₦airaland Forum

A88C:
not at all.nature is an essential part of men that we can not excluded.what make you an athiest is largerly base on your knowledge and experience and what make me a beliver is also base on my knowledge and experience.

your state of mind at war front is diffrent from what you will experience at burj khalifa hotel in dubai.it is a two diffrent game bro.

play the game safe. belive in GOD and be safe if GOD trully exist at the end or be safe if there is no god.you will be put to shame if there is GOD at the end.but you will be equal with a beliver if there is no GOD.

You're a baby godist and pascal wager disciple.

Also, it's obvious you do not understand the word "conviction".

Emotional (fear or pleasure) intercept on human minds, don't impact significantly, on conviction that's developed via digestion of complex and factual knowledge.

A88C:
there is no athiest in the foxholes,war jet or even war ships.this argument are true but not absolute.i quite agree since some people will be adamant even to the point of death just to cover their shame and ignorance forever （muhammar gadaffi of libya）i is an example,he was given an amnesty by the nato yet he refused to surrender until he meet his death.

back to understanding. you must agree athiest are human and therefore it is natural they also needs to deal with the same fear all other human face like fear of poverty,sickness,death and so on.

adolf hitler one of the most sadist man on earth once says man can not exist without the belive of God,the soldjer who for three and four days lies under intense bombardment needs a religious group.

the belive of GOD is what exist in human, the rate at wish will belive may vary and sometimes challenges of man may limit or increase the belive.there is trully no atheist in war front but not absolute.

You're simply confusing a natural phenomenon called fear (rational), with personal conviction.

Atheist is convinced, based on evidence, that the claim of a personal and interventionist God, is false. So, when an atheist is confronted with fear inducing circumstances, he activates his survival mechanism, based on reality.

Therefore, whether in foxhole or cosy 7 star hotel, atheist is convinced of his thoughts.

My response to Alder......

St. Matthew 17:14 And when they came to the crowd, a man came up to him and, kneeling before him,
St. Matthew 17:15 said, Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and he suffers terribly. For often he falls into the fire, and often into the water.
St. Matthew 17:16 And I brought him to your disciples, and they could not heal him.
St. Matthew 17:17 And Jesus answered, O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me.

St. Matthew 17:18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the DEMON came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly.

Please go through the above verses:

You can't possibly defend the bible or God idea logically.

If you credit your godman (Jesus) as wisdom and intelligence personified, how logical is it for the same Jesus, to diagnose EPILEPSY (a mere neural dysfunction) as "demonic affliction"?

When i tell you that the bible, is simply a collection of primitive thoughts, superstitions , myths, illusions and delusionary attributes, you don't want to hear it.

From Leke Alder


Christians are sometimes conflicted on how to relate to the atheist. There are those who believe love is all that's required, and there are those who believe there's no point getting into an argument with an atheist.

No doubt there's the issue of personal salvation of the atheist and the Bible enjoins us to love all men and pray for the salvation of all. And so you can disagree with someone but still love the person and pray for the person. But that's only half the story.

There's yet the issue of the ideas spouted by the atheist and the Bible has specific instructions concerning those ideas. The Bible enjoins all Christians to defend and confirm the truth of the gospel, like Paul, and Peter and John. (Philippians 1:7 KJV, Acts 4).

There's the LOGICAL defense of the gospel. Which is why Apostle Peter instructed as follows: "Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope and confident assurance [elicited by faith] that is within you, yet do it with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15 AMP)

Every Christian must be prepared to defend his faith with logical sequence is what Peter is saying. But the Christian cannot descend into insults and abuse. Abuse is not an argument. Besides, it's unChristian.

Paul captures the purport of spirit-inspired intelligent confrontation of the atheist as follows: "We are destroying sophisticated arguments and every exalted and proud thing that sets itself up against the true knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought and purpose captive to the obedience of Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:5 AMP).

And so there's love, but there's also the confrontation of "sophisticated arguments." That is the FULL counsel of God on the matter.

Blogthug:
because all available scientific evidence shows that the universe (time space matter) began to exist after the Big Bang as singularity before expansion began (hawkings, vilenkins et al ) and applying the cosmological argument " everything that begins to exist has a cause " it means the universe would need a cause , now answer mine

0/100 that's your score, on a simple question of HOW did you KNOW, that the universe/life was created/caused?

little godist, no rational mind rely on theory to make a statement of fact.

Wait until we scientists, come up with the laws that governs the origin of life precursor.

Assuming life has cause, who/what is the cause?

UyiIredia:
Based on the responses of atheists here and in the past and the crap from PastorAIO it is the same case as always. Same old, same old.

Seun's has been the best so far. His reply was the mozt comprehe sive as it addressed my premises and most of.my posers. ifenes is a disgrace to reason. JackBizzle and johnydon22, read his posts here and tell me you are ashamed. akintom is foolish but honestly I am used to his idiocy. I have encountered many atheists redefining consciousness as activities in the brain.

Maybe it is good I did not get much responses.

It's not your fault. Mistaking a slowpoke, who's primarily deluded with the filth of religion, for rational entity, gave you this ground.

Blogthug:
created in this sense is synonymous with caused, now do u believe that the universe is eternal or it began to exist?

You didn't answer my question.

How did you KNOW that the universe/life was created/caused?

otemdomino:
Just within 30 minutes, these two funny stuffs happened right before my sight. Okay, I decided to do away with my car and go by commercial bus for my tours of Nigeria to make findings.

1. The first thing I saw while on the road was a man who has hunch chest carrying Bible and crossing the road. I laugh because the guy didn't seem to know what was the content of the book he carries for people like him.

2. The second thing happened when I entered the commercial bus and the driver drove rough just once. To our amazement, the only guy who carried a bible in his hands was the only person who was shouting on the top of his voice and abusing the driver. The guy came down the bus immediately after barking the bus to a halt. WHO CAN GUESS WHAT THAT DUDE IS AFRAID OF?



Hahn, hardmirror, Frank317, Felixmor, Wilgrea7, Seun, Muafrika2, Akintom, Joseff14, Junia, Jacksonville, Gboyee4fun, Johnydon22, Lepasharon, Dazzlingd, realmindz, hopefulLandlord

The irony of godists and their Gods there.

UyiIredia:
Then I assume you agreed with it.



You do not need to tell me that. My premises included that fact.



This is where you engage in deception. I never denied that the brain causes consciousness.

What I explicitly denied was that
activities (or mechanisms) in the brain are consciousness. Again refer to definition of consciousness you agree with. That is consciousness. That is not the brain or its neurological activities. They cause consciousness, they are NOT consciousness. Basic logic.



I am not.



Citation required.



The foolishness I was talking about. The mind is what the brain does, the mind is not what the brain IS. Note the difference. Many atheists do not and display confusion on the matter. Telling me properties and laws the brain follows is not the same as telling me what the mind or consciousness is. Try again.



*shrugs*



You mean the rubbish that passes for your mind. I'll think about it. Even sh*t could be useful_ask Otunba Gadaffi_so I may still need you.

You have simply further confirmed your confusion.

The source of your confusion stream from the fact that you don't know that "consciousness" is the convergent adjective, for the multi-neural activities of brain, that gives awareness capability and ability.

Your smoky mind wouldn't allow you see, that i didn't at any point say that consciousness occupies a specific location in the brain.

With all this your dark tunnel race, you haven't yet presented a meaningful position on your own thread.

"That is not the brain or its neurological activities. They cause consciousness, they are NOT consciousness. Basic logic."

What sense did you think you made up there?

If i can inject your brain with psychoactive drug, and cause significant suspension of your consciousness, what does that tell you about the mutual inclusiveness of brain and consciousness?

UyiIredia:
Take the brain. It is subject to gravity since it falls to earth unsuspended. It follows Newton's laws of motion, shoot a bullet through a brain and it is displaced accordingly. It is a system of chemical compounds, elements and ions subject to laws of chemistry. Concentrated sulfuric acids will corrode your brain as they do other other part of your body.

The human brain has mass of about 1.2 - 1.4 kg. It has an average volume of about 1200cm3. Those are some of the brain's physical properties.

I have just explained how physical laws like motion and gravity and chemical reactions applyto the brain. Consciousness is not the brain. Refer to my definition of consciousness in my premises. Explain how that has physical properties and follows physical laws.

If you go on fooling yourself that consciousness is just activities in the brain then I have nothing more to say to you.

"Premises
consciousness: the state of self-awareness including awareness of one's environs."

The above is one of your definition premises (which i chose to respond from).

If consciousness is mere awareness of my internal and external environment, and just told you that am able to exercise this ability because my brain is functioning normally.

All you needed to do is tell me how this is wrong. Rather than engaging in pseudoscience gist.

* it's obvious that you are confused about your thread.

* you lack basic understanding of what physical laws mean.

* when you understand that the mind is what the brain does, your difficulty will be helped.

Since you think that your imaginary God is the source of consciousness, there's no way you wouldn't be writhing in self inflicted confusion about your thread.

What you don't know is that, i can in inject you with psychoactive drugs, that will suspend your consciousness (awareness), while you're still talking and walking about.

Do well not to copy me when next you're out to display intellectual arrogance and fraud.

From mere observation, this gathering of godists, is gradually becoming lean.

Especially, the male godists are increasingly finding Supersport better pastime on Sundays now.

The hormones of the female godists is not helping their rational self.

UyiIredia:
You did not answer the questions in my OP. And consciousness is not natural, otherwise it would be subject to physical laws. Maybe you can tell me the physical laws consciousness follows.

I have since stopped engaging most apologists here, for simple reason that they are too consumed with their conclusions, before they post stuff.

You did put up many posers, and i chose to respond to one(is consciousness natural or supernatural phenomenon?) of them.

Here you are saying i didn't answer your question.

It's obvious that you are too glued to your pre-conclusion, that you possibly can't see how consciousness is a natural phenomenon, just like cognition, memory and emotion.

The very physical laws that regulates the other neurophysiological phenomenon via neural electrochemical mechanism.

UyiIredia:
Could you please address the posers. The mechanism of what causes consciousness is being explained by neuroscience. Consciousness is the result of the mechanisms in the brain. It is not those mechanisms.

I can't make any sense of this. Can you please make yourself intelligible?

ifenes:
Ages in the bible actually represents the astrological phases; the Aqurius Age is here that was predicted for a long time. The Ages will go in cycle for ever and ever until you manage to break the illusion of Time.

No one will come in the sky except the Sun

Which of the religious factions said this?

Consciousness is a natural phenomenon. The mechanism of its process, has sufficiently been explained in books (biosychology /behavioral neuroscience).

Blogthug:
the creator of the universe and origin of life

OK.
*how did you know that the universe/life was created?

Revelation 6:4 And out came another horse, bright red. Its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that men should slay one another, and he was given a great sword.

Revelation 6:8 And I looked, and behold, a pale horse! And its rider's name was Death, and Hades followed him. And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth.


On lighter note, i love epic movies. On this one, Yahweh appears to be a future producer of epic movie, wherein sword wielding soldiers, will run the earth down.

The godists surely look forward to this unending seasonal movie.

NPComplete:
I partially disagree. Most atheists, deists and irreligious people are usually very thoughtful people. They are less likely to succumb to vices that could harm their neighbour. The general population isn't like that. They are mostly superstitious and among them are some subhumans whose sinister tendencies are kept in check by the threat of eternal damnation.

I agree with EVarn, we do need a bit of religion.

All that is needed to keep criminal tendencies and acts in check, is justice.

Religion benefits only the Oppressors of the weak and gullible ones.

God is an amorphous concept, fabricated by the esoteric gangs, just for the sole purpose of mind control.

johnydon22:
I completely agree 100% I too hold the thought that Religion is important for order and control... It is a vital societal tool just like politics we need these two

The lifestyle and the societal characteristics of the atheists, negate the thinking that the absence of religion, will plunge the society in disorderliness and chaos.

Just like politics, there are different system of governance, through which politicians bear leadership.

Secularism is a type of societal moderation, and its opposition to overwhelming control of society via religious beliefs, has proven a better alternative.

Blogthug:
can we debate? let's go
God exists!

Hmmmm... Let's start this way - you said God exist, so, what's God?

Another Yahweh's zombie on the loose

Yoruba historian, prof adebayo mentioned obatala: our best secular source.

"The forced dichotomy between faith and reason is a false dichotomy.

Many define faith as belief without or apart from evidence, but historically and philosophically this is a flawed definition.

A better definition of faith is a power to believe what you have reason to think is true……”

The quote above was the concluding part of your piece. Historically and philosophically, the distinct parallel meaning of "religious faith" and "reason", has never been ambiguous.

An realistically, religious faith and reason, means two different concepts in their perceptive and implicative effects.

"power to believe what you have reason to think is true? ".......

Not so. The psychopath, who turned serial killer, certainly has power to "believe" that he's "reason" that's "true" to kill folks.

The quote, in essence, is just a sophistric attempt at defending the irrationality of "religious faith".

I'm dominantly a choleric (far from emotional pole). But nothing moves me to bitter cry (sometime having tears above normal temperature, streaming down my eyes), like seeing the weaker folks in the society, dehumanized, terrified and slaughtered with the most ferocious savagery. All because one religious idiocy commanded it.

It hurts me more, when i see folks, who claim to be loving and caring (based on their delusion), leading or inspiring these savagery.

The discussion below took place on Facebook, between me and Leke Alder. He came up with the piece below on his page.



CONVERSATION WITH UNBELIEF

I share knowledge on faith and God regularly on social media. The knowledge on faith is also accessible on www.myilluminare.com. Recently I posted two quotes about God on social media. Here they are:

“That God knew something would happen doesn’t mean he caused it.”
“God is capable of foreknowledge because he doesn’t dwell in time.”

They elicited a sarcastic retort from an atheist. I decided to engage him and an interesting conversation ensued. Well, that’s the genesis. You’ll have to read to find out the ending. Enjoy!

---
On the Omniscience and Goodness Of God:

Atheist: I don’t think that God is omniscient, omnipotent or good. E.g. If God claims to be good, harmful events should not be experienced by his children. After all, they claim he is omniscient and omnipotent. Of what use is a God that knew of harm ahead, has power to stop it, but didn't. This means God isn't a relevant factor in human experience.

LA: Unfortunately, you have a humanist moral conception of God. This is quite distinct from the idea of God in scriptures. It will be quite a stretch to equate foreknowledge with moral responsibility. If we go by that rule, human jurisprudence will go haywire. Can we for example hold you responsible for everything you have foreknowledge of? If you were told by a very reliable economist the Naira (Nigerian currency) would crash against the Dollar, do we hold you responsible for the crash or the consequences?

Atheist: If I were to be bestowed with the supernatural attributes of your God, I would have a better score sheet. My question to you borders on the usefulness of a God that has foreknowledge, but can't prevent harmful events from occurring.

LA: You have an inventive philosophy of what God ought to be. It is kind of funny because the creature is now conceptualising the Creator. You somehow imagine God in a utilitarian dimension - a global police officer dedicated to the prevention of evil. But you ignore the revelation of God about God. And who better to talk about God than God. Clearly, you haven't taken time to imagine what it means to be human. That God you imagine, will never allow you to write the things you've written so far if your concept of God holds. In other words, the "God" you've invented will violate your freewill. Though I must say the invention of a "God" is curious for someone who doesn't believe. Another word for this is idolatry.

---
On freewill:

Atheist: If you claim that I have free will and responsible for my experience, of what use then is a God who places himself in the position of being my judge? Of what use is the foreknowledge, when God has never, in human experience, prevented any harmful event from happening?

LA: Unfortunately, that's a humanist moral philosophy of God not constitutional righteousness, which is actually God's operating system. But even at that, man must bear moral responsibility for his creation. The earth, we're told, has been given to the sons of men by God. We're free moral agents. To imagine God will intervene in every evil proposition of man is practically impossible and creates a conceptual issue. We'll no longer be "human," we'll be robots. Believe me, men will complain of excessive intrusion. Imagine God stopping you from typing what you just typed! You'll surely complain of the violation of your freewill.

Atheist: Where then is the interventionist attribute of God? Where then is the realistic goodness of God? What then is the useful value of the omnipotence, omniscience and omniscience of God? Your reply states that as humans, we are responsible for our lives. This then makes God a "nothing factor" in human experience.

LA: Where then is the interventionist attribute of God? Why, Jesus died to save us from Sin! Where then is the realistic goodness of God? For God so loved the world he gave his Son. To quote another writer in the Bible, the goodness of God leads us to repentance. God simplified the salvation process, removed it from the realm of morality to the realm of faith. All you need do is believe!
As per the assertion - God is not a factor in human existence - the Greek philosophers said, "In him we live, in him we move, in him we have our being." Your very existence is God dependent. The problem you have is you see God as a moral street cleaner or some form of Superman or Spiderman who's supposed to prevent evil. In which case, you should get ready for a Tom Cruise Minority Report existence.

---
Is the Bible a myth?

Atheist: All of the above are mere abstract thoughts that spin myths and illusionary fabrications. All the creationist propositions are fairy tales. The entire fictional work called bible bears no substantial evidence of God’s existence. So, what's the value of faith in myths? In the very Bible that you quoted are the claims of a superman-God. Why are you excusing God from living up to the claims ascribed to him?

LA: Interesting you call the Bible fabrication. But let me ask you some questions. Was there a historic Pharaoh Thutmose II (1493-1476 BC) at the time of Moses? Was there a historic King Cyrus the Great (576-530 BC)? Was there a historic Chaldean king named Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 BC)? Was there a historic King David who reigned 1010-970 BC? Was there a historic Paul, or Peter or John, or Herod? And was there a historic Jesus? If these people are real, created history and interacted with history, and if archeology substantiates them, how can the Bible be a myth? It's a historical compendium of these same people!

As to creation, you obviously haven't studied the science involved and I don't blame you for some of your views. Many Christians have not too, so they don't put forward the right information. The Big Bang theory which is the prevailing cosmological model validates the Bible narrative. There WAS a beginning, though we can't fully define that beginning. Science can't too. And the ending predicted by Peter in the Bible is actually on all fours with cosmology. There are three likely scenarios, Peter asserted one. How I wish you'd take time to study scriptures rather than regurgitate these assertions of the unlearned. I am engaging you not to argue with you but to let you see things you're not cognisant of. The same God you repudiate from inadequate knowledge loves you more than you'll ever know. Please ask the next question.

---
To read or download the rest of the conversation, which includes sections on “Who is God? and “Proof of God’s Existence”, please go to http://myilluminare.com/conversation-with-an-atheist/. Now, don’t leave without sharing. Someone might need this!

alBHAGDADI:
The peaceful atheist are the ones who lost believe in any form of religion and decided to ignore religious folks whom they sometimes view as lost I. delusion. The good part is that they don't waste their time arguing about things they believe don't exist.

The radical atheist are the opposite of the above. They behave like children of the Satan the Christian Bible speaks of. They believe God doesn't exist, but are always seeing arguing and making mockery of something they believe doesn't exist. It's like making mockery of nothing or a man laughing because of nothing. Is that not madness? They have now become radicals cos they verbally attack Christians and their beliefs at every given opportunity. I hope we won't start seeing ISIS kind of atheism.

Radical Christianity on the rise!

FSM promised me heaven full of volcano of beer and angelic chics. Before i finish my proselytizing, Christians jump in and started calling me derogatory names.

It's obvious that terror-christs are here.

Blogthug:
if you are open minded and understand these basic fallacies such as :
Strawman
red herring
non sequitor
Ad hominem

then let's get talking, if you don't, go google and understand them, then we can get talking ait? if u won't then don't waste my time

Just how you're gonna do that, is what am curious about.

ApostleT:
No.

The Bible says left to God all men would be saved. God doesn't delight in destroying his creation. Man however has a choice to make.

God is just

Since it's the original sin that makes a man sinner (not the habit of sin) before God, an infant is a sinner (based on original sin).

Since infant can't confess Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior (become born again) and the infant dies.

Do you say that the infant wouldn't go to hell?

adepeter26:
https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/cp0/e15/q65/p720x720/17621727_1356857757734413_9001271597814446214_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoiYiJ9&oh=7027a5ab65e3811381b06269d2d08ec9&oe=5958CD50
Cc Junia, Wilgrea7, enshy, felixomor, MZlady, etc
Cc Hahn, obinna58, hopefulLandlord, akintom, jonbellion etc Lalasticlala

This should again jab the Christians to the fact, of how needless it's, to engage in the illusion called prayer.

ApostleT:
Yes it's true man by nature is a sinner. This nature came from the disobedience of Adam and Eve. If that's what you nean by the original sin. Yes it's true. That's exactly what scriptures says.

Do you also share the part that says infant will go to hell (should he die before age of accountability), since they have original sin?

May the generation after generation of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, continue to prosper in good health and long life.

* the only prudent and future thinking leader of his time

* he educated us with cocoa money, because he knew that we needed education to be able to convert cocoa to chocolate. But the rogues thwarted it.

* anyways, the education induced sophistication can't be taken from us.


Without education, there's no progress.