₦airaland Forum

Nwibii:
May God have mercy on you, u have better start praying for forgiveness, else u will know that God owns even this platform u are typing nonsense. Maybe God will use social media to teach u a lesson for u to know that God exist. If u don't have respect for men u better do for God, idiot,else u will soon meet ur Waterloo.

haryorbarmie83:
you have answered him well. I hope he turn to God before his demise.

nurshah:
Good . now,to get rid of this cruel god, kindly stop using any if his supplies be it water ,air ,vegetation .create yours and be a good god to your creations

Because religious scammers (aka pastorpreneurs) are allowed to operate legally 

Shelumiel:
I'm a engineer so I don't believe in chance . Sorry . But you take your theory to those who gamble with Nairabet and see it they'll but your idea on "chance ".

Shelumiel:
Your cousin said these things (the universe and its mechnisms )happen by "chance" , and if I am to read meaning into that , then it means that the products acquired from this reaction will definitely occur due to "chance "...that also means that nothing (even the laws of science ) certain; and that everything does not follow a certain order or pattern, abi nor be so ?

Shelumiel:
I would have asked because air has Nitrogen as the highest composition, of which it should be consumed instead of carbon(iv)oxide, which has one of the lowest compositions in air . The funny thing about all this, is that the oxygen, take-in from air, is only utilized by our bodies ...this defies logic because Nitrogen( having at least 70%+) should be the one consumed or rather, a portion of it should have been consumed along with the oxygen, so it can not be by chance ; something or someone who designed the human structure, is responsible for making this extraction process successful .

Shelumiel:
A supreme being that created everything in existence. Now disprove this

sweetilicious:
I am made to understand that righteousness is not salvation.

profeazy:
You obviously do not know much about relativity and other theories such as Schrodinger's cat in a box!

profeazy:
Bwahahahaha...... It's hilarious that someone wants to use pi to prove the superiority of science! Big blunder! Or else tell me the last figure in the value of pi! The limitations of science submit to God's higher power!

Glycolysis:
Assumptions !
What if you had met % as the area of circle,won't you have believed it as an electrical engineer ?.....do you have evidence to have proved that % is the area of circle if it you had met is so ? Of course yes ! The evidence you would have had to prove that % is the area of circle is the GENERAL assumption that % is the area of a circle !

And you believed it !! ...By evidence of your own ??...



Now,I ask you as a respected electrical engineer you are ,what is YOUR evidence of the area of a circle ?...Your evidence ! YOURS SIR !

Glycolysis:
Lol....
Then do you have an evidence of how the earth formed ....Simple question ..
Like the processes ..I want to see it !!
I don't want any theory probably written out by drunk men who lives by ASSUMPTION of how the beautiful earth was formed....

YOU,DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF HOW THE EARTH WAS FORMED ?
...let's start from there first,I have lots of questions to ask you

Glycolysis:
[s]But you have faith that something forms out of nothing ? ....right ? You have faith that you evolved from nothing ....right ?...like some evotionary trends....You also have faith that orderliness forms out of disorderliness by some " powerful" gases that forms from NOTHING !!

Atheist accuses Christians of being delusionals,but they also are filled with bigger delusions !
Hypocrisy at best ![/s]

felixomor:
Millions also die while using drugs, chemotherapy and advanced treatment.

So.....
Whats your point.

budaatum:
There are many comments on here that make me want to laugh but though I've chosen to quote your's, it's because I like it more and can't really oppose Otem's

"Hold on to the beliefs of all those religions" says you. Which one's exactly? Does any religion have beliefs? Or is it not actually the case that human beings chose to believe what they read in their religious books or are told to believe like someone attempted to get one do on here. So, you take the first few chapters of say, the Bible. Read the two creation stories therein, and believe both despite the fact that they describe very different processes of creation? I'd love a religious person to explain to me how they accomplish that! But what you suggest is take all the religions and believe them all! Now that's a task!

So lets play a game shall we and take just one thing that one finds in some religious books, "Love your neighbour as you love yourself". I'll call that an ideal. A thing meant for the most perfect of beings to do, or just consider how possible it is for anyone to love their neighbour as much as one loves oneself. Absurd right, for us mere mortals. But then consider the effect, or consequence of believing that one should, such that the statement, "I believe that I should love my neighbour as much as I love myself" becomes valid. And I don't mean valid as in, that is what one does, but valid, as in that is what one believes. You know that's all I intend to do right, believe that I should, and probably that I do, as in, I believe that I love my neighbour as much as I love myself. So, one day, I took the 1000 Naira in my pocket, split it in two equal parts and gave half of it to my starving neighbour so he too can buy some food to eat because, my neighbours hunger is exactly equal to my own hunger, and besides, I believe that I should, or do, love my neighbour as much as I love myself. Aren't you going to call me a liar yet? After all, I only believed that I love, or should love my neighbour as much as I love myself and said nothing about aligning my actions along with what I claim to believe! Oh, the religious person would probably say I have fallen short. But isn't what I describe above exactly what the religious person does do - believe but their actions deviate wildly from what they claim they believe? And that applies to the more thoughtful of them. The more banal would claim their sin of not loving their neighbour as much as they love themselves is forgiven because Jesus died on the cross, and besides, they are only human!

My point is that religions are intended to teach certain things that are meant to improve the lives of the individual and society in general. But trust humans to think the facts, which merely divide and cause strife are what matter, and believing them too. Then again, they were all made up by rather imperfect human beings for very imperfect humans beings, so what else would one expect? I'm sure if there were made up by godly entities, they'd be perfect and they'd all be in agreement, and we wouldn't be arguing about any of it.

Op, become an atheist if you would. The benefits are that you would learn to be sceptical and not just rather lazily believe anything you come across or are told. You got to the stage you are at because your eyes opened and you began questioning your beliefs, and that can only be a good thing, since the alternative is to sheepishly unquestioningly believe what you were told by people who most likely know a lot less than you have bothered to know. You still have to not kill, not steal, and so on unless you wish to go to jail or not be trusted by most decent people. And when you die and there is a god who decides to cast you in hell because you held on to the wrong beliefs, despite living nicely, it is my opinion that that god is a rather silly god to begin with, and you should be glad to be in hell. It would be much better than a heaven where the criteria for getting in is the holding of the prescribed and approved beliefs in your head. But if heaven is your goal, then your best bet is indeed to consider that "There are thousands of religions and the best bet would be to hold unto the beliefs of all these religions. That way, you will not come short". Another version of Pascal's Wager, I guess. It sure made me laugh!

winner01:
You're demented if you still can't see that this thread is a counter thread to johnydon22s thread. You're demented if you think I'm trying to provide evidence to you or any atheist here. You're demented if you still this thread is an attempt to prove Gods existence.

Lol, really you guys are so unintelligent. You and that other guy. As terrible as dalaman is in simple comprehension, he's miles better than both of you. Read up johnydons reply. He's explained it to you already.

darkchild64:
OK I have to give it to you,this is so funny
Chemystery wahts ur take

winner01:
This is so low!

What is this nonsense you've written now?

If I say you're demented now, you'll start screaming Ad hominem

johnydon22:
I think everyone is misunderstanding the fundamental premise of this argument.

It is built from the original premise of my thread which assumes that evidence to prove the existence of God is necessary but the understanding the nature of evidence you must understand the sort of evidence that is necessary to satisfy the need for proof.

My thread asks: What sort of evidence would serve as sufficient proof in this regard?

And i think a short summary of Winner01's argument is "No evidence is necessary or will be sufficient enough to convince an atheist'

i quite do not agree with that. If an atheist sets his expected nature of evidence and such evidence is confirmed then such an atheist by his own standard has confirmed the illegitimacy of his doubt.

if he fails in the face of this evidence (which he think is necessary) to at least entertain the possibility of being wrong then that could be an intellectual dishonesty at play.

I hope this clears the argument though

winner01:
Either you're demented or just being unreasonable. I reiterate, I have nothing to prove to any atheist here, neither am I interested in providing any evidence for any atheist. This thread proves, based on johnydon22's question, that nothing will serve as proof for Gods existence to an atheist.


You'll need to get back to johnydon22 on this, he's the one who asked "what will serve as evidence for the existence of a God". I simply reiterated it.

Once again, my point remains, there is no evidence that any atheist can give to johnydon22 on this matter, that cannot be refuted.

Se fini.

winner01:
We are not saying the same thing. I'm definately not trying to provide sufficient evidence for anyone neither am I trying to prove or disprove anyone's evidence.

This thread simply proves that nothing will serve as evidence for Gods existence to an atheist, and I sure hit some nerves

Why not tell me what evidence will cause your "open-minded" self to believe in God, and let me simulate how your atheist brothers will dance around it.

winner01:
You still don't get it, do you?

This thread is not an attempt to tender evidence or to prove that God exists.

Its simply a thread on why no evidence presented can be sufficient for an atheist.

What would be sufficient evidence for Gods existence according to you?

Shelumiel:
...but have you tried disproving it ? No! So it's a stalemate.

Conclusion : let each man , hold on to what he/she thinks is right; so that when we die (of which we must ) , the truth regarding this mystery of whether there is a God or not , will be revealed. Shalom .