₦airaland Forum

People who hold contrary opinion have also conducted their research. The real question is what makes the conclusions you have drawn from your research any more valid.

What a mouth-breather.

You don't seem to understand that research actually involves studying other than Biblical material. If you did, you would understand that I don't have to make a claim for more validity - the facts in non-scriptural materials speak for themselves and logically expose the Bible as flawed. Want to pick one of those exposures and debate it with me? How about the Christ figure himself? Want to explain to me why there isn't one single documented reference of him outside of scripture? That's just one solitary point I could tear you a new asshole over but the "Good Book" contains hundreds more.

Of course, a plank like you can go around blabbing their mouth off, acting like they know what they're talking about but all you are is a fart in the wind. You've nothing of substance whatsoever to say - just some pansy-assed retard whining because you don't like people pointing at the obvious holes in your religion.

Yet you dipshits are always trying to shove that religion down everyone else's throat. Reap what you sow, bitch.

@OLAADEGBU.
Never heard of a single one of those suckers. Hardly "great" men.

@DavidDylan.
Come on, you're reaching. Richard Smalley a devout Christian? Yeah. For the last year of his life.
Walter Kohn is totally at odds with his Catholic faith and the Vatican on the issue of birth control (a pretty big one, you'd have to agree). He's way more of a theist than a "devout Christian".
Pascal? 400 years ago. I'm not even going to bother with that one. Suffice to say he wasn't a "devout Christian" but a "heretical" Jansenist.
Do I really need to go through the other couple of names that you've given? And come on. If Christianity is the be-all and end-all like you state that it is, you should be able to come up with the names of thousands of these "great men" of devoutness.

The fact is, you can't. You're talking crap again. One or two names of people who can easily be shown not to be "devout" Christians makes your argument even less credible.

@lady
I loved your reply, you see that's the thing I am saying, you and I can be so convinced about what we believe that we take it to be reality, in fact that is the first definition of certainty - a belief beyond doubt.
The point I try to hammer across on nairaland is that our beliefs can not hold for all unless it has well grounded proof in reality. You had an experience which is personal and strengthened your faith, there a billion others who have not had and may not ever have that revelation are they to just take your word for it?
All that said I appreciate that we have had this discussion.
Take care

If they want to they can, but it is not by force. It is not by force that anyone believe in Christ. I know that Christians hammer in the point that it makes one get defensive from Christians. I get defensive from Christians all the time. But truly it is not by force. But it is enough to get one to believe. For all that have happened over the years, not even counting the shenanigans that modern day pastors put on t.v, there is enough evidence.
But when there is an encounter that involves many people and when there have been scientists, archaeologists, historians, and such that have well researched an area, and have most of the time come to the same conclusion, it is hard for one to not believe several events documented.
When an encounter is experienced by thousands of people at the same time, it is difficult to not believe.
For example the miracle of the sun, the newspaper articles from that encounter is still available today, even with pictures. The writings of those who were there are still available.
the booking for jail of the three shephard children are known to have happened. this is an event where people saw, and atheists believed.
so while it is not compulsory that one believes, a word is still quite enough.

It was great chatting with ya.

Walter Kohn is totally at odds with his Catholic faith and the Vatican on the issue of birth control (a pretty big one, you'd have to agree). He's way more of a theist than a "devout Christian".

no really it's not a pretty big one, and birth control is something that other christians allow, so it is not central to the belief of christianity as we know it.

so this one still stands. one can still be devout and be at odds with the vatican about an issue that is not dogma.

one can still be devout and be at odds with the vatican about an issue that is not dogma.

Not if one is a Catholic.
Historically, people were put to death for far less.

Chrisbenogor:
@olaadegbu
And did any of your scientists apply the religious method to any of their findings?

Bastage:
@OLAADEGBU.
Never heard of a single one of those suckers. Hardly "great" men.

I will attempt to answer both objections at once if possible, I had to start from the beginning of the scientific method.

For your information, Science was actually developed by Christians who assumed that God created an orderly universe. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history.

I will start from the father of the scientific method, Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626). He was the lord chancellor of England and was considered to be the man primarily responsible for the formulation and establishment of the so called “Scientific Method” in science, stressing experimentation and induction from data rather than philosophical deduction in the tradition of Aristotle. Bacon’s writing was also credited with the leading to the founding of the Royal Society of London. Sir Bacon was a devout believer in the Bible. He wrote the following phrase: “There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creatures, which express His Power”.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1642). He discovered Scientific astronomy, three laws of planetary motion among others. He strongly believed that “the world of nature, the world of man, the world of God” all fit together. He reasoned that because the universe was designed by an intelligent Creator, it should function according to some logical pattern. To him the idea of a chaotic universe was inconsistent with God’s wisdom. Kepler’s law of planetary motion were his greatest contribution to science. These laws had an enormous impact on scientific thinking, providing the groundwork for Sir Isaac Newton’s later work on universal gravitation. He discovered a new star (supernova); he analysed how the human eye works; he made improvements to the telescope and made other contributions in the field of optics. He published accurate data on the positions of stars and planets which were of immense importance to navigators. As a mathematician, he discovered faster methods of calculation and investigated the volume of many solid bodies.

Do I need to mention Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Who was a co inventor of Calculus. He also formulated the laws of motion and gravity. He computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope, and made a number of discoveries in optics. Newton had a profound knowledge of, and faith in, the Bible. Time and space will prevent me from mentioning the likes of Carl Linnaeus, the Swedish botanist who developed the double Latin name system for taxonomic classification of plants and animals, he also believed in the Genesis account of creation.

Other notable scientists like the Dutch geologist Nicholaus Steno (1631-1686), who developed the basic principles of stratigraphy. Bible believing English scientists in the early 19th century when the idea of millions of years was developed, such as chemist Andrew Ure (1778-1857) and John Murray around (1786-1851), entomologist William Kirby (1759-1850), and geologist George Young (1777-1848). James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. Maxwell’s equations are what make radio transmissions possible. He was a deep student of Scripture and was firmly opposed to evolution. These and many other great scientists have believed the Bible as the infallible Word of God, and it was their Christian faith that was the driving motivation and intellectual foundation of their excellent scientific work.

I must not fail to mention the father of Microbiology, Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), who was an outstanding scientist and opponent of evolution. Each time you go to the refrigerator and take out a bottle of milk, you should be reminded of the work of the outstanding French scientist, Louis Pasteur. He discovered Bacteriology, Biochemistry, Sterilization, Immunization etc. He also proved the scientific law that life came from life, He said that: “Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves”. This was a kick in the teeth to the evolutionists that have been peddling the fallacy of spontaneous generation and they still teach this in textbooks and schools inspite of the fact that it is unscientific, illogical, irrational and unreasonable. Despite all the efforts of the evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found, hence it remains a theory and not a fact.

Today there are many other PhD scientists such as I have mentioned in my earlier posts and also in the link suggested who reject evolution and believe that God created in 6 days a few thousand years ago, just as recorded in Scriptures. Russ Humphreys (PhD Physics), has developed among many other things, a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields, which enabled him to accurately predict the fields strengths of the outer planets. He was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scriptures.

John Baumgardner (PhD Geophysics and biblical creationist), has a sophisticated computer model of Catastrophic plate tectonics, which was reported in the journal Nature; the assumptions for this model are based on the global flood recorded in the book of Genesis. A biblical creationist Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, developed the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan that has benefited a lot of people. Georgia Purdon (PhD Molecular Genetics) and Andrew Snelling (PhD Geology) both biblical creationists and authors in Answers in Genesis. They certainly understand their fields and are yet convinced that they do not support evolutionary biology and geology but rather confirm biblical creation.

Jason Lisle (PhD Astrophysics), He made a number of discoveries about the nature of near-surface solar flows, including the detection of a never-before-seen polar alignment of super granules, as well as patterns indicative of giant overturning cells. He said that it was because a logical God created and ordered the universe that made him and other creation scientists expect to be able to understand aspects of that universe through logic, careful observation and experimentation.

The very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. This is not to say that noncreationists cannot be scientists, but in a way an evolutionist is not being consistent when they do science. The big bang supporters claim the universe is a random chance event and yet they study it as if it were logical and orderly. The evolutionist is thus, forced to borrow certain creationist principles in order to do science. The universe is logical and orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. We can also trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This why science is possible. On the contrary, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no law giver? If our brains are the by products of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by God, as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature. Science is possible because the Bible is true.

For more information on what constitutes science and how it has always confirmed the Bible's account check the weblink below:


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

OLAADEGBU:
I will attempt to answer both objections at once if possible, I had to start from the beginning of the scientific method.

For your information, Science was actually developed by Christians who assumed that God created an orderly universe. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history.

I will start from the father of the scientific method, Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626). He was the lord chancellor of England and was considered to be the man primarily responsible for the formulation and establishment of the so called “Scientific Method” in science, stressing experimentation and induction from data rather than philosophical deduction in the tradition of Aristotle. Bacon’s writing was also credited with the leading to the founding of the Royal Society of London. Sir Bacon was a devout believer in the Bible. He wrote the following phrase: “There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creatures, which express His Power”.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1642). He discovered Scientific astronomy, three laws of planetary motion among others. He strongly believed that “the world of nature, the world of man, the world of God” all fit together. He reasoned that because the universe was designed by an intelligent Creator, it should function according to some logical pattern. To him the idea of a chaotic universe was inconsistent with God’s wisdom. Kepler’s law of planetary motion were his greatest contribution to science. These laws had an enormous impact on scientific thinking, providing the groundwork for Sir Isaac Newton’s later work on universal gravitation. He discovered a new star (supernova); he analysed how the human eye works; he made improvements to the telescope and made other contributions in the field of optics. He published accurate data on the positions of stars and planets which were of immense importance to navigators. As a mathematician, he discovered faster methods of calculation and investigated the volume of many solid bodies.

Do I need to mention Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Who was a co inventor of Calculus. He also formulated the laws of motion and gravity. He computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope, and made a number of discoveries in optics. Newton had a profound knowledge of, and faith in, the Bible. Time and space will prevent me from mentioning the likes of Carl Linnaeus, the Swedish botanist who developed the double Latin name system for taxonomic classification of plants and animals, he also believed in the Genesis account of creation.

Other notable scientists like the Dutch geologist Nicholaus Steno (1631-1686), who developed the basic principles of stratigraphy. Bible believing English scientists in the early 19th century when the idea of millions of years was developed, such as chemist Andrew Ure (1778-1857) and John Murray around (1786-1851), entomologist William Kirby (1759-1850), and geologist George Young (1777-1848). James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. Maxwell’s equations are what make radio transmissions possible. He was a deep student of Scripture and was firmly opposed to evolution. These and many other great scientists have believed the Bible as the infallible Word of God, and it was their Christian faith that was the driving motivation and intellectual foundation of their excellent scientific work.

I must not fail to mention the father of Microbiology, Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), who was an outstanding scientist and opponent of evolution. Each time you go to the refrigerator and take out a bottle of milk, you should be reminded of the work of the outstanding French scientist, Louis Pasteur. He discovered Bacteriology, Biochemistry, Sterilization, Immunization etc. He also proved the scientific law that life came from life, He said that: “Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves”. This was a kick in the teeth to the evolutionists that have been peddling the fallacy of spontaneous generation and they still teach this in textbooks and schools inspite of the fact that it is unscientific, illogical, irrational and unreasonable. Despite all the efforts of the evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found, hence it remains a theory and not a fact.

Today there are many other PhD scientists such as I have mentioned in my earlier posts and also in the link suggested who reject evolution and believe that God created in 6 days a few thousand years ago, just as recorded in Scriptures. Russ Humphreys (PhD Physics), has developed among many other things, a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields, which enabled him to accurately predict the fields strengths of the outer planets. He was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scriptures.

John Baumgardner (PhD Geophysics and biblical creationist), has a sophisticated computer model of Catastrophic plate tectonics, which was reported in the journal Nature; the assumptions for this model are based on the global flood recorded in the book of Genesis. A biblical creationist Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, developed the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan that has benefited a lot of people. Georgia Purdon (PhD Molecular Genetics) and Andrew Snelling (PhD Geology) both biblical creationists and authors in Answers in Genesis. They certainly understand their fields and are yet convinced that they do not support evolutionary biology and geology but rather confirm biblical creation.

Jason Lisle (PhD Astrophysics), He made a number of discoveries about the nature of near-surface solar flows, including the detection of a never-before-seen polar alignment of super granules, as well as patterns indicative of giant overturning cells. He said that it was because a logical God created and ordered the universe that made him and other creation scientists expect to be able to understand aspects of that universe through logic, careful observation and experimentation.

The very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. This is not to say that noncreationists cannot be scientists, but in a way an evolutionist is not being consistent when they do science. The big bang supporters claim the universe is a random chance event and yet they study it as if it were logical and orderly. The evolutionist is thus, forced to borrow certain creationist principles in order to do science. The universe is logical and orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. We can also trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This why science is possible. On the contrary, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no law giver? If our brains are the by products of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by God, as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature. Science is possible because the Bible is true.

For more information on what constitutes science and how it has always confirmed the Bible's account check the weblink below:


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

I never get a straight answer from you either besides the tired old excuse of "research", the bone-headed obstinacy that is based on a gross negligence of facts and the over reliance on dubious websites put up by people with an agenda.

James Joule, Gregor Mendel, John Dalton, Blaise Pascal . . . were all devout christians.

Nobel Laureates who were devout christians - Richard Smalley, Walter Kohn, Nevill Mott, John Eccles and many more.

You're nothing but an intellectual midget besides these men . . . i don't blame you . . . Earnest Hemmingway it was who attempted to fool the world when he famously made this stupid claim - "All thinking men are atheists."

since when did catholics become devout christains? i thought catholics were misguided christains. . . .the only time christains come together is when you tell them there is no god else the spend their entire time fighting and castigating each other . . . david you should be the last person that should be refering to catholics as devout christains . . . .why spend most of your time castigating them for being "misguided" and "lost"

your chemistry textbook has been edited so many times . . . it has thus become unreliable. Maybe you can stop studying chemistry too

some one said that Chemistry has been changed over time as understanding and findings have come underway, so chemistry should be edited and changed when there are new findings, but not the Bible, but why is the bible heavily edited? or has the biblicals god's understanding of the world which he supposedly created increased over time? you claim to be an intellectual and you are quick to shout and show how intelligent you think you are but with the examples you keep throwing around you just keep confirming that you are more deranged and deluded than a know nothing slowpoke. . . . . .

Reaching again. You've even managed to go back 500 years for some of your examples!!!

And just like DavidDylan you're claiming people to be devout Christians when they weren't.

Louis Pasteur is well known for not attending church although Catholics love trying to claim him as one of his own. Possibly he was Christian but "devout"?
Francis Bacon with his links to Roscrucianism and Freemasonry could easily be seen as "heretical".
Johannes Kepler was not only an astronomer but also an avid astrologist. Again "heretical". His mother was tried for "witchcraft".
As I've already pointed out, Isaac Newton was considered as a heretic.
Nicholaus Steno was so devout he didn't know what he wanted to be. Raised a Lutheran, he converted to Catholicism.
Andrew Ure was the role model for Shelley's "Frankenstein". Hmmm. Christian? Perhaps.
James Clerk Maxwell was a member of the Cambridge Apostles - known for homosexuality and Marxism. Also yet another who didn't know what he wanted to be and converting from Presbyterian to Episcopalian to Evangelicalism.
Others that you've mentioned, such as Jason Lisle whose work has been discredited by the scientific community, aren't big players.
Raymond V. Damadian claimed to have invented MRI but when the Nobel Commitee looked into it, they found that two other people had done most of the work and even after Damadian threatened to sue them they still awarded the Nobel Prize to the other two candidates. He was criticised and told that there is "No Nobel Prize for whining".


Need me to go on?

Bastage:
Reaching again. You've even managed to go back 500 years for some of your examples!!!

And just like DavidDylan you're claiming people to be devout Christians when they weren't.

Louis Pasteur is well known for not attending church although Catholics love trying to claim him as one of his own. Possibly he was Christian but "devout"?
Francis Bacon with his links to Roscrucianism and Freemasonry could easily be seen as "heretical".
Johannes Kepler was not only an astronomer but also an avid astrologist. Again "heretical". His mother was tried for "witchcraft".
As I've already pointed out, Isaac Newton was considered as a heretic.
Nicholaus Steno was so devout he didn't know what he wanted to be. Raised a Lutheran, he converted to Catholicism.
Andrew Ure was the role model for Shelley's "Frankenstein". Hmmm. Christian? Perhaps.
James Clerk Maxwell was a member of the Cambridge Apostles - known for homosexuality and Marxism. Also yet another who didn't know what he wanted to be and converting from Presbyterian to Episcopalian to Evangelicalism.
Others that you've mentioned, such as Jason Lisle whose work has been discredited by the scientific community, aren't big players.
Raymond V. Damadian claimed to have invented MRI but when the Nobel Commitee looked into it, they found that two other people had done most of the work and even after Damadian threatened to sue them they still awarded the Nobel Prize to the other two candidates. He was criticised and told that there is "No Nobel Prize for whining".


Need me to go on?

when deluded know nothing imbeciles like davidylan are challanged they are quick to point out that catholics are devout christains esle they spend most of their time calling them misguided and lost souls who the biblical god need to have mercy on. . . .

I am a little worried about Hell! I know Hell is supposed to have a big red devil as the commander in chief of the demonic forces and he has 2 horns (Actually we don't know the size) and big blood shot fiery eyes with a ring around his nose, with long fingers and talons as nails and a very long tail behind his yansh and he walks around naked, pointing his trident to the unbelievers,who are screaming in a pool of fire asking for water for the last 7 million years.

Well i really don't understand some things:

1. Where is hell? Up, down, side ways or in space?

2. How do the demons refire the burning flames especially with the global economic crunch and rising cost of fuel and kerosine?

3. How do they pay for the fuel? Dollars or credit cards

4. How come the souls have been burning for eternity and they still don't die?

5. If the soul is a spirit, how do you burn a spirit because the little biology i know is that only solid matter can burn and mammals can feel pain?

6. How big is Hell? Because with the number of sinners and unbelievers, would there be space to accomodate everybody?

7. Does the devil have a wife that he sleeps with and how does he eat? Because spirits don't have blood so what does he drink? Dom perrion?

8. Who are his staffs? Does he have secretaries, ministers, gatemen, chaffeurs? Whats his favourite ride and colour, oh i know, duh! Red!

9. Doesnt he ever get bored of just burning people and twisting them like barbeque chicken on a grill, even i get tired after 30 mins on  George foreman's grill and the devil has been doing this for how many million years again?

10. Isnt he tired of hearing the same screams for more than 7million years? Common human rights activities should be there by now filing a protest!

11. If Hitler, Abacha and Saddam were his boys on earth, shouldnt they be rewarded with some form of ministerial posts from the prince of darkness so called? Because if god rewards people for doing his wishes on earth, why should the devil punish his prophets and people for doing his exact words??

12. If Devil actually carried jesus to show him the world on top of a mountain to bribe him, how did he carry jesus? okada, rocket, keke maruwa, danfo, BRT? And why should devil bribe jesus for the wole world when according to christians jesus owns the world, aint that a little daft you might say?

13. Is Hell worse than Oshodi today?

14. If devilis really bad, how come devil has only killed a total sum of 8 people only in the bible especially in the book of job and god as killed Millions since the begining of genesis?

Are you sure god isnt the devil and the devil is god?

Hmmm, this radical christian fundamentalist right wing bible propagandists surely know how to confuse people

It's amusing that they try to claim that all the smart people are Christians but then overlook the Hitlers of the world.

Maybe if Germany had won WW2 huh?  

@chris
Spirituality? Hell, I don't know. I know I meant God. I haven't any of these boxes people put such things in,neatly labelled.All there are are questions questions questions: The scary thing is,when you search something is always to be found, when you pray something always answers-How do you know who you've found? How does he/she/ it prove himself? Should I pray? Why? How? Do I say, "Hallowed be thy name?", can I say "God, you were a real asshole today"? What responsiblities does he owe me? Owe mankind? What things are God's fault? Men made guns. Men made bombs. Men make war. People starve because a president has weighed things in the scale and has decided holding on to power justifies millions starving. People meet in secret then go out and kill hundreds of people in a town like Jos. People pull triggers and slit throats. How is God responsible for those things?Why do people say, God you're doing a really bad job,when people do evil of their own volition? How is God accountable for what we do to ourselves?

Why do things you believe tend to happen? Do our thoughts have some kind of energy that interact with unseen energies in the universe? Are there other dimensions superimposed on this one? Questions questions questions. I've mine. You've yours.I sometimes come across you asking someone who believes to define his or her God and explain why they believe. You're no atheist. I'm saying: find your answers yourself. You HAVE to define what you're looking for first? I assumed if it wasn't defined, it at least had a label:God. Why do you find definitions necessary;aren't they merely other people's ideas of what God is? Use those if you feel you must, but why the hell do you need it? I don't get that. But perhaps I don't need to.

But given that,er, spirituality,is a life-long and constantly shifting journey I'm continually amazed at people here who have reached their journey's end and apparently have all the answers and know everything for sure.

Paul's Letter To The Evolutionists (and Theist Evolutionists)

[b]"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."[/b]

Romans 1:18-32

OLAADEGBU:
Paul's Letter To The Evolutionists

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Romans 1:18-32

why are you quoting from the bible to prove to use about creation? allah has a better creation story that the biblical god go figure. . . . as to the highlighted part god did or ordered people to do all of those things in the bible go figure. . . . why don't the biblical god first practice what you guys are advocating on his behalf. . . .

Bastage:
What a mouth-breather.
You don't seem to understand that research actually involves studying other than Biblical material. If you did, you would understand that I don't have to make a claim for more validity - the facts in non-scriptural materials speak for themselves and logically expose the Bible as flawed. Want to pick one of those exposures and debate it with me? How about the Christ figure himself? Want to explain to me why there isn't one single documented reference of him outside of scripture? That's just one solitary point I could tear you a new asshole over but the "Good Book" contains hundreds more.

Of course, a plank like you can go around blabbing their mouth off, acting like they know what they're talking about but all you are is a fart in the wind. You've nothing of substance whatsoever to say - just some pansy-assed retard whining because you don't like people pointing at the obvious holes in your religion.

Yet you dipshits are always trying to shove that religion down everyone else's throat. Reap what you sow, bitch.

The above is a degradation of reasoning, to call you an slowpoke will be an insult to imbeciles. To start with, why does this oaf assume my beliefs? 

One would think that a person who seeks, with comical effects I must add, to side with reason will deploy some iota of logic. This blithering oaf proclaims that he researches non-spiritual material, what would make any intelligent person think religionists don't consume literary content outside their holy books?

In essence, a summation of your argument is that your views are valid because you "research" non-spiritual material. That is the logic of an idiot. You seem to have an ahistorical approach to life, nobody outside the fringes of the historian profession doubts the existence of Jesus, what is debated is the accuracy of his biography. To assert that there is no single documented account of him outside scriptures marks you out as a clueless buffoon.

Every non-believing oik now thinks he is Richard Dawkins. To even question the existence of prominent contemporary scientists who are believers is as idiotic as questioning the existence of matter.  I've seen millenialists with a greater grasp of logic than this cretin.

Bastage:
It's amusing that they try to claim that all the smart people are Christians but then overlook the Hitlers of the world.
Maybe if Germany had won WW2 huh?  

This guy displays the historical nous of a slug. For someone questioning the Christianity of Louis Pasteur to even imply that Nazi Hitler was a Christian is incredible. The Hitlers of this world? Name worse mass murderers in the 20th century than Hitler, Stalin and Mao Zedong - not exactly a collection of ''Jesus freaks''.

Bastage:
@DavidDylan.
Come on, you're reaching. Richard Smalley a devout Christian? Yeah. For the last year of his life.
Walter Kohn is totally at odds with his Catholic faith and the Vatican on the issue of birth control (a pretty big one, you'd have to agree). He's way more of a theist than a "devout Christian".
Pascal? 400 years ago. I'm not even going to bother with that one. Suffice to say he wasn't a "devout Christian" but a "heretical" Jansenist.
Do I really need to go through the other couple of names that you've given? And come on. If Christianity is the be-all and end-all like you state that it is, you should be able to come up with the names of thousands of these "great men" of devoutness.

The fact is, you can't. You're talking crap again. One or two names of people who can easily be shown not to be "devout" Christians makes your argument even less credible.

We've seen this game too many times before. Its the desperate need to force the false idea that great thinkers and scientists could not have been christians. We all know that your "argument" false flat on its face.

The real FACT is that i provided evidence to back up my claim while you just go around weeping and calling such evidence that puts you to shame "crap".

If indeed one or two names of people shown to be not devout christians makes my argument less credible then the way longer list of those who are indeed known to be devout christians puts your argument to shame

Richard Smalley was a christian the last yr of his life and so what? That is even more astounding that a man with so much knowledge could still at the end realise that without God he was nothing but a candidate of hell.

What has Walter Kohn's belief on birth control to do with his christian faith? Does the bible tell us anything about birth control? So because i am at odds with my pastor as to who whether men should sag their jeans automatically nullifies my faith?

Blaise Pascal . . . 400 yrs ago and so what?

My guy your idiocy is shocking.

As for Chris . . . i no fit shout. That guy has no capacity to reason beyond spewing the same old tired nonsense.

@lady
Let the ball roll if you are up for it lets start from one give your supports lets x ray them. I assure you it will come down to just belief.
@max
Thats a lot of emotions you threw out there but sadly we all have boxes that we keep stuff. Let me clear this first for you, right now I am agnostic and atheistic, after weighing what all sides have to say concerning the issue of God I think this is the best position for me.
I ask people to define because it makes no sense to talk about God when you do not even know what God is. That is why I ask them to tell me about their God, how does one believe in something you do not know
I have not been praying for a very very long time and there has been no noticeable difference in my life. You might think your prayers work but really ask yourself if that new phone you want is more important than little John living in congo drc who might still die of hunger after praying but you get your phone!
My dear no matter how you cut it, all these religious apologists have is belief.

Not if one is a Catholic.
Historically, people were put to death for far less.

and what about today? the point you brought up was about today. there are plenty of catholics at odds with the birth control, none of them have been put to death.

since when did catholics become devout christains? i thought catholics were misguided christains. . . .the only time christains come together is when you tell them there is no god else the spend their entire time fighting and castigating each other . . . david you should be the last person that should be refering to catholics as devout christains . . . .why spend most of your time castigating them for being "misguided" and "lost"

not with catholics. we don't go around fighting anyone, we are always defending our faith. you don't see catholics opening threads to demonize the other christians. we will defend our faith, just because i am defending my faith does not mean i am on the same page as david.

even in his attempts to defend the christian faith he puts his foot in his mouth, and sometimes i like it when you all call him out on it, so i just sit back and watch .

sometimes i have to defend the christian faith from his defense. please don't let david be the measuring stick for christians, abeg o.

some one said that Chemistry has been changed over time as understanding and findings have come underway, so chemistry should be edited and changed when there are new findings, but not the Bible, but why is the bible heavily edited? or has the biblicals god's understanding of the world which he supposedly created increased over time? you claim to be an intellectual and you are quick to shout and show how intelligent you think you are but with the examples you keep throwing around you just keep confirming that you are more deranged and deluded than a know nothing slowpoke. . . . . .

just because the bible has been edited does not mean that it should, so no the Biblical God's understanding of the world which he created has not changed. It's the other way around, man's understanding of the Biblical God has increased. After all God isn't using the Bible, man is. God isn't editing the Bible, man is. So why you would reason that God's understanding changed I don't know, especially since you are the intelligent one.
Anyway, it is sad all the same. So called Christians have changed and edited the Bible to conform to what they want to see, yet they are the ones quick to turn around and call others misguided and lost. They apparently don't realise that the Bible has existed for centuries and didn't come about today. They are so quick to quote from a Bible they do not understand.


Anyway carry on, I'll jump in to defend the faith when you insult it, but when you get on the personal with some people I am not going to defend, cool?

@lady
Let the ball roll if you are up for it lets start from one give your supports lets x ray them. I assure you it will come down to just belief

r ut rying to fight with me for agreeing with you? or is that you don't understand how beliefs can be formulated?
just because it is a belief doesn't mean it is not evident. Afterall people come to believe because they saw. If I tell you that I have one leg, you probably won't believe me, but if I show you you would. Isn't that belief from an evidence?

Or are you of the belief that beliefs can never be from evidence? If not, then why are you trying to show that it all comes down to beliefs, when beliefs, are developed from evidence?

@lady
I am saying the concept of God and an afterlife is all about beliefs nothing more or less, there is no way to support those claims with credible evidence beyond doubt.
I am saying for me, a muslim, a budhist , taoist to agree that the God of the bible does exist you have to bring in evidence to support your claim that we can all agree to and that is reality. Let me use electromagnetic induction as an example which says simply that current is induced in a conductor if magnetic field cuts through it. Now if as a Nigerian scientist I claim that I have to support these claims by building equipment that use my supposed principle and this principle must hold even if a chinese scientist tried it. The point I am trying to underscore here is that being right matters, I can not just believe that if I do something it will work I have to back up my claims practically and in theory and then allow the very ruthless method of peer review to come into play.
In the end anyone's belief in electromagnetic induction goes beyond mere belief, it has got grounded evidence in reality and will work for anyone regardless of race or religion.
Ball is in your court, give us support for your claims that goes beyond reasonable doubt.

@lady
I am saying the concept of God and an afterlife is all about beliefs nothing more or less, there is no way to support those claims with credible evidence beyond doubt.

ok one more time r u trying to fight with me for agreeing with you?

as for evidence the ones documented are enough for anyone, it is up to you to choose to believe. if for you the experiences of others are sufficient, then great, if not then sorry. you will have to find out on your own.
religion is not an experiment, spirituality isn't physical. you want physical evidence or evidence that can be calculated with human reasoning and definitions.
well that is not in religion. so if you can only believe from physical evidence then so be it. the evidence i have are the physical evidence of others and i believe them. i believed before my own experience. my experience did not cause me to believe, it definitely erased all doubts.

do u want to examine the experiences of others?

To assert that there is no single documented account of him outside scriptures marks you out as a clueless buffoon.

I laugh in your face. Name the instance where Christ is mentioned outside of scripture. I've already offered to debate you on the subject. The post above shows that you are not only an idiot but also a hypocrite too. So come on. Where are these examples?

For someone questioning the Christianity of Louis Pasteur to even imply that Nazi Hitler was a Christian is incredible.

Incredible but factual and true. Saying that Hitler wasn't a Christian is totally and utterly laughable. Read "Mein Kampf". Read his speeches. Read the accounts of people that knew him. You're an ignorant joke. There's no secret or conspiracy regarding Hitler's Christian belief. I would have thought the fact that he gassed Jews might have given a little clue about how Christianity affected him. But anyway, there is absolutely reams and reams of material out there regarding Hitler's Christianity.
As for Pasteur - "Maurice Vallery-Radot, grandson of the brother of the son-in-law of Pasteur and militant Catholic, holds that Pasteur fundamentally remained catholic, but does not pretend that he went to mass."
Once one understands the context of the word "fundamentally and takes that into account with his avoidance of church one can hardly call him a "devout" Christian as was claimed. Or one can look at his Wikipedia biography - "Following his grandson Pasteur Vallery-Radot, Pasteur had only kept from his catholic education a spiritualism without religious practice." So now Christianity claims to own all spiritualism does it? Please, if you're going to make a claim in such a vociferous manner, make sure it can't be so easily disected. Otherwise one ends up looking like an uneducated retard, just as you have done.

This blithering oaf proclaims that he researches non-spiritual material, what would make any intelligent person think religionists don't consume literary content outside their holy books?

You're living in Cloud Cuckoo Land if you think that the majority of Christians will read independent research. Their reading tends to be of a very biased slant as exemplified by OLAADEGBU and his posting of Creationist material. If you think that the majority of devout Christians are liable to often pick up and read material that may be deemed "heretical" by their religion, you're even more of a fool than I first took you for (if that's possible). Independent work is quite often anatheama and the majority of devout Christians will view it as evil. To suggest that they would willingly read it is again, laughable and shows no understanding on your part.

You keep dropping the name of Richard Dawkins as if by knowing of him you prove some sort of credibility. Sorry. It just makes you look like a band-wagon jumper. Although I have a copy of "The God Delusion", Dawkins doesn't bring anything new to the table that hasn't been around before. That said, Dawkins cannot be discounted. Anyone who has received the number of awards that he has, holds a professorship at Oxford University or who has lectured in the Royal Institute Lectures could only be dismissed by someone living in your world. Of course, I could counter that you now think that you are either Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

As for assuming your beliefs? Yes, I assume that you are Christian. Either that or just an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about. Why? Because you waffle about nothing and show no real inclination to address any question or adhere to any logical thought process.

I'll skip over the rest of your post as it's just mere trash that has already been addressed but please do feel free to follow up on my first point and give some independent evidence of Christ's physical existence.



@DavidDylan.
Your examples are pathetic and very tenuous. Yet again, you show no grasp of logical argument.
You ask what relevance 400 years has? 400 years ago, you would have been executed for not being a Christian. That rather makes a difference don't you think? But then, you guys are used to worshipping with a gun to your head. Up until the 19th century, everyone had to claim that they were Christians. But since then? How come that since the death penalty has been removed for heresy, the vast majority of scientists and thinkers now are not Christians?

Richard Smalley was a christian the last yr of his life and so what? That is even more astounding that a man with so much knowledge could still at the end realise that without God he was nothing but a candidate of hell.

Or more realistically, he went senile towards the end of his life. Hey, I hit my head and was a Christian for 10 minutes last week - are you going to claim me as one of your own?

If indeed one or two names of people shown to be not devout christians makes my argument less credible then the way longer list of those who are indeed known to be devout christians puts your argument to shame.

Is that some sort of joke? Let me give you some figures: Of 250 members of the Royal Society polled, only 3% professed a belief in Christianity. In the National Academy of Sciences (the US version of the RS) 7% professed a belief. Out of the hundreds of winners of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, only 2 were found to be religious Christians. A study found that "among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, as well as in literature, there was a remarkable degree of irreligiousity, as compared to the populations they came from". A "way longer list" of devout Christians? You have no idea what you are talking about.

It's about as far away from the ringing endorsement of "great men" that you can get.

I laugh in your face. Name the instance where Christ is mentioned outside of scripture. I've already offered to debate you on the subject. The post above shows that you are not only an idiot but also a hypocrite too. So come on. Where are these examples?

Unless  the works of Celsus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Seutonius, Thallos, Tacitus and Mara bar Serapion are parts of scripture, you must admit to encylopedic ignorance. None of these mentions of Jesus could be remotely seen as hagiographical

I suppose even the Jewish Talmuds, with their characteristic imprecations against Jesus, are works of scripture. Rare is the scholar, religious or secular, who doubts the existence of Jesus, whatever varying significance they may ascribe to his life. Obviously, cretins like you lap up the works of the revisionist fringe.

Incredible but factual and true. Saying that Hitler wasn't a Christian is totally and utterly laughable. Read "Mein Kampf". Read his speeches. Read the accounts of people that knew him. You're an ignorant joke. There's no secret or conspiracy regarding Hitler's Christian belief. I would have thought the fact that he gassed Jews might have given a little clue about how Christianity affected him.

There are 2 good ways of determining a man's beliefs - his actions and his words. If a book where to be written of Hitler's religiosity as manifested in his actions, it will be a very short book indeed for Hitler is not known to have a attended religious service in his adulthood, never mind receive any sacraments.

However, cretins like you might want to invert the saying that actions speak louder than words . However, even here, idiots like you struggle for just as there are statements which imply a religious belief, there are equally statements which imply non-belief.

There is no clearer indictment of the warped attempts to dress up Hitler as Christian than the recourse of a mooncalf like you to Hitler's rhetoric. Perhaps, Sen Larry Craig is hetereosexual because, though in his actions he was inclined to "brown love", he did make or pen the odd homophobic comment. What a first-rate idiot.

"Read the accounts of the people that knew him" you say. Does that include Joseph Goebells who wrote; "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." We haven't even started with the secular Nazi leadership in general.

Somehow, this first-rate slowpoke seems to import that gassing Jews is evidence of a Christian faith.  You have to be a congenital cretin to think that anti-semitism is the sole preserve of Christians.

Or one can look at his Wikipedia biography

The consequence of the "democratization" of learning. Every oik rushes to Google and emerges an ''intellectual''.

The juxtaposition of Pasteur with Hitler was an interesting point. For respectable luminaries, you assert their failure to attend mass is indicative, yet, where it comes to the Fuhrer who is not known to have attended mass throughout his adult life, he becomes a confirmed a Christian! Such is the inconsistency of oafs like you.

You're living in Cloud Cuckoo Land if you think that the majority of Christians will read independent research. Their reading tends to be of a very biased slant as exemplified by OLAADEGBU and his posting of Creationist material. If you think that the majority of devout Christians are liable to often pick up and read material that may be deemed "heretical" by their religion, you're even more of a fool than I first took you for (if that's possible). Independent work is quite often anatheama and the majority of devout Christians will view it as evil. To suggest that they would willingly read it is again, laughable and shows no understanding on your part.

Ah. . . the majority of Christians! Here comes the familiar shameless retreat of Nairalanders when exposed in their stupidity. Initially ,you implied the fact of one being a Christian ipso facto rendering such a person benighted beyond all matters scriptural. From a educated person, it will sound ignorant, from a slowpoke like you, it's the mother of all ironies.

You keep dropping the name of Richard Dawkins as if by knowing of him you prove some sort of credibility. Sorry. It just makes you look like a band-wagon jumper. Although I have a copy of "The God Delusion", Dawkins doesn't bring anything new to the table that hasn't been around before. That said, Dawkins cannot be discounted. Anyone who has received the number of awards that he has, holds a professorship at Oxford University or who has lectured in the Royal Institute Lectures could only be dismissed by someone living in your world. Of course, I could counter that you now think that you are either Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

Listen, I could wager that you never made into the Russell Group of Unis so don't even try to play the "intelligent by association" game. Dawkins can't be discounted but neither can Alister McGrath. To challenge David to produce "intelligent scientists", coming from an oik like you is astonishing.

As for assuming your beliefs? Yes, I assume that you are Christian. Either that or just an idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about. Why? Because you waffle about nothing and show no real inclination to address any question or adhere to any logical thought process.
I'll skip over the rest of your post as it's just mere trash that has already been addressed but please do feel free to follow up on my first point and give some independent evidence of Christ's physical existence.

For a bovine who grounded the validity of his claim on "I do lots of research", a logical thought process is conspicuous by its absence in your posts.

You fail to realise that you have more in common with the fundamentalist than you may wish to admit. No amount of piggybacking and attempts at intelligence by association would obscure an ignorant and obtuse mind as yours.

Is that some sort of joke? Let me give you some figures: Of 250 members of the Royal Society polled, only 3% professed a belief in Christianity. In the National Academy of Sciences (the US version of the RS) 7% professed a belief. Out of the hundreds of winners of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, only 2 were found to be religious Christians. A study found that "among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, as well as in literature, there was a remarkable degree of irreligiousity, as compared to the populations they came from". A "way longer list" of devout Christians? You have no idea what you are talking about

so those who do not hold beliefs are the intellectuals?

i always wonder how it is that men of intellect are not able to understand mere fishermen writings.

@ Poster,

just reading this now . . .

Nice one geo

Bastage:
@DavidDylan.
Your examples are pathetic and very tenuous. Yet again, you show no grasp of logical argument.

Where are your own refutations? Do they make sense to you at all?
You dont seem to have the ability to reason at all . . . you think by taking up precious space with a lot of specious arguments you have shown good grasp of logical argument.

Bastage:
You ask what relevance 400 years has? 400 years ago, you would have been executed for not being a Christian. That rather makes a difference don't you think?

No it makes no difference . . . because you have simply borrowed a favorite lie of athiests who are desperate to show that scientists could not have been christians.

Bastage:
But then, you guys are used to worshipping with a gun to your head. Up until the 19th century, everyone had to claim that they were Christians. But since then? How come that since the death penalty has been removed for heresy, the vast majority of scientists and thinkers now are not Christians?

which "vast majority"? Did you take a scientific poll before spewing this nonsense? And you claim to be able to reason logically. You people are nothing but a waste of precious space.

Bastage:
Or more realistically, he went senile towards the end of his life. Hey, I hit my head and was a Christian for 10 minutes last week - are you going to claim me as one of your own?

This is a lie and you know it.

Bastage:
Is that some sort of joke? Let me give you some figures: Of 250 members of the Royal Society polled, only 3% professed a belief in Christianity. In the National Academy of Sciences (the US version of the RS) 7% professed a belief. Out of the hundreds of winners of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, only 2 were found to be religious Christians. A study found that "among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, as well as in literature, there was a remarkable degree of irreligiousity, as compared to the populations they came from". A "way longer list" of devout Christians? You have no idea what you are talking about.

where else did you copy this from? How did they verify their poll?

When 4play calls u a buffon i cant help but agree.

Interesting.

For years i didnt believe in hell,altho am a Christian

and the Queen of hell paid me a visit.Very supernatural.

I suppose God told her to set me staight.Glad she did.

Not joking at all here,this is true. Hell is real and Earth isnt it.

Don't believe me believe God.



Or maybe what i saw was a manifestation of my fears,i am not psychotic i can assure you that.

@4play
Again I implore you to stop attacking the person, your last post was laced with venom.
There was no recording of Jesus's activities during his life time the closest are the gospels which was approximately 80 years after and that was the book of Mark.
Celcus was a 2nd century writer, after 200 years does not quite count as independent verification, christianity was already well under way. There isn't even a painting or sculpture of Jesus that dates back to his days. All this is of little importance to me anyway I have been following the story of the historical Jesus and so far things are looking bad for the christians, not that it even matters anyway.
Let us stop derailing this thread and go back to the real thing, the reality of hell, whats your thoughts on that, you seem to have good supports for most of what you say so bring it on tell me the reality of hell and support your assertions.

Unless  the works of Celsus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Seutonius, Thallos, Tacitus and Mara bar Serapion are parts of scripture, you must admit to encylopedic ignorance. None of these mentions of Jesus could be remotely seen as hagiographical.

Let's take a look at those shall we?

Celsus wrote 200 years after Christ. Pliny 100 years after Christ. Lucian 300 years after Christ. Seutonias doesn't mention Jesus Christ. Thallus actually wrote to discredit the Jesus myth (ironic that one). Tacitus 100 years after Christ and his work was edited long after. Mara bar Serapion doesn't mention Jesus Christ.

Hagiographical? No.
Bullshit? Absolutely.

Every single one of those examples is either false or irrelevant. Not a single one could be classified as even remotely providing independent evidence that Christ existed. Again, I laugh in your face.

Hitler and Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs
http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

The juxtaposition of Pasteur with Hitler was an interesting point. For respectable luminaries, you assert their failure to attend mass is indicative, yet, where it comes to the Fuhrer who is not known to have attended mass throughout his adult life, he becomes a confirmed a Christian! Such is the inconsistency of oafs like you.

You dickhead!!! That's the point of the argument. The Christians are claiming Pasteur as one of their own as a "devout" Christian and I've shown that by using the same logic criteria, they have to also take Hitler. I know that since you've joined this thread, you've shown the understanding of an imbecilic dipshit but at least try to follow what's going on.

Honestly. Try again, retard.








@DavidDylan.

Did you take a scientific poll before spewing this nonsense? And you claim to be able to reason logically.

Yes, you spanner. It was a scientific poll (actually I gave you 3 poll examples). I even gave you the statistical figures from the polls. I not only claim to reason logically but, unlike you, I also claim to read before commenting.


@Chrisbenogor. Let him attack, dude. He's toothless so it doesn't matter.

@minute
An angel visited me too, he told me allah was the real God, I guess he came to set me straight, I am not psychotic I assure you.

I was good with this thread till it was derailed.

What the reality of hell, with credible/verifiable evidence.

Is there anything like hell fire?!