₦airaland Forum

mrmayor,

Gotcha. You're spot on.

@ Havila,
So basically you refuse to answer. Could that be because you don't have an answer, that you need to remain in your sheltered cocoon of faith?

Havila:
And you, an atheist, who has declared that the bible is anti-intellectual and anti-reasoning in your own understanding, attempting to dispute my elucidation on christian faith put's a strain on logic. How can you dispute what you do not know, have or understand?

It only reinforces the priorly held beliefs of those that already believe, it doesn't ellucidate at all, on the contrary, it only muddles the waters.

Havila:
Even, if you had faith before and lost it when you became 'enlightened', then yours' was like the seed that fell by the way side or fell on shallow ground i.e no root because nobody taste of the truth of God and let go. Trials and tribulation might shake it, but not remove it.

Yeah, define something out of existence. That's what theists are good at.

Havila:
Declaring that suppression of freethought is in the history of christianity is a clear indication that your mind is unable to comprehend my earlier post on what christianity really is; as contrasted to what or how it's been used before.

Do as I say, but - by God (pun intended) - don't do what I do. Self-professed Christians have been responsible for countless atrocities in the name of God and you know what, their Bible clearly and quite literally supported them, things like not suffering witches to live and slaying the unbelievers in front of Jesus' feet. Maybe you can look up the specific verses. You people just cherry pick from the nice parts of the Bible and ignore what's less pleasant.

Havila:
I am not surprised at your asking me "what are the characteristics or principles of God"; it is in your 'anti-intellectual' bible but can only be decoded by a humble mind, not a haughty one. Maybe you've heard of the expression that 'people have eyes but yet they cannot see, they have ears but cannot ear'.
Now, if you still can't digest and be nourished from milk, how do we go to feeding you meat and bone?

Of course, if you don't believe, you cannot understand and if you do believe you're no longer in need of that understanding. Circular reasoning at it's best. You're asking to have faith and when asked why to have faith, you say that you need to have faith before you can understand.

By the way, there's a consistent trend among theist debating me here to screw up my username. I wonder what the underlying cause is.

mrmayor:
You see that the western would is controlled by Reason and Technology.You don't need to fast for 7 days to get a loan from your bank or pray for good grades in college and definitely no need to pray for success in farming,business.

Mrmayor,

Even though there isn't that much overt religiosity in western europe left, I wouldn't go as far as declaring that the western world in controlled by reason and technology. Very few people actually embrace the scientific mindset. Even though they actively use the fruits of science (technology), apart from those directly involved in science and technology, most haven't got the slightest idea what underlies it's very success. There's still a lot of magical thinking going around. Where there may be a significant difference is that most western intellectuals are squarely on the side of reason (except for the US, where loonies rule the airwaves).

Havila:
(II) Quote from Seun: Any system that discourages people from using their minds will be used by oppressors to keep the common man under.

Most of Seun's comment are rather immature, devoid of understanding, and backed by faulty logic; rather than premature. To his own understanding, 'christianity' is one of the systems that discourages people from using their minds. Well, that is the 'religion' of christianity mindset to which he and a lot seem to 'understand'; and not the mindset of 'Christian faith' which is a truly liberated mind i.e a mind that digs deep, seeks wisdom, direction and understanding using the characteristics or principles of the living God.

Havila,your argument is incoherent and logically flawed.
Please explain how you come to the conclusion that:
1. Seun's comment is immature? Why do you consider it immature?
2. Seun's comment is devoid of understanding? What understanding is it devoid of?
3. Seun's comment is backed by faulty logic? Wat logical flaws are there in his argument?
Christianity is [b]indeed [/b]one of the systems that discourages people from using their mind. Just check the bible and you will see it's anti-intellectual anti-rational stance. If that doesn't convince you, you can always glance over the suppression of freethought in the history of Christianity. It is quite illuminating.
Your statement the mindset of 'Christian faith' which is a truly liberated mind i.e a mind that digs deep, seeks wisdom, direction and understanding using the characteristics or principles of the living God is very confusing. Can you ellaborate how faith liberates the mind, how it digs deep, how it seeks wisdom and what type of understanding you're talking about?
Also, what are the characteristics or principles of the living God?

@ TayoD,

It's nferyn, not nfern.
Anyway, I'm still not wiser on what faith is. Is my definition incorrect?
If faith causes manifestations, by what process does it do that and how can an independent observer detect it?

TayoD:
@nfern,

I will not go into any arguments with you. As Dru has rightly pointed out, we are both on different starting blocks. I believe and will expect us to start from the position of faith in the fact that there is God, and you will not begin from there. It'll thus be a waste of both of our valuable times.

TayoD,

Thanks for clarifying your position. It was not my intention to get into an argument (although I aways like a challenge), but rather to understand the concept of faith. My current understanding is that it is obediently accepting something to be true without (or even in spite of contrary) evidence. Am I correct?

By the way, it is nferyn, not nfern

Drusilla,

Thanks for making it pefectly clear that Christianity is:
1. anti-reason (The letter killeth, the Spirit giveth life, The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God)
2. authoritarian (focus on faith and obedience)
3. irrational (as it, in your words, supercedes logic)
4. malevolent (God is [b]not [/b]omnibenevolent)

Drusilla:
Nferyn,

Now, rationality is not a proposition (as you would have us believe), it is a method of examining propositions for their truth-value and naturally rationality presupposes itself, as it would otherwise violate the basic laws of logic.

Ah. Ha!

Now you are starting to get to the core problem that an Athiest and a Christian have when trying to discuss God.

Let me put it this way:

Now, Christianity is not a proposition (as you would have us believe), it is a method of examining propositions for their truth-value and naturally Christianity presupposes itself as it would otherwise violate the basic laws of the Christian bible.

Ok makes sense. Can you stipulate these basic laws? Do these laws supercede logic? Does logic apply to the Christian Bible? If so, then Christianity violates the law of contradiction (problem of evil in relation to the omni-God) and thus is irrational. If logic does not apply to Christianity, then it is irrational by definition.

TayoD,

Can you define faith? Why is it more tangible than the physical?

Drusilla, that's an extreme skeptics approach to eptistemology and it's self-defeating.
Truth can only be established within a shared eptistemological framework. That framework implies that it follows the laws of logic and infers statements from these laws.
the basic laws of logic are:
1. the law of identity: A is A, or, anything is itself; if a propostition is true, then it is true
2. the law of excluded middle: anything is either A or not-A; a proposition is either true or false
3. the law of contradiction: nothing can be both A and not-A; a proposition cannot be both true and false
Rationality is the application of logical inference to propositions to determine their truth-value. If you say that rationality is something else, we can never have shared meaning and communication is pintless.
Now, rationality is [b]not [/b]a proposition (as you would have us believe), it is a method of examining propositions for their truth-value and naturally rationality presupposes itself, as it would otherwise violate the basic laws of logic.

4get_me,

Stop sprouting your nonsense about my so-called revisionism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). It is a commonly used tactic by theists to define atheism in such a way as to only incorporate strong atheism. This tactic is applied to pass the buck and treat atheist and theist beliefs on the same epistemological level, which is dishonest at best.

Atheists themselves (and with this I mean the vast majority of them) do not subscribe to your definition.
On an ethymological level, your definition is incorrect.
From George H. Smith, Atheist - The Case Against God (p. 7):

The prefix "a" means "without", so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism", or without the belief in god or gods. Atheism therefore is the absence of theistic belief.

Maybe you should read some more atheists on what atheism really is instead of relying on selective readings of dictionary definitions or definitions of theists.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/atheists_modern.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/whatisatheism.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm

Huxley, the person who invented the term agnosticism was also perfectly clear when he ensured that agnosticism has related to knowledge (gnosis) of the existence of God(s) and not to belief.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html

Drusilla:
Nferyn,

You dismiss the fact that no matter how insane, it may look to me and you, the tribe in melaysia that builds large ladders and falls off of them, believes that they have completely rational reasons for doing so.

I might consider their behavior irrational but they would consider it rational.

Thanks for getting back to the point. I agree that many people do things for reasons that seem perfectly rational to them. Usually they are rational to the point that they logically follow from their premisses. However, it is these premisses that either are or are not rational.
Now, when the truth of what is to be established is based on the prior acceptance of what is true, then the whole reasoning is irrational and that's what I tried to explain.

When theists assume the existence of God to establish the truth-value of the claim God exists, they are being thoroughly irrational.

Drusilla:
Thus everyone mostly tends to have their own definitions of what is rational and what is irrational. Considering that they are 6 + billion humans. I would think that there are going to be, darn near that many definitions of what is rational and irrational.

Maybe, but the fact that people are holding beliefs doesn't automatically validate them. Reason is the application of logic (either formally or informally) on facts, ideas and concepts in order to integrate them in a broader epistemological context, i;e. to determine the truth-value of a claim

Drusilla:
I would say that it is impossible for a person to proclaim there one sure definition of rational beliefs of behavior, unless one was very arrogant in proclaiming their ideas of rationality a superior truth to all others.

I wouldn't say there's only one definition, but the valid definitions are all very similar. maybe wikipedia can help you on the way

Drusilla:
Hell, I must believe you about a whole bunch of things before you can use those things to show me you are correct.

Isn't that a wee bit circular?

Your assumption is that I am using a personal definition of rationality, which isn't true. Besides your intersubjectivity as if there are 6 billion definitions of rationality and that these are relevants is very far off the mark. You have a tendency to muddle commonly held terminology by giving your very personal interpretion of these terms and now you're telling me I have a subjective bias? Ironic, isn't it?

Seun:
Hehe. Don't take these debates too seriously, people. It's not as if any minds will be changed here.

Just having fun, Seun

olabowale:
@nferyn: You seem to be accusing anyone who claims that God does exist as foundamentatist "ignorant". Would you no think that these people who have the opinion that God does exist may think that the like of you is exactly what you accuse them of? But this is not what I am making my entry about.

No I'm not making that claim. I only rely to specific cased of irrational ignorance. What other people think of me in this case really doesn't concern me. Anyone with sufficient intellectual rigor and honesty can investigate my claims for their validity, unfortunately some don't even look into these, but rather attack the messenger.

olabowale:
You seem to be asking everyone who believes in God that to give you a proof. Your hypothesis then centers on the fact that no one can proof it, because no one has seen God. I for one is a muslim. In the Qur'an, God through this revelation to Muhammad (AS), says you can not see Him, but can feel the effect of His existence through all things and even indeed, yourself! Please reflect on yourself; the the perfect working of the machine that is you. The process of food intake to the removal of the waste of this food; inbetween, you have mastication of that food by chewing in the mouth, lubricated with mixture of mouth saliva. (In just this first process, you have the tongue, teeth mouth walls and you are tempted to ask yourself, how does the saliva comes to existence?0.

Perfectly exlicable by applying evolutionary mechanisms

olabowale:
Of course, upon thorough chewing, you swallow the food through the ausophagus. In this process, the food is soft enough to take the tube like shape of the pathway. It also absorp some heat and comes even softer as it moves towards the stomach. When it gets to the stomach, it would have becomes soft enough and encounters such processes that complete digestion will be possible in the stomach. Of course, when applicable the right acitidy from the bile solution of the bileduct is involved in this process of digestion. Please consider the many muscular movements, specifically in the stomach during this digestive process. Even as the body contains acid, it does not do any damage to the soft interior wall of the internal organs.

The digested food is now being absorbed, the nutrient into the body, leaving the rest, the not nutrient part. The nutrient part is transported through the the blood to the body organs which absorb it. The not nutrient part of the digested food, the waste part is somewhat harder, but not dry and harsh as iy moves down to the bowel to be excreted. This waste product is deficated as excremen and urine. The organs coagulate, forcing the excremen out of the body through the lubricated surface of the internal organs forming the transporting systems; the large and small intestines and the colons and rectum. The lubrication and the complex movements of the transporting organs makes the removal of the waste product easy on the body as adequate. This also mentain the health of the body. The removal of this waste product prevents it from poisoning the body nd the lubrication prevents the tearing of the wall of the internal organs. Inshort, the the body machine works.

As to the nutrients,it is transported by the oxygenated blood and absorbed as such. It benefits the body as it relates to growth, fighting deseases in form of a means of producing the necessary amount of antibody, etc. We can see how complex, this very small function of the total living process of man. Within this process, you have milk producing process, in a woman when she needs to nurse. Of course, it is this intake of food process, all through to the final process of nutrient absorption and defication of the waste process that you have growth , for example in youth to adulthood, whereby one is even able to be matured to be involved in production itself.

As I pointed out before, all these mechanisms are perfectly explicable by applying the Darwinian principle of natural selection and reviewing the fundamental unity of life.

olabowale:
Now, nferyn, this is just a small part of the proof of the existence of God.

No it isn't. This is only the use of personal incredulity to posit a god-of-the-gaps. There is no need whatsoever to introduce God here as a causative agent. Natural processes do the trick just fine. By the way, even assuming that there were no naturalistic explanation, why on earth would the lack of explanation automatically imply agency by God? More specifically your version of God? It could just as well have been the flying spaghetti monster.

olabowale:
God said in the Qur'an that there is iron (fe), in the body. Another proof this is, clearly, since it was not known by the scientist community 14 centuaries ago. How was it possible for this Arab illiterate, Muhammad (AS) was able to know this in makka? A guess work? No. Hardly, since there are so many of that very high scientific exegesis. You need to read the Qur'an before you response, intelligently, not foundamentalist ignorant, full of pride.

And that proves what exactly?

olabowale:
Finally, I will like you to consider this fact; Do you believe there is Blackhole in our galaxy, indeed in the milky way? Has anyone seen blackhole? But it is not true that the effect of blackhole is felt on the gases/matters as the come close to it? If this is the case, that no one has seen the blackhole, but the effect are known on matters that comes close to it, then I ask a question, which I should be provided believeable answers, not just hypothesis. The Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that there is God, even though no one can see Him (I use the male gender here denoting power, not because I as a muslim believe that God is a male).

This doesn't make sense. Black holes are the explanations a physicist gives to some observed phenomena. The God hypothesis doesn't explain anything, it's just an unparsimonious label for ignorance (i.e. the unknowable)

olabowale:
Tthe same God says that He creats all things.

Evidence?

olabowale:
Then it is not rational to believe Him, even in a greater sense as you believe the existence of Blackhole?

No. God doesn't explain anything. God is theoretical baggage and unparsimonious in any explanation of the universe.

olabowale:
It is God by His firm command of BE (A sound process that is called the Big Bang theory (Theorem), by those who believe in accidental ocurenceof being, by so doing consciously denying the Creator, Who metered everything with the appropriate order).

Human agency detection gone wild. There is no need for purpose in the universe, it just is. The introduction of God as ultimate causal agent just leads to an infinite regress, because then God needs explaining.

olabowale:
I believe that when God speaks, the sound should be louder than any other sound of any and all things created. So the Be of His command that starts creation should be the Biggest bang. But in this case, it is not a theory, but a reality that started the event of creation. For it it is believed that before creation process begins, God was alone in His majesty. He was not lonely or in need of company. He creates according to His will. He does not oppress His creations. He gives order to all things. He creates Paradise and Hell to reward the believers by His mercy, punish the disbelievers by His justice.

Antropocentric nonsense. Even a cursory look at Qu'ranic cosmology shows that it is so far off the mark that it doesn't even merit a serious investigation, but granted, it isn't nearly as assasine as Jewish or Christian cosmology.

Drusilla:
See, this is why I want to know what a Athiest is.

When you begin to crack the nut and look at what Nferyn's Athiesm is.

I find I must first subscribe to all his beliefs and ways of seeing things, before he can convert me to seeing it his way.

That's just like Christianity, that says: taste and see that the Lord is good.

In other words, I must first believe in Nferyn's rationality before he can convert me.

Would it be "rational" for someone to become a Christian before they are converted to Christianity?

That is what I am being asked to do, with Nferyn's rationality beliefs.

LOL

Incoherent sofist ramblings that don't even have the slightests connection to my claims. Go and read another conspiracy theory novel before the rapture ellates your.

Drusilla:
Nferyn,

Irratonality is at the root of most evil.

Again with you pushing your personal bias for rationality or rather against irrationality, on to others.

I'm not pushing anything. Any communicative discourse necessarily must be based on rationality, i.e. the application of logic to integrate dissociated facts into a coherent framework. When somebody makes a truth-statement, the only way to verify it's validity is by applying rationality. Irrationality simply dissociates claims from being investigated as either true or false.

Drusilla:

How many mutually exclusive definitions of rationality are there?

I'd estimate that there are probably 6 billion or so (depending on how many humans can answer what is their definition of rationality) possibly mutually exclusive definitions of rationality.

This statement is completely void of content. You're saying nothing.

Drusilla:

No, that's not what I'm saying, only that belief in something needs to be based on rationality if it wants to have any relevance outside the self.

Again with your subjective feelings that you can decide what beliefs must be based on.

Epistemology can only be based on rationality. You cannot determine whether something is true or false without relying on a rational investigation of the claim.

Drusilla:
And two now your changing it and adding your personal bias towards a beliefs relevance to those outside the self if based on something other than your personal standards, you set up earlier.

Bull. Epistemological standards are rational. Only rational investigation can lead to a determination of truth. Faith is a circular and question-begging appeal to authority, skepticism gone wild.

Drusilla:
It's a helluva subjective bias you are trying to impose on others now, not only what their beliefs must be based on but your kind of being God like now in knowing the outcomes if it is not based on your earlier personal standards, you assume that everybody else should also just accept.

Dissociated (from the truth) associative thinking on your part.
1. I wasn't even talking about [i]my kind [/i]of God
2. Truth-questions can ultimately only be rationally investigated
3. what's subjective?
4. Which bias?
5. what personal standards?
6. accept what?

Drusilla:
This is kind of of the Nferyn religion you are trying to convert me to.

Religion? You're delirious

Drusilla:
1. I must believe your definition of rationality.

It is not my definition. Rationality is an objective mode of thinking/acting. If you don't understand that I can give you a full epistemological breakdown of rationality, staring from the three laws of logic.

Drusilla:
2. I must believe that irrationality is the root for most evil.

That's indeed a strong claim, but I'm confident that I can prove it for most evil acts

Drusilla:
3. I must believe that others without your belief in rationality are irrelevant.

No, you must only believe that rationality is the only way to determine whether or not something is true or false. Irrationality excludes effective communication and discourse.

Drusilla:
Whew. I feel as if I am in God's presence. Well, a god of your own making. Nferyn the god of rationality.

Your delusions are really getting to you.

Drusilla:
Nferyn,

Rationality brings far more harm to the world than irrationality.

No it doesn't. Irratonality is at the root of most evil.

Drusilla:
It just depends on how you define these things.

How many mutually exclusive definitions of rationality are there?

Drusilla:
Your subjective feeling that a person must make God rational (LOL-- I'd like to see that one), is just your personal choice.

No, that's not what I'm saying, only that belief in something needs to be based on rationality if it wants to have any relevance outside the self.

Drusilla:
The next guy might want to make God -- Sexy, for instance because unsexyness has brought a lot of harm in the world in his opinion.

Rationality or Irrationality, is just your personal bias of what you would like to see in a God.

It has nothing to do with that. The [i]reasons [/i]for a belief should be rational.

Drusilla:
Doesn't say anything about me or my beliefs. No more than a Sexy or UnSexy God would.

Do you see your obvious and glaring subjective interpretation of what God should be?

I'm not even talking about the nature of God, but rather about the nature of a belief.

4get_me,

We've gone through this before and what you claim to be revisionist is the pov of most atheists. You are free to use your definition as, in practice, the result is the same, but there is definitely a fundamental epistemological difference. Active denial implies a conscious rejection when many atheists (especially young people that have not been exposed to god-belief) are just oblivious to the concept of God.

Sorry Goodguy for messing up your thread. I wish there were more people like you instead of ignorant fundamentalists.

efgr100:
Atheists is notthing but a mere principle created out of a man's philosophy ideal.

Principle of what?
What is man's philosophy ideal?
I'm affraid you are clueless

efgr100:
The man you may not know but you may partake in his retribution.

What man? Retribution for what?

efgr100:
atheists can be morally good but what is good in poison ?

Flaky analogy. Did you take your pills today?

efgr100:
atheism is one of satan stronghold.

Who is this satan character? Never met him.

efgr100:
it is all about establish the fact that there is no GOD.

What is all about establish the fact that there is no GOD? You cannot prove a negative, you can only disprove a positive. Define your God and he can be falsified. Keep your definitions unintelligable and nothing can be said about God, either positive or negative.

efgr100:
then will GOD hold him who is disproving his existence guitless?

Again you presuppose God's existence without a shred of evidence. You don't make sense.

efgr100:
please let everyone flee for his dear life. REPENT FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AT HAND.

And you reach that conclusion based on what exactly?

Drusilla:
Someone please explain what an athiest is?

Someone who holds no belief in god/gods.

Drusilla:
Or answer this:

Do I fight against my sister in law, when she in her insanity tells me that Janet Jackson stole her car outside?

Do I tell my sister,

1. you don't own a car.
2. Janet is not outside.
3. your just insane.

Of course not. My sister is insane, and I just get her the medicine and help ensure she takes it. I do not argue with her delusions.

I certainly do not name myself and categorize myself based on her delusions.

If you're trying to say that your beliefs are not contingent on the existence of other beliefs, you're right. If you're trying to say something else, I have no clue what you're trying to say

Drusilla:
I am not sane, only because she is insane. I would be sane, if she was sane also.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Drusilla:
Would athiests still be athiests if religions in other people did not exist?

Of course the would. Atheism is not dependent on other people's beliefs, either in a positive or in a negative light.

Drusilla:
I question calling people who actively argue against God, athiest.

Why? God-belief is irrational and irrationality can bring much harm. It's up to the theists to show that their belief is rational - something no theist has been able to do. Lots of rationalisation, no rationality.

Drusilla:
What are we calling athiests, here?

I don't know what you're calling atheists. Many people have misconceptions about atheism, especially when they try to juxtapose it against agnosticism.

Seun:

Good for you, but why?

What you learn when you are very young remains with you for life.
It's extremely painful to have to admit that your life is built on a lie.
So even when people have doubts about a religion, they hold on desperately to it.

I understand that, Seun, but we should all face the music. People cannot on the one hand say that they have evidence for God and that their beliefs are rational, when at the same time they always retreat into faith the moment their assumptions are exposed as irrational.
People can have all sorts of reasons to believe, but anyone claiming that his or her faith is a conscious, rational choice is either ignorant (most people) or intellectually dishonest (e.g. theologians).

olabowale:
@nferyn: Could you then tell me how the universe and all that it contains are such in perfect order, consistently, for this long.

All depends on what you mean by in perfect order. Many physicist would not really describe the universe as such. If you mean the question why the cosmological constants are so well tuned to make existence possible, many possible explanations exist, e.g. the multiverse hypothesis (multiple universes exist in parallell) or the possibility that these constants are just expressions of more fundamental forces that we do not understand yet. Even though the probability of having a universe such as ours is very low, that really is question begging, as, we are in the universe and it does exist. A good analogy would be the probability of winning the lottery: even though anyone's change of winning is extremely small, nobody is going to say that it is not possible to win the lottery. As a matter of fact, the multiverse hypothesis even undermines the argument from improbability.

olabowale:
I mean from the time of the Big Bang (Command; BE). Let use the earth as a very good example. How is it that it has remain to traverse its orbital ring, without going out of that charted path.

It is highly improbable for the universe with billions of galaxies which most containining billions of stars not to have planets on which the conditions that allow life to form. We happen to be on one of them.

olabowale:
How is it that it has not bursted and pulverized into dust, knowing fully well that there is a continous and active forces in its core, eg volcanic activities, platonic activities, below the earth surface,etc, etc.

I don't get your point. There were times in which the earth was geologically far more active than now and still life existed. As for it not to burst or pulverise into dust: why would that be?

olabowale:
Is there any mutation in the nature, that when it is examined, it will be separate and different from that one things its mutated from?

Meaning?

olabowale:
Why is it that human physiology has remain distinct and has not mutated.

Oh, it definitely has: current homo sapiens is very different from archaic homo sapiens, which is very different from earlier hominids, which is very different from the comon ancestor of all great apes, which , , , , , You get my point

olabowale:
So that you know, I am not a christian and therefore, I do not subscribe to the Bible. But i do believe in God the Almighty.

Good for you, but why?

olabowale:
@nferyn: Is it then your opinion, based on religious inductrination, that God is similar to any of His creations?

No, only that the God concept is epistemologically empty and thus of no value.
The God of the Bible is a very self-contradictory figure with a lot of attributes that make him extremely unlikely. When looking at the standard theological explanations of God, one can only conclude that their God is not the God from the Bible, but by doing so they effectively explain him out of existence.
1. I do not believe in the vengeful, malicious God of the Bible (especially the character from the old testament)
2. The theologian's God is nothing but ratonalisation and weak philosophy
ergo
God is meaningless and (most likely) does not exist
To put it differently, when considering the fact that the introduction of God in any explanation of the universe explains nothing and only adds extra baggage, it is a violation of Ockham's razor.

olabowale:
In general, God has a unique nature; He has no beginning, no end, does not have any resemblance to mankind. He is unique in all respect. He is indivisible.

In other words, God is inscrutible and thus above, below, beyond and totally separated from rational discourse.

kimba:
The thought running through your mind, "they are opposites", right. Fine, so if you don't believe in Jesus, its same as disbelieving HIM. If you don't accept him, you are merely rejecting him.

Incorrect, you cannot reject something that has no meaning to you. Rejection implies acceptance of existence.

naijacutee:
Therefore, how can you be saved by Someone you choose not to believe exists?

Belief is not something you choose. You either do or don't. Belief can be faith based or evidence based. I cannot be swayed by the profoundly irrational preposition of faith and the evicence for the existence of God is very meagre indeed.

goodguy,

It is heartwarming to see that you show this level of kindness to atheists, not all your religious brethern show the same courtesy. However, the question in itself is really meaningless for an atheist like myself. We die, we rot (in the ground, not in hell, that is )

Damsal:
I think the babies are soo adorable, and should be highly offended by you refering to them as freaks.

Exactly. Calling perfectly healty, normal babies [i]freaks [/i]is highly insulting.