₦airaland Forum

OkaiCorne:
Definitely, Science has been extremely helpful in solving a lot of issues that might have been left in the realm of mysteries and I doff my hat for that... however, it's still a rapidly growing body of knowledge... and currently doesn't have answers to all of life's questions.

Rephrase:

Definitely, humans have found science extremely helpful in solving a lot of issues......


Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

It is done by humans. It does not do itself.

OkaiCorne:
The limitations of science can't even tell us how the jungle fowl came to be in the first place...yet people still hide under the cover of science to conclude no Creator exists...

Behind your statements is this assumed attack of atheists, which is not my purpose in this thread to defend so I'm not going there. There after all are numerous threads set up for that purpose.

This one is about the Garden of Eden, and not chickens or eggs, and I put it to you that a youtube video hypothesis should not be sufficient to base ones knowledge on. Least not for me anyway. I am after all, an atheist.

I'll keep an eye on the thread, but would not be responding to your questions until I see a relevant one that interests me. I am sure we would meet again on another thread.

vaxx:
it is still in its infancy.

It is humans who are in their infancy.

Science does not have limitations. Human beings do. Science is just one more tool we use to understand the world we live in. It sets up criteria by which we judge. Otherwise, any statement could be accepted as the way things are and there would be no way to ascertain if Obatala created the first human or Yahweh done it instead. They can't both have created the first human afterall.

One should be careful of anthropomorphosising science, or philosophy for that matter. And filling the gaps of ones ignorance with gods is sheer laziness, in my opinion.

vaxx:
Yes, science has limitations. only an ignorance will not accept it. but science deserve an applause. not knowing the answer for now those not have bearing on the veracity of scientific theory. what i mean is, it is not the answers to these question where the theory presently draws its strength, so an absence of answers does not falsify the theory. At least science was able to prove the 10th cousin and great9 grandparents, of chicken. the jungle fowl. more rigorous exploration and pursuit are still needed to come into conclusion. which i think science is incapable for now.

for your next question. i will like an atheist to engage you. maybe budaatum can take the challenge. the question is interesting.


for my last paragraph ,the question is rhetorical, no need to answer.

OkaiCorne:
There we go again with the needless insults...

Perhaps my questions are random and irrelevant to you because your mind isn't broad enough to accommodate certain things yet...

Never mind, everyone has their growth rate in various aspects of life...

Furthermaths can't make sense to someone who is still struggling with Arithmetics...

No insults intended...

You've been casting comments like the above. Do you really think I am too dim witted not to notice the sarcasm implied? Please don't dish out what you can't take please.

vaxx:
how can someone who study biological science apply philosophy in his discipline?

I checked what wiki says about philosophy and found it puts across an adequate response to your question. Lets talk further after you've read the first two paragraphs.

vaxx:
YES i agree it can be combine, but in its actual sense its a two different field of study

I would not agree, and separating them makes for either a bad philosopher or a bad scientist. They may be different aspects of study, but in practice, the two, as methods of enquiry, must go together or that enquiry is not as wholesome or robust as can be. Even courses in either include the other.

Newton himself eventually combined the two, philosophically seeking the philosophers stone then scientifically applying the knowledge he derived to make himself a very wealthy man.

Funny. You yourself already combine them when you state "both of them can be combine[d] to study the assumptions, implications and limitations of natural science", and also when you claim, "the benchmark of science is logic and intuition. it is the duty of logic to occasionally tell science to adjust its perspective".

Goes to show how intertwined philosophy and science is, and should be, and separating the two, or doing one without the other can be perilous.

Good Sunday to you too dear friend.

vaxx:
You yourself already separate them in your writing, science deals with with observable and experimentation of data, philosophy focus on nature of knowledge{ reality, existence and experience) which largely fall into logic and intuition.

many field are limited to science. example? ethics, moral and so on.

Historically, philosophy is the queen of all sciences. Newton referred to himself as a "natural philosopher", while the term "scientist" did not emerge until the 19th century . However, today science and philosophy are two roughly dividable cultures of epistemic activity. the former is reflective while the later is empirical. they are two distinct different field. both of them can be combine to study the assumptions, implications and limitations of natural science itself.

the benchmark of science is logic and intuition. it is the duty of logic to occasionally tell science to adjust its perspective.... happy Sunday bro

vaxx:
But all these are just mere assumption. Science is still in its infancy.....and science do with literal substance. Maybe when science met philosophy once again. The thtuth will be accelerated.

Do science even have a benchmark?

Science is the systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

The benchmarks are that it be testable, and that its predictions are verifiable. It has never departed from philosophy. The two go hand in hand.

What we are discussing here is an attempt to demystify the past. Early 'science' said a god done it. More recent science has made claims that are much closer to the truth than early science gave us. And, considering the greater opportunity early scientists have, and their opportunity to stand on the shoulders of all those who came before them, it is only personel bias that would make a reasonable person deny all the evidence provided and accept the earliest myths as being more accurate. And that's ok as a personal choice in ones personal realm.

Would I allow, if I were in the position to be allowing that is, the early science to be taught as opposed to modern day science? My answer is no! Countries that don't teach and practise modern day science tend to not create much for starts as they have no factories and more places of worship. Their people are unemployed and end up purchasing from those who do teach and practise modern day science. Such countries are called third world and considered underdeveloped at best, and the young would rather emigrate than stay in such countries that worship the gods but seem to be god forsaken!

OkaiCorne:
Did you notice how the "knowledgeable atheists" who keeps shouting delusional up and down are suddenly quiet... I was hoping they answer me on chicken and egg question, but you that is not an atheist has covered up for them...

There'll always be another chance to engage them again...

You aren't exactly saying anything worth responding to with your random irrelevant questions. However, if you believe your point, whatever it may be, is proven, so be it. I am sure anyone who goes through the thread would see and understand it, or not.

John 2

Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!

In this chapter Jesus makes two things, wine and a whip of cords. As the skeptic that I am, I am more likely to believe there was some science behind the wine making. Besides, it reminds me of my clubbing days when people used to ask me for pills and I freely gave them Tictacs. You wouldn't believe how high people got on them! Perhaps the wine wasn't the fermented sort, is what I am suggesting here as sufficient time for fermentation had not elapsed. Or perhaps it's like the palmwine in the Orolu Kingdom - it tastes better diluted.

I'll focus more on his Daddy Freezeness act of asking that the temples not be made into shops! Rather pertinent to our own times, won't you agree? It does amuse me that he too is asked what/who authorises him to tell the pastorpreneurs of his day to stop selling their fake gods!

The fact he didn't "entrust himself" to those who believed him is saying something I am sure we'd return to later.

superhumanist:
Stop abusing drugs.

He's baaackk!

vaxx:
why do you report him?

I've never reported anyone. Ever!

Thank you mods.

(Though I'm sure to regret this!)

OkaiCorne:
Let me break it down for you if you are finding it difficult to understand...

Atheists believes a Creator called "God" or whatever does not exist...

Furthermore, they bullshit the Biblical account of the story of creation as though there is no element of truth in it...

Please note, I am an atheist. I do not "believe a Creator called "God" or whatever does not exist".

There are very many creation myths. Quite a lot of them have nothing in common with the Biblical creation myths. Do they all have elements of truth in them? Why do you believe the biblical accounts only. Do you think all other accounts are false? What exactly is the truth of the Biblical creation myths?

Oh, and if you don't mind, do educate me on your chicken and egg question, and show how it is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Are you saying god accepts some crops and cash? Does god put the cash in his god account and cook the farm produce to feed the angels?

Please, you give to your pastor or church, and not to god!

petra1:
The reference I gave just explained a principle to answer the question I was asked . If money was used for first fruit . Yes ! Is firstborn not a first fruit? Was money paid ? Yes !

People gave to God in Agro produce because they were farmers . And they still have option of redeeming it by cash . Money has alsways been used for offerings and tithes . But primarily they gave Agro produce . Anything can be given to God . If it can be used in the sevhce of God but what God can’t used can be replaced by cash . It’s not every crop that God accept and not very animal that God accepted . Cash was used in place of the unclean animals . Just like the human first born

superhumanist:
This is the foolishness that prosperity gospel breeds!

Shithole with dumb shitholers.

Then they ask why I hate religion, as if its potential to produce people like the op is insufficient!

And you perhaps stop projecting. You can't expect me to connect dots of random irrelevant questions. If you have dots to connect, please do so and stop this merry-go-round of yours. Its becoming rather tiring.

OkaiCorne:
You don't have to be defensive if you cannot connect the dots based on the question I'm asking...

Afterall, most atheists pride themselves on being intelligent dudes...so at least I expect a reasonable feedback from them on the question I asked...

OkaiCorne:
Why sir?

After all, atheists are certain a Creator does not exist...so they should be able answer this question to back up their claims...

You can give others a chance to tackle this...

The question has nothing to do with atheism! And I am not stopping anyone from engaging with it if they so wish!

OkaiCorne:
Interesting, so all witnesses could sit down and tell a consistent lie even if you decide to increase your sample size of witnesses abi?

Very very interesting...

Yes. Evidence and research has shown that people who witness an event can be mistaken in what they report, or be deceived by what they are shown, or not understand what they have seen, or have vested interest so lie, or be on drugs or deluded.

Consistency in witness reports is not evidence of validity. And increasing my witness sample may involve bringing in those less close to the event who just parrot what they are told.

Can't answer that question. Sorry.

OkaiCorne:
If they are all telling a lie, then there should be significant and conflicting variations in the feed back you are getting from them.

On a side note, I cannot dispel or totally authenticate the Biblical account of the story of creation in 6 days. But I have a question to ask you that is if you have made up your mind not to believe it me unlike me that has a neutral ground.

I also want to be sure you are up to date with events and findings in the science....so my question goes thus....

Between the chicken and the egg, which one came first?

dalaman:
"BELIEVE IT BEFORE YOU READ IT

IMO it is impossible for a person, who knows nothing about the Bible, to read it and say, "That makes sense, I must become a Christian!"

The only way to believe the Bible, is to believe it before you read it."- Flavel

That's probably why I was immune to Christianity. Started the Bible at 9 and by 12 when I finished it, I knew I was an atheist. I had read Homer's Oddyseus twice before reading the Bible, and didn't think the Greek gods were real either.

Oh, and the fact that all witnesses say the same thing does not necessarily make what they say true! They may all be mistaken!

OkaiCorne:
Very good, so at this point... I expect you would place more reliance on a consistent feedback from different eye witnesses right? particularly focusing on the consistencies in their narratives to get the facts on ground abi?

Also bear in mind there might be parts of the feedback you get from the different eye witnesses...but however the consistent part of their story would indicate the fact this boy once existed, right?

I don't get where you are going with this. You began with a boy who existed but there was no evidence, then you provided eye witness evidence. Sounds to me like there therefore was evidence that a boy existed all along.

It would be odd if they were making it up that a boy existed. However, people do tend to make things up sometimes, knowing full well they are lying, or trying to prove a point, or are just plain mistaken. Even I allowed myself to be accused of one of those by Ronpet777 just yesterday! And I keep going on about the million pounds in my bank account with which I plan to buy a spanking brand new red Ferrari someday.

Fact is, not all statements are evidence of true facts, so one must be diligent and unbiased in ones search for evidence, as I found to my embarrassment recently.

OkaiCorne:
Very good, so at this point... I expect you would place more reliance on a consistent feedback from different eye witnesses right? particularly focusing on the consistencies in their narratives to get the facts on ground abi?

Also bear in mind there might be parts of the feedback you get from the different eye witnesses...but however the consistent part of their story would indicate the fact this boy once existed, right?

You are working with some misconceptions about atheists! Atheist too live peacefully with their neighbours, for instance. They must be optimistic. They put effort into living knowing there's no gods to give a boost to their efforts so they work hard. But hey! You started off with "there is no god" then live a god given eternal life afterwards? If there's no gods, there's nothing to give eternal life afterwards!

But I don't hate Muslims or Christians. I just can't stand the attitude of some of them. I've got a cousin, for instance, who tells me to pray and accept Christ into my life. When I was home, he wouldn't go to my farm with me because he was going to church though I never asked him on Sunday! But he will eat what I bring home, and now calls me begging for money! His brother too is a Christian, but not a sit on your ass pray to god sort. He hustles. So I now have a rule. Anytime the sit on your ass cousin calls me, I send something to the hustle one instead.

I am the only atheist in my family. I have a sister who is a pastor, as is her husband, and we get on very well. I have another sister who is a Blood of Jesus sort. They know I'm an atheist and respect me all the same, as do I them. Their children know too and sometimes stir, but I've told them not to ask me questions about god and the bible until after their 21st birthday because I respect their parents. Funny thing is, it was I who used to take them all to church as my parents weren't really church going people when we were young.

The worst person in my family these days is actually my mother. She would complain about those who do god excessively, and then complain about me for not doing god at all. She is also the most controversial one in her bible study group. Don't dare tell her, "it is by grace". "God ain't gonna come down from heaven and make your prayers come true", she'll tell you. Sometimes, the questions she asks, you'd think she was an atheist!

What I dislike is the sense of superiority Christians put on sometimes. "Are you saved?" they ask. I also don't like the blind fate that goes with religion and the fact that some believers want to infect one with that blind fate attitude. I also find that a certain level of naivety tends to be at play with Nigerian believers. My studies have shown that the same applied all over Europe about 500 years ago. We are that far back in time as far as our attitude to beliefs are concerned. But we are moving forward in leaps and bounds too.

I have never been a believer. And after my reading of the bible at age 12, I have been an atheist with an interest in the sociology and psychology of religion. Those who know me well know not to be preaching to me, even when I go church on Sundays. Yes I do go, though only occasionally these days. People used to tell me to try it and I did, for 10 years, but at no point did I find it catching. Also, I found that I needed an understanding of Christianity and Islam when I began engaging more with Nigerians. I had a cousin who used to take me, and I realised that with the dearth of books and no reading culture, the bible and pastors were necessary. It has evolved now though. People are reading by themselves, and asking questions too!

I just don't believe things, I guess. I'd rather know. I find that to be a better approach to life than unquestionably believing in the incredible. You can't put food in your belly or electrify a nation with fate in the incredible, I used to tell people. Then NEPA would take light!

I hope it came across that I do not hate religions per se, just that some religious peoples attitude, I find, is in fact insulting to the intellectual capability of the human being. It's probably a good thing gods don't exist therefore! If they did, they'd have to flood the entire world, or turn all humans to salt!

Ronpet777:
But come to think of it, believers r in a win win situation. Let's say there is no God and we all just die and return to non existence like we were bf birth, wot do we stand to lose? I go to church worship a non existing God ,go back home and live peaceably with neighbours and love them as myself.Live life with very optimistic disposition that a God always answers our prayers, then just die and return to dust.
And on the other hand, after living d life of great faith by trusting a God we never saw, believing in his words and trusting him completely only to be greatly rewarded with eternal life.
Aren't we lucky then?

So Y do some(honestly not all) atheists feel so much hatred for Christians and get irritated at d sight of any Christian or Muslim assertions?
We r obviously in a better position than u all are!!!


cc: budaatum , hopefulLandlord ,davien, frank317, Seun, segunojo866

OkaiCorne:
If a boy who lived among the uncivilized and lost tribes of the Amazon dies sometime in 1950 with no evidence of identification or history records to prove his existence....does it mean the boy never existed?

If no, how can you prove the boy once existed in the absence of written materials or videos or any finger prints or any other evidence except from various eye witness accounts?

Sorry to butt in on this one, the boy existed, eye witness accounts say so, and unless one has reasons to disbelieve the eye witness accounts (if they said he had 2 heads for instance, or had 4 eyes or was born by immaculate conceptions), why doubt it?

Basically, some evidence (eye witness accounts, in this case), is required in order to say anything about the boy's existence. Otherwise, who is to say that the exact boy one talks about is the same one who existed?

The only question may be the credibility of the eye witnesses account.

OkaiCorne:
Before you conclude on Plato's deluge being mythical, corroborate with scientific and archaeological findings if indeed there were deluges in the ancient past...

Deluge? Yes, localised ones. And with the limits in the ability to see no further than ones immediate vicinity, I can see why people may think their deluge was a world wide one. But one that covered the entire earth? Not likely.

Link fixed!

budaatum:
Your links were crap. They were asking the living if they had killed themselves.

Here's a better one:

Religion and Completed Suicide: a Meta-Analysis

Fixed

The conclusions are the individual subjective aspects. And yes, they need not agree, however the scientific rigour with which the objective data is evaluated is commonly agreed on.

An example is climate change. While there are scientists who do not agree that the globe is warming, they are not held up as reputable scientists in the community which has agreed that the globe is indeed warming. The mainstream arguments tend to be about the causes mostly.

Another is the one you posed. Most scientist do not attempt to scientifically prove that gods exist, and accept to keep their god issues private. In fact, any scientist who attempts to use science to prove gods exist is considered to be a crackpot by the mainstream! Evidence usually presented as proof of gods does not stand up to scientific rigour and scientific methods are successfully used in debunking them, though believers in gods would not accept this.

Regarding Plato's deluge, there are many deluge myths so he's is not exceptional in any way.

Regarding planets and stars, read the following. The first five words are most important (I am not presenting it as what I know!):

According to our current understanding, a star and its planets form out of a collapsing cloud of dust and gas within a larger cloud called a nebula. As gravity pulls material in the collapsing cloud closer together, the center of the cloud gets more and more compressed and, in turn, gets hotter. This dense, hot core becomes the kernel of a new star.

OkaiCorne:
Bro, I am not disregarding Science...infact, I enjoyed Science...biology in particular in my O' Levels and I do not need to brag on my WAEC scores to prove how good I was...I'm not into boasting and stuffs as such...

what I need you to consider that there are well respected Scientists who would still go through the Same scientific methods and arrive at different conclusions on a matter.

For example, does Science prove the existence or otherwise of God? This will lead to another fight between theists and atheists on this thread...

I'm still awaiting your feedback to my questions...

I don't want to tutor you on anything! Nor does science claim to have all the answers. And nor do I. If you want to learn though the scientific method will take you a long way. I'll ask you to consider it.

OkaiCorne:
You haven't answered my questions on;

1) Plato's deluge
2) How stars and planets are formed

And you want to tutor me on scientific methods.

By the way, does science alone have the answers to life's mysteries?

Buterflylion:
Dude go through my posts on this thread and see the links for yourself and also the links posted by vaxx and stop acting like a dolt.

Your links were crap. They were asking the living if they had killed themselves.

Here's a better one:

Religion and Completed Suicide: a Meta-Analysis

Fixed

Buterflylion:
Those were 2 separate comments and I made my observation as they came and I asked that you name the atheists you know who have committed suicide because hopefullandlord expects to see a list online which says atheism made so and so commit suicide.

Meanwhile even atheists have declareld what atheism pushed them to become and majority of them all said the same thing. Atheism pushed them to depression and suicidal thoughts and it's no surprise because scientific studies have shown atheists to have high inclination toward suicide. It's like being in a freefall, knowing it and deliberately disconnecting the fail safe. No buffer, no emergency brakes, nothing to stop them.

Even atheists on reddit are singing the same song.

This is the sort of stupid statement that started this off. If there are scientific studies, just post a link to them please! Or is it the elusive 22 Year Study I've been waiting months for?