MuttleyLaff:
You prematurely seem to be running out steam and/or breath

Pfft. More like running out of patience.

MuttleyLaff:
"²³Jesus replied, “Why do you say ‘if you can’?
Anything is possible for someone who has faith!”
²⁴At once the boy's father shouted,
“I do have faith! Please help me to have even more.
(i.e. I believe! Help my lack of faith)"
- Mark 9:23-24

Forgive me but the reason your scriptures sometimes bore me to tears is because it mostly contains arrant nonsense. This is a demonstrable fact, so the idea it's inspired by an omniscient omnipotent deity is absurd. If it requires subjective interpretation then the claim of its divine origin becomes meaningless. It's also absurd not to notice that the bible reflects the bigotry prejudice and ignorance of the people and epoch from which it was derived, exactly what I'd expect if it were entirely human origin, not one thing points to omniscience as the source.

MuttleyLaff:
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

Nope. I look both ways before I cross the street. Only a dumbass would not look before stepping off the curb. I do not use "faith", I use evidence, and decide based on the reliability of my senses and other factors.

MuttleyLaff:
Smh, your post was feeble, shallow and blathering. Go back to re-read the "Judge, jury and executioner" comment and see that it typed responding to "Why is it they dont get one and are doomed to eternal punishment? Right, logical"

You seem to have a low esteem of yourself because you are under different illusions, if its not falsely crying out about being subjected to ad hominem, it will be about your Paul comment being derided or taking harmless and innocent remarks as "... employing terse derogatory responses". If I should ask, will you be able to provide proof, of me deriding your "... short informed critical assessment, not complete of course, about Paul’s life and views ..." humble effort, hmm?

Just so you know, I have a high displeasure threshold, my please mode was 10000% intact and unwavering. I could see the sense and/or point to waste needful and appropriate Bible quote, that's going to swoosh jet fighter fly over heads, so I stayed mute. 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

If you are wise, you'll take my post(s) for what it is and not how it’s delivered.

There is no denomination in the kingdom of heaven. God is denomination agnostic. Protocol, requires the right designation be used God and god. Does it bother you when I used "G" instead of "g" for God, hmm?

How did you compute, I think you you're lamentably hell bound? That, right there, is something straight out of the book of a "Judge, jury and executioner"

Are you always in the habit of making assumptions. Of course you have quite a lot of personal experience and understanding about belief and religion, so the reason why I earlier advanced that, you too daily transact in faith

"If a crooked stick is before you, you need not explain how crooked it is. Lay a straight one down by the side of it, and the work is well done". I cant remember where I read that from, but sure is better than aim to shift another’s viewpoint

Aquinas or Origen must be flawless two headed human beings. The realisation of how hollow a person is, is enough to make such take off and bolt

My self esteem is fine, thanks for asking

You admit you only responded to my last question. I could have expected a fuller answer if you had thought it worthy. Mine was a humble effort, considering the many books I have read and discussions I have had with theists on this one topic over the years and it was incomplete mainly due to forum limitations and you pointedly missed my comment that it was not original, you see, the question of Paul's faith and sanity has been a subject for scrutiny for several hundred years; I ride on giants' shoulders.

You question my low esteem and make a veiled stab at my hubris for suggesting it a "humble effort" all in one paragraph and fail to address anything I actually said about Paul.

You make a hubristic claim to tolerance, pity me for not understanding your view, fail to establish that view, and then withhold the very Bible quote you seem to think will provide a pertinent answer, judging me unworthy of any such courtesy. Can you not see the pattern? A mix of derision and a failure to address issues about faith

It doesn't bother me what word or spelling you use to describe your god. It is an issue of how I use the word. "god is the noun, like "unicorn" both of which are myths. "God" is the unoriginal name for the Christian deity. The capitalised G denotes a thing, an entity, and at the same time its supremacy, which I refute. Its a theist convention, which I am disinclined to practice. Its a quirk of mine.

I apologise but, it has been the assumed majority claim amongst theists I have debated that as an atheist I am bound for hell and the lake of fire. I duly note my presumption. You suggest I have hope of redemption? We all make assumptions where there is little evidence to work with, its part of the process by which we learn when assumptions are answered. But where is the assumption here? I made a request and then a claim. I know I will not be moved by your comments which also clearly indicate the intransigence of your position. Not an assumption, a deduction.

The "crooked stick" quote comes from Charles Spurgeon, the celebrated ‘Prince of Preachers' which I find curious because Charles is promoting the scientific method, despite it being a parable about spiritual truth and error. I am unimpressed because it is not an argument and you use it to suggest one of us is "crooked and wrong" simply on mere superficial comparison. I am sure you aren't rooting for me.

Yes, I confess I have had to make a lot of assumptions here because you persist in avoiding to present anything of substance beyond petty criticisms. You deem me so unworthy you withhold a Pauline verse you seem sure will add to debate. Talk of judges, juries and executioners.

Your last comments on Aquinus and Origen are unintelligble. FYI both were devout Christian theologians. Aquinus attempted a merge of Platonic and Aristotelian interpretations of natural and supernatural issues into a unified theological whole. Origen debated the academic pagan Celsus on basic Christian tenets. They were all single headed individual human beings, why would you need to make such an asinine comment? Am I wrong to assume the hollow person comment was directed to me? Or is that my hubris?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A simple quiz for you then (can you answer honestly):

[1] About how many (ballpark figure) of the apologists you've encountered ever admit to the possibility of error?

[2] How many confuse theology, biblical hermeneutics and exegesis as lending themselves to intellectual honesty?

[3] Hollow as I might be, I am persistent if nothing else, so I'll rephrase the important question: How is Paul revered for his faith when it was a physical event that prompted his conversion?




Edited for clarity

MuttleyLaff:
What does it matter to you, if I am a Christian, huh. Who Christian app? You dont believe the Bible to be God's word, I doubt you believe that Jesus is God, so whats your concern

Absolutely no concern. I was addressing your contribution/s coming into my thread.

Unfortunately, it's becoming obvious that you are more interested in playing mind games and don't want to engage in honest discussions.

MuttleyLaff:
I know of Arsenal football legend, Dennis Bergkamp who won't fly. Dennis was put off flying for life after an engine cut out during a flight to the USA 94 World Cup. I am sure Dennis, has an understanding of the laws of physics, the level of competence of the pilots, and the capabilities of the aircraft

Another physical law at work, eh, like gravity? Mechanical failure, humans not "gifted" with foresight to "know" the consequences to everyday life and interactions with our environment. He had confidence and hoped (based on previous safe flights and a knowledge) BUT this particular flight didn't grant him a positive experience…

Driving to work, crossing the street, taking a shower… risk and reward. Humans are capable of evaluating both.

MuttleyLaff:
Bravo, encore, you played, the role of judge, jury and executioner, perfectly well

Judge, jury and executioner! You thought my post was that thorough? Flattery will get you nowhere

I presented a short informed critical assessment, not complete of course, about Paul’s life and views, not altogether original, but honest, and your only response is to deride my humble effort? I know you were displeased because I didn’t even get a Bible quote this time.

Your preferred forum style seems to be using powerful rebuttals over minor issues, (‘G’ or ‘g’ for god? It does matter despite what you think.) employing terse derogatory responses, when you apparently lack appropriate Bible verses, and inserting quaint meaningless "deepity" statements (the sun will always set in the west) to promote a false air of wisdom and a puzzling reluctance to reveal the denomination of your professed Christian faith. I cant imagine why.

Yes, I understand you are a person of profound faith in your god and Bible and that you think I am lamentably hell bound. You need to accept that I have quite a lot of personal experience and understanding about belief and religion. We are not going to shift each other’s viewpoint and the effort would be a waste of words and time.
I’m tired of you already. I can read my own Bible quotes and I can follow theological arguments in profound detail reading Aquinas or Origen et al and for quaint meaningless "deepities" I always have my desk calendar, lol.



Edited for inclusion

MuttleyLaff:
Tamaratonye.5, a tad point of correction here please, religion and faith might be linked but they aren't intrinsically the same thing. Religion, as a matter of fact and/or on one hand, is a pursuit, obligation, commitment or interest, followed with great devotion and/or regularity while faith, on the other hand, is a complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

One can not have religion without faith. Religion has not provided one shred of evidence for a god.

MuttleyLaff:
Tamaratonye.5, fyi and with all due respect, blind faith, would be in the same category as adventurism and/or foolhardiness. It is having unwise confidence, it is misplaced trust, it is belief without employing true and full understanding

I have been in a helicopter, in a storm, and looked out one window to see the opposite horizon. We were practically inverted. It was fun, but for me not a great concern. I knew the aircraft thoroughly, and the level of competence of the pilots. It was not "faith", but an understanding of the laws of physics, the level of competence of the pilots, and the capabilities of the aircraft.

My trust was not misplaced, those were the very same pilots who managed to set the rear end of their helicopter on the small landing pad of a Russian trawler, flying backwards, in a storm. it was an emergency evacuation of a man with acute appendicitis.

MuttleyLaff:
I quoted a Biblical definition of what faith is so that you know what my source is.

Actually - faith is already defined by the bible in Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

MuttleyLaff:
Even if you dont believe in the law of gravity, it doesnt mean, it wouldn't affect you if you should down down a high rise building without some much of a parachute on

Why wouldn’t I have confidence in the Law of Gravity? That’s a dumb analogy. There is demonstrable evidence of its existence and it’s explanation or description by science is commonly accepted.

MuttleyLaff:
I never used Christian, so what are you on about

Ahhh, now the games begin, eh? See what faith gets you when you extend it towards a fellow man, lol. So, you aren't saying you are Christian or that you aren't Christian or that you even believe the bible to be god inspired or anything, right? My reply in response to your bible faith definition to me of: "is heard comes through the message about Christ". My bad for assuming you linked faith to Christ or Christians (tsk, tsk, tsk)

MuttleyLaff:
All scripture is talking about Old Testament

Do you believe the bible to be God's word? Are you a Christian? Do you believe Jesus is God?

I wouldn’t want to assume anything moving forward

MuttleyLaff:
If you had believed in the Bible anyway, I would have brought your attention to the ninth commandment of the Ten Commandments (i.e. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour), but since its the the Ten Commandments of Logic, is your preference, then let it be known that you fell foul of the first, second and fourth commandment

Thank you for the ad hominem attack. Duly noted.

MuttleyLaff:
Your existence is a starting point, objectively supported fact or evidence that God exists

"So faith comes from what is heard,
and what is heard comes through the message about Christ."
- Romans 10:17

"Now without faith it is impossible to please God,
for the one who draws near to Him must believe that He exists
and rewards those who seek Him. "
- Hebrews 11:6

Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance. The truth about God, will always be the truth even if you and/or no one believes it.

Paul of Tarsus wrote a lot about faith and redemption. His passionate writing never fails to move the faithful. I use to quote from his epistles when I preached to uncomprehending non-believers and I could not understand their lack of enthusiasm for Paul’s grand writing. There is something ironic about Christians quoting Paul about belief and faith and how both are all you need to come to Jesus.

Paul was a proud Pharisaic student of Gamaliel, the famous rabbi who invoking his usual measure of compassion and common sense, saved Peter and the other real apostles and the future of their brand new Jewish heresy from execution and possible total oblivion (Acts 5). Paul no doubt was indoctrinated in the sacred worth of human life, but none the less, despite his association with Gamaliel set off on a bloody campaign against the heretics of Jesus.

Paul became a murderer. He makes a passing Nuremberg defence about his part in the deaths of perhaps hundreds of early followers of Jesus. His guilt must have been a heavy burden, and it might be, that in a state of denial, attempting to smother his guilt, he doubled down and sought out even more heretics to condemn, as proof of his devotion and the righteousness of his actions, to himself as much as to others. Then he went to Damascus. Paul’s conversion wasn’t a result of his belief or faith. It was an physical mind-shattering event, in broad daylight, on the hard road to Damascus. He believed he experienced the presence, and heard the voice of Jesus Christ himself.

I suspect he suffered a severe temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), induced by his intense mental anguish brought on by guilt and fear of divine punishment. The TLE would account for his temporary blindness. The noonday Gallilean sun might also have contributed. Yet he came away from Damascus neatly forgiven and charged with yet another religious obsession to prove his passionate devotion to his god, which was now Jesus, rather than YHWH. This was no ethereal spiritual revelation or blessing. For Paul it was a brutally perceived reality. From the evidence of his own deranged senses he had no choice but to believe, if only for the sake of his own sanity. Its ironic that Christians now quote him in the defence of the lofty merits of blind faith and supposedly logical belief.

All of that is for the choir. I realise now my audience of 40 years ago with no sense of guilt or fear or need of redemptions, would have needed a Damascene event, in reality, of their own, to establish a faith and belief in a god. Just like Paul. Why is it they dont get one and are doomed to eternal punishment? Right, logical.

TATIME:


I helped you to summarize the whole gibberish to the point that's useful in your lengthy epistle!

The ten commandments of logic that's not recognized by religionsists nor atheist, then who brought it up in the first place?

Nice try, you adorwable widdle kitty-kitty. But you are still not getting a participation trophy just because you again demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension skills.

Hello TATIME,

Time is too valuable to dwell or fixate on complete ridiculousness. I'm going to address the only points worthy of recognition in this farce you call a response:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TATIME:
Going by your so called ten commandments, you guys argue against your own logic!

In case you didn’t notice, those were the Ten Commandments of LOGIC. Has nothing to do with atheism. Atheists have no "commandments", unless some individual has his/her own personal set by which they abide. Some atheists are incredibly logical. Some are not-so-terribly logical. And it varies widely in between. This fact alone exposes the rest of your rant as mere outpouring of emotions.

TATIME:
(2)When we give you evidence of our God's presence, you turn to generalize Christianity as if there shouldn't be original and fake.

I dare you to begin a thread and cite your "evidence" for god. I would love to hear it. Mind you, it has to be objective and falsifiable.

Oh, and before you ask: NO. Your subjective JW propaganda doesn't count. If I see that crap, I'm ignoring the thread.

TATIME:
(4)Atheists and Freethinkers assume that God doesn't exist because they can't see him yet they want to believe in black holes, big bang and even evolution which they've not seen.

Admittedly, concepts such as gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, to name a few, are more measurable than prayer or any of god's other interventions into the world, even though you still can't see them.

In any event, you have my permission to bitch_ to the mods to have atheists who claim there is no god to be removed from the site. I dislike stupid atheists around here as much as I dislike moronic statements about gods… like yours.

TATIME:
(5)This is the most stupid rule, you people want everyone to believe in evolution which never occurred neither did anyone witnessed it.

...Then here's the good news: If you choose not believe in evolution, it's no skin off my nose. A fact you seem not be aware of is that atheism has nothing to do with evolution. If evolution is disproved this very moment, I'm still going to be atheist.

TATIME:
(7) Who brought about the idea of Evolution?

Does it matter?

Guess who brought about the idea of the Big Bang though? It was a Catholic funnily enough. All the more reason your diatribes against concepts like evolution and the big bang amuse most atheists such as myself

TATIME:
(10) Why do you wear clothes if not because it's popular?

TATIME, why do YOU wear clothes …didn’t your god create you naked? Ehn?. Isn’t that the "perfection" he originally designed for ya’ll?

You misunderstood every fallacy on that list and you just assumed the arguments you presented didn't attack anyone's character. You misrepresented atheist viewpoints, made hasty generalisations, made further assumptions that your premises were true, completely misunderstood the post hoc, false dichotomy, ad ignoratum, and burden of proof reversal fallacies, made a non-sequitur attack on the non-sequitur fallacy and completely rolled, totalled and wrote off the bandwagon fallacy.

I was going to award you a participation trophy (for your troubles at least), but I'm tempted to give you a broom instead, to clean up this sorry mess of a response.

Please don't quote me again unless it's something sensible. I won't dignify you with a response next time.



Edited for factual goofs

Kobojunkie:
I honestly have no idea how any of what you have said relates to the definition of faith I gave you or anything I have said concerning it.

If you say so.

This conversation took a turn when you stated:

"How can there be folly in a risk that turned out in my favour after all?"

And I proceeded to point out just a few tragic outcomes from using faith as you defined.

"faith is a collection of all works done in trust and obedience to God’s commandments serving as evidence of your claim to believe."

All I have done is follow the carrot you have dangled.

Kobojunkie:
You confuse me. What has any of this to do with my exact explainations to you of what faith really is?

A person can commit themselves completely to a religion based on nothing but "faith". In fact, this is what you have advocated. I suspect you assume that committing to a faith is beneficial (and I do not deny that it may), but you appeared to ignore the possible negative aspects of such an action. Thus, I pointed out two easy examples on people who committed to their religion purely on "faith", and the result was tragic.

Faith leads you down a path, and sometimes it leads into a very dark place. You believe it leads to sunshine, glory, and heaven. It may do the opposite. This is one reason why I reject the action of blind faith, but instead first insist on real evidence to support my position.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MuttleyLaff:
"The woman saw how beautiful the tree was and how good its fruit would be to eat,
and she thought (i.e. hoped or had faith) how wonderful it would be to become wise.
So she took some of the fruit and ate it.
Then she gave some to her husband, and he also ate it."
- Genesis 3:6

Tamaratonye.5, please beware of those who thought, hope and/or faith are based on their own ideas, feeling(s) and what they think is right and not on God's word. Case in point, Genesis 3:6 above

Do you not see this problem? You suggest those who commit actions based on blind faith do it on their own ideas, yet you quoted a biblical passage to support your assertion?

You cannot even defend your position without resorting to blind faith and quoting the bible.

For your information MuttleyLaff, to me and some others on this forum, the bible carries as much weight as used toilet paper. Not everyone believes in it. One sways arguments not by quoting the bible, but offering cogent and rational arguments.

MuttleyLaff:
Daejoyoung didnt [capitalize] the word...

MuttleyLaff:
...what he did was title case, meaning that the first letter of the word faith is/was capitalized.

Do you realize you contradicted yourself, in the same sentence? I'm guessing almost certainly not.

You're just another stereotypical apologist. In that you use the standard intellectual dishonesty of biblical hermeneutics and exegisis to claim the bible doesn’t actually mean what it says.

Ironically, as Bart Erhrman shows in Misquoting Jesus, the bible has been altered and mistranslated so much nobody knows what was written in the original Greek

If they were not so pathetic and dangerous, the claims of the literalists would be hilarious.

Historically, the Bible, especially the Old Testament, has been used to justify the most disgusting behaviour. Ranging from slavery to the murder of 'witches' and homosexuals. The hatred of homosexuals and other non hetero people remains a focus for the hatred of those pig ignorant drongos.

>>MISQUOTING JESUS<<

MuttleyLaff:
"So faith comes from what is heard,
and what is heard comes through the message about Christ."
- Romans 10:17

You missed the part where I don't believe the bible is gods word - why should you quote it to me Besides the scripture you picked says comes through what is heard (from Paul, who heard it from others, who heard it from… sounds like trusting gossip to me)

MuttleyLaff:
If what is proposed, presented, offered, brandished et cetera to you, has no bearing to what you've heard come through by the word of Christ, then pronto reject, jettison, decline, the trojan gift, refuse the "sounds too good to be true attractive looking proposition" et cetera

Exactly which Christian (they tell me different things) or which church in Canada (somehow excluding all the other holy books written by men who heard god). DEC 2019

https://www.indexmundi.com/canada/religions.html

MuttleyLaff:
It is God's word written by men under the inspiration of God (i.e. 2 Timothy 3:16-17)

You shouldn't have left out verse 15 which says taught from infancy (indoctrination - no different then Islamic children or Hutterite kids on colony). BUT anyway… the rest reads:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Does the Old Testament get included with all Scripture? If not, then it's not all scripture is it?

MuttleyLaff:
"Now without faith it is impossible to please God,
for the one who draws near to Him must believe that He exists
and rewards those who seek Him. "
- Hebrews 11:6

Since you too daily transact in faith, are you trying to say you aren't a loving person ni, hmm?

I pointed out that your god is transactional, your response was to attack me. Thus, I must assume you have no defense.

Attached picture is for you. Rule #1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daejoyoung:
It's difficult, but I tried to explain Biblical Faith there, it is not blind or totally without rational as many atheists and even Christians assume.

It certainly must be difficult. I don't disagree with the notion that Christian academics have established for themselves the truth of their faith through solid rational argument but the important point remains that those arguments begin with the assumption that your god exists without objectively supported facts or evidence.

You presume your god's existence through heightened personal experiences and sensations and naturally enough seek to substantiate your heartfelt claims. I suggest you forgo the difficulty of rationalising your god because it is an anecdotal experience, and not an argument to be debated.

Kobojunkie:
How can there be folly in a risk tha turned out in my favour after all?

Unfortunately, good sir, you have just opened up a huge can of worms, easily dispelled. I could easily offer dozens of examples, but I will submit two, each quite different in the people involved, but each with tragic outcomes.

Carsyn Leigh Davis

Here is a small excerpt from https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2020/07/07/a-high-risk-florida-teen-who-died-from-covid-19-attended-a-huge-church-party-then-was-given-hydroxychloroquine-by-her-parents-report-says/

A medical examiner’s report recently made public, however, is now raising questions about Carsyn’s case. The Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner found that the immunocompromised teen went to a large church party with roughly 100 other children where she did not wear a mask and social distancing was not enforced. Then, after getting sick, nearly a week passed before she was taken to the hospital, and during that time her parents gave her hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial drug touted by President Donald Trump that the Food and Drug Administration has issued warnings about, saying usage could cause potentially deadly heart rhythm problems.

Second example.

Nineteen young men, who had the potential to live full lives and be moral, were swayed by their religion into committing one of the most evil and horrific acts in modern history. They were the terrorists who martyred themselves in 911.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daejoyoung:

Exactly, confidence in yourself, in God, or in something, for certain reasons, is what is called Faith.

Why do you keep capitalizing the word faith?

Confidence is measured - meaning:

- the state of feeling certain about the truth of something.
e.g. "it is not possible to say with confidence how much of the increase in sea levels is due to melting glaciers"

- a feeling of self-assurance arising from one’s appreciation of one’s own abilities or qualities.
"she's brimming with confidence"

Daejoyoung:
Faith in jesus or God to me, is based on solid grounds

Actually, "confidence" can be used against you if there is no evidence of truth - i.e a confidence man or "con man". Normally they play off of people's fear, greed or ignorance. Things they say will make sense, and sometimes, depending on the "game" you'll get a little back at first to lure you in deeper.

Your "faith" is not on solid ground. It is God's Word (no evidence of god or that "it's" communicating with anyone) written by men - you have to take their (the men) word for it. That's shaky and invisible ground - the Koran, Book of Mormon, etc (cult leaders) all get special knowledge from god to pass to men - "confidence game".

Daejoyoung:
if the words of jesus when applied to my life for instance, turn things around for me as compared to my previous ways, then I can say that I have some reasons for my faith

You have reason for believing in yourself. Self help gurus and motivational speakers and fictional books and non fiction books and songs and art, movies - the list goes on where a person can get inspiration or self help messages.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MuttleyLaff:
Faith, is a currency, used in the Kingdom of Heaven

So your god is transactional?

Do you realize that by making such an assertion, you completely destroy the argument that your god is a loving god?

Kobojunkie:
Look.. you already submit to a lot of things you don't like/understand or even agree with on a regular basis. You submit to bad government even when deep down you wish you could do something about it. You submit to driving on bad roads even though you would rather not.

The point is when you have the Spirit of God living inside of you and the rule says that the only way to benefit faith-wise is to submit to His lead, what do you do? Refuse knowing you gain nothing from it?

You can only refuse for so long before you probably drain yourself out , rendering your entire journey towards God meaningless. If you are truly born again, you spent all that time working on obedience in order to get the Spirit of God to come live in you, what have you got to loose?

This is where religion makes people into irresponsible and illogical creatures, in my opinion of course. I am confident you are a "good" person, and if we encountered each other in person, notwithstanding anything religion, we would probably buy drinks and enjoy a wonderful time together.

But then along comes religion. You advocate fully buying into something, without checking it out. But ask yourself, do you do that in any other aspect of your life? Would you send five million naira to a complete stranger because he says "trust me", in the promise of a ten-fold return? Or buy a house without first having it inspected? Of buy a car without checking out how reliable it is? Would you send your children to a school that you did not check out first? Or cross a major express road without looking both ways?

Please, ponder the folly of accepting anything before some form of validation or examination.

Kobojunkie:
there is nothing nonsensical about it. You have to first submit.

Right: it doesn’t make sense, unless you already believe it.

kingxsamz:


What do you mean by "a god cannot be disproven" , when you have already said it cannot be proven in the first place?

My assertion was that god claims in their broadest sense are unfalsifiable. Thus we can know nothing about them, which is the definition of agnosticism. Since I can't know if an unfalsifiable claim is true or not, I remain an agnostic, and of course withhold belief, so I am also an atheist.

Whenever this is observed I usually ask the same question: do you usually believe claims when you have already acknowledged you can know nothing about them? Alternatively if anyone asserts they know something about the claim for an extant deity, then they should demonstrate some objective evidence to support this claim for knowledge.

Anyways this is an old, old concept. I am surprised you aren't already familiar with it. Most theists who i'm close with, agree with that assertion as it emphasises the importance of faith for them which would be worthless if they had incontrovertible evidence for their god’s existence. And really its not something worth arguing about as you are never going to be able to supply that important objective evidence, no theist ever has in 2000 years.

Ghostrye:

Hello, I don't know you but I just want to let you know that I owe you a drink

Only Ice cream... Only Ice cream

budaatum:

That's you error right there. You make time depend on matter instead of the other way round. It is the argument equally posed when a tree falls in a forest.

Surely that "VERY tiny object (smaller than an atom) that contained immense energy" must have existed at a time, lets say t=0 when it went bang. But are you suggesting it did not exist, as very tiny as it might have been at t=-1 and t=-2 and so on backwards with the energy slowly building up over time until it big banged?

Its not like I was there when that tree silently fell but I think it would be odd if big bang did not come out of a prior existence that extended probably very far into the minus territory is what I think. I can't get my head round how a thing that didn't exist could have gone bang, I guess.

Please watch this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr6nNvw55C4

Kobojunkie:
According to Jesus Christ, the agreement, if you love Him, you will submit to His lead(through the Spirit of God) and you must obey His commandments, in order to remain in His love.
When you obey His commandments, you do the works that He commands you and as a result you grow your faith in Him.

Don’t you see the nonsensical contradiction in your statement?

First you must submit, then you will have faith?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Daejoyoung:
When you tell yourself that you would complete your PhD for example, even where all the odds are against you completing it, and without any real evidence that you will, when you believe and continue to read, that is Faith.

Actually, that's action and a history of your own ability… say you have a history of getting Bs to A and you have an interest in your subject material. You study, listen take notes - pass tests. Your "faith" is confidence in yourself to accomplish your goal.

Some people have an irrational view of themselves and this might lead to “faith” in their abilities - even though there is no evidence for it - like some of these folks

Kobojunkie:
faith is a collection of all works done in trust and obedience to God's commandments serving as evidence of your claim to believe.

Your faith is the evidence of your claim to believe

Which "god?" Which "commandments?"

I know of a god that looks like a unicorn and farts rainbows, and the first commandment from this god is: "Anyone who believes in me is a fool"

That god and those commandments? I am guessing no.

Be more specific.

budaatum:

I loved it all except for the mild assertion.

If there was before big bang - and there must have been because something had to go bang - it would have had to exist in time or not exist at all, unless it was quantum physics, which the universe is not.

There was time. There were just no clocks marking it.

Greetings budaatum

I respectfully disagree on the condition of time before the big bang. Yes, the entire universe as we know it originated from a VERY tiny object (smaller than an atom) that contained immense energy. But although this known universe is huge and standard physics are able to describe it, in the period of the big bang, it was so tiny quantum mechanics do apply.

Quantum mechanics describe the physical properties of nature on an atomic scale.

I accept the Theory of Relativity, and both matter and time are integral to each other. If there is no matter (in the absolute), then there is no time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GodHead85:

Ok Madam So can We agree that if Gods can not be proven or disproven, Then a Soul would be able to be proved.

Wow that is a spectacularly irrational non-sequitur

GodHead85:
As it is, There’s 0 Evidence that consciousness can exist outside the Brain. Therefore I see no reason to Believe that it can not be disproven either.

You just are incapable of understanding an argumentum ad ingorantiam fallacy then, no matter how many times it is explained. Just for the sake of it, I’ll have one more try, nothing is either proved or disproved because of an absence of evidence. Thus you are making an irrational assumption.

Honestly dear, why not just give up? You are as out of your depth on this subject as a new age creationist.

I want to talk about faith. Of what use is faith in spite of evidence, or the lack thereof? I need rational answers.

GodHead85:

Can you? There’s pretty much No Evidence any Deity exists.

You are shifting the burden of proof. That is a fallacy. I don’t have to prove a damn thing. I am not the one making the claim.

GodHead85:
Well Something made it happen, but can either of us prove it was a god?

Please understand this: Causality is a function of our universe. It breaks down in quantum physics. It breaks down at Planck time. Nothing has to have made anything happen.

GodHead85:
I Believe asking the Question I asked is like asking (What’s The Meaning Of Life.)

What in the world makes you think, life has a meaning? It's like asking what is the meaning of rock, and that would be a very dense question. What's the meaning of your life, GodHead85? Could it be to come onto Nairaland and make inane assertions?

You are what you do. You are asking the wrong question. The meaning of life is what you make it out to be. “What is the meaning of your life?” You ascribe meanings to rocks. You ascribe meaning to life. You also ascribe meaning to your life. You do this actively or passively but you do it just the same.

GodHead85:
Well, We do know The Universe is huge

You must be very delusional. We call the universe huge. We have absolutely nothing to compare our universe with to call it "big." Big compared to what?

GodHead85:
Some scientists do say that’s How Old it is. And yes I would like to find a cause, something happened to cause it.

GodHead85:
There’s an After, so there could have been a Before

More narrow minded bullshit. Can you tell me what is north of the North Pole?

Our personal experiences tell us that time flows like a river, in one way. But the crazy mind-Bleep you need to grasp is that if the universe began at the big bang, then time also began at that instant too. Before the big bang, it is possible time did not exist.

You can please demonstrate the methodology you used to rule out an eternal universe?

GodHead85:
It isn’t Small either as it would take Billions of Light Years to get to the other side. But in some aspects I guess you could call it Small

That says nothing at all about the size of the universe and everything about our ability.

GodHead85:
Me Either

Yet here you are. You're still the one running your mouth and making all the unsubstantiated universe and god claims. I hope I wouldn't have to continue demonstrating the idiocy of your blind claims.

GodHead85:
As a matter a fact the universe started without a God’s help.

Can you prove or even demonstrate that the universe started? Can you demonstrate it started without the help of God?

GodHead85:
Do we absolutely know what caused the Big Bang?

Why would you assume the big bang had a cause?

GodHead85:
Do we know for absolutely sure this is not the only universe?

Why would you assume this is the only universe? Why would you assume there is another universe?

GodHead85:
We do know how old it is if we work backward to the size it would have been a certain number of billions of years ago. If we could somehow go back the whole 13.8 billion years we might have an idea what caused it to expand the way which it did. We might also find out if anything was possibly here before the Big Bang.

Size I wonder if that is even a relevant issue? Physics breaks down at Planck time. Are you sure anything called “size” would matter at all?

GodHead85:
We can with the information we do have prove that it didn’t happen in six days suddenly everything was here, and earth would nearly be the center of the universe.

But the problem with that is earth is 4.5 billion years old and the the universe is 13.8 billion years old. The universe existed like over 9 billion years longer than our side of the universe.

Humans have existed on earth what is it, 50 million years or something?

13.8 billion years ago, you have no evidence at all, and you are still trying to find a cause. Why? Causality breaks down at the quantum level. Causality is relative to our existence in this universe here and now. That’s about all we can actually say.
How do you know there was a “before” the big bang. If time is a product of our universe, how can there be a before?
Christians believe their holy book because they can. Just like you believe the universe had a cause and want to set out looking for it.

GodHead85:
In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. It reads like humans were first, except there were many creatures here way before we evolved. How does anyone believe what Christians call the good book or holy book, when there’s no accuracy to anything in it? It is true that the universe had a period of rapid expansion as it would take more than 13.8 billion years to reach out like what is it, 35 billion light years in every direction? Or is it more? This universe is huge and did from what some scientists say somehow expanded faster than anything can travel within it. Expanded into where I don’t know. If fact there’s a lot I have no idea about when it comes to this universe and those answers may never come either but the answers are not in the Holy Bible, the Christian bible. That piece of junk pretty much puts us as first and that’s just not true.

In fact I have only bits and pieces of an understanding of it all, and don’t believe it will all be discovered in my lifetime. Could get froze for awhile like Larry King says he wants cryogenically frozen. I don’t understand that one bit but at least we agree there’s probably no god, and nothing after death.

The universe had a period of rapid expansion as far as we currently know. That does not mean it is “True.” It means the facts seem to lead us to this conclusion currently. You say this universe is huge? By whose standard? In a sea of universes it is but a grain of sand and it is no where near “Huge.”

I will accept the idea that as far as anyone can tell, there is no good evidence supporting the idea of any god that I have heard of.
-------------------------
Godhead85, you have taken the position of an anti-theist, claiming a god does not exist. Good luck maintaining that position, which is untenable. In my opinion, a god or gods can not be proven or disproven.

Tmach137:

I can not produce anymore evidence than you can.

Why on earth would I need to evidence your claim? I made no claim.

Tmach137:
I was just making assumptions.

Since you're just comfortable making assumptions, I hope you appreciate the irony of making unevidenced assumptions, in a post demanding others evidence their beliefs?

Tmach137:
I just doubt any deity would have a gender ,

Without any evidence they’re even possible? Again, can you appreciate the irony in making such a claim, in a post where you rightly demand theists evidence their claims?

Tmach137:
or that consciousness can exist without a brain.

As do I, but your original claim was stated as a belief, not doubting a belief:

Tmach137:
What I believe is death is like (Morgan Freeman) says, it’s nothing. You cease to exist. If we’re wrong we’ve still lost nothing..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do grasp the difference between disbelieving a claim, and your statement to “believe it is wrong”? This is not a subtle difference, it has epistemological implications.

Tmach137:
Demonstrating actual evidence is something they can never do as there’s no actual evidence to prove their deity.

If some actual evidence should surface it probably wouldn’t be in Christianity anyway.

Well that’s a bold claim, and given your reason for disbelief is the lack of evidence for a deity, can you evidence that assertion?

Tmach137:
I imagine if any evidence should surface for a god to exist, they would prove it has no direct gender.

Again some evidence for this claim please?

Tmach137:
And that the only thing that deity actually did was cause the Big Bang, and did nothing else.

Wow, evidence please

Tmach137:
What I believe is death is like (Morgan Freeman) says, it’s nothing. You cease to exist. If we’re wrong we’ve still lost nothing..

Well now I’m not sure we need to be surmising anything about death. Have we any evidence that consciousness can exist without a functioning physical brain? If not then I will disbelieve that claim, not because this means I know it is false, but because there is no other criteria for disbelief that I am aware of.

Sabr1na:

Have bible readers tagged Covid-19 to be a plague yet? Like trying to say it’s in the Revelation Yet? Just curious if Christians have brought that up?

What’s happening now in life, outside of fiction. We keep doing bad things to mother earth, she’s going to kick our asses more if things proceed as they are. But has nothing to do with a deity.

Oh, and these predictions have been happening 100s of times over the years already! None have actually happened! Like Y2K. LOL. Then 2012.

Christianity is fiction

Personally, since pandemics and viruses are explained by entirely natural phenomena I don’t care if religions and the religious claim they have a supernatural cause, unless of course they can demonstrate some objective evidence for the claim.

Kobojunkie:
Are you his mother?

Read my comments, and if you still don't understand look up the dictionary meaning of the terms he claims.

I agree, to an extent, with the OP. Not that I am indeed his mother. And even if I was, I'm lost as to what that has to do with the topic at hand.

You've read the OP, and discredited his "free-thinking" capacities. But you haven't explained what was wrong with his post. I don't know what you know. Help me see what the fault in his original post is. Thank you.

Kobojunkie:
And this guy here fancies himself an open-minded free-thinker?

ROFLMAO!

Hello, Kobojunkie.

May I know what your problem with his OP is?

Depsui, I have the capacity to think, the ability to communicate, and every right to share my views concerning any topic. You really don't have a say in what I choose or choose not to discuss.

I take interest in religious beliefs because they are all universally harmful. Believing in nonsense with no evidence primes a person to believe other nonsense ideas without evidence. Critical thinking is the death of religions because when critical thinking is applied to a religious belief, the religious belief cannot stand. Which is why religious people mostly oppose the teaching of critical thinking (like science).

Unless you are actively trying to get fundamentalist Christian sects shut down, your moderate Christianity is just allowing more horrible people to do horrendous acts in your name.

Let’s start by making churches pay taxes. Then let’s put molester priests and vicars in prison. Charge the churches with operating an organised crime ring for protecting rapists and allowing rapists to continue to rape. The laws should apply to churches and ministers and be harsh with its sentencing.

Kobojunkie:

Atheism, like any other idea out there, can become a religion for even those who hold that belief. It is obvious that many of the atheists who frequent this section are themselves shackled in this same religious bondage you speak of.

Please provide a description of the qualifications you have assigned to this shackling.

Kobojunkie:

You've already stated that atheism in itself is not a religion. What's your point now?

Kobojunkie:

Wrong! Atheism in itself is not a religion.

Apologies, Kobojunkie. I think I might have misunderstood your argument. I only wanted to debunk the erroneous notion that atheism is indeed a religion. That assertion is silly anyway

[1] arbitrarily state what constitutes a religion
[2] use those arbitrary statements to 'prove' atheism is/is not a religion.

pointless lol

When engaging in discourse with other monikers, please endeavour to quote said moniker(s) - so they can get notifications about your response. I have just seen this post and I know it's being addressed to me because of my last post on here. I find it dubious that you would respond to me without giving me a mention.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kobojunkie:
This isn't about your perception of the word and its use, is it?

By your definition: atheism is a religion; and so is not collecting stamps, not killing your neighbor, a lots of other weird things.

The lesson is: if you define something broad enough, all kinds of things will start to match the definition; generally making the word useless in the process. Since with your definition everyone on the planet would be a "religious person", making that phrase meaningless; it wouldn't convey any information.

Kobojunkie:

RELIGION

First of all, Kobojunkie, I don't place much weight on dictionary definitions. Dictionaries are written by people, like bibles. Perhaps you should share your own ideas about what a religion is.

Second, my perception of the way the word "religion" is used these days is that belief in one or more deities a core element. Religions also encompass rituals, songs, jewelry, facial hair, and funny hats. But without the promise of a god to bestow favors on followers, how can a religion hope to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them? (Did you know that "religion" is derived from the Latin word "religare" meaning "to bind"?)

Kobojunkie:
1. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

I have a keen interest in NOT watching professional wrestling, and I actively pursue ways to avoid watching professional wrestling. It is extremely important to me.

Kobojunkie:
2. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience

I believe in not watching professional wrestling, and I am very much devoted to not watching it. My own personal ethics and my conscious guide me in not watching professional wrestling.

Kobojunkie:
3. an activity that someone is extremely enthusiastic about and does regularly

I am extremely enthusiastic about not watching professional wrestling, and I make it a point to not watch professional wrestling on a daily basis. Moreover, I would probably even consider myself one of those non-wrestling radical extremists. Because even if somebody were to attempt to force me to watch a wrestling game, I would be highly resistive, even to the point of becoming physically violent if circumstances dictated such. Does this mean I now have to start carrying around some type of non-wrestling holy book? And who the hell am I suppose to pray to in order to get guidance in not watching professional wrestling?

All you have done is selected superficial features of the religious experience and attempted to apply them to your faulty perception of the word "atheist". Your selection can be applied to a whole range of other human activities that generate extreme interest, involvement and absorption. You have notably avoided all the very central core tenets that adhere specifically to the religious experience such as faith in the existence of an disembodied creator deity, eternal life after death, souls, miracles, etcetera, etcetera. And for failing these core tenets atheism falls outside the scope of religion and faith. For your benefit, again: Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.

Based on your limited selection of attributes of religion, I think it could be safe to say that: Football is indeed a religion. Claiming the 2nd Amendment as a basic human right is indeed a religion. Butterfly collecting is indeed a religion. Serial killing is indeed a religion. Attempting to legalise euthanasia is indeed a religion. Halleujah! Fishing is indeed a religion. The sport of apostles! Defence of animal rights is indeed a religion. Attempting to be a millionaire before the age of twenty five is indeed a religion. Championing animal rights is indeed a religion. Having regular bowel movements in an appropriate place and setting is indeed a religion. (it is at my age)

You will never convince an atheist that your god is real with argument, but you might with a miracle. Restore someone's sight and get back to us with the independent media coverage.

xdunamis:

Atheism in itself is a religion - A belief that there is no God, which is wrong. For every creature, there is a creator. I'll stop here for now, let me not divert the topic.

Kobojunkie:

Atheism, like any other idea out there, can become a religion for even those who hold that belief. It is obvious that many of the atheists who frequent this section are themselves shackled in this same religious bondage you speak of.

Could either of you demonstrate how "atheism is a religion"? I'd be glad to hear your explanation(s).

Tmach137, it shouldn't come as a surprise to you that the christians on this thread would prefer to clown around and make rubbish of a legitimate challenge, rather than face it head-on. Speaks volumes about their true perceptions about their beliefs.

Quite simply, whoever presents an assertion is required to support that assertion. A basic rule of proper discourse.

Not treating that assertion as true, in the absence of support of the purported truth of that assertion, does not involve the same requirement. Indeed, one of the basic rules of discourse that the mythology fanboys, like the christians present here, either fail to understand or frequently seek in duplicitous manner to violate in order to push their agenda, is that any assertion, when presented, possesses the status "truth value unknown" until that assertion is subjected to test. The assertion remains in that limbo until a proper test thereof is conducted.

Of course, mythology fanboys, like the christians present here, routinely misrepresent the rigorous atheist position with strawman caricatures thereof, because they have no answer to that rigorous position.

Expect more unbridled display of arrogance and cowardice from these christians.