JMAN05: op.

Many atheists are not sincere. they just like to remain atheists, not that no evidence of a creator exists, no. but they just want to be blind over the evidence of their brain so as to remain atheists.

Point at a robot and they will shout "of course somebody made it", but point at them, they ll say "they caim by chance". Prove how life came from nonliving thing, no prove. but they believe it happened, but wont believe God exists without prove.

just tell me how serious they are?

This is what we call fallacious thinking...


Are robots and human beings the same material? One is organic, the other isnt. Common sense will tell you that they didnt and wouldnt arise from the same type of source or with a similar mechanism.


My body is proof of evolution not God. If God created me, then he is foolish....for I was born foolish as a baby, not knowing anything until i was taught by my parents and other teachers, just like every other human being. You god is the father of all foolishness if he created everything. He created foolishness.

Logicboy03:


This is what we call fallacious thinking...


Are robots and human beings the same material? One is organic, the other isnt. Common sense will tell you that they didnt and wouldnt arise from the same type of source or with a similar mechanism.


My body is proof of evolution not God. If God created me, then he is foolish....for I was born foolish as a baby, not knowing anything until i was taught by my parents and other teachers, just like every other human being. You god is the father of all foolishness if he created everything. He created foolishness.

Logicboy is blaming God for his foolishness.


ROTFL

Smh shaa.
Chai...

Joshthefirst:
Logicboy is blaming God for his foolishness.


ROTFL

Smh shaa.
Chai...

Change your signature to

"My God is trolling"

Atheism is irrational if you agree with the following
- That it's rational to lock up an individual if a crime is committed in his neighborhood with providing any evidence of his involvement.
- That it's rational to claim you have kids(when you have none), and demand that others prove you have no kid.

Is it rational to make conclusions based on evidence or lack of it? If everyone is to be honest, we do not know how we got here. We all have more questions than answers. No one has claim to have ever CREATED the Universe. Until this BEING shows up and claims so, it's irrational to claim such a being EXISTS or even cares about if humans BELIEVE in it/his/her existence.

Logicboy03:


Change your signature to

"My God is trolling"

sorry, I'm still too busy laughing at that post. You shoulda read before submitting.

Joshthefirst: sorry, I'm still too busy laughing at that post. You shoulda read before submitting.

Apparently you never read it at all.


"fools laugh at their own folly"

aManFromMars: Atheism is irrational if you agree with the following
- That it's rational to lock up an individual if a crime is committed in his neighborhood with providing any evidence of his involvement.
- That it's rational to claim you have kids(when you have none), and demand that others prove you have no kid.

Is it rational to make conclusions based on evidence or lack of it? If everyone is to be honest, we do not know how we got here. We all have more questions than answers. No one has claim to have ever CREATED the Universe. Until this BEING shows up and claims so, it's irrational to claim such a being EXISTS or even cares about if humans BELIEVE in it/his/her existence.

stop forcing your bad thinking down everyone's throat nwokem.

italo:

If you're not making a categorical claim that God doesnt exist but you are open to be convinced by "evidence," it means you think there might be a possibility that God exists.

I would have no problem with you.

My issue is with those Atheists that are categorically saying God doesnt exist, like Mazaje.

Can you help me ask for their empirical evidence?

Thank you.

Abeg, please!

What have we all been saying since the beginning of this thread? Show us the evidence and we'll believe. How can we claim to be logical if we refuse to be convinced by empirical evidence? You think we don't know how to accept difficult ideas? Have you ever read about quantum theory or general relativity before? Both are a million times more crazy than anything in the bible, yet we believe them because the evidence is there and so far, it is irrefutable. Evolution hurts my ego and I don't like many of its implications. But the evidence is concrete so I accept it warts and all because that's what a rational person does.

You don't refuse to accept the truth just because you don't like it. Or because the stories they teach you in church make you feel better. You weigh the evidence objectively and accept the logical conclusion regardless of whether or not you like it. This is science we're talking about, it's not a gáddem popularity contest.

Don't think that I'll let you off easily just because you've changed your tone. Basically, you have 3 options:
1. Do the experiment and prove your god exists.
2. Admit that you're the one who's irrational for believing in an ancient imported fairytale without a shred of evidence to support it.
3. Stop posting rubbish and wasting everybody's gáddem time.

I'm waiting.

Evil Brain:

Abeg, please!

What have we all been saying since the beginning of this thread? Show us the evidence and we'll believe. How can we claim to be logical if we refuse to be convinced by empirical evidence? You think we don't know how to accept difficult ideas? Have you ever read about quantum theory or general relativity before? Both are a million times more crazy than anything in the bible, yet we believe them because the evidence is there and so far, it is irrefutable. Evolution hurts my ego and I don't like many of its implications. But the evidence is concrete so I accept it warts and all because that's what a rational person does.

You don't refuse to accept the truth just because you don't like it. Or because the stories they teach you in church make you feel better. You weigh the evidence objectively and accept the logical conclusion regardless of whether or not you like it. This is science we're talking about, it's not a gáddem popularity contest.

Don't think that I'll let you off easily just because you've changed your tone. Basically, you have 3 options:
1. Do the experiment and prove your god exists.
2. Admit that you're the one who's irrational for believing in an ancient imported fairytale without a shred of evidence to support it.
3. Stop posting rubbish and wasting everybody's gáddem time.

I'm waiting.

Who is "we?"

Some say God doesn't exist. Some same they wont believe until they see evidence. They are two different things.

One makes a categorical assertion. The other doesnt.

If you belong to the first group, show your evidence.

If you belong to the second group, it means you leave room for the possibility of God. I have no problem with you.

To which group do you belong?

*this thread is to discuss the evidence Atheism's beliefs, not Theism's*

italo:

Who is "we?"

Some say God doesn't exist. Some same they wont believe until they see evidence. They are two different things.

One makes a categorical assertion. The other doesnt.

If you belong to the first group, show your evidence.

If you belong to the second group, it means you leave room for the possibility of God. I have no problem with you.

To which group do you belong?

*this thread is to discuss the evidence Atheism's beliefs, not Theism's*

@ bold, so you know that your op is silly now that you know that atheism doesnt make an assertion

italo:

Who is "we?"

Some say God doesn't exist. Some same they wont believe until they see evidence. They are two different things.

One makes a categorical assertion. The other doesnt.

If you belong to the first group, show your evidence.

If you belong to the second group, it means you leave room for the possibility of God. I have no problem with you.

To which group do you belong?

*this thread is to discuss the evidence Atheism's beliefs, not Theism's*

Okay, fine. I leave room for the possibility of God.

Except that by my estimation, the possibility of God is only as likely as the possibility of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And it's less likely than the possibility of space aliens secretly living among us, and far less likely than Tupac being alive and hiding in Ajegunle. Are you happy now?

Have you finished doing the experiment yet? I'm still waiting.

Italo you try. I never understand what the Atheist are talking about 100% of the time. Sometimes I get the impression that some of them don't either

mazaje:

Which of the gods or goddess created the universe. . .

YHWH.

italo: @ wiegraf,

As usual, you dont know the topic of discussion.

As usual you pull a strawman, or do you have comprehension problems? I hope the later.

JMAN05:

YHWH.

Evidence that YHWH created the universe and not Vishnu or Allah is WHAT?. . . .When exactly and how did YHWH created the universe? plsssssssss tell me so that i can believe that you have an idea of what you are talking about. . . .

Logicboy03:


@ bold, so you know that your op is silly now that you know that atheism doesnt make an assertion

Yes it does make an assertion. Didnt you see the Wikipedia definition of Atheism I posted?

Have you never asserted that God doesnt exist?

Tell me which Atheist on nairaland doesnt assert that God doesnt exist and let me go and ransack his posts on nairaland.

You wan comot neck now because I am asking for evidence, abi?

italo:

Yes it does make an assertion. Didnt you see the Wikipedia definition of Atheism I posted?

Have you never asserted that God doesnt exist?

Tell me which Atheist on nairaland doesnt assert that God doesnt exist and let me go and ransack his posts on nairaland.

You wan comot neck now because I am asking for evidence, abi?

Do you believe that the god Zeus exist?. . .What about the goddess Shiva does she exist and created the universe and many Hindus claim?. . .

mazaje:

Do you believe that the god Zeus exist?. . .What about the goddess Shiva does she exist and created the universe and many Hindus claim?. . .

But it's irrational for him to believe they don't exist, or to believe that babalawos cannot create invisible bullet proof belts, etc etc.

Even regarding his skewed definition of atheism, he, as usual, makes no sense.

After so many years the discussion remains willfully misdirected. The question is the existence of A creator. By whatever misconceived name or rendered with whatever misconceived attributes. The philosophical necessity of a prime mover. That is the question.

As such, questions on this or that god are misfooted and meaningless. It beats me that Mazaje could fail to grasp this simple point for several years now.

The question is, what do the facts show?

When you look at the universe, it overwhelmingly shouts design, laws, intelligence. Design, Law, Intelligence points to a living being. Simple.

All the non-god explanation of the origin of universe, origin of life and speciation are nothing more than fantastic, imaginative nonsense - not consistent with known facts.

The evidence consistently point to the origin of the universe requiring an Originator - it had a beginning, it's a marvel of order and precise laws. A Beginner and Law-giver seems the logical conclusion.

The evidence consistently point to origin of life requiring an intelligent Originator - even the most basic life form is a marvel of complexity and design. True, living things have basic building blocks, but combining these blocks in the right order by uncoordinated forces of "nature" to create a protein or a nucleic acid, not to mention a living self-replicating organism has severally been shown to be a mathematical impossibility. The fact that it's taking painstaking human effort, deep research into existing proteins, great intelligence and millions of dollars in precise labs and equipment in the attempts to only create synthetic proteins from amino acids tilts toward one sure conclusion - the vastly and insanely more complex living things around us were created by an Intelligent Being.

Speciation or origin of different species/life forms continue to befuddle those who assert evolution as the reason we have different species. Nothing is more factual than real fossils and they consistently show living things unchanged over time. They just don't evolve. Fishes stay like fishes, monkeys remain monkeys, birds remain birds. It's known that over 90% of fossils show unchanged organisms over time. The remaining <10% is inconclusive - likely extinct species. If life forms evolved, we'd see many intermediate life forms as fossils. But the fossil evidence points to one conclusion - variety of species started relatively abruptly (Cambrian Explosion) such that creation is the more logical explanation.

The reason for atheism is understandable - largely to blame are frankly stupid religious teachings/practices and the presence of evil/suffering. But atheism still is the much weaker, less logical, completely-opposed-to-observable-fact position, when compare to believing in Intelligent Creator. Definitely requires more blind faith to be an atheist than to believe in an Intelligent Creator.

And of all religious views/books, none comes close to the historically accurate records, scientifically sound views, extremely wise counsel found in the Bible - giving good reasons to believe it's from the universe's Intelligent Creator.

Deep Sight:
After so many years the discussion remains willfully misdirected. The question is the existence of A creator. By whatever misconceived name or rendered with whatever misconceived attributes. The philosophical necessity of a prime mover. That is the question.

As such, questions on this or that god are misfooted and meaningless. It beats me that Mazaje could fail to grasp this simple point for several years now.

That is the question when you ask it. But when Italo or any of the religilous folks ask it, there referring to a celestial puppet master who breathes fire and brimstone to unbelievers.

TroGunn: The question is, what do the facts show?

When you look at the universe, it overwhelmingly shouts design, laws, intelligence. Design, Law, Intelligence points to a living being. Simple.

All the non-god explanation of the origin of universe, origin of life and speciation are nothing more than fantastic, imaginative nonsense - not consistent with known facts.

The evidence consistently point to the origin of the universe requiring an Originator - it had a beginning, it's a marvel of order and precise laws. A Beginner and Law-giver seems the logical conclusion.

The evidence consistently point to origin of life requiring an intelligent Originator - even the most basic life form is a marvel of complexity and design. True, living things have basic building blocks, but combining these blocks in the right order by uncoordinated forces of "nature" to create a protein or a nucleic acid, not to mention a living self-replicating organism has severally been shown to be a mathematical impossibility. The fact that it's taking painstaking human effort, deep research into existing proteins, great intelligence and millions of dollars in precise labs and equipment in the attempts to only create synthetic proteins from amino acids tilts toward one sure conclusion - the vastly and insanely more complex living things around us were created by an Intelligent Being.

Speciation or origin of different species/life forms continue to befuddle those who assert evolution as the reason we have different species. Nothing is more factual than real fossils and they consistently show living things unchanged over time. They just don't evolve. Fishes stay like fishes, monkeys remain monkeys, birds remain birds. It's known that over 90% of fossils show unchanged organisms over time. The remaining <10% is inconclusive - likely extinct species. If life forms evolved, we'd see many intermediate life forms as fossils. But the fossil evidence points to one conclusion - variety of species started relatively abruptly (Cambrian Explosion) such that creation is the more logical explanation.

The reason for atheism is understandable - largely to blame are frankly stupid religious teachings/practices and the presence of evil/suffering. But atheism still is the much weaker, less logical, completely-opposed-to-observable-fact position, when compare to believing in Intelligent Creator. Definitely requires more blind faith to be an atheist than to believe in an Intelligent Creator.

And of all religious views/books, none comes close to the historically accurate records, scientifically sound views, extremely wise counsel found in the Bible - giving good reasons to believe it's from the universe's Intelligent Creator.

This evidence only shows you would do anything to make yourself feel special.

TroGunn: The question is, what do the facts show?

When you look at the universe, it overwhelmingly shouts design, laws, intelligence. Design, Law, Intelligence points to a living being. Simple.

All the non-god explanation of the origin of universe, origin of life and speciation are nothing more than fantastic, imaginative nonsense - not consistent with known facts.

The evidence consistently point to the origin of the universe requiring an Originator - it had a beginning, it's a marvel of order and precise laws. A Beginner and Law-giver seems the logical conclusion.

The evidence consistently point to origin of life requiring an intelligent Originator - even the most basic life form is a marvel of complexity and design. True, living things have basic building blocks, but combining these blocks in the right order by uncoordinated forces of "nature" to create a protein or a nucleic acid, not to mention a living self-replicating organism has severally been shown to be a mathematical impossibility. The fact that it's taking painstaking human effort, deep research into existing proteins, great intelligence and millions of dollars in precise labs and equipment in the attempts to only create synthetic proteins from amino acids tilts toward one sure conclusion - the vastly and insanely more complex living things around us were created by an Intelligent Being.

Speciation or origin of different species/life forms continue to befuddle those who assert evolution as the reason we have different species. Nothing is more factual than real fossils and they consistently show living things unchanged over time. They just don't evolve. Fishes stay like fishes, monkeys remain monkeys, birds remain birds. It's known that over 90% of fossils show unchanged organisms over time. The remaining <10% is inconclusive - likely extinct species. If life forms evolved, we'd see many intermediate life forms as fossils. But the fossil evidence points to one conclusion - variety of species started relatively abruptly (Cambrian Explosion) such that creation is the more logical explanation.

The reason for atheism is understandable - largely to blame are frankly stupid religious teachings/practices and the presence of evil/suffering. But atheism still is the much weaker, less logical, completely-opposed-to-observable-fact position, when compare to believing in Intelligent Creator. Definitely requires more blind faith to be an atheist than to believe in an Intelligent Creator.

And of all religious views/books, none comes close to the historically accurate records, scientifically sound views, extremely wise counsel found in the Bible - giving good reasons to believe it's from the universe's Intelligent Creator.

Gbam.

Deep Sight:
After so many years the discussion remains willfully misdirected. The question is the existence of A creator. By whatever misconceived name or rendered with whatever misconceived attributes. The philosophical necessity of a prime mover. That is the question.

As such, questions on this or that god are misfooted and meaningless. It beats me that Mazaje could fail to grasp this simple point for several years now.

You claim a willful misdirection when he's clearly addressing an xtian? Who is willfully doing some misdirection here?

Deep Sight:

Gbam.

Bros, that post had this

trogunn:

And of all religious views/books, none comes close to the historically accurate records, scientifically sound views, extremely wise counsel found in the Bible

Then you complain about people addressing the xtian god??

wiegraf:

This evidence only shows you would do anything to make yourself feel special.

O sire, special, you surely are.

In your ruminations on this matter have you stopped to probe the depths of the human mind as one reference point for discussion? Does it seem to you that this artistic, scientific, emotional, passionate, believing, intellectual and self probing mind that is ours, is the product of the interaction of mindless matter? Does it really?

Sincere answer.

Ah. Ok. I know the standard response to that one. Not acceptable as its an "argument from incredulity."

You might want to reflect on the literal meaning of the word - "in-credible"....

wiegraf:

This evidence only shows you would do anything to make yourself feel special.

smh. At least you cannot refute what he has said. Till today, I asked the troll to give me evidence of evolution. He has not.

@Trugunn.
You, like the rest of the ill-informed religious folks amuse us.
First, the scientific method has consistently proven itself over the last few hundred years to be the pe-eminent arbiter of reality in the universe.
Human progress over the past few hundred years is the screaming testimony to that fact.

Complexity arises from simplicity, not design.
Is the snowflake designed or a product of chance events?

wiegraf:

Bros, that post had this



Then you complain about people addressing the xtian god??

It is true that the Bible is not inerrant, but in this matter of theism, it contains deep spiritual truths which will be incomprehensible to the atheistic mind.

The Light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehendeth not the Light. That is one saying that no atheist can even begin to contemplate. It will take them another lifetime, granted by same Light, to begin to even see the vaguest hint of what this means. Shalom.

plaetton: @Trugunn.
You, like the rest of the ill-informed religious folks amuse us.
First, the scientific method has consistently proven itself over the last few hundred years to be the pe-eminent arbiter of reality in the universe.
Human progress over the past few hundred years is the screaming testimony to that fact.

Complexity arises from simplicity, not design.
Is the snowflake designed or a product of chance events?

The Light is Primordial Simplicity.

If you are amused by Trogunns post, I can only smile. I wish you strength and luck in your search.

Deep Sight:

O sire, special, you surely are.

In your ruminations on this matter have you stopped to probe the depths of the human mind as one reference point for discussion? Does it seem to you that this artistic, scientific, emotional, passionate, believing, intellectual and self probing mind that is ours, is the product of the interaction of mindless matter? Does it really?

Sincere answer.

Ah. Ok. I know the standard response to that one. Not acceptable as its an "argument from incredulity."

You might want to reflect on the literal meaning of the word - "in-credible"....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in-

dictionary:

in-
3
a prefix of Latin origin, corresponding to English un-, having a negative or privative force, freely used as an English formative, especially of adjectives and their derivatives and of nouns (inattention; indefensible; inexpensive; inorganic; invariable). It assumes the same phonetic phases as in-2. (impartial; immeasurable; illiterate; irregular, etc.). In French, it became en- and thus occurs unfelt in such words as enemy (French ennemi, Latin inimicus, lit., not friendly).

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=credible+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=mTZTUsqpHY-Z0AXMkIG4CQ

google:

cred·i·ble
/ˈkredəbəl/
Adjective

Able to be believed; convincing.
Capable of persuading people that something will happen or be successful: "a credible threat".

Synonyms
believable - trustworthy - plausible - reliable - trusty

So when you join the prefix -in and credible you get

google:

in·cred·i·ble
/inˈkredəbəl/
Adjective

Impossible to believe: "an incredible tale of triumph".
Difficult to believe; extraordinary: "the noise was incredible".

Synonyms
unbelievable - improbable - fabulous - inconceivable

So no, I don't see your point. Perhaps you can highlight it?

A thousand years ago most thought humans conquering the skies in metallic contraptions will never be possible as they found the idea incredible. They likely thought whatever god they subscribed to could pull it off though, same thing here.

Deep Sight:

It is true that the Bible is not inerrant, but in this matter of theism, it contains deep spiritual truths which will be incomprehensible to the atheistic mind.

The Light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehendeth not the Light. That is one saying that no atheist can even begin to contemplate. It will take them another lifetime, granted by same Light, to begin to even see the vaguest hint of what this means. Shalom.

I can see it has little to do with this conversation. That asides, again, that post was directed at italo, a well known xtian, so I fail to see your point.