keppler:

Alright! I understand the issues of onus. Anyway, what are your belief system? Since I called those concepts generics, but it seems their maybe orthodox and unorthodox version of atheism

No, stop wiggling to get out of this because it just screams of dishonesty!

Your concepts are neither generic nor orthodox nor unorthodox. They are just plain false, as false as claiming all Christians believe there's hell or that Jesus Christ is God!

Just as Christians don't all believe the same thing do atheists not believe or disbelieve the same things.

budaatum:


Good. Now provide evidence for the above assertion of your's please, because, as a lawyer you must know that just stating something does not make it so.

The Law of "He who alleges must prove" !, I already did that but you chose not to see it, so I am happy to duplicate what I said earlier which sent you into disarray!

"Law Came Before Man, therefore, even a man living on his own is Already Under Law[b] eg The Law of Eating and Drinking, The Law of Sleeping and Working, The Law of Joy and Sorrow, The Law of Pleasure and Pain, The Law of Life and Death![/b]

Man shall eat herbs and meat not stone and wood; man shall not live under water as though he was a fish, The man with womb shall bear the child in her belly and not the man without womb!

No Man made any of these laws and neither could he make them!

It is based on these Greater Laws that he relates with other men and Because of These Laws especially The Law of Life and Death, he negotiated an agreement between himself and his neighbour so that they do not harm each (since both of you can harm yourselves in line with The Law of Life and Death) which you erroneously think is the only law in force.

Which is why you are again wrong for there is The Greater Law which No Man Made, Which rather is The Maker of the man, To Wit- "Let the man be made!"

Where the Bible puts it as "Let us Make man" Exactly as we say "let us make a flying car"!

budaatum:


Sorry, but I can't myself see how you can know this especially because its untrue.

I'm sure atheists know that stealing is not good since they'd obviously resent being stolen from or be thrown in jail if they steal, and there are atheist doctors who specifically earn a living from selling human well being.

Are you not imposing your own worldview here keppler then claiming it belongs to someone else, like an atheist for instance?

I guess budaa confused my assertion here. I am not saying that atheist cannot be moral, but there is is no logical ground or objective for morality in an atheistic worldview.

Those generics are not what I made up, they have been argued for by top atheists (from Darwin down to present age). Those concepts seem hard to digest by many wannabe atheists (reason I call them wannabe), just as the holiness of Christianity is seem 'hard' to live with by many self professed Christians.
Those concepts makes one 'belong' to such camps and in all honesty, you must have seen implication of some of those concepts even in this very thread, but when they are used to dissect some issues, it seems the atheists are not comfortable with them

keppler:

Like you said, I joined because I see how wannabe atheists misuse the word "science" in contrasting science from religion. And I notice that many Christian folks are not thoroughly informed in such war of worldviews, hence they resort to ill informed arguments. This in turn raises the suspicion that the atheists were right all along when they are actually wrong in many cases and their use of logical fallacies and intentional deception, with few folks (such as Grandmeister, Image, Papparseventy. etc) to expose such tactics.

Keep up the good fight as you put 2 Cor 10: 4 in to action.
God be with you

Thank you for your encouraging words, may The Lord continue to give us His Strength to tear the-evils kingdom down!

keppler:

I guess budaa confused my assertion here. I am not saying that atheist cannot be moral, but there is is no logical ground or objective for morality in an atheistic worldview.

But this is not true! First, as Lordreed told you, "There is no such thing as Atheist worldview. There are worldviews that accommodate atheism not the other way around".

And how much more logical or objective grounds do you need than if you slap an atheist it might hurt so they might reason that slapping you might hurt you too, ergo, don't slap?

I mean, you are aware that even atheists say please and thank you, right, and do not particularly go about murdering people?

budaatum:


No, stop wiggling to get out of this because it just screams of dishonesty!

Your concepts are neither generic nor orthodox nor unorthodox. They are just plain false, as false as claiming all Christians believe there's hell or that Jesus Christ is God!

Just as Christians don't all believe the same thing do atheists not believe or disbelieve the same things.

Oh my! Like I explained previously, one need to be consistent with his belief system. The Christians have the Bible as the final authority. Difference may arise in doctrinal issues but there are generics that ties the different camps together.

I don't know of any atheist that was born so, many (especially in Nigeria) got such concept from outside world and fed on their literature to be able to make arguments against Christianity. These body of literature largely echo those concepts which I used and it'd be dishonesty to accuse me of fabricating them. For example, atheism has been defined by disbelief in God, but since arguments used by atheists are not strong enough with such definition, it was CHANGED to a 'lack of belief in God'.
Again, I am certainly aware that this definition was not made by our Nigerian atheist, but they got it from the literature that they consume. So it will not be cool to accuse me of using concept from such body of literature because it may put some atheists in some sort of corner.

See oh, OP THIEF HAS RELOCATED THIS THREAD FROM EDUCATION SECTION BACK TO RELIGIOUS SECTION AFTER My call!!!

So that is possible eh? Ok

keppler:

Alright! I understand the issues of onus. Anyway, what are your belief system? Since I called those concepts generics, but it seems their maybe orthodox and unorthodox version of atheism

Belief system? What makes you think I have one? I don't find beliefs to be satisfactory and in some cases I think they are useless and only have utility to help us maintain certain biases we all seem to have.

budaatum:


But this is not true! First, as Lordreed told you, "There is no such thing as Atheist worldview. There are worldviews that accommodate atheism not the other way around".

And how much more logical or objective grounds do you need than if you slap an atheist it might hurt so they might reason that slapping you might hurt you too, ergo, don't slap?

I mean, you are aware that even atheists say please and thank you, right, and do not particularly go about murdering people?

For the first paragraph, I believe this is desperation. If worldview is a form of belief system or perspective in which we see the world, then one can say that atheism is also a worldview because it starts with the disbelief in God and then answers other philosophical questions from such presupposition.

Again, I am not saying that atheist cannot be moral. Buda should get it, rather, morality does not have an objective basis in such worldview - it is subjective. What can be moral to A may not be for B.
For survival advantage, I may need to hurt another person in which it shouldn't be an issue in (orthodox) atheism. Humanism may provide disagree but that is branching away from the source

LordReed:


Belief system? What makes you think I have one? I don't find beliefs to be satisfactory and in some cases I think they are useless and only have utility to help us maintain certain biases we all seem to have.

Right!
I know that you would find the word 'belief' to be out of place. I will rephrase it. What are your presuppositions about the world?

keppler:

Oh my! Like I explained previously, one need to be consistent with his belief system. The Christians have the Bible as the final authority. Difference may arise in doctrinal issues but there are generics that ties the different camps together.

This is like saying "one must not kill", yet we all know murderers exist. Or love your enemies, yet there are lots of Christians who can't even love their neighbours.

There is no reason that fallible humans must be consistent with their beliefs, and the fact that we are humans makes it virtually impossible for us to be.

keppler:
I don't know of any atheist that was born so, many (especially in Nigeria) got such concept from outside world and fed on their literature to be able to make arguments against Christianity. These body of literature largely echo those concepts which I used and it'd be dishonesty to accuse me of fabricating them. For example, atheism has been defined by disbelief in God, but since arguments used by atheists are not strong enough with such definition, it was CHANGED to a 'lack of belief in God'.

Then admit you do not know instead of filling what you do not know with untruths and unverified facts, why don't you?

I was an atheist from birth. And not a "don't believe Gods exist" atheist, but a "know Gods don't exist" atheist. So welcome to meeting one, albeit a somewhat ex one since I am more theistic now, though atheistic in the original sense of the word which actually means "Not believing in the Gods of Athens", since I do not believe, period.

My point is, even one's definition of the word depends on the knowledge of it that one has, which is why one should seek a definition instead of imposing one on others as I am alleging you are doing here.

keppler:
Again, I am certainly aware that this definition was not made by our Nigerian atheist, but they got it from the literature that they consume. So it will not be cool to accuse me of using concept from such body of literature because it may put some atheists in some sort of corner.

Perhaps you have not been here long enough. When you have, you might understand that just as you have here lots of Christians who have not read their Bible do you also have some very ignorant atheists who have not consumed any literature at all, along with the opposites of both, which might make you realise the error of generalising or imposing definitions and assumptions on others.

keppler:

Right!
I know that you would find the word 'belief' to be out of place. I will rephrase it. What are your presuppositions about the world?

Bravo! You get my point.

keppler:

For the first paragraph, I believe this is desperation. If worldview is a form of belief system or perspective in which we see the world, then one can say that atheism is also a worldview because it starts with the disbelief in God and then answers other philosophical questions from such presupposition.

Worldview is not necessarily a form of belief system or perspective! One may have a worldview of disbelief too.

Study Adam and Eve in the Bible to see what I mean. Adam believed and did not bother to test his beliefs and would have remained a slave for God only knows how long, while smart Eve disbelieved and tested with her own senses what she was told to believe and freed them both from slavery.

keppler:

Again, I am not saying that atheist cannot be moral. Buda should get it, rather, morality does not have an objective basis in such worldview - it is subjective. What can be moral to A may not be for B.

And now have you hit the head of the nail. You fail to recognise that the morality that even theists learn originated from the subjective humans simply because you received your morals as an object in a book without knowing their subjective human origin. And you are equating "worldview" with objective reality, which it clearly is not since a worldview is precisely a view of a subjective human being, and in this instance, seen through respective theistic or atheistic lens. Either ways, they'll both be best served saying please and thank you and not killing each other.

keppler:

For survival advantage, I may need to hurt another person in which it shouldn't be an issue in (orthodox) atheism. Humanism may provide disagree but that is branching away from the source

For your own selfish survival advantage perhaps, be you a theist or an atheist, as history shows, which is why we humans, in our wisdom, have devised the Holy Bible and such other texts to teach you to be humanistic, the meaning of which is "love your neighbours and your enemies moreso", for the common good of all humans.

You just need to do a little bit of research to find how universal that law is.

keppler:

Right!
I know that you would find the word 'belief' to be out of place. I will rephrase it. What are your presuppositions about the world?

I presuppose that reality is real and not a dream or a simulation or any other form that essentially indicates that it is not real. I presuppose that my mind can experience this reality with a fair degree of confidence. I presuppose that other human beings that I encounter also have minds with a similar fair degree of confidence in their experience of our shared reality. I presuppose that our shared reality is fairly stable and will not be subject to topsy turvy or arbitrary occurrences.

There may be more but I think these are the most foundational.

keppler:

For the first paragraph, I believe this is desperation. If worldview is a form of belief system or perspective in which we see the world, then one can say that atheism is also a worldview because it starts with the disbelief in God and then answers other philosophical questions from such presupposition.

It does not. You assume that because an atheist is answering questions it means it his atheism that is answering. That is a wrong perspective because atheism speaks to one question, god belief or no god belief. How can such a position answer every other question?

Dtruthspeaker:


Man is special because His Creator says and treats him special just as you treat your car specially if you want!

do I smash my windscreen for been untidy? (Sodom and gomoroa etc)

budaatum:


This is like saying "one must not kill", yet we all know murderers exist. Or love your enemies, yet there are lots of Christians who can't even love their neighbours.

There is no reason that fallible humans must be consistent with their beliefs, and the fact that we are humans makes it virtually impossible for us to be.


Then admit you do not know instead of filling what you do not know with untruths and unverified facts, why don't you?

I was an atheist from birth. And not a "don't believe Gods exist" atheist, but a "know Gods don't exist" atheist. So welcome to meeting one, albeit a somewhat ex one since I am more theistic now, though atheistic in the original sense of the word which actually means "Not believing in n the Gods of Athens", since I do not helieve, period.

My point is, even one's definition of the word depends on the knowledge of it that one has, which is why one should seek a definition instead of imposing one on others as I am alleging you are doing here.


Perhaps you have not been here long enough. When you have, you might understand that just as you have here lots of Christians who have not read their Bible do you also have some very ignorant atheists who have not consumed any literature at all, along with the opposites of both, which might make you realise the error of generalising on imposing definitions and assumptions on others.

This is like saying "one must not kill", yet we all know murderers exist. Or love your enemies, yet there are lots of Christians who can't even love their neighbours.
Of course, in my worldview, we see that as a deviation from the NORM and there are consequences for deviating from the norm. That is what I am trying to point out - there is an objective basis for such consistency.

There is no reason that fallible humans must be consistent with their beliefs, and the fact that we are humans makes it virtually impossible for us to be.

Again, in my worldview, there is a reason for humans to be consistent with their beliefs. That is why 'fruits' such as perseverance exists. You are right that it is virtually impossible for us to be, but the worldview again provides a form of subsidy.

Then admit you do not know instead of filling what you do not know with untruths and unverified facts, why don't you?
I'm not omniscient but I'm not to 'critique' atheist by what they think, rather, by their general belief system. For example, Christians are being called out for the crimes of the crusaders. But those are folks allegedly representing Christianity but not doing what is consistent with its belief system. If anyone use that argument with me, I would easily dismiss such because and show that he's not talking about my belief system or what actually defines me as a Christian. This is why I prefer to use belief system and not what a person under such worldview prefer to believe. You can't be a Christian if you are not consistent with Christianity. Same should go for atheism.

I was an atheist from birth. And not a "don't believe Gods exist" atheist, but a "know Gods don't exist" atheist. So welcome to meeting one, albeit a somewhat ex one since I am more theistic now, though atheistic in the original sense of the word which actually means "Not believing in n the Gods of Athens", since I do not helieve, period.

Wow! this sounds like it was imprinted in your conscience, the KNOWLEDGE that God don't exist (maybe I'm not reading this well). If my interpretation is correct, this should be a miracle

My point is, even one's definition of the word depends on the knowledge of it that one has, which is why one should seek a definition instead of imposing one on others as I am alleging you are doing here.

Now, I have maintained that I used concepts as derived from atheistic literature, and not my making. And I explained that though there may be branches or offshoots, the broad concept would still exist; whether Christianity or Atheism. So, it is not my issue if one cannot be consistent with belief system.
Let me even make little note here. If one starts with the antithesis of concept of God, i.e. there is no God, then answering questions such as
1. How is the universe formed
2. How did we get here,
3. Why was the universe formed, or why are we here? etc
must be answered without the notion of God. It is questions such as these that brought about those generics I mentioned. And I'll say it again, they are not my words, but words from atheistic literature which many of the atheists also learn from.
Perhaps you have not been here long enough. When you have, you might understand that just as you have here lots of Christians who have not read their Bible do you also have some very ignorant atheists who have not consumed any literature at all, along with the opposites of both, which might make you realise the error of generalising on imposing definitions and assumptions on others.
Well, I've not been here for long (with this moniker anyway) but I've been here long enough to know that we are largely ill-informed in both camps. But that does not mean that I imposed definition on anyone. I only call them with what they professed. In fact, that is why I call many on this site "wannabe atheists" because they don't know what atheism actually entails. Thinking it's just about rejecting God (after all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend).
It will look odd if a self professing is caught in the act of adultery and he defended himself with statement like "I don't subscribe to that part of Christianity". That automatically makes him non.

LordReed:


It does not. You assume that because an atheist is answering questions it means it his atheism that is answering. That is a wrong perspective because atheism speaks to one question, god belief or no god belief. How can such a position answer every other question?

I explained that to Buda already. So I'll just show that here also

keppler:


Now, I have maintained that I used concepts as derived from atheistic literature, and not my making. And I explained that though there may be branches or offshoots, the broad concept would still exist; whether Christianity or Atheism. So, it is not my issue if one cannot be consistent with belief system.
Let me even make little note here. If one starts with the antithesis of concept of God, i.e. there is no God, then answering questions such as
1. How is the universe formed
2. How did we get here,
3. Why was the universe formed, or why are we here? etc
must be answered without the notion of no God.

LordReed:


It does not. You assume that because an atheist is answering questions it means it his atheism that is answering. That is a wrong perspective because atheism speaks to one question, god belief or no god belief. How can such a position answer every other question?

That guy deserves evil.

TheSourcerer:
do I smash my windscreen for been untidy? (Sodom and gomoroa etc)

You're smarter than his god.

LordReed:


I presuppose that reality is real and not a dream or a simulation or any other form that essentially indicates that it is not real. I presuppose that my mind can experience this reality with a fair degree of confidence. I presuppose that other human beings that I encounter also have minds with a similar fair degree of confidence in their experience of our shared reality. I presuppose that our shared reality is fairly stable and will not be subject to topsy turvy or arbitrary occurrences.

There may be more but I think these are the most foundational.

Though these are belief systems though you may think that the word "belief" in it makes it look religious rather than philosophical. And it stand in antithesis with the idealist concepts or worldview.

It's just that though, these belief system are not exclusive to you (I've seen some of this ideas on the net), they don't have anything to do with disbelieve in the existence of God. There are questions to be answered first which these usually serve as auxiliary. Those would answer existence of a real universe - realism as a whole.
Could be framed as
1. If we exist in reality, that should be in a real time and space. This would suppose that our universe is real, then how and why did a real universe came to be?
2. How did we arrive here?
These questions can now give room for those presuppositions

budaatum:

Worldview is not necessarily a form of belief system or perspective! One may have a worldview of disbelief too.

Study Adam and Eve in the Bible to see what I mean. Adam believed and did not bother to test his beliefs and would have remained a slave for God only knows how long, while smart Eve disbelieved and tested with her own senses what she was told to believe and freed them both from slavery.


And now have you hit the head of the nail. You fail to recognise that the morality that even theists learn originated from the subjective humans simply because you received you morals as an object in a book without knowing their subjective human origin. And you are equating "worldview" with objective reality, which it clearly is not since a worldview is precisely a view of a subjective human being, and in this instance, seen through respective theistic or atheistic lens. Either ways, they'll both be best served saying please and thank you, and not killing each other.


For your own selfish survival advantage perhaps, be you a theist or an atheist, as history shows, which is why we humans, in our wisdom, have devised the Holy Bible and such other texts to teach you to be humanistic, the meaning of which is "love your neighbours and your enemies moreso", for the common good of all humans.

You just need to do a little bit of research to find how universal that law is.

Worldview is not necessarily a form of belief system or perspective! One may have a worldview of disbelief too.

Disbelief is just a semantic play. It is a belief in the opposite direction. So worldview whether of belief in something or disbelieve is still a belief system of different directions

And now have you hit the head of the nail. You fail to recognise that the morality that even theists learn originated from the subjective humans simply because you received you morals as an object in a book without knowing their subjective human origin. And you are equating "worldview" with objective reality, which it clearly is not since a worldview is precisely a view of a subjective human being, and in this instance, seen through respective theistic or atheistic lens. Either ways, they'll both be best served saying please and thank you, and not killing each other.

There are lot of assumptions here that you made (if I'm being generous), but I wouldn't want to move away from topic

For your own selfish survival advantage perhaps, be you a theist or an atheist, as history shows, which is why we humans, in our wisdom, have devised the Holy Bible and such other texts to teach you to be humanistic, the meaning of which is "love your neighbours and your enemies moreso", for the common good of all humans.
I guess this issue is dragging because you have a view of the Bible which I find incompatible with what the Bible teaches. But again, I am not going to delve into that

You just need to do a little bit of research to find how universal that law is.
Smiles, I'll try to see how old such 'universal law' is and how old it is from where I actually know it from

TheSourcerer:
do I smash my windscreen for been untidy? (Sodom and gomoroa etc)

surely it is because you can not make or easily repurchase a car or the windscreen but that is not a problem for Mr Toyota as you can already see many of his creations are destroyed during tests and even for entertainment purposes eg movies and stunts.

But for your level let's take a torch that does not work properly or at all, you Certainly Smashed it and Dashed it into a thousand pieces!

Or as reported one footballer did that early this year or late last year, he Smashed his Super car because he was angry with it! Yeah, that's what it means to be a Creator!

keppler:

Though these are belief systems though you may think that the word "belief" in it makes it look religious rather than philosophical. And it stand in antithesis with the idealist concepts or worldview.

It's just that though, these belief system are not exclusive to you (I've seen some of this ideas on the net), they don't have anything to do with disbelieve in the existence of God. There are questions to be answered first which these usually serve as auxiliary. Those would answer existence of a real universe - realism as a whole.
Could be framed as
1. If we exist in reality, that should be in a real time and space. This would suppose that our universe is real, then how and why did a real universe came to be?
2. How did we arrive here?
These questions can now give room for those presuppositions

You should be dead.

keppler:

Though these are belief systems though you may think that the word "belief" in it makes it look religious rather than philosophical. And it stand in antithesis with the idealist concepts or worldview.

It's just that though, these belief system are not exclusive to you (I've seen some of this ideas on the net), they don't have anything to do with disbelieve in the existence of God. There are questions to be answered first which these usually serve as auxiliary. Those would answer existence of a real universe - realism as a whole.
Could be framed as
1. If we exist in reality, that should be in a real time and space. This would suppose that our universe is real, then how and why did a real universe came to be?
2. How did we arrive here?
These questions can now give room for those presuppositions

This why I told you to ditch your assumptions when talking to me. Where have I told you I am an idealist?

Did I not tell you that my worldview is not atheistic so why are surprised that my presuppositions are not based on disbelief?

1. We don't know.

2. We are a result of natural processes.

keppler:

I explained that to Buda already. So I'll just show that here also

Still wrong. Atheism is not the opposite of Christianity. There were atheists before Christianity. Also who says God or no god needs to also answer how the universe was created? That is a nonsequitur.

HellVictorinho:


That guy deserves evil.

Why?

keppler:

You can't be a Christian if you are not consistent with Christianity. Same should go for atheism.

But isn't the issue here that Christianity, or let's say, the Bible, is subject to interpretations which differ?

For example, some say to be a Christian one must believe and they quote numerous verses to support their position. But is understanding not more important that mere belief which demons also do? The Priest and the Levite so believed that they refused to do the work to the point that Jesus said the pagan non-believing Samaritan should be emulated and not them.

Atheism is even more inconsistent because there is no unifying equivalent to the Bible, and while some believe there are no Gods, some see such people as weak atheist because they merely believe instead of know there are no Gods.

I guess my point is in the assumptions about the contents of the head of another. It results in strawmaning whereby one is arguing against one's own position that one has imposed on some other person as often happens on here.

keppler:
I guess this issue is dragging because you have a view of the Bible which I find incompatible with what the Bible teaches. But again, I am not going to delve into that

Which you find incompatible with your own understanding, you mean.

But I'm sure you would not claim your understanding is the only correct one I hope.

HellVictorinho:


You should be dead.

You were even asked why, but you couldn't give any reason.
Or you are angry that you got exposed and couldn't defend your claims the other time?

LordReed:


This why I told you to ditch your assumptions when talking to me. Where have I told you I am an idealist?

Did I not tell you that my worldview is not atheistic so why are surprised that my presuppositions are not based on disbelief?

1. We don't know.

2. We are a result of natural processes.

This why I told you to ditch your assumptions when talking to me. Where have I told you I am an idealist?

Alright, I guess you did not read what I wrote well as I don't know how I imply that you are an idealist. I said your belief system are in ANTITHESIS to the idealist world view.

Did I not tell you that my worldview is not atheistic so why are surprised that my presuppositions are not based on disbelief?

1. We don't know.

2. We are a result of natural processes.
You are not just being consistent and maybe not truthful with yourself. Your answers to the question proved that already. They are answers provided by those who start with the axioms that there is no God.
1. They gave many hypothesis which are being over turned by later understanding of the universe. But they all have an a priori belief that it MUST exclude God. This is consistent with atheistic worldview
2. Thought there is no prove that we are here through natural processes alone but such answer is necessary in order to exclude God as a creator who made the universe and made earth for living forms with laws governing the operation of everything. In fact, this second answer is enough to prove that it derives from atheistic worldview. All I need to ask is what are the natural process that you are referring to? If I limit it to our existence, how did the natural processes bring us into existence?

LordReed:


Still wrong. Atheism is not the opposite of Christianity. There were atheists before Christianity. Also who says God or no god needs to also answer how the universe was created? That is a nonsequitur.

Still wrong. Atheism is not the opposite of Christianity
I never implied that Atheism is the opposite of Christianity

There were atheists before Christianity
Sure! Atheism rejects the concept of God before Jesus came (which maybe argued to be the foundation for Christian principles) but that is not the main issue. The main issue is that it rejects the idea of God as its presupposition, hence it has alternative for those philosophical questions. Many of the age long thinkers clearly answered such questions before. Though, a Christian worldview provides an explanation for why atheism exist and why they surely have alternative explanation to how the universe came to be
Also who says God or no god needs to also answer how the universe was created? That is a nonsequitur
No body says that but it is what is observed in real time. Theists (Christians especially) believes that God made the universe (as revealed in his word). The other clearly rejects the notion of God (and the Bible) and hence propose alternatives (such as the universe is eternal, it came from nothing, etc). But I get, folks don't want to be cornered just as evolutionists would avoid the question of the first life form, hence claim that it has nothing to do with the theory