₦airaland Forum

flamingREED:
I will begin to take Seun serious
The day he removes 'Oluwa' from his names.

Meanwhile, he's quite still theist,
Trading his soul for the love of money.

and u had to support his soul-trade by making him famous, hence making him achieve his aim effortlessly..then you are an instrument to his self-fulfilment on his love of money...
you are hereby charged with conspiracy to commit the sin of aiding and abetting seun in goin against Matthew 6:33

naijadeyhia:
I keep repeating that the key word here is Motive! If the motive is wrong which i am sure it is then we reject it.

who exactly are u to say a humanitarian donation from an Atheist is wrong..
are u the Father, Son or Holy Spirit?.. the level at which u judge ppl is so naijadeyhian...i am afraid to sat unchristianly

naijadeyhia:
YOU WERE STROLLING DOWN THE STREET AND YOU SAW ONE OF YOUR CHORISTERS PROSITUTING OR EVEN ONE OF YOUR NORMAL MEMBERS and the next day they come to church and want to pay tithe or give offering what would you do?
a) Collect the money and correct them
b) Reject the money and correct them

...haha....u keep shooting urself on the foot..to answer ur question profoundly..
(a)This is what our churches do, so what stops them from collecting the Atheists moni b4 correcting them
(b)i cant imagine a church doin this coz Matthew 7:1-5 wud attack them by default. #QED

News flash! ..your analogy is devoid of reasonin by means of application to this case..which stil emphasizes the fact that ur comprehension skills are so gross..
REASON: your tithes and offerings is not a humanitarian act but a sort of religious obligation(as we see it)
the chorister prostituting are not not giving for charity.....try another example

naijadeyhia:
Let me ask you directly, ARE WE TO OBEY MEN OR OBEY GOD?

lolz...even Holy book quotes to us that God said "i'll cause your enemies(sinx u view non-christians as such) to be at peace with u" Proverbs 16:7..that means they(oppositions) wud find demsefs caving in for u..supporting ur goals..so OBEY GOD who presumably caused the Atheist to be subjected to your cause for charity..they want to be at peace with u by all means..lolz
Moreover, if u obey God, u wont promote Avarice in seun(as u claim) by promoting his ministry in signing up on this forum

naijadeyhia:
Let me even ask you, if your Pastor in daystar knows that a donation is coming from a criminal or a thief would he accept it? Note the keyword there is KNOW!

oh..ur own pastor educates u to label non-christians as thieves and criminals?...wow..i need to know the name of this church of urs pls..am sure u subscribe to accepting moni from corrupt naija politicians coz they av the tag "christian" to themselves..smh

naijadeyhia:
The examples you cited above are are they from the Church to the world or the world to the church?

now..am sure u dont read to comprehension at all...
if the peeps of other religion put their sentiments aside to accept humanitarian aid from christians..while the christians reject the same humanitarian aid(which they publicly requested for) from the non-christians...
who is the hypocrite and bigot here?



if the world behaves likes dis..nobody wud help anybody sinx we wud all reject help from our fellow humans(for humanitarian causes) coz of religion....are u not inadvertently subscribing to the Atheists views that religion is doin more harm to mankind than good?


u mentioned charity...young man..open ur dictionary for the meaning of charity weda it was hinged on religion or humanitarian act

naijadeyhia:
Whats your fuss about even?

this is a 2-way question, imagine me asking u that as well....#null

naijadeyhia:
Here you are trying to scold anas09 for patronizing Seuns website when Seun himself is not patronizing Atheist threads by his comrades in Atheism and he doesn't even care....

i knew you'd come at me..relished the moment b4 u handed it to me on a platter.

naijadeyhia:
At this point i honestly think you should stop

stop doin what pls?..hmmn..and honesty is not a cheap virtue when religion is rife with bigotry...i'd advice u affix another subject pronoun to the adverb "honestly"

naijadeyhia:
Some rejected money by a charity? Is that the first rejected donation by any charity?

i hate being involved with debaters who got a confused perspective..i followed ur debate with MrMontella..and u reiterated(tho in contextual error) that the church(not some as u claim now) refused a donation to themselves(not the charity as u also claim now) from Atheists...[i]#confusion[/i]
ur pensive mood obviously took the best part of an intellectual u..please read to comprehension Sir

naijadeyhia:
Must Atheists donate to charities even? Why not run their own and have atheists donate to atheist run charities is that too difficult to do?

Must the baptist church fund a charity and disturb the public(which includes atheists) for funds?
if they cudnt solely fund a charity..why start one in the first place.
you cant gimme a blank cheque and chastise me for whateva amount i choose to request for..they gave out the chance to be humiliated by Atheists(according to u) sinx dey cudnt kip their house in order.
Daystar Christian centre(the church i attend)..championed humanitarian causes over the years..i'll list a few
1. they rebuilt schools and stocked them with educational materials.
NOTE: some of these schools are owned by the least religious ppl, sometimes pagans
2. they give out clothing, food items etc., bi-ennially to the needy(i dont necessarily mean haggard looking peeps, dudes and babes approach the welfare stands, no big deal), just approach the welfare staff in the church premises and state ur needs and u get it, provided it's available
NOTE: Atheists, Muslims(in their religious attire) approach the welfare staff and are treated the way; we, christians claim God wud love us to treat even our own enemies(sinx u seem to view non-christians as such).

Synagogue church of all Nations(Prophet T. B Joshua's)...gives food items, clothing and money to the needy occasionally.
NOTE: Most of them are not members of his church, they found themselves in the church coz of what they need, some are even pagans and the church knows this.

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

I cited both scenarios above, to tell u that only a Religious Fanatic and Hypocrite Minces Religion with Humanism...
every religion preaches humanism as a highly prioritized moral standard. A good christian should know that objective humanism is a strong virtue, worthy of emulation, that cud even make an Atheist or any other religionist convert to be a christian.
bigotry, rooted in religious zealotry wud never convince an Atheist that our God is true, if our beliefs and actions are not in concomitance.

naijadeyhia:
If anas09 chose to be on nairaland even though its owned by an atheist its her prerogative and not yours to dictate

if I and some objectively reasoning others choose to condemn open religious hypocrisy, it's my prerogative and not urs to dictate as well..*chews kola*..lolz..another 2-way statement.
or are u d same Anas09 with an alternate moniker?...i wonder

naijadeyhia:
Seun never started Nairaland by announcing that he is an Atheist

parallel analogy.
he doesnt need to announce coz his profile dint give room for filling out religious views...if he created a column for religious views, u fink he wont fill-out Atheist there?...once again... plz read to comprehension

naijadeyhia:
This forum as far as he is concerned is all about making money

this is an educated assumption, but u never cud tel his real motive behind Nairaland u knw?. if his plan was sinister, he wont announce it.
sinx u dont trust Atheists money, why shud u trust an atheist's forum u bliv was propagated from Avarice?
avarice is not something a good christian of ur standard shud help promote by increasin his user-base(imagine u fuelling someones love of moni), why dont u deactivate ur acct here and go signup on christian forums only?..atleast the owners dont av selfish desire for money(as u prejudicially put it)....#hypocrisy

naijadeyhia:
so he is willing to relegate his fellow Atheists here on Nairaland to the background to achieve that which is why he has clearly stated on a few occasions that Atheist threads do not carry traffic hence his not featuring them on the front page....Isnt that a huge irony?

the irony here is in the fact that all dese facts exist in ur head alone..this is not a religious forum..why wud he brandish his views in d face of NLanders?.
answer: when u got an objective in mind, u dont let sentiments get in ur way or it spells u as being unfocused...#definitionOfabusinessman.

he however asserts his religious views whenever necessary..if u visit this forum as often as i imagine..u wud notice his comments here.

naijadeyhia:
why? The selfish desire for money...which is a good thing as far as he is concerned

prejudice

naijadeyhia:
So we can say that these atheists whose donation was rejected were also being selfish and are also trying to prove a point and that point is that God cannot help so they are stepping up to the plate......The donation is not about the kids or their need (if they had any) its to prove the selfish desire of the Atheist which has a sadistic undertone

..prejudice #2 u dont trust Atheist's moni but u trust his forum because u assume he wants to make moni...lolz...u made my day bro

Anas09:
So by reason of me being in his forum i and him and yoked? How old are you?

old enuf to order u to go check ur dico rite away for what being yoked with something or someone means...you can keep the apology to urself...it's of no use to me..
If, however(expectedly) you refuse to give perceptivity a chance in a bid to defend your stand in this scenario...
i'm ready to offer u a few websites and social forums owned by renowned satanists ....u cud go thr and have super-social fun berra than that which you've derived from nairaland so far.. #all join

FearGodAndLive:
Funny thing is. Nigerian Christians would turnost European Christians atheist with their ILLogic and stupidity. It's like faith turns the African brain to sawdust. It's practically impossible to get them to see beyond labels. Atheist money? Lmao.

They'd rather take embezzled money from a Christian politician. God will judge not man. but they'll readily judge Atheist money. The irony. Hypocrisy. are these people real or trolls? I wonder daily.

lolz..truer than truth

youngestland:
so what are you doing on nairaland, its seuns forum you know and hes an athiest

God bless u for this..
atleast the bible says in IIcorinthians 6:14 to be not unequally yoked with Seun. ...so they shud belong to a forum created by a christian...smh
yet, ppl like dem wud always scream Hosea 4:6

analice107, Anas09

Anas09:
Hear you. Inside your mind now, you have said something very intelligent.

lolz..i stil wud not resort to derogatory comments to make a point in a debate...i'd rather opt for sarcasm

Anas09:
You are not a Christian sir, sorry to say this to you. Going to church doesn't culmunate into being a Christian.

Am not sure you even know what started this thread. Look at the Op again. An athiest community moved to give money to a christian organization, to help the work of God, *Which God?* The one who doesnt exist? And why will they do that?

Why did satan move to tell Jesus he will give all the Kingdoms of the world to him?


Guy, call me whatever you like. Keep your money, God can provide fir his work.

i would av insulted you, but i'd choose to let it lie..

1. if u were actually reading to comprehension, u wud knw i am the OP, nd my post dictated what started this thread.. so that was a misfire from u.
2. Jesus never lacked the possession of kingdoms to have desired for what he had the power to have..and the temptation instance is parallel to this case that u tried to apply it to...jesus was never in need of territories, neither did he admit to such desire.
meanwhile, dis charity openly admitted to the public(which included donors from other religion) that they needed funds to cater for children..they never stated that they need funds for the work of God..
attending to the welfare of children has nutin to do with religion..that is simply humanism(christianity as well as other religions preaches that).....2nd misfire
3. I wonder what religious virtue lies in ur jurisdiction to deem me a christian or not?...u lack tact....3rd misfire
4. Read my Thread's topic(i mean both topics on this issue) well and its contents...to grasp the following
(a). Nowhere in the post was it stated that the Atheists donated to the work of God..the donations were for a charity home that happened to be owned by a baptist church.

(b). the church never stated anywhere in their campaign to solicit for funds, that only christian donors are allowed..sinx they knw dis is a humanitarian cause,they didnt bother to do such.

(c). the post never had in it that these children were strictly from christian parents...which means they set religious differences aside when trying to cater for their fellow humans out of goodwill(which u've, unfortunately mistaken to be solely the work of God)..if they set aside religious differences when taking these children in..what stops dem from doin so when the need arises to achieve the good cause they initiated?

(d). in the post(if u actually read it to comprehension), it's clear that the church rejected the money coz the man refused to erase his Atheists Foundation name as the donor...if he did..the church wud av accepted the moni..that is pure hypocrisy..

[size=15pt]Direct evidence(sinx deductive reasoning eluded u)[/size]: “She called my desk phone at work and told me that they would not be accepting our donation because it would go against everything they believe in,” Wilbourn said.
The employee told Wilbourn he would need to change the name on the donation in order for the home to accept the money, Wilbourn refused, and the employee said the money would be returned.
…
Wilbourn says an employee of the home told him they are primarily funded by the American Baptist Churches Association. He and his wife are the co-founders for the Muskogee Atheist Community.
Link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/08/23/an-oklahoma-charity-rejected-an-atheists-donation-so-hes-raising-more-until-they-say-yes/......

analice107:
Am not sure you read my post.

If you believe that atheists are not satanists then you are yet to discover your environment.

1. Out of greed and cheap popularity, pastors have taken the street into the church rather than taking the Church to the streets. Those pastor are not interested in the salvation of souls for which Christ died for. My question to you is, how are they faring Spiritually?
So you think the Church is a building and how populated it is?
A Church is where the power of the Holy Ghost is being made manifest. Not fabricated manifestations, not occultic induced manifestations. I mean undeniable manifestations.

2. You are very Funny. Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, all his Apostles were Jews, his other followers were Jews. Jesus Christ did not come preaching outside of their holy book, He preached their religion. The colt was owned by Jew, the five loafs of bread was provided by a disciple.
This your analogy is not in any way connected to my points.

Seun is an Atheist. A man who will pay to see people turned away from Christ. The question is, why will he want to give out his money to further the Kingdom of Christ? Until that question,
*I no dey*

Why do most christians automatically assume every non-christian individual to be Satanists?...
Once again ..religious fanatism
U really do need to check ur dico to be clear on this misnomer dat cud injure ur intellectual integrity pls..
A satanist is not same as an Atheist...
A satanist has a god..
An Atheist has no God...
stop seeing every non-christian as Evil
There are ppl who don't av a religion and av a better sense of Moral judgement than you cud possibly av

analice107:
Am not sure you read my post.

If you believe that atheists are not satanists then you are yet to discover your environment.

1. Out of greed and cheap popularity, pastors have taken the street into the church rather than taking the Church to the streets. Those pastor are not interested in the salvation of souls for which Christ died for. My question to you is, how are they faring Spiritually?
So you think the Church is a building and how populated it is?
A Church is where the power of the Holy Ghost is being made manifest. Not fabricated manifestations, not occultic induced manifestations. I mean undeniable manifestations.

2. You are very Funny. Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, all his Apostles were Jews, his other followers were Jews. Jesus Christ did not come preaching outside of their holy book, He preached their religion. The colt was owned by Jew, the five loafs of bread was provided by a disciple.
This your analogy is not in any way connected to my points.

Seun is an Atheist. A man who will pay to see people turned away from Christ. The question is, why will he want to give out his money to further the Kingdom of Christ? Until that question,
*I no dey*

u definitely av a confused perspective..
He preached their religion and he was hated and crucified for it?
Lemme advice u to correct the notion u have that jesus was a jew...nah..do ur findings well...
he was mistaken to be a jew for reasons u seem not to know as I can see..
The things he needed for ministry were gotten from amongst the ppl who see him as being blasphemous and a heretic to their jewish doctrine, The same ones with conflicting religious views as his but, some put aside those religious differences and did their stuffs out of GOODWILL
If Jesus reasoned the way U do..he won't av allowed mary magdalene come close to him at all..smh
Was he crucified by atheists?
Don't mince humanism with religion..that makes u a religious fanatic(No offense)
Do u need to be in a religion b4 u knw it's good to help ppl in need?....NO
It's like u r abt to die in an accident and an Atheist or Muslim offers to help u out of Goodwill, then u refuse coz of religious differences...lolz

I av a rhetoric for U..
If we, the christians are doing our duty of selfless love as we preach to others..wud we need atheist in the 1st place to help donate?...
We'd rather allow pastors to buy private Jets and watch congregation languish..

vani86:
I want drink beans with milo and sugar.
Suppose calm me down

gud choice..
No 4get balance the meal with Paracetamol-sauce b4 crashing the pillows

If u read what compulsively pasted, to understanding..
You wud know its an outdated info..

vani86:
The nigger just vex me wella right now, at 12:43 am.
Mtcheew

lolx...biko take it easy..

Erm..u don chop?

Try cold eba wit Okro soup..
atleast dis anger go quench small

analice107:
If I know Seun Personally, i wont collect his money, reasons being that, that's the work of God and he doesn't believe in God, why will he want to support Gods work? Spiritual alarms will go off immediately he steps into my office. God can take care of his own.
We don't need Satan's money to survive.

Its like a man who steals and takes the money to a Pastor who knows that the money was stolen, if he accepts it, he is an accomplice to that crime, but if that thief drops the money in a Freewill offering box, the Pastor wouldn't know who dropped the money, he will use that money for the work of the Kingdom, but no blessing will go to the thief.

I wont collect money from An atheist to do the work of God.
Thanks for your thoughtfulness, but keep ya money.

Atheists neither believe in Satan, God or anyone at dat..they are not believers..

As for ur analogy.. I hope you know all these pastors see these secular musicians who promote nudity and obscenities in their churches..
Paying tithes and offerings...
Why weren't they stopped at d church's gate or not allowed to collect offering envelopes?

Lastly, in jesus's time, there were no Christians, infact, the only ppl dat were close to being believers of what wud later be our Christian faith were the 12 disciples who were only listeners Buh not doers of the word as at then...these people were saddled with d responsibility of providing everything needed to facilitate jesus's ministry from feeding to movement via donkeys etc
They even produced 5loaves of bread and 2fish outta the blue to feed a multitude..
Were all these produced from ppl who had same belief system with jesus?
We both know the answer is NO
He cud av rejected dem sinx the Jewish belief system is not concordant with what he preached.
Ask urself... Why he didn't

Ranchhoddas:
I don't believe this story. Where is your source?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/08/23/an-oklahoma-charity-rejected-an-atheists-donation-so-hes-raising-more-until-they-say-yes/

$27,250 and stil counting
https://www.gofundme.com/2zc57tpg

The Atheist whose $100 donation was refused before it became a cause says:

We are going to give all but $5,000 of the money to Camp Quest Oklahoma. The remaining $5,000 will be anonymously donated to the Murrow Indian Children's Home. If they find out that I've said this and they know that it's me anonymously donating it and they still won't accept it, we will donate it to a local church who will then donate it to them. We've had support from churches all over this nation today and I'm sure that one of them would be glad to donate the money to Murrow and I trust that they will. Whether the Murrow Home likes it or not, they are getting $5,000 for those children from all of this. Keli and I would like to thank everyone for their donations and support. We will continue to let the GoFundMe account rise until it stops.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/08/23/an-oklahoma-charity-rejected-an-atheists-donation-so-hes-raising-more-until-they-say-yes/
The show goes on

It’s been a ridiculous 24 hours in Muskogee, Oklahoma.
Just to recap the main points of a story we’ve covered since
the beginning, atheist Matt Wilbourn wanted to donate $
100 to the Murrow Indian Children’s Home because he
appreciated the work they did, even though they were a
Baptist-run organization.

After he gave the money and filled out the form, saying the
donation would be made on behalf of the Muskogee Atheist
Community (which he and his wife Keli co-founded), he
received a call from the charity group saying they couldn’t
accept his money because “it would go against everything
they believe in.”

Matt thought that was absurd. He wasn’t asking them to stop
believing in God or promote atheism. He just wanted to help
the children and he thought that would override any
theological differences.
But how much money would this charity really refuse from
atheists? $100 might be chump change to them, but what
about $250? $500? So he start a GoFundMe campaign..https://www.gofundme.com/2zc57tpg to find
out.

Click the link to the site and see how the cash increases by the minute

As I write this, that campaign is at $24,094. And it seems to
go up every minute. Atheists from various walks of Life are contributing to this cause and counting as we speak.

And here’s the incredible thing: The Murrow Indian
Children’s Home, a charity that claims to care for “American
Indian children that are in out-of-home placement as a
result of abuse and neglect,” still say they don’t want the
money because it’s coming from atheists.
In a press release issued last night, they stuck to their
irrational belief that taking money from atheists would
somehow compromise their own mission:

-


The Murrow Indian Children’s Home was founded on
Biblical principles over 100 years ago by a Baptist
Missionary.
Those Biblical principles include believing and trusting in
the Trinity; God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy
Spirit.
To accept money for an advertisement which would
indicate “In Honor of the Muskogee Atheist
Community” in the advertisement, would be contrary
to those Biblical principles upon which we at Murrow
stand. We are Christians, believing in God, Jesus and the
Holy Spirit.
We appreciate the generosity of Mr. and Mrs. Matt
Wilbourn for their thoughtful donation to the Murrow
Children’s Home. This decision is not about money or
personal matters. It is solely about our religious
beliefs and Honoring God our Father.
Mr. Wilbourn asked that his donation be noted in the ad,
“In Honor of the Muskogee Atheist Community”. Murrow
cannot Honor the Atheist non-belief in God our
father, and Honor God our Father under our Biblical
principles. Those two positions are totally opposite of
each other. Therefore, we must respectfully decline the
donation and the request to Honor the Atheist Community
with the donation in an advertisement for a Murrow
fundraising event.
Once again, we thank the Wilbourns’ for their generosity
to Murrow and we understand their rights to their beliefs.
We also hope that in turn the Muskogee Atheist
Community and the Wilbourns’ will respect the Biblical
principles of the Murrow foundation for over 100 years
and understand why our principles are different and that
we must Honor our God.

-


There’s only one acceptable reaction to the above statement:


It makes absolutely no sense. Accepting money from
atheists doesn’t mean you have to accept their beliefs. It’s
just that simple. I’ve worked with several atheist-run non-
profit groups and we were thrilled to receive donations from
religious people who supported the work we were doing. It
happened often.
By their own rules, the Murrow Indian Children’s Home
would not accept money from Jews, Muslims, Hindus,
Pagans, or anyone else who’s not a Christian, because their
beliefs would contradict each other.
I’ve never seen a non-profit that cared so little about
advancing its own agenda — in this case, helping kids who
are suffering in many ways — that they rejected support just
because the donors were open about their theological
differences. Keep in mind that many Christians donated to
Matt’s GoFundMe campaign; you can tell by the messages
they left on the page.
In any case, let’s get to the other issue: What is Matt going to
do with the $24,094 in his pocket? (Yep, it went up since I
started writing this post)
He said late last night that he would give almost all of it to
Camp Quest Oklahoma. The GoFundMe campaign would
remain open for anyone who wants to donate, but the funds
would now go to the camp for children of atheist parents.
(So kids win either way!) Camp Quest organizers said they
would use the money to “improve camp programs and
increase the number of financial aid recipients.”
I said “almost” all the money.

Matt plans to hold on to $5,000 because he still wants to give
it to the children at the Murrow Indian Children’s Home. If
the people who run the group won’t accept his atheism-
tainted money, he’ll get it to them another way, even if that
means donating it anonymously.


How could a $5,000 donor really remain anonymous? I’m
not sure. But Matt says if they still reject the money, he’ll
donate it to a local church, which will then donate the
money to the Children’s Home. Those kids are getting this
money, dammit.

I still can’t wrap my head around a children’s charity that
rejects perfectly good money. It didn’t come from a hate
group. It came from a generous donor who raised even
more money for them, and who will still give them
thousands of dollars that they don’t deserve out of the
goodness of his own heart.

I hope other donors to the charity are aware of this story.
Because it seems obvious the charity doesn’t need any more
funding. How hypocritical would it be for them to reject
thousands of dollars (with no strings attached) only to send
out fundraising letters in the winter?

Religion fanatism is a serious problem wit Nigerian christianity..smh

HCpaul:
Paul didn't. He only used Christianity as an opportunity to invent his own religion but he failed.

Nevertheless, Paul still shares a higher percent credit and recognition in the new testament.

Paul is just a learned person hired by the Messiah's crew to help them organized the new testament epistles since most of them are unlearned.

once the concept of the emboldened is admissible..Atheism is not a permissible assertion in such a case..
A religion needs a God to revere...
P.S: don't underestimate the power of semantics wheneva u involved in a debate. Unintended misapplication of words cud defeat, exaggerate or puncture the impression u aim to derive wit ur point(if there's one dat is worthy of note)

KingEbukasBlog:
That guy promulgates so many lies and I think the mods need to monitor what he posts .

.I tot I was the only one that noticed his ambiguous perspective in debates..
More like u can't reali figure out whr he stands

Lennycool:
Fine I accept your facts on the thinking of Andrew flew. But your argument is that you won't try to explain the origin of God, because you simply don't know. But your basis for believing in God's creation of the universe is faith based on a really old book. So no clear answer?

Point of correction...my faith is not entirely based on the old book...thr are lots of errors init dt I very well acknowledge..
I'm not a religious fanatic...if it pleases u to know..
I'm very well informed on the shortcomings of the composition of the bible and christianity as a whole..so dnt fink I'm a blind dude..
I'm arguably a better atheist than you are..but I chose to hold onto d xtian faith for reasons on which I don't owe u an explanation for.
Hmmn...honestly..u r correct on my inability to explain the origin of God coz I don't know....
The funnier tin is that..even u the atheist (as I suppose u are) don't knw how the earth came to be either...that, in no way, doesn't mk u any smarter than I am
Ur supposed explanations for the origin of the earth are refutable scientific educated hypotheses...
My faith as well is bein hinged on refutability too..albeit overwhelming..
U might only feel advantaged coz u apun to reason rationally with the non-conscientious freedom to question the intricacy of the unknown...
News flash!...I'm a rational finkin xtian bro...
My faith is strongly attached to incumbent reasonin..I'm not a fan of religious dogma..
Anything I av faith in is what apun to av worked for me,


until Atheism promises me evidential perfection...let me remain whr I stand..
I see it a preposterous braggadocio whenever I come across an Atheist tryna mock me on my faith..(Not referring to u)
Yet we know, nothing for sure is certain, as to the definitive purpose of man's existence..

Lennycool:
please I think you forgot Antony flew also said this
In a letter to The Sunday Telegraph of London in 2004, he described “the God in whose existence I have belatedly come to believe” as “most emphatically not the eternally rewarding and eternally torturing God of either Christianity or Islam but the God of Aristotle that he would have defined — had Aristotle actually produced a definition of his (and my) God — as the first initiating and sustaining cause of the universe.”
So he does not believe in God the ways most religions do, he just attributes the complexity of the universe to an intelligent being( maybe aliens.)

bro..don't complicate ur understandin of this Flew's issue...
He's simply a deist..the same religion practiced by thomas paine(if u knw who he is)..
U cud check ur dictionary once more to get a grasp on the meaning of the word G(g)od...
Provided u bliv in d existence of a supernatural being of higher intelligence...(it cud be aliens or even goats)....then u bliv in God...
If u, admissively attribute some/all factors of life to the influence of an entity worthy of reverence..then u r no longer an atheist...u bliv thrz a God alredi..
That's whr anthony flew stands..
Now, The perspective from which u view this G(g)od u choose to revere now determines ur religion faction..

Lennycool:
Also if you say that intelligent complex life cannot immerge by chance hence God must exist. Then the question is who created God.

that's a question most of we religious ppl evade for understandable reasons..
I pasted dis article for us to sample his opinions to agree wit it or not and wit reasons..so u dnt av to attack me wit it yet again like I am anthony flew, himself
But to answer ur question; speakin for myself...
If u dare acknowledge thrz a God somwhere..then u av no business tryin to decipher who made him..this automatically berates ur reverence for that being...this is where Faith comes in...
Atheists and Faith are on parallel divides...I av no prob wit dat...
I av always been an advocate of do whateva works for u..
If Atheists don't bliv in any supernatural entity..itz not their headache to bother bou who created a "non-existent" entity as well...it also berates the intelligence in their apt assertion on this non-existent entity
Let the religious peeps bother wit dat...

Petersamuel8:
The most Notorious atheist is Saul, the day he jam Jesus he was converted

Saul[paul] was not an Atheist..he believed in a Jewish God..he only hated and persecuted christians

For the last half of the twentieth century,
Antony Flew (1923-2010) was the world's most famous
atheist. Long before Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens,
and Sam Harris began taking swipes at religion, Flew was the
pre-eminent spokesman for unbelief.

However in 2004, he shocked the world by announcing he
had come to believe in God. While never embracing
Christianity—Flew only believed in the deistic, Aristotelian
conception of God—he became one of the most high-profile
and surprising atheist converts. In 2007, he recounted his
conversion in a book titled There is a God: How the
World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
. Some critics suggested Flew's mental capacity had declined
and therefore we should question the credibility of his
conversion. Others hailed Flew's book as a legitimate and
landmark publication.

A couple months before the book's release, Flew sat down
with Strange Notions contributor Dr. Benjamin Wiker for an
interview about his book, his conversion, and the reasons
that led him to God. Read below and make observations, objections and deductions as you wish

---------------------
NOTE: Flew is the interviewee; Wiker is the interviewer

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

Dr. Benjamin Wiker: You say in There is a God, that "it may
well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my
exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned
from denial...to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very
surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end,
it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it
was actually a very gradual process—a "two decade
migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather
long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the
"argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in
some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the
evidence itself "'Can you hear me now?'"

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

Antony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were
decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of
Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an
Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical
Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated
complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the
physical Universe—can only be explained in terms of an
Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and
reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological
standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every
passing year, the more that was discovered about the
richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed
likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the
genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it
became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical.
The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins'
comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of
life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best
argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not
hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this
conclusion.

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

Wiker: You are famous for arguing for a presumption of
atheism, i.e., as far as arguments for and against the
existence of God, the burden of proof lies with the theist.
Given that you believe that you only followed the evidence
where it led, and it led to theism, it would seem that things
have now gone the other way, so that the burden of proof
lies with the atheist. He must prove that God doesn't exist.
What are your thoughts on that?

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

Flew: I note in my book that some philosophers
indeed have argued in the past that the burden
of proof is on the atheist. I think the origins of
the laws of nature and of life and the Universe
point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden
of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.

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

Wiker: As for evidence, you cite a lot of the most recent
science, yet you remark that your discovery of the Divine did
not come through "experiments and equations," but rather,
"through an understanding of the structures they unveil and
map." Could you explain? Does that mean that the evidence
that led you to God is not really, at heart, scientific?

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

Flew: It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by
the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn
from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these
kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as
philosophers when they study the philosophical implications
of empirical evidence.

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

Wiker: You are obviously aware of the spate of recent books
by such atheists as Richard Dawkins and Christopher
Hitchens. They think that those who believe in God are
behind the times. But you seem to be politely asserting that
they are ones who are behind the times, insofar as the latest
scientific evidence tends strongly toward—or perhaps even
demonstrates—a theistic conclusion. Is that a fair
assessment of your position?

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

Flew: Yes, indeed. I would add that Dawkins is selective to
the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists
on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.
Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny)
and the other an atheist (Thomas Nagel), recently pointed
out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues
that ground the rational case for God. As it happens, these
are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the
existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its
teleological organization, and the existence of the Universe.

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

Wiker: You point out that the existence of God and the
existence of evil are actually two different issues, which
would therefore require two distinct investigations. But in
the popular literature—even in much of the philosophical
literature—the two issues are regularly conflated. Especially
among atheists, the presumption is that the non-existence of
God simply follows upon the existence of evil. What is the
danger of such conflation? How as a theist do you now
respond?

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

Flew: I should clarify that I am a deist. I do not accept any
claim of divine revelation though I would be happy to study
any such claim (and continue to do so in the case of
Christianity). For the deist, the existence of evil does not
pose a problem because the deist God does not intervene in
the affairs of the world. The religious theist, of course, can
turn to the free-will defense (in fact I am the one who first
coined the phrase free-will defense). Another relatively
recent change in my philosophical views is my affirmation of
the freedom of the will.

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

Wiker: According to There is a God, you are not what might
be called a "thin theist," that is, the evidence led you not
merely to accept that there is a "cause" of nature, but "to
accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable,
immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being." How far
away are you, then, from accepting this Being as a person
rather than a set of characteristics, however accurate they
may be? (I'm thinking of C. S. Lewis' remark that a big
turning point for him, in accepting Christianity, was in
realizing that God was not a "place"—a set of characteristics,
like a landscape—but a person.)

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

Flew: I accept the God of Aristotle who shares all the
attributes you cite. Like Lewis I believe that God is a person
but not the sort of person with whom you can have a talk. It
is the ultimate being, the Creator of the Universe.

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

9. LEPACIOUS BOSE

Bose Osayemi abandoned the sobriety of the law profession for the excitement of the entertainment industry. Lepacious Bose is one of the few female comedians in the country. Her stage name, Lepacious Bose is a contradiction of her stature but it has really worked for her.

5. LOLO-1 OF WAZOBIA FM

Populaly known as Omotunde Adebowale Davies,Lolo 1 is a graduate of Lagos state Univeristy, Ojo where she studied Law. She practiced the law profession for three years before she left her wig and gown to be an on-air-personality. She roks the airwaves as the Lolo1 on popular Pidgin English speaking radio station, Wazobia FM.
If you are a fan jenifa's diary comedy soap..you should probably know her

6. OMAWUNMI MEGBELE

Omawumi graduated from the Ambrose Ali University, Ekpoma, Edo state where studied law in 2005. She worked briefly at her brother’s law firm, O.S Megbele and Associates before she contesting for the Idols West Africa in 2007. Omawumi embraced entertainment through her participating in West African Idols where she emerged as the first runner up and ever since she has embraced music forgetting her wigs and gown.

7. SASHA P

Nigeria female rapper, Sasha P, is a graduate of Law from the University of Lagos. She has also delved into fashion designing. She is the most decorated Nigerian female rapper in history.

8. FALZ

For somebody like Falz many were taken aback when he abandoned Law which foe entertainment. This is because Falz, born Folarin Falana is the son of erudite lawyer and social commentator, Femi Falana. Falz studied Law in the University of Reading in the United Kingdom. After Law school Falz worked in his father’s chambers for a while before following his heart desire. Today Falzs ings and has spread his entertainment tentacle to acting.

Education is an integral part of the human life and its importance can not be overemphasized. Here is a list of popular Nigerian celebrities you didn’t know studied law.. Check them out right after the cut.


1. FEMI ADEBAYO

Actor, film producer and a proprietor of a school of art in Ibadan, Femi was born to an actor father, Otunba Adebayo Salami so for him, acting runs in his vein. But Femi did not rise to the peak of his acting career until in the 2000s. Even though Femi studied law from the University of Ilorin, Kwara and later got Master of Arts (MA) Degree in Theatre Art, he had started acting before he went to the university. After graduation Femi practiced law for some years specializing in estate and property law before acting got a better part of him

2. RICHARD MOFE DAMIJO

Veteran Nollywood actor popularly referred to as RMD had his first degree in Theatre Arts from the University of Benin. After making an indelible impact in the make believe industry as an actor, RMD went back to the University of Lagos in 1997 to earn a degree in Law to fulfil his mother’s life long wish for her son to be a Lawyer. He was subsequently called to the Nigerian Bar

3. TARA DUROTOYE

She is the boss of House of Tara, a make-up business. Tara started her make-up business while in the Lagos State University studying Law. Tara never practiced Law but she has said that her knowledge of Law has helped her to manage her make-up and beauty business.

4. FUNKE AKINDELE

For her first it was Mass Communication, a course she abandoned after obtaining an Ordinary National Diploma in it from the Moshood Abiola Polytechnics, Ogun state. She later went to University of Lagos to study Law but before she was done in the university, entertainment has eaten deep into her.

Iolite:
Abi. Those are normal size boobs to me, nothing unique.

abnormally sized boobies is ur thang?

Powered by the unparalleled Discretion of a cook..
These are the creativity of our 4Eva loving Jollof