₦airaland Forum

bastage is a christian just as bishop Spong is. . .

Tasma:
I don't get this comment at all. First why must our belief require "sacred" convictions? The fact that you may feel the need to have sacred convictions does not mean your beliefs are correct. Naturalism is based more on observation of what we as human beings observe. Consequently naturalism does not at any time claim to have an all encompassing "truth" about everything. It gives space for learning and adaptation of theories and postulations as time goes on. What is wrong with saying today "I don't have an answer for this or I don't know how this came about". Why should it be necessary to come up with stories the explain everything like the bible seems to do. This is even sadder when over time some biblical "facts" have been proven to be wrong. If you accept scientific facts like the earth going round the sun - which is not as the bible has it - then can't you accept the bible may be flawed? A belief system with the capability to accept new knowledge and grow is not pointless, on the other hand one that refuses to change and holds on dogmatically to ancient beliefs is one that is terribly flawed.

very well said. . . .the bible on more than one place clearly says that the sun revolves round the earth or moves from place to place. . .notice the evolution in the christian belief. . . . god always seems to grow or evolves with humanity, when people grow and become wiser the bible god does the same too. . . . it first started with heaven as a solid and physical place above the sky. . . according to the tower of babel people wanted to build a tower high up to the heavens, god was afraid that people will be able to see him and do everything that they wanted so he confused their means of communication. . .when ever the windows of heavens opens up rain begins to fall. . . jacob experienced a vision of a ladder or staircase reaching into heaven with angels going up and down it. . . . . the ancient jews clearly thought that the earth was a 3 dimensional plane. . .the flat earth as a solid body, the heavens as a solid body where yahweh and his angels resides, and below the earth(shoel or hell). . .with the advent of science, the heaven that was thought of and written about as a solid place where yahweh and his angels reside suddenly became an invisible place. . . .the god that once lived with people and showed himself to them face to face as a man will communicate with his fellow man or the god that used to address the entire people of israel in a public speech as recorded in the book of judges or joshua in the bible suddenly became an invisible god who only interacts with people on a personal basis through the holy spirit that can not even send a single coherent massage to those he interacts with but keeps sending very different massages to different people all the time. . .hell or shoel that was thought to be under the ground suddenly became an invisible place as people became more aware. . .the whole web of lies and delusion is just sickening. . . .

duduspace:
@mazaje

3 gbosas for you, I like the cruise missiles yu are launching at this guy while he is still shooting arrows that the hebrews shot a long time ago (while waiting for his god to rain down fire and brimstone on you). I hope the guy realises the deficiencies in his argument before he becomes a total hypocrite like our resident "Artful Liar".

@Tasma
Some people have to beleive because they just cannot bear to have a void in their understanding of how everything ties together and that is understandable. What I can't stomach is the hypocrisy that accompanies such a mindset in some people. There is a very big difference between believing because you don't have all the answers and perpetuating lies in the name of belief.
I know very intelligent and knowledgeable people who have belief but they accept the obvious inconsistencies in the "God concept" and are just afraid of what the world would become if people don't beleive in God anymore, to them it is more like opting for the best of 2 evils. Folks like Davidylan and Noetic are a whole different breed entirely, I find it hard to even refer to them as christians atimes cos they descend to despicable depths atimes to dodge the obvious inconsistencies in their god concept I do wonder if they are actually defending god or their own bloated egos.

we are in the age of reason, the guy on the you tube video says it best. . . fear is the only reason people hold unto these ridiculous beliefs. . . . .

noetic:
Christianity involves living a Christ-like life, simply by choice.

what a professed "christians" chooses to do or not to do, should and does not define christianity. using the ills of "christians" to describe Christianity is very unobjective.

what is christ like. . .i bet walking on water and healing of amputees is also christ like isn't it. . .even jesus said that those who believe in him will do greater things than him. . .why has no christian ever walked on water or healed an amputee and made his amputated limbs grow back? i have never seen any christian curse a fig tree and it dried up immediately. . . neither have i seen any christian being raised from the dead after 3 days. . . did jesus lie when he said that people that believe in him will do greater things than him?

has ur "free thinking" failed u? 

does free thinking promise healing from any form of sickness?  . . . .  the bible clearly and strongly tells christians to go to their church elders to pray for them and anoint them with oil when ever they are sick so that they will be healed. . .why do christians not abide by that spiritual injunction? why do christians go to the hospital when ever they fall sick and discard the injunctions of the bible? is it because the biblical injunctions are false?

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=268467.msg3820531#msg3820531 date=1241454788]For atheism intolerance, abi? [/quote]for where  . . .  .where has any atheist refused any nigerian christian or moslem employment because of his beliefs? i know a friend that was refused a job because he openly displayed his agnosticism. . . . .

nigeria definitely belongs on that list. . . . . .

[quote author=ok.gerald link=topic=268336.msg3819012#msg3819012 date=1241441371]I thank God for your life. Its not easy becoming a muslim especially in Nigeria today because of the way christianity is being advertised. Most christians dont even know what the Quran is. They are usually scared of picking up the Quran. I have been a muslim all my life but i still take time to read the bible which had further strengthen my Islamic faith. You took the right decision sister. Its a good thing that christians are finally realizing that the bible is not 100% Gods word.[/quote] . . . . and the koran is 100% allahs word eh?. . . . . . . delusion at its finest. . .

@ bastage

. . . .

Bastage:
I'm a Christian and I don't.

bastage!!!! you christian? . . . .you answer says that you are not a christian what kind of christian does not believe in the god of the old testament?

Bastage:
Huxley.

Yet again you come across as the rabid, fanatical type who goes on the attack merely for the sake of it.

The title of your thread is not only misleading but to tell the truth, it makes you look pretty despicable. It seems like just a desperate, badly thought out attack on some of the Christian posters here.

You are well aware that the passage refers to the Jewish OT god and was written for the Jewish people in the context of those times and you would also be well aware[b] that Jesus was the antithesis to that god in word and deed according to the NT.[/b]


I don't feel the need to defend Christianity but I do feel that it is only right to point out that you should try to be more truthful in future, if only for your own sake.

christians believe that jesus is the same god of the old testament. . .so how is huxley wrong?

huxley:
God works in mysterious ways. Just watch here

nothing new people do this all the time. . . .

noetic:
is a 30 year old nigerian qualified to be president?

is a 25 year old nigerian qualified to be govenor?

does this disqualification amount to discrimination?

what is this nonsense you are saying? is this one of your act of equating disobedient children to treason? any disqualification that is purely based on physical appearance is discrimination. . .

huxley:

17Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
19Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
22

the people were disqualified purely because of their appearance,(dwarf,blemish in the eye, broken hand etc) that action is what we call discrimination. . . by the way the  character given to the yahweh in the old testament by the "inspired writers" is so contradictory and repulsive that no amount of reasoning will harmonize it with modern ideas of justice, purity, and morality.

Ascony:
my my my
all well said
As for me, beign an atheist here in naija is nothing much to me. i dont face any challenges because i hardly explain my atheistic philosophies to people except close friends and the liberal minded. I dont see it as a fight or a debate to make people see that God does not exist, all we have to do is to let them see the reasons why we dont "believe" anymore, and if they dont get it then so be it.
just as it is hard for a christian to convert to muslim, its also very hard to convert a religious person to atheism.

very well said. . . .

noetic:
whats the discrimination?

is this a joke or a question?

Uche2nna:
I dont know if I understand ur line of argument but last time I checked the "concept of something must come from something" came from the biologist's perspective.

theologist use that argument a lot too. . . they call it the first cause argument meaning that everything must have a cause. . . . . nothing can come out of nothing except god. . . that argument it self is not persuasive. . .by the way there is no reason to believe that the universe functions like the human society. . .

jagunlabi:
Hmmmm!The truth that lies underneath this religion is slowly coming out from the folks who help spread it.

so true. . . . . .the catholic church has now concede that the "word" of their perfect god is no longer perfect eh?

noetic:
can evolutionists state the origin or composition of the pioneer organisms that started life?
what is the very first complex reaction that started evolution? what are the simpler reactions that made up this very first complex reactions?
which of this simpler chemical reactions came first?

i wasn't talking about evolution i was talking about the first cause argument with regards to the universe theist always make. . .what is the first reaction that lead to the creation of god? if you believe that everything must come from something then god must come from something too? what then created god? all i know is that if theist insist that god always exist then i can say that the universe always exist too. . . .by the way some scientist have stated the origin of the pioneer chemicals that started life. . . .

noetic:
@ mazaje
I was only being polite to say that I will respond as soon i could, cos in reality ur post is lacking in basic commonsensical analysis that would elucidate the "naturalism" concept which was the basis of this correspondence. your post was very uninspiring to warrant a response.

but you came back and answered a post that is so uninspiring to warrant a response? will you stop being a hypocrite? if it is so uninspiring to warrant a response why then did you come back and respond to it?

You are not competent enough to ascertain what is relevant or irrelevant in analysing the coherence of ur beliefs.
Do u believe in the existence of "fili-ban-gbaski"? ur continuos refusal to answer this question is called COWARDICE and sparks lack of objectivity and RATIONALITY of thoughts.

irrelevant again i must say. . .i will like you to tell me what the ontology of fili-ban-gbaski are, how my belief or non belief in him affects me as a person or the natural world. . . .

why are you so ignorantly beclouded? this new chapter was opened to examine ur beliefs, which u postulated as naturalism.
why then are u subscribing to anti-biblical stuffs to make no point? I consider this uninteresting and very unintelligent.

this statement is completely false. . .you said that you were ready to debate my reservations about the christian ontology of god. . . .do you know for sure who wrote genesis, exodus, job, daniel etc. . . were you not told they were written by the people that the books bear their names? there are many bible believing christians that do not believe that moses wrote any of the books of the pentateuch. . .scholars disagree with many of the biblical claim of authorship both christian and non christian. . .most of the books or parts of some of the books in the bible were written by unknown men and that is a fact. . . .

what are the convictions of naturalism?

my convictions on naturalism is best attested to by the world in which we live in. . . .the christian hypothesis actually predicts a completely different universe than the one we find ourselves in. for a loving god who wanted to create a universe solely to provide a home for human beings, and to bring his plan of salvation to fruition, would never have invented this universe, but something quite different. but if there is no god, then the universe we actually observe is exactly the sort of universe we would expect to observe. in other words, if there is no god then this universe is the only kind of universe we would ever find ourselves in, the only kind that could ever produce intelligent life without any supernatural cause or plan. hence naturalist atheism predicts exactly the kind of universe we observe, while the christian theory predicts almost none of the features of our universe. indeed, the christian theory predicts the universe should instead have features that in fact it doesn't, and should lack features that in fact it has. for example the bible in the book of ecclesiastes 1:5 says that the sun revolves round the earth or moves from place to place.

Ecc 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

there are other verses in the bible that says that the earth is unmovable. . . this is not the universe in which we live in, this is the universe that the bible says which is completely different from the one in which we live in because in the universe that we live in the earth revolves around the sun not the other way round, in the universe that we live the sun does not move from place to place. . . . therefore, naturalism is a better explanation than christianity of the universe we actually find ourselves in.

why is ur concept sustained on the perceived flaws of the bible alone?

my concept is not perceived on the flaws of the bible alone. . .here on the nairaland religious section i talk about the flaws of the bible because i interact with christains but on yanabi i talk about the flaws of the koran when stating my case for naturalism because moslems are the people i interact with over there. . . 

dont u think it is STUPID AND INTELLECTUALLY LAZY to assume everything came into existence by an "uncreated" big bang and yet deny the existence of an uncreated GOD?

where did i say that i believe in the big bang? but it sure makes a much better sense than the the idea of a personal god. . . . the idea of a personal god is only used most of the time to fill in the gaps for things we have not yet known. . .the god hypothesis does not really answer anything, it is just an excuse. . . .the general hypothesis is that god is not visible, tangible or otherwise detectable by empirical means. god is supposed to act in space and time, but without having a location in space and time. his essence is, according to the tradition itself, ungraspable and fully beyond the comprehension of finite human minds. and yet belief in this incomprehensible being is supposed to make the present state of the world more intelligible? everything observable is supposed to be created by god, but this god himself is uncreated. furthermore, events in the observable world can generally be accounted for without introducing a god as an explanation. as i pointed out in my previous post thunderstorms, earthquakes,  lighting, plagues, eclipses, the variety of natural species, and even the origins of life itself all have detailed natural explanations(some of which i don't really agree with), notwithstanding the fact that they were once thought to be the immediate work of god.we are told a great deal about him, but never enough that claims that his existence can be put to the test. imagine, for example, a farmer who prays to god for rain to help his drought-stricken crops. suppose it then rains. our happy farmer explains this as the act of god in response to a prayer but suppose it doesn’t rain. the farmer explains this as god having had other reasons for withholding rain so you see either way, the god hypothesis seems to do no real explanatory work. it can be used to account for literally anything in exactly the same way.

dont u think it is stupid to assume all things have no beginning, and yet the origin of pioneer micro-organisms cannot be established?

scientist have explained in details the origin of organisms even the origin of life. . . there is an on going project in havard university meant to address this. . .the publication will be out very soon. . .i will advice you to do some reading with regards to that. . . .i agree that everything has a beginning. . . .even the proponents of the big bang agree that the big bang it self is the beginning of space and time. . .lets assume that god is the one the created the universe and the beginning that it self does not answer anything because it leads to more questions like what did god do during that eternity before he created everything? If god was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? was he bored? was he lonely? god is supposed to be perfect. if something is perfect, it is complete, it needs nothing else. we humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If god is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. there is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. a god who is perfect does nothing except exist. by the way if you agree that everything needs a creator then the question is who created god? if god can always exist with out the need to be created then the universe can also always exist without the need to be created. . .by the way there's no reason to assume the universe functions like human society or that there was a "who" to begin with.

NO it doesnt

yes it does. . .consider, in a slightly different context, the response that christians typically make to such doctrines as the healing power of allah or vishnu. typically they will dismiss such claims for the mysterious powers of allah as nonsense, and they will explain away in the supposed case of healing by allah or vishnu in terms familiar to medical science. in all such cases as this, the christian believer is using a double standard. he uses the principle of conservatism to debunk alternative gods, but violates the principle when it comes to his own deity but principles are not like taxi cabs. you can't just use them to get where you want to go and dismiss them.

dont u think it sparks illiteracy to discard a postulation without an alternative? whats ur alternative for the biblical account of "creation" "sin" et all?
another one of ur meaningless rhetoric.  this is just an attempt to divert the issues at stake.
how have u explained the meaning of your naturalism? whats the relevance of all that u just said to naturalism?

do i need to accept a flawed postulation just because i do not know what the right answer might be? i dont know what the answer to 123487666788999 * 1276657899999999765 might be but i know for sure that it is not 5. . . .what is sin? what might be sin to your god might not be sin to the moslem god or the hindu god and vice versa. . .nothing like sin exist in the natural universe only wrong doing. . .and that itself is not as an offense to a supernatural deity but to humans. . . naturalism as defined by philosopher Paul Draper(which i agree with) is "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system" in the sense that "nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it." more simply, it is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes. the idea behind this principle is that natural causes can be investigated directly through scientific method, whereas supernatural causes cannot, and hence presuming that an event has a supernatural cause for methodological purposes halts further investigation. for instance, if a disease is caused by microbes, we can learn more about how microbes interact with the body and how the immune system can be activated to destroy them, or how the transmission of microbes can be contained. but if a disease is caused by demons, we can learn nothing more about how to stop it, as demons are said to be supernatural beings unconstrained by the laws of nature (unlike natural causes).

your assertions that demons cause disease[b] reveals illiterate postulations[/b]. how? where did u deduce this from the scriptures?

you just keep throwing words around. . .the problem is that you are quite ignorant of the things that are in the bible. . . how many times do you want me to keep showing you things that are inside the  bible? let me show you one example. . .

Matt 17:14 When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him.
Mat 17:15 "Lord, have mercy on my son," he said. "He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water.
Mat 17:16 I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him."
Mat 17:17 "O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me."
Mat 17:18 Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

it is enough to say that devils, demons, evil spirits, or any other fiendish creatures have never been known to cause seizures. even with my limited knowledge of biology i know that seizures are violent neurological events which come about as the result of some physiological abnormality, such as a brain tumor, or an imbalance in electrical activity. not by demons devils or satan. . .the writer of luke purports that that a woman’s crippled nature is also due to possession by a devil

Luk 13:11 and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all.

while there are multitudes of unfortunate factors that can cripple a person, spiritual possession has never been proven to be one of them.

Is naturalism consistent with lying?
where and when was spiritualism tested? by whom?  WHY MAKE UP RUBBISH TO POSTULATE RUBBISH ?
what is the truth? what is nature's truth?  it doesnt require "sacred" convictions? but isnt it pointless if a belief has no conviction at all?
otherwise, do u know d meaning of a belief?
you must think u are addressing a bunch of uninformed atheists. how have u explained naturalism?
NO it doesnt.
  what do I see everyday and every time?
sounds like u dont even know the meaning of faith. cos this u said is false.
mazaje, this is the only meaningful attempt u have made to answer a question.

the christian spiritual postulations have been tested and have failed. . .no open minded individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is so contradictory as that of yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. example the bible clearly states how prayer(spiritualism) is supposed to work. . .

Mark 11:24:Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

so many christians have tried this spiritual excercies and it does not work. . .many have prayed for healing, job, protection, good health, children, happiness, promotion etc with the believe but they died waiting for their prayers to be answered. . . keep in mind that the bible clearly says that christains should go to the church elders to pray for them and anoint them with oil when ever they are sick and they will be healed which it self is a spiritual exercise. . .

James 5:14-18 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. (KJV)

so many christians have tried that and ended up dead. . . i know 2 people that were close to me that tried it and ended up dead. . .so it has failed besides if it were working christians will not be going to the hospital because the bible does not say that christians should go to the hospitals it says go to the church elders and you will be healed. . .the fact that christains prefer to go to the hospitals when they are sick as supposed to the church elders for healing shows that that spiritual injunction is a failure. . .

How do u reconcile HIS non-existence to the ontology u subscribe to?
yes His ontology includes perfection. He made a perfect man, as told in the book of genesis.
have u ever of "sin"? thats what made man imperfect.

it is very clear unless if you are blind. . . .let me debunk another said ontology of the christian god which i know you agree with. . it is commonly said that the christian god is morally good and perfect. . he is very good and nothing bad comes out from him. . .people always say that the bible god is so good and is incapable of doing evil because he is morally good and perfect. . he is the source of all morality. . .and is morally perfect. but the bible says that the same god that is morally perfect and good does evil. . .

"Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, to whom you sent me to offer your prayer: If you remain quietly in this land I will build you up, and not tear you down; I will plant you, not uproot you; for I regret the evil I have done you."(Jeremiah 42:9-10)

a morally perfect god that is all good at the same time does evil is impossible. . . .

all others u said are rubbish and very unobjective attempts to digress the issue at stake.

No offence intended, I am very busy now, but the quality of ur response did not inspire a spontaneous response. Address the basic issues and stop gallivanting.

talk is cheap they say. . . .will thou hypocrite be consistent? if my post does not require a response why then did you respond to it?

Moonstone:
Now, this is a question I deal with on a daily basis.
Now putting my religion aside, I will say that neither of them should be believed. I'll put the review articles up in a lil' bit.

Creationism has a flaw which is the entire notion of a spiritual being cannot be proven. However, Evolution that claims to have the answers still has a lot of unanswered questions and we still have a lot of missing links and assumption. It's a very complicated process but I'll get all the articles ASAP before I start arguing about this again.

that is the argument that creationist always use to try to prove non existent points. . . they are quick to point out that no one knows where god or the creator came from, they always say that nobody has ever been able to say where god came from i.e the theological first cause argument. . .this has never really gotten anybody anywhere, because if they argue that everything has to have a cause, or a creator, then they have to face up to the question of who created god and if they argue that there are some exceptions, or even one, then why not accept that the exception might as well be the physical universe as god?

This entire exercise has not been justified. . . the poster says post your peer-reviewed articles for creationism and evolution, i have seen a lot of peer-reviewed articles on evolution and non not even one on creationism only attacks and diatribe. . .

duduspace:
Nothing to say? maybe becos the same old stuffs are true?

@Mazaje
Abeg well done, the poor bloke has to go and refresh his brain washing. Him liver dey fail am.

he has been repeating the same old word over the past few days, he has been sounding like a broken record ever since. . . i don hear ontology tire. . .even his fellow christians can not even agree on the basic ontology he subscribes to. . . .some of them ascribe something different to the same god. . .

noetic:
how rational are ur posts? why are delusively biased?

mohammed married a 9 year old girl and had sex with her .
he denied her a right or priviledge of having a childhood. would u give ur 9 year old daughter to mohammed to marry?

Abraham married a CONSENTING ADULT, who stayed with him for more than 50 years before they had a child.

now its obvious who the hypocrite is. . ,  ,

am i trying to justifying what mohammed did? . . .i am only showing you your own hypocrisy. . . . .you call him a phedophile when your own "father" abraham committed incest by marrying his half sister from the same father. . .so "consenting" is the right word eh? are consenting adults that engage in incestuous sextual relationship not punished?. . . .are you saying that it is right for a person to marry and engage in sexual relationship his half sister because she "consented"? will you marry your half sister (assuming you have one) if she agrees to marry you?. . . you are one very funny apologist. . . .

noetic:
what is the concept of naturalism? I believe it is intellectually lazy, totally incoherent and inarticulate to hide under the scope of naturalism.
believing that there is no explicit explanation to the "events" of life and that natural processes are the basis of all that there is, is in my a latter day postulation of illiteracy and ignorance.

you believe in the unsubstantiated writings of unknown men who thought the world was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe and you say that naturalism is intellectually lazy? does christianity not thrive on intellectual laziness? does the bible not warn you not to seek for knowledge and accepet everything on based on faith? does christianity not label intellectuality as blasphemy? even the bible god did not want adam and eve to eat the tree of "knowledge" according to the bible. . .we have so many anti intellectual statements in the bible like man' cleverness is foolishness in the eyes of god. . . but the same man has shown that he is much more clever than the imaginary bible god. . .such statements are there to keep people in line because the writers of the bible know that their assertion can not stand for them selves. . .

now to naturalism. . .the cause of lightning was once thought to be god's wrath, but it turned out to be the unintelligent outcome of mindless natural forces the same goes for earth quake. people once thought an intelligent being must have arranged and maintained the amazingly ordered motions of the solar system, but now we know it's all the inevitable outcome of mindless natural forces. disease were once thought to be the mischief of supernatural demons or due to the wrath of god(the bible says that alot), but now we know that tiny, unintelligent organisms are the cause, which reproduce and infect us according to mindless natural forces. in case after case, without exception, the trend has been to find that purely natural causes underlie any phenomena. not once has the cause of anything turned out to really be god's wrath or intelligent meddling, or demonic mischief, or anything supernatural at all. The collective weight of these observations is enormous: supernaturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always lost; naturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always won. naturalism is the belief that there is nothing supernatural.

this is ignorance beyond the scope and borders of objective reasoning. naturalism equate "criticism without convictions" "passing judgement without character".
Whats the basis of naturalism, when it in itself holds no sacred convictions? whats the basis, when it runs contrary to all objective analysis, understanding and investigation? whats the basis when it cannot be substantiated to mean and/or illustrate a particular concept? when it cannot be substantially defined as a concept on its own, but it depends on disproving others?

you are just throwing words here. . .the basis of naturalism is that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature. . .does it require any sacred convictions? what do you mean that naturalism can not be substantiated?  . . .i have defined and given you the concept of naturalism. . .naturalism can sand on its own. . .i for one just like ridiculing and pointing out the inconsistencies of all religions. . . .does christianity not depend on disproving others? christians always discard or try to explain all the super natural claims of other religions through natural means but fail to do that to their own faith. . . .you can't have it both ways. . .

what is that concept of naturalism that distinguishes it from Christianity, other than "disbelief", lack of convictions and running foul of known statues?

naturalism is what you see every day and everytime, while the whole christian concept relies on faith in unproven and unsubstantiated words of unknown men that are sometimes not in accrodance to the laws of the natural world. . .why do you keep throwing words around? do you really know what you are saying when you keep on using words like lack of conviction?

ur concept explains my definition that atheism "as an irrational state of mind". unguided, unstated and "convictionless" beliefs amount to irrationalism.

i believe you do not know what irrationalism means. . . .do some of the writers of the bible not concede that some of their writings are completely irrational and should be accepted based on faith alone because of how irrational they sound and appear?

whats the basis of the denial of this existence? can ur answer withstand the test of logic and objective analysis?

because such a being does not exist. . . of course. . .it has stood the test of logic and objective analysis. . .even the bible discorages objective and logical analysis. . .it relys only on faith. . .christains have conceded that logic and objectivity belongs to science labs. . because christianity demands complete faith. . .why does the bible discourage logical thoughts and objective analysis?

If it helps, I am least interested in what u are or were, I am simply interested in the RATIONALITY of ur beliefs.

why do you keep using the word rationality when you belief strongly discourages rationality? what is the rationality in believing that jonah survived inside a fish for 3 days? is it rational to believe that a man can walk on water, or die and raise from the dead after 3 days? what is the rationality in your believing the jacobs genetic engeneering model? can you rationally explain the jocobs genetic engineering model or how the fig tree immediately withered(depending on the gospel account) after it was cursed by jesus? do you not just accept as them as true without rationally thinking about how true the claims really are are?

u are the first atheist to agree to that. huxley and his youtube mentors disagree with this ontology.
If u agree with toneyb's ontological definition of GOD, how then can u disbelief the existence of GOD? dont u consider this a contradiction? or should i say irrational?

based on such ontology that god is impossible to exist, let me give you and example. . .amongst the ontology of the christain god is that he is perfect. . .but we know that if something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. and yet this "perfect" god created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "imperfect" humans. the ultimate source of perfection is god according to one of his ontology. what is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. what is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so god must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. a poisonous wild desert fruit can never grow on an good orange tree. a perfect god who creates imperfect humans is impossible. the bible says that god is Omniscient meaning he knows all things, but the same bible shows or says that the omniscient god is surprised. how is that possible? how can a god that knows everything be suprised? a god who knows everything cannot have emotions. the bible says that god experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger,jealousy, sadness, and happiness. we humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. a man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger, suprise and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. in contrast, the omniscient god is ignorant of nothing. nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react. we humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. the perfect, omnipotent god, however, can fix anything. humans experience longing for things we lack. the perfect god lacks nothing. an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect god who experiences emotion is impossible.

why is that irrelevant? why dont u answer yes or no?

This is intended to illustrate the rationality of ur belief(s). and also to put those beliefs under the microscope of logic and objectivity, which u readily proclaim.

do u believe in the existence of "feli-ban-gbaski"? yes or no

completely irrelevant. . .

noetic:
My siblings are supposed to be adults, my opinion makes little or no difference here.
My kids will naturally not marry each other, once they realise that they are related by the same father, cos the CULTURE frowns at it.
It has nothing to do with their father.

abraham married his half sister because his culture does not frown at it at that time. . . mohammed on the other hand married an underaged girl because his culture  at that time does not frown at it too. . . what is the difference? the mordern and civilized society that we live in today frowns at both of these practices. ,  . and considers both to be criminal ofences in some cases. . . . .

why is it rampant amongst islamic states including saudi arabia, iran, iraq, nothern nigeria, egypt and the rest?
why did mohammed, the moral bearer of the islamic faith practice it? considering that he is the yard stick for islamic morality.

because their culture does not frown at it.  . .   there was a time when your "fathers" Moses, Joshua etc killed unbelievers and scarificed them unto yahweh because of their unbelief. . . . they did it because it was conventional and some of them are a yard stick for the jewish and christian morality. . .

what exactly is ur point?

my point is to expose you hypocrisy. . . you call mohammed a phedophile but your own "father" abraham whom you also revere so much is also incestuous. . . .

noetic:
that's my problem with u. why should u disapprove something when u have no alternative.

how do you know that i have no alternative? naturalism is my alternative. . . .

I am ready to debate ur reservations about the christian ontology of God, but start by stating ur own beliefs.

here is my own belief. . .i deny existence of all gods, that of the muslims, the hindus, the ancient egyptians, ancient greeks, chinese, south americans and the god of the old and new testaments. all of these are fictional constructs invented by very clever humans for purposes, a variety of diferent purposes, ranging from psychological comfort, emotional comfort, dominance and entertainment. i believe in naturalism. . .

I feel free to attack the muslim beliefs I disagree with, in the full knowledge that they know my beliefs and can question or antagonise it.

atheist know your beliefs too, i was once a christian like you so i know and understand very well everything that christianity is all about. . . .so i can also question ridicule or antagonize it. . .

How can u attack an ontology, when u cant define one? how can u debate who GOD is(existence/non-existence), when u dont know Him?

toneyb has given you the basic ontology of the christian god. . i agree with it and that shows that i know what his supposed ontology is even though some christians can not even agree to the basic ontology of the christain god. . . the catholic ontology of the christains god is quite different from that of the protestant christian, the white garment wearing christain may have a very different ontology of the bible god compared to say a conservative american evangelist christian or a prosperity nigerian christain pastor. . . the bible god's ontology varies from church to church and from denomination to denomination. . .no two diffeent sect of christianity agree on his ontology. . .but the one provided by toneyb is the basic one i agree(i presume you also agree with it) with even though there are christian that might not agree with it. . . .

do u believe in the existence of "feli-ban-gbaski"? YES or NO

If yes, what is his/its ontology? what is "feli-ban-gbasky"?
if no, dont u consider it unintelligent and presumably irrational to discuss "feli-ban-gbansky" when u dont know who/what he/it is?

this is irrelevant. . . red herring i must say. . . .

noetic:
do the chinese not inter-marry? are some of them not xtians?
Do cousins not marry in nigeria?

what is this you are doing to yourself? cousins marrige is different from sibling marriage. . . . so because a tribe in austraila eats people means eating people right eh? can you show me where chinses marry their siblings? why is that not allowed in today's civilised societies. . .

u goofed here. half-siblings marriage is a cultural thing it has nothing to do with religion.

i can also say that phedophile is a cultural thing as well and it has nothing to do with religion. . . .half sibling is a cultural thing only when it invloves or is been practiced by your father abraham eh? when others practice it i know for sure that you will be swearing at them. . . you still havent answered my question. . .will you allow your half sibling to inter marry? lets asume you marry and lose your wife through divorce or death and marry another woman will you allow your kids to inter marry? why is such a thing not allowed into days mordern and civilized societies?. . . .abraham commited incest just the way mohammed commited pedophilia. . . .

noetic:
when did silence become an approval for continuous falsehood?
that I refuse to respond to ur misnomers has nothing to with the quality or lack of it, of the rubbish u keep saying. u have the habbit of successfully digressing points, that after replying u, i sometimes begin to wonder how we ever got this stage?

where did u ever have me misuse any word or terminology?. replying u is synonymous to a waste of time.

what are the falsehoods? care to show me? go through this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-260977.32.html , read your reply #44 you will see it for yourself. . .

I specifically ignored toneyb cos I never directed my questions to him (no insults intended to toneyb). And his answer proved me right.
his answer reflects the christian answer to God's ontology, which the atheist claims to be wrong.
If u believe an answer is wrong, shouldn't u have the right answer?

that explains why none of the numerous atheistic protagonists ever took up the challenge of stating what GOD's ontology is? or who Jehovah is?
cos in reality they (including u) dont know, but would never admit that.

so how had the bible god's ontology proved that his existince is real? has the biblegod ever appeared to you and told you what his ontology is in person? is it not your parents, preachers and the writers of the bible with their unverifiable claims that have told you that? i can go ahead and clearly disprove all the so called ontology. . . .

noetic:
did mohammed not have sexual relations with a 9 year old girl? was that a good thing? would u let him have ur 9year old daughter?
where in the bible did u read about 3 year old girls?

you always climb the high horse and and condemn other people's faith when your is the same as theirs. . .mohammed was a phedopile but your own father abraham practiced insest, the man whom you sing about in your churches as your father who has so many sons and which you are proudly one of them(abraham) married his own half sister from the same father. . . will you allow your child to marry his half sister?. . .

faakay:
THOSE SOLDIER!!! 

THEY WILL NEVER SEE GOOD IN THEIR LIFE!!!!

AS FROM TODAY! BAD THINGS GO DEY FOLLOW THEM IN JESUS NAME!

THEY SHALL DINE AND WINE WITH SATAN AND RUST!! I WISH DEM DEAD NOW! INFACT! MY GOD!!!!!!!!!! AIYE IYALAYAWON MA KU DA NU!!!

DEM GO KILL DEM LIKE GOAT

GBA!!! AWON OLORIBURUKU PPL!!! MAD PPL!!! MAD MENS!!! F U C K !! 

and you think your curses will do anything to change the situation for the better? if people only cursed wrong doers i doubt some parts of the world would have developed as much they have . what a sad story. . . . .

sage:
This thread has deviated

Only wirinet discussed the actual merits and demerits of the assertions Lugard made.

so true. . . . .lugard unfortunately made some VERY valid points, but as some one has said earlier on we love living in denial. . . .White people are what they are because they made themselves what they are. . . we are what we are(at the bottom) because we made ourselves what we are. . . .

noetic:
I hold no opinion of Nflah-nflah cos I have no knowledge of him/it.

You have an opinion of God, cos u have a knowledge of HIM. so who is Jehovah GOD? what is HIS ontology?

you keep repeating one word all the time, now you sound like a broken record. . .i for sure know that you do not even know what ontology means, at least i have caught you miss using words like apologist and plagiarism, you clearly did not know what they meant but you kept using them until i exposed your ignorance, i know you also do not know what ontology means you just keep using it to keep your self in your bubble of delusion. . .toneyb on gave you the ontology of your god but you did not even attempt to say anything about . . . you just kept asking the same thing when it is clear that you do not even know the meaning of what you are asking. . .

felifeli:
Never mind I know where he is coming from, I used to be much worse. I could write a whole book on the inconsistencies of the bible. In fact I started one but was too lazy to finish it  before I lost interest and faced other less tiresome matters. But God was just laughing at me I realise.

how was his laughter. . .did you see his teeth when you saw him laughing at you? how did his teeth look like?. . . 

Question : Where are all the GREAT atheists of old today ?  Gone, dead and long buried . But God is still alive today doing miracles nd will still be doing miracles after all the small and great atheists of today are dead and buried.

eh, why is it that your god only does hidden and unverifiable miracles that can be explained through natural processes? why cant he do real miracles like healing amputees and making their amputated limbs grow back. . . ? or make some of the so called men of god that we have around walk on water. . i thought jesus said that people that believe in him will do greater things than him? i am yet to see any pastor walk on water and i am yet to see any amputated limb grow back. . . .all we hear and phony claims of miracles all the time. . . .