₦airaland Forum

coolgee26:
Let's get going Mr Man
God is a/an entity/word/ used by the primitives to explain incomprehensible events

CatfishBilly:
Okay, MuttleyLaff and A88C, I'll bite.
God is a concept created by humans to explain what they can't explain.
Here, you have it.

AnonyNymous:
Lol. . .answer the question. Does ugbelegbele exist?
Do you believe ugbelegbele created the world? No? Define ugbelegbele then.
See how ridiculous it sounds?
Also, if you're asking to people to define the Chritian God

So far CatfishBilly and coolgee26 has failed miserably to define God
CatfishBilly's definition was so ludicrous as to be amusing
and he had the cheek to be smug over posting a definition not deserving to be seriously considered

AnonyNymous:
everyone already knows who the Christian God is from the bible

''Who do people say I am?'' and ''But who do you say I am?'' deja vu
They (i.e. everyone) think they know what and/or who God is

AnonyNymous:
So that's an unnecessary question.

It isnt an unnecessary question
It is a much needed question to ask

When asked to define God, this is examining the questionee's own unrealized spiritual or theological capacities.
Checking what level really is the questionee at?
Is it a sub-zero point?
How negatively far away from zero is the questionee?
How much debased is the questionee's mind?

This is mainly the reason behind the questioner testing the questionee (e.g. CatfishBilly, coolgee26 etcetera)
Questions such ''define of God'' is just about OK or enough to gauge a questionee's perception and theology

CatfishBilly:
Okay, MuttleyLaff and A88C, I'll bite.
God is a concept created by humans to explain what they can't explain.
Here, you have it.

https://i57.tinypic.com/34sp9j4.gif
No one is pushing or shoving your cliff of unfaith
So why leap off so suddenly and that easily
I know sarcasm, when I see one

A88C:
if i may conclude no athiest has been able to define whom is GOD.

coolgee26:
Let's get going Mr Man

God is a/an entity/word/ used by the primitives to explain incomprehensible events

''Primitives'' rendered this reply factually inaccurate and took the shine out of what would have been classed a brave attempt and good answer.

coolgee26:
If the definition isn't convincing, provide yours since you claim to know the right and appropriate definition

https://i57.tinypic.com/34sp9j4.gif
Slow but steady,
slow but steady man

coolgee26:
At least, attempt was made....

Same cant be said for some, who lost their nerve and confidence
and instead of making an attempt developed cold feet giving sobbing excuses

coolgee26:
If this thread pass page 2 with definition of god from religious fellas, make una cut my d!ck

Are you ready for this?
Really? Get your weiner chopped off?
Dont worry, as you'll be safe in CatfishBilly's capable hands
He will gladly do us the honor of accepting to snip you

Only you showed big kahoonas and put your head over the parapet to define God
Everyone else balked at giving a definition, CatfishBilly particularly infamously chickened out
so it will be a shame seeing you get nuked

CatfishBilly can redeem himself,
I trust him with knives to do an excellent work

A88C:
catfish belly. GOD do not exist you say, then you should be able to tell me what is GOD if he did not exist as you claim.
you must have gotten a proper understanding of whom GOD should be if he exist.
or should i assume you have less to say but much to argue.

His perception of God is impaired thats why GOD to him does not exist
Every atheists' Achilles heel and flaw to a tee is the inability to define God
This inability to define God affects their perception of God

CatfishBilly:
If I say a fictional animal ugbelegbele exists, you'll say no,
and I ask you to define ugbelegbele, it doesn't make sense right?
Same thing asking me to define God who I say doesn't exist.

Everyone notices ''fictional'' sticking and standing out like a sore thumb in your post

Fact is, some certain gods are fictional, whilst God and some other certain gods arent fictional
Fact also is, some certain gods are invented and untrue, whilst God and some other certain gods arent invented or untrue

Point is, your ''ugbelegbele'' premise is a house of cards, as ugbelegbele, is a fictional animal, invented, doesnt exist and untrue
BUT God is not fictional, invented and untrue

A88C:
1 DEFINE GOD？This question may sound absurd to him but it is logical （example）if i argue that this is not a religious thread.
i should be able to give an understanding of what is expected of a religious thread.

ask them to define God and you will realised they have less to say but much to argue.

2ask them personally to tell you how they believe GOD does not exist personally not using a generic argument.

you will realised again they will have less to say but much to argue.

THE BELIVER CAN ADD MORE WHILE THE THREAD IS OPEN FOR A DEBATE WITH AN ATHIEST

CatfishBilly:
You can't tell me to define what I don't believe in

You wont define because you can't asked to define what you don't believe in
What a cheesy excuse of a cop out.

CatfishBilly:
You say God exists, the onus is on you to define, then we'll tackle your definition of God.

What you're doing now is onus probandi (shifting the burden of proof)

Ideally anyone else will straightaway answer the questions
Alternatively, might give a ''no comment'' or ''I dont know'' reply
Instead what you did, was throw a strop, make a fuss and conveniently weaselled your way out of personally answering question #1 and #2

CatfishBilly:
Okay I was yanking your chain.
Sure, everything in moderation. Cigarettes, coffee, alcohol.
There are acceptable limits to them and when a person steps over those limits, then there'll be consequences, which can be "missing the mark" as you put it

Consequences, correctedly, is not "missing the mark" (i.e. just as death is not "missing the mark'')
Indulgence, appropriately, is "missing the mark" (i.e just as eating the forbidden fruit was "missing the mark'' &/or ''hitting the wrong mark'')

CatfishBilly:
What I'm trying to make you understand is that the Nigerian Christian views smoking no matter how casual as a sin

What I'm trying to make you understand is that Nigerians and OTT are twins separated at birth, they like two peas in a pod
Tempting to use that famous Zuma picture but I'll pass on it

CatfishBilly:
I know why I stressed Nigerian because in some parts of the world, cigarettes and coffee are seen as the same thing.
A stimulant and aren't really considered as sins

Stimulants like everything else are open to abuse and can be abnormally used

CatfishBilly:
I just want to know the rationale behind it's designation as a sin in Nigeria

Ignorance, ill-informed and the occasional dose of the pharisaical spirit

CatfishBilly:
I want your opinion if you don't mind.

Let's put it this way
My opinion really doesnt count because it's not me who would be holding brief for anyone

Now, the fact and truth, whether you believe it or not, is that
we are not answerable to Nigeria(ans), we wont be giving account of ourselves to Nigeria(ans)
Certainly wont be giving account over the actions we did to Nigeria(ans)
and/or wont be giving account of expected actions to do we didn't do to Nigeria(ans)

Another whether you believe it or not truth is, everyone at the appointed time, will be having some serious explaining to do
God, help the person, you hasnt an Advocate to help argue for such person and assist fight the person's corner for him

CatfishBilly:
So, my take home point from your write up is,
drinking coffee is missing the mark therefore should be considered as a sin?

No doc,
I know you're pulling my leg with this your oversimplified rehash version of what I posted

Cigarrette smoking or coffee drinking has good and bad benefits
and you know at which point you'll advise a patient to stop cigarrette smoking or coffee drinking
so why cant or arent you accepting that if such ignores your expert advice, it is tantamount to ''missing the mark'' &/or ''hitting the wrong mark''
Let's be objective and honest here please

CatfishBilly:
I saw where you asked your questions.
Let's use cigarettes as an example.
They are not intoxicants, any one who says otherwise should go check what he's been smoking, it's not cigarettes.
People smoke cigarettes for the exact same reason they drink coffee..They are are both highly addictive.
They've both been linked to a number of cancers, cigarettes much more than coffee
I've never seen a Christian crying that drinking coffee is a sin.

Objectively speaking,
I dare say, isnt that ''missing the mark'' and/or ''hitting the wrong mark''
if any continues to wilfully ignore your medical advice & prognosis with supporting x-ray picture or other evidences
that not reducing salt or sugar intake or substantially indulging in cigarettes, coffee or anything else for that matter
is dangerous & harmful to such's good health and wellbeing.

CatfishBilly:
In what way is smoking missing the mark?

You're the doc now,
and ought to be or should be enlightening all, on how smoking might be deemed ''missing the mark'' and/or ''hitting the wrong mark''

CatfishBilly:
Don't tell me it is because it is harmful to the health
because there are a lot of things that humans do that are harmful to health
but they are morally acceptable.

I know,
but then you wouldnt be asking this question, if you've noticed how I asked OP a couple of whats and whys about the smoking

CatfishBilly:
Watch Christians invade this thread and tell you that smoking is a sin even though it's not stated in the Bible.

There are lots of things not stated in the bible that when done, are deemed as ''missing the mark'' and/or ''hitting the wrong mark''
(i.e. as you already know or probably guessed, sin means ''missing the mark'' and/or ''hitting the wrong mark'')

flexcool131:
I'm thinking of going on 3 days fasting and prayer, but the issue I'm having is that I'm a smoker.
So I'm thinking of smoking till 11:50pm today then take my bath, brush and start the day afresh.
My question is will my prayer be accepted.

What are you smoking?
Why do you smoke it or why are you smoking it and what do you smoke it for?

CatfishBilly:
Thanks for the clarification.

Think nothing of it doc

CatfishBilly:
God killed Onan because he disobeyed him, not because he practiced coitus interruptus.
If he had outrightly refused to sleep with her, he would have been killed anyways.

No he wouldnt have been killed anyway, if he had outrightly refused
as Deuteronomy 25:9-10, states he will be publicly humiliated and disgraced

bingbagbo:
In the bible God put a man who practised coitus to death

No, put to death because Onan was fulfiling only one part of the Levirate marriage union with his late brother's wife
He was enjoying having sex with his late brother's wife but pulling out
so as not to father a child that will not only have his brother's name
but also get to inherit his late brother's land and/or estate

bingbagbo:
Genesis 38:8-10
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”
9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also

Compare with Deuteronomy 25:5-10

bingbagbo:
will a christian couple sin if they practice this method?
Thanks

No

petra1:
Made some point though.
I once battled with a Muslim girl who was brought for prayers over a demonic torment.
And I said to her that she must receive Jesus as lord first if not there's no point casting the demon out

No one has to receive receive Jesus as Lord first before demon can be cast out from them

petra1:
Because it will come back

This excuse, is not good enough

petra1:
She said she believed in Jesus as savior

Belief in Jesus as savior or not, is not a prerequisite to cast out demons
because a simple Matthew 9:28 or Mark 9:23-24 kind of belief will do

petra1:
but not as God

After first casting out the demon, that's when you would have crossed the proverbial bridge
then now be able to table the matter of Jesus being God the Son and then amicably resolve or settle it with her

petra1:
I explained and explained and began to get offended that she's proud.
She needed the miracle and won't submit to solution

And these signs shall follow them that believe;
In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues
- Mark 16:17

"Many will say to Me on that day,
'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name,
and in Your name cast out demons,
and in Your name perform many miracles?'
- Matthew 7:22

Unfortunately, the reality is that we have some folks who are in the Mark 16:17 camp & have some other folks in a Matthew 7:22 camp
Want to believe, you obviously operate in the former camp (i.e. Mark 16:17)
so why hesitation & unwillingness at providing the Muslim girl with the deliverance & solution to her demonic possession

petra1:
I eventually allow her to go without prayer thinking she will reconsider and come back.
She hasn't till today

Mark 16:17 states that casting out demons are signs that follow
Have you noticed that when inter-city travelling driving on a motorway, the driver follows destination city signs
Conventionally, people usually follow signs to get to one place from another place
People follow signs and not signs following people
but here in a biblical speaking manner,
the bible in Mark 16:17 states that ''casting out demons'' are signs that follow a believer

So Mark 16:17 signifies that,
believers, if confident and up for it, are endowed with the gift and power, to use in Jesus' name and authority, for casting out demons
so again, I am still wondering, why did you balk at providing the Muslim girl with the deliverance & solution to her demonic possession
when a simple Matthew 9:28 or Mark 9:23-24 kind of will have been enough to give the solution
and especially when the Muslim girl already had the belief that Jesus can do it

petra1:
I was wondering if I missed God there.
Maybe I should have just prayed.
But conviction is the work of God. I can't force belief on a person

Yes, you missed an opportunity to do something, on behalf of God, for the Muslim girl
It is after the deliverance of catching the fish, that when descaling starts
- no one starts descaling a fish, to clean it, before it is first caught

hopefulLandlord:
am I talking to a teenager here?

https://i57.tinypic.com/34sp9j4.gif
Since you can't get it your own way
this is either a tantrum,
or another from the figment of your imagination

hopefulLandlord:
I don't prefer anything

So what is your problem then
Its not like it will make any difference to you accepting or acknowledging there is a true and one only ''power authority & influence'' (i.e. God)

hopefulLandlord:
you said "No one uses it exclusively for atheists"

Yes and that's because you brought it up

hopefulLandlord:
show me where it has been used and its not referring to atheists

Reiterating, to what gain or benefit is this to you , erh?
Why shouldnt the ''The Fool Says In His Heart, 'There Is No God''' verse not be directed to an atheist?
For crying out loud, what by definition, is an atheist?

hopefulLandlord:
its simple, don't call it a wild goose chase

OK, to make you feel better.
I will rephrase it and say, its a red herring and distracting request

hopefulLandlord:
NB: if you can't converse respectfully, you might as well let me talk to people that do

This is your escape route stroke cop out card. Right?
Now tell, where and how have you not being conversed with respectfully?

Oh I see, you want only to talk to people that will suck up to you
and to your homies ready to pat you on the back for a post well done
or only to people who cant stand up for themselves that you can either bully or use strong-arm tactics on. Right?

yemimajid:
This same Bible also said... Jesus proclaimed that “whoever says, ‘You fool !’ shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22)... Lol, this is all a game.

The context in Matthew 5:22 and Psalm 14:1 or Psalm 53:1 are not similar nor the same
Wake up and smell the coffee! Besides, God repeatedly called others fool(s)

hopefulLandlord:
can you just show me anywhere its been used on the internet and it wasn't directed at atheists?

To what gain to you will be sending me on wild goose chase like this, erh?
Why shouldnt the ''The Fool Says In His Heart, 'There Is No God''' verse not be directed to an atheist?
For crying out loud, what by definition, is an atheist?

hopefulLandlord:
or preferably where it was used and directed to a theist
albeit one that is an adherent of another god

So you prefer or want atheists having exclusivity rights to Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1

hopefulLandlord:
this just got interesting

In the secular world, some will say you're one confused m-word

hopefulLandlord:
how does the verse then concern atheists?

because atheists fall in the category of any that refuse to accept or acknowledge the existence of a true and one only ''power authority & influence'' (i.e. God)

hopefulLandlord:
why do you guys use the verse ONLY when discussing with atheists?

No one uses it exclusively for atheists
Sorry if that is what you think

hopefulLandlord:
I like your honesty here

so that verse isn't referring to atheists? it applies to believers in any other god?

does MuttleyLaff, Analice107, Anas09, OLAADEGBU, Felixomor agree with you on this?

If God said it, why not?
It is referring to believers in any other god
and atheists who refused to accept or acknowledge the existence of a true and one only ''power authority & influence'' (i.e. God)

hopefulLandlord:
I disagree, not adding tomatoes to fruit salad is learned and not something one is born with;
same way you learnt many things in life either through stories, your experience or other people's experience

You claim otherwise, of course it depends on your definition of the word "Wisdom"
so are you telling me that man is born with the innate knowledge not to put tomatoes in fruit salad?

Yes

hopefulLandlord:
Are you telling me that the first person to ever tried this is a fool?

Given you've accepted that the first person was ignorant, for trying to put tomato in a fruit bowl, are you unbiasedly now telling us, the person who did this is wise then?

hopefulLandlord:
I'm admitting the person's ignorance here but fool? That's far reaching

Ignorant and made a fool of self

hopefulLandlord:
Do not use dirt in the mud here by sighting another example, stick with Tomatoes and fruit salad

I dont muck-rake like you started off

hopefulLandlord:
Bridge is right there and you take it,
that's because you were thought to use the bridge
or saw people using it
or are you saying man is born with knowledge of bridges? I hope I'm not strawmaning you here

again, this is totally different from "Tomatoes fruit salad"

Totally related.
I know you've seen some people taught to use the bridge, but dont use the bridge
You've watched some people who have seen other people using the bridge, but still refuse to use the bridge
Now, are you saying man isnt born with intuition and self-preservation?
Even if there is no bridge in sight or available, it still doesnt diminish the fact and truth that crossing a 14 lanes highway is a foolish thing to do.

C'mon now, if a person throws caution to the wind, instinctively speaking and self-preservation will prevail
and let the person know that crossing a fast moving 14 lane highway without a pedestrian bridge is not wise thinking
but is suicidal, a wrong decision made out of foolish thinking and false sense of security

hopefulLandlord:
my point here and I don't want you to miss it is that the first ever human to attempt putting tomatoes in a fruit salad was ignorant but definitely not a fool!

Please indulge me,
and tell, what do you call a person who is ignorant and lacks good sense or judgment?

hopefulLandlord:
even I growing up have tried stupid sheets

Does owing up to doing foolish things help you feel better.
See, it's good and can be part of a healing experience

hopefulLandlord:
you'll be surprised inventions that have been made by what seemed logically "stupid"

Exactly, we all have done one foolish stroke stupid thing or the other

hopefulLandlord:
No, there's no evidence for this said "one only ''power authority & influence'' (i.e. God)"

anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

Just because you are yet to witness a fatality or experience a casualty crossing a high velocity fast moving 14 lanes motor expressway without using the bridge doesnt mean because there is no evidence
then it can be dismissed that it is dangerous to cross the high velocity fast moving motor vehicle motorway without using the bridge

hopefulLandlord:
I like it when someone is very aggressive that it borders on anger, so you use passive aggressiveness to pass nonexistent points across

Persuasion will do, but not aggression or forcefulness
I can lead you to water, but it's not in my remit to make you drink

hopefulLandlord:
First off, what Strawman did has been done by Kingebukasblog on this same post!!, he infact was the one I was expecting to reply to the post cuz he googles every post I make and quickly posts the link to the source, it must be tiring for him cuz it seems a long time ago since he "caught" me and I wanted to give him something and see if he'll fall for it

Just search for that post and the second or third result would be Kingebukasblog so strawman did nothing groundbreaking, hence my calling him Kingebukasblog wannabe, here h t t p ://www.nairaland.com/3508590/psalmist-foolishness-talk#51755770

If you hadnt learned from a 2016 mistake and correction
then it proves you are incorrigible

Kingebukasblog, in 2016, first caught you out passing off someone's else hardwork and original as if it was yours
It's now obvious that, you arent just incorrigible
but also that once bitten, twice shy has no meaning or means nothing to you

You, in 2017 without shame, repeated the same mistake of trying to palm off as yours, the same work without giving credit to the author
If not for Strawman pulling you up on it,
you wouldnt with tail between leg literally, be shamefully forced to go edit the post, to acknowledge the real source of it.
Naughty, naughty, naughty, tut tut tut.

hopefulLandlord:
But you're free to believe anything you want, afterall what belief could be more stupid than believing a Jew died for your sins when the Jews themselves don't buy that?

Some Jews bought it,
but you just had to stretch the truth there, dont you and to what gain?

God's mission on earth had to start from some where.
God had to come from some people, from some nation, from some race, via somebody and it so happened that God came to earth as a Jew
Him coming as a Nigerian, or as a Jew wont and doesnt diminish the truth that He is the true and one only ''power authority & influence'' (i.e. God)

hopefulLandlord:
I'm through with all these nonsense though, I would like to learn more about the tomatoes fruit salad thingy and that's what I'll reply to from now on

SMH. For what shall it profit a man,
if he shall gain the whole world, to learn more about tomatoes fruit salad thingies alone and lose his own soul?

hopefulLandlord:
I believe we would've learnt not to put it in fruit salad because someone else had put it in fruit salad and got bad result from it

SMH. You ought to have laid low and keep quiet for fear of showing your ignorance.
No, nothing about or to do with bad result,
but from the fact and truth that no wise thinking person puts tomato into a fruit bowl

hopefulLandlord:
the wisdom you're talking about therefore comes from trial and error

SMH, try trial and error crossing a highway of 14 lanes without using a pedestrian bridge, and lets see if this is wisdom or being foolish
The wisdom comes from wise thinking, information, and then good judgement

hopefulLandlord:
someone who therefore puts it in a fruit salad is not necessarily an "Ignorant fool", ignorant? Yes, Fool?
not necessarily because he might not have known better
so calling such a person "Ignorant fool" when you haven't established if he/she had the required information about it before hand still borders on AD HOMINEM

You can be as defensive as much as you like

No amount of sugar-coating the truth will diminish the reality & fact that being ignorant leads to unwise thinking
that ultimately ends with taking or making bad decisions
like determining to cross a highway of 14 lanes without using a pedestrian bridge, putting tomato into a fruit bowl,
or refusing to accept or acknowledge the existence of the true and one only ''power authority & influence'' (i.e. God)

hopefulLandlord:
the rest of your post is Gish gallop

When a thing has been said, and said well, have no scruples. Take it, suck it up or copy it, like you did with your first uncredited post.

Gish gallop is exactly what you copied off another site and presented it here as if it was originally your idea.
You only went back to credit the source of the enough to make one feel sick foul smell of a post after being caught and called out by Strawman

hopefulLandlord:
Toooo Much Fallacies in that empty rhetoric Christians spill from that verse in that book of theirs

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good."
(Psalms 14:1)

Fallacies committed:

ad hominem fallacy:
An argument is discounted based on attacking the character of the person making the argument.
("He is wrong when he says there is no God, because he is a fool." )

It is calling a spade a spade and without beating about the bush

Entertaining ludicrous thoughts, that, there's no ''power authority and influence'' (i.e. God), is flirting with foolery.

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad
Putting tomato in a fruit bowl or fruit salad, will make you an ignorant fool
Nothing personal, nothing to do with ad hominem,
but just a plain fact and an unadulterated truth

hopefulLandlord:
strawman fallacy:
Arguing against a position by creating a different, weaker, or irrelevant position and refuting that position instead of the original. ("There is no God" misrepresents "There isn't sufficient evidence that God exists." )

Locked inside the echo chamber of a polarized mind

hopefulLandlord:
circular reasoning:
The truth of the conclusion is assumed in order to justify the premises.
("The fool says there is no God, because anyone who says there is no God is a fool." )

Consistent reasoning, thats why there is a corroborative chapter using the same type of thinking and witnessing another one

hopefulLandlord:
begging the question:
The argument creates a secondary proposition that is related to the primary proposition, which requires a similar argument that is missing.
(The existence of God is assumed, while addressing propositions of whether God exists.)

Living in denial without even knowing it

hopefulLandlord:
fallacy of inconsistency:
The argument is inconsistent with other arguments within the same context.
In the Christian context, Jesus commands against the invective in Psalms 14:1, warning that
"whoever says 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire" in Matthew 5:22

Matthew 5:22 is of a completely different context to Psalms 14:1?
God is exempt from Matthew 5:22 anyway
and when or if maybe, God is free and can certify, qualify or call atheists or anyone else for that matter fools

hopefulLandlord:
special pleading:
The inappropriate attribution of emotive functions to objects that do not have that capability.
(Hearts are not capable of "knowing" or of feeling emotions.)

Guard your heart above all else,
for it determines the course of your life (i.e. for everything you do flows from it)
- Proverbs 4:23

The good man brings good things out of the good treasure of his heart,
and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil treasure of his heart.
For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks
- Luke 6:45

Seeing Proverbs 4:23 and Luke 6:45 above, now you ought to less conceited and become wiser knowing that,
it's out of the abundance of the heart first, then processed in the brain or mind, before the mouth speaks

hopefulLandlord:
redundancy:
Psalm 53 is identical to Psalm 14.

Not redundacy but reinforcing.
Psalm 53 is corroborating Psalm 14 and bearing witness to it

hopefulLandlord:
questionable premise:
It is obviously not the case that all atheists do nothing but bad deeds.
This premise is invalidated by a single example of an atheist doing a single charitable act

The premise and only criterion (i.e. not covering all cases or instances of atheists' lives or good deeds), to certify and qualify atheists as fools,
is the failure to accept and/or to admit the existence of the true and one only ''power authority & influence'' (i.e. God)

hopefulLandlord:
those are the different fallacies committed by just one verse

Maybe in fantasy land, there will be different fallacies committed by just one verse.

hopefulLandlord:
lmao!

The joke's on you

hopefulLandlord:
Edit:

Edited with source
after you got caught with hand in the cookie jar & lips smeared with incriminating jam

hopefulLandlord:
Kingebukasblog googles every post I make, maybe you'll also go that route
oh! you caught me
I masqueraded it as a new post?
Hahahahahahahahaha abeg swerve
you got anything to say about the message?

Already done
- your wish was the command

hopefulLandlord:
what's funny is that no one has anything to say about the message

Smugly complacent. SMH

analice107:
But is there any atheist who hasn't concluded and decided in his/her heart that there's no "power authority and influence" (i.e. God)?

It is not covering all cases or instances of atheists' lives
because atheists are smart, intelligent, clever, witty and wise in a range of other things
They are wise in their own right BUT,
note ''but'' is in capitals for purpose of emphasis,
again, BUT, the atheists' Achilles heel, fault and shortcoming is the failure to accept
and/or to admit the existence of the true and one only ''power authority & influence'' (i.e. God)

The ''fool'' criterion has nothing to do with eating grass, drinking rat poison, getting scammed etcetera but centres on
not meeting an expected standard of accepting & admitting the existence of the true and one only ''power authority & influence'' (i.e. God)

On this premise and criterion alone (i.e. not covering all cases or instances of atheists' lives), is when atheists are deemed fools,
out of lack of wisdom, to make a right, correct & good decision
on acknowledging the existence of the true and one only ''power authority & influence'' (i.e. God)

Strawman:
Whenever you copy a post from somewhere else, always make reference to the source to avoid being guilty of plagiarism. h t tp ://freelink.wildlink.com/fallacy.php

https://gifyu.com/images/steadylaugh.gif
An extension of the foolishness,
bad behaviour & bad decision making
Kikikiki

frank317:
At least athesits don't eat grass or drink rat poison, or dedicate 80% of their time worshipping an imaginary being or give allow themselves to get scammed by God of men or or accept they are not worthy, or worship a dead Jew or..
If not doing all these will make me a fool, then i am gladly a fool.

Everyone has made a fool of themselves at one time or the other
Everyone makes bad judgements
Everyone now or then takes wrong decisions
but this is related to the existence of a ''power authority & influence'' (i.e. God) context only,

It is related to accepting or admitting the existence of a ''power authority & influence'' (i.e. God)
and that criterion has nothing to do with eating grass, drinking rat poison, getting scammed etcetera

The only condition that must be fulfilled in the bible, in order to be certified and qualified to be called a fool,
is to refuse to accept and/or admit the existence of the true and one only ''power authority & influence'' (i.e. God)

OLAADEGBU:
What does the Bible mean when it says,
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'"?

The Bible, by that statement means,
anyone who has come to a conclusion in the mind,
as a result of consideration(s) in the heart that there's no ''power authority and influence'' (i.e. God)
then such, in this context, lack good judgement and have a wisdom problem, thus made a bad and foolish decision.

So hence in this regard, the bible calling a spade a spade and without beating about the bush,
says any who have concluded and decided in the heart that there's no ''power authority and influence'' (i.e. God) is not wise
but has to be foolish to harbour doubts about the existence of a ''power authority and influence'' (i.e. God)

Entertaining ludicrous thoughts, that there's no ''power authority and influence'' (i.e. God), is foolery.

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad
An ignorant fool will put tomato in a fruit bowl or fruit salad

OLAADEGBU:
Is atheism foolish?

Atheism is foolish
Whenever you make good decision, you are called wise
whenever bad decisions, are made over any particular matter, it is termed foolish

OLAADEGBU:
Are all atheists fools?

This isnt covering all cases or instances
because all atheists are fools,
only in the context of concluding and deciding in the heart that there's no ''power authority and influence'' (i.e. God)

mrmrmister:
Found that on the romance section so I thought I'd help spread the word.

I find it hard to believe some Human being (supposedly) came up with that.

Whoever invented religion must be laughing his ass off in hell right now huh?

SMH

Oxymoron?
- something about the last sentence, the bold and underlined particularly, isnt quite right

petra1:
That's not correct.
He's one of the ministers that have strong stand on morality and virtue as part of ministerial ethiques

Jimmy Swaggart, Albert Odulele and Eddie L. Long too are a few of the ministers that had strong high ground stands on morality and virtue as part of ministerial ethics, but ...

petra1:
He even host a popular annual ministerial interdenominational conference called "MINISTERS WITHOUT BLEMISH". In one of the conferences that I watched.
He was very furious against ministers traveling for Programes with female secretaries saying. "IS SHE YOUR WIFE?

They all host and air all sorts of ministry programs

Jimmy got caught with a prostiture twice, he obviously isnt into the once bitten, twice shy idiom

Sanctimonious Albert fondled a teenage boy while he slept and touched a young preacher while sharing a hotel

Eddie Long ministered "homosexual cure" programs to recruit gays and lesbians for what he called "Sexual Reorientation" conferences and his church offered "Out of the Wilderness" ministry to help convert homosexuals into heterosexuals, however, his ''secrets'', were carried to his grave

petra1:
It's obvious that the scandal was a set up.
Even if he fell short at all in the set up. It's still a set up. Ive monitored his programmed for years.
I never saw any compromise tendency not to talk of him being a predator

Bet no one saw any compromise or predator tendencies in Jimmy, Albert or Eddie

Seun:
It makes no sense that God would give us amazing intellectual capabilities and then choose to condemn those of us who make use of them.

Given amazing intellectual capabilities is not a licence to abuse it
God gives everyone the right to be wise
but some self conceited choose to abuse the privilege and use wisdom abnormally
so God uses foolish things to confound and stupefy such, hopefully this might humble them
- God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble. He takes note of the humble but He keeps his distance from the proud.

CatfishBilly:
The DaVinci Code incoporated so many historical figures,
that still doesn't change the fact that it's a work of fiction

The difference is that Dan Brown admits that his book is a work of fiction,
that the characters, places and events are either the product of his imagination or that the characters are used entirely fictitiously
Yahweh on the other hand, doesnt claim this about His book,
rather it is attested that the Bible is inspired by Him, God
and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives.
It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right etcetera

CatfishBilly:
I'm not averse to the Bible.
What I'm averse to is quoting a work of fiction to me as fact

If you want to know the mind of God,
(i.e. the working of God's mind, His intent(s), His reason(s) etcetera)
then it is necessary to reference His manual, the Bible

So if or when I quote the Bible, you just would have to like it or lump it

CatfishBilly:
That is what I've been saying about the Bible.
Tales from Jewish Mythology, plagiarized from older civilization, throw in a few historical figures and present it as fact.
The Bible is as real as The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown

Historical figures in the Bible presented as fact that each and very day are becoming verifiable

CatfishBilly:
Can you explain the suprarational knowledge to me?

C'mon doc, intuition and innate capability or sense now
(i.e. it's ''abinibi'', not mere or just ability)

CatfishBilly:
Please don't quote the Bible

Are you that averse to the Bible