naijababe:


This is not true unless u believe that absence of evidence translates to evidence of absence

Absence of evidence to me is definitely evidence of absence. . . . There is no evidence of 45 cows dancing beside me as I type this message and that lack of evidence is all I need to know that they are just not there. . . .But that is just by the way. . . there is no evidence for all the gods being invented and talked about by humans and all their religions. . . . Including the deist god that has no real description. . . .

Okija_juju:

YES!! Yes it self-exists. Sometimes it requires a cause but it has nothing to do with any supernatural being.

Read this line again. Just blatantly self-contradictory. I iwll not respond to this untill you adjust or redress the inherent contradiction yourself.

Okija_juju:


The fact that there isnt a shred of evidence that he exists.
The fact that that shit that goes on in our everyday lives happen at all.
The fact that he created such a shitty place like earth and resides inn the coulds/heavens.

It appears to me that you may not have taken any time out to reflect on these issues.

You state, flagrantly, that there is not a shred of “evidence” to suggest that God exists. In this you seem to lose sight of the following:

1. What is the world around you? Perhaps it does not amount to a “shred” in your view. But if you were lucky enough, or rich enough, to have a ride aboard any of the Apollo Missions, perhaps you would begin to reflect on the meaning of your word – “not a shred. . . “


2. Cosmologically, you just lose the plot entirely. You speak of nature all around you, and you declare it to be “self existing.” It seems to me (no insult intended) that in cosmological and theological arguments, you are rather young. This is because you do not seem to grasp the difference between “necessary things” and “contingent things.” Do me a favour – before you respond to this, do a wikipedia search, or some other research: because matter, and material or physical things COULD NEVER BE NECESSARY THINGS – Or “self existing” things.


3. You talk about “shit going on in our everyday lives”. I am sorely tempted not to respond to this at all. I will only ask you to go and review the effects of wild-life predation on the exo-system of the natural world. From the point of view of the hunted creatures: it’s cruel; from a global point of view; we see population control, balance, etc. What do you think a universal mind will be interested in? Do not disappoint me with your response on this one.


4. You described the earth as a “shitty” place. I can only assume you are not well travelled.

@ Dee sight

I have noted ur post and will get back to you on this later tonight. I've got to go to work.

I myself would define nature as the inherent properties/characteristics of the elements that make up this universe.

All definitions of nature that I've heard thus far are just pitiful. Nothing is said by them at all. I guess they're just another pathetic attempt to find a 'catch all' phrase to describe nature.

^^
Yea I know we're all pitiful illiterate dumheads. . . .why don't you unpathetically define nature for us?

Tudór:

^^
Yea I know we're all pitiful illiterate dumheads. . . .why don't you unpathetically define nature for us?

No sir, I never said that you were pitiful. I said the attempts to define 'Nature' are pitiful.

Anyhow, I'm not the naturalist so the onus is not on me to define Nature. Its the people bleating on about it and devising an ideology based on 'nature' that need to define it. Besides I've discussed this subject to death in the past and I do not care to do so again.

^^
Alrite then be patient. . . .can you pls provide us links to where this has been discussed in the past? Thanks.

We're splitting hairs.

God does not need to be named as "God" by men in order to have "meaning" to us, or in order to carry out His intents and purposes.

@DeepSight:
It takes a lot of understanding to get what noetic is saying. "Christianity is not a religion". Why?
My personal definition of religion (open to criticism):

Religion is a strong belief in a supernatural power (i.e. Deity) or powers (i.e. Deities) who is (are) the personification(s) of (a) force(s) that control human destiny, some part of the world or some aspect of life.

In the light of my definition above, humans who believe in a religion or the other carry out relevant activities to ensure that they are in the right standing with that deity (or those deities) to prevent damnation and secure serenity and success either in this life, or in another (if they believe in a life after this one), or both. It is an ever-reaching attempt by man to reach and experience the divine.

When Jesus was on Earth, He was the Christ that man could tangibly relate to.
Christ is the Greek word Χριστός (khris-tos') which means the anointed one, functioning in His anointing. This name was given to him by His Father in Heaven in respect of the anointing of the Holy Spirit wherewith he was filled.

Now that He has completed his purposes on earth, I am Christ. Other real Believers are Christ, too. In essence, God looks at the earth and sees man in a kind of binary denotation (permit the expression), ones and zeros, nothing more. He sees Christ, and he sees Adam.

And that's why Christianity (I don't even really like that word) is not a religion: what religions seek to attain (a conformed unity of purpose between God or gods and man), has already been done in Christ. We are now a part of the fellowship of the Godhead.

Yes, I know it's a hard teaching. Very few can understand it.

^^
What you've written above makes no sense.

A standard dictionary definition of religion is beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature and worship of a diety or dieties, and divine involvement in the universe and human life.

Unless you can convince us christianity doesn't involve belief in a god, its nature and consequently worship then i'm sorry you've got no point.

^^
What you've written above makes no sense.

A standard dictionary definition of religion is beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature and worship of a diety or dieties, and divine involvement in the universe and human life.

Unless you can convince us christianity doesn't involve belief in a god, its nature and consequently worship then i'm sorry you've got no point.

Easy on the replay, Tudor. One post was enough!

My point, simply put, is that there is an aspect of Christianity that involves religion, but that is not all. Christianity is "God-ness in human form". It is a kind of Life. Like humanity is a kind of life lived by humans. Just like felinity is a kind of cat-life. Christianity is the God-kind of life.

How many religions do you know about? Carry out some research and you will find out that none of them involves the god/gods/God trading places with mankind: becoming man and allowing man to become as the Deity (deities) is(are).

And that, among other things, is what sets Christians apart.

Every religion on the planet earth claims this very same thing.But it does not make them any less of a religion and more of a "way of life".

mavenbox:

Easy on the replay, Tudor. One post was enough!

My point, simply put, is that there is an aspect of Christianity that involves religion, but that is not all. Christianity is "God-ness in human form". It is a kind of Life. Like humanity is a kind of life lived by humans. Just like felinity is a kind of cat-life. Christianity is the God-kind of life.

How many religions do you know about? Carry out some research and you will find out that none of them involves the god/gods/God trading places with mankind: becoming man and allowing man to become as the Deity (deities) is(are).

And that, among other things, is what sets Christians apart.

@Jagunlabi: Is that so? Can you please list at least 10 of these EVERY religions, and let me consider your conjecture expressly in just one post?

The very reason why it is called Christianity, is that the believers are "like Christ". In Christianity, Christ is understood to be God. Christianity is a description of Christ's life. i.e. God's life, expressed humanly.

@mavenbox

First you say christianity isn't religion, the you say a part of it involves religion. . . .ha i tire sef!

I don't care if its 0.0000009% of it, it's religion!

Every religion has what sets it apart from others- whether its god trading places with man or god manifesting as a bull- if not we'd have only one religion. So again I can't exactly understand your point.

1)Ifa
2)Sango Worship
3)Judaism
4)Islam
5)Sufism
6)Hinduism
7)Sikhism
Wicca
9)Buddhism
10)Neo-Paganism
Let me add one more just for good measure; 11)Satanism.

What does, "like christ", mean?To me, christians are those followers of the christian faith/doctrine/dogma,full stop.

mavenbox:

@Jagunlabi: Is that so? Can you please list at least 10 of these EVERY religions, and let me consider your conjecture expressly in just one post?

The very reason why it is called Christianity, is that the believers are "like Christ". In Christianity, Christ is understood to be God. Christianity is a description of Christ's life. i.e. God's life, expressed humanly.

@Tudor: So does that mean that if I see a man eating, I can conclude that a man is any creature that eats? That is like saying because religion is an activity carried out by Christians, that means Christianity is a religion. The analogy is a little weak but I hope you get the point. But as I earlier said, it has been a hard teaching, from way back when Jesus was on earth and he said "I and my Father are ONE", in the contemporary expression, he was thus equating himself to the Father. It has always been a hard teaching, and very few can understand it. I can only try to make you understand it, like trying to convince a man who shut his eyes, that he is in an illuminated room. Until he opens his own eyes (or it is forced open by traction or shock), he will never agree with you.

@Jagunlabi: Trash and jabberwocky. None of those religions involved the death of the God/gods in order to save the puny insignificant man. Rather, they stand aloof and administer wrath or blessings due to the man's actions. You lie.

@Deepsight: I apologize, I seem to be derailing your thread. I was only trying to clarify noetic's point, as I understand it.

mavenbox:

@Jagunlabi: Trash and jabberwocky. None of those religions involved the death of the God/gods in order to save the puny insignificant man. Rather, they stand aloof and administer wrath or blessings due to the man's actions. You lie.

Aah!Ok, i get it!So the reason why christianity is "a way of life" and not a religion is because a supposedly immortal God supposedly died in order to save mankind?Is that why you ´claim that christianity is a way of life?
You don't have a clue . . . but then, you are just another christian trying the lame "special pleading" thing.
Let me remind you, as an aside, that jesus did not die because he did not stay dead.In order for the christian god to have been involved in death, he has to have died and stayed DEAD.But he did not, so your claim is already mute.

mavenbox:

@Tudor: So does that mean that if I see a man eating, I can conclude that a man is any creature that eats? That is like saying because religion is an activity carried out by Christians, that means Christianity is a religion. The analogy is a little weak but I hope you get the point. But as I earlier said, it has been a hard teaching, from way back when Jesus was on earth and he said "I and my Father are ONE", in the contemporary expression, he was thus equating himself to the Father.

No! It means a man is a creature that eats and hence christianity is a religion.

Quit fronting ridiculous analogies.

Hard teaching or not an idea that makes no sense will NEVER make sense, not in a billion years.

@Tudor: I have presented valid points, you have presented none. All that you have done is to attack what I have said. Argument-shop closed, thank you. Please hold on to your understanding.

@jagunlabi:

Let me remind you, as an aside, that jesus did not die because he did not stay dead.In order for the christian god to have been involved in death, he has to have died and stayed DEAD.But he did not, so your claim is already mute.

I assume you meant my claim is MOOT, not MUTE.
May I say then, that your great grandfather never lived? Because he did not stay alive? If he lived, he would have kept on living?

mavenbox:

@jagunlabi: I assume you meant my claim is MOOT, not MUTE.
May I say then, that your great grandfather never lived? Because he did not stay alive? If he lived, he would have kept on living?

Hahaha! As tudor already pointed out, your analogies are quite a riot.Never mind.

Yes, i meant "moot".Thanks for the correction.

In the light of my definition above, humans who believe in a religion or the other carry out relevant activities to ensure that they are in the right standing with that deity (or those deities)

not all religions have a deity. Orthodox buddhism is an example of one without a deity. There is no deity in Scientology either.

God does not need to be named as "God" by men in order to have "meaning" to us, or in order to carry out His [/b]intents and purposes.

then why call it God? i have another question though, how do you know God is a MALE? . funny how a male dominated society tends to define "God" as masculine.

@Jagunlabi: Trash and jabberwocky. None of those religions involved the death of the God/gods in order to save the puny insignificant man. [b]Rather, they stand aloof and administer wrath or blessings due to the man's actions. You lie.

What makes man puny and insignificant? I would say a creature that can achieve things such as landing on the moon isn't so insignificant.

As for the bolded, didn't the Christian God do this alot in the Old testament?

mavenbox:

@Tudor: I have presented valid points, you have presented none. All that you have done is to attack what I have said. Argument-shop closed, thank you. Please hold on to your understanding.

Oh please spare me the worthless rant. What valid points did you give?

I didn't need to make any arguments. You claimed christianity isnt religion, I gave you a dictionary definition of religion and asked you to show HOW christianity doesn't qualify only for you to ramble on about how christianity is part religion and how jesus has been strugling to teach and how only you and your family can understant it and bla bla bla blah.

Face it, the dictionary/official definition of religion is pretty simple and christianity fits the bill PERFECTLY.

@bawomolo:

not all religions have a deity. Orthodox buddhism is an example of one without a deity. There is no deity in Scientology either.

So you say.

Your argument is null, void and trash. I found this on Wikipedia about Orthodox Buddhism (Theravada):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada

Theravadans believe that every individual is personally responsible for their own self-awakening and liberation, as they are the ones that were responsible for their own actions and consequences (Sanskrit: karma; Pali: kamma). Simply learning or believing in the true nature of reality as expounded by the Buddha is not enough, the awakening can only be achieved through direct experience and personal realization. An individual will have to follow and practice the Noble Eightfold Path as taught by the Buddha to discover the reality for themselves. In Theravada belief, Buddhas, [b]gods or deities are incapable of giving a human being the awakening or lifting them from the state of repeated cycle of birth, illness, aging and death (samsara). For Theravadans, Buddha is only a Teacher of the Noble Eightfold Path, while [size=13pt]gods or deities[/size] are still subject to anger, jealousy, hatred, vengeance, craving, greed, delusion, and death.[/b]

There is no deity in Scientology either.

I must assure you that the deity in Scientology is the Scientologist himself, who has simply "forgotten his/her divine nature". And on the other hand, Scientology is only a religion in SOME parts of the world, legally speaking. It has not yet won the overall view, so it cannot be called a religion, sorry.
I give you wikipedia again. It's too long to post here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Dispute_of_religion_status

then why call it God?

duh we say "God" because human expression is so poor, we NEED words to express our notions. Maybe you can fast forward into the age when man will have HIVE-MINDS and we wont need to use nouns or even words to express ourselves. O, I forgot, if that was the case, we won't have nairaland and we won't be having this conversation because everyone will know what everyone else knows.

i have another question though, how do you know God is a MALE? . funny how a male dominated society tends to define "God" as masculine.

Why masculine? In my hurry (was very busy at the time but I wanted to respond) to express my general view on divinity, I must have forgotten to make it politically correct. If you notice, I always use he/she/it whenever I speak about divinity in general. If I had used HER or IT, I would also hear hot-hell and burning sulphur from some other people on the thread, so please spare us the masculinity talk! Once again, its the lameness of human expression that ensures that words never really carry enough of the weight of our notions.

What makes man puny and insignificant? I would say a creature that can achieve things such as landing on the moon isn't so insignificant.

D'uh I meant it in perspective to the deity in concern. I do not see man as puny and insignificant. In fact, I believe that man comes next on the descending scales of power, RIGHT AFTER the most supreme Deity. Those are my own views. When I said it that way, it was for lyrical expression and emphasis on the actions of the deity on man.

As for the bolded, didn't the Christian God do this alot in the Old testament?

Of course He did! You have simply taken my quote out of perspective

@Jagunlabi: Trash and jabberwocky. None of those religions involved the death of the God/gods in order to save the puny insignificant man. Rather, they stand aloof and administer wrath or blessings due to the man's actions. You lie.

THAT WAS WHAT I SAID. In perspective, the OT God of the Jews really did all of that, but it is very clear that the same one who did that also created an alternative route! And that was what we were talking about.

Please endeavour to read my posts in perspective. I don't have so much time to spend editing posts on nairaland, and I have a way of building up my argument to a point of climax, so you really need to read the entire paragraph to get the gist of it. Or maybe you don't have to.

@Tudor:

I'm honestly pleading with the Xtians and Muslims not to derail this thread. Can you folks leave the proselytization for another thread

@naijababe: if you read the progression carefully, you will see that I was posting in line with the thread (helping to clarify Noetic's point) before I started defending my points. I get it. I'm backing out of the thread now unless the OP (DeepSight) has something to say about the conversation I was having with him. Cheerio

So you say.

Your argument is null, void and trash. I found this on Wikipedia about Orthodox Buddhism (Theravada):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada

there is no almighty God in the buddhist religion.

1. There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day.

2. Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance to a supernatural being.

3. No saviour concept in Buddhism. A Buddha is not a saviour who saves others by his personal salvation. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha as his incomparable guide who indicates the path of purity, he makes no servile surrender. A Buddhist does not think that he can gain purity merely by seeking refuge in the Buddha or by mere faith in Him. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others

4. A Buddha is not an incarnation of a god/God (as claimed by some Hindu followers). The relationship between a Buddha and his disciples and followers is that of a teacher and student.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot01.htm

The buddha never spoke about the existence of Gods.

from your link


Theravada (Pāli: थेरवाद theravāda (cf Sanskrit: स्थविरवाद sthaviravāda); literally, "the Teaching of the Elders" or "the Ancient Teaching", is the oldest surviving Buddhist school.

oldest surviving school of thought and not the OLDEST SCHOOL OF THOUGHT from buddha itself. You might want to read your sources before posting them.

Undecided duh we say "God" because human expression is so poor, we NEED words to express our notions. Maybe you can fast forward into the age when man will have HIVE-MINDS and we wont need to use nouns or even words to express ourselves. O, I forgot, if that was the case, we won't have nairaland and we won't be having this conversation because everyone will know what everyone else knows.

but what makes a "God". The term "God" is poor is poorly defined and bounded. Why not let the first cause be the first cause? why call it God?

Why masculine? In my hurry (was very busy at the time but I wanted to respond) to express my general view on divinity, I must have forgotten to make it politically correct. If you notice, I always use he/she/it whenever I speak about divinity in general. If I had used HER or IT, I would also hear hot-hell and burning sulphur from some other people on the thread,

no you won't, you know damn well masculine characteristics are typically assigned to the Christian God. abi?

how many female portraits of the Christian God are printed? God the FATHER right? It's your job to show to me how this alpha and omega was discovered to be a male.

. In fact, I believe that man comes next on the descending scales of power, RIGHT AFTER the most supreme Deity.

interesting, what about the "minor" deities like ifa, sango, zeus, horus and co. Are they not above us? (considering we harness their powers). Are we above angels and spirits?

Of course He did! You have simply taken my quote out of perspective

so what separates Christianity from other religions that have judgmental gods and saviors? there are examples of reincarnation in other religions too.

In perspective, the OT God of the Jews really did all of that, but it is very clear that the same one who did that also created an alternative route! And that was what we were talking about.

Is the Christian God the only God capable of creating alternative routes?

@naijababe: if you read the progression carefully, you will see that I was posting in line with the thread (helping to clarify Noetic's point) before I started defending my points. I get it. I'm backing out of the thread now unless the OP (DeepSight) has something to say about the conversation I was having with him. Cheerio

I am not against your contributions as long as the thread does not get derailed. Thanks for the respect

'And remember the Day when the wrong doer will bite at his hands, he will say ,'oh ! Would i have taken the path of the messenger (Muhammad).

Ah ! Woe to me ! Would i have never taken so and so as an intimate friend.

He indeed led me astray from the reminder (Quran) after it had come to me.

And satan to man is ever a deserter in the hour of need'
Quran 25:27-29a

Seems to me like you missed your way, stop spamming and move ur shite to Islam for Muslims

here we go again.

@abuzola
spamming as usual

@topic
this topic that was meant to be for me and bamowolo has been derailed as usual.

abuzola999:

You are mad, when you people are deleting my posts how do i react

by posting in the section created for your sect?

Now where were we?? ERM!! yes;


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Okija_juju on Yesterday at 01:38:28 AM
YES!! Yes it self-exists. Sometimes it requires a cause but it has nothing to do with any supernatural being.



Read this line again. Just blatantly self-contradictory. I iwll not respond to this untill you adjust or redress the inherent contradiction yourself.

Actually that didnt come out right. SO let me explain;

When I spoke about nature, remember that I called it a force. Nature is everything around you. Light, air, water, plants, trees, insects, the stars, moon, earthquakes, mudslides, the constolation, e.t.c.

Nature is self-existing, self-sustaining. Ask for nature needing a cause/source _{(in the sense you mean)}, I would say I have no freaking idea. I was born into an already existing world and became part of nature. There was no predestined path or plan. I was born and automatically became part of an already existing system. Nature like I said is a self-sustaining system, it has its own checks and balances that it uses to ensure its continuity.

Quote from: Okija_juju on Yesterday at 01:38:28 AM

The fact that there isnt a shred of evidence that he exists.
The fact that that shit that goes on in our everyday lives happen at all.
The fact that he created such a shitty place like earth and resides inn the coulds/heavens.



It appears to me that you may not have taken any time out to reflect on these issues.

You state, flagrantly, that there is not a shred of “evidence” to suggest that God exists. In this you seem to lose sight of the following:

1.   What is the world around you? Perhaps it does not amount to a “shred” in your view. But if you were lucky enough, or rich enough, to have a ride aboard any of the Apollo Missions, perhaps you would begin to reflect on the meaning of your word – “not a shred. . . “


2.   Cosmologically, you just lose the plot entirely. You speak of nature all around you, and you declare it to be “self existing.” It seems to me (no insult intended) that in cosmological and theological arguments, you are rather young. This is because you do not seem to grasp the difference between “necessary things” and “contingent things.” Do me a favour – before you respond to this, do a wikipedia search, or some other research: because matter, and material or physical things COULD NEVER BE NECESSARY THINGS – Or “self existing” things.


3.   You talk about “shit going on in our everyday lives”. I am sorely tempted not to respond to this at all. I will only ask you to go and review the effects of wild-life predation on the exo-system of the natural world. From the point of view of the hunted creatures: it’s cruel; from a global point of view; we see population control, balance, etc. What do you think a universal mind will be interested in? Do not disappoint me with your response on this one.


4.   You described the earth as a “shitty” place. I can only assume you are not well travelled.

1.   What is the world around you? Perhaps it does not amount to a “shred” in your view. But if you were lucky enough, or rich enough, to have a ride aboard any of the Apollo Missions, perhaps you would begin to reflect on the meaning of your word – “not a shred. . . “

The world around me?! Is that your proof that God exists?? What if I said the theory of the primodial soup and the mutation of a cell sounds more plausible than your creation theory?? I havent actually been to the moon like I am sure you havent either, but just cause there a other planets out there dont proof the existence of a GOD. Stop using these rather cheap sentiments and come out with something more concrete like a foot or fingerprint, voice recordings e.t.c.

A million theories abound as to the cause of the world as it is including the theory of God, and as the scientist that I am, I have weighed some of these theories and so far, the whole GOD/creation theory sounds like a lazy mans excuse to explain that which he does not understand.

2.   Cosmologically, you just lose the plot entirely. You speak of nature all around you, and you declare it to be “self existing.” It seems to me (no insult intended) that in cosmological and theological arguments, you are rather young. This is because you do not seem to grasp the difference between “necessary things” and “contingent things.” Do me a favour – before you respond to this, do a wikipedia search, or some other research: because matter, and material or physical things COULD NEVER BE NECESSARY THINGS – Or “self existing” things.

I have never claimed to be vast in everything, but the little I know has proven to me that nature (not material things o!!) is self-sustaining. I dont see or feel the influence of a GOD or external supernatural being anywhere in it. It would rain when the clouds gets heavy, water would change to gas when it gets heated by the sun and evaporate, a tsunami would happen when a volcano erupts under the sea and in return, new land would be formed, the earth would vibrate/move (earthquake) when the continental plates collide, humans would die if they dont eat, likewise animals, we are born and we will surely die. Thats how nature works. If yoou take an animal to the north pole, it would either die of hypothermia or it would grow thigker furs to protect itself. Thats how nature works.

If their was a God, he definitely would be a part of nature and that would mean he would live and die like every other thing contained in nature. The world can never come to an end not through God, global warming or whatever bull you guys have.

3.   You talk about “shit going on in our everyday lives”. I am sorely tempted not to respond to this at all. I will only ask you to go and review the effects of wild-life predation on the exo-system of the natural world. From the point of view of the hunted creatures: it’s cruel; from a global point of view; we see population control, balance, etc. What do you think a universal mind will be interested in? Do not disappoint me with your response on this one.

HMM!! Is wild-life predation what you think I meant by the "shit" phrase i used in my post?? Now I am dissapointed. I am talking bout real shit. Wars, famine, plagues, pandemics, porverty e.t.c. I call it shit, but at the same time I have accepted it as part of life. Now for you deists who believe in the existence of a supreme being that actually controls the events in nature, I think you actually need a rethink, cos its either your God is a sick twisted little kid or he is blind.

4.   You described the earth as a “shitty” place. I can only assume you are not well travelled.

I thinkk this also came out wrong. Let me rephrase, the earth is actually a facinating place, with a lot of shitty happenings within it. Hope it sounds better. And on the subject of being far travelled?? Lets not even go there, I wouldnt want to come across as being arrogant or boastful.