This is for you who don't believe in the existence of the creator God. Particularly those who feel if there was a God, all the evils will be wiped away.


So today I want to know, if you were given the powers of a creator, or made God over the earth, what will you do differently? How will you fix this damaged earth. What will be your impact as ruler of the whole universe?

I want to know.

P.S: Christians and Muslims, Please no insults, you're free to input and don't derail the thread thank you.

I’d make it exactly how you imagine paradise to be.
(Playing devil’s advocate - I’m no atheist)

You know people have different ideas of what paradise is? Do you think that will work? Some people's paradise is constant sex, while some see it as immorality. You'll still get chaos.

FreeIgboho:
I’d make it exactly how you imagine paradise to be.
(Playing devil’s advocate - I’m no atheist)

peggywebbs:
You know people have different ideas of what paradise is? Do you think that will work? Some people's paradise is constant sex, while some see it as immorality. You'll still get chaos.

That’s the whole point: I will make it such that everyone can access whatever is their idea of paradise

I would bestow on humans the ability to think rationally and use less of faith.
I would enforce humanism and erode religious dogma, if I still see the importance of religion, I would uphold the humanistic aspects of each religion and remove every other bs aspects of it.
I would encourage humans to dare to face the world courageously together without needing to call on me to help them.
I will eradicate the ideas of heaven and hell. Live your life, hurt no man, reconnect to your natural inclinations and explore them using it to make the world a beautiful place in your own unique way... I won't be a God who simply tells people to do things so that they will be rewarded in heaven or not burn in hell.
I would make humans become explorers, explorers in a sense that they're willing to explore the world, know more about the world without any preconceived notions (like ideas that some ancient men put down in a book centuries ago in an attempt to explain how the world came to be), humans should be willing to learn more and more about the world and stop claiming they already know!

I have so much I want to write here but I can't write all now.
In summary, if I become a God, I won't teach humans to spend their lives worshipping me but loving themselves and the world I gave them.

FreeIgboho:


That’s the whole point: I will make it such that everyone can access whatever is their idea of paradise

The movie "Bruce Almighty" already shows you what shall happen with your world.

But any way, it is your world so you can do whatever you like.

AuthenticKing:
I would bestow on humans the ability to think rationally and use less of faith...

You are still doing what God has already done. THINKING IS FAITH!

AuthenticKing:

I would enforce humanism and erode religious dogma,

All humans have confessed that it is human to lie, cheat, take people's husbands and sleep with people's wives, be jelous and envious of other humans who have done better than them, etc and you intend enforcing these things?

Well, it's your world and you can do as you like.

Dtruthspeaker:


The movie "Bruce Almighty" already shows you what shall happen with your world.

But any way, it is your world so you can do whatever you like.

Even a mere human can make you feel great through hypnosis. How much more “god”.
I’ll fix it so everyone will feel wonderful almost all the time - like you feel when drunk or high

AuthenticKing:
I would bestow on humans the ability to think rationally and use less of faith.
I would enforce humanism and erode religious dogma, if I still see the importance of religion, I would uphold the humanistic aspects of each religion and remove every other bs aspects of it.
I would encourage humans to dare to face the world courageously together without needing to call on me to help them.
I will eradicate the ideas of heaven and hell. Live your life, hurt no man, reconnect to your natural inclinations and explore them using it to make the world a beautiful place in your own unique way... I won't be a God who simply tells people to do things so that they will be rewarded in heaven or not burn in hell.
I would make humans become explorers, explorers in a sense that they're willing to explore the world, know more about the world without any preconceived notions (like ideas that some ancient men put down in a book centuries ago in an attempt to explain how the world came to be), humans should be willing to learn more and more about the world and stop claiming they already know!

I have so much I want to write here but I can't write all now.
In summary, if I become a God, I won't teach humans to spend their lives worshipping me but loving themselves and the world I gave them.

Dtruthspeaker:


You are still doing what God has already done. THINKING IS FAITH!



All humans have confessed that it is human to lie, cheat, take people's husbands and sleep with people's wives, be jelous and envious of other humans who have done better than them, etc and you intend enforcing these things?

Well, it's your world and you can do as you like.

The WHOLE aim of human endeavor is to feel good. As god all you have to do is make people feel good, then you don’t have to worry about all these things

FreeIgboho:

The WHOLE aim of human endeavor is to feel good. As god all you have to do is make people feel good, then you don’t have to worry about all these things

That would mean that you would be a god in support of the feel good of lying, cheating, murdering, stealing, whoreen etc.

That part has already been taken over by Satan.

FreeIgboho:


Even a mere human can make you feel great through hypnosis. How much more “god”.
I’ll fix it so everyone will feel wonderful almost all the time - like you feel when drunk or high

You obviously do not appreciate the confusion you would create in your world for the drunkards feel good is not compatible with the misers feel good of saving his money through his abstinence of drinking..

Dtruthspeaker:


You are still doing what God has already done. THINKING IS FAITH!

How is thinking faith?

Dtruthspeaker:

All humans have confessed that it is human to lie, cheat, take people's husbands and sleep with people's wives, be jelous and envious of other humans who have done better than them, etc and you intend enforcing these things?

Well, it's your world and you can do as you like.

What is humanism sir?

FreeIgboho:




The WHOLE aim of human endeavor is to feel good. As god all you have to do is make people feel good, then you don’t have to worry about all these things

Feeling good at the expense of another fellow human?
Do you know that bloodthirsty humans feel good after they have killed someone? Psychopaths feel good after hurting someone? Hardened criminals feel good after commiting crimes against human?, etc.

The whole point of everything I've written up there is to encourage doing stuffs that will enhance the advancement of the human race and not cause harm to fellow humans.

AuthenticKing:

How is thinking faith?

Faith is Thinking. Faith is the analysing and processing of information. And when we analyse and process information, we are thinking!

AuthenticKing:

What is humanism sir?

Simply the things that humans do as a whole.

Dtruthspeaker:


Faith is Thinking. Faith is the analysing and processing of information. And when we analyse and process information, we are thinking!

Wow! What a definition! I don't know where you got that definition from but that's not what faith is.
Faith is trust, faith is belief, faith is not analysing and processing of information, faith and analysis doesn't correlate in any way.

Dtruthspeaker:


Simply the things that humans do as a whole.

No, humanism is a rationalistic approach to life that attaches importance to human affairs.

AuthenticKing:

Wow! What a definition! I don't know where you got that definition from but that's not what faith is.
Faith is trust, faith is belief, faith is not analysing and processing of information, faith and analysis doesn't correlate in any way.

That is what you have been taught which even you, if you said the Truth would admit that the definition and teachings is incomplete and almost sounding unreasonable because of its impracticability in natural living.

I have taken out my own private and practical study of it, by applying it's reasonable applications in natural living, which now gave me the understanding I now possess laying down the basis of my definition.

AuthenticKing:

No, humanism is a rationalistic approach to life that attaches importance to human affairs.

Now you would be wrong because animals eg dogs, lions snakes, monkeys prove that they too have the ability of being rational and attach importance to life affairs.

Without reasonable opposition from you, humanity is simply the things you would find humans doing everywhere and anywhere they are.

Dtruthspeaker:


That is what you have been taught which even you, if you said the Truth would admit that the definition and teachings is incomplete and almost sounding unreasonable because of its impracticability in natural living.

I have taken out my own private and practical study of it, by applying it's reasonable applications in natural living, which now gave me the understanding I now possess laying down the basis of my definition.

I think you're using confirmation bias. The conclusion you've made after your private and practical study of this is based on your deeply personal held beliefs. You're mixing up definitions to defend your worldview.
Faith is not analysing and processing information, faith is belief, no matter how you want to make it seem practical, faith isn't analysis, it's belief.

Dtruthspeaker:


Now you would be wrong because animals eg dogs, lions snakes, monkeys prove that they too have the ability of being rational and attach importance to life affairs.

Without reasonable opposition from you, humanity is simply the things you would find humans doing everywhere and anywhere they are.

Again, you're mixing up two unrelated concepts together, you're mixing instinctual thinking with rationality. Animals use instincts, we humans have evolved beyond instincts and can now process things rationally. 'Rationality' in the sense that we can consider different options, different sides to an idea and come up with a more better objective approach to life situations without resorting to instincts like animals do. It's a process and it takes time, that is why it's the best way to tackle life issues.

AuthenticKing:
...Faith is not analysing and processing information, faith is belief, no matter how you want to make it seem practical, faith isn't analysis, it's belief.

Your repetition here clearly shows that this is what you choose to stubbornly hold on to, because to accept it proves to you how wrong and misled you are. Especially as you give no reasonable and valid counter. And rather than give a logical rebuttal, you have only resorted to chanting and repetitions.

Faith is practical. Belief is practical. And I bet you have never heard this statement before.

"He does not believe that does not live according to his belief" Thomas Fuller.

And living is always practical. And before we live on a thing, we first think and analyse that thing!

AuthenticKing:

Again, you're mixing up to unrelated concepts together, you're mixing instinctual thinking with rationality.

See, you could not escape using the word "thinking" even to credit of animals. And thinking is thinking while rationality will always involve thinking. So, you have no valid thing here.

Dtruthspeaker:


Your repetition here clearly shows that this is what you choose to stubbornly hold on to, because to accept it proves to you how wrong and misled you are. Especially as you give no reasonable and valid counter. And rather than give a logical rebuttal, you have only resorted to chanting and repetitions.

Faith is practical. Belief is practical. And I bet you have never heard this statement before.

"He does not believe that does not live according to his belief" Thomas Fuller.

And living is always practical. And before we live on a thing, we first think and analyse that thing!

I resorted to repeat my statement because your explanation initially added notions that are unrelated to the concept at hand.
You know the problem with faith and belief, why I do not accept your assertion that it's practical? People with faith and belief have a problem accepting a clear contradictory data to their beliefs. They do not accept that there are loopholes to their beliefs, they simply hold unto it or even find ways to cherry pick on available data to convince themselves that they are right.
If I were to accept your basis that faith involves thinking (of which I seem to accept your notion that it's 'thinking'), then that form of thinking has no basis on reality.

Dtruthspeaker:

See, you could not escape using the word "thinking" even to credit of animals. And thinking is thinking while rationality will always involve thinking. So, you have no valid thing here.

I apologise for using the word 'thinking' in this case . The right word here should be 'tendency'.
It is something hardwired in animals (and us, humans have transcended beyond this), they do not think about it.
Completely discrediting everything I said there because I used the word 'thinking' isn't that cool.

Dtruthspeaker:


Your repetition here clearly shows that this is what you choose to stubbornly hold on to, because to accept it proves to you how wrong and misled you are. Especially as you give no reasonable and valid counter. And rather than give a logical rebuttal, you have only resorted to chanting and repetitions.

Faith is practical. Belief is practical. And I bet you have never heard this statement before.

"He does not believe that does not live according to his belief" Thomas Fuller.

And living is always practical. And before we live on a thing, we first think and analyse that thing!

I resorted to repeat my statement because your explanation initially added notions that are unrelated to the concept at hand.
You know the problem with faith and belief, why I do not accept your assertion that it's practical? People with faith and belief have a problem accepting a clear contradictory data to their beliefs. They do not accept that there are loopholes to their beliefs, they simply hold unto it or even find ways to cherry pick on available data to convince themselves that they are right.
If I were to accept your basis that faith involves thinking (of which I seem to accept your notion that it's 'thinking'), then that form of thinking has no basis on reality.
Remember my initial stance, I'm focused on 'rational thinking'.

Dtruthspeaker:

See, you could not escape using the word "thinking" even to credit of animals. And thinking is thinking while rationality will always involve thinking. So, you have no valid thing here.

I apologise for using the word 'thinking' in this case . The right word here should be 'tendency'.
It is something hardwired in animals (and us, humans have transcended beyond this), they do not think about it.
Completely discrediting everything I said there because I used the word 'thinking' isn't that cool.

AuthenticKing:
...YoPeople with faith and belief have a problem accepting a clear contradictory data to their beliefs. They do not accept that there are loopholes to their beliefs, they simply hold unto it or even find ways to cherry pick on available data to convince themselves that they are right....

The problem is that you are still reading me under the popular understanding of what people have been saying and teaching their erroneous and flawed understanding of what faith is, even though I have given a different notion and presentation of what it i now know it is.

And, as you can see you have difficulty finding a flaw with it, which is why you refuse it's acceptance even though you are not able to find anything wrong with it.

As I said, faith is practical

AuthenticKing:

I apologise for using the word 'thinking' in this case . The right word here should be 'tendency'.

You are still saying the same thing while declaring The Truth. The word "tendency" still admits that you still declare that animals still exhibit a similarity of thinking as men do, which is the Truth, hence your confessions of Truth and difficulty in finding the words that would capture what you want to say yet your point shall still be True.

So I respectfully put aside what you were saying because the it is overridden by the Truth which we both know and even you have confessed which is that thinking is an inescapable natural thing which both humans and animals do.

Dtruthspeaker:


That would mean that you would be a god in support of the feel good of lying, cheating, murdering, stealing, whoreen etc.

That part has already been taken over by Satan.

Dtruthspeaker:


You obviously do not appreciate the confusion you would create in your world for the drunkards feel good is not compatible with the misers feel good of saving his money through his abstinence of drinking..

AuthenticKing:

Feeling good at the expense of another fellow human?
Do you know that bloodthirsty humans feel good after they have killed someone? Psychopaths feel good after hurting someone? Hardened criminals feel good after commiting crimes against human?, etc.

The whole point of everything I've written up there is to encourage doing stuffs that will enhance the advancement of the human race and not cause harm to fellow humans.

I honestly find it hard to believe you people can be this dense.
I CREATE THEIR MINDSETS!!
Isn’t it obvious I’d give them mindsets that guarantee they won’t derive pleasure from things that hurt others or themselves??
Easy example: eating delicious things will be good for your health!

peggywebbs:
This is for you who don't believe in the existence of the creator God. Particularly those who feel if there was a God, all the evils will be wiped away.


So today I want to know, if you were given the powers of a creator, or made God over the earth, what will you do differently? How will you fix this damaged earth. What will be your impact as ruler of the whole universe?

I want to know.

P.S: Christians and Muslims, Please no insults, you're free to input and don't derail the thread thank you.

I'm agnostic to a creator, and I don't know if a creator needs be benevolent, and that the evil that exists wouldn't be part of it's desires.

Muslims and Chirstians are the ones who claim they know the attributes of their creator like benevolence and love, so it's easy for a non believer to ask if so "why does evil exist?"

It's would depend on the extent of the power and what changes comes with it.
If I would remain the person I am now, and the only extra would be that I gained the power to mold the world how I'd want, it'd be this things first:
Reverse human caused climate change,
Make plastics polymerase polymers biodegradable,
End needless suffering caused by incurable diseases and parasites,
And create new physics that would allow faster than light travel (assuming it doesn't currently exist),

Directly reveal my existence to everyone and make my desires clear.
"State clearly, I'm not your God, I'm just some guy with the powers of a God, worship me or not I don't care.
Avoid killing each other, or causing needless suffering.
Don't kill steal or cheat, because it would make life worse for everyone including you.
Try to lead meaningful lives because this is the only one you get"

After that people of earth are on their own, I'll come back every 1000 years and check up on them to make sure they haven't eradicated themselves. Beyond that I'd be in another part of the universe seeding life, or just chilling.

FreeIgboho:

Easy example: eating delicious things will be good for your health!

See, You have already done that. Your creations will be exactly like cars and phones eating fuels and electricity. ,

DeusXmachina:

I'm agnostic to a creator, and I don't know if a creator needs be benevolent, and that the evil that exists wouldn't be part of it's desires.

Muslims and Chirstians are the ones who claim they know the attributes of their creator like benevolence and love

Good observation. It is immaterial to a creation whether its Creator is Evil like Ramsey and Joffrey in Game of Thrones or good like Eli Scruggs in Desperate Housewives.

This character is not really relevant.

However, by the acts of our Creator in doing so many things that we consider good, we know that therefore His Character is Good for as we say "action speaks louder than words".

Therefore, His actions have revealed that He is a Good Person!

DeusXmachina:

so it's easy for a non believer to ask if so "why does evil exist?"

And I would have told you that it exists because evil makes good valuable.

And that evil is not evil to its Creator as a sword or car is not evil to its creator.

DeusXmachina:

It's would depend on the extent of the power and what changes comes with it.

You already have that power. Would your car and phone or house (if you allow them speak) or even your wife and children say that you are a good powerful person since you have power over them?

Even now, we know your results and score.

DeusXmachina:

Directly reveal my existence to everyone and make my desires clear.
"State clearly, I'm not your God, I'm just some guy with the powers of a God, worship me or not I don't care.
Avoid killing each other, or causing needless suffering.
Don't kill steal or cheat, because it would make life worse for everyone including you.
Try to lead meaningful lives because this is the only one you get"

After that people of earth are on their own, I'll come back every 1000 years and check up on them to make sure they haven't eradicated themselves. Beyond that I'd be in another part of the universe seeding life, or just chilling.

And in the end you still did the same things God has done or does.

Dtruthspeaker:


The problem is that you are still reading me under the popular understanding of what people have been saying and teaching their erroneous and flawed understanding of what faith is, even though I have given a different notion and presentation of what it i now know it is.

And, as you can see you have difficulty finding a flaw with it, which is why you refuse it's acceptance even though you are not able to find anything wrong with it.

As I said, faith is practical

DTruthSpeaker, you have this great expertise in cherry picking people's statements that suits your worldview and you can easily attack. Lol! That's cool . Since that's how you roll, I'm down for you
I'm not just reading you under the popular understanding of faith, besides it's not a popular understanding, it is what faith is You have successfully redefined it to make it suit your deeply held beliefs and I find that amusing. I accept you saying it's thinking (the way you've redefined it) but won't accept you calling it practical (or seeing it as realistic or rational).
Sir, I know you will cherry pick my statements again but let me again try to elaborate the problem I find with faith (now according to your definition of it), faith(ful) people find a belief, fall in love with it and consistently seek ways to uphold that faith, they source through only material that supports that faith and tries to live life according to what will uphold that faith. They (consciously or subconsciously) rejects every opinion that goes counter to that which they believe in (they try to redefine their belief to make it seem like the most 'practical') even if that opinion correctly gives a more progressive worldview.
Rationality on the other hand, sometimes has a belief but is willing to explore other worldviews, their unbiased openness to knowledge can even lead them to drop that worldview they have because they find out that it doesn't square up with reality...

Faith 'thinkers' think but 'carefully' retains thoughts that only supports their preconceived beliefs.
Rational thinkers always endeavor to keep their thoughts in line with reality.

Dtruthspeaker:

You are still saying the same thing while declaring The Truth. The word "tendency" still admits that you still declare that animals still exhibit a similarity of thinking as men do, which is the Truth, hence your confessions of Truth and difficulty in finding the words that would capture what you want to say yet your point shall still be True.

So I respectfully put aside what you were saying because the it is overridden by the Truth which we both know and even you have confessed which is that thinking is an inescapable natural thing which both humans and animals do.

I repeat again, No! Animals do not think, animals use instincts! This instincts enable them to act in a sort of 'automatic' way. These instincts are hardwired into them, it's something that was bestowed unto them by nature.

Humans have outgrown instincts.

FreeIgboho:






I honestly find it hard to believe you people can be this dense.
I CREATE THEIR MINDSETS!!
Isn’t it obvious I’d give them mindsets that guarantee they won’t derive pleasure from things that hurt others or themselves??
Easy example: eating delicious things will be good for your health!

You create their mindsets? Looks so much like control. How do we know that you ain't biased and won't try to mold people's minds to suit your deeply personal beliefs of what is good?

The Christian God gave Adam and Eve paradise in the Bible, they had everything they ever wanted to feel good, they had it all! but these dudes allowed a serpent 'deceive' them with an ordinary fruit and they lost their precious paradise.

But this is how I see it, these guys wanted something beyond that 'paradise' and that was knowledge. It's evident in Eve's thought processes while she was contemplating what to do before she agreed to eat that damn fruit.

Boss, your idea of 'feeling good' won't work here.

DeusXmachina:

I'm agnostic to a creator, and I don't know if a creator needs be benevolent, and that the evil that exists wouldn't be part of it's desires.

Muslims and Chirstians are the ones who claim they know the attributes of their creator like benevolence and love, so it's easy for a non believer to ask if so "why does evil exist?"

It's would depend on the extent of the power and what changes comes with it.
If I would remain the person I am now, and the only extra would be that I gained the power to mold the world how I'd want, it'd be this things first:
Reverse human caused climate change,
Make plastics polymerase biodegradable,
End needless suffering caused by incurable diseases and parasites,
And create new physics that would allow faster than light travel (assuming it doesn't currently exist),

Directly reveal my existence to everyone and make my desires clear.
"State clearly, I'm not your God, I'm just some guy with the powers of a God, worship me or not I don't care.
Avoid killing each other, or causing needless suffering.
Don't kill steal or cheat, because it would make life worse for everyone including you.
Try to lead meaningful lives because this is the only one you get"

After that people of earth are on their own, I'll come back every 1000 years and check up on them to make sure they haven't eradicated themselves. Beyond that I'd be in another part of the universe seeding life, or just chilling.

Yea excellent!
I'm still a student of science and trying so hard grasp many concepts of it so I do not know the best ways to respond to your first, second and fourth plans but I can pretty much say that your 'point agendas' are on point.

I also wish to add that Muslims and Christians do not only claim that this being is benovelent but also attributes such as 'all knowing' and 'all powerful', if we were to scrutinizely analyze the problem of evil, then it's evident that this being either lacks one or all of these or such a being doesn't exist.

AuthenticKing:

DTruthSpeaker, you have this great expertise in cherry picking people's statements that suits your worldview and you can easily attack. Lol! That's cool . Since that's how you roll, I'm down for you

A debate is based on the point of the main issue of the debate and statements made in support of or explaining the point presented, still form the issue.

So I always stick to the point you make therefore, I do not cherry pick.

AuthenticKing:

I'm not just reading you under the popular understanding of faith, besides it's not a popular understanding, it is what faith is.

When you say "it is what faith is" then you are not taking me on based on what I have said but what some other people have said, which I do not agree with, which even you do not agree with,

And you are short of saying that I must accept what they have said, because they have said it.

And see, you contradict yourself in saying "besides it is not the popular understanding" yet, you go ahead to state that the same known popular understanding is "what it is"! Is there anything more contradictory than this?

Hence proving the Truth of what I have been saying since, that you have great difficulty finding a flaw my presentation such that you have now swapped my own definition with that of the popular understanding and then you are trying to query me on it, exactly like switching my answer script and questioning me using another person's answer script.

That is not right at all.

I am supposed to be tested based on my answer and not on other people's.

AuthenticKing:

You have successfully redefined it to make it suit your deeply held beliefs and I find that amusing

Paul exercised his right to define it, do I not have a right to also define or redefine it?

AuthenticKing:

. I accept you saying it's thinking (the way you've redefined it) but won't accept you calling it practical (or seeing it as realistic or rational).

Acceptance or Refusal to accept is your right and I do not compell you to accept. I am only stating that in the absence of you not being able to givie a reasonable ground for refusal, your refusal is wrong and unreasonable.

Nevertheless, I respect your right to refuse a thing, even without any reasonable explanation as to why you refuse.

AuthenticKing:

Sir, I know you will cherry pick my statements again but let me again try to elaborate the problem I find with faith (now according to your definition of it), faith(ful) people find a belief, fall in love with it and consistently seek ways to uphold that faith, they source through only material that supports that faith and tries to live life according to what will uphold that faith.

I did not say this at all, it is you who thinks this and now you have told us what you had in mind.

My statement and post is clear and if there is any reasonable question flowing from it, I would answer.

So, you are the one telling us of the matters you have in mind (therefore you are the one giving a presentation) meanwhile it is what I have said and have in mind that you are querying and trying to query, but you are not doing so. You are rather doing your own presentation, which is why I dispose a bulk of your statements.

You are supposed to be questioning me and if you have run out of reasonable questions, then that becomes settled.

And then I can question you on your presentations and thinkings.

That is how a tidy and healthy debate is conducted.

AuthenticKing:

I repeat again, No! Animals do not think, animals use instincts! This instincts enable them to act in a sort of 'automatic' way. These instincts are hardwired into them, it's something that was bestowed unto them by nature.

Humans have outgrown instincts.

When you say "instincts" and "hardwired into them", do you not say that they are naturally ingrated?

Did man go to the market to buy the software called thinking and install it in himself?

Is it not natural and instinctual for man to think?

Dtruthspeaker:


A debate is based on the point of the main issue of the debate and statements made in support of or explaining the point presented, still form the issue.

So I always stick to the point you make therefore, I do not cherry pick.



When you say "it is what faith is" then you are not taking me on based on what I have said but what some other people have said, which I do not agree with, which even you do not agree with,

And you are short of saying that I must accept what they have said, because they have said it.

And see, you contradict yourself in saying "besides it is not the popular understanding" yet, you go ahead to state that the same known popular understanding is "what it is"! Is there anything more contradictory than this?

Hence proving the Truth of what I have been saying since, that you have great difficulty finding a flaw my presentation such that you have now swapped my own definition with that of the popular understanding and then you are trying to query me on it, exactly like switching my answer script and questioning me using another person's answer script.

That is not right at all.

I am supposed to be tested based on my answer and not on other people's.



Paul exercised his right to define it, do I not have a right to also define or redefine it?



Acceptance or Refusal to accept is your right and I do not compell you to accept. I am only stating that in the absence of you not being able to givie a reasonable ground for refusal, your refusal is wrong and unreasonable.

Nevertheless, I respect your right to refuse a thing, even without any reasonable explanation as to why you refuse.



I did not say this at all, it is you who thinks this and now you have told us what you had in mind.

My statement and post is clear and if there is any reasonable question flowing from it, I would answer.

So, you are the one telling us of the matters you have in mind (therefore you are the one giving a presentation) meanwhile it is what I have said and have in mind that you are querying and trying to query, but you are not doing so. You are rather doing your own presentation, which is why I dispose a bulk of your statements.

You are supposed to be questioning me and if you have run out of reasonable questions, then that becomes settled.

And then I can question you on your presentations and thinkings.

That is how a tidy and healthy debate is conducted.

Lol, you're still a perfect cherry picker... When I posted my response up there (my first reply to the OP that got us into this discussion), you cherry picked the ones you can easily attack and enforce your worldview, you did the same to DeusXmachina and probably went to correct it to respond to all his statements (which you still didn't do perfectly) after reading my reply.

The reason why you still believe that I'm not responding to you directly is because I'm not using your exact words to respond to you but nevertheless, I'll prove to you that my responses are directed to you not to the popular understanding of faith.

Firstly, if I'm still basing my responses on popular understanding of faith, I wouldn't have even accepted your opinion that faith is thinking, because it's a universal notion that faith is belief that doesn't require thinking. Even your Bible affirms this in so many places, e.g. when Jesus appeared to the disciples with Thomas being absent. But I kinda bought your opinion but was still trying to make you understand that it's not a rational way of thinking.

Your first response that faith is the analysis and processing of information was fallacious at first without any basis, it was not until you quoted Thomas Fuller that I started to understand you better.

But I'm still trying to let you know that that way of thinking is still irrational and highly grounded in confirmation bias. "He does not believe that does not live according to his belief." What of if you find another data that clearly disproves that your belief? Will you be willing to change your belief and align yourself with reality? Do you also know that many beliefs contain so many irrational ideas that can only be made clear when faced with an opposite worldview?

Rationals do not give a much sh*t about belief because they're so open minded, they accept that they do not know and if they come with a belief, they don't try to block out every other belief that doesn't align with theirs, they're willing to accept better data that opposes that belief, these set of people are focused on aligning themselves with reality.

Dtruthspeaker:


When you say "instincts" and "hardwired into them", do you not say that they are naturally ingrated?

Did man go to the market to buy the software called thinking and install it in himself?

Is it not natural and instinctual for man to think?

Mr DTruthSpeaker, I repeat again, these animals' instincts are things hardwired into them by nature, they do not think about these instincts not to talk of making efforts to change them.
Humans have developed the ability to think and not just follow instincts like animals do.

The comparisons you're making are unnecessary.

AuthenticKing:

Lol, you're still a perfect cherry picker... When I posted my response up there (my first reply to the OP that got us into this discussion), you cherry picked the ones you can easily attack and enforce your worldview, you did the same to DeusXmachina and probably went to correct it to respond to all his statements (which you still didn't do perfectly) after reading my reply.

Try and get it. When you argue that "Tinubu is not a good option", which is your position, everything you say supporting that statement and position is still you saying Tinubu is not a good option. So I will only respond to your point which is "Tinubu is not a good option". This is not cherry picking.

AuthenticKing:

The reason why you still believe that I'm not responding to you directly is because I'm not using your exact words to respond to you but nevertheless, I'll prove to you that my responses are directed to you not to the popular understanding of faith.

Firstly, if I'm still basing my responses on popular understanding of faith, I wouldn't have even accepted your opinion that faith is thinking, because it's a universal notion that faith is belief that doesn't require thinking.

Even your Bible affirms this in so many places, e.g. when Jesus appeared to the disciples with Thomas being absent. But I kinda bought your opinion but was still trying to make you understand that it's not a rational way of thinking.

Your first response that faith is the analysis and processing of information was fallacious at first without any basis, it was not until you quoted Thomas Fuller that I started to understand you better.

But I'm still trying to let you know that that way of thinking is still irrational and highly grounded in confirmation bias

"He does not believe that does not live according to his belief." What of if you find another data that clearly disproves that your belief? Will you be willing to change your belief and align yourself with reality?

If you review your post, you would see that this is the first time that you are properly challenging me based on my own position of "faith is the analysis and processing of information" and not on the "universal notion that faith is belief that doesn't require thinking"

And your basis of challenge is that is 2 points
1) irrational
2) confirmation bias.

On irrationality.
You do not point out the irrationality present in my position, you only state that irrational ideas is common in beliefs as shown below.

AuthenticKing:

"Do you also know that many beliefs contain so many irrational ideas that can only be made clear when faced with an opposite worldview?"

Then you praise your view of Rationals, which is not relevant because they are not the issue saying.

AuthenticKing:

"Rationals do not give a much sh*t about belief because they're so open minded, they accept that they do not know and if they come with a belief, they don't try to block out every other belief that doesn't align with theirs, they're willing to accept better data that opposes that belief, these set of people are focused on aligning themselves with reality."

So when you look at your posts here, you can see that you did not show any thing that is irrational in my position.

You only stated your own beliefs, which is not the issue, therefore, you are "Off Point!" Which itself has now shown your irrationality of opposing a subject matter, with the use of "Off Point".

On Confirmation bias.
This is an acceptable query because this word is self explanatory, so i can go on.

And the word "confirmation" has said it all. If it is confirmed that a car can take you from Garki to Effurun, can a person still reasonably and validly oppose it?

No!

That is the power of confirmation.

Therefore, if it is confirmed that a car can take you from Garki to Effurun, then you are already biased (which means positional) as you rely on it.

Surely, you would be against a position that says a mattress or wrapper can take you from Garlic to Effurun.

So you see, your query here is not valid for we act and live on confirmed events eg travelling by plane to Oslo, eating in KFC, opening a bank account with a bank.

AuthenticKing:

Mr DTruthSpeaker, I repeat again, these animals' instincts are things hardwired into them by nature, they do not think about these instincts not to talk of making efforts to change them.
Humans have developed the ability to think and not just follow instincts like animals do.

The comparisons you're making are unnecessary.

Repeating just shows you can not answer.

No man went to the market to buy the software called thinking and install it in himself!

And it Is without reasonable doubt that it is natural and instinctual for men to think for thinking has been hardwired into man by Nature, exactly as the animals have

Atheist in the house should kindly watch out for Jesus Christ message to Randy kay ,check out Randy kay ministries on youtube, 100 Huntley street, check out ivan turtle, jim woodford, the list is endless, and i hope you find Jesus because there are blillions down there and no one there is debating.