₦airaland Forum

EVarn:
It amuses me that you assume i'm an athiest,a most erroneous conjecture,I assure you.
I did initiate a debate,but it seems that I will recieve no perspective of intellectual substance from the "knowledgeable" christians here.

In our quest to rationalize our fundamental ideology,let us take heed lest we fall into the snare of the hypocrisy we claim to oppose.

KingEbukasBlog:
Where did I call you an atheist , even tacitly ?

topdee:
Already expected such reply from you; never forget that most unbelievers here on nairaland were once in your shoes. Most unbelievers just need a shred of proof of God's existence to accept him, never seen any on any post on nairaland or any other place.

dalaman:
They are not misconceptions. You are just presenting your own opinions as facts. You want people not to accept what is written isside the bible. Some of you guys will insist that the bible doesn't really mean what it says just because you do NOT agree with what is written. It's people like you that will insist that the Noah 's flood is an allegory and other such nonsense. Where is it written inside the bible that God's throne is what you are trying to suggest it is? The bible is filled with detailed description of God's throne, in fact God told Moses to build the temple based on what the one in heaven looked like. But yu keep insisting that it is not so based purely on personal interpretation and opinion.

The people in answers in Genesis for example believe in a literal interpretation. They are very sincere christians. Which holy spirit is telling you something different from them? They also claim.they get their correct teachings from the holy spirit. Who is telling the truth among you? What is the true position of the bible God on these issues? Does God want to know if his abode is physical as described in the bible and beliwvwd by many christians, or not as you are claiming?

I don't want your opinion, I want what the bible really says. Is there a biblical position on these issue?

KingEbukasBlog:
That is the accepted doctrine . It is not literal . Anyone who believes it is literal should have a rethink . I once thought it was literal. Immediately I discovered this , instantaneously I accepted it . It made so much sense .

You reject this because it makes you uncomfortable as an atheist- it challenges your beliefs .

taurus25:
Most theist proof for gods existence rely on premises which are not necessarily correct, to force out logical consistency as a means so substantiate your beliefs. To you they are 'common sense' arguments
used to introduce god into the picture due to lack of incomplete human understanding. To you guys, these your 'arguments' logically follow but realistically they are nothing but mere assumptions, and gap fillers, on this account atheists and theists cannot find common ground. But, atleast if you guys admit to believe by faith(which you should) then it would be understood by atheists that your basis of believe is completely personal convictions and by no means an 'objective evidence'.

dalaman:
It doesn't challenge my beliefs. Am just pointing out the fact that many sincere christians disbelieve what you are saying and even the bible does not agree with what you are saying. The bible in many places describe God sitting on a throne. In many places. I careless of God is a force as the deist believe.

The way you pontificate and try to act as you own the only true interpretation or opinion.

KingEbukasBlog:
I wonder how many times I'm gona tell you that personal characteristics attributed to God in the bible were just to make this enormously powerful being or force or however you chose to understand it as comprehensible to the human reader . Sitting on the throne , talking , laughing at enemies are just part of God's anthropomorphic characteristics .

Some of the deists see God as an Impersonal creator while in Christianity/Judaism God is seen as both Impersonal and a Personal creator .
Its just one God with so many concepts.

For the fact you have remained intransigent about your parochial view on God , its certain that this new knowledge of God challenges your beliefs . Its so obvious sir

But don't forget , if remaining obdurate about this view lets you sleep at night, I won't let you have insomnia .

dalaman:
Not the same God idea. I understand the need for you to accept or try to converge all the God concepts and ideas into one. They are not. Deist do not have the same concept of God with theist else they will be theist.

dalaman:
What you just describes is your own opinion of what God is supposedto be. Other sincere christians and even those who wrote the bible have a different view of God. How do you know that the authors of the bible were not literal in their description of God.

Richirich713:
Atheists are proving atheism is illogical.

KingEbukasBlog:
How do I know ? This is what the Jews , the owners of the bible say:

( I had to increase the page size )

This is fact whatever beside this is an opinion , your opinion

KingEbukasBlog:
Lol .

Even after I posted the snippet ?

The deists criticize the use of anthropomorphic characteristics for God like Xenophanes did here :

https://www.nairaland.com/3504236/xenophanes-criticism-anthropomorphism-vs-triune

I remember asking you for your opinion on that thread .

The difference between the deist concept and theist concept is

1. Anthropomorphism

2. Nature of God as a personal or impersonal creator (Immanence)

All deists reject anthropomorphism , while some deists see God as an Impersonal creator and some see him as a personal creator . Some deists and theists see God as both .

Any knowledgeable scholar from any religion will tell you the same thing . The contentious issue that knowledgeable scholar will note is : which concept of this God is true ?

This is so easy to understand . Its obvious that you are being disingenuous . Don't forget , I won't let you have insomnia .

dalaman:
Do you also accept the Jewish position on Jesus? They said nothing in the OT talks about or refers to Jesus. The Jews see the garden of eden story as man’s elevation to a moral sense and awareness, while christians on the other hand see the eden story as the fall of man. Jews do not recognize and believe the original sin hypothesis while christians do. Do you believe the position of the Jews on those issues or do you only believe them when they state things you are gree with?

dalaman:
A deist that sees God as an Impersonal being is not the same as a theist that sees God as a personal being.

To claim that both ideas are the same is to be dishonest. They two ideas are not the same. Both of the concept of God are equally valid or invalid in reality since both and just conceived ideas. Non is true over the other. Both are either true or untrue. Since both are man made conceptions and ideas.

KingEbukasBlog:
You do realize this has absolutely nothing to do with the argument : this is a red herring .

dalaman:
Its not. Do you also accept the opposite position of the Jews on other matters?

felixomor:

davinchecodes:
Leprechauns
Now let's imagine that we have a
conversation one day and I say to you, "I
believe in Leprechauns. You cannot prove
that Leprechauns do not exist, therefore they
exist." You actually have heard of
Leprechauns. There are lots of books,
movies and fairy tales dealing with
Leprechauns. People talk about Leprechauns
all the time. Leprechauns even have a
popular brand of breakfast cereal. A page
like this describes/defines the traits of
Leprechauns. But that does not mean that
Leprechauns exist.
If you read the folklore around Leprechauns,
you realize that certain aspects are
impossible. For example, Leprechauns are
defined to be beings who keep a crock of
gold at the end of a rainbow. But anyone
who understands rainbows knows that there
is not a geographic location associated with
rainbows. Rainbows are not physical objects,
but instead are optical phenomena
dependent on an observer. Therefore
rainbows do not have fixed X/Y locations for
their ends on the ground. This is the problem
with the Leprechaun legend - Leprechauns
have a property that is impossible, and
therefore we can say that Leprechauns do
not exist. There is no "end" to any rainbow,
and therefore no pots of gold located at such
a point, and therefore no Leprechauns. They
are as imaginary as the gerflagenflopple.
Is there something that would prove
Leprechauns to be real? First, we would need
to change the definition of Leprechauns. We
would have to drop the "pot of gold at the
end of the rainbow" part of the definition,
because that part is impossible. But if we do
that, we are not talking about Leprechauns
anymore. This is another way to know that
Leprechauns are imaginary.
Noah's Ark
Another imaginary thing that, like
Leprechauns, we hear quite a bit about in
our culture is the story of Noah and his Ark.
How do we know that the Noah's Ark story is
imaginary?
First, the story contains an element that is
impossible. Genesis 7:20 says, "The waters
rose and covered the mountains to a depth
of more than fifteen cubits." This would
mean that Mt. Everest, with a height of
29,000 feet (8,850 meters) or nearly 6
miles, was covered in water. It is
impossible because that water does not
exist. A planet does not magically get
covered in 6 miles of water, and then have
the water magically disappear.
Second, there is no evidence that the event
actually occurred. And a planet-wide event
of this proportion would necessarily leave
incontrovertible evidence behind. There
would be geological evidence, archeological
evidence, ice core evidence and so on.
Genesis 7:21 states: "Every living thing
that moved on land perished � birds,
livestock, wild animals, all the creatures
that swarm over the earth, and all
mankind." That would leave behind massive
amounts of genetic evidence in every
species, as each species narrowed to a
single breeding pair.
For these reasons we can easily say that the
story Noah's Ark is imaginary - a fictional
fairy tale.
God
If you think about it, you will realize that
there is no difference between God and
Leprechauns. Lots of people talk about God
as though he exists, but there is no actual
evidence for God's existence. And there
should be, because there are many positive
claims in the definition of God. For example:
God has never left any physical evidence of
his existence on earth.
All historical gods were imaginary and we
know it. (see this page)
None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical
evidence either. (see this page)
God has never spoken to modern man, for
example by taking over all the television
stations and broadcasting a rational
message to everyone.
The resurrected Jesus has never appeared
to anyone in a provable way. (see this
page)
The Bible we have is provably incorrect and
is obviously the work of primitive men
rather than God. (see this page)
When we analyze prayer with statistics, we
find no evidence that God is "answering
prayers." (see this page)
Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust
and AIDS occur without any response from
God.
And so on�
There is absolutely no evidence indicating
that God exists. There is a tremendous
amount of empirical evidence that God does
not exist. For example, God is defined as a
prayer-answering being, but we know with
certainty that the belief in prayer is a
superstition. Therefore we can conclusively
say that God is imaginary

Igboboy59:
Abeg, can u help me tell those atheist should please
leave and pack their loads out of the land that Almighty
God created when they believed he doesn't exist.
secondly, stop breathing in the prestigious air that God
created
And also stop drinking the water he created.
when they die,they shouldn't be bury inside the ground
that God created.
If u can avoid these then I'll believe truly u are atheist

felixomor:
Warrrisdis?

KingEbukasBlog:

Exactly !!!

davinchecodes:
Leprechauns

Now let's imagine that we have a
conversation one day and I say to you, "I
believe in Leprechauns. You cannot prove
that Leprechauns do not exist, therefore they
exist.
" You actually have heard of
Leprechauns. There are lots of books,
movies and fairy tales dealing with
Leprechauns. People talk about Leprechauns
all the time.
Leprechauns even have a
popular brand of breakfast cereal. A page
like this describes/defines the traits of
Leprechauns.
But that does not mean that
Leprechauns exist.
If you read the folklore around Leprechauns,
you realize that certain aspects are
impossible.
For example, Leprechauns are
defined to be beings who keep a crock of
gold at the end of a rainbow. But anyone
who understands rainbows knows that there
is not a geographic location associated with
rainbows.
Rainbows are not physical objects,
but instead are optical phenomena
dependent on an observer. Therefore
rainbows do not have fixed X/Y locations for
their ends on the ground. This is the problem
with the Leprechaun legend - Leprechauns
have a property that is impossible, and
therefore we can say that Leprechauns do
not exist.
There is no "end" to any rainbow,
and therefore no pots of gold located at such
a point, and therefore no Leprechauns. They
are as imaginary as the gerflagenflopple.
Is there something that would prove
Leprechauns to be real? First, we would need
to change the definition of Leprechauns. We
would have to drop the "pot of gold at the
end of the rainbow" part of the definition,
because that part is impossible. But if we do
that, we are not talking about Leprechauns
anymore. This is another way to know that
Leprechauns are imaginary.
Noah's Ark
Another imaginary thing that, like
Leprechauns, we hear quite a bit about in
our culture is the story of Noah and his Ark.
How do we know that the Noah's Ark story is
imaginary?
First, the story contains an element that is
impossible. Genesis 7:20 says, "The waters
rose and covered the mountains to a depth
of more than fifteen cubits." This would
mean that Mt. Everest, with a height of
29,000 feet (8,850 meters) or nearly 6
miles, was covered in water. It is
impossible because that water does not
exist. A planet does not magically get
covered in 6 miles of water, and then have
the water magically disappear.
Second, there is no evidence that the event
actually occurred. And a planet-wide event
of this proportion would necessarily leave
incontrovertible evidence behind. There
would be geological evidence, archeological
evidence, ice core evidence and so on.
Genesis 7:21 states: "Every living thing
that moved on land perished � birds,
livestock, wild animals, all the creatures
that swarm over the earth, and all
mankind." That would leave behind massive
amounts of genetic evidence in every
species, as each species narrowed to a
single breeding pair.

For these reasons we can easily say that the
story Noah's Ark is imaginary - a fictional
fairy tale.
God
If you think about it, you will realize that
there is no difference between God and
Leprechauns. Lots of people talk about God
as though he exists, but there is no actual
evidence for God's existence. And there
should be, because there are many positive
claims in the definition of God. For example:
God has never left any physical evidence of
his existence on earth.

All historical gods were imaginary and we
know it.
None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical
evidence either.
God has never spoken to modern man, for
example by taking over all the television
stations and broadcasting a rational
message to everyone.
The resurrected Jesus has never appeared
to anyone in a provable way.
The Bible we have is provably incorrect and
is obviously the work of primitive men
rather than God.


When we analyze prayer with statistics, we
find no evidence that God is "answering
prayers."


Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust
and AIDS occur without any response from
God.
And so on



There is absolutely no evidence indicating
that God exists. There is a tremendous
amount of empirical evidence that God does
not exist.

For example, God is defined as a
prayer-answering being, but we know with
certainty that the belief in prayer is a
superstition. Therefore we can conclusively
say that God is imaginary.

Dig That

KingEbukasBlog:
https://www.nairaland.com/3500235/must-read-god-without-religion

davinchecodes:
With every other object and phenomenon in
our experience, we use the scientific method
to determine whether it exists or not. For
example, X rays are invisible, but we know
that they exist. We can devise scientific
experiments to prove that they exist. Then,
once proven to exist, X-rays can be used
predictably in all sorts of beneficial ways.
If you would like to hypothesize that God
exists, then you should say to yourself,
"Let's devise a repeatable scientific
experiment to provide evidence that God
exists." Every experiment we devise
demonstrates, yet again, that God is
imaginary.

davinchecodes:
The link doesn't prove anything.
With every other object and phenomenon in
our experience, we use the scientific method
to determine whether it exists or not. For
example, X rays are invisible, but we know
that they exist. We can devise scientific
experiments to prove that they exist. Then,
once proven to exist, X-rays can be used
predictably in all sorts of beneficial ways. If
you would like to hypothesize that God
exists, then you should say to yourself,
"Let's devise a repeatable scientific
experiment to provide evidence that God
exists." Every experiment we devise
demonstrates, yet again, that God is
imaginary.

KingEbukasBlog:
Don't forget to add the sauce next time , you hear ?
https://godisimaginary.com/i17.htm

davinchecodes:
It means god is a imaginary being.