alxb19:


I agree. I just checked the definition of "anecdotal evidence": "Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony."

I see your point. My first reaction was to feel insulted to be put in the same category as those people who claim to have seen the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot etc.
But, of course, scientifically and logically I understand that it appears identical. In both cases, i.e. a christian who give a testimony about his world view, and a person who claims to have seen Bigfoot giving his testimony, the evidence to a third person is in both cases provided by testimonies only.

I think there are only two possibilities here:

1. One stays at the conclusion that God, aliens, Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Bushbaby, fairies, pixies, gnomes, goblins, etc. are all in the same category and are productions of human phantasy and that the testimonies fall in t the same category and hence all these phenomena are non existing.

2. Or: one actively tries to verify or falsify the various assumptions. I think hundreds of persons have tried to observe Loch Ness yet. I think there are also arbitrarily many "hunters" who try to find and catch Bigfoot. I guess it is in principle impossible to veriify or falsify these things.
I think with God it is a bit different. If God exists and if he is as I assume that he is, i.e. a loving person, then it is possible to get to know him by asking him. And then the individual chain of personal experiences starts.
Eventually every person then has to decide for himself of course. Some might say: OK, I asked God but he did not answer, or my "experiences" were probably only self-delusion and random incidents which my brain interpretes somehow. And some might say: This chain of incidents and experiences with God gives me enough evidence that my faith is real and God exists.
I can understand both cases, actually that are three cases, because in (2.) there are again two cases. I choose the case, where I assume that God exists due to my chain of personal and individual experiences.

Yes, I cannot provide harder evidence to you, only an "anecdotal evidence" or better "testimonial evidence".

I am glad you acknowledged the weakness of your anecdotal evidence. I don't have much argument with people who take your position. The main argument comes when someone says we should feel compelled to believe because of their testimony and we say we don't operate that way, there must be a way to verify that these things experienced are actually the work of a god. Some dishonest people will insist that these subjective experiences are sufficient because they experienced them therefore it is true. The question now becomes how are you different from the mentally ill whose subjective experiences take on larger than life significance to them?

Also, I reject the notion that faith is essential to experiencing a god. No real thing operates that way. All real things are experienced regardless of your state of belief in them. In fact in your daily life there is hardly a time the question of whether you believe in the thing you are doing comes up. You wake up, you brush your teeth, you eat, you move, you drive, you speak, you think, you interact with people, all of these occur without you even needing to consider whether you believe or not. This I think would be how a real god would be experienced, like the air you breathe without need to mentally squint and cork your perceptions in a particular manner before you get it. The things that operate that way are usually illusions. A real god would need no arguments for its reality to be acknowledged just as we need no arguments for the reality of the sun.

LordReed:


I am glad you acknowledged the weakness of your anecdotal evidence. I don't have much argument with people who take your position. The main argument comes when someone says we should feel compelled to believe because of their testimony and we say we don't operate that way, there must be a way to verify that these things experienced are actually the work of a god. Some dishonest people will insist that these subjective experiences are sufficient because they experienced them therefore it is true. The question now becomes how are you different from the mentally ill whose subjective experiences take on larger than life significance to them?

Also, I reject the notion that faith is essential to experiencing a god. No real thing operates that way. All real things are experienced regardless of your state of belief in them. In fact in your daily life there is hardly a time the question of whether you believe in the thing you are doing comes up. You wake up, you brush your teeth, you eat, you move, you drive, you speak, you think, you interact with people, all of these occur without you even needing to consider whether you believe or not. This I think would be how a real god would be experienced, like the air you breathe without need to mentally squint and cork your perceptions in a particular manner before you get it. The things that operate that way are usually illusions. A real god would need no arguments for its reality to be acknowledged just as we need no arguments for the reality of the sun.

I would not say that it is a "weakness". It is only different(!) to scientific evidence. What is mean is that in science an evidence is based on reproducible experimental confirmation under clear, systematic and logical principles. Science itself is a discipline with the goal to explore, "understand" the universe and ideally provide human society the ability to make use of its discoveries. The subject of investigation is the material universe. Per definition science omits any non-material elements and assumptions from its course.
However, if experiencing God requires "other" or further or "additional" elements and assumptions, then clearly science cannot "find" God. This is like in math fitting a theoretical formula to existing data. Lets say one wants to fit several data points with a fit curve with two open parameters. Such a fit procedure will yield the best fitted curve with two parameters.
Trying to experiencing God with materialistic scientific means is like a person who fits the data with two parameters and says: you see! There is no third parameter! I obtain only two. But: he started with two. How can he obtain three parameters when he used only two? It makes no sense. To check whether a third parameter yields a nonzero value he must use it from the beginning. He has to fit the data with a formula with three parameters.

One could argue: well, ok, I fit my experience of this world with my "two parameters" (which means an atheistic world view), and I find that they are sufficient. I do not need a "third parameter" (which means to firmly assume that there is a God).
May be you say that, but I then do not agree. In my experience of this world I need three parameters. I cannot understand this world any more with a purely materialistic atheistic model.

Secondly, I think our definitions of "faith" are different. How do you define "faith" and "believing"? I personally define "faith" and "to believe" as a firm assumption about the reality I am living in, however(!) without the direct possibility to proof it at that very instant.
For example "I believe now that I will still live tomorrow." That means I firmly assume it but I cannot proof it right now. Tomorrow night at 1 sec before midnight I will be able to say: "my assumption, i.e. my 'faith' was correct".

In the same sense, when I speak about faith in God, I mean that I firmly assume that he exists, but I cannot proof it right now.

I will be able to proof it when (1) he exists and (2) I will come to his "world" one day. If he does not exist then I will be wrong.

The question remains: if(!) God exists, why cannot he be experienced scientifically? Why a "third parameter", why an assumption which cannot be verified or falsified by hard evidence? You write, you reject such notion. Real things must be experienced like air we breathe.

That is a good question.

Let me ask you: what if God could be experienced that way? What if God were physically visible in this world? How would humans then behave? How would God behave? I personally think, that there would be only the following possibilities:

(a) God would try to enforce his reign and punish all evil people. Then basically there would be permanently a war against God.
(b) God would try to enforce his reign with super raw power. Then basically all people would just pretend and it would seem like a
wonderful world but beneath the surface always hatred and evil will wait.
(c) God would try to enforce his reign by changing people to robots who cannot do evil. That would be just a puppet show. I do not think that this is an option.
(d) God would just try to be a good example to people by good deeds and words and hope that mankind will eventually change. I personally do not think that people will give a shit on such "nice" actions. Evil people will grin at that and laugh and continue to do evil.
(e) God would just let humanity alone and go away. Great. People killing people, oppressing, raping, enslaving, exploiting, murdering. This would be hell.

Are there more options? May be. None of these above are really good options.

May be the only way is that God is not physically visible but only by faith. This would be like this story I saw once in TV, I think "Coming to America" with Eddy Murphy. The "Prince Akeem" comes to America to find his perfect wife for his life. He is a prince, of royal blood, in an African country "Zamunda". So he comes to America but "hidden" just as a simple regular guy and tries to find a job in a fast food restaurant. In this way he can find his true love. A girl which really loves him and not his money and his royal status.
May be it is like that with God. He can be experienced by those who really seek him. If he were physically visible in this world, everyone would be impressed by his presence and everyone would "love" him, i.e. try to climb in some career, etc..

alxb19:


I would not say that it is a "weakness". It is only different(!) to scientific evidence. What is mean is that in science an evidence is based on reproducible experimental confirmation under clear, systematic and logical principles. Science itself is a discipline with the goal to explore, "understand" the universe and ideally provide human society the ability to make use of its discoveries. The subject of investigation is the material universe. Per definition science omits any non-material elements and assumptions from its course.
However, if experiencing God requires "other" or further or "additional" elements and assumptions, then clearly science cannot "find" God. This is like in math fitting a theoretical formula to existing data. Lets say one wants to fit several data points with a fit curve with two open parameters. Such a fit procedure will yield the best fitted curve with two parameters.
Trying to experiencing God with materialistic scientific means is like a person who fits the data with two parameters and says: you see! There is no third parameter! I obtain only two. But: he started with two. How can he obtain three parameters when he used only two? It makes no sense. To check whether a third parameter yields a nonzero value he must use it from the beginning. He has to fit the data with a formula with three parameters.

One could argue: well, ok, I fit my experience of this world with my "two parameters" (which means an atheistic world view), and I find that they are sufficient. I do not need a "third parameter" (which means to firmly assume that there is a God).
May be you say that, but I then do not agree. In my experience of this world I need three parameters. I cannot understand this world any more with a purely materialistic atheistic model.

Secondly, I think our definitions of "faith" are different. How do you define "faith" and "believing"? I personally define "faith" and "to believe" as a firm assumption about the reality I am living in, however(!) without the direct possibility to proof it at that very instant.
For example "I believe now that I will still live tomorrow." That means I firmly assume it but I cannot proof it right now. Tomorrow night at 1 sec before midnight I will be able to say: "my assumption, i.e. my 'faith' was correct".

In the same sense, when I speak about faith in God, I mean that I firmly assume that he exists, but I cannot proof it right now.

I will be able to proof it when (1) he exists and (2) I will come to his "world" one day. If he does not exist then I will be wrong.

The question remains: if(!) God exists, why cannot he be experienced scientifically? Why a "third parameter", why an assumption which cannot be verified or falsified by hard evidence? You write, you reject such notion. Real things must be experienced like air we breathe.

That is a good question.

Let me ask you: what if God could be experienced that way? What if God were physically visible in this world? How would humans then behave? How would God behave? I personally think, that there would be only the following possibilities:

(a) God would try to enforce his reign and punish all evil people. Then basically there would be permanently a war against God.
(b) God would try to enforce his reign with super raw power. Then basically all people would just pretend and it would seem like a
wonderful world but beneath the surface always hatred and evil will wait.
(c) God would try to enforce his reign by changing people to robots who cannot do evil. That would be just a puppet show. I do not think that this is an option.
(d) God would just try to be a good example to people by good deeds and words and hope that mankind will eventually change. I personally do not think that people will give a shit on such "nice" actions. Evil people will grin at that and laugh and continue to do evil.
(e) God would just let humanity alone and go away. Great. People killing people, oppressing, raping, enslaving, exploiting, murdering. This would be hell.

Are there more options? May be. None of these above are really good options.

May be the only way is that God is not physically visible but only by faith. This would be like this story I saw once in TV, I think "Coming to America" with Eddy Murphy. The "Prince Akeem" comes to America to find his perfect wife for his life. He is a prince, of royal blood, in an African country "Zamunda". So he comes to America but "hidden" just as a simple regular guy and tries to find a job in a fast food restaurant. In this way he can find his true love. A girl which really loves him and not his money and his royal status.
May be it is like that with God. He can be experienced by those who really seek him. If he were physically visible in this world, everyone would be impressed by his presence and everyone would "love" him, i.e. try to climb in some career, etc..

It is so weak it cannot be used in a court of law.

Believers in god always seem to propose some unknown or immeasurable quantities as a parameter for their belief in god yet they are confident in these unknown or immeasurable quantities. It just defies logic, how can you be confident in ignorance?

Your descriptions of god make it seem like a ridiculous proposition. How is that you god in all its infinite wisdom can't scry out a set of actions that would cause it to achieve its purposes perfectly? Instead its needs all these poor arguments for its existence and supposed actions?

The argument for the hiddeness of god is just so damn weak because the presence of god will not force anything. You have parents did you always obey everything they said even when they were physically present with you? Also this god is said to be omni present and omniscient yet you still err. How are you able to then say the presence of god will compel obedience?

To you, @alxb19.
I have been so long away from nairaland but today I décided to peep in.
The 90% confirmation you have about your God is too little and I would personally advise you to seek for a personal encounter, it is far solid than miracles and wonders when it comes to solidifying your faith in your God.
Many of them that tried to bash you on this thread are not even strong atheist, if you fall in a nest of their kind, your conviction by miracle might not be enough to hold your ground.Once again, it's highly important to seek a personal encounter {beware, it should never be as a form of test}.

Also, go to their thread "Non-christain chat thread" and read from page 197 to 200. We had an encounter with many of them, and they fled, even as I speak the group is still unusually dry. {You will learn a great deal there, Go!!!}
They will tell you, "There is no God, simple reasoning and logic confirms it."
We then ask them, "(To the man, before any thing else, God is the Creator)According to simple reasoning and logic, what is the origin of creation and existence?"
This unsettles them and they become quiet and troubled.

From logic and reasoning, from physics and science God is made known.
Even from the Big bang, we would prove the hand of God,
From the creations shall things about the creator be known.
In all ultimate and infinite complexity is the God, but what is made manifest cannot be hidden.
God is known, and therefore cannot be hidden.
Big bang: The universe sprang up from an enormous explosion of light (concentrated on a source).

Newtonian Physics {logically and reasonably backed up}
1."Every thing will continue to be at rest or in motion except it is acted upon by an EXTERNAL FORCE."
2."Energy can only change state when an EXTERNAL FORCE acts on it"
Light is energy,and from scientific proof, THE EXPLOSION BEGAN. {I.e before the explosion, it was just energy in a ground state, and the universe had a beginning (the universe was never in a state of motion, I mean it was never iNfiNitely eXisTing as it was started by the explosion}.
If this explosion began, then it was acted upon by an EXTERNAL FORCE. Or else, logically it couldn't have began.
What is this EXTERNAL FORCE? Or rather WHO?
No time, we would have dissected everything with you and up your conviction from 90% to 98.999%.
But, think about what is written below...

"Let there be light, and there was light."
WHO SAID THIS AND WHAT HAPPENED AFTER IT WAS SAID?

LordReed:


It is so weak it cannot be used in a court of law.

Believers in god always seem to propose some unknown or immeasurable quantities as a parameter for their belief in god yet they are confident in these unknown or immeasurable quantities. It just defies logic, how can you be confident in ignorance?

Your descriptions of god make it seem like a ridiculous proposition. How is that you god in all its infinite wisdom can't scry out a set of actions that would cause it to achieve its purposes perfectly? Instead its needs all these poor arguments for its existence and supposed actions?

The argument for the hiddeness of god is just so damn weak because the presence of god will not force anything. You have parents did you always obey everything they said even when they were physically present with you? Also this god is said to be omni present and omniscient yet you still err. How are you able to then say the presence of god will compel obedience?

I completely understand what you mean. I also thought like that. I wrote that at the very beginning of this thread that I was a convinced atheist. I wrote that to stress that I do not need to be "reminded" about logic, evidence and ridiculous propositions. I know that.

So, why did I turn away from a purely materialistic, naturalistic model? I turned away because I realized that it does NOT fit my observations well enough.

A naturalistic world view is good, it has an intrinsic elegance. But the question is: is it true? I personally realized it might be true, but I think not, because my observations cannot accurately be described by it.

In this thread my intention was not to convince anyone or try to argue that God indeed does exist and everybody has to accept that. My intention was to make clear that there is a huge difference between persons (whatever world view they have) who deliberately choose a world view and who are fully aware that they are NOT intrinsically right. They can provide reasons in favor of their world view, but they know that it is impossible to 100% verify or falsify any world view! And on the other hand, persons, who claim that they found the 100% proof for their world view and the others must(!) be wrong. This I call a myth. And if people try to force other people to accept their world view, I call that evil (whatever world view is involved).

From my side I can say, that I am 90% sure that God exists. I choose the christian world view as a deliberate choice. Deliberately choosing a world view, not blindly accepting, not blindly following people, not blindly repeating words, but choosing a world view which seems correct, this is quite important, I would say.

Regarding the omnipotence of God. You argue that my argument is damn weak. Why should it be weak? Your claim is: if God existed and if he is omnipotent then he can find a solution to all problems without any cost and without any side effects?

I cannot give you a good answer to this question, because it is huge. I only can speculate here. My personal speculation is that "omnipotence" does not mean an idiotic notion of some artificially constructed ability to do anything(!) with exactly the results one wishes without any problems or side effects. From such a notion stupid critizisms were created in the past like: "If God is omnipotent then he should be able to create a stone, which is so heavy that he cannot lift it any more. But if he managed to do that, then he cannot lift it and hence he is not omnipotent." This is idiotic.
Any person in leadership knows that irrespective how much power you have, you cannot "achieve" everything you want.

By the way: I did NOT write that "the presence of god will compel obedience?" In contrary.

Blabbermouth:
To you, @alxb19.
I have been so long away from nairaland but today I décided to peep in.
The 90% confirmation you have about your God is too little and I would personally advise you to seek for a personal encounter, it is far solid than miracles and wonders when it comes to solidifying your faith in your God.
Many of them that tried to bash you on this thread are not even strong atheist, if you fall in a nest of their kind, your conviction by miracle might not be enough to hold your ground.Once again, it's highly important to seek a personal encounter {beware, it should never be as a form of test}.

Also, go to their thread "Non-christain chat thread" and read from page 197 to 200. We had an encounter with many of them, and they fled, even as I speak the group is still unusually dry. {You will learn a great deal there, Go!!!}
They will tell you, "There is no God, simple reasoning and logic confirms it."
We then ask them, "(To the man, before any thing else, God is the Creator)According to simple reasoning and logic, what is the origin of creation and existence?"
This unsettles them and they become quiet and troubled.

From logic and reasoning, from physics and science God is made known.
Even from the Big bang, we would prove the hand of God,
From the creations shall things about the creator be known.
In all ultimate and infinite complexity is the God, but what is made manifest cannot be hidden.
God is known, and therefore cannot be hidden.
Big bang: The universe sprang up from an enormous explosion of light (concentrated on a source).

Newtonian Physics {logically and reasonably backed up}
1."Every thing will continue to be at rest or in motion except it is acted upon by an EXTERNAL FORCE."
2."Energy can only change state when an EXTERNAL FORCE acts on it"
Light is energy,and from scientific proof, THE EXPLOSION BEGAN. {I.e before the explosion, it was just energy in a ground state, and the universe had a beginning (the universe was never in a state of motion, I mean it was never iNfiNitely eXisTing as it was started by the explosion}.
If this explosion began, then it was acted upon by an EXTERNAL FORCE. Or else, logically it couldn't have began.
What is this EXTERNAL FORCE? Or rather WHO?
No time, we would have dissected everything with you and up your conviction from 90% to 98.999%.
But, think about what is written below...

"Let there be light, and there was light."
WHO SAID THIS AND WHAT HAPPENED AFTER IT WAS SAID?

Thanks. I will think about it.

alxb19:


I completely understand what you mean. I also thought like that. I wrote that at the very beginning of this thread that I was a convinced atheist. I wrote that to stress that I do not need to be "reminded" about logic, evidence and ridiculous propositions. I know that.

So, why did I turn away from a purely materialistic, naturalistic model? I turned away because I realized that it does NOT fit my observations well enough.

A naturalistic world view is good, it has an intrinsic elegance. But the question is: is it true? I personally realized it might be true, but I think not, because my observations cannot accurately be described by it.

In this thread my intention was not to convince anyone or try to argue that God indeed does exist and everybody has to accept that. My intention was to make clear that there is a huge difference between persons (whatever world view they have) who deliberately choose a world view and who are fully aware that they are NOT intrinsically right. They can provide reasons in favor of their world view, but they know that it is impossible to 100% verify or falsify any world view! And on the other hand, persons, who claim that they found the 100% proof for their world view and the others must(!) be wrong. This I call a myth. And if people try to force other people to accept their world view, I call that evil (whatever world view is involved).

From my side I can say, that I am 90% sure that God exists. I choose the christian world view as a deliberate choice. Deliberately choosing a world view, not blindly accepting, not blindly following people, not blindly repeating words, but choosing a world view which seems correct, this is quite important, I would say.

Regarding the omnipotence of God. You argue that my argument is damn weak. Why should it be weak? Your claim is: if God existed and if he is omnipotent then he can find a solution to all problems without any cost and without any side effects?

I cannot give you a good answer to this question, because it is huge. I only can speculate here. My personal speculation is that "omnipotence" does not mean an idiotic notion of some artificially constructed ability to do anything(!) with exactly the results one wishes without any problems or side effects. From such a notion stupid critizisms were created in the past like: "If God is omnipotent then he should be able to create a stone, which is so heavy that he cannot lift it any more. But if he managed to do that, then he cannot lift it and hence he is not omnipotent." This is idiotic.
Any person in leadership knows that irrespective how much power you have, you cannot "achieve" everything you want.

By the way: I did NOT write that "the presence of god will compel obedience?" In contrary.

It is you making a claim that your god is omnipotent, that this god is the lord of this universe, that it created this titanic structure we all live in yet is it so limited in operation when it comes to establishing positions and outcomes that match its power in the lives of the people it supposedly created. One wonders whether it is the same god you are describing or a different one. Your god can create a planet but cannot create a temple. Your god can speak things into existence but cannot establish something as simple as as telephone or any other communication channel that is unambiguous.

I don't know of an atheist on NL that makes the claim that they are 100% certain about the operation of this universe, what most of us say is you cannot hold as true any supernatural claim that you cannot substantiate. This includes gods, angels, devils, spirits, souls, miracles and other fantastical acts, etc. If your worldview includes these things and says they are real then they need to be substantiated.

Yes you did not type "the presence of god will compel obedience", you typed "If he were physically visible in this world, everyone would be impressed by his presence and everyone would "love" him, i.e. try to climb in some career, etc.." I would like you to point out the difference.

LordReed:


It is you making a claim that your god is omnipotent, that this god is the lord of this universe, that it created this titanic structure we all live in yet is it so limited in operation when it comes to establishing positions and outcomes that match its power in the lives of the people it supposedly created. One wonders whether it is the same god you are describing or a different one. Your god can create a planet but cannot create a temple. Your god can speak things into existence but cannot establish something as simple as as telephone or any other communication channel that is unambiguous.

I don't know of an atheist on NL that makes the claim that they are 100% certain about the operation of this universe, what most of us say is you cannot hold as true any supernatural claim that you cannot substantiate. This includes gods, angels, devils, spirits, souls, miracles and other fantastical acts, etc. If you worldview includes these things and says they are real then they need to be substantiated.

Yes you did not type "the presence of god will compel obedience", you typed "If he were physically visible in this world, everyone would be impressed by his presence and everyone would "love" him, i.e. try to climb in some career, etc.." I would like you to point out the difference.

The God must be visible if not, he does not exist. Is that all there is to it??

Blabbermouth:

The God must be visible if not, he does not exist. Is that all there is to it??

Where did I make that claim?

LordReed:


Where did I make that claim?

MATERIALISM.
What kind of evidence then would be sufficient enough to convince you beyond doubt that GOD exists.

Blabbermouth:

MATERIALISM.
What kind of evidence then would be sufficient enough to convince you beyond doubt that GOD exists.

Where did I mention materialism?

The kind that matches the extraordinary claims.

LordReed:


Where did I mention materialism?

The kind that matches the extraordinary claims.

Take "Gravity and inertia" as a case study, these two can never be seen but one can be felt and the other described. Why do we stick to them then and believe they are true? Because, nothing else would satisfy the kind of occurences they influence.
Look from this perspective, when you jump up, you must surely come down, if we plugged anything that isn't gravity as the factor responsible, we wouldn't and couldn't have satisfied the occurrence, only gravity works, therefore gravity is real. Inertia, is reluctance of matter to move or be set into motion, it is not actually a scalar nor a vector, yet it can't be neglected in static mechanics. Why do we consider it? why couldn't another factor be responsible for the "reluctance to be set into motion" ? Answer: Because the won't work and don't just fit in, only the "inertial factor" works.
Let's not be bias then, if we disconnect from this world and take it like a equation, where we need a particular variable for everything to be real and plausible, for it to all connect and make sense.
Whatever the outcome is, after we have plugged and unplugged variables, would you then agree with no doubt that whatever our EXCLUSIVE result is, is responsible for it all.
Be it God, be it aliens, be it man or be it pure energy. Will you then concur??

alxb19:


Reg. Obs. No. 1: So, you really mean that "once an atheist, always an atheist"? Or: a "real" atheist can never ever leave atheism? Wow!

Reg. Obs. No. 2: Did I write that the crusades were right? Did I write that colonialization was good? No. Let me clearly write: Evil things are evil, independent by whom they are committed or to which end they are done. The crusades were evil, colonialization was evil, killing of innocent women was beyond evil - I cannot say how much I hate those persons, who were involved in that, or any other brutality. Evil actions performed in the name of Jesus are so contradicting to Jesus!

Reg. Obs. No. 3: Ok, I admit, the crimes by the Roman Catholic Church were much greater. Ok, you are right. Atheists did not do any evil things, right? In the Soviet Union nobody was killed or "purged" because his faith contradicted Communism (which is congruent with Atheism)? In North Korea no christian is killed because faith in God is "stupid" and against the "Revolution" and hence must be destroyed? In the Nazi regime no SS officers interrogated christians, telling them e.g. to a christian: "You and your delusional Jesus. In few years and this is over." The Nazi ideology tried hard to destroy all kinds of religions and world views by their "superior" ideology.
You will say: but that were not atheists. Well, you accused all christians of all crimes which were done in the name of christianity. Then it is my right to summarize all crimes which were performed by convinced atheists.

To your bonus question: I never was member of the "Atheists Society of Nigeria" or any other Atheistic Society.

The Nazists were not atheists.

Blabbermouth:

Take "Gravity and inertia" as a case study, these two can never be seen but one can be felt and the other described. Why do we stick to them then and believe they are true? Because, nothing else would satisfy the kind of occurences they influence.
Look from this perspective, when you jump up, you must surely come down, if we plugged anything that isn't gravity as the factor responsible, we wouldn't and couldn't have satisfied the occurrence, only gravity works, therefore gravity is real. Inertia, is reluctance of matter to move or be set into motion, it is not actually a scalar nor a vector, yet it can't be neglected in static mechanics. Why do we consider it? why couldn't another factor be responsible for the "reluctance to be set into motion" ? Answer: Because the won't work and don't just fit in, only the "inertial factor" works.
Let's not be bias then, if we disconnect from this world and take it like a equation, where we need a particular variable for everything to be real and plausible, for it to all connect and make sense.
Whatever the outcome is, after we have plugged and unplugged variables, would you then agree with no doubt that whatever our EXCLUSIVE result is, is responsible for it all.
Be it God, be it aliens, be it man or be it pure energy. Will you then concur??

Gravity and inertia are words we use to describe a set of physical phenomena not the phenomena themselves so you cannot plug and unplug them, they just are. You may device tests to see which phenomena is at work in a given circumstance but it does not mean you are unplugging or plugging them in.

If there is a something responsible for it all then further testing should reveal what it is and then we can describe it. How do you propose we test then?

LordReed:


It is you making a claim that your god is omnipotent, that this god is the lord of this universe, that it created this titanic structure we all live in yet is it so limited in operation when it comes to establishing positions and outcomes that match its power in the lives of the people it supposedly created. One wonders whether it is the same god you are describing or a different one. Your god can create a planet but cannot create a temple. Your god can speak things into existence but cannot establish something as simple as as telephone or any other communication channel that is unambiguous.

I don't know of an atheist on NL that makes the claim that they are 100% certain about the operation of this universe, what most of us say is you cannot hold as true any supernatural claim that you cannot substantiate. This includes gods, angels, devils, spirits, souls, miracles and other fantastical acts, etc. If your worldview includes these things and says they are real then they need to be substantiated.

Yes you did not type "the presence of god will compel obedience", you typed "If he were physically visible in this world, everyone would be impressed by his presence and everyone would "love" him, i.e. try to climb in some career, etc.." I would like you to point out the difference.

Firstly, reg. "If your worldview includes these things and says they are real then they need to be substantiated."

What do you mean with substantiated? Do you mean "scientifically evidenced by methods employed by natural sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.)"? If yes, then I only can answer. I cannot and I did write this before. May be I disagree with other christians in this point. I personally think that God cannot be evidenced with methods of natural sciences. We have already discussed that. You wrote that this is a "weakness" and I replied, that it is not a weakness. The two world views are based on a very different set of axioms. May be we should compare later our definitions of atheism (or more precisely materialistic atheism, because there are several types of atheism) and christianity.

My point is that one cannot judge or evaluate one world view by using the axioms of the other. This is scientifically not sound! One can do it, of course, but the results are not really helpful, from both sides!

The only thing which is sound is to acknowledge that one has to choose(!) deliberately one world view, and then, inside this world view one can perform tests. And I know that materialistic atheism is a self-consistent world view with many arguments in favor for it. But it cannot map many aspects of reality. The attempts to map aspects like "love", "evil", "good" onto the materialistic world view are interesting but very artificial. They do not match reality. One can try to live a life where love is just a biochemical response but without intrinsic value, where "good or evil" is just a social local definition, an emergent property of society, without real "substance". One can try to life like that, but eventually it will fail. Sooner or later one has to live like a spy with two identities. In one life, one is sure that the material Universe is all there really is. In the other life on lives as someone who thinks that love, friendship, good or evil, immaterial things are indeed relevant.
This is not a proof for my point. It is an idea, a momentum.

Inside the christian world view the perception of this world is completely different. It is also self-consistent. And not by just adding fantasies and blindly believing things. This is not christianity.

I have to continue later because of an appointment.

alxb19:


Firstly, reg. "If your worldview includes these things and says they are real then they need to be substantiated."

What do you mean with substantiated? Do you mean "scientifically evidenced by methods employed by natural sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.)"? If yes, then I only can answer. I cannot and I did write this before. May be I disagree with other christians in this point. I personally think that God cannot be evidenced with methods of natural sciences. We have already discussed that. You wrote that this is a "weakness" and I replied, that it is not a weakness. The two world views are based on a very different set of axioms. May be we should compare later our definitions of atheism (or more precisely materialistic atheism, because there are several types of atheism) and christianity.

My point is that one cannot judge or evaluate one world view by using the axioms of the other. This is scientifically not sound! One can do it, of course, but the results are not really helpful, from both sides!

The only thing which is sound is to acknowledge that one has to choose(!) deliberately one world view, and then, inside this world view one can perform tests. And I know that materialistic atheism is a self-consistent world view with many arguments in favor for it. But it cannot map many aspects of reality. The attempts to map aspects like "love", "evil", "good" onto the materialistic world view are interesting but very artificial. They do not match reality. One can try to live a life where love is just a biochemical response but without intrinsic value, where "good or evil" is just a social local definition, an emergent property of society, without real "substance". One can try to life like that, but eventually it will fail. Sooner or later one has to live like a spy with two identities. In one life, one is sure that the material Universe is all there really is. In the other life on lives as someone who thinks that love, friendship, good or evil, immaterial things are indeed relevant.
This is not a proof for my point. It is an idea, a momentum.

Inside the christian world view the perception of this world is completely different. It is also self-consistent. And not by just adding fantasies and blindly believing things. This is not christianity.

I have to continue later because of an appointment.

So by what means do you propose that we substantiate your god claims? We have already ruled out personal experience as too weak, we need more substantial means.

LordReed:


So by what means do you propose that we substantiate your god claims? We have already ruled out personal experience as too weak, we need more substantial means.

Always saying WE, whereas all the so called WE can't come together to form a family of orderliness having one line of thought!

That means you're just advocating for disorder, so that each and everyone of you had no checkmates to help reprove you of what's wrong!

Now who can refute the fact that atheism is the faculty for bunch of lawless idiots?

LordReed:


It is you making a claim that your god is omnipotent, that this god is the lord of this universe, that it created this titanic structure we all live in yet is it so limited in operation when it comes to establishing positions and outcomes that match its power in the lives of the people it supposedly created. One wonders whether it is the same god you are describing or a different one. Your god can create a planet but cannot create a temple. Your god can speak things into existence but cannot establish something as simple as as telephone or any other communication channel that is unambiguous.

I don't know of an atheist on NL that makes the claim that they are 100% certain about the operation of this universe, what most of us say is you cannot hold as true any supernatural claim that you cannot substantiate. This includes gods, angels, devils, spirits, souls, miracles and other fantastical acts, etc. If your worldview includes these things and says they are real then they need to be substantiated.

Yes you did not type "the presence of god will compel obedience", you typed "If he were physically visible in this world, everyone would be impressed by his presence and everyone would "love" him, i.e. try to climb in some career, etc.." I would like you to point out the difference.

...to continue my post:

Secondly, what would happen if God, and assuming that he is a super-being, who was able to create a titanic Universe with everything in it, if he would live physically visible in this world. What would be the consequences? What do YOU think?

tintingz:
The Nazists were not atheists.

And what were they?

alxb19:


And what were they?

Psychopaths that hate Jews.

Some of the Nazists were Christians.

tintingz:
Psychopaths that hate Jews.

@bolded is a lie!

Of course there are psychopaths, but whatever brings more than a thousand individuals together for a purpose can't be scrapped as psychopathic anymore.

There is a mission intended.

Nazis are atheists who brainwashed gullible Germans in their bid to dominate the world. Adolf Hitler only led those atheists!

If they're not atheists, it's not possible for people to gather together, form an army and go about killing people who never offended them!

The Bible foretold a time when the real atheists will start killing innocent people all in their bid to scrap religion! At that time you will know that it doesn't mean they're psychopathic, but they're just out to dominate others legally or illegally!

Maximus69:


@bolded is a lie!

Of course there are psychopaths, but whatever brings more than a thousand individuals together for a purpose can't be scrapped as psychopathic anymore.

There is a mission intended.

Nazis are atheists who brainwashed gullible Germans in their bid to dominate the world. Adolf Hitler only led those atheists!

If they're not atheists, it's not possible for people to gather together, form an army and go about killing people who never offended them!

The Bible foretold a time when the real atheists will start killing innocent people all in their bid to scrap religion! At that time you will know that it doesn't mean they're psychopathic, but they're just out to dominate others legally or illegally!

Show me where the Nazis said they are Atheists, show me the Atheists ideology they are doing?

Some of the Nazis were Christians, even the Catholic church support them at a point. The Nazis hate the Jews.

Here is Hitler's speech,

In 1928 Hitler said in a speech: "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement is Christian."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

The Nazis were at a point Christians dominated and at a point oppose religions and proclaim their own beliefs and some has Christianity backings.

tintingz:


Show me where the Nazis said they are Atheists, show me the Atheists ideology they are doing?

Some of the Nazis were Christians, even the Catholic church support them at a point. The Nazis hate the Jews.

Here is Hitler's speech,

In 1928 Hitler said in a speech: "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement is Christian."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

The Nazis were at a point Christians dominated and at a point oppose religions and proclaim their own beliefs and some has Christianity backings.

You don't get it, do you?

REAL ATHEISTS DON'T CALL THEMSELVES ATHEISTS!

It's from their actions you will recognise them NOT what they say with their mouth. Of course actions speaks louder than words!

If they're Christians, they will never raise up their hands to hurt anyone for any reason whatsoever! Matthew 26:52, 1Peter 5:15

That's why you need to know what Christianity means, NOT just thinking all those claiming Christians are Christians. Christians means those strictly obeying Jesus' commands even if it means allowing themselves to be killed instead of killing others! Matthew 10:18-22

Maximus69:


You don't get it, do you?

REAL ATHEISTS DON'T CALL THEMSELVES ATHEISTS!

It's from their actions you will recognise them NOT what they say with their mouth. Of course actions speaks louder than words!

If they're Christians, they will never raise up their hands to hurt anyone for any reason whatsoever! Matthew 26:52, 1Peter 5:15

That's why you need to know what Christianity means, NOT just thinking all those claiming Christians are Christians. Christians means those strictly obeying Jesus' commands even if it means allowing themselves to be killed instead of killing others! Matthew 10:18-22

Lol,

So how do you know a real Atheists and fake Atheists?

alxb19:


...to continue my post:

Secondly, what would happen if God, and assuming that he is a super-being, who was able to create a titanic Universe with everything in it, if he would live physically visible in this world. What would be the consequences? What do YOU think?

It depends on the nature of the god's "reign". If it is as tyrannical as expressed in the OT of the bible, I expect there to be resentment against the god and at least covert resistance to some of the rather nasty practices.

If the god turns out to be truly benevolent such that everyone experiences a sort of paradise then I think everyone would have no cause to rail against the god.

*
To the recent posts about nazis, atheism and christianity: Sorry, I introduced this problem in one of my first posts!

Sorry also for my post where I asked "and what are they?"

In my original post one week ago I wanted to respond to an accusation that christians killed innocent people and commited evil things in the middle ages. I wrote that in fact many so-called christians (and these were not christians) did unbelievable evil things especially in the medieval times. What I wanted to express is that many atheistic regimes also did many evil things, e.g. in the Soviet Union. I wrote this to say: "hey, when you accuse christians generally then one could(!) also accuse atheists generally."

My intention was NOT to insult anbody or say that all atheists are evil.

Anybody, from any world view, who does evil things does evil things. Evil actions are evil independent by whom they are committed.

Some nazis were atheists, some were christians (or claimed to be christians), some were something else.

There are nice atheists, and evil atheists. There are nice christians and evil christians. Can we agree on that?

tintingz:


Lol,

So how do you know a real Atheists and fake Atheists?

Intelligent question!

When talking about ATHEISM, note what the atheists are asserting "God is an object of illusion"
According to atheists, there's nothing after life, we are born, live and die all by chance!

This means whatever anyone does has no reward if not noticed by other intelligent creatures living.
There is no hereafter!

So back to your question, "how do you distinguish between a real atheist and the fake one?"

Imagine two guys traveling along a deserted area, they're both hungry and famished. One spoke consolingly to the other
"i am the first born of a billionaire, in my father's house there are lots of good food and drinks, if you can just manage to go with me to our house which is not far from here, we'll both eat to satisfaction"

Of course the other guy felt a relief thinking there is hope, but as they got to a corner they saw an accident, it's a truck loaded with loafs of bread. Hungry paupers from all sides ran to the scene to steal and eat, then the "billionaire's son also rushed there only to start fighting with the famished paupers, NOT to stop them from eating, NOT to pick a loaf, NOT to speak to them but to eat from the loafs just like other hopeless paupers!

Please if you're the other guy, would you still believe your friend afterwards?

Well, that's an illustration to help identify real atheists!

There are billions of people claiming they believe in God, but in the real sense they are atheists!

Most of you guys claiming atheists are either angry or inquisitive for Justice sake, many of you have the feeling that if God truly exist,
©Why so much suffering?
©Why so much injustice?
Questions like this comes to mind when you see innocent people been treated unjustly and mostly when justice is denied, and nothing is happening!

So you speak out from a broken heart "if there is a God somewhere, what is he/she/it doing? We've heard that he's omnipotent, omnipresence, omniscience, so why is he not doing something now?"

Thus you concludes "There is no God and if there is, he doesn't care about us"

So i call people like you guys "Fake atheists" because you're yearning for Justice and since it's not forth coming, you speak out perhaps let's see if God can come out from his hiding place so that we can ask him questions bordering our hearts!

As for the "REAL ATHEISTS", these ones join people in false declarations of all sorts just to get what they want!
They are religious title chiefs, who preach and teach falsehood as long as such doctrines go in line with their materialistic pursuit, and they're ready to do away with whoever stands on their way not to achieve their goals! So by their attitudes you will know that they don't believe in God because if they do they'll always stand for Justice!

That's unlike you guys who are speaking out to challenge God so that he comes out and do the work of Justice if he truly care!

Maximus69:


Intelligent question!

When talking about ATHEISM, note what the atheists are asserting "God is an object of illusion"
According to atheists, there's nothing after life, we are born, live and die all by chance!

This means whatever anyone does has no reward if not noticed by other intelligent creatures living.
There is no hereafter!

So back to your question, "how do you distinguish between a real atheist and the fake one?"

Imagine two guys traveling along a deserted area, they're both hungry and famished. One spoke consolingly to the other
"i am the first born of a billionaire, in my father's house there are lots of good food and drinks, if you can just manage to go with me to our house which is not far from here, we'll both eat to satisfaction"

Of course the other guy felt a relief thinking there is hope, but as they got to a corner they saw an accident, it's a truck loaded with loafs of bread. Hungry paupers from all sides ran to the scene to steal and eat, then the "billionaire's son also rushed there only to start fighting with the famished paupers, NOT to stop them from eating, NOT to pick a loaf, NOT to speak to them but to eat from the loafs just like other hopeless paupers!

Please if you're the other guy, would you still believe your friend afterwards?

Well, that's an illustration to help identify real atheists!

There are billions of people claiming they believe in God, but in the real sense they are atheists!

Most of you guys claiming atheists are either angry or inquisitive for Justice sake, many of you have the feeling that if God truly exist,
©Why so much suffering?
©Why so much injustice?
Questions like this comes to mind when you see innocent people been treated unjustly and mostly when justice is denied, and nothing is happening!

So you speak out from a broken heart "if there is a God somewhere, what is he/she/it doing? We've heard that he's omnipotent, omnipresence, omniscience, so why is he not doing something now?"

Thus you concludes "There is no God and if there is, he doesn't care about us"

So i call people like you guys "Fake atheists" because you're yearning for Justice and since it's not forth coming, you speak out perhaps let's see if God can come out from his hiding place so that we can ask him questions bordering our hearts!

As for the "REAL ATHEISTS", these ones join people in false declarations of all sorts just to get what they want!
They are religious title chiefs, who preach and teach falsehood as long as such doctrines go in line with their materialistic pursuit, and they're ready to do away with whoever stands on their way not to achieve their goals! So by their attitudes you will know that they don't believe in God because if they do they'll always stand for Justice!

That's unlike you guys who are speaking out to challenge God so that he comes out and do the work of Justice if he truly care!

Hahahahahahaha, This dude know the Atheists mind more than Atheists, you must also have Atheists Bible to know this.

alxb19:
*
To the recent posts about nazis, atheism and christianity: Sorry, I introduced this problem in one of my first posts!

Sorry also for my post where I asked "and what are they?"

In my original post one week ago I wanted to respond to an accusation that christians killed innocent people and commited evil things in the middle ages. I wrote that in fact many so-called christians (and these were not christians) did unbelievable evil things especially in the medieval times. What I wanted to express is that many atheistic regimes also did many evil things, e.g. in the Soviet Union. I wrote this to say: "hey, when you accuse christians generally then one could(!) also accuse atheists generally."

My intention was NOT to insult anbody or say that all atheists are evil.

Anybody, from any world view, who does evil things does evil things. Evil actions are evil independent by whom they are committed.

Some nazis were atheists, some were christians (or claimed to be christians), some were something else.

There are nice atheists, and evil atheists. There are nice christians and evil christians. Can we agree on that?

Ofcos there are good Atheists and bad ones same for Christians and every other religions.

But...

Atheists/Atheism don't have dogmas they follow, no Bible or divine text to justify their actions.

But in Christianity, they have Bible and dogmas, their actions can be justify from their dogmas.

So the problem is not about the people per se, the problem is about dogmatism, these are the things that influenced the people.

Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have debated this before, Sam Harris gave a very valid point on this.

And I think you're being bias, how do you conclude the Christians that did evil are/were not real Christians?

tintingz:


Hahahahahahaha, This dude know the Atheists mind more than Atheists, you must also have Atheists Bible to know this.

Well i'm a Christian!

A scholar taught by the greatest teacher ever, so we know you much more than you can ever imagine Sir!

ATHEISTS ~ real are those who keeps in mind what they believe but goes about deceiving others to make money out of their stupidity.

~ fake are frustrated individuals who feels God should pump out of his hiding place to solve mankind's problems.

Definitely they're both saying the same thing, but while one is crying aloud perhaps to see God and challenge him for all these misappropriations, the other strongly believe that there is no God in his heart{ Psalms 14:1} he is ever ready to commit any crime as long as he manage to play smart, so that those he believes can hold him responsible aren't seeing him. As for God, he strongly believe there is nothing as such!

Maximus69:


Well i'm a Christian!

A scholar taught by the greatest teacher ever, so we know you much more than you can ever imagine Sir!

ATHEISTS ~ real are those who keeps in mind what they believe but goes about deceiving others to make money out of their stupidity.

~ fake are frustrated individuals who feels God should pump out of his hiding place to solve mankind's problems.

Definitely they're both saying the same thing, but while one is crying aloud perhaps to see God and challenge him for all these misappropriations, the other strongly believe that there is no God in his heart{ Psalms 14:1} he is ever ready to commit any crime as long as he manage to play smart, so that those he believes can hold him responsible aren't seeing him. As for God, he strongly believe there is nothing as such!

Projection fallacy.

LordReed:


So by what means do you propose that we substantiate your god claims? We have already ruled out personal experience as too weak, we need more substantial means.

First regarding this point:
No. We have not ruled out that personal experience is too weak. You ruled it out but I have not agreed.

You mention a court as an example and that the claims of christianity would not hold before a court. I disagree. In a court session there might be the party which mentions clear hard facts, samples, tissue, documents, fingerprints etc. and comes to a conclusion. But there might be the other party which raises issues like consciousness, good and evil, previous provocations, words, feelings, experiences, i.e. "soft" facts.
Eventually the judgment or sentence will be based on a deliberate choice of the judge. He or she will decide based on all facts, hard and soft.

In the same way every human being is in a position similar to a judge. One might judge only on "hard" materialistic facts, but the question is, is it just, is it correct? Does it map reality (the entire reality) correctly?