globexl:

@noetic16

My case, along with other athiests is that the idea of god is created and dwells in the cozy realms of the human mind.

is there any logical evidence to support your assertion? any empirical evidence? and jaw-dropping intellectual argument?

globexl:

Again @noetic16:
Active active spirit of god that dwells in BELIEVERS?
BUT THAT IS WHAT HAWKINS AND ALL OTHER ATHIESTs HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.
ITS ALL DWELLS IN MIND(OR BODY) OF THE BELIEVER.

WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT, THEN?

Dawkins is an IGNORAMUS . . . .

1. How can he speak of a spirit whose workings he is unaware of. Dawkins refused to debate with physicists who used physics to argue the existence of God. , . Dawkins excuse was that he was a biologist with little understanding of physics. why then is this not applicable to christianity?
why is he talking of a spirit whose workings he has no knowledge of.

2. Dawkins is incompetent even in his own field. He talks about the limited probability of life existing in other planets. He actually asserted that our planet is the only one with an element of life. He was wrong. Through common sense, we know that our understanding and definition of life is limited to the habitual resources on this planet. implying that the definition of life on other planets would vary considerably and would favour other forms of life, that might be presently unknown to us.

Martian:

I see you said that gleefully. My human sensibilities won't let me rejoice at the impending torture of billions who just happened to have been born in a culture that believes something different than I but a christian like yourself grins madly. I'm sure a lot of christians have heard of hundu beliefs jsut like you asserted that they have heard yours. If you don't accept theirs why should they accept yours? The answer to that is the sense of entitlement based on the idea that you are the apple in the eye of the creator of the universe. A universe that you couldn't even fathom without the aid of science.
You people still think you know religion and god defineslove is and you don't even know the meaning of compassion. I am better than yout god.

My comment was only for your amusement. . . . .to get clear answers, read the thread on this link, there this subject was well thrashed.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-336988.0.html

globexl:

@ neotic16

Active spirit of god that dwells in BELIEVERS? BELIEVERS of what?
You have just indicted yourself! You have confirmed it. The holy spirit dwells in the mind of the believer.
I REST MY CASE.

what was your case again?

zataxs:

@noetic16,
understanding it,  you claim you know the meaning of "esoteric" yet what you write, clearly shows the opposite is true.

Yes we have all heard of the spirit.
Have we been how mental ill people are bullied by Pastors in the name of impacting this "holy" spirit and chasing a bad one. yes,  very regrettable and sad.
very poorly scripted acting by pastors,  they should take some tips from Nollyhood.
Do you have the same spirit as the next Christian? revealing the same things? How comes you all manifest it so differently?

We all know what the holy spirit is,  
as @globexl says, it is all the mind. you are your holy spirit. that's why it is so real

why bring pastors into the equation? how many people did Jesus harass or bully in the name of the Holy spirit? how many people did the apostles harass or bully?

^^^

I am interested in Jo's answers?. . . . . .

globexl:

It is stated in the bible that the esoteric message of jesus was revealed to an elect few of his discliples.Right?
The fundamental question is: From what was christianity built upon? From the wheat or from the shaff? From the esoteric messages revealed to few or from the parables thrown to the unthinking masses?
I think it was built on the latter.
I think, infact, it is self-evident, that about 95% of christians can neither  grasp nor accept the esoteric revelations of Jesus. Therefore , it is very likely that the esotoric teachings of Jesus have been lost forever, or at best, jealously guarded by an elect few, far from the public domain.

The motherchurch, the Catholic church, believes that TRUTH is soooooo precious and soooooo fragile, that it needs to be fiercly protected and defended by a battalion of LIES.

I repeat. . , .have you ever heard of the Holy Spirit? . . , . .He reveals the truth to all believers in all generations.

Martian:

And since the message is only for the CALLED, hence ESOTERIC, it implies that if god doesn't "call" you then he created you to ultimately perish for his own amusement because you're not part of the "select few".  A couple billion hindus will roast with me in hell fire because his message is esoteric. Since he is omniscience, he knows this already. That is omnibenevolence for you.

I am sure that just like you, this billion hindus also heard the eternal gospel of JC . , . , .what choices did you all make?

zataxs:

@noetic16 no no, esoteric is an English word, even if you bold it, the meaning remains the same.

I dont recall attempting to change its meaning?

globexl:

here wqe go again. Another fancy word. what is the holy spirit?
Who is the holy spirit.

The active spirit of God that dwells in believers . . , . , , .

Martian:

The third character in the multiple personality disorder called God.

I am bemused by your folly . . .

zataxs:

blah blah blah . . . .get off the highway and start making some sense.
<<
@ noetic16 , Christians love acting so "non-Christianly" hahahah, so rude and obnoxious,  you'd wonder who has the holy spirit. hahaah
well, well, I am on the highway,  and what I have said makes perfect sense.

how can one politely tell u the obvious truth that your posts made no sense? .  . ,   , I am sorry to have stepped on a nerve.

>>
When Christ preached . ,  . .His message was contrary to the traditions and expectations of His audience. They were expecting a messiah, but not one from Nazareth, without a physical army and who offers no immediate liberation from the Roman occupiers. Hence His message was ESOTERIC.
<<

well said, @Martian, I repeat,  what you said,  here,  again,  hihih

I see, you mean ,  his message was "confusing to the receipts",   that we already know,  and his intention for doing this is clear
Mark
4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Is that what you think Esoteric means? Christians have a tendency to abandon their dictionaries when their god is involved.

let me make it easy ,for you,  this is a quote from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/esoteric
1.
understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite: poetry full of esoteric allusions.
2.
belonging to the select few.
3.
private; secret; confidential.
4.
(of a philosophical doctrine or the like) intended to be revealed only to the initiates of a group: the esoteric doctrines of Pythagoras.

Your opinion is beclouded by your primordial sentiments. . , hence i laff in spanish

1. Contrary to your innuendos, we know that the gospel is simply an invitation to man from God for salvation. QED, nothing more to add. Men have to make a conscious choice and be prepared to face the eternal consequences.

2. through the teachings of Christ we know that there was an invitation already sent out to select men from the foundation of the world. . . . hence we know that no one comes to Him unless He draws them near.

3. Christ promised the HS to those who consciously choose Him. The spirit is said to reveal all things, but only to those the father draws near and have accepted the father . .  .hence the teachings of the HS is exclusively for those with God called Christians. . .hence Christianity is ESOTERIC

4. Thats not rocket science, or is it?

Martian:

Esoteric
Designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone <a body of esoteric legal doctrine
Requiring or exhibiting knowledge that is restricted to a small group <esoteric terminology>; broadly : difficult to understand Limited to a small circle <engaging in esoteric pursuits> b : private, confidential <an esoteric purpose>
Of special, rare, or unusual interest

If his message was just contrary to their expectations, you could say his message was ambiguous.
Saying it was esoteric means it was only meant for certain people alone. A small group of people now known as christians while everbody else were never meant to get this esoteric knowledge anyway.
If god is omnibenevolent, why would he make his message to his beloved esoteric and ambiguous?

It is for a select few only. Jesus asserted repeatedly that No man can come to the father except by Him and no man can also come to the son except the father draws him near.

That in its own should imply that the message is for the CALLED . . . .hence ESOTERIC . . . .

globexl:

So the message of Jesus is esotoric? Well, congrats. This is perhaps the ONLY TRUTH I have heard from a christian. There is hope after all.

If so,to whom did he reveal the secretes? To whom are those esoteric revelations enthrusted to? Who are the modern day custodians of the esoteric revelations of jesus?
Who is competent to unseal and reveal these esoteric teachings, in chewable sizes, to a confused mankind?

have u ever heard of the HOLY SPIRIT? . . . . .just asking

globexl:

Fundamental Liberties of God! That is an oxymoron. The word God inherently implies omnipotence, so you dont need to add anything else to it. You guys are actually blasphemers of your god. You enjoy the Fundamental Liberty of adding and subtracting from your god whenever it suites you.
This is a new one. Which section of the bible did this one come from? lol.
Christians love to coin windy phrases.
Anyone is at liberty to coin phrases to mean whatever they want it to mean. Does that validate any argument?

1. The fundamental liberties of God simply implies that as we debate the existence of a super intelligent being who created the universe, might we also put into consideration the fact that He is intelligent enough to make his own choices and decisions.

2. True that God implies omnipotence . . .  , but wrong cos He is also intelligent with liberty for likes and dislikes. for instance, you have certain abilities. You are able to eat, why have you not chosen to eat a life-lizard? God is omnipotent, but He is also an intelligent being capable of deciding what and what not to do.

3. and what exactly was the argument again? why do u think that the universe can not be a product of super intelligence?

thehomer:

No, it implies that you're unable to communicate using English words effectively. Based on what you said, do atheists then consider believers an actual separate species maybe non-human? Please learn to communicate using words.

ok . . . . .

You're already reading the book with the points. Though your attempt at destroying them here have failed woefully as I've demonstrated.

ok . . .  .

I never said they were the same. I pointed out that it was a thought experiment introducing the FSM for the sake of argument. I'm not affirming yes to that I'm simply agreeing with you that there is something that created the universe for the sake of argument. Now try and present your point.

I am strictly interested in your original position ,  . . ,  without the need for allegedly "creating an argument" . . . . .do u subscribe to the notion that a super-intelligence created the material would we live in? please give reasons for your answer.

Ultimate in the sense of being even more powerful than your own God. The identity matters for us to know the God to pray to. Praying to the wrong God means wasted effort and terrible punishment according to Christianity.

more powerful . .  , how is power measured here? and whats the basis for comparison? and is ultimate the only characteristic of your spaghetti deity? does he have antecedents?
Dont try to make a bad case worse. The human names given to the super-intelligence who created the material world does not imply multiple personalities, except for certain instances. It is simply an illustration of man's understanding over the years of a greater force and power. To sit down here and start making an argument over the identity of the super intelligence is IMO a LAME exercise.

If you like, call it WHIP it still doesn't help you in any way. If God loves humans, he is bound to care for them which is what my example demonstrated. For some reason, you were unable to understand it.

Oh? Don't you think communication can fail? By sender, are you talking about the person praying or what? You seem confused.

I've asked you several questions and you tend to answer off point. If I show ignorance, then feel free to rectify it rather than speaking off point. How do you know God is omnipotent and loving when he is unable to perform simple tasks like answering simple prayers?

You said prayer failed whilst tested. I asserted that prayer did not fail, at least not on God's part. This assertion is buttressed by the questions I asked you which you conveniently ignored . .  . . ,  you can walk, why have not chosen to walk from lagos to kano. you can eat, why have you not chosen to eat a life-lizard?

Let's see what you think education is.

So how is this a being? You're still going off point.

So claiming that God was showing gestures means that love is a being?

Wow. What a non-sequitur. Jesus says love your neighbour as yourself therefore love becomes a being called is God? You're really confused here. Here let me demonstrate using your statement above.
Saying Love the LORD your GOD then means Love the LOVE your LOVE since according to you, God is love.

if thats your understanding . . . . fair enough.  

Hmm the expected woo woo hand waving makes it's appearance. Please for the purpose of this discussion, try to have a concept of the beings that you're talking about and be consistent with it so you don't commit a fallacy of ambiguity.
Love is a person and God is an emotion. Sheesh. I hope you don't go out and pray to jealousy.

i laff in greek

How about you admitting your ignorance in this subject?  

What is this? You want me to show you where God is supposed to love all humans? Wait you really believe that the Christian God isn't supposed to love all humans? If you're this ignorant of Christianity, then I really cannot help you.

You made a FALSE and RIDICULOUS claim about God. I am simply asking you back up your claim with evidence. why is that so hard for you to do?
is this an admission on your part that you are IGNORANT of biblical injunctions? where in the bible is your assertion supported?

As you've shown, I don't need to present very new information since you're already tying yourself up in knots with your own statements and appear deeply ignorant of various features of the Christian God.
With what you've said above, do you think you're qualified to educate anyone on the Christian God?

On the contrary, I think that perhaps your involvement with atheism is not influenced by reason or logic but rather by emotions. You have not displayed any thought-provoking narrative to illustrate why the material world we live in could not have been made by a super-intelligence. Neither has your master, Richard Dawkins being able to do the same.

zataxs:

by saying it is esoteric you simply mean, that it is a secret!!! hahaahahah that is something that only revealed to you, right?
and you are absolutely right! people because god=noetic16=jesus=you ha ha ha
god understands you so much and he loves you so much and hates the people you hate, because god is you. hahaha
christian doctrine however is not esoteric, not in the least form. It is available to everyone, easily and readily and it takes you to have blind faith to believe it.

blah blah blah . . . .get off the highway and start making some sense.
When Christ preached . , . .His message was contrary to the traditions and expectations of His audience. They were expecting a messiah, but not one from Nazareth, without a physical army and who offers no immediate liberation from the Roman occupiers. Hence His message was ESOTERIC.

Deep Sight:

^ Long time Noetic. Missed ya. How bodi?

I was going to holla at you . . . , Howdy bro . , glad to be back . . whats up with u?

Martian:

So if the only path to god is esoteric, that means most people were destined to be tortured for eternity before they were even born because that is god's divine plan. If it's only meant for a select few, how is god omnibenevolent?

This is a FALSE assumption. By being esoteric, it means seek God and you shall find Him. God is benevolent, but He aint wasteful.
Make your choice, the narrow or the wide path. The consequences await you.

Through the promise of the holy spirit and the manifestation of the promise, we know that Christianity is indeed esoteric. For what the spirit reveals are deep secrets, meant only for those who walk with God.

globexl:


All thiest, except Neotic, believe that
e.God loves his all creation

f. God's love is manifest in the physical world or(depending on which sect) is personal and subjective.

Where and how did I make these assertions?

@Olaadegbu:
christianity is esoteric?. Since when? esoteric in what sense? hhhmmm.
What is esoteric abt a perfect diety who creates  man, then finds fault in his creation, and then threatens to punish them forever for the very their inherent deficiencies he created,all just to show how much he loves them? What is esoteric about a custodial religion who's primary currencies are  fear and blackmail? "The FEAR of god is the beggining of wisdom".
What is esoteric about fleecing vulnerable people of their resources in the name of god?.

Perhaps esoteric refers to the catholic priesthood, who despise female sexuallity, but have no problems defiling the bottoms of young boys.

start by looking at the meaning of the word "esoteric" in a dictionary. The read the sentence it was used in . ,  , it states that Christianity is esoteric.
This is in consonance with the words of Jesus, that the way to eternal life is narrow. . . . .only a few will find it.

thehomer:

What reverse might be the case? What do you mean by species here?

Implying that atheist are actually dumber than they pose to be.

You're already reading a book that has several of them that you're unable to refute successfully. Don't feel bad, many have tried and failed woefully.

Sure sure. Yet for some reason, you and many others are unable to refute them and successfully and neither do you as your posts here show.

I am not surprised at your comments. Are u scared of listing those devastating points?  

I wonder why you still fail to see the strength of this argument. Consider it a thought experiment that the FSM is defined as the super-intelligent creator who created the world. The evidence you're asking for is the same sort of evidence that has been asked for your Christian God which is always lacking. So what evidence do you have that your God created the world?

No they are NOT the same. There are two arguments here . . . , the first relates to the existence of a super-intelligence capable of creating the material world. The second argument relates to His identity. By promoting the FSM as deity, are u conceding that the universe and all other things are products of a super intelligence?

If you affirm yes to that . . . then we can move on to the identity of the super intelligence.

Actually, identifying the right God is part of the question. If there are several Gods, then Christianity is wrong in claiming there is only one.
How are you able to estimate the plausibility? The ontology of the FSM is that it is the ultimate being itself.

This is rather DUMB.

what do u mean by ultimate? ultimate in respect to what? . . . ,  how does the identity of the super-intelligence affect the logic behind the creation prowess?

You're still looking at this the wrong way. If your child asks you to save them from severe pains and suffering (which you can by in this case taking them to a hospital), what do you do? Do you stand around looking at them? What if they ask you for a toy car (which is cheap and you have the funds), do you provide it?
The point is that in a clear situation with serious consequences, and you're able to do something, what do you do? Your God is supposed to be omnipotent yet does nothing why?

Can u read at all?  

God is omnipotent . . .YES. But he also has the liberty to do he pleases. This is what I call FLOG.
You are able to walk, why have u chosen not to walk from lagos to kano?  You are able to eat, why have u not eaten a life lizard?

Obviously. Which is why it fails so much. If rocket science failed that way, we wouldn't have the ISS, lunar missions, Mars missions, rocket technology, GPS etc.

Quite silly I must say. How can you say communication fails? Prayer is communication from one end to the other. Both ends have the prerogative to ask and receive. however, it is not a simple procedure, implying that a relationship needs to exist and the request has to be in conformity with the plans of the sender.
If a request is made, it is at the prerogative of the sender to decide if to send and what to send.

Have u ever refused a request in your entire life? why?

Perhaps u should ask questions if you dont know. Your comments on prayer shows a deep rooted level of ignorance. God is omnipotent, but he aint a robot.

If you think love is a being then you would need to identify what being it is. If you think God is an emotion, then why do you worship it? Do you worship jealousy, anger, excitement or joy?

You are ignorant my friend. . . .a little education would be nice. . . .read the following carefully and try your best to assimilate.

1. Love as expressed by humans is an act of gesture from one to another, in a selfless manner devoid of ulterior motives. When we help those in need and cater for the less privileged without expressing anything in return . ,  then we exercise a gesture called LOVE.

2. Through biblical teachings. . . . .we understand that the primordial acts of God were gestures of Love. The creation of a help mate for Adam, the creation of the garden of eden, the sacrifice of Christ at the foundation of the world and the covenant of God with men. Through these acts we see God showing gestures that would be later inculcated into the acts of believers all over the world.

3. Christ gave a new commandment implying that LOVE your neighbour as yourself and LOVE the LORD your GOD. For there is Love, there He is.
Through these we know that God is LOVE.

4. Stating that LOVE is a being, is simply a den-notative illustration of the presence of God and stating that God is an emotion is a connotative illustration of the presence of LOVE. For where there is LOVE, there is GOD.

Really? God isn't supposed to be good to all mankind? So he created Adam and Eve in order to torture them and their offspring? He sent Jesus so he could happily keep on torturing all people really? Have you considered the basic tenets of Christianity? Please tell me, who is he supposed to be good to let me show you how well that group suffers.

just show me where EXACTLY in the bible is any of your rubbish assertions written?

Nah it appears you don't have the intellectual ability to even comprehend the arguments in the book you're reading. And you're doing a very poor job of defending Christianity. My arguments aren't just against theism but against your particular strain which is Christianity.

Your intellectual ability is judged (as far as this thread is concerned) by the quality of new and empowering knowledge you bring to this debate. So far, u have made no point, except for the usual sad atheist denials . . . . . pls invite mazaje to come bail you out.  

@OP

King James version

thehomer:

Good for you. At least you bothered to read the book unlike some who simply rely on word of mouth as though the book was too difficult to read. I wonder what sort of arguments you were looking for because I found them quite devastating against the Christian God. Many people agreeing with you doesn't make you or them right. I simply hope you're able to clearly point out the problems you found with the arguments in the book.

perhaps this explains one of the false notions and banner atheists carry . .  . .intuitively emphasising that they are more intelligent species for not believing in a super-intelligent deity . . .has it ever occurred to you that the reverse might be the case? Since u claim to find them quite devastating against the bible God, perhaps you would do well to list them here. . . ,  I would gladly expose the ignorance in those arguments. Richard's arguments are nursery school points. They are lame and an awkward attempt at making no point.

The point is that like your God, this spaghetti deity can be designed in such a way as to not be disprovable. You make up a God and say he is super intelligent and created everything, well there are others who can be said to have done the same. How do we know yours is the right God?

This is quite LAME . . . .and i also laugh in japanese.

If u read very well, I did mention that disproving the existence of the spaghetti deity does not in any way lay or deny credence to the argument that the material world we see is a product of super-intelligence. Unless of course you are claiming that your spaghetti deity created the world, then I can instinctively ask for what plausible evidence supports your poser.

For the umpteenth time, the question is not which God is right or wrong, assuming there are several gods/God in contention for the creator title?
The question remains the plausibility of the material world being created by a super intelligence capable of creating the world. do u find this difficult to assimilate? is the spaghetti deity capable of creating the world? whats the ontology of this deity?

So, what is the purpose of prayer? You fail to consider the other prayers that have been claimed all over the place. The problem you find is that when prayer is tested, it seems to keep failing.
We do know that the prayers weren't answered. That was what the experiment demonstrated.
For some reason, you think it is now acceptable to sweep under the rug prayers such as those offered by people like Elijah and others.

You are clearly WRONG.

Do u have a child? has he/she ever asked u for something? did u give him or her? why?
why did ur child ask u for something? That must obviously be because you both have a relationship. Prayer aint rocket science.
whats wrong with Elijah's prayer?

.

Is love a being? Is God an emotion like love? Yet you pray to him?

why is love not a being? and why is God not an emotion?

Claiming that God has this liberty simply doesn't fit with the Christian God because a God that is supposed to be good, kind and loving to humans does have obligations towards humans. Saying he doesn't means you don't understand what it means to love someone. Think of it. When you love someone, can you also say that you have no obligations towards that person to e.g prevent them from being brutally murdered by some psychopath especially when you can prevent this with no risk to yourself?

The goodness of God is subjective. There is absolutely no where in the bible where God says He is good to all of mankind. These description of God is not generic. show me where your assertions are supported by the scriptures?

Please keep 'em coming.

lol. . . you dont have the intellectual ability to debate against theism.

where is mazaje, when I need him the most?

benodic:

seriously i was once caught up in that web of believing that once i ask for forgiveness of my sins everything would be wiped off and i will be allowed to start afresh.
so i was gladly doing my thing hurting people around me and always remembering to ask for forgiveness after each bad deed so that if anything happens i will go straight to heaven.
then things started happening. i started noticing that when i hurt people life finds a way to hurt me back and i thought i was a victim. i started asking why? then i discovered first hand what Jesus really meant when he said that God is not mocked and that whatever a man soweth so shall he reap. that reaping, that judgement starts here and now.

what ever you throw into life is exactly what life throws at you. people forget that they are the cause of whatever is happening in their life and they call the devil or point to another person as the cause. we have to learn to take total responsibility for our lives. that is the beginning of spiritual maturity.

So true.

@ OP
Why would one claim to be Christ's and still seek grace to do evil?

^^^

long time no see, bro, howdy?

OLAADEGBU:

Hi the new noetic16, how you dey?

That book by Richard Dawkins is a practical manual if one wants to learn what is called the logical fallacies in atheist evolutionists' argument.  What he does is to build up what he understand as 'God' and the Bible and proceeds to pull it down saying he has disprove or disputed all the arguments of Christians creationists.  In the book you will see examples of the Strawman's fallacy, classic examples of ad hominem, equivocations, begging the question, complex questions and the likes.  This is what his disciples here and unfortunately some theist evolutionists use in pressing their arguments when it comes to attacking or compromising the word of God.

lol . . . .perhaps an improved noetic . .   how af u been?

That was initially one of the turn-offs I first noticed. He builds up the bible and God into a box of his imagination and subsequently begins to raise random innuendos. In the process he displays a personal and deep rooted ignorance for the God subject.
Take for instance he talks about the scientific nature of personal experiences. His comments are generic and while there might be some element of scientific fact in them, it does not present the facts accurately.
Christianity by nature is esoteric. .  . .so the case of personal experiences with God  varies from person to person. take the instance of dreams, it is scientifically impossible for the brain to decode a future event and transmit it as a dream in such a way that the dream comes to pass in the physical world.
Yet we have seen cases of people who slept at night, had dreams and woke up to see the fulfilment of this dreams without any course of action from them. This IMO establishes the case of a supernatural realm.

toba:

wow interesting. my previous thread afforded me the chance to read and learn more about the man and the evangelical atheist called Richard dawkins. The oxford prof, using many tactics to lure people into becoming atheists whilst denying the obvious. The summer camp he organised for kids aged 8 to 17 was an indirect avenue to teach atheism as reported in the dailies.

I took my time to read some of the reviews of his so called God delusion and i begin to wonder if dawkins himself isnt deluded. here are some of what had been observed in his book

Dawkins enlists the Weak Anthropic Principle ( WAP) to aid his claim that 'there is almost certainly no God'. He claims this is a scientific and natural explanation of life . But this is neutral ground and could equally be claimed by Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design. There is no absolute proof either way.

Dawkins uses a weak probabilistic argument to argue that life could possibly evolve given that there could be a billion billion planets in the universe. But serious estimates of this probability show that it is mathematically impossible for life to evolve in our universe. Such calculations also invalidate the concept behind WAP since fine-tuning simply cannot occur. In order to give life a finite probability of arising it has been necessary to speculate on the multi-universe idea. This is more faith than science since there is currently no observable evidence for such a theoretical concept.

^^^^

well said.

What amazes me even more is that Dawkins has a very limited understanding of certain concepts he is using. Take for instance the subject of LIFE.
He boldly (and I must say WRONGLY) asserts that there is no life form on any other planet or universe except the earth. This is in my opinion very WRONG.
The concept of life is subjective. even on this planet we have several ecosystems with divergent living organisms exhibiting different life forms. So what if the definition of life in other planets does not conform to the definition of life on earth?

That the other planets are inhabitable for man in his present form does not make it permanently inhabitable. This is based on the fact that the bible asserts that the spirit/soul form of man transcends to the heavens to lay at rest with Christ. Perhaps, there is a life form beyond the scope of our present definition outside of this planet.

@OP

1. I dont think it is fair for atheists to intentionally choose to discredit the bible by distorting scriptures without checking it in context.
The 613 laws of Moses were written as a guide to a nation under the watchful eyes of God, in the same context as we would have a constitution for any nation in this civilisation. The laws have over time served as a cultural basis for those who choose to be part of this Godly nation.
Hence we can look at the laws from the perspective of culture or traditions and covenant. For the law itself is a testimony of the covenant between God and Abraham.

2. So in the context of this thread, the laws of Moses are not selective or subjective but are ideally relevant in understanding the relationship between man and God. It reveals the opinions of God and the concept of righteousness. Man is at liberty to choose to live by this laws. Christ gave a new commandment, stating that LOVE is the greatest of all . . . if a Christian should show love he has obeyed all.

3. to answer your posers . .  . .YES homosexuality is a SIN. Am I missing something here? the whole concept of sin is strictly the personal opinion of God. Your disagreement with it is your personal opinion influenced by your personal line of thoughts.

I bought Richard Dawkins book (more than half way through) and I must say that I am absolutely disappointed at the quality of arguments in that book considering that he has sold over 2 million copies. and quite a number of people who have read the book actually said the same.

But since I dont have an audience with Richard to tell him how ridiculously lame his arguments are, I thought it might be nice to inform his compatriots on this forum, namely Mazaje and huxley. I would henceforth use this thread to expose the alarming ignorance of Richard Dawkins and the enormous loopholes in his arguments. I have no intention of disrespecting him, I just dont think that his arguments are sound to discredit the existence of God.

1. Richard starts by going on about the same old mantra of the proper identity of God. In the course of his arguments he talks about a spaghetti deity "manufactured" by atheist challenging theists to disprove his existence. I sincerely think that this is a slight insult on our (theist and non-theist) collective intelligence. The notion of God's existence lies primarily in the "disputed assumption" that a super-intelligence created the universe. The identity of this super intelligence is another topic on its own, but creating a new deity simply to disprove the origins of conceivable intelligence is in my opinion a no-brainier.

If for instance I take up the challenge of disproving the existence of the spaghetti deity, how exactly does this lay or deny credence to the notion that a superior intelligence created the material world we live in?

2. In stating his case, Richard talks about the prayer experiment. Where three groups of sick and hospitalised persons were prayed for. The first group was not being prayed for at all, the second was being prayed for but were made unaware, the third was being prayed for and were made aware of this fact. The whole idea was initiated by a pro-Christian mission in conjunction with atheist inclined scientists like Richard, with the sole aim of proving or disproving the effectiveness of prayers.
At the end of the experiment, the group who were informed that prayers was being made for them by a congregation received the least medical improvement. And as far as Richard and his cohorts are concerned, this is sufficient evidence that God does not answer prayers. .  .how dumb.

First, he needs to understand what prayer means, how prayer is said and the essential ingredients in prayer. In communing with God, Christ taught that we should not ask for certain things because the father knows and will meet these needs. But before He taught His disciples to pray, he first revealed the father to them through several teachings about the kingdom of God. This simply implies that prayer is only functional when there is a sufficient relationship between the one who is asking and the one who is to give. Christ also taught that requests made in His name according to the will of God will be answered.
So in the prayer experiment, what was the will of God? was it the will of God to be revealed through a disbelieving hypocritical fame-seeking experiment? was God in need of such glory and whats the benefit of such?
Thirdly we saw Christ pray in the garden that "this cup should pass over Him, but regardless the father's will be done". the cup did not pass over, for it was not the will of the father, instead Christ received the salvation of the world. . . , which was the original will of the Father.

We do not know for a fact if any of the said prayer was answered? and if it was answered, the type of answers received? But we do know that whatever prayer was said (by Richard and his mates) was definitely not in conformity with the will of God. This is because the scriptures clearly assert that "those who come to God must believe that He is and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" Hebrews 11:6 

3.  There is one important fact that Richard and several atheists are keen to ignore (which is very obvious, reading from his book and other atheist websites). This fact is what I will call the fundamental liberty of God (FLOG). You can read a full description of FLOG here http://paulobellaro..com/2011/10/fundamental-liberty-of-god-flog_03.html

By debating, we are asking pertinent questions about the existence of a deity capable of creating the "intelligent" material world we live in. If this deity exists, He would most definitely be more intelligent than man (I am sure most atheists would agree with this). It is as such plausible to expect that He would have the liberty to act as He wills, implying that He would have His own likes and dislikes, tastes and choices. 

This is a simple FACT that all atheist tends to miss. God has liberty to act as he pleases. The choices He makes do not in anyway dispute His existence.
Hence, why would Richard Dawkins make claims disputing the existence of God based on defined ontology of God. The known ontological assertions might be wrong for all we care and they also do not constitute a FACT if viewed from the perspective that God has choices of His own to make.
To butress this point . .  . . .take a look at LOVE.
Love is abstract, it neither has weight nor occupies space. It is intangible and cannot be seen by anyone ,  . .neither can anyone claim to have heard love speak.
But can u confidently state that love does not exist?


. . . . . . .  more to come

toba:

noetic. i was about to open a thread to declare u missing. lol hope u are doing well

lol , . .thanks brov. . .but i aint missing

mazaje:

noeticcccccccccccccccccc!!!!!  . . . . . . .nice to see you man. . . . . .

lol . . . .lofly to hear from you bro

nice thread . . .I hope the likes of Mazaje and huxley are reading?

@ op you are certainly a false prophet. For GOD Does not send a message of fear but that of repentance. The details of ur prophecy suggests the use of occultic means to see the future. And that paragraph you asked sinners to confess CANNOT give salvation to anyone, do read the bible. Hence i m convinced that u are a baal prophet pocessed by a lying spirit.

mazaje:

Allah does not know anything. . . .

seconded

groundnut seller

^^^^ you start by listing the fruits that Christ sowed? . . . .that way u demonstrate an understanding of the comparison to be made.