ifeness:

I am not your geography teacher,i believe you learnt all that in school. Unless you were taught jesus and his gay father created the planet

They always want you to teach them what they did not learn, or forgot that they learned in primary school.

davidylan:

So your idea is that the mountains created themselves? Out of what? thin air?

The earth was created by some explosion? And the plants, animals and human life came through that explosion too? which is why life exists solely on one of millions of galaxies out there? My friend... some of us paid attention in advanced stat class... the odds of that happening is essentially zero. Try again.

You know what? I am appalled by the type of ignorance on display here. I could forgive you if you were a roadside mechanic, but as claimed biologist, I have just had enough.

I am hereby revoking whatever science degree, diploma, or certificate that you have been previously awarded by the bible schools that you have attended.
I have never ever seen anyone do so much disservice and discredit to the science and biology.

PlEASE stick to learning and resolving your confessed confusions about biblical interpretations, editions and versions. You are probably more suited to such.

Please stop embarrassing science by claiming to be a biologist. There might be some young future biologists who might be wowed and discouraged by the level of ignorance proudly and displayed on this forum.

Negro_Ntns:

ifeness,

i read through the responses and in due course will be countering the various anti-biblical points brought up but your many responses are very provoking and should be addressed first.

i usually prefer to discuss the bible with people who are thouroughly versed not just in the bible but in all the manuscripts and scriptures of God worship. i say this for many reasons but for the purpose here i want to draw out the significance of what you said above and tell you frankly, that your understanding of what the bible is and the message contained in it is wrong.

those who teach and instruct on the bible.....the pastors and the bishops and evangelicals have done a very poor job of representing the bible.

all the scriptures and manuscripts of worship, except the bible, continue to retain their authentic tongue and are taught and instructed in the language in which they are revealed. their customs, creeds and rites of worship are native to their land of origin......except christianity!

the bible has gone through diverse translations from its aramaic beginnings to the point now where it is totally conflicted in many of its literal meanings.

the text of the bible in english says something different from the meaning in aramaic or even hebrew. this is observed only in its text. at the spiritual level, the bible is uniform in its message throughout mankind.

so you should be open minded to read and understand the bible in its spirit rathern than in its text. biblical texts in its non-original tongue is a handicap to man and insulates him from an optimal intimacy with his God......an encounter of closeness originally intended for him in the aramaic revelation.

BS.
Read in spirit rather than in text?. Big BS.
Where have I heard that before?

What would have been the purpose of writing it in language since we need to read it in spirit?
Why couldn't the omnipotent writer have just simply imprinted the words of the bible in our spirits, rather than wasting precious time putting on text, what should be read in spirit?.
Absolute nonesense.

In other words, what you are saying to us here is that the bible is faulty, misleading and contradictory because it has undergone numerous translations, and therefore no one in his right sense should take it seriously, and that we should read in spirit(using our imaginations, hallucinations and delusions) and make things things up as it suites our personal needs?
This is what I think you are saying in a nutshell.
And you know what?
I cannot disagree with you.

I always find it very very hilarious to see you guys pull out the spirit card when you run out of air.

NB:
Once again, I feel compelled to correct you that the bible did not have an Aramaic beginning.

ifeness:

The earth was created by some explosion in the stars just like every other trillions of planets out there. How do i explain this to a primitive man ? Lol. Just like the mountains created themselves as a result of energy explosion,the earth came into existence in a similar way.

Sometimes when i see a mad man on the street talking to himself "senselessly" i conclude wrongly that all those that are mad are in that state and sometimes unclad, how wrong i was, never knew that some are properly clad and makes use of modern technology and internet.

(i really have to update that notion)

Mr_Anony:
Yawn....

Yes I know, yawn. Much earlier I told @david I'd leave him to his folly, he's ignored me (wisely, but not for the reasons you think). Mayhaps under the pretense of being mature? Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Well, perhaps a byproduct of being a troll, he can't claim to be mature if all his other actions scream immaturity now, can he? Anyways you, on the hand, have persisted in 'lol', 'yawn', etc, your usual shenanigans. Nothing of value maybe, school boy playground antics. I don't care per se except I get the impression you try to pass yourself off as some sort of mature adult. If you don't then you're fine, else you're being, as usual, an eediot.

From here on out is even less relevant, just fun.

You indulge me despite the fact I don't bother with you much anymore these days? I'm honored but I don't necessarily need that. Can't remember the last time I read a proper post of yours with any sort of serious attention, they tend to be cringe worthy displays of what it's like to be a whor.e. I've not even read your infamous "when I was an atheist" post yet, though I agree it's probably juicy. Likely featuring these elements listed below. Note they work in conjunction and overlap to produce a great synergy of disharmony and illogic unlike any other, one I now endearingly (or derisively) call; anonysm. So...

Answering questions with silly questions meant to do something, not sure what. Perhaps annoy, but it genuinely might be that you think they make you look wise. Like asking me when did @david invoke the crocoduck argument earlier on. Don't you think it obvious I was aware he hadn't yet used that inane argument? This is one of the more famous anonysms.

Warped logic I call 'anonylogic', containing some incredible assumptions made with remarkable single mindedness. Usually I can spot these from afar and save myself the embarrassment as they tend to start with "I put it to you that..." or "the question that follows...". Then of course you proceed to provide jumps in logic akin to equating sandwiches to unicorns. For instance, I note you ask @lb earlier on if one can believe in spirits or life after death (I forget which) without believing in god. Un-4king-believable.

The selfish assumption that it's all about you. I mean, how could there be spirits without your god, hmm? We've gotten jewels like a multi-verse is not possible without god (yes, I haven't really read the thread true, but it's not hard to guess that would be the gist of your argument, see?), or being good is not possible without god, or taking a $hit is not possible without god, or ra.ping babies, genocides, aids, cancer, plagues, all suffering etc not possible without god...actually I think you like to conveniently omit the last bits. Anyways, your god seems to need show up everywhere. You also assume atheists are out to persecute you, your religions are special and thus above the law (this of course leads to their dictating laws), etc etc etc. you you you you

Blatant lying, shifting positions continuously. For instance mazaje seemed to be pointing out recently you brought out someone's arguments to aid your point about life after death or something similar, said person mentioned a multi-verse. Next thing we know, you open a thread declaring the multi-verse impossible. Now now yes, like I said, I usually just skim through or skip anonyposts these days but I believe that was the gist of your thread. If not a simple guess would be that it was it's impossible for other universes to exist without god? Amiright? Lol. Not so hard to see where anonysms lead. Anyways, assuming I'm wrong, clearer examples

-When it suits your case you can refute claims by showing how said claims are wrong, when it doesn't your opponent suddenly needs to go as far as providing an alternate theory.

www.nairaland.com/1134332/logicboy-meets-anony-again-philosophy/11

(Look up my post @3:06, kpele, bb can't get the correct url. Let's not get into how inane and arrogant it is of you to assume you know if the future is predetermined or not. Fantastically, I believe you draw your conclusions from a story book no less!)

Or here you understand what 'natural' evil is when it aids your case, the concept then becomes nonsense when it doesn't do so. I like this one particularly as it even features indignation from you, despite your knowing earlier on what natural evil entails, IN THE VERY SAME THREAD

www.nairaland.com/1009338/succinctly-anony/6
(Go to my post @ 11:46 on that page)


You should get the point by now you man whor.e.



And probably more anonytactics which frankly you should leave in the anonyverse in your head as they're rather disgusting. Your prerogative though of course


Which would you use now, 'lol' or 'yawn'?

Weigraff and pleatton....please see this thread;

https://www.nairaland.com/1173767/atheists-stories-religious-discrimination-atheophobia

Mr_Anony:
Lol, nice of you to show up eventually when the thread is already at the brink of disintegration. Anyway you seemed to be of the opinion that accepting Christ is petty for such a magnanimous God to insist on. What I want to defend here is what it means to accept Christ and why it is not petty, but absolutely necessary.

I'll start by listing some of the points about God that we both agree on. If I misrepresent you in any way, please point it out.

We both agree that

1. God is a maximally great being.
2. God is the eternal first cause.
3. God is a person (more like super-person actually)
4. God is the Intelligent Designer who gives order to the Universe
5. God is the basis for morality and the absolute moral law giver.
6. God is perfect.

For now, let us not assume that God is Jehovah rather let us use the generic God concept of a maximally great being (MGB).

If you agree with these please indicate so that we proceed. If you don't agree with the above or want to clarify your positions, please do so or alternatively give us what your concept of God is so that I don't put words into your mouth. Once you've done this, we shall proceed having gotten a fair description of God out of the way.

I await your reply.

I agree with the foregoing description of God. I will only slightly adjust, with reference to No. 1; that God is Infinite rather than "maximally great." You see, when you say, "maximally great," you therewith suggest that there is some maximum of greatness, which God is. In reality, any maximum connotes a finite state: God is not finite: God is Infinite.

plaetton:

Comprehension problems?.
What a dumb dumb!
Ifeness did not say it was a volcanic eruption.
She/He only used volcanic eruption to describe explosion and scattering , and later accretion of matter to form stars and planets.

Any primary school student should easily understand this.

explosions are created from unstable conditions. what instability led to this explosion?

plaetton:

BS.
Read in spirit rather than in text?. Big BS.
Where have I heard that before?

What would have been the purpose of writing it in language since we need to read it in spirit?
Why couldn't the omnipotent writer have just simply imprinted the words of the bible in our spirits, rather than wasting precious time putting on text, what should be read in spirit?.
Absolute nonesense.

In other words, what you are saying to us here is that the bible is faulty, misleading and contradictory because it has undergone numerous translations, and therefore no one in his right sense should take it seriously, and that we should read in spirit(using our imaginations, hallucinations and delusions) and make things things up as it suites our personal needs?
This is what I think you are saying in a nutshell.
And you know what?
I cannot disagree with you.

I always find it very very hilarious to see you guys pull out the spirit card when you run out of air.

NB:
Once again, I feel compelled to correct you that the bible did not have an Aramaic beginning.

i will defer response on this issue until we resolve the big b a ngg theory.

Negro_Ntns:

explosions are created from unstable conditions. what instability led to this explosion?

Unstable conditions occur when there is a breach in the equilibrium of any system.
I am assuming that a state of inertness, or vacuum, or nothingness is the default equilibrium before the big ba.ng.

We dont know in any detail, what led to the breach of this equilibrium. Its an ongoing investigation. For now , we can only speculate.

So the big ban.g, rather being a beginning of existence, may only be an inflection point in the overall nature of existence.

I also think that the expansion and contraction of the universe is perhaps an attempt by the system to regain its equilibrium.
In other words, the motions and interactions of matter that form and maintain the physical universe are simply the results of a system in a flux, a system desperate to regain its lost equilibrium position of 14 billion or so yrs ago.

well, why do you hold so much faith and convinction in a theory that has yet to be concretely and undisputably proven to be the beginning of mankind and all of universe, or as you said.....a phase in a multi-faceted long and perpetual existence?

believing in the bible and its creation story is also a faith.

the biblical story is practical and can be demonstrated in its truth, whereas the big b.a.ng exist as an abstract and a reproduction is impossible.

i took notice of your last paragraph. this is attunement........a recalibration, reconcilliation and synchronization of a phase to an earlier form or benchmarked origin. this is an admission that something is wrong and a correction is needed to right it. but if the origin is all a speculation and unknown, then what existence of a "known" time of 14billion years ago are we correcting back to?

attunement in the bible is approached differently, the outcome of it is known!

*Sorry briefly off-topic*

Just wanted to say wassup to Negro. I hope you are well sir and stacking plenty sunshine down there free of the taxman. Missed you plenty. Your plate is still on reservation anytime you want to drive up I-95 . You know where to find me...trying a bit to revive the old desert of FA...

hello Jesoul,

it is nice to see you again dear:-). i am warmed up by your kind words and invitation, and oh yes, MA is still on my mind! i was in Pittsfield last year but on a touch-and-go mission, flew in and flew back out all in a 5hr assignment.

Negro_Ntns:

i really don't understand how atheists profess themselvea as intellectuals and critical thinkers but when challenged with critically provoking ideas the fall short of their calling and default to anger and tantrums. is this what you've had to deal with here?

For years bro. The cast changes but the attitude is still the same - Yell, when challenged just yell louder.

davidylan:

For years bro. The cast changes but the attitude is still the same - Yell, when challenged just yell louder.

Have you looked at Negro ntin's comments on this thread? Is he in the right position to judge who is making sound arguments or not?


You just swallow any hateful comment towards atheism

plaetton:

Mr scientist/biologist,
Please don't tell us that you have not heard of the term "Accretion".

It seems the science department of your bible college is not teaching you real science.

I have a molecular bio textbook, it is over 1000 pages long. I have Janeways (2 copies)... practically revered as the immunologist's bible, i own a biochem textbook... over 800 pages long... NONE of the 4 mention anything like accretion.

See that word is one that serious molecular biologists do not use. It is bandied around by wikipedia intellectuals like you who have no idea that the anatomy of the cell completely nullifies that idea.

This is a link to the results of an "accretion" search on pubmed (The US NIH library of scientific journals) - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=accretion
There are barely 3500 journals there. In contrast, over 300000 articles mention evolution... a 100 fold difference.

See... before you use a term gloating that others havent heard about it... make sure you know what you are talking about.

Logicboy03:



Have you looked at Negro ntin's comments on this thread? Is he in the right position to judge who is making sound arguments or not?


You just swallow any hateful comment towards atheism

just the same way you swallow any hateful comments towards christianity. when you live in a glass house, try not to throw stones.

plaetton:

Comprehension problems?.
What a dumb dumb!
Ifeness did not say it was a volcanic eruption.
She/He only used volcanic eruption to describe explosion and scattering , and later accretion of matter to form stars and planets.

Any primary school student should easily understand this.

Ok so perhaps you can explain to use in cogent terms just exactly how that accretion gave birth to life on one out of billions of galaxies out there. Afterall we can safely assume that the same process birthed the planets so at least 2 should have the exact or almost similar conditions for life no?

plaetton:

Unstable conditions occur when there is a breach in the equilibrium of any system.
I am assuming that a state of inertness, or vacuum, or nothingness is the default equilibrium before the big ba.ng.

Oh wait... his entire theory is built on one huge assumption? And i thought christians were the only people who depended on blind faith.

But wait... unstable conditions occur when there is a breach in the equilibrium of a system? So you mean a system existed BEFORE the big bang? I wonder how that system came to be... perhaps you should propound another theory to explain away that system no?

Ah i got it! so you mean there was nothingness before? If that was the case then how can "nothingness" be in equilibrium? What breached that "nothingness"?

Its amazing what these blind mules will believe in their desperation to kick God out of their lives.

plaetton:

You know what? I am appalled by the type of ignorance on display here. I could forgive you if you were a roadside mechanic, but as claimed biologist, I have just had enough.

I am hereby revoking whatever science degree, diploma, or certificate that you have been previously awarded by the bible schools that you have attended.
I have never ever seen anyone do so much disservice and discredit to the science and biology.

PlEASE stick to learning and resolving your confessed confusions about biblical interpretations, editions and versions. You are probably more suited to such.

Please stop embarrassing science by claiming to be a biologist. There might be some young future biologists who might be wowed and discouraged by the level of ignorance proudly and displayed on this forum.

the time taken to abuse me would have been better spent making some intellectual rebuttal of my post. But of course you dont really have anything... it is the typical atheist play book... insult your opponent soon as he asks a question you have no answer to.

so while you were moaning about my degrees... did you remember to think about how accretion formed the rivers on earth but VIRTUALLY NONE on any of the thousands of galaxies out there?

davidylan:

just the same way you swallow any hateful comments towards christianity. when you live in a glass house, try not to throw stones.

Yawn.....you have nothing

Logicboy03:




Yawn.....you have nothing

Seems you are sleepy. good night.
By my clock, it is 1am in the UK... i wonder why you are sacrificing sleep for a God that doesnt exist.
At least you dont pretend to have any scientific clue...

davidylan:

Seems you are sleepy. good night.
By my clock, it is 1am in the UK... i wonder why you are sacrificing sleep for a God that doesnt exist.
At least you dont pretend to have any scientific clue...

insomnia....heard of it?

Logicboy03:


insomnia....heard of it?

You wont cure it by wasting time here.

omo_to_dun: Mr. davidylan has really changed. In the past, he would have laced his comments with biting insults.


I do not know who created this world. My contention has never been with the existence of God, but with His putative characteristics which include, but not limited to : omniscience, omnipresence, perfection, infinite mercy, and everlasting love. There are so many events in the Bible that show that Jehovah does not possess these attributes, but I digress.

These discourses do not alter our thinking in any ways, for we come out of them with more confidence in our convictions. Nevertheless, they are very entertaining, so I'll go back to the background and cheer you guys on.

which is why i wonder why you all bother.

davidylan:

You wont cure it by wasting time here.

Why would I want to cure it?

I love it.....I write best in the midnight



Anyways, how is your life going? How does it feel to know that your children/grandchildren will grow up accepting evolution and looking at their grandpa as an old creation tool?


Dont you just love living in the West?

davidylan:

which is why i wonder why you all bother.

It does. Atheists have changed Jesoul's thinking. We have had converts from our arguments. We have even made christians bash other dubious christians like Anony

Logicboy03:


Why would I want to cure it?

I love it.....I write best in the midnight



Anyways, how is your life going? How does it feel to know that your children/grandchildren will grow up accepting evolution and looking at their grandpa as an old creation tool?


Dont you just love living in the West?

My life is going very well... i'm sure yours is as well.

My kids will have the chance to learn about evolution in school... but i am positive they wont be so easily misled like sheep.

davidylan:

My life is going very well... i'm sure yours is as well.

My kids will have the chance to learn about evolution in school... but i am positive they wont be so easily misled like sheep.

You didnt say that you're "sure". You said you're positive.






How does it feel? You know that you're on the losing side. 33 percent of young people in America dont care for religion. Its over for religion in the West.

Logicboy03:


You didnt say that you're "sure". You said you're positive.






How does it feel? You know that you're on the losing side. 33 percent of young people in America dont care for religion. Its over for religion in the West.

Christianity is a personal faith. It really doesnt bother me if only 2 people believe in it by 2042. I wonder why such irrelevant things get your pants in a twist. Surely you have other things to occupy your mind.

davidylan:

Christianity is a personal faith. It really doesnt bother me if only 2 people believe in it by 2042. I wonder why such irrelevant things get your pants in a twist. Surely you have other things to occupy your mind.

You really want to live in a world where everyone is like logicboy and you have only one other person to talk to?