₦airaland Forum

pak: [/b]



@poster, Are you sure about the bolded ?

Take time to go through his posts and decide for yourself.

Its very difficult to be on the fence, most people belong to either one or two.

Anyway most muslims I've met in my daily work - colleagues and friends belong to 1 above.

maclatunji: And he his talking about "tones of posts".

Am at a loss here bro

What's wrong with the post above ? I actually commended muslims ?

and I didn't say one way or the other about you rather than the fact that its difficult to be on the fence.

olivertwist: With what I've read on this thread, I can say we have 3 types of muslims:

1. Non-violent muslims e.g the OP, Mr. bilms

2. Violent muslims e.g the killers of the US ambassor & Boko Haram.

3. Maclatunji (neither 1 nor 2).

@poster, Are you sure about the bolded ?

Take time to go through his posts and decide for yourself.

Its very difficult to be on the fence, most people belong to either one or two.

Anyway most muslims I've met in my daily work - colleagues and friends belong to 1 above.

maclatunji: I am perpetually smiling. By the way, wasn't your first post to me filled with the warmest of regards?

Really the intent of my first post was to commend the OP without reservations.

And also warn about Lats4real posts which was tending towards being violent (which a fellow muslim - akthedream, alluded to).


I do not argue with the fact that some of your post make sense but the tone should be called into question.


Christians believe that the one of the essence of faith, is to influence and affect the human character, especially as it relates to his fellows/neighbours who you can see as opposed to claiming piety to a God you can't see.

If your attitude towards responders on N/land is what you think of as a model for Islam then am sorry to say you won't have many buyers.

Just check out your response above, the level of sarcasm. Believe me bro, it was absolutely unnecessary. Am just coming from a thread on discussions with atheist and I can assure you that the exchanges have been far more civil

maclatunji: Isn't this post cute? You think many of those attacking embassies actually have Islam on their minds when they do so? How naive!

And you think it is possible for a moderator to track each offence as it happens all the time? Why don't you just call me "Ultramod" that can filter 1 million posts per minute and sanction erring members all at once?

#Cutebutunrealistic

Ok, I understand your angle but sounds a tad confrontational

but really maclatunji ? why must your responses always come out in confrontational tones.

Sometimes you make valid points but it always seem aggressive and confrontational.

as though you are perpetually angry ?

all4naija: Nature has no proof of whatsoever such thing exist though religionists point to it and expected us to believe in imperfection from perfect being in somewhere imagined. Yes, I think so. People would have believed - there is more evidence with proofs observe through sight(seeing) than the abstract baseless and unproven evidences.

What am saying his that whether or not God is evident in nature can be seen as a relative argument. Some people have what they term as proofs which you might or might not agree with

MyJoe: I doubt you realise what those few lines do to "infinite regress" or what they say about the thought process of the atheist. Well, some atheists.

all4naija: Nature has no proof of whatsoever such thing exist though religionists point to it and expected us to believe in imperfection from perfect being in somewhere imagined. Yes, I think so. People would have believed - there is more evidence with proofs observe through sight(seeing) than the abstract baseless and unproven evidences.

Nice one
He apparently does not

Enigma: Very nice; so, bookmarked for reference.

PS I added the things in blue for grammatical and quote accuracy purposes only.

PPS @Kay17 ---- I wonder if you will ever raise "infinite regress" again (you don't have to answer that now)

EDITED

MyJoe: When I read this post, I licked my lips. I see pak has been treating it.

Thank you bro(s).
That was a statement that called for some serious 'lip licking' . Infact, I copied it out verbatim in notepad before I even started doing anything else.
What a concise and apt way to express the Theist view point.


In fact, its like this guy has 'anointing'. Really Kay, when you are through with this atheist stuff , maybe you should consider pastoring, you go flow wella

Kay 17: @PAK

Your father's view on God as a force still doesn't account for the other existing parts of the Universe, it doesn't explain time or matter.

On the big bang implication; the state prior to this present Universe already accounts for all the matter and energy present now. In order words they were in a condensed state with the potential to expand.

I wasn't asking if he was right or wrong. I don't exactly share his views. I just wanted to know get some 'clarifications' on all these 'ists' argument. I just wanted to know where you will place him.

cyrexx: i have said something similar to this earlier in another thread.

There i posed a question - How come it is just only human beings who are describing God and defending his existence?

It should be a simple task to an omnipotent being if he wanted everyone to follow him and not follow any other false religion or doubt his existence. The fact that he cannot speak to humans but only "threaten" to deal with humans (according to the holy books) when they are dead and gone connotes that he is just a human creation and human mind's conceptualisation needed to explain the world's origin and complexity because man has not figured it out yet. (even the two holy books are so full of errors because it was written by error-prone humans who wants to enforce their belief on others by claiming it was written by God)


Shikena.

Before you 'shikena' yourself
Can't you see that the point you raised is relative, almost all religions believe that the existence of God is evident in Nature. And even if God were to be speaking to humans audibly, will that make you believe ? I don't think so - It will have been washed away as a 'technoauditory vibration' or something of that nature.


and besides get rudimentary facts rights, the last time I checked there were about a thousand 'holy books' - and am sure you've not read them all. So how are u sure they are full of errors.

kwajahafiz: My name is kwaja . I am the son of a barren woman
And so are you.
Ponder this.
You and ur cause, or lack there of is one and
The same. Idealized God is a misnomer. It takes
Ur consciousness to imbibe it with existence.
In other words, God of mentation or otherwise exists because u do. Not vice versa. Now ponder deep within you the question, who am I?, without fretting to vouchsafe a mentored answer, and your mind will slowly and surely dissolve into a oneness that defies mind. In essence, from pure gnosis stand point, you are "that you are"
And not more nor less.

You tried bro, nice and poetic write up.
but consider the bolded, God doesn't exist because I do, rather am a proof of his existence.
If you see two-story builing, the builder does not exist because the house does, rather the house is a proof that its builder(s) exist.

Kangani ko ?

Kay 17: Reality itself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for reality, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore reality is self existent. As a result subjects of reality are equally self existent either potentially or in actuality.

The appearance of designs and orderliness is directly attributable to the Universe's personality, which may be called physical laws which we in turn are compelled by necessity to follow. That's why our cars follow the relevant laws of motion, our houses gravity, and our inventions are more or less discoveries of how the Universe accommodates our ideas.

In order words, it has always being here

And kay, whenever you come back, you can look at this.

The bolded sounded rather deep and I dont fully understand it.

but the other parts of your submission sounds contradictory to common scientific knowledge.

I thought scientific knowledge claims the big bang occurred at a definite point in time and that our universe is about 13/14 billion years old.

This lack of origin and self existence and 'always been here' seems contradictory to the nature of the physical matter.


Me thinks what you are describing sounds more attributable to God which the Theist talks about

Now get this. Am not trying to force my beliefs on anyone (cos in reality I can't)

but am trying to make u examine your own beliefs to see that it seems a bit awkward for someone to consider himself an atheist in the pure sense of the word. Something really doesn't gel.
An agnostic ? I don't agree with him but then I might understand where he is coming from but atheist ? common !

The reason why Atheist believe God doesn't exist are evident to how Theists and religionists define what supposedly has to qualify for a creator. In the essence that God created all things yet very elusive to what it created is one of them. While many comes to claim he exist, from a perception,with the limited abilities to see beyond nature(which is impossible)because imagination as well is part of our human nature.

Now bro, sincerely I find it hard to understand your points fully here but if what am thinking is right, then you are saying we have limited ability to see beyond nature on one hand, and that it is impossible on the other.
Whichever, the little I can surmise from your above line is that the supernatural and/or the preternatural might (or might not exist) since we cannot see beyond nature, then we can't really say !!!

See me see trouble How then are you an atheist !!!!!

Please Kay and Weirflag - your attention is needed here, your brother might be backsliding already

@ All4naija

I find it a bit difficult understanding the meat of your immediate post. Maybe due to the length, maybe due to the construct.
You spoke in simpler terms earlier and I enjoyed it. I find it difficult to break this down but I'l try.

@Pak,I can see you are such an individual who beats pry for activities to throw words at against familiar yet contented Theist life - and, it can be very addictive and caustic in nature.

What are u on about here - don't seem to understand.

The reason why Atheist believe God doesn't exist are evident to how Theists and religionists define what supposedly has to qualify for a creator. In the essence that God created all things yet very elusive to what it created is one of them. While many comes to claim he exist, from a perception,with the limited abilities to see beyond nature(which is impossible)because imagination as well is part of our human nature. It is obvious the existence of God being the origin of everything has a beginning(if we are to go by such definition) and where the beginning seems to end is the start of another beginning.
Looking at the environment we find ourselves, isn't it clear that the idea of God is a perception concluded on the premise of what surround us in the very question of IF? For example, people would use the excuse that IF there happens to be a house in the middle of a desert there are evidences it is made by somebody or something(it can not come on it own accord) yet the very God who created is able to appear on it won accord. Why can't other things? Looking at some of this arguments(Atheists being free thinkers) are reasonable enough to spot the bubbles in this claim of the existence of a creator or God. Finalizing to be disassociated from mere imaginations, myths, tradition and other supernatural claims of activities as path to originator of the beginning is another irritating thing. This is the same reason Atheist never bothered about a existence of a creator but reality and a continuous quest for evidences supporting true life phenomenon. Until then, it is not a duty of any Atheist to point to the beginning of the beginning for any individual nor exempt itself from the quest for the rightful answer though reasonable and factual evidences, as existence(both life and other entities) and the quest for the beginning seems to be moving on an unending linear scale(taking a peek from the agnostic).You see, it still comes back to say Atheists are more or less free thinkers than any other thing yet don't believe in the existence of God because there is nothing like such as God the creator.

bolded 1
Now your brother Kay has rightly pointed out that it is possible for an entity or a concept not to have a beginning, to be self existent.


bolded 2
because it contradicts there very nature. They are bounded by time and space and physical laws which won't allow for that.
That's where God is limitless


bolded 3
if that is our you describe your belief (or lack of) then . . .GBAM. I've won my first battle, you are more of an Apatheist.

My eyes are partly closing as I type.

wiegraf: I speak of gay rights, but you can extend it to any laws that discriminate on religious grounds.

You genuinely think we are crazy, you just don't want to admit it because you are being called out. Religion is rather insidious, you may be a productive, good dude but you have an irrational and maybe subconscious intolerance towards atheists, probably because it's been implanted in you by one of these 'good' religions...
I'm joking with the indignation, maybe. I'll let you off the hook.

I guessed as much , hence the question 'or where you hinting at something else'.

Well as regard religion, I have just two for now. Man Utd and Python .

Am the opposite of my dad, He has many, I have non.


I do not think you guys are crazy, just feel you are missing something somewhere. And how can I be intolerant towards what I do not believe really exist.


To the gay issue, one question I've always asked peeps who support gay right is - what's your take about bestiality ? agreed, its a digression but still quite relevant to the issue at hand cos the topic of God cuts across the scientific, the philosophical and morality.
(and please don't assume that am trying to say homosexualism and bestiality are the same thing. Just want to gauge your moral compass as regards the issue)

wiegraf: Personally, I think PHP is a terrible cancer, but then javascript. Besides, once I get my hands dirty with pure functional programming I might be able to achieve great things without variables altogether (well not really) talk less of initiating them.

Functional programming ? Never done that before, the closest I got was python !

and please don't place jscript beside PHP. Have you ever wondered why there has never been any competition on the client side to Jscript for the past 17 years (which is about 3 lifetimes in programming years).

That chap, along side Python and C++, are the best languages ever developed (ok, I know this is way too subjective and don't ask me what criteria I used - I just hate java ) . Now this is from someone who doesn't particularly code in javascript - either core or client side.

wiegraf: Anyways, you never addressed my questions. So, again:

What made god?

Now Kay answered that so brilliantly, Am not sure I can do better. So let me just copy and paste

God Himself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for God, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore God is self existent.
In order words, God has always being here.

Again, I must say - this is an agnostic argument/question.
If you argue against the existence of God because you/we do not know who 'made God' then you should also argue against the existence of man (and other matter) because you have not discovered from whence they came

akthedream: Am a muslim and i move the motion that anybody that make a threat to anybody's life should be banned without any hesitation or bias.

Thanks for reiterating my points.

Intellects like you make me believe that we can all live in peace and an atmosphere of mutual respect for one another regardless of our religious proclivity

hmmm . . where do i start.

wiegraf: Are you implying I'm a mad under the bridge hypocrite? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Is that meant to be derogatory?

Nope, it was never meant to be. It was partly jocular with a lace of truth beneath. I simply do not believe that a 'true atheist' exist, apart from people who do not have the mental capacity to comprehend such issues. A group you clearly don't fall into. At least you can type on a keyboard.( though I don't know if you are doing that from under a bridge anyway Ok, I digress . . cut me some slack, its late in the night here)

wiegraf: This is what is in the op:
"Let's discuss atheism vs deism. Merits and logic of both sides . If some theists would like to chip in their own two cents, they are free, however buzugee, rastamouse and snthesis(for a different reason than the other two) can watch from the sidelines. If Davidylan wants to join in, he'd better be civil. Okay 3,2,1, let the games begin!!!"


I think this thread is about comparing the logic of both atheism, deism. 'existence of God' is related, but not the main topic.

I don't know what you are driving at here bro. The major differentiating factor between atheism and every other 'ism' is his belief in the 'non existence of God' (if I should use that language) - that's why I've been calling on your fellow discussant Kay to help me out if am missing something

wiegraf: You took it to

Certainly not related to the topic, maybe indirectly though. Anyway, you have brought the "burden of proof" to the fore.
I respond with a post about the burden of proof, complete with examples to show why the claimant is the one who has back up his assertions, then you do this.

That was due to All4Naija response when he hinted that it was the theist's call to make the proofs (and I still think its not out of place in this discussion

wiegraf: There is more, but I'll leave it here, for now...

And if you're a programmer need you ask about the $?

. . .and please, please stop writing those PHP codes. It affects your thinking and makes you believe in things like atheism and the fact that you do not need to declare a variable before they are brought into existence



N.B.
and really bros, what has this discussion go to do with the fact that you were sitting at home one day and someone came to tell you that you can't marry the one you love ? (I almost fell from my chair when I read that - or where you hinting at something else)
Maybe she left you cos you need to step up your game. its not our fault man.

Now I have two questions for you Kay and I'll appreciate if you take time to answer both.

1. My Dad believed that God was not a 'being' per se in the traditional way most religion see it.

but that The source was an 'invisible force' that was involved in bringing to existence the visible universe and is responsible for the ability to access metaphysical powers (I don't share the same opinion, so I wont go further ) but my question is this, based on your line of argument where do you place him ? Atheist, Theist, deist or what ?


Am asking cos am trying to do my best to get into the atheist reasoning ?


2. I posed a question to you based on wiegraf response

pak: The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. Simple.

Kay pls help me out (You seem to be like one of the most intelligent here) but I think in my own little way and in the simplest of definitions that Atheist are ppl who claim that God does not exist as in they do not believe in the existence of dieties.(or am I gettin somethin wrong ?)

Do you think that atheist do not hav anything to prove ? (like say the theist).
Cos me thinks you are also making a claim here.

Kay 17: That's because reality is a background.

God is only useful as a creator

Lets not get beyond ourselves here. As far as Theism is concerned, there is a large spectrum. You can't lump all theist belief into one aside from the basis that all matter in the Universe came from ONE SOURCE.

How that SOURCE gave rise to other existence and the visible world is another issue.
Whether the source is omnipotent or omniscient, or is actively involved in/influences the affairs of the universe is as I said earlier is a topic for another day

This was a dream I had about five year ago. I shared it back then on Nairaland.
Here's the link below


https://www.nairaland.com/48041/which-way-nlng/92#1958709

maclatunji: ^Good talk, but the reality in the Middle East goes way beyond the scope of your post.

The OP's post is commendable in every way. As much as I agree to your rights to free speech.

I thinks bilms submissions are ones that do not require 'ifs or buts' rather commendation cos he spoke the truth.

I have a number of friends who are muslims and I've maintained the relationship because this has always been their attitude.



And as a moderator, I think you must have been seeing lat4real's post.

How is he allowed to make threats on an open forum as this without adequate censor or outright ban as the case may be.
I think its an unhealthy trend

Kay, Pls can you do me a favour,

Just replace the word reality with God in your statement below and see what you get

Kay 17: Reality itself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for reality, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore reality is self existent. As a result subjects of reality are equally self existent either potentially or in actuality.


In order words, it has always being here

Infact, I'll do it for you.

Kay 17: God Himself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for God, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore God is self existent.


In order words, God has always being here

If its not difficult to believe in the self existent nature of reality, then why is it strange to believe in the self existence of a deity.

wiegraf: From the way you write I'm taking you assume yourself an intelligent person. Don't know you, but I'm going to go with this assumption. To save time, I will make another as well.

I don't know what to make of this statement, sounds derogatory to me. I think there was no need to include that, you should have just gone ahead to make your point.

wiegraf: The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. Simple. We atheists sit in our houses minding our business then some theist comes in and tells us $deity says that we, or our friends and family, cannot get married to the person we love. Why? Because $deity. Or they kill diplomats because a film violates rules laid out in their book of fairy tales (yes, really, years from now our descendants will wonder what in the universe possessed us) written 1400 years, on the authority of said $deity. Note how these 'crimes' do not hurt said theists in anyway. It is now the burden of the theist to prove sky (well now he hides beyond the big b.ang) tyrant exists. They are the ones making the claim, and using these completely unfounded, no evidence whatsoever, claims to discriminate, persecute, kill etc.
If they don't justify their claims that would be a blatant disregard for human rights, no?

First off, why are you putting a dollar sign before deity ? Are you a PHP programmer
C++ programmers believe in God, PHP programmers dont. No wonder you write shitty codes (Ok, I digress . . . )

Sincerely bro, Its my turn to ask 'What's your point ?'
We are not here to talk about the behaviour of those that believe in God or why they kill diplomats or tell you not to marry or even God's nature for that matter. We can always pick them up on another day.
The bone of contention on this thread is the issue of the 'existence of God'.

So pls lets try and stick to the topic just like Kay did, which I appreciate.

wiegraf: The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. Simple.

Kay pls help me out (You seem to be like one of the most intelligent here) but I think in my own little way and in the simplest of definitions that Atheist are ppl who claim that God does not exist as in they do not believe in the existence of dieties.(or am I gettin somethin wrong ?)

Kay 17: Reality itself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for reality, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore reality is self existent. As a result subjects of reality are equally self existent either potentially or in actuality.

The appearance of designs and orderliness is directly attributable to the Universe's personality, which may be called physical laws which we in turn are compelled by necessity to follow. That's why our cars follow the relevant laws of motion, our houses gravity, and our inventions are more or less discoveries of how the Universe accommodates our ideas.

In order words, it has always being here

God bless you my brother, That was the clearest I've ever heard an atheist try to place his/her position without resorting to anger (you know the 'bolekaja' mentality). Really we should have a drink or two together sometimes cos definitely Nland won't suffice to trash this out. . . .

Anyway before I post my rebuttal, I'll like to know if my friend all4nig (who is patriotic to his country but not loyal to God, sounds odd - but then I digress) agrees with your postulation.
SO all4nig, pls are you there ?

all4naija: Dude, does any human have answer for that? It is like asking the Theist where their creator sprung from. Please, stop pointing to Atheist to find you answer of what is bothering you as Theist. We can only point to reality not imaginable world full of speculations. What Atheist is about are reality and reasonable ideas which point to facts!

Please be patient with me all4Nig,
I thought you must have read the responses I made to you in the previous page but apparently you didn't.

I made this point in my 2nd post

You see a lot of atheist argue that burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism but I totally disagree, it cuts both ways. The only group that can shift that responsibility is the agnostics.


Sincerely, my bro (from my perspective). Your statements move you closer to an agnostic than an atheist. correct me if am wrong.
Cos for me if someone tells the theist, that he beleives that there is no god. The first response he should naturally expect is 'then what is the SOURCE of all existence. I really don't know why you sound surprised by my questions

Kay 17: I don't understand why most theists unnecessarily assume atheists accept a magically world sprung out of emptiness. Its a bad argument!

and I think that's the essence of a thread such as this.

You have the opportunity to explain where from the atheist view point the world sprung out from so that we can stop speculating . . .or am I missing something about the definition of an atheist

wiegraf: What's your point?

I made two previous post on the thread (page 2) and I agree the third post will only make sense if seen as a continuation of the other ones. You can check them

And for all those Atheist who see the discovery of the Higgs Boson - the much sensationalised "God Particle" as some sort of vindication, a pat in the back. I'll only say 'puleeazzzze'


That was a victory for physics and has little impact in the 'God argument' and for crying out loud the Higg Boson is the means by which particles acquire mass. it does not in anyway address the issue of how the particles came to be (at least to my knowledge).

I ate beans, Yam, rice , Garri and it contributed to my growing to be the big boy that I am now.

Thus that make beans and yam my father or Mother ?



I lost my Dad this year (and God bless his Soul). As far as I know the old man at one point or the other must have practiced as much as seven or more religion. He believes absolutely in Science.

One thing he is quick to point out is that all religions do not necessarily have to negate each other if not for the pride of men, (ok, I digress)

He actually always argued that findings about evolution and all sorts do not necessarily counter the fact that God exists, in as much as he holds them to be true. Its one thing to make a discovery, its another to make the right inferences from it.

all4naija: Where did you get that from Hitler was an Atheist? He was born a Catholic and ended up being neither Atheist not theist. He believed in dictator's and supremacy ideology , which the Jews as well made their religion and tradition to look like when viewing non-Jews. The most questionable part of what Hitler's belief define who he really that's light on many Nazi who supported were Christians. The idea of why people view Hitler as Atheist was for the simple reason murdered Christians, Jews and non-Jews alike(Atheists,etc). Hitler himself associated Atheism with bolshevism, communism, and Jewish materialism --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler.

Please, steer clear of speculating and peddling false rumors about Atheist and Atheism.

You are right on that again - Hitler actually believed in Divine Providence. More of a Theist than an atheist but wasn't particularly religious

all4naija: Also taking a look at the maker of the phone suggest he has a maker. This only creates an endless line of makers! So, creator in a sense doesn't hold any water in such argument.

Nice line of thought - all4Nig,
but you know what, disproving the earlier proposition does not in any way lend weight to the Atheist argument but rather the agnostic.

You see a lot of atheist argue that burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism but I totally disagree, it cuts both ways. The only group that can shift that responsibility is the agnostics.

In fact, as far as I am concerned the position of the atheist requires a far more larger set of assumptions, irrationality and blind belief than almost all the religions of the world. Ironic

From my little corner of the world,

The only thing surmise is that there is really no true Atheist (maybe save the mad men under the bridge).

What we have are Theists, Deists and Agnostics (and probably ppl who have not given much thought to such issues).

Believing there is no God will take far more 'faith' than believing in religion.

Its easier to believe in David Blaine's magic than to believe everything we see just came out of nothing (haba !)


and really what is 'Nothing' and what is 'no existence', really if there is no God, then life itself is a mirage. We really then do not exist.


The first tasks for anybody on this forum is to prove the existence of an atheist in the first place, before we go on to argue about the existence of God.

Now lets note that this discussion is not about the nature of God (or His form). That is an argument for another day and another thread but rather His existence

nice-guy1:
i love this passage of the bible..... Though i can't remember d verse..... Mayb somebody can help me...... D place God's says........ '' I know d thoughts I have 4 u....thoughts of good & not of evil 2 give u an expected end''............& dis one....... ''All good & perfect gift comes from God...... I love dis verses soo much......pls somebody help me with d quotations...

Jeremiah 289 v 11

I've been on this forum for close to five years now and there r some stuff am yet to get a grip on.
First, I can sometimes see some likes on my post but then I have absolutely no idea which forum member liked them (as Facebook does).
Please experts on the forum can you elucidiate in easy steps how to view those who like my posts.

Or is it 'possible that its not possible' to view my likes ??

Then I think we should prevail on Oga Seun to do a little bit more work to make that available.