LordReed:


You need the help more than me numpty. LMFAO!

In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom thou faileth to acknowledge, I bid thee peace.
Go home and sin no more!

LordReed:


No you need 5 scientists to help you answer 2 simple questions because you're an empty numpty dumpty. LoL

Hahahaha!

An atheistic and godless fellow laying out templates on God for theists.

Aren’t you the biggest comedian of the year?

If you can’t explain atheism and why you hold that worldview, i just don’t know what to say.

Of course we will allow 5 scientists help you out here. Okay?

LordReed:


LMFAO! You're the fucktàrd apologist for a nonexistent god who always has to deflect because he gets stumped by simple questions. GTFOH with your delusional nonsense. Bwahahahahaha!

If you don’t even know why you think you should be godless, don’t you think your madness level is high to have opinions about God or any deity?

Do I need 5 scientists to tell you that you are mad for that?

LordReed:


LoL! Look at this dumbo go back and look at this chain and ask yourself if this your rant makes sense with respect to what has gone before it. I asked you 2 simple questions you couldn't answer now you are ranting. LMFAO!

Yes invite 5 scientists to help you answer 2 simple questions. What an ass. LMFAO!

You cannot defend your atheism.
Simple definition of atheism is even a problem for you.
You have deflected so many times even after I showed you the ridiculousness of your claim that you don’t follow liturgy. Yet your people are even as organized and as dogmatic as religion: doing registration, selling books on defense, teaching , going evangelical, organizing programs and mentor ship programs.

You can’t say why are godless and atheistic yet you want to get engrossed and obsessed with Christianity and religion.

I just dey laugh you dey shake my head.
5 scientists apologist!

LordReed:


You are the one deflecting. You want to talk about something else without addressing the questions. Doesn't work that way.

It’s okay.

You don’t know why you are an atheist.

You don’t know the meaning of atheism.

The definition you presented is a personal choice and so has no indication that there is no God or deity or the supernatural.

At the end of the day, an atheist like you simply chose to say “I don’t want to believe in God no matter the evidences presented to me”.
That’s too sad.

And all the things you accused the organized religion of doing, you do: registrations of membership, meetings, conferences, evangelisms, road shows, lectures, book sales, mentor ship etc.

Should I invite 5 scientists to repeat what I said or to help you?

LordReed:


Still not answering the questions. Are they too hard for you?

Lol! Too many deflections. Hahaha.

You are just another organized religion.

You said atheism isn’t like religion with creeds and liturgy. But I showed you below how organized a religion atheism is.


But they have associations, groups, classes, clubs, and even a register of the brights where coordinated brain-washing activities are done to teach you what to say during arguments.

You spend so much time reading up books and materials and listening to audios and videos on the latest about theism and defeaters to theism.
You rehearse your points and become evangelical in your approaches.

What more religion is more organized and credal and liturgical than that?

Myriads of definitions of atheism isn’t bad but just shows confusion of what each atheist thinks is atheism. They don’t know what they believe in and why they are atheists. That’s too bad.

Crystyano:



That guy can't answer intelligent questions such as yours......


He's more concerned with stupid questions......

Lol!

Pls sit by the sides and just watch and learn.
You are way out of your intellectual league here.

You are always confused.

LordReed:


The questions again:
What does true definition of atheism mean?

Why would a myriad of reasons for no belief be a bad thing?

Your post doesn't address either question.

You said atheism isn’t like religion with creeds and liturgy. But I showed you below how organized a religion atheism is.


But they have associations, groups, classes, clubs, and even a register of the brights where coordinated brain-washing activities are done to teach you what to say during arguments.

You spend so much time reading up books and materials and listening to audios and videos on the latest about theism and defeaters to theism.
You rehearse your points and become evangelical in your approaches.

What more religion is more organized and credal and liturgical than that?

Myriads of definitions of atheism isn’t bad but just shows confusion of what each atheist thinks is atheism. They don’t know what they believe in and why they are atheists. That’s too bad.

LordReed:


You didn't answer the questions.

But they have associations, groups, classes, clubs, and even a register of the brights where coordinated brain-washing activities are done to teach you what to say during arguments.

You spend so much time reading up books and materials and listening to audios and videos on the latest about theism and defeaters to theism.
You rehearse your points and become evangelical in your approaches.

What more religion is more organized and credal and liturgical than that?

Workch:
Anyone who can turn just 1 out of 100 bowls of water into wine?
I just require just 1% success rate from you, that’s how easy it is for anyone to even convince me with a testable evidence.

Although 1% isn’t a scientifically significant result but I just want to give theists the opportunity to convince atheists without plenty talks and numerous excuses.

Successfully turn 1 out of 100 bowls of water into wine, I will serve your god and I will also give you 100k cash.

Has any theist made this claim?
Why are you harping on a claim they never made.

Miracles are the exclusive prerogatives of God.

budaatum:


Humans are subjective by nature. You should laugh at my ignorance if I claim to be objective. I can try of course, but do not believe I can completely remove my subjective self that attempts to be objective.

That's why there's the scientific method. No science develops subjectively. If it could, the Comforter would be sent to an objective few instead of to the entire subjective human race.


Everyone is not "seeking and knocking and finding in the universe". Many merely believe, and thereby tremble.


First, it wouldn't be disobeying God, but disobeying what some wrote in a book and claimed God said. I am a scientist so expect me to ask and knock and seek with the senses I have been given.

Second, if a God places buda naked in a Garden of Eden and tells buda not to eat the fruits of knowledge, buda will ask why not.

"Is it so I can remain an ignorant slave in your garden, God, instead of 'Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth'" ?

I guess I can recognise the difference between a poxy tiny garden, and the earth I am supposed to subdue.

Go see how almanjeris are created. It might help you understand my very subjective understanding, as opposed to believing what some claim is objective.


As I said, disobedience to what some have written in a book. And note how you say, "bid to explore" instead of "ask and seek and knock" that we have been using all along. Are you trying to avoid the obvious contradiction between the Garden of Eden God, and Christ of the Gospels, I wonder.

No God tells buda to work in a poxy garden after being told to rule over the entire universe! And if I do not surely die on the day I decide to seek knowledge, the God who lied to me can not be buda's God because I just can't do the wuruwuru to convince myself that people who went on to live another 800 or so years died on the day that they ate what they were told would kill them.

Please know that I am in no way attempting to force my subjective understanding on you, as you have accused me of doing. I fully recognise that you have your own subjective understanding too, and I would not want you to burn in hell with buda if that is buda's reward for what you call "disobedience to God".

Ref: https://www.nairaland.com/3238410/what-dont-know-almajiri-system#102926679

Entertaining piece.

I appreciate the fact that these are your personal subjective thoughts on what the Christians should be doing.
It is not. We believe the Bible completely as the word of God and will obey the commands of God in the Bible. We have questions just like any human has but have learnt from experience that some answers might come now while some we will never know at this side of the divide until we meet our savior Jesus Christ when he will come to judge the quick and the dead.

That’s what we believe.

Religious beliefs are different from scientific methods where subjective humans try to apply empirical data to describe the nature around them in the way they think they understand. The scientific understanding changes as the natural conditions change. However eternal truths from the Bible are eternal and unchangeable.

If you want to bad religion and bad science, then mix religion and science.

LordReed:


What does true definition of atheism mean?

Why would a myriad of reasons for no belief be a bad thing? Atheists don't have a creed or liturgy or baptismal process to which you must kowtow to to become and atheist so why would you surprised by differing answers?

But they have associations, groups, classes, clubs, and even a register of the brights where coordinated brain-washing activities are done to teach you what to say during arguments.

You spend so much time reading up books and materials and listening to audios and videos on the latest about theism and defeaters to theism.
You rehearse your points and become evangelical in your approaches.

What more religion is more organized and credal and liturgical than that?

Lol

LordReed:


Why do you imagine they are tough?

1. The definition of atheism I hold is the lack of belief in any god or gods.

2. I don't believe any gods because there has not been sufficient evidence to establish the existence of any such beings.

Lack of belief in a God is a personal choice.
You choose to say you lack belief.
I don’t think many atheists think same way.

You choose to say you lack belief. The theists chooses to think the evidences are sufficient enough for basic belief. That implies that there is a possibility that even if the evidences are proven beyond reasonable doubt, you could still choose to not belief. That’s not a valid definition.

And would you mind showing us the rational for your lack of belief? What should a God evidence look like?

Who are you to decide what is sufficient and what is not sufficient? You don’t have that right cos you don’t have any God template you are reading from that guides you on what a God should be like and all that.

Crystyano:


A proof of pointlessness

You are always confused. Why is that?

budaatum:


Really? This is like claiming Nigeria will say "Let there be Light", and there will be light, without us first asking and seeking an understanding of how to generate light.

Do let me know when that happens and I just might decide to believe you.

That’s not true. The illustration is incongruous with what I said.

These below happened before the fall. They didn’t need to sin first before fulfilling the command to take charge and take dominion.
You misinterpret the Bible.

“And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it [using all its vast resources in the service of God and man]; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and over every living creature that moves upon the earth. And God said, See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the land and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to all the animals on the earth and to every bird of the air and to everything that creeps on the ground–to everything in which there is the breath of life–I have given every green plant for food. And it was so.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:28-30‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/gen.1.28-30.ampc

“And out of the ground the Lord God formed every [wild] beast and living creature of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them; and whatever Adam called every living creature, that was its name. And Adam gave names to all the livestock and to the birds of the air and to every [wild] beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a helper meet (suitable, adapted, complementary) for him.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2:19-20‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/gen.2.19-20.ampc

budaatum:


If we are saying the same thing in different ways we ought to be intelligent enough to recognise it, right?

There is good science and bad science because there are good scientists and bad scientists just as there are good and bad pastors and humans. And just as it is silly to judge God by pastors, good or bad, or humans by the few bad, so is it stupid to judge science by the bad scientists. It would also be false to claim there are more bad scientist and pastors and humans than the numerous good ones plodding away at their professions.

Science, is the use of one's senses, and in the West at least it can't really be separated from religion which fostered it despite the few Giordano Brunos who might have been burnt at the stake. There's a reason many will like to migrate there instead of remain in Nigeria

What gets me with this topic is the failure of many to realise that religions teach use your senses science, and I am saying this despite the numerous antiscience verses that instead promote belief. Contradiction, no? Just as not many will read a story about the tortoise and the rabbit and miss the lesson taught but believe the tortoise and rabbit, so should religious text readers not merely believe, but ask and knock and see in order to understand. In Islam, the senses are even washed 5 times a day to remind one to use them properly, but in our ignorance its like we try to clean them with mud and thereby make our senses unusable and consequently ourselves stupid and ignorant and we tremble like Adams instead of evolving into Eves.

We as a nation can't "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth", unless we use our senses to do science. And only by using our senses will we be blessed. One just need go check out the technological advancements of the nation that God is said to have favoured most to see what Science has helped them achieve.

When we stop fearing we'd die if we eat the fruits of trees of knowledge, greater things will we do.

We aren’t discussing good and bad science or good and bad religion or good and bad philosophy. Those exist. After all all professions are drawn from frail humans.

The human elements of subjectivity in sciences have been established.

I don’t understand what anti-science verses mean if you claim science is seek,knock and find. Isn’t everyone seeking and knocking and finding in the universe?

There is a big difference in disobeying God ( moral failure) in eating a forbidden fruit and in taking a big leap to dominate the earth by trial and error or efforts.

I wouldn’t know whether you advocate for disobedience to God in a bid to explore. That’s what led to Adam and Eve’s sin. God already commanded them to dominate. They could have achieved domination of their natural habitat without eating the fruit.

Crystyano:





Give me examples of things with empirical data as proof to you.....

Pls respond to the chat first

Crystyano:



Confusion

You are out of your depth here.
Pls sit this out

LordReed:


You're such a dumbass. You would have quoted me by now if I had mentioned anything about subjectivity or biases. What a fucktàrd.

You should have claimed that scientists said I argued about subjectivity and biases with you then we would have required you to name them. Dickwad.

Do we need 5 scientists to confirm your stupidity and foolishness too?

LordReed:


LoL! Here we go shifting goal posts again. I said there was no controversy between Bohr and Einstein over the Nobel Prize. Now that you have seen that there wasn't you want to shift the goal post.

You're a fuçking brazen liar. At no point did I talk about subjectivity or biases with you nor could you point out anywhere I made such an argument with you.

Delusion upon delusion. Bwahahahahaha!

Something you talked about for over 3 days is what you deny now?

Wow! That’s a damn hard record you break each time with lies and falsehood.

I am surprised we didn’t need 5 scientists to help you respond to this.

“They argued two very different positions regarding the observations of electrons behaving as a particle in some experiments and a wave in others, even though an electron shouldn’t be able to be both...

Even with their opposing theories, both were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922: Bohr for his atomic model, and Einstein for his work on the photoelectric effect (instead of his then-controversial theory of relativity). So how did the two physicists receive prizes for the same thing in the same year? Einstein was actually awarded the 1921 prize a year late, due to a technicality.“

Bishopkingsley:


Yes very deep question

Lol!

You will see myriads of conflicting answers on the true definition of atheism and the rationale for their non belief in God.

LordReed:


LMAO! Once again you prove you merely use articles to stroke whatever delusive fantasy you draw up in your head. No where in the article does it say there was controversy between Bohr and Einstein over the Nobel prize but trust your delusion factory to dream up one. Bwahahahahahaha!

You always miss the point why?
You said no controversy and I showed you.
You mentioned something about the years of the award and I showed you.
You talked about subjectivity and biases and I showed you.

You can running around in delusion and lies.

LordReed:


Go right ahead. Even the mentalfloss article you quoted does not use the word controversy in that snippet but sure go ahead and show me the Nobel Prize controversy between Bohr and Einstein. LoL

I say you speak first and read later.
It’s up to you to read and make up your mind on what transpired in the controversy surrounding Einstein’s Nobel prize. And to say you didn’t even know the technicalities in the delay by 1 year is amazing.

I won’t comment on the arbitrariness and subjectivity of the panelists.

“There were a bunch of reasons why Einstein was never given a Nobel Prize. Being Jewish and pacifist were big ones. The Nobel committee didn’t want to honor someone who was so outside the mainstream. The biggest reason, however, was that he was a theoretical physicist. The prize had, up until this point, primarily been given to people who proved things through experimentation.

In 1919, evidence for the General Theory of Relativity was finally found during a solar eclipse when British astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington detected light from stars which was bent by the gravity of the sun.

Everyone figured that 1920 would be the year when Einstein finally won his Nobel Prize. Instead, the award was given to Charles Edouard Guillaume “in recognition of the service he has rendered to precision measurements in Physics by his discovery of anomalies in nickel steel alloys”.

Yeah, Guillaume was just as surprised as everyone else that he won.

Well, OK. Maybe there wasn’t enough time for the result to sink in. Surely, 1921 would be the year that Einstien would win, right?

In 1921, they gave the Nobel Prize in Physics to no one. Yeah, they decided to give it to no one, rather than give it to Einstein.

The attitude of the Nobel committee was summed up by one Allvar Gullstrand, a Swedish ophthalmologist who sat on the physics committee. In his diaries, found long after his death, he wrote of the 1921 physics prize, “Einstein must never receive a Nobel Prize, even if the whole world demands it.”

By 1922, the Nobel Committee was looking ridiculous in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of the physics community for not giving Einstein a prize.

The rules of the prize stipulate that if no one were given an award in the sciences, it would roll over to the next year. So in 1922, they could retroactively give the 1921 prize.

The committee determined that they had to give the award to Einstein to maintain their respectability in the scientific world. It was just a matter of what they were going to give it to him for. This was probably the only time in the history of the Nobel when the winner was determined before the reason for the award.

In 1922 the nominations poured in again, and again there were dozens of nominations for Einstein and the General Theory of Relativity. However, there was one nomination for Einstein which wasn’t for relativity. Carl Wilhelm Oseen, a Swedish physicist, nominated Einstein for his work in discovering the photoelectric effect.

The committee decided to give Einstein the 1921 award, which wasn’t given out the previous year and give the 1922 award to Niels Bohr who developed the theory of the atom. By giving an award to Einstein and Bohr at the same time, it eliminated having to give one to Einstein by himself.

So Einstein won his Nobel Prize, but it explicitly was not for relativity. In fact, when he was notified by the Nobel Committee they stated:

… the Royal Academy of Sciences has decided to award you last year’s Nobel Prize for physics, in consideration of your work in theoretical physics and in particular your discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect, but without taking into account the value which will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future.

They left the door open for a future prize, but none was ever given.

Einstein didn’t really care much about the prize. He didn’t attend the prize ceremony because he was lecturing in Japan. All the money he won went to his ex-wife in a previous divorce settlement. Later in his life when he was asked which honors he was more proud of, he put the German Physical Society’s Max Planck Medal first and didn’t mention the Nobel Prize at all.


https://everything-everywhere.com/how-many-nobel-prizes-should-albert-einstein-have-won/

LordReed:


Evident to the senses is not the same as I have eliminated falsity. Hallucinations are evident to the senses as well.

We might as well conclude we really cannot know anything, our discussion inclusive.
See last paragraph below. All what we know might as well be erased.

“What are Christians accused of lacking? He suggests this criticism arises out of an idea called foundationalism. He explores the idea that theism is rationally acceptable only if there are good arguments for it. He suggests that this treats religion like a scientific hypothesis, but questions whether that is reasonable. He suggests that this lays down a standard that the very argument itself cannot meet.

Foundationalism itself fails to meet its own standard used here to reject religion.

In fact it leads to the rejection of most of our beliefs, not just theistic ones.”

LordReed:


This doesn't answer the question. You said "The Christian faith and belief in God actually does not need proofs for their validity", in other words you don't need proof for them to be true. The question now is how did you eliminate the possibility that they are false since you don't need proof.

“I believe that I had cornflakes for breakfast, that my wife was amused at some little stupidity of mine, that there really are such ‘external objects’ as trees and squirrels, and that the world was not created ten minutes ago with all its dusty books, apparent memories, crumbling mountains, and deeply carved canyons. These things, according to classical foundationalism, are not properly basic; they must be believed on the evidential basis of propositions that are self-evident or evident to the senses.”

~Platinga

LordReed:


Simple fact there was no controversy. That is a story you made up in your head from a poorly written article. If you had spoken to 5 scientists they would set your delusion factory of a brain straight. LMAO!

I am happy you are saying this on a public forum.

A simple cross-referencing can cure you of this malady.

LordReed:


Still can't find some badly written article to twist? LMFAO!

Yes just the way you read the Borh-Einstein Nobel prize controversy upside down. Lol

Do we also need 5 scientists to explain the article properly to you and the TECHNICALITY that led to the awards in separate years ( 1 year difference)?

LordReed:


So how do you it is not false?

Quote from Alvin Platinga below:

Critics claim that Christian belief is not rationally justified or justifiable: what, precisely, is the infirmity or defect they are ascribing to the Christian believer? What, exactly, is the question?


What are Christians accused of lacking? He suggests this criticism arises out of an idea called foundationalism.

He explores the idea that theism is rationally acceptable only if there are good arguments for it. He suggests that this treats religion like a scientific hypothesis, but questions whether that is reasonable. He suggests that this lays down a standard that the very argument itself cannot meet.

Foundationalism itself fails to meet its own standard used here to reject religion. In fact it leads to the rejection of most of our beliefs, not just theistic ones.

How much meets the classical conditions for being properly basic?

Not much, if any.

I believe that I had cornflakes for breakfast, that my wife was amused at some little stupidity of mine, that there really are such ‘external objects’ as trees and squirrels, and that the world was not created ten minutes ago with all its dusty books, apparent memories, crumbling mountains, and deeply carved canyons. These things, according to classical foundationalism, are not properly basic; they must be believed on the evidential basis of propositions that are self-evident or evident to the senses.


There are many beliefs which we rely on that in fact cannot be provided with good arguments that make them scientifically proven. The existence of external objects are difficult to separate from our perception.

Memories are hardly scientifically proven and yet we believe them and rely on them. In short, the standard that people make when critics suggest Christian theism unreasonable, is so high than many everyday beliefs would also fail the test.

Finally, Plantinga explores the idea of warrant. He considers those who argue that religious belief is wish fulfillment (Freud), or some sort of dysfunction (Marx). He notes that both begin their arguments from a position that claim theism is false. This is not argued, merely stated or asserted as a given. He continues to explore classic arguments against Christian belief (which he calls defeaters) and makes counter-cases. He believes none of these make serous challenges to the warrant Christian belief can enjoy, if it is true. The crucial difference here is not that he is arguing Christian beliefs are true, but that they are warranted if true.

https://www.reonline.org.uk/teaching-resources/16-plus-philosophy/warranted-belief-alvin-plantinga/

LordReed:


LMAO! Yes the 5 scientists you need to name who say science has disproved god. What's the matter? Can't find some badly written article on the Web that you can twist? Bwahahahahaha!

LMAO, BWAHAHAHA, 5 scientists! And the comedy continues.

For now it’s convenient to think you have no sound reason for your godlessness.
Just emotional, nothing more.

Workch:
i do and I know there’s no evidence for it yet, that’s why it’s a belief

What kind of evidence do you seek from Christianity and religion?

The Christian faith and belief in God actually does not need proofs for their validity. Rather they are basic and warranted beliefs that come naturally with humans just like we believe our history, and eat naturally when we are hungry.

But you can still state the kind of evidence you seek from religion and Christianity.

These people just driving us around as if we were in a night bus journey.

Claims, counter-claims, rebuttals, amended statements, further clarifications, denials.
Na wetin sef?

FreeIgboho:


That’s how you learn. You can’t expect to be spoon-fed everything.
Ok here, let me spell it out:
It is extremely likely you and I physically exist, but there is no way we can be absolutely sure.

You are right. From experience we know our consciousness and minds are real.

But with empirical data, none can show proofs of the existence of our consciousness. Same with logic and maths.