odijeks:
Chemical reactions that occurred spontaneously without any aim, direction or guidiance produced life.

Who said the reactions had no direction? Don't conflate "spiritual guidance" with natural patterns - the latter can exist without the former according to everything we've observed in nature thus far. The formation of galaxies, planets, and organisms all follow specific, stepwise processes that obey the laws of physics. There is indeed order involved, there's just no reason to assume that said order requires a mind to operate.

Yet, with aim and intent, supervision and intelligence, we can't replicate what nature did spontaneously billions of years ago.

Yeah, yet. Realize that modern biological science has only been around for what, 200 or so years? Compared to the 180,000+ year long existence of human beings. Science is a NEW thing, and in its relatively short time it's been able to do things that would have been unimaginable in our primitive days. Specifically in the realm of biology, we've done things like create functional artificial limbs & organs for people, see the tiny cells that make up human bodies and test for the presence of specific diseases, synthesize chemicals that target specific areas of those cells effectively and reliably. We have even cloned entire organisms by manually transplanting DNA.

Why, then, do you think that human-guided generation of life from simple building blocks could not one day become possible? If you follow the latest biological research you would see that we are getting closer and closer to such capabilities. And even if for whatever reason we never accomplish it, how would that prove Yahweh? All it would prove is that our human minds were incapable (at least, given the time we had; who knows how long our species will survive & keep doing science) of assembling certain things nature is able to assemble through it's natural processes. Stars and galaxies seem to be in that category (things humans understand but can't assemble ourselves) but we don't need to invoke deities to explain how stars form. We already know the process - just because we can't do it ourselves doesn't mean it's supernatural rather than natural.

What you're presenting here is the god of the gaps argument. You're saying that because there are certain things we don't yet understand, or can't yet do, god must be the answer. Unfortunately that argument fails on many fronts, some of which I've outlined already. And most of all, it puts your god idea in the "ever-receeding pocket of scientific ignorance". The more we discover about how our universe works, the more your god & his assumed capabilities shrink.

sonOfLucifer:

[size=18pt]The day there's proof of God, faith becomes useless.[/size]

Good one bro.

smogup:
true 0 comes before 1. What is zero. If I say there are 0 oranges on the table, am simply saying there are no oranges there. Zero means nothing even in maths.

That is the extent of your understanding

Men created god and gods out of their imaginations.

Dudeweedlmao:
Most atheist (especially on nairaland) are some of the most pretentious and repressed homosexuals i've ever known
The only reason why they believe GOD doesn't exist is because of what the read on the internet.

In a typical athiest mind : "if it is written on the internet or by a white man, then it must be true. "

And the bible was written by who? Your ancestors?

edcode:


And the bible was written by who? Your ancestors?

Enough already, i thought this thread died yesterday.

Jethrolite:
I don't say things for the fun of it, please read

http://news.discovery.com/human/life/theists-atheists-religion-130815.htm

http://www.strangenotions.com/atheists-higher-iqs/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

It may appear so, because most religious people are unquestioning followers. This is because most of them were born into a religion.

There is no evidence that non religious people are more intelligent than religious ones. Are you trying to tell us that in the larger scientific world, that religious people did nothing? Even Pythagoras was religious.

What you have going for irreligious people is the need to compensate for lack of belief with facts.

As I said earlier, Jehovah's witnesses are the only Christian group who bother staying on their toes in religion.

SirWere:


Not all atheists argue with Science. And why should we not?? Science, from what we know, is the only thing capable of seperating facts from falsehood; it is one of the main instruments of reason we have.

You say Science STARTED with theist. I say you're wrong. No doubt, very many theists contributed to it; even helped it grow. But tracking the lives of those theists, one can see that they took faith and reason seperately and they were noticeably less religious than their counterparts. Like Immanuel Kant said

"I limit my reason so I may have faith" or something like that

Point is, even the very first scientists were religious.

One thing with religion is that it must be taken with a dose of docility and absolute belief. The same way irreligious people take their disbelief with stubborn inability to see what theists see, so also theists stubbornly see what they want to.

I am yet to see an atheist who just disbeliefs without them dragging science into the mix. Hence science is the true belief of atheists. A theist will try to make you believe what they do, but an atheist will like to make you believe in science. And science is simply not atheism, so why do all the atheist use it as a shield? How about you guys try to reason the absence of a god without science?

Besides, all theists believe in science. Science is a standard attainable to all intelligent beings. No theist ever said that iron floats in water but they agree that it miraculously did in the Bible and still can. Is that the absence of reasoning/intellect?

It's a bit boring to see atheists use science, which everybody is familiar with, to try and sound logical.
And because of that you get atheists who think that atheists are more intellectual than theists. But we all live in this same world of science and have the exact same facts, so why do atheists act like they know it better?


y, each to their beliefs. The end justifies the belief.

Tellemall:


It may appear so, because most religious people are unquestioning followers. This is because most of them were born into a religion.

There is no evidence that non religious people are more intelligent than religious ones. Are you trying to tell us that in the larger scientific world, that religious people did nothing? Even Pythagoras was religious.

What you have going for irreligious people is the need to compensate for lack of belief with facts.

As I said earlier, Jehovah's witnesses are the only Christian group who bother staying on their toes in religion.

You are missing the point, I didn't say atheists are smarter than all theists. I said the average atheist is smarter than the average theist. The key word is average and there are major research from very reputable institutions to prove it.

my God is real!

Jethrolite:
You are missing the point, I didn't say atheists are smarter than all theists. I said the average atheist is smarter than the average theist. The key word is average and there are major research from very reputable institutions to prove it.

Not even in averages are they.

Given equal exposure it simply boils down to regular demographics of intelligence.

There is the difference between a person who willfully discards a thing they believe to be against their religion and one who doesn't know better.

neocortex:


You are right, that is why I tell my friend that a yellow flying vampire created the world and
everything in it, I even showed him a book where it was written but he didn't agree.

Exactly! I'm a christian but i do not believe that whoever does not believe in the bible will burn in fire for eternity simply because the same reason they don't believe the bible is the same reason i don't believe the quoran or any other written book. It's as simple as that. God cannot condemn people for not believing a book they know nothing about.

I think there's so much unknown. Each people should believe whatever they like and then, shut up their heads & let others be.

neocortex:


He is greater than jesus christ, he is the alpha and omega,
he was never born nor did he ever die, he is always is.

Now do you accept him ?

you shaa want to trap that guy

EternalBeing:
I've seen demons before. I also know that witches and wizards exist; therefore satan exist.

Witches, wizards and demons? Only you? Don't keep all this fun and adventure to yourself na... details abeg!

Don't mind all those useless atheists jare.

Nothing like faith, faith is just a replacement of the common sense of human.

bebe2:
Am still on the fence on this matter.

There are too many unanswered questions.

Any critical thinker wud believe there is no God, but FAITH make's u believe the unbelievable

cloudgoddess:

Who said the reactions had no direction? Don't conflate "spiritual guidance" with natural patterns - the latter can exist without the former according to everything we've observed in nature thus far. The formation of galaxies, planets, and organisms all follow specific, stepwise processes that obey the laws of physics. There is indeed order involved, there's just no reason to assume that said order requires a mind to operate.


Yeah, yet. Realize that modern biological science has only been around for what, 200 or so years? Compared to the 180,000+ year long existence of human beings. Science is a NEW thing, and in its relatively short time it's been able to do things that would have been unimaginable in our primitive days. Specifically in the realm of biology, we've done things like create functional artificial limbs & organs for people, see the tiny cells that make up human bodies and test for the presence of specific diseases, synthesize chemicals that target specific areas of those cells effectively and reliably. We have even cloned entire organisms by manually transplanting DNA.

Why, then, do you think that human-guided generation of life from simple building blocks could not one day become possible? If you follow the latest biological research you would see that we are getting closer and closer to such capabilities. And even if for whatever reason we never accomplish it, how would that prove Yahweh? All it would prove is that our human minds were incapable (at least, given the time we had; who knows how long our species will survive & keep doing science) of assembling certain things nature is able to assemble through it's natural processes. Stars and galaxies seem to be in that category (things humans understand but can't assemble ourselves) but we don't need to invoke deities to explain how stars form. We already know the process - just because we can't do it ourselves doesn't mean it's supernatural rather than natural.

What you're presenting here is the god of the gaps argument. You're saying that because there are certain things we don't yet understand, or can't yet do, god must be the answer. Unfortunately that argument fails on many fronts, some of which I've outlined already. And most of all, it puts your god idea in the "ever-receeding pocket of scientific ignorance". The more we discover about how our universe works, the more your god & his assumed capabilities shrink.

So in your defense, nature has had more time in practice of life-creation, while man has had less time in practice, so in order to be fair, I should just give man more time? Lol. I have nothing else to say.

odijeks:

So in your defense, nature has had more time in practice of life-creation, while man has had less time in practice, so in order to be fair, I should just give man more time? Lol. I have nothing else to say.

I didn't bother reading through the whole thread.

I concluded that if it stretched this far, your "5 clear proofs that God exists" isn't clear afterall. Therefore your statements aren't conclusive.

odijeks:

So in your defense, nature has had more time in practice of life-creation, while man has had less time in practice, so in order to be fair, I should just give man more time? Lol. I have nothing else to say.

What does this have to do with the existence of a talking god and the book that you carry? I don't think that you understand the atheist argument. You have been misled into thinking that atheists are people who doubt the existence of every definition of the word GOD.

That is not true. The talking god, the one who tells people to write books, is the god under scrutiny. How can you prove that that god exists and still talks today?

Take #1 on your list, for example. You're saying that something designed all the beautiful things we see. Some atheists will argue that beauty and complexity don't imply design. I'm not even going to do that. I'm going to agree with your #1.

But how does that prove that your god exists? We are given a book from the god and told to read it. Nobody asks you to observe the beauty of a butterfly and then go your way. There's church, there are rules, rituals, etc.

Tellemall:

There is the difference between a person who willfully discards a thing they believe to be against their religion and one who doesn't know better.

From much of what I've seen those two categories are often intertwined; as in the rejection of certain scientific concepts seems to often be preceded by lack of understanding of said concepts (the amount of times I've had to explain evolution here on NL to theists who reject it is testament to that). And that lack of understanding probably follows from religion discouraging thorough exploration of those concepts.

For example, when faced with information about the big bang or something, a religious person is very likely to reject it outright due to discomfort & cognitive dissonance exclusively caused by competing religious ideas they hold, whereas a nonreligious, or perhaps very casually religious person, might be more likely to approach the information with curiousity, thus more likely to actually learn about it to the point of understanding.

So it's not like anyone is saying that being religious automatically makes anyone stu*pid. Religious beliefs just tend to set up psychological structures that prevent people from becoming "intelligent". Perhaps that would explain the correlation.

SirWere:

Hello Sir, Atheism is simply defined as a lack of belief in Gods. While the definiton is simple, it's actually very misunderstood. Atheists simply say: we want proof; solid proof for the existence of a supreme deity.

Order will eventually come out of chaos, it has been well tested and has different example in nature as we see it. Man has witnessed planets forming from chaotic supernovaes and crystals forming from random assortments of molecule. Even in world history; we started random and scattered until we formed tribes, communities, kingdoms, nations and at one point an empire. Order will always come; but chaos or randomness precedes it

Such a theory wanders far off from the unversally accepted theodicy but let us examine it. Now we have a deity, one who was formed with "supernatural ability". Now the argument now lies on the word supernatural. Remember that if we go back 300 years, our present world is supernatural to those who lived before. Humans keep advancing; progressing till we point where we will probably be able to fly to distant point in space and even maybe create universes of our own! Are we gods then? Would you consider us supernatural? Would we be considered gods in our hypothetical created universe? I leave the answer to you
Yes, yes, I agree. Most Astronomers
are willing to accept the existence of some unearthly force; a "guiding hand"; if you will; out there. But sadly; until we see such evidence, one cannot be sufficently convinced

Hmm... Can you imagine how vast the universe is?? Billions of galaxies out there; Trillions of star spirals, Uncountable quadrillions of stars. Is it so improbable to think that another life might exist out there. Anyways, perhaps you should check out Fermi's paradox on this forum for more,

As for the beginning of life as we know it here on Earth; Available evidences show that with the right amount of "materials" (namely Carbon, Nitrogen; sulfur and a little oxygen) and the right energy source from a star, molecules can self-assembly and the long, slow haul to "life" begins...



I should let you know that I'm an Agnostic Atheist. I do not believe in any god but I'm willing to accept the existence of one if given SOLID proof.
Most people on Nairaland are.

Thanks Bro for responding. Almost all you said is valid,atleast logically and scientifically. However,since you didn't oppose the idea that God might be a product from some reactions of some basic prehistoric elements (maybe elements yet to be discovered by humans or now extinct) just like Scientists agree that human lives began,we cannot totally dump that idea. The order you said arose from randomness or chaos,what then maintains it? We see solid laws in almost all we do on earth - laws that act upon both animate and inanimate objects in our universe. Please note that these laws/principles are non-living unlike human civilization and orderliness that arose from rational beings (humans). My brother,the complex nature of things we observe and the order within these complexities definitely point to something other than mere randomness. If that 'something' should be called 'God' and worshipped is another matter altogether. As for if very advanced humans should be called supernatural,i have this to say: Animals like Fishes,apes etc would probably consider us 'supernatural' in their own thinking. Aliens may likely exist,and they may be very very much more advanced than humans to the extent that they can basically dictate the fate of we humans; they may even have initially made those basic elements that birthed life on earth available. Human knowledge like we've agreed, is indeed still very much limited.

[quote author=cloudgoddess post=45595875]
.

cloudgoddess:

From much of what I've seen those two categories are often intertwined; as in the rejection of certain scientific concepts seems to often be preceded by lack of understanding of said concepts (the amount of times I've had to explain evolution here on NL to theists who reject it is testament to that). And that lack of understanding probably follows from religion discouraging thorough exploration of those concepts.

For example, when faced with information about the big bang or something, a religious person is very likely to reject it outright due to discomfort & cognitive dissonance exclusively caused by competing religious ideas they hold, whereas a nonreligious, or perhaps very casually religious person, might be more likely to approach the information with curiousity, thus more likely to actually learn about it to the point of understanding.

So it's not like anyone is saying that being religious automatically makes anyone stupid. Religious beliefs just tend to set up psychological structures that prevent people from becoming "intelligent". Perhaps that would explain the correlation.

Its true that many religious folks throw the evolution theory out the window because it conflicts with their religious stories of creation. I'm not one of those tho. I've simply analyzed the evolution story and I'm being sincere when I tell you it just doesn't add up. I once discussed with a Geneticist Professor and asked questions regarding certain vital processes of the theory and she couldn't give an answer to them. She stopped replying my mails. I know several atheists who don't believe the bible version of creation, but they also don't believe in the scientific evolution story as well, because they've weighed it and seen that its not so likely it went down that way. they are always sincere to tell me they don't just know the source of life and creation yet, but believe that someday, science would discover a more reasonable explanation for it. The truth is, a lot of atheists are not sincere to themselves as regards the evolution theory. they are just willing to hold on to anything (no matter how absurd it sounds) that pushes God out of the picture.

This might just be the best article I've read on nairaland so far it's great and it's pretty clear that God exists. Some atheists will still deny though.

cloudgoddess:

From much of what I've seen those two categories are often intertwined; as in the rejection of certain scientific concepts seems to often be preceded by lack of understanding of said concepts (the amount of times I've had to explain evolution here on NL to theists who reject it is testament to that). And that lack of understanding probably follows from religion discouraging thorough exploration of those concepts.

For example, when faced with information about the big bang or something, a religious person is very likely to reject it outright due to discomfort & cognitive dissonance exclusively caused by competing religious ideas they hold, whereas a nonreligious, or perhaps very casually religious person, might be more likely to approach the information with curiousity, thus more likely to actually learn about it to the point of understanding.

So it's not like anyone is saying that being religious automatically makes anyone stupid. Religious beliefs just tend to set up psychological structures that prevent people from becoming "intelligent". Perhaps that would explain the correlation.

You.... Why are you being civil today? Have you forgotten to call me dumb and name cases after me because I'm a theist?

Anyway, I suppose you're saying what I'm saying. Rather than looking for means to call theists dumb and unintelligent, I've given you atheists a perspective to stew on. Maybe you guys will understand that intelligence has nothing to do with lack of religion. You, in particular, have been looking down on the intelligence of theists, simply because they do not agree with you. You have tried to call me unintelligent in your past posts, due to certain overbearing tendencies.

For that reason, I will end this post right here.

Tellemall:


You.... Why are you being civil today? Have you forgotten to call me dumb and name cases after me because I'm a theist?

Anyway, I suppose you're saying what I'm saying. Rather than looking for means to call theists dumb and unintelligent, I've given you atheists a perspective to stew on. Maybe you guys will understand that intelligence has nothing to do with lack of religion. You, in particular, have been looking down on the intelligence of theists, simply because they do not agree with you. You have tried to call me unintelligent in your past posts, due to certain overbearing tendencies.

For that reason, I will end this post right here.

When have I ever called you dumb? I think I've asked you before to show me where I specifically insulted you as a person and you have yet to show me.

JacksonD7:
This might just be the best article I've read on nairaland so far it's great and it's pretty clear that God exists. Some atheists will still deny though.

The article is flawed in quite a few ways that are not usually obvious to theists (partially due to pre-existing favorable biases towards theism). Maybe you should sincerely read the atheists' rebuttles, and try to understand why we find it's arguments lacking.

cloudgoddess:

When have I ever called you dumb? I think I've asked you before to show me where I specifically insulted you as a person and you have yet to show me.

Do you wish to be friends now? Or why the low tone?

Most theists are familiar with your ways, though.

odijeks:
I've simply analyzed the evolution story and I'm being sincere when I tell you it just doesn't add up. I once discussed with a Geneticist Professor and asked questions regarding certain vital processes of the theory and she couldn't give an answer to them.

Where does it not add up? More importantly, have you actively researched these places where it doesn't add up to you? Like with actual textbooks, research journals, etc? Because there are quite a few aspects of evolution that are counterintuitive & require slightly more than a basic knowledge on evolution to understand, but indeed have been thoroughly explained. One example I recently learned is how sexual selection, kin selection, and selection at the level of the cell can sometimes overwhelm the more conspicuous selection pressures of natural selection (like strength, speed, beak/tusk/claw size, etc), causing certain traits to go to fixation in a population (a process that eventually results in speciation) that one wouldn't immediately expect.

Another very telling example; several theists I've discussed evolution with on NL have insisted that it's impossible for new genetic information to arise naturally, so they consider that a "missing link" to evolution. But this is hugely false, gene duplication is a type of mutation that results in new genetic material, which can later be altered to produce new traits, and it happens frequently enough to result in the various chromosome lengths we see in different organisms.

And just because one geneticist you spoke to didn't have answers doesn't mean there aren't answers. Being an expert in genetics does not necessarily mean a person is an expert on evolution, although evolution encompasses genetics. Just like you can't expect a general practice physician to be an expert on neurobiology. There are many professors & professionals who are only experienced with the specifics of their field.

The truth is, a lot of atheists are not sincere to themselves as regards the evolution theory. they are just willing to hold on to anything (no matter how absurd it sounds) that pushes God out of the picture.

This statement honestly sounds like projection. ("A lot of theists are not sincere to themselves as regards to creationism. they are just willing to hold on to anything that keeps God in the picture." )

Understanding evolution can serve as an additional, or even a main reason people reject creationism & theistic claims. But it's not at all a requisite for atheism and it's not even required to make atheism a sensible position to hold, as you seem to suggest here. A person can say "I don't know how all the different species arose, but I know a bearded sky-man didn't poof them all into existence with words", and they'd still be just as valid in their position.

There are also religious people who accept evolution but try and reconcile it with their god beliefs, so the idea that people who accept evolution do so because they're determined to reject god is absurd. The rejection of god beliefs can occur as a natural consequence, however I have never found it to be an end goal.

And why should lack of acceptance of evolution (for any reason, including lack of understanding) compel someone to resort to "Yahweh did it" in the first place? That would just be a new assumption that requires evidence of it's own. In the absense of said evidence it still wouldn't make any sense to hop to that conclusion. In other words, for your god to be "pushed out of the picture", there has to be solid proof that he was ever in the picture to begin with.

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid response to these big questions. And sticking unwarranted beliefs in that slot of uncertainty doesn't mean you know. It just means you're pretending to know.

All this long story is unnecessary.
According to Christians God as mighty as he is created Man as his most important creation and placed him here for just one purpose; To wait for a few thousand years then he would wrap it all up,take the good ones to bliss and roast the naughty ones.

That is the whole point of everything. .....................................


THE END,

Opin Cinema


In other words the whole point,The Best thing God made is .................MAN

In reality Man made God because only man could make up such a foolish and egocentric story

Tellemall:


Do you wish to be friends now? Or why the low tone?

Most theists are familiar with your ways, though.

You still aren't showing me where I called you dumb... So I'm just going to assume you took offense to something I said that was not meant as an insult.

If this is relevant:
Words like "uneducated", "ignorant", and "indoctrinated" tend to be taken very offensively since they carry negative connotations, but that doesn't mean they are inherently attack words. How else might one describe a person who is legitimitely not educated on certain topics? Or a person who actually has been raised to think a certain, dogmatic way? These words can indeed be used in a genuinely matter-of-fact fashion. And none of them necessarily point towards any innate innadequacy in someone, like say, the word "dumb" would.

I intentionally refrain from using any word like dumb to refer to theists because that doesn't reflect a proper understanding of the situation. But the terms I do use have a purpose and that purpose is not to offend, although offense can happen as a byproduct.

cloudgoddess:

You still aren't showing me where I called you dumb... So I'm just going to assume you took offense to something I said that was not meant as an insult.

If this is relevant:
Words like "uneducated", "ignorant", and "indoctrinated" tend to be taken very offensively since they carry negatively connotations, but that doesn't mean they are inherently attack words. How else might one describe a person who is legitimitely not educated on certain topics? Or a person who actually has been raised to think a certain, dogmatic way? These words can indeed be used in a genuinely matter-of-fact fashion. And none of them necessarily point towards any innate innadequacy in someone, like say, the word "dumb" would.

I intentionally refrain from using any word like dumb to refer to theists because that doesn't reflect a proper understanding of the situation. But the terms I do use have a purpose and that purpose is not to offend, although offense can happen as a byproduct.

Awww. That's a lot of defense, for such little guilt.

You do remember you claimed I was some case, right? And blatantly said I was not intelligent. If you didn't mean to come across that way, why did you come across that way? You either are saying what you mean or you are silent. That's how it works.

Well
, as I said, most people(theists) who have encountered you in here know what they know about how you try your hardest to be overbearing and insulting if possible when others don't agree with your view and your self acclaimed "logic".

It would help if you stopped looking down on the intellect of the people you try to argue with. It's conceited and pathetic. We are all educated. We all read accounting and differential calculus and studied the sinuses and know of the origin of stars, etc. The only difference is in matters of religion, and that doesn't make you better off intellectually. Because that's exactly what you sound like every time you mention me, conceited and arrogant (except today, of course. Are you not in a good mood today? I'm sincerely concerned. )

Not ready to start another round of mentions and counter-mentions. So, see you later.