₦airaland Forum

Akindolu:
Religion has never done anything good to me.

Mr 3 posts, welcome. First rule of engagement is not to trash the convictions of your audience, but to reason with them. I see your religious hiccups have done you no good at all, so well done.

mccloud224:
Interesting.Check this one out :

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-372836.0.html

'Soul train' and 'flat earth' - please translate: how do they connect with the subject of this thread?

ElRazur:
Not to digress, but since the removal of many editors, Wiki credibility is up. Prior to that, it was only found to contain about 33% error than the leading encyclopaedia. . . but that is another story lol.

Here is another source [see below]. Even though it was trying to debunk the statement as a myth, it was forced to admit that some early Christians did preach that the earth was flat.

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

As to why no one paid attention to him, for the purpose of my point, that is irrelevant. What matter is that he appears to be one of the early Christians that preached a flat earth.


Also, from that same source, it appears that the bible did suggest that the earth was flat. [it will be interesting to see what you come up with]

"The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth."

New International Version (©1984)


"And the tree became tall and strong, stretching up to heaven, and to be seen from the ends of the earth"

Bible in Basic English

Various version here:
http://bible.cc/daniel/4-11.htm


From the two points you raised above and with the sources provided, it appears that the Church [or representative of the church] did preach a flat earth. It also appears that a few educated people in the church do not agree with a flat earth, and finally, whatever the case are, there is no denying that there wasn't conflict between the church and early science teachings.

Done: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-365925.0.html#msg5207730

ElRazur:
This is interesting because the Bible itself implies the Earth is flat (for example at Daniel 4:11 or 4:8 in Catholic Bibles) and most of its writers (certainly those of the Old Testament) probably thought so

Daniell 4:11

What does it say? It appears to suggest the earth is flat.

Daniel 4:11 does not 'appear' to make that suggestion but is figure of speech that depicts greatness or largeness. This is the KJV of that verse:

[list]The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth.[/list]

Pretty much the same appears in some of the Catholic Bibles in Daniel 4:8 such as the Douay Rheims:

[list]The tree was great, and strong: and the height thereof reached unto heaven: the sight thereof was even to the ends of all the earth.[/list]

We should understand that Nebuchadnezzar not speaking in literal terms in Daniel 4 when he recounted his dream/vision to Daniel (ie., Belteshazzar). In verse 10, Nebuchadnezzar had already mentioned in regards of the tree that 'the height thereof was great', and in verse 11 only reiterated this greatness of the height by saying 'the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth'.

The phrase 'the end of all the earth' is common expression akin to other such expressions like 'the four corners of the earth' etc. These expressions do not suggest a flat earth in so far as the speaker in Daniel 4 was not making a case for a literal flat earth. In the mistaken idea that some have argued for a flat earth in the Bible from such expressions, I have tried to set this issue straight in this link in post #1, #2, and #3:

     https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-352044.0.html#msg4927695

However, Daniel 4 has a double expression of emphasis - 'the height thereof reached unto heaven', and 'the sight thereof to the end of all the earth'. This is also just about the same way that people expressed themselves in emphatic language to show greatness rather than describing reality in literal terms. We find just about the same idea expressed in Genesis 11:4 - 'And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven', and we see there it is not in literal terms that they spoke.

Other examples include the following, but not limited to these:

[list]*  Deuteronomy 1:28 - 'Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there'

*  Deuteronomy 9:1  - 'Hear, O Israel: Thou art to pass over Jordan this day, to go in to possess nations greater and mightier than thyself, cities great and fenced up to heaven'[/list]

These two examples (among others) using the expression 'cities great and walled up to heaven' are quite simply emphatic of figurative speech showing greatness, and these are explained in very simple terms in the following:

[list]Numbers 13:28     -  the cities are walled, and very great:
Deuteronomy 3:5  -  All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars;
beside unwalled towns a great many[/list]

These latter quotes show that such expressions found in Daniel 4:11 (or 4:8 in Douay Rheims) are not meant to be literal but rather figurative. The problem is that many readers (whether religious or skeptics) take them out of context and force their own misapprehensions into them to argue for a flat earth. Frankly, skeptics who try to suggest a flat earth into those verses are no better than religious people who misread the simple statements in them out of context.

muhsin:
Go read N2A OP.

Lol. . and?

chukwudi44:
@viaro

It is either 7 arch angels otherwise John and Tobit will become liars.

I did not make them liars; and I did not read John mention archangels in those verses. Would you like to show where John mentioned archangels in those verses?

Please psalm 68:17 was not talking about arch angels and did not contradict tobit 12:15 and Rev 8:2

The chariots are understood to be a descriptive term for angels as the hosts of the LORD - and in that sense, Psalm 68:17 is translated as was quoted from the KJV earlier. John in Revelation 8:2 did not speak of archangels - please read it carefully.

FMK:
where do you want to go with this Zap.E.N Science

To begin with, it was not even science at all.

MrPrsdent:
The Real Reason for Muslim Decline

By Husain Haqqani

The Muslim world seems to be in the grip of all kinds of rumours. The willingness of large numbers of Muslims to believe some outrageous assertions reflects pervasive insecurity coupled with widespread ignorance.

If many of the muslims had taken care to not throw around rumours, Haqqani would not be too concerned about muslim insecurity and widespread ignorance. Who is he complaining to?

mazaje:
Actually I am already tired of your running around in circle and your inability to make ANY sense at all to me. . . .You are just typing away without making any sense at all. . . .All you are doing here is evading what I have written and then saying that I have nothing of substance when it is you who have nothing meaningful at all to say so far.

Not at all. Nothing you have proffered has any substance - and that is why you have run round in circles repeating the same thing ad infinitum.

How does atheism know for a fact that there is no god? My answer is this. . .No god can be shown to exist on his/her own independent of cultural stories and mythologies. . . That is a FACT and that is how I know that all the gods of man made religions do not exist. . . .Can any god be shown to exist independent or outside of stories and cultural mythologies that are constantly evolving? Atheism has nothing to do with the problem of evil because evil is the absence of good. . .Human morality that is constantly evolving deals with the problem of evil not atheism or theism. . .

Your atheism has nothing to show for what it calls evil other than ascribe it to naturalism and then lamely claim that it does not deal with evil. That is dense - if you cannot deal with it, then shut up and stop pretending to KNOW when you don't.

Who are those that are informed? Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of a supernatural beings or gods. This definition all people that are atheist agree too. Can you make your own point without ever trying to force people to agree with your own position? So far you have been unable to show me that you know anything apart from going off tangent and explaining nothing at all. . .

I wasn't forcing anything on anyone - that point has been repeated far too often, which was why I have offered nothing about my personal views. Your own claims are in view here, and so far you're making heated and reactive assertions that say nothing at all. The definition I pointed to from Michael Martin shows that you're running from pillar to post and adjusting your assertions far too often that it beggars intelligence. Not all atheists are agreed what atheism is - and that is why they come up with the absolute nonsense of 'weak' and 'strong' atheism to placate their irrational beliefs. Martin only throws out that compromise to pat you guys on the back by showing both sides of the wabbled definition. Yes, you may argue all day long about that - my name is not Michael Martin.

Explaining why people hold their various beliefs is not atheism.

Rubbish - then you should have shut up instead of trying to assert initially that you could do so. If your atheism does not try to explain why people hold their beliefs, just shut the bleep up instead of pretending to know anything and fetching weak quotes from people who are in their own cublicles complaining about what they do not know. This was why I asked if you would invite me to show you the shallowness of the quote you offered for that 'explanation' - you did not; rather, you just made the same empty say-so-and-leave-it-at-that.

Atheism does not try to explain why people hold their beliefs.

Precisely. Then shut up. End of story. Please mazaje, I am not trying to be rough in my tone - I just have grown weary of your pretences on this thread. In my own way, I have noted that my theism does not depend on any thing atheism argues. Nada. Zilch. That is why I don't try to be assertive about anything nor make lame excuses in retrospect to shift goal posts that theism does not deal withn this and that - and yet come back making assertive statements about what it does not deal with. How do I recocile your convoluted argument that atheism does not deal with this and that and then read you trying to explain things psychologically like your atheism has any answers thereto? What tail-chasing exercise are you on to?

Will you answer a simple question and stop dancing all over the place? When does atheism point to religion as the reason for evil?

Excuse me? Did I make any such claim? Are you beginning to get all wired and confused? Did you read what I said or just decided to glance hastily to read your own misgivings into them? Sorry, I cannot answer roll-call for what I did not argue. My engagement with you has been precisely on your own empty pompous claims - that is all. If you cannot show beyond your assertions any substance that is reasonable enough for your worldview instead of leaning on a worldview that you don't subscribe to, why should that be my responsibility?

I have provided good evidence for my claims and let me repeat it again.

You provided no evidence but repeated yappings. End of story. I could also yap and play the exact same games you've been playing. .  it is the easiest thing to do. But what use would it be, really?

What is my atheism apart from the belief that all the gods of man made religions are man made?

Yes, that is why I have contextualized your own type of atheism all along - which is to say that atheism is not the same thing for all atheist. Has that point not sunk in yet? Your own atheism is loud and empty, and that is because I have seen atheists who do not necessarily base their arguments on whether theism says this or that. These atheists know and understand that matters like this do not necessarily require the exact same experience across board for everyone, because we are not clones of one another. But what your atheism does is to try to narrow everybody and everything to your brash assertions and turn round asking me to give you 'physical evidence' for what I have not claimed is 'physical'.

I noted also that some atheists do not narrow down their atheism merely to the simplistic question of just the existence of God/gods. That is not all that atheism rests upon. Pardon me for not having pointed out any source (as I felt you had closed the door for any dialogue on the subject when you declared that all such claimants are liars even before seeking to consider it). But there are many today who are atheists and do belief in certain supernatural phenomena - ghosts, spirits, etc. This discussion is currently receiving increasing awareness and concern among atheists, and you will find them on many fora and blogs.

Indeed, some atheists hastily dismiss such possibilities; which makes me wonder that they ('they', not personalizing it to you, mazaje) do so on no other basis than an idiotic commitment to atheistic naturalism. It leaves us wondering: what researches have these idiots conducted about these phenomena that are being reported by other atheists before drawing the assertion that thus and thus do not exist? For me, these atheists are far gone in their idiocy to even make any sense, if they do not even take the time to consider what other atheists are saying on such phenomena without reference to theistic claims.

Now where did viaro see these things? I said you would find them in many websites - blogs, vlogs, forums, etc - apart from a few other published sources that are not well known to atheists. Let's even consider that such atheists make these claims about spirits and ghosts, etc. . what evidence does your type of atheism have to present from scholarly research to then declare that those other atheists are LIARS? This is not about me - I had been trying to discuss with you and see just how sound your atheism is and see also if it has anything different and refreshing to add to other atheistic ponderings that I'd perused. All I see is you getting personal and shouting about where my own evidence is, and if it is not 'physical', you just close the door for any discussion. That for me sounds quite fundamentalist in attitude.

Now, a few examples of what I was saying above:

[list]

Can an atheist believe in ghosts?

poster: kiki_is_the_messiah ~ "So correct me if I misunderstood you guys, but are you saying atheists can believe in spirits/souls? I always assumed they only believed in the physical earth and rejected the ideas of spirits and souls."
_______

poster: CookTrain ~ "Indeed they can. They obviously won't believe these spirits or souls originate from a god or gods, but the two concepts don't have to be tied together. Most atheists will indeed not believe in them as I say, but there's no reason why someone who is an atheist couldn't believe. . . "
_______

poster: mt891 ~ "My aunt is an atheist and yet claims that her and her family experience paranormal activity on an almost daily basis. She explains this by saying that everyone does have a life energy or spirit that does survive after death."

forum:
http://boards.ign.com/spirituality_religion_and_faith_board/b6827/187569226/p1/?11

poster: "Since many atheists, including ones on this site, say that atheism is simply a belief in no God. Then doesn’t that mean it is possible (but not very scientific) to believe in Ghosts, spirits and even reincarnation as an atheist? I am aware that Buddhism is an atheistic “religion” and they believe in reincarnation. So I guess I am not asking this so much from a definition point of view but more of your personal beliefs on subjects such as reincarnation and non-matter spirits etc etc."
_______

poster: SmartLX ~ "I’ve discussed this with several self-declared atheists who firmly believe in ghosts, so the answer is yes.

Most atheists don’t believe in ghosts for the same reason they don’t believe in gods: no evidence, and no other good reason to believe. The atheists who do believe in ghosts, I find, tend to do so because of personal experiences which lead them to think there is evidence. It’s just not evidence they’re able to share, even if it’s real."

forum/blog: Ask the Atheist

[/list]

These are just a few of the concerns that I was trying to put across to you, with examples showing the three things I had tried to highlight:

           ~  why does it have to be 'physical evidence'?
           ~  the fact that informed atheists talk about atheistic religions
           ~  the fact that atheism for many atheists is not dependent on anything about theism

. . and I should add: this is not about my own 'evidence', which understandably could be discarded because it is subjective. But on the whole, for those atheists who claim they "KNOW", my concern is this: are those atheists who report these experiences all LIARS as well? Remember that these atheists do not make any claim based on any religious text or culture - and atheism for them is not all about arguments for the existence of God. .  it is far more than that! It is not rested on what viaro says - they are not making those claims based on my own subjective evidence or based on any religious text or culture.

You see, mazaje, my discussion with you, as I said earlier, was just to see what sort of atheism you espouse. The idea that all atheists agree to this and that about atheism is simply not true, and risks being consigned to the bin of idiocy. If I were to merely be an observer of your type of atheism and wonder what it bears on its own independent of theism, I find nothing other than heated personalized reactive statements - which just simply do not consider the very fact that there are atheists who have experienced what they cannot explain within the matrix of their own atheistic naturalism. This is not to disparage anyone; and that is why I would not dismiss those other atheists by calling them liars as you brashly asserted earlier without having even considered that there are issues which your own imposition has no clue about.

I have provided my own evidence for that assertion. . . . You did not even bother to address any of them at all.

I did - one and all. You, on the other hand, are just running in deep circles repeatedly without calmly paying attention to what I had said.

^^^ Very interesting, tpia.

This is a false comparison. When you assert that all physicality is illusion, someone else can stake out a position diametrically opposed to yours.

1)You are trying to establish is that there is nothing like the physical just in case you have forgotten.

Several posts here (especially IbrahimB) have with reason tried to point out the above to the thread-owner in one way or another. It is one of the simplest things, really. I think once again you just nailed it neatly by this:

2)You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that by showing how tiny the atoms and subatomic components of solid matter are, it somehow leads one to conclude that solid matter is illusory. This is a fallacy of composition and it is exactly the wrong approach.

@mazaje, your latest replies were going round in circles and refusing (deliberately, I might add) to address any point raised in my several posts. I'm not quite given to repetitions, so pardon me if I skip all those lines in yours still making claims that are hugely lacking in substance.

I asked you a question that drew out several concerns:

   ~ how do you KNOW for a fact that God does not exist?
   ~ how does atheism deal with the reality of evil?

If there were other concerns not as important, these two above have constantly received very simplistic and circular answers from you to the point that you seem to be changing your goal post every so often. Please don't take that as accusative; but your definition of atheism (which you claimed all atheist agree with) is simply a redaction - those who are informed know this. But I'd guessed you won't answer the questions offered and instead show again and again that atheism - your atheism - leaves room for a lot of issues. Simply put: you just don't KNOW anything and only hope to make claims assertively like you have experiential knowledge about what you claim.

Let me give you a clear example of the circular interjection in yours: ''When does atheism claim it has explanation for anything?' In this very thread you had tried to assertively demonstrate that very same thing - to try to "explain" something, viz: 'the psychological reasons people develop beliefs like yours', and went on to quote someone else's complaint that rather explains nothing.

I wondered what essentially that quote offers as reason to that claim, and you returned with: ''The post properly addresses the reason why people chose to believe and the physiological benefits associated with religious beliefs' - nothing more than the usual claims. .  just claim it, and you hope it is so. That is just why your atheism leaves no room at all for reason or rationale, it does nothing, no research, no depth. Why do atheists like you often make jest of their atheism? I could as well make claims that I "know" thus and thus, and boast about offering an explanation or reason for certain things, yet when the article I post addresses absolutely nothing in my previous claim, I act like you and exclaim: 'when does theism claim it has explanation for anything?' That is just so cheap.

If atheism does not deal with evil because it does not know anything about life other than a commitment to atheistic naturalism, it should just shut up about what it does not deal with. It is quite hilarious for any atheist to constantly point to any worldview - religious or otherwise - as reason for any evil when your atheism says that it is only part of the natural world! The real problem with your type of atheism is just this: it is just loud about what it cannot address. That is all - and that is just what you have demonstrated in this thread.

Coming back to ask for my own evidence is a non-starter: it was not about what evidence I have, but it was all about your own non-evidence for your claim. It is analogous to a scenario where any two people could arrive at some totally different idea about a particular phenomenon and yet be wrong - being wrong does not prove that the phenomenon in itself just doesn't exist and it's impossible. For a third person to come and claim that he KNOWS for a fact that such a phenomenon does not exist would require that person to adduce proof for his claim. It would be a laugh for the day for this third person to offer no proof and just turn round to shift responsibility to the other two who have made attempts. This is why you don't understand atheism at all and are making simplistic arguments from a very funny and compromisive definition of that term. If your atheism stands or falls on theism, it has nothing at all to stand upon on its own.

In all, I would say I've enjoyed the discussion more because there was nothing new you presented in substance for your atheism. Forgive me - I have been looking around so many different quarters to see what essentially atheists have for their own worldview, and yet none has been able to stand atheism on its own without reference to theism. The difference is only that the atheist deliberately wants to deny theism for any and all theistic phenomena - and the reason is simple: the typical atheist is simply committed to atheistic naturalism, and very often within that matrix does not have any substance to issues which it argues and yet claims it does not deal with. If I see something new in yours that could be of interest (rather than repetitions addressing absolutely nothing), then I would be delighted to once again engage you on this subject. Cheers.

ROSSIKE:
The only way to alter the mindset of the world to their desire was by killing off and destroying civilizations which were founded on those concepts.

If we follow the spirit of your argument, then those civilizations were not there - they were 'atoms' with empty spaces, blah blah. Thus, we could come to the conclusion that they were all images conjured up in the (non-existent) mind - thus no 'destroying' took place. As such, it should not even appear in your post - otherwise, you'd be arguing the direct opposite: that they actually existed.

mazaje:


Atheism means lack of belief in gods and all atheist agree with that. . . . .

That's not true. Not all atheists are honest to agree with that - and that definition is an embarrassing redaction to atheists who over the years came to realise that the denial of the existence of the supernatural is quite unreasonable. The example from Michael Martin - "Atheism, the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods" is a recent compromise where atheists today can feel comfy and hope not to be troubled by anyone who pulls them up for the default definition.

You just took a part of what I said and built a mountain out of it.

No, I did not. And I have explained the context of my questions. The rest of your reply has been addressed - and it would be great to see if anything fresh would be forthcoming.

mazaje:
I say all the gods of man made religions were created by men. . .Your evidence to show that gods exists on their own outside cultural mythologies and stories is what exactly?. . . .

That is an empty claim; repeated too many times does not mean it is so. No research, nothing, zilch - just a claim. Besides, I have just answered above to show that it is not my own evidence we're talking about here - my subjective experience does not count in just the way your own does not count. My theism is not dependent on atheism to stand - it is your own atheism that has been noised, and that is what I would like to see without reference to my own 'evidence', in as much as I am not the one who argued for 'physical evidence'. It has nothing to do with my own - concentrate on yours and let's see the substance in your assertions. Is that too hard to comprehend?

I have already stated my reason why I know that all the gods were created by men. . . .You can prove me wrong by showing me how the gods exist on their own independent of human narrative about them. . . .

I am not a preacher of "gods"; and this is not about my own evidence. You claimed broadly and widely that God does not exist - term it a universal negative so you can excuse yourself away from being asked for proof - any proof: mathematical, philosophical, etc. Just you stand up for your assertion and play less on asking someone else for their defence. My life and worldview does not depend on your atheism - and I can hold my ground without reference to your own worldviews and denials. This is about YOU and YOURS.

What is this?. . . .What exactly is the supernatural? How does it function, how can people really know about the supernatural without first of all accepting its subjective presupposition?

Good one, mazaje - good one. If anyone was to give you his/her subjective experience as one of the varied ways of the nature of the supernatural, would you acknowledge it? I guess not. Why? Because you already called them liars, remember? If you were open to a consideration that is both rational and genuine, you would not draw conclusions first and ask questions later.

When has atheism ever claimed to have explanations for anything? Atheism is the lack of belief in gods how does that equate to explaining anything?

Rubbish! Atheism is the DENIAL of God and the supernatural. Just don't entertain me with this cosmetic hanky-panky redaction of a 'lack of belief' blah-blah. Atheism has explained NOTHING - in just the same way that you accused theism has explained nothing. This is why you cannot see anything beyond the physical, and any claim to the supernatural is a 'lie', etc., etc. Atheism offers nothing to your own type of atheists, which if it could, we would have read reasoned answers to very simple questions. Examples would be found below, especially on evil.

Religion claims he has explanations as to how people came about, what it will happen to them when they die, how to deal with certain aspects of their lives. . .When does atheism ever claim it has explanations for anything?

Lol, your atheism claims that mazaje knows there is no God. Please explain. . . and mazaje's atheism is begging viaro for his own evidence!  My good pal, you ever played football or what?  You atheists are very, very funny! before you make statements, why don't you just contain yourself instead of claiming that you KNOW?!?

I will define evil as something that is wrong or harmful unto others. . . .

Okay, thank you - and I'll keep that in mind.

Does evil have to come from somewhere? Evil did not come from anywhere but it is a part of the natural world. . . .

Hahahaha!!    So, your atheism has no explanation for evil - just simplistic statements will do? If I told you that you disappoint me, I would be making an understatement. Why? Because if you proffer simplsitic answers like that, you're running farther into the tunnel. This is how:

You assert that evil did not come from anywhere; and that it is part of the naturla world. This presents us with far more problems:
    (a)  how did it get into the natural world?
    (b)  what caused evil to be part of the natural world?
    (c)   why does the atheist disparage religious people for evil if it is only part of the natural world?
    (d)   how does atheism try to solve the problem of evil in the world without reference to theism?
    (e)  since evil is part of the natural world, why are atheist often ascribing evil to theism instead of
           just merely a natural phenomena?
     (f)  since you're confident that evil is part of the natural world, the atheist is also equally evil as he
           thinks the theist is - are atheists not also part of the natural world?
     (g)  most importantly, how has atheism tried to deal with the problem of evil in the natural world?

You can see that your simplistic answers leave far more questions than answers indeed. If no, then I would like to see far more reasoned answers that actually deal with evil in our world without reference to theism - 'without reference to theism', because your answer says it is part of the NATURAL world.

Atheism has got nothing to do with the problem of evil, Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god or gods. . . .Atheism does not deal with evil. . .Human morality which is constantly evolving deal with that. . . .

If atheism does not deal with evil (an obvious denial), then atheists ought to shut up and and ignore any reference to it. If it is not possible for atheists to zip up on what it does not deal with, then your statement is false and should be taken as a kneejerk reaction for lack of an appropriate answer to give. Atheism - your atheism - does not KNOW how to contain these issues, and that is why you respond this way. Again, sorry . .  it's got nothing to do with me.

When does atheism lay any claim to the problem of evil? Atheism is lack of belief in gods of man made religion. . .Theism on the other hand claims it has answers to the problem of evil and tries to deal with that. . .

Atheism is NOT a lack of belief but a DENIAL. Yes, theism tries to understand evil in our world and does not shy away from it - it does not claim a 100% success in confronting it; but it does not make simplistic statements about it either. And when I say 'theism' here in this line, it is used broadly in worldviews and not just Christianity.

Did any god tell you he/she created the universe?. . . . .I said I personally l know that all the gods of man made religions do not exist and you asked me how I know this for a fact.

Yes, I'm asking you that question - just as many atheists often like to ask theists how they KNOW anything without adducing evidence. Since you "know", please show us - just proffer well reasoned answers that match intelligence of an independent sort that is able to stand on its own without reference to theism of any sort. When you complain that you may not be able to do so, then your claim to "know" only falls on its face - it means you just don't "know" but like to claim that you do.

I stated my reasons why I know they are man made creations and construct. . . .Now you are claiming I am casting aspersions on your theism. . . .Sorry but I meant no offense. . . .I was just stating why I know that all the gods of man made religions were created by men. . . .

Okay, the aspersions aside. In the same way, I hope you can see that my discussion with you was not intended to slide with undue intonation. Basically, only one question here was of import: your claim to KNOW - that was all, and that was what drew out several other matters. My concern was that you just do not see that your assertion was as dogmatic and unreasonable as many atheists like to accuse theists. You can only conjecture or make denials - and nobody would have to be concerned about your thousand and one denials. This was why I often said that my theism does not have to stand in reference to atheism of any sort: I do not have to argue against atheism before I can comprehend the raison d'etre of my own worldview. But for me to deny someone esle's worldview in the claim tha 'I KNOW' and yet not be able to show how I know other than disparage the other person's worldview. . that is just not sensible.

You asked me a question. . . . And the question is how do I know that all the gods of man made religions do not exist. . . .I gave my reasons. . . Only for you to pick some phrases and mold them into something else without addressing any thing that I have said at all. . .

I asked you a question based on your assertion. That was all.

@mazaje, thank you for replying.

mazaje:
Your evidence to show that Yahweh exist in the spirit is what?. . . .The problem with the god hypothesis is that no two people really agree on what this concept really is. . . .Your evidence that their is a spiritual existence is what exactly? How can we measure this non physical realm?

The question is not whether or not any two people agree about the concept of any god/gods/God - there are enough texts to show that people will disagree over many subjects in this and other worldviews, even as atheists are not all agreed about what exactly is atheism.

However, you did not answer the simple question I proposed: "Please tell me: why should 'physical evidence' be the one thing that answers the question for you?" If the atheist assumes that all things must be physical in order to present any type of evidence, I am interested in your answer as to why it should and must be so before you can make any conclusive statements about all things in existence. It is not here a matter of asking me what my own evidence is; rather, I am only an enquirer who is seeking to see what validity you give your atheism without necessarily resting on theism of any shade. Can you do that?

Again, please offer a reasoned answer to my question; just as you have highlighted it yet again by the last line in your quote above: "How can we measure this non physical realm?" It is not dependent on me to tell you how - since you have concluded that anyone who makes any claims to any such phenomena must be lying, you tell me how you have ascertained the nature of the non-physical things (or spiritual things) before making conclusive statements so accusingly.

It is becoming increasingly clear that much of the conventional wisdom about religion is wrong. Most people do not believe or not believe in the gods because they have examined and weighed the arguments, or even because they have been persuaded by propaganda from one side or the other, or are following their heritage. Nor do highly religious societies perform better than those that have abandoned supernaturalistic faith in the context of democracy.

Basically, folks are usually more focused on their daily lives than they are on matters divine and theological. Most people are vulnerable to turning to the supernatural only when they’re under strong psychological pressure to relieve stress and anxiety created by a defective environment. That religion is a form of mental self-medication in response to adverse environmental conditions is not all that surprising—and is far more plausible than the idea of the supernatural being real (much as crop circles are far more likely to be the result of pranksters having a good time than they are messages from extraterrestrials).

http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/12/24/what-makes-religion-popular%E2%80%94or-not/

Please tell me how the quote above tells us anything about "the psychological reasons people develop beliefs like yours". The above shows nothing and it sounds more like someone complaining about what he has no clue about - and it does not show good reasoning for those who copy and post them as answer to that question. If you want me to show how hollow that quote is, let me know. However, I'm yet to find how that answers the question in scholarship.

How is my definition of faith wrong according to the christian religion?

What is your definition of 'faith'?

Please show me that I am lying. . . .

You haven't shown good reasoning other than reacting pejoratively and yet not being able to provide answers to the questions I've asked. Aside the usual tone of atheist trying to bash religion, and the fact that I haven't seen any reasoned answer to those questions, there isn't anything cogent you have said that could be substance enough to make for a good discussion.

But let me share with you what I had in mind when posting the (b) section earlier. There are atheists who acknowledge the existence of spirits - not because Christianity preached that to them; but I've seen discussions by atheists on this in some skeptic websites on that by atheists. Secondly, there are atheist authors (eg., Michael Martin) who write about religions that could be described as atheistic - Hinduism and Bhuddism. I was just wondering: are the atheists in those atheistic religions also liars, or was Michael Martin being mischievous? What about some of those atheists who speak of their beliefs in spirits (which they do not claim measurable by 'physical evidence')? These are just a few I had in mind, and that was why I made that observation in (b) earlier and asked that question.

I gave my reason why I believe that all the gods of man made religions are false, Instead of stating your own case as to why they are not false and prove me wrong all I see you doing is just picking some phrases and trying to explain them away and pretending to say that I do not really understand what I am saying. . . . . .

None of the sort. I asked you plainly how you know for a fact that God does not exist - it is not conjecture, but rather that you KNOW. If you cannot show how you 'know' that for a fact from independent research of your own, what is my worry about your complaining here? You should have noticed my several reference to seeking your own atheist answer without reference to theism - it has nothing to do with whether I pick anything from yours to defend anything in mine.

I have been in the religious bubble too, I practiced both Christianity and Islam and I KNOW that there is actually nothing that can be categorical said to exist outside naturalism. . . .All we have are just varying speculation and hypothesis as to the supernatural that make no sense at all when looked into in totality. . . .We have paranormal theories that have always ended up inconclusive and have NEVER stood on their own and explained anything at all to any body. . . .Your evidence to show that there is anything decisive outside naturalism apart from speculation and subjective experiences is what exactly?

Sorry, I have not been in the atheistic bubble, and I count your subjective testimony a lie and a waste of time. Pardon me - but the reason why I give you a straight answer here on that is because you made no room for anything subjective - and I will absolutely refuse to consider any claim you make of your own experience. If this atheistic brash-ball is what you want to play, you will chase your tails till you drop.

I could also give my own subjective experience - and in that vein, I KNOW for certain what I would state, which would not depend on anything you say. Claiming to have practiced Christianity and Islam is not an answer to objective reasoning. .  that should have been the first thing you opught to know, if you at the same time rejected any subjective discussion from the onset.

I believe that I have done that in my first reply to you. . . .Your evidence to show that there are gods that exists outside cultural stories and mythologies is what exactly? How can we know about these gods and how can we see, feel or measure their existence without having to buy into their stories and hypothesis?. . . .

Lol, mazaje. .  it is not my evidence we're talking about - but YOURS! It was you, mazaje, who made the statement that you KNOW that God does not exist; and that was independent of anything viaro said. To maintain that claim that you "know" and yet not being able to show is why I would not expect anything reasonable from you. The better thing to say would perhaps be that you deny their existence, not that you KNOW that God does not exist. Others who have experienced the supernatural do not have to wait for atheistic denials like yours and one weak quote of psychological this and that to do your job for you. . . a job in answering to your claims which have not been of much value thus far.

Your evidence to show that gods are not man made creations and claims is what exactly?

Lol, you're very funny!   Who said this: "Personally I know that the god is non-existent"? Was that viaro?? That was your personal assertion - and how does that depend on me? Sorry pal, next time learn to read - viaro answers no roll-call for people who like to shout empty statements. I have not found how you "know" - you just don't know. All you seem to have done is express disaffection for theism and excuse it under psychology (which again did not help much). That is no problem to me, but the way you parade your atheistic assertions simply makes me wonder if there's any substance to it.

The one thing I find amusing here is how this thread turns science on its head to make unjustifiable claims. I still wonder: 'nothing is physical' . .  'nothing is solid' - and why do we bother to sit on solid chairs and type on solid keyboards? Oh, I forgot: they are 'atoms' - the chairs are not there, the keyboard of the PC is not actually there. . and all of a sudden, we are all GoDS. . .  blah, blah.

Gosh! The human mind is a mystery indeed.

mazaje:
Just see what is happening in the world today, we have people blowing themselves up because they live according to stories they were told were true. . .People denying themselves medication because some story tells them that some people prayed and they were healed. . .People hating others because some story told them not to associate with them or hate them. . .Why do Nigerians give too much credence to Jewish and Arabian mythologies and stories and discard their own stories and myths?. . . .

These things are not peculiar to religious people. Atheists also kill people for some ideologies of their own. Atheists also hate other people - no doubt about it. I wonder why you give too much credence to simplistic arguments like this as if atheism has not provided the world with any type of the problems you are happy to highlight for religious people.

chukwudi44:
@viaro

Idid not write the book of tobit or the boomk of revelation.It is what we find in the bible that we should beleive not what anyother person says.

If you notice, my initial replies were from the Bible; it was when you made reference to extra-biblical subjects that I likewise responded to show that you were counting them wrong. I also noted the distinctions between Catholic tradition and other traditions within Christendom - that was why I give a few names of archangels and implored that you go check them out in your spare time.

Please also noted the distinctions between angels, archangels and the spirits. It was not just 'angels' in some Christian traditions that I listed; but rather those who are regarded as 'archangels'. Within the Bible, we have seen that angels in God's presence number into the thoudands (Psa. 68:17), while other sources give more than seven archangels who stand in God's presence.

Notice further, that your reference to other names are said to be from "non-canonical books"

Those confirmed as arch angels in the catholic church are just three; Micheal,Gabriel and Raphael.But I know that Uriel and Jeremiel are also arch angels because there were so described in the non-canonical books of 2Esdras and enoch

- and that was what drew me to proffer the list of names of those archangels from other reference known in the Christian and Biblical world.

mazaje:
I don't know what the source of existence is for what I see around. . . .I am ready to admit that any day and any time. . . .Believers believe what ever they want to believe but keep bandying their beliefs(Which they have absolutely no evidence for) as facts. . . .

In just the same manner, atheists bandy their beliefs with absolutely no evidence and then turn round to claim they are facts. This is where I find your atheism most wanting, because what you 'admit' is not actually evident in how you argue issues.

Again we have the various religious text available for us to read and see the intentions of the people who wrote those stories. . . Varieties of human language story of the tower of babel as an explanation. . . .Rainbow in the sky, the covenant with Noah or the necklace of some goddess as an explanation, Why some people are morally bad, the story of adam and eve and the forbidden fruit as an explanation. . .These stories and their mythical explanations abound in all religions. . . .

I asked and am still asking: how do you know what you claim for a fact? If you notice, I have been seeking an answer from your own scholarly experience without reference to any theistic text - there are many people who had one theistic experience or the other without reference to any text predating them. The myth of this and that is not what I'm asking: rather, how do you know anything you claim with an "I KNOW" statement? That was why I made the comment:

Mazaje, forgive me, but people who talk like this are simply confirming that they know nothing at all. How much of the experiences of man do you know in all possible realities (including phenomena which cannot be explained by naturalism) before making such a statement? Let's assume that you're kidding; otherwise, I don't think such assertions by you are worth any merit.

. . and to this your reaction was:

What has the supernatural ever explained? NOTHING. . . If there is any thing the supernatural has ever explained to man with empirical evidence pls bring it forward let us examine it. . . . .All supernatural claims are subjective and have never explained anything at all of importance to any body. . . .

First, supernatural claims were not made to be universally objective - that is, my experience of the supernatural is not supposed to be a clone of your own experience. What you're expecting here IMO is that all supernatural claims are supposed to be universals for everyone at everytime in everthing. And if it does not appear so, then your atheism denies just about everything that cannot be explained within atheistic naturalism. What has atheism explained? NOTHING. Please bring just one item that atheism as a worldview has explained - and pls be careful here, because this is where I will get to know how sound your atheism is before listening to your noisy reactions.

I was looking forward to a discussion, but the way you reacted should not have been surprising - it leaves me shaking my head in pity for the many atheists who do not identify with this brashness you exhibit. But please indulge me.

I believe that people are responsible for all their actions and such action lead to what we call evil.

Excuse me? Are you kidding me? Did you take the time to understand my question - or after carefully thinking it through, that was the very best you could come up with?  Lol, mazaje, you're a very, very funny chap. Please read my questions again and oblige me a rational answer, if you could. Here it is again: [list]

Please humour me: let viaro assume for your sake that no 'God/god' exists anywhere at anytime, how does the atheist deal with the reality of evil beyond making cheap assertions like yours? Please just tell me how the atheist deals with the reality of evil in our world - from an atheistic point of reference only (ie., do not include anything about any deity). Indulge me, please.

[/list]

. . .The problem of evil results from the excesses of  man against his fellow man or one animal specie against another for survival or other vices or the mindless forces of nature.

Rubbish. Pick any specie of any living animal you can think of and apply the above - you will find that the basic instinct to 'survive' does not explain the fact of evil as to be the answer for how evil 'results from' any excesses. That argument there is just crapola perexcelsus! Please try again. If my enquiry was not clear, I could oblige rephrasing.

. . .These are some of the things that are responsible for the evil we see around not demons, gods, satan or any imaginary mythical construct out there

I'm not asking you what is responsible for evil, nor did I hope to see any reference to gods, satan or demons. Earlier, I had clearly said that your answer should be without reference to any theistic concepts - none, zilch, zero. Now please tell me: how does the atheist deal with the reality of evil in our world?

By extension, let me ask you a series of questions about evil, and please provide your answers basically from an atheistic reference point without reference to any theistic concepts:

          *  what is 'evil' - how do you define evil in your atheistic epistemology?
          *  hence, where did evil come from, according to the atheistic worldview?
          *  how does atheism deal with evil, such that without reference to theism this problem
              would be well understood and contained in the reality of our everyday human
              experiences?

There certainly are more; but what I'm seeking is how the atheist is able to think rationally and proffer sound answers to public issues instead of shifting responsibility to theism. I do not have to make any reference to atheism when thinking about the reality of evil and diabolical realities in our world; in just the same way, the atheist is here being asked to think rationally and focus on that subject in the best possible manner. Could you please oblige me without being unncessarily reactive? Thank you.

These gods have never done anything for themselves. . . They rely only on people to do everything for them

Yea - like they asked mazaje to help them create the world, no? I'm sorry, but please avoid silly assertions like that when you don't know what to say. I don't think anything in my previous post elicited the sort of reactive statements you posted. It is like viaro making an assertion and mazaje pulls me up with the question: 'how do you know this'; and without seeking to answer how I know what I asserted, I turn round to cast aspersion on your atheism, etc. - how does that help a discussion?

Please just do your best and address the simple issues - or just forget about them instead of filling pages with your atheistic assertions that do not address anything.

@mazaje,

I was briefly online in the morning but have been occupied all day until now. Interesting to read your reply, although you seemed to have spewed your disenchantment rather than well reasoned answers. Such do not make for substance, and that is why I find your reaction empty in view of the questions in my previous post.

mazaje:
All the gods of man made religion(including that of christianity) are nonexistent because there is no physical evidence for them

Please tell me: why should 'physical evidence' be the one thing that answers the question for you? This sounds more like a commitment to atheistic naturalism than anything else; and the typical atheist has first to give us why all things must be narrowed down to 'physical' evidence in order to have any valid claim of reality. Can you help do so? When (and if) you can, then we can discuss more; otherwise there is actually no need to provide you with grounds to just spew forth unnecessary reactions.

I can show the psychological reasons people develop beliefs like yours.

Please do - and when you do so, perhaps I can then show you why your own atheism is a belief system that is both psychological and as fundamentalist as what you aim to argue.

When someone says there is a god in reality, they are either lying or they are deluded because the god concept itself relies on faith and we know that faith is nothing more than wishful thinking,

Two things here that should be highlighted:

(a) you do not understand faith and that sounds very hollow; rather than make a claim about a definition of faith that tries to write off the wordlview of other people just because you're an atheist, it were better to see things in context of how those worldviews think about faith and not how the atheist wants to define it. To hold such an atheistic attitude about what you least understand leaves room for others to make statements about your atheism and be justified thereto in total disregard of whatever protest you put up.

(b) to accuse anyone of lying is to be quite presumptive indeed, and it tells me a lot that you actually don't have an intelligent grasp of what atheism actually is. What is atheism on its own without reference to theism - what is the value of your own atheism without reference to anyone's claim about 'god'? Are you aware that atheism does not rest simply on the question of 'god'? To just narrow things down this way leaves a huge gap in your own worldview and comes close to including many atheists who might as well be lying in their claims.

I understand faith and the emotional appeal of it and how it can make people emotionally attached to their beliefs. . . .

I don't see any evidence in the way you have attempted to demonstrate that understanding - you simply don't understand it; for were you to understand it, you would know firsthand why your own 'faith' is quite hollow. Please don't come back shouting a denial that you have no 'faith' - I will just laugh at that shallowness and empty your arguments.

It makes zero difference that we can’t test every possibility . . .

Does that tell me that you just don't want to test anything - because you don't have any way of doing so within your atheistic naturalism? Or you are just too lazy to think about what is beyond your atheistic naturalism?

Asking anyone to prove it doesn’t exist is asking for a universal negative with no set parameters. The question itself is idiotic to me.(No offence meant Pls)

Atheists who talk the way you do dig a hole for themselves. If you make a 'universal negative' statement as a bold claim, you should be able to prove the validity of your own claim, otherwise your arguments holds nothing more than mere chirpings - no offence.

The agnostic may say that he does not know whether or not a statement is a universal positive or negative, and he is not required to prove the one or the other. The one who makes a claim for the negative in a universal tone is as duty bound to prove his universal negative as much as the one who makes a universal positive. If that sounds idiotic to you, then it is not surprising - it just shows the shallowness of your pompous assertions to make assertions and hope to just scoot off with blanks.

Thank you all for casting your votes. Officially the elections were supposed to close yesterday 26 December 2009. Expectations for results are still fresh.

chukwudi44:
@viaro

There are millions of angels but only 7 arch angels.

I saw the seven angels who stand in the presence of God"

That is not the issue, for indeed I know that there are numerous angels even though no one is able to say for certainty how many 'archangels' there are. In Catholicism, most prefer the number seven; but in other branches within Christendom such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, adherents mention "thousands of archangels", although, like in general Catholic theology only seven of these thousands of archangels are venerated by name (see Wikipedia's note).

Other sources list names of archangels far outnumbering the seven in traditional Catholic theology. Besides providing the link, here's a list of such names that not many people are familiar with:

[list][li]1. Michael[/li]
[li]2. Gabriel[/li]
[li]3. Raphael[/li]
[li]4. Uriel[/li]
[li]5. Chamuel[/li]
[li]6. Jophiel (or Jofiel, Yofiel)[/li]
[li]7. Zadkiel (or Hesediel)[/li]
[li]8. Anael (or Hanael)[/li]
[li]9. Ariel (or Ariael)[/li]
[li]10. Cassiel[/li]
[li]11. Chayyiel[/li]
[li]12. Galgaliel[/li]
[li]13. Jehoel[/li]
[li]14. Metatron[/li]
[li]15. Zerachiel[/li]
[li]16. Yefefiah[/li][/list]

We cannot hold on too tightly to the idea of seven archangels as the only number of such who stand in God's presence, especially where other sources recognize far more than that number. Check the list above whenever you can and see the point for yourself.

chukwudi44:
This is what happens when people have incomplete bibles.

Huh?!

The seven spirits of God actually refers to the seven arch angels that stand in the presence of God.

Huh? huh??

Also in the book of Revelation 8:3 John said I saw the seven angels who stand in the presence of God"

That was supposed to be verse 2 in our 'incomplete' Bibles - 'I saw the seven angels which stood before God'; but that is not to be confused for the seven spirits of God spoken in those verses already cited. These are a few reasons why so:

(a) none of the angels in Revelation 4:5 and 5:6 is said to be the 'seven lamps of fire burning before the throne' or ''seven eyes and seven horns''; angels in Biblical hermeneutics and eschatology are not described this way.

(b) there are more than seven angels who stand in God's presence - the prophets of the OT declared this in no uncertain terms: 'And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left'  (1 Kings 22:19); and 'The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place.' (Psa. 68:17).

(c) the mention of seven angels in Revelation is not connnected with 'eyes' or 'horns' or 'lamps'; but rather, they are connected with other things, especially having to do with the sounding of seven trumpets (Rev. 8:6).

chukwudi44:
@viaro

I would not want to further discuss the apostolicity of Paul as it had no importance either in this thread or the formation of the RCC.

Okay sir.

viaro viaro viaro !!! how many times did I call you,

Em. . I'm still counting . . it may take another 24 hrs before my stupor clears from the carbonated drinks!

is zoroastrianism older than judaism ?,I never claimed that the RCC is the oldest religion in the world ,All I was trying to say is that it is the longest surving christian organisation in the world.

I don't know if the RCC is the longest surviving 'Christian organization' in the world. But I shall let it be.

nuclearboy:
@Chairman Viaro:

Don't know what happened o. I wonder if the "carbonated drinks" I've been taking all day have not intoxicated me

I still have my hiccups. . what do you expect?!

@OLAADEGBU,

You should understand something as simple as abc - viaro is not on Nairaland to attack or oppose you in any form. Indeed we may not agree on so many things even though we are Christians; but that does not mean that our unity should be based on deliberate falsehood that is sustained by deriding other people who do not believe as we do. The type of Christianity that delights in castigating people when we do not even understand them is both wicked and illiterate - and that is why there are more problems today from fundamentalist Christianity than anything else in the world from religious outlook on life.

But let me humour you a bit more:

OLAADEGBU:
Does this statement remind me of one subtle serpent in the Garden who said to the woman:

"You shall not surely die." -- Genesis 3:4

And this explains our suffering in the world today. Satan has been in this business of denying God's Word for the past 6,000 years. His tactics has barely changed it may have a little variation but it remains basically the same, he only needs to find willing agents to speak through. His tactics is to make us to doubt God's Word with our minds, to desire or lust with our flesh and to disobey God's Word with our wills. Here we see Satan showing up again in unsuspecting and willing minds just as he succeeded with Eve.

Satan did not show up here until you came by doing his job of calling others fools for no reason at all. I wanted to ask: what has this thread got to do with an argument of whether or not the universe is 6,000 years old? Does that tell me that you're nursing some bruises from our discussion in other threads? Bro, lighten up - we're still in the Christmas season!   If you want to hold a dialogue/discussion on a Biblical cosmology for an older-than-6,000-year-old cosmos, we shall get there someday in the near future; but I don't think it is sensible for you to draw upon that into this thread that was not begging for such arguments.

Satan surely knows enough scriptures to confuse and deceive his unsuspecting preys. How I wish Eve had not argued with the subtle serpent. This is what Charles spurgeon said about this incident:

"He [Satan] will most thoroughly and carefully examine us, and if he shall find us to be, like Achilles, vulnerable nowhere else but in our heel, then he will shoot his arrows at our heel."

Don't underestimate Satan's knowledge of scriptures he even had the cheek to tempt the Lord Jesus using scriptures[i]:

"And he said to him, If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning you: and in their hands they shall bear you up, lest at any time you dash your foot against a stone."[/i] -- Matthew 4:6 (The Evidence Bible)

As far as I'm not pesenting Satan's arguments on this thread, we can let that be.

Definitely, we don't belong to the same group. I know you are popular among atheists and agnostics whose ideology you share, but listen to what Jesus has to say to people like you.

No, we don't belong to the same 'group' as far as denominations are concerned. If viaro says he's a Christian and you cannot endure that until you point a fundamentalist accusing finger at me, what is my worry? Indeed, atheists and agnostics find it easier to discuss with me - but they are no fools to imagine for one moment that I'm an atheist. No, they understand I'm not an atheist or agnostic- and the reason why my fellow Christian brethren sometimes can't endure me is because of my inability to endure their going about slandering people indiscriminately.

"Woe to you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets." -- Luke 6:26 (The Evidence Bible)

Luckily, not all men speak well of viaro - that is a fact, so I'm not bothered by your sweat. You should be more concerned that many more people ave spoken well of you OLAADEGBU than they have of me - and that is where the real danger is, because you stand the more chance of falling a victim to your own condemnation.

Why would the world not speak well of you since I have not heard you preach the glorious gospel.  All I read from you is your advocacy for atheism and their so called evolutionary thinking as well as your denials of the Word of God.

I have not advocated atheism anywhere. Please show me where I might have done so, and then we can talk like gentlemen about such a scenario. I just do not find it appealing for Christians to deliberately spread falsehood and slander about other people who are minding their own business. I have not been making noise about the Gospel; nor have I attacked that Gospel: I can only be thankful that there are more than enough Christians on this forum who have been preaching the same Gospel.

No doubt you will have the smile of the world because your listeners have what is called itching ears and they are more than pleased to have them scratched with your liberal and worldly wisdom.

Thank you for that compliment - I hope you feel better after reading it.

Jesus gave a warning to those who fall into this subtle trap: "Woe to you, when all men shall speak well of you!"

You should be more concerned about the fact that more people have spoken well of you than they have of me. . . a case of removing your own log before trying to help me with my own speck?

The cross is the only God-given means of salvation from death, and we will bear reproach as long as we cling to its frame.  It is only for a season, the cross will be exchanged for a crown.  The praise of men is a volatile minefield of pleasant flowers that many here on nairaland have fallen into.  In one moment it can swing from a fragrant "Hosanna!" to an explosive "Crucify Him!"  So, no thank you, I don't seek the approval of man.  God's approval is eternal and that is enough for me, for one with God is in the majority.

I do not despise the Cross. And it is well to seek God's approval - although that approval does not come by slandering people. Where has God promised to approve of Christians slandering anybody? Please tell me.

nuclearboy:
OP has been disappointed by her "tutors" and has decided to refuse to believe, at least in what was "forced" down her. However, something inside her still believes there's some sort of "God" which she finds difficult to define or understand.

You mean 'his, him, he'? Lol

Lets allow her search rather than complicate it further

My thoughts exactly.

TuCow:
Ok. Here's where I get confused.

There's no need to get confused; it might be because you didn't see that the verse you quoted was speaking symbolically and does not necessarily give us reason to conclude that God has seven Spirits in literal terms.

Let's look at the verse again:

" And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven spirits of God" Rev 4:5

So there, Rev. 4:5 explains that the seven spirits of God are the seven lamps of fire burning before the throne. In just the same way, Rev. 5:6 says that the "seven horns and seven eyes" are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. These are symbolic language describing elements of the Kingdom of God in redemption and divine governance.

Let's try and think about some of them:

Revelation 5:6 mentions 'seven eyes and seven horns'. We understand that the number seven is often spoken of as indicating perfection; and here eyes would be indicative of knowledge (as in searching and seeing things for what they truly are - Hab. 1:13).

Of horn, we often think in terms of power and dominion. Habbakuk 3:4 presents this beautifully in the same symbolic manner (rather than in a literal sense) when the prophet declares: '. . He [God] had horns coming out of His hand: and there was the hiding of His power.' It is not always that horn is indicative of power and dominion in Scripture; but one has to look closely at the connection to see the two important things here: (a0 that these verses are not speaking in litearl terms of identities (otherwise we might be saying that horns are coming out of his hand); and (b) that in the context would help identify what is being spoken about.

In so far as the verses indicate in Revelation, it was not to make us think of seven different spirist in literal amounts; rather, the context is descriptive - all the more so, since what is mentioned is explained ('seven lamps of fire' or 'seven horns' or 'seven eyes', etc).

ROSSIKE:
You need to read the thread a bit more closely than you seem to have done. You're basically requesting that I start afresh with my postulation, something I'm not at all inclined to do.

I think m_nwankwo has the idea of my concerns and has asked just about the same questions I had earlier.

OLAADEGBU:
He says that there is no such thing as an "atheist."

He didn't say so. The Bible also says that people who go about slandering others are fools - Proverbs 10:18. Play less on this silly game of branding people with terms that may more aptly be describing your own group. Behaviour like yours is what destroys communication - and that is one reason why you will never make any sense to anybody, most especially to atheists.

Deep Sight:
OOOOOOO ! You are frustrating me o. . . i was already quoting and responding. . .oya, i will wait. . .

_{Hehe. . i forgot that my babe's mum is a deist - can't afford to take risk typing 'nonsense' while she's caressing her teacup in close proximity}

Okay, here it is - and I'm off!

---

Deep Sight:
Lol. . . Viaro. . .how i go do na?

Meeeeeeery Christmas to you!

Amico mio, Seasons Greetings aplenty to you! I trust you had a swell time!

But seriously seriously: God is said to be ONE and INFINITE.

Do you deny this?

I do not deny that; but perhaps you're not catching the drift here about what some have been trying to point out. For me, I have no problems with the grey areas that many of us don't get in own individual worldviews. What worries viaro is the manner in which some of us present our views.

But let me take the opportunity to point out something about your recurring reference to 'oneness' (if the thread owner does not mind very much).

You see, 'oneness' in the major monotheistic religions cannot be used to lend support to your deistic position. Theism has many shades - and there are several other monotheistic religions (such as Zoroastrianism and Bahá'í), as well Henotheism as a form of monotheism - I know you are well aware of all these.

The problem, however, is that your deism is miles away from any monotheistic religion I know of. The essential difference is that the monotheistic religion are committed to a Deity/deities that are not reduced to some hazy 'concept'. The identities they give to these deities are concrete - and perhaps that is where you have not been able to wire the connections for the concepts you have been trying to share about 'God' in deism.

Let me look again at this:

But seriously seriously: God is said to be ONE and INFINITE.

No worries. Concerns, however, are that an appeal to 'one' and 'infinite' just won't do the job.

There are indeed some 'mono' and 'poly' concepts in deism. For the former, we have 'monodeism'(or just simply deism, as many contend that there is no such word as monodeism); for the latter we have polydeism.

But in all this, someone else might argue about 'one' or 'oneness' and still arrive at a completely unrelated word and idea - so completely foreign that we might laugh out loud when they spell that word as 'monoideism'. Basically, we know that monoideism would be understood simply as a 'state of having one ideal or ideology', yet, this state of prolonged absorption in 'a single idea' is often a psychological or mental condition - a state of prolonged absorption in a single idea as in mental depression (some consider it to be a slight degree of monomania).

Yada-yada. But I hope you get the drift? The idea of a repetitious 'oneness', 'singularity' or 'infinity' that has no concrete identity and only leaves your readers confused all the more is something that really should be taken care of. An appeal to 'one' is not enough - as long as one does not want to confuse that 'one' for a state of monoideism.