Stop focusing on arguments and seek knowledge, learn how things work so these things would not be mysterious to you. Reality itself is a million times more fascinating than all the BS superstition can give.

TheEminentLaity

I dae feel this your response Bro.... Impressive

Didn't read anything that relates with my earlier comment. Your post just had explanations for different classifications of belief system. Anyway, Science isn't anti-religion because that would be very petty and only make it look like it is a reactionary field intimidated by religion. But no, rather over time through scientific method of observation and experimentation it has illuminated minds and our understanding to discard long held superstitious beliefs as any explanation for reality. Besides, understanding reality and the world around us is tremendously fascinating and productive such that it leads to lasting solutions for and also prevention of human problems but also potent threats towards our existence as well. Harnessing nature and natural laws to work in our favour make us very sophisticated and way ahead in the animal kingdom. We are not as powerful as say lions or gorrillas or even chimps but we are more intelligent, we are not as adaptable as amphibians cannot live underwater, our offsprings are the most helpless at birth but we are on top of the food chain. These are because of understanding and not superstition or your god. Stop colouring this religious nonsense we have in Nigeria as something that is of any good to us

You always talk about god, but what is god to you? I am damn sure that all the scientists you quote had their different descriptions of what god was to them but you still conveniently use their quotes to validate your 'own' god.
I asked questions that you didn't answer: Tell me why we need god? who or what is the god so you so much talk about? and what has your god done to make life better, not for you but generally? I am very particular about accurate description. Read 'Theology and Falsification' by Anthony Flew and answer the question he asked.

There are scientists that believe in a god, I believe most are too busy to even look at what they actually believe, but that does not in anyway infer that scientific advancement is as a result of their beliefs. How dishonest of you to even say such. Even Darwin didn't say much about humans because of the highly religious era that he lived. Scientific theories go through a lot of scrutiny even within the scientific community but we cannot say that for any religion. In fact, you don't even need to read the whole of the Bible before you start asking 'too many' questions then reading it in context with its not-so-lovey-dovey history such as the text 'Suffer not a witch to live' is enough to make one start looking elsewhere for truth.

Anyway, believe what you want but please answer my questions and try to be as specific as you can be and be ready to do a Prophets of Baal vs Elijah test for your god. There are smartphones and cheap internet now, we should be able to record and upload it on youtube.

KingEbukasBlog:


That one thread that miraculously solves everything

https://www.nairaland.com/3500235/must-read-god-without-religion

DeepSight:


My god? Six days? You are insane.

Its shocking some atheists think every christian believe God created the Universe and earth in six literal 24-hour days . And they strongly believe that pointing out incongruities between science theories and the creation story somehow proves that God does not exist . The deists and other theists have done that as far as the 1st century (Philo of Alexandria) and 4th century (Augustine of Hippo ) had said that there is no reason to take the creation story as literal . I'm a special creationist (Its the stand I take for now ) and I was a progressive creationist ( been that for 5 years or so ) .

KingEbukasBlog:


And atheists stop them from believing in that "myth" by killing them , in their millions .

The myth of atheism has also inspired Cannibalism.

TheEminentLaity:

You always talk about god, but what is god to you?

The creator of the universe . A personal savior and lord .

I am damn sure that all the scientists you quote had their different descriptions of what god was to them but you still conveniently use their quotes to validate your 'own' god.

I'm aware of about a thousand perspectives about God and all those scientists I quoted acknowledge the existence of a conscious cosmic designer

I asked questions that you didn't answer: Tell me why we need god? who or what is the god so you so much talk about? and what has your god done to make life better, not for you but generally?

Why do I need God ? I let you decipher

Richirich713:


The myth of atheism has also inspired Cannibalism.

Of course , why not . He sees no difference between himself and a dog so why not behave like an animal atheism says he is .

Smh .

He will end up subscribing to nihilism and committing suicide in prison .

KingEbukasBlog:


The creator of the universe . A personal savior and lord

Let's leave the creator part since it is something that we can not know. Can we objectively know about this personal saviour and Lord part. How do we go about it?

OP since the thread has been derailed, I apologise for my contribution towards that but some of the responses by certain users only confirm what is a huge part of the problem you created the topic to discuss. I would suggest we make science education a religion, maybe then Nigerians, would start learning. Make science education as mysterious as possible perhaps by making incantations and spilling goat blood before people are admitted to study it. I usually talk to a few people who understand me or at least listen that if Nigerians take education as seriously as they take religion we would not be so impoverished and clueless on how to solve our problems.

KingEbukasBlog:


Of course , why not . He sees no difference between himself and a dog so why not behave like an animal atheism says he is .

Smh .

He will end up subscribing to nihilism and committing suicide in prison .

What is the difference between Jeffrey Dahmer and Ezekiel in the bbile that slaughtered all the prophets of Baal after the contest? They were all murderers weren't they?

TheEminentLaity:
Scientific theories go through a lot of scrutiny even within the scientific community but we cannot say that for any religion. In fact, you don't even need to read the whole of the Bible before you start asking 'too many' questions then reading it

Do you know about the philosophy of religion and theology ? Do you know that in the world of philosophy , beliefs are scrutinized and arguments are used to persuade and provide good reasons to have such beliefs . Do you know that ?

Why do you think there are diverse beliefs about God ? Even God's relationship with abstract objects have different schools of though : nomalism , conceptualism , platonism (there's modified platonism ) . God's omniscience and foreknowledge alone has different schools of thoughts - molinism ,open theism etc . And on God's sovereignty alone : there's Arminianism and Calvinism . There are so many , so many others . Great minds who were theologians would argue for centuries for and against certain concepts about God's attributes with strong arguments . Imagine a school of thought or system of belief arising just because of 2 verses in the bible . And you think that's no big deal ?

'God of the gaps' term was coined by the theists ourselves in objection to the Teleological Argument . Not every theist agrees with the ontological argument . There are so many sects in Christianity because there are diverse interpretations of just 1 or 2 texts in the bible . Its not confusion , its as a result of scrutiny . And scrutiny involves profundity .

Please don't pontificate next time . There's so much for you to learn . Apparently , you were just a nominal Christian ; misconceptions and ignorance led you to atheism

I have seen this before. A journey to self hate. Points taken from racist causasians. The Negro is intellectually inferior? Only a naive mind will say this. I have met loads of causasians who are extremely poor at thinking, but does that mean their race is intellectually inferior? No. Of course there are lots of Dumb black people, many of which are Christians, Muslims and even non religious

We all have our individual strength and weaknesses ,this should be addressed not just class black as inferior. Funny enough I have met lots of whites who are really poor at many things they do. Such people are classed as having learning disorder and not inferior.

The IQ of an average, healthy Black African is excellent. He just happens to live in a world not illusionally created for him, yet he strives, he conquers and will always remain a force to reckon with.

The art of seeing other race as superior brought about the self hate in black Christians who see the Jew as his superior or his created God. He who loves himself will never see himself as inferior.

dalaman:


Let's level the creator part since it is something that we can not know. Can we objectively know about this personal saviour and Lord part. How do we go about it?

From a Christian perspective : A creator and personal God are not mutually exclusive . If God is a personal God then it logically follows that He is the creator

KingEbukasBlog:


From a Christian perspective : A creator and personal God are not mutually exclusive . If God is a personal God then it logically follows that He is the creator

How do we know this claims to be true? How do we know that the creator of the universe wants to save humans from anything? Any objective way of knowing this claim?

dalaman:


How do we know this claims to be true? How do we know that the creator of the universe wants to save humans from anything? Any objective way of knowing this claim?

There are strong historical evidences for the resurrection of Christ . I'm yet to study them though .

KingEbukasBlog:


There are strong historical evidences for the resurrection of Christ . I'm yet to study them though .

all our apologists say are "evidences" are the four eyewitnesses, every other so-called evidence are simply by "faith" and there are evidences that contradicts the resurrection of Christ

even if we do assume the eyewitness accounts confirm it, Eight "eye-witnesses" say they saw and handled the golden plates that Joseph Smith translated into the Book of Mormon. That history is far more recent than Jesus' four witnesses who our apologists nothing about, so using their logic the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints wins on eye-witness numbers and proximity of time. I guess they'll convert to Mormonism now?

KingEbukasBlog:


There are strong historical evidences for the resurrection of Christ . I'm yet to study them though .

What do you mean by strong historical evidence? Are they so strong that anybody that sees them will come to the same conclusion?

How do you jump from the creator of this vast universe that we live in to the stories written about Jesus, a Jewish man that lived over 2000 years ago? Please where is the evidence that Jesus created the universe since you believe that he is God.

hopefulLandlord:


all our apologists say are "evidences" are the four eyewitnesses, every other so-called evidence are simply by "faith" and there are evidences that contradicts the resurrection of Christ

I'm an apologist and I have never heard any such thing . Anyway , there are historical documents that I have to go through thoroughly when the time comes . But why do you think atheists who attempt to study these historical evidences become Christians ? Example CS Lewis . Even Richard Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed and apologized that he lied in his book the 'God Delusion' but he says he remains skeptical about the resurrection of Christ as presented in those historical evidences as a scientist because it questions his beliefs ( he still thinks in his puny mind that scientists should not accept supernatural occurrences ) .

There are historical evidences about levitation by Catholic Priests and some other mysteries well documented . Someone being skeptical about something does not mean it is not true or there is no evidence for it . Sometimes , close-mindedness is the reason why people don't let go of beliefs .

According to Karl Popper , the best way to know if something is true is to try to falsify it . Those atheists attempted falsifying it and ended up becoming Christians .

KingEbukasBlog:


I'm an apologist and I have never heard any such thing . Anyway , there are historical documents that I have to go through thoroughly when the time comes . But why do you think atheists who attempt to study these historical evidences become Christians ? Example CS Lewis . Even Richard Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed and apologized that he lied in his book the 'God Delusion' but he says he remains skeptical about the resurrection of Christ as presented in those historical evidences as a scientist because it questions his beliefs ( he still thinks in his puny mind that scientists should not accept supernatural occurrences ) .

There are historical evidences about levitation by Catholic Priests and some other mysteries well documented . Someone being skeptical about something does not mean it is not true or there is no evidence for it . Sometimes , close-mindedness is the reason why people don't let go of beliefs .

According to Karl Popper , the best way to know if something is true is to try to falsify it . Those atheists attempted falsifying it and ended up becoming Christians .

you're not an apologist, you're a regurgitator

its funny how you try to drown anyone debating with you in pure inanities while polishing them like they mean anything

that you haven't heard such thing doesn't mean they don't, WLC uses that a lot in his debates, you can watch one of his debates "did Jesus rise from the dead?" every other "evidence" he gave are very flimsy at best and grasping at straws at worst, he also used it in his debate with professor Arif Ahmed

Allister McGrath too is one such apologist, watch his debate with Richard Dawkins

those are off the top of my head, you don't see them cuz you watch 3 minute cut part videos and pretend you've watched all

some guys researching and then becoming Christian doesn't confirm anything and I honestly don't know what Dawkins is doing there cuz even you admitted he doesn't think the resurrection is true and resurrection is the topic NOT whether a son of Jewish carpenter existed or not

the Catholic church also have records of the sun ziig zagging, dancing and crashing down to earth at "Fatima",Portugal in 1917, seems legit, that's where "Our Lady of Fatima" originated from


I tried and painfully read this epistle you just posted and can't see any of those "historical evidence" you claimed others saw, can you point them out? seems my eyes are not functioning properly right now

ifenes:
I have seen this before. A journey to self hate. Points taken from racist causasians. The Negro is intellectually inferior? Only a naive mind will say this. I have met loads of causasians who are extremely poor at thinking, but does that mean their race is intellectually inferior? No. Of course there are lots of Dumb black people, many of which are Christians, Muslims and even non religious

We all have our individual strength and weaknesses ,this should be addressed not just class black as inferior. Funny enough I have met lots of whites who are really poor at many things they do. Such people are classed as having learning disorder and not inferior.

The IQ of an average, healthy Black African is excellent. He just happens to live in a world not illusionally created for him, yet he strives, he conquers and will always remain a force to reckon with.

The art of seeing other race as superior brought about the self hate in black Christians who see the Jew as his superior or his created God. He who loves himself will never see himself as inferior.

Aren't you guys tired of offering these pathetic emotional responses to a serious issue? It's quite remarkable that someone like you, who strongly advocates objectivity, is displaying the opposite of objectivity so unabashedly, because you perceive the line of inquiry as deprecating towards the racial category you identify with. It's really shameful.

To show you how sentimental people like LOJ and Ifenes are, just imagine this topic was about exploring questions like physical strength or physical endurance, as it applies to race and the variation among different races. You definitely won't find responses like: Race is an illusion. It's just a social construct. Or statements like: Every race displays the same amount of physical strength and physical endurance. This gives credence to the fact that these guys are reasoning emotionally and not logically and objectively.

Blacks have been scientifically proven to be more vulnerable to sickle cell than Caucasians, just as Caucasians have been scientifically proven to be more vulnerable to mental illnesses like Schizophrenia than blacks are. Blacks also show less tolerance for lactose than whites. All these expressions have strong genetic and evolutionary underpinnings. Why then is intelligence treated differently when it's clearly a genetic manifestation? And how does exploring this terrain make one a self-hater or racist or neo-nazi?

Trudax:
To show you how sentimental people like LOJ and Ifenes are,...

What is this one saying?

What is a black man? Do you know the meaning of a race? Have you studied the question? Tell me, the people in these pictures belong to which race? Can you guess? I will give you the correct answer.

Did you thoroughly studied the topic of the race, or you are just making self hating racialist biased pseudo scientific claims?

For the sake of the readers,

Do not be deceived by pseudo science in self hate and inferiority complex. As far as Biology and genomes are concerned, there is no such thing as a race. And the reason is simple: If you take the adn of an individual, it is impossible to single out to which race he belongs to. I repeat it again: Race does not exist. Or to put it in better terms, Race is a societal/social construct. It is an illusion that exists only in our mind, and is perpetuated by fools, ignorants, and supremacist bigots.

Anybody talking to you about how this race is this, or that race is that, is a plain ignorant.

I would have provided scientific papers but they are in german and french. Here are however simple links, easy to read and understand.

Further reading:
Books: Genes, Peoples, and Languages By LUIGI LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA

Race: the power of an illusion by California Newsreel

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/science-says-there-no-such-thing-race/

“Race is a construct. First off: Sociology 101. In biology, there is no race. You can’t look at the DNA of someone and be like 'That person is this race.' Because race doesn’t really exist.” Trace Dominguez

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/01/racism-science-human-genomes-darwin

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/race-nosuchthing-gross-1557

Trudax:

.......
Blacks have been scientifically proven to be more vulnerable to sickle cell than Caucasians, just as Caucasians have been scientifically proven to be more vulnerable to mental illnesses like Schizophrenia than blacks are. Blacks also show less tolerance for lactose than whites. All these expressions have strong genetic and evolutionary underpinnings. Why then is intelligence treated differently when it's clearly a genetic manifestation? And how does exploring this terrain make one a self-hater or racist or neo-nazi?

So, let us put your bolded comments to the test, bring us your contemporary peer reviewed generally accepted scientific evidence showing conclusively that the sub-Saharan negroid is genetically pre-disposed to intellectual inferiority in comparison to his Caucasian counterpart.

Please for all those who venerate LOJ due to his intellectual reputation on this forum, please don't be mislead to think that he is making an iota of sense on this issue, because he is not.

The issue of race is a hugely debated one in scientific and academic circles. There are two sides to the argument on whether race does exist or not. LOJ is offering one side of the argument and presenting it as fact. But I implore you to examine both sides of the argument and make conclusions for yourself.

Lots of books and research material have been released that strongly refutes his claims, and from my reading, they seem to be more objective than the censored claims about the nonexistence of race.

Check out books like:
A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, race and human history, by Nicholas Wade.

And the works of the likes of Charles Murray and Philippe Rushton and a lot of renowned scientists who have risked their careers by exploring this subject, despite the overwhelming degree of opposition to their research.

In my opinion, the assertion of the illusory nature of the concept of race, is more of a political assertion than a scientific one.

Trudax:
Please for all those who venerate LOJ due to his intellectual reputation on this forum, please don't be mislead to think that he is making an iota of sense on this issue, because he is not.

I have no intellectual reputation in this forum. I hardly write, and I read a lot what others do write. I don't know where you got that one.

Trudax:
In my opinion, the assertion of the illusory nature of the concept of race, is more of a political assertion than a scientific one.

Can you provide evidence of the claim? Start by telling me to which race belong the people in the pictures I have posted here multiple times.

Then, if I provide you the ADN sequence of an individual, can you indicate if the person is of a particular race or not? Which tools do you use? Back your claims with facts, and leave non existent issues of "intellectual reputation" aside.

Again, I only react for the sake of some readers. I do not expect much, and there is no substance in your otherwise long posts. If you don't clearly know about the biological inexistence of the race, you have simply not studied the question. It is obvious for anyone who knows his oignons on this issue.

Would you mind providing these evidences here:

Sarassin:
[...]bring us your contemporary peer reviewed generally accepted scientific evidence showing conclusively that the sub-Saharan negroid is genetically pre-disposed to intellectual inferiority in comparison to his Caucasian counterpart.

Trudax:
Lots of books and research material have been released that strongly refutes his claims, and from my reading, they seem to be more objective than the censored claims about the nonexistence of race.

It may also be useful to remind you, that not only you fail to understand race as a societal construct, but you also do not even know that Intelligence means nothing (to put it in simple terms), as I have promptly (though superfically) indicated to you in my penultimate post.

What is intelligence? Intelligence means nothing. Intelligences is more relevant. What do you mean by being "intellectually superior" ? How do you define this superiority? We all know that there are various forms, aspects and expressions of intelligence. Which one are you focusing on? How do you measure and come to the conclusion of superiority or inferiority?

So basically, you make a correlation between two things that you superficially comprehend, and expect sane minds to agree with your premises, all in the name of objectivity.

Are Sub-saharan Africans Intellectually Inferior To Other Races?

The answer is YES and there is an explanation for that.

Explanation: Historically, our great grand generations had life easier than other races. We had nicer climate and more fertile ground to cultivate. The basic necessities of life are food, shelter and clothing. We had it very easy accessing these whereas other races like the Europeans had to think outside the box to survive. necessity is the mother of all inventions. The struggle for survival made them more advanced than us. As a result, they made us weaker politically by invading the Africa and creating mapped out places they called nations. Those who resisted where dealt with their superior fire power. Politics is the highest miracle worker. Our intellect was also largely subdued with religion. Finally, the political economy arrangement to depend on natural resources instead human resources as source of revenue for the government put the final nail on the coffin. We have been suffering from dutch disease for a long time now. To under more of this, read about the Norsemen from Netherlands.


Trudax, Catfishbilly, hardmirror, Hahn, Jackbizzle, johnydon22, plaetton, loj, dalaman, deepsight, bigfrancis21

onyenze123:
Are Sub-saharan Africans Intellectually Inferior To Other Races?

The answer is YES and there is an explanation for that........

So, are we to take it that you consider yourself intellectually inferior to your Caucasian counterparts?

Sarassin:


So, are we to take it that you consider yourself intellectually inferior to your Caucasian counterparts?

No, because I am lucky my human resources have been developed and we are speaking in general here.

which continent has the least Human Development Index and highest illiteracy level?

onyenze123:


No, because I am lucky my human resources have been developed and we are speaking in general here.

which continent has the least Human Development Index and highest illiteracy level?

Are you aware that there have been times where reverse was the case? Did that also mean that the whiteman then was intellectually inferior?

LoJ:

It may also be useful to remind you, that not only you fail to understand race as a societal construct, but you also do not even know that Intelligence means nothing (to put it in simple terms), as I have promptly (though superfically) indicated to you in my penultimate post.

What is intelligence? Intelligence means nothing. Intelligences is more relevant. What do you mean by being "intellectually superior" ? How do you define this superiority? We all know that there are various forms, aspects and expressions of intelligence. Which one are you focusing on? How do you measure and come to the conclusion of superiority or inferiority?

So basically, you make a correlation between two things that you superficially comprehend, and expect sane minds to agree with your premises, all in the name of objectivity.

If you read any of my previous posts, you wouldn't be asking me these questions, because I explicitly acknowledged the fact that there were different kinds of intelligence and I proceeded to define the kind of intelligence the premise of my thread was referring to, and I clearly stated the reasons why I had the view.