Martinez39:
Princess Ebuka is back.

Not really. Just for a while lol

KingEbukasBlog:


The point of this thread is to show that there are human mind-dependent realities atheists mistake for objective reality, considering their rejection of God.

my point is that it is inaccurate for you to say that atheist believe mathematics is fictional. Will this assumption not flaw your argument?

KingEbukasBlog:


I have been called generous, humble, kind, stupid, brilliant, selfless, selfish etc. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about anything or anyone.

Lol at Humble

Well, I have been as egoistic as you were back in the days.

And no, no one can remain the same. There will be always change.Hope you as good, bro. Long time o

I'm alright. Recently popped back to this board.

Boring as shiit these days.

KingEbukasBlog:
@johnnydon22

I'm glad you do accept that these are fictional, illusionary or imaginary orders in your worldview as an atheist. But I do have good logical arguments to demonstrate that indeed rationality, mathematics, equality, freewill, moral responsibility , objective morality etc are not fictional but objectively real in a theistic worldview

I'm familiar with these arguments.

johnydon22:


Lol. That's interesting.

And that's exactly what they are. Imaginary order, products of man to keep his social fabric in order.

Anyone who states otherwise is fooling himself.

I don't understand this post all. You list out imaginary orders (social constructs) as imaginary things atheist believe, of course they are fictional, myths, the problem is, no one stated otherwise.

Everyone knows every element of social order is invented.

Humans do not have inherent social engineering like ants or termites, so imaginary orders such as:
Government
Morality
Laws
Religion
Corporations
Language
Money
Stock
Etc

Help bypass this and give humans an almost unnatural capability to create large complex social structures.

Everyone agrees that Imaginary orders only exist because humans believe it.

If everyone stops believing the value of money (the paper) it simply becomes a worthless piece of paper.

Even with a God in place, imaginary orders won't be anymore realer than they already are. They'd still remain imaginary.

Except maybe for morality.

An argument for another day.



Correct. That's why they are Imaginary orders. Social myths.

Man's abstract inventions to keep the social norms.



Imaginary orders are a belief, nobody claims they are not.

You on the other hand assert God isn't.

See the difference?

You are arguing on this based on the premise that they aren't real, we already know that.

I have already explained the idea of social myths, imaginary orders countless times to other atheists on this board.

No one is actually arguing this.

Quite agreeable. More correctly, many on this board don't grasp the concept of Imaginary orders.

Lol.



Equality is a myth, an imaginary order, a human belief, you can even say that objective reality is quite the opposite.

No two humans are ever equal, one must be taller, one must be stronger, faster, fatter and so it goes.

Equality is a concept that only work as a social term.

Since we all live together under one social umbrella, why not we assume we are all equals.

That's why it is an imaginary order. A myth, a belief.

So, yes. Equality isn't objective reality but no one stated otherwise.

We are actually subject to natural laws. We only bypass quite a few.

Human society isn't natural, it is also a myth, an imaginary order.

Humans lack the genetical codes to inherently orchestrate a social community like ants, termites.

Ants and termite have well organized societies, these societies come as genetically predetermines in them, they are not doing it because they have to, they do it because they can't do otherwise.

Humans on the other have strong affinity to direct family, which break up the more it goes.

So, human society isn't natural, it was constructed by the help of social myths such as morality, ethnicity, tribe and social laws.

A Christian from Nigeria will automatically have a form of trust, a sense of fellowship with another Christian he met in Rome even they have never met in their lives.

Because both believe in the same imaginary order (organization/institution) Christianity.

A soldier would die alongside another soldier he never met defending a country.

The only thing they have in common is they believe in the imaginary order which is - Country.



Not too long ago, humans believed the sun went around the earth, in fact, some still do.

When you wake up, you see the sun move from the east, journey across ths sky, all the way to the west, in all of this, earth seems stationary.

It is logical and rational to conclude based on this observation that sun moves, earth doesn't.

Logical or Rational doesn't mean true, it means premise 1 follows with premise 2 and the conclusion follows both premises.

So, again, You are correct. No one would claim Rationality or logic means something is true unless that person is naive.

Mathematical figures is a language and like all languages are invented by humans.

The word "Ocean" is a human invention that describes that which exists.

The word "Human" describes that which exists.

The substance is a constant, the language is abstract.

Change the word, the substance remains the same.

Mathematical language describes observable physical patterns and qualities like every other form of language, but yes, the language in itself is a human invention.

I'm not sure someone who is an evolutionalist ever claims to not be an animal like other animals.

In fact, the major bone of contention between evolutionists and opposing school of thoughts is that evolution reduces man to a humble creature like every other beast in the world.

I believe you are arguing over an argument atheists didn't make.

Man is special is mostly a theistic belief not atheistic.

Though man can be quite chauvinistic about himself to think himself special amongst all animals, this value is a myth as you rightly pointed out. It is a belief.



Again, true, Rights are social myths, imaginary order, there is no such thing, it only exists within a social structure which also is in itself a myth.

No one is arguing against that still.


It is safe to say you are reaching now.

How many times have you argued on this board with atheists that morality is subjective?

Here is me explaining to Budaatum that morality has no facts, it is a myth, an imaginary order and the rationality of morality with God as a basis some months back :

https://www.nairaland.com/5355840/atheist-irreligious-men-tell-truth/1#81224453

https://www.nairaland.com/5355840/atheist-irreligious-men-tell-truth/1#81220666

Atheists don't make the argument that morality is objective (some may), that you bring it up as part of the thing they believe is weird.




After going through this argument, I don't see a problem really.

Social myths are social myths, a belief.

No one can say otherwise unless they don't understand it.

Social myths are imaginary orders, they are pure human inventions given meaning by belief.

Anyone (Atheist or not) who asserts they exist in an objective sense is wrong.

So, you are correct, these are imaginary things atheist also believe.

So that means the op is a strawman.

KingEbukasBlog:
@johnnydon22

I'm glad you do accept that these are fictional, illusionary or imaginary orders in your worldview as an atheist. But I do have good logical arguments to demonstrate that indeed rationality, mathematics, equality, freewill, moral responsibility , objective morality etc are not fictional but objectively real in a theistic worldview

That they can be objectively real in a theistic worldview doesn't mean that the theistic worldview is real.

That something sounds better doesn't mean it is real.

Experience shows that in the real world, all these things except for maths and science change from time to time, even for those that believe in the theistic worldview. God has been a subjective human concept like the rest.

Your op at bests highlights how all these things are fictional because that is the experience that agrees with reality.

nwabekeyi:
I think we have a misconception here, you are trying to say that every atheist believe that anything invented by man has to be a fiction?

He has surrounded the fact that he includes God in his imaginary human inventions in so much straw that it seems most others miss it!

KingEbukasBlog:
Just as God, which atheists claim is not real, the aforementioned are just objects of fiction invented by man! Ridiculous, right? Many atheists dont know or realize this. So, let's explore the reality of the non-existence of God and realize the folly in its fullness.

They are objects of fiction, just like God, invented by man to make sense of the world he lives in. You do realize they believe they are smart because they dont believe a particular object of fiction, God, while believing other fictions? Lol

Gggg102:



So that means the op is a strawman.

Yes

Gggg102:


Your op at bests highlights how all these things are fictional because that is the experience that agrees with reality.

You noticed! Though, I would not agree that my own experience agrees with his strawman reality.

nwabekeyi:
How is mathematics fictional?
If 1+1 is not 2, your mobile phone cannot work?

Have you seen a naturally occuring 1 or 2 before?

LordReed:


Have you seen a naturally occuring 1 or 2 before?

is like asking if I have seen a naturally occurring mobile signal before. Does it mean i can’t receive calls?

nwabekeyi:
is like asking if I have seen a naturally occurring mobile signal before. Does it mean i can’t receive calls?

It means as far as our experience is it is an invention of man. The word fiction here is being stretched to cover abstract concepts that we invented. It doesn't mean they are not effective. 1,2 and other numbers and numbering systems are concepts we layer onto our reality in order to communicate with one another. In that sense they are fictional, they are invented.

LordReed:


It means as far as our experience is it is an invention of man. The word fiction here is being stretched to cover abstract concepts that we invented. It doesn't mean they are not effective. 1,2 and other numbers and numbering systems are concepts we layer onto our reality in order to communicate with one another. In that sense they are fictional, they are invented.

I don’t see numbering system as being fictional, maybe abstract is the closest word to describe it. Fictions do not in anyway (direct or indirectly) inspire reality.

Fictions cannot be applied in reality, some abstracts can when they are used logically. In this case, we cannot say that numbering systems are fictional as we can see the applications everywhere, we can apply it anytime and get the same result. In the case of God, we can call it fictional because it’s application is hugely debatable because you won’t get the same result, the results will be largely influenced by other factors.

Let me give you another example, Albert Einstein theory of relativity contains abstracts that are almost impossible in reality, but calling it a fiction means it doesn’t even exist because this same theory is the basis for various scientific inventions.

nwabekeyi:
I don’t see numbering system as being fictional, maybe abstract is the closest word to describe it. Fictions do not in anyway (direct or indirectly) inspire reality.

Fictions cannot be applied in reality, some abstracts can when they are used logically. In this case, we cannot say that numbering systems are fictional as we can see the applications everywhere, we can apply it anytime and get the same result. In the case of God, we can call it fictional because it’s application is hugely debatable because you won’t get the same result, the results will be largely influenced by other factors.

Let me give you another example, Albert Einstein theory of relativity contains abstracts that are almost impossible in reality, but calling it a fiction means it doesn’t even exist because this same theory is the basis for various scientific inventions.

We are only going with the OPs use of the word fiction, of course in a strict sense numbering systems are not classed as fiction. Also fiction doesn't always mean the thing doesn't exist, it might mean the description being made is exaggerated for effect.

LordReed:


Have you seen a naturally occuring 1 or 2 before?

Yes.

A pair of oranges is 1 and 2

Mathematics is a language that is used to quantify objective patterns or reality.

The figure (abstract idea) 1 and 2 is fiction, man made.

But the oranges (substance) isn't.

So, the Language is fiction, what it describes isn't.

Same way normal langauges like English or Igbi are man made but describe an objective substance.

The substance and the abstract aren't the same

johnydon22:


Yes.

A pair of oranges is 1 and 2

Mathematics is a language that is used to quantify objective patterns or reality.

The figure (abstract idea) 1 and 2 is fiction, man made.

But the oranges (substance) isn't.

So, the Language is fiction, what it describes isn't.

Same way normal langauges like English or Igbi are man made but describe an objective substance.

The substance and the abstract aren't the same

I mean the concept 1 and 2. You don't go somewhere to harvest 1 or 2 or dig it out of the ground.

The objective substance they are describing do not have that label naturally occurring.

LordReed:


It means as far as our experience is it is an invention of man.

As in "humans are the measure of things" ? Anyone remember where we argued if an apple falling in the forest without any witnesses makes a noise?

The concept itself, that the addition of one thing to another one thing makes two things, is not a human invention since it is a naturally occurring concept regardless of human existence or not. The "invention of man" is the language humans use to describe the naturally occuring eventually discovered preexisting concept that 1+1=2, and does not imply humans created 2 =1+1.

A similar concept would be gravity which existed long before humans became aware of its existence and measured it.

budaatum:

Basically, humans are the measure of all things. And until we measure things, things do not exist to us though they may exist and we just know it not.

LordReed:


The objective substance they are describing do not have that label naturally occurring.

The objective substance described by the human invented subjective language of 1+1=2 is as naturally occurring as gravity!

budaatum:

The objective substance described by the human invented subjective language of 1+1=2 is as naturally occurring as gravity!

budaatum:

As in "humans are the measure of things" ? Anyone remember where we argued if an apple falling in the forest without any witnesses makes a noise?

The concept itself, that the addition of one thing to another one thing makes two things, is not a human invention since it is a naturally occurring concept regardless of human existence or not. The "invention of man" is the language humans use to describe the naturally occuring eventually discovered preexisting concept that 1+1=2, and does not imply humans created 2 =1+1.

A similar concept would be gravity which existed long before humans became aware of its existence and measured it.

I didn't say or imply the contrary my dear buda.

LordReed:


I didn't say or imply the contrary my dear buda.

Then my bad for assuming and implying you did my Lord, though, as you can see, I was not the only my bad lol.

@johnydon22

I think you kinda mixed some part up like "Logic is not true".

Actually Logic is true, it makes a conclusion of premises/statements true but what it doesn't necessarily consist is information in the matter of fact.

You should have put it "Logic doesn't mean fact".

LordReed:



I mean the concept 1 and 2. You don't go somewhere to harvest 1 or 2 or dig it out of the ground.

The objective substance they are describing do not have that label naturally occurring.

1 and 2 is abstract.

But, it won't exist without the substance.

MrPresident1:


I find it a bit odd to say 'God's existence' like God is external to us and needs validation from us. They reject God, they reject themselves.

No such thing as 'reject God's existence'

Atheist's are superstitious in Faith and act like Mosquitoes.

johnydon22:


1 and 2 is abstract.

But, it won't exist without the substance.

Exactly.

Martinez39:
Princess Ebuka is back.

Theists don't understand that the more they argue in defence of their God they make atheists lose interest more in religion. When I joined NL, it wasn't theists threads that convinced me to leave atheism but threads from Christian dudes like king ebuka ,open your eyes, ola adegbu etc.

The more they talk, the less value people attach to religion

Michellekabod2:

Theists don't understand that the more they argue in defence of their God they make atheists lose interest more in religion. When I joined NL, it wasn't theists threads that convinced me to leave atheism but threads from Christian dudes like king ebuka ,open your eyes, ola adegbu etc.

The more they talk, the less value people attach to religion

Funny, isn't it, that they and what you describe above actually made me become a theist. Not by becoming like them, but by becoming the exact opposite of them.

I swear to God that if I become like olaadegbu I will bash my brainless head against a rock!

budaatum:

Funny, isn't it, that they and what you describe above actually made me become a theist. Not by becoming like them, but by becoming the exact opposite of them.

I swear to God that if I become like olaadegbu I will bash my brainless head against a rock!

I understand, is just feel that if the bear the fruits they preach,they need not involve in a debate or convince people as their fruits will speak for them...

Michellekabod2:

Theists don't understand that the more they argue in defence of their God they make atheists lose interest more in religion. When I joined NL, it wasn't theists threads that convinced me to leave atheism but threads from Christian dudes like king ebuka ,open your eyes, ola adegbu etc.

The more they talk, the less value people attach to religion

budaatum:

Funny, isn't it, that they and what you describe above actually made me become a theist. Not by becoming like them, but by becoming the exact opposite of them.

I swear to God that if I become like olaadegbu I will bash my brainless head against a rock!

I thank God for using little rats like me to preach the gospel. I serve a very BIG God o and He's always by my side.

Michellekabod2:

I understand, is just feel that if the bear the fruits they preach,they need not involve in a debate or convince people as their fruits will speak for them...

God appears to use both the good and the bad for God's purpose. The fruits of some are so devilish that they chase one towards God.

OLAADEGBU:



I thank God for using little rats like me to preach the gospel. I serve a very BIG God o and He's always by my side.

Am glad you admitted you are a rat. Am sad you lied your fictional God is by your side..

Now go back to stealing cheese ,it will fit you better than hating and condemning others under the banner of your fictional God

The delusions of atheism are real and taunting.
Atheism does not make any sense. It is just like entering a beautiful house with a well kept yard , a garage with a parked car, and then conclude that it is a product of chance, that is some sick and backward irrationality there.
Atheists are really fools.

OLAADEGBU:



I thank God for using little rats like me to preach the gospel. I serve a very BIG God o and He's always by my side.

Imagine satan rejoicing for winning souls for God. Those rejoicing should wonder, "which god?"