davien:


No need to be running around in circles and chasing your tails....the very definition of facts define them as verifiable and not mysteries.

fearlesschicken:


Thanks! I think you will be the last person I will be replying on this thread.

I don't believe in them, are you trying to force me or something? I don't seem to like the tone in your words.

So without those things in place you won't live right?

I m trying to keep an open mind here but you people are making things look difficult

davien:
Okay so according to you,your god "enabled" Ebola to possess the genes with which it killed hundreds of innocent people for some unknown reason.....what a sadistic belief!

And science isn't synonymous with atheism,but the scientific answer is because a virus changes over time or evolves,and with each change,a type emerges with a mix of genes that can attack a specific type of cell of closely related species.. that's why HIV/AIDS originated from SIV from chimps..


So now, given these two answers and the fact that the scientific one is as clear as day(HIV is well documented to have emerged from SIV), why should anyone believe a god is remotely responsible in any biological process or this one?

belabela:


I have followed a few of your posts on this topic and I wil say your thinking is interesting, It appears you believe in science as a religion which directly corresponds to you not being a scientist.

I am a scientist and trained with one of the best in the world - Interestingly my mentor is an atheist and I am a christian. My mentor in science is in the top five in our field of science and engineering in the world and I worked with him for 6 years - sysnthesing stuffs, attending conferences and debating science ideas. Why am I telling you this? To give you an insight into my exposure of science. And just to add I have a personal interest in theology and have been touched by the bests in that field too.

Science is not a religon. However there is a growing number of non-scientists like you who are making a religion out of science. There is nothing like, to quote you " the scientific answer". If scientists have that approach research would have stopped long tme ago. This approach is promoted by the media not the science community.

Most pioneers of modern science including charles darwin, isaac newton, albert einstein etc were religious men, they weren't atheist. They believed in God. You may say they have a probelm with the way the church at the time presented God to them - but they did not claim there is no God.

This is what Einstein said “To sense that behind everything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense...I am a devoutly religious man.”

In response to a young girl who had asked him whether he believed in God, he wrote: “everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.”

And on the relationship between religion and science, Einstein declared: “the situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

It will appear that it takes a bigger faith to belive there is no God than to believe there is a God. Macro evolution is not testable over time - i.e. billions of years and there is no evidence that in the last 7000 years any species had completed its macro evolution. Seems there is a gap there. Micro evolution is mere adaption - which is a charateristic of a living thing. If you have no spoons you will use your hand to eat. If you have no hand you may start using your leg or eat like a dog. If your tongue is tied you will make sounds to communcate with your environment. That's not evolution but adaptaion. However some in the scence community argue its part of the evolutionary process.

To conclude there is no singular view on scientific theory. Scientifc laws however are agreed such as the law of gravity but evolution isn't a law but a theory and that means not all scienctists agree with it. Intelligent design theory is out there, like evolution not all scientsts agree with it. So you cannot say the scientific explanation. There are many different scientifc explanations to a problem and though different they are all scientific

belabela:


I have followed a few of your posts on this topic and I wil say your thinking is interesting, It appears you believe in science as a religion which directly corresponds to you not being a scientist.

I am a scientist and trained with one of the best in the world - Interestingly my mentor is an atheist and I am a christian. My mentor in science is in the top five in our field of science and engineering in the world and I worked with him for 6 years - sysnthesing stuffs, attending conferences and debating science ideas. Why am I telling you this? To give you an insight into my exposure of science. And just to add I have a personal interest in theology and have been touched by the bests in that field too.

Science is not a religon. However there is a growing number of non-scientists like you who are making a religion out of science. There is nothing like, to quote you " the scientific answer". If scientists have that approach research would have stopped long tme ago. This approach is promoted by the media not the science community.

Most pioneers of modern science including charles darwin, isaac newton, albert einstein etc were religious men, they weren't atheist. They believed in God. You may say they have a probelm with the way the church at the time presented God to them - but they did not claim there is no God.

This is what Einstein said “To sense that behind everything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense...I am a devoutly religious man.”

In response to a young girl who had asked him whether he believed in God, he wrote: “everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.”

And on the relationship between religion and science, Einstein declared: “the situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

It will appear that it takes a bigger faith to belive there is no God than to believe there is a God. Macro evolution is not testable over time - i.e. billions of years and there is no evidence that in the last 7000 years any species had completed its macro evolution. Seems there is a gap there. Micro evolution is mere adaption - which is a charateristic of a living thing. If you have no spoons you will use your hand to eat. If you have no hand you may start using your leg or eat like a dog. If your tongue is tied you will make sounds to communcate with your environment. That's not evolution but adaptaion. However some in the scence community argue its part of the evolutionary process.

To conclude there is no singular view on scientific theory. Scientifc laws however are agreed such as the law of gravity but evolution isn't a law but a theory and that means not all scienctists agree with it. Intelligent design theory is out there, like evolution not all scientsts agree with it. So you cannot say the scientific explanation. There are many different scientifc explanations to a problem and though different they are all scientific

davien:
einstein made no such statement...
you claim atheists spew claims they know nothing about and have done the very same thing [url] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion [/url]

[b] " "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind." So said Albert Einstein , and his famous aphorism has
been the source of endless debate between believers and non-
believers wanting to claim the greatest scientist of the 20th
century as their own.
A little known letter written by him, however, may help to
settle the argument - or at least provoke further controversy
about his views.
Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a
private collection for more than 50 years, the document
leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no
supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish
superstitions".
Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the
philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book
Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on
public sale a year later and has remained in private hands
ever since.
In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more
than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the
Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends
which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no
matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the
state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that
the Jews are God's favoured people." [/b]

davien:
An addition to your dribble of a post belabela....particularly to your naming of einstein and well known religious scientists....
It's another pathetic fallacy(of fame)....mind you,newton was also an alchemist who made unfruitful attempts to make a philosophers stone' and einstein never made such a comment as "science without religion is lame...",I thrashed that urban myth a long time ago in this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/1932478/reason-why-atheists-dont-cant




The poster was also revealed as a liar and still kept up lying after being exposed....much like what I'm sure would happen with you

johnydon22:
I am a scientist and trained with one of the best scientist in the world (without a name) and someone is proudly sounding as silly as a 6year old.

A self acclaimed scientist in the same breathe tries to personify the scientific identified or stipulated Laws and tag them spirits. . Never knew someone could claim something and at the same time totally kill his own stupendous assertion..

I never knew you would take the self acclaimed scientist serious tho...

Thoniameek:


Without those things in place I won't really know right as it is.....

Far from forcing you, matter of fact no one can. Just trying to sound like a typical naija there, that's all.

An open mind is good, but then, how do you guard against garbage? Maybe that's why things look difficult.....

Ciao anyway

fearlesschicken:


Thanks! I think you will be the last person I will be replying on this thread.

I don't believe in them, are you trying to force me or something? I don't seem to like the tone in your words.

So without those things in place you won't live right?

I m trying to keep an open mind here but you people are making things look difficult

theAtheist101:


What she's trying to tell you is that: you must accept Jesus by force by fire; or else, you would join us, including Jesus (for cooperating with Satan), in going hell!

Thoniameek:


Thank you for elucidating..... Now, that's how a typical Nigerian would say it

fearlesschicken:


The analogy of loving my parents and not believing in their advise is quite silly sorry to say. Yes I love my folks but I don't believe everything they tell me. For christs sake am human and not a robot that would take everything they tell me hook line and sinker.

How are you sure that the bible is the true word of God? If the bible is the true word of God then why the inaccuracies and errors? Isnt God perfect like we believe?

davien:
First of all,I don't care to know who you claim to be on a faceless forum(you could say you were the king of England for all I care)...

Secondly your pathetic straw man is as baseless as they come...(below is your quote)
. "I have followed a few of your posts on this topic and I wil say your thinking is interesting, It appears you believe in science as a religion which directly corresponds to you not being a scientist. "

Now what post have I made declaring that science is a religion?....

It's straw men fallacies like that that made me put up a pun on my profile...(you can look it up...)

Lastly I have nothing to debate with you,knowing you can't tell the difference between a scientific theory and a regular theory(guess)...nor do you know what a scientific consensus is,as is the case with evolution.....a scientific consensus and the veracity of the theory is all there is to show its utility,not a dafted ear outlier crying wolf over...

And as a "scientist", you'd be aware or I believe you should know that outliers or detractors of a theory exists in all fields....from geocentricists,to anti-vaccinators and then your lot the creationists....so either you bring up some factual papers backing up your case or stay mute...it's that simple.

And again...perhaps you failed to understand in your studies as a "scientist" that a scientific answer is one that is testable or verifiable...like the number of people required to avoid inbreeding is 160+...

johnydon22:
I am a scientist and trained with one of the best scientist in the world (without a name) and someone is proudly sounding as silly as a 6year old.

A self acclaimed scientist in the same breathe tries to personify the scientific identified or stipulated Laws and tag them spirits. . Never knew someone could claim something and at the same time totally kill his own stupendous assertion..

I never knew you would take the self acclaimed scientist serious tho...

belabela:



You obviously sounded more naive than I thought. Let me first clarify one thing for you. Your believe in a God or no God has nothing to do with your science or ability to carry out science research. I cited Einstein because alot of atheists try to convince themselves that Einstein was an atheist. But does it matter if Einstein is an atheist or not? I guess it doesn't but just to satisfy your curiosity I will give you a quote from a book you can read in the library.

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." - Albert Einstein (Clark, Ronald W. (1971). Einstein: The Life and Times. New York: World Publishing Company, Page 425)

No opinion is ever dismissed in science. You only use outliers for a data not for a theory. In science we debate opinions not ideas. When a theory is out there, it is a scientific opinion and no scientists will call it an outlier.

There is no consensus on the origin of life in science. And by the way "scientific consensus" is more of a political term than a scientific term. Modern evolution theory, big bang theory, intelligent design theory, and now "life came from aliens" theory etc are all there to explain the origin of life. One thing that is common to all these theories is that you need FAITH because none is testable over time. If you believe modern evolutionary theories for example, we are talking about millions of years to see an ape become a man. That's definitely not testable and not observable.

A scientific method "is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." - Science Daily

If you are part of the science community you will know that those with the big money dictate what research is done today. Research grants are no longer granted to you out of curiosity of knowledge but how it will benefit the guy with the big money or as it's said "benefit the society".

Thoniameek:


Without those things in place I won't really know right as it is.....

Far from forcing you, matter of fact no one can. Just trying to sound like a typical naija there, that's all.

An open mind is good, but then, how do you guard against garbage? Maybe that's why things look difficult.....

Ciao anyway

belabela:



You obviously sounded more naive than I thought. Let me first clarify one thing for you. Your believe in a God or no God has nothing to do with your science or ability to carry out science research.

belabela:


Most pioneers of modern science including charles darwin, isaac newton, albert einstein etc were religious men, they weren't atheist. They believed in God. You may say they have a probelm with the way the church at the time presented God to them - but they did not claim there is no God.

I cited Einstein because alot of atheists try to convince themselves that Einstein was an atheist. But does it matter if Einstein is an atheist or not? I guess it doesn't but just to satisfy your curiosity I will give you a quote from a book you can read in the library.

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." - Albert Einstein (Clark, Ronald W. (1971). Einstein: The Life and Times. New York: World Publishing Company, Page 425)

No opinion is ever dismissed in science. You only use outliers for a data not for a theory. In science we debate opinions not ideas. When a theory is out there, it is a scientific opinion and no scientists will call it an outlier.

And as a "scientist", you'd be aware or I believe you should know that outliers or detractors of a theory exists in all fields ....from geocentricists,to anti-vaccinators and then your lot the creationists

[s]
There is no consensus on the origin of life in science. And by the way "scientific consensus" is more of a political term than a scientific term. Modern evolution theory, big bang theory, intelligent design theory, and now "life came from aliens" theory etc are all there to explain the origin of life. One thing that is common to all these theories is that you need FAITH because none is testable over time. If you believe modern evolutionary theories for example, we are talking about millions of years to see an ape become a man. That's definitely not testable and not observable.

A scientific method "is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." - Science Daily

If you are part of the science community you will know that those with the big money dictate what research is done today. Research grants are no longer granted to you out of curiosity of knowledge but how it will benefit the guy with the big money or as it's said "benefit the society". [/s]

davien:
There I was thinking you've learnt a thing or two about engaging in a debate with me when you've nothing to offer...
Belabela, where did I imply a disbelief or belief has something to do in science?

So far you've been the one quoting Einstein's pantheism view for a support for your personal god(your below initial quote).



And your still continuing...

Why would you respond to what you think a lot of "atheists say",instead of what I'm saying?

Because that'll be a straw man, and so far that's what you've been doing...


*Yawn
Einstein was a pantheist,a personal God is what he didn't favor...

[b]
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind,

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930 [/b]

Eitherway, I don't care for his religious views nor his quotes, the above is just a response to yours..

You can pull quotes from any well-known scientist who supports an outrageous idea and it won't stand on the merit of the person speaking it.

hahaha haha... I needed this good laugh this hot boring day @bolded
I'd need to take my time to explain and eviscerate your garbage... ..

This is the mistake of someone who does not understand what he's talking talking about, but instead of keeping quiet, quickly uses Wikipedia to search and compliment his ignorance..

This is my quote you are responding to(quote below)



Now for somebody who doesn't know what an outlier is(which I've already indicated in the post to be a detractor in this context), you quickly went to Wikipedia and read
"In statistics, an outlier is an observation point that is distant from other observations." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier

Then after wiki-ing, you responded "You only use outliers for a data not for a theory.". . Lol

I'm getting tired of this sloppy copy-paste fellows who don't know anything but to come here and fumble on their own ignorance
.. .
I mean the same Google search had a dictionary where this was written...


someone who stands apart from others of his or her group, as by differing behavior, beliefs, or religious practices:
scientists who are outliers in their views on climate change. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/outlier

But you leaped on to wiki because it was the first you saw when you typed "outlier" ...

When you truly go to school and learn science, then you can come back here to re-write this post, not wiki searching, or pasting science daily articles...claiming to be a scientist who studied under the best of the world, and then fumbling on that claim is something you should stop doing

belabela:



Oh I am just seeing your response.

As I noted in my first reponse to you on this topic you are no scientist.

The above quote only proves that. I once attended an international conference where a Professor of Chemistry made a presentation which as far as I am concerned was "destroying" the work of a nobel laurate,as a research student I asked my professor what he thought about the presentation and he said "I don't like the prersentation myself but I can't fault the science". Why did I tell you this? to point out to you that no theory in science is an outlier ( Just to note you have only used a dictionary definition to "prove" ( which is no prove) that there is a theory in science that is an outlier - you are just like a clown).

Darwins theory of the origin of species was once considered silly. Galileo theory that the earth was not flat was equally once considered silly. You do not wake up and say this theory is an outlier.

me
And as a "scientist", you'd be aware or I believe you should know that outliers or detractors of a theory exists in all fields ....from geocentricists,to anti-vaccinators and then your lot the creationists....so either you bring up some factual papers backing up your case or stay mute...it's that simple

Saying that immediately gives away the fact that you are not a scientist at all. In the science community we use outliers for data (statistics) not theory.

You make a circular argument - where you assume a position to be true and argue around it.

Another evidence that you know nothing of scientific argument or philosphy for that matter. Where does your assumption of wikipedia come from? What evidence of copy and paste do you have? Have you opened the book and find that quote missing? how did you come up with these random rants? Is it a case that when an argument is made you first consult wikipedia to check if you can find it there? Wikipedia can be written by a 12 year old boy but if a 12 year old boy quotes a journal on wikipedia that doesnt make the journal invalid nor does it mean anyone quoting the journal is quoting from wikipedia. I have given a quote from a book that was published you have responded with newspaper articles that does not disprove the quote. I noted that Eisntein may have issues with how God was presented to him but he never claimed there is no God. He was never an atheist and your rants wouldn't change the facts. It will not change the fact that you need FAITH to believe in macro evolution just as you would need FAITH that God exist.

It will not change the fact that scientists have no consensus on the origin of life nor will it change that fact that your religious belive has nothing to do with your science (which is a philosophy) or the ability to carry out scientific research.

Science is not a democracy where you say lets us vote - how many of you agree that evolution is the way we should go? If such votes occur you can talk about consensus. The media talks about science says this or that - which are usually politically driven - because there is no such consensus . In science you are free to think as you like. Your quotes of newspapers indicate that media may inform most of your "science"

me
Eitherway, I don't care for his religious views nor his quotes, the above is just a response to yours..

- when you attend a science conference you will understand that there is no such consensus. For example climate change as a result of human activities is being pushed by western media however there is never a consensus that humans are responsible.

Some claim humans are ultimately responsible, some claim it's a cycle that will pass, others claim nature should be blamed each with solid scientific facts. You dont wake up in your room and say this one is an outlier the other one is the consensus.

In a bid to make an argument you ended up making assumptions for which you have no prove. You sounded more like a clown as I read your response. You even mock science daily - I am sorry to say this but you are really a clown.

boboLIL:
oboy go to hell.....and ur devil ur father there

fearlesschicken:
I believe in a God who creates the world we are in but I don't believe in the bible does it make me less a christian?

I had an argument with a friend of mine, he keep calling me an athiest because I said the bible is inaccurate and I can't leave my life based on a book with so many errors and contradictions.

I don't believe in all this supernatural stuffs either, like witches and wizards,demons etc or some silly doctorines we have in the bible like women being submissive and a divorcee not allowed to get married etc

I just believe in one thing: love!

So am I less a christian for not beliving the bible and all the other things I mentioned? If am not a christian what am I?

Cc:captainjune,winner01,malvinsguy212,
Johnydon22,hahn,davien, etc

fearlesschicken:
I believe in a God who creates the world we are in but I don't believe in the bible does it make me less a christian?

I had an argument with a friend of mine, he keep calling me an athiest because I said the bible is inaccurate and I can't leave my life based on a book with so many errors and contradictions.

I don't believe in all this supernatural stuffs either, like witches and wizards,demons etc or some silly doctorines we have in the bible like women being submissive and a divorcee not allowed to get married etc

I just believe in one thing: love!

So am I less a christian for not beliving the bible and all the other things I mentioned? If am not a christian what am I?

Cc:captainjune,winner01,malvinsguy212,
Johnydon22,hahn,davien, etc

fearlesschicken:


Really I don't know. Kinda lost, but I don't think I can qualify for that atheist position. If you get what I mean, but why do you ask?

fearlesschicken:
I believe in a God who creates the world we are in but I don't believe in the bible does it make me less a christian?

I had an argument with a friend of mine, he keep calling me an athiest because I said the bible is inaccurate and I can't leave my life based on a book with so many errors and contradictions.

I don't believe in all this supernatural stuffs either, like witches and wizards,demons etc or some silly doctorines we have in the bible like women being submissive and a divorcee not allowed to get married etc

I just believe in one thing: love!

So am I less a christian for not beliving the bible and all the other things I mentioned? If am not a christian what am I?

Cc:captainjune,winner01,malvinsguy212,
Johnydon22,hahn,davien, etc

CaptainJune:
Fearlesschicken, many people believe in God but that doesn't make them Christians. The Bible says even the demons believe God exists and they tremble.

Who is a Christian? A Christian is a follower or disciple of Christ. To be a follower of Christ, it means you have surrendered your life to Jesus Christ, and that you believe in His death and resurrection as recorded in the Bible.

The questions now are: have you given your life to Christ, and do you believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

A Christian is different from a passive believer of the existence of God. Your calling yourself a Christian depends on the answers to the questions above.

PastorAIO:


I'd like to know what these words actually meaning, presuming that they are not just empty rhetorics.

What does it mean to be a follower and disciple of Christ?

What does Christ mean?

What does it mean to give your life to christ? Other than saying 'I give my life to christ'.

What is the death and resurrection of christ?

Omotayor123:

And you are sure of going to heaven

boboLIL:
wo bi did mqbeke? Abeg no kari wowo faz de quote...

fearlesschicken:
I believe in a God who creates the world we are in but I don't believe in the bible does it make me less a christian?

I had an argument with a friend of mine, he keep calling me an athiest because I said the bible is inaccurate and I can't leave my life based on a book with so many errors and contradictions.

I don't believe in all this supernatural stuffs either, like witches and wizards,demons etc or some silly doctorines we have in the bible like women being submissive and a divorcee not allowed to get married etc

I just believe in one thing: love!

So am I less a christian for not beliving the bible and all the other things I mentioned? If am not a christian what am I?

Cc:captainjune,winner01,malvinsguy212,
Johnydon22,hahn,davien, etc