JackBizzle:


The god of the bible is a personal God....how do you call yourself a christian when you dont believe in a personal god?


How can a woman be a muslim feminist when islan makes it clear that women are less than men?

This is why the Bible is florid.... It uses anthropomorphic concepts to expound on general truths since our perceptions are but microcosmic bits.... The whole "panorama" of the divine is rather stupefying when considered in its innateness...

STUPUDTHEISTS:


But Ebuka worships at chosen church and also believes in a god who interferes via miracles and whatnot. Truth is, the weasel is a nuthead Christian fundamentalist. He deceitfully argues for the deist god 'cause of the stupid and idiotic nature of the Bible god. Lol

Hmm, I wonder. I would describe him as a former Christian atheist deist, who is afraid of jettisoning the first two for fear of, well, something or the other, and evolving into a full blown fundamentalist atheist. A work in progress, at best.

I too would be afraid to realise and accept that my current state were apeish. But the joy of finally evolving into a human being sure would out way continuing in a state of not realising I had heretofore been stark naked in the Garden of Eden!

ScepticalPyrrho:
Ebuka also talks about "logical theists"....

How can a theist be logical?

Except he is delusional.

You are now attributing logic to atheism? Intellectual superiority is not exclusive to the atheistic class...

This is a Test Post

Seems like every time I write the word *n. a. k. e. d* it gets changed to naked, and unclothed!


But the Lord God called to the man, ‘Where are you?’
He answered, ‘I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.’

budaatum:

And when we tried to explain it to you, vaxx, despite having worked between the limitations you set, you claimed your subjective opinion was objective reality but others subjectivity was them foolishly placing teapots in the sky (though I am certain you used stronger words of insult than that). The impression I had at the time was that of a child sulking in the rain but refusing to accept it was cold and wet. However, it occurred to me that that might be the exact same subjective opinion you had of me.

(I wonder if we are ready to discuss the differences between subjective opinion and objectivity yet? Just a thought.)

first of all you are overlapping, that topic was not where we had a discussion about subjective and objective argument...... It was another thread I created..... Name .....why is there something rather than nothing....



Why are you using the "WE"

You are the only atheists in that thread that challenge me on the subject .....objectivity vs subjectivity..... Which I arguably do justice to the topic by telling you there is nothing like objective opinion...... All opinion are subjective....... I created a lot of examples in which you yourself reject....


If you are interested in my opinion again, you can create a thread on it and give me a mention..

vaxx:
first of all you are overlapping, that topic was not where we had a discussion about subjective and objective argument...... It was another thread I created..... Name .....why is there something rather than nothing....



Why are you using the "WE"

You are the only atheists in that thread that challenge me on the subject .....objectivity vs subjectivity..... Which I arguably do justice to the topic by telling you there is nothing like objective opinion...... All opinion are subjective....... I created a lot of examples in which you yourself reject....


If you are interested in my opinion again, you can create a thread on it and give me a mention..

Sorry vaxx, but I do not have sufficient wisdom, ability nor patience to discuss with you. But as you insist, I'll have another look at the thread.

I will start with, all opinions may be subjective but not all subjective opinions are objective. Let me think then start a thread.

budaatum:

Sorry vaxx, but I do not have sufficient wisdom, ability nor patience to discuss with you. But as you insist, I'll have another look at the thread.

I will start with, all opinions may be subjective but not all subjective opinions are objective. Let me think then start a thread.

you have start with wrong premises there is big difrences between subjectivity and objectivity.....all opinion are subjective but general proven evidence like chemical formula for water is h20 is objective......


Meaning all proven reallity evidence are fact, all logical evidence are opinion......

vaxx:
you have start with wrong premises there is big difrences between subjectivity and objectivity.....all opinion are subjective but general proven evidence like chemical formula for water is h20 is objective......

I'm sorry. But this is one of the difficulties I have with your mode of dialogue.

Please explain your perceived difference between your statement and my statement. (I have posted the relevant portion below but check so you know I'm not cheating please.) We will shortly return to the portion I left out in yours.

budaatum:

I will start with, all opinions may be subjective but not all subjective opinions are objective.

I guess we might as well do it here

Re: Why Is There Something Rather than Nothing.... Let's Talk Philosophical

https://www.nairaland.com/4115579/why-there-something-rather-than/1#61422314


The relevant thread.

budaatum:

I'm sorry. But this is one of the difficulties I have with your mode of dialogue.

Please explain your perceived difference between your statement and my statement. (I have posted the relevant portion below but check so you know I'm not cheating please.) We will shortly return to the portion I left out in yours.


I guess we might as well do it here

no let's honour the thread..... Look at the word maybe in your clause

vaxx:
no let's honour the thread..... Look at the word maybe in your clause

So, if I were to say water is H2O, is that my subjective opinion?

budaatum:

So, if I were to say water is H2O, is that my subjective opinion?

if you want my says on the issue, start a new thread or start from the very thread, you were sccusing me of insulting you...I don't wish to derail this thread....I will like to read Christian opinion....

vaxx:
if you want my says on the issue, start a new thread or start from the very thread, you were sccusing me of insulting you...I don't wish to derail this thread....I will like to read Christian opinion....

Bye

kingvicky:


This is why the Bible is florid.... It uses anthropomorphic concepts to expound on general truths since our perceptions are but microcosmic bits.... The whole "panorama" of the divine is rather stupefying when considered in its innateness...

This grammar wey you dey blow......

kingvicky:


You are now attributing logic to atheism? Intellectual superiority is not exclusive to the atheistic class...

When it comes to proving that God exists, theists are not logical.
The main quality of a true adherent to a religion is to have a closed mind, and be less intelligent when the questions is concerned with the authenticity of religious claims.
Mixing up "theist" and "logic" as a word for arguments sake only shows how desperately he wants to win arguments...

If anyone haven't found God (literally), and believes anyway; that is an illogical position.

ScepticalPyrrho:

If anyone haven't found God (literally), and believes anyway; that is an illogical position.

It's Sunday, and I'm in a mood for this.

Pyrrho, I wish to put it to you that the reason for 'believing' is that I haven't literally found God. If I had literally found God, I would not 'believe' that I had found God, unless I was not quite sure I had found God such that, perhaps I haven't literally found God, or, I was not sure if what I had found was literally, God.

If I find God, it can only be because what I found is, literally, God. It would therefore be illogical to claim to believe I had found God since I know that what I found is God.

I can of course wish to be pyrrhoic, as in continue to be sceptic despite conclusive evidence proving otherwise, in which case, believing is the best I can do. But in that case, there is either a God, whose existence I choose to deny, or, there is no God and I just wish to believe there is one.

When it is said that, "I believe in God", (by which is meant, I believe God exists), what is meant is that one doesn't quite know whether there is a God or not, but takes the position that there is, or may be, one.

I therefore put it to you that it is truly not illogical to believe there is a God. It is in fact logical since I have no evidence for God's existence, but wish to hold to the position that God truly does exist. All I got to do now is convince myself that the position that I hold is true, and this I can accomplish simply by refuting all evidence that is opposed to my position.

So, praise God everyone, it's Sunday!

budaatum:

It's Sunday, and I'm in a mood for this.

Pyrrho, I wish to put it to you that the reason for 'believing' is that I haven't literally found God. If I had literally found God, I would not 'believe' that I had found God, unless I was not quite sure I had found God such that, perhaps I haven't literally found God, or, I was not sure if what I had found was literally, God.

If I find God, it can only be because what I found is, literally, God. It would therefore be illogical to claim to believe I had found God since I know that what I found is God.

I can of course wish to be pyrrhoic, as in continue to be sceptic despite conclusive evidence proving otherwise, in which case, believing is the best I can do. But in that case, there is either a God, whose existence I choose to deny, or, there is no God and I just wish to believe there is one.

When it is said that, "I believe in God", (by which is meant, I believe God exists), what is meant is that one doesn't quite know whether there is a God or not, but takes the position that there is, or may be, one.

I therefore put it to you that it is truly not illogical to believe there is a God. It is in fact logical since I have no evidence for God's existence, but wish to hold to the position that God truly does exist. All I got to do now is convince myself that the position that I hold is true, and this I can accomplish simply by refuting all evidence that is opposed to my position.

So, praise God everyone, it's Sunday!

Well said.

You can't claim that your believe is based on logic either. We have guys on this forum claiming to have their belief backed up by logic; which I find irrational.

Very few theist are willing to accept that they possess no knowledge of a God like you just did. I see no wrong in saying one has sufficient reasons to believe that a God exists.

ScepticalPyrrho:
When it comes to proving that God exists, theists are not logical.
The main quality of a true adherent to a religion is to have a closed mind, and be less intelligent when the questions is concerned with the authenticity of religious claims.
Mixing up "theist" and "logic" as a word for arguments sake only shows how desperately he wants to win arguments...

If anyone haven't found God (literally), and believes anyway; that is an illogical position.

there are too much flaw with this argument.....hope you are willing to accept it if I point it out.....

ScepticalPyrrho:
Well said.

You can't claim that your believe is based on logic either. We have guys on this forum claiming to have their belief backed up by logic; which I find irrational.

My good sir, but my believe is based on logic, as far as I understand the meaning of logic. Albeit that what I refer to as logic may seem illogical to some others.

For instance, I am a rational individual, at least so I believe. A house does not build itself, nor do roads suddenly appear, so I safely conclude that things are created, and so there must be a creator of those things.

I then look at the universe. Rivers do not flow uphill, nor do dogs give birth to pigs. Everything is right and proper. And I eat three round meals a day. And often at times without having done sufficient work to provide me with those meals. O but for the grace of the gods go humble I in this massive universe.

Ah! There must, at the very least, be one god jo! And it must be the one that I worship. Or do you think rational me would chose the wrong god?

I insist, I am, not only rational, but indeed, logical too!

budaatum:

My good sir, but my believe is based on logic, as far as I understand the meaning of logic. Albeit that what I refer to as logic may seem illogical to some others.

For instance, I am a rational individual, at least so I believe. A house does not build itself, nor do roads suddenly appear, so I safely conclude that things are created, and so there must be a creator of those things.

I then look at the universe. Rivers do not flow uphill, nor do dogs give birth to pigs. Everything is right and proper. And I eat three round meals a day. And often at times without having done sufficient work to provide me with those meals. O but for the grace of the gods go humble I in this massive universe.

Ah! There must, at the very least, be one god jo! And it must be the one that I worship. Or do you think rational me would chose the wrong god?

I insist, I am, not only rational, but indeed, logical too!

Have you been privileged to see how planets are formed?

Did you see a God creating the rivers?
Have you ever heard of cross-breeding of different species?
Haven't you heard or seen animals giving birth to mixed species?

But you can get videos that shows how stars are formed, why rivers flow down-streem.

If there must be a God, then there must be God's God.

ScepticalPyrrho:
Have you been privileged to see how planets are formed?

Did you see a God creating the rivers?
Have you ever heard of cross-breeding of different species?
Haven't you heard or seen animals giving birth to mixed species?

But you can get videos that shows how stars are formed, why rivers flow down-streem.

If there must be a God, then there must be God's God.

See how planets are formed? Of course not! Nor did I see God creating the rivers! But he did, you know, he did create the rivers and everything else. Don't you know that?

Cross breeding, like dog and cat producing a dogcat, or catdog, or tacgod? Of course not. Ditto mixed species! But if those things exist, they are evidence for the iniquities of humans, or the work of satan, at the least!

Video? I beg, get outahere. Nollywood is on video but you will not claim that witch is not fiction, or would you!? Next you'd be showing me video showing human beings on the moon!

Maybe there is a god's god, but I believe in the one God, the Creator of heaven and earth. The Lord Almighty. My God!

Pschew (that's the sound of me kissing my teeth). Like my bible book has not warned me of your sort trying to destroy my faith in my one God!

At least, that's how my belief would go. And please, do not attempt to present me with all that atheist mumbo jumbo stuff you atheists call evidence, you illogical irrational individual.

I will pray for your soul.