winner01:
Neither am I interested in providing evidence.

darkchild64:

Fine at this point all I can say is suit yourself

dalaman:


It's NOT that you are not interested in providing any evidence. The fact is that you can NOT and do NOT have any evidence to provide.

Since you haven't provided any evidence based on what atheist claim will convince them then why are you saying that no evidence will convince any atheist. You are only making this assertion because you know you can't provide any and failure to do that proves their point as such you make up this boogeyman and beat it so that you can sleep well at night.

johnydon22:


I think everyone is misunderstanding the fundamental premise of this argument.

It is built from the original premise of my thread which assumes that evidence to prove the existence of God is necessary but the understanding the nature of evidence you must understand the sort of evidence that is necessary to satisfy the need for proof.

My thread asks: What sort of evidence would serve as sufficient proof in this regard?

And i think a short summary of Winner01's argument is "No evidence is necessary or will be sufficient enough to convince an atheist'

i quite do not agree with that. If an atheist sets his expected nature of evidence and such evidence is confirmed then such an atheist by his own standard has confirmed the illegitimacy of his doubt.

if he fails in the face of this evidence (which he think is necessary) to at least entertain the possibility of being wrong then that could be an intellectual dishonesty at play.

I hope this clears the argument though

winner01:


Oya read Johnys explanation:



Do you understand now?

dalaman:


Did you read where he said he does NOT agree with your position? What are you saying?

johnydon22:


I think everyone is misunderstanding the fundamental premise of this argument.

It is built from the original premise of my thread which assumes that evidence to prove the existence of God is necessary but the understanding the nature of evidence you must understand the sort of evidence that is necessary to satisfy the need for proof.

My thread asks: What sort of evidence would serve as sufficient proof in this regard?

And i think a short summary of Winner01's argument is "No evidence is necessary or will be sufficient enough to convince an atheist'

i quite do not agree with that. If an atheist sets his expected nature of evidence and such evidence is confirmed then such an atheist by his own standard has confirmed the illegitimacy of his doubt.

if he fails in the face of this evidence (which he think is necessary) to at least entertain the possibility of being wrong then that could be an intellectual dishonesty at play.

I hope this clears the argument though

winner01:
Haha? That's the only thing you understood in his whole explanation?

Oya read it again

Slowly this time.

winner01:
I'm tired

Is it that hard to understand?

I think they didn't read it. None of them did except johnydon22.

And to think they ridicule theists for nor reading

Its ironic.

An impressionable young atheist was having an attack of conscience and started questioning his faith in science so he wrote to a well-know atheist and asked him for some advice about living out his beliefs as an atheist. The young atheist received this reply to his question 'How can I be an effective atheist?'

1. Make sure your main focus is on Christians. You can 'touch' on other groups to appear even-handed, but ensure you are careful to make Christians your constant target; you don't want to get killed in a Jihad, do you? So only 'mention' the others such as Islam but then say that there is no difference between radical Muslims and 'fundamentalist' Christians.

2. Remember that you are looking for faults in other religions (Christians) not trying to defend yours so do not try to prove atheism! Remember, it's much easier to destroy than build up.

3. When referring to atheists always use power-filled terms like 'intelligent, educated, thinkers, strong minded and independent.'

4. Ensure you call Christians childish degrading names like, pathetic air-heads, pointless God-bother-er's, deluded bible kissers and insult them with statements which include the terms like ignorant, clueless, uneducated. The goal here is to provoke and frustrate the Christian to the point they become angry, then, you can then claim they are a hypocrite for not being 'loving like Jesus.'

5. Always talk about just being a good person remembering that, 'good' is relative to each people and culture, just like cannibals who say 'I really enjoyed eating Bill last night, he was really 'good', or paedophiles saying 'they love little Janet, she was so 'good' or Hitler saying that killing Jews is 'good.' You are allowed to define 'good' however you would like because there is no higher authority to define what 'good' is. No one can set the objective moral standard as that would put them in the place of thinking they are 'god.'

6. Be sure to set your own moral standards and compass very, very, very low so that you'll never look like a hypocrite in public. The lower the better.

7. Be as argumentative, obnoxious, loud, sarcastic and verbal as possible - there is no need to make sense or use logic in your arguments - just keep arguing.

8. Use words like 'straw-man,' 'circular reasoning,' 'ad hominem,' 'fallacy,' 'red herring' and 'non sequiturs' against any argument which reveals the false claims of atheism whether you understand those terms or not.

9. Never answer any justified question directly but quickly change the subject to make a completely different point. If you're asked why you keep changing the subject just repeat this step as necessary.

10. Always bring up examples like the spaghetti monster, Zeus, and Santa Claus to prove that if you must believe in one God then you have to believe in all of them, right?!

11. Always ask for 'evidence' for the existence of God but never accept anything presented to you especially when you are told that God is a Spirit so you can not perceive Him with the physical senses or with any physical equipment. Also ignore the reply that 'God is God and he does not need to 'prove' himself to his creation, we are to answer to Him, He does not answer to us!' At the end of a discussion remind them that all you needed was some type of 'evidence' for God.

12. Use the Christian crusades, the Salem witch hunts, and the Inquisition which happened hundreds of years ago to 'prove' how bad 'religion' is for the world.

13. Use steps 7 through 9 to get away from any historical facts of all the good that the various Christian charities have done around the world through the centuries.

14. Express disinterest and laugh out loud at the question "Isn't it amazing that Christians continue to preach love and forgiveness to the world given the historical fact atheists have committed the most ongoing blatant atrocities against Christians. Shouldn't these Christians, 'who you claim are the problem,' in retribution, have wiped atheists from the face of the earth for the crimes atheists have committed against Christians, rather than continue to preach love, acceptance and tolerate you.

15. Blindly ignore any questions about millions of Christians being killed by atheists in the last 200 years, but if questions persist claim that this was NOT done 'in the name' of atheism , which makes it alright. Failing this, refer to steps 7 through 9, this should get you past any awkward questions about atheists who are guilty of crimes against humanity, human genocide and ethnic cleansing.

16. Remember to call yourself a "free-thinker" and "open-minded" but ensure you do not practice what you preach with such 'virtues' when it comes to Christianity. Being open-minded with Christians is not an option available to the atheists as this would open a can of worms we do not want to get into, you must understand that you are not 'free-to-think' that 'there is a God.'

17. Try to laugh out loud or make some disparaging noise every time a Christian makes a statement about what they believe, even if you don't think it is funny or you don't know what they are talking about or you may think they have a good point just try to make them look stupid with your laugh or disrespectful noise.

18. Claim that atheism is for intelligent people who are rooted in "rational, reasonable common sense" thinking even though you can not provide any 'rational, reasonable common sense' explanation for the existence of matter or the cause of the ignition of 'life' or our existence, ignore the fact that less than 10% of the human population claim to be atheists and then use steps 7 through 9 to get away from the question: "what does that say about the other 90% of humanity?"

19. Confess to everyone that you were once a Christian but you saw that all Christians were just hypocrites and realised that reasonable scientific, rational, logical investigation is the only way to truly understand the world we live in.
Note: Ignore the hypocrisy in your own life when you pray in troubled times!

20. Refuse to accept or believe anything in the Bible because it was written by MEN.

21. Believe and quote other writings of MEN to prove that the Bible is wrong.
Note: completely ignore the inconsistency between steps 20 & 21

22. When referring to the Bible use the words 'myth,' 'fables,' 'fairytales,' 'ideas' and 'opinions' as often as possible.
Note: Ignore the question or use steps 7 to 9 to answer the question 'don't you believe your books and writings of science written by men just like we believe our Bible which was written by men?"

23. Only use the Bible as the authority when it will advance the atheist religion and will contribute to the atheist dogmas and doctrines. Ignore the question 'You have quoted the bible as evidence, so if the bible is true in one place the entire bible must be true, so what about the scripture that says, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN or THE LORD IS GOOD AND HIS MERCY ENDURES FOREVER or WHERE GOD REVEALS HIS MERCIFUL NATURE WHEN HE SENT JONAH AND SPARED THE EVIL CITY OF NINEVEH?'

24. Only quote the Bible verses that put God in a bad light, make sure every scripture quoted makes God look like a mean, unfair judge and never ever allow anyone to quote scriptures which show Him in the positive light of a loving heavenly father.

25. Tell everyone you have read the Bible and that you understand what it teaches whether you have or have not, even if you have only read the parts which support your argument and the atheistic religion, you have still 'read the bible,' right!?

26. Refer to step 7 through 9 when once you have stated that the problem in the world is religion, but it is then pointed out to you that atheism is a religion its self with it's own evangelical preachers who preach their own doctrines based on their own bible called 'The origins of the species.'

27. Reject all notions that you live by faith even though you must put your faith in the writings of your own atheist high priests and gurus like Darwin, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Atkins and any other book that supports your 'beliefs.' Yes we put our faith in pilots, cars, food, doctors, evolution, and the next chair that you sit in but ignore this obvious flaw in our doctrine as well.

28. Make the claim that you only have one life and don't want to waste it on religion, then ignore your own hypocrisy by living out your own self-serving religion of atheism.

29. If your conscience begins to bother you because of moral guilt you can numb it with arrogance, self-deception, self- importance, judgement of the 'religious' (Christians) people, delusions of NO coming judgement and if this fails try some drugs, alcohol, sex, rape, murder whatever you feel like, remember, 'good' is relative and you only have one life, so live it, best of all there is no hell, right?

30. If doing the drugs and stuff does not appeal to you and you want to appear as a 'morally' upstanding person of the community, don't do the all those things but never let go of your self righteous arrogance and pride. It is this pride that will get you through many a hard times when you are struggling with a question of conscience and of your atheistic faith

winner01:
This is so low!

What is this nonsense you've written now?

If I say you're demented now, you'll start screaming Ad hominem

darkchild64:

OK I have to give it to you,this is so funny
Chemystery wahts ur take

Butterflyleo:



Na wa.

All they are preprogrammed to monotonously repeat like people with zombie syndrome is EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE!

I need to show you something that sciencewatch drew my attention to sometime ago. You would find it interesting.

We fondly call it the atheist manual

Here is the full list.

And all the points there are very true and totally mirror the atheists on nairaland.

.

chemystery:

No, I won't term it ad hominem again. Now I understand what it really is - the hunger to use a new word you just learnt

chemystery:

The guy is confused by his own topic

darkchild64:
I laugh at the arguments you folks bring,it is very easy for me an atheist to become a christian and I have presented a request which shouldn't be a problem considering that in the bible your god was waking dead people and dividing seas and promised that you shall do greater works but unfortunately it seems that the greater works you fellows are doing is arguing and arguing and arguing when a some video can shut every atheist up once and for all

winner01:
Beats me man.

More accurately, No evidence will be sufficient to convince an atheist, "except such atheist is willing to first embrace his inadequacies and limitations before looking again".

But no atheist can set their expected nature of evidence without me being able to find a loophole in such evidence. And if a theist like me can find loopholes in such evidences, then so can atheists. That's why I created this thread.

Any evidence which an atheist can present, in response to your question. I promise to refute it . I've refuted the answers they provided on your thread, I'm willing to refute any ones they will provide in the future.

Except you feel they have the rights to provide evidences according to their own standards as you've written. That would mean I have no grounds to refute such evidence. Atheists do the exact opposite of this every time.

winner01:
You're demented if you still can't see that this thread is a counter thread to johnydon22s thread. You're demented if you think I'm trying to provide evidence to you or any atheist here. You're demented if you still this thread is an attempt to prove Gods existence.

Lol, really you guys are so unintelligent. You and that other guy. As terrible as dalaman is in simple comprehension, he's miles better than both of you. Read up johnydons reply. He's explained it to you already.

Gggg102:
one thing I agree with here is that burden of proof also lies with atheist due to their 'knowledge' of the 'fact' that god does not exist.

the only people without burden of proof are agnostics.

Butterflyleo:



Na wa.

All they are preprogrammed to monotonously repeat like people with zombie syndrome is EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE!

I need to show you something that sciencewatch drew my attention to sometime ago. You would find it interesting.

We fondly call it the atheist manual

Here is the full list.

And all the points there are very true and totally mirror the atheists on nairaland.

.

dalaman:

winner01:
Abi na.

DeSepiero:


Perhaps man can't sufficiently convince fellow man (atheist) with evidence that God exists.
How about God convincing man?
Cc: johnydon22

johnydon22:


This could work for an interventionist God ..lol

johnydon22:
What sort of video?

chemystery:

The guy is confused by his own topic

OkaiCorne:
Atheists are certain God does not exist!

I'd like to know how this universe came to be in the first place...

Was it by accident?

ScienceWatch:

darkchild64:

A video that proves that god exists such as an amputee gaining a new limb due to prayer should do sir

johnydon22:
We are all subject to inadequacies and i believe evidences for a subject can also be inadequate. It falls down to whether it is the seeker of evidence or the evidence itself is inadequate which is why it is necessary to establish kind of evidence expected.

johnydon22:

I think we should understand that presenting expected predictions or evidences consistent with a theory is different from presenting an evidence itself.

correct?

johnydon22:

Such arguments are logically contingent, i don't look forward to them

johnydon22:

Evidence or expected evidences that someone think is logically necessary to either falsify or substantiate the subject? I'm confused

chemystery:

Is that all? Or you still want to practice using the new word you learnt further?
Albert Einstein of nairaland, no one is dragging intelligence with you. You have it all. I won't be surprised if Albert Einstein is even unintelligent to you. Chest beater

OkaiCorne:
Atheists are certain God does not exist!

I'd like to know how this universe came to be in the first place...

Was it by accident?