₦airaland Forum

donjazet:
Religion promotes nepotism and fosters disunity in our society.

When we say that religion is one of the major problems in our society, you guys automatically think only towards the government. As if it is not human beings extracted from our society that constitutes the government.

When we say religion is one of the basic problem we have in our society, we are talking about how religion affects the basic social, psychological and mental makeup of it's citizens.

Religion twists the mindset and judgement of its citizens negatively hence you have a very dysfunctional society. You have a society of judgemental hypocrites.

For instance, IN our country, we can't even entertain the idea of legal abortion, but we have millions of girls who have carried out illegal and dangerous abortions.
We live in a country where virgins before marriage is almost nonexistent, where guys and girls start having sex (which is a natural biological impulse) once they have attained puberty and rather than the society being very open about sex and it's after effects, everybody chooses to turn a blind eye to this social dilemma.
Nobody talks about sex education in the schools or thinks of legislating safe abortion methods.

Instead, we delude ourselves that we have a higher moral standard than the societies that chose to be open to these ideas and face it head on.

donjazet:
I am not angry, the sheer level of nescience corralled on your last post was mind boggling.

I have told you this, the theory of evolution
or the Big Bang Theory are just that, Theories. They are not laws. It is just an acceptable premise upon which further work or proof is needed. You need to go and study the stages of scientific research from hypothesis to it becoming law.
As I have told you before, the beauty of science is that it is constantly worked upon unlike religion where you cannot question it's laws.

I don't fully believe in evolution or the Big Bang, i just know that they make more sense than someone telling me we were created from the navel of a snake or someone telling me the universe magically appeared in 6 days.

Accepting limitation of knowledge is better than believing false information.

donjazet:
You are talking pure rubbish, please I like to argue with intelligent people.
It seems you don't even know your Bible.

The people that wrote that creation story obviously didn't know about the rotation of the earth until Galileo came along. They also had no idea about photosynthesis else how would plant and trees have grown without the sun
For better clarification, let me the parts of the Bible creation.

On the first day;
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Genesis 1:3–5)

Both of us know that the source of light on earth is from the rays of the sun, so what light is being described here?

Now on the 4th day;
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. (Genesis 1:14–19)

As I said earlier, I believe you know that why we have the concept of day and night because the earth rotates along its axis every 24 hours and the part facing the sun is brighter(day) while the part away from the sun is darker (night). So how the fuck_ was there day and night on the first day if the sun was created on the 4th day

Don't forget that on the third day, God created vegetation of the earth, today both of us know plants grow through photosynthesis. Capturing light from the sun, so how could there have been trees and plants without the sun

Moreso, as I told you previously, there are numerous creation stories, the Yoruba's believe that obatala poured sand from his pouch and the land was filled soil for planting. I have told you of Buddhist monks who believe the world originated from the navel of a snake.
Give me a good reason to believe yours.
I have told you that scientific theories are subject to change. Right now the theory of evolution is widely accepted because more evidence supports this however nobody will force you to believe it and more so the theory is both being improved and disproved by different scientists.
Nobody will be offended if you don't believe evolution but I bet you are angry I don't believe that your "God" created the earth. His creation story no gel at all.
Nobody can lay claim to the knowledge of creation right now, that's a fact my friend. Only in time, can we have that answer.

raumdeuter:
You are the one that is confused here

Chrry picking is hypocritical to you have no problem with it

raumdeuter:
You are sounding confused, You first said cherry picking was hypocritical, and now you say you are not saying I should accept everything

This was you calling it hypocritical or is this another person posting with your handle

raumdeuter:
You complained about cherry icking and I explained to you that in life to make the best choices you have to cherry pick and not just accept everything thrown at you

raumdeuter:
In life and in knowledge you cherry pick what you believe, You just dont believe everything thrown at you until incontrovertible evidence has been provided

donjazet:
Your first paragraph seemed very reasonable but you went downhill from there pretty fast.

First of all, Science is not a person, or a political organisation or a belief system.
Science simply means acquisition of knowledge through study and practice.
The study of nature and how it's component bodies interact.
Simply put science means knowledge. That's why it has thousands of branches, because so far as you are studying and gaining knowledge of any natural component, you are a scientist.

You are attempting to combine science and religion and that is just so preposterous.

Religion is a BELIEF SYSTEM that claims to have the answers already and set fixed moral standards and etiquette for living and most importantly tells you never to doubt the knowledge being presented while science is simply acquiring further knowledge and challenging the premises of religion that tells you to have faith and never doubt what you are being told.

What makes this soo dangerous is that there are a lot of different religions with different contradictory beliefs and standards.

You as a Christian adherent believe that the entire universe was created in 6 days. A Buddhist monk who has different Gods believe that the origin God Brahma came from the navel of a snake, An igbo traditional worshipper believes that man fell from the sky and so many more different varieties of origin story.

WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE THAT YOUR OWN VERSION OF CREATION STORY IS BETTER THAN OTHERS.

Already scientists have punched a lot of holes in the Christian creation story.
God created the sun and the moon on the fourth day but created day and night on the second day how

Because of the limitations of the knowledge of those who wrote the bible, they didn't know of the numerous other planets out there, so they used the concept of time on earth for the creation story. A day on earth is about 14 days on another planet, so meaning that for other planets, it took God half a day to create the whole universe abi? You can see the shallowness of the Christian creation story and there are much more.

Meanwhile science presents a more logical THEORY. That of evolution.
It shows that the earth and man underwent great tremendous changes over billions of years to form and be what we are now. Discovered fossils and carbon dating are supporting this theory.

If you ask me I know which is more reasonable and logical between the two.
And moreso the beauty of science is that the current belief is subject to change and challenge, unlike that of religion that will punish you for even thinking of challenging it's story.

Science will continue to unravel the current mysteries of the universe but you must open your mind to learning and seeking new knowledge not confining yourself to an anachronistic mindset.

raumdeuter:
What you call the coward stance is actually the intelligent thing to do. You can hear a story and deduce which parts are real and which parts are exaggeration. So you know what part to believe and which ones to discount

I have heard and read about the life of Sango, I know that truly he was a king in Yoruba kingdom but I also know that he was not spitting fire from his mouth literally

Ibime:
Comot dia. Messi in the 1990s would be superhuman. Players don't have space to play now like then and Messi is still a God in this day of constructed space

Expert17:
The funny thing is, Henderson is a top contender for EPL best player.

I dnt like him for anything, but he has done well this season.

raumdeuter:
I have a video of Gnabry destroying VVD, Do you want to see it again?

raumdeuter:
Boateng vs Chelsea in february

ChristineC:
KdB, Ndidi, Son (quota filled)

raumdeuter:
In February Boateng came to London and destroyed Chelsea at home

raumdeuter:
VVD met Gnabry a lesser player than lewandoski and it ended in tears. Anytime he doesnt have players to do his defensive work for him, we see him for who he really is. The DDutch Semitoje

raumdeuter:
How can a player with a broken leg molest your club so much. Imagine if he was fully fit?

ChristineC:
the truth is Liverpool has no worthy mention in midfield this season.

raumdeuter:
Lewandoski and Boateng are part of the team that trashed the Chelsea farmers a few weeks ago

Lewandoski even with a broken leg

Can you answer the question below

Ibime:
Trent is square on and will not stop Messi as evidenced in this freeze frame when Matip engages Messi.

It was up to Matip and VVD to create a sequential barrier for Messi and they did so perfectly. By the time Matip fouls Messi, VVD is directly behind him for any second engagement, while Trent is nowhere near able to stop Messis run directly to goal.

A perfect photo finish to show that what VVD and Matip planned worked exactly to perfection.

Jodera:
... Seeing Mane at that wing is a justifiable inclusion, that's why my mind didn't go towards auba. Maybe if another person was there, and not mane, I would have obviously remembered him.