₦airaland Forum

Lord Babs: really? Your parents practically caused you to exist, does that make them self-existent? If they are, then how were they caused? Second, what rule determines your idea of 'self-existence'.

The principle of self-existence is self-evident. This is an existential problem, it has nothing, in and of itself, to do with God. The argument arises between atheists and theist because it becomes self-evident that in order to resolve this existential problem there must perforce be a God.

Your analogy is a little silly, not least because you deliberately arrive at the wrong conclusion. If parents cause a child to exist, then it follows that the parents exist, not that they are self-existent. However, at some point the infinite loop has to be resolved by self-existent entities wherein we arrive at God... I really do not get how you can possibly arrive at the very opposite conclusion from this same premise

cyrexx: @ ceasar
Ad hominien is when you insult the person making an argument instead of directly addressing his argument. I dont think i or purist have done that. We only expose the flaws of your logic. We launched no personal insult at you.

Really? Perhaps I 'misread' his intent when Purist said:

Purist: ^^ lol, are you trolling or what?

Or your intent when you derided us 'Christian apologists' as people suffering from 'cognitive dissonance' and so more willing to embrace 'illogicalities' than your version of the truth.

Perhaps I misunderstood it all. Perhaps all this 'logic' is doing my head in.

cyrexx: again, wait for it, they will defend this one by saying that god use foolish things to confuse the wise people.

These ad hominem attacks will get you no where. I sincerely doubt that any sensible person going through these recent exchanges will fail to get the meat of it. Nonetheless, I noticed two guests watching so...

I started off by challenging Purist simply:
He said that Christ's sacrifice was trivial. I challenged him to make an equally 'trivial' sacrifice. He expectedly asked for, as did you, a reward for his sacrifice. I pointed out that Christ's sacrifice was without reward for Himself but for us. He then came full circle to acknowledge that, being a mere mortal man, he is unable to see the sense in such a sacrifice (and it follows therefore, that he is unable to make such a 'senseless' sacrifice).

Purist: So in essence, after being incarcerated for 3 days and subsequently freeing 100 guilty prisoners from Kiri-kiri, I get to return to being the World President that I used to be. Tell me again how that seems to be such a grand heroic act worthy of accolades.

By the way, vicarious redemption makes very little sense (if at all).

I therefore concluded that my job is done; my point made.

Why not sit a while and actually reflect on some of the things you say before you spew them forth?

Purist: So in essence, after being incarcerated for 3 days and subsequently freeing 100 guilty prisoners from Kiri-kiri, I get to return to being the World President ordinary man that I used to be. Tell me again how that seems to be such a grand heroic act worthy of accolades.

By the way, vicarious redemption makes very little sense (if at all).

My point exactly.

Purist: Do I get to rule the entire universe afterwards?

Read my post above. The reward of Christ's sacrifice is ours to devour.

cyrexx: yes, me too i agree o, and after that you transfer just 2 billion souls 2 billion pounds to my account sharp sharp.

do we have a deal?

You clearly misunderstand Christ's sacrifice. Christ was not some lowly mortal man who was given the promise of the right hand of God (your 2 billion pounds) if He were to give up His life. He was not bribed into it. He came from God and He returned whence He came.

Your best comparison, with regards to a reward for 3 days in Kiri Kiri would be something like me saying I'd free 100 innocent guilty men from Kiri Kiri. For the reward of Christ's sacrifice is ours to devour.

Purist: lol. . . there's no big deal about Christ's "sacrifice". If I know I'd resurrect after 3 days, to be seated on some divine throne thereafter, I'd easily "sacrifice" myself also.

Oya now come make I put you for kiri kiri. No fear, after 3 days I go release you!

I hate to derail this thread (currently my favourite on Nairaland), but I have to weigh in on this issue.

Deep Sight: But he changed his ethics from genocidal barbarian in OT to all-loving sugar daddy in NT, abi?

There is no change in ethics. As Mr Anony has stated before, the Jews of that time had lost the spirit of the law and were focussed on the letter. This is pretty obvious in John 8: 39 - 41 (incidentally, I looked this up because you quoted it as part of your quote above) where Jesus says to the Jews:

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

It is clearly implied from this (and indeed, if you read all of chapter 8 it is even clearer) that Jesus condemns the Jews because they have strayed from the path of Abraham. If they had stayed firmly on that path, there would have been no need for the intervention of Christ.

Christ's first coming was to lead God's people back to the path of salvation. In so doing, He struck down the old laws which had become tarnished and corrupted and threw light on the right path to God.

Deep Sight: He also changed the requirements for salvation between people living pre-christ and people living post-christ, no?

Did Job have to believe in Jesus to be saved?

Did Elijah have to be beleive in Jesus to be taken up to la la land?

Again, no change in requirements. God's Word is eternal. Christ is simply the Word made flesh. Job and Elijah did not need to know Jesus the Son of man. But they certainly had to know and obey God's Word to be saved.

Deep Sight: Jesus is God? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Jesus IS God!

Deep Sight: John 8:40: “, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

This is taken out of context. Christ was speaking to a sceptical audience. And one which was willing to kill Him for the things He was teaching. Thus in that verse, as is more fully quoted above, Jesus is trying to reason with them from their own perspective so that they can understand how they have strayed from the path of Abraham and are no longer the children of Abraham.

Furthermore, in that very chapter (John 8:58) He proclaims:

Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!

And immediately He said this they picked up stones to kill Him and He had to flee!

Deep Sight: John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Again, taken out of context. The full text:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Deep Sight: Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Of all your quotes from the bible, this is the trickiest to deal with because it leads to your argument, which I have read elsewhere, that Christ, being God, cannot have had a different will or knowledge from the Father as this would contradict His status as God, as you say.
Nonetheless, my answer is this: Christ, in the flesh, cannot have been omniscient as God the Father as this would mean He was not a man and would essentially be cheating in the sacrifice He came to make. I contend that Christ did not know everything while He was man but this does not negate His status as God. But I am no theologian. There might be others with a fuller grasp of the scripture and thus a better answer.

Deep Sight: John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

Again, this is incomplete. Taken fully, you will see that Jesus is showing how He Himself mirrors God the Father perfectly.

19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it . 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

At this point, I need to bow out. I started typing this response by 10:00 am! but between work, and a dozen other distractions, it's taken this long. I won't be able to respond to the other quotes from the bible that you gave, not because I concede to the enormity of the task, but because I simply lack the time right now. Perhaps later.

Oops! Looks like I didn't set my quote tags quite right. Do you guys get it? Do I need to repost to avoid any confusion?

I hate to derail this thread (currently my favourite on Nairaland), but I have to weigh in on this issue.

Deep Sight: But he changed his ethics from genocidal barbarian in OT to all-loving sugar daddy in NT, abi?

There is no change in ethics. As Mr Anony has stated before, the Jews of that time had lost the spirit of the law and were focussed on the letter. This is pretty obvious in John 8: 39 - 41 (incidentally, I looked this up because you quoted it as part of your quote above) where Jesus says to the Jews:

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

It is clearly implied from this (and indeed, if you read all of chapter 8 it is even clearer) that Jesus condemns the Jews because they have strayed from the path of Abraham. If they had stayed firmly on that path, there would have been no need for the intervention of Christ.

Christ's first coming was to lead God's people back to the path of salvation. In so doing, He struck down the old laws which had become tarnished and corrupted and threw light on the right path to God.

Deep Sight: He also changed the requirements for salvation between people living pre-christ and people living post-christ, no?

Did Job have to believe in Jesus to be saved?

Did Elijah have to be beleive in Jesus to be taken up to la la land?

Again, no change in requirements. God's Word is eternal. Christ is simply the Word made flesh. Job and Elijah did not need to know Jesus the Son of man. But they certainly had to know and obey God's Word to be saved.

[quote author=Deep Sight]Jesus is God? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Jesus IS God!

[quote author=Deep Sight]John 8:40: “, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

This is taken out of context. Christ was speaking to a sceptical audience. And one which was willing to kill Him for the things He was teaching. Thus in that verse, as is more fully quoted above, Jesus is trying to reason with them from their own perspective so that they can understand how they have strayed from the path of Abraham and are no longer the children of Abraham.

Furthermore, in that very chapter (John 8:58) He proclaims:

Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!

And immediately He said this they picked up stones to kill Him and He had to flee!

Deep Sight: John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Again, taken out of context. The full text:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Deep Sight: Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Of all your quotes from the bible, this is the trickiest to deal with because it leads to your argument, which I have read elsewhere, that Christ, being God, cannot have had a different will or knowledge from the Father as this would contradict His status as God, as you say.
Nonetheless, my answer is this: Christ, in the flesh, cannot have been omniscient as God the Father as this would mean He was not a man and would essentially be cheating in the sacrifice He came to make. I contend that Christ did not know everything while He was man but this does not negate His status as God. But I am no theologian. There might be others with a fuller grasp of the scripture and thus a better answer.

Deep Sight: John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

Again, this is incomplete. Taken fully, you will see that Jesus is showing how He Himself mirrors God the Father perfectly.

19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it . 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

At this point, I need to bow out. I started typing this response by 10:00 am! but between work, and a dozen other distractions, it's taken this long. I won't be able to respond to the other quotes from the bible that you gave, not because I concede to the enormity of the task, but because I simply lack the time right now. Perhaps later.

Ihedinobi: You guys know that moment when maybe two or three guys in a bus are discussing something they find puzzling about women and there are two young ladies near them when they come to certain absurd (not to the guys though) conclusions concerning those things and the ladies have themselves a laugh? Well, this is one of them moments for me. You imagine some really very absurd things about God just cos you don't like Him, or whatever your problem is.

I'm not really intending to digress here, I want to prepare the grounds for something I have to say.

Did God order the wiping out of whole nations that did not worship Him? Yes He did. Was He right to do so? Absolutely. How so? He's God, He owned them and could do as He wished with them. Therefore if He had expectation of them that they were neglecting to fill, He had every right in the book and beyond to wipe them out of existence. That's what being God means, guys. It means being boss. Yeah! You don't like it, you can go howl at the moon.

Has God changed? Absolutely not. Does He still wipe out nations? Not yet. Why? He has never ever wished to destroy the sinner, so He has brought about a way to lengthen their sentencing in case they repent. What'll He do if they don't? Oh, wipe them out just like He did before.

Is all the foregoing like meek, mild Jesus Christ? Hehehehe...sure, boys. Let me tell you, that kitty cat's got very sharp teeth and a fearsome roar. Today, He's pleading for everyone to repent, just like He used to with the Law and the sacrifices and the Temple and the Prophets. But just like what happened when everyone turned up their noses at His warnings and pleadings, tomorrow... oh my, believe me you don't wanna hear His roar.

My point? Oh, God hasn't changed. He can't. He's very much the same. His mercy was as evident under the Old Covenant as it is under the New. In fact, you know what your plans and schematics are to the actual thing you put on ground? That's what the Old Covenant or Testament was to the New.

Finally, what kind of God would God be if He were courting your favors, guys? God as God is not your leader. He's your owner and you better do what He says or else... But God in Christ? Now, there's another matter altogether. That's God coming down and becoming one of us. That's where you can rightly demand that God lead by example. And did He? Boy, oh boy, He sure as heck did! Did I hear someone say, "I can't emulate Christ". Well, sure you can't. But dare you say now that God has no moral right to demand this and that of you? Hasn't He led by example? Better follow o, dude, for your own good. Being the best you can be was not the standard you set for God. You demanded He be absolutely good and never do wrong (though like my bro, Mr Anony said, you guys conveniently skipped the part of saying what you defined good and evil as and by). Now, you gotta keep your own part of that deal. Follow the example.

Sum? Per the criteria, Yahweh met the requirement for being unchanging, barring any disagreements with my submissions above. If you disagree, boys, say why!

I have always said, not on this forum but elsewhere, that all arguments against God are really arguments against straw gods.

^^^ Just checked his profile. Don't think Idehn has been on this forum in a month.

Which is a shame, I have really been looking forward to the unveiling of this argument under the constraints of physicalism. I really believe that if you're able to make a good case for the cosmological argument, under physicalism, I would have some important clues for my own theories.

MacDaddy01: Copy and paste.


Why cant you use your brain and read the silly thing you posted?




How stupid. The very fact that there are revolutionary atheists debunks this nonsense statement. Furthermore, a skeptic is loyal to evidence.


Also, just because someone is skeptic, it doesnt mean that the person can not find a cause to fight for.

Richard Branson, a revolutionary businessman with his unconventional business practices is a skeptic
Bill Gates revolutionized the computer world with windows.



Russian pessimist? What is with the xenophobia? Is there any difference between a pessimist and a Russian pessimist. Or does the idiot that wrote this think that all Russians are godless? Or that the only godless pessimists are russians?


Furthermore, which philosophical principle espouses suicide as an alternative to being killed? WTF? Do all philosophers feel that life is a waste of time? Seriously, is the writer such much against intelligence or what?








Savages? Wow Mr, Anony, in this 21st century do we refer to any set of people as "savages". The writer hypocritically does so!

As for beasts, when has "beasts" ever become a scientific term?



Keep copying and pasting nonsense by anti-intellectuals

I can only conclude from this that MacDaddy has no appreciation for poetry and must be an absolute literalist. Which would imply an intolerance for metaphor or an inability to comprehend it. I am leaning towards the latter but I leave room for hope... Is that foolish?

Mr_Anony: So we have now moved into the realm of ridiculous questions abi?
Fine, let's play your game: what is siblings? what is shared? what is can? what is btw?

Respect.

Impressive thread! And not simply because of the arguments contained therein, but especially for Mr Anony's courage under fire.

thehomer: Nope. The same error is there. The key is for you to note what you're comparing which are a probability/improbability figure and the age of the earth.

There might be a technical error in comparing different values of different units but the meaning of the post is quite clear. The statistical improbability of complex designs means that, given the age of the earth, it cannot be realistically expected that complex organisms evolved via micro-evolution in such a relatively short period.

Ihedinobi: I think the key's in "completely meaningless". I had said, "imagined at best" and he took me up on that to further strengthen it. Unless I'm wrong, it's really not an issue. His disagreement was probably with the mildness of my language rather than with the idea I put forth.

Exactly.

Mr_Anony: @ceazar, you've lost me here, which is it really? agree or disagree?

Sorry Mr Anony. I don't reply quickly enough but I see Ihedinobi clarified things before I got back.

Ihedinobi: I refuse generally to argue Jesus Christ because my understanding is that for argument to be successful between the debating parties, there must be at least a consensus on the basis of argument. If, for instance, I were to defend the Power of God being greater than Satan's and Logicboy were to oppose me, we would at least agree on basing our arguments on reason and the rules of logic. If we did not, the debate would degenerate into a stalemate and utter frustration with neither accepting the merits of the other's arguments. That's what I mean. And my experience so far with arguments on this board is that there is almost always that lack of consensus. And when the inevitable frustration results, cheap insults follow.

This could not have been better put.

Ihedinobi: However, to the issue at hand. From the arguments you marshalled, Logicboy, it's not consistent to say that Satan is more powerful than God. In fact, is it not more logical to say that the man who is not bothered by another's ranting and raving and threatening is by his disinterest showing signs of greater strength than his adversary? After all, it must be that he is at ease because anytime he chose he could shut the other up. I think it is quite logical to assume so.

.

Ihedinobi: As to Delafruita's argument that things would have been easier for everyone, including God (!), if God had squashed Satan, I wonder what you base the assumption on. If all difficulty were removed, what would life be? Without friction, would there be any motion? Without the limitations of gravity, where would trees derive the strength in their wood and of what use would weak wood be? Satan must be allowed to exist until his time is fulfilled because he is instrumental to the maturing of God's children at least. His opposition to God only serves to give greater meaning to God's doings. Without the context of Satan's antagonism, God's benevolence and greatness would be imagined at best.

In this I disagree with you; in a sense. Without Satan't antagonism, God's benevolence and greatness would be completely meaningless . What is the value of white without black or any of the other colours? Of wealth without poverty? Of health without illness? For that matter, if evil did not exist, would we have free will? For there is no choice without value and if you eliminate one, then surely you eliminate the other. So in this, I agree with you completely.

cyrexx: I submit to you that each and everyone of us are atheists. Yes, its true and I will show you.

I just believe in ONLY ONE LESS GOD than you do. We both disbelieved the same number of many other Gods, I only exceeded you by just a single one of them. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible Gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

cyrexx: If you believe in the Christian God, otherwise known as Yahweh, you have chosen to reject Islamic Allah, Indian Vishnu, Yoruba's Orunmila and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.

In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject Yahweh. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think your God is imaginary, hence we are both atheists in one way or another.

In other words, each religious person on earth today arbitrarily rejects thousands of gods as imaginary, many of which he/she has never even heard of, and arbitrarily chooses to "believe" in one of them.

Dude! I think you're confusing Faith and Religious doctrine. They are two different things.

For instance, the God of Christianity, Islam and Judaism is one and the same. However, our faiths are all completely different because they are founded on three very different religious doctrines. For instance, Jesus vs Mohammed vs the yet to come Messiah. Or turn the other cheek vs. Holy Jihad. The fact that I have no faith in Islam (I am Christian) does not mean I do not believe the God they [b]mean [/b]to worship does not exist - only that they do not do so correctly.

Besides, as Deep Sight has noted, once there is belief in one God or gods, a person crosses over from atheism to theism. There is no such thing as believing in all the gods of all religions that exist or existed - that is not theism. That is probably closer to atheism than anything else.

Deep Sight: Alright, I think I will take some time this afternoon to build up my case before Idehn returns.

Permit me to interject (and I hope I am not being rude or presumptuous with my contributions) but I've been mulling over this for a while and I'm not entirely sure it is possible to show first cause within the constraints of physicalism.

Mr Idehn's current positions on space-time seem to make this even more difficult, if it were at all possible, because it leaves room for all sorts of claims like 'the universe is infinite and eternal' and 'all that we witness in the case of planet formations etc are nothing but conversions from energy to matter and matter back to energy'.

Therefore, any first cause that you argue would really be nothing more than a first state of the universe.

Deep Sight: Following from this thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/817389/atheism-no-god-religion/8#11124875

My good friend Mr. Idehn had made the following exasperating contentions -

1. That there is as yet no plausible definition of the word "God" as to permit any discussion on whether or not God exists.

2. That the only things that may be considered as being existent things which we know of, are physical things.

3. That as such, as far as we know, God does not exist..

4. That time and space themselves exist only in the human mind and do not exist in and of themselves.

We had alot of trouble getting off the first point: namely Mr. Idehn's contention that there is no plausible (clear and coherent) definition of the word "God" as to permit any discussion into whether or not such exists. After much trouble, we agreed to accept the following definition for the purpose of this thread:

"God" - "A being said to have created the universe ex deo."

Creatio ex deo is a scenario whereby God is said to have created the universe from the substance of God's own being. This is as opposed to the scenarios of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) and creatio ex materia (creation out of some other previously existing eternal substance).

Given that the universe is physical, Mr. Idehn has concluded that God under this definition (ex deo) must perforce be physical. I had pointed out to Mr. Idehn earlier that creatio ex deo does not necessarily infer that God is physical - it could for example mean that God had caused elements radiating from its eternal substance to become physical - nevertheless as any conception of anything non-physical is not acceptable to Mr. Idehn, I conceded, within the other thread, that only for the purpose of this discussion - I leave God as being physical.

I make this concesion to advance the discussion for the following reasons -

(a). It is not material to my argument

(b). My argument centres on the universe being caused by a pre existent force/ entity/ intelligence

(c). As such, the question of physical or non-physical does not matter for this specific thread - although I personally do not believe God to be physical.

Now, if, and only if we succeed herein in showing the necessary existence of a pre-existent entity necessary as having created this universe, then and only perhaps then can we return to the question of physical or non-physical[/b]. I should add though, that this may be unnecessary, and I should also add that it is a pipe dream on a sunny afternoon for me to think that Idehn will ever accede to such anyway, or agree to the existence of a pre-existent cause at all.

Having made room permitting us to scale the problems of Iden's contentions (1) - (3) above, it is my intention to argue the existence of God based on the premise of the Big B[i]a[/i]ng. However I encounter another problem here because Idehn claims that time and space infact do not exist, and that these are only ideas within our minds. Inherently, I believe that this is an absurd notion because without time and space there would have been no universe in the first place - and of course the universe predates all living things including us, and even the whole earth.

Such is the nature of difficult and i believe - radically unreasonable and unscientific contentions which Mr. Idehn has set up, that it is a marvel that we can discuss at all. Nevertheless, lets give it a shot. We will therefore be compelled to start from the otherwise absurd position of having to show that time and space exist at all, before we proceed.

So let's start with the Big B.[i]a[/i]ng.

Deep Sight!!! Hats off to you on this very ambitious project. I look forward to the unveiling of your argument.

logicboy01: Atheism is a factual statement- there is no evidence to believe in God. Or do you have evidence for God?

Your God has the same evidence as the tooth fairy

Frankly, I tire of having to dissect your logical fallacies for you. Yes, there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of God. But the lack of scientific evidence does not in itself prove that a thing does not exist. That is why you cannot prove a negative. Atheism is the stance that God does not exist! Since the negative cannot be proven, atheism cannot be proven and is therefore not a fact! Agnosticism is the more accurate stance (if you are basing your position on pure logic). If you must quote Richard Dawkins, at least have the independent sense to examine his positions first.

logicboy01: I always meet shameless black people like you who are ready to be racist towards thier own black race rather than tell the truth about christianity. Were slaves ever sold as a commodity in West Africa before Europeans and Arabs came? No. My tribe for instance, killed other tribes or villages in war but never used them for slavery or sold them. Furthermore, there was little reason for slaves a man would use his 4 wives and 10 children to work on his farm in those days in Nigeria.
Furthermore, there were Jews that collaborated with the Nazis in selling out their own people. Do we blame Jews for the holocaust? No. Some people sold out their own people out of fear.

Furthermore, the british were shipping slaves since the 16th century from Nigeria. That is control. You dont get slaves willingly.

Religion is the worst form of control. christians have the highest divorce rates in America. Christians have carried out more religious wars than any other religion. Open your eyes.

You have no appreciation of history. Not Nigerian history, not African history and certainly not Christian history. It is a shame that you should spew such nonesense out of sheer ignorance when a bit of light reading would enlighten you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nigeria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyo_Empire#Slave_trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

a) Slavery in Africa dates its origins to before there were any European empires and well before Christianity.
b) Slavery initially started off with Africans selling off their own slaves (captives from military conquests) to Europeans
c) The Oyo Empire of Nigeria and the Borno Empire of Nigeria were actively involved in b) above.
d) It was only later on that Europeans began to forcefully capture slaves for themselves.

logicboy01: It is an easy argument to make. Religion has caused the death and suffering of so many people. Maybe when some of your children get molested by priests you will offset it with christian scholarships for other children.

What is the cost of a life? Religion has molested and killed many people. Religion divides and discriminates. The very reason why you cant see this is because of the biased nature of religion. "my religion is good". Even your bible contains genocide, sexism and slavery which it all supports.

This is mostly rhetorical. There's no attempt at logic so I will not bother dissecting it.

However, I need to provide you with one more history lesson. The bible is divided into the Old and the New Testament. Christianity is based on the New, not the Old. I am not saying the Old testament is not part of our religion, simply that Christianity is not founded on it. The Old testament provides the background for scripture, for some of Christ's teachings. But one of the most basic things you learn as a Christian is that Christ's teachings tore down a lot of the old ways and old practices and built a new way rooted in love. Of course, many Christians falter on this new path and fail to love like Christ and to emulate him properly but that is why faith is a process.
However, trying to argue against Christianity based on teachings and events that occured in the Old testament is like trying to pronounce judgement on a man for crimes commited by his forefathers.

Furthermore, you should know that during the dark ages of history, mankind regressed. The notions of equality that Greek and Roman citizens enjoyed were quashed by the early feudal lords. It was Christianity that helped to revive this by preserving the teachings, the writings and the history of ancient Greece and Rome. Furthermore, long before the enlightenment era which was to come in the 18th century, Christianity was preaching about equality and human dignity. Yes, I know it is the same Christianity that initiated the crusades but it is important to note that regardless of what Christians have done or what people have done in the name of Christianity, the religion itself does not advocate ideas such as slavery or war. And so I find it ridiculous that someone with such glaring gaps in historical knowledge should think to accuse Christianity of slavery. Fundamentally, Christianity is rooted in love. What is atheism rooted in?

logicboy01: Oh, so you know that your bible is quite useless in many parts. Why pick and choose? Is it not meant to be God's words.

The best option is to discard the bible totally.

See comment above. My faith is Christianity NOT Judaism.

logicboy01: Nope. Secular charities dont buy private jets. They dont buy mansions. Registered charities are always monitored. The church gets away with corruption.

Yes they do. As a simple google search of "charity private jets" would reveal.

logicboy01: Yet, it wastes hundreds of thousands of pounds in conversion in the UK, rather than spend it on poor people in Africa or Asia. Do you realise that the catholic church in Nigeria alone is richer than Oyedepo? Christians dont think far.

And if you are the quintessential atheist, I would say atheists don't even think. The Catholic Church is already serving a far greater function with those "hundreds of thousands of pounds" than you would like. And yes, we all know you don't agree with that function, but that is why you are you, and I am me. As a Catholic, I am happy with where my contributions are going. You don't give your money to the church, so please don't spend our money for us.

logicboy01: Every society has problems. However, some societies are more developed than others and some societies are backwards. The most developed countries are secular and have a significant amount of atheists. The UK is far more advanced than Nigeria.

The UK is slowly throwing away religion. Nigeria should follow suit.

I repeat: correlation in data does not automatically translate to causality.

logicboy01: What about household income?

http://www.alternet.org/economy/67723

One measure out of perhaps 20. Please.


And on this note, logicboy, I have to bow out. I tire of this endless debate not least because you make counterarguments that are not founded on basic logic. I have to say, it was fun though. I learnt a few things along the way. For instance, I didn't know about the religious debate with regards to the Rwandan genocide. For that, I will say thank you.

However, this argument is degenerating. I find myself repeating points I made in my first post, rebutting ridiculous comments or talking about things not even related to the original subject. I'd rather call it a day. Besides, it's Saturday!!!

You are welcome to the last word. I might login on Monday to read your response, if any, but I certainly won't respond.

logicboy01: Wow, because I like debates and say that there should be more atheists in Nigeria, I am fanatic? Epic fail plus hyprocrisy!

In the interest of civility on the forums, and having read through your friendly banter with Mr Anony, I recant that statement.

logicboy01: If I am a fanatic, what does that make the millions ofchristians who preach on buses and on public squares or go to people's front door to push propaganda? I only debate on the internet. Furthermore, when christians preach right here on the internet and Nairaland, I dont see people calling them "fanatics".

Missionaries doing God's work? And to be fair, you have a wider audience on the internet.

logicboy01: Furthermore, an "atheist fanatic" is almost an oxymoron. You cant exactly be a fanatic for a factual position or disbelief. There is no evidence to believe in a God- that is the postion. What you mean to say is "anti-religious fanatic" which would still not apply to me. I do not hate religions, I just want people to question their religion. Most people who honestly do that become atheists or agnostics.

It is not an oxymoron. The perfect example of one would be Richard Dawkins. It is not enough for him that he is an atheist, he actively seeks to convert others (quite like you do) and is in your face about it.

Also, there's nothing factual about atheism. Even evolutionary theory does not disprove God. No one has a sound theory for the origins of the universe.

logicboy01: Stockholm syndrome does not only apply to kidnapping scenarios. Please, think deeper and go and learn how Stockholm syndrome is used in modern English. What I am trying to say is that praising religion for education is quite wrong as religion has done much harm to education in Nigeria's case. You are praising it for some of its contributions to education when it has done a larger damage to education in the bigger picture.

Ah! You were referring to Religion as my captor. You see, I did not get that. Not least because I voluntarily go to church every Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Sundays . And of course, on days when I'm caught up in a really good book I skip it! So, this analogy of yours really doesn't fit.

logicboy01: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_oldest_schools_in_the_United_Kingdom#Former_.28non-extant.29_schools
There have been schools in England since the 11th cenutry. There were grammar schools in the 15th century in the UK. There were christian founded secondary schools in the 16th century. Your christians and christian led monarchy felt that schools were not needed in Nigeria for over 300 years. The first school in Nigeria was the Church Missionary Grammar school in 1859. Apparently, slaves did not need schools. Why was it after the abolition of slavery that schools in Nigeria sprung up?

I'm not even going to read the link. You make this too easy logicboy. First off, nothing you've said "debunks" my counter arguments. Secondly, the British Monarchy did not gain control of Nigeria until the 19th century. Thirdly, before you go blaming Christians for the slave trade (just because that was the religion of the monarch in control - *shaking my head*) you have to remember who was supplying them with the slaves in the first place. We were the ones selling ourselves off; we have just as much blame. And this goes to the heart of part of my argument: human beings are cruel and will commit horrible crimes given half the chance, with or without religion. Religion is in fact, the best form of control.

logicboy01: Please learn about history before you praise christians for anything. Christianity does a lot of good but it is always overshadowed by its evils.

This is personal opinion NOT fact. It's a difficult argument to make because even with all the crimes Christianity is accused of, when I drive out of my house all I see is the good it does to the world.

logicboy01: I never suggested that we should do that. The actions of christians might have been watered down and changed but the bible remains the same. I ask people to question their religion. Atheism has no books or laws or rules or standards on evangelism. We do not do evangelism. Just read your bible and question its stance on slavery and scientific facts. How can we teach our children facts when we rely on a bible that treats evidence and myth as the same?

I think you underestimate the majority of Christians. I do not read my bible and follow blindly; not all that's in the bible is relevant today and I also believe much of it has been lost in translation so to speak. Frankly, if a voice in my head says to me "Go and sacrifice your Son" I will pray and fire all kinds of spiritual thunder at it. But this is not to say that I do not believe it happened to Abraham, just that it won't be happening to me in this day and age.

logicboy01: Furthermore, secular chairities can do the same. We see it everytime in the UK and America. Secular charities and foundations give but unlike churches, they dont take back in excess. Tithes, offerings, controlling governments, propaganda etc.

Secular charities can be equally, if not even more fraudulent than religious institutions. Every year, I read of at least 3 charities that were defrauding its patrons. I'd rather give to the Catholic church with all its flaws.

logicboy01: There are lives that catholic church has ruined. Pedophilia, wrong teachings on condoms and sexual repression.

Agreed. But does this mean we've moved the argument forward to degree of damage vs degree of contribution. An endless argument in my opinion. But still...

logicboy01: The catholic church is worth billions yet millions of catholics in Nigeria remain poor.

The catholic church does not operate only in Nigeria. It may be worth billions, but remember, it has a fellowship of over 1.1 billion by last count.
It has limited funds and capacity to take care of all these people.

logicboy01: The Catholic church is a government on its own when you think about the vatican. Why not build self supporting models?
Solar powered irrigation for African farmers so that you dont have to feed them every month that there is drought, No, the church wants them indebted to the chruch so that they will praise the church every month when the church gives them grains every month.

Lol. Previous comment applies.

logicboy01: But what if the state is religious? I do not want to eliminate religion. I just want more skeptics/atheists. if 15-20% of Nigerians were atheists, it would be okay.

I don't see how this would solve anything.

logicboy01: You were the one that used America as a strawman. You brought up America first. You mentioned America in reply to my point that UK is doing away with religion. I compared the populations just to show that atheism is not as small in America as many people suggest. That was it.

OK.

logicboy01: The fact still remains that the people who developed christianity in our country are throwing it away. Fact. The UK is very secular nd has a lot of atheists.

But there is no evidence that this has been for the better. If you've ever met a yob, you would know just why.

logicboy01: "prosperous" is an ambiguous word. To say that America is more prosperous that the UK can be problematic. The UK has less debt and a better healthcare system for its people. America wins on the size of its economy and it's trading ability. However, the British pound is stronger (almost double) than the American dollar.

Let us use a standard accepted by most economists. A quick look through their GDPs on wikipedia (per capita, nominal, what have you) will show that the US is consistently considered to be wealthier and thus more prosperous. The UK has less debt, but less growth. Healthcare is really the only thing it has going for it.
By the way, strength of currency is in no way a measure of prosperity.

Ptolomeus: After that last intervention of Logicboy, our friend caezar need the paramedics!

Abrazo amigazo!!
Vamo' arriba la celeste!

Sorry to disappoint you Ptolomeus, I simply had work to do. It would take someone much smarter to defeat me at logic .

Thing is, I am not a regular on these forums, I just had some free time yesterday. Don't expect me to post every minute.

logicboy01: @ Ceazar
I have been "praying" for someone like you to come along. Most religious people here avoid debates. Allow me to debunk you.

Clearly, and this is because your are an atheist fanatic. Your form of atheism is just another religion, sadly without a god.

logicboy01: I think you need a history lesson. Stockholm syndrome is wrong. The first christians came into Nigeria around 1471 (Portugese) while the British came some years later. The first school in Nigeria, CMS lagos was built in 1859. Before you talk about christian education or schools, you should know some facts;

-Christians/christiany r.aped and exploited Nigeria for over 300 years with slavery and colonization before building a school in Nigeria in 1859.
-The number of secular schools outnumber the christian schools

Furthermore, I was a catholic for 22 years. My states has many villages that have had catholic influence dating back to 200 years. Guess what? No development there.

For every child that the church feeds or educates, it is making thousands of dollars back in offerings and tax loopholes and also destroying the lives of other children with their teaching on condoms and accusation of witchcraft.

First and foremost, what is Stockholm syndrome doing in this comment? Perhaps you do not understand the term. I have not been kidnapped by the British, never was. Furthermore, I did not mention the British in the comment you quoted, so introducing them into the argument is clearly an effort to move the post. In fact, I am forced to assume you are referring to the British because otherwise the comment makes absolutely no sense. Please stick to what I have said and do not bandy big words about, they do not make you seem more knowledgeable and I am not susceptible to argument by innuendo.

Now to your point. The 388 years between 1471 and 1859 are completely irrelevant to the argument! Note that I am not challenging your facts. Did Portuguese Christians really visit Nigeria in 1471? Was the first school really built in 1859? Doesn't matter. Because a prima facie examination of your statement shows how ridiculous it is! How many Portuguese Christians actually landed in Nigeria in that time? How much influence did they wield? How long did they stay? Were they present during all of those 388 years? Even further, how many schools were being built back in Portugal at that time? You're talking about a period when education, even in the developed world, was not considered important for common peasants but a privilege reserved for the nobility. So what does it matter that they didn't build any schools in that period

That said, I am fully aware of the Portuguese tyranny - partly in the name of Christianity - back in the 15th century, before they were overrun by the British. But your argument is still flawed because this occurred over 500 years ago. Are you suggesting that we should abandon religion today for its failures 500 years ago? That’s ridiculous.

My point referenced present day events. Things you and I can witness for ourselves. If you want to rebut, focus on what I have said!!! This is a rookie mistake going back 500 years and not considering the unique circumstances in place at that time. This is why I say you need a history lesson.

Now to the next point. The number of secular schools outnumber religious schools. Another irrelevant point. I am not arguing that religion educates more people or provides more schools for us in Nigeria. No. My point is that religion makes a significant contribution to Nigerian society so please don't say it has failed Nigeria. By that reasoning, you would have to excise many elements of our society that are causing a glut, including our judiciary, local governments etc well before you got to religion.

This also applies to your point about your village. Is the Catholic church supposed to be building infrastructure for Nigeria Nawa O! Yet, the Catholic church makes a significant contribution to Nigerian society even though that is not its responsibility. Please revisit that church you attended for 22 years and ask around. You will find a few people that the church has empowered and whose lives it made better.

"destroying the lives of other children with their teaching on condoms and accusation of witchcraft". Now you're just grasping at straws. Ignoring the non sequitur, ignoring the straw man, even ignoring the falsity of your statement, you must realize that this argument concedes to my argument. You are saying that the church does more damage than it does good. But for that argument to succeed you must first accept that the church does good; it makes a significant contribution to society. If you want to proceed with the next logical argument, I am happy to show that the church does indeed contribute more to society than it takes from it.

logicboy01: Yes, Atheism does not solve problems by itself. Atheism is a theological stance. However, atheism lacks the divisive power of religion. Religion can cause wars.

As for Tutsis and the Hutus, there was christian influence in some killings in Rwanda. Go and read about the genocide again. Your example shows how Christianity can aggravate ethnic divisions.

I gave you that one.

But your argument is still flawed. It is true, that the Catholic and Protestant churches were a bit irresponsible in events leading to the genocide. It is true that the churches failed to denounce the killings quickly and early on. It is also true that the churches were engaged in ethnic politics before the genocide.
But it is not true that religion was responsible for the genocide. On this, there is a general agreement. In fact, if Rwandans had been 100% atheist, the genocide would still have occurred because like I said in my previous post, atheism does not cure illiteracy, ignorance and fanaticism!
And here we arrive at the flaw in your argument. No one is saying that religion is perfect. Religion is flawed. And if you took a cross section of all the world’s societies, great and small, you would see that religion has a strong influence on their economies, their politics, policies, laws etc. And you will find that some of it is good, some of it is bad.
However, what you are doing is making a sweeping generalisation that religion is completely bad/useless based on some of its bad qualities. What about the good qualities? What about the really good contributions that religion had made over its long history and continues to make to this day? For instance, in Rwanda, many Muslim and Christian clergy harboured and protected Tutsis even at risk to their own lives. This is a contribution from religion. This is the same thing I have been arguing against and that I have repeated time and time again: religion makes a significant contribution to society.

And that’s why I call you an atheist fanatic. You either do not understand how to make a logical argument (ironic considering you go by the handle logicboy) or you are intentionally bashing religion through the use of non sequiturs.

logicboy01: You are very wrong. Christianity is known to destroy culture. Religions can not stand other religions. Even in the bible, Idols of other nations got destroyed.

Please re-examine your statements. You want to preserve culture right? And you think eliminating religion is the way to do it. That’s what you started with. Now you say “Christianity is known to destroy culture” (again this is another generalisation but I will not challenge it now). Then you use culture and religion interchangeably saying “religions can not stand other religions. Even in the bible, idols of other nations got destroyed”. What do you want to destroy and what do you want to preserve? If you say contemporary religion should be destroyed, then those idols should be destroyed along with them. If you want to preserve culture then contemporary religions should be preserved along with those idols. Religion and culture are very much intertwined my friend.

If you really want to preserve the idols of our past, then the way to do it is through the state. Our government has failed in the preservation of our ancient culture, not religion.

logicboy01: It is funny that you did not talk about the seclarism and atheism in the UK where over 30% are atheists and many do not consider religion important in their lives. This is the same country that brought christianity to our country and they are discarding it because they know it is not for the 21st century.

As for the USA, it remains a secular state. Separation of church and state. 10-15% of Americans are atheists which translates to over 30 million american atheists. That is about half of the entire population of the UK.

Sometimes, I don’t even know where to start in dissecting your arguments. Your logic is often so riddled with holes it seems pointless. This must be the real reason people do not argue with you on the forums.
i) What are you doing comparing a US statistic with UK population. There is no correlation or relevance to your argument!
ii) Using your flawed logic, your statistics can be used to show that atheism is not good for the state! Of the two countries, US and UK, the US is the more prosperous and more powerful. If you want to argue there is a correlation between levels of atheism and levels of prosperity (as you have done) then the fact that the US has fewer atheists and is more prosperous than the UK should in fact show that atheism is bad for the country!
But this is not true in either case. Your logic and the one I have just presented above are both wrong because a statistical correlation does not translate to a causal relationship!

logicboy01: When you claim that the UK and USA were built on christianity what you mean is that these countries were built on slave trade, genocide of the local indians, imperialism and exploitation. Thank you. Both countries were built on slave labour.

I did not use the word ‘build’. I said founded. Please look in the dictionary for the difference. And once again, you have shown how little you know about history. These countries were founded in the middle ages as part of a series of failed efforts to unite Europe under one Christian empire. Britain for instance was already a powerful nation long before slavery, the discovery of the Indians or imperialism. It was long after, in the 16th and 17th century that the British Empire was born and the East India Company was founded.

Telling the truth about religion is not bashing religion

Then please have the courage to speak the truth in its entirety.

logicboy01: This question goes out to the religious people in Nigeria; What is the argument against atheism in Nigeria? .

Less that one percent of Nigerians are atheists. Is that really a good statistic?

As an atheist, I will put forward my reasons for atheism in Nigeria;


1) Relgion has failed Nigeria; When we look at christianity and islam in Nigeria, they have added to the corruption and poverty in Nigeria, rather than curb the corruption. Also religion has added to human rights abuse in Nigeria.
-Prosperity pastors ripping poor people off
-Religious southern politicians still stealing money.
-Religious northern politicians smuggling under-aged girls for marriage from North Africa.
-Pastors slapping young girls
-Boko Haram and terrorism

Not all religious people are corrupt but the important ones in Nigeria are quite corrupt. I will concede that most religious people have good intentions and not all religious people are bad. There is no guarantee that atheism will make Nigeria perfect. The evidence that we can point to is that the most peaceful countries (Peace index) and the most developed(human development index) are atheistsic or very secular.


2) Atheism is less divisive on deadly issues; Religion can unite people of the same faith but it can be deadly and divisive when it comes to people of different faiths. Nigeria is divided by religion into the north and south. Nigeria has the rare practice of having two sets of national laws with sharia differing from the common law.

Atheists from all backgrounds might not agree on millions of things but at least, they are not divided on a deadly/controversial issue like religion. Furthermore, atheist are more likely to focus on humans before God, gods or scriptures. Secular humanism?


3) Appreciation of our culture; Nigeria is not historically a christian or muslim country. Nigeria was a country of numerous tribal pagan religions. Christianity and Islam, by their nature, are not going to look favourably at keeping relics of paganism in museums and in villages alive, at least for tourism and history lessons for children. For instance, Japanese people keep their culture and history alive by maintaining Shinto shrines for people to see their heritage- Japanese people do not believe in religion (mostly atheists + irreligious) but they keep it for historical and cultural reasons.

While I personally do not believe in paganism, I think that we should keep our shrines and idols for people to see what our forefathers did in their time. This could also be a tourist attraction like the Shinto shrines in Japan

https://www.scncucc.org/voices/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ShintoShrine.jpg

https://images.travelpod.com/users/pedalpaddle/10.1250255164.izumo-izumo-taisha-grand-shinto-shrine_6.jpg

4) The commonwealth argument; The British who brought christianity to Nigeria are not as religious as Nigeria. Studies even show that about 40 percent in the UK are not religious and 20% are atheists. Why is this so? Why is it that the country that brought christianity to Nigeria is rejecting it and they (the UK) are better off than Nigeria? Does God love secular countries or are secular countries just more developed?



I would like to see counter-arguments (Arguments against atheism in Nigeria) or thoughts about the arguments I made. Cheers!

Lol. What an absurd and inconsistent set of arguments to make!

1) Religion has failed Nigeria? Religion, has built Nigeria!!!
Being a Christian, I can't speak much for the Islamic religious institution, but here are a few things religion has done for us:

a. It has built us many schools: Loyola Jesuit College, Christ the King College, Regina Pacis to name but a few secondary schools. Loyola Jesuit College is the perfect example here. Many of its students have gone on to very good higher institutions in foreign countries (please I do not wish to get into an argument about brain drain) they will in time come back and give back to Nigeria. That's thanks to some Jesuits.

b. Economic empowerment! I'm catholic, and so I speak from that perspective. I went for a bazaar recently for a church we're opening in some far off village in Abuja. Ordinarily, nothing would take me to that remote part of town, but because I had been specifically invited by the priest, I went. At the bazaar, they auctioned off many items to raise money for the church. But most importantly, they auctioned off taxis, motorcycles, fans, sewing machines etc for the poor residents of that village so that they could use these items to generate an income for their families. That's a contribution from religion!!!

There are countless other examples that anyone with open eyes and half an imagination can come up with. Religious institutions are perhaps better than our government in actually assisting the very poor people in our society.

2) Again, what The world has issues mate! And they do not stop at religious differences. Have you heard of the Hutus and the Tutsis? In Rwanda, you have a country divided not along religious lines BUT ethnic ones. In fact, an extensive study of our history will show you that Nigeria's first cracks occurred along ethnic lines not religious ones so it is not clear that eliminating the current religious tensions would somehow unite Nigeria.

And to preempt you, atheism does not miraculously (pun intended) solve any of Nigeria's problems. Atheism is not a cure for illiteracy, ignorance or fanaticism as is evident from some of the comments on this forum.


3) Of all your points, this is the most laughable. You have NO appreciation for history. For if you understood the influence that religion has had on preserving culture the world over you would show more respect. For instance, in the Dark Ages of our history, it was Christian monks who preserved the texts of our natural sciences in those days and the texts of ancient cultures you would revere today. But the most laughable thing about this point is that I cannot see how religion stands in the way of the preservation of cultural artifacts.

4) I hate to repeat this point over and over again but you are in sore need of a history lesson. Amongst other things. Secularism and Atheism are two very different things! This UK, that you so proudly point to, was founded on the back of Christianity. It's roots are intertwined with those of Christianity. And have you watched a Republican presidential debate (this is the US not the UK, but what better example than the most developed country in the world)? Religion is very much a part of US politics even as the state is clearly secular. You must then ask yourself why religion plays such an important part of politics in this country if, as you say, atheism leads to greater development.


I think some atheists on this forum have turned this forum into a medium for religious bashing. I was jobless today and I stumbled on a Nairaland post during a google search. Since then, all I have seen on Nairaland is countless examples of shoddy, ridiculous arguments from atheists which are really just an excuse for religious bashing. I think that's sad. We should all be entitled to our own faiths, or lack thereof without fear of attack from people of conflicting faiths... or lack thereof.

I am posting in response to the original poster.

I believe (note that I have said 'believe') that it is simply because Man is incomplete without free will.

In turn, free will is impossible without choice.

And with choice comes a host of other things: uncertainty, value, but most importantly right and wrong.

If man must have the right to choose, he must also have the right to choose wrong. If Man was created in God's image and to reside with God, it must also be by choice. Therefore, Satan, Evil, the Tree: all were necessary so that while Man resided in Eden with God, it would remain by choice. But just as well, at any point man could decide against that choice, eat of the tree and walk away from God.

I also think we sometimes misunderstand God's omniscience. God knows all paths that are open to us, knows what each path will bring us, knows our hearts and what sways it, knows our thoughts and the very moment we've made a choice, yet he does not interfere in that process - at least, not most of the time. There is a difference between a gentle guide and a controlling tyrant. God is the former not the latter. For in order for us to truly love God, we must be able to choose the path that leads us to him.

To sum it up, I believe God is mostly concerned with the beginning and the end.

VACANCY! VACANCY!! VACANCY!!!

THE FOLLOWING POSTS NEED QUALIFIED CANDIDATES TO FILL THEM IN A REPUTABLE ORGANIZATION IN ABUJA AND PORT-HARCOURT.

A. PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER/MARKETING EXECUTIVES
QUALIFICATION: Bsc –MARKETING/COMMUNICATION

B. ENGINEERS
QUALIFICATION: Bsc- ENGINEERING (MECHANICAL,
ELECTRICAL, CIVIL, CHEMICIAL etc)

SEX: MALE OR FEMALE

CONTACT: E-MAIL: careers@tycol.net

Candidates are invited to apply for a new opening in our technical department. Our requirements are for an individual with a degree in either Electrical, Mechanical or Civil Engineering. There are only 3 available slots and candidates must have prior experience. See www.tycol.net for more information.

Hey guys,

New vacancies: take a look at www/tycol/net -> careers.

Happy hunting.