ricadelide:

I must say that there is a positive evolution among Christian denominations towards more tolerance. Still a long way to go though Wink

there isn't any 'positive evolution' in the requirements for christian living especially as it relates to making peace with all men; there might be an evolution in some quarters as regards their aligning their lifestyles to that which is written

Can you translate that into plain English?

ricadelide:

As nothing has changed as far as Christian apologist answers are concerned, my anthem hasn't either.

sure, we have to change and not you.

Who's talking about anyone changing? I was only referring to the arguments used (or rather the lack thereof)

ricadelide:

A logically coherent argument based on commonly agreed upon premisses.

common premises such as a naturalistic explanation of everything that comprises the universe (including, i might add, ethics and morality); as well laboratory tests for and scientific approaches to finding God? (inferred from your next line)

Not necessarily, but those premises need to be inter-subjective, logically coherent and consistent in their properties. Maybe you can start by defining the God concept in relation to scripture: what is God and what is not God? If you want to discuss ethics and morality, feel free to open another thread, I'll gladly join.

ricadelide:

This is nonsense.

Indeed. Maybe if i paraphrase it you could understand it better. Quoting someone "No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything contrary to what he wants to believe". And yes; wants to believe (would reply you later in the other thread).

Your point? I'm afraid you took on the scriptural practice of talking in parables while using analogy. That's a wee bit too fuzzy for me.

ricadelide:

I can accept a claim as long as it can be operationalized and falsified and that, after testing, there is a statistically significant outcome. A God that cannot be operationalized is meaningless.

of course it has to be on your terms. I'm guessing it took you not so long a period of testing to analyze your own logic. Or have you not falsified it yet?

A concept that cannot be operationalized cannot be inter-subjective and thus any conversation about that concept is merely intellectual masturbation as there is no communication. Lots of data transferred, no content transmitted.

ricadelide:

I disagree. If God has an effect on the natural world, he is in principle falsifiable through that effect. Only a deist God cannot be falsified. The problem is that most theist don't want their God to be subjected to scientific testing or don't accept the results of that testing.

And i'm guessing you cannot see your assumption that the natural world can be seperated from the influence of its maker, such that at a certain timepoint of self-manifestation he must needs 'have an effect' on it?

Assuming the consequent. You cannot introduce you conclusion (God's existence) as a premise for your argument in which you want to establish that conclusion.

ricadelide:

anyways that's a much broader topic that i wouldnt want to go into. at its base level, the statement 'there is a God' is unfalsifiable

Rather, it's meaningless. I don't understand what 'God' is and all my conversations with believers haven't brought me any closer to understanding it, as their concepts all differ and are contradicting each other (e.g. the Calvinist God is a God that is very different from the Catholic God).
The day Christians agree on the their God and his message will be the day hell freezes over (pun intended)

ricadelide:

A possible test could be on the effect of prayer. If e.g., after a rigorous double blind study, we were to find out that e.g. Catholic prayer results in a 25% higher recovery rate of the patients than with other kinds of prayer, then we're on to something. This could be considered evidence for the validity of the Catholic God concept.

take another road friend. this one would lead you nowhere. you're only fulfilling my earlier statement. you can't observe a prion with a hand magnifying glass. you can't travel the equator and hope to get to alaska. your not finding alaska does not mean its non-existent; it means you're looking in the wrong places. we could tell you where to look, but you'll refuse - so, back to square one. False analogy? who cares; the point is: its a wrong approach.

The typical Christian answer: analogy and fuzziness. Please elucidate what the right approach may be without retorting to analogy and fuzzyness.

ricadelide:

(this flaw of approach is apart from the fact that your experiment in itself is flawed with various worng assumptions and misconceptions about God and prayer)

Pray tell me, what then are the right assumptions about God and prayer?

ricadelide:

but of course there are many scientific findings that strictly necessitate a God, a Designer; but it depends on who's looking

There is none that I know of. Care to elaborate on these findings?

Ada_4u:

The Bible made us to understand that it is only a fool that said in his/her heart that there is no God.

The Bible is pretty efficient at rejecting critical thinking and insulting non-believers. If you want to call that understanding, then you're giving the word understanding a whole new meaning.

Ada_4u:

Devil has gone that far in deceiviing poeple.

Obviously God doesn't have the power to stop the devil. Either that or he wants the devil to deceive. Quite a fella he is, that God of yours.

Ada_4u:

Please do yourself favor and believe in God 4 heaven and hell is real.
Remain Blessed

I guess you've been there before and brought some evidence of he existence of heaven and hell? Or maybe it's just because you - or whoever you may wish to follow - say(s) so. Empty assertion never has and never will replace thinking.

drrionelli:

Allow me to offer, with all due respect, that this thread might be more clear if the term "miracle" were to first be defined.

That would be a good start, indeed. Maybe Hume's definition can do the trick:

a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.

He even goes further by establishing the conditions such a miracle should fulfill in order to be considered miraculous:

That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish,

drrionelli:

What is "miraculous" to one might not be so to another.
Also, I implore that it be considered that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Indeed but only evidence can establish something to be true or false. In the absence of evidence for the existence of God, the truth claims concerning that deity are empty blabbering.

drrionelli:

In other words, that something cannot be proved by any given means does not mean that it's not possible to be.

No, but it might as well not exist.

ricadelide:

@nferyn,
More free time now. How was (or has been) your summer?Cheers.

Fine, thank you. I hope the same for you. Sorry for the delayed response.

ricadelide:

The reason why the wager might not work is because both sides have reached their conclusion ab initio.

Please explain why you think that this is the case. I only tackled the validity of the wager itself.

ricadelide:

Of course, if you are right (and there isn't a God) it isn't worth it. But if the other side is right, then what? the real question then is not whether the arguement holds water, but rather which side is right. The wager is wanting because it wrongfully assumes that it is impossible to know for certain either way. In my experience, it is possible to know with certainty.

Now that is interesting. Care to elaborate?

ricadelide:

However that said, and even though the argument put up might not have been the best, your defense is really wanting on many points.

Let's see.

ricadelide:

1. You cannot choose to believe. Belief is a consequence of exposure to data and conditioning. You don't have a direct control over what you believe.

1. Not true. Belief in the probability of a futuristic event taking place, for example, is usually subject to choice. I can choose to believe that i will be the president of the US and another person can choose to believe that he wont - and both of us may be endowed with the same gifts and be exposed to the same circumstances.

It still isn't a choice. You may want to believe but your belief is still not under your direct control. Let me put it another way, you wanting to believe will have an impact on the way you process data. The human psychological tendency to 'solve' cognitive dissonance can result in you eventually adopting that belief, but this will only happen after exposure to data

ricadelide:

Beyond that, many times, you can't dissociate the actually fulfillment of that which was believed from the belief itself, ie you can't, in general human experience, rule out the influence of faith on the outcome of things - in this case, your choosing to believe can dictate what takes place in your circumstances.

Cognitive dissonance mechanisms at work. You're not refuting what I said before. Wanting to believe isn't a direct on-switch for actually believing.

ricadelide:

Belief in something you're not aware of is also within the realm of choice. A guy can choose to believe that his wife was faithful to him even when evidence points to the opposite; and his belief might not be false, 'because the evidence (arising from the way things may sometimes seem to us fallible creatures) is not always right. Another person might, in the face of similar evidence, presume the wife guilty.

You're muddling the waters here a little and playing on semantics. If belief is a position one holds concerning the truth value of a proposition, then it still isn't under the direct control of the person. If belief is merely a desire for a truth proposition to be either true or false, then of course, you position has a merit. The whole discussion here centers around what you consider belief.

ricadelide:

There is the subjective side to faith - its not a wholly objective matter.

I wasn't even talking about faith (a specific type of belief), but about belief in general.

ricadelide:

For example, wrongfully convicted felons whose lawyers had faith in their innocence and where eventually able to provide a strong case for their release - obviously the prosecutors didnt share that faith, and they might have been exposed to the same evidence.

You're very vague here as you use faith and belief as synonyms, they are not the same.

ricadelide:

I'm sure there are other instances where belief isn't devoid of the influence of man's volition.

I never said that volition doesn't have an influence on the beliefs you hold, there isn't a one on one relationship though.

ricadelide:

Of course, if you believe what is false, it wouldn't necessarily become true, and if you don;t believe what is true, it wouldn't necessarily become false. Just as the absence of faith in God on your part has not prevented him from continuing to work in the circumstances taking place in my life

Your assumption and frankly a false analogy. Belief can be reasonably inferred from evidence or it can be based on a position of faith. Both beliefs are very different in nature.

ricadelide:

But anyways, you already gave an allowance for the possibility of that premise being false in your second point.

Actually, I didn't. I was just using it to test the validity of the argument.

ricadelide:

2. Assuming you could choose to believe, the choice isn't really a 50/50 affair. There are literally thousands of mutually incompatible paths to different or the same god(s). The chance that a particular set of beliefs you choose is the correct one is really incredibly small if you put it in the form of a wager

2. So because the probability is incredibly minimal, then the possibility is nil?

Did I say that? It's irrelevant anyway. In case of a wager, you choose the best option and an option with a very low probability is not a sensible choice when there is a lot to lose by taking that option

ricadelide:

You are not off-point though, that statement could readily be inferred from scripture (Matt. 7;13-14, 1Pet 4;18) Aside that, the question of 'Is there a God?' is different from 'Which God?'.

Not for salvation as it is presented in Pascal's wager. You must discriminate between a lot of mutually exclusive options.

ricadelide:

Like you usually say, the TOE doesn't have to explain abiogenesis. Logic demands that issues be addressed in proper sequence; when you deal with the first issue, it would be easier to address the second.

I'm not discussing the question of whether or not God exists, but whether or not Pascal's wager is a valid argument in favor of the affirmative position.

ricadelide:

Morever, the same creator we talk about has made a promise to reveal himself to whoever diligently seeks Him - and, praise Him, that was the case with me (Psalm 16;11, Deut. 4;29) And in some wonderful cases, he does reveal Himself to those who do not seek Him (Is 65;1). So really, it isn't that hard.

Pretty hard to avoid a circular argument when defending Christianity, isn't it?

ricadelide:

Morever, its not really the same or an equivalent weight of evidence that points to the different 'gods' - eg. Santa Klaus can readily be dismissed, but the Judeo-Christian God not so readily, leaving us with rather few realistic options.
_{N.B. - i'd address the objections to the latter deity you posted elsewhere soon.}

Actually it can, unless you want to deny the Bible. But this has very little to do with Pascal's wager.

ricadelide:

3. One can keep concieving different such propositions and excuses when one is not interested in finding out the truth - or when one has convinced himself even before trying that there is nothing to be found out.

I have explained my evidentiary standards on many occasions. If you cannot convince me on these standards, then there is little sense in pursuing this discussion, but please don't say that your belief makes any sense outside of your personal revelations. There is no hard evidence that even remotely points in the direction of a personal God.

ricadelide:

If scientists used this approach (of just concluding that since there are different possibilities for the knowledge that would be found in a particular course of research then it isn't worth searching or there's no truth to be found) i wonder if we wouldn't still remain in the dark ages.

Care to elaborate on how exactly I would fall into this category? Any scientific research presumes the universe to be regular and one should be able to operationalize the phenomena under scrutiny. I have no further requirements.

ricadelide:

4. It assumes that you have nothing to lose by belief, which doesn't even survive a cursory review. The average believer invests a significant amount of time/money/effort in his belief, resources that could be spent on far more productive activities.

4. there's a lot to lose by belief - a lot of negative things. Ok, let's even say there's a lot of seemingly positive things like money etc to be lost. And i really wonder who defines what 'productive' in this sense should mean. Can you even try to imagine the possibility of those 'losses' actually being a gain to the seeker or believer? (Phil. 3;7-11).

If that works for you, fine. It's very much like a slave being content in his situation, because it offers him job security.

ricadelide:

I have lost a lot of things, but by losing a lot of 'things' i have found a lot of better things that i couldn't have otherwise come about. Its like the case of the child that refused to let go of the coin in its hand, when the parent was dying to place a diamond in it. Losing the coin is bad if it didn't get the diamond, but when the diamond is gotten the coin that was lost becomes irrelevant (Matt. 13;44-46) And the wonderful thing is that we get the treasure right here before we die (2Cor 5;5) - so we know we're not losing, but rather have everything to gain.

Can you be a little more precise?

ricadelide:

5. The argument completely negates the negative psychological and social consequences of belief. History is rife with examples of people engaging in the most horrendous acts while being 'inspired' by religion. Belief also regularly acts as a sort of social sedative, making people passive and accepting of societal injustice

5. Untenable. A lot of people who lack belief can quite easily succumb to those qualities you raised.

You probably mean people who lack faith in deity. Anyway, it usually requires faith in one doctrine or another (like maoism or stalinism). I am yet to find the first secular humanist that would fit under that banner.

ricadelide:

A lot of people have committed horrendous acts while being 'inspired' by their unbelief. I beleive, and last time i checked my major crime would be trying to convince people i love of their need to cross over Unsubstantiated generalizations are never justified. And as far as i know, the only people of faith who might fall into such pits of moral decadence are the ones who've only answered the first question, who've concluded that there must be a God, but who haven't been fortunate enough to find the True Holy and Loving God who is forever praised.

A prime example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Just look at the statistics of those professing to be true Christians and compare them with those of self-professed secular humanists. I can always search for some examples if you wish, like the fact that divorce rates among atheists and agnostics are lower than those among Christians.

ricadelide:

The behavioural fruits that characterizes or is manifested by people who have truly found the right path is grossly inconsistent with those scenarios you painted - if anything it only illustrates to people like us their lost state.

Lots of pretenders I guess, or maybe there is an inconsistency between beliefs and actions? How many evangelical preachers haven't been caught in [i]deviant [/i]sexual behavior? It definitely shows that you don't need religion to be moral.

ricadelide:

Furthermore, social injustice is not something that can be solved by rejuvanted or heightened human commitance to the cause; the mere fact that we fallible humans are in charge of the criminal justice system should make it obvious that some people will always slip through the system (that isn't pessimistic, just plain reality); and should ordinarily necessitate the notion that - if there is truely such a thing as Justice and Fairness - ultimately, a greater Judge, who is not limited by the fallibilties of man, can and will deal rightfully with those who outsmart the imperfections of their fellowmen (Heb 10;30, Rev 22;12).

Consoling isn't it? Unfortunately, it doesn't have any effect on the situation on the ground.

ricadelide:

We are not living in Utopia, we are living in the real world, and this is how it works (or should work) in the real world. Some get their due here, and some (or perhaps all) in the hereafter. If fallen man attains perfection (which will never happen) he can then disregard the Righteous Judge. As for us, we say 'Maranatha!'
Cheers.

A wonderful God that created this mess, isn't he?

ricadelide:

Lol . . . . the 'slight' difference might just be the difference between life and death; _{come to think of it, in some cases, it is quite slight} .

I must say that there is a positive evolution among Christian denominations towards more tolerance. Still a long way to go though

ricadelide:

nferyn link=topic=3833.msg1489310#msg1489310 date=1189616910:

In the end, all of that doesn't matter at all, as nearly all religious claims have no foundation in reality anyway. I am still to meet the first Christian that can come up with the semblance of a coherent argument in favor of the existence of God without resorting to special pleading or anecdote.

we hear again the nferyn anthem (j/k)

As nothing has changed as far as Christian apologist answers are concerned, my anthem hasn't either.

ricadelide:

The real question should be: what sort of argument or how much of evidence are you willing to accept?

A logically coherent argument based on commonly agreed upon premisses.

ricadelide:

it is a double-standard for one to make no allowance for the possibility (or plausibility) of a concept in the first place whilst still demanding that such concepts be proven.

This is nonsense. I can accept a claim as long as it can be operationalized and falsified and that, after testing, there is a statistically significant outcome. A God that cannot be operationalized is meaningless.

ricadelide:

(unfortunately for both sides (or perhaps one), its an unfalsiable concept )

I disagree. If God has an effect on the natural world, he is in principle falsifiable through that effect. Only a deist God cannot be falsified. The problem is that most theist don't want their God to be subjected to scientific testing or don't accept the results of that testing.

A possible test could be on the effect of prayer. If e.g., after a rigorous double blind study, we were to find out that e.g. Catholic prayer results in a 25% higher recovery rate of the patients than with other kinds of prayer, then we're on to something. This could be considered evidence for the validity of the Catholic God concept.

Aladunni:

@ nferyn
never mind with the look of things you are likely going to be our first concrete evidence about the existence of God.

Really? I'm quite curious as to how that's going to turn out

Aladunni:

From the look of things seen and read specifically from nairaland, i feel atheists are totally against CHRISTIANITY and tend to be passionate about other religions as someone said somewhere It doesnt change anything anyway.

If you live around Christians, of course the major expression of God-belief will be Christianity and that's why most atheists focus more on Christianity. Also, Christianity in general is 'slightly' more tolerant of unbelievers that Islam. The consequences of openly professing to be an atheist in Muslim countries are far from appealing.

In the end, all of that doesn't matter at all, as nearly all religious claims have no foundation in reality anyway. I am still to meet the first Christian that can come up with the semblance of a coherent argument in favor of the existence of God without resorting to special pleading or anecdote.

Believe in what?

jagunlabi:

Could be that they find the topic so retarded and infantile that they can't be bothered with it.Quite plausible.

LoveKing:

Now to all

I have been reading the post starter for a while now.

The problem with atheists is that they don't just believe in the Christian God not God per say.

Why is that a problem?

LoveKing:

now let me ask them. do you believe in existence of allah?

Not at all. There is no reason to.

LoveKing:

do you believe in existence of buddha?

Yes. Siddhārtha Gautama was a historical person, so yes. That doesn't mean that I believe in most of the Buddhist doctrine, though.

LoveKing:

Even before people started having atheist belief,

I don't know how many times I need to repeat his: atheism is [b]not [/b]a belief. It is simply the lack of belief in god(s).

LoveKing:
acient tribes and races long believed in a Supreme Being,more superior in strength and wisdom.

What's your point? Does that fact that people believed in something give the belief any credence?

LoveKing:

Aside from the misconceptions and misconstruity of Christianity and other religions, believe it or not,there's someone more Superior to you.

Definitely. The force of nature is overwhelming. No need to assume a supernatural entity though.

LoveKing:

the Astral world exists,

Where's the evidence, my dear Watson, the evidence?

LoveKing:

the supernatural exists,

Does it now? And what, apart from your assertions (and possibly your lack of imagination), do you have to back up that claim?

LoveKing:

and the Creator of these worlds exist.

Which creator of which worlds are you talking about?

LoveKing:

Those stories may not be true because they only mentioned "God",not his real name.

Which stories?

LoveKing:

Just find him and i think Christianity is the best bet to lead you to Him.

Why?

LoveKing:

but never dare mock his name "JEHOVAH"

Do you mock the flying spaghetti monster? Better don't.

marvostica:

nferyn
what are u trying to point out? That its normal or it has scientific explanation? For what l know is that something that can hypnotise u and make u feel powerless even with your eyes open, u can't help yourself but to strugle to come to out is something from the supernatural.

No it isn't supernatural at all, it's a specific kind of dream that has a natural explanation.

marvostica:

freezy is going through something which is not normal and prefer solutions or suggestions as to how to get the situation under control.

1. It is normal, albeit only few people do experience it.
2. There is no solution for this problem (yet) only an explanation
3. He shouldn't be afraid of the experience, it's only a very vivid dream

marvostica:

All u could do is keep qouting other persons suggestion and make contradiction.what is your own explanation and what is your own prefer solution? Since it is like normal to u with scientific reasons

My suggestion is to take the experience for what it is, an extremely vivid waking dream, nothing more. No need to worry about anything.

nanaboi:

Sorry but your "scientific explanation" - according to your previous post especially - only tells us how it 'normally' happens, cites a few examples of those it happened to, advises one to move a finger/the eye or whatever; it fails completely to tell us why it happens - u get my point now?

No I don't get your point. The sleep paralysis model is perfectly capable of explaining all the data thus far. Sleep paralysis is a specific kind of waking dream where you are in a state of semi-consciousness and incapable of moving your body.
As to why it happens, that's an open question that is definitely not going to be answered by postulating supernatural forces that don't have a shred of evidence in their favor.

nanaboi:

It also fails to note that people are different and that one person's research could be jibberish as far as a different person's encounter is involved. You got that?

1. How does it fail to note that people are different?
2. There are no encounters, except in the imagination of the person experiencing it. Those experiences can even be induced through direct neurological stimulation
3. The research is open to falsification, why don't you try to falsify it properly instead of glibly dismissing it out of hand

Sigh, it seems like the religious apologists are devolving. The arguments they bring are getting weaker by the day.

Jduck13:

yo christianity cannot be stupidity read the bible then read other religions and u will c other religions r based off of christianity or have bits and pieces of christianity in them

It is exactly the other way around. Most parts of the Christian Bible are based on older religions. There's hardly anything that cannot be traced back to earlier sources.

MP007:

Believe whatever u want to believe, all I know is that He died for my sins and rose to give me victory and eternal life, others things I don't know,

How sad. Ignorance has now become a virtue.

BASETSANA:

lf its not written in the bible then its NOT true!

True Christian epistemology. 

cgift:

The truth of the matter is, you cannot live the way yu like because there are consequences. You are just better off if u believe on Him because you ve got nothing to loose in the end if it happens that the whole thing is real. (if you prefer to have it told to you that way though.)

Another person mentioning Pascal's wager. No matter how many times that argument gets debunked it resurfaces again and again. This is probably one of the 'fitests' memes ever invented.
Let me just quote myself:

nferyn:

iyes link=topic=70354.msg1416520#msg1416520 date=1187727732:

BUT MY BROTHERLY ADVICE: IT'S BETTER TO AVOID BEING UNPLEASANTLY SURPRISED.

YOU REALLY HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE:

1. IF YOU BELIEVE, AND DIE TO FIND THAT THERE'S NO HEAVEN OR HELL. "NOTHING SPOIL"

2. BUT IF YOU DIE WITHOUT BELIEVING, AND DIE ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THERE'S A HEAVEN AND HELL, KAI COLOSAL,IRRDEEMABLE AND IRREPAIRABLE LOSS.

THINK ABOUT THAT!

There really is nothing to think about. this is probably the most braindead argument ever invented in favor of God-belief. Shame on Blaise Pascal for ever coming up with his wager.
1. You cannot choose to believe. Belief is a consequence of exposure to data and conditioning. You don't have a direct control over what you believe.
2. Assuming you could choose to believe, the choice isn't really a 50/50 affair. There are literally thousands of mutually incompatible paths to different or the same god(s). The chance that a particular set of beliefs you choose is the correct one is really incredibly small if you put it in the form of a wager
3. You can take the consequences of that assumption even further: you can also conceive of a God that rewards intellectual honesty and punishes faith (i.e. belief without evidence)
4. It assumes that you have nothing to lose by belief, which doesn't even survive a cursory review. The average believer invests a significant amount of time/money/effort in his belief, resources that could be spent on far more productive activities.
5. The argument completely negates the negative psychological and social consequences of belief. History is rife with examples of people engaging in the most horrendous acts while being 'inspired' by religion. Belief also regularly acts as a sort of social sedative, making people passive and accepting of societal injustice

iyes:

BUT MY BROTHERLY ADVICE: IT'S BETTER TO AVOID BEING UNPLEASANTLY SURPRISED.

YOU REALLY HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE:

1. IF YOU BELIEVE, AND DIE TO FIND THAT THERE'S NO HEAVEN OR HELL. "NOTHING SPOIL"

2. BUT IF YOU DIE WITHOUT BELIEVING, AND DIE ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THERE'S A HEAVEN AND HELL, KAI COLOSAL,IRRDEEMABLE AND IRREPAIRABLE LOSS.

THINK ABOUT THAT!

There really is nothing to think about. this is probably the most braindead argument ever invented in favor of God-belief. Shame on Blaise Pascal for ever coming up with his wager.
1. You cannot choose to believe. Belief is a consequence of exposure to data and conditioning. You don't have a direct control over what you believe.
2. Assuming you could choose to believe, the choice isn't really a 50/50 affair. There are literally thousands of mutually incompatible paths to different or the same god(s). The chance that a particular set of beliefs you choose is the correct one is really incredibly small if you put it in the form of a wager
3. You can take the consequences of that assumption even further: you can also conceive of a God that rewards intellectual honesty and punishes faith (i.e. belief without evidence)
4. It assumes that you have nothing to lose by belief, which doesn't even survive a cursory review. The average believer invests a significant amount of time/money/effort in his belief, resources that could be spent on far more productive activities.
5. The argument completely negates the negative psychological and social consequences of belief. History is rife with examples of people engaging in the most horrendous acts while being 'inspired' by religion. Belief also regularly acts as a sort of social sedative, making people passive and accepting of societal injustice

rossy4life:

It used to happen to me when I was younger, very scary. some people say it's demonic attack but I don't believe it at the sametime there's no scientific explanation for it.

Yes there is a scientific explanation, the question is why don't you accept it?

luvbooks:
By the way, what's your nationality?

Is that relevant? It's the same as my location.

luvbooks:
You still haven't answered my question.Can you , or can you not prove that witchcraft does not exist?YES OR NO? (who cares whether its your position or not)

Of course I can't. Nobody can prove a universal negative. You can't prove I have a huge invisible treasure hidden somewhere either; you can't search the whole universe. Anyway you don't seem to be interested in understanding why it doesn't make sense to believe in things for which there is no evidence, so indeed, who cares?

marvostica:

Freezy,
l could imagine and understand what u went 2ru.
I know many persons and authurs may want to define and explain it scientifically but the fact still remains the same that it is satanic

Is it now? And how would you know?

marvostica:

and l think the only way out is to draw nearer to GOD and make prayers be the last thing u do before u sleep because so many things go on at night.we realy don't know the battle that goes on while we sleep.

If anything, those prayers are going to increase the chance of going through these dreadful experiences. They strongly correlate with belief in the supernatural

nanaboi:

It's not enough that u think u know what it is: "sleep paralysis" and that it's natural

What causes it? - that's the question u didn't answer.
It's not about giving instances of who has had b/4.

What's your point?

luvbooks:
Hello everyone,I'd just like to say something to nefryn.

Hello to you too

luvbooks:
@nefryn; you've argued so hard and so long about witchcraft not existing.You even challenged them to prove it to you.But now I ask, can you, for one, provide some evidence that witchcraft does NOT exist?

It's not up to me to prove that witchcraft exists, but rather up to those making that claim to bring convincing evidence. I don't believe in invisible flying dragons in the corner of my room either and when someone says invisible flying dragons exist, those people need to bring evidence for their existence. the same thing goes for witchcraft.

The absence of any evidence for witchcraft, together with the fact that almost all so called paranormal phenomena have natural explanations, should make one conclude that there is no reason to believe in witchcraft. You also shouldn't forget that for a moderately qualified magician it is very easy to fool people with tricks. Magicians are usually the best people to unmask people that claim to have paranormal abilities. They're even far better at that task than scientists, who can easily be fooled themselves.

luvbooks:
We cannot see the wind, but we know it exists.When seasons change, as they do, from spring to summer, from summer to autumn, and from autumn to winter, we cannot see the changes any more than we can control them,we can only see the evidence of these changes when we see the snow, or notice the first spring flowers bursting out, or feel the summer breeze.

Both the wind and the seasons can be observed and are natural phenomena. They're nothing like witchcraft, where people, when they don't understand the cause of something, immediately ascribe it to witchcraft without properly investigating it (usually because they neither have the knowledge nor training to investigate these claims.

luvbooks:
We have to face it.Some things can never be seen, we only notice them when they force themselves on us.

But why would you immediately label something witchcraft if you don't understand it?

Michaeli:

Just a shame that he does not exist Grin Grin Grin

To Reverend(?),Seun and all other atheists,humanists in the house I can only offer you Psalm 14:1.

An uplifting example of 'good' Christian behaviour: If you don't have any argument, just throw in some insults. Always does the trick, doesn't it?

Michaeli:

No matter how we try to wish it away or philosophise about it , the possibility of LIFE AFTER DEATH will continue to be a recurring topic lingering around throughout our lives.

Projection, anyone?
The possibility of life after death really doesn't linger anywhere in my mind, ever. I have no reason to put any faith (pun intended) in something that can only be considered a contradiction in terms. Apparently you have difficulty understanding that not all people have a need to ponder over fantasy all the time

Michaeli:

As a rational human,i've also found myself at crossroads between throwing away all my beliefs and resting in the 'safe haven' of atheism,freethinking etc . What keeps me in check is that I really have nothing to loose living a morally upright and successful life as dictated by Bible.

So what you chose is putting your rationality on hold for a promise backed by nothing but Pascal's Wager? What poor foundations for morality, especially if you consider the asinine morality that is contained in the Bible. Or do you perhaps really believe that e.g. parents should slay their recalcitrant children? I would be really scared of you if you were to get your morality from the Bible.
By the way, what do you mean when you talk about the 'safe haven' of atheism?

Michaeli:

If i die & it all proves to be falsehood I am still fine BUT if the reverse was the case & i decide to assume God doesn't exist and Jesus,the Bible were all made up & I die & find myseldf in Hell, what would become of me??

And what if the true God were not the Christian God but the Norse God, or Vishnu? Applying Pascal's wager to these Gods leaves you none the wiser but all the more confused, which God to choose out of the thousands made up by men over the centuries?
Also, what makes you think that belief is something you can choose?

Michaeli:

So please try to search more about God & not close your mind to Him. Just because you have a few unanswered questions about life does not mean God does not exist.

Start by bringing some positive evidence in favour of your God hypothesis and then we can start talking.

Christino:

@ nferyn,

We are still saying the same thing, the concrete evidence, right, u believe in d creator because u can see his works (like fela) but not the "supernaturally partial" one aight?

Actually I don't believe in a creator, but there is possibly some room for one to exist, but then it would be closer to the God of Spinoza than to the God of Mozes, Jesus or Muhammad.

Christino:

I don't pray anymore, the last time i "prayed" was like 7 years ago ( i don't believe in prayers) I just say it because i'm asked to. Reason: i don't have "faith". You pray because you put your faith in it, and faith is pure OPTIMISM. optimism works for a lot of people, like (I WILL NOT DIE!!!) and so on, it's a mind thing.

Excellent observation, the effect of positive thinking can be quite profound but either way, it will only be a placebo effect.

Christino:

If you chose to believe in God and allow that belief that "an eye up there" is watching and you shape your life around such morals, you'll reap the benefit, and if you chose the other way round, it's purely a mind thing. No name calling but i think either way it makes sense and i don't blame either party. Coincidence is more realistic init?

I actually find people that need the carrot and stick of an all powerful God to lead a moral life to be of questionable morality. Of what value is morality if it's only an expression of self-interest?

Christino:

The realest thing is death and closest to it is nothing realer than the prison.

I'm affraid I don't get your point here.

m_nwankwo:

Hahahahahhhaaaaaaaaa, neferyn states that the non-existence of God is a univeral negative and cannot be proven and yet he accepts what cannot be proven.

For quite obvious reasons to anyone who who wants to employ more than 5% of his neurons. My preliminary acceptance of the statement that God does not exist is based on the fact that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of God. I am an agnostic atheist: I do not believe [/i]in God, but state clearly that I cannot attain [i]knowledge [/i]of the (non)existence of God. My agnosticism only applies to the amorphous, deistic first mover God, not to the specific God as portrayed in the 'holy' books of Christianity, Islam or Judaism. Here I can categorically state that that specific God most definitely does not exist.

m_nwankwo:

Knowlege about God do not require a degree in any discipline including philosophy.

You have funny ideas of what knowledge is. The study of the nature and validity of knowledge is a sub-branch of philosophy, epistemology.
It's not because you can imagine something, that is can be called knowledge and it definitely does not validate these beliefs.

m_nwankwo:

Afterall, knowlege is what the brain can concieve and the brain is purely a material stuff and can only understand material things.

Making up stuff as we go, aren't we? I guess mathematics is material then.

m_nwankwo:

The brain cannot even explain in totality how it functions.

And how is that relevant?

m_nwankwo:

To investigate God with the brain is like exploring viruses, elecctrons, neutrons, DNA and other submicroscopic particles etc with the naked eye.

Typical for the run of the mill apologist, reasoning by analogy. Sorry Sir, your analogy doesn't apply. How else would you investigate an immaterial being except by applying reason and logic, i.e. correlates of the working of the brain? How else investigate an entity that by it's very definition falls outside the material world?
I see you like to contribute to the expansion of the English language as well. Prey tell me what submicroscopic particles are.

m_nwankwo:

Ofcourse your eye will see non of these things. The problem is with the instrument you are using for your investigation.

What other instruments do you propose? Maybe you will realise that there is absolutely nothing to say about your God and that all inferences about God are pulled out of thin air.

m_nwankwo:

Great that you are aware of the big bang and the string theories. Kindly use it to explain the origin of our unverse, what happened before the big bang, what caused the big bang, why did the big bang happen and trace the course of development from the big bang to the emergence of living creatures including man. Provide evidence for the time scale of these events.

Go and read some introductory science books yourself. I'm not responsible for your education or lack thereof. Better tell me what your [b]specific [/b]objections are to specific scientific theories. I neither have the patience nor the inclination to go ghost hunting with you.

m_nwankwo:

Richard Dawkings is probably the most famous atheists. He is a well respected evolutionary biologist. However I disagree with his atheism.

Obviously on the basis of? probably not very much. Better substantiate your position. Why exactly do you disagree with his atheism?

m_nwankwo:

Ofcourse it normal you will understand him better because he is an atheist like. Birds of the same feather flock to you.

Another fine contribution to the expansion of the English language. haven't heard that one before.

m_nwankwo:

You said you did not understand the molecular biology terms I am using, you asked me to explain and yet even before I have explained what I am saying you said it is gibberish and claimed that I do not understand what I am saying.

Because I understand the words you employ, I can safely conclude that your stringing together of these words indeed amounts to nothing but gibberish. For example [i]the intermediate precursors and the DNA composition as the process of evolution proceeded is unintelligible.

m_nwankwo:

How do you know that a statement is gibberish even when you do not understand what it says?

Unintelligible gibberish does have the tendency to elude understanding or don't you understand this either?

m_nwankwo:

The origin of the laws of nature is a relevant question but again it is irrelevant in your own view because you cannot explain it. Indeed you can get the north of the north pole. If you are to sit the the northermost point of the north pole of our planet, you can get coordinates norther than the north pole.

How on earth can you answer such nonsense? Please have a chat with a 'competent' geographist or better even, why don't you go and see a 'competent' psychiatrist.

m_nwankwo:

Again the circle begins at the point you started to draw it. Only the creator of a circle knew the origin of it or any person he choose to show it. To understand the origin of a circle, one need to look at the creator of a circle.

You're really dense, or so it seems. What is the beginning of an 'undrawn' circle, such as the one caused by the pressure wave from an explosion? Or maybe only drawn circles are real circles?

m_nwankwo:

A circle cannot draw itself. Science have not even agreed on what counciousness is about. There is variability of what constitutes counciousness.

Your point being?

Christino:

@Seun,

An atheist won't believe in what he can't see (or touch) or feel.

An atheist believes in the wind, because he can feel it. The fact that an atheist was around in the time of Jesus is not enough evidence that God exists.

Even Moses did not "see" God, no one has.

I think you have a rather simplistic view of what the position of most atheists is. What most atheists reject is the theistic, personal God that interferes in the working of the universe, not the deistic first mover that withdrew after 'creating' the universe.
The theistic God interacts with the universe in the here and now, he answers prayers, works miracles, etc. The effects of the theistic God interfering in the universe are measurable and can be studied. Unfortunately for the believers in that kind of God, no effect has been measured that defies a naturalistic explanation, on the contrary, there's a reason that nothing fails like prayer.

m_nwankwo:

I disagree with nferyn views. He demands proofs for a universal positive

What universal positive? I never asked for such a thing and I don't really know what a universal positive is.

m_nwankwo:

and yet declare that a unversal negative cannot be proven.

No it cannot. Enroll in a freshman course in philosophy and your prof will explain you in detail why a universal negative cannot be proven.

m_nwankwo:

What evidence do you have to show that the non-existence of God is a univeral negative

It is by it's very construction. To 'prove' the non existence of anything, you need to investigate all possible cases where that thing can manifest itself. An impossible feat.

m_nwankwo:

and what is the basis for the assertion that a negative cannot be proven.

A negative can be proven, a universal negative cannot. The basis for my assertion lie in the rules of inductive logic.

m_nwankwo:

The explanation of natural process to be responsible to the coming into being of the universe indeed has it inherent flaws as any competent physists or molecular biologist will find out in the course of his or her research.

Oh really? Nice to know that a molecular biologist has something to say about the origin of the universe in his capacity of molecular biologist. I guess you will be the judge on what constitutes competence in a scientist, i.e. a scientist is competent if he conforms to your dogma.

m_nwankwo:

I want to know how the natural process explained the birth of our Universe.

Big bang cosmology combined with string theory does the job quite well, thank you. And no, arguments from personal incredulity don't count, I don't fully understand modern physics either, but that doesn't give me the right to reject it if I don't have a better explanation to offer.

m_nwankwo:

I presume you are way of darwian evolutioniary theory, can you use it or any theory for that matter to explain the emergence of diversity with specific illustration of how one specie evolved, the intermediate precursors and the DNA composition as the process of evolution proceeded. I will also like you to use natural process as you concieve to explain the time scale of the natural process for the coming into beig of different species including man. Also kindly provide your natural explanation why the human specie as we know it today has alsmost 99% DNA sequence homology with the so called anthropoid apes and yet the difference between humans and these apes are as far apart as the mind can concieve.

Can you translate this into English, please? You know, the kind of coherent, clear prose Richard Dawkins or Stephen Jay Gould are known for. I have a hard time understanding gibberish.
By the way,if you do not accept the Theory of Evolution, please provide a falsification of the theory and one more thing, if you want to use scientific language, better get a proper understanding of the basic concepts first before you make a fool of yourself stringing together complex sounding verbiage you don't understand.

m_nwankwo:

Can you also use the natural process to explain the origin of the laws of nature.

Completely irrelevant. Any strict empiricist will tell you that question doesn't make sense. You might as well ask what's to the north of the north pole.

m_nwankwo:
If they do not have an author where do they come from?

What's the beginning of a circle?

m_nwankwo:

Evidence is only limited to what you are using to measure the evidence.

Your point?

m_nwankwo:

To state that their is no soul presumes that such an individual is all knowing and knows all meaurable and immeasurable evidence.

No. I'm an agnostic a-soulist. All properties that are traditionally ascribed to a soul, including conscienceness, have their physical correlates in the brain (even though our mapping of these processes is still rather crude). Applying Ockham's razor, we can only conclude that a soul is entirely unnecessary to explain anything and we thus can safely discard that hypothesis.

m_nwankwo:

Once again, if you cannot find evidence for the existence of the creator, the onus is on you and not on others.

No, you make the extraordinary claim that God exists. I, the agnostic atheist, withhold judgement until the evidence is in. We've been waiting for several thousand years now and there's still no evidence.

m_nwankwo:

Atheists always claim that their is no evidence for the existence of God, yet they have not provided any evidence for the non-existence of God.

That's a non sequitor. You cannot prove a universal negative.
You make an extraordinary claim and it's up to you to provide evidence for that claim.

m_nwankwo:

They accuse believers of blind faith but it actaully requires a higher level of blind faith to believe in the non-existence of God than to believe in the existence of the Creator.

Another empty assertion. Care to substantiate your claim?

m_nwankwo:

It is more logical to believe that any work including the universe, books, houses, cars, scientific discoveries etc has an author than to believe that a work emerged by itself.

1. There is clear and unambiguous evidence for the creation of man-made objects. There is no evidence at all for the creation of the natural world by a deity and plenty of evidence that it is a result of natural processes
2. 'emerged by itself' is another gem of a strawman. Who claimed that any of these things 'emoerged by themselves'? They are the result of natural processes, yes, but they definitely didn't emerge by themselves. Next thing you're going to say is that they emerged 'by chance'?
3. what has logic to do with any of what you're saying? Pray tell me how you managed to throw 'logic' in the mix? Do you have any idea what logic is?

m_nwankwo:

It is also not logical to believe that scientific laws are in themselves self creating,

Why? Where's the logical contradiction? Besides, your usage of the words 'self creating' only points to your lack of understanding of the scientific method.

m_nwankwo:

it is very likely that the scientific laws also have its author.

Laws are (usually mathematical) descriptions of regularities in nature, they do not imply any author.

m_nwankwo:

In my opinion, many athesists are disputing the conception of God as proposed by many religions, not of God, the almighty Creator.

Most atheists do both.
A creator-god is a very anthropocentric entity that is entirely unnecessary to explain the natural universe.

m_nwankwo:

Atheists in my view should seek for God independently of the views propounded by many religions, they may probably find the Almighty Creator.

Please stop with your presuppositionalism and give me a cogent reason to believe in your creator-god in the first place

m_nwankwo:

It is imposible for the physical body to be at more than one place at a time. It is however possible for a physical body to be in a location B while the soul or activities of the soul are found in other locations.

Again, you presuppose the existence of a soul. Before we go any further, could you bring some evidence that such an immaterial soul can exist? What does such a soul explain that cannot be explained by taking a naturalistic stance?

m_nwankwo:

Individuals whose inner eyes are opened to see the soul or its activities percieve what they saw to be the person in physical body.

Out-of-body experiences can easily be explained by neuroscience. They can even be induced under laboratory conditions.

m_nwankwo:

Thus they report their sightings as bilocation. A hint that what they saw in other places is not the human being in physical body can be glimsed from the observation that such sightings do not last for a long time.

These reports have never been confirmed under any form of rational scrutiny. You're grasping at straws

Kemjisuper:

It's quite sad to see so many people here trying to scare you back into the fold.

What fold if I may ask? Poster never mentioned pressure from any group in particular.

No, there's only evidence of the posters in this thread that use scare tactics. On the other hand, in view of how careful she worded her questions, I wouldn't be surprised ifshe's been confronted with people that tried to scare her back into the flock in real life before.

Kemjisuper:

If you are truly a freethinker and have the courage to question your beliefs and preconceived notions do not shy away for the consequences.

It's nice to hear you state that there truly are consequences for being a "free thinker".

There are consequences to everything you do, also to your philosophical outlook. You probably know better than me what the social impact is of openly avowing to be a freethinker in Nigerian society. Ostracism would probably be too kind a description.

Kemjisuper:

if you believe there is a God and that God is all loving, then that God is not going to punish you from using your brain and investigating your purpose in life. Continue on your search, wherever it may lead you.
Above all, never let anyone tall you what to think, think for yourself and don't let others do the thinking for you

This still clearly does not answer the question as to why the poster is still keen on going to heaven!

She seems to be a searcher that's not completely set in her thinking, still open to new ideas, probably a teen or a young adult. She should be encouraged to continue in her path of intellectual and philosophical growth. Asking these questions is a very good step in the right direction.

Kemjisuper:

When atheists are involved in discussions on the existence of God, it is usually out of compassion. Contrary to what some profess, 'choosing' to believe doesn't come free, you will at the very least, spend a lot of your time and energy in maintaining/supporting your belief system, time that could be spent on other things.
At the negative end of the spectrum of belief, the irrationality that comes with God-belief can steer people into actions that are very harmful to themselves and others such as oppressing female sexuality, ostracism and sometimes outright violence against people that don't share their beliefs
Atheist engaging in these kind of discussions want to 'save' people from spoiling their precious time and happiness on what is ultimately a completely useless activity.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a God or any other supernatural entity exists. Most arguments for the existence of God (such as the argument from design) fail even under the most cursory scrutiny

You are clearly trying to mislead others.

How so? What in my post seems to be misleading to you?

Kemjisuper:

If you've taken a basic course in Philosophy,

Don't try that corny line on me, sir. I'm not a rebellious teen in my formative years with an identity crisis

Kemjisuper:

you'll understand that even atheists have some evidence to back the existence of a supreme being.

Really? Please elaborate.

Kemjisuper:

You mentioned the argument from design. I guess you've also heard about the "unmoved mover" and "unchanged changer" alongside the "Ultimate designer" as discussed by atheists?

What exactly are you getting at here?

Kemjisuper:

Whatever you do, don't let anyone tell you not to use that precious brain of yours.

I don't remember seeing any comments previously posted which suggest that.

Yours would be an excellent example:

Thinking outside the box never helped anyone in the past, present and definitely not in the future.

Kemjisuper:

Don't contradict the truth.

Which truth? How do you determine truth?

Kemjisuper:

God gave us all free will to choose between good and evil, not free will to think.

1. How is choice even possible without thinking?
2. Your argument presupposes the existence of God
3. Any doctrine that scares people away from thinking for themselves is infantile and evil

Kemjisuper:

Thinking outside the box never helped anyone in the past, present and definitely not in the future.

Idiocy comes in many forms and shapes, but this is really a gem

Kemjisuper:

Being a free thinker means you're not choosing good, but you're not choosing evil either. I'd like to know if there's any intermediate state between good and evil.

It has nothing to do with choosing good or evil. you really are logically challenged, aren't you?

Kemjisuper:

@Poster
To answer your question with a question - If you're a free thinker, why are you so bothered about going to heaven? Why don't you "free think" up your own ideal life after death? Of course, you're free to do so.

She seems to be an honest searcher and all you can do is come up with this kind of blather?

@ geegee
It's quite sad to see so many people here trying to scare you back into the fold.
If you are truly a freethinker and have the courage to question your beliefs and preconceived notions do not shy away for the consequences.
if you believe there is a God and that God is all loving, then that God is not going to punish you from using your brain and investigating your purpose in life. Continue on your search, wherever it may lead you.
Above all, never let anyone tall you what to think, think for yourself and don't let others do the thinking for you

When atheists are involved in discussions on the existence of God, it is usually out of compassion. Contrary to what some profess, 'choosing' to believe doesn't come free, you will at the very least, spend a lot of your time and energy in maintaining/supporting your belief system, time that could be spent on other things.
At the negative end of the spectrum of belief, the irrationality that comes with God-belief can steer people into actions that are very harmful to themselves and others such as oppressing female sexuality, ostracism and sometimes outright violence against people that don't share their beliefs
Atheist engaging in these kind of discussions want to 'save' people from spoiling their precious time and happiness on what is ultimately a completely useless activity.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a God or any other supernatural entity exists. Most arguments for the existence of God (such as the argument from design) fail even under the most cursory scrutiny

Whatever you do, don't let anyone tell you not to use that precious brain of yours.

Those abortions shouldn't make you worry about her ability to conceive. Properly carried out first term abortions in hygienic conditions have only a minimal chance of impacting her future chance of conceiving. Actually carrying a child to term has far bigger negative physiological consequences than undergoing a first term abortion.

The abortions aren't what you should be worried about, but rather whether or not you can handle her past lifestyle.

These are simply the experiences that go with sleep paralysis. No need to look for a supernatural explanation, there's a convincing natural explanation (emphasismine):

In a typical sleep-paralysis episode, a person wakes up paralyzed, senses a presence in the room, feels fear or even terror, and may hear buzzing and humming noises or see strange lights. A visible or invisible entity may even sit on their chest, shaking, strangling, or prodding them. Attempts to fight the paralysis are usually unsuccessful. It is reputedly more effective to relax or try to move just the eyes or a single finger or toe. Descriptions of sleep paralysis are given in many of the references already cited and in Hufford's (1982) classic work on the "Old Hag." I and a colleague are building up a case collection and have reported our preliminary findings (Blackmore and Rose 1996).

Sleep paralysis occurs in 30% of the general population. In it you wake up in bed, feel paralyzed, and tend to sense a terrifying presence in your room. Sometimes you see something; sometimes you hear noises or even feel electrical shocks throughout your body. I have personally seen a small humanoid during one occasion of sleep paralysis; during another, more recent one, I saw what looked like a dog in my room. Others see ghosts, vampires--whatever they have in their minds or are particularly afraid of. Deceased relatives and loved ones are particularly good candidates for showing up during bouts of sleep paralysis.

Similar feelings were also common to persons in the Middle Ages who reported nighttime visitations of an incubus (a male demon who lay with women) or succubus (which took female form and lay with men). In Newfoundland the visitor was called the "Old Hag" (Ellis 1988). In the infamous West Pittston, Pennsylvania, "haunted house" case of 1986, tenant Jack Smurl claimed he was attacked by a succubus. As "demonologist" Ed Warren (1989) describes it: "He was asleep in bed one night and he was awakened by this haglike woman who paralyzed him. He wanted to scream out, of course -- he was horrified by what he saw, the woman had scales on her skin and white, scraggly hair, and some of her teeth were missing -- but she paralyzed him in some manner. Then she mounted him and rode him to her sexual climax."

sources:
http://www.csicop.org/si/9805/abduction.html
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/sleep/
http://www.csicop.org/sb/9512/i-files.html
http://skepdic.com/sleepparalysis.html
http://skepdic.com/satan.html#incubus
http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/S_P2.html