danvon:
Again I ask what is the society you seem to have confused society for something it's not

Society is the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. What benefits the community as a whole us good and what doesn't is bad. What do you think society is.

LMFAO the same Japan that teamed up with Hitler almost a century ago?

Lmao you think that japan still has the same people it had 70 years ago? Or you think that someone's past deeds make them bad forever? You people are still jokers.

vaxx:
from the hourse mouth himself, ""manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuits of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort.” You may really want to know where I get these quote ""I got from his book. ""The secret of creativity is knowing how to hide your success""

Einesten had been quoted in several interveiw rejecting atheism. Yes Einesten kind of believe is a kind of Spinoza but yes he has been seeing validating the concept of theistic God . It not a must you believe. Evidence are available if you must know.

And Einstein also said:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

and said:

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world—as far as we can grasp it, and that is all."

and said:

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

and said:

"A primitive understanding of causality causes fear, and the fearful invent supernatural beings analogous to themselves."

Einstein was never close to being a theist. As I said, he was something inbetween a pantheist and agnostic. Claiming he'd rather be a theist than atheist is just fanciful thinking. Einstein did criticize militant atheists a lot because his scientific community was filled with them and he disdained their cynicism and arrogance and mockery of religious people. This has nothing to do with his own personal beliefs.

A christain who has the knowledge of Zeus will never reject its non existence, he will only invalidate its authorship. And why are you cherry picking? Most white are novice of sango, it make sense to reject what you have no prior knowledge about. But having the knowledge and rejecting it is pure ignorance, you can only be skeptical about it.


This is your opinion and it does not count as many people of great mind consider it ignorance.

Zeus/Jupiter is a Greco-Roman god. The overwhelming majority of today's Greeks and Italians do not believe in a god of thunder called Zeus/Jupiter even though all of them are well acquainted with the mythologies of the classical Greeks and ancient Romans. You know this, but you'd choose to argue for the sake of arguing even when you know it's horseshiit.

Many "great minds" consider every single theist as raving lunatics and think your opinion doesn't count. So appealing to authority telling me about "many great minds" doesn't carry much meaning. 92% of the members of the elite American National Academy of Sciences reject theist belief:
https://www.nature.com/articles/28478
I don't care much what great minds believe. My convictions are my own.

Obi1kenobi:
The very passages you quote pretty much makes it out that idols are inanimate useless objects.
It doesn't lend any validity to the divinity of the man-made idols.
Maybe read it again.

"Their land also is full of idols;
they worship the work of their own hands,
that which their own fingers have made:"
- Isaiah 2:8

"⁹How foolish are those who manufacture idols.
These prized objects are really worthless.
The people who worship idols don't know this, so they are all put to shame.
¹⁷And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to it and worships it.
He prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god!”"
- Isaiah 44:9,17

Exactly my point, it acknowledges the existence of gods worshipped as deities, based on divinity belief(s)
Remember in 1 Kings 18:27, where Elijah once taunted the Baal worshippers saying to them about Baal:
"Shout louder! Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened"

The earlier referenced Jeremiah 10:3-5 already confirmed them to be "inanimate useless objects" (i.e. using your phrase)

MuttleyLaff:
"Their land also is full of idols;
they worship the work of their own hands,
that which their own fingers have made:"
- Isaiah 2:8

"⁹How foolish are those who manufacture idols.
These prized objects are really worthless.
The people who worship idols don't know this, so they are all put to shame.
¹⁷And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to it and worships it.
He prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god!”"
- Isaiah 44:9,17

Exactly my point, it acknowledges the existence of gods worshipped as deities, based on divinity belief(s)
Remember in 1 Kings 18:27, where Elijah once taunted the Baal worshippers saying to them about Baal:
"Shout louder! Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened"

The earlier referenced Jeremiah 10:3-5 already confirmed them to be "inanimate useless objects" (i.e. using your phrase)

I can't quite make out if you're agreeing with what I said or not.

vaxx:
I am reluctant to flap your ass tonight....maybe you will not go Scot free next you do it..

Pygophilia and kinky erh? Bwahahahaha
The only person's ass, I am willingly and boys scout ready inclined, to flap is my better half's.
Nobody and no one's else. Mba mba mba

budaatum owns private libraries vaxx .

Obi1kenobi:
I can't quite make out if you're agreeing with what I said or not.

"Infact, theists by nature are atheists to other deities other than those they worship
A Christian doesn't believe in Thor or Jupiter or Sango."
- Obi1kenobi ©

"Theists ARE NOT atheists to other deities other than those they worship.
Theists a Christian acknowledge the existence of gods other than the supreme God"
- MuttleyLaff ©

I think where we might slightly disagree is evident from the above

MuttleyLaff:
"Infact, theists by nature are atheists to other deities other than those they worship
A Christian doesn't believe in Thor or Jupiter or Sango."
- Obi1kenobi ©

"Theists ARE NOT atheists to other deities other than those they worship.
Theists a Christian acknowledge the existence of gods other than the supreme God"
- MuttleyLaff ©

I think where we might slightly disagree is evident from the above

Then again, the very passage you quoted was the wrong one to use in supporting your point. It was a passage mocking pagans who fabricate inanimate objects and accord divinity to these objects. It doesn't recognize these gods of the pagans. It mocks the fact that the pagans declare their fabricated idols as gods. These means the Israelites were pretty much atheists to those idols which they only saw as useless objects.

Obi1kenobi:


And Einstein also said:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

and said:

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world—as far as we can grasp it, and that is all."

and said:

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

and said:

"A primitive understanding of causality causes fear, and the fearful invent supernatural beings analogous to themselves."

As it will be useless pointing/quoting out the evidence supporting its assertion on God and religion ( You can find it yourself) . even some of the quote you quoted are validating my point. You must have missed that. What I found fascinitatng about him is he believes in something higher than physics.and that is the premise of my argument.

He once said that, ""I want to know how God create this world, am not interested in this or that phenomenon, I want to know the reasons behind it and all the rest are history"" (i am quoting from memory , might not really be what you find online)but it basically the same.

He believed in physics, but he also believed in God which was something greater than man. For him, the way he would think about both meant to anthropomorphize God by attributing a mind to a deity. He would not be interested in philosophical or religious connotations of why the world was created but in the more physically concrete question how it was created



[

Einstein was never close to being a theist. As I said, he was something inbetween a pantheist and agnostic. Claiming he'd rather be a theist than atheist is just fanciful thinking. Einstein did criticize militant atheists a lot because his scientific community was filled with them and he disdained their cynicism and arrogance and mockery of religious people. This has nothing to do with his own personal beliefs.

what is wrong in wishful thinking? I still repeat Einesten will choose theism to atheism if given the options .his rejection of atheism is not only base on political reasons , it is also base on scientific ground. Yes Albert might have criticized religion but it will found it absurd to replace it with atheism.

Zeus/Jupiter is a Greco-Roman god. The overwhelming majority of today's Greeks and Italians do not believe in a god of thunder called Zeus/Jupiter even though all of them are well acquainted with the mythologies of the classical Greeks and ancient Romans. You know this, but you'd choose to argue for the sake of arguing even when you know it's horseshiit.

There is diffrence between I do not believe it and I do not worship it. You may be overlapping here and there.

Many "great minds" consider every single theist as raving lunatics and think your opinion doesn't count. So appealing to authority telling me about "many great minds" doesn't carry much meaning. 92% of the members of the elite American National Academy of Sciences reject theist belief:
https://www.nature.com/articles/28478
I don't care much what great minds believe. My convictions are my own.

pile of Hot trash,
From Carl Sagan to Stephen Hawking to Neil deGrasse Tyson, people turn to great minds of science to help them understand the universe.

Hawking came out definitively on the matter ("I'm an atheist,", but Sagan and Tyson famously veer agnostic. ("Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?" Sagan once asked, and Tyson has said that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." What about Albert Einstein? Despite his most famous quote about religion, it still a Spinoza kind of idea.


Just like like the numbers of highest receiver of noble laurel in science having religion affiliation are more than non religion.

It will be too ignorant of me not to consider the idea of people the society hold in high esteem when it comes to contribution to the development of humanity ....

Obi1kenobi:
Then again, the very passage you quoted was the wrong one to use in supporting your point.
It was a passage mocking pagans who fabricate inanimate objects and accord divinity to these objects.
It doesn't recognize these gods of the pagans. It mocks the fact that the pagans declare their fabricated idols as gods.
These means the Israelites were pretty much atheists to those idols which they only saw as useless objects.

The choice of word I used was "acknowledge"

The comment which it was used was supported with scripture showing recognising the existence of deities worship

The Israelities believe in the existence of gods (i.e. Jacob's wife, Rachel stole her father's household gods)
but dont worship them based on considering the deities, to mostly be, worthles, useless man made inanimate objects

vaxx:
As it will be useless pointing/quoting out the evidence supporting its assertion on God and religion ( You can find it yourself) . even some of the quote you quoted are validating my point. You must have missed that. What I found fascinitatng about him is he believes in something higher than physics.and that is the premise of my argument.

He once said that, ""I want to know how God create this world, am not interested in this or that phenomenon, I want to know the reasons behind it and all the rest are history"" (i am quoting from memory , might not really with you find online)but it basically the same.

He believed in physics, but he also believed in God which was something greater than man. For him, the way he would think about both meant to anthropomorphize God by attributing a mind to a deity. He would not be interested in philosophical or religious connotations of why the world was created but in the more physically concrete question how it was created



[ what is wrong in wishful thinking? I still repeat Einesten will choose theism to atheism if given the options . rejection of atheism is not only base on political reasons , it is also base on scientific ground. Yes Albert might have criticized religion but it will found it absurd to replace it with atheism.

Nothing he said there validated your point. He used "God" as a metaphor for nature because it gave more poetry to the expression of his wonderment and puzzlements. Again, it's just wishful thinking on your part. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. But asserting it as a fact that Einstein would rather be theist than atheist is an utterly groundless claim. He severally denounced the notion of a personal anthropomorphic divine being, which is what is required to be a theist.

There is diffrence between I do not believe it and I do not worship it. You may be overlapping here and there.

Really? What difference is that? Again, your average Greek does not worship a god called Zeus. Or Athena. Or Ares. Or Apollo. Or anything of the sort even though they are proud of their history and mythologies and standing temples there remain part of their heritage and history and attracts tourists. They see these are purely mythologies today even though they once seriously worshiped and sacrificed to these gods. Today, they are atheist to those gods and those former mythologies of their gods are now just stories for children and Hollywood action plots and figures.

pile of Hot trash,
From Carl Sagan to Stephen Hawking to Neil deGrasse Tyson, people turn to great minds of science to help them understand the universe.

Hawking came out definitively on the matter ("I'm an atheist,", but Sagan and Tyson famously veer agnostic. ("Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?" Sagan once asked, and Tyson has said that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." What about Albert Einstein? Despite his most famous quote about religion, he still a Spinoza kind of idea.


Just like like the numbers of highest receiver of noble laurel in science affiliated to religion are more than non religion.

It will be too ignorant of me not consider the idea of people the society hold in high esteem when it comes to contribution to the development of humanity ....

You're not making much sense here. Their are plenty of brilliant atheist scientists and plenty of religious ones. There are many great atheist philosophers, just as there are religious ones. Though modern cutting-edge scientists overwhelmingly lean atheist. If you say it would be ignorant not to consider the musings of religious philosophers and scientists, then it's equally ignorant to ignore that of atheist thinkers. Which makes it rather pointless and pretty much useless to appeal to the authority of learned religious people, as if all learned philosophers and accomplished scientists are theists.

MuttleyLaff:
The choice of word I used was "acknowledge"

The comment which it was used was supported with scripture showing recognising the existence of deities worship

The Israelities believe in the existence of gods (i.e. Jacob's wife, Rachel stole her father's household gods)
but dont worship them based on considering the deities, to mostly be, worthles, useless man made inanimate objects

Incase you somehow missed what I was arguing about, I said theists are often only theists to the deities they believe in and atheists to the deities of other religions. This means that for example, the Israelites believed in their God, but thought the pagan tribes were savages who worshipped statues and useless inanimate objects. I can't see anything you are saying that is different from what I was saying, so I'm not sure what this back-and-forth is about. There was nowhere I was arguing about acknowledging statues and idols and not acknowledging them. What does that have to do with anything?

Obi1kenobi:
Incase you somehow missed what I was arguing about, I said theists are often only theists to the deities they believe in and atheists to the deities of other religions.
This means that for example, the Israelites believed in their God,
but thought the pagan tribes were savages who worshipped statues and useless inanimate objects.
I can't see anything you are saying that is different from what I was saying,
so I'm not sure what this back-and-forth is about.
There was nowhere I was arguing about acknowledging statues and idols and not acknowledging them.
What does that have to do with anything?

"Theists ARE NOT atheists to other deities other than those they worship.
Theists a Christian acknowledge the existence of gods other than the supreme God"
- muttleylaff ©

If you look at the contruct of the above inverted comma quote, it's pretty clear where I slightly differed with what you typed
I shifted the discourse from believing, to bring in acknowledging.
I brought in acknowledging, slightly changing the narrative

It's like this, though I dont not believe in the divinity of the Osun river, Amadioha etcetera
I however do acknowledge the existence of the Osun, Amadioha deities etcetera

If you feel its splitting hairs, we can put on okra soup and jettison this ewedu

Obi1kenobi:


Nothing he said there validated your point. He used "God" as a metaphor for nature because it gave more poetry to the expression of his wonderment and puzzlements. Again, it's just wishful thinking on your part. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. But asserting it as a fact that Einstein would rather be theist than atheist is an utterly groundless claim. He severally denounced the notion of a personal anthropomorphic divine being, which is what is required to be a theist.

Einstein used the word God because he believed in God. Here is how he defines God (sound more like Yoruba tradition)

I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists.

The firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as “pantheistic
And you saying nothing in those speech validate my premises is personal bias. Anyway you are free to go with your opinion.

Really? What difference is that? Again, your average Greek does not worship a god called Zeus. Or Athena. Or Ares. Or Apollo. Or anything of the sort even though they are proud of their history and mythologies and standing temples there remain part of their heritage and history and attracts tourists. They see these are purely mythologies today even though they once seriously worshiped and sacrificed to these gods. Today, they are atheist to those gods and those former mythologies of their gods are now just stories for children and Hollywood action plots and figures.

Myths were not just stories, they were the models for human behavior. They taught people how to live; the consequences of right and wrong.

Though told via worlds of gods and kings, many of the myths apply to everyday people and everyday life. And many still apply today, precisely because they are timeless paradigms. And those who are smart had annexed the benefit of this myth to better their life. The Greek might not worshiped zeus today, but is not rejected as it well acknowledge

You're not making much sense here. Their are plenty of brilliant atheist scientists and plenty of religious ones. There are many great atheist philosophers, just as there are religious ones. Though modern cutting-edge scientists overwhelmingly lean atheist. If you say it would be ignorant not to consider the musings of religious philosophers and scientists, then it's equally ignorant to ignore that of atheist thinkers. Which makes it rather pointless and pretty much useless to appeal to the authority of learned religious people, as if all learned philosophers and accomplished scientists are theists.

learning from people of like mind is the by-product of comparison. It stays deep inside each of us more than those who will do not share similar minds .I personally love the concept of religion and I find it logical to borrow from people that share the like minds with me especially those of high accomplishment. If there is no mentorship, there will be no education.

Even pratically, listen carefully to two people talking with each other. You will invariably observe that main .component of discussion is based upon learning by comparism. .

I will say that if one drops ability to learn from each other then there is nothing to speak about. ...

Hope you will see you do not do a proper thought out before coming with this excuse. ..

vaxx:


Einstein used the word God because he believed in God. Here is how he defines God:

I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists.

The firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as “pantheistic
And you saying nothing in those speech is validate my premises is personal bias. Anyway you are free to go with your opinion.

I've made my point about Einstein. No point going round in circles over conjecture.

Myths were not just stories, they were the models for human behavior. They taught people how to live; the consequences of right and wrong.

Though told via worlds of gods and kings, many of the myths apply to everyday people and everyday life. And many still apply today, precisely because they are timeless paradigms. And those who are smart had annexed the benefit of this myth to better their life. The Greek might not worshiped zeus today, but is not rejected as it well acknowledge

Loool.... Sophistry at its peak. What does any of this have to do with the simple fact Greek people are not worshiping and sacrificing and consecrating to their old gods today, and those old beliefs are today nothing but entertaining mythology for children's stories and Hollywood and those old temples are just tourist sites? As far as their old gods are concerned, they are atheists to their old gods, while being Christian today. Simples.

learning from people of like mind is the by-product of comparison. It stays deep inside each of us more than those who will do not share similar minds .I personally love the concept of religion and I find it logical to borrow from people that share the like minds with me especially those of high accomplishment. If there is no mentorship, there will be no education.

Even pratically, listen carefully to two people talking with each other. You will invariably observe that main .component of discussion is based upon learning by comparism. .

I will say that if one drops ability to learn from each other then there is nothing to speak about. ...

Hope you will see you do not do a proper thought out before coming with this excuse. ..

More sophistry. Are you interested in cogent arguments or verbose wordplay? You made an appeal to authority (a classic fallacy, since you like talking about fallacies) of scientists and philosophers who are theists and basically suggested I must be ignorant not to follow the philosophy of these people, and I pointed out to you the existence of several brilliant scientists and philosophers who are atheist, and following your train of logic, your rejecting their belief system must also make you ignorant.

Oh, and you're not here to learn. By your argument style, you're here to shove down preconceived notions down people's throats. Nothing you've argued shows you're opening to learning anything other than what you already believe.

MuttleyLaff:

"Theists ARE NOT atheists to other deities other than those they worship.
Theists a Christian acknowledge the existence of gods other than the supreme God"
- muttleylaff ©

If you look at the contruct of the above inverted comma quote, it's pretty clear where I slightly differed with what you typed
I shifted the discourse from believing, to bring in acknowledging.
I brought in acknowledging, slightly changing the narrative

It's like this, though I dont not believe in the divinity of the Osun river, Amadioha etcetera
I however do acknowledge the existence of the Osun, Amadioha deities etcetera

If you feel its splitting hairs, we can put on okra soup and jettison this ewedu

"Acknowledging" does not change anything in what I said. The worst kind of argument is one where you have to go back-and-forth addressing trifles. What does your "slightly" changing the narrative add to the argument, or do you just like the sound of your voice (or in this case, just like watching yourself type)?

Obi1kenobi:
"Acknowledging" does not change anything in what I said.
The worst kind of argument is one where you have to go back-and-forth addressing trifles.
What does your "slightly" changing the narrative add to the argument,
or do you just like the sound of your voice
(or in this case, just like watching yourself type)?

I dont do arguments
I've already said, if you feel its splitting hairs, we can put on okra soup and jettison this ewedu.
What more do you what?
Please, spare me, sly innuendoes.

Obi1kenobi:


I've made my point about Einstein. No point going round in circles over conjecture.

Even when it is is base on personal bias. Continue.

Loool.... Sophistry at its peak. What does any of this have to do with the simple fact Greek people are not worshiping and sacrificing and consecrating to their old gods today, and those old beliefs are today nothing but entertaining mythology for children's stories and Hollywood and those old temples are just tourist sites? As far as their old gods are concerned, they are atheists to their old gods, while being Christian today. Simples.

who cares if they stop worshipping Zeus and Apollo. My bone of argument here is they do not regard it non existence (except the athiest)In fact the Christian/Israelite perspective on Zeus is that he is a real demon, along with all the other pagan gods. If you want evidence of this, there are graven images of him with horns. Same with Aphrodite and Shiva, who had crescent moons on their heads in many of their images, which could serve as horns in a pinch.

More sophistry. Are you interested in cogent arguments or verbose wordplay? You made an appeal to authority (a classic fallacy, since you like talking about fallacies) of scientists and philosophers who are theists and basically suggested I must be ignorant not to follow the philosophy of these people, and I pointed out to you the existence of several brilliant scientists and philosophers who are atheist, and following your train of logic, your rejecting their belief system must also make you ignorant.

You are unneccasry using this fallacy anyhow without understanding where it suppose to be used.... number 1 fallacy , there is nothing like believe system among atheist. You will have use the word veiw. And I am not following their veiw because it does not appeal to me, i am rejecting their veiw because it does not work . (That is a position of knowledge and not ignorance) I do comparism a lot. Now I challenge you to provide the best known mind in science or philosophy that is an atheist and let me provide one that is religious toward God and the non God concept. Maybe by so doing, you will find why I find the religious scholar more amazing than the non religious folks.

Oh, and you're not here to learn. By your argument style, you're here to shove down preconceived notions down people's throats. Nothing you've argued shows you're opening to learning anything other than what you already believe.

Everyone is free to talk about is own opinion. You are free to use your subjective thought
My mission is to robb mind and juxtapose if my existing idea still sound valid. And all what you have done is letting me acknowledge I hold a treasure.

vaxx:
Even when it is is base on personal bias. Continue.


who cares if the stop worshipping Zeus and Apollo. My bone of argument here is they do not regard ad non existence. In fact the Christian/Israelite perspective on Zeus is that he is a real demon, along with all the other pagan gods. If you want evidence of this, there are graven images of him with horns. Same with Aphrodite and Shiva, who had crescent moons on their heads in many of their images, which could serve as horns in a pinch.

Yes, they do not believe in the existence of their gods. Arguing otherwise is being willfully obtuse or laughably deluded. Your average modern Greek citizen does not really believe that there is a sun god. Or a god of love. Or a god of war and all that. Keep twisting yourself in knots though trying to assert otherwise.

You are unneccasry using this fallacy anyhow without understanding where it suppose to be used.... number 1 fallacy , there is nothing like believe system among atheist. You will have use the word veiw. And I am not following their veiw because it does not appeal to me, I do comparism a lot. Now I challenge you tonprobide the best mind in science or philosophy that is an atheist and let me provide one that is religious and let's juxtapose their reasons and rational thought toward God. Maybe by so doing, you will find why I find the religious scholar more amazing than the non religious folks.

Anyway is free to talk about is own opinion. You are free to use your subjective thought
My mission is to robb mind and juxtapose if my existing stand still sound valid. And all what you have done is letting me acknowledge I hold a treasure.

That's not a "fallacy". That's a nonsensical statement which shows you don't know what a "belief system" means.
Your "challenge" doesn't interest me either. Your finding religious people more persuasive than irreligious people is your prerogative. Focus on the merits of whatever is being argued rather than the pointless digressions. The thread started straying when you employed the "appeal to authority" fallacy and started talking about Carl Sagan and whatnot and trying to claim Einstein as a theist. Focus on a line of argument and stop straying.

MuttleyLaff:
I dont do arguments
I've already said, if you feel its splitting hairs, we can put on okra soup and jettison this ewedu.
What more do you what?
Please, spare me, sly innuendoes.

You "don't do arguments", but you have time to quibble over trifles that have nothing to do with an argument. That's funny.

Obi1kenobi:


Yes, they do not believe in the existence of their gods. Arguing otherwise is being willfully obtuse or laughably deluded. Your average modern Greek citizen does not really believe that there is a sun god. Or a god of love. Or a god of war and all that. Keep twisting yourself in knots though trying to assert otherwise

lol the normal tendency they show when they are caught in corner, adhominem spotted. Yet it does not make you sound relevant either, it only give me the clue that the person is close minded and no matter the amount of evidence throw at him, he will not see logic in it. They are this set of individual who in the face of objective truth still prefer to be ignorance..

That's not a "fallacy". That's a nonsensical statement which shows you don't know what a "belief system" means.

ad hominem 2 spotted again.sayimg it without giving explanation as to what you personally attack me for is fallacy on its own. You have to tell us what a believe system means? And as to why you consider atheism as a belief system.

Your "challenge" doesn't interest me either. Your finding religious people more persuasive than irreligious people is your prerogative

No, it is base on known evidence.i am not forcing you to accept the challenge but a way of telling you my position of rejecting the views of atheism is not ignorance but evidence. .

Focus on the merits of whatever is being argued rather than the pointless digressions. The thread started straying when you employed the "appeal to authority" fallacy and started talking about Carl Sagan and whatnot and trying to claim Einstein as a theist. Focus on a line of argument and stop straying.[/quote

You quoted me base on this....and you find it heated to stand when you realise you are not talking to someone like you.

If you feel heated and cannot stand it. you may use the right door.

vaxx:
lol the normal tendency they show when they are caught in corner, adhominem spotted. Yet it does not make you sound relevant either, it only give me the clue that the person is close minded and no matter the amount of evidence throw at him, he will not see logic in it. They are this set of individual who in the face of objective truth still prefer to be ignorance..

Evidence? Dude, I don't know who has been deceiving you, but nothing you have argued here remotely resembles "evidence". You can't even stick to a line of inquiry without deviating with irrelevant ramblings. You employ a lot of buzzwords about "logic" and "fallacies" etc that equate to high highfalutin nonsense.

ad hominem 2 spotted again.sayimg it without giving explanation as to what you personally attack me for is fallacy on its own. You have to tell us what a believe system means?

Pointing out that you don't know the meaning of "belief system" is elementary deduction. Hence, why you can assert atheists have no belief system proudly.

No, it is base on known evidence.i am not forcing you to accept the challenge but a way of telling you my position of rejecting the views of atheism is not ignorance but evidence. . You quoted me base on this....and you find it heated to stand when you realise you are not talking to someone like you.

If you feel heated , you may use the right door.

Your preening about your intellect does not interest me. I'm not impressed. Repeating the word "evidence" again and again, doesn't mean you have any grasp of the concept. Simply stick to the line of argument rather than irrelevant digressions about Einstein's beliefs and "challenges" and whatnot.

Obi1kenobi:
You "don't do arguments", but you have time to quibble over trifles that have nothing to do with an argument. That's funny.

I explained, where or when I said I slightly disagree with you
and because I dont do arguments, further suggested we pack it in, if you see it as trifle.
What more do you want? Your pound of flesh?

vaxx

You seem to be misconstruing Einstein's words so as to give validity to your own. Einstein did not believe in a personal anthropomorphic god.

LordReed:
vaxx

You seem to be misconstruing Einstein's words so as to give validity to your own. Einstein did not believe in a personal anthropomorphic god.

Yes ,i am aware Einesten kind of God ideology is akin to that of Spinoza .an impersonal kind of God rather than an anthriphormophic one which is very related to Yoruba tradition.


I am also aware he believes in something higher than physics.

vaxx:
Yes, I am aware Einesten kind of God ideology is akin to that of Spinoza.
an interpersonal kind of God rather than an anthriphormophic one which is very related to Yoruba tradition.

I am also aware he believes in something higher than physics.

I think you meant to type "impersonal" instead of "interpersonal"
as that will seat well with the God of Spinoza that Einstein said he believes in

Obi1kenobi:


Evidence? Dude, I don't know who has been deceiving you, but nothing you have argued here remotely resembles "evidence". You can't even stick to a line of inquiry without deviating with irrelevant ramblings. You employ a lot of buzzwords about "logic" and "fallacies" etc that equate to high highfalutin nonsense.

I can see you begin to sound like someme who loose grasp of his understanding now but will be comfortable to look for mistake where none exist, yes it is a part of twin fallacy people of your kind committed. Rejecting without explaining, you must have taught to have provoke some point by pointing out the the flaws while not using the same standard to judge yours. It only show inconsistency between your knowledge claims and that of your reasons.

Pointing out that you don't know the meaning of "belief system" is elementary deduction. Hence, why you can assert atheists have no belief system proudly

wordism will not even save you here , since you are operating an objection with inconsistency between your line of knowledge and reasons, rebuking one side of argument without stating what it suppose to be. you will be close mind to see you are failing to address the point you quoted me of. . In which case i am pointing out to you that any implementation of an inconsistency would be a violation of the Rules (or a rule) of Pragma Dialectica which you are commiting.

Your preening about your intellect does not interest me. I'm not impressed. Repeating the word "evidence" again and again, doesn't mean you have any grasp of the concept. Simply stick to the line of argument rather than irrelevant digressions about Einstein's beliefs and "challenges" and whatnot.

Why shouild I impress you? Am here to refute your fallacious claim you quoted me of, I am of the opinion you have a myopic knowledge of the importance in appealing to authority in a straight debate, it is non-fallacious precisely when it makes sense to believe the person offering the information is reasonably expected to be knowledgeable on the topic. In other words, it's a question of what for us would qualify as an "authority." Arises.and since Carl saga and Albert Einesten in this category qualify , it make absolute sense to cite them as evidence.i may be schooling you here. Even In law, an issue regarding constitutionality requires appeal to the authority of the Supreme Court of The state. Notice that in this case not only appeals to a legally established authority, but the decisions are derived from more than one authoritative individual using them.

And your inability not to recongnise this importance shows you still needs lots of work to do. (Human development.

MuttleyLaff:
I think you meant to type "impersonal" instead of "interpersonal"
as that will seat well with the God of Spinoza that Einstein said he believes in

You are right ....i blame auto suggestion for that. What surprise me is Albert Einstein of far Germany having similar idea with yoruba tradition. And this was the reason that mafe develop a personal interest fkr him.

Obi1kenobi:

I still have made no head or tail from this. Fact 1: Buddhism is not a theistic religion. Fact 2: Being Buddhist is not mutually exclusive from being atheist. What is the "it" that I am denying? What am I denying?


Einstein a few times in his life when lost in poetry expressed pantheistic thoughts. But was quoted calling himself atheist. And another time calling himself agnostic. I'm pretty certain he found nothing rational about theistic belief.



Says who? Is that what the Jupiter worshiper told you? I've been a Christian all my life, enough to know how Christians think and get a grasp too of how theists think. Stop kidding yourself.

Thomas Aquinas is one of history's finest sophists. Great prose though, does not necessarily make for great logic.

Vaxx is saying that Christians believe that Sango and the rest of other gods exists. That is the level of insincerity theists can go to win an argument. It is evident that vaxx just like our old friend butterflylion is not after arguing about what is right but who is right. Only makes me wonder if he has been bitten by the same dog that bit butterflylion. Being intelligent should be accompanied with being intellectually honest else you just end up looking stupid. Many theists are intelligent but intellectual stubbornness makes them sound dumb at times. Many atheist here were once active Christians and we know very well what christians believe and what they don't. In fact, Christians believe all other gods are nonexistent. This is evident from a gospel song that goes this way: All other gods, they are the works of men. You are the only true god; there is none like you . Atheists on the other hand agrees with Christians that all gods are works of men (nonexistent), including their so called "only true god". But according to vaxx logic, Christians not believing in other gods except one is logical while atheists not believing in all is illogical. In essense, to be logical, just pick a random god and agree it is in existence. It doesn't really matter if other religion believes that god is a made-up nonsence. Just pick one, any one and you will be inducted in the hall of fame of logical people.

chemystery:

Vaxx is saying that Christians believe that Sango and the rest of other gods exists. That is the level of insincerity theists can go to win an argument. It is evident that vaxx just like our old friend butterflylion is not after arguing about what is right but who is right. Only makes me wonder if he has been bitten by the same dog that bit butterflylion. Being intelligent should be accompanied with being intellectually honest else you just end up looking stupid. Many theists are intelligent but intellectual stubbornness makes them sound dumb at times. Many atheist here were once active Christians and we know very well what christians believe and what they don't. In fact, Christians believe all other gods are nonexistent. This is evident from a gospel song that goes this way: All other gods, they are the works of men. You are the only true god; there is none like you . Atheists on the other hand agrees with Christians that all gods are works of men (nonexistent), including their so called "only true god". But according to vaxx logic, Christians not believing in other gods except one is logical while atheists not believing in all is illogical. In essense, to be logical, just pick a random god and agree it is in existence. It doesn't really matter if other religion believes that god is a made-up nonsence. Just pick one, any one and you will be inducted in the hall of fame of logical people.

well i will not sound similar to you but rather I will enlight you.

Depending on what version of the bible you have at your disposal., the old testament here on my table says ""though shall have no other gods except me"". (I live you to deduce the logic in that statement).that is if you approach it with honesty.

Paul the apostle referred to other “so-called” gods as demons. In the gospel, The belief in ancient Israel was that other gods were actually fallen spiritual beings, such as Satan or the 200 fallen watchers in I Enoch. These beings convinced people to worship them, thus stealing worship from the the True God of the Bible. So, Baal, for example, was a real being under this concept, but he was inferior to God, a traitor to God and was stealing souls from God.

For further example, None of the Yoruba christain i met ever claim the non existence of sango or ogun(authough they generally regard them satanic)Even they claim Esu one of the orishaas is the same as Lucifer or called it satan.


If only you can be truthful to yourself once, then the truth will fall naturally on your face.


There is an adage common to Yoruba speaking christain. It goes thus.. ...Esu lagbara, sugbon ko ni igbala.
(the devil is powerful and can give power, but he can't give salvation)

vaxx:
well i will not sound similar to you but rather I will enlight you.

Depending on what version of the bible you have at your disposal., the old testament here on my table says ""though shall have no other gods except me"". (I live you to deduce the logic in that statement).that is if you approach it with honesty.

Paul the apostle referred to other “so-called” gods as demons. In the gospel, The belief in ancient Israel was that other gods were actually fallen spiritual beings, such as Satan or the 200 fallen watchers in I Enoch. These beings convinced people to worship them, thus stealing worship from the the True God of the Bible. So, Baal, for example, was a real being under this concept, but he was inferior to God, a traitor to God and was stealing souls from God.

For further example, None of the Yoruba christain i met ever claim the non existence of sango or ogun(authough they generally regard them satanic)Even they claim Esu one of the orishaas is the same as Lucifer or called it satan.


If only you can be truthful to yourself once, then the truth will fall naturally on your face.


There is an adage common to Yoruba speaking christain. It goes thus.. ...Esu lagbara, sugbon ko ni igbala.
(the devil is powerful and can give power, but he can't give salvation)

No one is saying Christians don't believe Satan or demons exists and are worshiped. This doesn't not rule out the fact that Christians believe many gods are man-made and thus nonexistent. These gods they believe cannot hear, see or even respond just like Baal you mentioned. This is different from demons which Christians believe can be invoked. In christianity, it is either God/Angels or Satan/Demons or a host of other powerless nonexisting entities.

Your christian friends never claim the nonexistence of Sango? Did they claim his existence? If they do, as what? Satan? Demon? Or a standalone god?

Obi1kenobi:

Oh, and you're not here to learn. By your argument style, you're here to shove down preconceived notions down people's throats. Nothing you've argued shows you're opening to learning anything other than what you already believe.

It's very obvious isn't it. Despite his claim to the contrary!

chemystery:

No one is saying Christians don't believe Satan or demons exists and are worshiped. This doesn't not rule out the fact that Christians believe many gods are man-made and thus nonexistent. These gods they believe cannot hear, see or even respond just like Baal you mentioned. This is different from demons which Christians believe can be invoked. In christianity, it is either God/Angels or Satan/Demons or a host of other powerless nonexisting entities.

Your christian friends never claim the nonexistence of Sango? Did they claim his existence? If they do, as what? Satan? Demon? Or a standalone god?

It seems you are loosing grasp of your argument now when evidence is thrown at your face.

The bone of argument here is, do christain recognize the existence of other gods? In which I answer in affirmative yes. Whether it is demons or satanic , it is just part of teaching embedded in Christian theology.

Christain recognised other gods and term them as smaller gods(maybe in form of Satan or demon).that is why there is this unique way of making letter g in capital for the bigger God while small letter for the smaller gods.

Throughout the old testament, Yahweh was seeing constantly fighting this smaller gods. And if you are familiar with Jewish history, you will notice YAHWEH is also called EL who was the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon. The quaternity was El his wife Asherah and their children Ba’al and Anath. All the west Asian tribes (of whom the Hebrews were one) worshiped these four in various forms and guises.

And as monotheism developed all three were deposed and El alone retained as the Supreme God. El is also the one and only Allah according to the Muslim

Yes Yoruba christain regard Yoruba orishaas as demons and gods that is lower in rank to compare with Yahweh.