₦airaland Forum

I didn't notice that you had identified @hopefulLandlord's plagiarism before I made my post above. This might be the first time that I'll ever agree with you on anything; thumbs up for identifying the blatant plagiarism (even though I agree with the content of the post itself).

KingEbukaNaija:
Please tell us to continue reading here and don't post this rigmarole again .
https://www.quora.com/Where-do-atheists-get-their-morality
Its a shame that you need another atheist's view to understand where you stand on morality . Logical thinkers indeed

Dude, you shamelessly plagiarized this post and your subsequent post from this eloquent Quora answer. I was going to commend you for the fine writing, but this is very fúcked up. Plagiarism is intellectual laziness. Plagiarism is dishonesty. Plagiarism is willful incompetence. FYI: I am atheist as well but I can't stand plagiarism.

hopefulLandlord:
Umm... I'd say only atheists can have meaningful moral opinions. "Because god said it is a sin" is not a meaningful opinion. Religion takes the meaning out of morality. When religious people are thoughtfully moral, it is usually in spite of their religious belief, not because of it.
Arguing that something is wrong because it is a "sin," as David Foster Wallace once wrote in a different context, is like arguing that murder is wrong because it is against the law. It's a circular, deeply superficial and content-free argument. You merely substitute one word for another ("sin" for "wrong".
To the extent that the religious go beyond "god said it is a sin" they are actually appealing to fundamentally atheist moral arguments. For example, "because it causes pain to others" is actually an atheist argument, not a religious one. When religious people use it in some form ("god said it is a sin, because it causes pain" they are bolstering the weakness in the divine notion of sin. The god clause in the above example is actually superfluous. "Because it causes pain" has the same content.
The only way religious people can make their arguments deeper without using atheist reasoning is to appeal to the afterlife and some sort of calculus of beyond life reward and punishment. In my opinion this is actually a lousy way to deepen the argument (even ignoring the fact that there is no reason to believe it to be true) because it places notions of wrong and morality into an extrinsic motivation framework. You should not kill or rape because even if you get away, you'll be punished with eternal hellfire? Really? That's the best you can come up with? You should be kind to the unfortunate because you'll get booze and women in heaven? Really? That's "meaningful" morality? It's the reverse. It empties behavior of even its natural moral meaning. Even without reading deep ethics tomes, a small child will be kind to a crying friend. Putting religion in that child's head is equivalent to taking that natural unreasoning empathy out.
How do you actually make the argument deeper (for instance by asking, "why is causing pain wrong?"? You have to go where no truly religious people will go. To subjects like evolution.
For instance, we can understand "pain" through evolutionary notions of empathy, cooperation and reciprocal trust and get to a point in the analysis where we don't even need the word "wrong." Only within a Darwinian framework can we even talk about what the existence of rape among dolphins implies for the corresponding human behavior, because we understand at some level that our model has to cover both cases (since there is no artificial distinction elevating man above animals for atheists).
This allows atheists to analyze and apply the "don't cause pain" in much deeper ways than religious people. For example the religious usually make humans out to be special and don't usually care much for animal pain. In fact, one religious guy I know argued, "but God put the animals on the earth for us to eat!" What do you get as a result? Factory farming. A military-industrial complex of horrendous pain-creation justified by some notion of humans having dominion over animals by divine sanction. Yes, I assign a significant proportion of the blame for things like factory farming to religious notions of morality.
The religious are also less likely to understand and apply practical notions of deterrent pain and more likely to cause more pain than necessary. The religious might believe in some notion of divine symbolism and symmetry (an eye for an eye, or cutting off the hand of a thief, or stoning an adulterer or pretending that killing in war and capital punishment are somehow different from murder) in their pain calculus.

While I appreciate the "work hard" advice that you provide, there's a whole lot of shít wrong with Nigeria. There are such few jobs for the large number of employable young people in the country. The lack of electricity makes it very difficult to start and sustain a small business with minimal capital. Our education system is horrible; it is hard to find a university graduate that can write down one paragraph without a few grammatical errors!

The OP doesn't have to have done anything wrong to not have found a job. So I recommend you don't automatically blame him. Yes, Naija is about "survival of the fittest" but it is also "survival of the slimiest" or "survival of the most connected"! Anyways, I get your gist but I think you should mix your advice with compassion and a recognition of the sickness of our country.

Nonetheless I agree with you; the OP also needs to develop (or continue developing) marketable skills and do something that will fetch him even small money. Your suggestion of teaching (even if temporarily) is not a bad idea; he could find a private primary or secondary school somewhere to teach for. cc:Daewoods

Ubah1:
Nothing is wrong with the country, lets change our mentality... That people are complaining that the country is bad shouldn't make you complain. There are many people getting jobs day by day. You can be one of them. So stop the complain, look at what you doing wrong that's making you not to get feedback from companies, try updating ur cv more, then keep applying... Its all abt survival of the fittest. But don't stay idle, there are many teaching jobs that will fetch you small money. Wish you the very best!

What do you mean by "I'm very good in computers"? What exactly about computers are you good at? Do you know how to code?

Daewoods:
I'm very good in computers, softwares and hardware,, it's my hobby actually.
Good in administration, customer relations services, also have little professional skills and experience based on courses studied.
But I know and believe I can fit into any field, except fields that have to do with core numerical and quantitative analysis such as engineering, accounting etc thanks

naijadeyhia:
See this small girl. ...

I normally stay away from insulting people on this thread BUT you must have a very small mind to have called her a "small girl". The person you are calling a "small girl" is obviously very bright, from her posting history about science. Instead of calling her a low-key sexist name, you could have just responded rationally.

naijadeyhia:
I also live in a world loaded with bacteria and I have a genotype of AA but for 20yrs I have never ever been ill or even taken any single form of medication including paracetamol.

In the era of conjunctivitis someone who had it once said hey if she looks at me I will be infected and I challenged her to take fluid from her eyes and in mine and she did. 2 days later she was free of her own Apolo and I never got it till date.

I do not fall ill simple and it took me having faith in the word of God that the spirit of God has been given to me to quicken my mortal body. I am grooming my kid who is also AA on this as anytime he falls ill I simply command the sickness to leave him and enter me and funny enough it does within a day but also within a day it clears off.

Sickness cannot survive in my body. Disease causing bacteria also cannot.

I am willing to submit myself to u for scientific research and you will discover that my Genotype Is physically AA but spiritually JC (Jesus Christ).

Now you wish to Query God regarding Bacteria when you have been unable to query science regarding their inconclusive declaration per evolution which you helped them to complete.

So if the reason why you haven't contracted these ailments is because of your faith in Yahweh, then why doesn't your god protect babies from bacterial infections or genetic disorders? Are they not as worthy as you are?

Or better yet, instead of using sickness and disease-causing bacteria to prove the potency of your faith, why not use a test that cannot be falsified? E.g. stand in front of a trailer moving at 120km/h and see if the potency of your faith would still work? To be fair, this is just a thought experiment and I would definitely suggest you NOT try it because we both know that your god won't protect you from Newton's Laws of Motion.

Another unfalsifiable test is to chop off your hand and pray for your god to grow it back? Once again, I would definitely suggest you NOT try this because we both know that your god won't grow back an amputated hand!

There's absolutely nothing wrong with premarital sex as long as it is between two consensual partners.

I am not a fan of abortions, and while I see it as an ethically thorny issue, it is not as cut and dry as you think. You say it is murder, but I would opine that it is full of moral grey areas. For example, is it wrong to kill a single fertilized egg? At what age does an embryo ethically become equivalent a full-fledged human being? These questions are critical ethical questions that can't be sufficiently & meaningfully addressed if the sole response is "abortion is murder".

I respect the OP's decision to abort, it was probably the best decision she could have made in her situation.

Also, this is a reminder to always use condoms to avoid most STIs (you can get herpes even with a condom on) and pregnancy. With a trusted and STI-tested monogamous partner, use birth control at the minimum. I would even advise using birth control and condoms if you are not in any way ready to get pregnant or get an STI.

jusRadical:
You did not commit any abortion. Rather, you commited murder.

Continue to open your legs to a man who has not put a ring on you. When we speak against premarital sex, you people call us all soughts of names.

Now enjoy.

Your parents who are encouraging you to engage in pre-marital sex ought to be flogged.

This is one of the best pieces of advice to a young atheist, ever. You are such an empathetic person, @gameaddict.

gameaddict:
Atheists or those questioning their faith are usually advised to keep their status secret while they are still dependent on their parents or other family members.

You should not reveal your preference/status from a point of view which puts those you depend upon on the defensive. Don't even try to create religious arguments if the result is to prove them wrong immediately. Always start with simple, non argumentative questions, learn about their stance. If they appear to be dogmatic, be extra careful.

If OP isn't dependent on his/her parents, no need to worry. Stop arguing religion with them, stop making fun of them if you are, instead, start asking questions (smart questions that makes them feel like you really want to learn) and listen to what they have to say. Tell them you will think about it and do. You don't need to come back with something that makes them look foolish, instead, point out that their point may be valid but non universal, etc, and put in your own experience and why you have your own views. Don't argue, strive for peace.

If OP is still dependent however, keep things on the down low. If you've told them they are wrong, misinformed etc, apologise. Tell them you are sorry and would love to learn about their perspectives but that you won't like to be forced to accept what they believe without giving you explanations on why they believe it and time to consider their explanations.

If they tell you that the bible or Quran is the only proof they need, don't argue. Tell them about the history of how books like the bible and Quran were written, the oral traditions and time lags, the difficulties in translation, the differences in opinion/translation and tell them that is why you have trouble believing it immediately. If they are smart parents who are capable of learning, they will understand and also try to learn why you think the way you do. If they are dogmatic however, shut up, participate in non-harmful events they force you to, bide your time, and one day, you'll be independent and free to do what you like.

Excellent suggestion! I'm currently reading the book and I'm almost done.

spacyzuma:
You're smart. +1000
If you can, please find and read this amazing book: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. You'd learn a lot about humans and how we believe the things we do.

OP, what's with the copy and paste article na? Why not on your own write a response that directly addresses and/or refutes @Hardmirror's thread?

oweniwe:
That shows you're very ignorant.

If aeroplane as big as five storey buildings can fly, an horse... Even elephants will fly if they have suitable wings.

Dragons existed up to the 14th century before they went extinct. Do your research well.

If you go into the forests you will see species that science have not even classified....

Try and think outside your brain ... It has nothing to do wth being a Christian or religion.

If the pyramids in Egypt could be built without cranes and steel rods.... If they could build free standing obelisks as tall as skyscrappers and the obelisks are even still standing today in Rome ... Then tower of babel was definitely real... And it is very possible for noah to have built that ark.

The climate of those times is definitely not d same we have now.

My grandpa told me that when he was a teen, there were 22 hours in a day and not 24hours we presently have..

Try think outside your brain.

lwkmd. Please tell me you are just trolling for laughs. Most of what you have posted in this thread doesn't make sense. I really suspect you are just trying to deliver us some humor.

Why can't you make your point without calling me an idiot? I taya for you o. Do you really claim to follow Jesus? And you are going to heaven? Smh.

I won't respond to your arguments against evolution because evolution is fact.

blueAgent:
Evolution is a scam.

Man came from Ape. yet we still have Apes
why have they not transformed to man?
Fishes came from birds. how logical are this
claims? since we know each animal is well
designed to fit into their Habitant.so where
did the scales,fins,gills come from?how long
does Evolution take for it to occur? millions
of years i guess. but Since we know that the
oldest Man or animal cannot live pass 150
yrs. so when did your Evolmadness occur?
when the organisms are dead? idiots like the
one am quoting will believe all this lies.

@winner01, we are not enemies so chill out on the anger. Let's just try to have a civil debate. Also, your posts are extremely long I feel like you are just filibustering me; for this reason I can respond only to your most important points.

winner01:
Can you provide a biblical reference of the earth being 6000 years old? .

Genealogy from Adam to Jesus.

winner01:
God could have created the universe in a state that “appears” to give it a very long age.

This idea is no different from last thursdayism; it is not logically defensible.

winner01:
Can you also give examples of fields discovered by atheists (not innovations) in our age at least.

I already responded to why these correlational arguments carry no weight.

winner01:
Maybe you should state the percentage of atheist scientists and stop trying to sound reasonable when you're not.

41% of American scientists are atheist, compared to 4% of the general public. The 41% number does not include irreligion or those who are deist, it is specifically atheists. Ten times more American scientists are atheist than the general public.

winner01:
My data is cherry-picked? This exactly is why i didnt want to reply you initially. Once you cant disprove something, you pass it off as false? Well, i'm sorry for offending you with my facts .

Facebook posts, conservapedia articles, and anecdotes from random people are not credible or generalizable sources.

winner01:
What is the science of evolution? That elephants evolved into whales, or that dogs evolved into dolphins?

You don't believe that evolution is true, ok.

winner01:
You know why you have lost this already.

I don't argue to win, I state the facts and hope to learn from others. I love to be swayed by objective arguments.

winner01:
Either you like it or not, Christianity will continue to put smiles on peoples faces. Answers to prayers have been evident in the lives of millions just like mine.

Still waiting for amputated limb miracle.

Thanks, sister.

cloudgoddess:
Simply and brilliantly put.

.

winner01:
This is a baseless claim that holds no water. Religion was to many people in the olden days just as it is now. In this era when humans had little knowledge about the workings of nature, there were several people who did not believe in God. This idea of yours is a nothing but a desperate attempt to disprove the effects of christianity in the rise of science.

The information which has "liberated" you now, who are those that espoused much of them?
And who are the we that know that Adam and Eve are invented stories? . What is the proof of macro-evolution? Why are the important fossils that can take macro-evolution beyond reasonable doubt missing in all the important places?
Who are those that described nature? And why have the "scientists of today" not been able to establish equivalent feats acheived by the greatest scientists of old?

One of the oldest homo sapiens fossils is 160,000 years old, much older than the supposed ~6,000 years old that the Bible claims! This clearly debunks the Adam and Eve story. There are several other genetic and archaeological findings that have excavated other homo sapiens fossils that are within the 100,000 to 200,000 years old range.

You suggest that scientists have not been able to establish equivalent feats achieved by the greatest scientists of old! I'm about to laugh. What are you typing with? How are you communicating with me? Do you realize that there's more to know about the universe than we currently know? And do you realize that science has advanced significantly since the Middle Ages? Space travel, quantum mechanics, vaccines, antibiotics, and the like are incredible innovations that have vastly changed our quality of life.

In any case, you still keep making these indefensible correlational arguments.

winner01:
Western Europe owes its rise in power to christianity, even though some rebellious folks may try to hijack the glories acheived by their founding fathers.

Please pick up the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. Read up on history. This is another false correlational argument.

winner01:
Mark zuckerberg: Is an atheist but unlike you, he does not spend his life encouraging people not to believe in God, same goes with Sergey Brin.
Bill gates: Irreligiousity is not the same as atheism. In fact Bill gates admitted how sensible it is to believe in God. (source) Seun osewa: At least, he spends his time to further his cause in his own way.

I won't toot my own horn here, I'll leave it at that.

winner01:
I dont know whether you want to make this about wealth but 56.2 percent of the worlds billionaires, identify themselves as Christians when asked about their faith (nonpartisan wealth research, 2015)

Wealth can also be achieved through scamming poor people, manipulating capital markets, and more! This is another indefensible correlational argument.

winner01:
Antiparticle has resorted to lies as on the same link he posted, 51.8% scientists believe in God or higher powers. People can check the link by themselves HERE.

Intellectual dishonesty 101. I wrote that " a much smaller fraction of American scientists believe in god/gods compared to the general public!", you will see that ten times more American scientists don't believe in god/gods or a higher power vs the general public (41% to 4%). Also, you conveniently lump all religions or claims of believing in a higher power together when you want to make arguments for Christianity. This is classically disingenuous and dishonest. If you were debating a Zeus worshipper you would be arguing that he/she worshiping a false deity, yet in this debate you would dishonestly lump him/her into the same camp as you. You can't point out arbitrary correlations and use them to make indefensible arguments.

winner01:
Some Scientists have admitted to feigning atheism to gain scientific recognition. I gave examples in the link to causes of atheism which i posted earlier.

Ok, you really think anyone will take your points seriously after reading this?

winner01:
You have subtly shifted the goal post from atheism to irreligiousity. Irreligious countries are not atheist countries. You need to make up your mind instead of clinging on to science or irreligiousity to validate your claims. Countries that are also ruled by atheists today can be observed. North korea is a good example of what atheism can do to a country and its people.

Of course you can come up with proof associating religious people and mass murder. But you certainly cannot come up with proof associating religious people to mass murders of atheistic magnitude. The historical record of collective atheism is 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. The average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. I have proved that in the links i posted. People can check out my threads too.

Correlation does not imply causation. Also, your data is cherry-picked and is purely correlational. I can do the same for all religions but nah!

winner01:
Those who are interested in how atheism has suppressed science can click HERE

You really think this is a credible website? This website (conservapedia) by the same Christian fundamentalists who fight against the teaching of the science of evolution in schools? The same Christian fundamentalists who attempt to teach the Genesis creation story as facts? You really don't expect me to take this seriously.

winner01:
You can not incite me to try to discuss my religion with you no matter what you type. I'm past all that. I know better than wasting my time on people who have closed their minds and feel they have a monopoly of reasoning.

Ok. Good for you. Stick with your correlational arguments.

winner01:
No proof whatsoever. Actually, the opposite is true. The fact that atheists repeat these lines everyday does not make it true. Today, we build on the products of religious minds. You need people not to believe in God with you because you are unsure of your stand and insecure. Only unbalanced individuals spend each day of their lives talking about "someone" that does not exist. There are studies that confirm the correlation between religion and mental health.

Correlation does not imply causation. Also, stop lumping all other religions together. If your religion is true, then defend it.

winner01:
https://www.conservapedia.com/images/d/d4/Mayo_clinic_Rochester_MN.jpgThe prestigious Mayo Clinic found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better physical health and mental health outcomes
https://www.conservapedia.com/images/c/c4/Drugs.jpgReligion has "enormous potential for lowering the risk of substance abuse among teens and adults," according to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse

The website you lifted these images from is conservapedia again, a discredited source. Correlation does not imply causation.

winner01:
Christianity put smiles on peoples faces, I wont repeat myself, I've made this clear in my previous replies. Christ-ians are people who strive to be like christ. Whatsoever you claim christians do, can be judged from their standard, which is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ taught love, not to christians alone, but to everyone.
Atheism on the other hand has done absolutely nothing for the human race, except maybe democide.

They waste their time praying and still come out to be far more productive than atheists . Millions of people all over the world see the results of praying and fasting. We sow seeds into the lives of people and also to proclaim the Gospel of Christ. If you have problems with these, them i'm sorry, you will keep crying for longer than you expected.

You can't invent your own "facts". Give the readers just one single example of how prayer and fasting has solved a real human problem like regrowth of an amputated limb. The readers are waiting.

.

To anyone reading this thread and wants to understand why winner01's argument that "religious minds have been more productive than atheistic minds" is a weak & fallacious point, here it goes:

Religion was psychologically soothing when humans had little knowledge about the mechanisms behind the workings of nature, and as a result most humans historically were religious. Scientists, mad men, murderers, good people, bad people, etc in Western Europe were almost all associated with the church because they either truly believed in the Christian god or they were culturally Christian.

Back in those days, I probably too would have been Christian because we (humanity) didn't at the time have enough information and freedom to debunk the Bible's claims. Now we know that Adam and Eve are invented stories (see evolution). Now we know that the resurrection story, virgin birth, miracle claims, and more are complete bullshiit. We now know that nature fundamentally is well ordered and can be rationally described mathematically. This is why a much smaller fraction of scientists today are Christian than four centuries ago.

As a matter of fact most of western Europe today is majority unreligious! A majority! Also, a large fraction of Silicon Valley engineers and innovators are straight up atheists. Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) is atheist. Sergey Brin (Google) is not religious. Bill Gates (Microsoft) is not religious. Our own Seun Osewa (Nairaland) is atheist. As a matter of fact, according to the Pew Research Center, a much smaller fraction of American scientists believe in god/gods compared to the general public! The Pew Research Center is a credible polling organization, as opposed to the random cherry-picked Facebook posts that @winner01 keeps copy and pasting. I am a physicist/engineer and I live in a western country, and it is the rare exception to meet a religious person at the researcher level in the pure sciences (such as physics, evolutionary biology, etc).

The more scientifically advanced a country becomes, the less theistic it becomes. This is why the west has gotten more irreligious over the past century. This is inarguable fact. @winner01's correlations about the religion of medieval age scientists is just what it is, correlation without causality. I can come up with outrageous correlations associating religious people to mass murder (and there's a whole lot of proof for this), hypocrisy, and obstructionism towards science but there's no point doing this. What matters is that his religion is false and he can't defend it so he has to resort to ad hominem attacks and weak correlational arguments.

@winner01 says I should tell everyone why I need people to not believe in God, well he is Exhibit A for the damaging effects of religion. Religion makes it difficult to distinguish fantasy from reality. Religion dulls rational thinking. Certain Christian ideologies promote discrimination and hate (e.g. homophobia towards gay people, racism towards arabs, prejudice against people of other religions, slavery, etc). Christianity causes people to waste their time on ineffective activities (praying & fasting, sowing seed offerings which is a total scam, wasting intellectual capital twisting science to fit the Bible, etc). @winner01 is probably an otherwise talented individual, but with Christianity he has to expend intellectual capital twisting reality to fit the fantasy of the Bible.

In short, theism is an anachronism that is past its expiry date. That scientists today are significantly less religious (given that we now know a lot more about the universe) than they were in the archaic Middle Ages shows the fatal flaw in @winner01's logic and arguments.

The problem with @winner01's arguments is that he is mainly trolling atheists and does not attempt whatsoever to explain logically why his god (Yahweh/Jesus) is real. He fails to explain why a logical and rational human should believe in the virgin birth, resurrection and miracle claims of the Bible (a book written mostly written by Bronze age desert inhabiters). He needs to explain why we should believe the Bible's extraordinary claims but not the equally extraordinary claims of other religions/deities.

He needs to justify the Old Testament actions of Yahweh commanding mass murder and infanticide left and right. He needs to help theists understand why Yahweh is a just god and is real.

But he won't do this, he insists on making correlational arguments that are all copy-and-paste and make no case for Christianity whatsoever.

@winner01 I will not continue to feed you because you are a troll; I didn't mean anything else, it's pretty simple. Don't make this all about the intellectual inferiority complex you imply you feel when debating atheists.

@winner01, this will be my last response to you.

All your claims (that Christianity and science are self re-enforcing) are transparently bogus and are based on the fallacy that correlation implies causation, which isn't true. I can't continue feeding you if you won't decide to rid yourself of these psychological biases.

Your responses, also, are full of bile and desperation. If your arguments were self sufficient, you wouldn't need to exhibit such vitriol towards the counterparty.

I'll let the neutral open-minded intelligent reader to decide which of us is making sense.

Well, have a good life.

**FYI, please learn to prepare logical arguments, and not ones that solely rely on correlation to imply causation. This is my problem with religion, it makes it difficult to distinguish fantasy from reality.

Lately I've been pondering the question "what does it mean [for me] to be human?" Your phrasing in bold is astute.

johnydon22:
People become atheists long before they realize it or accept it, agnosticism in a broad way is still diluted atheism

Enjoy your life, have fun. . . what ever we become, choose to or will become, one thing stands out.

We all are still humans (atheist, theist, deist etc), a lost specie in a vast cosmos floating on a small tiny blue marble still trying to figure out how the world works and our role in it

winner01:
You had better not spend your time responding to me.
You have made zero claims and peope can see that.
I'm not taking credit for what people of other religions have done. As a matter of fact they pale in comparison to what christianity has offered the world. I'm emphasizing the productivity of religious minds.
I'm not taking credit for anything. Just tell me what atheism has done for humanity, if you cant, i can.
Religious minds have far been productive and continue to be. All you people do is scratch the surface of science and pour it in the face of some christians who know little or nothing about science in a bid to dehumanize them.

As for spending you life on what does not exist, ill have to ask you: What are you doing here? Of about 40 sections on Nairaland, why do you choose to spend your time on religion? Why do you need people not to believe in God with you?

I never claimed that atheism has done anything for humanity -- atheism is merely the absence of belief in gods or god concepts. Atheism makes no claims. Science is what has done loads for humanity. You seem to claim that science and Christianity are self re-enforcing, and you seem to make wild claims that religion is responsible for science. You do not realize that correlation does not imply causation.

If we were to follow Jesus's words, we wouldn't build hospitals, all we would do is pray endlessly for healing. If we were to follow Yahweh's or the Apostle Paul's words, Africans would still be enslaved today. If we were to follow the Bible's claims, modern medicine's understanding of genetics would be false, yet we know it isn't false because we have been able to develop genetic therapies as well as developments that are based on evolutionary biology.

Genetics, archaeology, paleontology, geography, and astrophysics tell us much more about nature than the Bible ever did.

If we were to follow Yahweh's words, slavery and mass murder would be the order of the day. If we were to follow Jesus' words, why is it that he hasn't come back yet even though he told his followers that he would be back within their lifetimes?

Christianity has done little to nothing to move the human race ahead, science has done much more. The Catholic Church fought science during The Age of Enlightenment (16th to 18th century Europe), with popes ordering the murder and oppression of rationalists & skeptics who questioned aspects of Christian doctrine about nature. The Age of Enlightenment was a period in Western Europe in which scientific progress accelerated, the impetus for this acceleration was that people/scientists realized that reason and rational thinking, not divinity or religion, is the primary source of epistemological authority and legitimacy. That many of the scientists of that era were loosely called Christians does not imply that Christianity and science were ever self re-enforcing.

Anyways, here's my response for why people should not believe. It is a previous post of mine -> https://www.nairaland.com/3085047/part-2-pastor-atheist-why/12#45475099

Ok, please point out to me where I spent my life or time hating religious people.
Also, you have not responded to any of my comments, except throw words like "ignorant", "hating", etc at me.
This is what is frustrating about attempting to have a civil conversation on here.

You make so many arbitrary claims that I have responded to, yet instead of addressing them you resort to ad hominem attacks. You make other wild accusations that I won't spend my time responding to.

Also, it is quite disingenuous for you to take credit for what people of other religions have done, just because you are Christian and religious. If your specific god is real, then prove it and stop making baseless and arbitrary claims and accusations.

winner01:
You might wanna tell us what Francis bacon is widely regarded as.
Dont shift the goal post here. I'm not saying because Christian scientists were exceptional, then christianity must be true.

I'm saying, religious minds (other religions inclusive) have been far more productive than atheistic minds. So why on earth would you attempt to attribute the ignorance of people in the olden days to religion?
Education was what was needed.

Atheism have offered nothing to humanity. Y'all spend your lives on hating religious people rather than being productive for yourselves and others, and worse still, you claim reasoning is exclusively meant for atheists.

Ok. So you are telling me that because many scientists several centuries ago were associated with Christianity therefore Christianity is true? Based on this logic, then Islam is the true religion because its scientists (during the golden age of Islam) were Muslim?

Also, your statement that a Christian "founded" the scientific method is false. No single human "founded" the scientific method. The scientific method evolved out of millenia of rationalist thinking which can be traced back to the Aristotelian days. If you care to know, Aristotle existed centuries before Jesus.

winner01:
You are ignorant of the fact that majority of the scientists who opened our eyes, majority of the scientists who found solutions to humanity in terms of science and technology were religious. They had a mandate to find out more about their world as God commanded. The founder of the scientific method was also a christian.

I'm at loss on what atheism has done for humanity. Left to atheism, we would still be in the dark ages. And before you start mentioning the names of contemporary pseudoscientists, just make sure they've acheived equivalent feats attained by previous religious scientists.

If you want to subscribe to janism, do so but just dont spend your life talking about something that does not exist.

Paul Kalanithi's book "When Breath Becomes Air" is really touching. The OP is an excerpt from the book, which I read a couple of weeks ago.

The fact of the matter is that Kalanithi's argument for theism is extremely weak. He explicitly makes a god of the gaps argument as a reason to believe. But this argument is weak because it appeals to the idea that we should attribute to god anything that we don't have the answer to yet. We used to attribute epilepsy and schizophrenia to demons and spirits, we now know precisely that they are due to physical causes in the brain. We used to attribute diseases to demons, we also now know that these can be treated using exclusively physical measures.

Various human cultures used to attribute any natural phenomenon they couldn't understand to a god. Today these phenomenons -- such as lightning, rainfall, an eclipse, etc -- are precisely understood and in many cases can be replicated in lab environments without having to invoke a supposed spiritual realm.

Another weakness in the god of the gaps argument is that it arbitrarily assumes that this god is the Christian one and this god is singular (and not plural). To make an intellectually honest god of the gaps argument, the claimant would have to admit that the god he/she presupposes is not necessarily the Christian one (thousands of gods have been worshiped throughout human history, and the Judeo-Christian god was recently introduced only 6000 years ago whereas the homo sapiens specie has existed for over 200,000 years). The god of the gaps claimant would also have no reason to arbitrarily presuppose that there is just one god, as opposed to several gods!

Additionally, Kalanithi presumes that Jesus was the first moral man to walk the earth. This is a common claim that assumes that morality comes from religion, and in particular Christianity alone. If I ever were to be religious I would subscribe to Jainism, a religion that is not theistic and is deeply pacifist in every way. Jainism is hundreds of years older than Christianity. Adherents to Jainism believe in pacifism in every way to the extent that many of them don't wear anything made of cotton, leather, etc in order to not harm plants or animals.

I deeply sympathize with Paul Kalanithi's story -- he was diagnosed with lung cancer just right when he was finishing neurosurgery residency and ultimately died young, at the age of 37 -- but his argument for Christianity holds no water.

Trolls get no food.

KingEbukaNaija:
This is not about God . Please address the topic of the thread or entertain me with puerile rebuttals like some Teempakguy is doing .

You seriously don't expect me to respond to other people's random Facebook posts, do you? Stop doing copy and paste and present a cogent argument for your god, it should be easy since you are convinced about its existence.

You also make a lot of arbitrary claims and you can't expect me to take them seriously.

I can only respond to you if you put together an organized argument.

winner01:
Okay bro.

Take this before you leave

Dwena Meriweather, an atheist, states that believers do not excel in math and science, which is why they believe in God.
Does Meriweather realize that research shows that religiosity and education are directly proportional? (See: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=558264474196024&
set=a.296894256999715.69511.278360458853095&t
ype=1&relevant_count=1 ).

Does Dwena Meriweather realize that atheism has historically been a main cause of the suppression of science? (See: https://www.facebook.com/
photo.php?fbid=535093553179783&set=a.296894256
999715.69511.278360458853095&type=1&theater ).


Science continues to point to a creator God (e.g. Exhibit A: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=5
21709961184809&set=a.296894256999715.69511.27
8360458853095&type=1&theater Exhibit B: https://
www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=558037620885376&
set=a.296894256999715.69511.278360458853095&t
ype=1&relevant_count=1 ).

Does Miss Meriweather have any evidence to support the atheistic dogma "there is no God"? In the words ofG.K. Chesterton: “Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative” (See:http://biologos.org/questions/what-created-god ).


Speaking of mathematics, has Miss Meriweather ever heard of Gödel's ontological proof? Probably not; looks like someone has some studying to do: http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/
tmve/wiki100k/docs/Gödel_s_ontological_proof.html

I appreciate the enlightenment.

KingEbukaNaija:
Yh ... I know . That's what they say when they have nothing to offer .

I don't feed trolls.

KingEbukaNaija:
Antiparticle just dey view this thread , let's see if he'll give out a good argument . These ones here are boring , weak and soporific .

The number one cause of atheism (in a religious society) is unrestrained critical thinking.

Why does God refuse to heal amputees? Are they not worthy of being healed?
Why doesn't your prophetess reveal the location of the Chibok girls? Why won't she provide the universal cure for HIV/AIDS? Why won't she provide the universal cure for sickle cell anemia and cancer? Why do we have to depend on biomedical scientists to come up with the permanent cure for infectious diseases? Why won't your prophetess demonstrate the power of God by solving these problems that plague humanity? Why did we need scientists to invent penicillin, antiretrovirals, antibiotics, and other drugs? Why has God refused to use his prophets and prophetesses to solve these real problems?

Why is your prophetess only demonstrating tricks that a good magician can perform? Why hasn't your prophetess universally cured Ebola as a demonstration of God's power? Please answer these questions.

WarRLaY:
maybe she used the cold reading or maybe not, am in a state of being confused and I won't like to conclude base on dogmatism.. bcus after the short prayer .. she said God saved my dad 3yrs ago that the enemy tried to kill him, that was when my dad started revealing what really happened to him 3yrs ago.. *About the rotating bible, I thought and still think the holy spirit rotated the bible .. but do you think God does not exist ?