Jenwitemi:

I've heard this arguement being made by cristians in some of these endless debates about creation that scientists can't create out of nothing when they do their genetic manipulation voodoos. And i thought to myself, "well, the bible god cannot, either".

It's nice to think to yourself; but your logic is flawed. Think carefully about the following -

(a) Creation out of nothing is what is peculiarly known as 'creatio ex nihilo'.

(b) Creation out of nothing is different from 'creation out of something' - the latter is commonly known as 'creatio ex materia', and that is the case applied to Adam having been created from the dust of the earth.

(c) Both ^^ creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia are found in the Bible.

(d) However, the scientists who worked on such cases as the Craig Venter synthetic life could not be said to have done the same thing as (a) above ['creatio ex nihilo' - out of nothing] - no; for we know they took from already existing lifeforms and only changed them into another lifeform.

mrmayor:

@ Olaadegbu,

People of faith won't accept that the Universe created ITSELF aka BIG BANG. They insist that they must be a creator but Where Did GOD come from.

1. God created Himself. Is this not the same as BIG BANG? Out of Nothing in empty space God Appeared or Created Himself!

2. Something or Someone created God. If God did not created or appear out nothing in empty space, some higher power must have created him.

Both of them are statements of faith expressed by the atheist - and so the atheist is the one who should provide answers as such. When you draw a conclusion that asserts strongly that some higher power must have created God, then it's all up to you to show us indeed what/who that higher power is.

The theist does not draw such conclusions, does not posit such arguments (whether 1 or 2) - rather, the atheist often asserts them, and it is the atheist that should grapple with what he asserts. The funny thing is that, when you can tell us who/what it is that "must have" created God, then you would also be demonstrating your own faith in two powerful indices:

     (a)   that there must be a God  -
     (otherwise, where is the premise in [2] above for your assertion
     that a 'higher power' must have created Him?)

     (b)   that there must be a God  -
     (otherwise, where is the premise in [1] above for your assertion
     that God appeared or created Himself?)

The one thing I often notice is that atheists also assert their own "faith", and it does not matter how much they want to deny that it is "faith". The basic question thus far is this: did the Universe create itself; or was it created by "another"? Leaving all "faiths" aside, where is the evidence that the Universe created itself?

thehomer:

daviddylan's question was on how the earth came in to existence. So I was speaking of the formation of the earth. From observations of planet and star formation in the cosmos, there is a difference between this and the opinions proffered in the bible.

Okay, thanks for clarifying - although it does not appear that's how the gist follows. Davidylan, if I recall, stated simply: "You believe God didnt create the earth right?" That is the heart of the question - if God didn't create the earth, then perhaps "someone else" did: which was why he asked - "Where is your proof that anyone else did?"

It was not a question of the "formation" of the earth, but rather whether or not the earth was "created". If it was created, WHO created it? If it was "anyone else", WHO?

Thus, when you replied that "the evidence is in the science of astronomy", I wondered if you were indicating that astronomy shows that "anyone else" had created the earth (see post #49). I had broadened my enquiry to include the UNIVERSE, though (and it was indeed the "universe" that mazaje started arguing on and on about). The basic question is one of whether the universe created itself or was created by someone at all: thus, if it created itself, I was very interested in any science of astronomy that demonstrates that inference - not to mention that the atheistic idea that the universe 'had always existed' is now long abandoned completely.

chukwudi44:

Just want to confirm if the word of faith movement is entirely distinct from Pentecostalism or just a subset of it.

I would say that WOF (Word of Faith) movement could be a subset of Pentecostalism. The latter term (pentecostlism) is very broad and is an unbrella word for many different groups across the major branches of Christendom. For example, while it's hard to come by any Catholic group self-identified as 'WoF', there are a few expressions of "Catholic Pentecostal[ism]" (basically, these Catholic Pentecostals are not generally seen as adhering faithfully to the historic Catholic faith - an article here that exemplifies this).

Joagbaje:

"We are divine" its wofff doctrine!

Yes, that is quite the quintessential WOF doctrine. . . and we've discussed this in other threads.

ednut1:

Proof that your proof is no proof. your genesis lack logic. Adam and eve story does nt explain hw black, white,asian com about. Or from where cain's wife 4rm. your proof is a flop

Was the question in the OP about the Trinity or about the different races?

It pays to carefully look at a topic or subject and discuss along what is said, not what it does not say. . . otherwise you end up making a mockery of your own post.

@mazaje,

There's nothing you have shown in any science that I requested. I shall leave it at that with a simple invitation - whenever you can find the science that answers to the simple question I proffered, oblige me a discussion.

Now this:

mazaje:
Dey there . . .[][][][][][][][][][][][]. . . .I'll cancel the email address as soon as you get it. . .

Thanks - I got it now.

^^ Well, it's all about promoting herself, isn't it? Juanita would see no qualms in anything as long as it helps to promote her.

_____

However, I don't feel there's anything perplexing about using stuff in the world or engaging in the culture of our day in a healthy manner. On the one hand, we are to use the world but not abuse it (1 Cor. 7:31); on the other hand, we are to take care to not promote unhealthy ends (Phil. 4:.

babsmii:

. . . i think i might not make so much so im waiting for a witch crafted goat with 3heads,

Start with this:

[img]http://2.bp..com/_qHuLIb9ZGIs/SxVHVhIQlSI/AAAAAAAAB-Q/9mQ415wwZgs/s1600/TripleHeader.jpg[/img]

ohis 4:

The truth of all this lies within us. search wat your heart say and that is it.

Some peeps heart tells them it is 'juju' or 'witchcraft' - is that also what it is??

mazaje:

You offered nothing at all, all you did as usual was to take a point and try to give it a meaning of your own, i tried to simplify the argument for you but as usual instead of addressing it you went your usual way of chasing you very long tail. . .keep on keeping on, Keep chasing your shadow and lets see if you can run faster than it. . . .

When people make these very sob replies, I laugh and leave them to fool themselves further. Apart from being so dubious (which I never dreamed was possible of you), you simply refused to show me anything about what I requested. The posts are still up there - make of them what you will, I sometimes never take you any seriously these days.

mazaje:

Science does not argue about any God but it shows that the God hypothesis needs to be relagated to its myth status.

Where does science - any science - say a word about 'God'? This is the irony that escapes you. First you admit that science does not argue about God; but mazaje would rather foist his own wild misplaced ideas upon science to make it say what it does not say, innit? Perhaps that explains why up until now you can't show anything beyond just sounding like a broken record. Enjoy the endless loop.

mazaje:
Example modern astronomy as relegated the way your god (and other gods) said the created the universe to the cofines of mythology as such christain cosmologist have relegated the narrative of their God to the realm of mythology by stating that the way he said he created the universe is an allegory.

Please mazaje, just show us where science ever infers that the UNIVERSE was not created. That is all I ask - show that simple thing and save the rest. WHY is that such a problem for you personally? I am more interested in the science - that's all. If you can't show the science, just shut up. You don't pay tax for making noise - so continue if that is all you want to do. But if you have any substance, calmly walk me through such a "science", that's all.

mazaje:
. . . .I know you are more intrested in chasing your tail and trying to see if you can run faster than your shadow. . Enjoy. . . . 

I guess you're describing what you do in your day job, hehe. Mazaje, just don't make me laugh (by the way, if you are in touch with toneyb, could you help connect us? I lost the e-addy he left me and have regretted not emailing him).

thehomer:

Hello viaro.

Yes it is a spiritual exercise but the attitude needs to change for those that view it as something more than just a spiritual exercise.

Hi thehomer. I agree with your statement there ^^. The problem is that many people fail to see things for what they are and so arrive at generalizations that muddy the waters in discussions.

thehomer:

From your quote on the book, it is clear that he worked hard for this achievement. Implying that it was simply by prayer is to me analogous to saying that some Indian mystic discovered curative effects of some herbs by chanting ignoring the hard work and observation that went into it.

I don't suppose that anyone was saying that Ross achieved his feat merely by prayer alone and nothing else. The whole point was that he sought prayerfully for guidance - and in addition to that, he worked hard to seek answers while in his day the usual answer to the malady was that "No, not yet; we seek the laws". Again, it was not that Ross just sat down and prayed and did nothing else.

thehomer:

I feel his group should first function before we conclude that he aims to slur other people's worldviews. The promise of liberation needs to be made. I feel it is a form of advertisement. He has to make some claims but it is still up to him to live up to them or his cause will be abandoned.

You see, you even have a more reasoned approach to issues here - which have been pointed out already. If the 'prof' wanted to solicit membership to join his society, we won't have any problems with that. But trying to sell whatever he was advertising on the back of his misplaced ideas about "religion" is not going to help his CV. Nigeria has problems, so let's address them by first highlighting those problems and not cheapening them to excuses about "religion". Did he take care to even attempt addressing that? No. People who don't have a clue about the problems they want to address are themselves a bigger problem to the entire nation.

thehomer:

I still do not understand how the skepticism he proposes is worse than what we have now in Nigeria. I have noticed that when people start becoming skeptical, it tends to spread into other aspects of their lives. You do agree that some amount of skepticism is acceptable. And in my opinion, a skeptics group may just be one way of trying to educate people on some methods of thinking rationally.

Like I said, I do acknowledge that some form of skepticism is both acceptable and indeed necessary. What I disdain is the idea that we can hide behind "skeptical" societies to make noise about "problems" we have no clue about nor are willing to address. That is just bunkum. One does not have to be religious or atheistic if he/she wants to talk about resolving problems in a country towards development or a better cause for the polity of a nation.

It is when that person begins to argue away from the real problems for his or her selfish ends that we must question (and indeed challenge) such silly snake-oil salesmanship. I say this regardless of what kind of leadership (political, business/economic, religious, academic, or even atheist) such a claimant or proposer represents, as I noted in post #17.

profibadan:

Viaro, I will not dignify your intellectual poverty and weak reasoning with responses as you have failed to address the issues I raised but take it upon yourself to be a Crusader for what can never be proven.

Please stop being such a cheap slowpoke. What have you ever addressed in any of your post? Did you stumble across the word "intellectual" and so just use it anyhow without a clue what it means? What have you "proven" in any line of your posts? You have absolutely NOTHING worthy of a serious glance, that is why you can't respond to simple issues - would I be surprised at all?

profibadan:

If only you can tell me the true God among the over 1,000 gods and goddesses in the world. Sketpics do not claim to have answers to all of life experiences but we do not subscribe to weak escapism by proposing concepts that are irrational, like trinity and God creating Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden only for Cain to kill Abel and Cain was said visit the city of Nod to marry a wife after we had been told that only 4 people existed in the world.

The irony escapes you, no doubt. To make it all easier for you and your cheap lot, I asked you to leave out the question of any Creator and show me any truth in your affirmation that "the universe does not have a created" (sic). You made a claim, address it and stop pretending that others are making irrational statements and only your cheap shots are rational.

profibadan:

Please Viaro, We skeptics are careful to make blind and silly conclusions, what we do not know, we dont attribute to God or spirits. please go and preach your gospel ton intellectual imbeciles like yourself

Thanks for the mouthful, haha . . . your skeptic imbecility has shown itself to be loud and lazy all along. And please remove that lie that you skeptics are "careful" to {not} make blind and silly conclusions - because you actually do. The difference is that when you make them and are asked to present evidence for what you assert, you begin to castigate other worldviews and yet never ever show anything for what you assert! Your skepticism is trash - I feel sorry for those who want to cause themselves more problems in addition to the ones Nigeria is facing.

@profibadan,

I observe you're either too full of yourself or one lazy thinker crawling out of damp and dark recesses. If you wanted to just advertise your lazy skeptical society, by all means do so. But when you assume to read your own shallow ideas into viaro's post, you're calling for some schooling up.

profibadan:

I like to say that some of the most progressive countries of the world are secular. Take the Scandinavain countries into consideration. Skepticsm is a philosophy which allows you to question the before choosing to believe or not to believe, even your bible says you should find out what everything and hold on to that which is the truth.

This is a cheap argument. The Scandinavian countries you are on about did not rise to their level of development by any 'skeptical' movement or society. That is why I posted a vid earlier (post #17) on the study by Dr. Hans Rosling - there you will find how Swedish studies are conducted that benefit everyone, not because they sat down and started making these stupid cheap noise about 'skeptical societies' you're advertizing. Your skepticism is cheap and lazy, non-productive and that is why you never address real issues and have no clues about what nation building is all about.

profibadan:
If a child dies, the Christians console the parents that is is an act of God, if the baby recovers from illness, it is an act of God, Bimbo Odukoya perished in a plane crash, that was also an act of God. When are we going to stop acting foolish and blame our inefficiency instead of using God as answers to all things. Viaro stop defending what is not what defending.

What have I tried to "defend" that you're seeking to hang on my neck in that quote ^^ ??

profibadan:

If everything and every existing beings have a creator,
If God is an existing being,
Who created God?

I wish you came to this forum much earlier to see where I addressed that question. Take the advice given you in post #15 and read through some of the discussions that predate your arrival, or better still make enquiries and seek a discussion. In so far as I have not posited that God must need a creator to bring Him into existence, it then becomes your own problem to show who created the Creator. It is okay to lazily deny that there is a Creator; but it is another thing to beg the question by suggesting a strawman that even you cannot address.

profibadan:

If you admit that God does not have a creator, and you also claim, he is an existing being, then you have contracted yourself.

How have I contradicted myself? I want you to address that question pronto, because it would help us determine where your skepticism is going. You don't have a clue about the word "create/creation", do you?

profibadan:
So it is also right to understand that the universe does not have a created.

Very good - now you also have joined the ring of those who let their atheism run wild. For the moment, let's leave out the postulation of any Creator having created the Universe - since that seems to be the nightmare of you lot - now, please show me from any science how this Universe came into existence completely and entirely on its own. I've tried to ask this question once in another thread ('Can Anything Come Out Of Nothing?') - do you care to address this or rather go to the other thread and let's see what substance you can add there to make your case?

profibadan:
Man went to the moon with years of research, that some western world claim some believe in God does not mean they use God as an excuse. Some of them have redefined there concept of God faraway from the bible. They have Gay Anglican bishop in Britain and the USA. They supports divorce. All these are anti-biblical. Guys wake up we have work to do. Join the Nigeria Skeptical Society: profibadan@gmail.com

I'm glad that the examples you gave are also termed by you to be "anti-biblical" rather than Biblical. However, how does man's landing on the moon justify the raison d'etre for your "skeptical society"? How does man's landing on the moon show how the Universe came into existence completely on its own without any inference of having been created? How does that even display a basis for anyone using God as an excuse? Do you even understand the meaning of "research"?

I hope that those who are "joining" your club already see what a pitiful crap you want to sell them - you don't have any substance in your posts, nothing to show about the real problems Nigeria faces (apart from your cheap arguments to lazily narrow it down to religion); nothing of substance presented in your posts in this thread that promises a light at the end of the tunnel - all empty talk and excuses. This lazy empty talk is the best you offer them for your proposed "skeptical society"? Good. (I now feel even more sorry that you're one more bigger problem than a solution to Nigeria).

kabukabu:

Nigerians ARE lost

I don't know why statements like this rile me up!
'Nigerians' are NOT lost - please don't try to make sweeping generalizations on the ignorance of a few! There are many Nigerians who are making very respectable names all over the place without being ashamed of the name 'Nigerian'. There's not a single country you can find anywhere in the world where some of its citizens (born and bred) don't have a funny side to them.

mazaje:

^^

Long talk with no substance at all, as usual you prefer chasing shadows. . . .The point is simple, The God they were talking about there is the God of the bible whom davidylan says created the universe, thehomers objection to that claim was modern astronomy which simply shows that the universe was NOT created by that God since the way that God said he created the universe is all there for all to read in the book of genesis. . .You can deny it all you want with all you long epistles, but it does not change the fact of what thehomer was talking about. . .

I offered you a very simple outline earlier, you ranted all you wanted and yet produced absolutely nothing for your arguments. Nevermind the duplicity of trying to read your own argument into thehomer's posts, I went ahead to simplify it for you again in post #53, and yet again you baulked. Why do you guys play fast games and after all the noise you end up with such blowouts? Dude, please go it easy on your flat tyres - if you don't have anything to say, just shut up.

mazaje:

Sure science does not talk about any god but it does show and tell us that the creation accounts that all the Gods of man made religions have inspired or are FALSE. . .

You must be on cheap gin. What 'science' argues anything about God anywhere? This is worse than straight lying without shame on your part. I shoulda known you won't bring anything to the table for serious discussion - that is why you will make so much noise about science up and down the street and yet confuse yourself all the more.

No worries, mazaje. . . I still hold this part of your post as the only honest remark you made tonight:

mazaje:

Science does not say that any God created or did not create the universe . .

Enjoy plenty.

Rmc1:
I am not an expert in that feild, but still remember what i learnt in school, but one thing i know for sure it is not juju or witch craft!!! I JUST HOPE THE REAL EXPERTS WILL COME AND CLEAR THE AIR AND MYSTERY

I did not argue that it was a case of witchcraft or "juju". I'm particular about the genetics you hinted at:

Rmc1:

The process of the ovary seperating into 2 is is highly determined by the genes and DNA of a mammal and to answer your question there are usually changes in the DNA of a cell and this is caused by external factors like radiation, viruses, bacteria, transposons, and mutagentic chemicals as well as various errors that occur during dna replication. in a nut shell nature is not perfect.

I understand a bit about DNA replication and all that stuff. I just wanted to know what you meant by "the process is stopped along the line thats why the chick ended up with 4 legs" - what process that "stopped" along which line so that the result was 4 legs, that was what surprised me.

Nothing biggy, just curious - that's all.

mazaje:

Where did thehomer say that astronomy says that the universe created it self?. . . . .His answer to davidylan was simple modern astronomy shows that the creation account of how his God said he created the universe is false.

Please stop lying for him. Thehomer did not say what you're at pains to explain on his behalf - and at risk of not misquoting him, I outlined my concerns and left the question open in post #49. I don't read anywhere in any line of thehomer in this thread talking about creation account anywhere - and if you're insinuating that thehomer did not infer that the universe created itself, I don't see how you should be reading your own ideas into his post.

The issues are simple and straight forward: Davidylan asked that since thehomer does not believe that God created the [earth/Universe], what proof does the latter have that someone else did it - to which thehomer replied: "The evidence is in the science of astronomy." If that is saying that thehomer wishes to argue for "someone else", who is that someone else then? On the other hand, if he says that the science of astronomy is evidence that God did not create the [earth/UNIVERSE], then I would very much like to see how he argues his case from the same science of astronomy anyhow and anywher. This has nothing to do anywhere with thehomer saying that he was trying to falsify any "creation account" - and I wonder how you are at pains to misread that into his post to now make it your own argument.

My question is simple as well: drawing from what thehomer says, please show me from the science of astronomy how anyone would imagine that the UNIVERSE came into existence entirely on its own - since that is another way of saying the same thing as "the Universe created itself". If the idea that God created the Universe is "wrong", then how does the science of astronomy show that the same UNIVERSE emerged completely on its own without any Creator? All you need to do is show me the case for a science of astronomy that establishes that otherwise "no-Creator" inference, rather than turning this into a brainless argument and platform for your misplaced atheism.

mazaje:

. . .As usual you will not want to address that instead you will always prefer to run around talking about God  as a broad entity as if the God you believe in did not give you and others a detailed account of how he allegedly created  the universe.

No, you are the one evading the simple question I asked and letting your atheism run everywhere without dealing with what I have posted. Not to even mention the fact that you are reading your own ideas into thehomer's post that he did not even mention a dot about what you are forcing into them.

mazaje:

Just where did thehomer state that  the science of astronomy stated any of the things you are talking about?

I did not draw any conclusion or force any interpretation into his post - that is why I laid out my concerns and asked questions in post #49, being careful to use such expressions as "I wonder if he/she is saying. . .  OR altogether that. . ."  I did not force anything into his posts anywhere; and there's no coming back of thehomer to claim that he was saying what you read into his post - that would be plain false and flying in the face of what does not appear in his post. If he is in doubt, I could ask the questions again.

mazaje:

His answer was clear and it he was referring to a particular God, and he used modern astronomy as his evidence against that particular God hypothesis. . .

That is all hogwash - he did not use the science of astronomy against any God. I have quoted davidylan's post directly upon which I quoted thehomer's. Please read post #49 again and see how I juxtaposed them, editing nothing. Besides all this, did you not acquiesce that the science does not argue anything against or about God creating the universe? Just to not risk anything in your post, I cite a relevant section from yours again:

mazaje:

Science does not say that any God created or did not create the universe . . .

So, if science does not argue about God, you deem to foist your own argument of God to make science say what it does not? Please take a careful look at your signature - you may need it just about here: "Pretending 2 know things that you don't know is d lifeblood of religion". . . which makes me wonder that you have a religion already that simply does not know what it wants to argue.

5solas:

If you don't worship Him for fear of hell (in whole or in part), then I think I can safely conclude that you would still worship Him, even if there were no heaven or hell.

That's a point. I was also wondering about the basis of "worship" - is it fear or love, or both? One of my fav verses for "worship" is 1 John 4:18 - "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." This perhaps explains "fear" (in terms of "dread" does not seem to cross my mind when in "worship". . . except where the word "fear" has the meaning in context of reverence. I don't know. . . just musing.

mazaje:

^^
You are getting it wrongly. . .When thehomer was talking about God, he is talking about the God of the bible who davidylan believes in, The God who's creation account is written in the book of genesis. . . .When davidylan talked about God(God of the bible of course) creating the universe thehomer then pointed to the fact that mordern astronomy shows that the creation account which the bible God whom davidylan believes created the universe is wrong. . . .The universe did NOT come about that way from observable evidence. . . . .Which God are you talking about? If you are talking about the bible God and how he said he created the universe we can then takes his words and how he said he created the univese and compare it with the observable evidence and see if they match. . .They don't. . . .And that is the point thehomer was talking about. . . .Science does not say that any God created or did not create the universe but it sure tells us that the creation account we have of the many Gods such as Allah, Yaweh, Zeus etc creating the universe are FALSE. . . .Even Christain cosmologist have relagated the creation accounts in genesis to allegories. . . .Very telling. . . .

You didn't explain anything, and again just ignored what I pointed out so you could post hastily.

Let me make it simple for you: where is the science of astronomy that argues that the UNIVERSE created itself? Please deal with that simple question - that is what I replied to thehomer to help sort out.

If you can't deal with that question, please don't try to entertain me with long evasive complaints. Give me the answer from the so-called "science of astronomy". Next time learn to digest posts before you hastily reply.

babaearly:

How can a body of "skeptics" liberate a country full of "believers"?

That is the one issue he's not telling anything. Forget whether or not a country like Nigeria has believers - but just how can skepticism "liberate" Nigeria or any country for that matter?

Rmc1:

That chick with four legs occured as a result of genetic defects or genetic disorder a process where the ovaries is about to seperate into 2 but the process is stopped along the line thats why the chick ended up with 4 legs

As an asides (maybe not related to the thread), what did you mean by the highlighted? At what point in the separation of the ovaries into 2 being stopped would the result become 4 legs? How do you explain that?

mazaje:

But the science of astronomy has shown that the creation account of how the God davidylan and you said he created the universe is wrong, no?. . . .

I don't think you read posts these days before your itchy fingers rush for a reply.

Anyhow, my guy mazaje, take it easy and let me point out my concern in thehomer's rejoinder.

(1) This is what Davidylan said:

davidylan:

You believe God didnt create the earth right? Where is your proof that anyone else did?

It's quite simple: since thehomer does not believe God created the earth, what proof has the latter (thehomer) that anyone else did? It is not a question of a creation account of "how" God created the UNIVERSE - but rather about whether God created it at all.

(2) To this, thehomer replied:

thehomer:

The evidence is in the science of astronomy. From observations of planet and star formation in the cosmos.

Thus, when someone says that evidence of the "creation" [whether of the earth or UNIVERSE] is in the science of astronomy, I wonder if he/she is saying that the science of astronomy shows creation by God or someone else; or altogether that the science of astronomy makes a conclusive case that the UNIVERSE or earth created itself without a Creator.

Now, when you say this:

mazaje:

But the science of astronomy has shown that the creation account of how the God davidylan and you believe in said he created the universe is wrong, no?. . . .

. . . my direct question is this: where has astronomy argued against the creation of the Universe? Or yet, how has the science of astronomy "shown" that God created the Universe is "wrong"?

I sometimes wonder whether this whole argument atheists often betake themselves to, is just a mind-game not to be taken with any measure of serious discussion. I am very interested in how astronomy has shown that the Universe created itself entirely on its own (if that is another way to put it). . . or that the Universe emerged entirely on its own.

mazaje:

profibadan link=topic=450553.msg6088327#msg6088327 date=1274736847:

Guys let us join the Nigeria Skeptical Society to provide alternative lifestyle in order to address the chaotic religious irrationalities bedevelling Nigerians, More than 7 have join since the announcement of this Post, mail profibadan@gmail.com or call 07060874312 to join

Do you have money to give out to Nigerians as an alternative since MONEY is the ONLY God they worship?. . . .

Ha, I suspected it would come down to this.

thehomer:

davidylan link=topic=450553.msg6088274#msg6088274 date=1274736026:

You believe God didnt create the earth right? Where is your proof that anyone else did?

The evidence is in the science of astronomy. From observations of planet and star formation in the cosmos.

Oh puhleease!! NO "science of astronomy" past, present or future has made any observations that the universe emerged on its own! If you have any such sciences that draws such a conclusion, please highlight it here for us.

For the most part, many people who talk about being spiritual without being religious do so out of social respectability, IMO. More so, due to the fact that many people today shy away from the term "religion" for whatever reasons.

In like manner, you hear of people saying that Christian (or some other belief system) is not a religion but a "way of life". It almost certainly has not crossed the minds of Christians who talk that way that the NT indeed mentions "pure religion" as a way of life indeed (James 1:27).

However, whatever one chooses depends on context. Some like to think of themselves as being spiritual and not religious as a way of emphasizing something far more involved than certain rules and practices within a denomination. Yet, there are many who find membership in various orgnaised groups who also see themselves as spiritual within their religion.

Hello thehomer,

I would rather not assume that aletheia cheapened Ross' discovery, in so far that the former's post in mentioning the latter was in direct reply to the OP's challenge to cite just an example. There's no hint in aletheia's posts about Ross sitting passively to stumble upon his discovery. Perhaps this resource might be helpful to anyone wishing to learn a bit about Ross in connection with prayer and his work:

Henry Sloane Coffin: An instance of this religious devotion to the mastery of nature is the struggle of Sor Ronald Ross at Bangalore to discover the protozoön which is the carrier of malaria. Working in the laboratory and hospital, he wrote:

     I pace and pace, and think and think, and take
        The fever'd hands, and note down all I see,
     That some dim distant light may haply break.

     The painful faces ask, Can we not cure?
         We answer, No, not yet; we seek the laws.
      O God, reveal through all this thing obscure
         The unseen, small, but million-murdering cause.

Several years later, he writes in grateful triumph:

     This day relenting God
         Hath placed within my hand
     A wondrous thing: and God
         Be praised. At His command,

      Seeking His secret deeds,
         With tears and toiling breath,
      I find thy cunning seends,
         O million-murdering Death.


etc., etc., . . .


[url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qkhJsbzCjToC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=ross+O+God,+reveal+thru'+all+this+thing+obscure&source=bl&ots=duYoJfiL9N&sig=eLRnm-VZk_waBLGS5PwLWjaPobw&hl=en&ei=I936S4fBJqTwmwO_keDHAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false]read more here[/url].

thehomer:

It is also known that one can be religious and still do perfectly good science.

That's a point also made in the book by Henry Sloane Coffin, excerpted above.

thehomer:

Most Nigerians do not view prayer as just a spiritual exercise. Some people actually base important life changing decisions on it.

Nonetheless, it is a spiritual exercise all the same - whether decisions by some are based on prayer, or that prayer is seen in some other way to some other ends, they are all some form of spiritual experiences.

thehomer:

Skepticism is more of a mind set, a method of questioning claims that others may take for granted. It is a way by which most of us gain knowledge. People should not simply take any claims made at face value.

I don't have any problem with having a healthy form of skepticism, as long as we don't hide behind that as an excuse for some cheap arguments. Scientists in many instances adopt a skeptical approach to issues that border around the various sciences; but skepticism as a worldview is indeed a mindset - and its claims are what we must question.

To this end, when someone proposes a "skeptical society" or group as a movement for like-minded adherents on the basis of slurring other people's worldviews, we should begin to ask questions of the proposed skeptical society. In this case, I very much question the validity of the claimant's proposal as an alternative that promises a 'liberation' to Nigeria's problems. Since the OP seems to confuse between prayers and inventions, one must ask how his own skepticism has helped towards nation building - what technologies have his skepticism invented; how many graduates has his skeptical society employed among thousands who pour into the streets with a degree in hand? What does the OP actually say that shows he knows his onions and can demonstrate a good understanding of what it takes to help towards nation building?

thehomer:

I think that religion as it is practiced in Nigeria is still a major part of the problem because it simply gives too much room to blind faith.

The sort of skepticism being broached as an alternative is even far more blind - and that comes on the heels of the fact that many skeptics who rise to complain about Nigeria's problems just do not demonstrate a clear understanding of the diversity of the country's problems! To make a cheap argument, such skeptics narrow everything down to religion - and yet, they cannot tell us how their own skepticism as an alternative can promote national development in the scheme of things.

davidylan:

prof shld simply have come out and told us he hated christianity. There would have been no need for such empty noise making.

^^Touché.

mazaje:

Did prayers turn into a microscope and help him indentify the nature of the pathogen?. .

But is that what you read in aletheia's post anywhere? Who has said anywhere about turning prayers into a microscope in what aletheia posted in reply about Ross?

mazaje:

After haranguing the OP you just turned around to do the same thing you accused him of doing. Name just one problems of a country that has ever been solved by prayers, Just tell us how prayer contributes to solving the problems of any country since you included it as part of the a solution by saying that the problems of any country are not solved by prayers alone. . . .

Did I claim that prayers solve any country's problems? This is the problem with people who read their own misgivings into other people's posts. I have mentioned that prayers are spiritual exercises which people engage in at various levels (whether individual or as a group or community) as far as worldviews are concerned - as such, I noted that a remark like that is not to play down the importance of prayer for anyone who engages in them.

However, the examples I gave about the problems faced by Nigeria in nation development point to something more intrinsic - and that is, they show that the nature of the problems of any country first have to be appreciated before viable solutions could be proffered. Where does the OP with his brainless talk of skepticism show any sense of taking that into consideration?

How has the OP's skepticism brought about development in nation development? What are his real concerns about Nigeria's problems? How many unemployed grads have his skeptical society employed? What technology has his "skeptical society" invented?

For all I know, the OP is a non-starter. If he wanted solicit membership for his own lifestyle, no one would care two scoobies about that. But to then make the very illiterate argument that Nigeria's problems could be better helped by his own skepticism is to qualify him for the joke he is.

toba:

So what has stabilized the country? even leaders of the same country attests to prayer as the only saving grace.

Well, I don't think that prayer is "the only" saving grace in the polity of any country, nevermind what "leaders" attest to. We should be very suspicious indeed of such "leaders" making such attestations - be they political, business/economic, religious, academic leaders.

The problems of any country are not solved by prayer alone (that is not to play down the importance of 'prayer' at any level). I think that collectively, any country's development depends largely on the interplay of various factors.

Aside the example earlier about the Niger-Delta crisis, let's take another example in the broader area that affects developing countries across the board: HEALTH. I choose this example because it is a problem that affects Nigeria and other developing nations as well. When people talk in the broader context of world concerns, we have to ask questions based on a number of factors - and this is where I recommend this vid by Dr. Hans Rosling:

              [flash=450,350]http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=10616539&amp[/flash]

              Synopsis:
              Dr. Hans Rosling uses his famous Gapminder data bubble statistics
              software to unveil a fact-based world view. Using global health data,
              he demystifies the gap between the so-called developing and
              developed worlds.

Is it possible that there is something to learn from studies like this? What really are the issues around development of nations; and what is largely responsible for the gaps between so-called developing and developed worlds? I think that when we begin to grapple with the reality of the issues we face, then we can begin to understand how to source for solutions. This could be far better than the simplistic (and often misleading) views we tend to make in narrowing everything down to just indices of religious or skeptic worldviews.

dogmafree:

atheism is not a religion. it simply means we dont believe in any dogma.

I don't think I've made atheism into a "religion" - this is why I pointed out that informed atheists acknowledge that there are many different types of atheism. However, there is a vast difference between "atheistic religions" and atheism being a religion. And yes, atheists (especially adherents of atheistic religions) actually adhere to certain atheistic dogmas - unless you don't know what a "dogma" actually is.

dogmafree:
if religion were true, there shouldnt be soo many of them. even 5 is too many. god hasnt done a good job showing to us that he exists.

It all depends on what you mean by "religion" - and let us not forget that there are atheist religions among the term "religion" (which would mean that such atheistic religions are also false if "religion" is false).

However, by the same ideology, atheism is FALSE if there are so many of them. Infact, 5 types of atheism is too many; and we know that one person's atheism is not the same for all atheists. Can you therefore make that kind of argument that just because there are different religions, then religion must by default be "untrue"?