vaxx:
Honestly speaking, the atheist lost this argument.....

Budaatum surprise me ....
Hopefullandlord dodge my question


Let me repeat it here again



.is there anything that we all assume is the same thing? Is there anything that no one has a question about?
(

Yes, some aspects of Maths and science. Example the multiplication table is the same the world over, it is clerk concise and agreed upon by everybody the world over, even if you have questions about it once you study and understand ot you'll find your answers. The cell theory in boiology or the characteristics of living things is the same and agreed upon the world over(MR NIGER D).

Is there any thing about religion any religion or its doctrine that is acceptable the world over, and when people study it they will all accept and come to the same conclusion?

vaxx:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/ make sure you read

Please quote the exact phrase that lets you infer the following:

"objective evidence is base on general held believe why subjective is solely base on individual opinion".

vaxx:
you see yourself....this is what i accept to be table not yours

https://www.google.com.gh/search?q=arab+design+table&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ejXJQB17vhERHM%253A%252CC9OZHeioTfI2lM%252C_&usg=__OVnXkWPa95jE3MGW55IP7JansIM%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN6YH-kefYAhWB_qQKHYOoCYgQ9QEIKTAB#imgrc=ejXJQB17vhERHM: am sure butterfly1ion and sciencewatch will their own table definition

I accept your definition and assert that a thing which you accept is a table was there.

butterflyl1on:


The attached images are my perception of what my table is.

I accept your definition and assert one of them was there too.

vaxx:
am sue your atheist brethren can testify that this techniques of answering question is poor? what is a table? that is my question ......this is not the way someone who consider believer stupid should defend his rational stand....this is indeed poor.... but i will play along

Somewhere on here, I said I shall henceforth respect you. I did not say you were stupid.

Fvcknames:


I might not be getting the discussion fully, but I'd like to drop my 2 cents
I feel something can exist without you observing it, but that does not mean it definitely exist.
So there 'could' be a god without us experiencing it, but that doesn't mean there is.
But the chances of that god(if it exists) being the Christian God is slim.
So what I get here is that saying god doesn't exist does not stop him from existing(if he does), and saying that god exists does not make him exist if he doesn't.

All in all, I feel this arguments are of little use for the parties involved cause no matter the points given whether in favour of theists or atheists, there is always going to be a way around it.

Thanks for pointing that out to him.

butterflyl1on:


NO.

They said a God can exist without us PERCEIVING ITS EXISTENCE and not BELIEVING ITS EXISTENCE. note the difference.

This was why i said that if this is their position then why are they asking for OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD or is sensory perception not objectivity?

NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT BELIEF HERE. WE ARE ON ABOUT SENSORY PERCEPTION.

How many times does Fvcknames have to repeat as simplistically as is possible that:

"Can exist" does not mean "does exist"?

Fvcknames:

Dude throughout this argument, I didn't insult ur intelligence.

Please note how the rest of us ignore 'it'.

butterflyl1on:


Again I say we are talking about God and not unicorns. (stop trying to shift my gaze).

The comment does not go both ways for an atheist. It goes in a one way fashion. He says one does not need sensory perception to prove the existence of anything YET is demanding for objective evidence for the existence of God. Such a self refuting statement!

Since that was their stand then it's sheer hypocricy and deception to demand for objective evidence in the light of that declaration.

It's shameful to say the least. They shot themselves in the head with their own gun and realizing this are now trying to derail the thread by engaging in idle banter with each other while throwing ad hominems around.

Been there, done that! Their game is up!

Hmm. No, that's not what's being said, quite. And the issue here is your insertion of the word "proof".

There's a line I used to pull about the million pounds I have convinced myself is in my bank account with which I plan to buy a spanking brand new red Ferrari. The proof of the money is whether I can complete the purchase.

An objective existence of a thing implies an existence irregardless of a subjects opinion. A tree fell in the forest whether anyone is there to see it fall, or even see it has fallen. The trick in this specific scenario is that it goes without saying that in a forest somewhere in the world, a tree will fall. A similar statement would be that in the time it takes you to read what I have written in this specific post you would have taken, at the very least, a couple of breaths. It just goes without saying that you would have breathed at least twice or you would never post on Nairaland again. And one does not have to witness you breathing to know you did, and any argument in opposition to that fact would deserve ridicule. It is an objective fact that validates itself.

The argument for God does not go the same way and any attempt to apply it to gods opens you up to the unicorn response. Basically, things don't exist, or not exist just because someone says they exist or don't. They exist regardless of an observer. Their existence or lack of thereof, is not subject to the observer

Let me go a step further. The fact that I personally, and therefore, subjectively categorically state that I have a million pounds in my bank account, or that gods, and unicorns, do not exist, does not in itself mean they do or do not exist. However, when it comes to proving whether they exist or not, the evidence for their existence is slim, at the very least. And I repeat, for the upteenth time, if ones subjective assertion of the existence of a thing were true just because it were asserted, then I would have to be a pig feed scammer, as some people asserted you were in a recent thread! I say again, I refuse to accept that without some evidence which, when you asked for, they refused to provide!

My meeting went well and I got home. I've read the relevants, and will play some chess. Then bed. Sleep well you all. And good cheer.

Atheists and always losing battles sha !

budaatum:

Somewhere on here, I said I shall henceforth respect you. I did not say you were stupid.

let your atheist brethren who will not be bias judged your reply with your way of reasoning, you will be a very poor student of a philosophy.... It is not an insult, it is a clear observation

budaatum:

I accept your definition and assert one of them was there too.

lol, this further confirm why I said your will be a very poor student of philosophy..... In critical thinking, evaluating and analysing is the weapon of defence....you will look into my argument, bring out my flaws why making sure ,yours is flawless...... Your brethren can tell here,you did a very poor job by replying with a link to a table picture......academically it will be consider an abuse of logic

budaatum:

Please quote the exact phrase that lets you infer the following:

"objective evidence is base on general held believe why subjective is solely base on individual opinion".

Ithis is why someone says our youth now are lazy to read. If you can not read an article that is less than 5000 words ......how will you read a complete PhD thesis..... I don't like attacking personality in a debate but you are forcing me to do so.....you shoot yourself at the foot when you bring the table analogy

budaatum:

How many times does Fvcknames have to repeat as simplistically as is possible that:

"Can exist" does not mean "does exist"?

Bro chill on the argument, you are obviously not making any sense to them, the atheists have lost this argument, let it end like that

budaatum:

Please note how the rest of us ignore 'it'.

Noted

vaxx:
lol, this further confirm why I said your will be a very poor student of philosophy..... In critical thinking, evaluating and analysing is the weapon of defence....you will look into my argument, bring out my flaws why making sure ,yours is flawless...... Your brethren can tell here,you did a very poor job by replying with a link to a table picture......academically it will be consider an abuse of logic

I have to agree with you on this Sir. BudaAtum is a poor student of true philosophy, which is the verification of truth.
Did you notice how he continuously insults and falsely accuses Butterflyl1on of a criminal offence with no evidence to prove it?
BudaAtum bases his false accusation on the divination of his friend Oetem who get info from their god Atum.

Fvcknames:

Bro chill on the argument, you are obviously not making any sense to them, the atheists have lost this argument, let it end like that

You are very much wiser than BudaAtum. Well done, you are welcome to view many more losses by Atheists.

JacksonD7:
Linger around the threads of nairaland for a while, and you're bound to find some smart quips from the enlightened atheists lurking around. It's not just nairaland, atheism is now a global phenomenon. With millions of wise and rational minds dedicated to tearing down the foundations of religion.

But, if you look at things constructively, you could come to the conclusion that atheists, are in fact more religious than adherents of the religions that they detest. And you would be right, because atheism is actually a religion.

Now before the atheists on this thread, go down to the comments to call me an ignorant fool. Let me list out a couple definitions of religion that I found in dictionaries.

01. An organized set of beliefs about a deity or deities.

02. A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

03. A particular system of faith and worship.

04. The belief in and worship of a supernatural controlling power, especially a personal god or gods.

05. A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Let's briefly take a look at the first definition, which talks about "an organized set of beliefs about a deity". Take note that it did not say in a deity

Excellent post by the OP. I also agree with what the OP says elsewhere. JacksonD7 says, "All religions require faith, atheism included. Despite what the atheists wants us to believe, it does require a great deal of faith to believe that in the beginning nothing exploded and created something. And something expanded and one day created the Earth.

And someway, somehow for no reason whatsoever, the Earth happened to be in the right spot for life to thrive. And later on, non-living materials have birth to the first living cell. And this cell, mysteriously rearranged itself, became more complex and reproduced. And one day, these complex cells turned into fishes.

And one day these fishes decided to live on land. In time, the amphibious offspring of these fishes gave birth to reptiles, and these reptiles gave birth to mammals.


These mammals then gave birth to apes, and the apes have birth to your human ancestors, who have birth to you. I don't know about you, but for me the entire scenario above, sounds like a plot device from a terrible sci-fi novel.

Yes Sir I fully agree. Then the Apes evolved into Atheists, but the wise apes stayed behind because they did not want to join in the mocking of their creator God. Butterflyl1on and Vaxx has a lot more to say on this.

JacksonD7:
Atheists claim to be non-religious by saying that they don't believe in God or gods. Well, lack of beliefs in God is a philosophy shared by all atheists. That makes atheism a religion, according to the first definition.

You should also note that you don't have to believe in a deity to be religious. There are such things as non-theistic religions. Buddhists don't believe in any particular god, but would you say Buddhism is not a religion?. Obviously not.

Non-theistic religion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religion

Comparisons Between Atheism And Other Religions

01. An Organized Set Of Beliefs

Every religion, has a collection of principles and beliefs that are shared by adherents of that particular religion. There's beliefs often form the foundations of the religion, and any sects that don't believe in them are considered heretics or unbelievers.

Christianity has God, Jesus, the resurrection, baptism etc

Islam has Allah, Sharia, Ramadan etc

Chapter 2 vs 1 to the end of the "Atheist Scriptural Handbook", states that "Thou shalt believe in"

a. The non-existence of God (there is no God, everything is an accident

b. The big bang (in the beginning nothing exploded and created everything)

c. Abiogenesis (non-living things gave life to living organisms)

d. Evolution (and everything arose as a result of countless accidents over billions of years)

e. Deep time (the Earth is billions of years old, if you think otherwise you must be madly ignorant)

I spoke to a member of The Nigerian Atheists Organization about the OP. He says he fully agrees with the contents of the OP as it relates to Atheism. He said that he spoke to some members about the high cost and futility of denying that Atheism is a religion.

I am wondering what other senior Atheist members have to say about this, such as;
Mr. Adepoju Adeleke (Abuja), Mr. Andrew Nandip (Plateau state), Mr. Ogunyemi Adekunle (Abuja), Mr. Sambo Gamba (Bauchi state), Professor Tunde Arogundade (Plateau state) and MS. Yemisi Ilesanmi(UK).
Absent: Dr. Ogunlana Adeleke (Kogi state), Mr. Aruson Alaba(Lagos), Mrs Adekunle Ann( plateau state).

butterflyl1on:


Please don't pollute this thread with deep ignorance. Your comment above shows how limited your reasoning is and how you find extremely impossible to reason outside the box.

Lack of belief is not religion because religion is not based on belief ALONE.

atheism is a religion because it is not based on a lack of belief alone.

I hope you can link the two if you really try.

Saving this post for its extreme foolishness.

vaxx:
Ithis is why someone says our youth now are lazy to read. If you can not read an article that is less than 5000 words ......how will you read a complete PhD thesis..... I don't like attacking personality in a debate but you are forcing me to do so.....you shoot yourself at the foot when you bring the table analogy

I posted the article, and had read its 5035 words (including references) before posting it. I read it again before I slept last night, and still found nowhere where it says

"objective evidence is base on general held believe"

I wonder if you read the article? I know that you can not have understood it since you claim it says what is not said in the article. I asked you for the exact bit that made you conclude what you did but you resort to name calling!

I hereby suspend the promise to respect and regard you.

ScienceWatch:

Did you notice how he continuously insults and falsely accuses Butterflyl1on of a criminal offence with no evidence to prove it?

Hopefully, Butterflyl1on himself will convince you that buda has not accused him of any such thing.

But meanwhile perhaps post what made you make such a claim?

In a way, Yes. It's "Myopic Superstition". Shortsighted Religion.

orisa37:
In a way, Yes. It's "Myopic Superstition". Shortsighted Religion.

Welcome to the thread

Fvcknames:

Welcome to the thread

Hello veteran. Your initiation was short, but baptism of fire all the same, it seems.

butterflyl1on:
Nobody needs to provide any evidence for you especially since none would suffice (as you would always try to find a way around it). The only one who can convince you IS YOU. So you alone can source for what you can convincingly term as "evidence" for God.

Why does all the evidence for God have to be so flimsy that it falls apart when you subject it to any amount of intellectual scrutiny? If God exists and wants us to believe that he exists, he can surely figure out how to convince every atheist beyond any reasonable doubt. Since that has not happened, we can conclude that he either doesn’t exist or, if he exists, then he doesn’t want us to believe that he exists.

Ironically a lot of what we painstakingly want to look for as evidence in far places have actually been right in front of us all along.

Like what?

budaatum:

Hello veteran. Your initiation was short, but baptism of fire all the same, it seems.

I think this works better than anger management

Fvcknames:


I think this works better than anger management

Good training for it at the least.

Fvcknames:
Welcome to the thread

.
To sow it together? That will be unequal Yoke! Myopic Superstition is "Forget and Abandon Process". I have "TheFaith & TheHope".

Seun:

Why does all the evidence for God have to be so flimsy that it falls apart when you subject it to any amount of intellectual scrutiny?

If you wouldn't mind, I would like you to give me a list of ALL the evidence for God you said is available and we will assess their so called flimsy nature. Mind you, you must be truthful enough to give me ALL.

If God exists and wants us to believe that he exists, he can surely figure out how to convince every atheist beyond any reasonable doubt

Your statement here is self refuting. God is already doing so to them that first believe and not to those who first wish to see before they believe. Before you experience something from the one offering the experience he has conditions you must meet and when you fail to meet these conditions and do not get this experience would you blame the experience giver or yourself? How can you expect God to reveal himself to someone whose foundation is a lack of belief of His existence. How does that work? Can I get into a car that I do not see in my spirit? Can I eat and enjoy a meal I openly declared does not exist? Even when I do, I could easily call it a different name just to convince myself that I still did not eat that meal.

Since that has not happened, we can conclude that he either doesn’t exist or, if he exists, then he doesn’t want us to believe that he exists.

Since you have chosen not to meet His condition for the experience I can conclude that you either deliberately do not want him to exist to you or since he exists and your pride has been speaking that he does not exist then you would do or say anything to deny his existence to you.

Like what?

butterflyl1on:


Your statement here is self refuting. God is already doing so to them that first believe and not to those who first wish to see before they believe.

When where and how did any God tell you that he only provides evidence to those that first have to believe? Is it not the bible that has God throwing sings all over so that people will see and believe? The contest btw Elijah and the prophets of Baal isn't inside your own bible abi? S it not the same bible that talks about signs that will follow believers so that unbelievers will SEE and believe? What the he'll are you talking about here? I keep telling you that no God that exist in reality will allow a failure like you to ever make any case for it.

Before you experience something from the one offering the experience he has conditions you must meet and when you fail to meet these conditions and do not get this experience would you blame the experience giver or yourself?

What are the conditions Moses met before Yahweh appeared to him as a burning bush? The condition Saul met before his Damascus experience was what assuming this stories were true? All the testimonies various christians throw around about their GOD appearing to them and giving them messages just like that while they were unbelievers nko? Which condition did they meet? Many pastors have stories of Jesus appearing to them even while they were unbelievers and giving them messages to go and prolifirate according to them. No condition was stated and non was met.

How can you expect God to reveal himself to someone whose foundation is a lack of belief of His existence. How does that work? Can I get into a car that I do not see in my spirit? Can I eat and enjoy a meal I openly declared does not exist? Even when I do, I could easily call it a different name just to convince myself that I still did not eat that meal.

The bible and the many testimonies of christians who were unbelievers that claimed Jesus appeared to them in their unbelief and told them what ever show that you don't know what you are talking about. Which condition was met since they were unbelievers? Which condition did Saul meet before Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus?

Since you have chosen not to meet His condition for the experience I can conclude that you either deliberately do not want him to exist to you or since he exists and your pride has been speaking that he does not exist then you would do or say anything to deny his existence to you.

Like what?

The condition you are talking about is your own making because you have nothing to hold on to. Many people have claimed that God appered to them when they were unbelievers, the bible has God appearing to unbelievers and converting them. All these say you clearly have no idea of what you are saying.