KingEbukasBlog:


You have to provide proof that he did such a thing . It behoves you to show me this evidence .

And how did this elude you : If Mark had put such thing in his profile (though there is no evidence ) then he is longer an atheist .

That means those that believe his response was to maintain a cordial relationship with the Facebook users are delusional .

Yikes ! How did atheists get into this quagmire ?

What are you saying? He removed his religious beliefs on his profile long time ago. He said that he was an atheist on his own profile page. Many sites have reported on this.

My guy. I no get time to waste on this shite.


Keep your lies to yourself.

JackBizzle:


What are you saying? He removed his religious beliefs on his profile long time ago. He said that he was an atheist on his own profile page. Many sites have reported on this.

My guy. I no get time to waste on this shite.


Keep your lies to yourself.

This is called argument by repetition . You keep repeating that Mark Zuckerberg was an atheist before with no proof what so ever . And your continuous repetition of your argument does not make it true .

KingEbukasBlog:


This is called argument by repetition . You keep repeating that Mark Zuckerberg was an atheist before with no proof what so ever . And your continuous repetition of your argument does not make it true .

The link in the op is not proof abi?


Go troll somewhere else.

JackBizzle:



The link in the op is not proof abi?


Go troll somewhere else.

Its an empty claim .There is no evidence cited to prove that . That is why I told you guys to provide evidence .

KingEbukasBlog:


Yeah and its inaccurate

The constructional elements of deist thought include :

1. God exists and created Nature

2. God gave humans the ability to reason

Some deists believe that God is not interested in human affairs , here is why I think they are wrong . And that stance by deism that God does not intervene seems dogmatic . So its unfair to religion that its theologies are repudiated by Deism .

Deists are proponents of the First cause and they believe this cause is external and uncaused . Now , imagine the law of cause and effect existing in timeless eternity . Example : 0 degree Celsius (cause ) , Frozen water (effect) . That means if this should take place in a timeless eternity then frozen water should always be . That is to say since God exists in timeless eternity as a cause , then the effect which is the universe should co-exist with God . But since the universe is created then it shows that God has the will to lead to its cause . And since it shows that God can act on Its own volition , then he is a personal God . A personal God is saliently implied in his timelessness and freedom of will since he set out and created a new effect which is the universe without any antecedent determining conditions

thrash!
Your logic,Creating the universe equates personal
big thrash..and i wont go deep in it..
And also...time exists where this cause exists..

Ergo , God also has the freedom of will to intervene in the affairs of the universe and of men.

you do not know the ''extremity'' of the laws the author set in place..
Freedom is not the only defining factor...some things are impossible to be interfered with/be done...like a square circle...certain universal laws cannot be broken..

2)intervention just swiftly translated to ''human affairs''
put aside human ego and give me a good reason why the creator should interfere in human affairs and not in animal affairs..

And that is why Polydeism is illogical too . That means you have multiple unembodied individual minds who very unlikely agreed in unison to cause the universe to exist .

myopic thinking...

Even in humans here..with our little mind..separate individuals come together for the same goal..so i cant even see your point..
You conclude when you do not even know the height of the potency of the minds of the authors..

and maybe you do not understand what multiple means...two creators are multiple creators

And here is why Christianity is powerful true , since God is three cosubstantial hypothases then its very logical that these three irrefragably caused the universe since they are of one Divine mind though of distinct personalities..

the trinity is simple polytheism in disguise

I might be wrong

you are as usual,wrong.....a huge chunk of the times

MrMontella:

thrash!
Your logic,Creating the universe equates personal
big thrash..and i wont go deep in it..
And also...time exists where this cause exists..

you do not know the ''extremity'' of the laws the author set in place..
Freedom is not the only defining factor...some things are impossible to be interfered with/be done...like a square circle...certain universal laws cannot be broken..

2)intervention just swiftly translated to ''human affairs''
put aside human ego and give me a good reason why the creator should interfere in human affairs and not in animal affairs..


myopic thinking...

Even in humans here..with our little mind..separate individuals come together for the same goal..so i cant even see your point..
You conclude when you do not even know the height of the potency of the minds of the authors..

and maybe you do not understand what multiple means...two creators are multiple creators


the trinity is simple polytheism in disguise




you are as usual,wrong.....a huge chunk of the times

I made a huge mistake mentioning you , a huge one

Never mind if you can't address something rationally without any vitriol

My subsequent comments rubbished your shallow thoughts anyway

KingEbukasBlog:

I made a huge mistake mentioning you , a huge one
Never mind if you can't address something rationally without any vitriol
My subsequent comments rubbished your shallow things anyway

delusion..carry on bro

KingEbukasBlog:
The Facebook founder was never an atheist in the first place . Same with Bill Gates. They were never atheists .

It was a Wall Street Journal article that stated in 2007 that Mark Zuckerberg considers himself an atheist with no proof whatsoever . There is no proof Mark Zuckerberg is an atheist .

All these while it has been just a rumor , a confirmed one since Mark openly rejected atheism .

So both the people who want to continue believing with no proof that he is an atheist and the ones who think he may now be an African Voodoo Priest should provide evidence that he was an atheist first .


Oya start providing proof.

He believes religion is very important...

what's his religion?

realmindz:


He believes religion is very important...

what's his religion?

I presented my thoughts , what are your objections please


Let's scrutinize this :

Mark Zuckerberg's initial post was : "Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah from Priscilla, Max, Beast and me!"

Then his response to a Facebook user when asked if he were an atheist : "No. I was raised jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important."

He mentions Judaism as the religion he was raised in , then states clearly that he went through a period where he questions things but now he believes religion is very important .

The most logical conclusion is that Mark Zuckerberg has reverted to Judaism . Hannukkah and Christmas are celebrated on the same day . His wife is a Buddhist and that could have changed his perception of religion .

I would have thought of him as a Buddhist assuming his response when asked if he were an atheist was : "Yes , I was raised jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important" because Buddhism is indifferent towards the belief in God(s) and his wife may have persuaded him to become one .

Mark isn't a pantheist because pantheism is associated with very few religions like in African traditional religions and in Confucianism which he does not adhere to and Modern Pantheism is irreligious in nature and not even popular . He must have questioned pantheism too though less likely "then I went through a period where I questioned things.... " .

Like I said earlier , the most logical conclusion is the Mark Zuckerberg has reverted to Judaism , the religion he was brought up in .

@ JackBizzle

KingEbukasBlog:


I presented my thoughts , what are your objections please


Let's scrutinize this :

Mark Zuckerberg's initial post was : "Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah from Priscilla, Max, Beast and me!"

Then his response to a Facebook user when asked if he were an atheist : "No. I was raised jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important."

He mentions Judaism as the religion he was raised in , then states clearly that he went through a period where he questions things but now he believes religion is very important .

The most logical conclusion is that Mark Zuckerberg has reverted to Judaism . Hannukkah and Christmas are celebrated on the same day . His wife is a Buddhist and that could have changed his perception of religion .

I would have thought of him as a Buddhist assuming his response when asked if he were an atheist was : "Yes , I was raised jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important" because Buddhism is indifferent towards the belief in God(s) and his wife may have persuaded him to become one .

Mark isn't a pantheist because pantheism is associated with very few religions like in African traditional religions and in Confucianism which he does not adhere to and Modern Pantheism is irreligious in nature and not even popular . He must have questioned pantheism too though less likely "then I went through a period where I questioned things.... " .

Like I said earlier , the most logical conclusion is the Mark Zuckerberg has reverted to Judaism , the religion he was brought up in .

@ JackBizzle

It is also logical (Machiavellian) to conclude that he is lying in order not to annoy his religious customers at a religious time.


So, all your epistle is a waste.


Seun too can confirm that he was in denial of his atheism for some time.

Apologists like KingEbukasblog have big balls. It takes big balls to try to prove something by posting a piece of evidence that contradicts it.

Seun:
Apologists like KingEbukasblog has big balls. It takes big balls to try to prove something by posting a piece of evidence that contradicts it.

Seun, how far?

Please, I need 120k to run seo for my website. I am very serious

Help a brother out abeg

Seun:
Apologists like KingEbukasblog has big balls. It takes big balls to try to prove something by posting a piece of evidence that contradicts it.

Brother Seun , I know how the internet works , I've been using since I was 13 . I'm a blogger remember ?

Wall Street made a claim "he considers himself an atheist" . This is not evidence , this is an empty claim .

Now , assuming a quote made by Mark Zuckerberg( which should include the event where Mark overtly said he was an atheist) was adduced to support that claim then it stands as evidence .

Its no different from transfer rumors on credible sites like Sky Sports or Daily Mail . As far as no quotes are ascribed to the player , his agent , the club he plays for , or the club that wants him , then its an empty claim .

@KingEbukasBlog, i dont know how authentic this image is, but i found it on net. What can you say?

adepeter26:
@KingEbukasBlog, i dont know how authentic this image is, but i found it on net. What can you say?

That's a fake account

JackBizzle:



It is also logical (Machiavellian) to conclude that he is lying in order not to annoy his religious customers at a religious time.


So, all your epistle is a waste.


Seun too can confirm that he was in denial of his atheism for some time.

Brother Jack , you have to provide proof first that he is an atheist before you can assert that he told a lie to soothe this religious costumers .

I'm tired of repeating bro .

Dig deep KingEbukasBlog before confirming

adepeter26:
Dig deep KingEbukasBlog before confirming

Lol . Wikipedia calls President Jose Murjica a pantheist and an atheist on different pages


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pantheists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_politics_and_law grin grin


You obviously got that from an old article . This is what the present Wikipedia says

Wetin be old, wetin be new? You said he was never an atheist.

Never you said bro

adepeter26:
Wetin be old, wetin be new? You said he was never an atheist.

Never you said bro

He was never an atheist .

Jewish atheism on his wikipedia page was because of the Wall Street article in 2007 which is contained in the OP .

I give up on you ebuka. You ain't sincere one bit.

Spit on thread.

FYI, I'm not supporting the atheist, but with people like you, atheism will continue to grow due to insincerity.

adepeter26:
I give up on you ebuka. You ain't sincere one bit.

Spit on thread.

FYI, I'm not supporting the atheist, but with people like you, atheism will continue to grow due to insincerity.

Lmao !

You are frustrated obviously

You obviously don't know how Wikipedia works . The citation of his religion as Jewish Atheism can be traced to Wall Street's claim without evidence which I put in the OP .

Can you show me where Mark Zuckerberg said by himself that he was a Jewish atheist

na wa oo


If anyone has proof that Mark Zuckerberg was an atheist , please submit it here for scrutiny

Isn't Wall Street Journal a reputable source? Isn't it more likely than not that they have a good reason for making the claim? Why not ask them?

KingEbukasBlog:


Lmao !

You are frustrated obviously

You obviously don't know how Wikipedia works . The citation of his religion as Jewish Atheism can be traced to Wall Street's claim without evidence which I put in the OP .

Can you show me where Mark Zuckerberg said by himself that he was a Jewish atheist

na wa oo


If anyone has proof that Mark Zuckerberg was an atheist , please submit it here for scrutiny

And can you clearly show me on the updated wiki page where Mark himself Clearly said, "AM NOT AN ATHEIST"?

Or can you clearly show me where Mark himself said on Wiki updated that, "I'm the co-founder of Facebook"?

Seun:
Isn't Wall Street Journal a reputable source? Isn't it more likely than not that he mentioned it at some point when they were talking to him?

Oga Seun, Ebuka wont agree oo. I don tire with am. What else do he want?

adepeter26:

And can you clearly show me on the updated wiki page where Mark himself Clearly said, "AM NOT AN ATHEIST"?

Or can you clearly show me where Mark himself said on Wiki updated that, "I'm the co-founder of Facebook"?

Mister

Please read my latest response to Seun

Thanks

KingEbukasBlog:


I made a huge mistake mentioning you , a huge one

Never mind if you can't address something rationally without any vitriol

My subsequent comments rubbished your shallow thoughts anyway

You deserve whatever vitriol comes to you. Is the WSJ not a reputable source? Do you really believe that the WSJ would put up a potentially-libelous claim on their website if they weren't certain of their information?

---

Is the fact that his facebook profile once indicated that he was atheist not proof enough that he was once atheist?

---

Are you on anti-psychotic medication or do you just love seeing your threads grow?

Seun:
Isn't Wall Street Journal a reputable source? Isn't it more likely than not that they have a good reason for making the claim? Why not ask them?

So I should also ask Daily Mail , Sky Sports , Mirror to provide good reasons why they create football transfer rumors

Seun , so want to believe Mark is an atheist just because of an empty claim by Wall Street


In the same vein , Jesus Christ resurrected because the bible says so and the bible is a reputable source

And if you deny it better ask Matthew , Mark , Luke and John

Check mate bro

Ranchhoddas:
You deserve whatever vitriol comes to you. Is the WSJ not a reputable source? Do you really believe that the WSJ would put up a potentially-libelous claim on their website if they weren't certain of their information?

There are many reputable sources that make empty claims , and even make mistakes .

I explained to Seun what serves as evidence in an article from a reputable source . Please scroll up

Is the fact that his facebook profile once indicated that he was atheist not proof enough that he was once atheist?

Can I see a snippet of this ?

Ranchhoddas:
You deserve whatever vitriol comes to you. Is the WSJ not a reputable source? Do you really believe that the WSJ would put up a potentially-libelous claim on their website if they weren't certain of their information?

---

Is the fact that his facebook profile once indicated that he was atheist not proof enough that he was once atheist?

---

Are you on anti-psychotic medication or do you just love seeing your threads grow?

Just forget that guy my gee...

KingEbukasBlog:


There are many reputable sources that make empty claims , and even make mistakes .

I explained to Seun what serves as evidence in an article from a reputable source . Please scroll up




Can I see a snippet of this ?

Potentially libelous claims? Examples please.

Ranchhoddas:
Potentially libelous claims? Examples please.

You are the one who should provide proof that Mark had professed atheism on his facebook page not me .

Since you became an atheist , you stopped being logical .

Well I mean its expected .