DrLiveLogic:
Nor will any of what I'm saying be validated by science. A simple reading my posts would have made that clear. An attempt at the Ten questions. would have helped you see that science only explains one domain of existence, our space-time universe, but points to a domain beyond it also. So if you believe science, you would believe there's a domain beyond science as it says of itself.
Faith is only found in the same domain your conscience and emotions are beyond science's domain but is experiential nonetheless like your conscience and desire.
You must answer the ten questions to begin researching faith is all I'm saying. That should be easy enough to understand. Ready when you are.



The onus to research faith is on y'all. I can't do it for you. Only he who seeks will find, Jer 29:13, Mt 7:7. That is the rules of engagement. The only valid question is how to find. The answer begins with a simple touch on this. Ten questions. These will not validate faith but create an awareness for the journey to begin.
When any is done, mention me again, we will discuss and I'll suggest a method to discover faith.


Tantrum, my dear, as I said before, no shame in learning. I learn everyday too.
But if you keep attempting @ law Vs theory, you'll only keep revealing your lack of training in science.
Evolutionism is a just a theory else every single scientist must be bound by it. Science is not politics and not about numbers but is objective. LMAO. Consider.
Gravity, Upthrust, Thermodynamics, are laws, they don't get overturned. Evolutionism is a mere subjective attempt to make sense of objective findings. It is interpretation of facts. It's been revised over and over and will be revised many more times with new findings till we arrive at truth. Learn how theories are overturned with new theories, ma Theory Vs theory.
Natural selection, adaptation, common descent are validated. It is such evolution that every scientist accepts as fact, even ID crew. They can be theorised under ID exclusive of trans-speciation. Trans-speciation from Darwinism is a theory and has never been validated and is the bone of contention with ID crew.
As for faith, always learn to go to source when seeking true answers. Funny you quoted it first and now I expound on it, you shift goalposts to juxtapose from dictionary which can only explain material things. It's like checking an encyclopedia to know what heaven looks like. LMAO. Once again, faith, as defined by source viz. proven men of faith, Heb 11:1, will only be validated empirically, using a method I'll suggest to the one serious enough to answer all ten questions sincerely.

[1] Gravity and thermodynamics have been revised many times as well. Which kind of lets the air out of the tires of your argument, in my opinion

[2] If you think speciation hasn’t been observed in nature, let alone reproduced in the laboratory, then I could find numerous scientific papers waiting to disabuse you of this fatuous idea.
--------------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Tongomustin Tantrum

DrLiveLogic:

Ok, you win, if it makes you feel better. The cussing game that is. LMAO.
You trying to save face, with barrage of insults, LMAO, saw that. I wonder how many of your logic laws you break per day, Logic criminal Tantrum.

I would now like to engage others who have keen critiques to offer lest the thread gets derailed. Thanks for stopping by. We meet again somewhere.

Butthurt because your canards have been fed into the shredder? Such as your canards about scientific theories and scientific postulates? I was just trying to see if you truly understood what you blundered into going down this route. And you've proven to me that as far as this issue is concerned, you don't even cut the mustard here. Your claim begs the question; why ask scientific questions of me if you think I'm so ignorant? Hmmm?

Don’t slam the door on the way out.

I’ve seen your ilk before, and recognise the aetiology of a shill for the Duplicity Institute. Your post content matches exactly the output of said individuals. Noting the requisite correspondence by reference to observational data isn’t a “cussing game”.

As for logic, you’ve repeatedly demonstrated that you wouldn’t recognise logic if it backed an M1 Abrams main battle tank into your ribcage. Here’s a test you can attempt in order to demonstrate otherwise:

[1] What is the rigorous definition of ‘implication’?

[2] Explain why the material conditional has to be deployed with care and diligence in any properly constructed logical derivation;

[3] Explain why the rules of passage for quantificational schemata work for the material conditional, but not the biconditional.

If you understand logic in the manner you assert, the above three questions should be easy to answer. I’ll enjoy seeing you evade them.
Buh Bye
--------------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Tintilattus Tantrum

empirical
adjective

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

Faith
Noun

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof

DrLiveLogic: suggests empirical validation of faith

Christ on a bike but creatards are dumb. They'd rather suggest, but not provide empirical proof of faith.

dragonflyy:
[s][/s]
guy how do you manage to say so much, and end up passing zero meaning accross

It rattles me as well

How are they not embarrassed to not know basic concepts you can Google in a few seconds.

A law isn’t better than a theory , or vice versa. They’re just different, and in the end, all that matters is that they’re used correctly. … For example, evolution is a law — the law tells us that it happens but doesn’t describe how or why. A theory describes how and why something happens

Only an ignorant creatard would think a scientific law is a linear progression from a scientific theory.

Dear oh fucking dear

Though scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data, accepted by the majority of scientists within that area of scientific study and help to unify it, they are not the same thing.

"Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton’s Law of Gravity or Mendel’s Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work, said Coppinger.

DrLiveLogic:
Tamaratonye.5 Tantrum, you are just not trained in the SM. Laws are putting in words objective facts, hence remain objective. Theories are an attempt to explain the whys and can be offered in multiple plausible ways. This is why laws are immutable commensurate to their facts but theories are not but only subjective.

Well I hate to say this to you, but you have now produced the two dumbest creatard canards there are.

I have to fucking laugh. How can you be this ignorant of basic scientific methodology and phrases, the mind boggles at such stupidity.

DrLiveLogic:
I also like how you've found a way to escape the thread. It's all good, I'm tired of your circles too. At least you've learnt a few things including the false security of evolutionism. Go back and search for answers.

Did posting that trolling drivel make you feel good? Evolution remains an accepted scientific fact. If you had even a cursory grasp of the scientific methods and processes you’d have some inkling of how embarrassing your creationist rhetoric is, but like all the other creatards I’ve encountered you’re utterly closed minded. Unfortunate.
--------------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Tucktrumpet Tantrum

DrLiveLogic:
No you weren't Tantrum, denial can give us the same lens and truth isn't nasty, dear old man friend. It's denial that causes torture, misrepresenting it. Plus your problem is you really came with a prejudice from whatever previous encounters you may have had with 'theists'. If you'd simply try read my posts, I never claimed uncertainty of evolutionism validates creationism. I have all through only tried to invalidate the false security in it and suggest empirical validation of faith.

Nonsense, you were given every chance. And nothing you’ve posted indicates an honest desire to pursue the truth. There is no bias on my part, that’s a sad lie you told, I treat all claims the same.

You have no valid objections to evolution, nor does any other creationist, that is axiomatic, otherwise they would falsify it and we would all know, as that is how the scientific method works.

The idea your risible denials of evolution are not motivated by your belief in creationist myths is absurd, by all means can you list all the other scientific facts you deny, that don’t in any way contradict any part of your religious beliefs?

While you’re at that, list ten beliefs you hold without any shred of objective evidence, but that form no part of your religious beliefs?

You see this "stuff" you keep trotting out here, ad nauseum, may convince the gullible sheeple, but the atheists here are on the whole far too well informed to be taken in.
-----------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Tabascunus Tantrum

DrLiveLogic
Try googling the correct words next time, as we were talking a scientific theory, and the dumbest creatard canard of all, that you used above, evolution is just a theory. Bless your heart.

Its painfully simple. Laws tell us what happens. Theories explain how and why something happens. Links eh? I have some too.

One of your links, Dictionary .com, also has this definition: scientific theory

"noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
the scientific theory of evolution.”

which is only what I've been telling you forever.

And from [url=https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20a%20scientific%20law,into%20laws%20with%20enough%20research]Live Science[/url]
What is a law in science?

“Generally scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn’t explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research.”

And two explanations from the “Understanding Science” site at Berkeley University

Under the section “Vocabulary mix ups.”

“Law: In everyday language, a law is a rule that must be abided or something that can be relied upon to occur in a particular situation. Scientific laws, on the other hand, are less rigid. They may have exceptions, and, like other scientific knowledge, may be modified or rejected based on new evidence and perspectives. In science, the term law usually refers to a generalization about data and is a compact way of describing what we’d expect to happen in a particular situation.”

And just above that entry the heading of “Misunderstandings of the limits of science” comes the following:

"MISCONCEPTION: Science contradicts the existence of God.

CORRECTION: Because of some vocal individuals (both inside and outside of science) stridently declaring their beliefs, it’s easy to get the impression that science and religion are at war. In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities — like God."

Which is what I have also been telling you forever.

Get a literate sane adult to help you. Maybe one of the nurses after she’s done cutting your fruit into your bowl for you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DrLiveLogic:
Does it make you feel better with cussing?

It is not about what makes me feel better. If you knew me better, I prefer to engage in polite discourse. In fact, even befriending a theist so we can have a healthy exchange of opinions where we learn from each other.

But you immediately set the tone, being toxic, combative, and antagonistic. My response was proportional to your post.

DrLiveLogic:
Look at the various definitions above and take a wild guess what I mean when I say evolution is a just a theory,

No need to guess, I've seen enough creatards make this howler. Nothing you’ve posted suggests any interest in honest rational debate, your arrogant pompous hubris in favour of your unevidenced ignorant superstitious fantasies are to be pitied and laughed at.

From now on I shall act accordingly. If you were capable of integrity or adult politeness maybe I’d torture myself reading the asinine drivel you post, but since you’re being a trolling prick, why would I bother exactly? You came to me to peddle your fantasies sunshine, try and grasp that.

You are an asshole. Henceforth, I will treat you as such.
--------------------------
Cheers
Tamara Thumpitcus Tantrum

Judas1X:

The truth is nasty, my dear failed logician. And the truth here is you want to bait us into considering your position using questions that appeal to ignorance instead of persuading us through the objective evidence. We see through the bullshit you've drowned yourself in, and if you think we'll jump into that pool of shit to play with you, you must be off your meds

I thought I was the only one who saw that. Yeah, though. His questions are disingenuous to put it mildly

DrLiveLogic:
My bad. I asserted you were intelligent. If you have no intelligence, then you're right, DNA has none.

I appreciate the assertion; however, when I consider the source I simply have to chuckle. Yes, I can see how someone like you would make that mistake.

DNA is not a code . DNA is a polymer, which is composed of individual chemical units called nucleotides. There are four types of these nucleotides, and we humans have decided to call them adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. It is a chemical interaction and a natural process. Not intelligence

DrLiveLogic:
DNA that writes code for the compiler that encodes itself, what AI seeks to achieve with deep learning, has no intelligence in Tantrum's world. I'd like to meet you in your world. Smh.

Someone went off their medication, lol!

eta: I showed the sentence to my hubby, and I learned a new word.

schizophasia : the disorganized speech characteristic of schizophrenia

DrLiveLogic:
Cc: Daejoyoung

Calling for help?

DrLiveLogic:
shows you're neither a core scientist nor ready for in-depth analysis

Straw man fallacy, since I never claimed to be either. Though we all note the duplicitous way you dismiss the very objective evidence you requested, whilst offering none for your bat shit crazy creatard fantasies.

DrLiveLogic:
Again there's nothing like overwhelming evidence/proof for evo rhetoric

Lying again, the theory of evolution contains nothing but objective evidence. That is what scientific theories are.

DrLiveLogic:
What you tell yourself to feel better.

Nah. It's just the truth you seemingly can't handle, and makes you twist and turn in your bed at night, lol.

DrLiveLogic:
You're an atheist cause you don't want to ever investigate the validity of creator

I’m an atheist because there is zero evidence for god fantasies, and it is axiomatic that their ubiquitous creation by humans stems from ignorance and superstition. As your posts amply demonstrate.

DrLiveLogic:

Tamaratonye5: What singularity? You don’t have even the most basic grasp of logic, that is abundantly clear.

Since you don’t know about it, don’t bother.

So it was bullshit you made up, I thought as much, lol.

DrLiveLogic:
Faith is utterly useless if you believe it’s blind belief,

Try referencing a dictionary once in a while you cretin.

DrLiveLogic:
So the substantiality of faith, like our universe, is in consciousness not in logic

I agree your blind faith is irrational, though why you’re repeating this back to me only you can know, Bullwinkle.
------------------------------
Cheers,
Tamaraton Tetragammatron Tantrum

FatherOfJesus:
How can you call me useless? Omo ale

budaatum:

I watched this twice when you first posted it and tried watching it again before this response but could only get to the 3:30 mark.

What I love about science is its ability to make one reflect. Its why the scientist in the video does not make the error the 'scientists' who wrote the Bible made. Unlike them, he states clearly at the beginning and all the way through "what we know for sure", and says when he's speculating, which he assures us is about anything 10^-13 seconds after time = 0, ("14 hours, after he was born", he called it), so I can't see why you'd present this as time = -1, as in prior to the big bang, unless you've suddenly gone religious on me and believe the gospel according to the youtube video you posted, which clearly would be a misunderstanding of said gospel since its presenter carefully separates what is known from speculation.

Do note that I am not myself claiming to know what existed prior to time = -1. Just that something tells me bangs do not come out of nothing, and most especially not big ones.

Yes but whatever that something is, science can not identify. Science also can not completely rule out a deity, but hasn’t found any evidence that one exists either. If science does find that a god exists, I dont know if it will be any of the gods people believe in today.

Science and physics can not prove a soul exists either, and nothing has proved that consciousness can exist outside the brain. So once the brain dies that’s probably it.

DrLiveLogic:
As long as we know evolution remains a theory

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

This is the dumbest howler a creatard can make. Priceless.

An accepted scientific theory is the pinnacle of scientific thought. You’ll be implying scientific laws are superior to scientific theories next. It really is sad that creatards are this ignorant of the most basic scientific methodology and terminology.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses but are reliable accounts of the real world.

You can just Google it ffs. PMLMAO etc etc

DrLiveLogic:
All your highlighted grievances tho. Check well, none was directed on a specific person but on a line of thought only. LMAO.

No, you came out of the gate as an asshole. If you did not like my response, tough. My response was proportional to the level of asshole you portrayed. First impression dude, first impressions.

DrLiveLogic:
Well, it'll do you good to tell you you're faithless

That I genuinely take as a compliment. I am faithless, I revel in that label, I am proud of it if a superstitious religious apologist calls me faithless. As I always strive to reason rationally, and using blind faith, as religious apologists do, is absurdly irrational

DrLiveLogic:
..cause that gives you hope that you’ve not exhausted all possibilities for the security of your soul but you won’t find that in the realm you’ve confined yourself to.

Pascal’s Wager. I reject it.
-----------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Trigon Tantrum

DrLiveLogic:
The old fallacy

You don’t know what fallacy means clearly. But then you don’t know what a scientific theory is either, so pretty typical for a creationist. I long ago stopped being surprised at how ignorant religion keeps many of its adherents.

DrLiveLogic:
"intelligence is perfection", which we contravene in our own IDs. You consider yourself intelligent, yet never made a perfect thing.

No one asserted that we were intelligent. You asserted DNA was intelligent. If it was, wouldn’t it intelligently design more intelligently? It is a chemical process and nothing more.

DrLiveLogic:
Learn girl, intelligence is simply defined pattern towards purpose, god is perfection.

You’re an arrogant clown, especially considering your posts contain some of the most ignorant idiotic drivel I've seen on this particular website. Asserting your god is perfect does not make it so. You don’t get to assert a god into existence. Provide evidence or go away.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

DrLiveLogic:
Not really. Just think it's courtesy to remind you, you really aren't standing on any logical ground but in denial.

Since you’re the one denying a global scientific consensus based on over 160 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny, and all to justify an absurd unevidenced belief in a deity from a bronze age superstition. The hilarity of a creatard accusing anyone of denial is palpable.

You haven’t got a clue of what logical ground any atheist is standing on. Your inane responses and idiotic assertions are evidence of this.

DrLiveLogic:
Evolutionist's dreamland. Already challenged you to substantiate evidences, so they're debunked again.

OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

As I already said the talkorigins website has a massive database of scientific evidence for evolution. It also has a massive database of creationist propaganda that science has debunked, most of them you have used here.

FYI, I'm not an atheist because I believe in evolution. That's your own Dreamland. I'm an atheist because of the lack of evidence for god/s

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

DrLiveLogic:
can never prove trans-speciation,

The fossil evidence alone establishes this

DrLiveLogic:
Dear logic criminal, Tantrum, hereby sentenced to.... for contravention of section #9 and #10 of her logic laws.
Plus, guess what? this is how many religious doctrines became too and well, so much for that.

Do you care to translate that gibberish into a coherent sentence, Hmmm?

DrLiveLogic:

Tamaratonye5: However, and as I have pointed out, even were evolution not a scientific fact,

Fine. Taken you admit to having no objective evidence for the evo rhetoric.

So we can add English to the expanding list of things you don’t understand.

DrLiveLogic:
My point of inviting you my thread was to show all so called "objective evidence" of current evo rhetoric is subjective

Your point is to deny an accepted scientific fact that contradicts the risible creation myth form your bronze age superstition, and of course the reason is because you can’t offer any objective evidence for your deity, or any creationist propaganda. Here’s a clue for you, because I know how slow creatards are…

SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED BY OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, THEY CAN ONLY BE FALSIFIED BY THE SAME. WHEN A CREATARD GETS A NOBEL PRIZE FOR FALSIFYING EVOLUTION I WILL ACCEPT IT, BUT CREATIONISM WILL REMAIN AN UNEVIDENCED SUPERSTITIOUS MYTH.

DrLiveLogic:
As I said, the burden to find truth lies on you solely.

Rubbish, you don’t half talk drivel. The best method we have for validating claims is the scientific method, which creatards risibly think they can cherry pick when it contradicts their superstitious myths.

DrLiveLogic:
Proof of faith, as said before, lies not in logic

And as I said there is literally nothing you cannot believe using faith. So yes of course faith based beliefs are irrational by definition. The efficacy of logic is manifest, as is the uselessness of faith. As I keep asking what is your criteria for disbelief if you are prepared to believe using faith?

DrLiveLogic:
Logic confirmed existence beyond its domain, across the Singularity

What singularity? You don’t have even the most basic grasp of logic, that is abundantly clear.

DrLiveLogic:
None should believe anything without objective evidence or tangibility

Yet here you are, arguing for your intangible deity. So please demonstrate some objective evidence for your deity. I keep asking, but you just keep posting the same subjective rhetoric and logical fallacies.

DrLiveLogic:
Valid questions on existence and beyond logic, to be answered, in the quest of faith:

Even your title seems confused. If something is valid, isnt it meant to be logical?

How are questions valid if they are beyond logic, and therefore by definition irrational, that’s such an obviously errant title I want to laugh out loud. Why on earth would any rational person want to pursue a quest for faith as well, faith is utterly useless for validating claims, as there is literally nothing you could not believe using faith, as I have already explained.

DrLiveLogic:
1. Does the Singularity not point to an existence beyond the current coordinate system and material plane?

Again, what singularity?

DrLiveLogic:
2. Does it not show the limitation of current logic to account for existence beyond?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, textbook.

DrLiveLogic:
3. Isn't the material plane considered real firstly because we are in some way conscious of it ever before logic?

I have no idea what that means sorry, is it from dungeons and dragons?

DrLiveLogic:
4. Is logic then the absolute determinant of existence or derived from a precedent viz. consciousness?

I've probably stated this a thousand times here already, but: logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, in order to remove bias and flawed reasoning.

DrLiveLogic:
5. Are there other modes of consciousness asides our physical senses?

I don't know. If you do, please demonstrate some objective evidence for this. Also why have you phrased this as a question?

DrLiveLogic:
6. Is this material plane all we're conscious of?

Again what are you taking about, is this a reference to dungeons and dragons only I have never played it?

DrLiveLogic:
7. If ID is evidenced in human intelligence

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that it is? Or has that just become your usual incoherent fallacious rhetoric?
---------------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Trinus Tantrum

jamesid29:

Below is your exact statement I quoted, exactly the way I quoted it and my exact question. The whole premise was for you to clarify your statement, which could have easily been answered with a, "this was what I was tracking when I made that statement"...but your reply was on a whole different tangent. I'm not sure why you trying to pitch your tent on something that is documented.
You can check back and read your reply and guage if it was a response to my question or a response to a question you made up.
https://www.nairaland.com/5997053/what-faith-really/2#91968803

And you have just confirmed what I've been saying. A lot of you people here are guilty of SPLITTING

Splitting (also called black-and-white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism.[1] The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual's actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground).
WIKIPEDIA

There’s a considerable difference between

"I don’t believe in any creation myths” /// “I don’t believe the universe was created"

AND

"The Universe was not created"

The latter seems like a positive claim to me, coming from a position of certainty, whilst the former comes from a position of uncertainty ie "I don’t know, so I withhold belief"

jamesid29:
It seems you missed the point I was making. Basically I pointing out the realities of human nature from behavioural science but again you seem to have sliced and misconstrued it for an avenue for a "stick it to the Christain" reply.

I'm getting fed up of repeating myself, so I'll just post this for you to read again:

That's why logic is necessary, it is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, in order to filter out bias and of course superstitions like religions.

I don't understand why you people fail to read my posts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jamesid29:
I pretty sure you can't point out any of my statement that is a straw man fallacy about atheism. You just made that up or assumed it.

You committed a strawman fallacy, albeit unintentionally, when you misconstrued my statement above.

The point I was making is this: I understand humans are flawed, but we should first be honest enough to understand our flaws, and apply trusted principles to ensure that our subjective bias/es should not interfere with the objective reality.

Dtruthspeaker:
I noticed you come out here in the morning, so I am going to raise a Thread just For You, and I'll battle you there.

i give you the option of laying the Rules of Engagement. (Which you will refuse as is your practice)

Should you reverse the choice of the Rules of Engagement to me as you usually do, I thus set and Choose, All the Rules of Natural Truth, the Evidence Act, Natural Law, The Objective Ordinary Reasonable Man and Prohibition of All Fallacies of any kind, And Directly Answering Reasonable Questions put forward to you in a Positive way that Resolves the Question eg what is your name? Answer= my name is Tamaratonye (which you hate doing).

Ehen, no after-thoughts and You Must stay online to proceed with the argument expenditiously.

Put forth your own Rules of Engagement that I may meet you therein. (Even this one, argument go still enter am )

Thank God tomorrow na weekend so she no go get reason to dey talk only once a day like malaria medicine.

You're getting yourself unnecessarily worked up over nothing . The rules of rational discourse don’t need clarifying by you on here, go and educate yourself, I am under no obligation to teach you such basic rules of discourse. The contents of all my posts to you here will remain on this thread for posterity, so that anyone with an ounce of honesty will see how effortlessly your shameful allegations against me are destroyed.

The idea you can dictate your made up bullshit rules of discourse in a public forum is pretty hilarious though, besides you already implied the discussion was over, before you came back to throw your pointless gauntlet

So, this matter is hereby struck out for lack of cause of action and want of diligent prosecution! grin

Registrar, please call the next case!

So why should I wish to engage someone in any discourse, that is that pathetically dishonest? I have nothing to prove to you.

Tell you what I will give you another chance to show some shred of integrity.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? If you can’t demonstrate any, then have the integrity to say so, and then offer what you consider to be your most compelling reason for believing in any extant deity.

Otherwise you simply cannot be taken seriously if all you do is make vapid dishonest attacks on atheism and atheists. If you've carefully observed my posting patterns, you'll see I'm not a regular here. I'm mostly a passive observer reading through threads. I'm much more active in other online fora outside the Nairaland community. I'm already worn out for having to come on here, everyday, since the beginning of this week to repeat myself like a broken record, and you expect me to waste my precious time engaging in your games of mendacity, villainy and fraud (prohibition of logical fallacies? LOL- because you know that's the only way your lies will ever have any semblance of validity). I have better things to do with my time.

You and the rest of your Christian goons have exposed yourselves as shallow villains, failing to read my posts, picking on irrelevant issues, trying to reverse the burden of proof, taking things out of context, obfuscating and/or hand waving obvious facts, gaslighting, fabricating claims I never made and expecting me to prove them. I'm about almost done with this silly game. You people have no guts, no honour, no glory, no decorum. Just a band of desperate idiots thinking sly dishonesty can cover the light of the facts. This is the last chance to prove yourselves, or I'm abandoning this farce

jamesid29:

You actually did,hence my question....But it's all good.

Pretty sure I did not, I merely pointed out there isn’t a shred of objective evidence for any creation myth. Any other assertion is of your own construct I'm afraid.

jamesid29:
We humans are really not rational... We all filter the world through personal bias, prejudices & worldview. Humans are capable of objective logical reasoning, that's why we can spot deficiencies in others but when push comes to shove, we mostly make decisions based on emotions and bias rather than objective reasoning regardless of education or religious affiliation.

That's why logic is necessary, it is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, in order to filter out bias and of course superstitions like religions.

Most Christians, like the ones here, don't
have a developed epistemology or dont even know zilch about their epistemology, so they come here thinking they know it all but don't realize how bad they actually embarrass themselves.

How many people on this thread care for the truth? If you are not willing to change if you discover truth is different than what you think it currently is, then you don't care for the truth.

jamesid29:
From my own experience and mine alone(so I could be wrong), whenever I get into a conversation where someone starts using words like "that's a so & so fallacy" alot, I just believe that conversation would not go anywhere... Mainly because I believe, we have already assumed a position of objective rationality(which is untrue)

No that’s nonsense again, there are known logical fallacies, these are called common logical fallacies if they occur in informal logic. Theists use these type of fallacies all the time, as you have done above using straw man fallacies about atheism.

There is no animosity here, I'm just here to learn. However I can't deny that it's been a shitfest thus far here. So far it's the same old same old. People assigning imaginary arguments to me, or committing strawmen by putting labels on me such as my being an evolutionist. In the midst of all the games the countless dishonest apologists present on this thread are hell bent on playing, absolutely zero, zilch, nada has been offered in terms of substance. None of them, not one, has succeeded in demonstrating objective evidence for any deity.

Daejoyoung:

Well Tamaratonye.5, every ideology professes an opinion or bias, and atheism is not exempt.

Atheism isn’t an ideology.

Daejoyoung:
Atheism is not an ideology on the fence, rather it questions the evidence for the existence of a God or Gods.

Atheism isn’t an ideology at all, and I have seen no objective evidence for any deity to question, only subjective anecdotal claims, and irrational polemic.

Daejoyoung:
When theists present evidence of God as creator, the atheist then says no, there is no creator, we just evolved randomly to become what we are.

Rubbish i'm sorry, firstly atheism is not a denial there is a deity, secondly species evolution is a scientific fact, and atheism has nothing to do with that, I am an atheist because no theist can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity.

Daejoyoung:
By so doing, you are interpreting evolution and projecting your anti-theistic bias on the scientific report, no less guilty than the theist in that regard.

Sorry but that is complete nonsense.

Daejoyoung:
Evolution only explains the process, it doesn't necessarily tell us the why, nor does the science of evolution in itself uphold or debunk the God as creator claim specifically.

It doesn’t debunk unicorns either, or mermaids, what’s your point?

Daejoyoung:
The non creationist theist says God was behind evolution, and the atheist says there was no God.

Nope, wrong again, atheism is the lack or absence of belief in a deity, nothing more. I am an atheist and I have never made that claim, I simply don’t believe a deity exists as no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for their god claim.

Daejoyoung:
These are all just opinions, and has nothing to do with science. There are so many atheists who tout evolution, but are damn ignorant of the evolution they yap about all day long. They think the atheists are the heroes of science and science is atheistic dogma.

They are straw man fallacies you’ve created. Evolution is a scientific fact, and I no more need to have a complete understand of the entire theory than I do of Newton’s theories of gravity to know they are facts. There is no atheist dogma, you;re talking bollocks sorry. This is well worn theist propaganda.

Daejoyoung:
We are discussing your ideology here, and I am tired of correcting atheists on this one misunderstanding all the time, your atheistic ideology or interpretation of science does not equate to science, this goes for the theists as well.

There is no atheist ideology, and you are correcting nothing, just displaying your ignorance of basic facts and even word definitions. And your theist ideology consists of a shallow appeal to imagined evidence of design in nature, and a simplistic equation that states we don’t know, therefore god.

Everything you think you know about god is just the product of childhood indoctrination based on ancient myths distorted through telling and retelling across millennia.

There is no atheist interpretation of science. Science stands on its own merits. It is the sole source of our knowledge of the world. It is the sole provider of advances that have dramatically improved the human condition.

Daejoyoung:
So when explaining these things, let us discuss our ideologies specifically.

Atheism is not an ideology.

Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Ideology
noun

1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

ATHEISM IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY.

MuttleyLaff:
The Harry Potter books are fantasy novel written works. There's nothing J. K. Rowling imagined in her series of fantasy books, that is not in the Bible, there are witch(es)/wizard(s). Now, J. K. Rowling, being a lifelong Catholic, it is obvious, she's delved into the realms of fantasy, writing imaginative fiction that she knows are impossible and/or improbable.

That’s exactly the point, the bible does the same, yet you claim one book validates the fantasies in it, and the other does not.

MuttleyLaff:
Stop the unnecessary pseudo substance showing off, but please stay within the circa 6000 years biblical A&E account

You can delude yourself if you wish with biblical creation myths, but I will continue to accept only what is properly evidenced, and it is a scientific fact that humans evolved. Your baseless attacks on evolution are your problem, but if you think you can tell me what to think then you’re sadly mistaken.

If the earth is just a few thousand years old, then just how exactly can we see the light from stars that are billions of light years away? Did your deity create the light en route to us ffs?

MuttleyLaff:
You dont even know when and how to correctly use "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam"

More of your hand waving rhetoric, I shan’t even feign surprise you ignored the context because you know I did correctly cite your use of it. Theists and religious apologists use this fallacy all the time, to try and reverse the burden of proof. As you have done again in that post, and pointed out by me below:

MuttleyLaff:
Creationism, is not supported by a shred of objective evidence, you say. Is that indeed so?.

What kick started evolution then?. Who and/what is the Brain, Scientist, Creator, Architect, Developer, Painter, Artist et cetera behind evolution and creation?

That’s another argumentum ad ingorantiam fallacy, because I don’t know how life originated anymore than you do, the difference is that unlike you I don’t use appeal to ignorance fallacies to try to insert creation myths from bronze age superstitions into things I can’t explain.

MuttleyLaff:
There was no perfection, as to be perfect, means unable to improve any further. Only God is Good. Only God is perfect. For crying out loud, A&E were a finished article, they weren't perfection or perfect.

Again you are deliberately missing the point, that your claim an infallible deity created everything, when it is so obviously flawed is absurd. And of course species evolution is an objective scientific fact, no matter how many creationists won’t accept it.

MuttleyLaff:
By observation, we can tell that an Intelligent Mind created the universe, man, everything within, below and above the earth. It is true, that, even science supports an intelligent design (i.e. ID)

We can tell no such thing, there isn’t a shred of objective evidence for the claim, as your posts have amply illustrated. Unlike species evolution of course, which is an objective scientific fact, no matter how many times you deny it.

MuttleyLaff:
Whats the matter with you? I am talking representing, but you gone off on a tangent talking of interpretation. Red is the color used universally to signify danger, love, courage, strength, power et cetera. It is representing not interpretating

Right. You got the point. Our society (not all and not in all eras) may identify or use those qualities associated with red. Red itself is demonstrable. God is not. YOU are interpreting or representing, whatever, something that hasn’t been demonstrated to even exist.

REPRESENTATION
the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or the state of being so represented.

ARE you representing "red"?

INTERPRETATION
a stylistic representation of a creative work or dramatic role.

OR are YOU attributing or personifying it?

MuttleyLaff:
If I had remained an atheist, I wouldn't think of ever debating with theists in a self existing, incorporeal, intelligent, creator, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent supreme being I have decided doesnt not exist.

So what? Just because you’re prepared to blindly and unquestioningly accept superstitious fantasies doesn’t mean I have to.

MuttleyLaff:
"Jesus said, "Thomas, do you have faith because you have seen me?
The people who have faith in Me, without seeing Me, are the ones who are really blessed!"
(i.e. Blessed are those who haven't seen Me but believe)
- John 20:29

How does that remotely address my point? You disbelieve in every deity humans have ever created because there is no objective evidence for them, but make a biased exception for the one you choose to believe is real, but there is no more evidence for yours than all the rest, and blindly quoting the bible at me won’t change that fact. As I already explained, no book can validate its own claims, or else Harry Potter would validate wizards ad wizardry.

MuttleyLaff:
Jesus, is the "self existing, incorporeal, intelligent, creator, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent supreme being" incarnate

And there is no more objective evidence for that claim, than there is for Zeus, Apollo or Vishnu. You can’t simply assert something into existence.

Dtruthspeaker:
An statement spoken in truth to bring about a change, even though adverse is not a Troll (now you go fight dis one)

"It's your belief, so the burden of proof is logically and epistemologically entirely yours"

And I very clearly answered that I was going to respond to and discharge the burden BUT how are we going to know that my burden has been Rightly Discharged and shifted to you, if We Do Not Have A Standard for Determining when we can both agree that the burden has passed. (U go still fight dis one too, infact I know say you go fight d whole thing I don talk as Miranda say "every word or statement you make shall be used against you" whether properly or not)

Especially as Atheist such as yourself are known to Always Change their Argument and Position, Lie and Breach every Standard of Reasonable Healthy arguments that lead to a proper and concluisive end, not an argument till eternity which is not profitable to any reasonable person but an Atheist or Satanist or Hater of Truths.

So All these grammar was just to obtain from you what are Truths to you, Established Truths, like You can not walk through walls Truth or can you? Or you can not live in the sea as a fish or you can not fly as a bird Truth.

I Stand on Truths seen in Nature and on Natural Law, I stand on it and I will fall with it.

But you have not disclosed your own Truths and neither are you willing to commit yourself to Any Certain Ground nor do you wish to stand or fall by anything.

So how can we know that what you say is True and it should be acted upon?

And I had commited myself to answering whatever reasonable question you may profer but you are not willing to disclosed your own grounds of standing for testing and verification as you wish to do to me.

For clearly we have opposing grounds, I Believe in the Most High, Creator of All, whom we call God, including all that represent Him, you believe in big-bang (I think, for you said so to another person)

So you have a case against me, I have a case against you.

On what basis of Truths are we going to measure the validity of our cases, for the basis must be upon Truths, Natural Truths, Seen and Proven by Nature, (Like if you walk into the sea until you the water covers your natural head, for one hour, you shall die Truth) Not Lies and Imaginations and conjectures which we have seen have killed people or put them in trouble.

I would have raised up a thread challenging you directly but I can see that you do not positively and directly answer a question put to you eg if i asked what is your name? Instead of answering " My name is Susan, nnenna etc, You shall answer "what is my name or what do you want to do with my name or some other evasive and counter response.

If you you are using this thread to practice evasive maneuvers, you've done a great job and there is nothing to be gained in arguing with you.

But I think you are doing more than play evasion but you are also trying to show the weak strength of your conviction by hiding and preventing your weaknesses from being challenged, which itself, is the Proof of Weakness for it is Seen, A True Strong Man Opens Himself to Challenge Both Weakness and all like Goliath did BUT a fake and false "strong" man only shows his strength and hides his weakness, THUS, HE IS WEAK!

That is the difference between I together with the All Mighty and weak you.

Whilst We Are Always Ready for a Challenge Anywhere, Anytime, day or night you have to adequately prepare ensuring that the circumstance is favourable to you (meaning there should be some chances to cheat and play unfair).

For your convictions can never be established on a fair fight, which is why you are not willing to commit, even when I have clearly asked you to lay the rules of engagement, so that I would show Nairaland, that your convictions are founded on a Lie and not On Truths!

But you love to make a contention out of a contention and in the end, many words fly all over the place and nothing is resolved.

I am sorry I do not participate in vain arguments and arguments to eternity.

For if you asked me, bonafide, what is my name, I would clearly answer you Dtruthspeaker.

. This is hands down the most incoherent rant I've ever witnessed yet on any of the countless online fora, lol. Your rant about my name being the icing on the cake. The name is right there (Tamaratonye), glaring and not hiding unlike your god, wtf are you blathering about? A word of criticism if I may, unless you were being ironic, Dtruthspeaker is about as unsuitable a pseudonym as I could imagine for you. Have you considered Dblindpreacher? It seems more apropos to your posts.

As per the highlighted - yes you do, and that is the standard expected by the one who is not convinced. You just don't like it when atheists request more than just "gotta have faith" because, let me tell you: deep down inside, you know there is zero evidence of a god.

But in the interests of fair play, if we’re talking about truth-values of assertions, and their conversion into true or false postulates, there are two currently known reliable method applicable to said assertons, viz:

[1] Error free derivation in a relevant formal system (see, for example, various subsets of pure mathematics);

[2] Correspondence with observational data (see, for example, the physical sciences).

If you want to bring a different methodology into the arena, you have to establish that said methodology is reliable first, before demanding that we accept it. Failure to do so will simply result in much ridicule aimed at your direction.

It also became problematic when you already exposed your agenda to an embarrassing extent below:

Is it by Natural Truths like that popular Mountain we call Mount Everest in the place we call Asia Truth?
or is it by speculative and Test Tube standards of truth like saying in the next 10 years a woman can be the president of America?

As someone who paid attention in chemistry class, I resent your implication that experiments in test tubes fail to meet rigorous standards in this matter.

Summary: You are just afraid of the failure of your assertions to meet the relevant criteria, so you’re seeking in advance to skew the operation of the arena of discourse by handing special privileges to your assertions.

Let me see if I got this right

DrLiveLogic:

You know, Tantrum, you got a lot of "huff, puff, and oh, it's just bluff and guff that makes up your stuff" in you.

Of course it would be fitting for you to abandon apologetics and seek a career in rapping, seeing as you're a prolific rabble rouser and an intellectually bankrupt debater all at the same time

DrLiveLogic:
Proven!....by his statement.

Be a dear and demonstrate some objective evidence for your claim that "DNA contains intelligence" please? The only bluff, lies and bluster seem to be coming from you as far as I can see.

DrLiveLogic:
It's evident you've thrown out a mind of your own and will accept anything that comes remotely close to a pillow for your cozy lies.

Not only are you stupid but you will stay that way because you tell dreadful lies

DrLiveLogic:
To begin with, simple question for my thread. Does consistency of pattern in repeated processes reveal intelligence, like in mass production in a factory?

[1] Crystals, ocean waves, sand dunes, shells, (Have you heard of the golden ratio? ) all of art and all of nature… oops! Sorry! You were trying to be rhetorical. He he he … I thought you were actually asking a question. Silly me!

[2] Why do you disingenuously keep trying to reverse the burden of proof? If you can demonstrate any objective evidence for any creation in nature then do so plainly, and desist from these fallacious argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies.

DrLiveLogic:
If so, tell me, without quoting another human, if the genetic code is unintelligent.

The so called "code" in DNA is a chemical process. Not an intelligent acting agent, Imagine what it could create if it were intelligent. We would all have abilities like Savants. We would all look like super models. If the code was intelligent, idiocy would be erased from the world and you might never have been born

DrLiveLogic:
I've mentioned r you on my thread. When you mention suffering, disease, predation, and distaste for slavery in one paragraph, you have no idea how much evidence you already provided for the creator and his perfect nature.

That’s true, and I’ll continue to be unaware of this "evidence" you keep alluding to, but never demonstrate.

DrLiveLogic:
I'll keep these in the record. Shall we tango? Of course, you can suggest the "romantic interlude".

TRANSLATION: I get sexually aroused arguing Tamaraton Tantrum. i’m gonna go have a yank. But I will be back

DrLiveLogic:
Unlike you, I'm among the freeest men alive from tentacles and shackles of a fellow human's thought.

TRANSLATION: I am free of all human thought because I have God. As soon as my meds wear off, I will talk with him again. He is waiting for me in my room. He watches me when I touch myself.

Well, DrLiveLogic, you're free indeed from all cogent and rational thought anyway, your disjointed rants are evidence enough of that.

DrLiveLogic:
And bandwagon fallacy is all I see in your post up there.

Except it is not a popularly held belief, species evolution is a demobstrable scientific fact based on overwhelming objective evidence. So no, it wasn’t a bandwagon fallacy at all. Especially since as I pointed out Francis Collins is a born again christian, and is on record as stating that he wishes it (species evolution) were not an objective fact, but the evidence from DNA shows it is.

You dismiss the fallacies you use with naught but hand waving, then make up false accusation of fallacies in the posts of others. Your posts reveal the personality of a troll with mental instability and intellectual vacuity.

What you have failed to do is offer a shred of objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural.

DrLiveLogic:
Then try bringing forth the arguments and objective evidence for current evolution rhetoric, one by one, to my thread, to be trashed as usual.

TRANSLATION: I still think that if I can trash Evolution, my God will be the default position. I am not stupid, I just don’t read posts that disagree with my position. If evolution is wrong, my god wins. Bleep the Catholics and their belief in evolution. They aren’t real Christians anyway.

It’s all contained in the theory of evolution, one person couldn’t hope to know it all in a lifetime of study, but unlike superstious religious faith based beliefs, it has been validated by the scientific method, including peer reviewed work and a global scientific consensus based on all the objective evidence, even the largest most powerful church on earth has long ago stopped denying the fact of species evolution

If you want to cherry pick which scientific facts to accept, then that’s your business, but such obvious bias as rejecting only these facts that contradict your superstion’s archaic creation myths is too obvious to ignore.

However, and as I have pointed out, even were evolution not a scientific fact, creationism would remain an unevidenced archaic superstitious myth.

It's good you clocked me from miles away: I'm no researcher. I'm an atheist. Someone who do not believe in your groundless silly god ideas. You want to argue biology, go to the Science/Technology section. Or a biology forum outside Nairaland.

So what do we have at the end of the day? Another dimwit jester who fails to demonstrate OBJECTIVE evidence for his deity of choice

So far you’ve offered only ad hominems (in spades), subjective claims, and logical fallacies.

The rest of your rant is just bile and dogma, failing to address any point I actually made.

Cheers
Tamaraton Tantrum

Please work on the manner in which you quote users. It's grating and distasteful having to copy your posts and paste them to your name
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daejoyoung:
No the question is for atheists specifically, because I am not arguing against evolution, I’m arguing against the interpretation of evolution by atheists. Many religious people accept evolution too.

What interpretation, pray tell Atheism is defined as "without belief" in god. Has naught to do with evolution, thus it makes no claim on it. That's just a despicable strawman you've fabricated to debunk an imaginary argument. Not new though, and judging from subsequent posts, I've noticed it's a pattern you and your friends will be willing to continue to heckle me with, for as long as it need be, to avoid the crux of the matter here: providing concrete objective evidence for your deity of choice

Daejoyoung:
Am I a creationist? I am only asking you the why behind evolution, and how it relates to the God question, not the truth or falsehood of evolution

Unlike creationism, evolution is an established scientific fact. Creationism is mere subjective pseudo science fantasy by theists, that hasn't even been asserted as true by the scientific community before the theists start trotting it out as "scientific" unjustifiably

Daejoyoung:
The logical evidence is the existence of the world that we live in, and the fact that we exist, it is more logical to conclude that something or an intelligence made my hand evolve to be this way, so I can use it the way I currently use it.

Logic is inferential. It does not always demonstrate objective truth

Daejoyoung:
Randomness that is filtered cannot be so precise.

Precise? Look at the variety of species that have lived and died on this planet. All their shapes, sizes, and colors are the result of cumulative random mutations. Whether those mutants survive and prosper as new species depends on equally random events affecting the climate and landscape, as well as the emergence or extinction of other species of plants and animals.

How precise was the meteor that wiped out most of the dinosaurs? Why did your ancestors and mine survive the Black Death, smallpox, cholera, and the Spanish flu? Were they designed to survive by god, or just genetically or geographically lucky?

Daejoyoung:
it’s still a stretch of faith to conclude that this algorithm produced humans and the world

As far as I can tell, no one here has made the above conclusion. There is no algorithms in evolution. It is binary, you die or survive based on the environment around you.

Daejoyoung:
Well if science is wrong on evolution, the default assumption ( as it had been before evolution) would continue to be that god or gods created the world, so a higher intelligence created the world and us.

And that’s a false dichotomy. The options for emergence and development of life on this planet are not abiogenesis + evolution, or a creator god. And BTW, evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. It explains the development and diversity of life.

The options are abiogenesis (life from non-life through chemical means) + evolution, or something else that we have not yet discovered.

The truth or falsity of evolution has nothing to do with the existence of god/s. So that's also a non-sequitur.

You do not get to sneak your god in without evidence. If science is wrong, and has been wrong all along, the default position is "We don’t know." Wait a minute That IS the position science currently holds! You are not talking about evolution, you are talking about cosmology

Evolution is not cosmology.

DrLiveLogic, next time have the common courtesy to give me a fair warning in advance before subjecting me to mindless wall of rant sitting above in your OP! Anyone opening this thread is doing so at his/her own risk. I suspected it will be such anyway, so its a good thing I brought my hard hat and gas mask
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DrLiveLogic:
Share your thoughts and critiques if reasonable

DrLiveLogic:
Technology today has put even the faithless on a most privileged pedestal to appreciate the creator because in tech today, we get to create things that actually work.

The stuff that was created in the past (knives, bow and arrow, reading and writing, etc) didn’t work?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DrLiveLogic:
So when some evolutionist says evolution is proof of no god and then goes on to say natural selection defines evolutionary sequences, he literally becomes the most informed dummy in the school of idiots.

I couldn’t agree with you more; anyone who tells you something like that is proof; doesn’t know what they are talking about:

DrLiveLogic:
it still is proof of an intelligence behind existence and it’s development.

Seems you don’t know what you are talking about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DrLiveLogic, it appears not even you read your OP. You begin by requesting we work together, then proceed to inject insults and charged words such as the following:

DrLiveLogic:
faithless

DrLiveLogic:
privileged pedestal

DrLiveLogic:
informed dummy in the school of idiots

DrLiveLogic:
stupid, lame thought comes to your mind

DrLiveLogic:
get ashamed

DrLiveLogic:
such dumb thoughts

DrLiveLogic:
confirm your mental health isn’t drastically impaired yet

And you expect me to engage in constructive dialogue?

-----------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Tantrum

DrLiveLogic:
Tamaraton Tantrum

That actually rhymes, lol

DrLiveLogic:
so do yourself a favor and stop waiting for another to do you.

That sounds hot . Are you suggesting a romantic interlude for one, hmmmm?***

DrLiveLogic:
Plus yeah, evolution died as another illogical idea in the mind, with many other and when the scientific community discovered the universality of the genetic code across multifarious existence, that just somehow doesn’t evolve.

Oh yeah, the obligatory stab at the theory of evolution; firmly establishing yourself as a crackpot, lol.

The entire scientific world disagrees with you, as does all the objective evidence. This also includes Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, and a world leader in genetics, and he is a born again christian. Now despite his religious beliefs being based on risible unevidenced guff, his scientific credential are beyond repute, so this rather destroys your dishonest guff here.

DrLiveLogic:
Faith is also the only source point from which you can satisfy god’s behavioural laws which are also mirrored in the laws of nature E.g. “Do to others as you would have done to you” reflected in “action and reaction are equal and opposite”

That would be nature with untold ubiquitous suffering from disease and predation? Your rhetoric is painfully and obviously nonsensical here as it is elsewhere.

I use a term of reference that is not determined by a "god". Question: If your "god" declared that slavery was moral, would you also accept that slavery is moral?

In the interests of fair play, my position is that any form of slavery, including indentured servitude, is immoral.

DrLiveLogic:
And sorry to burst your bubbles but you are no image of god,

My bubble isn't bursted. In fact, this is a compliment of the highest order. Thanks a lot.

Sorry to burst yours though, but that is a theistic claim, not an atheistic one. [MuttleyLaff]

DrLiveLogic:
In the physical plane though, atheists make completely irrational, tending even to dumb claims,

Oh I think your post has pulled that rug from under every atheist viewing this thread.

DrLiveLogic:
pointing to an intelligent designer, beginning from your body and soul proceeding to the intergalactic systems and all apart from scientific evidences like the space-time models and all natural laws e.g. energy conservation.

Not one word of that is objective evidence, it’s just vapid rhetoric.

DrLiveLogic:
Further, logic shows what is expected of us by simply observing the laws of the nature and the consequences of going against them.

Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation. You’re making up errant nonsense, and simply tacking the word logic to it, and you clearly haven’t even the most basic grasp of what logic is. Let alone understand it’s methods, including recognising and avoiding known logical fallacies, like the argument from assertion fallacy you seem determined to use to death in your posts

DrLiveLogic:
However logic can only go that far and ends where faith begins.

Again you should start by actually looking up the definition of logic, as you’re embarrassing yourself, and faith is utterly useless in validating claims or beliefs, as there is quite literally nothing one could not believe using faith. As I keep asking, if you believe something without any objective evidence, or based on faith alone in other words, then what is your criteria for disbelieving anything?

DrLiveLogic:

Logic establishes the existence of creator

I don’t believe you, pleased demonstrate objective evidence for your claim.

DrLiveLogic:
Have you also studied the complexity of the genetic code and the degree of intelligence embodied by it. Pray tell, if there’s still rationality in you, how does that not make you throw out the idea of anticreationism?

Scroll up to see response from world leader in the field of genetics. There is no intelligence in DNA, this is another tedious unevidenced assertion. Creationism is naught but unevidenced superstitious guff, there is nothing to throw out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, about Paul:

"Faith in gods" can enter your life in many ways. It can be ingrained through childhood indoctrination or imbued through innocent wonder, or you embrace it later in life through some epiphany brought on by intense existential turmoil or some desperate circumstance. Once gained it is hard to dismiss. But, like many people experience, as I did, once the "scales fall from your eyes", and you can no longer hold on to the old truths and beliefs, its veritably impossible to return to them. Once you see the old woman in the puzzle picture you can't stop seeing her over the young woman.

YHWH, Jesus, Holy Spirit. It depends if you are a Trinitarian, Unitarian or some merge of the two. For all I know there are still Manichaeists, Docetists, Arianists out there. My brother in law identifies as a Catharist. I try to be politely inclusive, despite my own disbelief.

You already know about the claims made about the contradictions in the Bible. They have been around for centuries. I find many to be the outcome of translations, editings, redactions etcetera etcetera. Contradictions aren't necessarily indications of deceit, just error.

The fact remains there are inconsistencies all through the books of the Bible, from contradictions to glaring editorial conflicts. I would expect such for a publication with a such a long and confused history. I do not consider myself ignorant of understanding divine matters, despite my atheism, that's just more of your prejudice. Though I am no longer in thrall of the supposed universal truths claimed to be in it, I still find the Bible fascinating on many levels. I recognise there are certain passages that contain good advice and considered evident wisdom, so too does the Analects of Confucius and even the Quoran and other religious tomes. But as I value truth, I still feel it my duty to challenge beliefs of all sorts, not out of any animosity but out of hope for better understanding for both parties.

The next verse, Titus 1 16, begins "They profess that they know God". Titus is talking about hypocrites. Yes I am an atheist, but the purity Titus talks of is the purity of faith and belief. I profess none of that. Any other inference is just an intolerant pious insult.

You want me to persecute someone on the basis of their name?

I have evidences of various kinds and from diverse sources that point to the suggestion that Paul subverted the Christian faith and some of his writings reveal his resentments for Peter and the Jerusalem apostles that do not reflect brotherly love, but rather jealousy and bombast. If the two resolved their differences I am inclined to think it would mostly be due to concessions Peter made, as per 2 Peter where he encourages the reading of Paul’s epistles with a passing note on their difficult content. I note Paul makes no mention of Peter in 2 Timothy. That they both were in Rome when they were executed, there is no record I am aware of that suggests they "preached together" as is claimed on some theist site. I admit to no religious faith but that sort of faith is not a reliable tool for reaching the truth, it only propagates determination not to be swayed from the dogmatic concept of "absolute truth".

My real purpose is to ask how certain professing Christians are that they are following the true teachings of Christ. Can they be absolutely certain Paul did not dishonestly subvert Jesus’s insistence to observe the Mosaic laws. On the face of it Paul's writings only served the purposes of making Jesus's teaching more attractive for the squirmish tastes of Gentile men ("Cut off the end of their what??!!) and Gentile gourmets (but I love oysters!), so how are these concessions are compatible with the god of Abraham and consistent with a imperative belief in him? It just seems like one of the greatest marketing ploys of all time and one of the most successful cons ever. Frankly I think the Essenes, who still exist, are probably a closer fit to what might have been the original teachings of Jesus.

I don't care to comment on whether Paul was damned or not, I've certainly never said I hated him as you suggest. I have describe him a pyschopath (a non judgemental psychological condition, like depression), a sufferer of TLEs (temporal lobe epilepsy, another medical condition), a liar (arent we all? see the plank in my eye?) a manipulator (passive aggressive or just aggressive or both?) and an narcissist (I have dealt with several diagnosed as such, the bona fide ones reject the notion that they are). There’s not much reason there for me to hate him; he hasn’t subverted any faith of mine. I have friends that display these traits, but they've had hard lives and I cut them slack. I see Paul more of a human victim, as much as I see Judas a victim. None the less I maintain Judas betrayed Jesus and Paul subverted his message and for this Christians resent me.

I really do have a friend named Atilla. He's six foot five and an exceptionally kind human being. I feel no need to take anything out on him. He is no Hun





***Maybe I did learn some from MuttleyLaff after all. "hmmmm?.. sounds really sexy lmao

Daejoyoung:
The question I have for you is this:
Why is there a human eye in the first place?
Why did it evolve to function the way it does?

Why is that a question for atheists specifically? It surely is more aptly aimed at evolutionary biologists.

Here is link to the talk origins website, as well as answering all your questions on evolution, it has a list of creationist propaganda claims that most creationists don't see aware that science has debunked

Daejoyoung:
couldn't it be that there is a creator...?

I don't know, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for one? I'm pretty much an old hag now, and no theists has been able to demonstrate any thus far.

Daejoyoung:
If evolution is a disorganised or random process, why is it so self directed? it seems to me to be pre programmed.

Odd that the entire global scientific community think the opposite, evolution effectively ended Darwin’s christian beliefs. Much to the chagrin of his very christian wife.

FYI, Evolution is the way you describe it because it is randomness that is filtered. Not unlike a drunkard's walk.

Daejoyoung:
I think what we should be concerned about, is not whether or not a creator exist ( because a creator most likely exists) but rather who this creator is and why the creator exists in the first place.

I disagree, as worrying about what type of non existent creator exists seems pretty pointless to me, so you're putting your cart well in front of your horse.

Daejoyoung:
Why is there something rather than absolute nothing?

How do you know nothing is even possible? Until you do the question seems so loaded as to make it rather facile. Either way I don't see how this remotely evidences any deity, or anything supernatural.

Do you know what an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is? You seem to be basing your reasoning on this quite a bit in that post.

Let's pretend that evolution is completely wrong. 100% wrong. In fact, all of science is wrong [medicine, physics, astronomy, psychology, philosophy], and every other branch of science you can imagine. Every single branch is wrong… How does that prove the existence of your god? You do not win by default. Ignorance pays nobody. You either offer evidence for the existence of your god or you tuck your tail between your legs and run away like the loser you are trying not to be.

Dtruthspeaker:
what is your measurement and standard of Proof of Truth?

Tamaratonye5:
Well I might ask the same of you, since it is your belief, but let's start here…

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

Dtruthspeaker:
Andl Your first answer is a fallacious, the Reversal fallacy, Shifting the burden, may be Tu Quoque.

That's risible nonsense. I think you mean an inverse fallacy as well. Fallacies that appeal to ignorance to reverse the burden of proof though are argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, which is what your question was of course, an appeal to ignorance fallacy, to reverse your burden of proof for your belief, and move it onto those who don’t share that belief. It's your belief, so the burden of proof is logically and epistemologically entirely yours. I'm also getting a sense you're trolling now.

Mister man, as per the quotes above, you're going to have to join the dots for me. You asked why I didn't believe in a deity. I answered because there is no objective evidence, then asked you what objective evidence you could demonstrate for your god claim. You then used irrational sophistry to obfuscate, and avoid answering, instead demanding someone who don’t believe give a pro tem definition of what she will accept as evidence, which is absurdly irrational and dishonest. I politely pointed out that since it's your claim a deity exists, it is for you to define and demonstrate what evidence you have. Bizarrely and equally dishonestly, you tried to label this irrational?

Of course you have already failed to offer any objective evidence, and it was clear to me, as I have seen such sophistry many times on here, that you were asking a loaded and irrational question so you could circle back to it and pretend the blame for you failing to demonstrate any objective evidence was somehow the fault of atheists who set an unacceptable standard.

[1] I shan't waste any time defining objective evidence, as it is a self defining phrase.

[2] I set the same standard for all claims, not just your god claim, so there is demonstrably no bias on my part.

[3] You are undoubtedly heading for a special pleading fallacy, that asserts your god claim be ring fenced from this standard, I've seen it many times before.

[4] Number 3 illustrates fairly obvious bias on your part, and not on the part of the atheist here.

[5] If you discard the need for objective evidence to support claims, what then is your criteria for disbelieving anything?

[6] What justification can you offer for making an irrational exception for your god claim, and deciding it need not be supported by objective evidence?

[7] What rational justification can you offer for cherry picking which scientific facts to believe, based on whether they contradict your religion's archaic creation myths or not?

[8] Since you've indulged in sophistry regarding the burden of proof so early in the debate, what evidence would you accept that invisible garden fairies, undetectable in any empirical way, are real?

jamesid29:

I guess you are really on a war path. Anyway, I actually wanted to get a sense of what you truly meant.

I don't mean anything by it, as I never did say the universe wasn't created. Your question was disingenuous.

jamesid29:
It's kinda rich though that you are so quick in accusing me of some fallacy when you were making like 1 or 2 fallacies of your own. Anyway,it's fine...

Really? Obviously I wasn't aware, or I would not have made such mistakes. One of my reasons for spending time here is to learn. I would appreciate it if you would point out the fallacies I made.

Warpath? Me? Nah, I'm not even warmed up. I don't suffer fools. Based on experience, virtually all of the apologists I've met on Nairaland are pretty foolish, or if you prefer, willfully pig ignorant, arrogant, patronisng and intellectually dishonest.

RE: EXISTENCE OF GOD/S

MuttleyLaff:
Have you books of unicorn or garden fairies incarnate? Unicorn or garden fairies books, with plans of salvation redemption and reconciliation of souls with God, hmm?

Do the Harry Potter books validate wizards and wizardry? No book, including the bible, can validate it’s own claims, only objective evidence can do this.

MuttleyLaff:
Take it back to the first human being nah

The first humans evolved just two hundred thousand years ago, evolution is billions of years old. However this is just an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy you're using, a god of the gaps polemic. Even without evolution, creationism us not supported by a shred of objective evidence, and your assertions suggest you don't even understand what the phrase means.

MuttleyLaff:
The cheek, when you show me an example of an eye lash you have designed and created, then you have to right to criticise someone else design

You have entirely missed the point, that theists assert evolved traits as part of a perfect design by an infallible deity, are demonstrably false. As the examples offered showed. That's what objective evidence looks like btw.

MuttleyLaff:
"²⁶Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness

And we know this isn't true, because humans evolved, this is a scientific fact, supported by [b]all the objective evidence.

MuttleyLaff:
I like red, the colour exudes an air of love, romance, boldness, courage, danger etcetera me. We, human beings are the image representation of different attributes of God. God is incorporeal, but created human beings to physically project different aspect, images and likeness of the Godhead

Your interpretation of “red” are all human personality traits and qualities projected on to a simple wave length…

Oh my, Oh my, Oh my!!! Lookie here - demonstrable evidence of "red"…

Something a theist isn't able to provide for their invisible sky daddy of choice…

MuttleyLaff:
the classic Tamaratonye.5 misrepresentation of God

I, as most atheists, can't have a definition of any deity, that’s axiomatic. I, as most atheists, only debate the deities theists imagine are real, and of course there are limitless deities and versions, which you disbelieve are real, but can offer no objective difference from the one you choose to believe is real.

I disbelieve any of them are real, and for the same reason, that there is no objective evidence for the claim, no more or less for Zeus or Apollo, than for Jesus or Vishnu.

RE: PAUL OF TARSUS

MuttleyLaff:
You kicked against me typing "Must have gotten your goat for such negative outburst like this to roll out from you" If the observational remark really was irrelevant, you wouldn't has commented about it

Ok, lol.

MuttleyLaff:
You dont understand what "Equivocation Fallacy" and its not surprising, you abuse and misuse applying the expression

I know breaking it down in pieces to spoon-feed you will be a thankless effort given your apparent obstinacy and dogmatic idiocy, as well as your penchant for dishonestly twisting basic concepts, but I'll give it a shot anyway for the sake of viewers. This part of the conversation has been dragged unnecessarily long enough already

Faith: (your usage)
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
(Synonyms would be trust, confidence, hope, conviction.)

The problem is in the theists definition:
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. "rather than proof", faith itself is the evidence according to scripture.

Hebrews 11:1
"11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…"

"3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

In Theism: FAITH is the proof. It has nothing at all to do with your usage of the word.

MuttleyLaff:
After this rant and rave, do you feel better. Smh

It's just an observation, with a suggestion in tow. No apologies there at all.

MuttleyLaff:
It beautifully follows your "Only a dumbass would not look before stepping off the curb." half thought through comment

No, it doesn't

MuttleyLaff:
Saying "non sequitur" must be in season, or maybe you've just learnt the expression

You're trying too hard

MuttleyLaff:
Why go to a circus, when we have a clown and wannabe comic here

I was making an observation, not necessarily directed at anyone. But since you took offense, please see your doctor concerning your mental state.

MuttleyLaff:
You have much learning to do. His signature, is as good as him, directly authoring the letters

You have no critical Bible exegesist study experience. Your signature is ignorance.

MuttleyLaff:
I already told you I won't waste good ammo on you

You have no ammo good or otherwise.

MuttleyLaff:
I am unique, and I am vindicated, for earlier typing that Apostle Paul is a misunderstood man. You misunderstand Paul, his theology, his letters, his style of writing et cetera, hence you have gripes about him

You are unique alright, you repeat "misunderstood" like a parrot. I seek to know why he is misunderstood.

MuttleyLaff:
Prejudice, misunderstanding, ignorance, lies all rolled into one

History is nasty. It cares nothing for your ignorant judgements. Neither do I.

MuttleyLaff:
Good on Paul. Wehdone Apostle Paul, sir

Distinct antisemitism there, Muslim prejudice?

MuttleyLaff:
Tamaratonye.5, fyi, from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding and/or attacking it

Agreed, history is a bitch, I love to know about it; we disregard it at our own peril.

MuttleyLaff:
2 Peter is self explanatory. If you know, you know. If you dont, means, you haven't in you to know

Not explanatory enough for you evidently.

MuttleyLaff:
No love lost. I never you either

This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship, lol

MuttleyLaff:
I give credit where earned and when due.

You don’t have the expertise to be dispensing credit.

MuttleyLaff:

I instantly had a whiff gusto smell of you, a few good miles away. It smelled like a gust of wind from Satan's anus

He who smells it first…?

MuttleyLaff:
You sound bitter and twisted. You did you?

Bitter? Presumptuous of you to say. I’m calling what I see. You have no answer. See above. You have no ammo.

MuttleyLaff:
Scroll up to see, I made good effort, answering all your questions and quit acting dishonest

The questions remain unanswered despite your "good" effort, I mean that honestly.

MuttleyLaff:
Stop being petty. If you go to a battleground, expect to be shot at now. I am sure if asked to produce the verbatim alleged insults, you won't come trumps up

Denying the obvious, which anyone here with the slightest degree of honesty and/or objectivity, have witnessed of you, is really a form of admission. Fine. Gloves off.

MuttleyLaff:
You see without me specifically giving the names you dropped so to impress, you knew who and how you dropped names

You've name-dropped god, of all people, in my conversation with another. I was not impressed.

MuttleyLaff:
You type like this whenever you prematurely seem to be running out steam and/or breath

I type like this when I am convinced further discussions will profit no-one. I have other things to learn. See you on the other end of this argument.

FINIS.

Dtruthspeaker:
Before I proceed to answer your questions...

Dtruthspeaker:
..Laws Providing for Conclusive Proof of Truth..

WTF is that Also, what's with the random capital letters? Madder than a box of frogs?

Dtruthspeaker:
what is your measurement and standard of Proof of Truth?

Well I might ask the same of you, since it is your belief, but let's start here…

Tamaratonye5:
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

If that most basic epistemological requirement is beyond your claim, then offer the most compelling reason you have for believing in an extant deity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jamesid29:

Really not trying to derail the thread, just want you to quickly clarify the bolded. What do you mean by the universe wasn't created?

I beg your pardon, what is it about "created’ you don’t understand?

Does this help? Definition of create

It’s not a complex idea. And yes, "created" does infer a creator.

This atheist is not able to believe the universe had a creator. All I can say with confidence is the universe exists. That it seems to have begun with the so-called big bang. I can’t prove that, either can anyone else as far as I'm aware.

To say therefore "god did it" is facile and shallow, in my opinion. Also a logical fallacy "god of the gaps".The fallacy finds its genesis in an argument from ignorance. IE : "I lack the knowledge, imagination and the wit to think of anything else, and my dogmatic certitude will not allow me to simply say I don’t know"

MuttleyLaff:
I made an observational remark that was went something like "You prematurely seem to be running out steam and/or breath" but you responded with "Pfft More like running out of patience" Now tell me if "Pfft" is a negative or positive outburst. Or if that wasn't an abuse of pfft. I saying "patience, the ability to remain calm without losing it, is a virtue, it is a great and valuable character trait" that right there, is a fairly damnable, reasonable and accurate statement that, you lack that virtue.

I am of the stuff, steel is made of. You'll have a tough and hard time unrustling/rustling my jimmies

Are you always this nutty? If you're not trying to explain yourself to me, you're trying to explain another irrelevant thing to me.

MuttleyLaff:
Of course, we are discussing faith and so why I typed that "Risk, is a function of faith. Driving to work, crossing the street, taking a shower et cetera are each and/or all stepping out in faith. If you lacked faith you won't step out to drive to work, cross the street, take a shower et cetera. Humans, have different aptitude of evaluating faith"

Classic Equivocation Fallacy by the way. When are you going to learn? Keep your slime-ball tactics to the echo of the ever emptying pews of your favorite Sunday gathering hole.

MuttleyLaff:
Only a dumbass would not look before stepping off the curb

And yet, that is exactly what you have done. Without looking, without examining, without actually reading that messed up book of fakery contradiction and outright lies you have adopted faith as your only guide, and look were it has led you. You spend your time proving you have no idea what you are talking about on an online forum. It’s sad your life is that sad. Perhaps you can get some friends to pray for you, lol.

Your response is, yet again, a classic non sequitur.

MuttleyLaff:
Familiarity of the phrase "non sequitur" does not necessarily mean understanding when to rightly or how to correctly use it

You managed to post a non sequitur, about your non sequitur!

Then again, life is funnier than any team of comedy writers can imagine.

MuttleyLaff:
If you can follow theological arguments in profound detail reading Aquinas or Origen et al, then you would know that your fav Origen believed that Peter wrote the letters

It is not certain what Origen believed in this matter. He mentioned the doubts of others on the authorship of 2 Peter, but he did not make an unequivocal judgement on it himself. Some independent commentators suggest he may not have had enough evidence to able to decide either way. He, at least, was honest.

MuttleyLaff:
I am pleased that you know you at least these "hard to be understood" side of Paul's theology and revelation he received

Nice evasion. Totally avoided any comment on the unpleasant claims I presented and disregarded my question yet again.

MuttleyLaff:
I am vindicated then, for earlier typing that Apostle Paul was a misunderstood man.

I think you share some of the less enviable traits with Paul.

MuttleyLaff:
As for Apostle Peter, he had the first serve, but when he was being busy rationalising, shuffling his feet and dilly-dallying, he got passed over.

Peter got passed over, along with the original teachings of Jesus, because he was a Jew. Paul sought every opportunity to criticise him because he was jealous of his position as the publicly acknowledged and real life Christ-appointed First Apostle. Paul was an argumentative self-centred psychopath who had nothing more than an unwitnessed conversion on a remote section of the Damascus road as his only credentials to apostleship. It was Barnabas’s misplace faith in him that got him some grudging acceptance with the real apostles. And even then the bonehead had a falling out with Barnabas not long after. He was a disputatious fanatic.

It's evident in his actions and words if one could step back from the sanctimonious fanboy infatuation of him. Even the rest of the Jerusalem apostles tended to keep him at arms reach. Paul even prided himself that he didn’t really get to meet or even know most of them in happy joyous Christian fellowship.

The eventual Jewish/Christian split was a violent event. It marked the beginning of overt Christian antisemitism. During the Jewish war with Rome, the Gentile Christians embraced the Pauline doctrine and predictably enough, sided with the Empire, who destroyed the Temple and after the Edict of Milan, militarised the Christian dominionist quest that furthered the persecution of the Jews and the other Greek and Roman religions and culture.

MuttleyLaff:
I apologise, if this is how you see or imagine things, but trust me, I read, and went through with a fine-tooth comb, every alphabet letter, text, dotted "i", crossed "t" commas, full stop and sentence(s) you wrote about Apostle Paul.

And still you failed to comprehend it well enough to see 2 Peter was obviously not going to provide an appropriate answer. Unbelievable.

No, I do not trust you.

MuttleyLaff:
I am pleased with both Apostles and their works...

How magnanimously condescending of you. I expect they will be delighted to hear.

MuttleyLaff:
it is you having reservation about Apostle Paul, not me

I've never made a secret of this. How observant of you, but, ok, finally! After how many posts? The penny drops. Fine-tooth combs indeed. I have more than reservations about Paul. The unwelcomed psychopath subverted the original Christian doctrine of Jesus and his views on faith are dishonest ramblings of a guy who had a physical conversion, that is, he was convinced he actually met his god, who struck him blind. How does faith play a part in that? You can’t answer, which brings us to your next lie:

MuttleyLaff:
Too late, I already had.

You never answered any question. I would still be waiting had I not dropped the request.

MuttleyLaff:
You can find the answers yourself reading from the Bible, you say, but why wasting your time reading a book you dont believe in, why read a book that is littered with errors, huh?

I find it amusing to the point of even liking how you drop names, how you drop years, switching from "40 years ago" to "many years" and now to "fifty years" You are fantabulous. You are doing well. Hinn.

I don’t find anything remotely amusing about the number of unreasonable insults you've dealt me. It reveals a most dislikable aspect of your personality.

And then this final Parthian shot, quibbling over the number of years, as if it carried any real significance. Pathetic. Naming dropping? Pertinent references to historical figures? It's not like I claim Origen as my personal best buddy forever. You're an idiot. This sad tawdry reply of yours only serves to illustrate what I had observed of you from the beginning; a penchant to avoid matters of substance and a despicable use of petty criticisms to cover your self-satisfied pious arse.

Thanks for your "feeble, shallow and blathering" reply, its a shining example of the old adage, "Fawning and fake humility are a lethal combination." I will be looking out for more inane posts from you in the future
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh oh, wait a minute:

MuttleyLaff:
Why not transfer the believing in unicorn and your garden fairies to a belief in the existence of God, a supreme and self existing being, hmm?

Why don't you transfer your god belief to unicorns, and garden fairies hmm?

Here - there's even books

MuttleyLaff:
Your existence, as a starting point, is an objectively supported fact or evidence that the deity, God, a supreme and self existing being, exists

Nope… not even close! Your existence is evidence of your parents having sexual intercourse.

Trace the line back …and wow! an evolutionary line.

MuttleyLaff:
God, the supreme and self existing being

Cool, I did not know you believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster

MuttleyLaff:
You are an objective evidence, that demonstrates, for any deity. You're, to start with, the first exhibit. With can move on, to examine the human eye and its complexity to take as part of an objective evidence you can use to demonstrate for a Designer, Inventor, Creator, Coder, Maker, Scientist, Prime Mover, Planner et cetera Deity

The human eye is fragile and poorly designed. There’s a blind spot right in the middle, and we have to waste brain power rectifying inverted images. The eye itself is an extremely fragile mess of jelly and is vulnerable to damage from dust, impacts, and even excessively strong light. Have you heard the expression "blind as bat"? Well bats have better vision than us, especially in low-light conditions.

No designer would be satisfied with the many defects and compromises in the human eye. It’s exactly what you’d expect to emerge from chance mutations combined with natural selection. It's evidence of the non-existence of a creator god.

Plus, MuttleyLaff, let us not forget that other animals have superior eyes. The mantis shrimp eyes have many superior characteristics. Some raptor birds function like telescopes. Cats can see where to us humans it is pitch black. Chameleons can rotate their eyes.

Of course, all of this makes a sham of the claim we were designed in the image of a god.

Dtruthspeaker:

I answered you but I See that you were waiting for this answer and all the other answers that ensued after.

And I see from your statement above, you do have a problem with the Creator, who we call God, maka, why?

Hi Dtruthspeaker …lol. I actually have no problems with invisible deities. I also have no "problems" with unicorn. Sometimes my garden fairies and I will have issues, but they’re quite reasonable

I am an atheist because theists and religious apologist can't demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. Also the arguments presented are often irrational and flawed. I can have no problem with deities or creation since I don't believe the universe was created, and I don’t believe in any extant deity. Can you answer these for me;

[1] Which god are you referring to, please? There are many creation myths.

[2] What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vic2Ree:
I'm enjoying this back and forth between Tamaratonye5 and Muttleylaff. So far I'm rooting for Tamara . Your responses are delightful

Hi Vic2Ree . Nice to see someone rooting for me lol. Either way, I'm really not trying to "win" an argument. Just want to have an honest discussion. Even if I fail to convince my co-discussant/s, I can at least hope to convince uncertain viewers who might be reading the chat. Thanks.

MuttleyLaff:
Must have gotten your goat for such negative outburst like this to roll out from you

Negative outburst Since when did a fairly damn reasonable and accurate statement become a "negative outburst"? Projection much?

If you felt your jimmies rustled by my assertion, it's not my problem. Technically, I could claim you are the one getting emotional since you choose to mock my assertion rather than challenge it.

MuttleyLaff:
BRT crushed Grace to death, a Lagos businesswoman and wife of the Head of Public Relations, Globacom, Andrew Okeleke, when attempting to cross the road after being dropped off by her driver around 7.20pm 2 months ago. Nnodi, the driver of the bus fled after knocking her down. The businesswoman died on the spot. As far as you know, she is a dumbass abi?

Your response describes a tragic accident, we were discussing "faith".

Your response is a classic non sequitur, lol.

MuttleyLaff:
You accrue undue and unmerited importance. I to yourself. I passingly commented on your seemingly low self-esteem and didn't you asked you about the state of it or how you feel

Your obsessive need to always explain yourself to me is very telling actually. And creepy

MuttleyLaff:
I will speak for my self and not hold brief for anyone. As I have advanced from the very onset, there are all sorts of errors committed in translation of texts, words et cetera of the Bible.

Your god desires for everyone to know of it and worship it. This god is described as being all powerful, all knowing, capable of creating this universe and controlling everything.

Yet, the most important message this god sent, this book which is the instructions and word of god, is allowed to contain errors

MuttleyLaff:
"¹⁵Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him.
¹⁶ He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
¹⁷Therefore, beloved, since you already know these things, be on your guard so that you will not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure standing."
- 2 Peter 3:15-17

2 Peter? Supposedly written about 68 AD, before Peter is crucified upside down at his own request, during the pogrom of Nero, but was more likely written after his death in the popular Christian tradition of pseudographical writings, as is the opinion of most Bible experts today.

This letter contains the final orders, advice, blessings from ‘the Rock’ and a timeless reminder of the imminent return of Jesus. And it does include the comment, "16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their destruction."

MuttleyLaff:
There you go again on an assumption making trip. What made you think, its going to be a Pauline verse, huh? I had in mind 2 Peter 3:16 from above 2 Peter 3:15-17, when and where I previously typed "There is the Bible quote that states about Apostle Paul and his letters, as being often misunderstood, so I can only empathise with you misunderstanding Apostle Paul." OK.

Well firstly MuttleyLaff, at the time this was said to be written, just prior to the irrevocable split between the synagogue and the new religion that Peter led, and it is at this time the majority of the early followers of Christ were still Jewish converts and amongst the things Paul wrote, that were "hard to be understood" were his explanations about how those early followers, while still being Jewish and still being the heirs of the promises God made to Abraham, were not liable to observe Mosaic Law, and were further exempt from the needs of circumcision and dietary restrictions.

There was also, for Peter some very awkward things Paul wrote concerning his un-witnessed divine appointment as the 13th apostle, and receiving his very own personal gospel from scripture and exclusive revelations from Jesus, and not from men, especially not those lowly apostles in Jerusalem, of whom he had worked harder and done more, in spreading the word of Jesus. Then, there was Paul's haughty record of the confrontation at Antioch where he publicly denounced Peter as a hypocrite for leaving the Gentile feast to dine with the newly arrived Jews contingent. There was much more Paul wrote about himself which must have been confusing for Peter's Jewish followers to understand. Its all there if you read it. Peter was evidently in a forgiving state of mind, given that he was offering his last advice for the future unity of the faith, either that or the letter was fabricated later to serve the anti-semitic agenda of the Gentile church.

But at this point I have to say, MuttleyLaff, you are as supremely arrogant as Paul revealed himself to be. You have been bagging me about my assumptions and the impudence of my knowledge and here, after mincing about like a prima donna, preciously withholding from me, and everyone else reading here, the one Bible verse you proclaimed would fully explain my ignorance and answer my question and we find it a complete furphy having nothing to do at all with my question, because you didn’t even have the courtesy or discipline to read or comprehend it. This is not the way to conduct yourself in a forum.

I doubt you read my "Paul of Tarsus post either. You just allowed yourself to react emotionally over its content and petulantly respond with inflated indignation to my first question which remains unanswered. You ignored the content of further posts and simply made snide sarcastic comments without addressing the second question which 2 Peter as we see does not answer.

You reveal your limited appreciation of the circumstances surrounding the lives and writings of Peter and Paul which serves to provide a deeper understanding of their work. But you are happy to peel off all the pleasing references to redemption, promises of life eternal, and the favours of your god and leave the rest ignored.

Don't bother answering either of my questions, now. As I said, I can find the answers myself reading from the Bible as I have everyday for the past fifty years. And from my desk calendar.