Nothingserious:


I forgot to add your bwahahaha and LMFAO.
Those are meaningless and pointless.

Nobel prize controversy you read in a hurry and picked out what you WANTED TO SEE despite the article showing you severally what transpired. Keep deluding yourself.

Obviously you don’t know why you are godless.
Obviously science did not make you godless.
Obviously science said nothing about God and the supernatural.

Therefore your objections to Christianity must be plain emotional.

Maybe I will also need 5 scientists to assist you.

LMAO! Yes the 5 scientists you need to name who say science has disproved god. What's the matter? Can't find some badly written article on the Web that you can twist? Bwahahahahaha!

LordReed:


LMAO! Yes the 5 scientists you need to name who say science has disproved god. What's the matter? Can't find some badly written article on the Web that you can twist? Bwahahahahaha!

LMAO, BWAHAHAHA, 5 scientists! And the comedy continues.

For now it’s convenient to think you have no sound reason for your godlessness.
Just emotional, nothing more.

Nothingserious:


LMAO, BWAHAHAHA, 5 scientists! And the comedy continues.

For now it’s convenient to think you have no sound reason for your godlessness.
Just emotional, nothing more.

Still can't find some badly written article to twist? LMFAO!

LordReed:


Still can't find some badly written article to twist? LMFAO!

Yes just the way you read the Borh-Einstein Nobel prize controversy upside down. Lol

Do we also need 5 scientists to explain the article properly to you and the TECHNICALITY that led to the awards in separate years ( 1 year difference)?

Nothingserious:


Yes just the way you read the Borh-Einstein Nobel prize controversy upside down. Lol

Do we also need 5 scientists to explain the article properly to you and the TECHNICALITY that led to the awards in separate years ( 1 year difference)?

Simple fact there was no controversy. That is a story you made up in your head from a poorly written article. If you had spoken to 5 scientists they would set your delusion factory of a brain straight. LMAO!

LordReed:


Simple fact there was no controversy. That is a story you made up in your head from a poorly written article. If you had spoken to 5 scientists they would set your delusion factory of a brain straight. LMAO!

I am happy you are saying this on a public forum.

A simple cross-referencing can cure you of this malady.

Nothingserious:


I am happy you are saying this on a public forum.

A simple cross-referencing can cure you of this malady.

Go right ahead. Even the mentalfloss article you quoted does not use the word controversy in that snippet but sure go ahead and show me the Nobel Prize controversy between Bohr and Einstein. LoL

LordReed:


Go right ahead. Even the mentalfloss article you quoted does not use the word controversy in that snippet but sure go ahead and show me the Nobel Prize controversy between Bohr and Einstein. LoL

I say you speak first and read later.
It’s up to you to read and make up your mind on what transpired in the controversy surrounding Einstein’s Nobel prize. And to say you didn’t even know the technicalities in the delay by 1 year is amazing.

I won’t comment on the arbitrariness and subjectivity of the panelists.

“There were a bunch of reasons why Einstein was never given a Nobel Prize. Being Jewish and pacifist were big ones. The Nobel committee didn’t want to honor someone who was so outside the mainstream. The biggest reason, however, was that he was a theoretical physicist. The prize had, up until this point, primarily been given to people who proved things through experimentation.

In 1919, evidence for the General Theory of Relativity was finally found during a solar eclipse when British astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington detected light from stars which was bent by the gravity of the sun.

Everyone figured that 1920 would be the year when Einstein finally won his Nobel Prize. Instead, the award was given to Charles Edouard Guillaume “in recognition of the service he has rendered to precision measurements in Physics by his discovery of anomalies in nickel steel alloys”.

Yeah, Guillaume was just as surprised as everyone else that he won.

Well, OK. Maybe there wasn’t enough time for the result to sink in. Surely, 1921 would be the year that Einstien would win, right?

In 1921, they gave the Nobel Prize in Physics to no one. Yeah, they decided to give it to no one, rather than give it to Einstein.

The attitude of the Nobel committee was summed up by one Allvar Gullstrand, a Swedish ophthalmologist who sat on the physics committee. In his diaries, found long after his death, he wrote of the 1921 physics prize, “Einstein must never receive a Nobel Prize, even if the whole world demands it.”

By 1922, the Nobel Committee was looking ridiculous in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of the physics community for not giving Einstein a prize.

The rules of the prize stipulate that if no one were given an award in the sciences, it would roll over to the next year. So in 1922, they could retroactively give the 1921 prize.

The committee determined that they had to give the award to Einstein to maintain their respectability in the scientific world. It was just a matter of what they were going to give it to him for. This was probably the only time in the history of the Nobel when the winner was determined before the reason for the award.

In 1922 the nominations poured in again, and again there were dozens of nominations for Einstein and the General Theory of Relativity. However, there was one nomination for Einstein which wasn’t for relativity. Carl Wilhelm Oseen, a Swedish physicist, nominated Einstein for his work in discovering the photoelectric effect.

The committee decided to give Einstein the 1921 award, which wasn’t given out the previous year and give the 1922 award to Niels Bohr who developed the theory of the atom. By giving an award to Einstein and Bohr at the same time, it eliminated having to give one to Einstein by himself.

So Einstein won his Nobel Prize, but it explicitly was not for relativity. In fact, when he was notified by the Nobel Committee they stated:

… the Royal Academy of Sciences has decided to award you last year’s Nobel Prize for physics, in consideration of your work in theoretical physics and in particular your discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect, but without taking into account the value which will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future.

They left the door open for a future prize, but none was ever given.

Einstein didn’t really care much about the prize. He didn’t attend the prize ceremony because he was lecturing in Japan. All the money he won went to his ex-wife in a previous divorce settlement. Later in his life when he was asked which honors he was more proud of, he put the German Physical Society’s Max Planck Medal first and didn’t mention the Nobel Prize at all.


https://everything-everywhere.com/how-many-nobel-prizes-should-albert-einstein-have-won/

Nothingserious:


I say you speak first and read later.
It’s up to you to read and make up your mind on what transpired in the controversy surrounding Einstein’s Nobel prize. And to say you didn’t even know the technicalities in the delay by 1 year is amazing.

I won’t comment on the arbitrariness and subjectivity of the panelists.

“There were a bunch of reasons why Einstein was never given a Nobel Prize. Being Jewish and pacifist were big ones. The Nobel committee didn’t want to honor someone who was so outside the mainstream. The biggest reason, however, was that he was a theoretical physicist. The prize had, up until this point, primarily been given to people who proved things through experimentation.

In 1919, evidence for the General Theory of Relativity was finally found during a solar eclipse when British astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington detected light from stars which was bent by the gravity of the sun.

Everyone figured that 1920 would be the year when Einstein finally won his Nobel Prize. Instead, the award was given to Charles Edouard Guillaume “in recognition of the service he has rendered to precision measurements in Physics by his discovery of anomalies in nickel steel alloys”.

Yeah, Guillaume was just as surprised as everyone else that he won.

Well, OK. Maybe there wasn’t enough time for the result to sink in. Surely, 1921 would be the year that Einstien would win, right?

In 1921, they gave the Nobel Prize in Physics to no one. Yeah, they decided to give it to no one, rather than give it to Einstein.

The attitude of the Nobel committee was summed up by one Allvar Gullstrand, a Swedish ophthalmologist who sat on the physics committee. In his diaries, found long after his death, he wrote of the 1921 physics prize, “Einstein must never receive a Nobel Prize, even if the whole world demands it.”

By 1922, the Nobel Committee was looking ridiculous in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of the physics community for not giving Einstein a prize.

The rules of the prize stipulate that if no one were given an award in the sciences, it would roll over to the next year. So in 1922, they could retroactively give the 1921 prize.

The committee determined that they had to give the award to Einstein to maintain their respectability in the scientific world. It was just a matter of what they were going to give it to him for. This was probably the only time in the history of the Nobel when the winner was determined before the reason for the award.

In 1922 the nominations poured in again, and again there were dozens of nominations for Einstein and the General Theory of Relativity. However, there was one nomination for Einstein which wasn’t for relativity. Carl Wilhelm Oseen, a Swedish physicist, nominated Einstein for his work in discovering the photoelectric effect.

The committee decided to give Einstein the 1921 award, which wasn’t given out the previous year and give the 1922 award to Niels Bohr who developed the theory of the atom. By giving an award to Einstein and Bohr at the same time, it eliminated having to give one to Einstein by himself.

So Einstein won his Nobel Prize, but it explicitly was not for relativity. In fact, when he was notified by the Nobel Committee they stated:

… the Royal Academy of Sciences has decided to award you last year’s Nobel Prize for physics, in consideration of your work in theoretical physics and in particular your discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect, but without taking into account the value which will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future.

They left the door open for a future prize, but none was ever given.

Einstein didn’t really care much about the prize. He didn’t attend the prize ceremony because he was lecturing in Japan. All the money he won went to his ex-wife in a previous divorce settlement. Later in his life when he was asked which honors he was more proud of, he put the German Physical Society’s Max Planck Medal first and didn’t mention the Nobel Prize at all.


https://everything-everywhere.com/how-many-nobel-prizes-should-albert-einstein-have-won/

LMAO! Once again you prove you merely use articles to stroke whatever delusive fantasy you draw up in your head. No where in the article does it say there was controversy between Bohr and Einstein over the Nobel prize but trust your delusion factory to dream up one. Bwahahahahahaha!

LordReed:


LMAO! Once again you prove you merely use articles to stroke whatever delusive fantasy you draw up in your head. No where in the article does it say there was controversy between Bohr and Einstein over the Nobel prize but trust your delusion factory to dream up one. Bwahahahahahaha!

You always miss the point why?
You said no controversy and I showed you.
You mentioned something about the years of the award and I showed you.
You talked about subjectivity and biases and I showed you.

You can running around in delusion and lies.

Nothingserious:


You always miss the point why?
You said no controversy and I showed you.
You mentioned something about the years of the award and I showed you.
You talked about subjectivity and biases and I showed you.

You can running around in delusion and lies.

LoL! Here we go shifting goal posts again. I said there was no controversy between Bohr and Einstein over the Nobel Prize. Now that you have seen that there wasn't you want to shift the goal post.

You're a fuçking brazen liar. At no point did I talk about subjectivity or biases with you nor could you point out anywhere I made such an argument with you.

Delusion upon delusion. Bwahahahahaha!

LordReed:


LoL! Here we go shifting goal posts again. I said there was no controversy between Bohr and Einstein over the Nobel Prize. Now that you have seen that there wasn't you want to shift the goal post.

You're a fuçking brazen liar. At no point did I talk about subjectivity or biases with you nor could you point out anywhere I made such an argument with you.

Delusion upon delusion. Bwahahahahaha!

Something you talked about for over 3 days is what you deny now?

Wow! That’s a damn hard record you break each time with lies and falsehood.

I am surprised we didn’t need 5 scientists to help you respond to this.

“They argued two very different positions regarding the observations of electrons behaving as a particle in some experiments and a wave in others, even though an electron shouldn’t be able to be both...

Even with their opposing theories, both were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922: Bohr for his atomic model, and Einstein for his work on the photoelectric effect (instead of his then-controversial theory of relativity). So how did the two physicists receive prizes for the same thing in the same year? Einstein was actually awarded the 1921 prize a year late, due to a technicality.“

Nothingserious:


Something you talked about for over 3 days is what you deny now?

Wow! That’s a damn hard record you break each time with lies and falsehood.

I am surprised we didn’t need 5 scientists to help you respond to this.

“They argued two very different positions regarding the observations of electrons behaving as a particle in some experiments and a wave in others, even though an electron shouldn’t be able to be both...

Even with their opposing theories, both were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922: Bohr for his atomic model, and Einstein for his work on the photoelectric effect (instead of his then-controversial theory of relativity). So how did the two physicists receive prizes for the same thing in the same year? Einstein was actually awarded the 1921 prize a year late, due to a technicality.“

You're such a dumbass. You would have quoted me by now if I had mentioned anything about subjectivity or biases. What a fucktàrd.

You should have claimed that scientists said I argued about subjectivity and biases with you then we would have required you to name them. Dickwad.

Nothingserious:
I said severally that sometimes you write much but miss the point. I repeatedly pointed out my points in our discourse. Possibly we were saying same thing in different ways.

If we are saying the same thing in different ways we ought to be intelligent enough to recognise it, right?

There is good science and bad science because there are good scientists and bad scientists just as there are good and bad pastors and humans. And just as it is silly to judge God by pastors, good or bad, or humans by the few bad, so is it stupid to judge science by the bad scientists. It would also be false to claim there are more bad scientist and pastors and humans than the numerous good ones plodding away at their professions.

Science, is the use of one's senses, and in the West at least it can't really be separated from religion which fostered it despite the few Giordano Brunos who might have been burnt at the stake. There's a reason many will like to migrate there instead of remain in Nigeria

What gets me with this topic is the failure of many to realise that religions teach use your senses science, and I am saying this despite the numerous antiscience verses that instead promote belief. Contradiction, no? Just as not many will read a story about the tortoise and the rabbit and miss the lesson taught but believe the tortoise and rabbit, so should religious text readers not merely believe, but ask and knock and see in order to understand. In Islam, the senses are even washed 5 times a day to remind one to use them properly, but in our ignorance its like we try to clean them with mud and thereby make our senses unusable and consequently ourselves stupid and ignorant and we tremble like Adams instead of evolving into Eves.

We as a nation can't "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth", unless we use our senses to do science. And only by using our senses will we be blessed. One just need go check out the technological advancements of the nation that God is said to have favoured most to see what Science has helped them achieve.

When we stop fearing we'd die if we eat the fruits of trees of knowledge, greater things will we do.

Nothingserious:


You are right. From experience we know our consciousness and minds are real.

But with empirical data, none can show proofs of the existence of our consciousness. Same with logic and maths.

Give me examples of things with empirical data as proof to you.....

budaatum:


If we are saying the same thing in different ways we ought to be intelligent enough to recognise it, right?

There is good science and bad science because there are good scientists and bad scientists just as there are good and bad pastors and humans. And just as it is silly to judge God by pastors, good or bad, or humans by the few bad, so is it stupid to judge science by the bad scientists. Its would also be false to claim there are more bad scientist and pastors and humans than the numerous good ones plodding away at their professions.

Science, is the use of one's senses, and in the West at least it can't really be separated from religion which fostered it despite the few Giordano Brunos who might have been burnt at the stake. There's a reason many will like to migrate there instead of remain in Nigeria

What gets me with this topic is the failure of many to realise that religions teach use your senses science, and I am saying this despite the numerous antiscience verses that instead promote belief. Contradiction, no? Just as not many will read a story about the tortoise and the rabbit and miss the lesson taught but believe the tortoise and rabbit, so should religious text readers not merely believe, but ask and knock and see in order to understand. In Islam, the senses are even washed 5 times a day to remind one to use them properly, but in our ignorance its like we try to clean them with mud and thereby make our senses unusable and consequently ourselves stupid and ignorant and we tremble like Adams, instead of evolving into Eves.

We as a nation can't "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth", unless we use our senses to do science. And only by using our senses will we be blessed. One just need go check out the technological advancements of the nation that God is said to have favoured most to see what Science has helped them achieve. When we stop fearing we'd die if we eat the fruits of trees of knowledge, greater things will we do.

Neither the Bible nor the Quran teaches anyone to use his or her senses for anything that's specifically beneficial to himself or herself.....

Nothingserious:


You are right. From experience we know our consciousness and minds are real.

But with empirical data, none can show proofs of the existence of our consciousness. Same with logic and maths.

Confusion

LordReed:


You're such a dumbass. You would have quoted me by now if I had mentioned anything about subjectivity or biases. What a fucktàrd.

You should have claimed that scientists said I argued about subjectivity and biases with you then we would have required you to name them. Dickwad.

Do we need 5 scientists to confirm your stupidity and foolishness too?

Crystyano:



Confusion

You are out of your depth here.
Pls sit this out

Crystyano:





Give me examples of things with empirical data as proof to you.....

Pls respond to the chat first

Nothingserious:


You are out of your depth here.
Pls sit this out

To you, nah



Who cares,nah?

Nothingserious:


Pls respond to the chat first

A proof of pointlessness

Nothingserious:


Do we need 5 scientists to confirm your stupidity and foolishness too?

LMFAO! They're all hard at work confirming yours. That's how bad yours is.

budaatum:


If we are saying the same thing in different ways we ought to be intelligent enough to recognise it, right?

There is good science and bad science because there are good scientists and bad scientists just as there are good and bad pastors and humans. And just as it is silly to judge God by pastors, good or bad, or humans by the few bad, so is it stupid to judge science by the bad scientists. It would also be false to claim there are more bad scientist and pastors and humans than the numerous good ones plodding away at their professions.

Science, is the use of one's senses, and in the West at least it can't really be separated from religion which fostered it despite the few Giordano Brunos who might have been burnt at the stake. There's a reason many will like to migrate there instead of remain in Nigeria

What gets me with this topic is the failure of many to realise that religions teach use your senses science, and I am saying this despite the numerous antiscience verses that instead promote belief. Contradiction, no? Just as not many will read a story about the tortoise and the rabbit and miss the lesson taught but believe the tortoise and rabbit, so should religious text readers not merely believe, but ask and knock and see in order to understand. In Islam, the senses are even washed 5 times a day to remind one to use them properly, but in our ignorance its like we try to clean them with mud and thereby make our senses unusable and consequently ourselves stupid and ignorant and we tremble like Adams instead of evolving into Eves.

We as a nation can't "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth", unless we use our senses to do science. And only by using our senses will we be blessed. One just need go check out the technological advancements of the nation that God is said to have favoured most to see what Science has helped them achieve.

When we stop fearing we'd die if we eat the fruits of trees of knowledge, greater things will we do.

We aren’t discussing good and bad science or good and bad religion or good and bad philosophy. Those exist. After all all professions are drawn from frail humans.

The human elements of subjectivity in sciences have been established.

I don’t understand what anti-science verses mean if you claim science is seek,knock and find. Isn’t everyone seeking and knocking and finding in the universe?

There is a big difference in disobeying God ( moral failure) in eating a forbidden fruit and in taking a big leap to dominate the earth by trial and error or efforts.

I wouldn’t know whether you advocate for disobedience to God in a bid to explore. That’s what led to Adam and Eve’s sin. God already commanded them to dominate. They could have achieved domination of their natural habitat without eating the fruit.

Crystyano:

Neither the Bible nor the Quran teaches anyone to use his or her senses for anything that's specifically beneficial to himself or herself.....

You have not read either book, Cry. You likely just listened to preachers who told you to believe, which anyone who uses their senses will rightly refuse to do.

You asked for help, and despite my antibelief stance and inability to be a Christian, here's the help I offer you.

budaatum:
Download free copy of ESV in audio

And pay close attention to the second image.

budaatum:


You have not read either book, Cry. You likely just listened to preachers who told you to believe, which anyone who uses their senses will rightly refuse to do.

You asked for help, and despite my antibelief stance and inability to be a Christian, here's the help I offer you.



And pay close attention to the second image.

You don't know what I've read


Claiming to know what I've not read doesn't help matters

Nothingserious:
We aren’t discussing good and bad science or good and bad religion or good and bad philosophy. Those exist. After all all professions are drawn from frail humans.

The human elements of subjectivity in sciences have been established.

Humans are subjective by nature. You should laugh at my ignorance if I claim to be objective. I can try of course, but do not believe I can completely remove my subjective self that attempts to be objective.

That's why there's the scientific method. No science develops subjectively. If it could, the Comforter would be sent to an objective few instead of to the entire subjective human race.

Nothingserious:
I don’t understand what anti-science verses mean if you claim science is seek,knock and find. Isn’t everyone seeking and knocking and finding in the universe?

Everyone is not "seeking and knocking and finding in the universe". Many merely believe, and thereby tremble.

Nothingserious:
There is a big difference in disobeying God ( moral failure) in eating a forbidden fruit and in taking a big leap to dominate the earth by trial and error or efforts.

First, it wouldn't be disobeying God, but disobeying what some wrote in a book and claimed God said. I am a scientist so expect me to ask and knock and seek with the senses I have been given.

Second, if a God places buda naked in a Garden of Eden and tells buda not to eat the fruits of knowledge, buda will ask why not.

"Is it so I can remain an ignorant slave in your garden, God, instead of 'Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth'" ?

I guess I can recognise the difference between a poxy tiny garden, and the earth I am supposed to subdue.

Go see how almanjeris are created. It might help you understand my very subjective understanding, as opposed to believing what some claim is objective.

Nothingserious:
I wouldn’t know whether you advocate for disobedience to God in a bid to explore. That’s what led to Adam and Eve’s sin. God already commanded them to dominate. They could have achieved domination of their natural habitat without eating the fruit.

As I said, disobedience to what some have written in a book. And note how you say, "bid to explore" instead of "ask and seek and knock" that we have been using all along. Are you trying to avoid the obvious contradiction between the Garden of Eden God, and Christ of the Gospels, I wonder.

No God tells buda to work in a poxy garden after being told to rule over the entire universe! And if I do not surely die on the day I decide to seek knowledge, the God who lied to me can not be buda's God because I just can't do the wuruwuru to convince myself that people who went on to live another 800 or so years died on the day that they ate what they were told would kill them.

Please know that I am in no way attempting to force my subjective understanding on you, as you have accused me of doing. I fully recognise that you have your own subjective understanding too, and I would not want you to burn in hell with buda if that is buda's reward for what you call "disobedience to God".

Ref: https://www.nairaland.com/3238410/what-dont-know-almajiri-system#102926679

Crystyano:



You don't know what I've read


Claiming to know what I've not read doesn't help matters

That's all the help for your matters that you are going to get from buda for now.

Nothingserious:
They could have achieved domination of their natural habitat without eating the fruit.

Really? This is like claiming Nigeria will say "Let there be Light", and there will be light, without us first asking and seeking an understanding of how to generate light.

Do let me know when that happens and I just might decide to believe you.

budaatum:


Really? This is like claiming Nigeria will say "Let there be Light", and there will be light, without us first asking and seeking an understanding of how to generate light.

Do let me know when that happens and I just might decide to believe you.

That’s not true. The illustration is incongruous with what I said.

These below happened before the fall. They didn’t need to sin first before fulfilling the command to take charge and take dominion.
You misinterpret the Bible.

“And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it [using all its vast resources in the service of God and man]; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and over every living creature that moves upon the earth. And God said, See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the land and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to all the animals on the earth and to every bird of the air and to everything that creeps on the ground–to everything in which there is the breath of life–I have given every green plant for food. And it was so.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:28-30‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/gen.1.28-30.ampc

“And out of the ground the Lord God formed every [wild] beast and living creature of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them; and whatever Adam called every living creature, that was its name. And Adam gave names to all the livestock and to the birds of the air and to every [wild] beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a helper meet (suitable, adapted, complementary) for him.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2:19-20‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/gen.2.19-20.ampc

Crystyano:


A proof of pointlessness

You are always confused. Why is that?

budaatum:


Humans are subjective by nature. You should laugh at my ignorance if I claim to be objective. I can try of course, but do not believe I can completely remove my subjective self that attempts to be objective.

That's why there's the scientific method. No science develops subjectively. If it could, the Comforter would be sent to an objective few instead of to the entire subjective human race.


Everyone is not "seeking and knocking and finding in the universe". Many merely believe, and thereby tremble.


First, it wouldn't be disobeying God, but disobeying what some wrote in a book and claimed God said. I am a scientist so expect me to ask and knock and seek with the senses I have been given.

Second, if a God places buda naked in a Garden of Eden and tells buda not to eat the fruits of knowledge, buda will ask why not.

"Is it so I can remain an ignorant slave in your garden, God, instead of 'Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth'" ?

I guess I can recognise the difference between a poxy tiny garden, and the earth I am supposed to subdue.

Go see how almanjeris are created. It might help you understand my very subjective understanding, as opposed to believing what some claim is objective.


As I said, disobedience to what some have written in a book. And note how you say, "bid to explore" instead of "ask and seek and knock" that we have been using all along. Are you trying to avoid the obvious contradiction between the Garden of Eden God, and Christ of the Gospels, I wonder.

No God tells buda to work in a poxy garden after being told to rule over the entire universe! And if I do not surely die on the day I decide to seek knowledge, the God who lied to me can not be buda's God because I just can't do the wuruwuru to convince myself that people who went on to live another 800 or so years died on the day that they ate what they were told would kill them.

Please know that I am in no way attempting to force my subjective understanding on you, as you have accused me of doing. I fully recognise that you have your own subjective understanding too, and I would not want you to burn in hell with buda if that is buda's reward for what you call "disobedience to God".

Ref: https://www.nairaland.com/3238410/what-dont-know-almajiri-system#102926679

Entertaining piece.

I appreciate the fact that these are your personal subjective thoughts on what the Christians should be doing.
It is not. We believe the Bible completely as the word of God and will obey the commands of God in the Bible. We have questions just like any human has but have learnt from experience that some answers might come now while some we will never know at this side of the divide until we meet our savior Jesus Christ when he will come to judge the quick and the dead.

That’s what we believe.

Religious beliefs are different from scientific methods where subjective humans try to apply empirical data to describe the nature around them in the way they think they understand. The scientific understanding changes as the natural conditions change. However eternal truths from the Bible are eternal and unchangeable.

If you want to bad religion and bad science, then mix religion and science.