kingxsamz:


Yeah because a goat and human being are not the same. It's not rocket science.

Neither is a lion and tiger nor a wolf and a dog but nobody complains.

What is the difference between a human and a goat since they're supposed to all be animals?

cooooooks:
You're amazing at creating narratives all by yourself and running with them.


You should write a novel.

Will you buy?

cooooooks:
I give you 5 years: you will leave the religion.

Please, I beg you, READ AND STUDY the bible, the historicity of the bible, etc.

Come and beg me instead.

Peterrio:


Na lack of understanding dey worry you

Explain, I wan understand.

Sneakytoucher:
There is something called morals which has got nothing to do with religion. Remember that.

Lol. Athiests are so funny and dumb.
Morals stem out of religion apparently.

Or you can tell us where you got your moral principles from and what your moral principles are?

jasminer:


Neither is a lion and tiger nor a wolf and a dog but nobody complains.

What is the difference between a human and a goat since they're supposed to all be animals?

In all of these animals you mentioned, none of them mate outside of their species, how much more humans?
We're not compatible with those animals and neither are we supposed to be. Plus it's disgusting.
We're animals, just more intelligent and self aware. It's not common for a goat to have sex with a hippopotamus. Maybe you should ask them why?
Bringing up humans having sex with animals as an argument against morality having nothing to do with religion is laughable.

cornelboy:

Lol. Athiests are so funny and dumb.
Morals stem out of religion apparently.

Or you can tell us where you got your moral principles from and what your moral principles are?

So was killing innocent people morally accepted before religion existed?

Asour:


It is.

But you don't have to think in extremes to understand. I'm not DISCOUNTING what Moses said.

I'm saying that what Moses said (says) wouldn't rank higher than what Jesus says. Think of it like a hierarchy.

For instance.
Paul says in Corinthians (1 Cor 7:1) saying that in his opinion people shouldn't get married.

However God had already commended marriage in
Proverbs 18:22 & Gen 2:24.

God's commendation for marriage should rank higher than Paul's opinion(without discounting his opinion). Don't you think?

If a book contradicts itself then it isn’t perfect, whether it’s the main character that said something or not. Or why do you think people use the Bible to justify almost any sin.

The Bible states adulterers should be stoned, there’s no where else in the Bible that condemns this, even Jesus didn’t condemn it, he just pointed out the hypocrisy of the people about to do the act.

Look my brother, the Bible has made some people decent, fine. But more atrocities has also been committed cos of the Bible. And besides it’s only perfect to your religion, to every other religion is just tales. Even Judaism which Christianity is based off rejects the bible

tete7000:


And what I am telling you is that you don't kill because there are moral codes that prohibit you from killing. Fortunately, religion provides you with some of the codes that prohibits you from committing crimes. Does atheism provide you with any one? Not at all. It gives you absolute freedom to be your own god and dictate to yourself what you consider good or bad. It makes you your own god. In the long run, it promotes chaos and disorderliness because where there are no law, there will be no sin. I am sure people like you will want to come and argue with me that you follow state's laws. Unfortunately many of those state's laws have their foundation in religion.

Which states law have foundation in religion, don’t your know religious countries are the shittiest countries to live in eg nigeria, America, Muslim nations.
Why do you think predominantly atheist countries (Norway Latvia, Luxembourg) are the best places in the world to live.

I can’t continue this conversation with you because you’re a bigot and everyone knows how conversations with your kind goes.

Like I said if it’s cause of your religion you don’t commit certain crimes. Then you should really check yourself as a person

If you write, of course!

Lollittaa:

Will you buy?

I beg you young lady

Lollittaa:

Come and beg me instead.

kingxsamz:

So was killing innocent people morally accepted before religion existed?

You didn't attempt any of the two questions I asked about morals. I'll ask another one.

Do you know/witness anytime religion wasn't existing?

cornelboy:

You didn't attempt any of the two questions I asked about morals. I'll ask another one.

Do you know/witness anytime religion wasn't existing?

It was and still is morally acceptable to kill in some religions

cornelboy:

You didn't attempt any of the two questions I asked about morals. I'll ask another one.

Do you know/witness anytime religion wasn't existing?

So religion predates humans?

kingxsamz:


Man, what are you saying? You're saying a lot of words and a lot things for a simple case.
You're just compiling different words without addressing the main issue.

How can you be called "good" when you are omniscient and you go ahead to grant the wish of someone who will end up killing a child? you're talking about rejection and bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
How can you know the future and everyone's decision but still go ahead to ask a man to murder his own child? What kind of sick test is that?

Address my point and leave out unnecessary details, or should I call them sermons?

Yes, I agree that my reply was wordy, a side effect of being overly passionate. But it contains the answer to your first question.

I will answer your 2nd question after you've done so. Doing anything else would be a waste of effort.

NeckingNgulping:
I'm an atheist, and I found that I'm incapable of dating women who are particularly religious. I could go out on a date with a religious woman, and that's usually solely by merit of me pretending the whole time as though I'm truly in for it.

Since long term relationship with these women would have necessitated that i make pretence a hobby, logic sets in and we inevitably part ways.

In a highly religious country like ours, it's quite hard to find a woman who's an atheist as me, let alone a decent one.

old news. Even science is beginning to prove that God exists.

kingxsamz:

Knowing the end of a particular course of action is something even humans are capable of. If your god can't tell what actions one will take then it's not omniscient.

You forget, humans, in Christianity, were made in the image of God. That humans can do the same does not change anything.

To know and to experience are not the same

kingxsamz:

And what's bad about that?

Hence we can see, although Hitler's actions were bad, without them we may not have had UDHR.

But yeah, it has nothing to do with your question. Hitler was bad

suicidesheep:

This is you just uttering rubbish to try and prove a point

I agree, and will try better another time.

ValeeLove:
old news. Even science is beginning to prove that God exists.

Lol, I would love to know which science is that

Namdio:


Hence we can see, although Hitler's actions were bad, without them we may not have had UDHR.

But yeah, it has nothing to do with your question. Hitler was bad

Terrible logic tbh.
Humans tend to make life easier for themselves. Taking measures due to previous actions of an individual does not justify the actions of the said individual.
I'm guessing in this case, your god is Hitler?
Is that supposed to be a good thing?

tete7000:


If you an atheist, the notion of fornication shouldn't bother you. The last term I checked, those are concept religion uses to hold people in check. Or do atheist also have codes that outlaw consensual sex between unmarried people?

Hypocrisy is the issue here, not fornication, saying one thing and doing another iz the issue, not the deed itself

"I believe in God, and the whole Bible, but I don't follow some of its teachings because i just like sex"

Without remorse

suicidesheep:

If a book contradicts itself then it isn’t perfect, whether it’s the main character that said something or not. Or why do you think people use the Bible to justify almost any sin.

The Bible states adulterers should be stoned, there’s no where else in the Bible that condemns this, even Jesus didn’t condemn it, he just pointed out the hypocrisy of the people about to do the act.

Look my brother, the Bible has made some people decent, fine. But more atrocities has also been committed cos of the Bible. And besides it’s only perfect to your religion, to every other religion is just tales. Even Judaism which Christianity is based off rejects the bible

Nah!

May God help us.

uche40:


Please, do tell me more. This discussion just got interesting.



Before we continue, I want to remind you that this discussion we are having is framed in the context of the existence, as well as the worship of supernatural creator deities commonly addressed as gods. As I mentioned earlier, I'm looking at what is logical, and more importantly -- factual, not what might/could be.

=================================

Got it will keep it in mind.

Now, I just want to say, good job using facts and figures to counter my religious flowery speak. It stays true to your nature. But I digress.

uche40:

Now, let us look at some standard definitions of Atheism:

atheism
/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/

noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

The above definition is Oxford's. Observe the bolded phrase. Atheism is defined as LACKING belief.

A Theist would say: I have a belief in the existence of God.

An Atheist would say: I don't have a belief in the existence of God.

The Miriam Webster defines God as

God : the supreme or ultimate reality

Oxford Learners
Something to which too much importance or attention is given

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/god


Collins Dictionary
A person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/god



Now, before you say anything, I would like to add, yes this is a clear case of bending the facts to suit my story. I am not an atheist, my ability to make use of facts is limited by my bias. And yes, I am straying off topic. But the point I was originally trying to make was, although atheist don't believe in some supreme being the believe in a supreme something. Theirs is just a case of exchanging one supreme for another.

What is an Atheist's supreme reality? That everything must be supported by facts and figures. If a thing can't be proved empirically it doesn't exist. Just like some Christian would say if it isn't in the Bible then it doesn't exist. (I guess that makes their bible their God)

To what does an Atheist give a lot of importance? Facts and figures. While for a Christian it is the capital G God.

What does an Atheist deify ( defined as Miriam Webster as to glorify as of supreme worth, chose this because other definitions feed back into god which is a headache)? Facts and figures, while for a Christian it is their God.

uche40:
For the record, when something is established to be factual by virtue of the provision of empirical evidence, it ceases to be a matter of belief and becomes a matter of knowledge. Take for example, the phenomena of thunder and lightning. In the ancient times, thunders were believed to be growling noises made by the gods because they were angry and throwing tantrums. It was a natural assumption to make because nobody really knew why thunders occurred, so the ancient people created myths to explain it alongside other "supernatural" occurrences at the time. But now we know that thunders are a result of atmospheric instability and other processes involving the buildup of electricity in moving clouds, the nitty gritty of which you can source from any reputable scientific journals on the internet.

Yes, we believe this holds true for all cases. I don't argue with you. We are aware of how to prove that thunder and lightning is all this. But how can we be sure that it holds true for all cases?

This is not mathematics where such cases can easily be proved using mathematical induction. In the real world things are not so easily proved. The reality is that, there may exist (I have literally broken all your ground rules, forgive me) a case that thunder and lightning can come about by another process, which can easily be proved false. However to be empirically sure that all cases hold true we must individually test each and every case.

But to do that would be stupid, expensive and frankly a waste of time. So we hold the belief that it is true for all cases, and work (successfully) with this belief.

To use mathematics as a case study. Mathematicians could just as easily assume that the digits of π appear randomly but they don't, and now they are struggling to prove whether or not this is correct. Perhaps it has some hidden benefit I am not aware of, but to the general public, saying the digits of π appear randomly works just fine for them.

uche40:
It's easy to claim there is evidence of something. The issue is actually presenting it. Mind you, no rational or honest individual can deny hard empirical evidence when it is presented before him/her. For instance, you'd find it mighty difficult to catch two people arguing that if you throw a cup out the window, it will just float in the air and won't go down. Everybody knows that gravity and its effects are real.

True, simple throwing the cup out the window would prove it. But the person could hold the belief that it was just a fluke, a mere coincidence and that surely the next time it would float.

Now you could either stand there throwing cups out the window for the rest of his life to prove it is true every single time. Or he could believe that it does and get on with his life.

uche40:
The truth is that lack of belief of God never occurs to most atheists as they carry on their daily lives. What you see is simply feedback of atheists being heckled by Christians in their families, schools and offices. Understandably, the atheists can't make any sense out of the outlandish claims made by the religious adherents, and then the gauntlet is set and the request made:

Show us the evidence.

I have to agree with you there. A lot of non-spiritual (and I don't mean unsupernatural, I mean unaware of the highest truth and what the gospel truly talks about) Christians, think that forcing their beliefs on others is the way to go. This is just not true. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.

Jesus never went out of his way to heckle the Pharisees. He only did so when they approached him for his own opinion. He spoke to those who went after him and never went out of His way to tell people they weren't living right unsolicited. People were attracted to him because of his lifestyle and he used that as an opportunity to speak to them.

uche40:
The more seasoned theists who encounter atheists in discussions more often weave decent arguments using sophistry and circumstantial evidence, which sounds smart to the ears

As I have tried to do here, though I don't think I am qualified to be on their level. And I will conveniently disregard the rest of that paragraph.

And one more thing, life is all circumstantial. No two real world problems are the exact same. Even if the same equations are used in it's resolution it's parameters differ. What religion ought to do is teach us those equations of life that can be used to solve the problems, regardless of the circumstances. (I wish to say more but I cant form the right words to put it so it will remain unsaid).

uche40:
That's a weird idea. I fail to relate and/or see how a person can think himself better than somebody else because they reject facts.

And yet they exist. And it's not just specific to one religion, there will always be people who are ignorant and yet proud of it. They baffle even the brightest.

uche40:
No, that's just a badly dressed word salad. And I'm not hungry.

It is. I apologise and am embarrassed.

uche40:
Which God exactly? There are many gods you know.

That's not the point. If it helps to answer the question, then let's assume Christian God is the god in question(any other God works equally as well with the example)

If the empirical evidence says He exists, would you believe?

kingxsamz:


Terrible logic tbh.
Humans tend to make life easier for themselves. Taking measures due to previous actions of an individual does not justify the actions of the said individual.
I'm guessing in this case, your god is Hitler?
Is that supposed to be a good thing?

I'm not sure you read the post well. I was saying that I was wrong and you were right. Hitler is bad. Where did the story of Hitler being my God come from?

Bruh

kingxsamz:


In all of these animals you mentioned, none of them mate outside of their species, how much more humans?
We're not compatible with those animals and neither are we supposed to be. Plus it's disgusting.
We're animals, just more intelligent and self aware. It's not common for a goat to have sex with a hippopotamus. Maybe you should ask them why?
Bringing up humans having sex with animals as an argument against morality having nothing to do with religion is laughable.

Wolf dog breeds nkor? But everyone likes the cute dogs that are produced when a wolf is crossed with a dog.

What about mules which are offsprings of a Horse and a donkey? And are highly prized burden bearers?

Buffalo cow that's highly sought after for it's amazing leather and abundance of beef nkor?

It's not common doesn't mean it's an abomination so why judge a woman who felt like mating with a fellow animal?

If a theist says it's wrong for humans and animals to breed cus humans are not animals and are made in the image of God, it's understandable.

But as an atheist, you claim to stand for liberal mindedness and stark facts. It has been proven scientifically that humans belong to kingdom animalia so why are you discriminating against other animals and judging people's right to do whatever with their body? Isn't that a form of racism?

If you stand for liberal mindedness, you can't be selective about it. If you don't like it, that's your right but you have no right to condemn anyone practicing it

kingxsamz:

So religion predates humans?

Seems you didn't understand the question.
I didn't say religion come before humans, that's very illogical.
How on earth would you even ask me that dumb question?

Do you know or have any written records of the times religion was not existing?

So was killing innocent people morally accepted before religion existed? undecided

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

suicidesheep:

It was and still is morally acceptable to kill in some religions

Is killing against moral or not acceptable in atheism?

How it started...

uche40:
Before we continue, I want to remind you that this discussion we are having is framed in the context of the existence, as well as the worship of supernatural creator deities commonly addressed as gods. As I mentioned earlier, I'm looking at what is logical, and more importantly -- factual, not what might/could be.

Namdio:
Got it will keep it in mind.

=================================

How it is going....

Namdio:
The Miriam Webster defines God as

God : the supreme or ultimate reality

Oxford Learners
Something to which too much importance or attention is given

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/god


Collins Dictionary
A person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/god

Now, before you say anything, I would like to add, yes this is a clear case of bending the facts to suit my story. I am not an atheist, my ability to make use of facts is limited by my bias. And yes, I am straying off topic. But the point I was originally trying to make was, although atheist don't believe in some supreme being the believe in a supreme something. Theirs is just a case of exchanging one supreme for another.

=================================

Don't worry, I'm not surprised. The little interaction we had yesterday has told me all I ever need to know about you and your worldview.

As you can see, I anticipated you flipping the entire context of our discussion on its head, which is why I earlier requested that we confine the discussion to the worship of Gods -- as in -- supernatural creator deities. I guess I was only trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and was hoping you wont steer the conversation to a dead end once again. But, at the very least, it's good to know you're aware that you really did veer off on a ridiculous tangent. I'll indulge you just this once.

I couldn't help but notice that you cherry-picked particular definitions of God to advance your narrative, conveniently leaving out popular definitions such as this...

1) (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

And this...

2) (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

You are committing the fallacy of Selective Attention:

"Focusing your attention on certain aspects of the argument while completely ignoring or missing other parts. This usually results in irrelevant rebuttals, strawman fallacy, and unnecessarily drawn-out arguments".
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Selective-Attention

Now, let me clue you in on something important: whenever you select one-dimensional features or attributes of various definitions of God, in an attempt to appeal to your subjective insight of the term "God", your selection -- by implication -- can be applied to any event or activity we partake in which we accord too much importance and attention to, or which we excessively admire.

In light of your limited selection of features, I think it's safe to assume that

1) Anti-abortion campaigns are Gods
2) Skydiving is a God.
3) Playing under the rain is a God

By your definition, every single activity that people partake in is "God", making the term too broad and unintelligible since it won't convey any significant information.

Maybe it will to you, I don't know. You're strange.

Namdio:
To what does an Atheist give a lot of importance? Facts and figures. While for a Christian it is the capital G God.

This sentence indicates to me that you probably just skimmed through my post without giving it a thorough reading. I already refuted this claim by pointing out that not all atheists give importance to facts and figures. I made mention of spiritual atheists who believe in Karma -- which isn't supported by any evidence, facts or figures. Your repetition of this canard after I've already shown you the inaccuracy leads me to question what ulterior motives you have in this discussion.

Namdio:
The reality is that, there may exist (I have literally broken all your ground rules, forgive me) a case that thunder and lightning can come about by another process, which can easily be proved false. However to be empirically sure that all cases hold true we must individually test each and every case.

But to do that would be stupid, expensive and frankly a waste of time. So we hold the belief that it is true for all cases, and work (successfully) with this belief.

If the knowledge of a specific mechanism which brings about thunder and lightning is already accessible to us, I fail to see the relevance of looking for other possible mechanisms through which thunder and lightning could also be brought about. Note that this doesn't negate the possibility there exists other mechanisms behind these phenomena. Occam's Razor applies here -- the simplest explanation is most likely.

You can neither prove or disprove an unknown. And common sense dictates if something hasn't been demonstrated to be true, you WITHHOLD BELIEF in it. So I wouldn't call it a belief that no other mechanisms behind the creation of lightning exists, but rather, a lack of belief that there are other possible mechanisms behind the creation of lightning because they are yet to be demonstrated.

Namdio:
True, simple throwing the cup out the window would prove it. But the person could hold the belief that it was just a fluke, a mere coincidence and that surely the next time it would float.

What you posit here is a hypothetical state of affairs, and it doesn't represent the reality we can observe. I sincerely doubt that a normal human being with his mental faculties intact would be spending the next 50+ years of his life throwing cups out of windows in hopes that one day his cup will float, and even if it were the case, it will only be a matter of time before the relevant authorities confine him to an asylum after he is medically termed insane.

Namdio:
That's not the point. If it helps to answer the question, then let's assume Christian God is the god in question(any other God works equally as well with the example)

If the empirical evidence says He exists, would you believe?

I asked that you specify the God you were referring to because there have been many conceptions of creator deities throughout history, and even in terms of the nature of said God. A Deist God is different from a Theist God. To me, the latter would be much difficult to provide evidence for. So, I don't agree that my request for clarification was not relevant.

Now that you've clarified which God, I'll answer your question. The answer is NO.

I won't BELIEVE he exists.

I would KNOW he exists.

dhardline:
Will I say Nigerian atheist or atheist in general are a funny lot. How do you desire to have a 'decent' atheist as a girl friend?
Like who are you to require a standard for her when nothing rules her?
Or do you not know God gave man commandments on how to live life and be 'decent' and once God is removed man is free to make up his own rules as he lives and nothing becomes out of place for him. So just go ahead a marry any atheist you come across, she can decide to have 10 husband's and it's not out of place, she can decide to sleep with animals and it's still not out of place for her. She is ruled by nothing just as you claim you are too and hence free to do as she wills.

Ode...did your gawd also gave the over 70% atheist in China commandments too? Do you need a gawd to know right from wrong?

Peterrio:


Hypocrisy is the issue here, not fornication, saying one thing and doing another iz the issue, not the deed itself

"I believe in God, and the whole Bible, but I don't follow some of its teachings because i just like sex"

Without remorse

Leave hypocrisy for the religious people to deal with. That shouldn't be your headache. In fact, if anything you suppose to be glad you ain't part of our system.

suicidesheep:


Which states law have foundation in religion, don’t your know religious countries are the shittiest countries to live in eg nigeria, America, Muslim nations.
Why do you think predominantly atheist countries (Norway Latvia, Luxembourg) are the best places in the world to live.

I can’t continue this conversation with you because you’re a bigot and everyone knows how conversations with your kind goes.

Like I said if it’s cause of your religion you don’t commit certain crimes. Then you should really check yourself as a person

And if you don't know that there was a time in human history when church ruled and your present day laws emanated from then, you are the most ignorant person on earth. I don't commit crimes because I am a religious person, my religious moral codes forbid me to do crimes and I follow it. What is hard for you to understand in that? Before something is considered criminal, there must be a law that says so, religious or otherwise. I asked you what moral codes atheism gave? you can't answer and chose to run claiming unfounded bigotry. Your claim that Luxembourg, Latvia and Norway which are predominantly Christian countries are atheistic is the most ludicrous I have ever seen. It simply shows your level of deep seated ignorance and your inability to do a simple Google search. If you do, ordinary Wikipedia would have shown you that your claim about these country are ignorantly out of place. Bros, if anyone should avoid another, I should be the one avoiding you because your ignorance and lies reek to heaven, though I don't expect less from an atheist though, because before someone can deny obvious reality of God's existence, such a person must have had his sense wrapped in deep-seated ignorance. The scripture writes and I quote “A fool says in his heart that there is no God“. It takes a foolish person to deny God exists. Bye.

Religion in Latvia (2018 estimate)[1]

Lutheranism (36%)
Catholicism (17%)
Eastern Orthodoxy (9%)
Other Christians (2%)
None (35%)
Other (1%)

Religions in Norway (31 December 2019)[1][3][2]

Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway (68.68%)
Catholic Church (3.08%)
Pentecostal congregations (0.76%)
Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (0.53%)
Evangelical Lutheran Free Church (0.36%)
Other Christian denominations (2.21%)
Islam (3.41%)
Buddhism (0.40%)
Hinduism (0.21%)
Secular Humanism (1.85%)
Unaffiliated (18.32%)
Other Religion (0.09%)

Religion in Luxembourg (2019)[1]

Catholicism (54%)
Protestantism (3%)
Eastern Orthodoxy (1%)
Other Christians (3%)
Agnosticism (17%)
Atheism (11%)
Islam (3%)
Judaism (1%)
Other (6%)
Undeclared (2%)

Olodo!!!