shadeyinka:

Wouldn't the bacteria just see you as nothing but natural habitat.

It might. But I still wouldn't be a nothing nothing since it knows there's something there or it would be dead if there was nothing there and it believed there was.

shadeyinka:
Wouldn't the Scientists among the bacteria study the "garden" in which they live. Everything if they could see, would they know the difference between food from your body and you?

"The Scientists among the bacteria" ? You mean the bacteria that is capable of using its senses, including its mind? Then it might probably know the "difference between food from your body and you". And if it went to science school, it might even be able to determine I am buda too, or poison, even.

shadeyinka:
You'll agree with me that the disparity is too much for bacteria to be able to draw a man eating on the dinning table

Only as much as it is agreed that it didn't go to art school too, because if it did, it just might be "able to draw a man eating on the dinning table", and a woman beside him too.

shadeyinka:

Lack of scientific explanation is never an evidence for the existence or lack of existence of God. No!
However, it is a scientific means of saying that the probability of it existing or not is neither 0% nor 100%

Ok, I think you might have gone way above my level little here! By "scientific explanation", I understand, "the explanation of the evidence my senses ascertain", and by that I mean "putting into words what my senses sense".

Now, if my senses tell me something exists, say like I'm walking along and bump into a table, then the table is 100% there. But if I'm walking along and do not bump into anything, then according to my senses, nothing is there. Are you asking me to give a probability to nothing being there when I bump into nothing? If so, probability is not the right word, but since I bumped into nothing, I can safely claim I am 100% certain there is nothing there, since my senses didn't record anything there.

shadeyinka:
Now, it means you are the one playing a Russian Roulette with your soul.
For me, I don't need any scientific validation to believe in God...and I have nothing to loose even if I am wrong. (I am not about discussing Pascal's Wager)

I don't think I'm playing "Russian Roulette" if my senses record nothing there and there really is nothing there. But I would be playing "stupid Roulette" if there's nothing there and my senses agree there's nothing there and then I make out something is there, though. In fact, I'd be playing "stupid buda Roulette", if I did that! "Very stupid buda Roulette", in fact!

That does not mean other people who do that - imagine something is there when there really is nothing there - are stupid like I'd be if I do it though, since there's many reasons some people see invisible things that aren't there.

shadeyinka:

1. Incest lead to retarded offsprings:
Your assumption: the genes of those days were as defective as that of today. You may need to establish this fact before you conclude.

Fair enough. If we wanted to speculate, we wouldn't necessarily all be retarded due to generations of inbreeding. Assuming God did make Adam and Eve as the first humans, they would be genetically perfect as genetic defects are simply collections of mutations that have accumulated in humans over generations. So if two genetically perfect humans had children, those offspring would have been, like their parents, virtually mutation free, as would their offspring. This literal intepretation of the Bible however begs the question of how the vast amount of genetic variation and disease present into human physiology was able to establish itself in the human population in only in only 6000 years.

shadeyinka:

2. Global flood never happened:
But how come fossils from oil well seems from a sudden catastrophic burrial?

And Shadeyinka how, pray tell, does a global flood explain this fossil stuff? It is the opposite of what you want to prove. Deposits laid down slowly and gradually over millennia do not help your case.
And seriously, does anyone who stops for a moment to think about it really believe that Koalas, that live in trees native only to Australia and only eat the leaves of those same trees, these small, vulnerable and SLOW creatures crawled and swam (SWAM !) all the way from Australia to Israel AND BACK AGAIN without stopping to eat on the way. Seriously??
If your explanation is "god waved his hands, and … ta da … magic" then why bother asking questions at all? The answer to every question is the same; "ta da … magic"

shadeyinka:

Tested by what laws and what frame of reference?

Science. Demonstrably the best system humans have ever had for discovering truths about our universe. If it can't be falsified, then there is no point wasting your life away believing in something that can't be proven objectively

shadeyinka:
Hence, your conclusion is mere wishful thinking

It's not wishful thinking. Its the default position. I remain a skeptic until I see evidence to suggest otherwise.
Good night, sir

budaatum:

Love and fear can be proved!

No sir!
These are both subjective...and they just like the spiritual cannot be quantified.

budaatum:

I know you ain't talking to me, but if I discovered God really exists (as opposed to believing, which is the holding of some alt reality in my head that I have no evidence for and which could be wrong though I wouldn't know because I'm perhaps too lazy to check or deluded), I, buda, would be screaming around like a mad person going, "Shadeyinka, look at the existing God!" And when I show it to you, I'd expect you to say, "aha, buda! I see it", if there truly is something there to show to you, and your eyes work.

Of course, that would surely happen one day!
I hope I am not mistaking you for an atheist; you argue like one!
Our senses are subjective. Sometimes what we see is determined by information that is available to us.

JujuSugar:

Fair enough. If we wanted to speculate, we wouldn't necessarily all be retarded due to generations of inbreeding. Assuming God did make Adam and Eve as the first humans, they would be genetically perfect as genetic defects are simply collections of mutations that have accumulated in humans over generations. So if two genetically perfect humans had children, those offspring would have been, like their parents, virtually mutation free, as would their offspring. This literal intepretation of the Bible however begs the question of how the vast amount of genetic variation and disease present into human physiology was able to establish itself in the human population in only in only 6000 years.


And Shadeyinka how, pray tell, does a global flood explain this fossil stuff? It is the opposite of what you want to prove. Deposits laid down slowly and gradually over millennia do not help your case.
And seriously, does anyone who stops for a moment to think about it really believe that Koalas, that live in trees native only to Australia and only eat the leaves of those same trees, these small, vulnerable and SLOW creatures crawled and swam (SWAM !) all the way from Australia to Israel AND BACK AGAIN without stopping to eat on the way. Seriously??
If your explanation is "god waved his hands, and … ta da … magic" then why bother asking questions at all? The answer to every question is the same; "ta da … magic"


Science. Demonstrably the best system humans have ever had for discovering truths about our universe. If it can't be falsified, then there is no point wasting your life away believing in something that can't be proven objectively


It's not wishful thinking. Its the default position. I remain a skeptic until I see evidence to suggest otherwise.
Good night, sir

You will know that when the population of the world was younger and inbreeding was encouraged until a time when it was producing higher probabilities of defects. A short time of inbreeding may not be catastrophic to the genetic pool of a society.

Someone like you once argued that lions and elephants cannot exist in West Africa until I showed him the fact that they were hunted down in this part of the world before now.

Of course a lot has changed under 6000 years. Our diet has changed, pollution has increased, vegitation cover has reduced, ozone layer depletion has increased, life span until a few hundred years have progressively reduced etc. So many things changed rapidly within the last 6000 years.

About the flood!

Deposits laid down slowly and gradually over millennia do not help your case.

I said sudden catastrophic burrial of plant and animal remains initiated the formation of fossil fuel which may be related to the flood or an earlier distruction of the world. The destruction couldn't have been slowly because they would have simply become manure.

Is it impossible that Koalas would be all over the world in the past? Could some terrain not favour their selection? Australia for instance do not have any big carnivore in existence. Wouldn't that be a good Justification for the survival of Koalas there?

Finally, the Bible isn't a scientific book. It is history as understood by the writers of those days and in their own words.

You claim Science is the Final and best reference for judgement!
Yes! But only for the physical frame of reference.
We claim that God is Spirit hence, Science is not adequate in validating or dis-validating the Spiritual existence.

It's like saying that a weighing balance is good BUT it cannot be used to measure the mass of an atom.

Your position of skepticism would have been ok if there are no "gaps" if you will. eg. NDEs, Skull of Peru, Evolution, TIME, cause and event etc.

budaatum:

Ok, I think you might have gone way above my level little here! By "scientific explanation", I understand, "the explanation of the evidence my senses ascertain", and by that I mean "putting into words what my senses sense".

Now, if my senses tell me something exists, say like I'm walking along and bump into a table, then the table is 100% there. But if I'm walking along and do not bump into anything, then according to my senses, nothing is there. Are you asking me to give a probability to nothing being there when I bump into nothing? If so, probability is not the right word, but since I bumped into nothing, I can safely claim I am 100% certain there is nothing there, since my senses didn't record anything there.


I don't think I'm playing "Russian Roulette" if my senses record nothing there and there really is nothing there. But I would be playing "stupid Roulette" if there's nothing there and my senses agree there's nothing there and then I make out something is there, though. In fact, I'd be playing "stupid buda Roulette", if I did that! "Very stupid buda Roulette", in fact!

That does not mean other people who do that - imagine something is there when there really is nothing there - are stupid like I'd be if I do it though, since there's many reasons some people see invisible things that aren't there.

A scientific research was conducted years ago in an American University that question the way we sense information.
Example:
The fact that we all agree that the colour of the ball in a room is BLACK does not make the information True. The ball could actually be RED in colour and our judgement skewed because of the absence of one tiny spectra of the visible light.

Seeing may not simply justify believing!

TheArranger:

Sorry, wasn't really paying attention to your moniker.
Doesn't change the fact that you woefully failed the question though. I'm presenting an hypothetical situation. You just went ahead to set another question for yourself and answer it. SMH

Aka strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

None of these Christians faced the question head on. they all tried (and succeeded?) in changing the topic. its a pity atheists here seemed to have welcomed the change of topic

Mobilia:


Yes..it's quite easy.
Answer: I won't find "Anubis"...a mythical character.
I will already have been judged..
I will find Jesus..my Lord and Savior.

Anubis is only a mythical character to you because you don't believe or weren't raised in ancient Egypt.

Same way Jesus never existed and is only a myth but you believe it anyway because that is what your parents taught you

hopefulLandlord:
None of these Christians faced the question head on. they all tried (and succeeded?) in changing the topic. its a pity atheists here seemed to have welcomed the change of topic

You were expecting Christians to face this question head on?

hahn:

You were expecting Christians to face this question head on?

hahaha, rookie mistake by me

shadeyinka:

Like why believe in Love when you can't quantify it.
Why control fear when it cannot be measured
Why should words of an order be obeyed

Before you start screaming that these are emotions and not personalities! No one can prove the spiritual,!

I don't intend to prove YHWH to you. It's not possible.
Athiesm is a KIND of Faith (in Self as a replacement for God).

If there is 0.001% probability that God exist to you, the fact that either way there is no proof means you are living by your faith.

What if you discover that God really exist, what would be your reaction and response?

.

Like why believe in Love when you can't quantify it.
Why control fear when it cannot be measured
Why should words of an order be obeyed

They may not be quantifiable but at least they can be clearly demonstrated hence we know they exist, can you demonstrate spirituality ?

Before you start screaming that these are emotions and not personalities! No one can prove the spiritual,!

If the spiritual can not be proved then why do u believe it exists because I am sure you weren't born with such knowledge you picked that up at some point in ur life,what convinced you ?

I don't intend to prove YHWH to you. It's not possible.
Athiesm is a KIND of Faith (in Self as a replacement for God).

It seems you have a different definition of the word "faith" .If it is impossible to prove YHWH to us then what is the point of arguing with ?,I can also claim its impossible to prove my atheism to you,whatcha think ?

I there is 0.001% probability that God exist to you, the fact that either way there is no proof means you are living by your faith.

Yes, you are correct,only that such faith is negligibe

What if you discover that God really exist, what would be your reaction and response

since you are a christian I would assume that you are not referring to a pantheistic or deistic god but YHWH

Let me teach you guys how to answer a What if question,because it is pretty evident that you guys are so insecure and narrow minded that u can not even entertain the possibility that you could be wrong

ASSUMING YHWH actually exists and everything is the way the bible says it is,I wouldn't shudder not a bit,if I die and meet him on judgement day I would spit on his face,worse he can do is throw me into hell,no problem I won't be alone there I would have some companionship,I would have all the Muslims,Hindus,Buddhists,Jews,Zoroastrians,Jains,Sikhists,Aztecs,Mormons,Atheists,Deists,Pantheists,Panentheists,Atheists,Agnostics and free thinkers that ever lived there alongside others groups.I would also have some notable personalities like CAPSLOCK,Seun and all other nairaland atheists,Albert Einstein,Anne frank,Bill Gates,Mark Zuckerberg and the rest

This is my earnest reply

Good morning, sir

shadeyinka:

You will know that when the population of the world was younger and inbreeding was encouraged until a time when it was producing higher probabilities of defects. A short time of inbreeding may not be catastrophic to the genetic pool of a society.

Someone like you once argued that lions and elephants cannot exist in West Africa until I showed him the fact that they were hunted down in this part of the world before now.

Of course a lot has changed under 6000 years. Our diet has changed, pollution has increased, vegitation cover has reduced, ozone layer depletion has increased, life span until a few hundred years have progressively reduced etc. So many things changed rapidly within the last 6000 years.

Yes, according to the story of the Bible, Adam and Eve were created perfectly ex nihilo by God. Assuming God was competent at genetics (and why shouldn't he be lol?), Adam and Eve shouldn't yet have had any damaged copies of genes. Their children wouldn't have faced the same problems faced by real people when it comes to inbreeding.
However, sir, let's take it back a bit... sorry if it appears as though i'm changing goalposts, but do you really believe in a literal Adam & Eve who were a couple and were the ancestors of ALL humanity? Like really? This makes sense to you?

shadeyinka:
I said sudden catastrophic burrial of plant and animal remains initiated the formation of fossil fuel which may be related to the flood or an earlier distruction of the world. The destruction couldn't have been slowly because they would have simply become manure.

Ok. Now...
a) Do you have any official peer reviewed documentation of this "catastrophic burial of plants and animal remains" as related to the story of Noah's ark?
b) The Ark myth was most likely copied from an an earlier Babylonian source. Not to mention there are countless other flood myths besides Noah's Ark & The Epic of Gilgamesh.
c) When it rains, water easily picks up hydrocarbons from decaying organic material and carries it into undeground aquifers, here it hits a barrier plate of bedrock and most of it stays, where there are breaks in the barrier plate the water can flow through essentially traping it under ground where it is exposed to heat and increasing pressure when the water tries to boil off, creating hydrocarbon solutions we can easily process into fossil fuels and chemicals. It didn't come from "Noah & The Ark"
d) There is no source other than Abrahamic scriptures that say that it happened. There's no first hand source that describes the flood from the perspective of someone that didn't exist after it. How can we know this happened for sure, when no one really knows that it happened! Who came up with this idea! And don't say it was God's divine words brought down to humanity, that's a whole different argument for another day.
Unless you can humor me my addressing my statement a)...

shadeyinka:

Finally, the Bible isn't a scientific book. It is history as understood by the writers of those days and in their own words.

Yeah. People like you and me. Think about that for a second

shadeyinka:

You claim Science is the Final and best reference for judgement!
Yes! But only for the physical frame of reference.
We claim that God is Spirit hence, Science is not adequate in validating or dis-validating the Spiritual existence.

Exactly! Why have TOTAL confidence in something I cannot prove or disprove?

shadeyinka:

Your position of skepticism would have been ok if there are no "gaps" if you will. eg. NDEs, Skull of Peru, Evolution, TIME, cause and event etc.

Here on Planet Earth, sir, we use the scientific method to find the best possible physical explanation for a given phenomenon. There is no need for supernatural explanations if physical ones will do just fine.

a) Near death experiences (NDEs) can be explained by how the brain responds to oxygen deprivation and to an imminent shutdown, such as that which occurs following cardiac arrest. The brain responds with a heightened state of consciousness:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-last-second-surge-of-brain-activity-could-explain-near-death-experiences-28726479/
https://journals.sagepub.com/home/nro
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/
Considering all this evidence, it is possible to explain NDEs as physiological and neurological phenomena, without any implication of an afterlife being involved at all, other than many people's wishful thinking that there is one.

b) Skull of Peru ===> https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/why-ancient-peruvians-had-elongated-skulls-no-its-not-aliens/
Artificial cranial deformations usually involve tightly binding a baby’s squishy head with bandages or clamping it into between wooden planks in order to distort its growth. This is just one insight into one culture’s use of elongated skulls, so it doesn’t necessarily represent all instances of it. After all, it occurred in countless different groups throughout history.

c) Don't understand why you mentioned evolution. Evolution in my opinion is completely independent of religiosity, and you cannot understand the one and believe in the other. Your YHWH did not use evolution to create man, he used dust. Then used a rib from the man to create a woman.
IF, however, you're suggesting that Evolution has "gaps", I'll need you to elaborate. The same with the last two.

Three pages in and the original question by the OP has been dodged epically. Lol , the christians of this forum are wonderful
In case y'all have forgotten (I'm looking @ you, shadeyinka), this is the question on ground:

If you die, and you meet Anubis instead of Jesus? What does this say about you and your faith?

XxSabrinaxX:
Three pages in and the original question by the OP has been dodged epically. Lol , the christians of this forum are wonderful
In case y'all have forgotten (I'm looking @ you, shadeyinka), this is the question on ground:

He asked such question

what if you discover that God really exists,what will be your reaction and response

And I have given him a direct answer, but you know typical christians,then can never assume that they could be wrong, yet we are accused of being proud,they are always insecure,they feel if they give u an answer you would use it against them,see Shadeyinka's first response

hahn:


Anubis is only a mythical character to you because you don't believe or weren't raised in ancient Egypt.

Same way Jesus never existed and is only a myth but you believe it anyway because that is what your parents taught you

I get what you are saying (whatever a person believes is "his/her truth" is just "his/her truth" because of their upbringing...what was implanted in his/her mind).
So truth is relative...in a sense...is what you are saying if I'm correct.
I still will "agree to disagree" somewhat about your last statement.
Many reputable sources refer to "Anubis" as a mythical character...folklore.
Even one of the guys on this post much earlier referred to "Anubis" as a mythical source.
If you look at my long post on this thread, I said that I happened to "search" for Christ around 22 (when I was away from my parents)...I wanted to know "who" He was in relation to my life. How He could be practical and relevant to me....

Although my parents raised me in the best manner that they could, (and I do not fault them cause I've had a very blessed life), I do think that a firm foundation was NOT fully set in regards to understanding the essence of the gospel of Christ and developing a relationship with Him. Thus a personal journey started for me.

Just on a side note: Interestingly enough, even Muslims acknowledge Jesus as an important being in a sense (a prophet)....so there's something to Him.

Anyhow, I am firmly set in my belief now...for myself.
I am saying that there are multiple beliefs....but not multiple truths.... (and all of this chaos and confusion that's in the world)...there's only (1) full truth....which is the hard pill that folks don't want to swallow...unfortunately.
I know you guys disagree with me...

CC: Jujusugar
1Sharon

XxSabrinaxX:
Three pages in and the original question by the OP has been dodged epically. Lol , the christians of this forum are wonderful
In case y'all have forgotten (I'm looking @ you, shadeyinka), this is the question on ground:

And I answered the question posted by the op if you checked the first page. Here it is if you will

shadeyinka:


1. There is no religion in the world that orders a higher form of righteousness than Christianity (I am even commanded to love my enemies). If making heaven is as a result of righteousness alone, then as a Christian, I am more than qualified to enter paradise.
2. There is no other deity other than YHWH who promises damnation in hell for the sin of unbelieving in Him apart from Allah. Check the quran and you will discover that Christians are the nearest to allah and will enter paradise (those who live righteously among them).

If you go with the teachings of Hindus, the worst that can happen is that you are reincarnated back to a slum in the world or came back as an animal. Either way what is judgement if your memory is wiped out.

And by the doctrine of You Atheists, I wouldnt even know anything (ill be manure isnt it...LOL)

Of course, my righteousness is Far Far much higher than anyone's righteousness (not born again)!
Why? I am a sinner saved by Gods Grace and the cloth of Righteousness upon me doesn't belong to me. It belongs to God. I have an imputed
righteousness.

So, HOW WOULD I FEEL?
So lucky to have chosen Christ Jesus (if I am conscious)

BUT

That was why i claimed:

Any Christian who has "30% pass mark" in the judgement of Righteousness of Christ would have scored " 99% pass mark" in the judgement of any other god!

Of course, this question of yours is only hypothetical because Christianity is NOT a Religion. Christianity is a RELATIONSHIP!

I took care of if Allah was the way
I took care of the other God's of which I have no reason to be afraid
I took care of Hinduism: reincarnation is no punishment if I can't remember my past
I also took care of athiesm: of which I'll be manure

What else do you want as an answer!

shadeyinka:

A scientific research was conducted years ago in an American University that question the way we sense information.
Example:
The fact that we all agree that the colour of the ball in a room is BLACK does not make the information True. The ball could actually be RED in colour and our judgement skewed because of the absence of one tiny spectra of the visible light.

Seeing may not simply justify believing!

That may well be so. There are many reasons why a perceived (or, sensed, to include all other means of seeing), may appear one way but be misperceived, but whether something is perceived or not is of a different order to the interpretation of what is perceived I would think. Imagine everyone claiming the one black ball is ten balls or no balls at all. Surely, they would have to come up with a criteria to determine which statement is valid.

The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes]Emperor's New Clothes[/url] is a good illustration.

Two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent – while in reality, they make no clothes at all, making everyone believe the clothes are invisible to them. When the emperor parades before his subjects in his new "clothes", no one dares to say that they do not see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as stupid. Finally a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"

Might explain why it is written, "unless one become as a child, no KoG for one"!

shadeyinka:
Our senses are subjective. Sometimes what we see is determined by information that is available to us.

Is this the point I order you to accept Jesus into your life, I wonder, for this is the reason why one must ensure one's eye is not dim and polluted by the information available to one. Christ illustrated this with his "Seek ye first the KoG", and why he spat on mud and rubbed it in people's eyes, "for if the senses are dim, all one's sense are probably crap". I'd even claim he shed his blood so that you could be cured of this disease called 'Subjective Senses'!

shadeyinka:
No sir!
These are both subjective...and they just like the spiritual cannot be quantified.

I think your information might be limited. There are ways of objectively determining emotions these days, and many can easily recognise love and fear though I can't say the same about the spiritual until I know what you mean by that word. I can say however that I am using words in a somewhat spiritual sense here and wonder if you notice?

shadeyinka:
Of course, that would surely happen one day!

Amen! Amen!

shadeyinka:
I hope I am not mistaking you for an atheist; you argue like one!

I hope not too. But shadeyinka, my sake. Since you seem to rely on "scientific research conducted years ago in an American University" instead of trusting you very own God given eyes, I can assure you that you are 100% mistaken and should learn to make your own eyes work so that you trust your own senses more.

Hermes019:
They may not be quantifiable but at least they can be clearly demonstrated hence we know they exist, can you demonstrate spirituality ?

If the spiritual can not be proved then why do u believe it exists because I am sure you weren't born with such knowledge you picked that up at some point in ur life,what convinced you ?

It seems you have a different definition of the word "faith" .If it is impossible to prove YHWH to us then what is the point of arguing with ?,I can also claim its impossible to prove my atheism to you,whatcha think ?

Yes, you are correct,only that such faith is negligibe


since you are a christian I would assume that you are not referring to a pantheistic or deistic god but YHWH

Let me teach you guys how to answer a What if question,because it is pretty evident that you guys are so insecure and narrow minded that u can not even entertain the possibility that you could be wrong

ASSUMING YHWH actually exists and everything is the way the bible says it is,I wouldn't shudder not a bit,if I die and meet him on judgement day I would spit on his face,worse he can do is throw me into hell,no problem I won't be alone there I would have some companionship,I would have all the Muslims,Hindus,Buddhists,Jews,Zoroastrians,Jains,Sikhists,Aztecs,Mormons,Atheists,Deists,Pantheists,Panentheists,Atheists,Agnostics and free thinkers that ever lived there alongside others groups.I would also have some notable personalities like CAPSLOCK,Seun and all other nairaland atheists,Albert Einstein,Anne frank,Bill Gates,Mark Zuckerberg and the rest

This is my earnest reply

You don't get it yet.
If I told you I LOVE you, is there a scientific instrument to assertain the truthfulness of what I said? If indeed I do love you, is there a scientific means of quantifying the love? Is there even a standard of what one can consider as 100% love?

So many questions begging for answers.Since all these cannot be proven, does it mean Love doesn't exist? That seems to be your position: that since God cannot be proven, he doesn't exist!

I don't know about proving you to be an atheist. It's not even possible. Only you can decide that.

The what if Questions I answered very clearly. For your remembrance:

shadeyinka:


1. There is no religion in the world that orders a higher form of righteousness than Christianity (I am even commanded to love my enemies). If making heaven is as a result of righteousness alone, then as a Christian, I am more than qualified to enter paradise.
2. There is no other deity other than YHWH who promises damnation in hell for the sin of unbelieving in Him apart from Allah. Check the quran and you will discover that Christians are the nearest to allah and will enter paradise (those who live righteously among them).

If you go with the teachings of Hindus, the worst that can happen is that you are reincarnated back to a slum in the world or came back as an animal. Either way what is judgement if your memory is wiped out.

And by the doctrine of You Atheists, I wouldnt even know anything (ill be manure isnt it...LOL)

Of course, my righteousness is Far Far much higher than anyone's righteousness (not born again)!
Why? I am a sinner saved by Gods Grace and the cloth of Righteousness upon me doesn't belong to me. It belongs to God. I have an imputed
righteousness.

So, HOW WOULD I FEEL?
So lucky to have chosen Christ Jesus (if I am conscious)

BUT

That was why i claimed:

Any Christian who has "30% pass mark" in the judgement of Righteousness of Christ would have scored " 99% pass mark" in the judgement of any other god!

Of course, this question of yours is only hypothetical because Christianity is NOT a Religion. Christianity is a RELATIONSHIP!

You seem to hold a notion that he'll is a blanket judgement. No, it isn't sir. Even heaven isn't a blanket Bliss. Every one is rewarded according to the level of faithfulness or unfaithfulness to love to God and fellow human beings and obedience to God's will.

I rest my case!

shadeyinka:

You don't get it yet.
If I told you I LOVE you, is there a scientific instrument to assertain the truthfulness of what I said? If indeed I do love you, is there a scientific means of quantifying the love? Is there even a standard of what one can consider as 100% love?

Yes there is! First you need to understand what "a scientific instrument" is however because I don't think you get it yet, or do you understand that the eyes "a scientific instrument" as are the other senses including the mind?

Now tell, can you not use your "scientific instruments" to ascertain whether you are loved or not and to what extent?

shadeyinka:


Seeing may not simply justify believing!

Not seeing justifies believing even less¡

My day was extremely busy
I couldn't respond till now, even then, I am tired but I'll spare a few words!

JujuSugar:

Good morning, sir

Yes, according to the story of the Bible, Adam and Eve were created perfectly ex nihilo by God. Assuming God was competent at genetics (and why shouldn't he be lol?), Adam and Eve shouldn't yet have had any damaged copies of genes. Their children wouldn't have faced the same problems faced by real people when it comes to inbreeding.
However, sir, let's take it back a bit... sorry if it appears as though i'm changing goalposts, but do you really believe in a literal Adam & Eve who were a couple and were the ancestors of ALL humanity? Like really? This makes sense to you?

It makes perfect sense to me. Why?
If by evolution every living thing came about and nature naturally abhor interbreeding of different species. It is actually easier for species to degenerate into different species due to selection than for parallel species (of the same type) just spontaneously existing. I am not a biologist, so I couldn't have put it in precise words.

JujuSugar:

Ok. Now...
a) Do you have any official peer reviewed documentation of this "catastrophic burial of plants and animal remains" as related to the story of Noah's ark?
b) The Ark myth was most likely copied from an an earlier Babylonian source. Not to mention there are countless other flood myths besides Noah's Ark & The Epic of Gilgamesh.

The ark myth?
It wasn't known only in the Bible. It was a common knowledge in the world even before the Bible was written. The Sumerians wrote about it and it could also have been passed down as oral tradition among some ancient communities. The fact that it existed in several distorted versions in distantly related communities show that there could be some truths in it.

JujuSugar:


c) When it rains, water easily picks up hydrocarbons from decaying organic material and carries it into undeground aquifers, here it hits a barrier plate of bedrock and most of it stays, where there are breaks in the barrier plate the water can flow through essentially traping it under ground where it is exposed to heat and increasing pressure when the water tries to boil off, creating hydrocarbon solutions we can easily process into fossil fuels and chemicals. It didn't come from "Noah & The Ark"
d) There is no source other than Abrahamic scriptures that say that it happened. There's no first hand source that describes the flood from the perspective of someone that didn't exist after it. How can we know this happened for sure, when no one really knows that it happened! Who came up with this idea! And don't say it was God's divine words brought down to humanity, that's a whole different argument for another day.
Unless you can humor me my addressing my statement a)...

Your theory in (c) is impossible! Why?
1. Actual fossils have been known to accompany crude oil and especially coal.
2. Such soluble hydrocarbons would have been treated by plants as manure
3. There are microbial agents that eat up vegitations when they expire.
4 It is actually easier for solid organic matter to break down into simpler organic matters like liquids and gases than the reverse
5...

JujuSugar:

Yeah. People like you and me. Think about that for a second


Exactly! Why have TOTAL confidence in something I cannot prove or disprove?



Here on Planet Earth, sir, we use the scientific method to find the best possible physical explanation for a given phenomenon. There is no need for supernatural explanations if physical ones will do just fine.

JujuSugar:

a) Near death experiences (NDEs) can be explained by how the brain responds to oxygen deprivation and to an imminent shutdown, such as that which occurs following cardiac arrest. The brain responds with a heightened state of consciousness:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-last-second-surge-of-brain-activity-could-explain-near-death-experiences-28726479/
https://journals.sagepub.com/home/nro
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/
Considering all this evidence, it is possible to explain NDEs as physiological and neurological phenomena, without any implication of an afterlife being involved at all, other than many people's wishful thinking that there is one.

If this is true (that NDEs is a kind of dream due to lack of Oxygen in the brain), can you explain
1. Why some out of body experiences during NDEs seem to be able to describe there environment eg during surgery
2. There has been experiences of the Blind (Born Blind People) seeing in the period of their NDEs
3. How come in almost all the NDE "dreams", the dreamer KNOWS with certainty that he is dead. This seldom happens in dreams.
4....

JujuSugar:


b) Skull of Peru ===> https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/why-ancient-peruvians-had-elongated-skulls-no-its-not-aliens/
Artificial cranial deformations usually involve tightly binding a baby’s squishy head with bandages or clamping it into between wooden planks in order to distort its growth. This is just one insight into one culture’s use of elongated skulls, so it doesn’t necessarily represent all instances of it. After all, it occurred in countless different groups throughout history.

1. Foetuses have been seen to have the same elongated skulls as the adults.
2. Could it not be that ancient cultures who bind their heads for years are just trying to "resemble" an advanced culture (who they treat as god-men?)
3. I am sure that you know that some of the skulls contain only one parietal plate, rather than two as is usual in humans. This is not a fusion case it is a case of total absence
4. The hair colours seems not to have similarity with the normal colours available among humans
5. And the skulls seem to be at least 15 -25 bigger
6. We don't even know where to place them in the evolutinary tree!
7......

JujuSugar:

c) Don't understand why you mentioned evolution. Evolution in my opinion is completely independent of religiosity, and you cannot understand the one and believe in the other. Your YHWH did not use evolution to create man, he used dust. Then used a rib from the man to create a woman.
IF, however, you're suggesting that Evolution has "gaps", I'll need you to elaborate. The same with the last two.

Evolution do not have proof. It's just a theory based on similarities and differences of species. Like saying a bicycle metamorphosed into tricycles, which after millions of years became trailers before some of them took to the air as aeroplanes.

Evolution is a good Physical theory of life where the DNA just contained intellect after millions of years of reordering itself. ....and life just took off from inorganic elements.

Good night!

budaatum:

Not seeing justifies believing even less¡

The gaps is thus covered by faith on both sides (theists and atheists)

budaatum:

Yes there is! First you need to understand what "a scientific instrument" is however because I don't think you get it yet, or do you understand that the eyes "a scientific instrument" as are the other senses including the mind?

Now tell, can you not use your "scientific instruments" to ascertain whether you are loved or not and to what extent?

And when someone uses the "mind" as a yard stick, you still ask for physical evidence!

You have to make up your mind!

budaatum:

That may well be so. There are many reasons why a perceived (or, sensed, to include all other means of seeing), may appear one way but be misperceived, but whether something is perceived or not is of a different order to the interpretation of what is perceived I would think. Imagine everyone claiming the one black ball is ten balls or no balls at all. Surely, they would have to come up with a criteria to determine which statement is valid.

The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes]Emperor's New Clothes[/url] is a good illustration.

Two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent – while in reality, they make no clothes at all, making everyone believe the clothes are invisible to them. When the emperor parades before his subjects in his new "clothes", no one dares to say that they do not see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as stupid. Finally a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"

Might explain why it is written, "unless one become as a child, no KoG for one"!

The summary is simply that even physical evidence may mislead us if every surrounding information is not completely known.

budaatum:

Is this the point I order you to accept Jesus into your life, I wonder, for this is the reason why one must ensure one's eye is not dim and polluted by the information available to one. Christ illustrated this with his "Seek ye first the KoG", and why he spat on mud and rubbed it in people's eyes, "for if the senses are dim, all one's sense are probably crap". I'd even claim he shed his blood so that you could be cured of this disease called 'Subjective Senses'!

It was illustrated well: ...and ye shall know the truth...

budaatum:

I think your information might be limited. There are ways of objectively determining emotions these days, and many can easily recognise love and fear though I can't say the same about the spiritual until I know what you mean by that word. I can say however that I am using words in a somewhat spiritual sense here and wonder if you notice?

I wish you can educate me... honestly!

budaatum:


Amen! Amen!


I hope not too. But shadeyinka, my sake. Since you seem to rely on "scientific research conducted years ago in an American University" instead of trusting you very own God given eyes, I can assure you that you are 100% mistaken and should learn to make your own eyes work so that you trust your own senses more.

You need not emphasize years ago. It's still relevant today. All they did was illuminate a red ball with light of which a certain frequency was removed ( the red wavelength) and everyone including the camera saw it as black. Until the full visible spectrum was used.

My point; if a little bit of the relevant information is missed, a wrong conclusion will be arrived at. When you exclude the possibility of the spiritual, your conclusion would be flawed.

shadeyinka:

It makes perfect sense to me. Why?
If by evolution every living thing came about and nature naturally abhor interbreeding of different species. It is actually easier for species to degenerate into different species due to selection than for parallel species (of the same type) just spontaneously existing. I am not a biologist, so I couldn't have put it in precise words.

shadeyinka:
It makes perfect sense to me.

Oh it does, right?
What if i told you there never were a literal Adam and Eve who were a couple and were the ancestors of all of humanity? I'll advise checking out this link ===> https://whyevolutionistrue./2011/06/02/adam-and-eve-the-ultimate-standoff-between-science-and-faith-and-a-contest/
a) Genetic evidence shows that the smallest bottleneck in the human population never fell below 10,000 people.
b) For individual genes, you can calculate a last common ancestor, and since mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA don't mix during reproduction like the rest of our genes, you can find last common ancestors for them in totality, and all of our individual genes, our Y-chromosomes, and our mitochondrial DNA have different common ancestors alive at different times throughout history.
For more info ===> https://whyevolutionistrue./2016/12/27/adam-and-eve-more-than-two-ancestors/
Before you come back with a rebuttal, check out these links!

shadeyinka:

The ark myth?
It wasn't known only in the Bible. It was a common knowledge in the world even before the Bible was written.

And I ask again, where are the official peer reviewed journals to support this assertion?

shadeyinka:

The Sumerians wrote about it and it could also have been passed down as oral tradition among some ancient communities. The fact that it existed in several distorted versions in distantly related communities show that there could be some truths in it.

a) Like I said, there's evidence that Noah's Ark could have been borrowed from the Assyrian's Gilgamesh flood myth....which was probably taken from the epic of Atrahasis ....which was mostly likely parroted from the tale of Ziusudra.....
https://www.ancient.eu/article/227/the-atrahasis-epic-the-great-flood--the-meaning-of/
b) Shadeyinka, you do realize we've not even begun to argue this global flood properly, right? Like we haven't even begun to consider just how global this flood was, precipitation, the volume of water, issues with the ark like how the animals were gathered etc etc......
c) Shadeyinka, how was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution if they were laid down in the turmoil of a single flood? Can you explain this?

Before we continue, are you also aware that NDEs can be induced chemically? The More You Know...

shadeyinka:

can you explain
1. Why some out of body experiences during NDEs seem to be able to describe there environment eg during surgery

Now we have to establish that there are NDEs and there are veridical NDEs.
Veridical NDEs: Near death experiences in which the person sees something they couldn't otherwise have known while "flat-lining" and others are able to verify that what they saw is actually correct
Not ONE case of veridical NDEs has ever been confirmed under a scientifically controlled setting.

shadeyinka:

2. There has been experiences of the Blind (Born Blind People) seeing in the period of their NDEs

There is a saying that goes: Make sure of the effect before wondering the cause
The mind’s eye isn’t blind, just as people have said they felt the "feeling" of flying. It doesn’t negate that that’s what the person may have felt anymore than you can dissect how people remember things in their mind by using a visual to remind themselves. I am sure that if I ask you right now to describe a plate of jollof rice with salad, fish and beef, your mind will create the visual for you. Just because someone is blind doesn’t mean they won’t have some idea what jollof rice is, even if they never "saw" one. It maybe different than your version of jollof rice, but it doesn’t make it any less valid of an experience.

shadeyinka:

3. How come in almost all the NDE "dreams", the dreamer KNOWS with certainty that he is dead. This seldom happens in dreams.

Shadeyinka, won't you expect that if any particular religious accounts of the afterlife were true, every NDE would pretty much be the same?

Our phemonenology is wholly fabricated. You don't need to die to realize that, you can simply go to sleep. Disembodiment and hallucination can creep into regular consciousness or be induced narcotically. There isnt much remarkable in NDEs.
The problem is that Christian mythology isn't particularly descriptive of what phenomenal experience is like after death. It kind of retrofitted Judaism with bits of Hellenistic demonology and tied it up with some bizarro prophetic eschatology. You shouldn't really be going to heaven straight after dying, or should you? Isnt there supposed to be a final judgement and resurrection of the dead? Are these ideas metaphorical or incorporeal? Nobody really knows, which is why you get such a diversity of NDE reports.

shadeyinka:

1. Foetuses have been seen to have the same elongated skulls as the adults.
2. Could it not be that ancient cultures who bind their heads for years are just trying to "resemble" an advanced culture (who they treat as god-men?)
3. I am sure that you know that some of the skulls contain only one parietal plate, rather than two as is usual in humans. This is not a fusion case it is a case of total absence
4. The hair colours seems not to have similarity with the normal colours available among humans
5. And the skulls seem to be at least 15 -25 bigger
6. We don't even know where to place them in the evolutinary tree!
7......

http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/foerster-pye-and-ketchum-collaborate-paracas-elongated-skull-exposed-its/

===>Ancient hair naturally turns reddish in color from a darker shade. So that's not unexpected.
===>Artificial Cranial Deformation is suspected to increase the production of wormian bones, the irregular bones in cranial sutures. This means cranial deformation could potentially increase skull volume.
===>Looking at modern artifically deformed skulls, there are similar shapes and what appear to me to be obviously increased volume..

shadeyinka:

Evolution do not have proof. It's just a theory based on similarities and differences of species. Like saying a bicycle metamorphosed into tricycles, which after millions of years became trailers before some of them took to the air as aeroplanes.

Evolution is a good Physical theory of life where the DNA just contained intellect after millions of years of reordering itself. ....and life just took off from inorganic elements.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that evolution is real and has happened. With the Bible's account of creation, there isn't the tiniest shred of evidence to prove that it might have happened. The only reason people believe in it is faith. Ultimately, evolution is easier to defend than creationism. That's all that matters

shadeyinka:

Good night!

Sleep tight

shadeyinka:
And when someone uses the "mind" as a yard stick, you still ask for physical evidence!

You have to make up your mind!

The mind is the yard stick, but some minds are built on sand, is the problem, and not on the solid foundations of evidence. Some even make up foundations and claim their faith is in these unseen things! Is that not a different order of blindness?! The Comforter that Jesus said he would send dwells or is a in the mind thing, but we all know it can not dwell in dim minds and some minds are very, very, dim!

Look at Paul. Paul was doing mind when he said, "by faith", but James added evidence when he added "works" to his. But look how highly Paul is regarded than the mightier James and perhaps you might note how the majority look at red balls but see black ones, as the misleader would like most too! And before you think of challenging "works" as is often done, note that Jesus said you'd do more works than even he did, even move mountains, which is immense works, and by your faith.

shadeyinka:
The summary is simply that even physical evidence may mislead us if every surrounding information is not completely known.

One day, a man was led up a mountain to be misled, but since the man knew a lot more than the misleader, the misleader failed and "Then the misleader left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him."

As you might see from the above, it is simply the more reason to increase one's knowledge (and understanding, and wisdom) so one is not misled!

Please note that those who Jesus-spat-on-mud has been rubbed in their eyes can see, and so can not be easily misled.

shadeyinka:
I wish you can educate me... honestly!

Sorry shadeyinka, but I do not think you are being honest here and you are trying to mislead me; the evidence does not agree with your "educate me" but shows a person who assumes to already know it all and so feels no need to become as a child to learn.

Please read through the thread again, your words only, the abundance of your heart, and you might see too that you already knowitall and can not be taught until you become a child again - for only then can you be reborn.

You don't get it yet.
If I told you I LOVE you, is there a scientific instrument to assertain the truthfulness of what I said? If indeed I do love you, is there a scientific means of quantifying the love? Is there even a standard of what one can consider as 100% love?

Christ !!!,you are killing me,so u expect me to provide a scientific instrument like a thermometer to measure love,love is a feeling,it is intangible if I may put it that way,but we know it exists because we can demonstrate it,this is all I have said,I never mentioned anything about quantifying it,so I ask you a simple question
Can Spirituality be demonstrated, if so ,how ?

So many questions begging for answers.Since all these cannot be proven, does it mean Love doesn't exist? That seems to be your position: that since God cannot be proven, he doesn't exist!

First off,love can be proven,do u think otherwise ?
It seems you don't know my position when it comes to belief in God, I understand that a lot of things can not be proven and may well be beyond the understanding of humans but I am not blind to believe or accept any explanation as TRUTH,I may not know the depth of the Pacific ocean,but I am certain it is not 50000000000000000000000000 metres,I may not know how the unuverse was formed but I know that the account giving in the bible and other religions are false,if God is only described as "the entity that created the universe",nothing else attached, and the word " create" in this context simply meaning "influencing the formation of the universe" without any particular pattern or means being referenced, then I am agnostic,I would also consider myself agnostic if u were talking of a deistic,pantheistic or even panentheistic God,but when u describe God as an anthropomorphic being,whose features,nature and will is defined then I must see myself as an atheist in that regard,and I think that is why u view me as such,for the purpose of clarity I would always use the word YHWH so I am not misunderstood, u can use God or whatever u like,I know u are still referring to YHWH

I don't know about proving you to be an atheist. It's not even possible. Only you can decide that.

You said you can not prove your God to me and I responded by telling you in the same way "I can't prove my atheism to you"

The what if Questions I answered very clearly. For your remembrance:

I remember mentioning this in a previous thread,all religions do not agree on what is right or wrong,of course there are certain actions perceived to be right or wrong common to all religions,but there must be at least one act that is right only in a particular religion but wrong in others vice versa,you can not be a perfect Christian and still satisfy the criteria for Anubis' moral scale

You seem to hold a notion that he'll is a blanket judgement. No, it isn't sir.Even heaven isn't a blanket Bliss. Every one is rewarded according to the level of faithfulness or unfaithfulness to love to God and fellow human beings and obedience to God's will.

I rest my case!

Really ?
Tell me more @ the bolded

Thank you, O Wise Hermes, for continuing to educate shadeyinka. You will continue to be strengthened!

I suggest she read up on spirituality, since she does claim to want to learn despite her resistance, and pay particular attention to the following:

There is no single, widely agreed upon definition of spirituality. Surveys of the definition of the term, as used in scholarly research, show a broad range of definitions with limited overlap. A survey of reviews by McCarroll each dealing with the topic of spirituality gave twenty-seven explicit definitions, among which "there was little agreement." This impedes the systematic study of spirituality and the capacity to communicate findings meaningfully. Furthermore, many of spirituality's core features are not unique to spirituality; for example self-transcendence, asceticism and the recognition of one's connection to all were regarded by the atheist Arthur Schopenhauer as key to ethical life.

According to Kees Waaijman, the traditional meaning of spirituality is a process of re-formation which "aims to recover the original shape of man, the image of God. To accomplish this, the re-formation is oriented at a mold, which represents the original shape: in Judaism the Torah, in Christianity there is Christ, for Buddhism, Buddha, and in Islam, Muhammad." Houtman and Aupers suggest that modern spirituality is a blend of humanistic psychology, mystical and esoteric traditions and Eastern religions.

In modern times the emphasis is on subjective experience and the "deepest values and meanings by which people live," incorporating personal growth or transformation, usually in a context separate from organized religious institutions.

XxSabrinaxX:
Three pages in and the original question by the OP has been dodged epically. Lol , the christians of this forum are wonderful
In case y'all have forgotten (I'm looking @ you, shadeyinka), this is the question on ground:

I'm gonna expose you soon don't worry.