KingEbukasBlog:


Do you see deterrents in real life as threats ?



Actually , you can choose not to believe - like you've chosen not to believe now


Not non-believers per se ...

What do judges gain by throwing guilty people in jail

Humblebloke:




1- Seriously..... This is crazy...... and he tells us not to be vengeful.........He is indeed a loving god
!!!



2- Good.... Glad to hear that!



3- Totally outta context.....perhaps you wanna tell me what you people who do not share you beliefs are guilty of

hahn:


Bubu, the only thing that gives me headache is your futile attempt to defend your god. Can't he just do it himself?

KingEbukasBlog:

No one cares actually
You've been making the accusations all day

Obviously someone does not understand what "abstract representation" means

Its comparing Messi and Roger Federer

The bible is historical book combined with teachings that'll guide one on the right path to living right .

Are past events mutable ?
Is an autobiography mutable ?

yup

So God didn't tell him how it actually happen but just an abstract representative of it?

Hahahahahaha this is getting funnier ..

KingEbukasBlog:


Obviously ... He can ... but it would be too late for the non-believers

really? But you are still the one doing that for him here, all the claims here is from you...God haven't done any...

Only a man made God will need man to make itself known to man..

so he will throw them in hell for not believing right?

johnydon22:
really?

so he will throw them in hell for not believing right?

KingEbukasBlog:

Hmmm
And you implied that I'm the insecure one

It ? What are we talking about

The question is as illogical as the omnipotence paradox

I cant say because I could be wrong . Only God judges .

Only. . now we have established it to be different from human judicial system there for it only suggests tyranny here..

you are doing just great in defence of God here..

KingEbukasBlog:


Obviously ... He can ... but it would be too late for the non-believers

KingEbukasBlog:


Can you just stop being rebellious and live a good godly life ?

KingEbukasBlog:

Obviously ... He can ... but it would be too late for the non-believers

KingEbukasBlog:


Not believing in what ?

johnydon22:
Have been what now??

Ooh shiit. . . this just cracked me up..

Oh i do so well and i'd rather subscribe to explanations based on actual studies than on the allegedly abstract representation by primitive men banking on their superstition.

Fun Question: Do you know the genesis account is a young account in the list of creation myths around?

Now this is a cheap straw man.

Science provides means of deducting knowledge religion claims to already have that knowledge.

i ask again which is better...

Now question: So without the bible you wouldn't know murder is wrong?

Aaaaaaw surely if past events as laid out in a written text goes against the evidence available..

Man has a scientific method of ascertaining and reconstructing past events known as archeology.

You are still dodging this question let me repeat it..

One that agrees it doesn't know anything and looks towards evidence and study of what is to ascertain the true approximations .

or

the one that insists everything written in an ancient primitive text is true.

So God didn't tell him how it actually happen but just an abstract representative of it?

Hahahahahaha this is getting funnier ..[/i][/b]

KingEbukasBlog:


Can you just stop being rebellious and live a good godly life ?

johnydon22:






So non-believers in what were you referring to here...?

Poor escape tactise i must say..

johnydon22:
Am curious here, is belief in a God synonymous to being moral?

Go on lets hear it

KingEbukasBlog:


Are you serious ?

Will you like me to take you up on some schooling about that?

should we dabble into older antiquities?

You are defining
Science provided Abiogenesis , Evolution and the Big Bang
Why dont you believe in these theories ?

The question should be who embedded the reason to feel guilt when murder is committed

You need to re-read your posts before your posts tho

evidence that life came from the non-living through a single cell then evolved to become complex beings who can discern between right and wrong , express emotions , reason etc . Ok then

Science is expected to do that job

KingEbukasBlog:


Non-believers - sinners

Non- believers - people who don't acknowledge God's existence ( some religions acknowledge the existence of a supreme being)


I wanted to know for sure

KingEbukasBlog:

Obviously ... He can ... but it would be too late for the non-believers

jiggaz:
Lemme explain bro.... God doesn't threaten His creations and there is nothing like He feeds off people's belief. It is for our own good.

In the beginning, God created man ( Adam ) and put him in a beautiful garden called Eden. Adam was created perfect and in the image of God. But when Satan deceived Adam by making him to eat the forbidden fruit, Sin now came into the world and God's perfect Creation was made imperfect.

And for man to be redeemed of sin, an atonement or a Perfect sacrifice need to be made. And in the whole universe, no one was found worthy of this perfect sacrifice except Jesus CHRIST. So he had to come and die for the sins of mankind. It is God's love for man that He send His son to die for us. Had it being that God does not like man, He would have destroyed man for his disobedience. But due to his perfect love for man, He had to send CHRIST.

By the death and RESURRECTION of CHRIST, mankind was saved and SIN destroyed but all you have to do is to receive Jesus CHRIST as your Lord and Personal Saviour and the Holy Spirit will now dwell in you. You are then automatically a child of God and saved from damnation of Hell. Hell fire is a place prepared for Satan and his demons ( fallen angels ).

So you see my brother, God is not threatening anyone of Hell but His wish is dat all come to Him through CHRIST. But one thing dat God cannot do is this..... God cannot force you to do anything against your will and datz why He gave us freewill.

So you see, i am not forcing you or anyone to receive CHRIST, it is your choice to make. You are free to believe in whatever you believe. Its just dat we need to be thinking of where to spend our Eternity after this life.

KingEbukasBlog:


Where did I make that claim ?

KingEbukasBlog:


My heart leaped for joy when I saw her - I guess my heart did jump

Follow your heart - I guess my heart does the thinking

Antiparticle:
@OP:
I have no certainty about the existence of a creator either. But if there is one, he/she/it is definitely not the God of the Bible or Koran or any of the religions marauding themselves as truth.

KingEbukasBlog:



I guess Deepsight , Uyi and Davidylan are not on Nairaland

johnydon22:
Am curious here, is belief in a God synonymous to being moral?

Go on lets hear it

johnydon22:
Will you like me to take you up on some schooling about that?

should we dabble into older antiquities?

Unlike your absurd dogmas science is open to question, review and argument. . Last i checked these subjects are still under heavy studies so as to make sure it proffers what actually is, if evidence against is found in the course of this study then the theory is discarded unlike you who would clutch on to absurdity no matter what twisting it at will.

Can you stop the dodge work and answer?
Which is better; Science that agrees it doesn't have answers and is working towards knowing

or religion
that insists its dogmas must be taken as truth...

No the question is without bible or any religious book telling you not to kill you wouldn't know murder is wrong?

[b][i]hahahahaha i don die this God is quite drunk doesn't know how to tell a story though … …

Just imagine how you are ridiculing your religion here...

dalaman:


Davidylan is on record here to have said that christianity is purely a faith based religion that has nothing to do with logic and reason, he sometimes openly states his doubt for some of the things written inside the bible, most atheist have commended his honesty and have openly stated that he is the most honest christian they know here on NL. He agrees that christianity and science have nothing in common and that christianity should be accepted based purely on faith, he has said that many times here.

dalaman:


Let me educate you, i actually learnt this fact here on Nairaland from another atheist when I was a christian. The reason why the bible uses heart and never the brain when it talk about people and reasoning was because the people that wrote the bible actually thought the heart was what people used to reason, no where in the bible does it say people reason with their brains because the authors did not know, they actually believed that emotions and reason where from the heart because of the fact that when people were scared or tensed their hearts began to beat faster the writers of the bible knew nothing about hormones and their functions and the function of the brain, to the people reasoned with their hearts and the heart what is responsible for all emotions, they knew nothing about the brain and how it functions and they wrote it down which later became a part of our vocabulary like I feel joy in my heart, this expression came out from the fact that the ancients thought the heat is what is responsible for emotions. These are the same people you want us to believe that they speak on behalf of the creator of the universe.

KingEbukasBlog:


I was being sarcastic ...smh

That does not answer my question . Why dont you believe in Evolution , Big Bang and Abiogenesis

You are making illogical comparisons its as simple as that .

Actually , its no . I've been a christian all my life

So without bible you wouldn't have known murder is wrong. . .Very excellent

I being mocked by someone who does not understand the role of science and religion .
LMAOOOOOOO

That moment when someone doesn't know what to say again. .

You are still dodging my question at the same time showing us how drunk your God concept is when it comes to impacting knowledge of how things happened..

Let me ask again
Which is better; Science that agrees it doesn't have answers and is working
towards knowing

or religion

that insists its dogmas must be taken as truth...?

Can you man up and tell us which of these two premise of knowledge deduction is better and more reliable..

johnydon22:


Hahahaha now this is the question? i have answered this countless times..Because these subjects are still under heavy study in science

But you are still trying to doge. . and this remains the explanation to scientific guidance.

Unlike your absurd dogmas science is open to question, review and
argument. .
Last i checked these subjects are still under heavy studies so as
to make sure it proffers what actually is, if evidence against is found in the
course of this study then the theory is discarded unlike you who would
clutch on to absurdity no matter what twisting it at will.[/i][/b]

KingEbukasBlog:


People with higher superior far much better knowledge of science still believe in Abiogenesis , Big Bang and Evolution . So why exactly dont you believe in these theories . You are still not making sense . Sha I'm letting you know that

Lmao. . You still making this childish assertion? .. pitiful..

since when did science become a dogma that needs to be believed?

Abiogenesis per say is hypothetical boy am sure you wouldn't know that.

You don't even have a premise to clutch on now the issue is scientific theories that are still under study.

People with superior knowledge are not johnydon22. .science is consistent study of a subject to improve the knowledge of that subject.

Going by your childish assertion people with superior knowledge would believe Mars was a dry red planet until just few days back it was announced that liquid water seasonally flow on mars..

Awesome isn't it ...

you are making illogical comparisons .

Habaaa na stop this dodging it is disgraceful. . people here will be laughing their hearts out now. . Answer me in a simple term na.

Which is better; Science that agrees it doesn't have answers and is working
towards knowing

or religion

that insists its dogmas must be taken as truth...?

Can you man up and tell us which of these two premise of knowledge
deduction is better and more reliable..

Hahahaha i don die..

johnydon22:


Lmao. . You still how you are quite kiddish? since when did science become a dogma that needs to be believed?

Abiogenesis per say is hypothetical boy am sure you wouldn't know that.

You don't even have a premise to clutch on now the issue is scientific theories that are still under study.

People with superior knowledge are not johnydon22. .science is consistent study of a subject to improve the knowledge of that subject.

Going by your childish assertion people with superior knowledge would believe Mars was a dry red planet until just few days back it was announced that liquid water seasonally flow on mars..

Awesome isn't it ...

Habaaa na stop this dodging it is disgraceful. . people here will be laughing their hearts out now. . Answer me in a simple term na.

Which is better; Science that agrees it doesn't have answers and is working
towards knowing

or religion

that insists its dogmas must be taken as truth...?

Can you man up and tell us which of these two premise of knowledge
deduction is better and more reliable..

Hahahaha i don die..

johnydon22:



Habaaa na stop this dodging it is disgraceful. . people here will be laughing their hearts out now

KingEbukasBlog:

Let me break down :
Looking at the "facts" presented by the BBT , ET and Abiogenesis . Why aint you an advocate of these theories ? Why do you think "people with superior knowledge of science" still "believe"in these theories and you don't ?

Oh please enough with the people with superior knowledge in science believe these theories.
Not everyone in the scientific field agree to a theory until all possible reviews, studies, observations, experimentations, discoveries has been properly carried out on this theories.
[size=16]
I am one of those who maintain a skeptic nature and we even try finding faults in these theories to make sure a close approximation of truth is reached through these studies.[/size]


So to answer again: I am YET to agree with the Big Bang theory, evolution or the hypothetical abiogenesis or biogenesis because these subjects are still under heavy study and there are still many more to uncover in order to perfect these or ultimately find out a better answer.

If evidence against evolution arises and is reviewed to be correct evolution would be discarded by the science community, nobody would hold it to be true or believe it.

Science means study boy not dogma. . so i am sure this childish hang on a thread has been addressed in full here..

You are still making illogical comparisons. They are two different concepts

Haven't you dodged this long enough? science and religion are opposite concepts and so are open to pure comparison.

Science recognize answers through careful study of the subject and religion establish answers without study and shielded from questions. . This is a clear open ground to establish comparison of both method of knowledge deduction.

So please na stop the fear and answer me ..


Which is better; Science that agrees it doesn't have answers and is working
towards knowing

or religion

that insists its dogmas must be taken as truth...?

Hahahahahaha chai...

KingEbukasBlog:


Again , Johnny ...nobody gives a sh.it

That is correct People needs to laugh naaaa... You are doing a great job giving them what to laugh over