Akintom's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Akintom's Profile › Akintom's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 (of 73 pages)
 Christianity Etc › Re: You Will Become An Atheist, When You Understand The Bible by akintom(op): 7:39pm On Mar 13, 2017 |
Sapiosexuality:You're an evidence of how morbidly and intellectually dishonest, christards are. It's obvious that you don't understand a word in logic. If not you wouldn't be asking atheists, how god idea is both primitive and idiotic. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: You Will Become An Atheist, When You Understand The Bible by akintom(op): 7:34pm On Mar 13, 2017 |
Pidgin2:Of course, the very devil that gave you forbidden fruit to eat in the garden of eden, still possesses you. If not, you and your fellow christards wouldn't be fighting him, all the time that you gather in those fools' house. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: You Will Become An Atheist, When You Understand The Bible by akintom(op): 2:34pm On Mar 13, 2017 |
tempem:Yes, as long as you remain intellectually dishonest. 8 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › You Will Become An Atheist, When You Understand The Bible by akintom(op): 10:02pm On Mar 12, 2017*. Modified: 10:51pm On Mar 12, 2017 |
UNDERSTANDING Understanding is a psychological process related to an abstract or physical object, such as a person , situation, or message whereby one is able to think about it and use concepts to deal adequately with that object. Understanding is a relation between the knower and an object of understanding. Understanding implies abilities and dispositions with respect to an object of knowledge sufficient to support intelligent behavior. -Wikipedia Understanding is a precursor to intelligent behavior. Paul the apostle was a lawyer (according to Bible), this made him presumably an intelligent man. But when he attempted to understand the bible (the whole documented stories, of religious evolution of Jews), so that he could make intelligent proposition, Paul got quagmired in the verses below: Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What Paul resorted to was conclusions, devoid of intelligence, since it was impossible for him to understand the inconsistencies in the character of the Jewish god (Yahweh). If anyone is intellectually honest, the day he/she understands the Bible, it's that day he will realize that bible informed behavior, is diametrically opposed to intelligent behavior. 11 Likes 3 Shares
|
| Christianity Etc › Re: Collection Of Thought Patterns That Created God(s) Idea by akintom(op): 11:52pm On Mar 11, 2017 |
GodsMopol: enshy:* the same holy spirit in two Christians. * the same two Christians saying different things. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pray For Me If You Believe In Miracle by akintom(m): 9:05pm On Mar 11, 2017 |
Babs80:You're either trolling here, or you met medic that works in mysterious ways eg felixomor. Of course angina do break bones. Suleiman hasn't been able to replicate Elijah's myth yet,despite he's bald like Elijah. The spirit of Samson has possessed Suleiman. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pray For Me If You Believe In Miracle by akintom(m): 5:56pm On Mar 11, 2017 |
Babs80:may it be unto you, according to your belief. But remember that faith alone is death. Rational thinking and action gives life in good abundance. 4 Likes 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Apostle Suleman's 3-Day Program 'Minister Without Blemish' Starts (Photo) by akintom(m): 4:46pm On Mar 11, 2017 |
McKayConcept:This doesn't apply to Suleiman, he boasts of power as of old (Elijah's type). Let him show his fictitious power now. If it's telling fake stories of how he killed 100 witches, just by looking at them in the face, he will be able to. Perhaps Suleiman is now Jesus. Haven't you heard Suleiman say that it's only Jesus that had vicarious assignment? Suleiman claimed he has assignment of killing by fire...... Now is the set time to kill by fire. He's was just foolishly boasting though. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Stat's show Nigeria's Religious Future is probably Islamic by akintom(m): 4:26pm On Mar 11, 2017 |
DoctorAlien:Apocalyptic pessimism. The world order has consistently proved all these Biblical hogwash, to be pessimistic views, that are brewed from idiocy. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Apostle Suleman's 3-Day Program 'Minister Without Blemish' Starts (Photo) by akintom(m): 4:12pm On Mar 11, 2017 |
THE PARABLE OF OT'OBO AND SULEIMAN How come this apostle Suleiman didn't add this obscene movie script, to the prophetic gibberish he released this year? And if Suleiman is anything close to being "spiritually powerful" as he claimed, this press release is needless. All Suleiman needed to do is command ot'OBO to become deaf and dumb. After the order of apostle Elijah, who is coincidentally bald headed like Suleiman. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Keyamo Plotting To Clone My Voice, Kill Stephanie Otobo – Apostle Suleman by akintom(m): 3:55pm On Mar 11, 2017 |
How come this apostle, didn't add this obscene movie script to the prophetic gibberish he released this year? And if Suleiman is anything close to being "spiritually powerful" as he claimed, this press release is needless. All Suleiman needed to do is command ot'OBO to become deaf and dumb. After the order of apostle Elijah, who is coincidentally bald headed like Suleiman. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: 17 Kinds Of Atheism by akintom(op): 11:45am On Mar 11, 2017 |
4everGod:There's no way you will not boast foolishly, especially when you now type with your tongue. Your position among the apologists, whose organ for reasoning suffers perforation, is now raised to power 7. Enjoy your elevation into emptiness. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: 17 Kinds Of Atheism by akintom(op): 11:13am On Mar 11, 2017 |
4everGod:You keep presenting an example of how dumb the apologists are, especially the NL herd. No other new word better describes the depth of the dysfunctional state of the minds, as far as intelligence is concerned, than being called christards. An illusionary boast, that you can't come out to defend, when you were called out, is not foolishness and cowardice? You see, among all the coward apologists on NL, you deserve highest position. Why haven't you been coming here with the moniker (damogul), with which you committed that infantile ranting? Until you withdraw that foolish boast, you have no honest and intelligent justification to participate in discussions that requires the participation of sane minds. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Collection Of Thought Patterns That Created God(s) Idea by akintom(op): 10:22am On Mar 11, 2017 |
OLAADEGBU: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(op): 9:17am On Mar 11, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:Same here brother. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Maybe The 'men Of God' Are Men Of Preek Afterall by akintom(m): 9:12am On Mar 11, 2017 |
geoworldedu:The Christian and Islamic religion have the most pungently odious sexual misdemeanors: *prophet sexually abusing as young as below 10 yrs old girl * David creeping on another man's wife, killed the husband and possessed the woman. Yet Yahweh didn't punish David, but rather went after innocent folks. * blooded men and women, in the name of celibacy, will in self delusion, claim to denying the body, of its normal physiological activity of sex. But it's known that they not only indulge in sexual act, but are involved in other psychopathic sexual acts. * the god of the Abrahamic religion, is extremely jobless and creepy, to the point of peeping on two consenting adults during sexual act. 7 Likes 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: 17 Kinds Of Atheism by akintom(op): 8:51am On Mar 11, 2017 |
4everGod:This piece was posted here, to help the chronic lack of broader knowledge acquiring capacity, of the religious folks, especially the christards. A hydramoniker(damogul/naijadeyhia/4everGod1/4everGod /damagepbuh) like your type, who unabashedly and cowardly boasted here on NL, that his coward and desert dwelling Idol, can grow amputated limb back, should be hiding in oblivion. |
| Christianity Etc › 17 Kinds Of Atheism by akintom(op): 7:26am On Mar 11, 2017 |
‘Atheism’ is a much simpler concept than ‘Christianity’ or ‘Hinduism’, but the word atheism is still used in a wide variety of ways. This can cause confusion. Someone may announce that she is an atheist, and her listeners may assume she is one type of atheist, when really she is a different type of atheist. So to clear things up, here are 17 kinds of atheism, organized into 7 sets. Some kinds of atheism can be combined in a person, and some cannot. For example, it is perfectly consistent to be an agnostic, narrow, friendly atheist. But one cannot simultaneously be both a passive atheist and a militant atheist. This list is not definitive. There are many ways to organize and label different kinds of atheism. For brevity’s sake, I have substituted “gods” for the usual phrase “God or gods.” 1. Difference in Knowledge A gnostic atheist not only believes there are no gods, he also claims to know there are no gods. An agnostic atheist doesn’t believe in gods, but doesn’t claim to know there are no gods. 2. Difference in Affirmation A negative atheist merely lacks a belief in gods. He is also called a weak atheist or an implicit atheist. A positive atheist not only lacks a belief in gods, but also affirms that no gods exist. He is also called a strong atheist or an explicit atheist. 3. Difference in Scope A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on. A narrow atheist denies the existence of the traditional Western omni-God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. 4. Difference in the Assessed Rationality of Theism An unfriendly atheist believes no one is justified in believing that gods exist. An indifferent atheist doesn’t have a belief on whether or not others are justified in believing that gods exist. A friendly atheist believes that some theists are justified in believing that gods exist. 5. Difference in Openness A closet atheist has not yet revealed his disbelief to most people. An open atheist has revealed his disbelief to most people. 6. Difference in Action A passive atheist doesn’t believe in god but doesn’t try to influence the world in favor of atheism. An evangelical atheist tries to persuade others to give up theistic belief. An active atheist labors on behalf of causes that specifically benefit atheists (but not necessarily just atheists). For example, he strives against discrimination toward atheists, or he strives in favor of separation of church and state. A militant atheist uses violence to promote atheism or destroy religion. (Often, the term “militant atheist” is misapplied to non-violent evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins. But to preserve the parallel with the “militant Christian” who bombs abortion clinics or the “militant Muslim” suicide bomber, I prefer the definition of “militant atheist” that assumes acts of violence.) 7. Difference in Religiosity A religious atheist practices religion but does not believe in gods. A non-religious atheist does not practice religion. Of course, there are many more “kinds” of atheism than this, for one may be a Republican atheist or a Democratic atheist, a short atheist or a tall atheist, a Caucasian atheist or an Hispanic atheist, a foundationalist atheist or a coherentist atheist, an enchanted atheist or a disenchanted atheist. http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487 |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(op): 10:32pm On Mar 10, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:this will be my last response on this point. I have approached this your "proof" of spiritual plane, from rational, honest and intelligent angles. Whatever you called "proofs" remain empty, as long as they can't be subjected to scientific probe or that science has provided explanations for. Wilgrea7:I never said "science hasn't reached the CAPACITY to explain it....". Do well not to quote me falsely. You are at liberty to hold on to what has no scientific explanation, but you can't push that to me as real or fact. They remain your personal experience, that can't qualify for reference. Wilgrea7:l never said completely. It will be okay for you to slowly read my response and understand my argument before responding. I never said science knows all there's about dream 100%. I said what science knows now, is sufficient for them to conclude that dream is a neurophysiological activity, and not supernatural. Wilgrea7:i never told you that science "fully"understood dream yet. But that which is known about dream now, doesn't suggest it's supernatural phenomenon. Wilgrea7:Am not about to debate any of the proposed theories, of the possible origin of life with you. What i asked you is simple. If you claimed that the universe was created, my question to you is - how did you know that? And if you can't explain the how, by using scientific approach, don't border. As am very familiar with all the circularity dance. Wilgrea7:So far, religious folks have related with mere attributes of god idea. A claim of a personal god is an empty one. Perhaps another name for god created by indoctrination, will be a mythological god. Wilgrea7:Of course, claiming that one hears and sees, what can't be established with the use of sense, is grand delusion. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(op): 8:06pm On Mar 10, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:Dream, vision (eg revelation), trance are all natural neurophysiological activities. They have been induced and studied in labs. These activities are natural, they can't be evidence of "spiritual plane". I can as well tell you that the ability of mosquitoes to suck blood, is an evidence of blood sucking demons. Endeavor to understand the word "substantial evidence". Wilgrea7:You obviously don't understand what science is. Science is a dynamically evolving field of knowledge. You're wrong to have said "... That science CAN'T explain...". Science says "on this subject, we don't yet have FULL explanation". This doesn't mean the same thing as "can't". What science can't explain, is anything that can't be probed. Dream has been probed, and it's been understood to a conclusive level. Science reaches conclusion, based on the extent to which research has delved. Based on the level of research on dream, it's accepted as an established fact, that dream is an electrochemical phenomenon of the brain. There's nothing supernatural about it. Whatever on going research may be looking at, are other factors that might explain the mechanism of dream, in a more easy to understand ways. Wilgrea7:How did you know that the universe was created? In case you want to reply this, kindly Google the operative meaning of "substantial evidence". Wilgrea7:god and Holy Spirit are doctrinal ideas. That's the reason for variance in what they (god and holy Spirit) mean, to different religious groups (even within the Christian religion). Wilgrea7:Then those claimed "miracle" can be Scientifically explained, if the events are subjected to investigation. At best, they are coincidence. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(op): 5:20pm On Mar 10, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:It appears you don't have the operative understanding, of the words "proof, prove, existence and experience". What you claimed to be the "proof" of spiritual plane is lucid dream. And what i did to your claim is to call it "empty", because there's nothing to "disprove". You know why? A proof must have substance, for it to qualify as proof. Dream is a substantial proof of one of the many electrochemical activities of the brain. This has been Scientifically been established in the lab. Wilgrea7:This is nauseatingly incoherent. Religious faith is a precursor of religious experience, period! Do you have substantial evidence for the following: *God? *Adam and eve? *original sin? *holy spirit? All the experiences attributed to the above concept are based on faith, nothing more. Wilgrea7:can you repeat the above claims? Under observation? Wilgrea7:Go learn the operative meaning of citing authority. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(op): 11:09am On Mar 10, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:Experience = Anecdotes, and Anecdotes are mere subliminal phenomenon, that don't establish anything, other electrochemical activities of the brain. There's nothing called religious beliefs outside faith (blind acceptance of claims without and against reasons). It's this mentality, that create whatever experiences that religious folks fool around with. Meaning, god idea and religion, exist only within the sphere of BLIND FAITH . Wilgrea7:Can you please mention just one "miracle" that defies scientific explanation? Wilgrea7:You don't still get it. How could you be claiming that some dreams are based on "spiritual factors"? What's your authority on this claim? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Shameful Display Of Hypocrisy By NL Theists by akintom(m): 10:22am On Mar 10, 2017 |
They are all bunch of dishonest and unintelligent cowards. 6 Likes 1 Share
|
| Christianity Etc › Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(op): 9:29am On Mar 10, 2017 |
By Frank Fernandez This is your first problem. Atheist don't say that there's no god. Atheists say that they don't believe the claim that God exists. These are two very different things. One is the rejection of a positive claim. The other is a positive claim. Someone who says they don't believe in a God has no need to disprove the God claim. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. If you claim that a god does exist then it's YOUR job to prove it. It's not the other person's job to prove it false. If someone says the there is no God, they are now making a claim that does carry a burden of proof. But we atheists don't claim that God, in fact, does not exist. We simply reject the claims that one does. So you can toss all the word salads you want. But you're not gonna pin the burden of proof on us. You claim that God is real, then it's your job to prove it. Plain and simple. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(op): 9:27am On Mar 10, 2017 |
By Cody Reisdorf The word "proof" in English means "a convincing argument". And scientifically speaking, yes, we've proved the gods and goddesses that humans have dreamed up over the ages. We are faced with two hypotheses. In the older one the universe was made for us by a supernatural agent, who gave rules about how to behave, a story about where we and everything else came from, and so on. In the newer hypothesis the universe is the result of natural laws. We have not just a dearth of evidence for the former hypothesis, we have enormous evidence for the latter. Worse, the latter hypothesis doesn't just explain the universe and the evidence for it, it also gives us a good idea about the origins of the first hypothesis itself. For example, humans wrote the holy books at a time when no one had any idea how anything worked. But evolution had shaped them (and all animals) to keep their eyes peeled for agents, and it biased them towards making type I errors (false positives) and against making type II errors (false negatives). This happened because mistaking the breeze for a lion has a relatively low cost, mistaking a lion for the breeze will cost you your life. So early humans were naturally fashioned to look for agency, and when natural phenomena occurred, they misattributed it to a supernatural agent, and they gave these super natural agents very human attributes. Humans can be jealous, and demand worship, and seek revenge. So naturally they assumed that when lighting struck tall objects it must mean the god(s) were angry at you for something. (Now we know it's due to the electrical potential of the atmosphere.) When a volcano erupted, or the earth quaked, or a tsunami wiped out a costal region, or a famine or flood came, it was all interpreted as the wrath of some unimaginably powerful agent. Now we know about plate tectonics and weather, and we know those are entirely natural phenomena now. Consciousness and death have always been mysterious, but after decades of case studies of brain injuries, brain diseases, and brain surgeries, it is clear that the brain is the origin of consciousness, and that when the brain ceases to function, we cease to exist and individuals. Scientifically speaking, we've proven there are no gods or goddesses as imagined by humans, we've proven there is no afterlife, we've proven that humans are one branch of the primate tree and that we are all related to all other known life. People argue with me all the time, using various solipsistic type arguments to suggest we can't know anything besides our own existence, or things like that. I'll admit philosophically that stuff is true, but practically speaking it's worse than useless. And like I said, scientifically speaking this stuff is proven, firmly established. As well as any other scientific conclusion, like the Earth being approximately spherical, or matter being made of atoms. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(op): 9:09am On Mar 10, 2017 |
Russell's teapot Analogy coined by Bertrand Russell Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy, coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong. Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and in various other contexts. Origins of the analogy In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote: Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[2] In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.[3] Similar analogies Other thinkers have posited similar analogies.[improper synthesis?] For example, J. B. Bury notes the following in his 1913 book, History of Freedom of Thought: Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter.... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion.[4] Analysis Chemist Peter Atkins said that the point of Russell's teapot is that there is no burden on anyone to disprove assertions. Occam's razor suggests that the simpler theory with fewer assertions (e.g. a universe with no supernatural beings) should be the starting point in the discussion rather than the more complex theory.[5] Atkins states that this argument does not appeal to religious people because, unlike scientific evidence, religious evidence is said to be experienced through personal revelation that cannot be conveyed or objectively verified. In his books A Devil's Chaplain (2003) and The God Delusion (2006), ethologist Richard Dawkins used the teapot as an analogy of an argument against what he termed "agnostic conciliation", a policy of intellectual appeasement that allows for philosophical domains that concern exclusively religious matters.[6] Science has no way of establishing the existence or non-existence of a god. Therefore, according to the agnostic conciliator, because it is a matter of individual taste, belief and disbelief in a supreme being are deserving of equal respect and attention. Dawkins presents the teapot as a reductio ad absurdum of this position: if agnosticism demands giving equal respect to the belief and disbelief in a supreme being, then it must also give equal respect to belief in an orbiting teapot, since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being.[7] In 2014, philosopher Alvin Plantinga was quoted in The New York Times as challenging the validity of the Russell's Teapot argument: Clearly we have a great deal of evidence against teapotism. For example, as far as we know, the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if some country with sufficiently developed space-shot capabilities had shot this pot into orbit. No country with such capabilities is sufficiently frivolous to waste its resources by trying to send a teapot into orbit. Furthermore, if some country had done so, it would have been all over the news; we would certainly have heard about it. But we haven’t. And so on. There is plenty of evidence against teapotism.[8] Parody The concept of Russell's teapot has been extrapolated into more explicitly religion-parodying forms such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn[7] and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[9] 1960s musician and psychedelic poet Daevid Allen created his Planet Gong Universe and the Flying Teapot Trilogy around the idea of a Flying Teapot and refers to Russell's Teapot in his book Gong Dreaming. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(op): 8:53am On Mar 10, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:Two things here; * you just believe. That's OK, because believe in the Christian religion concept, don't require substantial evidence offering. *but now that you presented "substantial evidence" of lucid dream, you're delving into the irritating acts of most apologists here, who in one instance says it's by faith (no physical and substantial evidence is required) and in the same instance go ahead to argue that such claims by faith must be proved to be false, by atheists. A Google search on the neurophysiology basis of dream, will show you that it has nothing to do with "spiritual plane". |
| Christianity Etc › Re: In The Waiting - While I'm Waiting by akintom(m): 7:36am On Mar 10, 2017 |
Ranchhoddas:What else can i say. And just because it's natural to humans to forever continue to "dart Jesus", the entanglement gets increasingly fettered. This is the process that culminate in Christians, calling themselves "wretched criminals". This is after they have exhausted the hope, of ever attaining that illusionary state of "sinlessness". |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(op): 9:27pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:Using the religion that you belong, how do you connect to the spiritual plane? What nature is the consciousness in the spiritual plane? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(op): 6:55pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:I couldn't possibly be asking you for the dictionary meaning. Google will do it perfectly. I had asked you, based on your earlier proposition, that the existence of god can be evidenced by "spiritual" method. It's in relation to this, that i asked you, what this "spiritual" method is. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: In The Waiting - While I'm Waiting by akintom(m): 5:38pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
bennyann:Just the story type in childhood, that captured our innocent and pliable minds, into the illusion of Christian religion sphere. Man shall not make sense of his maturity, just by mind numbing doses of flushes alone, but by every rational thought. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(op): 5:18pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:The article is simple enough to understand the drift. My question to you is - *. What is spirit or spiritual? |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 (of 73 pages)