pansophist:
That Nigeria go better.

No, it will not get better. It will only get worse. For Nigeria to be better, there must be a culture change, something similar to the cultural revolusion in China done by Mao, which laid the foundation for what China is today.

The constitution has to change, and every Nigerian from top to bottom must care for their fellow countryman like their brother. Only then, there will be hope for better days. Love plus love equals progress. Hate plus hate equals regress.

But as it is right now, the country is on the wrong bus, going to the wrong destination, with a blind driver, and no brake. Sorry.

U go just open mouth dy talk rubbish...
What was China's cultural revolution all about? U dont know...
If not for death of Mao, China would have collapsed... thanks to the changes undertaken by deng xiaoping, it led to china growing to what it is today ..
Culture revolution of killing people with opposite thoughts, how does that help...same thing happened in Iran after the revolution...
A society in this modern day needs plurality of thoughts under a cohesive mechanism...

CuriousCart:


They never went to the moon.

Just what I wanted to tell him

CuriousCart:


They never went to the moon.

Lol. That's a possibility you can't exactly rule out.

Democracy.
Freedom.

Cancer and Aids don't have cure.

JessicaRabbit:


Calling atheism a "lie" implies it's a belief system, which it isn't. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any deities. You can't be "wrong" about not believing in something that hasn't been convincingly demonstrated to exist. Also, picking three prominent figures from one scientific field isn't an exhaustive exploration of atheism. Atheism draws from diverse disciplines like philosophy, psychology, and anthropology, offering arguments beyond evolution. Science doesn't claim to possess ultimate truths, but rather explains phenomena through models based on evidence. Evolution isn't "faith" – it's a constantly evolving framework supported by mountains of data. It doesn't negate the awe of existence; it enriches it with a deeper understanding.

Engaging in respectful discourse, exploring competing evidence, and acknowledging the complexities of the unknown are hallmarks of intellectual honesty, whether you're religious or not.

Na AI u use write this thing abi na so u sabi English reach

First of all, either its a belief system or not is irrelevant to me...I care so much about the origin of life and if Scientists dont have the answer, I'd be foolish to follow a random unknown story teller with zero Knowledge of our Universe and Multiverse. No Ancient philosopher was an atheist plus anthropological evidences even debunk evolution theory than it did support it

According to Rene Descartes, he said " If u are a seeker of truth, then u should at least at one time in your life doubt anything u ever believed"


I took that piece personally and went ahead to doubt the existence of God, since science is the best invention in mankind history, its only normal that i resort to scientic researches and books written by only the people who have explored our galaxy enough, those with sound empirical proofs to negate any belief system.


So If u as an athiest, just woke up one morning to counter a popular belief, then u must also present your own evidence and proof as to why u think those are not right

I dont engage atheists who cancel religion and science...whats there to hold on to anymore

I dont engage atheists that do not even care enough about the origin of life... cause if u do, you wont ask me not to care about scientists that attempted to prove how life came into being. Cause thats the most important question

pansophist:
That karma exists. No, it doesn't.

What you sow you shall reap is true, but it's not karma, it's just cause and effect.

If you allow injustice to be done to you and you depend on karma to avenge you, you will probably suffer and suffer permanently.

Always reserve the ability to give it to trespassers woto-woto, and if the agressor smells your poison, they will probably avoid you, so you won't have to use it in the first place.

"in this life there is no justice, if you want justice, you will have to get it yourself" - lord baellish

nop

youre wrong

karma exists. but for reasons, its more devastating than any human comeback you can think of

pansophist:
That karma exists. No, it doesn't.

What you sow you shall reap is true, but it's not karma, it's just cause and effect.

If you allow injustice to be done to you and you depend on karma to avenge you, you will probably suffer and suffer permanently.

Always reserve the ability to give it to trespassers woto-woto, and if the agressor smells your poison, they will probably avoid you, so you won't have to use it in the first place.

go to helpyourself posts and read what you see for yourself. i wish you goodluck on this journey you choosed


https://www.nairaland.com/7119419/self-never-want-see


https://www.nairaland.com/6506283/perfection-gods-laws-reincarnation

DevilsEqual:
That God does not exist
I used to believe this lie until I decided to pick us some books to read
Those books are :
1) Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist

2) On the origin of Time and also "Brief Answers to Big questions" both by Stephen Hawkngs, a world-renowned physicist who wrote extensively on big bang theory

3) On the origin of species by means of Natural selection by Charles Darwin... another Evolutionary biologist


Thats it...I gave up on atheism forever...it takes even greater faith to believe the bull crap origin of life stories propounded by those guys

DevilsEqual:
That God does not exist
I used to believe this lie until I decided to pick us some books to read
Those books are :
1) Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist

2) On the origin of Time and also "Brief Answers to Big questions" both by Stephen Hawkngs, a world-renowned physicist who wrote extensively on big bang theory

3) On the origin of species by means of Natural selection by Charles Darwin... another Evolutionary biologist


Thats it...I gave up on atheism forever...it takes even greater faith to believe the bull crap origin of life stories propounded by those guys

I once tried it

@DevilsEqual

Perhaps your own vocabulary needs a bit of dusting off if you really think impressive use of grammar is connotative of a lack of originality.

You don't necessarily have to choose between scientists and unknown story tellers, because (1) that would be a false dichotomy, and (2) there's more to life than that. There are other possible sources of knowledge and wisdom, such as philosophy, art, or personal experience. Science and religion are not outright enemies, they are just different ways of looking at the world and ourselves. Sometimes they clash, sometimes they agree, and sometimes they inspire each other. It all depends on how you see it. And your assertion that no ancient philosopher was an atheist is ridiculously false. Long before Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, there were already ancient thinkers who didn't buy into the god hypothesis. Take the Carvaka gang from India, for example. They were way ahead of their time, back in the 6th century BCE, when they denounced gods, souls, and karma, in favour of nature and matter. And then there were the Greek rebels, like Protagoras, Epicurus etc, who got in trouble for questioning the divine. Maybe they weren't all hardcore atheists, but they sure didn't follow the herd when it came to religion. I'd advise you to remain silent if you're not privy to the knowledge of certain facts because you could easily come across as an intellectually dishonest individual when you make bald claims without doing any research to back them up.

My lack of belief isn't a declaration of war on faith. It's a personal conclusion drawn from years of grappling with the big questions. I haven't found the gods you seek, but I've found something far more precious: the freedom to think critically, to question assumptions, and to seek truth wherever it may lead, even if it means stepping outside the cozy confines of popular belief. So, instead of demanding proof for the absence of something, perhaps a more fruitful inquiry would be: why do you need the presence of gods in the first place? What void do they fill in your worldview? Perhaps by exploring that, we can both find something a little more profound than "evidence and proof."

P.S Calling your pet theory "the most important question" is like claiming vanilla is the only flavor of ice cream. Sure, it might tickle your taste buds, but to deny the other flavors is to narrow your palate beyond recognition.

JessicaRabbit:
@DevilsEqual

Perhaps your own vocabulary needs a bit of dusting off if you really think impressive use of grammar is connotative of a lack of originality.

You don't necessarily have to choose between scientists and unknown story tellers, because (1) that would be a false dichotomy, and (2) there's more to life than that. There are other possible sources of knowledge and wisdom, such as philosophy, art, or personal experience. Science and religion are not outright enemies, they are just different ways of looking at the world and ourselves. Sometimes they clash, sometimes they agree, and sometimes they inspire each other. It all depends on how you see it. And your assertion that no ancient philosopher was an atheist is ridiculously false. Long before Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, there were already ancient thinkers who didn't buy into the god hypothesis. Take the Carvaka gang from India, for example. They were way ahead of their time, back in the 6th century BCE, when they denounced gods, souls, and karma, in favour of nature and matter. And then there were the Greek rebels, like Protagoras, Epicurus etc, who got in trouble for questioning the divine. Maybe they weren't all hardcore atheists, but they sure didn't follow the herd when it came to religion. I'd advise you to remain silent if you're not privy to the knowledge of certain facts because you could easily come across as an intellectually dishonest individual when you make bald claims without doing any research to back them up.

My lack of belief isn't a declaration of war on faith. It's a personal conclusion drawn from years of grappling with the big questions. I haven't found the gods you seek, but I've found something far more precious: the freedom to think critically, to question assumptions, and to seek truth wherever it may lead, even if it means stepping outside the cozy confines of popular belief. So, instead of demanding proof for the absence of something, perhaps a more fruitful inquiry would be: why do you need the presence of gods in the first place? What void do they fill in your worldview? Perhaps by exploring that, we can both find something a little more profound than "evidence and proof."

P.S Calling your pet theory "the most important question" is like claiming vanilla is the only flavor of ice cream. Sure, it might tickle your taste buds, but to deny the other flavors is to narrow your palate beyond recognition.

Just seeing this and by your first paragraph, it's clear that u have a superior use of English words, so trying to shame others for that isn't gonna add anything to u and it's actually needless
As long as I can try communicate in basic English, and since I do not have any interest whatsoever in being an Author, I guess I am good to go



Now, U mentioned one Indian philosopher and a few other Greeks,it's true that this guy's questioned Divinity but again, it's pointless diving into that topic, challenging the status quo, only to return with no proof to back up your challenges or even a very reasonable argument to cancel out the popular opinion.





Again, I'm not searching for any God,my question is to know how we get here and in answering that, I have to keep reading up on diff people's opinions, theories and counter theories of people who not only asked same questions in the past but also used some improved tools like fossil records and all to explore what might have been before our arrival, in a bid to know the true Genesis of all things


Telling me to discard that is very laughable...as my own reasoning, observations and knowledge would never open my mind to things that were, within and outside this universe and that would make me believe only my own lies guided by my very myopic opinion on humans evolution and that of our universe


If u care not about how we get here, that's fine, u can live your life anyway u want, believe your lies and enjoy your 100years on earth but every true seeker I have known have had to combine religion, science and philosophy and all would shed more light on things

I even use Bible to track the records of the earliest ever written book just to know how long ancient civilization started,not even because of the religious contents in it and No, I never mentioned divine intervention as an answer to anything or never stated where it is needed

We are the leaders of tomorrow .

I went through the comments n was surprised no one mentioned this big fallacy :
“Education is the key”.


No comment; next question.

Results of our election since Democracy was initiated to the country

DevilsEqual:



Just seeing this and by your first paragraph, it's clear that u have a superior use of English words, so trying to shame others for that isn't gonna add anything to u and it's actually needless
As long as I can try communicate in basic English, and since I do not have any interest whatsoever in being an Author, I guess I am good to go



Now, U mentioned one Indian philosopher and a few other Greeks,it's true that this guy's questioned Divinity but again, it's pointless diving into that topic, challenging the status quo, only to return with no proof to back up your challenges or even a very reasonable argument to cancel out the popular opinion.





Again, I'm not searching for any God,my question is to know how we get here and in answering that, I have to keep reading up on diff people's opinions, theories and counter theories of people who not only asked same questions in the past but also used some improved tools like fossil records and all to explore what might have been before our arrival, in a bid to know the true Genesis of all things


Telling me to discard that is very laughable...as my own reasoning, observations and knowledge would never open my mind to things that were, within and outside this universe and that would make me believe only my own lies guided by my very myopic opinion on humans evolution and that of our universe


If u care not about how we get here, that's fine, u can live your life anyway u want, believe your lies and enjoy your 100years on earth but every true seeker I have known have had to combine religion, science and philosophy and all would shed more light on things

I even use Bible to track the records of the earliest ever written book just to know how long ancient civilization started,not even because of the religious contents in it and No, I never mentioned divine intervention as an answer to anything or never stated where it is needed

While it might not have been your intention, I appreciate you acknowledging my writing style. I do strive to express myself clearly and concisely, but my aim isn't to "shame" others. If anything, I'm encouraged by well-reasoned arguments in a proper discussion. I agree that basic communication is vital, but dismissing entire historical movements like ancient atheism as "pointless" demonstrates a disregard for intellectual curiosity. Understanding philosophical discourse, even if we disagree with it, is crucial for informed discussion and personal growth.

Regarding your claim that questioning the status quo requires proof to "cancel out the popular opinion," I don't think that's a logical assessment. The burden of proof lies with those making extraordinary claims, not with those questioning them. The existence of gods, being an extraordinary claim, requires compelling evidence, not the absence of counter-proof. As for challenging the status quo, it's precisely this process that has led to incredible advancements throughout history. Progress often thrives on questioning established beliefs like challenging societal norms, and other anachronistic ideologies. Instead of dismissing alternative perspectives as pointless, why not engage in a genuine exchange? Perhaps you can share why the presence of gods is crucial to your worldview, and I can share my reasons for embracing a different perspective.

The beauty of intellectual exploration is about critically analyzing all existing knowledge and building upon it, not discarding them. Fossil records are fantastic tools, and science continues to leverage them alongside countless other resources like radiometric dating, genetic analysis, and cosmological observations to understand our origins. You have to realize that science is not in the business of providing absolute truths, but rather constantly evolving models based on new data and discoveries. It's a perpetual journey of refinement, not a destination with a singular answer. Maybe instead of seeking the ultimate "why," we can focus on the "how": How did the universe form? How did life emerge? How did we, as humans, evolve? These questions, while seemingly less grandiose, lead down fascinating paths that can unlock incredible insights into our place in the cosmos.

I think you're being highly disrespectful by asserting that my lack of belief is a "lie". Don't fool yourself into thinking you actually know anything about me. Your claim also reveals a serious misconception you seem to have. The simple reason I don't believe in gods is because of the lack of convincing evidence. Your hasty assumption here is synonymous with the typical Christian arrogance of presupposing the motives of atheists, without caring to ask them why they share their sentiments towards religion. Furthermore, the assertion that a "true seeker" must combine religion, science, and philosophy is a fallacy of the excluded middle. There are countless individuals who pursue knowledge and meaning through various avenues -- artists, musicians, historians, and yes, even atheists. Limiting the path to truth to a specific combination fosters division and hinders open-mindedness.

I find it odd that you admit to using the Bible solely for historical records, while neglecting its religious content, because it raises a lot of questions about confirmation bias. Are you only willing to accept historical information from the text that aligns with your pre-existing beliefs? Historians rely on a multitude of diverse sources to paint a complete picture, and the Bible needs to be critically analyzed within this context.

The earlier you realize that the world is far more nuanced than a simple binary of "religion" versus "atheism", the better for your intellectual growth and progress. The journey towards meaning is more valuable than reaching a pre-defined destination.

The moon landing 🌚

JessicaRabbit:


While it might not have been your intention, I appreciate you acknowledging my writing style. I do strive to express myself clearly and concisely, but my aim isn't to "shame" others. If anything, I'm encouraged by well-reasoned arguments in a proper discussion. I agree that basic communication is vital, but dismissing entire historical movements like ancient atheism as "pointless" demonstrates a disregard for intellectual curiosity. Understanding philosophical discourse, even if we disagree with it, is crucial for informed discussion and personal growth.

Regarding your claim that questioning the status quo requires proof to "cancel out the popular opinion," I don't think that's a logical assessment. The burden of proof lies with those making extraordinary claims, not with those questioning them. The existence of gods, being an extraordinary claim, requires compelling evidence, not the absence of counter-proof. As for challenging the status quo, it's precisely this process that has led to incredible advancements throughout history. Progress often thrives on questioning established beliefs like challenging societal norms, and other anachronistic ideologies. Instead of dismissing alternative perspectives as pointless, why not engage in a genuine exchange? Perhaps you can share why the presence of gods is crucial to your worldview, and I can share my reasons for embracing a different perspective.

The beauty of intellectual exploration is about critically analyzing all existing knowledge and building upon it, not discarding them. Fossil records are fantastic tools, and science continues to leverage them alongside countless other resources like radiometric dating, genetic analysis, and cosmological observations to understand our origins. You have to realize that science is not in the business of providing absolute truths, but rather constantly evolving models based on new data and discoveries. It's a perpetual journey of refinement, not a destination with a singular answer. Maybe instead of seeking the ultimate "why," we can focus on the "how": How did the universe form? How did life emerge? How did we, as humans, evolve? These questions, while seemingly less grandiose, lead down fascinating paths that can unlock incredible insights into our place in the cosmos.

I think you're being highly disrespectful by asserting that my lack of belief is a "lie". Don't fool yourself into thinking you actually know anything about me. Your claim also reveals a serious misconception you seem to have. The simple reason I don't believe in gods is because of the lack of convincing evidence. Your hasty assumption here is synonymous with the typical Christian arrogance of presupposing the motives of atheists, without caring to ask them why they share their sentiments towards religion. Furthermore, the assertion that a "true seeker" must combine religion, science, and philosophy is a fallacy of the excluded middle. There are countless individuals who pursue knowledge and meaning through various avenues -- artists, musicians, historians, and yes, even atheists. Limiting the path to truth to a specific combination fosters division and hinders open-mindedness.

I find it odd that you admit to using the Bible solely for historical records, while neglecting its religious content, because it raises a lot of questions about confirmation bias. Are you only willing to accept historical information from the text that aligns with your pre-existing beliefs? Historians rely on a multitude of diverse sources to paint a complete picture, and the Bible needs to be critically analyzed within this context.

The earlier you realize that the world is far more nuanced than a simple binary of "religion" versus "atheism", the better for your intellectual growth and progress. The journey towards meaning is more valuable than reaching a pre-defined destination.

Firstly, I am sorry for that very statement of "Lies" and "delusion", I didnt mean to be disrespectful to u

Secondly, I noticed u already had the belief that Christians are usually arrogant and not openminded enough when having this kinda convo with an atheist and that surely reflects in how u keep talking about thing i never ever mentioned in my comments, It is u who isnt careful enough to respond to contents of my texts but instead choose to address me the way u would address the past xtians u have had this kinda convo with



U really do not know if i am a xtian but u keep being skeptical about most of the things i wrote..
The oldest book in history is the "Epic of Gilgamesh", and it was written just 1987 year before the first book of the bible, which is Genensis(written in 1513BCE). I used Bible here as reference cause its the oldest known popular book but u were surprised i said i used it to track ancient civilization but instead assumed I'm a xtian...Fallacy of hasty generalization


Again, seeking for the truth about our existence via music,art and the other things u listed there arent a valid way to go about that as most of these things are based on some opinions of individual, they are hard to be countered by logic and cant even be tested over time, hence my choice of religon, science and philosophy which not only have a universal acceptance but is wide open to scrutiny and criticism by people of diverse knowledge, some can even be tested over time and this will be the best tools to use in my seeking of truth

Also, the first comment of mine u quoted was about the diverse books i read in my bid to know the "How" of everything and my conclusion about the whole thing was what brought us here...I am saying this as a guy who has not only read extensively on ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy but also as one who had to delve deeply in religion and science to know the truth

Funny how u still think my decision not to base my conclusion on ancient historians who wrote also on things they never saw with their own eyes, but on scientific methodologies on the exploration of Life in earth by few of the finest scientist mankind has ever had is an incorrect decision

U can choose whatever way to seek your truth, but I, wiil always go for the trio of Religion, science and philosophy

Your English dey intimidate me sef...I con dey write like pry1 pikin...Abeg just take am easy

DevilsEqual:



Firstly, I am sorry for that very statement of "Lies" and "delusion", I didnt mean to be disrespectful to u

Secondly, I noticed u already had the belief that Christians are usually arrogant and not openminded enough when having this kinda convo with an atheist and that surely reflects in how u keep talking about thing i never ever mentioned in my comments, It is u who isnt careful enough to respond to contents of my texts but instead choose to address me the way u would address the past xtians u have had this kinda convo with



U really do not know if i am a xtian but u keep being skeptical about most of the things i wrote..
The oldest book in history is the "Epic of Gilgamesh", and it was written just 1987 year before the first book of the bible, which is Genensis(written in 1513BCE). I used Bible here as reference cause its the oldest known popular book but u were surprised i said i used it to track ancient civilization but instead assumed I'm a xtian...Fallacy of hasty generalization


Again, seeking for the truth about our existence via music,art and the other things u listed there arent a valid way to go about that as most of these things are based on some opinions of individual, they are hard to be countered by logic and cant even be tested over time, hence my choice of religon, science and philosophy which not only have a universal acceptance but is wide open to scrutiny and criticism by people of diverse knowledge, some can even be tested over time and this will be the best tools to use in my seeking of truth

Also, the first comment of mine u quoted was about the diverse books i read in my bid to know the "How" of everything and my conclusion about the whole thing was what brought us here...I am saying this as a guy who has not only read extensively on ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy but also as one who had to delve deeply in religion and science to know the truth

Funny how u still think my decision not to base my conclusion on ancient historians who wrote also on things they never saw with their own eyes, but on scientific methodologies on the exploration of Life in earth by few of the finest scientist mankind has ever had is an incorrect decision

U can choose whatever way to seek your truth, but I, wiil always go for the trio of Religion, science and philosophy

Your English dey intimidate me sef...I con dey write like pry1 pikin...Abeg just take am easy

While I understand your perspective, I wouldn't say I hold a pre-existing belief about Christians being universally arrogant. However, it's undeniable that certain historical figures and contemporary individuals within the Christian faith have displayed such attitudes, which unfortunately colors how some atheists engage in these discussions. Generally, I just strive to approach each conversation on its own merit, regardless of the other person's religious background. I've encountered many types of apologists in the past, both rational and irrational. Concerning your points about the burden of proof and the pursuit of truth, I stand by my previous statements. The extraordinary claim of a god's existence necessitates compelling evidence, which is independent of whether or not someone chooses to question the status quo. Additionally, the path to knowledge and meaning isn't limited to a specific combination of disciplines. Each individual has the freedom and agency to explore truth through various avenues, as long as critical thinking and open-mindedness are guiding principles. That being said, I duly apologize if I have misrepresented your beliefs. For the avoidance of doubt, my aim is not to force my views upon you. Ultimately, whichever belief(s) you choose to lend credence to is none of my business. I'm only here to address erroneous ideas about atheism and what it encapsulates. I'm just trying to simulate an interesting discussion with respect for facts. We don't have to agree on everything. I believe we can still have a productive dialogue if we approach it with respect, active listening, and a willingness to consider different viewpoints.

I would like to point out the fact that your allusion to the Epic of Gilgamesh as the "oldest book" is an anachronistic fallacy. The text is undeniably ancient, yes. But it was not written "just 1987 years" before the first book of the Bible. There's a significant difference between 1987 years and approximately 3,500 years, which is the estimated age of the earliest fragments of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Perhaps you meant to say it predates Genesis by closer to 2,000 years? Although, even then, attributing "oldest book" status to either is debatable, considering the existence of even older written records like the clay tablets of Mesopotamia. I appreciate your reference to the Bible as a historical source, but it's crucial to remember that confirmation bias can be a pitfall for anyone, regardless of their religious affiliation. I've already told you this. The Bible is, of course, a valuable resource for understanding ancient cultures and societies, but just like any historical document, it requires critical analysis and corroboration with other sources to ensure a complete and objective understanding.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that other forms of exploration besides science, philosophy and religion are inherently "invalid." Even within the seemingly objective realm of science, interpretations and paradigms shift based on new discoveries. Likewise, the universality of religious beliefs is debatable, considering the vast array of faiths and interpretations across the globe. The pursuit of meaning is a deeply personal journey. While logic and testability are valuable tools in specific fields, they might not always lead to individual fulfillment or existential meaning. Art, music, and other forms of expression can offer unique insights, emotional connection, and a sense of purpose that might not be readily quantifiable or universally validated.

Trying to know the "how of everything" is a rather ambitious goal, wouldn't you say? While your diverse reading is commendable, claiming you've grasped the entirety of knowledge in such vast fields is a tad bit...excessive. Your reference to ancient Greek and Roman philosophy is intriguing. Did you delve into the works of the Epicureans, who questioned the existence of gods and emphasized living a virtuous life based on reason and pleasure? Or perhaps the Stoics, who focused on accepting what we cannot control and living virtuously? Your approach seems to aim more for a pre-determined conclusion rather than a genuine quest for understanding. Claiming to know the "truth" based on reading within specific frameworks raises concerns about confirmation bias (notice how many times I've cited this term for you!)

You also committed an appeal to authority fallacy by implying that scientific advancements by a select few somehow invalidate the collective wisdom of countless ancient historians. While I respect the achievements of these esteemed scientists, dismissing historical accounts entirely paints a dangerously incomplete picture. Remember, science itself relies heavily on historical data and context. Carbon dating wouldn't be possible without historical understanding of radioactive decay, for instance. Also, the claim that ancient historians "wrote also on things they never saw with their own eyes" applies to all historical accounts, not just those you disagree with. How can you be so certain that your chosen interpretation of the Bible, compiled and translated countless times over millennia, is free from bias or misinterpretation?

I'll conclude by painting a picture for you. Imagine a vast landscape we're trying to understand. Science provides the map, religion offers a specific interpretation of the landmark features, and philosophy explores the philosophical implications of the landscape. But just as valuable can be the artist sketching the emotional resonance of the scenery, or the musician capturing its atmosphere through sound. Each perspective adds richness and depth to our overall understanding. I would encourage you to consider a more open-minded approach. Explore these various fields without pre-existing expectations. Embrace the inherent uncertainties and the joy of discovery that comes from continuous learning.

JessicaRabbit:


While I understand your perspective, I wouldn't say I hold a pre-existing belief about Christians being universally arrogant. However, it's undeniable that certain historical figures and contemporary individuals within the Christian faith have displayed such attitudes, which unfortunately colors how some atheists engage in these discussions. Generally, I just strive to approach each conversation on its own merit, regardless of the other person's religious background. I've encountered many types of apologists in the past, both rational and irrational. Concerning your points about the burden of proof and the pursuit of truth, I stand by my previous statements. The extraordinary claim of a god's existence necessitates compelling evidence, which is independent of whether or not someone chooses to question the status quo. Additionally, the path to knowledge and meaning isn't limited to a specific combination of disciplines. Each individual has the freedom and agency to explore truth through various avenues, as long as critical thinking and open-mindedness are guiding principles. That being said, I duly apologize if I have misrepresented your beliefs. For the avoidance of doubt, my aim is not to force my views upon you. Ultimately, whichever belief(s) you choose to lend credence to is none of my business. I'm only here to address erroneous ideas about atheism and what it encapsulates. I'm just trying to simulate an interesting discussion with respect for facts. We don't have to agree on everything. I believe we can still have a productive dialogue if we approach it with respect, active listening, and a willingness to consider different viewpoints.

I would like to point out the fact that your allusion to the Epic of Gilgamesh as the "oldest book" is an anachronistic fallacy. The text is undeniably ancient, yes. But it was not written "just 1987 years" before the first book of the Bible. There's a significant difference between 1987 years and approximately 3,500 years, which is the estimated age of the earliest fragments of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Perhaps you meant to say it predates Genesis by closer to 2,000 years? Although, even then, attributing "oldest book" status to either is debatable, considering the existence of even older written records like the clay tablets of Mesopotamia. I appreciate your reference to the Bible as a historical source, but it's crucial to remember that confirmation bias can be a pitfall for anyone, regardless of their religious affiliation. I've already told you this. The Bible is, of course, a valuable resource for understanding ancient cultures and societies, but just like any historical document, it requires critical analysis and corroboration with other sources to ensure a complete and objective understanding.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that other forms of exploration besides science, philosophy and religion are inherently "invalid." Even within the seemingly objective realm of science, interpretations and paradigms shift based on new discoveries. Likewise, the universality of religious beliefs is debatable, considering the vast array of faiths and interpretations across the globe. The pursuit of meaning is a deeply personal journey. While logic and testability are valuable tools in specific fields, they might not always lead to individual fulfillment or existential meaning. Art, music, and other forms of expression can offer unique insights, emotional connection, and a sense of purpose that might not be readily quantifiable or universally validated.

Trying to know the "how of everything" is a rather ambitious goal, wouldn't you say? While your diverse reading is commendable, claiming you've grasped the entirety of knowledge in such vast fields is a tad bit...excessive. Your reference to ancient Greek and Roman philosophy is intriguing. Did you delve into the works of the Epicureans, who questioned the existence of gods and emphasized living a virtuous life based on reason and pleasure? Or perhaps the Stoics, who focused on accepting what we cannot control and living virtuously? Your approach seems to aim more for a pre-determined conclusion rather than a genuine quest for understanding. Claiming to know the "truth" based on reading within specific frameworks raises concerns about confirmation bias (notice how many times I've cited this term for you!)

You also committed an appeal to authority fallacy by implying that scientific advancements by a select few somehow invalidate the collective wisdom of countless ancient historians. While I respect the achievements of these esteemed scientists, dismissing historical accounts entirely paints a dangerously incomplete picture. Remember, science itself relies heavily on historical data and context. Carbon dating wouldn't be possible without historical understanding of radioactive decay, for instance. Also, the claim that ancient historians "wrote also on things they never saw with their own eyes" applies to all historical accounts, not just those you disagree with. How can you be so certain that your chosen interpretation of the Bible, compiled and translated countless times over millennia, is free from bias or misinterpretation?

I'll conclude by painting a picture for you. Imagine a vast landscape we're trying to understand. Science provides the map, religion offers a specific interpretation of the landmark features, and philosophy explores the philosophical implications of the landscape. But just as valuable can be the artist sketching the emotional resonance of the scenery, or the musician capturing its atmosphere through sound. Each perspective adds richness and depth to our overall understanding. I would encourage you to consider a more open-minded approach. Explore these various fields without pre-existing expectations. Embrace the inherent uncertainties and the joy of discovery that comes from continuous learning.

Hello Ma, I don tire to dey write epistles and I am only replying this cause u think i really do not know about Stoicism or Epicureanism

I belonged to the latter school of thought before i realised the former has an answer to everything...Recently done reading 'Meditations' by Marcus Aurelius and I have read Seneca's Letter to a stoic, even one of his first book titled ' On the shortness of life'


I currently follow a stoic on Youtube by the name Ryan Holiday and i have read all about Discourses of Epicetus

As for Epicurus, I know almost everything availabe to know about him(Everyone knows about that God Paradox)

I also read extensively on Cynism and know alot about Diogenes of Sinope

Thats to put aside the most popular Socrates, Aristotle and Plato

I was once a Buddhist and i still follow all his 8 most important tenets till date

I am saying all this to let u know how much i dedicated my lifr to knowing all about Religion,science and Philosophy and when i talk or write, its actually cause I struggle to find a convincing answer to the big question 'How and why we are here', and the answers, as opined by other fields of knowledge sounded rather more foolish than even what Religion suggested(even with the inconsistencies and unverifiable bogus claims by those Religious books), hence my reason for continued search

I wish i could address your other points but its damn too hard to type abeg


Reading your comments is intimidating...guess the reason u were able to force others in the past to accept your view is cause your use of grammar makes u look like the most enlightened person....

Not about the points u make cause I still struggle to believe anyone would choose Art over Science when it comes to seeking for the truth about anything...Science gives room for criticism, counter argument and verification of claims. We cant say same for Art/Music

Renewed Hope !

DevilsEqual:



Hello Ma, I don tire to dey write epistles and I am only replying this cause u think i really do not know about Stoicism or Epicureanism

I belonged to the latter school of thought before i realised the former has an answer to everything...Recently done reading 'Meditations' by Marcus Aurelius and I have read Seneca's Letter to a stoic, even one of his first book titled ' On the shortness of life'


I currently follow a stoic on Youtube by the name Ryan Holiday and i have read all about Discourses of Epicetus

As for Epicurus, I know almost everything availabe to know about him(Everyone knows about that God Paradox)

I also read extensively on Cynism and know alot about Diogenes of Sinope

Thats to put aside the most popular Socrates, Aristotle and Plato

I was once a Buddhist and i still follow all his 8 most important tenets till date

I am saying all this to let u know how much i dedicated my lifr to knowing all about Religion,science and Philosophy and when i talk or write, its actually cause I struggle to find a convincing answer to the big question 'How and why we are here', and the answers, as opined by other fields of knowledge sounded rather more foolish than even what Religion suggested(even with the inconsistencies and unverifiable bogus claims by those Religious books), hence my reason for continued search

I wish i could address your other points but its damn too hard to type abeg


Reading your comments is intimidating...guess the reason u were able to force others in the past to accept your view is cause your use of grammar makes u look like the most enlightened person....

Not about the points u make cause I still struggle to believe anyone would choose Art over Science when it comes to seeking for the truth about anything...Science gives room for criticism, counter argument and verification of claims. We cant say same for Art/Music

I don't agree with the sentiment that "anyone would choose Art over Science", and I don't remember expressing such a confident assertion to you. Just to be clear, I was arguing that all forms of exploration have value, not that science is inferior. If you don't understand some of the things I say, you could always ask for clarification. I also couldn't help but notice that you keep referring to the tone and/or structure of my posts, which I think is completely irrelevant to the points I'm trying to make. Enlightenment is not solely a product of eloquent sentence structure. The use of English is a pointer to your level of education at best. I prefer to write in a way that best communicates my true thoughts, and this happens to be it. So it would be nice if you stopped letting yourself get distracted and just focused on the substance of my arguments alone. What's not helpful is you claiming that my comments are "intimidating", or that I'm in the business of "forcing others" to succumb to a particular worldview. With all due respect, are you here for a dialogue, or do you just want to poison the well, and cast doubts on my credibility? What you're doing here is a form of ad hominem fallacy.

Now, I will commend your dedication to exploring various schools of thought. Delving into Stoicism, Epicureanism, and even Cynicism showcases a commendable intellectual curiosity. However, your statement about "knowing almost everything available" concerning certain philosophers raises a slight eyebrow. While commendable, claiming complete mastery of such complex schools is ambitious (and potentially a touch self-aggrandizing, but we can be charitable and call it a turn of phrase). The fact that you can mention names doesn't refute the points I raised concerning confirmation bias and the limitations of individual interpretations. Detailing your extensive reading list while stating difficulty addressing my points doesn't engage with my actual arguments.

You claimed that after extensive exploration of various disciplines, you found religious explanations, "even with inconsistencies," more convincing than the offerings of science, art, and philosophy. This statement only serves to reinforce the million-dollar question: have you truly approached these fields with an open mind, free from confirmation bias? Have you genuinely considered the possibility that your current belief system might be influencing how you interpret these diverse fields? And I don't know where you got the misleading notion that science lacks criticism. The very foundation of science rests on the pillars of doubt, questioning, and revising existing knowledge! Every scientific theory undergoes rigorous scrutiny, with peers constantly seeking to disprove and refine existing ideas. This self-correcting mechanism is precisely what fuels scientific progress. Art and music, while not offering the same level of testability as science, provide invaluable insights into the human condition. You are vastly underestimating their potential. They evoke emotions, challenge perspectives, and offer unique avenues for exploring the "why" and "how" of our existence. There are many people who make vital life decisions solely based on their emotions. Dismissing art and music as mere expressions devoid of truth is akin to shutting your eyes to a significant part of the human experience.

True wisdom lies in embracing the vastness of knowledge, acknowledging the limitations of our understanding, and approaching every conversation with an open mind and a genuine desire to learn. Assuming you possess all the answers after a self-proclaimed "extensive" exploration is a dangerous path bordering on intellectual arrogance.

Let me reiterate that I'm not trying to force my views on anybody. I'm just trying to encourage a respectful dialogue with due regard for facts, while avoiding emotional arguments and logical fallacies. I understand if you do not wish to continue with the conversation. Obviously you may have other things you want to focus on, and that's fine.

DevilsEqual:



Just seeing this and by your first paragraph, it's clear that u have a superior use of English words, so trying to shame others for that isn't gonna add anything to u and it's actually needless
As long as I can try communicate in basic English, and since I do not have any interest whatsoever in being an Author, I guess I am good to go



Now, U mentioned one Indian philosopher and a few other Greeks,it's true that this guy's questioned Divinity but again, it's pointless diving into that topic, challenging the status quo, only to return with no proof to back up your challenges or even a very reasonable argument to cancel out the popular opinion.





Again, I'm not searching for any God,my question is to know how we get here and in answering that, I have to keep reading up on diff people's opinions, theories and counter theories of people who not only asked same questions in the past but also used some improved tools like fossil records and all to explore what might have been before our arrival, in a bid to know the true Genesis of all things


Telling me to discard that is very laughable...as my own reasoning, observations and knowledge would never open my mind to things that were, within and outside this universe and that would make me believe only my own lies guided by my very myopic opinion on humans evolution and that of our universe


If u care not about how we get here, that's fine, u can live your life anyway u want, believe your lies and enjoy your 100years on earth but every true seeker I have known have had to combine religion, science and philosophy and all would shed more light on things

I even use Bible to track the records of the earliest ever written book just to know how long ancient civilization started,not even because of the religious contents in it and No, I never mentioned divine intervention as an answer to anything or never stated where it is needed

Apc supporters always have one thing in common “cluelessness”

Just like their master

JessicaRabbit:


I don't agree with the sentiment that "anyone would choose Art over Science", and I don't remember expressing such a confident assertion to you. Just to be clear, I was arguing that all forms of exploration have value, not that science is inferior. If you don't understand some of the things I say, you could always ask for clarification. I also couldn't help but notice that you keep referring to the tone and/or structure of my posts, which I think is completely irrelevant to the points I'm trying to make. Enlightenment is not solely a product of eloquent sentence structure. The use of English is a pointer to your level of education at best. I prefer to write in a way that best communicates my true thoughts, and this happens to be it. So it would be nice if you stopped letting yourself get distracted and just focused on the substance of my arguments alone. What's not helpful is you claiming that my comments are "intimidating", or that I'm in the business of "forcing others" to succumb to a particular worldview. With all due respect, are you here for a dialogue, or do you just want to poison the well, and cast doubts on my credibility? What you're doing here is a form of ad hominem fallacy.

Now, I will commend your dedication to exploring various schools of thought. Delving into Stoicism, Epicureanism, and even Cynicism showcases a commendable intellectual curiosity. However, your statement about "knowing almost everything available" concerning certain philosophers raises a slight eyebrow. While commendable, claiming complete mastery of such complex schools is ambitious (and potentially a touch self-aggrandizing, but we can be charitable and call it a turn of phrase). The fact that you can mention names doesn't refute the points I raised concerning confirmation bias and the limitations of individual interpretations. Detailing your extensive reading list while stating difficulty addressing my points doesn't engage with my actual arguments.

You claimed that after extensive exploration of various disciplines, you found religious explanations, "even with inconsistencies," more convincing than the offerings of science, art, and philosophy. This statement only serves to reinforce the million-dollar question: have you truly approached these fields with an open mind, free from confirmation bias? Have you genuinely considered the possibility that your current belief system might be influencing how you interpret these diverse fields? And I don't know where you got the misleading notion that science lacks criticism. The very foundation of science rests on the pillars of doubt, questioning, and revising existing knowledge! Every scientific theory undergoes rigorous scrutiny, with peers constantly seeking to disprove and refine existing ideas. This self-correcting mechanism is precisely what fuels scientific progress. Art and music, while not offering the same level of testability as science, provide invaluable insights into the human condition. You are vastly underestimating their potential. They evoke emotions, challenge perspectives, and offer unique avenues for exploring the "why" and "how" of our existence. There are many people who make vital life decisions solely based on their emotions. Dismissing art and music as mere expressions devoid of truth is akin to shutting your eyes to a significant part of the human experience.

True wisdom lies in embracing the vastness of knowledge, acknowledging the limitations of our understanding, and approaching every conversation with an open mind and a genuine desire to learn. Assuming you possess all the answers after a self-proclaimed "extensive" exploration is a dangerous path bordering on intellectual arrogance.

Let me reiterate that I'm not trying to force my views on anybody. I'm just trying to encourage a respectful dialogue with due regard for facts, while avoiding emotional arguments and logical fallacies. I understand if you do not wish to continue with the conversation. Obviously you may have other things you want to focus on, and that's fine.

Is this billynaira an old forgotten account?

DevilsEqual:
That God does not exist
I used to believe this lie until I decided to pick us some books to read
Those books are :
1) Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist

2) On the origin of Time and also "Brief Answers to Big questions" both by Stephen Hawkngs, a world-renowned physicist who wrote extensively on big bang theory

3) On the origin of species by means of Natural selection by Charles Darwin... another Evolutionary biologist


Thats it...I gave up on atheism forever...it takes even greater faith to believe the bull crap origin of life stories propounded by those guys

You did not read anything, stop dey lie.

If you read the Bible and also apply the same intelligence devoid of sentiment you would have given up theism.

obinna58:

Is this billynaira an old forgotten account?

Who the F is that? 😒

Careente7:
I went through the comments n was surprised no one mentioned this big fallacy :
“Education is the key”.


No comment; next question.

Because it still is.

JessicaRabbit:


Who the F is that? 😒

You I suspect
Long time buddy 😭😭😭😭

obinna58:

You I suspect
Long time buddy 😭😭😭😭

I will tell you two facts for free

1) Yes, this is not a new account. I officially joined this forum circa 2019.

2) I don't know who you think it is behind this moniker, but I promise you that you don't have a clue.

That Mungo Park discovered River Niger!

JessicaRabbit:


I will tell you two facts for free

1) Yes, this is not a new account. I officially joined this forum circa 2019.

2) I don't know who you think it is behind this moniker, but I promise you that you don't have a clue.

Not like I’m doubting though
Your account says Time registered: May 19, 2023

If you’re not billynaire just know that it’s good you’re here to awoken memories

1. There's power in the tongue.
If there's power in the tongue, command 10B$ to be credited into your account right now. It definitely wouldn't happen.

2. One day one day, things go better.
Things will only be better when you're willing to be better.

3. I will think about it or I'll get back to you.
That person is definitely lying!

4. Religion and it's b*llshit of lies.

5....