I notice Deep Sight talks about anything rather than the OP!

Deep Sight:

, The reason proffered in the OP (allegedly) by Professor Soyinka is at best puerile and entirely devoid of any philosophical depth whatsoever. , It's tiresome having to connect the dots for you.

You still don't get it.
No one has to justify their worldviews to you.

And I'm betting you've never read a word Nigeria's only Nobel laureate has written.

globexl:


, Actually, the idea of the first cause is the basis of most of the worlds religions. It is something that we have been trying to distance ourselves from and is not something that we should be embracing all over gain. Once you accept a first cause, then naturally you assign a personality to it, a name, human emotions, then a tale follows and its DEJA VU all over again.SinceThe first cause or prime mover is arrived at by virtue of intuitive and philosophical comtemplation, it cannot form the basis of any universal theory on the origin of the universe. We've been there and we've done that ,and still ,have not asnwered the even biger question of "what could have caused the first cause?"
Yes, its good to let our imaginations roam free and concieve of all manners of possibilities. I prefer to arrive at the answers by means of scientific deductions, not because it is the only path, but because it is the most trusted and safer means.
My athiestic worldview is therefore justified.

Beautifully written and worth reading.
Thanks for sharing and all the best to your 5 year old!

PA1982:

I notice Deep Sight talks about anything rather than the OP!

And I notice you are unable to follow or understand a discussion.

Obviously, the allusion to "what caused the how" flew right over your head, dear.

You still don't get it.

And you do? Don't make me laugh dear.

No one has to justify their worldviews to you.

Didn't ask anybody to do so.

And I'm betting you've never read a word Nigeria's only Nobel laureate has written.

Vacuous assumption. I happen to have read ALL his works, being both personally acquainted with him as well as a massive admirer of his mind.

As a writer myself, I am however aware that written art is not necessarily representative of personal conviction: in most cases art simply seeks to imitate life.

[

Beautifully written and worth reading.
Thanks for sharing and all the best to your 5 year old!

It is extremely strange that you saw beauty and worth in a write-up that was addressing comments from me which you claimed were off-topic?

Were you too lazy to make such a proper response yourself and as such sought refuge in preposterous claims about supposedly "off-topic" comments?

It obvious to me that you are not ready to render anything worth responding to. I'll just stick to the proper comments from globex, who appears better able to follow and understand comments within a discourse.

@ Globexl –

It is certainly refreshing to see that you are, unlike certain others able to follow the discussion and see exactly the relevance of comments to the OP, as well as respond appropriately.

globexl:

My young daughter of 5yrs has started asking who created god. So far, she has gotten no satisfactory answers. I'm afraid that in her young mind, she might begin to doubt the existence of god. If she decides not to believe in god as a result, would you call that a bad or weak reason for embracing an atheistic viewpoint?

Indeed, I asked just the very same question at about the very same age. I recall posing that question to my late grandmother and she had responded most sternly, warning me not to countenance such questions: she said pointedly that people who ask such questions end up insane.

In an odd way perhaps she was right – for I proceeded thenceforth to spend my life so far engaging that very query: and indeed it has led to a form of madness: the madness of obsession with philosophy and the quest for eternal truth.

That is, I concede to her dear departed soul, a madness of its own.

Nevertheless it is a worthwhile madness, and looking back, I would not rather have devoted my life and contemplative time to anything other than the very same madness-inducing question.

Does she need to write a philosophical or scientific thesis to justify her doubts?

Yes indeed she does. That is the path of every earnest truth-seeker.

Athiesm is not a philosophical proposition, therefore it does not need an elaborate defence or justification.

Oh no: it is a very definite philosophical proposition because it is a definite and categorical assertion that God or gods do NOT exist It would be more apt to state that agnosticism is not a philosophical proposition.

It is just simple Doubts or rejection of religious doctrine as it pertains to the origin of the universe.

This is agnosticism and not atheism.

Atheism is NOT a rejection of “religious doctrines” bro. It is defined as a rejection of the existence of God or gods. That’s quite different.

Athiesm, speaking for myself , is not dogmatic . I simply prefer to begin with doubts and seek to arrive at certainties than to begin with certainties, arrive at doubts and then fight to defend my certainties.

This is well said, and I encourage you to continue on that path. Indeed it was my approach in my search for truth.

As per the assignment you gave to me, here it goes:

I do agree that logic and intellect might not be the sole arbiter of our reality. As an athiest, I contemplate and intuit the possibility of a first cause or prime mover.

Friend, the bolded words disclose that you are not a pure atheist.

That is the problem with subjective phenomena: It is too fluid. It can take the shape of any vessel that it is poured into.

Intuition as a subjective phenomenon is actually deeply valuable. Nevertheless I will not discuss that right here. Let me rather simply state that the existence of a first cause is by no means a subjective perception. It is rather a most common-sensical perception which the generality of humanity understand and absorb.

It is also in line with science and logic: to wit – the basic law of cause and effect and the laws of motion as articulated in the realm of physics.

Actually, the idea of the first cause is the basis of most of the worlds religions. It is something that we have been trying to distance ourselves from and is not something that we should be embracing all over gain. Once you accept a first cause, then naturally you assign a personality to it, a name, human emotions, then a tale follows and its DEJA VU all over again.

Hardly true. Acceptance of the existence of a first cause needn’t lead to acceptance or creation of religious dogma.

Ever heard or Deism?

I am a Deist.

Since The first cause or prime mover is arrived at by virtue of intuitive and philosophical comtemplation, it cannot form the basis of any universal theory on the origin of the universe.

The law of cause and effect, and the laws of motion, along with a torrent of other basic principles of logic, certainly form a sound basis for a universal acceptance of the existence of a first cause of certain attributes.

We've been there and we've done that ,and still ,have not asnwered the even biger question of "what could have caused the first cause?"

Are you acquainted with the philosophical distinction between necessary things and contingent things?

The first cause in philosophical terms is understood to be a necessary and not contingent element: and therefore self-existent – and accordingly uncaused.

This is why it is referred to as the uncaused cause or unmoved mover.

Godmouth:

@Mazaje:

I can tell you for a fact that there is a God. You may ask me: how do I know? I have had several encounters of Him, I have encountered several angels. God speaks to me just as a  man speaks to his friend. These things I am telling you are what you read in the bible: however they are happening to myself and many other people across the whole world today. Let me tell you something: you are saying God does not exist because you do not know him, and from the way you have replied in your post, you don't seem to care to want to know Him, so why would He force Himself on you.

When you are faced with a helpless situation: e.g your life or that of a loved one is threatened by a terminal illness that has no cure: then you will see that a hope inside of you begins to pray that God should be real and that he should be able to heal you or whoever is involved in the predicament.

To encounter God is possible: Open your heart to Him and He will meet with you.

Can you coherently explain the brazen claim bolded above?

Thank you.

@ Harakiri,

Please what exactly do you really want to know? I am willing to share them if you have specific questions. I do not have time for arguements!
My encounters with God are real and they are unique to me: just as one would read about Prothets and Apostles of God in the bible.

Hope you understand!
Thanks.

Godmouth:

@ Harakiri,

Please what exactly do you really want to know? I am willing to share them if you have specific questions. I do not have time for arguements!
My encounters with God are real and they are unique to me: just as one would read about Prothets and Apostles of God in the bible.

Hope you understand!
Thanks.

Oh puullleeeaassee,

I bolded the question and asked directly and yet you're here talking about "not having time for arguments". The question as straight forward as razor's edge and you still choose to jump ship. Let me ask one more time :

PLEASE, CAN YOU EXPLAIN IN VERY CLEAR TERMS (WITHOUT BEATING ABOUT THE BUSH) YOUR WILD CLAIM OF TALKING TO GOD,TALKING WITH ANGELS AND PERSONAL ENCOUNTERS WITH THESE ENTITIES SO WE CAN HAVE A CLEARER PICTURE?

[s]***As expected, you'll definitely rigmarole around the issue with no coherent response. How typical of religious bigots!***[/s]

^ Does claiming a personal experience with God amount to religious bigotry?

@ Harakiri You are ready for an arguement! I'll post up one of my encounters for you in a few minutes. Whether you choose to believe it or not it's your own 'cup of tea' I'm not even sure you are a Christian: so I can't really spend time arguing with you.

Deep Sight:

^ Does claiming a personal experience with God amount to religious bigotry?

It does if you make bogus claims you can't possibly prove. It does when you assume an imposed sense of superiority over others (who don't share your views) and you have no concrete evidence to back up what you believe in. It does when you turn up your nose on others who have lost faith in an indoctrination that was shoved down their throats since childhood and thus. . .you class them as being "fools" all because some book (which has hundreds of inconsistencies) says so. Is that so hard to grasp?

Godmouth:

@ Harakiri You are ready for an arguement! I'll post up one of my encounters for you in a few minutes. Whether you choose to believe it or not it's your own 'cup of tea' I'm not even sure you are a Christian: so I can't really spend time arguing with you.

See how you keep embarrassing yourselves. I asked a very SIMPLE BASIC question and in a heartbeat, all you can proffer are :

(1)You don't want to argue
(2)You want to paste prehistoric comments of mine

Can't you answer a simple question without beating about the bush? Who is arguing with you? Just answer the question and quit playing possum.

Thank you so so so much.

@ Harakiri

Here is your reply: I apologise if I mis-understood your motives for asking me. It's just that I'm only here to share my experiences with those who are truly curious to know if it's true or not.

I have quite a few to share. Most of my encounters have been angelic visits. They happen through dreams and visions. God sends His angels to His children (Christians) for specific purposes: to minister to them and give them specific messages either for themselves or for other people. Heberews 1 vs 14 tells us: "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation".

In my own case God has sent His angels to me (different angels ) to tell me about my calling as a minister of God and also to give me specific messages for the church I attend in particular and also for people I  know (family members and friends).


One of the encounters I've had: this one was a scary one because of the magnitude of the power of the encounter. I knew this was Jesus because of the power and glory of God surrounding Him. In this vision (night time while asleep) I found myself in a room ( not my room where I sleep in my house here in London) it was actually the house where I lived as a child in Nigeria. While I was sleeping in this vision. Suddenly a man appeared in the room: the whole room was filled with a cloud of smoke and there was the power and glory of God emanating from around His presence. I opened my eyes and as I turned to see what was going on in the room: my whole body became so weak that I could not even move or speak: this was because the power and glory of  God paralysed me. I really feel sorry for those who joke with God. This experience I had showed me how powerful God is. As I was lying there unable to move, suddenly my body began to lift up in the air, all by itself just right in front of the Him, I was lifted by the power of God up to about 5 feet in the air as I turned to looked at the being (Jesus) who was standing in front of me; I could not see His face because it was so bright and there was power and glory emanating from Him. Then my body began to go back down slowly until it reached my bed where I was lying: then I woke up. It was the most awesome experience I have had in my life.

This particular type of encounter happened to Daniel in the bible, in the book of Daniel chapter 10! I'll advise you to read the whole chapter to get additional understanding!

God bless!

harakiri:

It does if you make bogus claims you can't possibly prove. It does when you assume an imposed sense of superiority over others (who don't share your views) and you have no concrete evidence to back up what you believe in. It does when you turn up your nose on others who have lost faith in an indoctrination that was shoved down their throats since childhood and thus. . .you class them as being "fools" all because some book (which has hundreds of inconsistencies) says so. Is that so hard to grasp?

O, I didn'r realise he had called people fools. Of course that is not acceptable.

Godmouth:


One of the encounters I've had: this one was a scary one because of the magnitude of the power of the encounter. I knew this was Jesus because of the power and glory of God surrounding Him. In this vision (night time while asleep) I found myself in a room ( not my room where I sleep in my house here in London) it was actually the house where I lived as a child in Nigeria. While I was sleeping in this vision. Suddenly a man appeared in the room: the whole room was filled with a cloud of smoke and there was the power and glory of God emanating from around His presence. I opened my eyes and as I turned to see what was going on in the room: my whole body became so weak that I could not even move or speak: this was because the power and glory of God paralysed me. I really feel sorry for those who joke with God. This experience I had showed me how powerful God is. As I was lying there unable to move, suddenly my body began to lift up in the air, all by itself just right in front of the Him, I was lifted by the power of God up to about 5 feet in the air as I turned to looked at the being (Jesus) who was standing in front of me; I could not see His face because it was so bright and there was power and glory emanating from Him. Then my body began to go back down slowly until it reached my bed where I was lying: then I woke up. It was the most awesome experience I have had in my life.

God bless!

This was probably an Out-of-body-experience (OBE) It's not unheard of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_body_experience

Godmouth:

@ Harakiri

Here is your reply: I apologise if I mis-understood your motives for asking me. It's just that I'm only here to share my experiences with those who are truly curious to know if it's true or not.

I have quite a few to share. Most of my encounters have been angelic visits. They happen through dreams and visions. God sends His angels to His children (Christians) for specific purposes: to minister to them and give them specific messages either for themselves or for other people. Heberews 1 vs 14 tells us: "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation".

In my own case God has sent His angels to me (different angels ) to tell me about my calling as a minister of God and also to give me specific messages for the church I attend in particular and also for people I  know (family members and friends).


One of the encounters I've had: this one was a scary one because of the magnitude of the power of the encounter. I knew this was Jesus because of the power and glory of God surrounding Him. In this vision (night time while asleep) I found myself in a room ( not my room where I sleep in my house here in London) it was actually the house where I lived as a child in Nigeria. While I was sleeping in this vision. Suddenly a man appeared in the room: the whole room was filled with a cloud of smoke and there was the power and glory of God emanating from around His presence. I opened my eyes and as I turned to see what was going on in the room: my whole body became so weak that I could not even move or speak: this was because the power and glory of  God paralysed me. I really feel sorry for those who joke with God. This experience I had showed me how powerful God is. As I was lying there unable to move, suddenly my body began to lift up in the air, all by itself just right in front of the Him, I was lifted by the power of God up to about 5 feet in the air as I turned to looked at the being (Jesus) who was standing in front of me; I could not see His face because it was so bright and there was power and glory emanating from Him. Then my body began to go back down slowly until it reached my bed where I was lying: then I woke up. It was the most awesome experience I have had in my life.

This particular type of encounter happened to Daniel in the bible, in the book of Daniel chapter 10! I'll advise you to read the whole chapter to get additional understanding!

God bless!

Nice of you to simmer down a bit. Your "experience" was a dream and nothing more (i have had a lot of dreams with more graphical details). Furtheremore, dreams are usually a result of the individual's current psychological state. Talking about the bible, i was raised as a christian, used to be a bible class leader and i can flood this thread with biblical quotations (and counter quotations).  I don't intend to argue or derail this thread but i see no correlation between your dream and speaking with god/angels and other mythical beings. Nice attempt from you though (but not good enough).

Cheers

@ Harakari

It doesn't matter your Christian background: that does not mean anything when it comes to encountering God. God speaks to me in different ways:

1. The Bible

2. People

3. Dreams and Visions

4. Revelation

5. Truance

6. Audible Voice and

7. Word of Knowledge.

There are few events of the past that God has said to me which have happened. I knew you were going to say you do not believe that was why I didn't want to bother with you in the first place. Like I said before: it's your own[b] 'cup of tea'[/b] if you were brought up in the 'way' by your parents and you have derailed from it: it's your own problem. You have God to answer to.

@ Deep sight,

It's an out of body experience, however it was not the type that you are talking about. I knew I was still alive as in I did not see my soul leave my body. I just found myself in a particular room and the experienced happened.

Moreover, I didn't insult anyone by calling them fool. I only quoted the scriptures where it says it's only a fool that says in his heart that there is no God!

Deep Sight:

O, I didn'r realise he had called people fools. Of course that is not acceptable.

I'm pretty sure you know i was talking about the GENERAL view point of religious people(especially Christians) in respect to non-religious people. I'm sure you aware of the biblical quote "DO NOT BE EQUALLY YOKED WITH UNBELIEVERS". I'm pretty sure you got the point i was passing across.

Godmouth:

@ Deep sight,

It's an out of body experience, however it was not the type that you are talking about. I knew I was still alive as in I did not see my soul leave my body. I just found myself in a particular room and the experienced happened.

Moreover, I didn't insult anyone by calling them fool. I only quoted the scriptures where it says it's only a fool that says in his heart that there is no God!

Look at you! You claim you didn't insult anyone but you are quoting a book you believe in that labels them as fools. What does that say? What have you called them? You know, being plain and open with your claims (however deluded) is honorable but when double talk comes into the mix, you need to start asking yourself questions.

Nuff said! ! !

@ Harakiri
Ok I get your point now!

Bro on a more serious note now. Please tell me about your beliefs. Are you a Christian still?

Let's leave all differeces aside and let's talk.

If God calls people who not believe in Him fools and I repeat what He has said: I'm sorry if you have a problem with that!

Godmouth:

@ Harakiri
Ok I get your point now!

Bro on a more serious note now. Please tell me about your beliefs. Are you a Christian still?

Let's leave all differeces aside and let's talk.

I have no beliefs. I am no longer a Christian and i have been non-religious for some years. Any other questions?

Hmmn,

There must be a reason why you have gone along that path. Do you mind sharing? Let's talk.

Deep Sight:

, dear.

, dear.

When were we intimate enough to warant such a liberty in public, dear?

Deep Sight:

, I happen to have read ALL his works, being both personally acquainted with him as well as a massive admirer of his mind.

That's interesting.
Tell us about the man.
After all, the OP is about him.
Your insights would be good reading.

You see what I mean? Godmouth actually admits to having dreams but refuses the accept that his dreams and revelations are inside his head.
@harakiri: C'mon why do u waste eenergy arguing with someone who talks to angels.? i know alot of people that talk to angels. Most are in psychiatric homes and a lot of them are alking naked in our streets. Pls ask him what was their skin colour and thier wings. Were they male of female ?Did they speak in english or his native language and what kind of footware were they wearing?.
And most importantly what ground-braking revelation did they have for mankind this time around?
Also ask him how much money he has collected for them and what wiring instructions they left for the remitance.

harakiri:

Look at you! You claim you didn't insult anyone but you are quoting a book you believe in that labels them as fools. What does that say? What have you called them? You know, being plain and open with your claims (however deluded) is honorable but when double talk comes into the mix, you need to start asking yourself questions.

Nuff said! ! !

Let me reinforce this point.

Atheists are FOOLS !!!

The bible and common sense says so.

No apologies here !

harakiri:

I have no beliefs. I am no longer a Christian and i have been non-religious for some years. Any other questions?

Okay now I understand, you were probably hurt by some turning event in your life. Thus you dropped from the faith in disillusionment and ire.

I can pray with you , God is LOVE and no matter your hurt there is healing for the wounded soul.

But to make a u turn and proclaim there is no GOD makes you a FOOL , as simple as ABC !!!!

I read today in the news that astromers have discovered a planet orbiting two suns: meaning that this planet would have  perpetual daylight. Very interesting indeed. a few weeks ago I aslo read that the earth may have had two moons befoe a catastrophic collision chattered one of her moons eons ago. I personally suspect that from her size and orbital position, the earth may have had at least 4 moons in her infancy. I eagerly look forward to learning and discovering the many mysteries of our world and our place in the universe. This is what makes life worth living.
The things that are subjective will remain subjective. Perhaps in the several millenia to come, scientific inquiry my lead us to spiritual truths.

I would rather throw my lot in this camp than with the subjective or intuitive revelations of people like Godmouth.

I have not come across any athiest that says there is no beginning or first cause(as u refer to). The idea of a first cause is not the same as the idea of a creator god. If so, then we can easily hypothesize that in the beginning god, existing in the form of pure electromagnetic energy, exploded or imploded, causing the big bang ,and his debris, thereafter condensed to form matter, atoms and light(residual energy) which makes up the physical universe. We can go further by saying that the atoms got together to form compounds which over eons of time and under the right conditions, formed protein molecules( the precursors of biological life).

I can hold on to such beleifs and still have no belief in the existence of god. would that be a contradiction?
Believing that there is no god is differenty from denying the existence of god. Dont you think so? Denying the existence of god means that one is absolutely sure that there is no god. I am not in that camp. Saying that I dont believe in god means that i am yet to see any RELIABLE proof or  evidence, observable or subjective, pointing to it.That puts me in a safer place.

"the pre-eminence of any system, scientific, philosophic or religious, can be measured by the quality of its output and effects on the society". The scientific method(observation, experimentation and analysis) have proved itself far superior in understanding and dealing with human realities than faith or attachments to the subjective first cause or uncaused cause or unmoved mover.

I read today in the news that astromers have discovered a planet orbiting two suns: meaning that this planet would have  perpetual daylight. Very interesting indeed. a few weeks ago I aslo read that the earth may have had two moons befoe a catastrophic collision chattered one of her moons eons ago. I personally suspect that from her size and orbital position, the earth may have had at least 4 moons in her infancy. I eagerly look forward to learning and discovering the many mysteries of our world and our place in the universe. This is what makes life worth living.
The things that are subjective will remain subjective. Perhaps in the several millenia to come, scientific inquiry my lead us to spiritual truths.

I would rather throw my lot in this camp than with the subjective or intuitive revelations of people like Godmouth.

I have not come across any athiest that says there is no beginning or first cause(as u refer to). The idea of a first cause is not the same as the idea of a creator god. If so, then we can easily hypothesize that in the beginning god, existing in the form of pure electromagnetic energy, exploded or imploded, causing the big bang ,and his debris, thereafter condensed to form matter, atoms and light(residual energy) which makes up the physical universe. We can go further by saying that the atoms got together to form compounds which over eons of time and under the right conditions, formed protein molecules( the precursors of biological life).

I can hold on to such beleifs and still have no belief in the existence of god. would that be a contradiction?
Believing that there is no god is differenty from denying the existence of god. Dont you think so? Denying the existence of god means that one is absolutely sure that there is no god. I am not in that camp. Saying that I dont believe in god means that i am yet to see any RELIABLE proof or  evidence, observable or subjective, pointing to it.That puts me in a safer place.

"the pre-eminence of any system, scientific, philosophic or religious, can be measured by the quality of its output and effects on the society". The scientific method(observation, experimentation and analysis) have proved itself far superior in understanding and dealing with human realities than faith or attachments to the subjective first cause or uncaused cause or unmoved mover.

The above was for Deepsight. I always for get to attach.

globexl:

I read today in the news that astromers have discovered a planet orbiting two suns: meaning that this planet would have perpetual daylight. Very interesting indeed. a few weeks ago I aslo read that the earth may have had two moons befoe a catastrophic collision chattered one of her moons eons ago. I personally suspect that from her size and orbital position, the earth may have had at least 4 moons in her infancy. I eagerly look forward to learning and discovering the many mysteries of our world and our place in the universe. This is what makes life worth living.

Good indeed.

The things that are subjective will remain subjective. Perhaps in the several millenia to come, scientific inquiry my lead us to spiritual truths.

Supported – indeed this is a position I have oft canvassed on this forum.

Nevertheless I should point out that this does nothing to discount the place of common sense and simple philosophical logic in already discerning these things. I will not at this stage speak of intuition, since, as you have said, it is manifestly subjective.

I have not come across any atheist that says there is no beginning or first cause(as u refer to).

Then you are not well acquainted with all the realms of atheism. There are indeed many hardened atheist intellectuals who maintain that there needn’t be any first cause. Arguments such as “default state” and infinite regresses are well known.

The idea of a first cause is not the same as the idea of a creator god. If so, then we can easily hypothesize that in the beginning god, existing in the form of pure electromagnetic energy, exploded or imploded, causing the big slam ,and his debris, thereafter condensed to form matter, atoms and light(residual energy) which makes up the physical universe. We can go further by saying that the atoms got together to form compounds which over eons of time and under the right conditions, formed protein molecules( the precursors of biological life).

Do you really imagine that this suffices to explain the enigma of consciousness and more cardinally – the enigma of sentience – as a sentient and intuitive being yourself?

Do you imagine that your sentience arises from the blind and directionless activity of dead rocks?

I can hold on to such beliefs and still have no belief in the existence of god. Would that be a contradiction?

Like I said before dear, that depends on what exactly you define “God” to be. If you define “God” as some sort of Santa Claus sitting in the clouds, I will be the very first to deny the existence of such a “God”.

However if you define “God” as the primordial first cause of all existence, imbued with the attributes of universal power (being the source of all things) and being described as “the universal mind” – or the mind behind all creation – the encapsulation of all infinite sentience, then I will state to you that there is a good argument that such an element must perforce exist. I have been notoriously bashed on this forum for describing it as “the oneness of all infinity” - - - but I still regard this as a most apt description for that mind or element which is the summation of eternity - - - and which I call God.

Believing that there is no god is differenty from denying the existence of god. Dont you think so?

I don’t think so.

Denying the existence of god means that one is absolutely sure that there is no god. I am not in that camp.

For the second time, dear friend, you confirm that you are actually agnostic and not atheist.

Saying that I dont believe in god means that i am yet to see any RELIABLE proof or evidence, observable or subjective, pointing to it. That puts me in a safer place.

Are you looking for a physical appearance of an element that is said to be non-physical?

To be sincere, the evidence for the existence of an intelligent creative agent is everywhere. The very palms of your hands alone speak this: to say nothing of the unspeakable wonders of a human brain, or such everyday marvels as eyesight, pregnancy, or the coordinated wonders of an anthill.

These are things reeking so vehemently of purpose that I find the atheistic view in this regard altogether unfathomable.

The scientific method(observation, experimentation and analysis) have proved itself far superior in understanding and dealing with human realities than faith or attachments to the subjective first cause or uncaused cause or unmoved mover.

I would contest this statement to the death. Science is indeed valuable in addressing physical issues in the physical world, but it by no means serves to “address human realities” in the manner that you have alluded. For in what way does science address a very simple human reality such as the emotion of love, pray tell me? The thing that addresses such emotions are intuitions and passions that spring within the heart and the spirit.

But I must say with all due respect that the Nobel laureate goofed recently when he was responding to a question bordering on why he remained an unrepretant atheist on a popular television talkshow Moments with Mo, designed to celebrate  his 77th birthday

What do you mean by unrepantatnt atheist, bleep, what crime has he done to repent, bleep this religious zealots who nothing of how they came to existence wh are brainwashed, foloow follow,

Wole soyinka is AFrica best brains, HE IS A SEMI GOD,

Knowledge puff up!! Soyinka will learn on the day he dies that he was foolish for trusting in his own wisdom. He enjoys the adoration and accolades of men in this life forgetting that the way that seems right to him now will lead him down to the pit of eternal torment and regret.

He and others who disavow God will learn too late that God always confound the "wise" by using the foolish things of this world.  God's free gift of salvation from a cross sounds like foolishness to proud men who are on the path to perdition unless they repent before they die. Even devils believe in God with fear and trembling!

@Kalokalo you are an , have you been to heaven , or hell before tell us, how it look like and how the fire is, does it change to blue flame or red flame depending on the person sin, bulshit, and when next yo visit save us some good pictures ok, as evidence

@Deapsight: Enlightening once again. i'll ned soem time to fully digest it before I prepare my counter agrument.

@Deepsight:
What we call love is hard to define in real terms because we tend to confuse it with a whole lot of other emotional states. So to talk about love, lets talk about parental love or love between parent and offspring. I can make the argument that parental love is an evolutionary physiological trait. Over time, boilogical organisms developed a mechanism to keep track of and protect their DNA. All animal species show a tendency to nurture and protect their ofsprings. As higher mammals, we call it love. It is just a chemically induced sort of magnetic attraction to anyone carrying our own or similar DNA. Studies have shown that parents and offsprings who are seperated at birth will still exhibit an unexplainable affinity or attraction towards one another if they meet accidentaly even after many yrs or decades after seperation. So, love is in the genes. Its an evolotionary trait.

Also , the fact we have a wide range of mood-altering drugs in the market, both legal and illegal, is proof enough that emotions are the results of simple chemical reactions in the brain.
the human brain itself is a very complex mystery that we are still trying to fully understand. But just because it is very complex does not make it supernatural. Afterall, it has had several billion years to evolve to its present level of complexity.
As for sentience, I believe that as the electrical activity inside a living cell reaches or crosses a certain electromagnetic threshhold, the organism draws to itself some sort of cosmic energy equivalent to its frequency(soul??) and self-awareness ensues.
As we continue to increase the computing power of micrprocessors, in time to come we might be able to create computers that become self-aware. I'm sure you have heard of fuzzy logic chips. These are micrporocessors that are designed to mimic human emotions. Today they are embedded in computers used for currency and equity trading where a lot of human emotions are involved.
The point I'm to to make is that in time, all the hitherto enigmas of conscoiusness and sentience may be explained in purely scientific terms.
I am not aware of the different realms of atheism, and I'm definitely not interested. It sounds like another dogmatic religion. Agostics have a core belief in a creator, and I dont.
I'm just a walking question mark who has the conviction that the intellect is the most reliable arbiter of human realities.
If we must define god as the primordial first cause of all existence, then WE MUST OF NECESSITY also define the nature of god and what was before the first cause. Its very easy for you say its the uncause of the first cause or unmoved mover. Fancy words indeed.Those are just fancy cop-outs. They still dont mean much or explain anything. Its like trying to explain infinite space and infinite time. Where would be the starting point?
Perhaps our brains are not fully evolved to the level where we can comprehend . maybe the electrical activity in the human brain has not yet attained the minimum threshold to comprehend the first cause, infinite space and infinite time and god.
Hence, all attempts to date has been one disaster after another for humankind.