NewStats: 3,265,520 , 8,187,070 topics. Date: Sunday, 15 June 2025 at 02:20 PM 1bw4n

TheDevilsBride:

...a pity, indeed, that so far, your argument can bear no fruits .
Someone, it seems, has never heard of secular counseling or community outreach programs. He's also, completely in the dark, for some odd reason, about the revolutionary concept of comionate human connection that doesn't require any spurious divine franchise. Is there anything, our friend Maximus here, actually knows about life outside the confines of his religious bubble, hmmm?

Fruit is not whether you it that what you're reading is true or false rather the fruit is a person who has yielded to wise counsel. As for reaching out to people it's a one on one thing not just listening to your radio or attending seminars {Malachi 3:16} that's why atheists are trying to speak with people but they don't know how to go about it since they are not sent by anyone unlike Christians sent to do so! Matthew 28:19-20

TheDevilsBride:

Well, I don't claim a moral high ground, however, I actually and humbly work towards it, without any need for a divine permission slip, or any promise of heavenly brownie points, lol.

That's what each and everyone will like to do but then it's impossible to make any meaningful impact when you're not reasoning one on one with your neighbour who will ask you thought provoking questions like i'm doing now that proves you're not doing anything.

TheDevilsBride:

It's pretty convenient that you conflate the metaphorical "FRUIT!" of your faith with the very real consequences of human actions we face everyday, while at the same time, ignoring the glaring absence of a control group to test your funny claims, lol.

We are not ignoring anything rather we are working on those who avail themselves to know what God has in stock for peace lovers since each of you feel like doing things your own way and we are commanded never to force anyone! Matthew 10:16

TheDevilsBride:

...and you're still playing whack-a-mole, cherry-picking only those scriptures that your pacifist stance, and still not addressing the plethora of ages that condone violence, genocide, slavery, bloodlust etc etc, acting as if they don't exist. The way you keep running in circles, repeating yourself, I just hope you don't dizzy yourself too much, and out from disorientation, lmao.

Things happens for a reason so if you're not aware of the reason you may end up thinking that what happened yesterday must continue even when there is an ongoing exercise to end it. Psalms 46:9

TheDevilsBride:

Why you sounding like you getting worked up, lmao? Anyway, I didn't want to go down this route initially as I suspected, and still suspect, that you clearly have troubles, with comprehending basic cues and elements of logic. But at any rate, I'm only going to cite this here for readers that might care to know, that you've been committing a logical fallacy known as the No True Scotsman fallacy.

No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one modifies a prior claim in response to a counterexample by asserting the counterexample is excluded by definition.[1][2][3] Rather than itting error or providing evidence to disprove the counterexample, the original claim is changed by using a non-substantive modifier such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", or other similar .[4][2]

Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[5]

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Abeg this your Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden how many people has he helped to stop hating their neighbours as in uprooting the cause of hatred in their hearts?
You people just like following white people claiming you have woken up from some kind of slumber yet it's still these white men who are directing how you should think. Just imagine i'm talking about what people around you are doing to end hatred you are quoting some white man who don't even know what is making people to kill people!

TheDevilsBride:

I only take comfort in the knowledge that being a JW yourself, most other Christians consider you a heretic and infidel. So you're pretty much hellbound, in their book, lmao
As usual, you'll always look for a fall guy to absolve your tribe of any responsibility for the atrocities committed in the name of your Lord. Nothing new to see here.

That's exactly the same way i often view JWs before i became one of them but now i know better there is no religion or school of thought that's helping mankind to think out of the box of politics except Jehovah's Witnesses. If it's only Jehovah's Witnesses that are living on this planet the earth will be a Paradise that's an indisputable fact!

TheDevilsBride:

I see the logic here, outsourcing the dirty work to divine hitmen, while you reap the rewards of moral superiority, lmao. Your cognitive dissonance is the real comedy routine here, I must confess, lol.
Absolutely, you're very damn right, they were, wiith a fervor that would make a serial killer look like an amateur enthusiast, lmao.
As a matter of fact, "ascertaining things" is precisely what led me away from the fairy tales you're still clutching at, so desperately. Take you own advice sometime, and "ascertain things" for yourself, lmao. You'd be surprised what happens to your mind when you apply critical thinking instead of theological Stockholm syndrome.

Actually you never ascertain a single thing all you are doing is PROTESTING your name says it all "TheDevilsBride" meaning you just want to claim nobody can advise or counsel you after all you're betrothed to the devil himself and you're proud of it.
So my dear you're just protesting there's nothing more.

TheDevilsBride:

I truly mean no offense here, but this isn't even a coherent sentence, let alone a viable explanation to present as justification, for the endless trail of violence and bloodshed that, as evidenced by history, follows in the wake of exercising blind faith. Perhaps you can explain to us why your God needs to allow his worshippers to fight any battles in the first place? Is he incapable of resolving issues without recourse to needless violence?

I have told you before but since you forgot i will do it again!
After Adam and Eve God allowed humans to do things themselves for centuries before introducing Himself to Abraham and promised to establish Paradise through this man. But by then the whole world were worshiping demons who were using them as scapegoats to claim Gods in different geographical locations therefore the only way to prove a God greater than the other is the strength of the armies of such a God that's why God allowed His worshipers to engage pagan nations in wars and whenever they are doing what He says no Nation can conquer them no matter the size of such army.
Do you get it now?

TheDevilsBride:

You know, I feel a soft spot for you at times, reading your robotic responses, lol. Your naivete would actually be charming if it weren't so monumentally dangerous.

Naaaaaaaaah it's a battle that your fellow atheists reading needs to see how the PHYCOLOGICAL WAR ends so don't tire out let me see how strong your brain is in defending Atheism the school of thought that promotes isolation!

MaxInDHouse:

Fruit is not whether you it that what you're reading is true or false rather the fruit is a person who has yielded to wise counsel. As for reaching out to people it's a one on one thing not just listening to your radio or attending seminars {Malachi 3:16} that's why atheists are trying to speak with people but they don't know how to go about it since they are not sent by anyone unlike Christians sent to do so! Matthew 28:19-20

What's really going on here is that, you're just simply too scared, to take the bold step, out of your comfort zone, and bubblegum feel-good delusions, to practice some self-reflection and, to see how convenient it is that your acclaimed "fruits", are nothing but a product of your peculiar brand of religiosity, lmao. Who d'you suppose you're kidding here, by the way, talking about fostering genuine, and meaningful relationships, or building community, when we all know your ulterior motives, are simply to brainwash, indoctrinate, proselytize, guilt-trip, and blackmail people emotionally, all in a bid to coerce and force them into brand of religion? I trust, of course, that you'll struggle to see the problem here, but I'll forge ahead anyway.

Now, pen this down in your notes: you see, genuine dialogue and community building require a certain degree of mutual respect, openness, and willingness to listen, and absorb whatever you're selling. But as we have come to observe, over the years, from you and your religionist compadres, the concept of mutual respect is often lost on you. You don't see the people you're engaging with as equals, nope. You instead view them with condescension and pity, and mere targets for your trite proselytizing. By justifying your "one-on-one outreach" on biblical grounds, it inadvertently exposes your thinly veiled attempts at wilfully manipulating others into the adoption of your beliefs, by any means necessary. Besides, let's keep it a buck here, your Bible cannot even be classified as a manual for effective community building, or even outreach sef, because the socio-cultural prejudices and biases embedded within it, is as bright as 9am in the morning outside, lmao. You're all just garden-variety evangelists, dressing yourselves up in cheap veneers of biblical respectability .

That's what each and everyone will like to do but then it's impossible to make any meaningful impact when you're not reasoning one on one with your neighbour who will ask you thought provoking questions like i'm doing now that proves you're not doing anything.

Smh, not my fault, that you're too blissfully holed up within the prison you've created and called a "mind", to consider that perhaps, just perhaps, the most meaningful impacts are those that occur quietly, unassumingly, and without the need for divine validation. I don't need to go door-to-door, like a town crier, ringing doors incessantly like a nuisance, to reason "one-on-one" with my neighbors, and make a positive impact. Whatever I choose to do is strictly according to my own whims and caprices. I can volunteer at any community clean-up initiatives, local kitchens, neighborhood gyms, or better yet, simply be a good friend and listener to those around me. Best of all, I can achieve all of this without ever once invoking, the name of a deity or relying on the promise of heavenly rewards. As for your inane pièce de résistance, that atheists are somehow incapable of effectively reaching out to people, because they lack the divine imprimatur of being "sent" by your imaginary higher power, shows the chutzpah on you, to act and pretend as though the entirety of human progress, from scientific discovery to social justice, hasn't been driven by the tireless efforts of individuals who didn't require a divine permission slip to make a positive impact.

We are not ignoring anything rather we are working on those who avail themselves to know what God has in stock for peace lovers since each of you feel like doing things your own way and we are commanded never to force anyone! Matthew 10:16

I'm sorry, but what's with the "each of you feel like doing things your own way" business? You trying to take a cheap dig at people who don't care to listen to your waffle? We don't impose our beliefs on others, or claim that our way is the best. However, we do have a zero-tolerance policy for unfounded nonsense, and the wilful peddlers of said nonsense, and we will call out these "nonsenses", however and whenever we wish to. So keep preaching to your choir, it's none of ma bidness, but for the sake of your mental health, and so that you won't get your knickers in a twist whenever I unsheath my sword, don't expect any of us to be impressed with your selective reading, and cherry-picking of scripture, or your dubious, transparent claims of not forcing anyone to adopt your particular brand of faith.

Things happens for a reason so if you're not aware of the reason you may end up thinking that what happened yesterday must continue even when there is an ongoing exercise to end it. Psalms 46:9

Does this supposed divine initiative involve your blatantly dishonest habit of cherry-picking those biblical ages that your pacifist stance, while ignoring the rest, hmmm? I personally, think there's a far more plausible reason, more plausible than your trite " mysterious ways" clause lmao, in that the biblical narrative is, quite simply, a product of human culture, and is sufficiently riddled with countless contradictions, reflecting the moral ambiguities of the time in which the texts, were written.

Abeg this your Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden how many people has he helped to stop hating their neighbours as in uprooting the cause of hatred in their hearts?

I promise you, Max, when you can demonstrate the relevance of this infantile query, you keep trotting out like a scratched and broken record, to the fact that you've just undermined your entire argument by committing a logical fallacy, then I'll finally put you out of your misery and indulge it, lmao.

You people just like following white people claiming you have woken up from some kind of slumber yet it's still these white men who are directing how you should think. Just imagine i'm talking about what people around you are doing to end hatred you are quoting some white man who don't even know what is making people to kill people!

^^^I hope readers can begin to observe how religionists trip over their own shoelaces whenever they try to castigate non-believers and skeptics. I wonder why, religionists like Maximus, can't help themselves, and cease their pointless whataboutisms if they can't even abide by basic, common sense principles of discourse, lmao.

Why not, let's take a closer look at Maximus' warped sense of reasoning, hmmm?
> He's attacking the perceived ethnicity of the professor I quoted, instead of just sticking to the point made, a classic diversionary tactic born out of desperation, as the validity of my point is not dependent on the skin color or ethnicity of any scholar/s I deem fit to cite.
> He's implying that just because the philosophers are white, their ideas must be inherently flawed or irrelevant.
> He's misrepresenting my position by implying that I'm blindly following white people, when I'm actually just relying on established philosophical concepts and logical principles over time, which transcend ethnicity.

Need I say more ?

That's exactly the same way i often view JWs before i became one of them but now i know better there is no religion or school of thought that's helping mankind to think out of the box of politics except Jehovah's Witnesses. If it's only Jehovah's Witnesses that are living on this planet the earth will be a Paradise that's an indisputable fact!

Okay. So? What's your point, hmmm? You expect me to be impressed, that you drank the kool-aid, and wilfully ed a cult that outrightly discourages critical thinking and intellectual curiosity? One can't help but envision your so-called "paradise", lol, where millions of people have been mistreated and traumatized, at the hands of insensitive JW policies, like for instance, disfellowshipping, prohibiting blood transfusions even in life-threatening situations, countless scores of child abuse cases with alleged cover-ups and inadequate reporting to authorities, discrimination, marginalization, exclusion etc etc. Smh, what a paradise indeed.

Actually you never ascertain a single thing all you are doing is PROTESTING your name says it all "The Devil's Bride" meaning you just want to claim nobody can advise or counsel you after all you're betrothed to the devil himself and you're proud of it.

Curiously, your failed attempt at psychoanalysis didn't seem to the glaring tongue-in-cheek reference, to the absurdity of the notion, that I'm in league with some fictional entity. As a matter of fact, I chose this specific ID for the exact purpose of poking fun at noobs like you, who subscribe to that ridiculous notion of devil worship !

So my dear you're just protesting there's nothing more.

Who's protesting? Not me! I just refuse to pay intellectual tithe to a nonexistent deity.

I have told you before but since you forgot i will do it again!...

Oh joy. Another installment of divine excuse making, coming right up, lol.

...After Adam and Eve God allowed humans to do things themselves for centuries before introducing Himself to Abraham and promised to establish Paradise through this man. But by then the whole world were worshiping demons who were using them as scapegoats to claim Gods in different geographical locations therefore the only way to prove a God greater than the other is the strength of the armies of such a God that's why God allowed His worshipers to engage pagan nations in wars and whenever they are doing what He says no Nation can conquer them no matter the size of such army.

That's a rather limited imagination for a supposedly infinite deity, lol. So you're basically arguing that the all-powerful creator of the universe was forced, against his will perhaps, to play by the primitive rules of ancient warfare? No wahala. But what is the justification? Do you suggest that the local polytheists couldn't have understood a more sophisticated demonstration of divine power from a being who allegedly parted seas, and rained fire from the heavens, huh? He ran out of ideas and couldn't come up with a more compelling presentation, than petty tribal piss fights?

Wait sef, let's even look at the timeline of your proposal here, lmao. For many centuries, your God has been allowing humans exercise their free will, the one allegedly bestowed unto them by him, no less. Said free will let humans into demon worship. Then all of a sudden, snap!, out of nowhere comes Jehovah God, who let's just say, may have snoozed off, albeit for a very long time after watching his favorite soap, lol. Suddenly, he re-enters the picture, and decides the only solution is bloodshed, huh?

Oh well, at any rate, you've inadvertently explained why there are so many religions, lmao. Basically, and as a corollary to your story, and the point made therein, it's safe to surmise that the reason so many religions exist is because they're all simply the winners of ancient military campaigns writing their victory speeches. Ironically, I believe history even lends credence to this conclusion, lol. So once again, while I strongly reject your beliefs, I will commend you for the honesty to it, perhaps unwittingly, that the dominance of your faith isn't rooted in divine truth, but rather in the earthly principle of "might makes right".

Do you get it now?

Sure. It's just spiritual politics .

Naaaaaaaaah it's a battle that your fellow atheists reading needs to see how the PHYCOLOGICAL WAR ends so don't tire out let me see how strong your brain is in defending Atheism the school of thought that promotes isolation!

As far as I can see, you're the one promoting isolation from reality, not me .

TheDevilsBride:

As far as I can see, you're the one promoting isolation from reality, not me :

Do you really know the meaning of that word "ISOLATION" ?

Because i have millions of people that i can relate with as fellow worshipers who lives both near and far not like you who is PROTESTING claiming she wants to be alone.
For instance can you boldly say in the public that you are TheDevilsBride?

Of course you can't that's why you hide what you are outside only for you to come to Nairaland looking for people to chat with because atheism doesn't promote any conventional thought so you people are here seeking the attention of believers expecting to find someone to share your feelings with as you are always bored anywhere else with your isolated mindset!

Nachmonides:


On faith again.
The original Greek text of Hebrews 11:1 is:

"Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων."

Word-by-Word Breakdown:

1. πίστις (pistis) → Faith, trust, belief, conviction


2. ἐλπιζομένων (elpizomenōn) → Things hoped for, expected


3. ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) → Substance, foundation, assurance, confidence


4. πραγμάτων (pragmatōn) → Matters, things, realities


5. ἔλεγχος (elegchos) → Evidence, proof, conviction


6. οὐ βλεπομένων (ou blepomenōn) → Not seen, unseen



Literal Translation:

"Now faith is the substance (or assurance) of things hoped for, the evidence (or conviction) of things not seen."


If you're to be honest or take yourself to be a man of reason, you can't read that and say it is arbitrary belief without reason.


This definition of faith does not mean blind belief without reason but rather a deep trust in something not yet visible. It suggests that faith is an active confidence, not mere wishful thinking.

We must ask, why should one have confidence in something? — that means there's a past action, a premise that demands it. Then we should ask after, what is the past action and how can we prove it is true, using the methods available to us, scientifically.

I'll leave this here:
A scientist has faith in a black hole’s existence based on gravitational effects, even if they can’t see it directly.

A Christian has faith in God based on historical s, changed lives, and logical reasoning, even without physically seeing Him.

...

MaxInDHouse:
Do you really know the meaning of that word "ISOLATION" ?

If you don't know the meaning of the word "ISOLATION", then avail yourself of a reputable dictionary, and don't be asking me johnny-just-come questions, lmao.

Because i have millions of people that i can relate with as fellow worshipers who lives both near and far not like you who is PROTESTING claiming she wants to be alone.

Smh, can you see why I said, you should quickly grab a dictionary lmao, because "isolation" doesn't quite mean what you think it does. It's not by surrounding yourself with trillions of people, but about disconnecting yourself from reason and evidence, which is why I noted that you've isolated yourself from reality. Don't you see it yet, Maximus? You obviously don't care about critical thinking, logical reasoning, the scientific method, etc etc. It's funny though that you take pride in the fact that millions share your faith and beliefs, as is your right. You can be happy all you want, won't make you right though. Millions of people can be wrong all at the same time, lol, and it has happened many times throughout history. So, if you like, keep surrounding yourself with illusions. Na you sabi. At the end of the day, your view doesn't correspond with reality, and just because numbers seem to be on your side, doesn't make it any more valid.

For instance can you boldly say in the public that you are The Devils Bride?

Where I reside, it's no biggie. Won't cost me a thing, lol. Nonetheless, conformity is not the virtue you think it is, my dear. It's just the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt, and honestly I'd rather go against the grain, than become unquestioning sheep. My atheism isn't something I've ever been ashamed of, as it's simply a conclusion based on the lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities.

Of course you can't that's why you hide what you are outside only for you to come to Nairaland looking for people to chat with because atheism doesn't promote any conventional thought so you people are here seeking the attention of believers expecting to find someone to share your feelings with as you are always bored anywhere else with your isolated mindset!

Thankfully, in the social context I find myself, I need not worry about social approval, as the vast majority of my neighbors aren't unthinking, judgemental theocrats like you, who manipulate people and threaten them with ostracizing and witch-hunting, simply because they reject your infantile beliefs. Besides, the internet is already a form of public space. Afterall, am I not, right now, engaging with you, and potentially countless others, under the very sobriquet you deem so scandalous, huh? So my dear, the cat, or perhaps the imp, is already out of the bag, lol. Except for some odd reason, you believe this conversation is happening in some hermetically sealed off, digital bubble, totally and completely impervious to the prying eyes of the general public. If that is what you think, then you've not only wandered into the realm of delusion, you're completely lost inside with no way out, and I'm unfortunately ill-equipped to provide the therapy you so desperately need, lol.

Nachmonides:



Do you disagree?

Man you guys and gpt's. Don't know why you all rely on gpts to form your arguments, every single time. If i wanted to discuss with AI i would just do that on my device. Anyways even your response already shows the several problems with faith and proves what i said. And yes i have read, not even read studied the bible and not just that but the context around it using study bibles like the JPS Tanakh and New Oxford Annotated Bible With Apocrypha and materials from reputable scholars which unfortunately highlights the flaws.

Also i fail to see how my reading it or not reconciles the contradictions. Even right off the bat in the very first book you have contradictions. Contradictions that require you to renegotiate the texts in a bid to harmonize it which can be sometimes laughable. A pathway to truth that's not univocal?! Nah!

And no people don't accept the big bang and string theory on faith. They accept it cause it's demonstrable with evidence even if they don't fully grasp it. We have evidence of the cosmic microwave background radiation to demonstrate this. Also i never said faith is exclusive to religion i said it's mostly used in religious context there's a big difference. ALso there's no where else apart from religious context where faith is used to demonstrate truth. That's what i said.

The area where faith is used most is filled with so much confusion. We have at least 10,000 religions all claiming to be the right one. Of which a lot of people subscribe to these religions with faith and even in those religions you have denominations like the 45,000 plus of Christianity with claims where no 2 xtains agree on the interpretation of the texts from cover to cover.

Faith is subjective, Truth is objective, Faith is unverifiable, Truth is verifiable.... so it's flawed, rest is just semantics. Logic leads to verifiable objective truth. If faith is a pathway to truth how come so many subjective views?? Miraculous claims are dismissed from historical sources all the time to get the factual data. A lot of historical figures have mythological elements about them that are filtered out, even your cited sources which im sure if you read would have understood the diff between a mythological figure and a historical figure with mythological elements.

People believe stories about Alexander because he has numerous evidence outside the original claims. From other ancient docs from even people he fought to coins, inscriptions and other archaeological artifacts which same cannot be said for Jesus or 90% of biblical claims which one is meant to take on faith. Instead we find what makes the narrative questionable.

For example the census conducted during Jesus' birth when Herod killed new borns is not true, cause archaeological and historical evidence shows the census was conducted 10yrs after the death of Herod during the reign of Quiniruis. So the fact its based of evidence is mostly not even true lol! What evidence do you have for any of the extraordinarily faith claims in the bible. Talking animals, Exodus, Red Sea, Pillar of fire, Sun stanfing still, Flat earth?! Absolutely zero, instead what we find contradicts em instead.

Also the claim that Jesus' believers were willing to die ergo is true is apologetics 101. Is islam true because people are willingly die for the cause?? The gospels were not written by any eyewitnesses, they were written several decades after the events, and for such extraordinary events, no other sources records any of it save for the little mundane bits, zero detailed extrordinary bits

If faith is a valid method, there won't be 10,000 religions claiming they have the "right faith" and there won't be denominations claiming to have the right faith and killing each other for heresies. [b]How come no consensus or objectivity? [/b]That's why faith debates fact and embraces opinions instead of the other way. And please lay off the AI regurgitated responses, it's doesn't come across well, to put it politely.

Nachmonides:


On faith again.
The original Greek text of Hebrews 11:1 is:

"Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων."

Word-by-Word Breakdown:

1. πίστις (pistis) → Faith, trust, belief, conviction


2. ἐλπιζομένων (elpizomenōn) → Things hoped for, expected


3. ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) → Substance, foundation, assurance, confidence


4. πραγμάτων (pragmatōn) → Matters, things, realities


5. ἔλεγχος (elegchos) → Evidence, proof, conviction


6. οὐ βλεπομένων (ou blepomenōn) → Not seen, unseen



Literal Translation:

"Now faith is the substance (or assurance) of things hoped for, the evidence (or conviction) of things not seen."


If you're to be honest or take yourself to be a man of reason, you can't read that and say it is arbitrary belief without reason.


This definition of faith does not mean blind belief without reason but rather a deep trust in something not yet visible. It suggests that faith is an active confidence, not mere wishful thinking.

We must ask, why should one have confidence in something? — that means there's a past action, a premise that demands it. Then we should ask after, what is the past action and how can we prove it is true, using the methods available to us, scientifically.

I'll leave this here:
A scientist has faith in a black hole’s existence based on gravitational effects, even if they can’t see it directly.

A Christian has faith in God based on historical s, changed lives, and logical reasoning, even without physically seeing Him.

What does hoped for and evidence of things not seen mean if not exactly what it says. lol Science doesn't have faith in a black holes existence. Its demonstratable even if not seen. It relies on empirical observations and experimentation based on the constants of the universe which leads to testable, verifiable and falsifiable predictive models. Key word falsifiable. Absolutely not the same thing. Religion on the other hand relies on non empirical, unfalsifiable subjective sources with a lot of presuppositions and presumptions. Big difference.

TheDevilsBride:

Disconnecting yourself from REASON and EVIDENCE.

I will hold unto this!

So isolation is disconnecting oneself from REASON and EVIDENCE.

Question:
What is the REASON for having FAITH in a SUPREME BEING?
Answer:
Because humans are intelligent creatures each having his or her own mindset and in the absence of superior authority there is bound to be disorder hence we all need to agree on one source of guidance not necessarily what we can see but that which will help us all to cohabit peacefully.

Question:
What could be the EVIDENCE that some have found such source of sure guidance?
ANSWER:
Since our aim is to get a sure guidance for peaceful cohabitation any group of persons that has successfully gathered people from all races together and made them to have LOVE, JOY, PEACE, PATIENCE, KINDNESS, GOODNESS, MILDNESS, FAITH and SELF-CONTROL permeating their gathering should be given the credit because that is what mankind need not building destructive weapons to intimidate or scare people into doing what we think is right!


Please present a REASON and EVIDENCE to ATHEISM in the same manner if it's not just about promoting ISOLATION!

See the adverse effects of ISOLATION below.

MaxInDHouse:

I will hold unto this!

Am I surprised that you would "hold unto" a single line of my entire response, without addressing the entire surrounding posts that give it context, because you wish to fabricate your own narratives and agenda? The answer is no of course, as I'm already accustomed to these cheap plots you lot employ to win by any means necessary, lmao.

So isolation is disconnecting oneself from REASON and EVIDENCE.

As it pertains to you Maximus, yes.

Question:
What is the REASON for having FAITH in a SUPREME BEING?
Answer:
Because humans are intelligent creatures each having his or her own mindset and in the absence of superior authority there is bound to be disorder hence we all need to agree on one source of guidance not necessarily what we can see but that which will help us all to cohabit peacefully.

So your "reason" for faith is nothing but a poorly, half polished ission that you can't handle the mysteries and uncertainty of life without an imaginary friend. Noted.

Question:
What could be the EVIDENCE that some have found such source of sure guidance?
ANSWER:
Since our aim is to get a sure guidance for peaceful cohabitation any group of persons that has successfully gathered people from all races together and made them to have LOVE, JOY, PEACE, PATIENCE, KINDNESS, GOODNESS, MILDNESS, FAITH and SELF-CONTROL permeating their gathering should be given the credit because that is what mankind need not building destructive weapons to intimidate or scare people into doing what we think is right!

Your "evidence failed to take into , the likelihood that these positive emotions and behaviors, as explained through neurobiology and social evolution, may often arise from entirely natural, humanistic sources? Abi do you really think that the only way to explain people coming together and exhibiting all those buzzwords you're using like "LOVE", "KINDNESS" etc etc is some sort of supernatural guidance? More importantly, how does it necessarily follow, that because your religion brings people together, it means the claims and assertions made therein, are justified? Haven't you heard of the axiom: Correlation does not imply causation?

Please present a REASON and EVIDENCE to ATHEISM in the same manner if it's not just about promoting ISOLATION!

Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

> REASON: the absence of any evidence from religionists and other God proponents.

> EVIDENCE: Untestable prayer hypothesis, failed prophecies, the lack of miracles, and the seamless, unperturbed functioning of the natural world without any supernatural intervention.

See the adverse effects of ISOLATION below.

Pffft @ attached pic. Having piercings and tattoos is just as unnatural as wearing clothes or using a keyboard, abi did you suddenly forget that you came into the world, butt naked, without any clothing or enhancements, hmm, lmao?

TheDevilsBride:

POINT 1
> REASON: the absence of any evidence from religionists and other God proponents.
POINT 2
> EVIDENCE: Untestable prayer hypothesis, failed prophecies, the lack of miracles, and the seamless, unperturbed functioning of the natural world without any supernatural intervention.
POINT 3
Pffft @ attached pic. Having piercings and tattoos is just as unnatural as wearing clothes or using a keyboard, abi did you suddenly forget that you came into the world, butt naked, without any clothing or enhancements, hmm, lmao?

This is all i need!

Lengthy epistle is a sign of weakness to me so i pick the point you may be using as your power house!

Point 1
ATHEISM is the high fence you guys built around you to block faith in God but why do you still seek the attention of religionists?

Point 2
Sound evidence showing ATHEISM can't stand on its own without religion so whenever atheists wants to use their brains is talks talks talks about religion.

Point 3
I'm really amazed how you quickly swept under the carpet the opinion that you can't present any of these persons as your child in the public because it's a sign of failure on your part as a mother!

Lucifyre:


What does hoped for and evidence of things not seen mean if not exactly what it says. lol Science doesn't have faith in a black holes existence. Its demonstratable even if not seen. It relies on empirical observations and experimentation based on the constants of the universe which leads to testable, verifiable and falsifiable predictive models. Key word falsifiable. Absolutely not the same thing. Religion on the other hand relies on non empirical, unfalsifiable subjective sources with a lot of presuppositions and presumptions. Big difference.

You make an interesting point, but I think you're oversimplifying both faith and science. You argue that science doesn’t operate on faith because it relies on empirical observations, falsifiability, and testable models. However, there are a few things to consider:

I, So, black holes are not accepted because we "see" them in the way we see a tree or a planet. They are accepted because the evidence for their existence is overwhelming, even though they remain invisible themselves. This is similar to how we accept the existence of things like dark matter or subatomic particles—through their measurable effects rather than direct observation. While black holes are now widely accepted, their existence was originally proposed based on theoretical models and mathematical predictions (by Einstein and Schwarzschild) long before we had direct observational evidence. If faith is simply "the evidence of things not seen," then believing in black holes before we had observable proof fits that definition. Scientists had faith in the validity of their models before evidence confirmed them.
You say that science doesn’t have "faith" in black holes because their existence is based on empirical observations, even though black holes themselves are not seen. But isn’t this still a form of faith—faith in the consistency of scientific models, indirect evidence, and the assumption that unseen forces can be real based on their effects?

A Christian could make the same argument for God. We don’t see Him directly, but we observe the order, complexity, and fine-tuning of nature. Just as black holes are inferred through gravitational effects and radiation, God is inferred through the intelligibility of the universe, the existence of moral laws, and the reliability of human reason itself.

If black holes are accepted not because they are seen, but because their effects are verifiable and reproducible, then why dismiss belief in God, whose presence many argue is also observable through nature, human consciousness, and moral reasoning? Wouldn’t it be inconsistent to accept unseen black holes on indirect evidence while rejecting God on the same basis?

II, Science is built on certain assumptions: that the universe is rational, that laws of physics are constant, and that human reason can accurately interpret reality. These are not provable in themselves; they are philosophical presuppositions that scientists must take on faith. If you reject faith outright, then on what basis do you assume the uniformity of nature?


III, While falsifiability is a key principle in science, not everything of value is falsifiable. Love, justice, consciousness, and even certain interpretations of quantum mechanics resist clear falsification. Does that mean they are meaningless or unworthy of belief? Similarly, religious faith isn't about blind belief but is often grounded in personal experience, historical evidence, and philosophical reasoning.


IV, Science can tell us how things happen, but it doesn't answer why things exist in the first place. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we have laws of physics at all? These are philosophical or theological questions, not scientific ones. Dismissing faith because it isn't "scientific" is like dismissing art because it isn’t mathematical—it’s applying the wrong criteria.


V, False Dichotomy - You present religion and science as if they are opposites, but many of history’s greatest scientists (Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Planck) were deeply religious. They saw faith and reason as complementary, not contradictory. Even today, many scientists believe in God without rejecting empirical science.

Lucifyre:


Man you guys and gpt's. Don't know why you all rely on gpts to form your arguments, every single time. If i wanted to discuss with AI i would just do that on my device. Anyways even your response already shows the several problems with faith and proves what i said. And yes i have read, not even read studied the bible and not just that but the context around it using study bibles like the JPS Tanakh and New Oxford Annotated Bible With Apocrypha and materials from reputable scholars which unfortunately highlights the flaws.

Also i fail to see how my reading it or not reconciles the contradictions. Even right off the bat in the very first book you have contradictions. Contradictions that require you to renegotiate the texts in a bid to harmonize it which can be sometimes laughable. A pathway to truth that's not univocal?! Nah!

And no people don't accept the big bang and string theory on faith. They accept it cause it's demonstrable with evidence even if they don't fully grasp it. We have evidence of the cosmic microwave background radiation to demonstrate this. Also i never said faith is exclusive to religion i said it's mostly used in religious context there's a big difference. ALso there's no where else apart from religious context where faith is used to demonstrate truth. That's what i said.

The area where faith is used most is filled with so much confusion. We have at least 10,000 religions all claiming to be the right one. Of which a lot of people subscribe to these religions with faith and even in those religions you have denominations like the 45,000 plus of Christianity with claims where no 2 xtains agree on the interpretation of the texts from cover to cover.

Faith is subjective, Truth is objective, Faith is unverifiable, Truth is verifiable.... so it's flawed, rest is just semantics. Logic leads to verifiable objective truth. If faith is a pathway to truth how come so many subjective views?? Miraculous claims are dismissed from historical sources all the time to get the factual data. A lot of historical figures have mythological elements about them that are filtered out, even your cited sources which im sure if you read would have understood the diff between a mythological figure and a historical figure with mythological elements.

People believe stories about Alexander because he has numerous evidence outside the original claims. From other ancient docs from even people he fought to coins, inscriptions and other archaeological artifacts which same cannot be said for Jesus or 90% of biblical claims which one is meant to take on faith. Instead we find what makes the narrative questionable.

For example the census conducted during Jesus' birth when Herod killed new borns is not true, cause archaeological and historical evidence shows the census was conducted 10yrs after the death of Herod during the reign of Quiniruis. So the fact its based of evidence is mostly not even true lol! What evidence do you have for any of the extraordinarily faith claims in the bible. Talking animals, Exodus, Red Sea, Pillar of fire, Sun stanfing still, Flat earth?! Absolutely zero, instead what we find contradicts em instead.

Also the claim that Jesus' believers were willing to die ergo is true is apologetics 101. Is islam true because people are willingly die for the cause?? The gospels were not written by any eyewitnesses, they were written several decades after the events, and for such extraordinary events, no other sources records any of it save for the little mundane bits, zero detailed extrordinary bits

If faith is a valid method, there won't be 10,000 religions claiming they have the "right faith" and there won't be denominations claiming to have the right faith and killing each other for heresies. How come no consensus or objectivity? [/b]That's why faith debates fact and embraces opinions instead of the other way. And please lay off the AI regurgitated responses, it's doesn't come across well, to put it politely.

You seem ionate, but you are also dismissive, I think your positions are not airtight.
> On the matter of AI, I am giving a crafted response based on my consultation of scholarship commentaries, books and the internet, why? — I don't know everything. I won't take offence at that comment, also, it's unwise to think one referring to an AI is not "cool", it doesn't hold water. Let's stick to the arguments. Also my formatting may give off AI vibes, that's how I format my texts, it's been consistent since I ed NL. Blame it on my frequent use of the terminal, and programming.

[b]I, You claim faith is flawed because it’s unverifiable, while science is based on objective evidence. But science also operates on faith—faith in the consistency of natural laws, logic, and the validity of human reasoning—none of which can be scientifically proven. People accept things like the Big Bang not because they personally it but because they trust expert interpretations of data. That’s a form of faith.


II, You mention contradictions in Genesis and historical errors in the census under Quirinius. But contradictions only disprove literalism, not Christianity itself. Scholars (both believers and skeptics) resolve textual and historical discrepancies all the time—just like physicists reconcile contradictions between quantum mechanics and relativity.

Also, the claim that Jesus has no historical evidence outside the Bible is incorrect. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius reference Jesus and early Christians. If you apply the same historical standard to Jesus as you do to other ancient figures, you’d have to dismiss most of ancient history.

III, You argue that multiple religions prove faith is unreliable. But by this logic:

Competing scientific theories (e.g., quantum mechanics interpretations) would mean science itself is unreliable.

Philosophers have different views on morality, but that doesn’t mean truth doesn’t exist.


Diversity of belief doesn’t mean all are false, just that humans interpret truth differently. The real question is: Which worldview best explains reality?

IV, You dismiss Christian martyrdom by comparing it to Islam. But there’s a key difference:

Muslim martyrs die for a tradition ed down centuries later.

Early Christian martyrs claimed to have personally witnessed Jesus risen from the dead.


People don’t willingly die for something they know is a lie. Their willingness to suffer and die for their testimony makes the resurrection claim unique.

V, You say biblical miracles lack evidence, but historical claims are judged by probability, not absolute proof. If supernatural events happen, they wouldn’t be the norm—that’s what makes them miracles. You don’t disprove them just by saying they don’t happen today.

Also, many historical events are accepted with far less documentation than the Gospels. If you dismiss biblical events on these grounds, you’d have to reject most of ancient history as well.


If you demand absolute scientific proof for religious truth, ask yourself:

Can science prove love, morality, or consciousness?

If multiple views disprove religion, why don’t multiple scientific theories disprove science?

Why dismiss historical claims simply because they involve the supernatural?

MaxInDHouse:


This is all i need!

Kikikikikiki. Just dey play. You're driving hard, long nails into the coffin of your credibility. Absence of evidence, is not only just a reason, but a very solid requiem for your so-called "faith", lmao.

Lengthy epistle is a sign of weakness to me so i pick the point you may be using as your power house!

Am I surprised that you would "hold unto" a single line of my entire response, without addressing the entire surrounding posts that give it context, because you wish to fabricate your own narratives and agenda?
Re: If God is love, why did He harden Pharaoh's heart in Exodus 9:12?" by TheDevilsBride(f): 7:23am

Maximus, you can't keep up with me, cause you simply lack the patience and/or intellectual honesty to face the truth and kiss it. Deep down, you know my words are hitting very close to home, so you're trying desperately, clinging into frivolous details, without trying to grasp the full picture. You're quite simply out of your depth here, and it's no ones fault but yours, lol.

Point 1
ATHEISM is the high fence you guys built around you to block faith in God but why do you still seek the attention of religionists?

Abegi, please spare us the amateur, roadside psychoanalysis. We know you're just trying to make yourself feel better about your lack of substance, lol. All we're doing is simply questioning the misinformation and superstition that you lot have been peddled for centuries. Why so butthurt, hmmm? Call it a public service. You're welcome .

Point 2
Sound evidence showing ATHEISM can't stand on its own without religion so whenever atheists wants to use their brains is talks talks talks about religion.

You're the one, who can't stand on your own two feet without religion. You're too scared to even leave your room in the morning, without mumbling to your imaginary friend, lmao. We don't need your fairy tale stories to experience life as it is. We just point and laugh at you lot, who lack that independence .

Point 3
I'm really amazed how you quickly swept under the carpet the opinion that you can't present any of these persons as your child in the public because it's a sign of failure on your part as a mother!

By your trite logic, any parent who purposefully lets their young lad get a haircut or wear glasses is also a failure, not so? Your moral com is just as wonky as your argument. It is well .

Fun fact:
The historical document with the most correlated manuscripts (copies or copies of parts of the document) is the New Testament. The New Testament has a vast number of manuscripts—over 5,800 Greek manuscripts alone, along with tens of thousands of early translations and fragments. This makes it the most attested ancient text in of manuscript evidence.


The works of Julius Caesar, Plato, and other ancient writers have far fewer surviving manuscripts—often only a handful in comparison to the New Testament.

Nachmonides:
Fun fact:
The historical document with the most correlated manuscripts (copies or copies of parts of the document) is the New Testament. The New Testament has a vast number of manuscripts—over 5,800 Greek manuscripts alone, along with tens of thousands of early translations and fragments. This makes it the most attested ancient text in of manuscript evidence.


The works of Julius Caesar, Plato, and other ancient writers have far fewer surviving manuscripts—often only a handful in comparison to the New Testament.

Although this doesn't mean it can't be a lie. It's just a fun fact.

TheDevilsBride:

All we're doing is simply questioning the misinformation and superstition that you lot have been peddled for centuries.

So in a nutshell you people said "goodbye" to faith in God but you're still looking back not sure of what you chose!

TheDevilsBride:

Parent who purposefully lets their young lad get a haircut or wear glasses is also a failure.

Hmmmmmmm so are you saying these guys are good to go in the society and fit for job interviews with their appearance?

MaxInDHouse:

So in a nutshell you people said "goodbye" to faith in God but you're still looking back not sure of what you chose!

Haba nau, we're only challenging dogmas that have been used throughout history to justify everything from scientific ignorance that impedes social progress, to outright atrocities committed by religious fanatics. Why are you guys so defensive, lmao? Did any of us kick your dog ?

Hmmmmmmm so are you saying these guys are good to go in the society and fit for job interviews with their appearance?

Do you seriously think that a well-groomed buzz cut or a hijab is indicative of character, competence and reliance in the work place? The pastors that fleece their church and those your JW brethren that cover up child abuse, are they not wearing neat clothes, diligently starched, with nice cologne and trimmed haircuts? Or is it only tattoos and piercings that trigger your misplaced moral outrage, lol?

TheDevilsBride:


Am I surprised that you would "hold unto" a single line of my entire response, without addressing the entire surrounding posts that give it context, because you wish to fabricate your own narratives and agenda? The answer is no of course, as I'm already accustomed to these cheap plots you lot employ to win by any means necessary, lmao.



As it pertains to you Maximus, yes.



So your "reason" for faith is nothing but a poorly, half polished ission that you can't handle the mysteries and uncertainty of life without an imaginary friend. Noted.



Your "evidence failed to take into , the likelihood that these positive emotions and behaviors, as explained through neurobiology and social evolution, may often arise from entirely natural, humanistic sources? Abi do you really think that the only way to explain people coming together and exhibiting all those buzzwords you're using like "LOVE", "KINDNESS" etc etc is some sort of supernatural guidance? More importantly, how does it necessarily follow, that because your religion brings people together, it means the claims and assertions made therein, are justified? Haven't you heard of the axiom: Correlation does not imply causation?



Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

> REASON: the absence of any evidence from religionists and other God proponents.

> EVIDENCE: Untestable prayer hypothesis, failed prophecies, the lack of miracles, and the seamless, unperturbed functioning of the natural world without any supernatural intervention.



Pffft @ attached pic. Having piercings and tattoos is just as unnatural as wearing clothes or using a keyboard, abi did you suddenly forget that you came into the world, butt naked, without any clothing or enhancements, hmm, lmao?

What kind of evidence convince you that something exists?

Aemmyjah:


What kind of evidence convince you that something exists?

Requirements >>> Empirical evidence. Testable hypotheses. Verifiable facts. Reproducible results. Peer-reviewed research.

Irrelevant and/or not needed >>> Anecdotes or personal testimonies. Ancient religious texts. Hearsays. Superstitions. Logical fallacies. Wishful thinking. Preaching. Ad hominems. Lies. Threats.

TheDevilsBride:


Am I surprised that you would "hold unto" a single line of my entire response, without addressing the entire surrounding posts that give it context, because you wish to fabricate your own narratives and agenda? The answer is no of course, as I'm already accustomed to these cheap plots you lot employ to win by any means necessary, lmao.



As it pertains to you Maximus, yes.



So your "reason" for faith is nothing but a poorly, half polished ission that you can't handle the mysteries and uncertainty of life without an imaginary friend. Noted.



Your "evidence failed to take into , the likelihood that these positive emotions and behaviors, as explained through neurobiology and social evolution, may often arise from entirely natural, humanistic sources? Abi do you really think that the only way to explain people coming together and exhibiting all those buzzwords you're using like "LOVE", "KINDNESS" etc etc is some sort of supernatural guidance? More importantly, how does it necessarily follow, that because your religion brings people together, it means the claims and assertions made therein, are justified? Haven't you heard of the axiom: Correlation does not imply causation?



Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

> REASON: the absence of any evidence from religionists and other God proponents.

> EVIDENCE: Untestable prayer hypothesis, failed prophecies, the lack of miracles, and the seamless, unperturbed functioning of the natural world without any supernatural intervention.



Pffft @ attached pic. Having piercings and tattoos is just as unnatural as wearing clothes or using a keyboard, abi did you suddenly forget that you came into the world, butt naked, without any clothing or enhancements, hmm, lmao?

What kind of evidence convince you that something exists?


So where does our sense of altruism comes from? By chance?

TheDevilsBride:


Requirements >>> Empirical evidence. Testable hypotheses. Verifiable facts. Reproducible results. Peer-reviewed research.

Irrelevant and/or not needed >>> Anecdotes or personal testimonies. Ancient religious texts. Hearsays. Superstitions. Logical fallacies. Wishful thinking. Preaching. Ad hominems. Lies. Threats.

What's the empirical evidence that life or living form comes from nothing?

What evidence will you give a blind person about colors or that something verified by sight exists?
Is it everything that exists that we can see or hear?

TheDevilsBride:

We're only challenging dogmas that have been used throughout history.

Madam let me enlighten you!

God's word said in the last days which we are in right now there will be famine not for food but knowledge about God {Amos 8:11} by the time God decides to help those who are hungry and thirsty for truth {Matthew 5:6} like you He will make the truth available but it's only humble people will be benefited not arrogant ones. Zephaniah 2:2-3
So it's not only you that's worried about what's been happening we too are worried but we have found the answer to the questions bothering our minds for long unlike you who just feel it's all rubbish yet you keep seeking the attention of those studying the books!

TheDevilsBride:

Is it only tattoos and piercings that trigger your misplaced moral outrage, lol?

Madam there is a big difference between doing what is wrong in the hidden and doing the same in the public. One doing something bad and hiding it surely lack self worth he or she already knows it's not humane but those doing it publicly are seriously sick because they need special attention for them to know that coming like that into the public makes them unworthy in the society!

MaxInDHouse:

Madam let me enlighten you!

Judging from your antecedents, I'm highly doubtful that anything you say will be particularly insightful or "enlightening" to me.

God's word said in the last days which we are in right now there will be famine not for food but knowledge about God {Amos 8:11} by the time God decides to help those who are hungry and thirsty for truth {Matthew 5:6} like you He will make the truth available but it's only humble people will be benefited not arrogant ones. Zephaniah 2:2-3

It seems even your own Bible is acutely aware of its' intellectual bankruptcy, and is making excuses, lmao. Kikikikiki.

So it's not only you that's worried about what's been happening we too are worried but we have found the answer to the questions bothering our minds for long unlike you who just feel it's all rubbish yet you keep seeking the attention of those studying the books!

You're still repeating yourself. We've already agreed that you found your answer to complex existential questions by cherry-picking obscure biblical ages, and ignoring the glaring ones that call your dubious narratives into question, lol.

Madam there is a big difference between doing what is wrong in the hidden and doing the same in the public.

Very interesting. So apparently, the cardinal sin isn't the act itself, according to you, but the audacity of transparency. In that case, I guess I can indulge in whatever evil I wish to indulge in like petty theft, abuse, murder, etc, as long as I'm keeping it on the low, right? Afterall, moral transgressions are perfectly acceptable, if they're sufficiently concealed. Smh, indeed.

One doing something bad and hiding it surely lack self worth he or she already knows it's not humane but those doing it publicly are seriously sick because they need special attention for them to know that coming like that into the public makes them unworthy in the society!

More weaponized sanctimony. The worth of individuals in the society is definitely NOT determined by how meticulously s/he conforms to your trite, bizarre, narrow, beige-tinted aesthetic of respectability. As a matter of fact, I'm outrightly flabbergasted that you've somehow managed to elevate such spurious, superficial judgments into a quasi-theological doctrine of personal value. Here's a hint, mate. Stop policing self-expression. I guarantee you, it's not a productive use of your clearly abundant time.

Aemmyjah:
What's the empirical evidence that life or living form comes from nothing?

I wonder where you learnt that from, as the idea that "life came from nothing", is not even a widely held consensus within the scientific community. Maybe you can start by defining "nothing" for me?

What evidence will you give a blind person about colors or that something verified by sight exists?

The same kind of evidence that will convince a scientist that microwaves, radio waves, x-rays, UV rays, IR radiation etc etc exist, even though he can't physically set his sights on any of them. Can you guess what all of the aforementioned have in common? That's right: measurable effects. The fact that you can't see them, doesn't mean you can't measure them. Every color has a specific wavelength of visible light that cause different optic nerve cells to fire when the light falls on particular cone-cells in the retina.

Is it everything that exists that we can see or hear?

Nope. Not everything that exists can be seen or heard. There are countless of invisible forces and imperceptible entities within the universe like atoms, dark matter, gravity, electromagnetism, etc etc.

TheDevilsBride:


I wonder where you learnt that from, as the idea that "life came from nothing", is not even a widely held consensus within the scientific community. Maybe you can start by defining "nothing" for me?



The same kind of evidence that will convince a scientist that microwaves, radio waves, x-rays, UV rays, IR radiation etc etc exist, even though he can't physically set his sights on any of them. Can you guess what all of the aforementioned have in common? That's right: measurable effects. The fact that you can't see them, doesn't mean you can't measure them. Every color has a specific wavelength of visible light that cause different optic nerve cells to fire when the light falls on particular cone-cells in the retina.



Nope. Not everything that exists can be seen or heard. There are countless of invisible forces and imperceptible entities within the universe like atoms, dark matter, gravity, electromagnetism, etc etc.

Lol
It's ridiculous atheist that ask for definition of nothing
Just as woke transgender people will forever argue with the definition of woman and whether men give birth to childrrn or not

Is science completely reliable as to what they present as fact? No. They have never and recently, they seem to deliberately misinterpret and contradict each other and one is the idea of sexuality which is now highly debatable.

If you don't understand what I mean by the question of life coming from nothing, may be I'll help you

Did life result from blind, unguided and random events (accident). Does the evidence point to an accident or a thoughtful process and design?

If you go to the street and ask people what a radiowave, xray, microwave means, many do not know and that does not mean they exist.
What we have learned so far from the creation is very small and our understanding is far from perfect. The knowledge is more than limitless and there are mysteries. And that is just our universe. Only a woke, blind cretard who does not know 1% of everything about life and the universe will conclude there is no God.

How do you measure God?
Besides, there are many people who strongly believe in the existence of a creator including scientists and politicians but they don't have any religious affiliation...

Now, where does our sense of altruism comes from? Do they evolve from animals?

Lucifyre:

And no people don't accept the big bang and string theory on faith. They accept it cause it's demonstrable with evidence even if they don't fully grasp it. We have evidence of the cosmic microwave background radiation to demonstrate this. Also i never said faith is exclusive to religion i said it's mostly used in religious context there's a big difference. ALso there's no where else apart from religious context where faith is used to demonstrate truth. That's what i said.

.

At the highlighted
You don't even know what you are saying
Read what you wrote and ask yourself if it even makes sense to you
It's like trying to experiment that eating bread and sand is nutritious

Where is the evidence or article or experiment of the big bang done in any lab

Millions of dollars has been spent, notable scientists with the best brains have experimented it individually and as a group and in some of the best labs and best conditions and the result is massive failure. It's either you're lying on nairaland or just assuming

Besides, faith is not mere belief of blind faith. Without evidence, faith is useless

Lucifyre:



Faith is subjective, Truth is objective, Faith is unverifiable, Truth is verifiable.... so it's flawed, rest is just semantics. Logic leads to verifiable objective truth. If faith is a pathway to truth how come so many subjective views?? Miraculous claims are dismissed from historical sources all the time to get the factual data. A lot of historical figures have mythological elements about them that are filtered out, even your cited sources which im sure if you read would have understood the diff between a mythological figure and a historical figure with mythological elements.

On the highlighted
Is it reasonable to reason with someone with such thinking?

Lucifyre:



Faith is subjective, Truth is objective, Faith is unverifiable, Truth is verifiable.... so it's flawed, rest is just semantics. Logic leads to verifiable objective truth. If faith is a pathway to truth how come so many subjective views?? Miraculous claims are dismissed from historical sources all the time to get the factual data. A lot of historical figures have mythological elements about them that are filtered out, even your cited sources which im sure if you read would have understood the diff between a mythological figure and a historical figure with mythological elements.

On the highlighted
Is it reasonable to reason with someone with such thinking?

If truth is subjective
Who are you to argue or convince someone on the issue of faith

TheDevilsBride:

cherry-picking.

You kept repeating this word but failed to see how it's pointing right back at you because if you are truly intelligent you should concentrate on something better than picking only the thing you have left behind and always worried about what is happening there!

Nachmonides:


Ah, I love your responses, thank you.

+ Faith vs. Logic: Can Faith Be Rational?

Your Claim:

Faith, by definition, is belief without proof, which contradicts logic. Faith cannot establish truth because truth is objective, demonstrable, falsifiable, and replicable.

Answer:

Faith is not necessarily opposed to logic—it depends on how one defines it. There’s a difference between:

Blind faith – belief without reason or evidence.

Reasoned faith – trust based on indirect evidence, inference, or probability.


For example:

We "have faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow, though we haven’t yet observed tomorrow.

Scientists “trust” foundational principles (axioms) in math or physics that aren’t empirically proven but are necessary for logical systems to work.

Historians rely on testimonies and documents from the past, trusting sources with reasonable credibility.


Christian philosophers argue that faith in God is not blind but based on logical inference from cosmology (Kalam argument), morality, fine-tuning of the universe, and personal experience. While these may not meet scientific falsifiability standards, neither do many philosophical or historical conclusions, yet they are still considered rational.

Do you disagree?


+ Historical Evidence; Does Jesus’ Mention in Secular Sources Matter?

Your Claim:

Josephus and Tacitus barely mention Jesus, and they don’t affirm miracles or resurrection, so they don’t Christianity’s supernatural claims.

Answer:

Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and other sources collectively confirm:

Jesus was a real historical figure.

He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

He had followers who strongly believed in his resurrection.


While these sources don’t prove supernatural claims, they lend credibility to the idea that early Christians genuinely believed in them. The argument follows: if Jesus’ disciples were willing to die for their claims (rather than it they lied), that at least makes their conviction historically significant.

Additionally, skeptics sometimes say the Gospels are unreliable because they contain miraculous claims. But if we use that logic, should we dismiss all ancient sources that contain supernatural elements, even when they report historical events? Historians analyze all sources critically rather than rejecting them outright.
For example:
I, Alexander the Great – Ancient sources (Arrian, Plutarch) claim he was the son of Zeus and born after his mother was visited by a serpent. Despite this, historians accept his conquests as historical.


II, Julius Caesar – Suetonius and Plutarch mention omens predicting his assassination, like his wife’s dream and a soothsayer’s warning. Historians still accept his life and death as factual.


III, Emperor Vespasian – Tacitus and Suetonius report that he performed miracles, like healing a blind man. His reign as emperor is still historically accepted.


IV, Hannibal’s Alps Crossing – Polybius and Livy describe divine omens before his campaign. Historians accept the event while setting aside the supernatural claims.

Do you disagree?


+ Faith in Non-Religious Contexts

Your Claim:

Faith is mostly used in religious contexts. Logic, however, is universally applicable and used in all fields.

Answer:

Faith is not exclusive to religion. It exists in various forms:

Science: Many accept the Big Bang or string theory without fully understanding the math and physics behind them. This is a form of trust in scientific consensus.

History: People believe historical s (like Alexander the Great’s conquests) without demanding firsthand proof.

Everyday life: Trusting a bridge won’t collapse when you cross it is a form of reasonable faith in engineering and physics.


The key difference is that non-religious faith is typically based on prior evidence and open to testing, whereas religious faith often isn't. However, some argue that religious faith is also based on perceived experiences, philosophical reasoning, and historical claims.

Do you disagree?

+ Biblical Contradictions
Your Claim:

The Bible contradicts itself, making it logically inconsistent.

Answer:
Have you read the bible cover to cover, or your conclusion on the "contradictions" stem from reading one or two or a few pages here and there?

Many so-called contradictions result from:

1. Context differences: Different authors wrote with different perspectives, but this doesn't necessarily mean contradiction.


2. Translation issues: Some discrepancies arise from language differences between Hebrew, Greek, and English.


3. Scribal variations: Minor numerical differences (e.g., different counts of people in genealogies) are common in ancient texts and don’t affect the Bible’s core message.



For example:

Resurrection s: The Gospels describe the resurrection from different viewpoints, but the core claim (Jesus rising) remains consistent. Courts accept varying testimonies as long as the core facts align.

Genealogy of Jesus: Matthew and Luke’s genealogies differ because Matthew traces legal lineage through Joseph, while Luke likely traces biological lineage through Mary.


Critics argue these are contradictions, but theologians say they are harmonizations of different perspectives, not logical inconsistencies.

Do you disagree?

Excellent 👌

Aemmyjah:

On the highlighted
Is it reasonable to reason with someone with such thinking?
If truth is subjective
Who are you to argue or convince someone on the issue of faith

I wonder o!

MaxInDHouse:

You kept repeating this word but failed to see how it's pointing right back at you because if you are truly intelligent you should concentrate on something better than picking only the thing you have left behind and always worried about what is happening there!

Smh, the word salad in this response, has more loose ends than a bowl of spaghetti in a wind tunnel. Not surprising though, especially when your logical framework is built on the shifting sands of selective interpretation. The fact that you've resorted to pointless tu quoque proposals, tells me everything I need to know, that you've finally reached the bottom of your barrel, as far as this topic is concerned. Don't get it twisted, I'm not worried about what's happening in your intellectually stagnant corner of the debate. I simply observe you, much like a nature enthusiast observes a particularly tenacious, stubborn species of beetle clinging to a rapidly eroding heap of steaming dung, lmao.