jahstech:
I just saw a rainbow today yet again. Am waiting for science to give an explanation to that concept, am yet to see any

TrajansKong:


Statements like the above are the reason, I'll have to step away from the religion section of Nairaland again - at least for a while.

How can anyone respond to this abysmally low level of intelligence without feeling like a sadistic abuser of mentally-impaired children.

That's not good for me, or our people.

I need to rethink everything. Again.

Bye, for now...

jahstech:


It goes both way my friend, when I see some comments am forced to think as well, "How can some1 think like this despite the wealth of knowledge we have around us?" Believing we are all intelligent creatures we try to make the other person reason with us.

You can't help me from the MENTAL DARKNESS YOU perceive am into with that comment you just made.
I assume I need help and I need most down-to-earth person to explain to me.

Am a mathematics student and I hate it when my fellow mathematicians solve mathematics as if it is magic, I guess you are familiar with the mathematics called SURD, if you want to teach a layman SURD, you don't just tell him SURD 16 is 4, he will never learn, the best way to help him is break it down to the lowest possible.

That's how i reason and that's how I want things explained to me...

Thanks.

Omooba77:


if you believe Ogun,Sango,Oya,I wonder why you still doubt existence of Almighty God. It is a choice.

jahstech:


It goes both way my friend, when I see some comments am forced to think as well, "How can some1 think like this despite the wealth of knowledge we have around us?" Believing we are all intelligent creatures we try to make the other person reason with us.

You can't help me from the MENTAL DARKNESS YOU perceive am into with that comment you just made.
I assume I need help and I need most down-to-earth person to explain to me.

Am a mathematics student and I hate it when my fellow mathematicians solve mathematics as if it is magic, I guess you are familiar with the mathematics called SURD, if you want to teach a layman SURD, you don't just tell him SURD 16 is 4, he will never learn, the best way to help him is break it down to the lowest possible.

That's how i reason and that's how I want things explained to me...

Thanks.

TrajansKong:


You are correct, and I hope you accept my an apology for my rudeness.

It is just that this forum is so full of religious people making statements like the one you made that it is hard not to be baffled at the kind of discourse we generally entertain as Africans.

Rainbows have a straightforward explanation due to the refraction of light through rain or water particles in the sky. It is not supernatural and no one has been amazed by it in centuries.

My bad manners are caused by the realisation of how many centuries behind other ethnic and cultural groups we are in interpreting the natural world , and the fact that our spookist religious mania will imprison us forever.

I'm worried because I have children. Magic and Jesus have corrupted African minds and morality, and sometimes I get scared and angry to the point of rudeness. They can't inherit a world where we still believe in witches and talking animals while other peoples are preparing to explore the universe and leave us behind permanently to play with their disused and abandoned gods!

jahstech, thanks again for your graciousness. I hope what I've written makes sense, but surely you can see that the gods abandoned by our slavemasters and colonisers are not the way forward for us? I can't stand the thought that we'll die of ignorance...

CAPSLOCKED:


NOT MY BUSINESS,
BUT IF IT'S ABOUT THE RAINBOW YOU JUST SAW AND YOU ASKING FOR EXPLANATIONS FROM SCIENCE TO PROVE THAT GOD IS REAL, MAYBE YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN AVERAGE SECONDARY SCHOOL KID WHO'S GAT A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK.

Weah96:


I prefer to use common sense. Your almighty god came to earth disguised as a Jew person because he had to sacrifice himself to himself. Doesn't make sense.

There is a source of the universe, but that bible didn't come from it. Everything in nature is replete with the source, there are no special people or chosen tribes.

Millex:

By their fruits you shall know them.

jahstech:


Am currently seeing the fruit everywhere, and the result is why you see more and more people embracing ATHEISM, how can YOU prove to these ones who are disillusioned by RELIGION/CHRISTIANITY in general that a certain good, no matter how small, can come out of following such hideous path?

Weah96:
[b][/b]

@Jahstech: the author of the booklet is facing the same roadblock as the majority of Nairaland theists in that he or she doesn't understand the argument.

The whole booklet is occupied with the desire to prove science wrong, with the assumption being that if the science is wrong, then the bible is right.
Nothing could be further than the truth.

If the bible is true, then all of its biggest claims would also be true. What do I mean? Well, assume that you are speaking to an assembly of the original original bible authors from the middle east. They have just gathered outside your house to bring you the good news, that they all spoke to the intelligent mind who created life and DNA, and have brought you a book from the mind to read lest you die in ignorance. They also want money to pay ministerial bills, but that's besides the point. You first instinct goes "scam artists, con men" but you still allow them to speak.

This is where the argument is. The authors must earn the right to continue the conversation otherwise it's going to take blind faith to believe that they aren't pis.sing in your face and calling it rain water.
The book either validates itself or the claimants need to start moving mountains. The book should have a chapter called "Ways to validate the message for all future generations" and proceed to give recipe for everyone to receive proof that these are not con men.

Or the authors should move about 2 or 3 mountains and teach you the method. Then you can bring the book to your neighbors house and pass the message along.

It has nothing to do with evolution or science. Science is trying to understand the process of the universe's emergence and how life began. It was always an uphill battle because we're already in the universe. But I don't see why the bible is the necessary alternative.

If the bible is true, then all of its biggest claims would also be true.

The book either validates itself or the claimants need to start moving mountains. The book should have a chapter called "Ways to validate the message for all future generations" and proceed to give recipe for everyone to receive proof that these are not con men.

But I don't see why the bible is the necessary alternative.

jahstech:


Thanks a million @Weah96, I really appreciate your response.

I must say am lost at some point in your above explanation.

But I would highlight some parts and try to throw more light on them..

FIRST AND FOREMOST, I DON'T WANT TO INVOLVE THE BIBLE IN OUR CONVERSATION AS OF NOW, IT WOULD HINDER OUR PROGRESS.
SECONDLY, I WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ATHEISM IS BORN OUT OF THE FRUSTRATION RELIGION HAS CAUSED AND HENCE THEY CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS NO GOD..

Bringing that booklet up was to buttress the point that there has to be an INTELLIGENT BEING somewhere, somehow for all the various SCIENCE BREAKING DESIGNS on EARTH/IN THE UNIVERSE to EXIST.

ATHEISM vies toward EVOLUTION to help explain the existence of intelligent beings, so I wanted we all to reason if the level of intelligence around us can occur by mere CHANCE??


If you want us to discuss the above am also happy to, Who said it isn't relevant in our day? We can delve into that if you want us to.


Surely the message applies to future generation and if you care I can show you why I came to such conclusion. The term you used "CON MEN" comes in handy due to the assertion of the current so called men of god who have become lovers of money rather than lovers of God..


For now don't bother yourself about the BIBLE please, it would make things more complicated for us.

Please kindly point areas, I might have reasoned wrongly..

Weah96:



I didn't bring up the bible. The booket created the false dichotomy by presenting the bible as the necessary alternative to evolution and abiogenesis. So technically you brought up the bible not me.

Pertaining to the existence of an intelligent being, we must first appreciate how loaded the phrase is. It can be interpreted anyhow, and I'll tell you why, using the well worn watchmaker analogy. When you see a watch, you assume that someone intelligent designed it. However, implicit in your thought process lies the dormant acknowledgement that the anonymous human watchmaker used materials that already existed. But the corresponding watchmaker of the universe must have used zero prexisting materials, a fact which makes this an unprecedented design process. Intelligent designers always use prexisting materials. What do you then mean by the phrase intelligent being? We only measure intelligence in material terms. What we seem to be dealing with are subatomic particles, the only materials that violate common sense, but I will leave it at that for now. In short, saying that an intelligent being did it doesn't add anything meaningful to the mystery. The whole thing is unprecedented. More specificity is required, and that is where the various holy books come into play.

I graduated from georgia state with a degree in cell biology, so I know a thing or two about evolution. However, my neighbor, an Ethiopian immigrant, not only didn't study biology but also doesn't have a clue about the evolutionary process. He was an atheist when I met him, with an extremely beautiful Ethiopian wife in tow. His wife is also an atheist. So no, I don't think atheists necessarily espouse the theory of evolution. Educated ones, maybe. As for me, I find the theory to be entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the existence of a particular god. The idea of a more general God would perhaps require a reconciliation of the theory of evolution, but the so called religious gods (who were really humans on psychedelic drugs ) make independent claims that are rejected by reality. It doesn't matter whether an amoeba could have assembled itself by chance gradually, religion has gone waaay beyond that. There are other claims involved now, like pot of stew speaking and resurrections. The biggest of all the claim is the original one, that the progenitor of the universe, is actually something that speaks to human beings. Just not to me or other atheists. That claim is independent of evolution. For example, let's assume i agree with your position, that the universe is not the product of chance. Where do we go from there? We either go back to the holy book or we go to sleep and admit that our knowledge is incomplete.

I don't personally believe that the universe is the product of chance, there are possibilities in the quantum realm that address every paradoxical aspect of its generation. What we know as magic or counter intuitive proposition exists for real when atoms are smashed into tiny pieces. Those tiny particles, which make up 100% of everything, behave in ways that defy common sense.

Weah96:



I didn't bring up the bible. The booket created the false dichotomy by presenting the bible as the necessary alternative to evolution and abiogenesis. So technically you brought up the bible not me.

Pertaining to the existence of an intelligent being, we must first appreciate how loaded the phrase is. It can be interpreted anyhow, and I'll tell you why, using the well worn watchmaker analogy. When you see a watch, you assume that someone intelligent designed it. However, implicit in your thought process lies the dormant acknowledgement that the anonymous human watchmaker used materials that already existed. But the corresponding watchmaker of the universe must have used zero prexisting materials, a fact which makes this an unprecedented design process. Intelligent designers always use prexisting materials. What do you then mean by the phrase intelligent being? We only measure intelligence in material terms. What we seem to be dealing with are subatomic particles, the only materials that violate common sense, but I will leave it at that for now. In short, saying that an intelligent being did it doesn't add anything meaningful to the mystery. The whole thing is unprecedented. More specificity is required, and that is where the various holy books come into play.

I graduated from georgia state with a degree in cell biology, so I know a thing or two about evolution. However, my neighbor, an Ethiopian immigrant, not only didn't study biology but also doesn't have a clue about the evolutionary process. He was an atheist when I met him, with an extremely beautiful Ethiopian wife in tow. His wife is also an atheist. So no, I don't think atheists necessarily espouse the theory of evolution. Educated ones, maybe. As for me, I find the theory to be entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the existence of a particular god. The idea of a more general God would perhaps require a reconciliation of the theory of evolution, but the so called religious gods (who were really humans on psychedelic drugs ) make independent claims that are rejected by reality. It doesn't matter whether an amoeba could have assembled itself by chance gradually, religion has gone waaay beyond that. There are other claims involved now, like pot of stew speaking and resurrections. The biggest of all the claim is the original one, that the progenitor of the universe, is actually something that speaks to human beings. Just not to me or other atheists. That claim is independent of evolution. For example, let's assume i agree with your position, that the universe is not the product of chance. Where do we go from there? We either go back to the holy book or we go to sleep and admit that our knowledge is incomplete.

I don't personally believe that the universe is the product of chance, there are possibilities in the quantum realm that address every paradoxical aspect of its generation. What we know as magic or counter intuitive proposition exists for real when atoms are smashed into tiny pieces. Those tiny particles, which make up 100% of everything, behave in ways that defy common sense.

jahstech:


Now while Paul was waiting for them in Athens, his spirit within him became irritated on seeing that the city was full of idols. So he began to reason in the synagogue with the Jews and the other people who worshipped God and every day in the marketplace with those who happened to be on hand. But some of both the Ep·i·cu·reʹan and the Stoʹic philosophers began disputing with him, and some were saying: “What is it this chatterer would like to tell?” Others: “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign deities.” This was because he was declaring the good news of Jesus and the resurrection.

Weah96:


How does that passage lend any credibility to the argument that the writer spoke with spirit who told him that it was the creator of the universe? My position is I don't believe that the universe has the type of creator that speaks to selected people.

The whole bible is based on that. Im supposed to accept that someone I dont know communicated with something who told them that it was a creator. That's fine if the evidence supports their claim, but it doesn't.

jahstech:


Thanks boss, if you permit, would you want us to discuss the evidence I have by comparing the bible along with history?
Am requesting this because the bible writers all claim inspiration from God, a book inspired by the creator as they say it should have some noteworthy expression/remarks that cut across all facet of life. Can I show you these with facts?

Weah96:


Please do. I would love to see particular revelations which serve as evidence of divine inspiration.

Seun:
Faith in anything that is not true is bad. More people have been killed in the name of God than in the name of the devil.

jahstech:


Please I would try to contact you via pm

Weah96:

Cmon man. Do you have proof or not?

jahstech:

Yeah boss, a lot of them, kind of too much I don't know where to start from. Wanted to send you a book I on the subject that's why I sent a pm, so i can send it to your physical address and you can read for yourself.
If you don't like the idea let me know.

Weah96:


Bad idea. I asked for proof that the authors of the bible made contact with an invisible person, who turned out to be the creator of the whole universe.

Are you saying that there's nothing in the bible itself? I don't think that you appreciate the nature of the evidence.

There must be some revealing information in the bible which attests to its non human source.
So far, there's no revelation in the bible that could have only come from a non human. You're supposed to show me bible passages that prove it came from an omnipotent non human.

Does the bible mention the future Jew called Mark Zuckerberg by his name? Strangely enough, that would be considered proof by my standards.

Does it mention the exact mass of the earth and planets? Exact composition of air? Does it come with solutions to future mathematics problems? These are things that humans did not know 2000yrs ago.

I dont want to read another book. The proof should be inside the bible.

jahstech:

Sorry about that.
Have you ever read the bible before? Or you just shy from it cos of "popular opinion" of your class?
Am more than willing to show you what you need, was just trying to buy time and give you ample evidence of my claims, my job isn't giving me all the time I need.
I would get back at you first thing tomorrow morning.
Cheers.