Huxley, please I find your whole stance/attitude offensive to Science. Stop wearing science as a badge as if your opinions and science are synonymous.

I can't speak for bluespice but what I understood by her statement is that If the likes of you are the custodians of Science (which you're not, thank God!) then the future of science is doomed.

Furthermore, the fact that a theory works and is supported by evidence does not mean that the theory is a fact in itself. Just like Miasma theory worked. If you clear the area of decomposing stuff your health will improve. That doesn't mean that the theory is the Truth, that disease travels in the odour of rotting objects.

If my house gets burgled to use your analogy, and I walk down the street looking for the culprit and I pounce on a guy who seemed to have a guilty look on his face and arrest him . . . if after taking him to prison we then discover that he was the culprit and I recover all my goods in his house does that mean that my methodology of pouncing on guilty looking persons is the proper way of discovering the culprit. Many theories, maybe all theories, work under limited conditions. Some theories work at night only, Other's work at a certain temperature, others work at a certain scale, whether sub atomic, or intergalactic.

Huxley please go and find out more about what you're talking about before you keep embarrassing yourself. If you want to convince people away from religion then you will need to really know what you are talking about. At the very least you need a tight argument, not one with soo many holes that have nothing but your vitriol to progress it.

Pastor AIO:

Huxley, please I find your whole stance/attitude offensive to Science.  Stop wearing science as a badge as if your opinions and science are synonymous. 

What specifically about my position on science do you find offensive?  I would like to see instances where my opinion violates the basic tenets of science.

It is particularly frustrating when people make claims and accusation without provide any evidence or substantiation to buttress their claims.

Pastor AIO:

I can't speak for bluespice but what I understood by her statement is that If the likes of you are the custodians of Science (which you're not, thank God!) then the future of science is doomed.

That is NOT what she said.  This is what she said, which in no way bears any resemblance to what you just stated.

the fate of science i laughable at best

Pastor AIO:

Furthermore, the fact that a theory works and is supported by evidence does not mean that the theory is a fact in itself. Just like Miasma theory worked.  If you clear the area of decomposing stuff your health will improve.  That doesn't mean that the theory is the Truth, that disease travels in the odour of rotting objects. 

Man, how many time am I going to explain the difference between a theory and the facts that support the theory.  It is really frustrating to have to go over this again.

A theory is NOT an fact.  Theories are human conceptualisation of natural phenomenon (facts).  They are different things - the one man-made, the other natural.  Hope this example will help you;

[table]
[tr][td]Facts[/td][td]The Theory[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Objects attract each other [/td][td]The Theory of Gravity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Some germs cause diseases[/td][td]The Germ Theory of disease[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]The Universe is expanding[/td][td]The Big Bang Theory[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lifeform undergone change[/td][td]The Theory of Evolution[/td][/tr]

[/table]

Where have I conflated these two notions? I do not think I have.  I would like to see evidence that I have conflated them.

Basically, the Miasmatic theory of disease has been replaced by a far better theory with greater explanatory powers.  While it had some merits, it did not have the power of the germ theory.  The germ theory identified the particular agents responsible for disease, viz, germs, bacteria, virus.  These terms were unknown to the Miasmatic theory.

Example - some advocate of Miasmatic theory strongly resisted the washing of hands by doctors and surgeons in hospital because they believed that only the air in the hospital were responsible for diseases. In fact, under this theory, the idea of infections and cross-infection would hardly have developed to what it is today.

Basically, the only thing Miasmatic theory had going for it was the fact that it identified the air as a medium for the transport of diseases.

Science is about improving human understanding of reality. Where a better explanation comes along that explains all or most of the facts, that theory replaces the old one. Hence, my earlier charge that the teaching of medicine based on Miasmatic theory would be a retrograde step. But it does not mean that it should not be mentioned as one of the theories that once held sway. The danger is that no scholarly programme would ever complete if time was spent examining every superceded theory from the past. Imagine having to learn what the Egyptians, Igbos, Japanese, Eskimos, Pigins, Native American,etc, etc,etc thought about diseases from 8000 years ago till the present. Which ones should you examine in details? Would ever have completed school if education in all the various subjects was conducted on this basis?

Pastor AIO:

If my house gets burgled to use your analogy, and I walk down the street looking for the culprit and I pounce on a guy who seemed to have a guilty look on his face and arrest him . . .  if after taking him to prison we then discover that he was the culprit and I recover all my goods in his house does that mean that my methodology of pouncing on guilty looking persons is the proper way of discovering the culprit.  Many theories, maybe all theories, work under limited conditions.  Some theories work at night only, Other's work at a certain temperature, others work at a certain scale, whether sub atomic, or intergalactic. 

This was just vacuous rambling.  I don't know what you are trying to get at here.

Pastor AIO:

Huxley please go and find out more about what you're talking about before you keep embarrassing yourself.  If you want to convince people away from religion then you will need to really know what you are talking about.  At the very least you need a tight argument, not one with soo many holes that have nothing but your vitriol to progress it. 

Where are the holes in my arguments?  Some examples would be useful.

huxley:

What specifically about my position on science do you find offensive?  I would like to see instances where my opinion violates the basic tenets of science.

It is particularly frustrating when people make claims and accusation without provide any evidence or substantiation to buttress their claims.

Are you suggesting that Einteinian mechanics invalidated Newtonian mechanics? If so, how come we are able to design bridges, buildings, satellites, space travel etc using Newtonian mechanics if the latter was invalid?

The whole premise of this question/statement shows that for one attempting to wield science as a sword, your swordmanship is pathetic. Theories don't invalidate theories. Facts invalidate theories. Einstein's theories propose a cosmos that is so utterly different from Newton's as to be mutually exclusive. We can either live in an Einsteinian world or live in Newtonian world. As it happens Facts invalidates Newton when applied to large scales. Facts invalidate Einstein when it's applied to subatomic scales.

To strut around as if you are a champion of science is, frankly, nauseating.

bluespice:

. . . all this goes back to my post

huxley, theories are products of educated guesses

if with your "education" u pass of guesses whether educated or not as facts,

the fate of science i laughable at best

Moving on to the blue spice matter, though I'm hesitant to speak for other people, looking at what she said in context, her statement started with an "IF". To paraphrase her, "If you cannot tell the difference between a theory and a fact (and you are a champion of science) the the Fate of Science is laughable". I don't want to go on about this until she can come and speak for herself, but that was my understanding.

Man, how many time am I going to explain the difference between a theory and the facts that support the theory. It is really frustrating to have to go over this again.

Oh, you're the one that feels a need to explain it to me. Well thank you very much for your consideration. LOL

This was just vacuous rambling. I don't know what you are trying to get at here.

I see that your understanding is strained. Okay, I'll break it down to bite size pieces for you. First I was using your analogy of a burgled home so we could stay on the same metaphor. I didn't think that you'd trip over your own metaphor. It must be your advanced scientific mind.
The point I made is that even when a method based on a certain theory 'works' that it could just be a lucky coincidence or due to it's approximating the truth, but even then that doesn't mean that it is truth.

Where are the holes in my arguments? Some examples would be useful.

Well the biggest Hole that springs to mind is your vain attempts to apply scientific discoveries to demonstrating a proof that God does not exist. Please can you tell me how dumb that is?

@Huxley. Please Huxley, I also want you to note that when engaged in a conversation I have the courtesy to respond even when the other discussant is starting to talk crap.

That is like scientists freaking out because Einstein's theory of Gravity is being taught alongside Newton's theory of Gravity.  If you are so sure of the veracity of your theory then allow for pupils to be taught all theories and to choose for themselves.

Can you explain what you meant by the above statement?   I did not quite get your meaning.  That is why is my response I used the word "suggesting"  while refering to that comment. Further,  my question was NOT a rhetorical question. Because you used  the words "freaking out" which meant the sense you may have wanted to convey was obscured, I was really seeking for more explanation.

My response was in the form of question, seeking more explanation for your comment.

Are you suggesting that Einteinian mechanics invalidated Newtonian mechanics?  If so, how come we are able to design bridges, buildings, satellites, space travel etc using Newtonian mechanics if the latter was invalid?

In fact, I debated what word to use in place of "invalidate".  I tried "falsified", "obsoleted", first, but felt they did not sound right, but settled with "invalidated" because it sounded simple.

In the strict sense, you are right - Theories replace other theories,  but the facts falsify or uphold  theories.  Mark you, nowhere have I said the opposite.

I probably owe bluespice an apology.  Having re-read her comment, I think I get the point she was making. The poor formating of her comment did hamper comprehension.  We are all quilty of that (poor formating & writing) sometimes.

. . . all this goes back to my post

huxley, theories are products of educated guesses

if with your "education" u pass of guesses whether educated or not as facts,

the fate of science i laughable at best

But I still take umbrage at the comment.  I would like to challenge her to show where I have been passing off "educated guesses"  as facts.  "educated guesses" are at worst just guesses or at best hypotheses, which are NOT facts.  Where are the "educated guesses"  I have been passing off as facts?

I see that your understanding is strained.  Okay, I'll break it down to bite size pieces for you.  First I was using your analogy of a burgled home so we could stay on the same metaphor.  I didn't think that you'D trip over your own metaphor.  It must be your advanced scientific mind.
The point I made is that even when a method based on a certain theory 'works' that it could just be a lucky coincidence or due to it's approximating the truth, but even then that doesn't mean that it is truth.

The point I was making with the analogy of the burglarised house in the absence to any witnesses is with modern scientific methods it is possible to gather evidence from the scene of the crime which might lead to the culprit of the crime.  However, that does not stop you from luckily stumbling onto the culprit.

The point about science is to NOT having to rely on such lucky coincidence.  Hence, the need to systematise the scientific methodology. Built within the scientific method is the notion of repeatability and verifiability.  Any procedure that relies on luck would NOT be considered scientific for these reasons, and of course, it would lack objectivity.

Scientists may arrive at breakthroughs by serendipity (like the discovery of pennecilin) but having made that breakthrough, if the discovery then passes all the other test of science, then it is treated as scientifically recognised outcome.

A propos the atheism questions, you may be interested to learn that some of the best arguments for atheism are actually NOT scientific in nature.  They are rather metaphysical. I have got a library of books of the most prominent atheist philosopher in the last 100 years.  Guys like J L Mackie, Theodore Drange, Walter Kaufmann, George Smith, David Eller, Nicholas Everrett, etc.  These scholars argue to atheism with little scientific input.  So the argument for atheism comes from many different lines, science being just one of them.

Science help in understand nature, and to the extend that understand reality, this does NOT conform with the god (and his acts) of tradition monotheism as narrated in their holy books.

Did god create the world in seven days?  Versus  Big Bang Cosmology
Did he subsequently flood the earth killing everyone?  Versus  Geology
Are all humans spontaneous creations from mud about 6000 years ago?  Versus The Theory of Evolution.

What would you do if most of the main tenets of you worldview are contradicted by the evidence?  Would you continue to hold that worldview or would you discard them and go on the side of the evidence?

oh my gosh!
huxley u havproved the very first statement i made as a reply to this thread
u have no idea how to maintain a discussion
geez!
i have strived to make my posts as easy to understand as possible
going to great lenghts to abstain from "big words" and ambigous statements so as not to distabilise ur otherwise myopic method of reasoning
but u have shown that all my efforts were in vain

pls how hard is my post to comprehend?

and for asking me about the "educated guesses" u have passed of as facts,
lets start with the basis of ur "argument" The Theory of Evolution

my breaking down of wat a theory is and wat a law is has clearly shown that though the Theory explains a lot, it still is first and foremost a Theory and not a law

Davidylan, Pilgrim 1 and so many others have shown u repeatedly over the course of this thread the many probabilities and assumptions u have passed off as facts
if u cant remember,
do yourself the favour of going through this thread from the begining

bluespice:

oh my gosh!
huxley u havproved the very first statement i made as a reply to this thread
u have no idea how to maintain a discussion
geez!
i have strived to make my posts as easy to understand as possible
going to great lenghts to abstain from "big words" and ambigous statements so as not to distabilise your otherwise myopic method of reasoning
but u have shown that all my efforts were in vain

please how hard is my post to comprehend?

and for asking me about the "educated guesses" u have passed of as facts,
lets start with the basis of your "argument" The Theory of Evolution

my breaking down of what a theory is and what a law is has clearly shown that though the Theory explains a lot, it still is first and foremost a Theory and not a law

Davidylan, Pilgrim 1 and so many others have shown u repeatedly over the course of this thread the many probabilities and assumptions u have passed off as facts
if u can't remember,
do yourself the favour of going through this thread from the begining

My dear, a little advice - could you work a little on your punctuation and formatting. As it is, there is no knowing where sentences start/end, no capitalisation, you are hitting the carriage return at mid-sentence, etc, etc.  Makes for difficulties in reading.  Did you take a class in puntuation at school.  Anyway, that is by the bye.

my breaking down of what a theory is and what a law is has clearly shown that though the Theory explains a lot, it still is first and foremost a Theory and not a law

Lets examine the above statement, shall we?  Where have you shown that?  If you make such a claim, would it not be expected that you would show the evidence for your claim?  Where is it?

If you make an accusation, the onus is on you to provide the evidence, not the other way round.  Show Nairaland the assumptions, probabilities, theories, etc, etc I have passed off as facts.

are u serious?
like are u for real

for someone of ur calibre,
u definitely have selective reading abilities

go to the 2nd and 3rd pages of this thread is all i've got to say

and for my skipping punctuations class,
i was busy learning how to make factual and strong arguments so pardon me

bluespice:

are u serious?
like are u for real

for someone of your calibre,
u definitely have selective reading abilities

go to the 2nd and 3rd pages of this thread is all i've got to say

and for my skipping punctuations class,
i was busy learning how to make factual and strong arguments so pardon me

The burden of proof is on you. Until then you charge remains baseless and unsubstantiated. Not surprising since you are approaching this with the religious mindset, a mindset that does not admit of the rigours of evidence.

bluespice:

are u serious?
like are u for real

for someone of your calibre,
u definitely have selective reading abilities

go to the 2nd and 3rd pages of this thread is all i've got to say

and for my skipping punctuations class,
i was busy learning how to make factual and strong arguments so pardon me

CAn you remember one of the 10 Commandments that goes "Thou shalt NOT bear false witness against thy neighbour"?  I Think you are coming close to falling foul of this commandment. You owe to yourself to redeem yourself  by providing evidence for what you charge against me.

ok now the word theory
lets go back to the basic scientific processes

first of all u make an observation- in this case existence of fossils etc

then a hypothesis is made - whatever it was we don't know today

then a prediction- for now ill go with they were created and still exist or something like that

then the true test the experimentation step- this is where all the previous steps will be subjected to tests
this point, the findings are called Theories as they are proven but no extensive research that proves that without any doubt the prediction is true

when a theory is able to pass this stage then and only then is it a law

now note this theory of evolution is still a theory why?

no research can ultimately prove that the theory of evolution is the reason and only explanation for fossils

ok i digressed a bit but do u see where i going to?

this are my exact words
on the 2nd page of this thread
but u clearly overlooked this tiny bit of information

huxley:

CAn you remember one of the 10 Commandments that goes "Thou shalt NOT bear false witness against thy neighbour"? I Think you are coming close to falling foul of this commandment. You owe it yo yourself to redeem yourself by providing evidence for what you charge against me.

emm pls do u know the meaning of the said commandment?
if u do,
u'lld know i have in no way fallen foul of it

bluespice:

this are my exact words
on the 2nd page of this thread
but u clearly overlooked this tiny bit of information


emm please do u know the meaning of the said commandment?
if u do,
u'lld know i have in no way fallen foul of it

ok now the word theory
lets go back to the basic scientific processes

first of all u make an observation- in this case existence of fossils etc

then a hypothesis is made - whatever it was we don't know today

then a prediction- for now ill go with they were created and still exist or something like that

then the true test the experimentation step- this is where all the previous steps will be subjected to tests
this point, the findings are called Theories as they are proven but no extensive research that proves that without any doubt the prediction is true

when a theory is able to pass this stage then and only then is it a law

now note this theory of evolution is still a theory why?

no research can ultimately prove that the theory of evolution is the reason and only explanation for fossils

ok i digressed a bit but do u see where i going to?

OK, punctuation and formating aside, I see what you are trying to say. But my charge to you is that you claim a law is the ultimate explanation for observed phenomenon. And I say, not neccesarily. In fact, the use of laws in science is fast falling into disuse. Although in some cases theory and law are used interchangeably.

Check the following theories;

The gravitational theory
The general theory of relativity
The Germ theory of Disease
The Atomic Theory
etc

By your reckoning, are you saying that these are not accepted as well supported (because they are NOT laws)?

If a hypothesis is very well supported by the facts, it is generally taken as a theory and all of the above meet the criteria of scientific theory. Surprise Surprise, they are NOT generally called Laws.

Check out these sites. They may help your understanding;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law


Now, where is the evidence that I am passing off theories, "educated guesses" as facts? You still have not provided these.

if u want to know,
go back a few pages
if u dont want to come to terms with that fact that ur basis of this entire thread is wrong,
i really dunno wat else to say

I rest my case

One little step forward. so you agree that one's presence is not required in order to study the past.

Clearly you do not know a great deal about science. Roughly speaking, it is a systematic methodology for investigating nature. It does not claim perfection, but that does not mean that it cannot get close to it.

In my previous career as a design engineer we designed and build engineering installations from Nuclear power station, offshore platform, etc using the value of pi = 3.14 and g=10. These were perfectly good and safe design. However, these are not the precise values of these parameters, but those approximations were good enough to be useful.

So too are many areas of science. What is the precise mass of a hydrogen atom? Well no one know, I suppose, but we have an approximation good enough to allow the design of nuclear reactors, X-ray machines, etc, etc.

Using the same techniques, we can derive good enough approximations of the past. And science is honest and cautious enough to say just that. Hence, the tentative nature of the description you posted.

Have you ever heard of radiometric dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating)? RD are particularly accurate (not precise. I hope you understand the distinction) at determining dates in the distant past. Carbon dating has a limit to about 100000 years and beyond that RD is used.

Have you ever heard of a phenomena called magnetism? It too can be used to study the history of the earth. The earth has an enveloping magnetic field, which permanently leaves its imprints on rocks as the solidify from say, lava. Studying the orientation of magnetisation in rock it is possible to trace the positions and movement of rocks over the crust of the earth.

Man, do yourself a favour and educate yourself, rather than drinking from the cesspit of religion and the bible.

Oh dear, if you are able to understand this, how are you not able to understand faith. You too are going by faith in sceince. You have experienced it to be somewhere around the truth, so why is it so hard for you to believe that we too have experienced God to be the truth. It's not like we're saying we know everything about him, no we're going off of the findings or evidences revealed to others in the past. Just as you are going off of evidences by others in the past.
Some of us are going by witnesses, and some are going by being those witnesses ourselves. I happen to be one going by being a witness myself. So just as you have your evidences I too have my own evidence.

By the way dear I know about evolution. I kinda hated being in class though, but you know everyone hates classes, well the most of us anyway.
I chose to believe in God. I know evolution to not be a fact but educated guesses, and a if this is resembles that, then therefore the origin of that must be from this. But it doesn't mean in the least that it is fact, but ideas put together to quench the curiousity of others or at least make them think they've answered the questions of the universe.
As scientists are busy trying to understand the universe so are theologians busy trying to understand the Supreme Being and His connection to the world.
Science has it's mysteries that it is trying to solve so I don't know why you all have a problem with the mysteries of Christianity. It's not like you all have science all figured out.
So before you point a finger check yourself.

if any thing the forceful propagation of christianty according to history is probably more brutal than the propagation of islam

if any thing the forceful propagation of christianty according to history is probably more brutal than the propagation of islam

You must not have read the Bible

vivaladiva:

if any thing the forceful propagation of christianty according to history is probably more brutal than the propagation of islam

forceful propagation? where?

My problem with all this christian bible wielding twits is just that they are like an army of ants. The more you swipe them away, the more they multiple and sting you to death. They are everywhere. 85% of them havent really read that damn book called the bible and only rely on the passages the pastors quote for them to read during their miracle hour.

You ask a typical christian apologist to preach to you and he rants endlessly about the various good passages and screams 'the bible said this, the bible said that, my father in heaven blurted out this etc" but when you show them the utterly nauseating and noxious parts of the bible which they knowingly skip and hope no one notices, they immediately try to explain the metaphorical aspect of it and tell you that you shouldnt quote the bible out of context but you should read it as a whole. It really doesnt make any iota of sense.

The christian world would be much better if they at least conceed to an extent that some parts in the bible are good and some parts are devilishly rotten. But trusting my bible wielding fanatics, they will never admit that and never criticize such obtuse passages that encourages slavery, murders, misgomyn and a host of utterly wicked things in the bible. Imagine a story like Noah. After he came out of the ark, the first thing he did was to till the soil and create a vineyard and became drunk. Why dont pastors teach their teenage congregation this beautiful and morally uplifting story?

I dont give excuses that science is better than creationism but i use logic to ask questions. When you replace logic with belief, then it gives the christians a better platform to brain wash you more. Take out the toga of belief from christianity and they are left with absolutely nothing.

For example a christian will say god created the heavens and the earth but when a biblical unbeliever asks, where did god come from before he created the heavens and the earth, then you hear all sorts of nonsensical explanations that defile reasoning and when they are out of options they come out with totally ridiculous explanations that create fear such as "dont question the lord your god or the lord operates in a mysterious way or you have to uplift your spiritual life to understand god", yeah right!

Prior to that time they had no problem explaining john 3:16 without god working in a mysterious way and sharing pamphlets. When you ask them about the horror commandments given by god in exodus 21, they will tell you that was the god of the old testament as if there are 2 gods in the bible.

Christians never for once amaze me how they can condone such murders and horrific stories done by their god and still open their mouths that such a book is holy. I have always asked my self this question. If god did all these killings and genocidic activities in the bible, then what can satan do to beat such atrocities?

If this is not brain washing at its best, then i dont know what else the defination of brain washing is again.

P:S: Imagine a bible wielding twit that came to a beer palor yesterday to solicit for funds to build a N20MILLION NAIRA church for one of these pentecoastal business franchises. I totally enjoyed the way my dawgs told him off to gerrout .

It is this same twit that would climb the pulpit and preach against people that drink and smoke and warn their daughters not to marry or date people like us but has the audacity to look for money amongst sinners These churches are nothing more than micro finance banks sourcing for clients wherever and instead of paying marketers, they recruit dense and gullible volunteers to market the church and give them targets, haaaaaaaaaa! What a joke!

Hi Zino Ben,

Zino Ben:

My problem with all this christian bible wielding twits is just that they are like an army of ants. The more you swipe them away, the more they multiple and sting you to death.

When people make such assumptions, it constitutes a sad misrepresentation of what a dialogue is. The goal of reason is not to "swipe" anyone, be that as it may. And no Christian I know would conscientiously sting you to death.

Zino Ben:

. . but when you show them the utterly nauseating and noxious parts of the bible which they knowingly skip and hope no one notices, they immediately try to explain the metaphorical aspect of it and tell you that you shouldnt quote the bible out of context but you should read it as a whole. It really doesnt make any iota of sense.

The same could be said about atheistic rationalists who are too embarrassed to account for the nauseating record that such philosophy upholds. Just because not many people are actually repeating the sad results of atheistic creeds does not mean that nobody is aware of them.

The christian world would be much better if they at least conceed to an extent that some parts in the bible are good and some parts are devilishly rotten. But trusting my bible wielding fanatics, they will never admit that and never criticize such obtuse passages that encourages slavery, murders, misgomyn and a host of utterly wicked things in the bible. Imagine a story like Noah. After he came out of the ark, the first thing he did was to till the soil and create a vineyard and became drunk. Why don't pastors teach their teenage congregation this beautiful and morally uplifting story?


@ Zino Ben
Most Christian haters tend to criticise Xtians on the basis of hypocrisy and logic, however they tend to unveil their own vapidity through statements like the one above. i m so confused as to where to start explaining stuff to you based on your obvois lack of knowledge. If i was an atheist, or a bible basher i would have interpreted the Noah story as being 'real' in the sense that it does not attempt to paint Noah as a saint,  i.e it does not attempt to create a fairy tale out of a 'fairyer than fairy tale story'. that implies that maybe the writer of the story was actually writing about 'real people' and 'real events'.or maybe the writer s just a really really smart guy.

The christian world would be much better if they at least conceed to an extent that some parts in the bible are good and some parts are devilishly rotten. But trusting my bible wielding fanatics, they will never admit that and never criticize such obtuse passages that encourages slavery, murders, misgomyn and a host of utterly wicked things in the bible. Imagine a story like Noah. After he came out of the ark, the first thing he did was to till the soil and create a vineyard and became drunk. Why don't pastors teach their teenage congregation this beautiful and morally uplifting story?

My own father taught me that story several times . . . the bible isnt all about the good, it also records bad things and the consequences for such mistakes. Noah paid for his error through his son Ham.

One thing atheists cant wrap their heads around is the fact that the bible is equally a message of salvation as it is a collection of early jewish history.

Na wa for this religious section. Which kind post be this.

I am sure the next one will be How To Set Your Congregation on Fire The Christian Way.

One thing atheists can't wrap their heads around is the fact that the bible is equally a message of salvation as i[b]t is a collection of early jewish history.[/b]

does that mean Maccabees should be included in the bible??

bawomolo:

does that mean Maccabees should be included in the bible??

it is not mine to decide.

does that mean Maccabees should be included in the bible??

It is already included.

~Lady~:

It is already included.

its not included in the bible that davidlylan reads daily. . . . so as far as he is concerened its not part of the bible. . . its now up to you to prove to him that it was inspired by the same god you guys worship. . . . . sebi no be jesus wuna both dey worship. . . . why does his bible differ from yours?. . . . . .

because maccabes is not included in the protestant version of the bible deos not mean it was not inspired by God. All xtians might agree that my post here was inspired by God, but does that mean it has to be included in the bible?

naijacutee:

IMO, Aethists are just as brainwashed as they propose christians to be. They have just as much faith in their "coming from nothing" theories, preach just as much - howbeit even more smugly. I think they are well on their way to being an "organised" non-religion - which will be a laugh in the face of all the "organised religion" protests.

you make me laugh. . .do you believe all the stories myth in the bible like the noah's ark, tower of babel, adam and eve story, talking donkey, talking snake, turning water into wine how come no body is able to turn water into wine today or make donkeys talk?

IMO, Aethists are just as brainwashed as they propose christians to be. They have just as much faith in their "coming from nothing" theories, preach just as much - howbeit even more smugly.

Actually, that's simply not true. And I say that as a non-atheist.

It's the religious drones of this world who are always trying to shove their beliefs into the faiths of others who are the problem. The vast majority of atheists are merely countering and defending against this attack. The majority of atheists I've met and talked to certainly do not seem to be "brain-washed". In fact totally the opposite. They make the decision to be atheist without having people shove that view down their throat and whilst actually having to defend against converting religions. Granted, that choice is not one I would pick for myself, but to accuse them of preaching as much as Christians or of being brain-washed does a big disservice to a large part of the human race and is entirely contradictory.

That's certainly not to say that there isn't a type of fundamentalist atheist out there. But compare their numbers to the amount of fundamental Christians spouting their stuff and it's minimal.

Suppose the world witnesses the descent of a great entity from the sky. This being proclaims that its name is God the creator of the earth and the time for the world to end has finally arrived. Needless to say, most people are going to want to see proof of its claims. Whatever miracles one requests of the decended God, he is happy to oblige. He has the power to make mountains rise and fall at will. He can set the oceans ablaze at the snap of a finger. He can even return life to those who died thousands of years ago. God can do anything asked of him by anybody. Then, someone from the gathered crowd makes an inquiry as to which religion holds the absolute truth. God replies, “The religion of truth is Islam. The Qur’an is my one and only holy word. All other religious texts, including the Bible, are entirely blasphemous. All those who don’t acknowledge the koran as my word will undergo a lengthy punishment for not following my teachings. Now is your chance to repent or else you will suffer eternaly in hell for ever.”

     What choice do the Christian community make in this situation? This deity has already demonstrated that it possesses the omnipotence and omniscience of a supreme being. Do Christians readily switch over to the side of observable and testable evidence, or do they declare that this being is the Devil tempting their faith in God? Think about it for a minute because it’s an interesting predicament. I believe we all know that a good portion of Christians would denounce this new being in order to please “the one true God, Heavenly Father of Jesus.” As a result of their collective decision, the supernatural entity forces them to undergo unimaginable torment for a few weeks before offering them a final chance to repent. Do the Christians embrace the teachings of this creature after experiencing its capabilities firsthand, or do they still consider it the final test and refuse to denounce their faith in the Bible?

     What exactly is the meaning of this example? No matter what level of sophisticated evidence contrary to their beliefs might be provided, some Christians will always find a way to set aside reasoned thought in favor of what they have always been thoroughly conditioned to believe. If Christians won’t accept the answers of such a powerful creature, how would they ever have the capacity to make informed and impartial choices based on evidence presented by their peers?

naijacutee:

IMO, Aethists are just as brainwashed as they propose christians to be. They have just as much faith in their "coming from nothing" theories, preach just as much - howbeit even more smugly. I think they are well on their way to being an "organised" non-religion - which will be a laugh in the face of all the "organised religion" protests.

here comes the ignorance of some theists, what coming from nothing theories?? for the last time, evolution is not a theory about creation. the big bang deals with all of that hoopla. at least there is room for revision in science.    unlike theists, atheists have no basis for an organized movement. organize for what, to go to atheist paradise??