₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi3:
Hello. It has been a bit. I don't know if it is that you didn't get my last email or I didn't get your last, but I didn't hear back from you after I confirmed to you that I prefer to discuss via email. Did you get that last then?

I'm pretty certain i didn't. Let me have a look-see though. I'll mail you when i'm ready

jesusjnr:
Thanks a whole lot.

Sent you a mail, sir

Ihedinobi3:
I think that you are not keeping pace with the conversation.

What I addressed you with was a correction of the biblical position, not an argument for the veracity of the Scriptures. In fact, I told you quite explicitly that I'm not concerning myself with what you choose to believe. That hasn't changed. If you think that the Bible is a ridiculous document, feel free to ignore it. You have the free will to. If it is right after all, and there turns out to be a judge, then you will answer for it ultimately. But that is your business, not mine. That I choose to believe it is my business, not yours. If you decide to make it yours, you will only be frustrated by my disinterest in your concern or mockery, as the case may be. But carry on with either as you please.

As for what the Bible says, first, the cosmic seas form boundaries above and below, so they, that is, the cosmic seas are technically part of this universe too.

Second, when we die, we are given a sort of interim body that is not quite like this one we have but which allows us to experience reality in a far more powerful way than we do right now, then we are taken by the angels to our chosen place. If we chose to remain rebels against God, the angels deposit us in Torments in Hades. If we chose to repent and submit to Him in Christ Jesus, the angels take us to Heaven. No rocket is needed, because it is only our physical bodies that are weak. In our interim body, the journey is pretty much instantaneous.

Third, yes, the Bible told me all this. Do you know the parable of Lazarus and the rich man? That's a major clue. It was a true story that our Lord told to make a point about how each person is evaluated in the sight of God. Another clue is about Samuel the prophet when he was called up in a sèance by the Witch of Endor. Then, the appearance of Moses and Elijah at the Lord Jesus's Transfiguration. There is also the Ascension of the Lord Jesus after He resurrected, and the testimony of John in Revelation. The Bible is pretty much replete with this teaching.

Fourth, perhaps the writers of the Bible knew that the stars out in space were like our own sun, perhaps they didn't. That is neither here nor there, in my thinking. I cannot see how their knowledge or ignorance in that made any kind of difference. They were writing under the inspiration of the Lord God Himself Who made all creation, so I would say that their ignorance was more than adequately accounted for.

Fifth, as for stars falling to the earth, I did answer that already. Would be a waste of time to repeat myself when you already complained about a long epistle that was written to answer questions you clearly don't care to have answered.

Sixth, as for towers that reach Heaven, that is yet another problem of presentism that I keep running into with atheists. You read that to mean that a physical structure was to be built to stretch physically up into Heaven, but that was not the meaning. A ziggurat was a high place that men built for ritual worship. The idea in that story of Babel was that the whole world was looking to unify religion, and essentially eliminate individual free will that guarantees everyone the right and ability to worship whomever they will. So, it wasn't about the physical height. It was a symbol.

Seventh, as for corners of the earth, I'm not sure who you are arguing with. All navigators and scientists conceptualize space in four cardinal directions: East, West, North, and South. What is your problem with that?

Eighth, as for laying foundations, would you take issue with anyone who says that Isaac Newton laid the foundation for quantum mechanics? Would you say that they are being foolish talking like that? I think it is language that you would readily understand in that context. It is language that I readily understand in this context of creating the universe too. I don't see what you think is wrong with it.

Ninth, as for where God has been or is, the Bible does not teach that God is in the atmosphere or in space. He is everywhere, but His Manifest Presence is in the Third Heaven. That is what the Bible teaches. Of course, the Third Heaven is sometimes spoken of as the sky, but it most certainly is farther from us than the clouds or the vastness of space that surrounds us.

Good morning bro. How do you do? You never replied my mail.

MuttleyLaff:
[img]https://s3/images/KneelWhiteFlag.gif[/img]

For real. Lmfao... I'm in tears, bruh

LordReed:
We are soon going to have to declare TKO so that jesusjnr can rest o! Chihuahua don nearly chop hin prÌck finish o! LMFAO!

As in eh. Lmfao.... This is destruction!!!

LordReed:
World War Z. LMFAO!

Lmao... Pls tell me what is happening?

Martinez39:
Back in the days, I used to very patient but I just grew tired. I remember P.axonel, a supposed christian, telling me that witchcraft doesn't exist. How can you claim to be a christian and not believe in witchcraft? He later claimed that according to the bible, God does not answer prayers. He also said that if you earnestly wish for something, then you have prayed. That's prayer to him. Instead of these people to admit that their beliefs are bullcrap, they try to twist and redefine to conform with reality and moral norms which makes them all the more stupid.

A muslim lady, after hearing the part of the quran that says men should scourge their wives, she said, surprisingly, that "scourge" can be interpreted differently and it could mean "to deprive your wife good privileges." So absurd. I wonder if they ever listen to themselves to grasp how ridiculous they sound when they keep twisting and redefining their absurd beliefs to suit obvious realities, scientific truths and moral norms that are contrary to their holy book. They could have just been sincere to simply say that their beliefs are absurd.

Asin guy they have NO direction. Their indoctrination was intense. Rather than discard old beliefs, they'll conjure up stories, twist the facts and draw false parallels to keep their fairytales alive and relevant. These extraordinary tales by moonlight aren't necessary. Like Ockham said, the simpler explanations are always the legit one

I wish people like this Foly dude would just listen and open their eyes for once

Some people get bad mouth 4 this thread sha.. Lmao

Martinez39:
XxSabrinaxX is really really patient with these people. Do you know that chemical energy is Oduduwa and electrical energy is Eze nwanyi?

I don't know if these spiritualists often hear themselves when they talk. I've just been cracking up reading this thread .

Big ups to tintingz & XxSabrinaXx. They're really taking that guy to school Lol.

EmperorHarry:
You could have said yes or no but you didn't because of a lack of genuine information on the subject in question.You chose not to say yes or no because there are other options available.
Now let's assume your observing an ant creeping in a tube(with no barriers),you know where the ant entered through(The beginning) and you know where it exits from (the end) now there's countless number of paths that ant can take before it gets to the exit. You're aware of the paths but your just an observer.The ant gets to choose what paths it wants to take.It could go straight to the end of the tube or creep diagonally or straight then diagonally or up and down the tube till it gets to the end. Now you can visualize the many ways it can get to the end but it's up to the ant to use whatever route it was to get there. This means the future already exists which is a topic I've talked about before but it doesn't mean we don't get to shift and change how the future looks like.
Every night you dream,you experience an illusion that could become a possible reality if all elements and events in that dream were to occur in the same way in reality. That's when déjà vu occurs.But we get to dream more than 150 times in a year,some of which we forget but we don't experience them because we didn't make choices that would enable us experience them.
The infinite nature of the choices(and it's uncertainty)which we can make within our life time to me is equivalent to free will.

I perfectly understand the picture painted by this analogy. But you seem have omitted an important issue here. The "many worlds" interpretation is just window-dressing on the underlying problem, which is that perfect foreknowledge -- knowledge of the truth value of propositions about future events - requires predetermination. If God can see all the whole space-time continuum and every branch of every choice made by free agents, but knows in advance which of the many worlds will be realized by so-called "free choices", then the choices are not free in any satisfying sense of free will.

NnennaG6:
You chose the universe and you simply don't remember it like what happens when you do things in a dream or mundane things in the past. There are other universes which religion calls heaven and hell. In fact, there are multiple heavens just as there are multiple hells.


Like I said, there are many VNs out there and this is the particular VN you chose to experience. There are many choices you can make within this VN and your choice determines how the story unfolds. That doesn't change God's knowledge of the VN as the programmer. You do know that events and choices are already programmed within a VN, right? You are not creating new ones when you make a choice.

LOL @red. Heaven and hell are NOT other universes.

I think you are missing the point here but its ok, I've got enough replies. We don't need to continue.

NnennaG6:
You choose the universe you are in because your free will cannot be violated. So you basically chose the Visual Novel (VN) to play and the choices you make playing the VN. God, as the programmer, knows all choices and events of the VN no matter what you choose.

I do not choose the universe I am in. There is only one universe, that we can demonstrably know of. Thus there is no choice, I was always going to be in this universe. However, that doesn't mean there was not other potential universes where things could have been different.
The issue is, God knows all choices and events of the VN, but he chose to create the specific VN where I choose A over B.

EmperorHarry:
My question would be...Do you think Satan has free will?

I don't know. What do you think?

NnennaG6:
Either way, god knows what happens no matter the choice you make.

BUT doesn't that still mean that God chose the universe in which I ran along that specific timeline? Given his omniscience surely he does?

GodHead85:
ok, this is just for the peanut gallery because this is about the point where people start jumping in about how this or that doesn't prove anything because we never proved our original axioms that 1) God exists and
2) Free will exits.

1) We are not attempting to prove the existence of God, nor the existence of free will.
2) We are merely trying to reconcile the existence of god With the existence of free will to determine if they are in fact mutually exclusive...

LOL, I feel you. I admit the amount of atheists that do this is INSANE.

1. A universe in which we do have free will and 2) A universe in which we do not have free will.

Precisely, which is why this is a tuff topic haha!

This removes your own Free will

Seemingly yes

The OP question assumes that humans DO have free will, therefore the events that take place are due to your free will, not due to the conditions of the
universe.

Are you arguing here that it is a self-refuting argument? Because I agree that when I say, I can choose A in Universe one etc etc... If that choice equates to free will it is self-refuting BUT does choose necessarily equate to I have the free will to pick A? Is free will JUST the ability to choose? Or is it more than that? I
don't know you tell me .

Assuming that free will Does exist then God created a universe in which either outcome COULD take place

Are you trying to suggest here that God knows all possible outcomes but does not know which one you pick, that seems to be incompatible at least with my view on omniscience as knowing what I choose is something logically coherent and thus possible for God to know, and if it is possible for God to know, He knows it. The only way seemingly to reconcile that would be for God to deliberately prevent himself from knowing things relating to our free will? Is that even biblically supportable?

Thanks for your responses btw, it is helpful!

GodHead85:
May exist

- Could POTENTIALLY
Exist for the purposes of this debate yes.

choices made it into the picture
of a flower.

Correct they did, much like a candle has the potential to become a flame

Must relinquish some control in
order for free will to exist.

Correct. He must, I agree.
But sadly at the moment this is just circular reasoning. Assuming I am Christian and can arrive at the same conclusion, I have to take it on Faith because it is circular reasoning. I have no issue with faith, but I am trying to find a solution to this problem.

So, god chose to create a universe where you eventually had a choice between option A and B and your free will molded the universe into the one where you did choose which ever one you chose.

We have to argue that God did in fact have no choice on which universe to create because he created the universe where one of the outcomes of my choice took place, rather than the universe where the other possible outcome of my choice took place. That is essentially my dilemma.

Budaatum
IAmSabrina
LordReed
Johnydon22
Martinez39

Lol. Now i know this debate has been done to the death and you all (christians especially) are sick and tired of it. But before you sign off this thread. Please hear me out...

This free will debate is not about the modal fallacy committed by accusing Gods foreknowledge of determining our choices, don't worry.

My thesis is that we seemingly do not have free will, but merely the illusion of it. Essentially it's a part 2 to the whole thing. I'll outline my premises here.

1. There are an infinite number of potential universes God could create. (Any slight difference = a different universe)

2. In two of these potential universes, I have my classic choice A or B.

3. In one universe I choose A

4. In the second universe I choose B

5. God, being omniscient and all-
powerful, created and thus selected the universe in which I chose A rather than B.

6. Hence because God chose to create universe ONE where I selected A over B, with full knowledge (his omniscience) of the outcome of my choice, He determined my choice for me. Thus I do not have free will.

How do I reconcile this?

MuttleyLaff

NnennaG6

Ihedinobi3

Vaxx

Paxonel

Ihedinobi3:
TheArranger, since that was your last response, and one that is answered in the post you were responding to, I'm not sure it is worth the cost in time and energy to essentially repeat myself.

If you wish to talk to me privately, my email is in my signature and on my profile. It won't be a problem at all.

Check your mail pls

LordReed:
LoL!

I don't always go into long rants like this. But people who admit they are being intentionally dogmatic & bigoted can really get on my nerves

Ihedinobi3:
15. You should notice that I have not accused you of lying in this post. I don't do that until I find that the atheist I am talking to does not care what they say in order to achieve their aim. I am getting the vibe from you that you also don't care what you have to say to get your way here, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

I am referring to your claim that you are not trying to sway me. Perhaps you really aren't, but you are the one that wanted a debate. You are also the one putting up all the typical atheistic moves for evangelism here. Maybe you're doing it for the benefit of readers rather than for me, so I will not make any conclusions here.

You are not here, however, because you want to reexamine what you believe, my friend. You are here for attention. That is why atheists do what you do. Atheism is too empty for you people to mind your own business. You have no business to mind. I am here because my business seemed to slow down a bit, and I wondered what I might do with you people. In fact, it has begun to pick up again very fast, so I might soon be unable to break routine and come joust with you lot just for the sake of it.

You have all the evidence anyone needs, and before you ask me again for it, it is the universe itself, including your own conscience, and the unavoidable reality of Death. If they are not convincing enough for you, really just go East if you feel that you must have something instead of the nothing of atheism.

SMDH. This arguments aren't new @green. Same old, same old.
The Universe: the existence of the universe does NOT confirm that magic is real. Jehovah, Angels, Demon, Lucifer, Behemoth; they're magical beings. Another thing missing is the demonstration that Jehovah created the universe as a true statement. It’s nothing but a rumor. An unproven assumption if you may. 4 thousand years without being substantiated - that’s a failure rate of 100%.

The Conscience: Depends on what you call "god". Some people have this image of what they would like God to be. These people somehow naturally assume everyone on earth knows exactly what they mean when they use this three lettered word called God. There are 4 Abrahamic religions which actually supposed to believe in the same sole Abrahamic deity or God. None of these 4 Abrahamic religions believe in the same sole Abrahamic deity or God. Yet none of these 4 Abrahamic religious followers want to acknowledge that all of their religions were made by humans who simply made up a deity for themselves to worship. If you give power to your beliefs admit it. Such power only came from ones own imagination. The imagination is the conscience.

Death: How does your dying show me that God is not a fantasy of yours? The universal fact of death, is hardly “proof” of anything other than the universal fact of death. We've never seen dead people come back and tell us about the afterlife. I'm talking of "thoroughly cold, laying in the ground or mausoleum" dead.

I put it to you, sir, that it is the very fact that you have NO EVIDENCE to support your theological opinions, either way, that fosters your characteristic draconian hostility towards those of slightly different opinion. Perhaps i overrated your person and your intelligence before engaging you in discourse but you've proven to me now that i've done nothing but shoot myself in the foot. So thanks for me helping me see that.

I also think its quite obvious that you're gradually trying to label me a villain at this point. When i read your statement @red, i couldn't help but burst into uncontrollable laughter . Since you take pleasure in doing this to people, sir, let me now return you the favor. Take offence or not, i really don't care. Say i'm wrong or not, i don't care either because 1. You are a constant strawman when you're talking with people & 2. I'm simply stating what I & everyone who's seen your posts & engaged you has noticed.

I think you're very smart. One of the smartest apologists on this website. However, i think you're also a cynical, closeminded fraud who makes up stories and uses special pleading & false equivalences to cover up the gaps in your knowlegde. You conjure up long posts rife with fallacies & word salads to obfuscate atheists and discourage them from responding (this could be intentional or unintentional, but i finally decided to take up this specific challenge you present, hence my response to you here). I think your childhood indoctrination was very insidious hence your overwhelming dogmatism. You call people out when they commit errors but then you go ahead to commit tons of strawmen among other fallacies. You make up lies about people and polish them to make it seem true. You pride in being close-minded and assume everyone else is as stubborn, which is a huge fallacy for even someone of your calibre. You also commit intellectual bullyism. Not that you're the only one who does this, but yours is the most obvious and most frequent.

If you're concerned that i'm typing all this to look good on Nairaland, i'll be more than happy to give you my social media contacts so that we can interact properly. Far away from the eyes of the lurkers and members of Nairaland. I'm not interested in looking good. I've repeated over and over that i'm relatively a novice on these matters and i'm a genuine skeptic, but oh well, you just feel like you know everyone more than they know themselves. You just love to beat people to their conclusions and make up lies about them. I wonder how far your dishonest tactics, dogma and baseless intolerance can carry you. Give me the word and i'll mail my contacts to you. Then we'll talk. Till then, this is my final response to you.

Oh, and if you're just going to judge me and make assumptions about my motives again, i'd really appreciate if you don't mention me on this website henceforth.

IAmSabrina

Martinez39

LordReed

CAPSLOCKED

Johnydon22

Ihedinobi3:
Continued response

10. It's hard to take arguments like this seriously. I have a policy to engage with seriousness on this platform, that is, with decorum, because my responses are actually written for fellow believers primarily. If I didn't have this policy, I'd be LOL'ing and doing all sorts in mockery at arguments like this one. What makes you think that an assumption cannot be fact? The famous laws of thermodynamics are assumptions because they are observed but unproveable facts of life. Would you think of them as figments of the imagination too? An assumption is merely something we are granting to be true either because it makes no sense that it isn't or in order to pursue a hypothesis and see how it proves out.

I stand corrected on the meaning of "assumption" with regards to science

In a philosophical (not scientific, mind you) context however, if you assume God exists, you are committing the logical fallacy of presupposition/assumptive thinking/presumption

You're using language that presupposes conclusions into the statements without first showing those statements to be true. Presupposition is a sneaky assumption. It is an unstated assumption.

You can't just assume God exists and call it a day. You have to show it

This just shows you are being irrational and probably not realizing the reason you don't want to talk about your assumptions. No one likes to expose his or her inner thoughts when they are not rational.

Ihedinobi3:
Another thing to note is how you can admit that this assumption is universal while appearing to forget that that was exactly what you were claiming to be untrue just a post ago. Obviously, God is a universal phenomenon in human consciousness, and obviously you know that too. This sort of behavior when carried on with no appearance of a willingness to change is what I call dishonesty. It may start out as a mistake, but in time it appears to me to become a point of duty to make obviously false claims without thought, only to add wild bluff to wild bluff trying to cover up an obviously false argument.

Can you please point out where i implied that "the assumption that God is universal is untrue"?. That'd be very helpful.

Its also very funny, though not surprising, how you're drawing all these conclusions out of a "supposed" contradiction. You've already conditioned your mind to believe that i'm going to lie and be dishonest even when we haven't started. I'm just shaking my head painfully at this point. You're putting the dead, beaten horse before the cart ... but what do i know, right?

Ihedinobi3:
Even further, your argument contradicts reality. If humans really want to feel important, why would they invent a God (an incredible thing to consider, given how much divisiveness is natural to human beings) that basically demands that they either be His lackeys or suffer painfully forever? It's a very weird thing for human beings to do in the face of this ego you speak of. It would make more sense if human beings invented a situation where they themselves are the Gods, and they impose their will on everything around them. That is far more consistent with human nature.

@red, humans will want to invent a god because deep down, they want to feel special. They want recognition. They want to be acknowledged. They want to feel like their actions count. Dying patients, bereaved people.... they want to believe that their problems always have an answer.

In turn they create this deity who can answer EVERY single one of their prayers. Because they may have problems & they seek justice, they create a deity that watches over them and rewards them for good and punishes them for evil. They project their ego and persona unto this god. That is why this god has emotions like jealousy, anger, joy, remorse etc. Somehow, we know he will be angry with us if we sin and he will rejoice if we repent. Isn't that a god of people who want to be monitored? These are emotions felt by humans and they project these emotions unto said god. I don't see how this strays too much from reality.

As for your comment @italics, don't you think religion serves this purpose? Aren't their political philosophies in parts of the world that have a basis in religion? Aren't there laws in certain parts of the world that are guided by religious beliefs? Isn't Theocracy a form of government?

Aren't these "imposing their will" on everything around them?
By creating this god, they themselves are BECOMING said god by extending their ego to him. Then they use this god to fulfil their selfish intents & desires through laws & commandments and what have you.

I don't see how this strays too much from reality.

Ihedinobi3:
11. Regarding your questions, when you ask someone what they would prefer to believe, how are you not suggesting that we have the ability to create objective truths? We decide whether we want to believe what is or we want to create fictions. As it is, my interest since childhood has been to learn what is true and believe it, so my preference will always be to believe what is true.

How about intersubjective truths @italics?

Also, what is the human ego? It is an insatiable desire for pleasures, rewards, profit for ourselves. Majority would rather live a comfortable life than an uncomfortable life. Majority would rather be praised and complimented than shunned and disgraced. Hopefully this makes sense.
Besides this, i'll agree that you may be correct at this point in the majority.

Ihedinobi3:
As it is, your questions are very telling. You ask them on the assumption that everyone is essentially making up what they believe. That is precisely what atheism is: a fiction that people make up to believe.

Lol. SMH.

Ihedinobi3:
12. Your enjoyment of your attacks on Christianity is only proof of my arguments. I'm glad that you are honest enough to agree that there is absolutely no comparison between atheism and Christianity on that count. As a matter of fact, if there were no Christianity at all, atheism would likely be exceptionally boring. Christianity, on the other hand, is actually incredibly exciting by itself, so much so that, for those who actually believe and understand the Bible, atheism and other philosophies and their adherents are actually distractions. So, it is a flat-out lie that atheists are persecuted more than Christians, or that it is nothing special or specific to atheism to attack Christianity.

What you add to this acquiescence here is a red herring, but I'll indulge it. I called atheism a dishonest philosophy and concluded that anyone who held such a philosophy (that is, atheists) is necessarily a dishonest person. Do you remember your complaint that I was being salty? If you really believe that your attacks on Christianity are not personal, then you could not have proceeded to say that I am intolerant of and prejudiced toward atheists. You clearly considered my attitude toward atheism as a personal attack on atheists. Why does the rule change when it is you and other atheists attacking Christianity?

This should also be a rebuttal to your number 13. I still don't understand how atheism is dishonest. Especially weak atheism, which is my, and most people's, kind of atheism.

It's not reasonable for a person to claim that no deities exist (strong atheism, which isn't the discussion here), as that person then bears the burden to prove their claim, which isn't possible. The same burden of proof weighs on the person who says that one or more deities do exist; it, too, is an impossible task. If it was intellectually dishonest to be a weak atheist, then it's also intellectually dishonest to be a weak theist. But since proof that deities do or don't exist is unavailable, how can a person assert one or the other without delving into irrational territory, or at least untenable territory? Would we not identify such assertions as intellectually dishonest since they aren't justified by the available evidence?

There's nothing wrong with saying "I believe (or not), but I don't know." Indeed, it seems to me to be the best position, as it avoids the untenable position of having to prove a claim to be true or false when such a demonstration is impossible.

@bold Your main issue is you attack the atheists first. Then proceed to use the information you get from the atheists as the problem with atheism. For me, i have issues with both Christianity & christians. And i've given reasons for my dislike of both. You've given reasons for your dislike for atheists but you are yet to explain the dishonesty of atheism, and the only way to do this is to provide evidence of your god.

As for atheists attacking christians, it isn’t safe to be an atheist. Some Christians like you tell us that we should be tortured in hell forever because we don’t believe what they do. Lots of love, there! I remember watching a certain american politician on television blaming natural disasters on gays, atheists, and liberals and begging the judgement of God to fall on us. Go to forums like Reddit & 4chan and people ask questions on whether atheists should have freedom of speech or be imprisoned, or even be put to death. Schools try to make children participate in public prayer. Churches try to undermine how parents raise their children by instilling the fear of hell into them. The death penalty for atheism exists in 13 countries. Some preachers in fundamentalism AND evangelicalism have actually called for atheists and gays and others to face the death penalty in the US. Go into any Christian book store. There are lots of titles attacking atheists and atheism. Preachers call us fools, saying we are the enemies and in league with the Devil. And all we want is the freedom of our own conscience and the civil and political rights of a free people.

And you think we attack Christians? All we are doing is trying to defend ourselves and our freedoms!!!

You want atheists to think Christians are good and kind? Then have them stop attacking everyone who doesn’t believe as they do. How about that?

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
- Thomas Jefferson

Ihedinobi3:
14. I'm the Lord Jesus's sheep, TheArranger, but I'm an old sheep. I have had my run-in's with wolves of different kinds. So, I'm not at all even impressed, much less convinced, by your claim that you are ready to abandon anything. I have no doubt that you will believe anything at all, only it can't come from the Bible. If the emptiness of atheism bothers you that much, Oriental religions might give you the excitement that other Western atheists have sought in them. Whether you believe it or not, I truly don't care what you want to believe. I was not charged to win anybody's soul, only to proclaim the Gospel to anyone who is willing to hear it. Clearly, you are not. So, why don't you do what others atheists do? Go East.

Let me rephrase it then:

If you provide me with evidence that Jehovah exists, i will believe he exists. That's it. I will be like "Oh, you were right all along". I would love to be a christian but I'm not desperate to worship your god. He's really not that important to me. If you christians weren't infringing on our basic human rights, we couldn't care less about your god to be wasting our time debating with you folks. Atheism has been much more fulfilling to me than Christianity. I don't have to follow restrictive rules based on unproven rumors, i have no fear of hell, i'm not bigoted (wish you could say the same), and i solve problems with reason, not dogma & invisible magicians....

Lol @ the emptiness of atheism when the happiest and richest countries in the world are atheist countries
https://www.axios.com/the-worlds-unhappiest-countries-1513301073-e24ee650-db2b-46b2-a548-e5caeb02b43f.html
https://news.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx

Saw this response hours ago and i thought long about it. Seeing as today was a free day for me and i had the whole day, i decided to take my time and examine this response as critically as i could possibly can. This response has revealed a lot to me and has now given me new perspective on this whole religion issue (your last post especially made up my mind on the kind of person you are). Can i just point out how hilarious it is that the only part of my post you didn't respond to is the part i agreed with you? I was watching out for that. Speaks volumes if you don't know. I also notice you're very hostile in arguments even when i tried my best to be polite. Also speaks volumes.

Suffice it to say, i'm not holding back from this moment on.

Ihedinobi3:
You're sorely mistaken on very many fronts here.

Of course i am

Ihedinobi3:
1. I did not provide or intend to provide examples of the absurdities and inanities I alluded to, so your expectation of that was mistaken. I have already told you that atheism, is as a whole, an insanity. That means that I consider all of its propositions at least suspect, if not outrightly absurd and inane.

Well, until you demonstrate the said "absurdities and inanities" of atheism, you in particular, really can't talk. As a matter of fact, i'll be doing same to Theism just below so keep your eyes peeled. In the meantime, please do same for atheism.

Ihedinobi3:
Also, did you really believe that I would ever consider it reasonable to admit that theism has any problem? What is the far fetching to be admitted there?

I didn't believe so, I know your type very well to know you will never admit flaws in Theism. which is why i was expecting the question @red

But let me just show you a few reasons Theism gets a lot of flack:
1. Pretty much every holy text ever written can be shown to be self-contradictory, therefore describing something that's quite literally impossible.
2. In all of Earth's history, there have been about 100 billion humans who have inhabited our planet, and there have been about 3,000 creator deities that they believed in. Since only one could be the real creator (each making claims to be the only one) that means that the great majority of all humans who have ever lived were theists who were wrong.
2b. Do I know all theists are wrong? Hell no. Given there have been over 3,000 creator deities worshiped and there are now 41,000 different Christian denominations -- each with their own claims -- knowing what all of them believe and debunking it can't possibly be approached in a single lifetime. I just hold all such claims to be equally unproved.
3. Logical inconsistency e.g If salvation is grace, why does any have to do anything to get it?
4. Consequences of Theistic beliefs: war, murder, death, cruelty. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Ihedinobi3:
3. I have never been anything but a believer in Jesus Christ, true, but I've never been a perfect believer in my life. Between 2004 and 2007, in particular, I did not identify as a Christian although I still believed that Jesus Christ died for my sins. I just didn't think I could ever be as good as the Bible wanted me to be, so I tried very hard to stop trying to be that good. A pretty strong conscience got in the way of my plans, but I did make an effort.

As for trying on the atheist's shoes, have you ever tasted excreta just because you wanted to know what it's like? Not everything is worth trying. If it looks, smells, and sounds bad, it very well might be. In addition, I have all of you guys to thank for my utter distaste for it. If the way you are is what atheism offers, I could not only do without it, but I would be insane to want to try it.

Additionally, your comment about this reeks of naïvety, and I don't mean to insult you. I am very well educated in more belief systems than you probably have allowed yourself to imagine about me. That tends to come with experience, at least, in apologetics, so it would have made more sense for you to assume it to be the case rather than the opposite.

No one is questioning your knowledge of belief systems or how many you know. That's not the point of my last post. My point was to state that you've never departed from theism to any other philosophical position, which even you kind of admitted @red & @blue. And like i said, i'm a young student, so no offence taken @green.

Basically what this post concludes to me is that you're not open minded at all. And its funny because you accuse people a lot of being dogmatic. So correct me if i'm wrong but you have absolutely NO right to point to people and accuse them of being dogmatic when you yourself can't even bring yourself to see from other points of view. You can hold on to your views as tight as you want to. That is no business of mine. But please do remember to clear the forest in your backyard before you cut down the tree in another's.

Ihedinobi3:
4. About previous engagements, I am wondering right now if I have heard a more ridiculous come-back before. First, I have responded to more than one of your threads. Second, I have responded to your arguments on other threads. Third, I should have asked why you scoffed and went away?!

Yes actually. Funnily enough, i started going through my topics one by one and saw a good number of comments from you (although most weren't mentions and i have this "bad" habit of not revisiting topics after i create them), so on that note, i apologize

As for the part where i scoffed, YOU went away! I specifically told you "The Bible is flawed. Try again". There was NO response from you!

Ihedinobi3:
5. Like I told one of your friends, you lot should get a bonfire to dance around. Why you think that your endorsement of each other amounts to anything at all is quite frankly beyond me.

Just to clear a few doubts i think you may be having but if you think i'm trying to impress you here, you're sorely mistaken.

The only reason i'm even exchanging words with you is because i've noticed you in a lot of threads calling atheists dishonest and all that crap. So here i am, an atheist trying to be honest to the best of my ability (i'm not flawless). And now i'm just discovering that you're probably the most dogmatic individual i've ever encountered on Nairaland.

Ihedinobi3:
6. Bitterness?! Anger?! It is no secret that I consider atheism ridiculous and all atheists I have debated here as antichristians, but to be called bitter and angry about it is laughable. The bulk of my engagement on here is to answer biblical questions, no matter who asks them. I almost never banter with atheists now. When I do, I call out your dishonesty, but that's it. I never call you names or insult you. There is probably only one atheist or antichristian whom I have engaged here that did not call me names and heap false allegations on me. And I am the bitter and angry one?! Very laughable indeed. If you knew my first two monickers in 2012-2013, and said that, I'd still have laughed at you, although I was certainly far less amicable toward your kind. Right now, I am almost friendly even, except when you lie through your teeth.

One needs not insult someone to infuriate someone. You've not insulted me but so far i have to say this conversation has been a bit aggravating because of your stubborness, closemindedness and habit of making lies about people & making false generalizations. If one atheists insults you, that doesn't automatically make ALL atheists insultive. I have encountered foul christians like anas on Nairaland but i never automatically lumped you all in and called you insultive. When it comes to losing my cool, i'm a very long fuse but when i spark, my anger seemingly has no end. If you're thinking you're friendly now, i don't even want to know you when you're hostile

Ihedinobi3:
7. Again, you make the mistake of imagining that all my knowledge and experience is limited to Nairaland, in addition to your imagination that I don't know atheism. Quite the contrary. I know atheism very well. And I know it very well outside of Nairaland too. I was away from Nairaland between 2015 and late 2018, but I was still debating atheists then.

I don't see how debating atheists makes you know atheism. Call it deductive reasoning or whatever you like, but one thing you should understand is that when it comes to arguments, people commit a lot of fallacies, even going as far as employing ad hominems along the way. That's the atheist's fault. Not the fault of atheism.

Ihedinobi3:
8. Deism. You think that the argument that there must be a Creator since there is a Universe is a deistic proposition? That's actually hilarious. The reason is that it is a well-known biblical argument shooting through the Psalms, the Prophets and Romans 1. Are you sure you know these philosophies as well as you think you do?

Deism: the philosophical belief which posits that although God exists as the uncaused First Cause – ultimately responsible for the creation of the universe – God does not interact directly with that subsequently created world.

Theism: belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities. In common parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of God that is found in monotheism (also referred to as classical theism) – or gods found in polytheistic religions—a belief in God or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism.

Compared with the Bible's psychotic delinquent (yes, i went there), the deist God is a grander being: worthy of his cosmic creation, unconcerned with human affairs, aloof from our private thoughts and hopes, caring nothing for our messy sins or mumbled contritions.

Correct me if i'm wrong. I'm here to learn, and you, being the well-experienced scholar, are supposed to be the teacher.

Ihedinobi3:
9. Making claims. Suffice to say that you are waging a lost war here.

I don't get it. What war?

budaatum:
You are very fortunate spambot got my response to you and gave me two day ban to calm down!

Don't joke with my bits Arranger, we are not animal!

What do you mean 'two day ban'? You've been posting actively since the time of my last response to the time of your own response!

As for your bits, you brought it up. Then again, i probably shouldn't have mentioned you since you clearly have a problem with it. Thus i tender my apologies

Ihedinobi3:
Maybe your being a baby atheist is why I was about as hopeful about you as I once was about IAmSabrina (not very hopeful, I'll admit). When you folks get "smart" for the first time, you really show it. You carry the absurdities and inanities of atheism like it is the Grail, starting wars over it, and attacking every imagined enemy over it. But you also are more honest as a new atheist than the jaded atheists who have seen the glaring lies in atheism but who decide to pretend that they don't matter. Those more experienced, "adult" atheists debate for the sole purpose of throwing sand in the eyes of their opponents. They know that they are in a lie, but they don't care, and they only want to swell the number of people in lies too so that they feel more comfortable in the large numbers of their fellow rebels against God. Of course, numbers really mean almost nothing in this business, but when you start lying, it soon gets away from you: you end up in a mass of lies so intricately woven and packed that it's just easier to add more lies than to get out.

I'm sorry but i still don't see the "absurdities and inanities" of atheism you're talking about. You can claim overlapping meanings from now till we die, but lack of belief can never mean the same as a belief. Personally, i'm ok with Pantheism (the philosophy that God is the universe as it is. I'm even content with Deism (a philosophy that proposes a supernatural being who after creating the universe, no longer indulges himself in the affairs of the universe). The subject that attracts attention the most and for good sensible reasons is Theism (the philosophy that God created the universe and still involves himself in the affairs of the universe, created two alternate dimensions for the punishment & reward of humans, has an archnemesis etc). There is evidence that suggests that the universe wasn't even designed with human life in mind. This could agree with atheism, pantheism and even deism, but not theism. Haven't you wondered: why A-theism? why not A-deism?

I mean forgive me but you have to admit, theism is the most far fetched philosophy of all, it makes sense for it to be heavily criticized as it is. I'm going to guess you've been a christian all your life, right? Me, i've been a christian, then a deist and now i'm atheist. I've worn all shoes so i know where they all pinch. I think you need to wear an atheist's shoes for once. Don't derive your opinions of atheism from human behaviour alone. I'm pretty sure that's fallacious. Fault them all you want but the likes of Sabrina, Johnydon, LordReed, Martinez, CAPSLOCKED etc are some of the most enlightened atheists i've encountered on Nairaland and they've encouraged me to be more skeptical about my surroundings and not make assumptions and take things at face value.

Call it a eulogy like before but like i said, i like being honest and i'm not afraid or ashamed to express gratitude or distaste where necessary

Ihedinobi3:
When I first noticed you, you had the typical objections, but you also seemed able to self-criticize, even if only to a small degree. When I tested you, however, you started to slink deeper into the dark. That was the various opportunities I gave you for debate. You wouldn't ever engage beyond one or two defenses for your positions. That is a critical symptom that tells me that someone is maturing in atheism. When they start finding it easier to attack and defend against the many weak Christians that fill boards like this one, they begin to have a sense of confirmation and justification in their atheism that is only threatened by Christians who actually understand and believe the Bible. Taking that path of less resistance is a sign that the atheist is less and less willing to look at their atheism honestly.

Out of curiosity (cause i really couldnt remember this encounter you keep repeating we both had), i went over all my previous posts on this website till i eventually came accross it. That was my "Christians Of Nairaland, What If You're Wrong?" thread were i was kinda hoping that christians, like us atheists, would try testing the two lenses and see that there is wisdom in Atheism. I don't think too much was said in our conversation. I asked you for evidence and when you mentioned the Bible, i scoffed. That's pretty much where it ended. You never, even up till now, asked me why i rejected the Bible so i could give you my reasons.

I think you make hasty conclusions a lot. In a way, i can understand your bitterness with atheism, but i think your anger is misplaced. Your anger may not be with Atheism. It could be with the atheists you encounter on Nairaland, not the philosophy itself.

Ihedinobi3:
I'm afraid I don't believe you at all. I have never debated an atheist who "genuinely [didn't] see any reasons to believe in this God." I have debated many, on the other hand, who won't accept the reasons as being compelling enough because they believe that there are too many options. The easiest consideration here is existence itself. This is the reason in fact to believe that some God exists. The universe is obviously not self-existing. Therefore, it must have a non-material and eternal Maker. That is pretty straightforward. But no atheist who is determined to be an atheist can accept straightforward arguments of this sort, so all manner of excuses are thrown up to reject it.

I wouldn't just call them excuses. As attractive as Deism is (which is what the argument @red is for by the way, not Theism), i still argue that it is less logical than Atheism. The difference between the two philosophies is that one is making a claim and the other isn't. Obviously we know who the burden of proof rests on. "This god exists" is a naked claim until proven otherwise

Ihedinobi3:
This too is why I don't believe that anyone has ever existed or exists or will ever exist who has never believed in this God. You see, God is a fundamental assumption of life. We all come into this world taking for granted that a God exists Who made it and to Whom we are responsible. But that is a changeable mindset, and not many people retain such an attitude even into late childhood, much less adulthood. Human beings, by nature, want an excuse to be irresponsible. Pretending that God does not exist or that He is different than He is allows us to act in the specific irresponsible manner that we prefer. Therefore, not long after birth, we start trying to escape the awareness of not only God's Existence, but also His Nature.

"God is a fundamental assumption of life"

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. God is nothing but an assumption. And the reason there's any assumption in the first place is because of two main reasons in my opinion
1. Our Ego
2. Our Ignorance

Our Ego: Human beings want to feel special, wanted, watched and observed. We like to believe our actions, our decisions count. We want justice (heaven) for do-gooders & punishment (hell) for people who wrong us. Because we assume there's a God monitoring you and me 24/7, we project our ego unto him.

Our Ignorance: Have you ever seen god? I can bet right now you haven't. God is always "beyond our understanding". If he is beyond our understanding, how do you christians understand him so well to know what he likes and what he does not like?

The less important we feel ourselves to be, the more this God can assert itself. In angst and powerlessness, people find comfort in a personal "realisation" that actually everything is ok, they are not worthless, because God cares for them. Some turn to God to fill a hole created in our heads by an impoverished ego, filling them with a sense of importance. This is not hard to deduce. And to prove it, sir, i want you to answer these questions please

1. Would you rather believe that your consciousness is merely the product of an uncaring random process, or to believe that your consciousness is a supernatural phenomenon akin to that of angels and gods?

2. Would you rather believe that as unimaginably gigantic the universe is, it has no aim or purpose, or to believe that a universe of 100 billion galaxies was created 14 billion years ago just so that you can grace it with your presence?

3. Would you rather believe that your mind will soon forever cease, or to believe that your mind is eternal?

Ihedinobi3:
As for the matter of hostility, atheism and Christianity as concepts and philosophies are the issue, not the behavior of the adherents and proponents of either.

Okay. I guess that's cleared up then.

Ihedinobi3:
So, it is to be expected that atheists make a point of mocking, deriding, and harming Christians for their faith in Christ. But it is not to be expected that Christians make a point of doing the same. When Christians do it whether in response or unprovoked, they are wrong and failures at the test of their faith in that specific moment.

Again, considering that this is only what you noticed last year, you probably haven't been on this platform as long as at least one of the people you accused whom I met on here in 2012. Many Christians encounter atheists and atheism for the first time on public fora. That often confuses them, but even worse it puts them on the defensive once atheists start to mock them. That is how I expect these unending cycles to start: naïve Christian shows up on platform; atheists mock his faith and himself; he fights back; new atheist shows up mocking in general; naïve Christian targets him too; atheist fights back; rinse and repeat.

As I said, atheists, by default, will mock, deride, and persecute Christians, and the weakness naïve ones among us will foolishly fight back. So, yes, you are the wolves, not us. Those of us who fight back are failures among us. We all fail occasionally, however, so any Christian might stumble and fight back when they shouldn't. But that is still a failure. It is not representative of Christianity at all.

I agree with most of this piece.

As for the clowning & mockery of christians. It is of course expected. Like i said, i do it too and as a matter of fact, i enjoy it so much. But your reaction to it all just proves that christians mostly take ridicule of their belief as an attack of their person rather than the belief itself. In a sense, i get why but in a sense i also don't. Then again, i'm an atheist and i don't hold Jehovah in as high a regard as you christians do.

Also, i think someone pointed that out, and i agree, that besides verbal mockery, religious people do have it easier than atheists in the society.

By far the easiest grounds for gaining conscientious objector status in wartime are religious. You can be a brilliant moral philosopher with a prizewinning doctoral thesis expounding the evils of war, and still be given a hard time by a draft board evaluating your claim to be a conscientious objector. Yet if you can say that one or both of your parents is a Quaker you sail through like a breeze, no matter how inarticulate and illiterate you may be on the theory of pacifism or, indeed, Quakerism itself.

I'm borrowing the following quote from the late Douglas Adams:
"Religion . . . has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'. Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe . .. no, that's holy? . .. We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be."

Ihedinobi3:
As for your demand, I don't believe I have any responsibility to give you any evidence. I have not asked you to believe the Bible. As much as I would be happy to help you escape eternal condemnation, it really isn't my business whether you believe in Jesus Christ or not. The work of evangelism is always to provide the Gospel to those who want it. I am more than happy to give you the Gospel if you want to hear it. I am not at all interested in indulging any atheistic flights of fancy you have. If the world around you, your own self, and the undeniable reality of Death are not enough to convince you not only that a God exists but that He is manifest in Jesus Christ about Whom the Bible speaks on every page, then it would be a colossal waste of my time and energy to attempt to give you any other evidence. I couldn't be bothered if you think that that is not evidence - whether good evidence or bad. I know that we all decide what we want to believe, so I cannot make you see what is right in front of you, if you don't want to see it.

Ok. If you say so. Although, i'd have been very ready to abandon my position if you had provided sufficient evidence for your god. Correct me if i'm wrong, but you'd be "winning my soul" then.

I'm just a skeptic who's tired of listening to far-fetched stories from a book that is as flawed as the Bible.

Ihedinobi3:
Compare that to your complete inability to sway my confidence not only in the existence of God, but also in His Identity as Jesus Christ Who also became Man to die spiritually on the Cross of Calvary so that our sins against God will be fully paid for, and we can live forever with Him in perfect eternal bliss as His eternal Children. You have absolutely no chance of convincing me that that is not true. If it is a delusion, then it is one I have no hope of escaping. This is why I am uninterested in saving atheists. To go from unbeliever to atheist is a radical choice to prefer insanity to reality. Only the atheist himself can change that choice. Whenever he decides to, that is when a Christian can help him by giving him the Gospel, because he would then be willing to listen to it.

I'm not trying to sway you. Haven't we both established that your crew can never be swayed? I want YOU to sway ME. Unlike you, i can actually change my views on religion if you use the right tool: Evidence.

IAmSabrina

Martinez39

LordReed

CAPSLOCKED

Johnydon22

I was expecting this. I knew my post will draw this kind of response. Now i'm going to address honestly to the best of my ability. I'm actually a young student and if you follow my posts & threads, you'll see that i'm a "baby atheist" . So correct & reprimand me anywhere i falter, i won't take offence.

Ihedinobi3:
I was really just playing with you. Sometimes I do that.

Its ok. No problem.

Ihedinobi3:
That is my observation. Atheism as a philosophy denies the obvious. Atheists, as proponents of that philosophy are incredibly creative in their denials of the obvious.

I'm pretty sure this statement "Atheism as a philosophy denies the obvious" is fallacious. No matter how absurd it sounds, the truth is there are people who genuinely don't see any reasons to believe in this God & have never believed since they were young. If i may ask, what is obvious? That a god exists or that a god exists and his name is Jehovah?

Ihedinobi3:
But consider the very deliberate attacks on Christianity that you lot make all the time. Consider the very deliberate attacks that you lot make on Christians themselves all the time. This very thread is yet another bait thread aimed at Christians. A parody of the Lord's Prayer made for a laugh at Christians. One Christian responds to ask for a little more respect for other people's beliefs, and a bunch of atheists jump his bones, just like wolves hunting sheep. And I'm the intolerant one? What about the slew of threads that you yourself have made today mocking Christianity in one way or another? How many threads have I made about atheism? How often do I jump atheists the way you guys jump Christians everywhere you find them?

Do you remember Butterfly lion, felix omor, anas, ishi love, & the other pack of christians that used to gang up & to insult, lay curses, shame and troll atheists on this forum around this time last year? I know you do. (I may have registered recently but i've been using Nairaland for a long time as a guest so i still remember). What do you think about these people? Like i said, dishonesty & hostility is a trait found in every person. Butter fly lion used to insult atheists and ridicule them terribly even when they tried presenting their arguments in a thought out manner. So don't act like Atheists are the wolves and christians are the sheep. Depending on the setting, anybody can be the wolf and anybody the sheep. And yes i take shots at christians, i take jabs at them. But they do it to us too. I believe you've seen memes mocking atheism all over the internet. Its a two way street. Maybe its because i'm an atheist but i don't see why religions like Islam & Christianity should be immune from ridicule like most moral or political philosophies.

Ihedinobi3:
Now, if you want to discuss anything about the Christian Faith, name it, and see if I won't indulge you.

Glad you asked. Now all i want is evidence. That's really just it. I just need objective evidence that this god, not just any god, but Jehovah, is real. Or is this too much to ask from you people? You said nothing will make you stop believing in god, right? Well, evidence will make abandon my atheism...

IAmSabrina

Martinez39

LordReed

Ihedinobi3:
Okay, this is a funny post. Did you really think your eulogy of these fellow atheists of yours would impress me? Or was that a solidarity stunt pulled using my post as an excuse? I am not impressed at all, amused yes, but definitely not impressed. The entire pack of you are dogmatic about your atheism, about as fanatic about it as nearly any fanatic I have ever seen.

I am pretty sure you know the Bible, TheArranger. That is where that Truth is.

I have been debating atheists for at least seven years now. There is not a single one who pretends for long that they are not sure that God doesn't exist once the debate gets going.

Atheism is by definition a dishonest philosophy. Atheists are by default dishonest people.

Ad hominems, strawmen, generalization fallacies & unexplained saltiness etc are riddled all over your post. I don't know which atheist in particular upset you but your pain is very evident.
The sad part is you won't see it now. And you'll probably never get to see how intolerant and prejudiced you actually are towards atheists. Rant all you want but your hate for atheism is unjustified. Hell, i'm not even this bitter at religion and i have infinitisemal reasons to be.
I was hoping for an cool calm argument but here you are just spitting into the wind. I'm sorry for bothering you. Let me now swerve out of your way before i get caught in your rain of spittle.
Good night and sleep tight

Ihedinobi3:
I was only telling those who were calling others dogmatic that they were just as dogmatic.

I wouldn't call the likes of IAmSabrina, Martinez39 and most Nairaland atheists dogmatic. Harsh on theists, yes. But definitely not dogmatic. They make very good points in their arguments and offer sensible rebuttals in their posts. If one has a good response to your argument, it doesn't translate to dogma. I think that word "dogma" is overrated and misused a lot of times.

Ihedinobi3:
I have not only not claimed or pretended to not be dogmatic, I have in fact implied that if one comes to know the Truth, they get pretty "dogmatic" about it.

What "Truth". What is so special about this "Truth"? I want to know this 'Truth'

Ihedinobi3:
I am probably more convinced about the Bible's reliability than any atheist is about the non-existence of God. That is something that should be rather obvious.

I don't doubt that. Then again, with the exception of Strong Atheists, atheists are not fully convinced in the non-existence of God

Ihedinobi3:
But you atheists are terribly dishonest about all sorts of things, not least about how dogmatic you are in your belief that there is no God.

Everyone is dishonest. I could start a list of all the dishonest christians i've seen on Nairaland. I only joined this year and i've seen lots. Dishonesty is a human trait. It has nothing to do with Atheism.

TheArranger:
What will it take to convince you that your god isn't real?

Please give an honest response

IAmSabrina: "Nothing" is most likely the answer

Ihedinobi3:
The absence of the Universe.

A.k.A Nothing

IAmSabrina was right. And here you are calling people dogmatic.....

Ihedinobi3:
Some statements here interest me.

1. "...can any experiment be proposed in favor of spirituality to falsify its existence?"
What is this question really about? Are you asking if the unobservable spiritual (unobservable by physical means, that is) can be experimented on? Or are you asking if the claims made about the physical world from a spiritual perspective can be tested by experiments on the physical world to determine veracity?

2. "...we seperate objectivity & subjectivity "scientifically"
It is true that many ideas that people have about the world can be separated from what is actually true about the world through scientific experiments, but this is not an absolute principle, since science itself is built on subjective assumptions.

To explain, consider that science always begins with a hypothesis that is then tested to see if the hypothesis holds true. Now, under given known circumstances at the time, it may hold true, so that it is held as a theory that explains a given observed phenomenon. This soon comes to be taken for granted, and usually people treat the theory as a law, and ignore and oppose any evidence that challenges the theory, until someone that is not only brave enough but also forceful enough to bring the new evidence to the fore arises who changes the science. Science is continuously being revised like that.

This means that at the foundation of all science is at least some subjective appreciation of the physical world. This is unavoidable. The testing we do too is necessarily subjective since we can only test the subjective hypotheses under as many conditions as we think are necessary or useful to achieve a comprehensible result. The interpretation of the results too is a subjective affair, even if the results themselves are not subjective. All of this is why scientifically conferences and publications can be pretty exciting with scientists often trying to shout each other down about what is really true. Science is continually dogged by the sore lack of complete information that would help scientists reach absolute conclusions that cannot be questioned further since they are completely objective.

Science is useful, but not by a long shot any kind of absolute judge of objective reality.

3. "When the evidence opposing theistic religions like Christianity are presented, they refuse to understand why."
I presume that the 'they' here refers to Christians. Let's talk about the evidence a little.

From #2, it is obvious that science does not quite achieve escape velocity from subjectivity. That is not all, however.

You and I have debated a few times. Not once have you offered evidence that opposes Christianity. Opposes Christianity objectively, that is, since the opposition seems so evident to you, but not to me. Judging by your position here, this would be just as much because of a subjective interpretation of the evidence on your part as because of such an interpretation on mine or some other Christian's part. Why is it to be assumed that you have the objective point of view just because you are not a Christian? In what scenario does that become logical?

So your claim here is not necessarily the case. In fact, I am refusing to be absolute about it only because many Christians play at apologetics without first making sure to understand what the Christian position is, therefore such Christians may actually be more inclined to dismissing the evidence and failing to properly account for it in their arguments. That is the only reason I am not making an absolute statement in rejecting your claim here.

4. "Pride allows humans this talent or skill and that's why christians think they have the answer to every question! Shame won't allow them to admit ignorance!"
Now, why is it Christians who are too proud to admit that they don't have all the answers? Why not atheists? Is your reason that atheists admit not to know some answer when they don't? What does that have to do with a Christian's provision of answers when he does have them? When atheist say that they don't know the answer to one question or other, why must that be construed as meaning that nobody knows the answer? Is that not arrogance on the part of the person doing the construing? Are atheists the only ones who know what answers can be known?

5. "Unfortunately, the only truth is that any explanation still could be wrong. It does not serve us well to cling too tightly to anything we want to believe... Tightly held beliefs will blind you to the truth!"
First of all, first sentence is quite absolutely and obviously false. If any explanation could still be wrong, then there is no explanation at all. There must be an explanation that is correct because it takes absolutely all information pertaining to the puzzle into consideration. That human beings unaided are unable to provide such an explanation does not mean that it does not exist. That is a truism.

Second, if your second sentence is correct, then you should hold your atheism much less dogmatically than you do. Before you jump to the typical atheistic retort that atheism is not a belief, please note that "I don't believe that there are any gods" is exactly the same as "I believe that there are no gods," and that "there is no evidence for the existence of a God" is exactly the same as "I am confident (that is, I believe completely) that no God exists." I am fully aware of the gymnastics that atheists including yourself are wont to do about this, but it too is a truism, so it is hardly worth debating about.

Also, your second sentence is obviously wrong because your first sentence on which it was based is also wrong as demonstrated above. Since there is a true explanation which cannot be wrong, if one finds it, one should believe it and hold tightly to it no matter what, because the alternative is insanity.

Third, your third sentence admits to the existence of a "the truth". Your use of the definite article there suggests that this is an objective truth, one which cannot be wrong. Ironically, this truth is that there is no truth judging by your first sentence. How are we to deal with such a claim? How can we take it seriously?

6. [The rest of your post addressing objectivity/subjectivity]
I believe you make way too much of objectivity. I don't mean at all that seeking objective truth is not that important. It most certainly is. The problem is that you seem to think that it is not only possible to escape subjectivity completely, but that subjectivity is the anti-thesis of objectivity. Neither is necessarily true.

Objectivity is important for discerning truth as a thing in itself. But to be able to actually use truth, we have to make it personal. That means that although we understand for what it is independent of us, we also appreciate it for what it is in relation to us, and thus for what we can do with it. It is not actually possible to divorce one from the other. Human beings cannot understand truth without relating it to themselves, and this is a good thing, because the truth only becomes usable to us when we can relate to it.

What will it take to convince you that your god isn't real?

Please give an honest response

MuttleyLaff:
Even if it wasnt, each to their own, we live and let live

Truer words have never been spoken

MuttleyLaff:
Now I cant allow someone of my same sex or gender to masturbate my bits, "agbedo", God forbid, except if I am homosexual, of course, if thats the case, it wouldnt matter then

Yeah, it was a joke fam