exist because vairo and others say so?

viaro:
That is an empty claim; repeated too many times does not mean it is so. No research, nothing, zilch - just a claim. Besides, I have just answered above to show that it is not my own evidence we're talking about here - my subjective experience does not count in just the way your own does not count. My theism is not dependent on atheism to stand - it is your own atheism that has been noised, and that is what I would like to see without reference to my own 'evidence', in as much as I am not the one who argued for 'physical evidence'. It has nothing to do with my own - concentrate on yours and let's see the substance in your assertions. Is that too hard to comprehend?

Atheism is the lack of believe in gods. . .If there were no god hypothesis there will be no atheism. . . .What is hard to comprehend there?. . . .Atheism exist only because the god hypothesis exist. . . .

I am not a preacher of "gods"; and this is not about my own evidence. You claimed broadly and widely that God does not exist - term it a universal negative so you can excuse yourself away from being asked for proof - any proof: mathematical, philosophical, etc. Just you stand up for your assertion and play less on asking someone else for their defence. My life and worldview does not depend on your atheism - and I can hold my ground without reference to your own worldviews and denials. This is about YOU and YOURS.

I say that all the gods of man made religion do not exist because they are human constructs and they can not be shown to exist any where apart from cultural mythologies and stories that have been passed on from generation to generation. . . That is my reason. . . .This is my reason for knowing that all gods of man made religions do not exist outside this cultural stories and mythologies. . . .

Good one, mazaje - good one. If anyone was to give you his/her subjective experience as one of the varied ways of the nature of the supernatural, would you acknowledge it? I guess not. Why? Because you already called them liars, remember? If you were open to a consideration that is both rational and genuine, you would not draw conclusions first and ask questions later.

The supernatural has no coherent meaning at all. . . .And as such it can not be accepted as an explanation for anything at all. . . .Even the proponent of the supernatural hypothesis do not accept it most of the time and usually resort  or prefer natural explanations because they know that the super natural does not really mean anything beside what the person that is putting the claim forward want it to mean. . . .If you lay claim to the super natural then you better provide evidence for it else your claim is just a waste of time and deserves to be dismissed without evidence. . . .

Rubbish! Atheism is the DENIAL of God and the supernatural. Just don't entertain me with this cosmetic hanky-panky redaction of a 'lack of belief' blah-blah. Atheism has explained NOTHING - in just the same way that you accused theism has explained nothing. This is why you cannot see anything beyond the physical, and any claim to the supernatural is a 'lie', etc., etc. Atheism offers nothing to your own type of atheists, which if it could, we would have read reasoned answers to very simple questions. Examples would be found below, especially on evil.

When does atheism claim it has explanation for anything? Ok atheism is the denaial of god and the supernatural because there is no evidence for god or the supernatural. The supernatural claim is a claim that has been made without any evidence at all and as such deserves to be dismissed without any evidence. . . .When does atheism claim it has answers to anything?. . . . .

Lol, your atheism claims that mazaje knows there is no God. Please explain. . . and mazaje's atheism is begging viaro for his own evidence!  My good pal, you ever played football or what?  You atheists are very, very funny! before you make statements, why don't you just contain yourself instead of claiming that you KNOW?!?

My atheism claims it knows that there is no god because all the god concept has been shown to be human construct and nothing more. . . .No god can be pointed to or said to be in existence independent of human stories, cultural explanations and mythologies. . . . .

Hahahaha!!    So, your atheism has no explanation for evil - just simplistic statements will do? If I told you that you disappoint me, I would be making an understatement. Why? Because if you proffer simplsitic answers like that, you're running farther into the tunnel. This is how:

When has atheism ever laid any claim to the problem of evil? What has atheism got to do with the problem of evil? I asked you a simple question you did not answer at all and you are accusing me of giving simplistic answers? When has atheism ever claimed anything about the problem of evil. . .

(a)  how did it get into the natural world?

I said atheism has nothing to do with the problem of evil. . .Evil based on my definition is part of the natural world. . . .This is a non question, Its the same thing as asking me how did my heart get into my body. . . . .My heart is a part of my body just the way my evil I believe is part of the natural world. . . .

b)  what caused evil to be part of the natural world?

Again this is a non question. . . . .Its the same thing as asking me what caused my heart to be a part of my body. . . .Its a non question. . . .
   

c)   why does the atheist disparage religious people for evil if it is only part of the natural world?

Are you saying that atheist blame religious people for the evil that we see happening in this world?
   

(d)   how does atheism try to solve the problem of evil in the world without reference to theism?

Atheism does NOT try to solve the problem of evil. . . Human morality which is constantly evolving tries to understand and solve the problem of evil. . . .
   

(e)  since evil is part of the natural world, why are atheist often ascribing evil to theism instead of
           just merely a natural phenomena?

When do atheist ascribe the problem of evil on theism?
     

(f)  since you're confident that evil is part of the natural world, the atheist is also equally evil as he
           thinks the theist is - are atheists not also part of the natural world?

Atheist are part of the natural world and also contribute to the evil that exist in the world. . . .What exactly are you trying to say here?
     

(g)  most importantly, how has atheism tried to deal with the problem of evil in the natural world?

Atheism does not try to deal with the problem of evil. . . The constantly evolving human morality is what is trying to deal with the problem of evil. . . .

You can see that your simplistic answers leave far more questions than answers indeed. If no, then I would like to see far more reasoned answers that actually deal with evil in our world without reference to theism - 'without reference to theism', because your answer says it is part of the NATURAL world.

As far as I am concerned you did not ask any question here at all. . . .Evil is part of the natural world and Human morality tries to answer that question not atheism or theism. . . . .Human morality has been evolving over time in spite of religious or atheistic world views. . . .It just keeps evolving and as it evolves it tries to address the problem of evil. .  .

If atheism does not deal with evil (an obvious denial), then atheists ought to shut up and and ignore any reference to it. If it is not possible for atheists to zip up on what it does not deal with, then your statement is false and should be taken as a kneejerk reaction for lack of an appropriate answer to give. Atheism - your atheism - does not KNOW how to contain these issues, and that is why you respond this way. Again, sorry . .  it's got nothing to do with me.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods and has nothing to do with the problem of evil. . . .Human morality is what deals with the problem of evil not theism or atheism. . . .

Atheism is NOT a lack of belief but a DENIAL. Yes, theism tries to understand evil in our world and does not shy away from it - it does not claim a 100% success in confronting it; but it does not make simplistic statements about it either. And when I say 'theism' here in this line, it is used broadly in worldviews and not just Christianity.

Theism does not try to understand the problem of evil as you will like to have us believe but theism claims it has 100% solution to the problem of evil. . . .The fact is neither theism nor atheism has any answer to the problem of evil. . . .The constantly evolving human morality is what is trying to understand this problem and human morality evolves regardless of theism or atheism. . . .

Yes, I'm asking you that question - just as many atheists often like to ask theists how they KNOW anything without adducing evidence. Since you "know", please show us - just proffer well reasoned answers that match intelligence of an independent sort that is able to stand on its own without reference to theism of any sort. When you complain that you may not be able to do so, then your claim to "know" only falls on its face - it means you just don't "know" but like to claim that you do.

I laugh. . .First of all I defined my atheism as the lack of belief in the gods of man made religions. . .And gave my reasons as to why I know that the gods of man made religions do not exist. . .Atheism can not exist without theistic assertions. . . .If there were no theistic assertions then there will be no atheistic assertions. . .So atheism can not make its assertion independent of theistic assertions since atheism is a lack of belief in theistic assertions and claims. . . No theistic claims then no atheistic assertions. . .

Okay, the aspersions aside. In the same way, I hope you can see that my discussion with you was not intended to slide with undue intonation. Basically, only one question here was of import: your claim to KNOW - that was all, and that was what drew out several other matters. My concern was that you just do not see that your assertion was as dogmatic and unreasonable as many atheists like to accuse theists. You can only conjecture or make denials - and nobody would have to be concerned about your thousand and one denials. This was why I often said that my theism does not have to stand in reference to atheism of any sort: I do not have to argue against atheism before I can comprehend the raison d'etre of my own worldview. But for me to deny someone esle's worldview in the claim tha 'I KNOW' and yet not be able to show how I know other than disparage the other person's worldview. . that is just not sensible.

I provided my reasons for knowing that all the gods of man made religions do not exist based on their claims. . . Since atheism is the lack of belief in gods which theist hypothesize my reasons for knowing can not exist independent of theistic claims. . . .And how does pointing out the FACT that theistic beliefs are man mad turn into disparaging it?

I asked you a question based on your assertion. That was all.

And I answered. . . . .

viaro:
@mazaje, thank you for replying.

The question is not whether or not any two people agree about the concept of any god/gods/God - there are enough texts to show that people will disagree over many subjects in this and other worldviews, even as atheists are not all agreed about what exactly is atheism.

Atheism means lack of belief in gods and all atheist agree with that. . . . .

However, you did not answer the simple question I proposed: "Please tell me: why should 'physical evidence' be the one thing that answers the question for you?" If the atheist assumes that all things must be physical in order to present any type of evidence, I am interested in your answer as to why it should and must be so before you can make any conclusive statements about all things in existence. It is not here a matter of asking me what my own evidence is; rather, I am only an enquirer who is seeking to see what validity you give your atheism without necessarily resting on theism of any shade. Can you do that?

You just took a part of what I said and built a mountain out of it. . .Here is what I said . . . .All the gods of man made religion(including that of christianity) are nonexistent because there is no physical evidence for them at all apart from the special pleadings and claims of humans and the various attributes the humans ascribe to their various gods,. If you look at what I said in totality it is quite different from what you are trying to turn it into. . .I didn't see you touch the other parts at all. . . .

Again, please offer a reasoned answer to my question; just as you have highlighted it yet again by the last line in your quote above: "How can we measure this non physical realm?" It is not dependent on me to tell you how - since you have concluded that anyone who makes any claims to any such phenomena must be lying, you tell me how you have ascertained the nature of the non-physical things (or spiritual things) before making conclusive statements so accusingly.

I believe that there is nothing like the spiritual realm because that word spirit has no coherent definition and universal acceptability. . .What really is the spiritual realm? Any body that talks about the spiritual realm without providing empirical evidence for it is lying IMO. . . . .

Please tell me how the quote above tells us anything about "the psychological reasons people develop beliefs like yours". The above shows nothing and it sounds more like someone complaining about what he has no clue about - and it does not show good reasoning for those who copy and post them as answer to that question. If you want me to show how hollow that quote is, let me know. However, I'm yet to find how that answers the question in scholarship.

The post properly addresses the reason why people chose to believe and the physiological benefits associated with religious beliefs. . . .

What is your definition of 'faith'?

Faith as defined by Merriam Webster "firm belief in something for which there is no proof " and Hebrews 11:1 "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"  to me that is simply wishful thinking.

In the words of Mark Twain, ""Faith is believing what you know ain't so.

But let me share with you what I had in mind when posting the (b) section earlier. There are atheists who acknowledge the existence of spirits - not because Christianity preached that to them; but I've seen discussions by atheists on this in some skeptic websites on that by atheists.

And the atheist the acknowledge the existence of spirits gave what empirical evidence to show that spirits exist outside their subjective reasoning? We should believe that spirits exist because some atheist say so? Does that mean we should also believe that people were abducted by aliens because the people said so?. . . .

Secondly, there are atheist authors (eg., Michael Martin) who write about religions that could be described as atheistic - Hinduism and Bhuddism. I was just wondering: are the atheists in those atheistic religions also liars, or was Michael Martin being mischievous? What about some of those atheists who speak of their beliefs in spirits (which they do not claim measurable by 'physical evidence')? These are just a few I had in mind, and that was why I made that observation in (b) earlier and asked that question.

What is this nonsense of atheistic religions? Do these religions believe in the god concept? If yes then they have nothing to do with atheism. . . .Atheistic religions is an oxymoron. . .  .How can religions that acknowledge the existence of gods be put in the same sentence with atheism?. . . .And what has people's personal beliefs which they can not provide any empirical evidence for got to do with reality?. . . . .All spiritual claims are subjective and have nothing to do with reality IMO. . .That is why the there is nothing that is as incoherent  and has no universal acceptance as the spiritual beliefs and hypothesis. . . .Once you lay claim to the spiritual realm then you better know how to provide evidence for it else your claim can be dismised off hand. . . .What can be asserted without evidence deserves be dismissed without evidence. . . .

None of the sort. I asked you plainly how you know for a fact that God does not exist - it is not conjecture, but rather that you KNOW. If you cannot show how you 'know' that for a fact from independent research of your own, what is my worry about your complaining here? You should have noticed my several reference to seeking your own atheist answer without reference to theism - it has nothing to do with whether I pick anything from yours to defend anything in mine.

If you read my very first reply you will see why I stated that all the gods of man made religions do not exist because they are man made constructs. . .

Sorry, I have not been in the atheistic bubble, and I count your subjective testimony a lie and a waste of time. Pardon me - but the reason why I give you a straight answer here on that is because you made no room for anything subjective - and I will absolutely refuse to consider any claim you make of your own experience. If this atheistic brash-ball is what you want to play, you will chase your tails till you drop.

What ever. . . .The gods of man made religions do not exist because there is no evidence for them outside cultural mythologies and stories that keep evolving over time. . . .How is this statement a subjective testimony?

Lol, mazaje. .  it is not my evidence we're talking about - but YOURS! It was you, mazaje, who made the statement that you KNOW that God does not exist; and that was independent of anything viaro said. To maintain that claim that you "know" and yet not being able to show is why I would not expect anything reasonable from you. The better thing to say would perhaps be that you deny their existence, not that you KNOW that God does not exist. Others who have experienced the supernatural do not have to wait for atheistic denials like yours and one weak quote of psychological this and that to do your job for you. . . a job in answering to your claims which have not been of much value thus far.

Lol, you're very funny!   Who said this: "Personally I know that the god is non-existent"? Was that viaro?? That was your personal assertion - and how does that depend on me? Sorry pal, next time learn to read - viaro answers no roll-call for people who like to shout empty statements. I have not found how you "know" - you just don't know. All you seem to have done is express disaffection for theism and excuse it under psychology (which again did not help much). That is no problem to me, but the way you parade your atheistic assertions simply makes me wonder if there's any substance to it.

Here is my reason why I KNOW that all the gods of man made religions are human constructs that do not exist in reality. . . It seems you did not read it at all. . . .All the gods of man made religion(including that of christianity) are nonexistent because there is no physical evidence for them at all beside the spacial pleadings and claims of humans and the various attributes the humans ascribe to their various gods, All the gods of man made religions have all evolved from ignorant savages and their superstitions. I can show the psychological reasons people develop beliefs like yours. We can all see that there is no truth about gods because everyone makes up just what they want to believe whether it is a loving parent god that they need for protection and good luck or a god who promises paradise and ultimate justice or a vengeful tyrant god because they feel guilt.  When someone says there is a god in reality, they are either lying or they are deluded because the god concept itself relies on faith and we know that faith is nothing more than wishful thinking, I understand faith and the emotional appeal of it and how it can make people emotionally attached to their beliefs. . . .

It makes zero difference that we can’t test every possibility because we can see that the gods people have are all imaginary(Their religious books are there for all to read) These religious books are full of myths, legends and outright fantasies so much that the adherents are now finding it hard to agree on what is true or real and what is not true or real in their religious books. Scriptures are then written as religious truths and these get twisted over the centuries and the cultures that accept them as in Christianity, Hinduism and Islam with the effect that one can read into them whatever one is predisposed to. Hard facts to justify faith in god of man made religions are not forthcoming from any area of the world. Only stories and cultural mythologies that have been bandied from one generation to the next whose meaning and messages are constantly evolving to fit with the period the stories or messages are being propagated . . . . . . .

All we have to do is be honest and concerned more with the truth than with keeping our old habits and traditions and stories. The only sense in which we can’t say there is no god is because it is an undefined and incoherent concept that could mean anything. It is just a baseless claim and as such isn’t testable or falsifiable. Asking anyone to prove it doesn’t exist is asking for a universal negative with no set parameters. The question itself is idiotic to me.(No offence meant Pls)

viaro:
In just the same manner, atheists bandy their beliefs with absolutely no evidence and then turn round to claim they are facts. This is where I find your atheism most wanting, because what you 'admit' is not actually evident in how you argue issues.

I say all the gods of man made religions were created by men. . .Your evidence to show that gods exists on their own outside cultural mythologies and stories is what exactly?. . . .

I asked and am still asking: how do you know what you claim for a fact? If you notice, I have been seeking an answer from your own scholarly experience without reference to any theistic text - there are many people who had one theistic experience or the other without reference to any text predating them. The myth of this and that is not what I'm asking: rather, how do you know anything you claim with an "I KNOW" statement? That was why I made the comment:. . and to this your reaction was:

I have already stated my reason why I know that all the gods were created by men. . . .You can prove me wrong by showing me how the gods exist on their own independent of human narrative about them. . . .

First, supernatural claims were not made to be universally objective - that is, my experience of the supernatural is not supposed to be a clone of your own experience. What you're expecting here IMO is that all supernatural claims are supposed to be universals for everyone at everytime in everthing. And if it does not appear so, then your atheism denies just about everything that cannot be explained within atheistic naturalism. What has atheism explained? NOTHING. Please bring just one item that atheism as a worldview has explained - and pls be careful here, because this is where I will get to know how sound your atheism is before listening to your noisy reactions.

What is this?. . . .What exactly is the supernatural? How does it function, how can people really know about the supernatural without first of all accepting its subjective presupposition?. . . .When has atheism ever claimed to have explanations for anything? Atheism is the lack of belief in gods how does that equate to explaining anything? Religion claims he has explanations as to how people came about, what it will happen to them when they die, how to deal with certain aspects of their lives. . .When does atheism ever claim it has explanations for anything?

I was looking forward to a discussion, but the way you reacted should not have been surprising - it leaves me shaking my head in pity for the many atheists who do not identify with this brashness you exhibit. But please indulge me.

*  what is 'evil' - how do you define evil in your atheistic epistemology?

I will define evil as something that is wrong or harmful unto others. . . .

*  hence, where did evil come from, according to the atheistic worldview?

. . . .Does evil have to come from somewhere? Evil did not come from anywhere but it is a part of the natural world. . . .
         

*  how does atheism deal with evil, such that without reference to theism this problem
              would be well understood and contained in the reality of our everyday human
              experiences?

Atheism has got nothing to do with the problem of evil, Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god or gods. . . .Atheism does not deal with evil. . .Human morality which is constantly evolving deal with that. . . .

There certainly are more; but what I'm seeking is how the atheist is able to think rationally and proffer sound answers to public issues instead of shifting responsibility to theism. I do not have to make any reference to atheism when thinking about the reality of evil and diabolical realities in our world; in just the same way, the atheist is here being asked to think rationally and focus on that subject in the best possible manner. Could you please oblige me without being unncessarily reactive? Thank you.

When does atheism lay any claim to the problem of evil? Atheism is lack of belief in gods of man made religion. . .Theism on the other hand claims it has answers to the problem of evil and tries to deal with that. . .The problem of evil has nothing to do with atheism because atheism is not about the problem of evil but simply a lack of belief in gods. . . .

Yea - like they asked mazaje to help them create the world, no? I'm sorry, but please avoid silly assertions like that when you don't know what to say. I don't think anything in my previous post elicited the sort of reactive statements you posted. It is like viaro making an assertion and mazaje pulls me up with the question: 'how do you [b]know this'; and without seeking to answer how I know what I asserted, I turn round to cast aspersion on your atheism,[/b] etc. - how does that help a discussion?

Did any god tell you he/she created the universe?. . . . .I said I personally l know that all the gods of man made religions do not exist and you asked me how I know this for a fact. . .I stated my reasons why I know they are man made creations and construct. . . .Now you are claiming I am casting aspersions on your theism. . . .Sorry but I meant no offense. . . .I was just stating why I know that all the gods of man made religions were created by men. . . .

Please just do your best and address the simple issues - or just forget about them instead of filling pages with your atheistic assertions that do not address anything.

You asked me a question. . . . And the question is how do I know that all the gods of man made religions do not exist. . . .I gave my reasons. . . Only for you to pick some phrases and mold them into something else without addressing any thing that I have said at all. . . . . .

viaro:
Please tell me: why should 'physical evidence' be the one thing that answers the question for you? This sounds more like a commitment to atheistic naturalism than anything else; and the typical atheist has first to give us why all things must be narrowed down to 'physical' evidence in order to have any valid claim of reality. Can you help do so? When (and if) you can, then we can discuss more; otherwise there is actually no need to provide you with grounds to just spew forth unnecessary reactions.

Your evidence to show that Yahweh exist in the spirit is what?. . . .The problem with the god hypothesis is that no two people really agree on what this concept really is. . . .Your evidence that their is a spiritual existence is what exactly? How can we measure this non physical realm?

Please do - and when you do so, perhaps I can then show you why your own atheism is a belief system that is both psychological and as fundamentalist as what you aim to argue.

It is becoming increasingly clear that much of the conventional wisdom about religion is wrong. Most people do not believe or not believe in the gods because they have examined and weighed the arguments, or even because they have been persuaded by propaganda from one side or the other, or are following their heritage. Nor do highly religious societies perform better than those that have abandoned supernaturalistic faith in the context of democracy.

,

Basically, folks are usually more focused on their daily lives than they are on matters divine and theological. Most people are vulnerable to turning to the supernatural only when they’re under strong psychological pressure to relieve stress and anxiety created by a defective environment. That religion is a form of mental self-medication in response to adverse environmental conditions is not all that surprising—and is far more plausible than the idea of the supernatural being real (much as crop circles are far more likely to be the result of pranksters having a good time than they are messages from extraterrestrials).

http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/12/24/what-makes-religion-popular%E2%80%94or-not/

Two things here that should be highlighted:

(a) you do not understand faith and that sounds very hollow; rather than make a claim about a definition of faith that tries to write off the wordlview of other people just because you're an atheist, it were better to see things in context of how those worldviews think about faith and not how the atheist wants to define it. To hold such an atheistic attitude about what you least understand leaves room for others to make statements about your atheism and be justified thereto in total disregard of whatever protest you put up.

How is my definition of faith wrong according to the christian religion?

(b) to accuse anyone of lying is to be quite presumptive indeed, and it tells me a lot that you actually don't have an intelligent grasp of what atheism actually is. What is atheism on its own without reference to theism - what is the value of your own atheism without reference to anyone's claim about 'god'? Are you aware that atheism does not rest simply on the question of 'god'? To just narrow things down this way leaves a huge gap in your own worldview and comes close to including many atheists who might as well be lying in their claims.

Please show me that I am lying. . . .

I don't see any evidence in the way you have attempted to demonstrate that understanding - you simply don't understand it; for were you to understand it, you would know firsthand why your own 'faith' is quite hollow. Please don't come back shouting a denial that you have no 'faith' - I will just laugh at that shallowness and empty your arguments.

I gave my reason why I believe that all the gods of man made religions are false, Instead of stating your own case as to why they are not false and prove me wrong all I see you doing is just picking some phrases and trying to explain them away and pretending to say that I do not really understand what I am saying. . . . . .

Does that tell me that you just don't want to test anything - because you don't have any way of doing so within your atheistic naturalism? Or you are just too lazy to think about what is beyond your atheistic naturalism?

I have been in the religious bubble too, I practiced both Christianity and Islam and I KNOW that there is actually nothing that can be categorical said to exist outside naturalism. . . .All we have are just varying speculation and hypothesis as to the supernatural that make no sense at all when looked into in totality. . . .We have paranormal theories that have always ended up inconclusive and have NEVER stood on their own and explained anything at all to any body. . . .Your evidence to show that there is anything decisive outside naturalism apart from speculation and subjective experiences is what exactly?

Atheists who talk the way you do dig a hole for themselves. If you make a 'universal negative' statement as a bold claim, you should be able to prove the validity of your own claim, otherwise your arguments holds nothing more than mere chirpings - no offence.

I believe that I have done that in my first reply to you. . . .Your evidence to show that there are gods that exists outside cultural stories and mythologies is what exactly? How can we know about these gods and how can we see, feel or measure their existence without having to buy into their stories and hypothesis?. . . .

The agnostic may say that he does not know whether or not a statement is a universal positive or negative, and he is not required to prove the one or the other. The one who makes a claim for the negative in a universal tone is as duty bound to prove his universal negative as much as the one who makes a universal positive. If that sounds idiotic to you, then it is not surprising - it just shows the shallowness of your pompous assertions to make assertions and hope to just scoot off with blanks.

Your evidence to show that gods are not man made creations and claims is what exactly?. . . . .

It seems that Islamic jihad means terrorism is a way of life and ending life, their own or others, is not a problem to them. It is all for Allah. I am wrong here?

I just revealed to a new Nigerian friend that just came here recently that I am an atheist and he was stunned , He asked my why I was an atheist and I told him, We began discussing about the stories he has been made to accept as the basis for his existence since childhood and he was very uncomfortable and began throwing and the normal mantra at me. . . Jesus loves you bla bla bla. . .When we get to heaven we will ask god those question. . .believe and save yourself from hell. . .bla bla bla. . .He got so uncomfortable with my questions and left feeling scared and believing he meet the mythical satan . . . That really got me thinking abou religious beliefs and its endless stories and this my own conclusion. . .To control people and make them believe and hold unto what you want them to believe you instill fear into them. You give them a loophole and show them that they are nothing without your stories, You don't have to fear anything if you worship a story. If you question the story, the story will hurt you by sending you to the most awful place imaginable for eternity. Everything good you see is because of this story. Everything bad you see is merely a test from the story. So, no matter how badly your life goes, as long as you worship the story, your SALVATION will come from the story. Hence we have people believing in all these stories and trying to rationalize them by all means possible even if it means lying to themselves. . .

Just see what is happening in the world today, we have people blowing themselves up because they live according to stories they were told were true. . .People denying themselves medication because some story tells them that some people prayed and they were healed. . .People hating others because some story told them not to associate with them or hate them. . .Why do Nigerians give too much credence to Jewish and Arabian mythologies and stories and discard their own stories and myths?. . . .

Agreed - 'existence' could not have been the product of random occurence(s), whether or not mazaje said so; nor could we say it is the product of all the gods (in concert). But what I have been looking out for is this one thing: how does the atheist answer to the question of the source of existence as far as conerns what you 'see around'?

I don't know what the source of existence is for what I see around. . . .I am ready to admit that any day and any time. . . .Believers believe what ever they want to believe but keep bandying their beliefs(Which they have absolutely no evidence for) as facts. . . .

How do you know this for a fact?

Again we have the various religious text available for us to read and see the intentions of the people who wrote those stories. . . Varieties of human language story of the tower of babel as an explanation. . . .Rainbow in the sky, the covenant with Noah or the necklace of some goddess as an explanation, Why some people are morally bad, the story of adam and eve and the forbidden fruit as an explanation. . .These stories and their mythical explanations abound in all religions. . . .

Mazaje, forgiveme, but people who talk like this are simply confirming that they know nothing at all. How much of the experiences of man do you know in all possible realities (including phenomena which cannot be explained by naturalism) before making such a statement? Let's assume that you're kidding; otherwise, I don't think such assertions by you are worth any merit.

What has the supernatural ever explained? NOTHING. . . If there is any thing the supernatural has ever explained to man with empirical evidence pls bring it forward let us examine it. . . . .All supernatural claims are subjective and have never explained anything at all of importance to any body. . . .

How do you know this

I have already stated my reasons. . . .

Please humour me: let viaro assume for your sake that no 'God/god' exists anywhere at anytime, how does the atheist deal with the reality of evil beyond making cheap assertions like yours? Please just tell me how the atheist deals with the reality of evil in our world - from an atheistic point of reference only (ie., do not include anything about any deity). Indulge me, please.

I believe that people are responsible for all their actions and such action lead to what we call evil. . . .The problem of evil results from the excesses of  man against his fellow man or one animal specie against another for survival or other vices or the mindless forces of nature. . . .These are some of the things that are responsible for the evil we see around not demons, gods, satan or any imaginary mythical construct out there

Again, I would ask as earlier: how do you, mazaje, know this for a fact?

I have said it before that all we know about the gods of man made religions are through the various cultures that propagate these ideas. . . These gods have never done anything for themselves. . .They rely only on people to do everything for them. . . . .I find it noteable that all-powerful as the creator gods are said to be, They are all totally dependent upon flawed, puny humans to carry out all their wishes.
It is they who burned heretics and killed infidels and persecuted unbelievers on their behalf, who conducted their "holy wars" to spread their  worship, who convert pagans, build churches, Mosques, shrines, hospitals and schools, temple etc. This all-powerful creator god(s) can do absolutely nothing except work inside people's heads and on their minds subjectively. We have never seen any of the gods do anything else. The endless evolving god idea itself shows to me that it is nothing but a man made idea like everything else. . . .

viaro:
Please tell me, how do you know that God is non-existent? Isn't that a bit naive of you to claim such?

All the gods of man made religion(including that of christianity) are nonexistent because there is no physical evidence for them at all beside the spacial pleadings and claims of humans and the various attributes the humans ascribe to their various gods, All the gods of man made religions have all evolved from ignorant savages and their superstitions. I can show the psychological reasons people develop beliefs like yours. We can all see that there is no truth about gods because everyone makes up just what they want to believe whether it is a loving parent god that they need for protection and good luck or a god who promises paradise and ultimate justice or a vengeful tyrant god because they feel guilt.  When someone says there is a god in reality, they are either lying or they are deluded because the god concept itself relies on faith and we know that faith is nothing more than wishful thinking, I understand faith and the emotional appeal of it and how it can make people emotionally attached to their beliefs. . . . 

It makes zero difference that we can’t test every possibility because we can see that the gods people have are all imaginary(Their religious books are there for all to read) These religious books are full of myths, legends and outright fantasies so much that the adherents are now finding it hard to agree on what is true or real and what is not true or real in their religious books. Scriptures are then written as religious truths and these get twisted over the centuries and the cultures that accept them as in Christianity, Hinduism and Islam with the effect that one can read into them whatever one is predisposed to. Hard facts to justify faith in god of man made religions are not forthcoming from any area of the world. Only stories and cultural mythologies that have been bandied from one generation to the next whose meaning and messages are constantly evolving to fit with the period the stories or messages are being propagated . . . . . . .

All we have to do is be honest and concerned more with the truth than with keeping our old habits and traditions and stories. The only sense in which we can’t say there is no god is because it is an undefined and incoherent concept that could mean anything. It is just a baseless claim and as such isn’t testable or falsifiable. Asking anyone to prove it doesn’t exist is asking for a universal negative with no set parameters. The question itself is idiotic to me.(No offence meant Pls)

Deep Sight:
^^^CAN ANYTHING BE KNOWN ABOUT SOCRATES OR ALEXANDER THE GREAT

YES. . .THRU THE WRITINGS OF HUMAN BEINGS. . .

WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS. . . RATS?

_{Although i accept there is also archaelogical evidence of other historical figures, but point is you cant dismiss the gospels as pointing to nothing, because they are so many}

Toneyb said that there is nothing that can be known about the historical Jesus outside the gospels. . . Krayola tried to dispute that assertion and this thread was opened. . . .How do you read things? No body here said that Jesus was a mythical figure. . .The thread was about finding external sources outside the gospels that detail the life of Jesus. . .NON has been found or can be found so far. . .

reindeer:
So dear Alhaji

what are 'real' sensible muslims doing about people giving islam a bad name?
And i didnt exactly see you condemn the guy

That exactly is my problem with the crazy and deluded slaves of the desert god of the arabs. . . .they never condemn terrorist only endlessly trying to defend Islam and claim that it doesn't support terrorism. . . .Will you slaves of allah learn to condemn terrorist or are all of you terrorist sympathizers?

Deep Sight:
ToneyB - Pardon me if i missed it somewhere if you have already addressed it, but what is the reason that the gospels themselves cannot be taken as historical proof of Christ's existence?

Because we are not talking abvout just one book, but a great many gospels written about this same man by many different people, out of which just four were selected by the church.

Each book helps to historically corroborate the other. You are seeing things as though the bible is one book and so cannot corroborate itself. You know that is untrue. It is a collection of different books written by differernt people at different times.

Aside from the four gospels you know there are gospels written or attributed to Thomas, Mary, Judas, etc.

Is it not improbable that so many DIFFERENT people would write about the life and deeds of one man who never existed?

How do you read your things?He said there is nothing that can be known about the historical Jesus outside the gospels. . . .So what is this you are saying?

MrCrackles:
No. . . .All they need is a plot of land and a few gullible people to follow them

And the Imams and followers of mohammed need what?. . . . .A plot of land and people to teach violence, death and destruction no? Did I hear somebody mention Madrassa?

Deep Sight:
^^^ a God that exists independent of the ideas of "man made religions. . ."

What exactly is that god? Oneness of infinity?

jagunlabi:
Exactly.It does not hurt to have discernment. . . unles an average believer wishes to remain a mice following the piped piper all his/her existence.It is a matter of choice.It is always a matter of choice.

True. . . . .

Theology actually leads people away from their faiths. . . .When you study theology then you begin to know that some of the writers of the gospels were not the disciples of Jesus. . . .You begin to know that men formed all of the concept you tend to regard as divine. . . .You realize that concepts like original sin were formed by people like Saint Augustine of Hippo etc. . . .Theology is discouraged not encouraged amongst believers in so many places. . . . .

Deep Sight:
Mazaje, i have noticed that of all the atheists on this forum, only you are always careful to qualify your statement as "gods of man-made religions"

. . . i am just curious. . . do you make this qualification because you accept that there may be a true GOD out there unknown to man made religions. . . .

What exactly do you mean by a "true God"?

Converting from one set delusion to another. . .Interesting. . . .

beneli:
This discussion can continue ad nauseatum!

It's been going on for thousands of years already and has not been resolved. Scientific 'debates', numerous critically appraised academic papers etc, have been thrashing these issues for ages so i doubt you and I will shed any new light that would make people to start revising what they already believe (or don't believe) in!

True. . . . . .

The bottom line is that i believe that God created and you believe that creation is a random occurence. Fine. Now back to  the topic of this particular thread: Why did God create?

I really don't know or believe if what I see around are a product of random occurrence because I have never said so. All I know is that they are not a product of all the gods of man made religions. . . .Man made religions and gods were all created him help provide some answers to so many questions regarding human existence and the universe as a whole. . . .The universe as it is makes all the gods of man made religion look too insignificant and completely useless in explaining anything or helping to better understand the universe. . . .As to why god create I believe youare talking about the Christian god. . . .The answer can be found in the bible.  And from the biblical assertion mt deductions are

1)The bible god was not capable of properly designing or creating a system, hence I will say he is incompetent if that hypothesis were true.
2) According to the hypothesis he is capable of designing a perfect system but did not, hence the problem of evil
3) Personally I know that the god is non-existent and the entire thing is the mythology of a very ignorant group of Primitive men looking for answers and for other reasons best known to them.

Deep Sight:
Just as an aside, i find it so strange that many people do not realize that biblical and quoranic ideas of God actually dovetail into a oneness of infinity. . .being monotheistic religins -

They state that God is ONE

What does it mean for god to be one? Why must god be one? Do you have any evidence to show that there is a god and that he/she is one?

They state that God is eternal or infinite. . .

And your evidence to show that there is a god that is eternal is?. . . . .

Need i say more. . .

So you see, its you guys who simply resent a term who have not heard before without analyzing it. . .

Oneness of infinity eh?

Krayola:
haha. I think Mazaje was speaking for HIMSELF, and maybe for HIM, his previous religious convictions were responsible for what he listed in his post. I don't think he was speaking for everyone.

We shouldn't get so defensive all the time. . . I think it could be seen as a sign of insecurity.

Krayola merry Christmas to you baby

Deep Sight:
I take very serious exception to the above.
What is meant by this?

When I talk of theism I am referring to the theistic beliefs and dogma I was brought up in which are Christianity and Islam. Your oneness of Infinity is of no use and of no importance to me at all.

Are you suggesting to me that Theism necessarily comes together with –

1. Believing in answers given by other people? (I am a theist and very few people can make make this claim about me. . . I grind out my own ideas everyday. . .).

Since you are not blind you can see it for yourself here on the NL religion section. .  .When I was a christian I used to pity those that talk about some preachers who I considered men of god and whom I depended on their teachings and methods as a means of guidance. Touch not my anointed is the mantra all the time. I used to accept the words of men that know even less than me just because I believed they were men of god. . . .

2. Being homophobic? (Of course you are aware that there are gay anglican priests who are of course theists. Also the Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa is pro gay rights. But what the hell. . . must we all be the same? Must I support gay behaviour if I find it repulsive? Must I? What has that got to do with atheism or theism?)

The bible and the koran DO NOT support gay rights at all. . . .Publicly declaring support for gays in Nigeria can get you into trouble. . . .The aglican church is considered to be a heretical sect by many Christians no?

3. Being Judgmental and Disrespectful (Really? Are all theists this way? Was Pope John Paul this way? Was Mahatma Ghandi this way? Wwas Mother Theresa this way? All of them are theists. . .)

So many popes before Paul John Paul were that way. . . . .Majority of religious people are Judgmental and look down of those that do not believe in their delusions. . , Its all over nairaland for you to see. . .

4. Being Superstitious (Would you describe all theists as superstitious? Does Pastor AIO strike you as superstitious?)

Pastor AIO is some one I consider to be every where. . .He does not really have a particular belief cos he is neither a Christian or a Moslem. . . . .Any Christian or Moslem that says he does not believe in witches, demons, satans, etc is a lair and NOT a christian or moslem. . . . Why do you think westerners(Europeans) are leaving all these religions and their mythical dogma's and beliefs in droves? The core message of these religions rely on superstition.

5. Being less curious about the origins of the universe and life? (Don’t you dare try this one. . . the vast majority of inquisitive scientists who have made the greatest strides in deciphering the universe have been theists. Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Isaac Newton, and a zillion others were all theists!)

Einstein was not a theist. . . . But these people are not what you will call conventional Christians. . . .they were considered heretics during their times Newton is not some one you will call a Christian per say. . . .They were theist but they did not allow their theistic beliefs to interfere with their quest for knowledge. . .Their findings even turned to be detrimental to their various mythical and theistic beliefs. . . . .They worked in-spite of their beliefs.

6. Being anti-science (as above! . . . too many great scientsists have been theists for you to make this FALSE claim.)

Too many theist have been anti-science. . . .Some of the greatest critics of science and the scientific process today remain theist. . . .Those theist worked in spite of their beliefs. . . In fact most of them worked against their beliefs. . .

7. Depending on prayer. . . what is wrong with prayer?

And how has prayer ever solved anything or helped any body? There is nothing wrong with hoping and wishing(because that is what prayer is). . . .But when people depend on it like the way Nigerians do then it becomes a problem because it has failed and will continue to fail them. . . .

YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE ENTIRELY FALSE AND SHOW A DELIBERATE MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THEISM.

When I talk about Theism  I am only referring to Christianity and Islam, I am not really interested in your own theistic delusions. . . . .

Image123:
Great exercise of the mind thus far. But I must say, it's all vanity in the end. Just like the exercise of the body, it leads no where exactly in the end. It has its benefits and fun though, but never lasts. They say experience is a great teacher. Nothing satisfies like serving God in spirit and in truth. God is a Spirit and those that worship Him must do so in spirit, not with great searchings of the mind. The spiritual is above the natural,supernatural

Same incoherent mantra that has no basis at all in reality. . . .All you are saying is that once you believe then your mind will help you see things that agree with your beliefs. . . .

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo&hl=en_US&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo&hl=en_US&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"[/flash]

beneli:
The problem is that we no longer know what 'natural' processes are.

According to who? This statement is false. . .We now know that all what we used to ascribe to supernatural like lightining, rainbow, thunder, storms, diseases are all natural processes caused by mindless natural agents. . .So what do you mean that we do not know what is natural any more. . . We now know what nature is and how it works more than any period of human civilization through out human existence

Who would have ever thought that 'Scientists' would be discussing the 'extended mind' and 'consciousness' that continues beyond death?! Our understanding of 'Life' is changing. Discoveries are telling us that man may not be just 'biology' and that  'evolution' may not be it afterall! The quantum collapse theory and the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics are other cogs in the wheel of so called 'natural processes'.

Scientist are only trying to see if those claims are true. . . .And so far they have found out that there is NO evidence at all to show that any part of human existence survives bodily death. . . .Which discoveries are telling us that we may no be just boilogy? Care to show us those discoveries so far all the conventional scientific papers peer reviewed documents that are mainstream have shown that we are just biology and that man evolved over time. . .Your scientific peer reviewed papers that say other wise are?

Our not understanding these things is not a license to make external attributions to an unseen god. The 'attribution' is a choice thing that has little to do with a better intelligence, which a lot of 'atheists' claim. The problem i have, reading some of the posts by 'atheist, is that a lot of them assume that they have more information than those of us who believe in God. The truth is that you don't.

The problem is that all theist attribute everything to their various gods, When they discover that their scientific understanding goes against their religious inclinations they try to castigate science in other to uphold their beliefs. . . .We do not claim to have more information than you guys we just point out to where the available information points to. . .So far ALL the empirical and scientific discoveries have shown that all the religious books and their theories are false. . .Geology disproves the Noah's flood. . . Astronomy shows that the moon was Never divided by mohammed. . .Astronomy disproves so many biblical assertions. . .Science has continued to show that this primitive religious Ideas and stories are out dated and were merely thoughts of men nothing more. . .Belief is not a choice, it is a result. And for people like me, it has to be a result of observation, study, and evidence, Belief can be the result of mental deception, of simply wanting to believe something is true because of indoctrination through emotional attachments. . . That is why I believe in empirically verifiable assertions not wishful thoughts, hypothesis,traditions and mere fantasies that have been shown to be FALSE over and over again. . . . And that is what you have with religion. . .

beneli:
The mind is not just 'expressions people attribute to the brain'.  

In fact the discussions about what consitutes the 'mind' is ongoing in a lot of informed circles such as this one for instance http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/SIG%20Website%20April%203rd%2009%20Programme.pdf. The truth is that we don't know!

I agree with you that OBE is not about 'seeing the other side'. But it's not about your brain being 'fried'. What is going on there is still being investigated. We understand that the experiences are subject to different interpretations but some of the findings do not quite fit into the box of brain hypoxia and gradual brain death (leading to increased 'fronto-temporal stimulation) and the subsequent experiences. Some of these findings are exciting the curiosity of those that are increasingly interested in the issues of Spirituality and Mental Health. Because they are not solely explained by neurophysiology.

But what of natural processes?
They surround us; every moment of our lives is encased by them. We are entirely subject to them. They account for all the brute facts we must negotiate in our lives, from the daily dawning of the sun to its setting.

Commonsense dictates (to me) that they account for the universe and all that we observe, and therefore it is sensible to conclude that Life has progressed to its present state of incomprehensible complexity via natural processes that have layered complexity upon complexity in billions upon billions upon billions of incremental steps. Even the actions of what you call the mind are all part of the natural process no?

Because we don't understand them is no reason to attribute them to an unseen, non-physical god is it? A god which the mind alone thinks it detects.

beneli:
The last time i checked, most deists, including Christians, see their gods as 'spiritual beings'.

They say such things because they have no other option. . .Read the bible and you will see that the god talked about in there is both a physical and a spiritual being. . . .He can be seen or his voice can be heard addressing people through public address etc. . . Now that same god has been relagated to the realm of the unknown and the undefined. . .how convenient. . .

Deep Sight:
Great. So non-physical things exist.

You will therefore agree with me that a diatribe against theism on account of the fact that it centres around a non-physical factor is moot.

The problem is that theist say that their various deities are physical beings that can be seen sometimes. . .

Deep Sight:
Mazaje what is a thought.

I ask my question carefully: i do not ask where thoughts come from, which you will assert to be the brain. I ask reasoning, imagining[b]what the thought itself is.[/b]reasoning, imagining

Is it a physical thing?

I repeat for emphasis: i do not ask where thoughts come from: i ask what thoughts are.

Thoughts are the product of mental activity they are that(idea or notion) which one thinks. Thoughts could be imaginations, reasoning, consideration or reflection, meditation, contemplation, or recollection, intention, design, or purpose, anticipations or expectations etc. . . .And no, thoughts are not physical things. . .

Demons of fuel scarcity . . . . Deluded people. . .How can the country progress when people reason and think like this?