₦airaland Forum

olabowale:
@Noetic2: Your statement is very Chaotic. Hijab is not meant for fools. Its meant for people who have good convictions in their hearts. I am sure a perverted mind wants to see the other sex (expectially men of women) dress down to almost nothingness; to throw the badboys out there for everyone to gork at. You will like that, or will you not, Noetic2?

did thou make any sense?

A girl: I just love cute little baby girls.

nice one.

can I ask, who is seun? and where is his post?

toneyb:
Salvation according to the the christian hypothesis is the concept that god, as part of divine providence, "saves" humanity from spiritual death or eternal damnation by providing for them an eternal life ( afterlife),

Gift - The act by which the owner of a thing, voluntarily transfers the title and possession of the same, from himself to another person who accepts it, without any consideration.

Christians are people that believe in jesus and follow his teachings.

God - according to the christain hypothesis is the uncreated creator of the universe, who loves humans, interacts with them(by providing and protecting them etc) and has a plan for the whole of humanity.

So what part of this do u not subscribe to? whats the problem with this christian belief?

is the rubbish in the op part of allah's missing bible?


Anyway this is what I got from the koran.
koran 19:33-34 it records Jesus as saying:
Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!

The koran here establishes that Jesus was born, He died and resurrected. It is now up to allah and mohammed to produce their missing "original" bible.

huxley2:
wanna ask some more questions to huxley?

which of my questions did u EVER answer? when did I Dont Know become an acceptable answer?

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=284043.msg4037319#msg4037319 date=1245165166]@noetic2,

Thanks for your observations, and my apologies where I might have misunderstood you. However I still feel that even where someone makes a response and we try to be objective in considering their views, we could calmly reason with them. It may be 'true' in your view that KAG 'failed'; but that may not ncessarily be so for others who might read the sequence in her response. Having read and re-read her logical development, it seemed to me it would be unfair to just dismiss hers in such a manner.[/quote]I do agree completely with ur assertion here.

I guess I was harsh and probably biased in fast dismissing KAG's points by pre-empting that the subject would lead to a debate on God's ontology. But that was born out of the fact that,

1. The question "can u prove my ontology" is very straight forward.
2. KAG never directly/indirectly attempted to answer this question (in my opinion)
3. KAG is fond of running in circles with words.

But let me comment on this:

Your opinion is well respected; but for other readers like me, I would agree with KAG's 'assumption' and even go so far as to say that it was an astute statement - especially because she had explained the 'evidence' with pointers to "show that you [esensed] have the capabilities to be a dasein". The word 'evidence' is applied in various contexts to facilitate substance in an enquiry - it does not mean just one kind of 'evidence' for someone's bias. In simple terms, if the OP did not exist in any sense at all, he would not even be making any request in the first place. The fact that he does make a request (such as "please can you prove my ontology?" is 'evidence' in the philosophical sense that the OP has the capabilities of a dasein.

Your opinion is respected. But I strongly disagree.

KAG could have simply asked esensed for clarification, instead of going into the mantra of defining ontology and trying to establish without proving that esensed has an ontology (which would also serve as a perceived "evidence".

My point is this,  note that
1. KAG refused to ontologically define esensed on the premise that there are several concepts of ontology.

2. KAG however established that by asking "can u prove my ontology?" esensed simply proved that he was a dasein, which in reality does not produce a convincing analogy of esensed's ontology. For instance, I (and presumably esensed) was expecting an ontology that included his (esensed) meta-physical components, hindsights, abilities and limitations all summed up in the basis of his (esensed's) existence.

Deducibly KAG has limited the scope of esensed's ontology to the fact that esensed might be a dasein, based on grammatical function without stating the ontological basis that establishes:
1. The nature of esensed's existence
2. essensed's life
3. The very essence of this life.

Dont u want 72 virgins?

JeSoul:
Lol . . . Noetic I very much enjoyed your post and found the above quote to be most hilarious   

I am happy u enjoyed it.

I am looking forward to u acknowledging Jesus as ur Lord and Saviour.

we are talking about "forgiveness" only for now. and the subject of our forgiveness is allah , . . . , no one else.


so let the game begin. where is ur first verse that shows allah is forgiving?

Aremugangan:
@noetic2, u gt any linkage wt Jet-li? U b almyty debator wey no dey argue 2learn. "a li2 knowledge is a bad tin". Na nw u realyz say u put "education" abi? L8r na nefarious u go put. Til u begin 2mak sense, its high tym i stopd arguin wt som1 wt baseles facts. Remain safe, "we re 1?"

what are thou talking about?

muhsin:
It has had just happened yesterday, my brothers and sisters in Islam. A Chineese business tycoon accepted Islam at Kantin Kwari Market, Kano. She, after testifying (saying the Kalimatushshahada) that she accepted the religion after an indepth analysis and researrch on the religion and it's tenets. Alhamdulillah!

I have NEVER heard of anyone who accepted islam based on convictions. its always based on "research" and "indepth" analyses.

huxley2:
was it not you who agreed to go into a 20-20 question debate-athon but shamedfacedly pulled out after some warning from Davidylan about how I was going to exposed your ignorance?

I Have still got my question, Shall we do it now?

my ignorance? lmao

The problem has not been u asking questions or me answering them. The problem has always been u answering the questions I and others ask u. Daviddylan and Olaadegbu are victims of ur inability to answer questions/queries.

whenever u start a thread and I contribute to it, I always make an effort to answer ur op questions. You have never done this in the thread I start. all you do is to attempt to change the topic of discussion to a comfortable zone. I consider this a shameful act.

toneyb:
Where is your historical evidence to show that allah was elevated from a minute god?

why bring allah into the question? just prove ur assertions about Yahweh. . . . .is that difficult?

They are, Christian still kill people in the name of Jesus, George Bush invaded Iraq because jesus told him to do so according to him. The only thing that is keeping Christianity in Check is democracy. Before the advent of democracy when nation where under the leadership of the church millions were killed in the name of jesus and in the name of christianity.

This is very dishonest. was that george bush's reason to the american nation? is america a christian nation? was that the basis of congress support for the war?

From ur post above we can both deduce that christianity is peaceful and islam is violent in today's world.

What do you mean by idol, a small god that was elevated into a bigger god?

This is what my dictionary says and which I concur with and also believe is the relevant definition in this context:

a. an image of a deity other than God.
b. the deity itself.

Ok. let me state a christian assertion that I acknowledge. Christians assert that salvation is a gift from their god. I find that assertion ridiculous unless if christians do not know what a gift means.

Now we seem to be getting somewhere at last.

To help me understand ur point clearly, so that I dont make any false assumptions, can u please tell me,

what is salvation? what is a gift? and who are christians? who is GOD?
ur answers and my subsequent response will establish that this assertion is indeed nothing but the truth.

@ Pilgrim

I believe that my comments was fair and objective. My understanding of ur logical sequence is that u examined it from naked view without any underlying contents.

but here is my understanding of the scenario.

1. esensed asked "can u prove my ontology?"

2. KAG replied: u (esensed) don't know what an ontology means. it means . . . . . .
I still dont know how she deduced that esensed does not know what an ontology means.

3. KAG further stated.

Reading that and parsing the words correctly, what you imply is that you already have an ontology. That is, in your question, you ask if we atheists can prove your description of existence, etc. From that we can gather that you do, in fact, already possess an ontology.

This was irrelevant and simply delay tactics considering that esensed NEVER denied having an ontology, all he wanted was a prove to establish he (esensed) has an ontology based on the PREMISE that he (esensed) does not have one.

4. KAG then stated that:

That in itself is evidence (I refuse to do proof) that the broad scope of your study or analysis of your manifest person, etc has some basis. The evidence here has small caveat:

How can KAG's assumption of esensed having an ontology be an evidence? evidence of what? This in my opinion is simple linguistic manipulation.
KAG refused to answer the simple question asked in the OP and instead ran round in circles.

5. Noetic then re framed the question to a more direct one: What is esensed's ontology?

I considered that to be a very simple question, since esensed is not invisible, is he?

I might be wrong. I am also open to corrections. Enjoy [quote][/quote]

OLAADEGBU:
Answers? I am still waiting for huxley to give me the answers to the questions I asked in the thread he opened for us to challenge him, wirinet is yet to respond to my submission on the origin of life (post #166 on Questions for atheists and evolutionists), toneyb however admitted that he does not know but buries his head in the religion of atheism, mazaje is still looking for explanations for his new found faith in evolution. Even though they have no alternative expanation or evidence they still believe in their religion of humanism and naturalism as long as it eliminates the existence of God, which makes it a religion and not science as they will want you to believe.

Huxley will NEVER answer any of ur questions, but believes he alone has the right to ask some.
mazaje enjoys running round in circles . . . . .never addressing the issue at hand.
toneyb is another version of mazaje.
bawomolo is in Greece looking for the scientific evidence that establishes the non-existence of God.
KAG loves playing with words. . . . .never answering ur question, pure semantics in display. (though he/she along with tudor are the most objective atheists on board)
Tudor is probably the best atheist on nairaland, simply because he never attributes all knowledge to himself and is always objective regardless of the differences, quite unlike huxley and mazaje.
wirinet is a wonder on his own I wonder if he actually reads some of his posts sometimes.

toneyb:
I think you are now becoming so desperate that it has become pathetic. These are some of the dictionary definitions of an idol

an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed
the deity itself
any person or thing regarded with blind admiration, adoration, or devotion
a figment of the mind;Fantasy


How is yahweh not a jewish idol? Yahweh is as much a jewish idol as allah as an arabian idol.

I cant believe this. is this all u have to say?  This is interesting. I thought u had concrete evidences/reasons to support ur wrong assertions. I am disappointed.

you know the contextual meaning of an idol in this scenario, and that simply refers to a minute god being elevated in status and worship in comparison to the living GOD.  you have stated no historical evidence to establish that Yahweh is a jewish idol, neither have u established a greater GOD that resorts Yahweh to the minute status of an idol.

I doubt u have a gasp of the issues at stake here.

These violent acts were the prevailing norms when Nations were under the leadership of the church and Christianity. The only thing that is keeping Christianity in check is democracy.  

When the nations were under the leadership of the church millions were killed because of their unbelief(inquisition,crusades), dissenters were crushed without mercy(Jews) and those that tried to show that the bible was wrong were imprisoned or killed(Galileo and so many others) slavery was strongly advocated. There is nothing that moslems are doing today that Christians have not done before. Islam is only 1,300 years old, and religions have a definite life-cycle, just like people. If you look at Christianity in 1300 C.E. two words spring to mind Inquisition and Crusade. Islam will definitely have to change if it is to survive in the 21 century. People still carry out acts of violence in the name Christianity and Jesus even today. Example George Bush(so many people are dead in iraq today because Jesus told George Bush to kill off the infidels according to him) ,John Ascroft and so many others.

Whats the meaning of all these u have written?
why dont u just answer my questions . . . . . .these norms u have stated, are they prevalent in christianity today? in islam today? whats the difference?

Did Paul not call his preaching "my gospel"? Were all his letters not to the gentiles? Was he not preaching a new religion apart from the Jewish religion? After "revealing" the ten commandment to Moses did Yahweh not immediately tell him to go and kill of the unbelievers?

I am presently reading the Koran and this law is as stupid or as meaningless as any other meaningless spiritual law that is found in the Koran.

u claimed that these christian laws are the same in islam, yet u cannot establish a single islamic law to corroborate ur assertion. when u finish reading allah's koran let me know.

No it isn't.

This is becoming ridiculous. You have not stated any fact that establishes that Yaweh is a jewish idol, except to play with words.
And now u claim ur statement is also not dogmatic. what then is the rationality of ur beliefs/disbeliefs and atheistic assertions? is there something I am missing? please state such here.

Ok, let me for the sake of this discussion acknowledge the christian assertion/evidence what difference do you want us to debate?

I already did. yahweh is a jewish idol just like allah is an arabian idol

Can u please state the ones u choose to acknowledge.

where is olabs?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=283796.msg4035970#msg4035970 date=1245150722]@OLADEEGBU
I also wonder why africans would swallow and believe the proponents of this christian religion. . .a faith that allows for slavery and was used to colonize and oppress us.

Before darwin there were atheists. Atheism is NOT a religion,quit making it look like one.[/quote]were u banned again?

toneyb:
I can as well say that your deductions from the koran reflect spiritual(Islamic) illiteracy. We can all play this games. yahweh is as much a jewish idol like allah is an arabian idol. No difference they are both idols that were created mostly in the image of the people that created them at that time.

where is ur evidence that suggests that Yaweh is a jewish idol, like u falsely postulated?

Who cares about your deductions? How are yahweh's actions different from that of allah of the koran? They both commanded their chosen men to kill others in their holy books didn't they? What's the difference? Moslems have explanations or excuses as to why allah commanded the killings of unbelievers just as you have . So the only way that the "world" will know that yahweh is god is by telling his chosen men to kill off innocent babies and scarifice them as burnt offering unto him. by hardening their hearts in some of the cases. By the way there is no archeological and historical evidence(from egyptian records) to show that the jews were ever kept as slaves in egypt. Over 100 years of archeological research has nothing to support the exodus narrative in the bible.

u enjoy running round in circles. Are these violent acts the prevailing norms in christianity today? are they not the prevailing norms in islam today?
does that make any meaning to u?

Paul was a preaching new religion and looking for new converts he even called it "my own gospel". He was just making reference to the jewish scriptures and laws which he changed when preaching his new religion to the gentiles who know little or nothing about the jewish religion or scriptures(old testament). Do not murder, commit adultery, love your neighbors, do not covet, all this were told by moses to the jews to practice or apply it ONLY on their fellow jews in the old testament not unto the gentiles for yahweh encouraged and commanded the jews to kill the gentiles and steal their lands, women and property. Love is the fulfillment of the law according to paul not according to Yahweh. Jews who really knew their books never paid any attention to paul and his teachings only the gentiles did.

I just cant believe anyone could say this. this is pathetic. where did u get all this from? whats the basis of these assertions?

How is this any different from any of the meaningless laws in the koran?

please state ONE law in the koran that relates to this.

Yahweh was an ancient jewish tribal and warrior idol your bible establishes that fact.

is this a dogmatic statement?

I acknowledge the Christians claims and assertions I am yet to see any evidence.

Enjoy ur fallacy. when u are ready to acknowledge christian assertions/evidences please let me know, then we can debate the differences.

My basis for the denial of all gods is that men created them and that I can provide evidence for that.

I already asked u to prove how Yaweh is a jewish idol, u came up with semantics. , . . . should I wait further?

I am sure wirinet, toneyb, huxley and mazaje have a scientific explanation to those quotes. . . . . . . . .look out olaadegbu, their scientific explanation is on the way.

I added "objective" to educated. Anyone can go to a primary/secondary school, but education plus objectivity is distinct. I repeat, no educated and objective individual will learn about the nefarious decrees of allah and will remain or become a muslim.

wirinet:
Your own arguments goes beyond logic, even spiritual logic. You go round and round in circles and take anybody that argues with you on a meaningless cyclic journey.

I had already said in another thread and argument with you that to me Atheism is not Science, but said Science is Atheism. Lots of people disagreed with me, maybe because i put it too strongly, so i will rephrase it to Science supports atheism. I took the pains to highlight three main "facts" of your religion with God at the center as against three main "facts" of science without a God, explaining the creation of the universe, the earth and life. The scientific explanation supports Atheism rather than Theism. So it is becoming annoying when you just hang unto you mindless mantra of Science has no relationship with Atheism. Are you saying science supports the the existence and input of your God in its own explanation of the universe?.

Only in ur dreams did u debate with me and establish that atheism is science or that they have a relationship. please raise that thread again or rather raise the issue on this thread now.
First, atheism is not based on theism. Atheism is a belief on its own, that suggests that there is no God. As far I know of, It relies on faith as its beliefs cannot be logically expressed.
 

Please jump the gun. Let us have the God question so we can use the tools of science to provide you with a answer.
It is amazing how certain religions can make a mind argue meaninglessly, I said science goes on to prove and not to disprove and you echoed exactly the same statement, so what are you arguing about?

This is ridiculous.

So whats stopping u from presenting ur alternatives to the God question? I expected u to have started stating them, and together we can embark on a scientific line of enquiry.

That means you do not read post and digest the content before you hit the reply button. I took the pains to explain how science will discard's any theory it cannot provide proof for and not go about accepting a theory because it cannot disprove it. I feel you did not take science beyond JSS, so you might not understand what i am talking about. Up till today a complete solution to the medium light travels had not been agreed upon, It does not mean we should adopt Ether because its non - existence cannot be proved.

I would be disappointed to think u ever went to a primary school, considering the meaningless assertions u have stated on this thread. I would however hold my breadth until u raise the thread in question and produce ur alternatives for GOD, which I believe to be the basis of ur atheistic beliefs.

You are yet to show how exactly science supports atheism and u are also yet to establish a relationship between them.

KAG:
Are you sure you want to go down this route? Now, clearly, based solely on reading the way you've used the word, I'd say you have no idea what ontology means. That makes your "prove my ontology" clamour all the more interesting to me. I'm going to respond in a slightly more detailed manner because I will like to see where this leads.

First, I'll start by letting you know that like science, I don't do proofs - well, except for when I drink alcohol and when I do maths^[1]. To that effect, there will be no "proofs" only evidence based on the logical reading of your posts. It will be short, though, because you refused to try to understand what you were trying to ask from the Jesus story I posted. Nor, thinking about it, understand what Pastor AIO wrote in response to your op.

Now what is the meaning of the term "ontology"? I like this one as I think it best sums it up: "An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization." Which in layman's terms means ". . . a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents."^[2] Doesn't that just blow you away? What I particularly like about that description is that, despite the claims of the author, it covers many thorny aspects of what exactly ontology describes in philosophy: studies about the nature of existence, life, essence, etc.

Having gotten an idea of what ontology means. What, then, does one mean when one states or implies they have an ontology? Bear in mind the claim here isn't I am a being, or I exist, or I am an ontological manifestation, or, even, I bear traits identified in ontology. The claim or implication was that you have an ontology. Something you subsequently asked to be "proved". In light of that, it is easy to state unequivocally (a surprising state of things given the logical, literal reading that has occurred thus far) that you'd like atheists to show evidence that you, the OP, have the capacity for the study of nature, existence and other such things. To get even more technical - and as it is philosophy, it's hard not to - to show that you have the capabilities to be a dasein.^[3]

If that is case - and it is the logical conclusion I drew from your words - what remains is to show that you have the abilities to not only think, but to think in such a way as to ask questions about existence. Questions about what "it" all means. Can we in fact show that based solely on your words? I think we can.

What you wrote in the op is probably sufficient for the task. You wrote: "please can you prove my ontology?" Reading that and parsing the words correctly, what you imply is that you already have an ontology. That is, in your question, you ask if we atheists can prove your description of existence, etc. From that we can gather that you do, in fact, already possess an ontology. That in itself is evidence (I refuse to do proof) that the broad scope of your study or analysis of your manifest person, etc has some basis. The evidence here has small caveat: that since you didn't explicitly state your ontology in full, then we have to assume based on the notion that the gestalt^[4] of all daseins have a basic structure built on language, that your ontology will have to follow the usual pattern, and it is the vague outlines that you want proved. Q.E.D.

Oh, also, in case you're wondering, you're a dasein because you have an ontology.

P.S. If you have any questions or need me to be clearer in some part, then please don't hesitate to ask. I'll get on it as soon as I can.


[1] It's a paraphrase of "proof is for maths and alcohol" 
[2] http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasein
[4] Gestalt, in this instance, is Lacan's use of the term: "the visual image of another member of the same species, which is perceived as a unified whole." (http://nosubject.com/Gestalt)

This is very unintelligent and ridiculous.

In one breadth the poster's request that u prove his ontology is an admission of his being an entity that can be ontologically defined, yet u failed woefully to ontologically define him.

In further revealing the limits of ur understanding, u chose to ontologically define the poster based on his/her opening words, but u consider this untenable for a God who does not exist and as such cannot produce words. who are u deceiving? why the continuous shifts in position?

I cant believe u ran under grammatical semantics. Let us re frame the opening post: What is esensed's ontology?
Now make an attempt.

olabowale:
@$Osisi: We have known each other (on this board) for sometime, now. I have always admired your conviction and your strenght in yor belief, right belief or wrong belief, whatever it may be. But in all of this time, since 2006, late, have you been able to put a "dent" on Islam, among the nairalanders? No!

For you now to be so "frustrated", in my opinion, to now be peddling "Nation of Islam" as authentic part of Islam, is far out, indeed! Let me give you what is siimilar to what you are doing with the "Farrakhan" people, above; Its like a man in name only, neither active nor seek the remedy for his impotency, all of a sudden, when faced with reality proclaims that he is the father of a "still birth" baby.

The woman who is grieved by the lost, may not comment on the "false claim", but she does know for sure that if the baby had lived, will sure not have the man's last name, and will not look like anybody in his bloodline, because their is no family ties, whatsoever!

A muslim, if you do not know, is not just by name. If it has been just by name, Pilgrim, whose family name is still islamic, if we go by her grandfather, will be muslim!

Islam, in itself, is the two Kalimas; Oneness of Allah and that Muhammad (AS) is the last link of the chain of Messengers and or Prophets (AS). Then it means you cant regress to take Jesus and ignore Muhammad. It truly means that you can take only Muhammad and the others, Jesus, Moses, etc come under Muhammad. For example it is not permissible to copy Jesus when it comes to marriage, since he was not married! And it is not permissible to forbid something for yourself, if its made allowable, like the forbidding of hindquarter meat that Jacob (AS) forbade himself.

Finally, you must pray 5 times, the compultory required daily prayers. Now this one separates the Muslims from the nonMuslims! Do the nation of Islam people make Salah? The answer is no! I know, because I have mistakingly gone to them, thinking I can make Salah, since some of them have the decal "Mosque", in front of their buidings!

Stop fronting, woman. If you are so sure of Christianity and your 1 god in 3 personalities; Jesus, Ghost and Father: Who is it that you pray to? All of them? That will be polytheism. No? Just one of them? That will amount to disregarding the other two. No?

Either way, you are between a rock (boulder) and a hard place (Concrete cement slabs with stell reinforcement). You will lose, for sure.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Is this all u have to say to the informative testimonies that rubbishes ur sacred islamic beliefs? I am not disappointed, but the least I expected from u was that u start a new thread showing testimonies of christians who converted to islam.

toneyb:
I also know that allah is not the god of the bible, where are your evidence to show that allah is a false god? Yahweh  has been proven historically to be a Jewish Idol too, remember he was once thought by the ancient jews to live with them inside the wooden box(ark of covenant), eat, smell or taste their sacrifice(including human sacrifice) and say how good it smells and and be the strongest of all the other gods(he even acknowledges them) around them.

If the basis of the misinformation above is deduced from the bible, then I can safely say that u simply misunderstood the underlying message of the bible. ur deductions reflect spiritual illiteracy,  . . I wont emphasise on that. But if however the basis of the statements above is NOT the bible, please provide the historical evidences that support this claim that Jehovah is a jewish idol.

Acts like what? murder, slavery, rape, incest, racism and segregation, genocide, telling lies, stealing, Human sacrifice, sexism. Your god commanded his own chosen men to do all these things i mentioned in the bible didn't he? Unfortunately for you the guys that created the old testament god, their god was hijacked by the gentiles and some jews and moulded into a new god.

This is honestly ridiculous.

If u refer to the actions or perceived inactions of the isrealites on their way to the promised then u are safe to make this deduction.
But far from it, I do not make this deduction. My deduction from those acts was the reflection of a GOD who will do anything including the destruction of idolatry nations to fulfil His promises and words in the lives of His children. Dont forget that before any conquest God tells moses, "I am doing this that the world may know that I am GOD"

If u refer to the laws of the old testament, then I can safely state that u do not have a complete understanding of the undercurrent implications. Here is Paul's summary of those laws. romans 13:8-10
8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. [b]Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

I am sure u know the story of the good samaritan. why did the priest not stop to help the injured and robbed fellow? why did the levite not help?
Dont forget they stopped to sympathise with him, but never helped. They never helped cos by touching blood, the priest has run fowl of the law, as such cannot perform his normal functions in the temple again. Thus missing the underlying purpose of the law . . LOVE.

what ever is the basis of ur statement in quote, be it the law or perceived inactions of the isrealites, ur position CANNOT be justified.

Same with your god his historical antecedents as a jewish idol has also been very well and repeatedly established.

I am yet to see a single thread that claims or establishes this. If there is, please resurrect the thread and call my attention to it.

What are the christian evidence that establish the existence of god? There are NON what so ever, you seem to confuse claims and evidence, christians have claims and assertions to support their god hypothesis not evidence. They have never provided any, you can go ahead and provide one if you have it.

This is raw and baseless denial, you clearly acknowledged christian evidences/basis for God's existence in ur last post, which I pointed out to u.  Are u aware of the basic christian ontology of GOD? which part of this ontology do u consider untenable?

There are so many alternatives.

Please educate me on this alternatives. what are these alternatives of urs?

When you provide comprehensive evidence to establish the existence of god i will be there to disprove them all.

This is called intellectual laziness.
u believe that there is no GOD. I am simply asking u to establish the basis of ur belief, why should u wait for me to state mine first?

olabowale:
@Noetic: You are plainly, "the Rubbish!"

Only a human with ostrich head in the sand syndrome thinks like you! I simply ask you, (Dumb Waiter), if its now out of fashion to use Eledumare for Creator, now that you are a Christian? Your slick Willie self can answer yes or no! It is clear that Oduduwa used to say Eledumare, when refering to his Creator!

Now, was there a Yoruba idol named Eledumare? You need a good lesson in your culture, Yoruba. Then you need a good lesson in Judeo-Christian culture, first, before you graduate to receiving lectures in the Ph. D. Program of human civilization; Islamic Culture!

Now, if there is an idol called "Allah", I will leave Islam! Now if I can show you that you worship three gods; The unidentified holy ghost, then the human god Jesus son of Mary nd then Father who is not complete, according to you without having the other two gods, will you do the right thing and get out of "filth" because of the "blood associations, like the way the "Ogun worshippers do with dog beheading, or te Shango worshippers with their Palm oil stained clothings?

I am not interested in all this rhetoric. Neither am I interested in ur attempt to change the subject of discourse. Lets start with forgiveness according to allah in the koran then we can move on to trinity and allah's historical antecedents.

When I show u 5 verses in ur koran that preaches against forgiveness for every ONE verse u show me that preaches forgiveness. what will u do to compensate for ur defeat? will u abandon allah, and come to Jesus? YES or NO

toneyb:
You claim that there is a god but yet you have never been able to provide ANY evidence that he exist. You claim that Allah is a false god but yet you have never been able to provide any evidence that he is a false god all you do is use the koran to show the muslims that their god is false when their own god is no different from your own god, there is nothing that allah has done or commanded his people to do in the koran that your own god has not done in the bible yet you turn around and say that allah is a false god while your own god is true.

I hope u dont give up mid-way and resort to insults and abuses, its very gibberish.

I have absolutely nothing personal against allah. I have stated my case here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-280415.0.html I dont believe allah is the same God of the bible, historically he is an arabian idol, whose origin has been repeatedly stated. Allah encourages acts I am terribly against.

I have no reason to establish the existence or non existence of allah, his historical antecedents as an arabian idol has been repeatedly established.

I can not provide evidence to show that there is no god because you haven't provided any evidence to show that there is a god. I can prove that the evidence which you always provide for the existence of your god is false, for example i can prove that the bible and most of its claims are false. I can prove that the creation accounts in genesis are false. I can prove that the Noah's flood never happened.There are so much evidence to show that the exodus narrative never happened. There are so many evidence to show that so many of the bible stories were written long after the events they recorded, many of the book of the bible were written by unknown people, So MANY failed prophecies by god and his prophets, scientific and historical errors. And on and on.

ur argument is contradicting. on one hand, I havent provided any evidence for God's existence, on the other hand u can refute my evidences. U need to make up ur mind. are u acknowledging the christian evidences that establish the existence of GOD?

what is the alternative?

No one religion,including Christianity can prove or provide any evidence for the existence of its god or any of its claims like after life, heaven, hell, relationship with a loving and protecting god and all the other religious claims that theist profess. The existence of the supernatural it self is very vague.

Near death accounts are the closest phenomanae that suggest an afterlife but the majority of them indicate no one religion is true but most religions share the same sense of "spirituality". The problem is that religious people like taking the man created idealogies and mythical tales as literal fact.

I will only take u serious, when u provide a comprehensive evidence to establish the non-existence of GOD.

wirinet:
noetic2 what happened to original Noetic?

Anyway i am reluctant to get into your wrapped argument, that atheism is unreasonable because they cannot prove the NON-existence of God. That is the dumbest argument i had ever heard.  I think you should look for the meaning of science and scientific reasoning.

I just did now. here is what my dictionary says about science:
  a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the[b] physical or material world[/b] gained through[b] observation and experimentation.[/b]
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

I must confess ur arguments reflect intellectual bankruptcy. First and foremost atheism is NOT science. It has NO relationship with science.
The basic conclusions of the atheists science betrays any claim of scientific enquiry. As all offered substitute for God's existence have failed the simple test of observation, repetition and experimentation. I cant even believe anyone can confidently claim atheism is science considering the ridiculous and illogical postulations offered on this forum.

I wont jump the gun. But can u present ur alternatives for the GOD question and we will together make a scientific enquiry using the the three highlighted basis of scientific enquiries above.

Science was not set up to prove the non-existence of any thing, Science investigates and proves existence of phenomena and laws governing those phenomena, using the tool of observation, recording of data and inference from the correlated data. I do not thing k any scientist that goes about proving non existence would be considered a scientist. Let me give you two examples,

This is pure linguistic semantics. From the definitions of science above it is deducible to a kindergarten student that the underlying aim of science to to prove and establish claims and facts.

Because of the observed huge source of energy that emanates from certain points in space and that these sources seems to suck up all matter and even energy within its vicinity, certain scientists have speculated the existence of Black Holes as being responsible. Now a scientist that want to prove that it is not a black hole that is responsible will be required to prove the existence of something else that is responsible for the phenomenon and not expend energy proving the non existence of Black Holes.

A second example is Ether, it had been speculated since Newton days that it is theoretically impossible for energy to be transferred from one point in space to another without a medium. Like movement of water waves from one point to another without water  or sound waves without air. But light waves seems to move in a vacuum, so for it to make sense, some scientists speculated that a medium called ether, that is invisible and massless, and  pervades the whole universe is the responsible medium for transferring light waves. Now many scientists had set up experiments to detect the ether and up till today none had detected it, so ether had been thrown out as a theory. But no scientist had setup experiment to prove the non existence of ether, the experiments were set up to actually prove its existence.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. I also cannot make a meaning out of this.

So please stop singing the Mantra of No scientist have been able to prove the non existence of God, you should ask Scientist set up experiments to prove the existence of your God, once you have been able to provide adequate data.

I have NEVER associated atheism to science. you did. It is up to u to establish how scientific an atheist belief is.

No atheist has been able to establish a rational/logical/scientific/intellectual basis for the non-existence of GOD. if u have let us see it.
Dont hide under the banner of science, You CANNOT prove that atheism IS science because it is NOT.

Aremugangan:
@noetic2 n jagunlabi- i ws evn xpktin comments d@ ll b worst dan urs frm an illiterate of ur caliber, afterol, u kno notin or less abt ur bible. Ask ur learned Pastor, e knows d truth bt e ll defin8ly nt tel u 4d fear of losin ur tithe,lol. Guess u re trans4min, u ll liv 2c d truth somdy (If Allah wills). Try 2b EDUCATD.

I cant believe someone said this.

Are u educated at all? are these the remnants of ur brain or what?