Yes, yes, yes, I have been gone for a while. Most of you may not remember me cause came in a flash and then disappeared. Went to Hajj in fact.

But, old rivalries aside, I had intended on my return to post a thread on how to handle atheist attacks on religion. Now this might get murcky a bit if its a joint effort so I would like to stick to three issues that I believe are the common thread in all religious discussion : God, Prophets and "A Book."

So, how do xtians address atheist? I will elaborate further as we go but I believe the answer for all xtians is based on the same reason why the person became an atheism (there is also more of course). There is a driving force, as strong as the internal feeling for love and hate, that tells all humans to question where they came from and how they got here. No non-mentally challenged human being, not one, has ever escaped this question. The question or drive is as strong and natural as the natural drives that birds have to migrate and do so, without being taught how to do so. Its purely natural and being an atheist is actually unnatural. When atheists are faced with the question of who created me and how did I get here, they choose the less natural disposition and conclude, against their primordial pull, that God does not exist.

Even if one were to say that God belief was needed as a response to pre-homosapien man's lack of knowledge about the world, then why has God belief remained after all these centuries. Since, as many atheists, and now anti-theists suggest, there is no need for God, it is odd that humans can some how not shake off this annoying God belief. I suggest that God-belief is inescapable. Those that choose to ignore it just choose to be psychopaths that go against their natural inclination.

Lakpenne

Ohh no Oh no, Oh no! A crusade against me? My goodness. I have been being naughty

@Therationa: The Issue here is not about 'Crusade' against you. But a call to challenge you, on one hand answering your questions, but on the other hand allowing you the opportunity to respond to a few of our own. One thing I know is that the Christians, Jews and Muslims belief in something or somethings (in the case of the 3 in 1 god of the Christian), higher than them. But you an atheist on the other hand do not believe in anything like that. You believe that you are an accident of nature (mother nature) or evolution as a result of big bang actio or as KAG will say it 'the Virtual particle Theory!' It just does not hold water.

Afterall, you are the one trying to prove that god does not exist.

Afterall, you are the one trying to prove that god does not exist.

the existence of an imaginary being can neither be proven nor disproven. and philosophical proof is an oxymoron.

Its purely natural and being an atheist is actually unnatural.

all humans are born atheist, that's as natural as they come. u were socialized to believe in a supreme being. that's what's unnatural.


Even if one were to say that God belief was needed as a response to pre-homosapien man's lack of knowledge about the world, then why has God belief remained after all these centuries.

it's not a coincidence that developed countries are usually more secular and less religious than undeveloped ones.

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:

all humans are born atheist, that's as natural as they come. u were socialized to believe in a supreme being. that's what's unnatural.

Please end this irrational and stupid idea! I have asked your adulator to be clear as to what atheism actually is instead of ducking under the cheap glory of wanting to make atheists out of babies/children. Nobody is an atheist until they answer a basic question as to the existence of God! Again I ask: can babies make a response to that question?

bawomolo:

it's not a coincidence that developed countries are usually more secular and less religious than undeveloped ones.

It is not a coincidence to observe that those who are actively non-religious and "godless" in such developed countries are morally bankrupt.

@Lapkenne,

Lakpenne:

So, how do xtians address atheist? I will elaborate further as we go but I believe the answer for all xtians is based on the same reason why the person became an atheism (there is also more of course).

I think this is rather preposterous. It is now the vogue for Muslims to assume just about anything that flies about Christianity; but having gone through your piece, I don't see how you attempted to address the issue sanely.

What about the fact that the answer for all Muslims is the very factor that led many to become atheists?

However, when atheists bring up the question/denial of the existence of God, a few irrefutable points are always seen again and again:

(a) atheists often launch their attacks against Christianity - often so because Christianity proves to be the most coherent worldview that brings the question of the existence of God to the heart and conscience of man! When atheists say that they are questioning "religion", it doesn't take long to see that their efforts are actually geared more against "Christianity" than any other faith!

(b) when atheistic threads are floated in any public forum/blog, Christians have always been the ones who address atheistic questions - and they often do so in a rational, coherent manner which in fact leaves the atheist unable to defend his assumptions. This is what we have seen even in this forum. How many Muslims have dared to enter such debates with atheists even on this Forum? It seems Muslims have had aboslutely nothing to contribute, and so they remain silent all along, or otherwise absent from the forum, hoping that the tide would pass before they themselves resume their own attacks against Christianity.

(c) Christianity continues to witness an ever-increasing attack from every side - atheism, Islam, paganism, naturalism, etc., - but Christianity continues to weather these attacks without seeking to issue any fatwa to anybody! What is more, Christianity continues to grow inspite of the attacks; and Christians have continued to debate such issues coherently with sound reasoning. We continue to see positive results from such non-violent responses, to the extent that quite a number of atheists themselves have become leading Christians, or otherwise abandoned their atheistic positions.

(d) Even when you check this motherboard carefully, you find that where atheistically-inclined minds have responded to Muslim posts, the threads died prematurely: because Muslims have had no answers to those singular responses from atheists (as in the example of the Qur'an on Human Embryology Development). We haven't seen Muslims entering into spirited debates with atheists to offer sane, sound and serious answers as Christians have done and continue to do so even on this forum. Let's just imagine what would have happened either to Seun (the admin of this site), or to any atheist who dared to question Islam!

(e) And this is even more fascinating: those who think themselves "champions" of atheistic rationalism have never proffered sane, sound or serious answers to the responses Christians have offered in their threads. I have personally challenged both therationa and bawomol/bawomolo to enter seasoned debates with me on their assumptions (even offering bawomol/bawomolo the advantage of his own tool of "philosophy" in debates) - and for all these, they have chickend out and never at any time accepted my invitations to such debates! WHY? The answer is obvious - they were never confident of their own assumptions or premises, and have rather been slaving themselves on the incoherent ideas of others which they cannot defend.

It just is about the same thing that happens in my invitations to Muslims who have sought pedantically to attack the Christian faith. For example, several times where I invited olabowale to enter into a discussion on the exegesis of his misgivings on the Trinity, he has consistently baulked and instead has sought to litter other threads with his noise in precisely the same manner that these gentlemen (therationa and bawomol/bawomolo) have been demonstrating in their own adventures.

(f) Of course, let's not forget that Muslims have perfected the art of "plagiarism" by ferreting most of their queries against Christianity from the same skeptic and atheist websites! What is even more sinister is that the Muslims who have been heralded cheaply as "champions" of Islam on this forum have never demonstrated any rational or critical thinking of their own! Again, I've offered both babs787 and olabowale a few invitations to discuss their misgivings intelligently - while babs787 scooted off several times and never wanted to enter into an intelligent debate, olabowale assumes that running of from thread to thread with the same literary excreta might just be a better alternative for his emptiness!

On the whole, as Christians are not in the business of arguing aimlessly, you will not find them ever so desperate trying to answer every thread floated with the kind of childish queries that we have seen in recent days. It is not he who makes the most noise that is intelligent - but again we have seen that the few answers offered to such trolls make more sense than the noise being made by these gentlemen. We have seen more intelligent inputs from a few other atheists on the forum; but these self-seeking apprentices make this forum a huge laugh and shadow of its former glory!

Lakpenne:

So, how do xtians address atheist? I will elaborate further as we go but I believe the answer for all xtians is based on the same reason why the person became an atheism (there is also more of course). There is a driving force, as strong as the internal feeling for love and hate, that tells all humans to question where they came from and how they got here. No non-mentally challenged human being, not one, has ever escaped this question. The question or drive is as strong and natural as the natural drives that birds have to migrate and do so, without being taught how to do so. Its purely natural and being an atheist is actually unnatural. When atheists are faced with the question of who created me and how did I get here, they choose the less natural disposition and conclude, against their primordial pull, that God does not exist.

Really? Is that how it happens? Interesting pschoanalysis.

Even if one were to say that God belief was needed as a response to pre-homosapien man's lack of knowledge about the world, then why has God belief remained after all these centuries.

Evolution of the concept; archetypal remnants; pleasure principle attached to the concept; social and cultural pressure.

Since, as many atheists, and now anti-theists suggest, there is no need for God, it is odd that humans can some how not shake off this annoying God belief. I suggest that God-belief is inescapable. Those that choose to ignore it just choose to be psychopaths that go against their natural inclination.

Lakpenne

Silly me, I used to assume, for some reason, that the psychopaths were those of that religion that encourages killing and maiming of people of a different stance from theirs, and deals in promising 72 virgins to the killer man after death (I'm guessing the women get 72 raisins). Well, you set me straight, thanks.

bawomolo:

Its purely natural and being an atheist is actually unnatural.

all humans are born atheist, that's as natural as they come. u were socialized to believe in a supreme being. that's what's unnatural.

I have to agree with Stimulus here. I think it's more apt to say that it's more probable that no one is born with a concept of a supreme being until their society encourages that belief. You could probably push it and say, everyone is agnostic at first, but I feel that would be pushing it.

olabowale:

But you an atheist on the other hand do not believe in anything like that. You believe that you are an accident of nature (mother nature) or evolution as a result of big bang actio or as KAG will say it 'the Virtual particle Theory!' It just does not hold water.

Afterall, you are the one trying to prove that god does not exist.

No, the Big Bang theory is not the same as the conception of virtual particles. I used virtual particles to refute the argument that claims something can't come from nothing. Virtual particles indicated something different from the premise of the argument. It holds water, but of course you wouldn't know that.

stimulus:

It is not a coincidence to observe that those who are actively non-religious and "godless" in such developed countries are morally bankrupt.

I vehemently disagree. Prisons in such countries attest to a different reality. If that isn't enough, from an anecdotal point of view, most of the atheists I know are law abiding and highly moral.

stimulus:

@Lapkenne,

However, when atheists bring up the question/denial of the existence of God, a few irrefutable points are always seen again and again:

(a) atheists often launch their attacks against Christianity - often so because Christianity proves to be the most coherent worldview that brings the question of the existence of God to the heart and conscience of man! When atheists say that they are questioning "religion", it doesn't take long to see that their efforts are actually geared more against "Christianity" than any other faith!

I suspect this is often down to cultural background than anything else. It isn't coincidental that most of the atheists in the Western world - most of whom make up an astounding number on messageboards - come from a Christian background. The assumption, then, is that since Mohammedianism was shown false while I was Christian, then the religion that remains to be faced (in a manner of speaking) is the one that I came from. I don't think it has much to do with coherence.

(b) when atheistic threads are floated in any public forum/blog, Christians have always been the ones who address atheistic questions - and they often do so in a rational, coherent manner which in fact leaves the atheist unable to defend his assumptions. This is what we have seen even in this forum.

The reverse has often been my experience.

(e) And this is even more fascinating: those who think themselves "champions" of atheistic rationalism have never proffered sane, sound or serious answers to the responses Christians have offered in their threads.

I disagree, with a degree of reservation.

@KAG,

KAG:

I vehemently disagree. Prisons in such countries attest to a different reality.

I'd respect that the assmption in mine was narrow, as I particularly pointed to bawomolo's idea to sound as if religion is the bane of society. The reality is that such an idea is unbalanced.

KAG:

If that isn't enough, from an anecdotal point of view, most of the atheists I know are law abiding and highly moral.

Same argument could be advanced for most of the theists I know (please note: "theists" - in the broad sense of those who have a belief in 'God' and not just Christians alone). However, I agree with the aspect you pointed out - as I've witnessed a few such cases myself.

KAG:

Really? Is that how it happens? Interesting pschoanalysis.

Lol, I was wondering about that too; which was what informed my response to his.

KAG:

I have to agree with Stimulus here.

Forgive me once again for being too strong in my response. Sometimes the assumptions these guys make can't be overlooked.

KAG:

You could probably push it and say, everyone is agnostic at first, but I feel that would be pushing it.

I would like to agree that "agnostic" is more acceptable and digestible - because if it basically means that children are unaware of a belief system of any kind, then they simply do not know. .  until the question is presented to them.

@KAG,

KAG:

I suspect this is often down to cultural background than anything else. It isn't coincidental that most of the atheists in the Western world - most of whom make up an astounding number on messageboards - come from a Christian background. The assumption, then, is that since Mohammedianism was shown false while I was Christian, then the religion that remains to be faced (in a manner of speaking) is the one that I came from.

Okay, I see the sense in yours; although I'm not so sure about it being more a matter of cultural background than anything else. Yet, I cannot dismiss that remark; because on the other side of the pane, my background is Muslim-Christian and I think that (or it appears that) Christianity offered more coherence in discussions than I have witnessed in the case of Islam. There again, just my assumptions.

KAG:

I don't think it has much to do with coherence.

Maybe not; but I wonder why?

KAG:

The reverse has often been my experience.

Well, it all depends on what exactly the basic question would be.

KAG:

I disagree, with a degree of reservation.

Well, in the case of therationa and bawomolo (minus yourself, which is why I didn't want to name any names initially), I still hold to that point. These gentlemen have not impressed us with their arguments.

some arguments are too ridiculous to warrant a response.  the philosophical proof(an oxymoron) thread was just plain awful.  it's strange theists call themselves the sane side when they are usually the ones with insults, curses and bible verses on hand.

stimulus:

@KAG,

Okay, I see the sense in yours; although I'm not so sure about it being more a matter of cultural background than anything else. Yet, I cannot dismiss that remark; because on the other side of the pane, my background is Muslim-Christian and I think that (or it appears that) Christianity offered more coherence in discussions than I have witnessed in the case of Islam. There again, just my assumptions.

That's fair enough. I have encountered several atheists that focus solely on Islam, though. The last time Davidlan suggested that atheists don't attack Islam, I gave him a link to a group of people headed by a guy that goes under the pseudonym of T.H Huxley.

Maybe not; but I wonder why?

Because Christianity as a whole isn't coherent. The necessity of several unifying creeds, "heretical" creeds, and numerous denominations attest to that. Sure, there are a few necessary beliefs for one to be termed a Christians, but that's about it.

Well, it all depends on what exactly the basic question would be.

A few of my old threads suffered from loneliness and promises.

Well, in the case of therationa and bawomolo (minus yourself, which is why I didn't want to name any names initially), I still hold to that point. These gentlemen have not impressed us with their arguments.

They are not so bad. In my opinion, they have raised pertinent issues and made good points. Just my opinion, though

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:

some arguments are too ridiculous to warrant a response.

Which probably explains why some of the threads floated by you and therationa have been seen for what they are - 'ridiculous'.

bawomolo:

the philosophical proof(an oxymoron) thread was just plain awful.

Nonetheless, it was offered by no other discussant than yourself! Cry 'awful' all you want; but if you had first utilized the better half of your intelligence, perhaps you'd have saved yourself the bruhaha of self-pity in the new excuse that it is an "oxymoron". Whenever you wake up from that sleep, please call - I might just be too giddy to see how philosophical you are!

bawomolo:

it's strange theists call themselves the sane side when they are usually the ones with insults, curses and bible verses on hand.

It's strange that you think yourself a rational and intellectual discussant when you have never been able to stand your own ground and defend your premises.

I wonder what your mewling is about, bawomolo. Do you really have any substance to your arguments that we are yet to see? What is informing your jejune complaints here and elsewhere?

@KAG,

KAG:

That's fair enough. I have encountered several atheists that focus solely on The Great Religion, though. The last time Davidlan suggested that atheists don't attack The Great Religion, I gave him a link to a group of people headed by a guy that goes under the pseudonym of T.H Huxley.

Yes, I'm quite aware of a few others (atheists and skeptics) who concentrate on debating Muslims on Islam. However, I was inclined to take the view that quite often (but not in every single case), atheistic debates are actually geared more against "Christianity" than any other faith. But like I said, I would not be unreasonable to dismiss your submission that it be explained culturally.

KAG:

Because Christianity as a whole isn't coherent. The necessity of several unifying creeds, "heretical" creeds, and numerous denominations attest to that. Sure, there are a few necessary beliefs for one to be termed a Christians, but that's about it.

I would disagree that Christianity isn't coherent - as a whole. True, the manifestation of numerous denominations as well as unifying and/or 'heretical' creeds may seem on the outside to question its coherence; but at least we can honestly acknowledge that this is based perhaps more on the interpretations that result from the denominational exegesis of Biblical texts.

KAG:

A few of my old threads suffered from loneliness and promises.

Haha! Okay, I knew that was coming; but I was just being too lazy to respond to at least one of such on the Easter question. Goodness - it's nearly another Easter season, and I should be able to address the question and not scoot off with mere promises.

KAG:

They are not so bad. In my opinion, they have raised pertinent issues and made good points. Just my opinion, though

I agree that at the initial stage, they seemed to have been raising legitimate questions - and that was why I was interested in offering answers to some of those concerns. However, when it became pretty obvious that these guys were never quite settled to deal with their own assumptions but have been yoyo-ing from thread to thread, I thought it was best to allow them enjoy their break!

All the same, I acknowledge the legitimacy of your observation.

Some of the weaknesses of athiesm are:

1) It can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God;
2) It does stand on its own, but has to condemn other people's belief systems to justify itself.

These weakness reveal the watery foundations on which atheism is built.

@stimulus

It just is about the same thing that happens in my invitations to Muslims who have sought pedantically to attack the Christian faith. For example, several times where I invited olabowale to enter into a discussion on the exegesis of his misgivings on the Trinity, he has consistently baulked and instead has sought to litter other threads with his noise in precisely the same manner that these gentlemen (therationa and bawomol/bawomolo) have been demonstrating in their own adventures.

Do you mind if you and I dig deep into the issue of trinity?

(f) Of course, let's not forget that Muslims have perfected the art of "plagiarism" by ferreting most of their queries against Christianity from the same skeptic and atheist websites! What is even more sinister is that the Muslims who have been heralded cheaply as "champions" of Islam on this forum have never demonstrated any rational or critical thinking of their own! Again, I've offered both babs787 and olabowale a few invitations to discuss their misgivings intelligently - while babs787 scooted off several times and never wanted to enter into an intelligent debate, olabowale assumes that running of from thread to thread with the same literary excreta might just be a better alternative for his emptiness!

Ogbeni, I didnt scoot away but left you when you werent saying anything meaning. You dodged my questions and asked another instead. If you care and really interested in religious debate, Babs is here for you. Can I still have where you offered Babs intelligent invitations and we continue from there?

The ball is in your court.

@babs787,

babs787:

@stimulus

Do you mind if you and I dig deep into the issue of trinity?

I offered you 3 simple questions on the Trinity thread - you never offered any answers to forward the discussion. If you can revisit that thread and answer those 3 simple questions, I will keep my promise to discuss the material you plagiarized from Ahmed Deedat. Do you care to answer those questions?

babs787:

Ogbeni, I didnt scoot away but left you when you werent saying anything meaning. You dodged my questions and asked another instead. If you care and really interested in religious debate, Babs is here for you.

Ducking twice from the questions I offered you is not happenstance; and perhaps you'd like to offer a reason why you'd scooted off deliberately and took a run-off exile therefrom?

The Muslim attitude of plagiarizing other people's articles and demanding people to answer your questions has been abrogated - it is no longer applicable; and until you sit down and present something of your own without stealing copping out arguments from others, you have no claim to demand anything from others.

babs787:

Can I still have where you offered Babs intelligent invitations and we continue from there?

Go over to the thread where I offered you those 3 simple questions.

babs787:

The ball is in your court.

It has been in your court ever since you ducked away from the Forum.

@KAG, Stimulus and the rest:

Perhaps I misssed something. I dont even know who is a theist and who is not anymore. We assume that everyone learns of God belief through nurture because a society raises the question. Be that as it may (altough I disagree), I wonder why its such a natural inclination that we have. Birds have no idea how to fly when born and probably don't even know that they must migrate south during the winter nor do they even realize - perhaps - that they take the shortest route over water when flying south from certain parts of the world. They dont go to school to learn this but it comes instictively as they grow older.

But, do the bird parent - whatever they are called - assist the bird in learning the tools of the trade, like the flying part and the catching worms and heading south for the winter, etc? of course (although to what extent, I plead ignorance). Yet, we say that this is all instinctive to the bird - nature, not nurture.

Just because one is taught how to do something or the issue is raised by society does not man that that particular issue is not innate to the person. In the same manner that the birds and other animals have a natural instictive drive to somehting, humans have shown a natural and instictive drive - even without eveing called upon to do so - to ask those inexcapable questions. Again, what human has excaped it. what human, even the agnostic, does not look up to the sky - almost instictively - searching for something higher than it. It is both instinctive - I submit, as well as rational

Rational because of the oldest argument in the book - which atheist seem to discount thse days - that a thing is produced from something else (and please do not retort with the usual "who made God argument). This argument is classic and is itself inescapable - which is presicely why generation after generation, we cannot shake off the god beleif syndrome that we have. Many scientist- atheists mind you - have come to the conclusion that we are hard wired to believe in God - although they ultimately still do not believe. Thus, as I have argued and suggested, God belief is "nature" not "nurture." The question then becomes, is it true - this is where the logical exercise comes into play.

Even the hight priest on anti-theism - Richard Dawkins - likens god belief to a disease of sorts that inflicts man. interesting that he chooses to explain it as a disease or virus He cannot explain why the heck it keeps coming back depsite efforts to eradicte it and despite the advances in science. why - because it cannot be killed. he recognizes that yet he foolishly pursues tirelessly to kill it. He will fail and die failing.

Here is a link to the Times Magazine article on the atheist scientist discussion about being hardwired for God belief: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=a43cfb7b24423cc6&ex=1330664400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

@Bawomolo:

the existence of an imaginary being can neither be proven nor disproven. and philosophical proof is an oxymoron.

Whatever is beyond your comprehension is oxymoronic. I get it and I will not waste my time to say anymore. Someday, I wonder if Nairaland.com is an imaginary name for a website? I wonder if there is a place called Nigeria on an imaginary continent called Africa? Just imagining. You can blame me to step in your shoes about these things.

all humans are born atheist, that's as natural as they come. u were socialized to believe in a supreme being. that's what's unnatural.

You got it wrong, my man. The Prophet of Allah Muhammad (as) said in an authentic Hadith: All children are born Muslim (a belief system), but it is their parents who turn them to Jew or Christian (another set of beliefs).

@Stimulus;

I think this is rather preposterous. It is now the vogue for Muslims to assume just about anything that flies about Christianity; but having gone through your piece, I don't see how you attempted to address the issue sanely.

Just wait and watch. Maybe you will learn something. The atheist have been bashing the bible, contacdicts et all and you have not put up any effort about it.

What about the fact that the answer for all Muslims is the very factor that led many to become atheists?

Plain english please; I did not get you. What are you talking about? Could you be frank and let th Muslims approach the subject/question directly! I think the 3 godheads for 1 god is probably the condition that confused some people so badly that they became atheist; shunning all possible chances to find another belief.

However, when atheists bring up the question/denial of the existence of God, a few irrefutable points are always seen again and again:
(a) atheists often launch their attacks against Christianity - often so because Christianity proves to be the most coherent worldview that brings the question of the existence of God to the heart and conscience of man! When atheists say that they are questioning "religion", it doesn't take long to see that their efforts are actually geared more against "Christianity" than any other faith!

I wonder when Hutchinson wrote his anti God book, why did he titled it " God is not great?" Which group says God is Great, more than the other, the Christians or the Muslims? The first line in Ahdan is Allahu Akbar (God is Great in Arabic). Give me a line to rival it in Christianity. Will you.

(b) when atheistic threads are floated in any public forum/blog, Christians have always been the ones who address atheistic questions - and they often do so in a rational, coherent manner which in fact leaves the atheist unable to defend his assumptions. This is what we have seen even in this forum. How many Muslims have dared to enter such debates with atheists even on this Forum? It seems Muslims have had aboslutely nothing to contribute, and so they remain silent all along, or otherwise absent from the forum, hoping that the tide would pass before they themselves resume their own attacks against Christianity.

This dude is confusing largeness in Number to substantive in Thought. No my brother. Majority may rule, but it does not make the rule a just rule. Unfortunately, I see a lot of threads opened by many against Christianity and your contribution have been Zero.

(c) Christianity continues to witness an ever-increasing attack from every side - atheism, Islam, paganism, naturalism, etc., - but Christianity continues to weather these attacks without seeking to issue any fatwa to anybody! What is more, Christianity continues to grow inspite of the attacks; and Christians have continued to debate such issues coherently with sound reasoning. We continue to see positive results from such non-violent responses, to the extent that quite a number of atheists themselves have become leading Christians, or otherwise abandoned their atheistic positions.

I see where this is going; Nowhere. Where do you live again? I remember President Bush declaring Crusade against Islam. Maybe he meant to say Christianity. Here on Nairaland, you could not shake off the avalanche of therationa. And indeed it is a Muslim, by the name of Lakpenne who came to rally the troop against him.

(d) Even when you check this motherboard carefully, you find that where atheistically-inclined minds have responded to Muslim posts, the threads died prematurely: because Muslims have had no answers to those singular responses from atheists (as in the example of the Qur'an on Human Embryology Development). We haven't seen Muslims entering into spirited debates with atheists to offer sane, sound and serious answers as Christians have done and continue to do so even on this forum. Let's just imagine what would have happened either to Seun (the admin of this site), or to any atheist who dared to question The Great Religion!

I asked a very simple question to the atheist but they could not answer it. Maybe i should ask you here and now: Do you think that mankind have reached full knowledge concerning Embryology or anything for that matter? If your answer is know, then how could you make a definite conclusion that your conclusion today will be able to stand the knowledge of tomorrow? If your answer is no, then that was your answer. It is my complete conviction that there will be future knowledge that will proof Qur'anic statement about all things correct. Further, by the end of time, there will be some knowledge get unrealised from the Qur'an. For example what is the nature of "SOUL?"

(e) And this is even more fascinating: those who think themselves "champions" of atheistic rationalism have never proffered sane, sound or serious answers to the responses Christians have offered in their threads. I have personally challenged both therationa and bawomol/bawomolo to enter seasoned debates with me on their assumptions (even offering bawomol/bawomolo the advantage of his own tool of "philosophy" in debates) - and for all these, they have chickend out and never at any time accepted my invitations to such debates! WHY? The answer is obvious - they were never confident of their own assumptions or premises, and have rather been slaving themselves on the incoherent ideas of others which they cannot defend.

Is that true guys? Bawomol and co, how do you think you can stand the avalanche from Muslims who have One God, if you 'Chicken' out from a three in One christian god belief?

It just is about the same thing that happens in my invitations to Muslims who have sought pedantically to attack the Christian faith. For example, several times where I invited olabowale to enter into a discussion on the exegesis of his misgivings on the Trinity, he has consistently baulked and instead has sought to litter other threads with his noise in precisely the same manner that these gentlemen (therationa and bawomol/bawomolo) have been demonstrating in their own adventures.

You must be dreaming. Didn't I ask you to explain to me why you used Greek words in One place and switch to Hebrew in another? Come on. Okay I am here now. But please don't ask me to expalin a word to you in Greek, a language which did not see any revelation. Be consistent, then I will debate you. I haver no time to waste with going from one language to another. And by the way, I can chew gum and walk at the same time, hence, it ia not impossible for me to attend to more than one thread at any time.

(f) Of course, let's not forget that Muslims have perfected the art of "plagiarism" by ferreting most of their queries against Christianity from the same skeptic and atheist websites! What is even more sinister is that the Muslims who have been heralded cheaply as "champions" of Islam on this forum have never demonstrated any rational or critical thinking of their own! Again, I've offered both babs787 and olabowale a few invitations to discuss their misgivings intelligently - while babs787 scooted off several times and never wanted to enter into an intelligent debate, olabowale assumes that running of from thread to thread with the same literary excreta might just be a better alternative for his emptiness!

I hear your complaint. Now when can we do this Trinity thing, again? How do you define a word that is foreign to the Bible? Do you have Trinity as a word in the Bible? And please don't tell me you have the idea in it, because there is no reason for you to omit something as important as Trinity, but only develop in the Bible instead an idea on it.

On the whole, as Christians are not in the business of arguing aimlessly, you will not find them ever so desperate trying to answer every thread floated with the kind of childish queries that we have seen in recent days. It is not he who makes the most noise that is intelligent - but again we have seen that the few answers offered to such trolls make more sense than the noise being made by these gentlemen. We have seen more intelligent inputs from a few other atheists on the forum; but these self-seeking apprentices make this forum a huge laugh and shadow of its former glory!

You complain too much. I am sick of it. Just approach the topic and stay on it. When shall we do this Trinity thing again?

@KAG

Evolution of the concept; archetypal remnants; pleasure principle attached to the concept; social and cultural pressure.

The word evolution must be very special to you. Is there anything that has no foundation in evolution, KAG? Yet when anyone is in special and peculiar condition: we hear people say "Oh God, or My God, or Oh my God, etc."

No, the Big Bang theory is not the same as the conception of virtual particles. I used virtual particles to refute the argument that claims something can't come from nothing. Virtual particles indicated something different from the premise of the argument. It holds water, but of course you wouldn't know that.

The joke is on you. I was being very sarcastic. I was wondering which came first, the Big bang or the Virtual particle? Let me ask you this though; If the Virtual particle just came from nothing, was there an empty space in existence before the Virtual particle? How did that space came into existence, and where was the space? And to the Big Bang, before it happened on that particle that had the bang, how did the Particle came to existence and where ws it? Inshort where were these Particle before the Big bang and the other that was Virual particle. Where was the force and how did the force came about before it acted upon the Big bang Particle? Do we now believe that there are concepts or occurrences that are not under any scientifically acceptable Principle? When you finish slicing through it all you will see that God is in there. He is indeed behind it all.

I suspect this is often down to cultural background than anything else. It isn't coincidental that most of the atheists in the Western world - most of whom make up an astounding number on messageboards - come from a Christian background. The assumption, then, is that since Mohammedianism was shown false while I was Christian, then the religion that remains to be faced (in a manner of speaking) is the one that I came from. I don't think it has much to do with coherence.

There is nothing called Mohammedianism. Yes, I remember, it is cultural. So was the falsehood of your assumption about Islam. I remember my friend who we even considered ourselves as brothers, that was pre 911. But Boy, after that day, he flipped 180 degrees. And it took him all those years untill 2006, before we even began to see eye to eye. He is is Swiss Catholic by the way.

I offered you 3 simple questions on the Trinity thread - you never offered any answers to forward the discussion. If you can revisit that thread and answer those 3 simple questions, I will keep my promise to discuss the material you plagiarized from Ahmed Deedat. Do you care to answer those questions?

Alhamdulillah, Ahmad Deedat (ra) was a believer. I hope you do not expect anyone to reinvent the wheel, especially, when there is no need to do so?

The Muslim attitude of plagiarizing other people's articles and demanding people to answer your questions has been abrogated - it is no longer applicable; and until you sit down and present something of your own without stealing copping out arguments from others, you have no claim to demand anything from others.

You are a funny dude. The issue with you is that you want the muslim to not refer to anything Islamic, while presenting an argument for Islam against your false claims? How then can you refer to the Bible for anything for Christianity?

@Lakpenne,

Lakpenne:

@KAG, Stimulus and the rest:

Perhaps I misssed something. I don't even know who is a theist and who is not anymore. We assume that everyone learns of God belief through nurture because a society raises the question. Be that as it may (altough I disagree), I wonder why its such a natural inclination that we have.

A belief system is not such a natural inclination - if it were, there would be no a[/b]theists, skeptics or agnostics today!

The problem with your type of reasoning is to assume a default position and make every effort to justify that position without having carefully considered what other plausible explanations there might be as pointers to the emergence of a belief system.

Like I said earlier, it is going to be difficult to dismiss KAG's submision that culture is an index to a belief system. Of course, other factors exist; but the idea that it is "natural" to have a God belief occludes the reality that not everyone believes in God - and they would have to be preached to (a [b]learning process) in some way or another before they come to that belief.

Lakpenne:

Birds have no idea how to fly when born and probably don't even know that they must migrate south during the winter nor do they even realize - perhaps - that they take the shortest route over water when flying south from certain parts of the world. They don't go to school to learn this but it comes instictively as they grow older.

But, do the bird parent - whatever they are called - assist the bird in learning the tools of the trade, like the flying part and the catching worms and heading south for the winter, etc? of course (although to what extent, I plead ignorance). Yet, we say that this is all instinctive to the bird - nature, not nurture.

I think you're mixing up issues here in your analogy and applauding the very thing you have sought to dismiss! Your argument was that a belief system is "natural" - and that precludes the understanding that people have to be taught (a learning process) to bring them to that belief.

Now in the analogy of the bird, you only have come back accenting to the fact that even they have to go through some learning process to mature with the necessary skills for the seasons [in your statement: "of course (although to what extent, I plead ignorance)"].

Lakpenne:

Just because one is taught how to do something or the issue is raised by society does not man that that particular issue is not innate to the person. In the same manner that the birds and other animals have a natural instictive drive to somehting, humans have shown a natural and instictive drive - even without eveing called upon to do so - to ask those inexcapable questions.

I'd wait to see how you argue that God belief is innate in human, especially in the face of atheism.

I'm not trying to play the devil's advocate here; but I think that what we theists often miss is that we often reach our conclusions too early about the concerns of atheists, skeptics and agnostics before we even hear them out!

Okay, I was never an atheist - nor was I a believer in religion. At best, I might have been fascinated more by the controversies between Christianity and Islam - and that fogged my interest (if at all I had any) in religion. For me, the natural thing was: if religion is so full of controversies, why even bother?

However, my conversion to becoming a Christian was learned, for although I grew up in a Christian-Muslim home, it was not until my elder brother (a former Muslim converted to Christianity) engaged me with sound arguments that I re-considered my preconceived ideas about religion.

Wait. He did not start by opening the Bible; rather, he queried my own assumptions - and to think I knew science until he opened his mouth! The bottomline was this: if controversies were the very thing that hindered my coming to Christ, then I should be aware that there are as many controversies among scientists too!

You see, what I had just taken the time to explicate here is simple: either way, I had to be exposed to some learning process at one point before I could even consider becoming a believer.

@Lakpenne,

Lakpenne:

Again, what human has excaped it. what human, even the agnostic, does not look up to the sky - almost instictively - searching for something higher than it. It is both instinctive - I submit, as well as rational

I fail to see how you've detailed a convincing explanation for this position, pardon me.

Lakpenne:

Rational because of the oldest argument in the book - which atheist seem to discount thse days - that a thing is produced from something else (and please do not retort with the usual "who made God argument). This argument is classic and is itself inescapable - which is presicely why generation after generation, we cannot shake off the god beleif syndrome that we have.

Even as a Christian, I would say that if appealing to "the book" is the first port of call for the oldest argument, that is quite irr[/b]ational and falls flat on its face immediately. [b]WHY? Because as far as the argument within "the books" go, the oldest belief system (be whatever it may) did not derive from any books! There were people who had a belief system of sorts in the supernatural who did not first contact a "book".

Lakpenne:

Many scientist- atheists mind you - have come to the conclusion that we are hard wired to believe in God - although they ultimately still do not believe. Thus, as I have argued and suggested, God belief is "nature" not "nurture." The question then becomes, is it true - this is where the logical exercise comes into play.

I'm sorry to say that although I have not been able to gather all the arguments for and against the God-gene in man, it would be quite prejudicial for you and me to assume that these scientists have considered all the indices for their research. Does this explain why even they are unable to believe and become theists?

You and I have to know what factors were involved in their reasearch before we could make any attempt to draw from them this idea that a God-belief is "natural" or "nurtured". At least, to be fair to our readers, we should not just arrive at our dispositions without having considered what the undergirding hypothesis and empirical experiements were employed in that research. At best, we would like to hope that the argument favours a "God-belief", but there again people would have questions as to which "God"?

Lakpenne:

Even the hight priest on anti-theism - Richard Dawkins - likens god belief to a disease of sorts that inflicts man. interesting that he chooses to explain it as a disease or virus He cannot explain why the heck it keeps coming back depsite efforts to eradicte it and despite the advances in science. why - because it cannot be killed. he recognizes that yet he foolishly pursues tirelessly to kill it. He will fail and die failing.

Lol, I think it is rather presumptuous for theists to argue that line from Richard Dawkins as a factor for the idea that God-belief is innate, inborn or natural. Let's be quite balanced in our views, even when we do not agree with the opposing side. Many people (theists) using that line to argue for a God-belief from dawkins have actually cheated behind the counter - because they have read dawkins out of context!

I do not agree with Dawkins' position - and Alister McGrath is one seasoned author that deflates Dawkins' [b]irr[/b]ationalism. However, even when I disgaree with dawkins, I think it is only fair to not read him out of context - unless we would both like readers to see us as dishonest noise makers!

Lakpenne:

Here is a link to the Times Magazine article on the atheist scientist discussion about being hardwired for God belief: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=a43cfb7b24423cc6&ex=1330664400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Many thanks - I'll take the time to re-read it and hope to find where the reported research makes the case that God-belief is innate.

Cheers.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

You got it wrong, my man. The Prophet of God The Great Prophet (as) said in an authentic Hadith: All children are born Great One (a belief system), but it is their parents who turn them to Jew or Christian (another set of beliefs).

In that case, Muhammad was wrong - and it does not matter whether he said it in the Hadith or the Qur'an!

Why must everything that Muhammad said be pitted against Christianity and Judaism? If Christians and Jews were the greatest concerns of the Quraish prophet, then it stands to reason that something was seriously wrong with his theology or belief system. Not to mention his irrational hatred for believers in the revelations of God in the Bible.

No one is born with any belief system or religion - and it is high time you wake up from your slumber and begin to engage your thinking! That Muhammad thought that everyone is born as a Muslim is false - because the second part to that idea is also false, since not everyone that leaves The Great Religion automatically becomes a Christian or Jew!

olabowale:

@Stimulus; Just wait and watch. Maybe you will learn something. The atheist have been bashing the bible, contacdicts et all and you have not put up any effort about it.

Atheists have also rubbished the Qur'an and Islam without any effort. On this Forum, unless you were on a very long break and just started typing without thinking, you have seen the effect of our responses to the "apprentist atheists" who open many threads repeating the same thing but unable to defend their assumptions.

To assume that I have "not put up any effort about it" is to magnify your irascible ignominy! Have you seen these efforts, or you just opened your mouth without some common sense? Sample these:


A desperate effort to duplicate a thread, and my response:
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113181.0.html#msg1962579)

My responses to the same subject in the duplicated threads:
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112584.0.html#msg1962107)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112584.0.html#msg1962243)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112584.0.html#msg1962275)

On the thread about Who Wrote The Gospels:
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113277.0.html#msg1962607)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113277.0.html#msg1962689)

Thread on the Prophecy of the Virgin Birth:
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113342.0.html#msg1963640)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113342.0.html#msg1963808)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113342.0.html#msg1963942)

On God Selects Rulers of Countries:
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113186.0.html#msg1962293)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113186.0.html#msg1962304)

On Jesus Genealogy:
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111222.32.html#msg1942568)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111222.32.html#msg1942609)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111222.32.html#msg1948298)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111222.64.html#msg1950177)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111222.64.html#msg1950188)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111222.64.html#msg1950363)

Has Atheism Got Principles?
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112216.0.html#msg1949720)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112216.0.html#msg1948408)

Today's Christians Have Already Missed Jesus's 2nd Coming
(later changed to:
Beware of a Simplistic Interpretation of Jesus's 2nd Coming Passages)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.0.html#msg1940133)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.0.html#msg1940187)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.0.html#msg1940333)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.0.html#msg1940420)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.0.html#msg1940437)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.0.html#msg1940451)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.0.html#msg1940469)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.0.html#msg1940499)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.0.html#msg1940546)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.32.html#msg1941542)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.32.html#msg1941609)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.32.html#msg1941656)

Does Prayer Work?
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111949.0.html#msg1946657)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111949.0.html#msg1946770)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111949.0.html#msg1946937)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111949.0.html#msg1946986)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111949.0.html#msg1947141)

It Is Biblical To Have Sex (And Lots of It)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112139.0.html#msg1947125)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112139.0.html#msg1947491)


Now where were YOU olabowale when all this was going on?!? Of course, I didn't see any Muslim presence to discuss any general topic about atheism vs religion (which I mentioned earlier on this link); and you have the temerity to assert that garboil about my doing nothing about the recent inordinate threads from self-acclaimed atheists? This is why I said you should roll up your mat and throw your kettle away - you often talk like a child.

Incase nobody ever told you, you would notice that the same chap predictably started mewling and begging that some of us (4Him, Imhotep and myself) should not post replies in his threads!

(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113303.0.html#msg1963913)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113033.0.html#msg1963907)

He was smart - because he probably realized that it was my intention to answer his every allegation, line-by-line, precept upon precept, thread by thread! It is not as if there are no answers to some of these rank-xeroxed arguments which the poster has been pretending were his own thread/questions - I suddenly realized he was dressing them up after ferreting them from other sites! No wonder that he had no answers to some of the response, and the best way to deal with shameless plagiarists is to provide seasoned answers that are not plagiarized - which will make it difficult for these chaps to sustain their premises (because they would not be able to find articles to steal for answers in defence)!

In the same way, I noticed babs787 has been in the habit of stealing articles from others and pretending that they were his own! What else explains why he has been ducking the 3 simple questions I offered him in the Trinity thread? Afterall, even therationa was willing initially to discuss issues - and he answered the simple questions I offered him, so that I could provide answers to his queries. WHY HAS IT BEEN DIFFICULT for the blabbing machine (babs787) to simply answer those 3 simple questions on the Trinity thread?

Quite easy to know why - it is because he knew there are no articles to steal from any websites in defence of those he had stolen from Ahmed Deedat!

I guarantee you that as soon as bab787 is able to answer those questions, then I will keep my promise to provide answers to his argument about John 1:1. If babs787 is too scared to be shown up for the wuss he actually is, then you'll find he will never answer those questions - and I will not stoop so low as to oblige his illiterate games of demanding that others answer "his" questions without he himself wanting to address questions from others! I won't be too surprised if he evades them for the fourth time!

BTW, I notice the same thing applies to you, olabowale. Although you make good attempts to reason from on your own and not belittle your integrity by plagiarism, still you sound very incoherent so many times. However, the problem with you is that you open your mouth just anyhow, make false assertions (like: "The atheist have been bashing the bible, contacdicts et all and you have not put up any effort about it". . . and you have no shame to reflect on the fact that lying is not a virtue but a vice for your religion! As with babs787, you also have been too scared to go to the Trinity thread and answer those 3 questions so we could discuss your problem thereto. Can you please tell me why both of you are too scared to address those 3 simple questions?

Ohh no Oh no,  Oh no! A crusade against me? My goodness. I have been being naughty 

No you have not being naughty at all and I am from your side in this war against religion.

stimulus:

@KAG,

Yes, I'm quite aware of a few others (atheists and skeptics) who concentrate on debating Muslims on Islam. However, I was inclined to take the view that quite often (but not in every single case), atheistic debates are actually geared more against "Christianity" than any other faith. But like I said, I would not be unreasonable to dismiss your submission that it be explained culturally.

That's fair enough.

I would disagree that Christianity isn't coherent - as a whole. True, the manifestation of numerous denominations as well as unifying and/or 'heretical' creeds may seem on the outside to question its coherence; but at least we can honestly acknowledge that this is based perhaps more on the interpretations that result from the denominational exegesis of Biblical texts.

But doesn't that point to a lack of coherence? If so many differing and sometimes opposing viewpoints can be interpreted from a book to purports to be the word of a being that doesn't foster confusion, then one can only conclude, in my opinion, that incoherence is at the heart of the text.

Haha! Okay, I knew that was coming; but I was just being too lazy to respond to at least one of such on the Easter question. Goodness - it's nearly another Easter season, and I should be able to address the question and not scoot off with mere promises.

Strangely enough, that was probably one of the few threads I've started that got more than a couple of answers.

I agree that at the initial stage, they seemed to have been raising legitimate questions - and that was why I was interested in offering answers to some of those concerns. However, when it became pretty obvious that these guys were never quite settled to deal with their own assumptions but have been yoyo-ing from thread to thread, I thought it was best to allow them enjoy their break!

All the same, I acknowledge the legitimacy of your observation.

I suppose. Yeah, that's a good point. I did find that irritating too.

olabowale:

@KAG The word evolution must be very special to you. Is there anything that has no foundation in evolution, KAG?

I used evolution in the context of the English term - that is, change and development - not in its biological sense - that is, change in allele frequencies of population. Hence, the concept of gods seem to have evolved from their primal stages.

Yes, there are several things that don't have a foundation in evolution.

Yet when anyone is in special and peculiar condition: we hear people say "Oh God, or My God, or Oh my God, etc."

An we find that most of those people are Christians that have a foundation in English. I have yet to hear a Chinese-speaking Buddhist say "Oh God, etc."

[quote]But you an atheist on the other hand do not believe in anything like that. You believe that you are an accident of nature (mother nature) or evolution as a result of big bang actio or as KAG will say it 'the Virtual particle Theory!' It just does not hold water.

Afterall, you are the one trying to prove that god does not exist.

No, the Big Bang theory is not the same as the conception of virtual particles. I used virtual particles to refute the argument that claims something can't come from nothing. Virtual particles indicated something different from the premise of the argument. It holds water, but of course you wouldn't know that.

The joke is on you. I was being very sarcastic.[/quote]

You are either lying, or you don't know what sarcasm means.

[1][/b]I was wondering which came first, the Big bang or the Virtual particle? [b][2][/b]Let me ask you this though; If the Virtual particle just came from nothing, was there an empty space in existence before the Virtual particle? How did that space came into existence, and where was the space? [b][3][/b]And to the Big Bang, before it happened on that particle that had the bang, how did the Particle came to existence and where ws it? [b][4][/b]Inshort where were these Particle before the Big bang and the other that was Virual particle. [b][5][/b]Where was the force and how did the force came about before it acted upon the Big bang Particle? [b][6][/b]Do we now believe that there are concepts or occurrences that are not under any scientifically acceptable Principle? [b][7][/b]When you finish slicing through it all you will see that God is in there. He is indeed behind it all.

[b][1] If you were wondering which came first, then you were indeed lying in your statement above. Contrary to what you claimed, you weren't being sarcastic. In any case, the Big Bang occured before the incidence of virtual particles in our Universe.

[2] Yes virtual particles particles emerge in vacuums. Space is linked with inflation. There was no Space before the occurance of space. In fact, the question makes no sense.

[3][/b]There was no particle that inflated, a singularity did (or to put it in your terminology, a singularity "banged". There is no certainty as to the occurence of the singularity. String theory currently offers some of the better answers, but they can't be totally falsified as yet. However, to use string theory, sigularities may have emerged from collisions branes. Another possibility in theoretical physics, is that a quantum fluctuation could cause a singularity to emerge.

[b][4] Just to reiterate the point, it wasn't a particle. Virtual particles, like I explained in my previous post, are a different concept entirely.

[5] What force? Just so you know, before expantiating, force isn't an ontological entity, nor should it be rendered as such.

[6] No.

[7] I didn't see any gods there or here, either. I don't see any evidence to support a god being behind it all, let alone your god.

There is nothing called Mohammedianism.

Oh, you're right, it's Mohammedanism. I spelt it with an "i" that shouldn't have been there.

Yes, I remember, it is cultural. So was the falsehood of your assumption about The Great Religion.

What "falsehood of my assumption about [Mohammedanism]"?

I remember my friend who we even considered ourselves as brothers, that was pre 911. But Boy, after that day, he flipped 180 degrees. And it took him all those years untill 2006, before we even began to see eye to eye. He is is Swiss Catholic by the way.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

Plain english please; I did not get you. What are you talking about? Could you be frank and let th Great Ones approach the subject/question directly! I think the 3 godheads for 1 god is probably the condition that confused some people so badly that they became atheist; shunning all possible chances to find another belief.

The Trinity was not the reason why people became atheists - you can ask honest atheistically-minded discussants on Nairaland and get a ready answer. For those rascal dishonest "apprentist atheists" who may argue that the Trinity was the very reason why those became atheists, my answer is simple: they should still have been religious folks without abandoning their spirituality!

I wonder why those among religious folks who deny the Trinity are not atheists themselves! The Jehovah Witnesses, Oneness Movement, Muslims, etc. rejected the doctrine of the Trinity but did not become atheists on account of that rejection. I was not born a Muslim (and please don't give me that harrumph about what Muhammad said, false as it is); but even though I initially did not understand the Trinity nor believed it, I still became a Christian and rejected the teachings of Islam! Even Muhammad himself (prophet of Islam) who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity should have abandoned his belief system and become an atheist - according to your argument!

You see how puerile your arguments are in many instances? Are you so scared of becoming an atheist after rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity that you have constantly declined from my invitation to discuss it?

olabowale:

I wonder when Hutchinson wrote his anti God book, why did he titled it " God is not great?" Which group says God is Great, more than the other, the Christians or the Great Ones? The first line in Ahdan is Allahu Akbar (God is Great in Arabic). Give me a line to rival it in Christianity. Will you.

"God is Great" is not Arabic! To God be the glory, una go tire about the disappearance of 'Allah' from Nairaland!

In any case, I'm not in the business of rivalry - go and ask Muhammed why he was always in rivalry against Christians and Jews - and even so, his hatred agaiant them has not stopped people believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Yet, if you're looking for a verse in the Bible praising and celebrating God's "greatness", I have them plenty:

Job 36:26
Behold, GOD IS GREAT, and we know him not,
neither can the number of his years be searched out.

Others include (but not limited to)  the following:

[list] Psalm 145:3
Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised;
and His greatness is unsearchable.
(see also Psalm 48:1)

Psalm 96:4
For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised:
He is to be feared above all gods.

Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord, and of great power:
his understanding is infinite.

1 Samuel 12:22
For the LORD will not forsake His people for HIS GREAT NAME's sake: because it hath pleased the LORD to make you His people.

1 Kings 8:42
(For they shall hear of Thy GREAT NAME, and of Thy strong hand, and of Thy stretched out arm when he shall come and pray toward this house.

Ezekiel 36:23
And I will sanctify MY GREAT NAME, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.

Revelation 15:3
And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God,
and the song of the Lamb, saying,
Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty;
just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.[/list]

Now tell me, olabowale: when God spoke about His great NAME, what was He referring to? Did He imply that His name was "Allah"? Have you asked the Biblical prophets what His NAME was?

All of a sudden, one Arab woke up screaming his 'adhan' in your minaret, trying to "rival" Jews and Christians - and you have continued to slur the Trinity unabated as if we do not have a legitimacy to also object to your brigand derision of Christian convictions.

I've warned you olabowale to be respectful of people's convictions - you may not believe in the Trinity; but that is no licence for you to keep up your cowardly remarks about what you have no clues about. May I once again extend this invitation to you and babs787:

[list]If you'd be willing to discuss the Trinity, I'd be glad to enter that discussion with you - but you'd first have to go to the Trinity thread and deal with the 3 simple questions I offered there, then we'll clear up babs787's plagiarism of Ahmed Deedat on John 1:1, and then go on to see what exactly the OT prophets have declared in their prophecies about God.[/list]

Rather than keep playing this uncivil games you have been endlessly ducking yourselves, please be gentlemanly enough to seek a sane and responsible discussion on your misgivings. Do you care to oblige that invitation?

olabowale:

This dude is confusing largeness in Number to substantive in Thought. No my brother. Majority may rule, but it does not make the rule a just rule. Unfortunately, I see a lot of threads opened by many against Christianity and your contribution have been Zero.

You must have been reading and seeing things with candlelight from a smoking flax! I do not argue to fill pages - and as you can see, I have been concise in my rejoinders against the plethora of duplicated threads opened to ridicule Christianity. For all of that, where have the antagonists stood their own grounds and debated rationally? You're only wishing that my contributions have amounted to zero - and to such kinds of whimpering, my answer is straight and simple: either you take me up intellectually, philosophically, or theologically and prove your mettle; or otherwise just simply zip your molars and stop entertaining the forum with your jejune supercilious crank!

olabowale:

I see where this is going; Nowhere. Where do you live again? I remember President Bush declaring Crusade against The Great Religion. Maybe he meant to say Christianity. Here on Nairaland, you could not shake off the avalanche of therationa. And indeed it is a Great One, by the name of Lakpenne who came to rally the troop against him.

I'm truly sorry for your cataract and myopia! Who was it that was begging and mewling after reading our answers to his pretended scholarship - was it not the same therationa?

  (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113303.0.html#msg1963913)
  (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113033.0.html#msg1963907)

Olabowale, have you no shame at all; or is irrational crass your most prized possession?

olabowale:

I asked a very simple question to the atheist but they could not answer it.

They could not be bothered with your incoherent twaddle.

olabowale:

Maybe i should ask you here and now: Do you think that mankind have reached full knowledge concerning Embryology or anything for that matter? If your answer is know, then how could you make a definite conclusion that your conclusion today will be able to stand the knowledge of tomorrow? If your answer is no, then that was your answer.

What have you said about the dismantling exposé on the pretended scholarship of "Qur'anic science" in this thread (The Qur'an on Human Embryonic Development)?!?

You're such a pitiful laugh!

olabowale:

It is my complete conviction that there will be future knowledge that will proof Qur'anic statement about all things correct. Further, by the end of time, there will be some knowledge get unrealised from the Qur'an. For example what is the nature of "SOUL?"

Whatever your conviction, we already know that Muslims have been seeking to bend the Qur'an to fit science, which is what the above link addresses. And as many times as they continue to do so, the irascible shame will be exposed.

However, we have been on the subject of the SOUL, and I'm still waiting for your answer to my challenge about your falsification of m_nwankwo's statements in this thread: Spirit, Soul And Body. Have you found the exact line where you tried to put words in his mouth? When you find me that line, then I'll give you my thoughts on what exactly is the SOUL.

olabowale:

Is that true guys? Bawomol and co, how do you think you can stand the avalanche from Great Ones who have One God, if you 'Chicken' out from a three in One christian god belief?

Do you care to discuss babs787's plagiarism of Ahmed Deedat on John 1:1?

olabowale:

You must be dreaming. Didn't I ask you to explain to me why you used Greek words in One place and switch to Hebrew in another? Come on. Okay I am here now.

Which again I asked you if you'd be interested in dicussing the Trinity - did you ever honour that invitation? WHERE?

olabowale:

But please don't ask me to expalin a word to you in Greek, a language which did not see any revelation.

Scared already? You've been making so much noise about issues you had no clue; and babs787 made a bigger noise with his plagiarized articles from Deedat on the Greek terms in John's Gospel. You, babs787, Ahmed Deedat put together are puling kids. If babs787 had no clue about the Greek, what was he doing quoting Deedat's illiterate arguement on the Greek in John 1:1?

It is inevitable to ask you to consider the words in the languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I'm no expert on any of those 3 languages; but I undertand enough Greek and Hebrew to school you boys on your plagiarized noise on this Forum. And NO - I'm not running to any website to plagiarize anything. Just let me know when you're done with your boohoos!

olabowale:

Be consistent, then I will debate you.

I've ever been consistent.

olabowale:

I haver no time to waste with going from one language to another.

Then for once and for all, throw your Arabic Qur'an away! These typical panic measures are the same thing I witnessed from debating these issues with other Muslims from other sites!

olabowale:

And by the way, I can chew gum and walk at the same time, hence, it ia not impossible for me to attend to more than one thread at any time.

And what has that got to do with all this? Okay, buy a carton of gum, sit down tight and chew all you can when I take you to task on your noise!  

olabowale:

I hear your complaint. Now when can we do this Trinity thing, again?

As soon as you and babs787 answer those 3 questions on the Trinity thread!

olabowale:

How do you define a word that is foreign to the Bible?

By carefully looking at the concept in the Bible itself.

olabowale:

Do you have Trinity as a word in the Bible?

No, in just the same way that 'Muhammad' is not a word in the Bible either.

olabowale:

And please don't tell me you have the idea in it, because there is no reason for you to omit something as important as Trinity, but only develop in the Bible instead an idea on it.

If you have no reason to look at what the Bible teaches, then you have no reason why any Muslim should try to fathom the idea that Muhammad is in the Bible. And if you cannot find Muhammad in the Bible, then your Muslim scholars have been plainly lying in asserting that he is there! Which again makes the Qur'an a false book by asking Muslims to believe in the teachings of the Biblical prophets! How do you plead in the face of this dilemma?

olabowale:

You complain too much. I am sick of it. Just approach the topic and stay on it.

You fill your arguments with incoherent nonsense - stay on course or upgrade your reading skills.

olabowale:

When shall we do this Trinity thing again?

As soon as you and babs787 answer those 3 simple questions I offered on the Trinity thread.

@KAG,

KAG:

That's fair enough.

Okay.

KAG:

But doesn't that point to a lack of coherence? If so many differing and sometimes opposing viewpoints can be interpreted from a book to purports to be the word of a being that doesn't foster confusion, then one can only conclude, in my opinion, that incoherence is at the heart of the text.

No, incoherence is not at the heart of the text(s). Rather, interpretations is the real problem. It is not only in religious writs that we find diverse interpretations. Even in political discourses, many people are bound to interpret things differently; and stretching that a little to the discourses on evolutionary biology, we find that the problem between people like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould is a matter of perception and interpretations. Certainly, they do not derive their views from any one particular textbook on evolutionary biology; but arguing the same subject has seen both men stand on opposite ends.

KAG:

Strangely enough, that was probably one of the few threads I've started that got more than a couple of answers.

Lol, I've been whipped several times since my terse comment on that yesterday.

KAG:

I suppose. Yeah, that's a good point. I did find that irritating too.

Oh well, what can I say?

Now, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the rest of your response (addressing olabowale).

Cheers.

Belief is ignorance. Belief is to ignore the facts, intentionally or ignorantly.
If one has to believe, that means he or she does not know , and if one does not know , that is ignorance.
Hence, belief is ignorance and religious beliefs without the facts is ignorance.
If you look in the midle of the words be[b]lie[/b]ve and be[b]lie[/b]f you will see the word lie.

Horus:

and if one does not know , that is ignorance.

I see why you have been making every effort to prove your ignorance.

stimulus:

I see why you have been making every effort to prove your ignorance.

To prove YOUR IGNORANCE,religious people DONT KNOW this is why they just believe.

stimulus:

I see why you have been making every effort to prove your ignorance.

To prove YOUR IGNORANCE,religious people DONT KNOW this is why they just believe.