Reyginus:
Lol. I'm tired of arguing with atheists but let me indulge a bit.

Are you hundred percent sure there's no God?

onetrack:


And being rational means I have to accept the talking snake mentioned in the Bible as true? And Eve was created from a rib? And "god" would only forgive our sins if we believe that his son got put to death for these sins?

ValentineMary:

Yet theist are 100% sure that God exist without 100% evidence.
And who told u atheist are 100% sure God does not exist the way u speculate is funny sha.

sonofluc1fer:

Fair and balanced God. So it's possible I might be an elect while you could end up like Judas. Make i dey blaspheme dey go. This una God sweet die.

sonofluc1fer:

99.9 percent I'd say. I leave small room for miracles.

Reyginus:
How do you want the miracles in your 0.01 percent to look like?

honourhim:

.
By the grace of God i will make heaven. If you accept Jesus too you will be a partaker in God's kingdom. That's why we dont give up on preaching to you people and praying for u. By the grace of God we are seeing the results in this forum and elsewhere.

sonofluc1fer:

Have fun, Bro. Not going down this silly road with you. If only you could provide evidence for why my position is foolish as easily as you ask silly questions. Na ignorance u dey search for.

sonofluc1fer:

I really don't care about heaven or hell. I overcame that fear years back. Embrace hell fire. That's when true living begins.

honourhim:
.
God forbid.
Muskeeto comot for road biko.

Reyginus:
Lol. Dumb. Is God an exclusive of the Christian doctrine or bible? That would be impeding the argument.

Let me use an analogy. If you tell me there's an elephant in your room I'd not believe you if you can't really show me. That's rational. But I will not hold a position that there's no elephant in your room.

I might say, I'm not sure there's an elephant in your room, knowing your penchant for petty lies. That's rational. What is irrational is saying that 'I am hundred percent sure' there's no elephant in your room. A room I'm yet to enter. How do you plead?

Ranchhoddas:
Just a thought. What if you were both on a continent that has no elephants? Would it still be irrational to say with 100% certainty that there is no elephant in his room, knowing his err, err, penchant for petty lies?

Reyginus:
No it would be rational to say so. Now, your turn. Let's say we are yet to fully explore this continent of ours would it still be rational to say with 100% certainty that there's no elephant somewhere in the continent?

Ranchhoddas:
No it won't. But would it be rational to claim that there are aliens on the continent?

Reyginus:
Yes, it would be rational to 'claim' there are aliens on the continent if an 'Absolute' understanding of the continent or aliens have not been gained.

Would it be rational to dismiss the 'claim(unverified statement)' that there are aliens on the continent where absolute understanding of the continent has not been gained?

Ranchhoddas:
Ewoo...... So anyone can claim ANYTHING as long as 'Absolute' understanding has not been obtained; is this your position?

Reyginus:
Lol. Dumb. Is God an exclusive of the Christian doctrine or bible? That would be impeding the argument.

Let me use an analogy. If you tell me there's an elephant in your room I'd not believe you if you can't really show me. That's rational. But I will not hold a position that there's no elephant in your room.

I might say, I'm not sure there's an elephant in your room, knowing your penchant for petty lies. That's rational. What is irrational is saying that 'I am hundred percent sure' there's no elephant in your room. A room I'm yet to enter. How do you plead?

onetrack:


It might be a better analogy to use an animal which no one has ever seen before and which has only existed in legends. If you said you have a flying horse in your room I would not believe you at all. However, I don't personally know any atheist, including myself, who says that god does not exist 100%.

Reyginus:
Lololol. Okay. My bad. Are Atheists hundred percent sure there's no God?

sonofluc1fer:

Oga, there's one thing God can not do o. God can not show himself. He resides in your ignorance.

Reyginus:
No, it is not my position. Can anyone claim a claim is irrational where there's no 'Absolute' understanding of the claim? Can one critique what he doesn't understand? Ranchhoddas says there's an elephant in his room. I suspect it's a figment of his imagination. But can I be rational if I say Ranchhoddas is lying?

ValentineMary:

There are 2 types of atheist, the gnostic atheist and the agnostic atheist.
The agnostic atheist is not 100% sure there is no God rather fails to believe due to insufficient evidence. While the gnostic atheist is 100% sure there is no God.

Most atheist on this forum that I know are agnostic atheist.

Ranchhoddas:
Yes you can. But do also possess absolute understanding of your claims?

Reyginus:
Yes, they have an absolute understanding of their 'claim'. How can it be rational to say Ranchoddas is lying when I don't have an understanding of his room?

Reyginus:
You mean Agnostic or Agnostic Atheist?

Ranchhoddas:
Well I guess at this point the next logical step will be to demand for proof.

ValentineMary:

Agnostic atheist.

Ranchhoddas:
That is not possible. This guy is a follower of William Branham, a preacher I am familiar with; how can he be sonofluc1fer?

Reyginus:
And he tells you he gets visions from this God. He has manipulated his environment with connection from this god. He speaks a language even science admits is not a result of forging. Things you don't understand and doesn't sound sane.

Truth is, they may be lies but you can't prove they are all lies and your science or any other means of understanding nature is not sufficient to nail him. Would it be rational to still say he's lying even though you don't understand what he's talking about? Can the inability to proof that a thing is true make it really false?

Ranchhoddas:
The skeptic would say he hasn't provided OBJECTIVE proof. Does this sound objective to you?

Reyginus:
Yes. The skeptic is right. But will the skeptic, if he's rational, now say he knows there's no God because the proof is not really objective? I still ask, can the inability to show that a thing is true a testament to its falsehood?

onetrack:


It might be a better analogy to use an animal which no one has ever seen before and which has only existed in legends. If you said you have a flying horse in your room I would not believe you at all. However, I don't personally know any atheist, including myself, who says that god does not exist 100%.