Pilgrim i want you to come out straight and answer the question
DO YOU BELIEVE ALLAH THE CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH,THE ALL POWERFUL,OMHNIPOTET AND MERCIFUL GOD,WHO SENT HIS PROPHET MOHAMMED FOR THE LIBERATION OF THE WORLD? Yes or no

davidylan:

Bindex cuts and pastes ANOTHER "argument" without citing sources?

Yes, he does. . . he cleverly does/did. Unbeknownst to him, I was already aware of that same argument, even though he quite blended it so nicely to sound like his. Just an observation though, as I won't break his neck on that!

Tùdor:

Pilgrim i want you to come out straight and answer the question
DO YOU BELIEVE ALLAH THE CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH,THE ALL POWERFUL,OMHNIPOTET AND MERCIFUL GOD,WHO SENT HIS PROPHET MOHAMMED FOR THE LIBERATION OF THE WORLD? Yes or no

Do you, Tùdor? You cannot arrogate to yourself the birthright of throwing questions at other and addressing none yourself. The several questions you proffered have been answered, and I haven't seen you address the basic point raised in my discourses. When you come forth honestly to discuss your own claims, then we move on from there. Am I being fair? If not, how not?

Tùdor:

Pilgrim i want you to come out straight and answer the question
DO YOU BELIEVE ALLAH THE CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH,THE ALL POWERFUL,OMHNIPOTET AND MERCIFUL GOD,WHO SENT HIS PROPHET MOHAMMED FOR THE LIBERATION OF THE WORLD? Yes or no

Who is allah? . . . , if u can tell me who he/it is, then ur question can be answered.

noetic2:

Who is allah? . . . , if u can tell me who he/it is, then ur question can be answered.

I think he just did - in uppercase, as highlighted below:

Tùdor:

DO YOU BELIEVE ALLAH THE CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH,THE ALL POWERFUL,OMHNIPOTET AND MERCIFUL GOD,WHO SENT HIS PROPHET MOHAMMED FOR THE LIBERATION OF THE WORLD?

That was why I asked him: "Do you, Tùdor?"

If he believes that Allah is what he proclaims, let him first show us why he believes so, then we can take it from there. Noetic, just leave these gentlemen alone for me at the mo. . . I wan help them THINK!


_________________

Edit:
I was joking about the frown, lol. Of course, you know I won't be angry at you, abi?

huxley2:

Atheist need to disprove the existence of god in the same way that Christians need to disprove the existence of Zeus, Dionysus, Sussicorn, Taqata.  Once I see evidence that disproves the existence of these gods( Zeus, Dionysus, Sussicorn, Taqata) then I shall show you the evidence that disproves your god.

Like pilgrim pointed out. , . the existence/non-existence of these gods is not the bone of contention for a christian. The bone of contention is their acknowledgement. Whether they exist or not is not an issue. . . .they are NOT acknowledged.

so when are u going to provide this "evidence" of urs.

noetic2:

Like pilgrim pointed out. , . the existence/non-existence of these gods is not the bone of contention for a christian. The bone of contention is their acknowledgement. Whether they exist or not is not an issue. . . .they are NOT acknowledged.

Lol, bros noetic2. . . don't let these gentlemen trap you. You seem to have set a clap-trap for yourself, so watch it. The thing is not so much about "acknowledging" anything. The point in mine to huxley2 was clear: the Christian does not have a "need to disprove" what deities he (huxley2) mentioned. If he believes in them (not as a matter of teasing), all well and good: and, of course, his colleagues would have to ask him the simple and necessary question: WHY?

That is different from 'acknowledging' anything. Not because of the convenience of evasions and prevarications; but rather because the one who postulates seriously that he does believe in those entities as regards their very "existence" should demonstrate satisfactorily their veracity. That again does not mean that he is obliged to; more seriously, it would help his atheists colleagues come to a common grounds of their most cherished underlying bolt: the grounds for denying anything that does not square with their naturalism. Can they actually do so? That is what I am waiting for. This is why I remarked that dalaman was very, very smart (I don't know if he actually read where I was going; but he has a good head on his shoulders to at least decode my point). Tùdor, on the other hand, is yet to see it - and that is why he assumes this is about the same approach he's familiar with.

noetic2:

so when are u going to provide this "evidence" of urs.

I'm eager to see it.

Okay, gentlemen. . . I got to go for now, until maybe laterz in the pm - if not, then tomorrow I'd be eagerly here to see what concerns you guys have.

To my atheists friends, I want you to know something: pilgrim.1 is not set against you guys as if it's a do-or-die matter. No. Rather, my interest is to draw an enabling atmosphere to discuss and then see what 'evidence' of the realities of our world could be deduced. Does that mean that I can always and at anytime provide "evidence" and/or "proof" for my worldview? No, absolutely not. Why? Because the sort of 'evidence' one might be asking for may or may not lead where my enquirers are tending to.

Now, what if they ask me questions about the basic point in my approach so far? Would there be any evidence of any kind that persuades me of the veracity of reality such as could not be addressed by the naturalism espoused by atheists (by that, I mean 'hard core atheists')? My answer is yes - and there are several of them.

At the end of the day, it does not mean therefore that I have "won" the debate/discourse. It basically mean for me that there's an underlying reason why I do not have the faith to be an atheist.

Let me leave it there for now until laterz. Meanwhile, you guys take it easy and enjoy plenty.

dalaman:

Is this a rant about Evolution or are you presenting your case against atheism? I know more Christians that believe in evolution than atheist. Its difficult to find scientist that are Christians over here but most of the Christian scientist I see around all believe in evolution, they do not believe in creationism. There are a lot of Christians scientist in the USA that believe in evolution too. So it is not only atheist that believe in evolution.

The kind of "Christians" that believe in the Evolution theory are your own kind of Christianity, in name only. In the U.S. alone we have more than 10,000 Christians scientists that believe in biblical creationism, below are a few of them and you can click on the link to peruse their biographies.

Danny Faulkner Ph.D. Astronomy
John Byl Ph.D. Astronomy
Tom Greene Ph.D. Astronomy
James Dire Ph.D. Astrophysics
Dave Harrison Ph.D. Astrophysics
Steven Boyd Ph.D. Hebraic and Cognitive Studies
Floyd Nolen Jones Th.D., Ph.D. Author of Chronology of the Old Testament
Herb Hirt Ph.D. Biblical Exposition
Robert Cole Ph.D. Semitic languages
Georgia Purdon Ph.D. Molecular Genetics
Duane Gish Ph.D. Biochemistry
David Menton Ph.D. Cell Biology
Donald Chittick Ph.D. Physical Chemistry
Tom Greene Ph.D. Astronomy
Jason Lisle Ph.D. Astrophysics
Russell Humphreys Ph.D Physics
Don DeYoung Ph.D. Physics
Terry Mortenson Ph.D. History of Geology
John baumgardner Ph.D. Geophysics
Bob Compton Ph.D. Physiology, DVM
Andy McIntosh Ph.D. Combustion Theory
John Johnson Ph.D. Mathematics
Tommy Mitchel M.D.
Andrew Snelling Ph.D. Geology
Emil Silvestre Ph.D. Geology
Esther Su Ph.D. Biochemistry
David DeWitt Ph.D. Neuroscience

You can check the weblink below for the list of a few other Christian creationists, read about the early and modern Christians as well as their biographies of interest:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

pilgrim.1:

Lol, bros noetic2. . . don't let these gentlemen trap you. You seem to have set a clap-trap for yourself, so watch it. The thing is not so much about "acknowledging" anything. The point in mine to huxley2 was clear: the Christian does not have a "need to disprove" what deities he (huxley2) mentioned. If he believes in them (not as a matter of teasing), all well and good: and, of course, his colleagues would have to ask him the simple and necessary question: WHY?

That is different from 'acknowledging' anything. Not because of the convenience of evasions and prevarications; but rather because the one who postulates seriously that he does believe in those entities as regards their very "existence" should demonstrate satisfactorily their veracity. That again does not mean that he is obliged to; more seriously, it would help his atheists colleagues come to a common grounds of their most cherished underlying bolt: the grounds for denying anything that does not square with their naturalism. Can they actually do so? That is what I am waiting for. This is why I remarked that dalaman was very, very smart (I don't know if he actually read where I was going; but he has a good head on his shoulders to at least decode my point). Tùdor, on the other hand, is yet to see it - and that is why he assumes this is about the same approach he's familiar with.

I'm eager to see it.

On the contrary. . , .I have repeatedly asked mazaje and huxley if they believe in the existence of "FILIBANGBASKI". . . .both have not been bold enough to reply.

While I do get ur point. . . my "acknowledgement" is intended to also draw them out of their hiding "denial" shell.

OLAADEGBU:

The kind of "Christians" that believe in the Evolution theory are your own kind of Christianity, in name only.  In the U.S. alone we have more than 10,000 Christians scientists that believe in biblical creationism, below are a few of them and you can click on the link to peruse their biographies.

Danny Faulkner         Ph.D.  Astronomy
John Byl                     Ph.D.  Astronomy
Tom Greene               Ph.D.  Astronomy
James Dire                 Ph.D.  Astrophysics
Dave Harrison            Ph.D. Astrophysics
Steven Boyd               Ph.D. Hebraic and Cognitive Studies
Floyd Nolen Jones     Th.D., Ph.D.  Author of Chronology of the Old Testament
Herb Hirt                    Ph.D.  Biblical Exposition
Robert Cole                Ph.D.  Semitic languages
Georgia Purdon          Ph.D. Molecular Genetics
Duane Gish                Ph.D. Biochemistry
David Menton            Ph.D. Cell Biology
Donald Chittick          Ph.D.  Physical Chemistry
Tom Greene              Ph.D.  Astronomy
Jason Lisle                Ph.D.  Astrophysics
Russell Humphreys   Ph.D  Physics
Don DeYoung            Ph.D.  Physics
Terry Mortenson       Ph.D. History of Geology
John baumgardner   Ph.D. Geophysics
Bob Compton            Ph.D. Physiology, DVM
Andy McIntosh         Ph.D.  Combustion Theory
John Johnson           Ph.D. Mathematics
Tommy Mitchel          M.D.
Andrew Snelling       Ph.D. Geology
Emil Silvestre           Ph.D. Geology
Esther Su                 Ph.D. Biochemistry
David DeWitt           Ph.D. Neuroscience

You can check the weblink below for the list of a few[b] other Christian creationists,[/b] read about the [b]early and modern Christians [/b]as well as their biographies of interest:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

There are also millions of Christian/Christian scientist that also believe in evolution,I say this because most of the Christian scientist I know here believe in evolution you begin by saying that there are over 10,000 Christians that believe in evolution but you gave a link to a website that mentions people like Galileo? How do you expect any body to take you and the website you posted seriously? Galileo was not a Christian. Dr Thomas Young I know does not believe in creationism he was not even a Christian. He was a Quaker and Quakers are not Christians. You talk about Chritian scientist that believe in creationism and list the names of atheist/agnostics and Quakers? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

pilgrim.1:

Okay, gentlemen. . . I got to go for now, until maybe laterz in the pm - if not, then tomorrow I'd be eagerly here to see what concerns you guys have.

To my atheists friends, I want you to know something: pilgrim.1 is not set against you guys as if it's a do-or-die matter. No. Rather, my interest is to draw an enabling atmosphere to discuss and then see what 'evidence' of the realities of our world could be deduced. Does that mean that I can always and at anytime provide "evidence" and/or "proof" for my worldview? No, absolutely not. Why? Because the sort of 'evidence' one might be asking for may or may not lead where my enquirers are tending to.

I agree with you, I don't think that there is any theist that can provide any evidence or the kind of evidence the atheist need. That is why I laugh at some Christian Philisophers when they try to say that they can provide "evidence" for the existence of God, after going through their so called "evidence" you see that there are so many holes in them and they end up giving Christians a bad name. They use science where they believe that its assertions will help them futher their points and throw it under the bus when they see that scientific assertions go against what they are asserting. They use the bible and try to make it say things that it does not say in other to reconcile it with some scientific postulations and throw the bible away when their opponets point out some of the scientific errors in the bible. I very much agree with you that there is no such evidence that can be provided. I have seen a Christian apologist trying to use mathematical formular and equations to prove the ressurection of Jesus, after the debate when his opponet asked him some question he ended up looking very silly.

Now, what if they ask me questions about the basic point in my approach so far? Would there be any evidence of any kind that persuades me of the veracity of reality such as could not be addressed by the naturalism espoused by atheists (by that, I mean 'hard core atheists')? My answer is yes - and there are several of them.

I will like you to state them if you have the time.

At the end of the day, it does not mean therefore that I have "won" the debate/discourse. It basically mean for me that there's an underlying reason why I do not have the faith to be an atheist.

Let me leave it there for now until laterz. Meanwhile, you guys take it easy and enjoy plenty.

I don't think that the debate can ever be won, even if the debate is won it still doesn't prove anything on both sides IMO. It could only help those on both sides that have an open mind to take a deeper look at their own positions and re-examine or reconsider it.

Project Steve has a longer list. Better still, Project Steve has more biologists. Steves > than Creationists' list.

davidylan:

Bindex cuts and pastes ANOTHER "argument" without citing sources?

Did you cite your own sources when you copied and pasted another person's argument on the other thread?

KAG:

Project Steve has a longer list. Better still, Project Steve has more biologists. Steves > than Creationists' list.

ha ha, take that take that.

dalaman:

Did you cite your own sources when you copied and pasted another person's argument on the other thread?

err which argument exactly dude?  Seems your stock in trade is under-cut david wherever possible.

I'd like to know EXACTLY what thread, EXACTLY what argument was "copied and pasted" and pls produce the source where you suspect it was plagiarized from. Enough of having fools just post because they have prior animus.

davidylan:

err which argument exactly dude?  Seems your stock in trade is under-cut david wherever possible.

I'd like to know EXACTLY what thread, EXACTLY what argument was "copied and pasted" [/b]and pls produce the source where you suspect it was plagiarized from. Enough of having fools just post because they have prior animus.

Here is the Thread. The argument was with regards to the time that Jesus was crucified. You copied and pasted most of your arguments from Here

Here is what you wrote in your reply to Toneyb

No contradiction there at all if you bothered to study further instead of running around like a headless chicken . . . [b]the clear difference is that while Mark wrote in Jewish time, John wrote in Roman time. Now according to the Jews . . . the 3rd hour was a 3 hr time frame between 6-9am (our time) . . . however Romans counted time like we did so when John says "about the 6th hour) he literarily means . . . the 6th hour from 12 am . . . i.e about 6 am. About the exact same time period Mark also says Christ was crucified.

To make things clearer . . . look at something brother John writes here - John 4:52 Then enquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. But there is NO 7th hour in Jewish time! There IS a 7th hour in Roman time! [/b]A clear indication John was counting his own time quite different from Mark's.

Here is what is written in the website where you plagiarized what you had to say.

[b]The Roman times of day, are just as English Time, the Third Hour would be literally the Third Hour, from 12am (6am). The Jewish Day starts at about Evening of one day (about 6pm or so), to the evening of the next day, whereas Roman time, the day starts at 12am.

     In Mark 15:25 we see Jesus crucified in the Third Hour, which is about from 6am-9am. In John 19:14 it appears to be the Sixth hour, 9am-12pm, when Pilate brought Jesus before the crowd, right before Jesus was sentenced to Crucifixion! Is there a contradiction? It honestly appears to be . . . but it's not! The difference is the system of time that Mark wrote in, and John wrote in! Mark, wrote in the Jewish times of day, while John wrote in the Roman times of day!.

Another thing that makes sense in light of all this, is that in John it is mentioned the "Seventh hour" (John 4:52). Unless it's mistaken, there was no "seventh hour" in New Testament Jewish time of day, but indeed there is in Roman time of day!

I noticed that after mazaje posted the link to where you plagiarized and got your talking points from the second time you ran away from the thread. You plagiarized another person's argument dressed it up as yours and posted it as if the idea was originally yours. Next time learn to cite your source.

Pilgrim i asked for a simple yes or no answer. Is that so hard?

Pilgrim i asked for a simple yes or no answer. Is that so hard?

Tùdor:

Pilgrim i asked for a simple yes or no answer. Is that so hard?

Hi, Tùdor. It's not too hard - just as I asked an even simpler question: "Do you, Tùdor?"

Like I said earlier, you cannot arrogate to yourself the birthright of throwing questions at others and addressing none yourself. When you started asking me questions, I offered several answers - because I'm quite interested in dialoguing. I believe it should be a two-way traffic, not a single-ended stick where anyone is put on spot to only answer questions while those who are asking them do not address any themselves.

@dalaman,

dalaman:

pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg3977308#msg3977308 date=1244132031:

Okay, gentlemen. . . I got to go for now, until maybe laterz in the pm - if not, then tomorrow I'd be eagerly here to see what concerns you guys have.

To my atheists friends, I want you to know something: pilgrim.1 is not set against you guys as if it's a do-or-die matter. No. Rather, my interest is to draw an enabling atmosphere to discuss and then see what 'evidence' of the realities of our world could be deduced. Does that mean that I can always and at anytime provide "evidence" and/or "proof" for my worldview? No, absolutely not. Why? Because the sort of 'evidence' one might be asking for may or may not lead where my enquirers are tending to.

I agree with you, I don't think that there is any theist that can provide any evidence or the kind of evidence the atheist need. That is why I laugh at some Christian Philisophers when they try to say that they can provide "evidence" for the existence of God, after going through their so called "evidence" you see that there are so many holes in them and they end up giving Christians a bad name. They use science where they believe that its assertions will help them futher their points and throw it under the bus when they see that scientific assertions go against what they are asserting. They use the bible and try to make it say things that it does not say in other to reconcile it with some scientific postulations and throw the bible away when their opponets point out some of the scientific errors in the bible. I very much agree with you that there is no such evidence that can be provided. I have seen a Christian apologist trying to use mathematical formular and equations to prove the ressurection of Jesus, after the debate when his opponet asked him some question he ended up looking very silly.

Let me explain a few things so that no one is left bemused. In my understanding, I may not be able to proffer 'proof' or 'evidence' of such kind that a natutalist requests; but that is not to say that some kind of evidence or proof cannot be proffered for the existence of God - which by extension brings in the question of the supernatural. Indeed, some have made the effort to do so, but they were unacceptable because their enquirers many times were asking for a different type of authentication. This is why I don't waste my time trying to debate back and forth with people who are inclined to something else, when in many instances they do not have a good grasp of what they're asking.

To this end, although there are several threads for this type of enquiry about 'evidence', 'proof', etc. about the existence of God, I often just observed silently without engaging in such discussions. Quite often, the gist of the argument gets lost in so many unrelated banters. However, I chanced upon this very thread because I thought it was a brilliant moment to engage atheists on Nairaland with the very thing they often fail to consider. After all said and done, it becomes obvious that they themselves cannot provide any such 'proof, evidence,' etc for authenticating their own worldview(s) about all realities and phenomena of our known world. Again, it is not as if they never make the attempt - but where they do, such kinds of 'evidences' as they proffer are often intelligently rejected for their basic weakness: they do not attempt to even scratch the surface about the basic enquiry in discussions of this nature. There are several of such basic points, but I have thus far narrowed my discussions to only one: the supernatural.

dalaman:

Now, what if they ask me questions about the basic point in my approach so far? Would there be any evidence of any kind that persuades me of the veracity of reality such as could not be addressed by the naturalism espoused by atheists (by that, I mean 'hard core atheists')? My answer is yes - and there are several of them.

I will like you to state them if you have the time.

Yes, I'll try and find time to state a few of them and also post some detail about them. For starters, there are such phenomena that may be said to be outside the ambit of naturalism - a good one that comes to mind is telepathy, and perhaps also experiences after death. It is not so much what may be inferred from them, nor even how a naturalist tends to "excuse" them away with some theory. Rather, the basic point is whether such occurences are or could be accurately determined by naturalistic means. If the typical atheist on Nairaland assumes he has an answer, he had better be prepared to replicate these events in precisely the same manner and achieve the same results - repeatedly and accurately.

dalaman:

I don't think that the debate can ever be won, even if the debate is won it still doesn't prove anything on both sides IMO. It could only help those on both sides that have an open mind to take a deeper look at their own positions and re-examine or reconsider it.

You just captured it in a capsule. Well done.

@toneyb

Back to sender  

tudor kindly answer pilgrim.1's questions.

Pilgrim i find this hard to understand. In course of our discourse i asked a simple question,do you believe in the existence of allah,yet you throw back my question unanswered.
If thats the way you debate,then what a shame.

Tùdor:

Pilgrim i find this hard to understand. In course of our discourse i asked a simple question,do you believe in the existence of allah,yet you throw back my question unanswered.
If thats the way you debate,then what a shame.

@Tùdor,

There's nothing hard to understand in what I've been discussing in this thread, or I'd wonder how people like dalaman would agree with some of them if he never understood me in the first place.

You asked some questions already in this regard; and I treated them by actually saying: "many thanks - and here are my answers", no? After having answered your questions, I then asked you pointedly:

    'Do you have answers about the "existence/non-existence" and/or "supremacy"
     of the deities you mentioned?'

Put simply, I repeatedly asked that question with only three words: "Do you, Tùdor?" If we're going to be fair, one would expect you to be genial enough to answer questions, not so? You don't seem to be forthcoming here.

Now, it seems a bit queer that you'd pointed out you don't expect to provide evidence for the hypothesis of other discussants, not so? And I acknowledged that "it's unreasonable for you to ask another person to answer your own questions". The point is that you're still throwing questions at others and refusing to answer any yourself - is that a fair dealing?

You made a proclamation about Allah in capital letters. I consequently asked you if you believed in your own proclamation. You never answered that question, and you've been seeking to draw an answer from others for your own postulations. Hmm, quite an interesting way to engage a discussion, one might say.

If you do answer, whether yes or no, you would still need to tell us WHY and then provide scientific 'evidence' or 'proof' for whatever meticulous deductions you assert. Either way, as you do so, please bear in mind that we may apply your own rule of thumb to your assertions: "What is asserted without evidence can also be summarily dismised without evidence. Shikena!" So, watch what you asserte about Allah - we're eagerly waiting for your 'summary evidence' - thank you.

dalaman:

Here is the Thread. The argument was with regards to the time that Jesus was crucified. You copied and pasted most of your arguments from Here

Here is what you wrote in your reply to Toneyb


Here is what is written in the website where you plagiarized what you had to say.

I noticed that after mazaje posted the link to where you plagiarized and got your talking points from the second time you ran away from the thread. You plagiarized another person's argument dressed it up as yours and posted it as if the idea was originally yours. Next time learn to cite your source.

this is simply called - dishonesty!

So because i bring up a point that is supported by another automatically = plagiarized from the site? Do you know what plagiarism means? Can you pls show me a line that i DIRECTLY lifted from the alleged website?

So as long as someone else has raised a point it would be plagiarism for another person to independently come to the same conclusion?

Reminds me of someone on the politics thread who accused me of "plagiarising" Rick Warren's stance on gay marriage even though i had NEVER seen the Rick Warren video It seems many of you assume that the rest of us are just like you brainless trolls who run around the internet borrowing ideas and posting them here.

By the way i notice that is just ONE OF TWO threads where you have curiously disappeared as soon as your porous knowledge of the bible was exposed.

dalaman:

I noticed that after mazaje posted the link to where you plagiarized and got your talking points from the second time you ran away from the thread. You plagiarized another person's argument dressed it up as yours and posted it as if the idea was originally yours. Next time learn to cite your source.

This is frankly absurd . . . i didnt "run away" like you are struggling desperately to believe . . . i simply got tired of recycled threads. Remember that mazaje's thread was simply a CARBON COPY of one that Toneyb had earlier put up discussing the VERY SAME ISSUE!

This thread here ran to FIVE (5) pages . . . had EXACTLY the same cast of ignorant scoffers including you, analysed the EXACT SAME subject matter from which you fled as soon as you could no longer defend your position. There was simply no point going back to copy and paste the same arguments on a new thread. I have things to do too you know.

dalaman:

There are also millions of Christian/Christian scientist that also believe in evolution,I say this because most of the Christian scientist I know here believe in evolution you begin by saying that there are over 10,000 Christians that believe in evolution but you gave a link to a website that mentions people like Galileo? How do you expect any body to take you and the website you posted seriously? Galileo was not a Christian. Dr Thomas Young I know does not believe in creationism he was not even a Christian. He was a Quaker and Quakers are not Christians. You talk about Chritian scientist that believe in creationism and list the names of atheist/agnostics and Quakers? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

It is now obvious that you are an atheist hiding under the mask of the label of Christianity.  Jesus said with the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.  You can claim to be a Christian but your words betray you and reveals what you really are.

I took the pain to post the list of biblical creationists that are scientists, both past and present, I also gave you the link to their biographies that you could at least peruse but all you could see was some imaginary atheists and agnostics   Where did you see your so called Dr. Thomas Young in the link I suggested and can you show me your so called atheists and agnostics in the link?  When God said that He has given up those who have rejected Him to a reprobate mind I hope your case has not come to that. Read Romans 1:18-32

IS THERE NO SCIENTIFIC OR INTELLECTUAL EVIDENCE? . . . . . WHERE IS IT?

where is huxley? where is mazaje? where is KAG? . . . . .where are the floods of atheists?

noetic2:

IS THERE NO SCIENTIFIC OR INTELLECTUAL EVIDENCE? . . . . . WHERE IS IT?

where is huxley? where is mazaje? where is KAG? . . . . .where are the floods of atheists?

Lol, bobo mi, I don tell you before: leave 'em alone for a while!

At least, I'd say that some of them make some sense (KAG comes to mind); but I'm just trying to reason with most others and see where they provide their own cherished 'evidence' and 'proof'. Patience, bro. . patience. _{even me sef I don wait tire!}

davidylan:

this is simply called - dishonesty!

So because i bring up a point that is supported by another automatically = plagiarized from the site? Do you know what plagiarism means? Can you pls show me a line that i DIRECTLY lifted from the alleged website?

So as long as someone else has raised a point it would be plagiarism for another person to independently come to the same conclusion?

Reminds me of someone on the politics thread who accused me of "plagiarising" Rick Warren's stance on gay marriage even though i had NEVER seen the Rick Warren video It seems many of you assume that the rest of us are just like you brainless trolls who run around the internet borrowing ideas and posting them here.

By the way i notice that is just ONE OF TWO threads where you have curiously disappeared as soon as your porous knowledge of the bible was exposed.

The person that is dishonest is you. Remember that on the other thread you said that you agreed with the time line that was provided by toneyb when he corrected you, only for you to make a complete U turn after visiting the website you copied the new time line from after you had visited the website. By the way all your arguments were lifted from that website it is very obvious. You took the guys argument dressed it up and presented it as yours, the same thing you are accusing the atheist of doing. Can you show me where my porous knowledge of the bible has been exposed? Remember that an atheist had to correct you when you displayed your very porous knowledge of the bible and you even conceded that you were wrong and he was right. Even if you had seen Rick Warrens video do I expect you to say that you have seen it? You will lie and say that you have never seen it before.

Hello Every body, I am new here, I have been through this debate and I can see the tension it has already generated, dalaman who is a good friend was kind of speaking for me. When I first saw him going through the post of the OP I just gave out some talking points to him and he wrote some of them and posted them here. I have been looking forward to the weekend when I will be less busy so that I can register and speak for myself. Religion and faith are very sensitive issues so I want to be very civil and make sure that I don't offend any body. I know that I can't make any body see things my way but I just want to state my case for why I disbelieve in God. I have already stated this on another forum which I am a frequent member but I will also state it here again.

I am not a believer when I take into account.

* he unnecessary suffering around the world
* the stupidity of religious wars
* how science has to work so hard to uncover the knowledge we need for progress and to relieve suffering
* what our collective scientific ignorance is doing to the planet - while religions are mostly silent on sustainability
* the ways science explains nature more adequately than any religion
* that science has proved religion wrong, over and over through history
* the fact that many gods and religions have come and gone
* the fact that greatly differing religious affiliations and beliefs depend more on geography and cultural heritage than content
* all the nutty things wrapped in religion - including how quite similar sects differ irreconcilably over petty issues
* the absolute whackjobs telling me to believe, and what will happen if I don't
* the evangelists exposed as fraudsters
* the child molestation and coverups that go on within the "walls" of religion
* the flaws in the bible, and all other written accounts of god I bothered to read
* the contorted reasoning of religions to maintain discrimination against women and homosexuals
* all the good works of secular charities and NGOs that waste no resources on evangelizing
* my own experience as a christian compared with the real views of close friends who have eventually had the courage to be totally honest about their "faith" - they are going along with religion because others around them do - they are effectively conning each other through superficial behaviors covering up inner disbelief.

I have no option but to say that if there was a god who loved me in a way that is relevant to me, then that god would find a way to communicate more effectively with me. So far, I've heard nothing but silence from god, instead everything else I experience points directly away from god.

I've given a long list (by no means exhaustive) of reasons I don't believe in god. On the other side of the equation there are some statements in the bible saying that I must believe to achieve salvation. But the bible quite clearly does not make any sense in so many ways , I cannot trust it.

I have no choice if I'm to be honest with myself, I must say: There is no god.
To say anything else would lack integrity. It would lack courage. I'd be kidding myself. How could I be at ease with myself if I believed in god with such a mountain of evidence to the contrary?

If facts turn up that contradict my conclusion, I will reconsider. But they'll have to be really amazing facts to reverse my certainty.
Meanwhile I'm more than sufficiently convinced that there is no god, and quite happy about the mental freedom that conclusion brings.


Below is also a reason some other member on the other blog gave as his reasons for disbeliving and I very much agree with what he had to say.

may not speak for everyone, but i do not believe 100% a god does not exist, there is a possibility but it is an extremely slight possibility. that said, the chances of this god being the god of the bible, quran, verda, or whatever holy book are even more minuscule.

the reason i dont believe at a higher percentage in the existence of a god is is that it just isnt plausible. there is no good evidence at all of the existence of a supernatural being who created a universe 26 billion light years wide full of hundreds of billions of galaxies which contain hundreds of billions of stars, and he is concerned about what i do when im naked.

i was like you once, different denomination but really no difference once you get to the heart of the matter. i grew up believing in god, i loved jesus as much as anyone else, i could "feel" the holy spirit filling me as i went door to door spreading the word- i was in 100%.

at one point i felt compelled to become a missionary and travel the world to convert the "wicked" to christianity. as an extremely honest person i figured the only way for me to get across to these people was to learn about the fallacies in their beliefs so i could show them what made christianity right and their religion wrong. the problems began when i realized that i could tear down their religions without any trouble, not only that, but my own religion couldnt hold up to my scrutiny when i tested it as well.

this lead to intensive studying of the bible, well which bible was "right"? this lead to studying the history of the bible to see where it came from and how we got it. this was the clincher for me, what i found was that the bible was not this holy scripture handed down to us by a divine being- it was written by men, with agendas, and the books werent written with the intention of them being cannonized (this is why there are so many contradictions that apologists are always trying to refute).

ad science, history and archeology that show that most of what the bible says is wrong into the mix and it the case for my god looked pretty bleak. then just the whole idea of the concept started looking pretty silly actually- (this will be a pretty condensed version)

an eternal existant entity is floating around in nothingness for makeupanumberillion years and at some point decides he needs to be worshiped. he creates angels, but decides their arent good enough, so he creates this vast universe (as previously mentioned) as a habitat his new followers and sets in motion a system that he knows in advance to every detail what the outcome is going to be. he knows man will be cursed (by him) because they will eat from a certain tree which he forbids them to do, but puts the tree there anyways, and continues with his system of things anyways even though he knows that an overwhelming majority of his new pets will be destroyed when he decides to bring the show to a close.

at first he sets up a system that attones for the wrongdoings of his followers by killing animals, for some reason he has a vampirical infatuation with blood (why not require water as a sacrifice? as we require water for life just as much as blood and our bodies are more made out of water than blood anyways- it is just as precious of a substance for survival). since he goes for the blood, people kill animals by the millions over tens of centuries.

as time goes on he implements stage two of his system- a savior to be the ultimate sacrifice for all of mankinds wrongdoings. so sending down another of his creations he decides that since he requires blood (these are his rules that he made up) having his son in human form beaten and tortured to death seems like the right thing to do. so now we have the ultimate scapegoat and any wrongdoings can now just be pawned off on someone else./

pile the concept of the devil on top of it all, and it is such a stupid idea that it could only be made up by primitive people who didnt understand the nature of things. if the god of the bible exists, he is so shallow the he requires worship, demands death (often brutally and suffering is of no concern) offers salvation (from him) by more death, sets up an organization for his followers that cause even more death and suffering on a countdown to his return (where he went no one seems to know) when he will kill and destroy billions more.

and people call this love. the fact that people buy into this and can be convinced to call it love is pure insanity.

ive heard all of the arguments, ive attended the churches of pretty much every denomination of religion in the USA, ive spoken with more theologians/apologists/clergymen/preachers etc, than i can count and none of them can make make any actual sense of it all when you get down to the nitty gritty of it.

if a god exists, it is more of a deist god whom we dont know or understand- id give it about a 1% chance of it being real (and id give a higher percentage to the possibility of aliens transplanting us here than i would even that god) . the god of the bible/quran/torah i give a 0% percent chance, if for some reason i am proven wrong when i die- ill let him know he did a piss poor job and proudly accept my judgment for being an intellectually honest person.

pilgrim.1:

Yes, I'll try and find time to state a few of them and also post some detail about them. For starters, there are such phenomena that may be said to be outside the ambit of naturalism - a good one that comes to mind is telepathy, and perhaps also experiences after death. It is not so much what may be inferred from them, nor even how a naturalist tends to "excuse" them away with some theory. Rather, the basic point is whether such occurences are or could be accurately determined by naturalistic means. If the typical atheist on Nairaland assumes he has an answer, he had better be prepared to replicate these events in precisely the same manner and achieve the same results - repeatedly and accurately.

Please I just want to know if you have any examples or evidence of telepathy at work. Personally I have never heard of anybody that talks about having experienced it but that doesn't mean that there are people out there who haven't, all I am saying is that this it self is not an evidence for the supernatural.