Stats: 3,187,871 members, 7,933,267 topics. Date: Tuesday, 27 August 2024 at 11:02 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! (2120 Views)
Only A Fool Says There Is No God. / Only A Fool Says In His Heart That There Is No God / Atheism Is The Greatest Of All Evils (na Me Talk Am) (2) (3) (4)
The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by MyJoe: 12:19pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, There is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1, KJV In Nigerian legal circles, there is a cliché that goes, “it is an act of violence to read into a piece of legislation what it does not say.” I bear that in mind, not only when reading legislations, but when reading sacred texts, such as the Bible. Now let us examine the scripture text cited above. For I have noted with considerable dismay the tendency of many Bible exponents to use it to put a white tag on atheists with the word FOOL spent out on it in shimmering black and capitals. That position is misguided. For the text says nothing at all about atheists, and that is so obvious we don’t need make references to Strong’s Concordance or something of the sort to see it. “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” This is where Christians are wont to stop when quoting the verse. “It’s the Bible that says you are a fool, not me.” But even this portion, taken alone, refers first and foremost, not to the loquacious atheist who declares with his mouth that there is no God, but to anyone who says it in their heart. That is, those religious folk who mouth God from cockcrow to dusk but live mostly for earthbound lucre. (See Titus 1:16). Let’s illustrate this with a story from Africa’s stormy politics. The immediate past president of South Africa, the dour and cerebral Thabo Mbeki, is universally famous for questioning the causal link between HIV and Aids. Unfortunately, his HIV atheism rubbed off on the officialdom, bringing about lethargy in policy formulation towards an apocalypse that demanded nothing short of a WW II German Fallschirmjäger military-type response. Enter the ebullient Jacob Zuma. With smiles oozing from the four compass points of his mouth, he met with presidents, scientists, philanthropists such as Bill Gates, and HIV evangelists of various colouring. HIV causes Aids, he declared. His government was going to tackle it. Some heaved a sigh of relief. But not everyone. Anyone who knew Zuma well knew here was the greatest danger to the Aids fight South Africa has ever seen! Here is a man who told the world that he knowingly slept with a HIV-positive woman and promptly proceeded to take a shower to halt the viruses possibly swimming up his penile orifice in their tracks! Now consider the potential effect of those words on the mindset of young South African men; add to that the fact that Zuma has remained the connoisseur of nubile females with absolutely no time for condoms and have sufficient neonatal bundles of evidence to leave Tuface looking a virgin. Now you will begin to see who poses the gravest threat to the HIV/Aids fight between the atheistic Mbeki and Zuma, born again and spirit-filled in speech, but saying in his heart that there is no Aids. In the same vein, [b]religious folk whose works are wicked deny the existence of God far more than atheists. They are the fools. [/b]That fact is reinforced in the second part of the Bible verse: “They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by viaro: 1:53pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
Hello MyJoe, While I might acknowledge the gist of your post, I think the whole piece misses its fundamental bearing. Its weakness is highlighted especially in your analogy of AIDS - that is a serious joke and does nothing to bring out the point you were trying to put forth. However, let me narrow my comments to this part of your piece: MyJoe: Nope, that is not where 'Christians' are wont to stop when quoting that verse. Let me refer you to an example in my own experience where I expounded on the tendency for people to act foolishly without narrowing it to merely those with atheistic inclinations: please see this example in my discourse with Tudor in my early days on Nairaland ~ ["However, it is not only atheists that are directly addressed as fools in the Bible - others have been described with similar qualifiers"]. It may help to not be so broad in your generalisations. “It’s the Bible that says you are a fool, not me.” But even this portion, taken alone, refers first and foremost, not to the loquacious atheist who declares with his mouth that there is no God, but to anyone who says it in their heart. That is, those religious folk who mouth God from cockcrow to dusk but live mostly for earthbound lucre. (See Titus 1:16). Your idea that such a quote may refer not to the loquacious atheist is quite amusing, misleading and mischievous at best. An atheist, as far as I know, does not only use his/her mouth to deny the very existence of God, but that is what he/she believes in his/her heart. The only way to pretend otherwise is to make the atheist a hypocrite who says something with his mouth differently from what he believes in his/her heart. At the core of many peoples' atheism is the heart belief that there is no God. At the basics, it is the question of the existence of God and the supernatural that forms the core of theism - and for someone to assert that 'there is no God' is basically foolish, whether they do so by merely mouthing it off or actually believeing it with their hearts. I do not find how you could intelligently defend the idea that someone would go out of his way to deny the existence of God with their mouth without believing that denial with their hearts. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by viaro: 1:54pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
MyJoe: That again is the summary of a misguided assertion. Religious folks do not try to deny the existence of God, although they may 'deny God' by their lifestyles when they go contrary to the claims of their beliefs. To deny God and to deny the existence of God are two worlds apart. Let me explain: [list](a) you do not need to a worldview to deny God (both religious and irreligious folks could deny God); (b) but, you certainly must hold on to a worldview to make a statement of denying the existence of God and the supernatural - and that worldview that assertively denies God's existence is atheism.[/list] It is on that note that you accentuated a particularly misguided ideology on your assumption. Expounding on (a) above, let me again recommend the link I posted earlier, clearly showing that "["it is not only atheists that are directly addressed as fools in the Bible - others have been described with similar qualifiers"]. And indeed, these 'others' include religious folks to whom are committed the tenets of their faith. A few examples: Israel was admonished to take heed to God's Word spoken to them, "lest ye deny your God" (Josh. 24:27) - this does not mean that they were in danger of denying 'God's existence', but rather that they risked turning away from Him to worshipping other gods (compare Duet. 6:12-14 and 32:18). The atheist who says "there is no God" does not turn aside to other deities nor does he acknowledge the supernatural - and it is not about atheism that Joshua was warning Israel. Compare again the point in 2 Tim. 2:12 from the pen of the same apostle - 'If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us'. The 'denying' of God here is not about His existence or the supernatural, in as much as God denying anyone does not turn him to an atheist nor does it say that God does not believe in the existence of those who deny Him. It is rather the same message to be conveyed as that which you cited in Titus 1:16, whereby religious folks are living ungodly lives. The express denial of the existence of God is not the claim of the religious or the theist, however unfaithful he or she might be. Rather, such a denial of His existence is the core of atheism for many atheists, who assert that 'there is no God', and that nothing exists outside of their materialistic and physicalistic worldview. To assert that 'there is no God' is the core of the belief of many atheists which they hold dearly in their hearts, unless other atheists would want to play the hypocrite of asserting something with their mouths which they believe differently from their hearts. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by MyJoe: 2:16pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
Hello, viaro. Thanks for your reply. Will reply you once back to my desk. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by viaro: 2:25pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
^^ No worries at all. Hope your day is good? ![]() |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by DeepSight(m): 2:48pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
Viaaaaaro! Where you don dey na? I have missed your caustic tongue. . . |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by Traugott(m): 2:52pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
Viaro ![]() |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by DeepSight(m): 2:54pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
MyJoe - The biblical assertion "the fool says in his heart - there is no God" applies perfectly to the atheistic mindset. Let me hasten to add however, that there are millions of people who do not believe in the God per se; but remain highly moralistic and apply the principle of humanist love and brotherhood to all that they interact with. I will be inclined to saying that even if the conscious mind of such a person rejects the idea of God as expounded: the inner spirit of such a person has apprehended and absorbed the most essential principles of God. Can such a person be called "a fool" in biblical terms? I think not. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by Tonyet1(m): 3:09pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
Deep Sight: Mr.D.S Apologies! BUT YOU ARE WRONG! ![]() Because the most essential principles of God are GOD himself. To say i have apprehended and absorbed GOD would mean I HAVE BEING BIRTHED, INITIATED, and taught to/and experienced the true Life (called the ZOE) which HE HAS PASSED UNTO HIS SON TO GIVE TO THOSE WHO COME UNDER THE ABODES OF HIS LORDSHIP. Sorry, but bible said "It has pleased God that the fulness of the Godhead should dwell in Christ Jesus"(scriptures) and Jesus said "No one can get to apprehend this Zoe except through Christ. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by viaro: 5:28pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
Traugott: Hi Traugott, haha. . true, loads have happened since the last email I sent you. Things are looking up at the moment, but I still need to tread carefully. ![]() |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by MyJoe: 5:29pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
Hi viaro - My understanding of the gist of your reaction is that the intention of the psalmist could not have excluded atheists who mouth disbelief in the existence of God. I have no objection to this and I did not set out to make the point that those who vocalise their unbelief in God are not referred to in that verse. [b]The point I set out to make is that, first and foremos[/i]t, the scripture text refers to believers who disown God by their works. [/b]That is probably where we disagree. To be sure, I consider it foolish for a man with such a limited viewpoint as we have, to contemplate all the wonders around us and reach a definitive position that there is no God. Agnosticism, particularly where used as a strategy to ask further questions, I can understand, but atheism, damn presumptuous. viaro:I recognise that most analogies suffer severe inferential limitations and did not expect this to work for everyone. As I believe you can see, the whole idea was to underscore the fact that action can belie belief without the author noticing. When quoting Psalm 14:1 in dialogue, Christians are wont to stop at the first sentence, since they believe it conveys the point they are trying to get across - that the Bible calls you a fool if you say there is no God. I will get to the point you made to Tudor in that thread presently. What you wrote is not an accurate understanding of this: . That is, those religious folk who mouth God from cockcrow to dusk but live mostly for earthbound lucre. (See Titus 1:16). I think the inclusive qualifier, “first and foremost”, adequately conveys my position that both the atheist and the Christian are covered in that portion of the Bible. It shows my point of emphasis without being exclusive. That is again highlighted in the last paragraph with the expression ". . . far more than atheists." This is like the ancient saying that when you point a finger at someone, three are simultaneously pointed at you. This in no way vacates the fact that you are still pointing at the other person. And that applies to the whole write up. That the emphasis was placed on the three fingers was naturally because I was primarily addressing Christians, as atheists have had that scripture thrown in their faces long enough by Christians who apply it not to themselves, wrongly in my view.
Nowhere did I do this. I did not even imply it. If you show me my error, I will apologise. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by viaro: 5:29pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
@DeepSight, Deep Sight: Hehe, that should not be the main reason why you would miss me or anyone else. No worries, though - my tongue is tame at the moment ('someone' worked on me, hehehe). Anyhow, I would like to just ask you a question on this part of your comments: Deep Sight: What are 'the most essential principles of God'? |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by MyJoe: 5:40pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
viaro: The distinction you make is a good point and it is hard to dispute it. I cannot dismiss it out of hand, too. However, it is not one I will attach undue importance to since the concept of God is largely metaphysical. And this is where my HIV/Aids analogy falls short. While viruses are material and can be apprehended objectively, God is not. I believe in the existence of God, and do so do you. But our reasons for believing might be different. The process of apprehending evidence for the existence of God is subjective. Subjective acceptance of God is then expressed by…, well for most, belief in the afterlife is fundamental. Now, I don’t know how familiar you are with our national politics but permit me to draw my analogy from there. Once during a conversation my cousin remarked that he did not believe our immediate president, Olusegun Obasanjo, believes in the afterlife. I considered the matter and slowly added that I did not think Obasanjo, Ibrahim Babangida, Lamidi Adedibu, Ayo Fayose or Charles Taylor believed in any afterlife. Now belief in the afterlife is so central to belief in the existence God that even many of the champions of deistic thought like John Toland and Thomas Paine did not reject it. All the guys mentioned above are religious. If those who believe in the existence of God display such manifest wickedness that people take a look and say, he doesn’t believe in afterlife, can we still find a distinction between them the atheist with reference to denying the existence of God? Yes. But it is infinitesimally small. It is immaterial. That was a good point you made to Tudor in that thread, but I am here concerned with the use of Psalm 14:1 to label people. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by MyJoe: 5:50pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
Deep Sight:Indeed, yes. My point is that denying God's existence in your heart is an even bigger issue with a religious baddie. How, for instance, does a clergyman who steals in the name of God expect people to believe he believes in his heart in the existence of the God described in the Bible as smiting Ananais and Saphira to death for lying to an apostle? Think Leo and the other Medici popes. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by viaro: 5:53pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
Thanks, MyJoe. MyJoe: That's fine with me. [b]The point I set out to make is that, first and foremost, the scripture text refers to believers who disown God by their works. [/b]That is probably where we disagree. I disagree with you, for that verse is not primarily addressing the believer, but the godless unbeliever. That statement is made twice over in the book of Psalms - (a) Psalm 14:1; (b) and Psalm 53:1 - and standing alone unqualified, it shows that it was not addressing the believer, as it is clear that even the one who categorically denies the existence of God is no better in his "abominable iniquity". To be sure, I consider it foolish for a man with such a limited viewpoint as we have, to contemplate all the wonders around us and reach a definitive position that there is no God. Agnosticism, particularly where used as a strategy to ask further questions, I can understand, but atheism, damn presumptuous. No worries, I concur. I recognise that most analogies suffer severe inferential limitations and did not expect this to work for everyone. As I believe you can see, the whole idea was to underscore the fact that action can belie belief without the author noticing. That is not a problem - we all know that actions are precursors to underlying beliefs. When quoting Psalm 14:1 in dialogue, Christians are wont to stop at the first sentence, since they believe it conveys the point they are trying to get across - that the Bible calls you a fool if you say there is no God. I will get to the point you made to Tudor in that thread presently. I would not like to belabour the point I already made: that, we should not be so broad in our generalisations. When you say "Christians", you're making a far more broader generalisation that is quite unwarranted - I have seen many who quote either Psalm 14:1 or 53:1 without stopping there or using those single quotes as best fits for some clichés to address only the atheist. Perhaps a better and more accommodating way to put it would be to qualify the statement with 'some Christians', as it cannot be said that 'Christians' around the world just stop somewhere on that verse. What you wrote is not an accurate understanding of this:I think the inclusive qualifier, “first and foremost”, adequately conveys my position that both the atheist and the Christian are covered in that portion of the Bible. It shows my point of emphasis without being exclusive. Hang on, mate. . . I don't think you're helping that point, for the gist of your emphasis in your summary is to criminalise the Christian and acquit the atheist - for your assertions pointed to this very point: [list](a) "For the text says nothing at all about atheists" and (b) "religious folk whose works are wicked deny the existence of God far more than atheists. They are the fools"[/list] I think the points are self-referencing and we don't need to pretend anything here. That is again highlighted in the last paragraph with the expression ". . . far more than atheists." This is like the ancient saying that when you point a finger at someone, three are simultaneously pointed at you. This in no way vacates the fact that you are still pointing at the other person. And that applies to the whole write up. That the emphasis was placed on the three fingers was naturally because I was primarily addressing Christians, as atheists have had that scripture thrown in their faces long enough by Christians who apply it not to themselves, wrongly in my view. I do not understand how you would deny the atheist was included in that verse by the assertion you made that it says "nothing at all about atheists" and then turn round to say you had included the atheist that you absolved from that same verse? Nor did you even try to make a balance between these things when your summary points the finger at religious folks as the ones who are the fools? Nowhere did I do this. I did not even imply it. If you show me my error, I will apologise. I think the emphasis in italisizing "in their heart" in your OP was what I was pointing to ~~ MyJoe: |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by viaro: 6:05pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
MyJoe: I understand that theism is not a simplistic belief 'in God' - that is where (IMO) the typically uninformed atheist who argues alone on the "existence of God" misses the point. For that reason, I have tried to maintain a broader perspective by noting also that the question also involves the supernatural, which is where the analogy about AIDS becomes a bit worrisome. Now, I don’t know how familiar you are with our national politics but permit me to draw my analogy from there. That's my disadvantage in discussing on Nairaland, as I have very little or no firsthand experiences of the Nigerian scenario. But I shall try to follow you: Once during a conversation my cousin remarked that he did not believe our immediate president, Olusegun Obasanjo, believes in the afterlife. I considered the matter and slowly added that I did not think Obasanjo, Ibrahim Babangida, Lamidi Adedibu, Ayo Fayose or Charles Taylor believed in any afterlife. Now belief in the afterlife is so central to belief in the existence God that even many of the champions of deistic thought like John Toland and Thomas Paine did not reject it. All the guys mentioned above are religious. That's okay. . . and so: If those who believe in the existence of God display such manifest wickedness that people take a look and say, he doesn’t believe in afterlife, can we still find a distinction between them the atheist with reference to denying the existence of God? Yes. But it is infinitesimally small. It is immaterial. I may agree on compromise with you, so we could progress this thread. But please note that there is a fundamental difference between simply 'denying God' and patently denying the existence of God and the supernatural. I may deny acknowedging you in my affairs; but that is a different thing from denying your very existence. However, we have a common ground here - that both in lifestyle and heart-belief, both believer and atheist 'deny God' in not acknowledging Him in their lives. That was a good point you made to Tudor in that thread, but I am here concerned with the use of Psalm 14:1 to label people. That's okay. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by MyJoe: 6:39pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
viaro:Yes. The believer and the unbeliever may both do iniquity. Or they may not. If the Psalmist was thus addressing the doer of iniquity, why restrict him to the vociferous atheist? This I have often witnessed, hence this thread.
I agree with this. I acknowledge this omision. I get your point. Yes, my choice of words in that instance imply as you say. But the whole write up does not. But I see going further on the point will only amount to repeating all I have said about my audience and the way that scripture has been used, as well as the phrases “first and foremost” and “far more than”.
Like you already pointed out, words first take shape in the heart of he that speaks them. I took that for granted. Out of here till Monday. Have great weekend, you and everyone. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by jagunlabi(m): 10:20pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
The fool says in his mind that the god of the ancient jews is the real one. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by viaro: 10:46pm On Feb 19, 2010 |
MyJoe: I understand where you are coming from; but I've explained quite enough already on that subject to show the distinction between denying God on the one hand, and denying the existence of God on the other hand - either of them are worlds apart. I get your point. Yes, my choice of words in that instance imply as you say. But the whole write up does not. But I see going further on the point will only amount to repeating all I have said about my audience and the way that scripture has been used, as well as the phrases “first and foremost” and “far more than”. No worries. Do have yourself a fabulous weekend. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by DeepSight(m): 11:18am On Feb 20, 2010 |
Viaro - as usual you quibble over words and split hairs as though you were a tailor kniiting up a cloth from the hair of Samson. MyJoe's analogy about Aids was simple, clear, lucid and intelligible - for the commonsensical, that is. It simply asserts the following - 1. That Action does not always connote belief 2. That inaction does not always connote unbelief 3. Thus that affirmation within the heart is the true affirmation 4. And consquently that a person who through his actions and thoughts belies a truth he espouses; really does not hold such a truth. I urge you to consider that the terrible myths of hell and the wrath of God which are held by the so-called religious - are so replete with terror that any person who GENUINELY believes in such can scarcely belie it within his actions. In this it is expected that the notion of God is no less compelling: and it cannot be hard to see that no genuine apprehension of his existence would dovetail into the sort of hypocrisy and wickedness characterized by the majority: in this i may cite the example of the many who express belief in heaven - but do not wish to die so as to leave this world and then go there - it emerges forcefully and irrefutably that such people do not IN GENBUINE TERMS believe in "heaven." As such we may agree that those whose actions desperately belie the principles of God; cannot be said to GENUINELY believ in his existence in the deepest recesses of their hearts: There is nothing to argue with in the foregoing, but i expect that you will devote your energies once again to form and not to substance |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by viaro: 11:47am On Feb 20, 2010 |
Deep Sight: DeepSight, my comments were not read as quibbling over words, thank you. The points I had addressed and commended to MyJoe were well articulated - and he affirmed he had no problems about the simple issues I had presented, as well attesting to the point by linking to a previous post in dialogue between myself and Tudor. MyJoe's analogy about Aids was simple, clear, lucid and intelligible - for the commonsensical, that is. His analogy with AIDS was off the beat - that much he even agreed. It simply asserts the following - I did not argue about actions or inactions always connoting belief. He saw my point quite simply, made no disagreement thereto (because that analogy suffered an inferential limitation); and then also stated that his point was "to underscore the fact that action can belie belief without the author noticing". What you're doing here is muddying the waters by ignoring the common grounds of agreement between myself and MyJoe. 3. Thus that affirmation within the heart is the true affirmation Was that not my point in noting that: "we all know that actions are precursors to underlying beliefs"?? I think you long lost the plot before vrooming in here to yap airingly. 4. And consquently that a person who through his actions and thoughts belies a truth he espouses; really does not hold such a truth. False. If that were ever the case, it makes such a person a classic hypocrite. You don't go out of your way to make repeated assertions about an issue and then come back yapping that such assertions were not expressions of what you hold in your heart. Absolute rubbish. As far as the subject is concerned (and no thanks to your petty attempt to deviate from it), an atheist who says there is no God is not saying that with his mouth and believing something else! If that is what you're yapping on here, you count as a hypocrite - go figure. I urge you to consider that the terrible myths of hell and the wrath of God which are held by the so-called religious - are so replete with terror that any person who GENUINELY believes in such can scarcely belie it within his actions. Is this about the eschatology of hell or about the simple topic predicated on Psalm 14:1? I'm sorry to disappoint you, DeepSight - your penchant to deviate from a subject is long worn out and does not amuse me anymore. If I were to follow your style, I could as well turn this topic into a discussion about the fictitious and illiterate 'oneness of infinity' that has forever NEVER convinced anyone on Niaraland with commonsense - not even when you tried to hoodwink some with the attempt to dribble it in 'prose'. There is nothing to argue with in the foregoing, but i expect that you will devote your energies once again to form and not to substance You missed it by a million miles; and common sense would require that you pay attention to both form and substance in anything you read - that is what intelligent people do, and not the borrowed cosmetics you're displaying here. Thanks for trying, but no thanks. . . it's a beautiful morning here - wish you the same. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by DeepSight(m): 1:20pm On Feb 20, 2010 |
viaro: No Viaro. And I am not concerned with what gentlemanly concessions MyJoe makes to you - I verily believe that he does such only out of a compound and most mature desire to assimilate all views as well as avoid needless and long-drawn out quibbling – which you are very well known for. Let us examine again the said analogy. He stated – Let’s illustrate this with a story from Africa’s stormy politics. Now as is often the case with you basic and common logic will have to be broken down to its most bare essentials. I will proceed to do this for you, as I always have – not that I carry within my mind the slightest delusion that you will be helped to see reason thereby – I know you will NOT. First off he said – The immediate past president of South Africa, the dour and cerebral Thabo Mbeki, is universally famous for questioning the causal link between HIV and Aids. Unfortunately, his HIV atheism rubbed off on the officialdom, bringing about lethargy in policy formulation towards an apocalypse that demanded nothing short of a WW II German Fallschirmjäger military-type response. Thus indicating without much ado that – 1. Mbeki (Man X; Let us call him) was cerebral 2. Man X questioned the [B]causal link[/b] between HIV and AIDS – mark you: not HIV; not AIDs – BUT the causal link. 3. This attitude of Man X “rubbed off on the officialdom, bringing about lethargy in policy formulation.” Note the above carefully: Mbeki is NOT said to reject the existence of AIDS. As a matter of fact he never did. He had scientific questions about the process of its development. Now notwithstanding this, such questions “rubbed off on the officialdom, bringing about lethargy in policy formulation.” Thus: Mbeki – a man who believed in the existence of AIDS, had brought about a scenario where AIDS was not taken seriously enough in government. Enter J. Zuma, the randy Lion of Africa. It is well known that he has never taken AIDS seriously. He has in the past made statements suggesting that he thought it might not even exist. He regarded its threat as so trifling that he was able to consider taking a shower as an appropriate remedy. This is well known to be his INNER belief. However, what does he do as president? – From MyJoe - With smiles oozing from the four compass points of his mouth, he met with presidents, scientists, philanthropists such as Bill Gates, and HIV evangelists of various colouring. HIV causes Aids, he declared. His government was going to tackle it. He thus gives the veneer of belief – and to the inattentive; nay, the dense – it would appear that he has taken a more proactive approach against AIDS than his predecessor did – and that his presidency would therefore be a greater light against AIDS than the previous administration was. However this is not the case! Because – From MyJoe – But not everyone. Anyone who knew Zuma well knew here was the greatest danger to the Aids fight South Africa has ever seen! Here is a man who told the world that he knowingly slept with a HIV-positive woman and promptly proceeded to take a shower to halt the viruses possibly swimming up his penile orifice in their tracks! Now consider the potential effect of those words on the mindset of young South African men; add to that the fact that Zuma has remained the connoisseur of nubile females with absolutely no time for condoms and have sufficient neonatal bundles of evidence to leave Tuface looking a virgin. Despite his posturing – and even if it may be argued that he accepts the existence of AIDS at a conscious level (he had to accept it at a conscious level to be bothered to take a shower) the definite and irrefutable fact remains that no rational person can ever state that Zuma’s subconscious accepts the existence of AIDS. Accordingly – 1. He would not act as above if in his heart of hearts, he believed in AIDS 2. Despite his anti-AIDS posturing, BY HIS ACTIONS he has actually become an icon for the AIDS disbelieving-community! 3. Thus the cardinal point is that his ACTIONS SHOW GREATER UNBELIEF IN AIDS THAN MBEKI’S WORDS DID! To any other person, getting this point across would have been as simple as stating the age old axiom – ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS! ! ! But for you even that simplest of sayings requires special and extended explanations. You should thus see that the example is perfectly on-point in proving that which it set out to – namely – that the ACTIONS of so called “believers” speak louder than words in unveiling that which rests in the deepest base of their hearts - - - viz: THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE IN GOD. “The fool says in his heart . . . there is no God . . .” I hope its become clear now for you: that this is what such people have said IN THEIR HEARTS. . . that there is no God! So who are the fools? I did not argue about actions or inactions always connoting belief. He saw my point quite simply, made no disagreement thereto (because that analogy suffered an inferential limitation); and then also stated that his point was "to underscore the fact that action can belie belief without the author noticing". Moot point. Because the subconscious is mostly unnoticed anyhow - especially by hypocrites. False. If that were ever the case, it makes such a person a classic hypocrite. You don't go out of your way to make repeated assertions about an issue and then come back yapping that such assertions were not expressions of what you hold in your heart. Of course they are hypocrites. What else could they be? Your point is ? ? ? ? If I were to follow your style, I could as well turn this topic into a discussion about the fictitious and illiterate 'oneness of infinity' that has forever NEVER convinced anyone on Niaraland with commonsense - not even when you tried to hoodwink some with the attempt to dribble it in 'prose'. What’s your obsession with the Oneness of Infinity Theory? Why are you never able to address any posers I raise without rushing back to that? What does it do to help your argument here? ? ? Is that being discussed on this thread ? ? ? Of course you only rush back to that on account of a complex you need to hide from! Please focus on the issue at hand jaare. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by Chrisbenogor(m): 1:35pm On Feb 20, 2010 |
These theists can be so full of themselves ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by viaro: 2:03pm On Feb 20, 2010 |
Deep Sight: His analogy was offbeat - he conceded, and I had no further point on that note. You're beginning to sound desperately antique with your over-zealousness about whatever viaro posts, and that is really bad for your health. Let us examine again the said analogy. I would rather leave it to MyJoe to do so. If he thought it was such a huge point, he would have examined it "again". Neither AIDS nor his analogy is the big issue here, and that much both I myself and MyJoe have amicably seen long before now. Now if you don't mind, I'm not quite interested in your quibbling over non-essentials, as I've got better things to do than be bored with your retired drivels, sorry. To any other person, getting this point across would have been as simple as stating the age old axiom – ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS! ! ! But for you even that simplest of sayings requires special and extended explanations. I wonder why you are lost on the simplicity of the discussions between myself and MyJoe? You actually amuse me on the fact that even at your best dressed cosmetics, you often struggle with simple comprehension. You should thus see that the example is perfectly on-point in proving that which it set out to – namely – that the ACTIONS of so called “believers” speak louder than words in unveiling that which rests in the deepest base of their hearts - - - viz: DeepSight, shouting in all caps is a sign of frustration - you're known for this, and it really does not help in anywise. However, both myself and MyJoe have a common ground - encapsulated on this: (a) MyJoe - "to underscore the fact that action can belie belief without the author noticing" (b) viaro - "we all know that actions are precursors to underlying beliefs" Neither MyJoe nor I had to shout in all caps to come to that common ground - but the only one here hooting rabidly is you. Do you mind taking your feverish frustration elsewhere, huh? “The fool says in his heart . . . there is no God . . .” Tell me: does the atheist make that claim only with his mouth and believe differently in his heart that there is no God? Are you such a loaded ignoramus that the point between MyJoe and myself is well agreed, and even you have acquisced thereto? Did you Deepsight not state: "The biblical assertion "the fool says in his heart - there is no God" applies perfectly to the atheistic mindset"?? And did MyJoe himself not respond directly by saying "Yes indeed"?? And what did viaro pooint out in all this?? When MyJoe said this - I consider it foolish for a man with such a limited viewpoint as we have, to contemplate all the wonders around us and reach a definitive position that there is no God. Agnosticism, particularly where used as a strategy to ask further questions, I can understand, but atheism, damn presumptuous. . . my immediate and direct response to that was: "No worries, I concur." So what are you sobbing on about on this issue? DeepSight, you're trying too hard to confuse issues here unnecessarily. . . and the only thing you end up doing is showing how shallow you are. Not even MyJoe disagreed with where I pointed out the distinction between 'denying God' and 'denying the existence of God'. If he found it such quiblling, he would have said so - rather, he said: "The distinction you make is a good point and it is hard to dispute it. I cannot dismiss it out of hand, too." If MyJoe could be clear and agreed with the gist of my posts, what crapola are you on about? So who are the fools? Should I refer you again to the link I previously had in my discussion with Tudor; or are you deliberately closing your eyes to the fact I already mentioned it several times? Already. Moot point. Because the subconscious is mostly unnoticed anyhow - especially by hypocrites. Yes, your moot point indeed. Of course they are hypocrites. What else could they be? Your point is ? ? ? ? I long made my point; and it must be the eleventh wonder that after shouting your clinically hollow disagreement, you retire yourself to a limp agreement to turn round and ask like a plank about what point I had made? Such piffling on your part! What’s your obsession with the Oneness of Infinity Theory? Why are you never able to address any posers I raise without rushing back to that? What does it do to help your argument here? ? ? Is that being discussed on this thread ? ? ? Of course you only rush back to that on account of a complex you need to hide from! What is your obsession with the doctrine of hell? Why are you never able to focus on a simple discussion in a thread without bringing in unrelated matters to deviate from the main gist?? What do such deviations do to help your point here?? Is that what is being discussed on this thread ? ? ? Of course you only rush back to such deviations on account of a complex you need to hide your dubious oneness of infinity from! Please focus on the issue at hand jaare. I would ask you take your advice, no? |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by Nobody: 6:42pm On Feb 20, 2010 |
My.joe.Do u tink its possible 4 any1 to profess/confess sometin wit his mouth,without first havin a picture of it in his mind/heart? If such one exist,then he must be a frivolous person&a FOOL dat shd not be minded.your input&analysis in d mind determines what comes out as output.Jesus said in matt 12:34b FOR OUT OF D OVER FLOW OF D HEART D MOUTH SPEAKS. So psalm14 refers to atheists as FOOLS. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by MyJoe: 1:23pm On Feb 22, 2010 |
Reading exchanges between Deep Sight and viaro can be as sweet as sitting back on a Sunday morning after breakfast and listening to Tchaikovsky or Pavarotti's renditions of Verdi. (Often, that is. Not all the time. The Reincarnation thread, for instance, was an abortion. It was like listening to that ghastly orchestra from Edinburgh, or where is it? ![]() Deep Sight:I think he does it like a Harvard professor peer reviewing an article for the journal Nature. Which is perfectly fine, as all it does in essence is to increase the quality of debate. It helps you get a truly complete view of the subject long after you thought you had it all wrapped up. Deep Sight: Right viaro:No. I never agreed it was offbeat, but I agreed to this: viaro:As I already opined, this applies to just about every analogy. Deep Sight:Thanks. This captures everything from the beginning to the end. There is nothing to add to it! Deep Sight:Pastor Rich: There is God. Mr Tom: Really? Dr Harry: There is no God. Mr Tom: Really? Pastor Rich: There is God. He struck a man with leprosy who took what he had no right to take. (2 Kings 5:27. See also Joshua 7) Mr Tom: (scared) There must indeed be God! Dr Harry: Remember the money Pastor Rich collected from you the last time he came here? The one he said he would give half to God and half to the poor? He stole it. He kept it all for himself. And he is still here. Mr Tom: There is no God! |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by viaro: 2:34pm On Feb 22, 2010 |
Hello MyJoe, I hope you had a brilliant weekend? I did, and glad to read from you again. MyJoe: Sweetly poetic. In this thread, while I disagree with viaro as to the main culprits of Ps 14:1, I particularly appreciate the way he has pointed out my failure to include atheists in my op. It reminded me of a case at the high court in Ibadan a few years back. The lawyers wrote a brilliant Brief of Argument but omitted the name of the governor whose governorship was the subject of the suit. When the court ruled against the governor, the man told the world that the judgment was no skin off his nose because it did not mention his name! Most people thought he was being mischievous, of course, since the gist of the ruling was that the process that brought him to power did not comply with the law. But a few thought he had a point and when the lawyers for his opponents were preparing their Respondent's Brief to his appeal, what did they do? They inserted his name in every page where that could be done. Absolutely intriguing! Well done! ![]() I think he does it like a Harvard professor peer reviewing an article for the journal Nature. Which is perfectly fine, as all it does in essence is to increase the quality of debate. It helps you get a truly complete view of the subject long after you thought you had it all wrapped up. Like 'a Harvard prof'. . who - me?? Hehehe. . . I'm not even close to that by any stretch; but you well captured the point about my trying to add quality to the discussion. ![]() MyJoe: No. I never agreed it was offbeat, but I agreed to this:viaro:As I already opined, this applies to just about every analogy. That's perfectly fine with me; and my apologies where I might've misread you. Although I appreciate your disagreement with my inference, I nonetheless do believe that your HIV/Aids analogy was 'offbeat' - not in the sense that it was 'wrong', but rather that it does not encapsulate the subject about belief in God (hence 'offbeat' because of its inferential limitation). Let me show this: (a) viaro ~ viaro: (b) MyJoe ~ MyJoe: The distinction you make is a good point and it is hard to dispute it. I cannot dismiss it out of hand, too. However, it is not one I will attach undue importance to since the concept of God is largely metaphysical. And this is where my HIV/Aids analogy falls short. While viruses are material and can be apprehended objectively, God is not. So, in post #15 where I'd initially pointed out that your analogy with AIDS was quite 'worrisome', you had no difficulty seeing my point (I suppose), and consequently did not argue airingly against it - but went on to acknowledge that your HIV/Aids analogy "falls short" on account of the dichotomy between the 'material' (virus) and the 'metaphysical' (God). Else, I wonder what you might've meant "this is where my HIV/Aids analogy falls short"?? The 'offbeat' in my summations may highlight 'worrisome' and 'fall short' - not that the analogy was 'wrong' nor 'collapses' your gist altogether, no. I hope this helps clear the air; although I still appreciate your disagreement thereto nonetheless. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by MyJoe: 5:38pm On Feb 22, 2010 |
Hello viaro Weekend was good. Thanks for your post above. Your modesty is exemplary. |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by Ogaga4Luv(m): 5:51pm On Feb 22, 2010 |
[size=13pt]God is the only being who does not have to exist in order to reign. ![]() |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by Nobody: 7:17pm On Feb 22, 2010 |
Ogaga4Luv:Where does satan live,if he trully exist? |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by Ogaga4Luv(m): 11:00am On Feb 23, 2010 |
[size=13pt]The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind. . . .We are Satan and we live in the world.The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion. . . ![]() Hail Satan, x[/size] |
Re: The Fool Says There Is No God – Na Me Talk Am! by blackcypha(m): 2:23am On Feb 24, 2010 |
fool or no fool, we r all foolish to some extent in our reasonings, ![]() ogaga r u really a satanist or u r just kidding?Is there a church of satan in france? |
"How I Survived 28 Hours In Collapsed Building’s Rubble'’- Survivor / Unknown Scientific Discoveries In The Bible Even Before Famous Discoveries / A Question For Christians, Atheist Can Join.
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 197 |