₦airaland Forum

Well, we don't know if that has been confirmed. Yes, as Christians we have the persuasion that Jesus is coming soon; however, the baby born with her hands closed is yet an unconfirmed story that has been posted too many times on the net. It would be great if one could find some source that actually confirms it.

More blessings to you. Indeed, one may never find the "right" church (it all depends on what criteria makes a church 'right' and suited to one's taste). However, even when there are certain things that surprise us sometimes, we can look to God and proceed with caution. As you pray for His leading, you will be blessed and refreshed constantly. Jesus is Lord.

huxley2:
Did you read this to imply that I think "evolution" explains theism or atheism?

No, not at all. Rather, the point was that I don't see how Darwinism comes into the discussion between the two worldviews.

No2Atheism:
am on my way ,

yeye man! You take sabbatical go enjoy yourself and I was looking for you all over with telescope. Make me sef go play small _{(Yahoo! zuma or bejewelled 2 games, some of my fav).}

huxley2:
Hello Pilgrim,

I see your point but I think you are overstretching the point. The point Dawkins is making here is that wherever humans have looked and found complexity, it is generally explained in terms of evolution. In biological systems, Darwinian evolution explains the development of complex biological system. In cosmic system, humans have also detected complexity arising from simple non-complex systems. So in the strict scientific sense, what we observe in our universe is explained in terms of evolutionary mechanism rather than one-off design.

Hi again huxley2,

While I appreciate your reply in context, you'd observe that I haven't given Dawkins' statement my own personal interpretation. This was why I clearly stated:

I think, however, that some of those I've come across who make such assertions
have taken Richard Dawkins' statement to far-reaching conclusions.

What followed was not my own interpretation of what he said, just simply pointing out that others have possibly taken his statement to far-reaching conclusions that may not be warranted in the consideration of all possible worlds.

However, I may not be a fan of Darwinian evolution, but this statement in yours: ("what we observe in our universe is explained in terms of evolutionary mechanism " simply does not hold grounds at the moment in the discussions we're having thus far between two worldviews: theism and atheism. Like I said, I'd not like to lose sight of my basic approach so that the gist of our discussion does not get lost in unrelated matters. To this end, I've taken time to offer a "scenario 1" for starters, to the end that those who deny evidence for the supernatural may take a step back and observe phenomena that are clearly beyond their worldview of naturalism. I'd be happy to see views expressed in that regard presently.

Cheers.

ol, you guys are funny.

OLAADEGBU:
[quote author=No2Atheism link=topic=279591.msg3986644#msg3986644 date=1244295913]Exactly, it is Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

Absolutely. And not Eve and Stephanie, or Adam, Eve and Stephanie[/quote]Em. . . what about Adam and Re[b]eve[/b]s?

mamamia18:
finally, my church told me that if you do not give money to the church that you could die, as god is looking for a seed offering. in addition to this, i women, who i would say is a big women of god (as she is an evangelist and a propestest) has on 4 occassions asked me for money. on the first she asked to borrow 150 pounds, which i told her dont worry about. i fort that was the last time she would ask me for money. however, the next time she told me a sin that i had committed - which was true and then the next day asked me for 40 pounds because her tyre on her car was flat. the next day she said that her tyre on her car had been slit and she needed an extra 70 pounds which again i gave to her as i was told seeds could be the difference between life or death. The day after that - well she asked me for a amount which i will not disclose which again i gave to her as she said she needed to pay some debt off. please bear in mind that i am a student and the money which i gave her is out of my late fathers money which he left for my school fees.

@mamamia18,

Some of the problems you'd pointed out are not peculiar to only one church - many churches have this thing about affinity and loyalty, so they frown at their members marrying members of other churches, or participating in their activities (worship, Bible studies, evangelism, etc).

However, if anyone is asking you for money and claiming all sorts of things thereby, please know that such tendencies are ungodly. It's not my style to resort to castigations or aspersions of people, but as a believer grows there's a maturity that opens one's eyes to these things. Giving is good, we know there are blessings attached to our giving; but giving under duress with claims of "death" upon one's life is not the Gospel of Christ at all. It does not matter whatever spiritual gift or office anyone may claim - prophet/prophetess, healing evangelists, etc - using one's gift to twist your arm to give is an indication that something is fundamentally wrong and you need to face up to it.

Abuses of this nature come through several routes and means. In your case, it was labelled as "seed offering". Nothing wrong in seed offering itself, and the Bible affirms that aspect of our giving. However, when someone takes what is actually true in itself and applies it to false motives and ends, it is time to close the door against such abuses in your life. Even though giving in church is healthy and part of our lifestyle as Christians, you were not raised to be responsible for paying any prophetess' debts or bills. If they are in need, they can declare openly in church through appropriate means so that their needs might be met; but to go behind and begin to task you is an indication of an abuse that God does not sanction.

Be bold and do not be afraid to put an end to such leaks in your life. Such occurences should not discourage your giving in a healthy manner, even if you are led to give seed offering or 'sow' in a healthy way in your stewardship in church. Remember, a curse that you do not deserve will never set upon your life - never! Proverbs 26:2 - "As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come."

God give you wisdom and bless your walk in Jesus' Name.

Hallo huxley2,

huxley2:
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg3985750#msg3985750 date=1244282396]Yes, I agree with your basic point there - it's not so much about a debate between the Bible and evolution as it is between two worldviews: (Christian-) theism and atheism. You surprise me though, for you're one of the few sensible ones to hold that evolution hasn't all the answers. . "yet". Many assume that it does. And research in human embryo, whatever the results, does not "prove" anything for atheism, nor "disprove" the basic claim of theism.

What do you mean by this? Evolution has all the answers to what?[/quote]I don't know what those who assert such may mean by "evolution has all the answers"; rather, I made the point that not all atheists make such claims about evolution having answers to all possible such questions as they may discuss. I think, however, that some of those I've come across who make such assertions have taken Richard Dawkins' statement to far-reaching conclusions:

Question:
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?

https://www.edge.org/q2005/images/dawkins100.jpg
Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist, Oxford University.

I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe,
is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes
late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution
and therefore cannot underlie the universe.'

That was Dawkins' featured response to the question above from the Edge Annual Question—2005 (World Question Center). Often in discussions, I've read some atheists making the kind of assertions (perhaps unwittingly) that evolution has all the answers to the questions of our world. I gladly noted that Tùdor is not one of those making such assertions.

Interestingly, someone just asked offline if I was not defeating my own premise. He was referring to this part of my post:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg3985919#msg3985919 date=1244285354]This again, is not one of the cases to "prove" or "disprove" anything (at least, not for me).[/quote]The point there should not be confusing to anyone, as I have no independent way of varifying the event for myself and only posted it second-hand for others to draw their own inferences. I know that the reports point to the fact that the event was "real" and "undeniable". . . but why I'm not using that to push "evidence" for anything at the moment is because I'm hoping to take the discussing with atheists on this forum to more engaging phenomena that could be examined by falsifiability. I use that term in the sense of -

         '. . . the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by
          an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable"
          does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown
          by observation or experiment.'

That is the sort of 'evidence' and/or 'proof' that is often some here might have been speaking about; and the John Safran encounter with Bob Larson could be weighed on that same basis for what it is. For pointers to the idea that the exorcism was "dramatic and realistic", let me post an interview with Safran - again the reader should draw his/her own inferences:

[list]

Rachael Kohn: Now John, I don’t know how to broach this but your last episode is a tour de force, the Devil gets his comeuppance, he meets his Nemesis, in Bob Larson the exorcist. Did you plan that right from the beginning?

John Safran: Not really. I spoke to Bob Larson on the phone and he did seem quite charismatic on the phone, and quite open to things like because I was just feeling out the waters like are we even allowed to film you, being an exorcist, and then Oh, he seems to be fine us filming him doing exorcisms, and I go Yes, what about if like I had any issues, anything that I needed to exorcise out of me, and he’s like Yeah, why not, and stuff, so like this sounds good, but I didn’t really think about it much more.

And then when we arrived on the first day and we met Bob Larson, because he’s just so charismatic and just every time he opens his mouth he says something either ridiculously offensive or unintentionally so funny and stuff. So we’re going This guy’s very good talent, and it’s like he’s pretty much one of those one-in-a-million people you kind of hear about and then we started thinking Well if he’s going to exorcise me, and he’s willing to do that, why don’t I just tell him about all the things I’ve done over the course of the series, and see what he has to say about that and then he can exorcise me of all the spirits I’ve picked up.

But he believed that, he believed, 'John, you’ve gone to Haiti in a voodoo temple; John you’ve gone to India, and hung out with Hanuman the Monkey God; and you’ve been in Mozambique, and you’ve been in a chicken blood ritual, so John, you basically, you’ve left yourself open to demonic possession'. And then he proceeds one by one to get rid of all the demons out of me that I’ve picked up during the show.

Rachael Kohn: You looked under a lot of stress.

John Safran: Yes, well I don’t know, I kind of forget what kind of happened, there’s two readings of that episode, one is Oh it’s like when they hypnotise people on the Footy Show and the footy players are going around clucking like chickens, so that’s like one reading of it, and then the other reading of it is I guess something happened.


[list]

Rachael Kohn: Do you think something happened?

John Safran: Well definitely like when I look back at it, I don’t remember a lot of it, and also anyone who knows me, indeed anyone who watches the show can just look at my face, and there’s just all this stuff that just doesn’t go on in any other stories, in like every other story you can see me being a bit more like conscious or pulling, you know, there’s some subtle expression on my face where you kind of know I’m being a bit whacky, and this one it’s like I just can’t act that well, basically is what I’m getting at, there’s no way I can act that well. So who knows?

I know a Christian journalist tell me that she was going John, you did all this stuff over the show and you know, it all looks like you’re mucking around and there’s one thing with this Christian Evangelical person and it looked pretty right on, so John, why don’t you connect two and two and become a Christian, which I thought was an interesting way for the interview to go. You’re not going to pull that on me are you? Pick up some pamphlets somewhere.

[/list]


Rachael Kohn: Well I was going to ask you whether you were cleansed and converted?

John Safran: I don’t know if I was converted, I think I can accept what happened there as being true and not necessarily have to say Well therefore I have to go to his branch of Christianity because like all the major faiths all go Oh, you know, the Christian god is the Jewish god is the Muslim god, and definitely his strand of Christianity believed that Jews were an important part of their roots and stuff, so I’m not sure, he did put a bit of pressure on me over the half hour, we didn’t put all that in to it, but basically, yes, pretty much every 25 minutes he was leaning on me to kind of You know, John, have you ever thought about Christianity?


AND SO ON, EXORCISM CONTINUES

Source:  http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/spirit/stories/s1193306.htm

[/list]

Like I said earlier, the idea that this could not have been "real" or claims of fakery are non-starters. Reading the above, one can see that even Safran himself could directly "accept what happened there as being true". I hope this helps to put things in a bit more perspective.

Regards.

Before I take another break, let me highlight something that may help set the stage for a good development towards my approach to engage NL atheists. I'd stated that:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg3985732#msg3985732 date=1244282034]Now, as has been indicated, several atheists are wondering if there are pointers to such occurences; and apart from the hints I gave earlier, I'm eagerly waiting for the atheist to proffer a naturalistic hard evidence for his claim about all realities of our known world.[/quote]In due course, I'll be posting pointers to such occurences of realities beyond the naturalism espoused by many atheists. Please bear in mind that just because these phenomena occur does not "prove" anything one way or the other between claims we're eager to make for our theistic and atheistic worldviews. As time goes on, such posts beyond the ordinary will be made available; but for the moment these preliminaries would/might just help some atheists to carefully think issues through for starters, and try to see if they can come up with explanations (not excuses) from within their own worldviews of "naturalism".

Scenario 1. Here's one case I would like you to consider. Suppose you knew someone who's quite popular for making fun of belief in God. His approach is different, because not only does he have the usual satires and publicly entertaining humorous slings, he also tries to investigate if such things in his satires could have any reality behind them.

Indeed, there's such a man (and there are several similar events like this). Many of you may know him or not, but I'd like to refer you to an experience that Australian film maker John Safran recorded in encoutering televangelist and exorcist Bob Larson. The point in posting this to help the atheist carefully think things through, not because I'm pushing this as "proof" or "evidence" for my understanding of the supernatural. Here it is:

[list]

John Safran's Exorcism

In 2003, Australian film maker John Safran came to do a story on Bob Larson for John Safran vs God, a comedy/documentary series on world religions. The final episode was devoted entirely to this encounter. It lacked some of the humorous flair of the previous seven episodes, starting with a brief introduction to Bob. He talked about his past, and showed John a series of photographs of him with prominent political figures including Margaret Thatcher, George H. W. Bush, John Major, and Colin Powell, saying; "no one impresses me more as a human being than Colin Powell".

Soon after this the exorcism started with Bob ordering Safran to speak on behalf of his Jewish ancestors and forgive Adolf Hitler. Safran's behaviour seemed to change; he lost his lisp, became violent and angry, and began to speak in the characters of several of the spiritual figures he investigated in previous episodes, including the voodoo spirit Papa Gede and the Hindu god Hanuman.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Larson#John_Safran.27s_Exorcism

[/list]

[list]

John Safran vs God - Episode Eight

The eighth episode was the most controversial. Instead of its usual format of various segments, the show featured a single story: the exorcism of John's demons by Christian exorcist and fundamentalist preacher Bob Larson. There was none of the humour that characterised the preceding episodes. The exorcism was dramatic and realistic and no explanation was given at the end of the episode as to John's behaviour. On the Yahoo! "Cult of Safran" web group a stormy discussion started on whether John was actually faking - Safran's lisp is absent while allegedly possessed. Safran appeared in several radio and television plug spots for the show post-production/pre-screening and only briefly commented on the exorcism episode as a very intense segment to film. After the screening of the episode Safran appeared in an interview on ABC radio and said he didn't remember a lot of the experience. The sales pitch for the recently released DVD is "you've seen the exorcism, now buy the DVD".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Safran_vs_God#Episode_Eight

[/list]

Aiight, folks. Just imagine that someone was trying to ridicule your belief with satire and "prove" that it's not real. Such a man would be John Safran. The idea that this could not have been "real" or claims of fakery are non-starter; because if they were not, then one would have Safran stating clearly that he was actually faking it.

This again, is not one of the cases to "prove" or "disprove" anything (at least, not for me). Let it sort of whet the appetite of the NL atheists as we progress. From their opinions, we shall then be able to tidy discussions in context.

Cheers.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3985728#msg3985728 date=1244281976]No2atheism
i think you're wrong,this isn't a debate about the bible against evolution but your religion against my atheistic disbelief.
Personally i believe evolution hasn't all the answers yet. . .
The bible might have made some good scientific calls however there're not so accurate ones. For example we now know you cant produce spotted goats by breeding them over stripped sticks. . .
There's research going on with animal and human embryo,it's only a matter of time before human organs are cultured from them.[/quote]Yes, I agree with your basic point there - it's not so much about a debate between the Bible and evolution as it is between two worldviews: (Christian-) theism and atheism. You surprise me though, for you're one of the few sensible ones to hold that evolution hasn't all the answers. . "yet". Many assume that it does. And research in human embryo, whatever the results, does not "prove" anything for atheism, nor "disprove" the basic claim of theism.

@Tùdor,

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3985572#msg3985572 date=1244279284]Pilgrim,
I actually was about typing my answers a good look at your supposed answer. ''I don't believe but don't deny the existence''- what the hell is that?
That was a smart but cowardly approach to a simple yes or no question. Typical isn't it? Just trying to stay on both side of the fence.[/quote]No, that was neither cowardly, non-committal nor straddling the fence in my reply. I already demonstrated my position on such matters and have pointed you to them. I observe you diplomatically never referred to them and just made postulations about Allah in uppercase. Since I'm not in the habit of repeating myself ad infinitum, it was only after offering my answers that I asked you a pointed question. You neither answered that question and have been sitting on the fence ever since.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3985572#msg3985572 date=1244279284]You fail to realise that for your own god to be the ultimate creator,the concept of an allah( the supposed creator according to the islamists) should be non-existent. Your religion stands based on the fact theres no OTHER god except yours. If allah hypothesis does exist (since you don't deny its existence) ,it means your god is bullshit coz we can't have two creators,two most powerful and all loving beings.your faith makes no room for that possibility.[/quote]Edit:
You are self-disappointing, and I'm not surprised. You don't seem to care about calmly reasoning out issues here but just resorted to the usual cowardly language of many people to hide the gaps in your presumptions - how does that make you rational? Look, Tùdor, my approach is going to be no-nonsense, and the language of "bullshit" is the limp man's excuse often resorted to by intellectually lazy folks. Don't try to impress me with such drama if you want to discuss.

Now my answer: I've already shown that my Christian faith does not have to resort to the atheistic "need to disprove" fallacious logic, which was why it's not my prerogative to "deny" such entities - it is the presumptive atheist that has this "need" and defeats his own worldview thereby. I quoted 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 to show my persuasion. Verse 15 already addresses this issue precisely -

        For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth
        --as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"--

For us as Christians, verse 6 defines our worldview - our devotion is to One, not many. We don't start out with placards shouting about "non-existence" of this, that or the other - that is the mantra sung by typical atheists who have never taken the time to settle down and reason with their thinking caps. When this self-defeating assumptions fail them, they resort to unethical language of "bullshit" to hide the gaps in their misplaced ideas. Sorry sir, it's not my prerogative to "deny" this or that; and since it is your forté, please adduce your own "proof" and "evidence" for your proclamation of Allah. That is not a hard thing to do instead of falling below unreasonable lingo.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3985572#msg3985572 date=1244279284]Similar to what you stated,my atheistic views aren't based on the need to disprove your god hypothesis rather i weigh your postulations to see if they hold water,are logical and try to make sure contradictions to xteristcs of your entity like the ones found in your bible don't exist. Since your religion fails to meet my criteria,well. . . . .[/quote]Nope, my theistic view does not have to meet your criteria.  You're only trying to arrogate that prerogative to yourself. And sorry, if you go through this thread carefully, you'd see that the first to speak about a "need to disprove" was an atheist, so I don't know what exactly you mean by your atheistic views aren't based on the "need to disprove". I'm willing to allow you assume it is so, if it works well for you; but that does not say anything comforting in defence of your own position. This is why one needs to also weigh your own postulations and call you address your presumptions in precisely the way you demand of others.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3985572#msg3985572 date=1244279284]I'm very glad you agree with my point ''you don't expect me to provide evidence for the hypothesis of others'' -i think you should be given an award for this.[/quote]Lol, I still agree with your point there. I honestly do.  The thing that may surprise you is when I apply it in precisely the same way as you tend to do to others. And no, it's not disarming or unnerving for me to apply that to my worldview. The remarkable thing is that if you make a hypothesis, I may be the first to knock on your door and ask you for evidence for your postulations - any such postulations.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3985572#msg3985572 date=1244279284]But i find it funny though you expecting me to provide evidence for the islamic hypothesis and in essense yours.[/quote]My apologies. Perhaps you may not have understood me. Let me recap: As in the quote above (1 Cor. 8:15), it is not in mine court to hold a "non-existence" of this, that or the other. This again does not mean that I affirm their existence. The point is that, while I'm not in any position to affirm the deities of anyone's worldview or belief system, I can well hold onto the claims of my worldview. If, therefore, an atheist asks me to defend the deities proclaimed by other worldviews, I might tap on his shoulders and ask him to first defend the views of atheists who believe in SPIRITS and GHOSTS. As in my earlier response to William_C, I've shown that there are such atheists who honestly believe such things exist.

So, since I'm not a Muslim (formerly was), it's not my prerogative to defend anything for them - let them come here and rattle on as much as they can and sensibly adduce such evidence as you may be requesting. On the other hand, my approach is quite different - and I won't lose sight of that: which is, to take the fallacious logicum among NL atheist to its logical ends. In other words, I'm meeting the typical atheist one-on-one on his own presumptions and switching on the lightbulb in his room. This is why I summarised this approach earlier to make it tidy:

1. not all atheists have the same outlook on the world

2. some atheists tend to believe in what 'strict atheism' rejects or denies

3. we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview

4. we haven't found any 'proof' or 'evidence' for most atheist assertions

5. atheism means more than the simplistic definition held by the average typical atheist

6. atheism does not "disprove" theistic claims

7. naturalism alone does not satisfactorily explain the realities of our known world

8. naturalism is also a belief-system that holds dogmatic assertions

9. most atheists do not have a good grasp about the issues they tend to argue

10. fallacious logicum is at the root of many atheistic arguments.

Particularly numbers 10 and 6 are my foci.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3985572#msg3985572 date=1244279284]We've seen it time and time again with you religionists who fail to provide evidences to support your claims yet you expect us to show contrary,what'd you expect us to work with?[/quote]Aha!!  What indeed have you been working with? Let's break this down, Tùdor. The basic or underlying premise of the typical atheist on NL is simply "naturalism". On the other hand, most 'believers' that lean towards theistic views are inclined to the supernatural. As you can see from my observations in posting quotes from the Rapid Response Squad, you find that most atheists honest hold that there are reasons (indeed, 'evidence') that cannot be dismissed regarding realities that test their naturalism. Thus, to make this a neat discussion, I'm asking the NL atheists to come forward and show us that there is NO such thing as the supernatural - which includes God, gods, ghosts, spirits, angels, the paranormal, etc, etc.  

The response is always the same: "what do you want us to work with?" And my response is the same: "work with the same tool you have always cherished: naturalsim!!"    The cry returns: "But that is almost impossible!" And I answer: "who says it's impossible - is it not the atheist who has always boasted that he knows there is NO supernatural world?"

Now, as has been indicated, several atheists are wondering if there are pointers to such occurences; and apart from the hints I gave earlier, I'm eagerly waiting for the atheist to proffer a naturalistic hard evidence for his claim about all realities of our known world. The excuse that "science will one day discover it" is limp and another resort to fallacious logicum. You cannot arrogate to yourself the brithright to make postulations (positive - "there IS" or negative "there IS NOT" and expect to draw conclusive answers from other people for your own assumptions. That is where I want to meet the atheist - come forward and let's talk beyond the usual retired song.

No2Atheism:
@pilgrim.1 please let me respond to this before returning to my sabbatical

No wahala.

No2Atheism:
Have a good day @Tudor, nice discussing with you at least KAG now has another reasonable allie who does not go around hauling insults when reasonable discussions are required.

I may cast my vote to that, for I've noticed that he's more cautious and seeks a good debate more than distractions.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3985389#msg3985389 date=1244274894]Youngman, lion and tigers have been cross bred to form LIGER, horse and zebra have also been interbred. It might not support evolution,it doesn't support your theory either
And i'm pretty sure the koran,torah and verdas also mention the earth hanging.[/quote]That's a good and honest point, Tùdor. The remarkable thing in your premise is that you may not be aware that cross-breeding was not unknown in Biblical times. However, the idea does not in itself "disprove" basic theistic claims one way or the other, or even "prove" atheistic assumptions.

@William_C,

Continuing from here. However, before I go on, here's another frank submission from the same Rapid Response Squad page that may be helpful to bear in mind:

[list]

'actualy many athiests such as myself consider atheism not denying the existince of god(s) but completely lacking belief in god(s), but anything other than that such as ghosts, paranormal activity, demons, boogeymen unicorns etc is individualy chosen by that one person what to believe in or lack (not deny but lack) belief for.

'[/list]

. . . and another atheist poster made this remark a few replies down:

          'I know atheists who still believe in spirits.
           I guess they're not card-carrying atheists, yet.'

Yet, at the bottom of the same page (at the time of my writing this), the 'resident' atheist remarks:

[list]

'As I said early on in this thread, the strict definition of atheism does not preclude beliefs in supernatural entities and/or phenomena unrelated to deities. "Atheism" is merely generalised in common usage to mean a lack of belief in anything supernatural.'

[/list]

Okay, we may deal with both sides of the coin: "a denial" and "a lack of belief - in the supernatural. The point in my observations in posting this is to help several atheists (no less yourself included) to see that -

1. not all atheists have the same outlook on the world

2. some atheists tend to believe in what 'strict atheism' rejects or denies

3. we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview

4. we haven't found any 'proof' or 'evidence' for most atheist assertions

5. atheism means more than the simplistic definition held by the average typical atheist

6. atheism does not "disprove" theistic claims

7. naturalism alone does not satisfactorily explain the realities of our knon world

8. naturalism is also a belief-system that holds dogmatic assertions

9. most atheists do not have a good grasp about the issues they tend to argue

10. fallacious logicum is at the root of many atheistic arguments.

The above and more are the basic underlying points of my approach in this discourse with typical atheist arguments on Nairaland. Do I therefore have an edge over them? No, I don't believe so. On the contrary, I think not many atheists have realized that they're wasting their time flailing and self-defeating their own arguments when they resort to fallacious logicum. This weak tool is used by even many religious and non-religious folks in debating, and it does not constitute "proof" or "evidence" one way or the other. If the typical atheist on NL keeps chanting his cherished song of naturalism on such fallacious logicum, he had better be prepared to smart up for issues that might make his arguments limp.

Cheers.

No2Atheism:
@pilgrim.1 can you please take over, i sincerely do not have the stomach for this any longer. I want to go and do something else.

@No2Atheism,

Will gladly do. Inbetween my busy schedules today (quite relaxing, though), I'll be on hand to dialogue with them. I think you've held a good ground in reasoning out your points thus far. My approach will be from the other end, which is to meet the typical atheist one-on-one on the very ground he cherishes the most. If they haven't figured that as yet, it won't be long before they do. Enjoy plenty.

@William_C,

As promised earlier:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg3985298#msg3985298 date=1244271478]To offer a tidy reply, I'd rather assume the essence of your 'disbelief' instead of treating every single line in your post. Then sometime later as needs be, I'd come back to address the underlying presumption of your type of atheism by seeking to understand how atheism is defined by several atheist thinkers. . .

>snip<

However, in subsequent discourses (I hope to engage you in many more), I'd be looking at how atheists tend to define atheism and also how they react to evidence for what is beyond their worldview of naturalism.[/quote]As I hinted earlier, my style is to move on beyond the trend of fallacious logic (and the "need to disprove" and take this type of atheistic assumption to its logical ends. For starters, let me draw from an atheist forum (excuse my snooping) - the 'Rapid Response Squad'. In context of what we're discussing being basically between two worldviews (naturalism and supernaturalism), it so happens that quite often, we read many atheists assume a hardline naturalism that rejects any and all phenomena that are outside its ambit. Here's a typical example:

[list]

Question: Do atheists believe in ghosts, spirits, karma etc.?

Atheist Answer:
No. Atheism by strict definition is the lack of a belief in gods, but it's generally extended to the lack of a belief in any supernatural entity or substance. That includes ghosts, spirits, souls, angels, demons, vampires, elves, boogeymen, unicorns, phoenixes and the energies of karma, chi, the Holy Spirit, life-force or The Force.
source: (Rapid Response Squad)

[/list]

This hardline atheistic attitude is no less as dogmatic and hardheaded as what they accuse in beliefs or worldviews inclined to the supernatural. The problem for these gentlemen, of course, is that they try to narrow just about everything to one convenient 'clap' - so that anything that points to a reality beyond naturalism seems to be a huge discomfort to them.

However, not all atheists take to that hardheadedness. There are indeed quite a growing number of atheists who are are honest enough to acknowledge the reality of a world beyond their own naturalism. Here's an example of an honest atheist's submission in this regard:

[list]

. . . but often times there is evidence that can skimpily not be explained.
does this make me not an atheist for accepting the existence of ghosts?
to that question i don't have an answer. maybe there is a scientific explanation
behind it.

but there have been specific times when the evidence theyve come up with is
unbelievable, and i strongly doubt that the show is a fraud. they caught an EVP
(electronic voice phenomenon, where you catch a "ghosts" voice on tape)
that was incredible. it was clear as day, and the "ghost hunter" was asking some
questions in an empty room while recording. he said "where are you? are you here"
and he didnt hear a response, but when the tape played back you could clearly hear
a woman respond "why of course i'm here in this room, where are you?" there were
several other responses to questions asked. how can this be explained?
i really don't know, and its sad that a television show can bring evidence forth that
questions my "faith" in atheism.
source: as above.

[/list]

Now, dear friends, the response that a 'resident' atheist gave to the above is puzzling, if not amusing:

[list]

"You still fit the strict definition of an atheist by the nature of the word;
you don't believe in any gods. That might change later, if your belief in ghosts
leads you to think something more powerful is making them possible.
As it is, you're a spiritualist apart from being an atheist.
I'll swallow that combination if you will."
source: ibid.

[/list]

If anything, it affirms what I sometime stated, that we could be genial enough to allow atheists to hold views which best describe their worldviews and outlook. However, here on Nairaland, how many atheists assume such a combination of "a spiritualist" that roles in with a "strict definition of an atheist"? How does this resident atheist even begin to understand what he was asserting if he already extended atheism to "the lack of a belief in any supernatural entity or substance", including ghosts, spirits, souls, angels, demons, etc?? How does he even define such entities (eg., 'spirits') before combining them with the very things that his own atheism rejects in the first place?

Of course, the 'resident' atheist does not even offer a "rational" response, but quickly tried to characteristically (and lazily) dismiss such phenomena by suggesting emptily that "The show doesn't have to be a fraud; perhaps the person who made the tape is." It's the typical answer you get from an armchair atheist who never bothers to objectively evaluate an event before drawing very prejudiced conclusions. His closing remarks is almost incredulous:

[list]

'Don't sit there and be a Mulder. Go out and be a Scully. Even Scully became
a believer in the end because she uncovered the evidence herself. It was
the right thing, because in her universe aliens, ghosts and gods really do exist.
Find out for yourself whether you live in that universe.'

[/list]

How many atheists (taking a poll on Nairaland) would be inclined to affirm that "aliens, ghosts and gods really do exist"? I guess not even a handful - perhaps, just perhaps, it's because the default position of such atheists is to sit back and just make comments and never seek to investigate these phenomena for themselves. If that won't do, they often make for the gaps by recycling the arguments of others who themselves have never tried to conduct a proper research about such things.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3985226#msg3985226 date=1244268768]No2Atheism, o.k let me confess i have no answers to your questions above. It's only a matter of time before science comes up with better answers,remember not long ago we thought diseases were caused by evil spirits,rainbows were god's covenant and even thunder was the voice of god not until it was shown to be caused by +ve and -ve charges.
I agree,i don't have all the answers as to the origins of our world. However since you're SURE god created all,kindly answer these;
Who created god,how did he start?
Where was god before he created the heavens and the earth?

How did god create the billions of planets and galaxies?
Why did he choose earth amongst the zillions to create life?
. . . .more questions to follow if you satisfactorily answer these.[/quote]Hi Tùdor,

I'm not trying to be nosy, since you were directing your enquiry to No2Atheism. But I think the question highlighted in yours is basic to all other questions. The first point then would be for your to show first if God indeed was created and how He started - before we can move on to other things. I don't think anyone has tried to claim that God was created by anyone; often, we hear atheists making the claim that God was created - so we'd like them first to show us how He was indeed created.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3984520#msg3984520 date=1244245526]Hello Every body, I am new here, I have been through this debate and I can see the tension it has already generated, dalaman who is a good friend was kind of speaking for me. When I first saw him going through the post of the OP I just gave out some talking points to him and he wrote some of them and posted them here. I have been looking forward to the weekend when I will be less busy so that I can register and speak for myself. Religion and faith are very sensitive issues so I want to be very civil and make sure that I don't offend any body. I know that I can't make any body see things my way but I just want to state my case for why I disbelieve in God. I have already stated this on another forum which I am a frequent member but I will also state it here again.[/quote]Hello William_C, a warm welcome to Nairaland.  We trust you would enjoy the discussions that drew you to register and participate, and thank you for a cordial start.

Indeed, religion and faith are very sensitive issues which people are seeking to understand. It so happens that those who self-identify as 'non-religious' often tend to regard the contents of the various worldviews and belief systems in a simplistic fashion, which leads to huge misunderstandings. To offer a tidy reply, I'd rather assume the essence of your 'disbelief' instead of treating every single line in your post. Then sometime later as needs be, I'd come back to address the underlying presumption of your type of atheism by seeking to understand how atheism is defined by several atheist thinkers. So enjoy.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3984520#msg3984520 date=1244245526]I am not a believer when I take into account.

* he unnecessary suffering around the world
* the stupidity of religious wars
* how science has to work so hard to uncover the knowledge we need for progress and to relieve suffering
* what our collective scientific ignorance is doing to the planet - while religions are mostly silent on sustainability
* the ways science explains nature more adequately than any religion
* that science has proved religion wrong, over and over through history
* the fact that many gods and religions have come and gone
* the fact that greatly differing religious affiliations and beliefs depend more on geography and cultural heritage than content
* all the nutty things wrapped in religion - including how quite similar sects differ irreconcilably over petty issues
* the absolute whackjobs telling me to believe, and what will happen if I don't
* the evangelists exposed as fraudsters
* the child molestation and coverups that go on within the "walls" of religion
* the flaws in the bible, and all other written accounts of god I bothered to read
* the contorted reasoning of religions to maintain discrimination against women and homosexuals
* all the good works of secular charities and NGOs that waste no resources on evangelizing
* my own experience as a christian compared with the real views of close friends who have eventually had the courage to be totally honest about their "faith" - they are going along with religion because others around them do - they are effectively conning each other through superficial behaviors covering up inner disbelief.[/quote]One is tempted to offer terse answers to each concern above and still come back to the basic point: you haven't "proven" anything for your disbelief. At best, your concerns are typically polarised towards atheism and reveal huge gaps which may lead one to believe that you haven't really studied issues objectively. Suffering, wars, frauds, irreconcilable differences, fundamentalism, child abuses, flaws in disbeliefs, discrimination, wasteful of resources in secular evangelism, one's subjective experiences - all these and more can be well-articulated in atheism as well; and then what do you do? At the end of the day, you'd discover you made a case that is no case at all; and what you'd have left is an utter non-starter.

Take the quip in yours that: "science has proved religion wrong". Such statements are made out-of-hand because one is not asking the right questions and merely flirting with a huge presumption. The typical trend you've followed here is what I regard as one among the many fallacious logic that springs from the "need to disprove" the worldviews of others. This type of logic tends to point accusing fingers at other beliefs as the basis for one's own 'disbelief'. The funny thing is that we all use this type of logic in common debates - Christians against Muslims; atheists against theists; democrats against republicans; liberals against conservatives; etc.

The hard truth behind all these is that such fallacious logicum do not actually "disprove" anything. Its basic weakness is that it is intellectually lazy, as it really has no concrete outlook at the reality of issues which disturb one's disbelief. My style here is to move on beyond this trend of fallacious logic (and the "need to disprove" and take this type of atheistic assumption to the cleaners, so I'd need readers to put on their thinking caps.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3984520#msg3984520 date=1244245526]I have no option but to say that if there was a god who loved me in a way that is relevant to me, then that god would find a way to communicate more effectively with me. So far, I've heard nothing but silence from god, instead everything else I experience points directly away from god.[/quote]I can well bear with you; however, this again is not sufficient evidence or proof for the non-existence of God or gods. It even does not constitute evidence for a "lack of" or non-existence of God's love for humanity. At best, it presupposes only one thing: you simply have not experienced that love for yourself.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3984520#msg3984520 date=1244245526]I've given a long list (by no means exhaustive) of reasons I don't believe in god. On the other side of the equation there are some statements in the bible saying that I must believe to achieve salvation. But the bible quite clearly does not make any sense in so many ways , I cannot trust it.[/quote]I very much doubt your distrust is based on reason or objectivity. I would refer to this as typically a case where someone is operating from the bias of a need to disbelieve than of open, objective enquiry.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3984520#msg3984520 date=1244245526]I have no choice if I'm to be honest with myself, I must say: There is no god.[/quote]Now, now. . . where's dalaman?!?    Although he'd said earlier that atheists "do not say that there is no God(I can speak for my atheist friends here)"; yet I'd contested that the basic typical argument of many self-identified 'atheists' is the very claim that "there is NO God".

Now, the simple question theists are asking is this: HOW do you know? You'd have to provide "scientific" evidence and proof for your extraordinary claim that "there is no god". That claim does not stand simply because an atheist asserts it repeatedly and proceeds to offer "arguments" as substitutes for his 'evidence or proof'.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3984520#msg3984520 date=1244245526]To say anything else would lack integrity. It would lack courage. I'd be kidding myself. How could I be at ease with myself if I believed in god with such a mountain of evidence to the contrary?[/quote]We are eagerly awaiting the so-called 'mountain of evidence' for your claim. Mere assertions from arguments of fallacious logic will not do.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3984520#msg3984520 date=1244245526]If facts turn up that contradict my conclusion, I will reconsider. But they'll have to be really amazing facts to reverse my certainty.[/quote]This is what amazes me. How could one conclude with a tone of finality that "there is no god" and then wait for 'really amazing facts' to contradict his conclusion(s)? This attitude has often been intelligently challenged; and that's why I wondered if anyone has thought about the revisionism of Dawkins' "there is no God" to the now terse "there is probably no God"?

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3984520#msg3984520 date=1244245526]Meanwhile I'm more than sufficiently convinced that there is no god, and quite happy about the mental freedom that conclusion brings.[/quote]Lol, I don't think there's mental freedom expressed there. Trust me. You're happy to assert your convictions only in terms of the non-proof of your claim; and that in itself does not consititute hard evidence for the non-existence of God or the supernatural.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3984520#msg3984520 date=1244245526]Please I just want to know if you have any examples or evidence of telepathy at work. Personally I have never heard of anybody that talks about having experienced it but that doesn't mean that there are people out there who haven't, all I am saying is that this it self is not an evidence for the supernatural.[/quote]As regards telepathy at work, some researchers like the British biologist (or biochemist and plant physiologist), Dr. Sheldrake Rupert (Ph.D) has some credit in this field. Interestingly, he sees his research  on telepathy as a paranormal phenomenon (see his website). In other cases of evidences presented on phenomena which are inexplicable by naturalism, it does not appear that naturalists have been able to provide satisfactory counter-claims.

However, in subsequent discourses (I hope to engage you in many more), I'd be looking at how atheists tend to define atheism and also how they react to evidence for what is beyond their worldview of naturalism.  Thank you for sharing, and once again welcome to Nairaland.

segyemaro:
You are on this forum to cause confusion,i only answered u cos you refered to my post

What's the confusion in quoting you without editing anything?

segyemaro:
Pilgrim,how many pastors that you know who extend hand to the needy? Wat that mx friend gives out is 25% of his salary,i dont call that tithe,but that willingly given,dont forget dis my friend is a pastor too.

1. There are many pastors I know in and outside Nigeria that do precisely the very thing you asked. The problem is that too many times you guys never take the time to do a little more research. It is not only pastors that preach tithe that reach out to the needy, but others who do not emphasise tithes also do the same.

2. It's not my problem how many percent your friend gives - as you can see, I did not edit anything from your quote; and it was precisely as you gave the 'testimony' that I reposted it.

3. Even though you may not call it tithe, you specifically mentioned that he was --

"directed" - by who?
Answer: "the Holy Spirit"

To do what?
Answer: "take the tithe to abuja"

No be me talk am, and I didn't mean to quote you in bad light (nevermind I was being facetious in my reply to topeokunol). It's obvious nothing new is coming forth and people are just fond of repeating the same lines as if they say anything at all. If people just hala about it being wrong, one wonders why the Holy Spirit never said so in the case of your friend, but rather "directed" him to take the "tithe" to Abuja.

topeokunol:
its wrong to give tithe oooooooooooooooo

We don hear now. . . abi?   Is there not a testimony already in this thread?

[list]

segyemaro:
A friend of mine always give his tithe to the needy,what he does is,he will accumulate his tithe for like 3- 4 months and give it to the needy and fatherless. There was an instance were [size=14pt]the holy spirit directed him to take the tithe to abuja[/size],when he got to abuja,[size=14pt]the holy spirit directed him[/size] to Karmo in abuja,when he got there he saw a woman frying Akara(Bean Cake) and [size=14pt]he was directed[/size] to give the money to the woman,he parked his car and went to the woman,and introduce himself,and brought out the envelope and gave her,though she was scared,but collected it.When she looked in side it was eighty seven thousand naira(87,000),the woman nearly fell into the oil she was frying with.

[/list]

Now we understand why she nearly fell into the oil she was frying with - because "its wrong" that the man should have been "directed" to give his tithes to her! 

ogajim:
PG.1
Don't let me advocate another ban on you oooooo like your buddy baby journalist to be

Lol, you've got some ego! Let's pally abeg o!!!

realpastor:
in as much i dont collect tithes in my church,i will appreciate you let pilgrim be,God is there to judge us all.

Thank you, bros. Dem no fit face their wahala until they take it on a personal level against 'pilgrim.1'.

kenny888:
pilgrims,the pikin wey say him mama nor go sleep,him too nor go sleep,abi?

Na so now. . Since the best that these 'pikins' can do is constantly slur others and abandon their own arguments, would it surprise you.

kenny888:
should we stop giving tithe?over to you pilgrim

See above.

noetic2:
Typical ignorance.

why are u not on HIS side?

Lol. .

noetic2:
IS THERE NO SCIENTIFIC OR INTELLECTUAL EVIDENCE? . . . . . WHERE IS IT?

where is huxley? where is mazaje? where is KAG? . . . . .where are the floods of atheists?

Lol, bobo mi, I don tell you before: leave 'em alone for a while!

At least, I'd say that some of them make some sense (KAG comes to mind); but I'm just trying to reason with most others and see where they provide their own cherished 'evidence' and 'proof'. Patience, bro. . patience. _{even me sef I don wait tire!}

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
As usual you try to quote me out of context but for the benefit of others i would try and explain my self better. Abraham, the first person to tithe in the bible originated from mesopotamiaand since tithing was practised there it is only logical that he learnt to tithe their as there is no record in the bible that he was ever instructed by God to tithe. So by saying the origins of tithe is pagan i am still in order even if we don't know the exact culture to first practise tithes we know that the practise of tithes in mesopotamia pre-dates biblical tithes hence the original origin is not biblical. And since the earlier cultures we know that practised tithing are pagan we can very safely conclude that the origins of tithing is biblical

None of the references "confirms" any orgin of tithe for you - that was all the point. You didn't need to try and force that inference into the references, which was why I kept asking you to point out where you read the "origin" in them.

ogajim:
The very same point we tried to make exactly. It is not only the "bishop", "GO" "pastor" that knows where my hard earned money will be better spent, some people will need drop this until we all surrender to their little whims and say tithes are legal obligations a Christian carries. I could decide to bless different people who I see need help rather than giving it to someone to purchase a private jet, we have choices as Christians. Only those that benefit from this scam/misinformation will oppose it with the venom we've seen from a certain someone.

Who's the 'certain someone'? Have you not used the same 'venom' on others and tried to justify yourself in doing so? Did you read any "legal obligation" in what I've discussed thus far?

KunleOshob:
I never said it originated in those places, all i said is that it pre-dates biblical tithes and Abraham obviously learnt it from there.

Okay, no worries. Take care and enjoy.

[list]

KunleOshob:
Thanx for confirming my earlier assertions that the origins of tithes is pagan.

[/list]

[list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=277404.msg3964944#msg3964944 date=1243953806]Which syntax in what you highlighted 'confirms' the "origin" of tithes as pagan to you?[/quote][/list]

[list]

KunleOshob:
Mesopotomian civilization[where abraham came from]highlighted above confirms the origin as pagan to any student of the bible or history. Abraham obviously learnt about tithing from this culture as God never instructed him when he did so of his own free volition to the king of Salem

[/list]

[list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=277404.msg3965597#msg3965597 date=1243959621]I suspected that was what might be on your mind, but didn't want to prejudge it. The fact that something "is known in Mesopotamia" does not mean that it originated from there. Nothing in that reference argues that tithing was first known or first practiced in Mesopotamia; and thank you for acknowledging indeed that Abraham's tithe to the king of Salem was of his own free volition - just as tithers today choose to do so.[/quote][/list]

Relocatusa:
Honestly I do not know. It has been since my school days where my school mother introduced me to it. I talk about it because it helps me realise and deal with the urge.

Initially I'd almost asked a question for the answer you've given, as highlighted above. Don't let it slide, seek some good help - and be strong.