ok ooo, u go soon believe  

wow mysummerro has had 3 posts since 2005 but this has a lot of pages, well if you come back
To me I mean depending on which God is actually real you could be going to various not so nice placing if you're doubting one of them whomever could be real or not, take your pick. There are thousands of gods people have worshiped for like thousands of years.

YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD DOSE NOT
MEAN THERE IS NO GOD,
YOU BETTER BELIEVE AND PUT URSELF
STRAIGHT, ,
YOU CAN JOIN thelordschosen.org

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.

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.

They only capitalise on God\s loving kindness and longsuffering to say all those kinds of rubbish. Yet, they think it is a sign of incapacitation or non-existence. They need to know that " the gentleness of a lion is not an act of cowardice. It is watching and strategising on how best to strike.

My Christ is the Lion of the tribe of Judah.

nferyn:

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.

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} .

nferyn:

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)

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

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

Well, my submission is this. It is not given to every body to believe in God. But obviosuly, it is foolhardy to say that God is not real. When i say God hre, i mean an intelligent force or spirit behind th order of things. Would things just be on their own without a control.

To all of your questions about life, there is an answer in the bible. Throw them out one by one and you will be gladly servd with the answers.

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

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

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.

I will coment when you describe the God you said you don't believe in. But for now no coment.

nferyn:

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

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

nferyn:

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.

nferyn:

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)

nferyn:

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).

nferyn:

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?

nferyn:

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?
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

nferyn:

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

The Bible made us to understand that it is only a fool that said in his/her heart that there is no God. Devil has gone dat far in deceiviing poeple.
Pls do urself favor and believe in God 4 heaven and hell is real.
Remain Blessed

i just need one proof, not 2, just one proof to show he exists and to proof every atheist alive or dead wrong. And no need to resort to insults.

Infidel:

i just need one proof, not 2, just one proof to show he exists and to proof every atheist alive or dead wrong. And no need to resort to insults.

ask urself a question how did the first man come into being?

To be frank, i dont know, that's why i am asking for wise counsel from those who know. I believe in proof and that's all i need until someonelse proves otherwise!

cgift:

ask yourself a question how did the first man come into being?

You know it's not a dichotomy, right?

I am short of words.

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.

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?

late reply; my apologies.

nferyn:

Can you translate that into plain English?

the bible's requirements for 'living at peace with all men' has never changed - the willingness (or ability) of people to follow that injunction might change

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

and your arguments for denying God's existence have changed even when they've been refuted and your own naturalistic position found wanting?

Not necessarily, but those premises need to be inter-subjective, logically coherent and consistent in their properties.

the core issue here is the lack of 'commonly agreed upon premises'. Your premises are very insufficient to explaining reality, you need to come out of your 'bubble'.

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

i can describe Him based on the attributes he has ascribed to himself. He is the 'I AM'. I'm sure you're familiar with the many descriptors - maybe we can go by that.

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.

sorry

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.

what do you mean by 'operationalized'? and how do you want to go about it - your prayer experiment is ridiculous. furthermore, did you apply those same criteria to evaluate everything in nature including your own logic (not to talk of things that are by their very nature, beyond the natural)?

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.

i'm not assuming the consequent. I'm exposing an unwarranted assumption. Let's put it this way; what if the natural world bla bla bla

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)

that's a good place for you to hide, however, i dont think christians have been so blurry in their description of God. Neither do i think that those minute details of disagreement is what has kept you from embracing their truth-claim.
however, the fact that you say it is meaningless to you is inconsequential. Let's say the concept of quantum physics is meaningless to my cat; what does that prove? it would be good if you just stopped at that 'i dont understand what God is' and retreat to agnosticsm.
Your lack of understanding as regards God does not mean He does not or cannot exist nor even that the arguements are wanting. No-one owes you an explanation for God.
Also, the fact that the concepts of various groups differ is also inconsequential to the larger question. 'His message' however is agreed upon to a large extent (the bible) so there's no need for a freeze.
Perhaps also it would be good to remind you that atheists themselves are seldom in agreement as to what their philosophical position constitutes - i see you readily 'correcting' another of your company on another thread.

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

My analogy worked; you got my point.
The right and logical approach for a physical entity to know and relate to a spiritual entity has to be faith. And i definitely do not mean the 'belief without evidence' or 'blind faith' anthem that you guys constantly sing. If you want me to elucidate, i can.

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

Logically, prayer and unbelief are antithetical. Second, you cant put God to test (again, explanable logically) - so that approach is counter-productive and 'naturally' your 'test' would fail, not because God doesn't answer prayers but because you don't know what prayer is nor how to pray. In my experience my prayer has almost always worked - and it wasn't prayers that the day should turn to night in a few hours; but then again, that can't do for you.

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

Like i earlier said it depends on who's looking. Everyone judges evidence through the 'eye' of their convictions (or lack therof), however my point is readily made when you consider the case of philosophers and scientists who in the light of (especially recent) scientific discoveries have shifted their postions from atheism to deism and even theism.

the real point is; the mere fact that you choose to reject the evidence that points to God, and instead choose to evaluate the existence of God on your own terms does not help the argument in any way.
Second, THere is a whole load of 'reality' that the philosophical position of naturalistic atheism cannot explain nor understand; if anything it lacks foundation in reality rather than christianity, so quit saying 'all religious claims have no foundation in reality'. Naturalism is a pitiable and reductionist explanation for life and the universe. cheers.

mysummerro dear,
God is love. He loves you thats why he gave Jesus his Son.
please say this short prayer:
Dear Father, I come to you in the name of Jesus
I believe you sent your Son Jesus to die for me
I am sorry for all the wrong I have done please forgive me.
Dear Jesus I acknowledge you as my lord and Saviour
I recieve you wholeheartedly TODAY.
Thank you Father. I AM BORN AGAIN.

You are welcome to the Kingdom of God.
Here, heaven is your home.
for more info, pls contact me. God Bless You

Do bananas pursue real atheists in their dreams?

No one to answer yet?

_{I will soon go angry}

@Aladunni,

Aladunni:

Do bananas pursue real atheists in their dreams?

No one to answer yet?

_{I will soon go angry}

LOL . . . . no need to get angry. KAG already answered you in the other thread; i initially thought you were joking though.
Personally i must admit i find the banana thingy ridiculous, but that's just me. I don't think bananas pursue atheists in their dreams, however if they did, i probably wouldn't know so i can't totally rule it out
Cheers

Thanks ave seen it.

better now

Ada can i meet u. sabmack2001@yahoo.com

That you do not beleive in God? I do not beleive you!

If it matter to you what happens when you pass on, then you should do your "home work". All you need for this research is within you and in the creation you find yourself.

No Big grammar, No body to solve the riddle but yourself
Seek the the truth and yea shall find.

you will believe one day if you dont give your life to christ.when you get to hell atleast u will beleive there is hell.

I've always found this topic a bit funny and maybe also pointless. First off if you ask a man if he believes in God and he says yes, what does that tell you? It in fact says very little until you know his concept of God. A muslim believes in God and still in not of the same belief as a Christian. A good guess would be that everyone in one way or the other has some concept of God or a creator in his mind. It's natural as human beings to reason that for anything to exist there must be a creator. So again what does the statement "I believe in God" tell us. Absolutely nothing! It simply means our minds have the tendency or need to believe in a creator.

The argument that God must exist because you pray to him and he answers your prayers is equally funny. A Buddhist may also pray to whatever symbol and have his prayers answered. Furthermore the answering of prayers is a matter of perception and is also subjective. The argument that God must exist because the Bible says so is also very strange. Any spiritual book could ask you to worship cows for instance and if you were brought up in that culture you probably would. Before Christianity came to Africa, Africans had a concept of God. Is that concept of God evil, better, worse etc than the Christian God?

I think we should be content to know that we know little about existence and origin. I believe however that over generations we move closer to the truth. Would be nice to read less of the condescending "I know the truth and you know nothing" statements. Cheers.