godwinstringed1:



I smile! You know me right?

We don't give a damn about you,actually.

Martinez19:
So if 99% of scientists believed in the great juju at the bottom of the sea, you will believe as well? Enjoy your safety in numbers .

Oh I can't believe in a Creator but you can believe in the big bang. How nice.

5thElement:


Oh I can't believe in a Creator but you can believe in the big bang. How nice.

I didn't say that you can't believe in a Creator. All I am is that Einstein wasn't religious; wasn't a catholic as you claimed and that scientists believing in god is not a good reason to believe in god. You have to look at the evidence.

Martinez19:
I didn't say that you can't believe in a Creator. All I am is that Einstein wasn't religious; wasn't a catholic as you claimed and that scientists believing in god is not a good reason to believe in god. You have to look at the evidence.

What evidence do you have that God doesn't exist?

HellVictorinho:

We don't give a damn about you,actually.

?


But I'm concerned about them

Where is HardMirror

5thElement:


What evidence do you have that God doesn't exist?

Johnydon22, 1Sharon, myself and other athiests have said this over and over again ever XxSabrinaxX, a newcomer, just said so few days ago. We atheists don't believe in religious gods because there are no evidences to support their existence not because we have evidence that they don't exist. I know it's painful to lose your perceived leverage of atheism being a religion and requiring faith but truth is that we atheists have nothing to prove and their is no faith required in atheism. For the last time, we don't believe in a god because there are no evidences to support such. It different from saying that we are atheist because we have evidence that god doesn't exist.

On the hand, it is you guys who have something to prove as you are the ones making the claim. What is your evidence that the christian god or whatever god you believe in exists?

CAPSLOCKED:


HOW DOES THIS MAKE SENSE TO RELIGIONISTS ASKING FOR EVIDENCE FROM US FOR SOMETHING WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN?

YOU MAKE THE CLAIM THAT IT EXISTS. I SAY IT DOESN'T. THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM CORRECT.

IT'S JUST LIKE SAYING THERE'S A THIRD PERSON WITH US IN A ROOM OCCUPIED BY ONLY TWO OF US. I EXPECT YOU TO SHOW ME THE THIRD PERSON, NOT ME... PROVING TO YOU THAT A THIRD PERSON IS NOT THERE.. IT'S LAUGHABLE WHEN YOU DO THIS EVERYTIME.

Its a defense mechanism. Reacting to the fact that they have no concrete evidence except to say look at the trees or look at yourself as 5thElement started with. They refuse to learn that a claim is not the same as evidence.

According some intellectuals, there should be a purpose for every move of an intelligent being.
Of course religious people are either interested in
*making money by gathering ignorant ones.
*associating with others to feel a sense of belonging.
*keeping in touch with a group in case of unexpected.
*singing,dancing and socialising.
*some feels the need of guidance.
Please i don't want to conclude that you as an intellectual will start doing something without a purpose. So as an ATHEIST, what is your motive of posting so much on Nairaland since you're not interested in the above reasons?

godwinstringed1:
?


But I'm concerned about them

Fantastic.

HellVictorinho:

Fantastic.

And you'll have no dominion!

HellVictorinho:

Fantastic.

Don't be surprised the guy is speaking in tongues as he is typing thinking he is rebuking demons. Delusion. LMFAO!

CAPSLOCKED:


HOW DOES THIS MAKE SENSE TO RELIGIONISTS ASKING FOR EVIDENCE FROM US FOR SOMETHING WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN?

YOU MAKE THE CLAIM THAT IT EXISTS. I SAY IT DOESN'T. THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM CORRECT.

IT'S JUST LIKE SAYING THERE'S A THIRD PERSON WITH US IN A ROOM OCCUPIED BY ONLY TWO OF US. I EXPECT YOU TO SHOW ME THE THIRD PERSON, NOT ME... PROVING TO YOU THAT A THIRD PERSON IS NOT THERE.. IT'S LAUGHABLE WHEN YOU DO THIS EVERYTIME.

park well Oga. nobody is asking you to believe in God and nobody is asking you to come and join one religion or the other. it serves your interest to not believe in God. All well and good for you.

but if you decide to wave that in our faces as atheists are wont to do, then we should ask you the basis for your own belief in the non-existence of God.

Maybe you should check the topic of this thread again and ask yourself if it was opened by a christian or a moslem.

LordReed:


Its a defense mechanism. Reacting to the fact that they have no concrete evidence except to say look at the trees or look at yourself as 5thElement started with. They refuse to learn that a claim is not the same as evidence.

I'm sure you think you've made sense.

godwinstringed1:



And you'll have no dominion!

Abracadabra,
LLEH SI EREH.

HellVictorinho:

Abracadabra,
LLEH SI EREH.

Martinez19:
Johnydon22, 1Sharon, myself and other athiests have said this over and over again ever XxSabrinaxX, a newcomer, just said so few days ago. We atheists don't believe in religious gods because there are no evidences to support their existence not because we have evidence that they don't exist. I know it's painful to lose your perceived leverage of atheism being a religion and requiring faith but truth is that we atheists have nothing to prove and their is no faith required in atheism. For the last time, we don't believe in a god because there are no evidences to support such. It different from saying that we are atheist because we have evidence that god doesn't exist.

On the hand, it is you guys who have something to prove as you are the ones making the claim. What is your evidence that the christian god or whatever god you believe in exists?

I see you are referring to "we atheists". I guess you have an organization now right? don't worry, you'll form your own "church" soon.

for whatever their shortcomings, at least Christians have more things in common than a group of atheists whose only commonality is their shared belief in the non existence of a deity.

and I don't know what you mean by you know it's painful. that what happened now? that you don't believe in God? is painful to me? you must have overrated this discussion on Nairaland.

I'm sure you know that I couldn't pick you out from a two person queue, neither can you, me. so please let's cut the theatrics OK.

you are entitled to your thought process. so am I. and so are all the other religious people all over the world. stop waving your non-belief in our faces like it's some flag we should regard.

you have nothing to prove, so keep a lid on it. but lemme guess, you can't because even though you were brought up to believe in God, you have become disillusioned after many prayers and no answers. right? and now you must mock those who believe in the existence of this Deity who has refused to answer you in the past.

what I don't get is how people can think that because they can't see something so that means it doesn't exist. yet these same people will believe in the concept of gravity, black holes even distant galaxies that they've never set eyes upon just because some scientists think it is possible.

talk about pontificating and dogma. its quite hilarious to listen to these same people come at you that you have no right to believe in the existence of God because we can't see him lying around taking a sun-bath somewhere.

nonsense and ingredient.

5thElement:


I'm sure you think you've made sense.

Those with sense know I did.

5thElement:


I see you are referring to "we atheists". I guess you have an organization now right? don't worry, you'll form your own "church" soon.

for whatever their shortcomings, at least Christians have more things in common than a group of atheists whose only commonality is their shared belief in the non existence of a deity.

and I don't know what you mean by you know it's painful. that what happened now? that you don't believe in God? is painful to me? you must have overrated this discussion on Nairaland.

I'm sure you know that I couldn't pick you out from a two person queue, neither can you, me. so please let's cut the theatrics OK.

you are entitled to your thought process. so am I. and so are all the other religious people all over the world. stop waving your non-belief in our faces like it's some flag we should regard.

you have nothing to prove, so keep a lid on it. but lemme guess, you can't because even though you were brought up to believe in God, you have become disillusioned after many prayers and no answers. right? and now you must mock those who believe in the existence of this Deity who has refused to answer you in the past.

Lol. Still desperately trying to put atheism in the box of religion in order to gain leverage. So if someone says "we Nigerians", you would assume that they have an "organisation" and "church"?

@bold
Who told you I left god because of unanswered prayers? Do you know me? Have you seen me before? I left religion because... Oh wait, go ask the Holy Spirit. Let's assume I left god because of unanswered prayers, doesn't that make me a wise man? If I thoroughly applied biblical principles and it did not work, wouldn't it be wise of me to conclude that it's untrue? Have you seen scientists clinging to a theory that has failed upon testing it? Only retarded horsefaces defend an obvious failed idea against all odds.

Athiests don't believe in god because there are no evidences to support the existence of god. It is like not believing that unicorns are real because there are no evidences to support such. Those that claim unicorns are real are the ones that are to prove their claims. Similarly, those that say god is real are the ones that have to prove their claims.

By the way, what proof do you have that god exists?

The rules for Q&A have to be reset.
If you are a Christian, stick to that.
Jesus might not really give a damn about you anymore.
He has played his role in WWE Sacrifice.
It's your turn to perform.
But the other players know better than that.
In fact,they go out of script.
They can't pretend not to have a brain.

5thElement:
what I don't get is how people can think that because they can't see something so that means it doesn't exist. yet these same people will believe in the concept of gravity, black holes even distant galaxies that they've never set eyes upon just because some scientists think it is possible.

talk about pontificating and dogma. its quite hilarious to listen to these same people come at you that you have no right to believe in the existence of God because we can't see him lying around taking a sun-bath somewhere.

nonsense and ingredient.

@bold
5THELEMENT : atheists think god doesn't exist because they can't see god.

ME : atheists don't believe in god because there are no evidences to prove god exists. In fact, critical analysis of religious claims shows that they are all made up by men.

@red
5THELEMENT : they believe scientific concepts because scientists say so.

ME : atheists believe scientific concepts because scientists say so with evidence.

@blue
It's your right to believe in any god want. In fact you believe that your mother's bum is your maker then no problem, it's your right. If you believe in a god, the burden of proof lies on you not the atheists. Atheists have nothing to prove.

CAPSLOCKED:


THIS 5TH ELEMENT GUY MUST BE FELIXMØRON OR BUTTERFLYLION. YOU CAN TELL THAT WITH THE WAY HE CONTRADICTS HIMSELF.

OUR EDUCATED THEISTS "THINK" THAT A DISBELIEF IN SOMETHING EQUALS TO A BELIEF, OR WHAT WAY SHOULD I PUT THIS?

I GIVE IT UP FOR THEM ANYTIME THEY DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY TIME THEY ACTUALLY "THINK".

Hey,forget about backward thinkers.
And answer this question: Do you rap?

Martinez19:


@bold
5THELEMENT : atheists think god doesn't exist because they can't see god.

ME : atheists don't believe in god because there are no evidences to prove god exists. In fact, critical analysis of religious claims shows that they are all made up by men.

@red
5THELEMENT : they believe scientific concepts because scientists say so.

ME : atheists believe scientific concepts because scientists say so with evidence.

@blue
It's your right to believe in any god want. In fact you believe that your mother's bum is your maker then no problem, it's your right. If you believe in a god, the burden of proof lies on you not the atheists. Atheists have nothing to prove.

if you want to talk about your mother's ass, no problem, I'll indulge you. but you mention my folks in your silly discuss again I'll have you banned.

now quit playing with your brother's phone and go and wipe your nose or something kiddo.

CAPSLOCKED:


NO. BUT I CAN TWERK.

I see.

5thElement:

for whatever their shortcomings, at least Christians have more things in common than a group of atheists whose only commonality is their shared belief in the non existence of a deity.
.

Lol. You say this like it means anything actually.

XxSabrinaxX:

Lol. You say this like it means anything actually.

Don't mind him and his Deity.
They are in 6's and 7's.

XxSabrinaxX:

Lol. You say this like it means anything actually.

It does mean something. The only thing that brings you together is a lack of belief in something.

What else do you have in common anyway? Anything you all stand for? Apart from the God phobia y'all share?

You've cleared my doubt on a few aspects. Either that or maybe I don't really understand some of ur responses. Hence, I'll keep quoting the ones I have issues with.
Edit: I broke my response into two because it was really long.

Ihedinobi3:

Your objections here don't quite demonstrate how what I said contradicts the idea of God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. So, perhaps you should explain the contradiction better. Meantime, I will answer your objections.

God doesn't cancel suffering because His Eternal Plan for creation involves free will. That free will produced moral evil in the case of a third of the angels and 100% of mankind except for Jesus Christ. That moral evil directly causes suffering and also attracts divine judgment which also produces suffering for those associated in any way with the moral evil in question. The only way to change this, as far as I can see, is for God to remove free will from His moral creatures. But that would mean altering His Plan and why should He if in the end that Plan will result in a perfect creation where there is nothing evil or painful or troublesome in any way at all although there will still be moral creatures in it except that they no longer need to make a choice about God since they already have and that choice has been sealed for all eternity?

How do you find God responsible for the condition of human lives? If it is because He created all things knowing how they would turn out, why does that take away from the responsibility of moral creatures to make the right decision and submit to God rather than rebel against Him?

Like I explained the last time we discussed, God being the first cause was a tri-omni being before the inception of the universe. In his omnipotence, he chose the various constants of the universe such that every action I take has already been predetermined. If he didn't do this, that means he lacked omnipotence and omniscience - both of which are the most common and vital attributes of the christian God. I still fail to understand how freewill can possibly exist in this scenario. What may look like freewill to us is already a programmed set of actions set in by God. This is a huge contradiction that I've never been able to understand. It implies that God is indirectly responsible for EVERYTHING that happens in our universe.

Ihedinobi3:
1. What are these teachings, statements and events you mean and what do they contradict?

2. Name some of these historians and what they debunked.

3. Who debunked the creation story and how was it debunked?

4. You asked a question and I answered it. I was under no obligation to prove anything. Nor did I have any inclination to. Why do you want proof though? Do you consider any religion at all true?

1. The bible is a composite of multiple writings that was put together by man. Some of those writings had contradictions in them that where not dealt with during this process. Its one of the reasons I'm confused as to why some christians hold on to it as the supposedly "infallible" word of God.
A well known inconsistency among the gospels is that Matthew says Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, who died in April 4 BCE, whereas Luke says he was born during the census instituted when Quirinius was governor of Syria — in 6 CE, more than ten years after Herod died. Matthew says the infant Jesus was taken from Bethlehem to Egypt and the family went to Nazareth for the very first time after the death of Herod and their return from Egypt (Matthew 2:23); Luke says Nazareth was already the hometown of Joseph and Mary and that they returned there just a few days after the birth of Jesus.
Another one is that Mark chapter 14 (followed by Matthew, Luke) says that the Last Supper was the celebration of the Passover feast and that Jesus was crucified the third hour (9 AM) on the day after the Passover feast. John 19:14 says that Jesus was sent to be crucified at the sixth hour (12 noon) on the day before the Passover.
Was Jesus a peaceful prophet or not?
Well, according to this he sure is:
Acts 10:36
The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ.
And according to this, he sure isn't:
Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Another upsetting discrepancy in the bible for me would be 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, where it seems that Paul is saying that women should be silent in church. This verse has been used throughout the ages to justify sexist attitudes toward women. The thing is, Paul never wrote it. This verse was inserted into the letter by later scribes who didn’t approve of Paul’s actual message concerning women. Paul was a strict egalitarian when it came to gender roles in the church. This is seen throughout his letters and even his most famous disciple, Thecla, was a woman. When one compares this verse to everything else Paul said about women, it is a stark and damning discrepancy. Again, it may not be as big or obvious a discrepancy as Jesus’ parents doing two completely different things to get to Bethlehem or Jesus dying on two different days, but neither of these discrepancies effect the message of the bible or how people act, 1 Corinthians does.
There's more where that came from, but I dont want to exceed my limit on this post.

Then there's the fact that God is described variously as just, loving, merciful, caring etc.. At the same time, the deity, on repeated occasions sanctions genocide, at one point throws all of His divine toys out of His celestial pram and drowns virtually all of His beloved creation, leaving a minuscule population of each species to repopulate the planet through (one assumes) rampant in breeding. He threatens his ‘children’ with eternal torture if they don’t love him uncritically and he spends the entire book of Job allowing His most faithful follower to be tormented just so that He can win a bet - when He finally offers Job an explanation for His behaviour, it boils down to “Gosh, aren’t I wonderful?”.
No to mention he gets a young girl pregnant with Himself, so that later He can later be sacrificed to Himself, thereby saving us from what He was going to do to us.
Does any of this make sense? No. I don't think so.

2. The entire bible is rife with historical errors, it's hard to just name a few major ones in such a short space.

For starters, there was never a global flood. The human population didn't come from just two people, and certainly was as never low as 8 (the claimed number from the Noahide flood myth)- scientific analysis of our genes shows that the human population couldn't have dropped below around 1500 unrelated individuals and still have the genetic diversity we see now.

The Jews were never held as slaves in Egypt, thus no Exodus. They were never even IN Egypt en masse, and the Egyptians of the pharaonic period didn't have slaves as suggested in the bible. The monuments of the pharaohs were build by farmers and similar workers in the flood season of the Nile. There is not only zero evidence of the Jews there, but corroborating evidence (from other historical tribes of the Levant area, language analysis, etc) that the Jews never left the Levant at all. There is no evidence of an Exodus of a million odd people as claimed in the bible, and in fact many of the places cited didn't exist until centuries after the time period. The Exodus account was an eighth century BCE justification narrative for a land war with Egypt.
The Jewish "kingdom" of David and Solomon was nowhere near the size claimed- it was a minor tribal area at best, and even that's a bit shaky. There was no Soddom and Gomorrah- no other culture ever mentioned these allegedly large and prosperous cities, and no trace has been found in the area claimed.

The Gospels are even full of historical problems. Even if one discounts the utter lack of contemporary evidence for Jesus or any of his supposed miracles, there are other issues. The census NEVER required anyone to go to town of origin of their lineage- that would have collapsed the economy of the Empire. Roman censuses counted just the head of household IN their household- they were for tax purposes, so they cared where you lived, not where you came from. They were also done by province, not empire-wide, and usually subcontracted to the publicans. Further, Matthew states that Jesus was born under the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4BCE. Luke claims it was during the census of Israel conducted when Quirinius was governor of Syria- a post he did not take until 6CE, 10 YEARS after Herod the Great died. So both Matthew and Luke contradict themselves- the census literally could not have occurred at the same time as Herod was alive, yet both describe them as simultaneous. Luke also says that Augustus Caesar decreed "all the world should be registered", which is false.
Herod the Great never slaughtered infants as described in Matthew- despite there being many chroniclers of Herod's abuses, this little gem appears NOWHERE but the bible. Even Flavius Josephus, who extensively recorded Herod's evils, mentioned nothing of this event, which he would have if it actually occurred.
There were many minor errors showing the Gospel writers (Greeks, for the most part) had no clue of the geography of the area- like the story of the Gadarine swine, which Jesus supposedly drove into the Sea of Galilee, despite Gadera being kilometers from the sea. And that's just Matthew, since Mark's said "Gerasa", which was 30 kilometers away. Mark's descriptions of Jesus' movements made no geographical sense and are at times impossible.
No historians of the time, despite living in the area, ever recorded any major earthquakes or skies going black as was claimed happened during Jesus' death.
Interestingly, early scholars that even mentioned what early Christians believed- like Tacitus, Philo, Pliny, Suetonius, Epictectus, Cluvius Rufus, Quintus, Curtis Rufus, Josephus, the Roman Consul, Publius Petronius- never mentioned any crucifixion. In fact, the crucifixion seemed to be unknown even to early Christians until the Second Century!
The trials would never have occurred as claimed in the bible, either. Rather hilariously, a nineteenth century scholar, Rabbi Wise, searched the then-extant records of Pilate's court to find a record of Jesus' trial and found nothing. Pilate was depicted by the Gospels as a good man who only reluctantly agreed to the condemnation of Jesus- but history shows he was cruel and corrupt. It was a likely attempt after the First Jewish revolt to place blame on the Jews, rather than the old tradition of blaming Rome for all their ills. The Romans also had no custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover, and Pilate was known to be far too ruthless to have ever caved to a mob (in fact, there are many records of him brutally subduing mobs). Never mind that it was claimed in the Passion narrative that the Sanhedrin met on Passover night to have Jesus arrested and condemned- when in reality the Sanhedrin were forbidden by Jewish law to meet during Passover at all.

Sadly, I could keep going.

3. Well, We know the Earth wasn't created in six days, ditto that Adam wasn't made from clay ...... or Eve from one of Adam's ribs. No to mention there's the existence of dinosaurs which disproves the fact that man was created first. Then again, the book of Genesis actually disproves itself, There are actually two creation stories in Genesis, and they're contradictory. In Genesis 1:25-27, animals are created first, then humans (male and female at the same time). In Genesis 2:18-22, Adam is created, then the animals, then Eve.
The Creationists hold that the stories in Genesis are the actual word of God and are therefore absolute and infallible. And by that, they mean the Hebrew god who is the only one true god (i.e. monotheism) according to their belief system. Yet there is plenty of archeological evidence to show that these stories come from much older, polytheistic Sumerian cultures of Mesopotamia.

4. You know I don't accept any religion. What I want to know is what makes Christianity different for you from the thousands of religions out there? Is there any empirical evidence that immediately disproves Allah and asserts Yahweh as the true creator of the universe?

Ihedinobi3:
Still not sure what you are asking about here. I know of no teaching in the Bible that holds that God did not know what Adam and Eve would do when He created them.

That means we agree then that God knew what decision that Adam and Eve will make. If God knew the actions they'll take and the consequences it would bring, why didn't he just them if really he's omnibenevolent?

Ihedinobi3:

Per your first question, I already explained in our earlier conversation. I am loath to repeat it here. Per your second, I'm not sure what you refer to. I don't see how anything I said translates to what you said here. I told you that if any human being lives a perfect existence not violating God's Will in any way, then they don't need to be saved at all and are automatically qualified to be with God eternally. But if they don't, then their only hope is the Lord Jesus Christ. Otherwise, they can only look forward to eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire.

For the first point, I assume you must also remember my response to your answer. For the second, if they don't need to be saved, then why is salvation a thing at all?

Ihedinobi3:
The difference is that we won't have much of a relationship if I don't pray.

I fail to see how a "relationship" changes the outcome of the prayer

Ihedinobi3:
Doubt? Who said anything about doubt?

Why do you think that anyone has any problem with understanding such a concept?

Surely, God doesn't need to prove himself to anyone that doubts him by testing them. He already knows they don't doubt him. Hence, making his angels and the humans he created awe at his wisdom by testing them is useless because he knows they acknowledge his limitless powers.

Like I've explained, I still can't understand how free will works in a pre-determined universe. Isn't free will basically making your own choices without external coercion? How is this possible when God has already designed your destiny from your birth day to the day you die?

Ihedinobi3:
No He isn't. Moral creatures are. Evil was never necessary to creation. Free will does not necessitate evil at all. Nor was evil part of God's Creation. It is by definition the negative response of a moral creature's free will to God's Authority and as such is not God's Work at all.

I know because the Bible also says that there is nothing evil in God. And in that verse, peace, rather than 'good', is placed opposite to evil. That is already an indication to the fact that 'evil' here is not moral. A number of other translations read 'calamity' or 'disaster' instead.

Who are these "moral creatures" and where did they come from? Was it God who created them, I mean seeing as he is the first cause?