₦airaland Forum

tolujohnso:
Do u know the calibre of people who constitute his congregation? astute business men/women, successful professionals, etc who by all standards cannot be marooned by any scammer. The bulk of the tithe comes from them (no prejudice to widows mite givers whose giving God appreciates more). for years they ve continually given and aspire to even give more!
If they are not getting their "spiritual returns" as written in the Holy book, they would ve backed out long ago. that means it is actually working! not MMM or wonder bank, and the congregations are not stupid as u think.
BTW if it was that easy u can float another "Faith Tabernacle" and let's see how far u can go "mr Smart". I advise u desist from unwarranted bitterness and display of spiritual ignorance. Silence is your right; I advise u take it.
If u care to know, I'm a happy Tither, and I'm excited to tithe till d world ends. U may heed Akiolu's advice Lagoooooooooon -

Religious idiocy is no respecter of education or any other type of mental slant.

To your grossly limited religious mind, calling out tricks in the name of god idea, by oyedepo is bitterness. To you, illusions and delusions are spiritual knowledge, good for you, and keep it up.

When you have advised your already manipulated mind, then you will be rational sufficiently, to understand my thoughts.

tokuboeric:
Is it ur father's money? What is ur business? U can't go out there and face ur govt, yet u are give giving stories that touches... So u no Oyedepo story like dis na him u no go write book. May that ur fingers be rotten.

Oyedepo's indoctrination has obviously possessed you.

Now i remember how he used to brag about -

*pronouncing death sentence on his enemies,

*command diseases on those who challenges his illusionary authority,

What does all these evil utterances, from the mind that is full of abundance of evil wishes, tell of your man in faith tabernacle?

Now here you are, commanding a rotten finger.

Your minds are full of filths and horrendous wishes. This is one of the pointers to the inherent evil and primitiveness in religious beliefs.

karmak:
Is it the same oyedepo who had his wife marooned in finest hospital outside Nigeria, for stroke rehabilitation, for almost 2 years, yet lied to you folks that an imaginary skydaddy healed her?



my dear wake up! who told you that doctors have the power to heal? for your information, they only treat people with the wisdom given to them from the "skydaddy " (if you choose to Call God that) and He, God does the healing! if it were not so, was Yaradua not marooned in the finest hospital outside Nigeria? why wasn't he "rehabilitated"? Anyway sha, there's no need talking to you about this, May the eyes of your understanding be opened!

Why is your god a waster of time and resources?

If it indeed exist, why did hypertension took old of her in the first place?

Didn't she and oyedepo claimed that by the reason of rebellious death of the nazarene, they have immunity against all diseases?

And when stroke did struck, why didn't this imaginary scarecrow heal her straight away?

Now that science has sorted her out, your Jewish doG, somehow should be accorded undeserved credit abi?

You folks need help seriously!

4everGod:
Shut your mouth you liar! I am not a member of winners but know Oyedepo well enough to see your desperate lies about him. All you listed above are false.

Gradually you are beginning to experience a mental breakdown as an atheist due to your immense hatred for God. You began by calling God as god but now you have degenerated to doG....

When a man begins to stay awake at night shouting about something he says does not exist and muttering on the street about same and pounding his keyboard about same then Yaba left is about to locate his address.

Religious idiocy has a way of making folks loose touch with reality.

Someone who has no close touch with oyedepo, yet know that he's not inspired by works of atheists.

doG Avenger is hurt in the distal orifice badly.

For oyedepo, it's all about gimmicks and charade

For the 3 years that i followed up this trickster, from iyana-ipaja to ground breaking of faith tabernacle, i found a man that's totally subsumed mentally, in the psychological mechanisms, used in-

* Mental conditioning

* Suggestive mental control

* Auto-mind refrain etc

From his quotes and rhymes, it was conspicuously obvious that he had over read the following books:

*48 laws of power by Green

*awaken the giant in you by Anthony Robbins

*the unlimited power by Anthony Robbins

* laws of seduction

*acts of war etc

The most pitiable part of this mischievous acts of oyedepo is that, he never gave deserving references to these authors (most of whom are atheists).

He discouraged his members from reading the works of folks that can reveal his tricks, rather he made his books (largely inspired by the books of "sinners" ), to be monthly text, so that his control of their minds can be effective.

Religious folks need help!

saudyarmani:
You need to go for mental checkup....i can see how you have been mentality caged


I pray u don't bring doom on yourself with your negligence


when God is at work,everything works

Why not try your own gimmicks too and let's see how far it can take you

You sound frustrated and bittered

Sidon there,i can just shake my head for you cos you have lost you bearing

Poor you!

You certainly don't know or see beyond that mental illusion, inflicted on you by the Jewish doG and its merchants.

4everGod:
So much stupid in one person.

https://s2.quickmeme.com/img/13/13c1bd7228bb2961cd2355810f23f01e47aff7d7b6438e18f2e2da4758745335.jpg

This one lead the herd of sheepmaniacs, that claimed the sighting of Jewish doG.

Now the PRO of Mr oyedepo has arrived.

Now that you gloat, based on the gluttony of your liberator of the universe.

Your skydaddy must definitely be proud of you, as you rubbish its other sheep yard that are hungry and lack the sabiness of oyedepo's charade and gimmicks.

Am very sure you're among the crowd that was cheering oyedepo on, when he maliciously dehumanized that little girl, he delusionarily accused of witchcraft.

Am sure oyedepo will beam a crocodile smile, if that only daughter of his, is publicly battered and falsely victimized.

Is it the same oyedepo who had his wife marooned in finest hospital outside Nigeria, for stroke rehabilitation, for almost 2 years, yet lied to you folks that an imaginary skydaddy healed her?

The fake claims of oyedepo's faith healing, is complicating health of folks who swallowed his lies. You don't see these victims in your fashion parade gatherings, they are in the worst section of the hospital. No thanks to the magician in the tabernacle.

The money used for charity by oyedepo is from where?

Is it not from the folks he psychologically twisted?

The money and labor that put up the universities is from where?

Is it not from the sheepmaniacs?

You simply don't understand the ways of religious profiteers and merchants.

GrizzlyBear:
This is actually a serious question. Why doesn't God want to show himself to humanity? Is he shy? Or does he have insecurities about himself? Think about it, since the dawn of humanity, God has always been evasive regarding being seen. What's his deal? Is he insecure or something? I don't know if it's just me, but I think it would be easier for people to believe in him and escape eternal, excruciating damnation if he just outgrew his shyness and came out of hiding to reveal himself to everyone. This way, the human race would have a more equal plain of choice and freewill regarding believing in him or not.

I also have reason to think that God is gay. Think about it. All through the bible, he chose to have relationships with only men. Even when he wanted to conceive his son, he sent the holy spirit, cause he didn't want to do it himself. The only way he would have a relationship with women is through his son Jesus. Plus, he doesn't seem to have a wife, which is quite weird. So this sort of substantiates my hypothesis that he might be gay.

The combination of homosexuality and shyness doesn't really paint a model picture of the most powerful being in the entire universe whom everyone should devote their lives to.

The Jewish doG was sighted at the camp of illusion, located at lagos - ibadan express road and ota, ogun state, few days back.

Some of the junkies who were high, on the filth it fed them with, claimed it sweat blood, because of the pains inflicted on it by atheists.

softwerk:
And I warned this woman ohh

You know the woman?

mamatayour:
The woman do mistake no be small

Mistake? How?

Anas09:
You mean when you cast some demons into me? (That is if the demons can come close to look me in the eyes, not to talk of taking my body as a host).

I laugh at your delusion.

The jdv is gradually been banished from you now.... While Atheism is gradually possessing you.. Receive it now... Now... Now

Anas09:
You didn't say this, so you are forgiven. But the demons inside of you are not forgiven. Get yourself freed from the hold of these demons, they will end you up in hellfire with them.

You will become rationally oriented, after my sufficient administration of atheism into you.

It's the only cure for Jewish doG virus (jdv, Ratio-Suppressive virus).

On this day, god was finally discovered to have stopped raining manna.

winner01:
Is there actually such a thing as objective morality? Are right and wrong real things that all people at all times are obliged to obey or are they just matters of opinion? Was Adolph Hitler evil? If so, why and where did the standard he is judged by come from?

The moral argument for the existence of God tries to show that moral values must be objective and universal to make any sense. And if moral values are objective, the source must be a transcendent, personal being who is concerned with the actions of human beings. This is one of the most powerful arguments for God’s existence because all of us have a sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and the way things ought to be. The question is how to account for why that is.



RELATIVISM
There are two basic ways to view morality: as relative or as objective. The most widely held view in our culture is called relativism. Relativism holds that societies or individuals decide what is right and wrong and that those values vary from culture to culture or person to person. There
are no objective, universal moral truths—just conventions for behavior created by people and that are subject to change. There are three different forms of relativism: cultural relativism, conventionalism, and ethical subjectivism.


CULTURAL RELATIVISM
Cultural relativism is based on the observation that different cultures seem to have different values. And since they all have different value systems, there must be no right system, no objective morality. For example, some cultures, like Mexico, declare abortion to be abhorrent and have passed laws prohibiting it. Other cultures, like the United States, permit abortion as a legal option open to any pregnant woman for any reason. Still other cultures, like China, have actually required abortions under certain circumstances. Cultural relativism says that because
each culture is holding to its own view of morality, and because these views differ, there must be no objective morality.

There are several problems with this line of thinking. One is that observing how cultures behave is just that: observation and nothing more. At best, these observations are simply statements of fact. Morals are not descriptions of the way things are. Morals are prescriptions of the way things ought to be. Just because things are a certain way does not mean they should be that way. When Popeye says, “I am what I am” he is making a statement of fact, not a moral claim. If he said, “I ought to be what I am,” he would be making a moral claim.

Another problem with cultural relativism is its premise that different answers to a given question means there is no right answer. Just because Mexico, the United States, and China disagree on the issue of abortion does not mean there is no right or wrong approach to abortion. If two golfers disagreed on how many strokes one of them took on a hole, it does not mean there is no incorrect answer. Either both are wrong or one of them is right. They cannot both be right. When people disagree about morality, it does not mean that there is no objective morality.

Finally, let’s say someone disagrees with cultural relativism. If the cultural relativist is to remain consistent, they must agree that the fact that there is a disagreement means that there is no wrong view of moral theory. But as a cultural relativist they are claiming there is a correct view of moral theory and that other views are incorrect. As a result, they cannot live their own philosophy.

On the other hand, if the cultural relativist claims that the opposing view is a wrong way to think about the issue, then again they show they are not actually a relativist. Thus, cultural relativism cannot give an account of the basis of morality.




CONVENTIONALISM

The view that each society decides what is right and wrong for itself is called conventionalism. In contrast to cultural relativism, which says that there is no right or wrong answer, conventionalism claims there is a right and wrong, but it varies from society to society. The majority rules and morality becomes simply what is legal.

If conventionalism is true, the results are counterintuitive and very hard to live out. For example, let’s say a law was passed that made having blue eyes illegal and that the penalty for having blue eyes is death. There would not only be nothing immoral about the law, but it would in fact be immoral to have blue eyes!

But we don’t need to invent absurd hypothetical situations to see what a conventionalist society would look like. Conventionalism was the philosophy of Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Thus, when the Nazis declared Jews to be sub-human and deserving of death, there was no recourse for the Jews. The law by definition was “moral.” The large community of countries who protested were ignored. After all, what grounds did they have to critique German society? As a result six million Jews were systematically killed. And the defense given by Nazis tried at Nuremberg was conventionalism. “It couldn’t have been wrong, it was the law,” they said. “We were only following orders.”

One of conventionalism’s problems is that it leaves no room for society to be reformed. If society defines morality, then a person who protests against the laws of that society is, by definition, immoral and criminal. If a society were to change a law it would not change from immoral to
moral or from unjust to just. The law could only change from one rule to another, it would simply be different, not better or worse.

Think about what this means: if conventionalism is true then people like Gandhi, Jesus, and William Wilberforce would be among the most egregious criminals that ever lived! Their crime? They thought society could be changed for the better. The criminalization of such
moral reformers is, of course, wildly counterintuitive and helps show the bankruptcy of the conventionalist view.

Ultimately, conventionalism is about power, not morality. Whichever way the wind blows, the will of the majority is what is moral. Like a gang of bullies forcing into submission those who would dare oppose them, conventionalism forces its preferences on everyone by defining itself into power. And like cultural relativism, this fails to account for morality.



ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM

The most widespread form of relativism is ethical subjectivism. In this view, individuals decide what is right and wrong for themselves and themselves only. Morality is nothing more than personal preference and opinion. “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.”

One of the major problems with ethical subjectivism has to do with language. Conversation about values and moral topics becomes completely incoherent. No longer could anyone say something was right or wrong with any meaning. The best you could say is, “I choose not to do that because it is wrong for me,” or “I do not prefer that.” An ethical subjectivist could not meaningfully call the terrorist attacks on September 11 evil or wrong. And they could not call the rescue workers good or heroic and make any sense. When an ethical subjectivist makes a statement about the morality of an event or action they are not talking about anything other than their opinion of it, not about the thing itself.

The fatal flaw in this view is that it is clearly self-refuting. Again consider the statement, “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.” The statement makes no sense. It says that truth claims only apply to the person making them. The problem is that if this statement is true it applies to everyone, which, of course means the statement is false!

A very effective way to expose the bankruptcy of Ethical Subjectivism is by using examples of obvious moral clarity that apply to all people at all times in all places. “Torturing babies for fun is wrong,” is a well-known example. When confronted with this statement, an ethical subjectivist
would then be in the unenviable position of having to argue against it. They may not personally think it is right, but they could not say it is wrong and be consistent. Just imagine what kind of people this system produces. In this system an ethical subjectivist must walk past a rape in
action since they cannot condemn it for anyone but themselves. An ethical subjectivist must allow trespassers into their home, thieves to burgle it, and arsonists to burn it as long as the trespassers, thieves, and arsonists don’t believe their acts are wrong. But nobody lives this way. Or do they?

One way to judge a moral system is to look at the kind of heroes the system produces. Take the objective moral stance of the Judeo-Christian view. The heroes are many and mighty: Jesus, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr. immediately come to mind.

But what kind of hero best exemplifies ethical subjectivism? Lived consistently, it produces moral monsters, people who see no need to care about others, and are unaccountable to anything but their preferences. Jack the Ripper. Ted Bundy. Albert Fish (one of the inspirations for Hannibal Lector). Ed Gein (the inspiration for Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and the Buffalo Bill character in Silence of the Lambs). These are the heroes of ethical relativism.




OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Morals are not opinions or personal, private decisions. And they are not descriptions of behavior. They are prescriptions for behavior and motives that have the force of a command. They have a sense of obligation and oughtness that is universal, authoritative and applies to all people in all places at all times.

One way we come to moral knowledge is directly. We know it through intuition. This immediate knowledge is important because some things are only known in themselves. No investigation of facts or reasoning is required. This is precisely what is demonstrated by clear case examples like, “Torturing babies for fun is wrong.” Nobody has to investigate this claim before they can take a moral stance on it. Our intuition enables us to recognize it as self-evident. Just because we have a moral intuition does not mean we do not have to develop it, however. Even though we have an intuition for logic, we still have to cultivate a reasonable mind to better act on that intuition. The same is true with moral intuition; we have to cultivate our minds to be sensitive to it and to act on it.


There are several ways to show that all people, even self-professed relativists, actually believe in objective morality at their core. As we have seen, one way is through clear case examples. These examples don’t have to be confined to outlandish claims like the torture example. Often
conversations present opportunities to make this point in a much more personal way.

Christian thinker Francis Schaeffer was a master at this. He once had a conversation with several students, one of whom disagreed with Schaeffer’s moral objectivism. The student claimed there was ultimately no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty. Another student who was listening decided to put that belief to the test. He picked up a teakettle full of boiling water and held it over the first student’s head as if he were about to pour it onto the student. He then said, “There is no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty.” The first student realized that in his worldview he could not object to the threat and got up and left the room disillusioned. What makes these kinds of situations so powerful is that they are opportunities to take the conversation out of the abstract and put into the everyday world we all live in. In this light, the force of the objectivist position is undeniable no matter how hard someone tries to resist it.

Another way of exposing objectivism in a relativist is to discover their passion and relativize it. Let us say, for example, a relativist believed deeply in animal rights. A moral objectivist could tell the relativist how he is trying to find a new shampoo and just tested out a couple brands
by rubbing the shampoo into the eyes of a dog to see if there was any adverse reaction. The relativist will betray what they say they believe and object to these actions. And rightly so. But by objecting they demonstrate the reality of moral objectivism: moral laws are not personal opinions.

So, objectivism stands as the only coherent view of morality and the only way that can be consistently lived out.

At this point in the argument, all that has been shown is that there are very good reasons for believing that objective morality exists. Two questions now arise: “Where did morals come from?,” and, “Why should we obey them?” To find the source we should look at the characteristics of morality. Morality is:
• Prescriptive
• A command
• Universal
• Objective
• Authoritative


Prescriptions and commands are forms of communication, and communication happens only between minds. Also, because morals deal with purpose and will, the source of morality must also have purpose and a will. Because morals are universal and transcend individuals, societies,
and time, the source must be universal and transcendent. Since morals are authoritative they must come from an authority, and authority can only be held by a person. Finally, this person must have the power to impose his moral will on us and provide us with an ability to know their moral will through intuition. Thus, morals come from a transcendent person who has the power and authority to impose a moral law on us. And we call this person God.

Another indication of where morals come from is found in what happens when we violate the moral law. We’ve all ignored our moral intuition and done what we know is wrong, and the result has been guilt. Sometimes it is obvious to us whom we feel guilty towards. At other times the object of our guilt is not so clear, like when our guilt stems from our own thoughts or motives.

To whom do we feel guilty then? The answer is in the question: “whom,” not “what.” We feel guilty towards persons not objects. And we do not just feel guilt toward the person we deceived or harmed, but we understand the law came from someone, not something, and we feel guilt towards that person.

But is something good just because God says it is or is there a standard that God is using? If something is good because God says it is then the standard is arbitrary since it could have been something other than what it is. Or if God uses something outside himself as a standard to judge
things, then God is truly God since he relies on something outside himself. Either way is a fatal flaw against the claim that God is the source of morality. However, those are not the only options.
A third option says that things are good because they reflect God’s nature and character. God’s character is the standard of goodness and his preferences are extensions of his character, not arbitrary decrees. Because God does not change the standard does not change. And because the standard is internal God is not dependent on anything outside himself.

The argument from morality for the existence of God can be made in a couple of ways. A modest case uses it along with other arguments as only one part of a whole case. Others have made transcendental arguments with it. This approach asks what the necessary preconditions are for objective morality and argues that only the God of the Bible can account for it. This is obviously a more ambitious take on the argument, but it can be extremely effective. Both methods rely on the same claim: that objectivism is the only coherent view of morality and the only view of morality that can be lived consistently. And it points very strongly towards the existence of a transcendent, powerful, personal God.




Source; Apologeticbible.com


cc; KingEbukasBlog, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman

This trash was told the primitive and cavemen, that were descendants of Abraham about 5000 years ago.

It's sickly to imagine folks in 21st century, still romancing this filth.

No moral bankrupt entities, compares with those infected with the evil virus, called Jewish doG.

PDBonline:
Take God out of reasoning and NOTHING is ultimately meaningful-

*Time
*Matter
*Space
*Morals
*Compassion
*Justice
*Life
*Death
*Education
*Friendship
*Government
*Capitalism
*Communism
*Pain
*Pleasure...

Nothing will be meaningful and your arguments will only be based on another meaningless variable: your view/opinion.

Religious folks definitely live in another mental realm, that has been defined as chronic delusion.

If not, a god that has effectively been revealed to be irrelevant and non existent in all areas of human endeavors, will not still be reckoned with.

So pathetic and pitiable life of certain specie.

[quote author=balanceofterror1 post=51913272][/quote]Now you're speaking to your feet..... You definitely can't have a rational or reasonable response to the perforation of your misty beliefs.

The very act of eyes and ears closure, to thoughts outside religion, is the perfect drug required by religious profiteers, to continually keep folks high on religious idiocy.

PDBonline:
Emperical evidence like what? Are you already assuming
1. that there must be a particular way to identify God different from what you consider as not enough evidence

2. that with your current mindset you will recognize the existence of God if all "evidences" are presented to you?

3. that God is under obligation to subject Himself to your reasoning whereas you have no obligation to seek Him as Someone worth knowing personally and a very important Treasure to find? etc



Get serious. If anyone thinks he needs better education, he gets ready to give it what it takes. The school and knowledge will not come to you, you are an active participant. That's how life is.
And you don't seek an information that you've already concluded doesn't exist. Do you?

Just like getting an education to accept the worldview of schizophrenic folk i guess.

It's an abuse and total dérogation of natural sense and formal education, to begin to pursue a mere Anecdotes of folks drunk with myths and legendaries. With the intent of making any useful sense of their mental twistry.

Like it's been told you, to continue to carry on with mindset that knows for facts, that religious and god ideas are mere anachronistic propositions, tells of a mind given to mischief, insincerity, fraud, wickedness and extreme psychopathy.

balanceofterror1:
GOD all the way.

How about folks who pokes your god, and yet have more pleasant lifestyle than religiously gullible?

balanceofterror1:
You missed it, it's not by financial, material or earthly possessions that you know who's a Christian. You should bear in mind that prosperity isn't answerable by fasting and prayers alone but by given; (Luke 6:38 says Give and it shall be given unto you...). Any body who operates on this principle of giving unconditionally shall prosper. But the best prosperity is the prosperity of the soul, that's been born again. What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul in HELL. A true child of God does not influence prise to get riches but an Atheist can do it, this is also another FACTOR.

This is the gimmicks Mr oyedepo plays on folks, to swindle them of their money, to furnish his luxurious lifestyle.

This biblical verse being used by oyedepo and his likes, to manipulate and condition folks minds, to sheepishly part with their scarce resources, is a mere truism of life.

If you sow/give your time to critical and productive thinking, plan based on the thoughts and act consistently on your plans, you will definitely get a satisfactory result/success/prosperity.

The idea of god is irrelevant and non existent in this natural quest. Religious obscurantists introduced god factor, into this to merely swindle the gullible folks.

balanceofterror1:
Any Christian that dies of hunger is a lazy Christian and should not blame God. God taking care of one doesn't mean that God will throw food from Heaven to you. God can take care of you by connecting you to a lucrative job or business and it will be your responsibility to take care of that which God have provided for you. If you mismanaged it you're on your own.

Is god required to think and work?

DoctorAlien:
What was Jesus' net worth when He was on earth? Can you tell me?

The Christian prays "give me this day my daily bread." GOD takes care of His children daily.

The greatest benefit of Christianity lies not in possessing money(which is the root of all evil), but in being at peace with GOD and having an assurance of Heaven.

If the GREATEST benefit of Christianity lies in being at peace with god and having an assurance of Heaven, what are the other benefits?

From this your greatest benefit assertion, which to me is the ONLY motivation, as against benefit.

it's once again confirmed by a religious folk, that religion is just a mere psychological mechanism by which folks try to escape irrational fears of "what's next" after death.

Being unable to provide a mentally satisfactory answers, to what's next after death, creates irrational fear induced unrest in the minds of folks, it's the god idea, that provides the illusionary rest/peace of mind.

What Is the Most "Godless" City on Earth?

December 10, 2016 by PAUL RATNER

Whether you fervently believe in a deity or flat our reject any religious teachings, opting for an atheist mindset, chances are you would rather be surrounded by like-minded people.

Outside of the extreme religious control exercised by ISIS or the state-mandated atheism of countries like North Korea, most places are somewhere in between on the religiosity scale. But if you wanted to know what is the most "godless" place you can live, where would you go?

This place is most likely a city, at least according to how some scientists have described atheists.

“Those with no religious affiliation have been found to be younger, mostly male, with higher levels of education and income, more liberal, but also more unhappy and more alienated from wider society,” said Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, professor of psychology at the University of Haifa, about atheists in a psychological profile.

To biopsychologist and author Nigel Barber, these people are more likely to be in a major population center, and not a rural area, because cities tend to be more prosperous, and as such their inhabitants will feel less need for religion. In fact, he thinks that by 2038 most countries will have less than 50% of their populace thinking that religion is important to them, crossing what he calls “the atheist threshold”.

What are some places that have already passed this point?

In a WIN/GALLUP survey from 2015, China was declared the world's least religious country, with twice the amount of “convinced atheists” (at 61%) than any other country. Following it was Japan at 31% and the Czech Republic at 30%. In general, Western Europe was the least religious area according to the survey, with 51% of the population either not religious or decidedly atheist. Scandinavia, in particular, often leads the way in such polls, as Sweden, Denmark and Norway have large populations of non-believers.

What about specific cities?

Berlin has been called the “atheist capital of Europe” since 60% of Berliners do not associate with any religion.

As far as the U.K. is concerned, according to a 2011 Census, Norwich had the most people (42.5%) marking “no religion”. This is compared with 25.1% for the whole of England and Wales.

In the U.S., the American Bible Society’s rankings for 2016 point to Albany/Schenectady/Troy area in New York State as being the least “Bible-minded,” which means only 10% of the respondents there read the Bible in the last week and lead their lives accordingly. Boston was the least Bible-minded city in the survey, with just 11% of its population having the book as a part of their lives.

The most Bible-friendly city? Chattanooga, Tennessee. Not surprisingly, the South leads the U.S in religiosity, with cities in Tennessee, Alabama, Virginia and Louisiana topping the chart.

In a separate survey, the 2016 Public Religion Research Institute identified Portland, Seattle and San Francisco as the least religious cities in America, with 37% of the people there practicing no religion. Boston was number 8 in their findings.

So what is the least religious city in the world? While the numbers could surely vary based on how you define religiosity, the largest city in China, the least religious country in the world, would likely be the most atheist population center in the world. And that would be Shanghai, a city of 24 million people of whom 86.9% say they are not affiliated with any religion. That could amount to about 21 million atheists.

PDBonline:
Are you acknowledging that you lack capacity to know God exist by yourself? That's understandable and reasonable than claiming God doesn't exist. After all, we didn't know many things we now know about our own Galaxy centuries ago until we had the capacity (Telescopes and so on) to acquire such knowledge. The later claim is simply unscientific and equally irrational.

Stop all this childish rathole.

You folks premised the evidence of the existence of your God, on known variables (completely subjective for that matter).

But a scientific observation of these variables showed mere illusion and delusion.

We demanded an empirical evidence, all you folks have been fooling around is bulk passing.

PDBonline:
1. God is MY Father and MY God. I know Him personally

2. Because the more I reason and discuss with atheists, the more the foolishness of atheism hits me. Pardon me if you are an atheist. Just sharing my personal observation.

3. Because I rely on the grace of God to keep me from deception and God has been faithful to show me the errors of my mind at my down times.

The deed is already done in the lives of theists here.

Doubt has effectively been cast on the baseless religious beliefs

Now some of theists have deleted their account here, so they wouldn't be won over by atheism.

Some who still hang around are avoiding Atheist's threads like plague

Some read Atheist's thread but dare not comment.

This op is almost taken over by atheistic thoughts. What he's doing now is confession against the mindset of atheism. That's what oyakhilome taught them. Keep saying it, don't stop saying it.....

DoctorAlien:
The catholic church has succeeded in lying in the Name of GOD. They claim to belong to GOD but all of their practices are in direct rebellion against GOD and His Law.

The Pope, a mere mortal, parades himself as GOD. He deludes himself that he is "infallible." The pope claims that he is God on earth. He claims that he has the power to change divine laws and precepts, and even the teachings of Christ. What more do you need to see that the pope is the little horn of Daniel 7 which speaks blasphemy against the Most High GOD?

The catholic church slaughtered over 150 million saints of GOD during the dark ages(Guess why it was called dark? Because catholic oppression suppressed any dissident and opposing views to the church. She never allowed science flourish, and killed many people for daring to say that the earth revolves round the sun).

There is hardly anything taught in the Catholic church that has a biblical basis: nothing!

"...Come out of her, my people, and be ye separate..." Rev. 18:4

Am not only amused at how religious folks, especially Christians jumped at vilifying others hypocritically, i also get more evidence of how debilitating the idea of religion is to intelligence and reasoning.

The Abrahamic god instructed, superintended and took glory for infanticide, genocide, slavery and all kinds of atrocities.

Which is worst?

A god who claimed it's loving and good, yet committed all these heinous crimes.

Or

Roman government who was simply using religion to expand its conquered lands?

The Catholic Church knows far more than the other Judeo-Christian groups, that in the first place streamed from it.

The Catholic Church picked and compiled the Bible that is being used today.

There are thousands of other books by Judeo-Christian prophets, disciples and converts, that were not included in the bible.

In these other books, are a lot of ideas and concepts, that really reveals the Judeo-Christian religion as a mere ancient religion of the Jews.

The Roman government, who used Judeo-Christian religion as a political tool, never expected that it will expanded from literariness, to this grand mysticism dimensions, that it's taking today, especially of the Pentecostal faction.

The concept of Saint or sainthood was designed by the Catholic, for the selected religious obscurantists, who have the duty to preserve the deception contrapted as Judeo-Christian religion.

Taking literarily, no single Christian is a Saint. It's all confession and affirmation of religious creed, that bear no practical effects.

joywendy:
Please these doesn't make any sense to me.

So you think the better time to pass across your message is during terrible situations like this? What makes you different from the theist who assume something similar when it happens in a bar or when them homos are killed?

People died for Pete's sakes! It wont change people's opinion either ways and their eyes won't open no matter what you try to say to convince them that it was as a result of their own hands.

It just shows one has a person who lacks basic empathy for other people. When you use a bad situation to remedy yourself and prove you are right then off course there is something wrong somewhere.

If you were involved in this case, directly or indirectly...Will you go about saying what you are saying here to your folks at home? Won't you at least consider that saying such will be offensive in such moments? Do you think they will listen? of course not....

Empathy and sympathy are needed in the society for a reason. Don't go around doing what you won't like others doing to you to other people all in the name of passing across a point

If you ever know or understand the place of manipulative shock therapy, in mental conditioning, you will comprehend my gist.

Empathy does have different meaning, to the different folks who romances it.

Whatever is left of religious rituals now, are mere social ceremonies.

A look at most of the religious centers today revealed the following:

* dress sense that competes with red carpet event, club house and jamboree.

* comedy show draws attendance now. Even when such comedy ridicules religion, it doesn't matter anymore.

* business seminars, leadership talks, and financial empowerment lectures are regular features. Atheists are sometimes resource person.

* fetish materials (oil, water, emblematic white cloth, arm band etc) are offered like traditional religionist. Herbalist and witch doctors are now comfortable in churches.

* divination and Oracle consultation has gone ICT. No more dirty shrines and effigy.


All these are effectively reducing religion to social concepts, as against some mysterious concept that hurts human good and prosperity.

This is the the meaning of the religious wall that's falling.....

joywendy:
*coughs* I saw this somewhere and I totally relate with it. Since I saw this thread, I just knew it will be good to put it here



Sometimes ago, I shared a post of a friend on emotional intelligence. The Uyo church tragedy and the comments from my Facebook friends truly show Nigerians have a lot of emotional intelligence "growing up" to do.

If the mishap had occurred in say a beer palour, night club, or strip club, many religious people wouldn't have wasted time and thoughtlessly say : "na God catch them". Using the misery, misfortune and tragedy of others to score cheap religious points.

Sadly, same applies to atheist. I've read several post from my atheist friends on Facebook, mocking the dead, asking where their God was when the tragedy happened and other silly sort of comments. It's uncalled for and totally wrong.

Where is your empathy for fellow humans. Lives were lost and you see the tragedy as an avenue to score cheap points in furthering your atheism? Well you lack common sense and have a lot of emotional growing up to do.

To the senseless survivals of the tragedy who waste no time to update their Thanksgiving on Facebook, Ini Edo and co, you are all emotionally retarded and insensitive to the misfortunes of others and have a lot of growing up to do.

I speak for myself as an atheist.

What better time to sensitize folks, against handing the responsibility of their safety, to an imaginary fairy creature?

What better time to sensitize folks, against the belief that there exists a god that intervenes in human experience?

What a better time to sensitize authority, against some religious leaders, who take liberty to put folks in hazard and peril path?

What better time to sensitize religious folks, that they will be held responsible for malicious act?

Condolences have been offered to the bereaved, at the appropriate forum, by those who bear such responsibility.

RabbaRabbi:
this guy has never for once speak sensibly on this forum.
akintom, think beforr you write...

To the deluded mind, sense is nonsensical!

It's a season of excitement for the atheists world over, as they behold the continuous crumbling of the religious wall that has caged humanity in idiocy, hate, malice, racism, primitiveness, terrorism, patricide, genocide, time and money waste etc.

Just like the legendary fall of the wall of Jericho, the atheists have been matching round the wall of religion, armed with the sword of physical science, spear of reasons and empiricism, and recently, with the trumpet of ICT.

The projection of atheism via the sounding of reason through ICT, has dealt the final Missile against religious wall, and it's fast tumbling down, across the globe.

Not too long ago, a cartoonist in Denmark caressed one the characters of the Abrahamic religion, some folks in northern Nigeria went murderous.

But now worst depiction of religious characters litters the virtual spaces, even from dominantly religious nations, no human beings is harassed or attacked. What happens now, are isolated cases of religious extremism.

This shows the quest of atheism, via secularism is permeating the world. The religious footholds are been demolished across the world.

A bishop will think twice now, before he slaps or assault an innocent girl, in the name of delusionary and false allegations of being a witch.

Most of the witch-hunting pasto-herbalist, are now vetted before they can preach in western nations. It's an offense to victimize or accuse children and women as witches in those places.

Some of these witch-hunters no longer find this nations attractive for spread of their superstitions. And when they are compelled to go, they have nothing useful to say.

..... Wall of religion is falling