₦airaland Forum

Tellemall:
There is the difference between a person who willfully discards a thing they believe to be against their religion and one who doesn't know better.

From much of what I've seen those two categories are often intertwined; as in the rejection of certain scientific concepts seems to often be preceded by lack of understanding of said concepts (the amount of times I've had to explain evolution here on NL to theists who reject it is testament to that). And that lack of understanding probably follows from religion discouraging thorough exploration of those concepts.

For example, when faced with information about the big bang or something, a religious person is very likely to reject it outright due to discomfort & cognitive dissonance exclusively caused by competing religious ideas they hold, whereas a nonreligious, or perhaps very casually religious person, might be more likely to approach the information with curiousity, thus more likely to actually learn about it to the point of understanding.

So it's not like anyone is saying that being religious automatically makes anyone stu*pid. Religious beliefs just tend to set up psychological structures that prevent people from becoming "intelligent". Perhaps that would explain the correlation.

joshysmartie:

So in essense I can get bones of millions of this in museum? Thats they extinct or what?

There aren't millions of fossils of the common ancestor...

That image was clearly made by someone who does not actually understand the topic of human evolution and thought he was being smart. Humans are not the progeny of chimpanzees -- what the image was probably referring to us having "millions of fossils of". The (now extinct) common ancestor we share with chimpanzees was an ape (as we are) that shared some characteristics with both chimps and humans, but was not "chimp" or "human" and had some unique traits of its own. We have very few fossils of all our ancestral species (& all extinct species) due to the very meticulous & rare process of fossil formation.

Antiparticle:
Astute response. I couldn't have written this as well as you just did.

I appreciate it

UyiIredia:
If your case is similar to the guy then you are not an atheist. An atheist can never believe in the existence of supernatural forces because the believe only the natural world exists.

No, you just described a naturalist:

"In philosophy, [naturalism] ' is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."

"a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

An atheist can be a naturalist. Or an atheist can have spiritual ideas that don't coincide with a naturalist worldview. Regardless the defining factor of an atheist is the disbelief in GODS, period. Stop trying to change definitions to suit your perspective, it's dishonest.

OLAADEGBU:
Our God is a consuming fire.

Sounds like he and Satan are pretty much on the same page then?

odijeks:
Chemical reactions that occurred spontaneously without any aim, direction or guidiance produced life.

Who said the reactions had no direction? Don't conflate "spiritual guidance" with natural patterns - the latter can exist without the former according to everything we've observed in nature thus far. The formation of galaxies, planets, and organisms all follow specific, stepwise processes that obey the laws of physics. There is indeed order involved, there's just no reason to assume that said order requires a mind to operate.

Yet, with aim and intent, supervision and intelligence, we can't replicate what nature did spontaneously billions of years ago.

Yeah, yet. Realize that modern biological science has only been around for what, 200 or so years? Compared to the 180,000+ year long existence of human beings. Science is a NEW thing, and in its relatively short time it's been able to do things that would have been unimaginable in our primitive days. Specifically in the realm of biology, we've done things like create functional artificial limbs & organs for people, see the tiny cells that make up human bodies and test for the presence of specific diseases, synthesize chemicals that target specific areas of those cells effectively and reliably. We have even cloned entire organisms by manually transplanting DNA.

Why, then, do you think that human-guided generation of life from simple building blocks could not one day become possible? If you follow the latest biological research you would see that we are getting closer and closer to such capabilities. And even if for whatever reason we never accomplish it, how would that prove Yahweh? All it would prove is that our human minds were incapable (at least, given the time we had; who knows how long our species will survive & keep doing science) of assembling certain things nature is able to assemble through it's natural processes. Stars and galaxies seem to be in that category (things humans understand but can't assemble ourselves) but we don't need to invoke deities to explain how stars form. We already know the process - just because we can't do it ourselves doesn't mean it's supernatural rather than natural.

What you're presenting here is the god of the gaps argument. You're saying that because there are certain things we don't yet understand, or can't yet do, god must be the answer. Unfortunately that argument fails on many fronts, some of which I've outlined already. And most of all, it puts your god idea in the "ever-receeding pocket of scientific ignorance". The more we discover about how our universe works, the more your god & his assumed capabilities shrink.

holamiday:
It's obvious atheism is gradually becoming more like a status symbol. Even folks who know not the meaning claim to be atheists. Most of them only think it's cool and makes them stand out. You'd be shocked some of these atheist-claiming folks go to church on sunday. Some of them cannot dare proclaim it anywhere offline.

Reason i don't take them seriously around here.

Please tell me you are joking lol.

And there are very legitimate reason for an atheist to want to hide their atheism in public. Nigeria is a 99% religious country (maybe lower now). There are people in Nigeria willing to slaughter homosexuals because it's against the bible - imagine what such people would do to someone who rejects the bible entirely? It's not safe, if anything as a Nigerian atheist I'd personally only reserve the disclosure for people I'm very close to.

Not to mention when a religious person learns you are atheist they often take it upon themselves to try and "bring you back", only to torture your ears with the same fallacious arguments for god again and again. It's a pain most of us would rather not willingly subject ourselves to.

odijeks:
No one is claiming perfection. we are rather claiming intelligence. Is an airplane perfect? NO.! does it depict intelligence? Hell Yes!!

Actually the person I quoted seemed to indeed be presenting the perfection argument.

But to answer you, intelligence still presents a dangerously human perspective. There is no evidence to suggest that anything like intelligence exists outside of biological systems (like brains). And we know that natural objects (as in, not manmade like planes are) can arise as a result of natural chemical and physical processes acting on very simple constituent building blocks (ex. stars consist mostly of basic hydrogen & helium despite being so large). The formation of a multicellular organism like a human body, for example, can all be explained chemically.

You might then argue that those processes are being guided or dictated by some creator or intelligence. But it's more plausible that the processes act independently, given that if an intelligence were behind things, we'd have to be able to explain how such a complex entity arose on its own. Invoking an intelligence creates more questions than it answers.

Furthermore, even if an intelligence is assumed probable, that intelligence still would not prove Yahweh. In fact, such an intelligence as I described above (one that simply guides along, or set in place the laws that guide consistent natural processes) would disprove biblical Yahweh and his particular creation claims.

ClintonDal:
When I truly appreciated the wonders and magnificence of God was back in med school. During the anatomy practicals on cadavers and embryology classes, I was wowed. The way everything was structured and followed a definite plan and layout was simply amazing. Even the blood supply, drainage and everything. We humans just named the work of God as science, and that is where the problem is.... we confuse the both not knowing they are one and the same. The beautiful work of God on earth which we can see, read, comprehend and even improve upon is today known as Science. It was reputed to be Magic in the early ages but it is written in bible that greater works shall ye do.

During your biology courses did you not notice the many flaws & potential malfunctionings in the human body? The way a single mutation can lead to abnormal enough functioning to cause serious illness (like sickle cell, neurodegenerative diseases, developmental disorders, extra limbs)? The way certain body structures are placed in very infection-prone locations (like the vagina's proximity to the anus)? The fact that over 40% of attempts at reproduction result in spontaneous abortion due to DNA copying errors & the like?

Human bodies, like those of all organisms, are incredible, awe-inspiring, complex, but far from perfect. They're exactly what one would expect from a process of gradual, adaptive biological change, incapable of foresight and prone to error -- not the perfect and finite sculpting project of an omniscient creator.

smogup:
.
We know God exist because it is based on faith. You can't explain faith to atheists out there. There some arguments I believe can be used to prove the existence of God outside faith and religion.

To claim to know something by faith is literally oxymoronic. Faith in it's essence is believing without evidence, accepting something as true without solid proofs. It's using ones emotions as a way to evaluate claims.

So "knowing" something through faith isn't "knowing" at all, it's just hoping, cloaked in unwarranted certainty.

lordnicklaus:
You always fire at the bible. Has God done anything wrong to you?

Do you sincerely think that a person has to be emotionally scarred somehow in order to notice blatant scientific flaws in a piece of ancient text? There are people who deconstruct myth books for a living, I don't think they're doing it because they're angry at Zeus or Homer.

laribari:
Amen o!

The truth is, I don't care who it is but as a Christian we have a great responsibility to defend our faith and God.

Paul said urges us to contend with those trying to take away our faith. Scipturally, Im ready to take on any none entity so dares God.

Because you are indoctrinated.

The fruits of indoctrination are unquestioning obedience and defensiveness towards anyone who opposes or criticizes the religion (whether their criticisms are logically sound or not). Your mind has been taken over by dogma and you are psychologically compelled to defend it at all costs, regardless of what is reasonable.

francis247:
To the Atheists, would you care to explain the reason behind the spiritual events and experiences as narrated by some persons in this thread?
https://www.nairaland.com/2705292/seeing-demons-angels-fallen-angels

Simple. Human brains are prone to delusions and hallucinations. There has been much research done on this topic within the fields of Psychology and Neuroscience.

People can hallucinate without having consumed drugs; our senses can play tricks on us in both subtle and serious ways. And believing that something is real (especially when that "something" is supernatural with a lot of emotional connection associated with it) can "make" that thing feel and seem very real in our minds. Belief in itself is enough to alter people's perceptions -- the way we interpret our various experiences or hallucinations is molded by what we already think to be true.

Atheists don't think all theists are lying when they say they've seen spirits, satan, god, etc. We just know they're victims of the fallible and easily tricked human brain.

Liveair:
Hardmirror ...Hardmirror...Hardmirror...
Come and finish this story or...

He created a part 2 here
https://www.nairaland.com/3085047/part-2-pastor-atheist-why

bytemeister:
Another Atheist?!...Where the hell do they keep coming from.

Someone sounds very pained

Nice writeup OP.

malvisguy212:
satan prevent bad thing from happening to his children so that they wouldn't run for help to another.

Of course. When all else fails, just blame Satan, another imaginary entity. More illogical excuses for your illogical arguments.

Even if this wasn't just a ridiculous cop-out born of serious religious brainwashing and lazy thinking, what you've basically just conceded is that Satan is more useful, powerful, and trustworthy than god. Satan has the power to make prosperous, safe, lawful nations while god can only sit back as millions who believe in him starve to death, suffer at the hands of corrupt governments, die from curable diseases, and kill eachother.

OLAADEGBU:
Suggested answer:



The real reason atheists claim that God does not exist.

Ah yes, what a simplistic, satisfying explanation for the (shallow, biased, & likely ignorant) theist. Let's pretend that intellectual honesty, education and rational examination have nothing to do with it. No, people only denounce our superstition because they fear the consequences of not following the rules of said superstition.

Too bad that explanation makes little sense for obvious reasons, nor does it coincide with what the data show. Which is that Christians and non-Christians practice the same amount of pre-marital sex on average, Christians actually get MORE divorces, and that non-Christians throughout the globe are more peaceful, less tribalistic, and commit less crimes on the whole. Widespread secularism has shown to be correlated with higher levels of human rights, better education, more equality for men and women, better healthcare, less homocide and rape, less government corruption. In other words, the only place in which "people become atheists so they can do more bad stuff", is in your own prejudiced and deluded heads.

It means the bible preys on the egos of the gullible to keep them drunk on unwarranted confidence. Humans like to feel they are "right" because it strokes our self esteem and makes us feel secure. This ego stroking is just one of the many types of psychological & emotional manipulation religions utilize to gain and retain followers.

Most people would rather feel good about themselves with little mental effort (ex. recieving praise for unquestioningly accepting unsubstantiated beliefs), than potentially have their egos harmed for more effort (ex. suffering insults or being ostracized for critically examining said beliefs). Example of the former case:

"Haha, yes, everyone who does not believe in my god is a FOOL! It says it right here in this book that I've decided to believe despite no evidence indicating the validity of it's claims! But I don't care because this means I am better than everyone else! I am NOT a fool because I believe! Praise God!"

And Christians fall for it hook, line, & sinker.

francis247:
God is perfect by virtue of his position; because he is GOD. Even more than our parents, He's perfect in all things. And no, He doesn't need your worship but desires it. We need Him to survive but he does not need us to, just like a child needs a parent.

Alrighty let's break this down.

God is perfect by virtue of his position

That's a cop-out then. Because it means a person can formulate a god character and no matter how petty, maniacal, murderous, unjust, or stupid that character is, it would still be accepted as legitimate. To me, it's a rather pitiful existence to worship such a character, one that doesn't stand up to scrutiny and instead has to be made infinite excuses & exceptions for. Especially when said character has not even been proven to exist.

He doesn't need your worship but desires it

Ok, why does he desire it? He is "perfect". He should be fully content in himself if he is truly perfect. Worship is for beings who need their ego stroked. Does god have an ego? If so, why? Oh yes, perhaps because he is modeled after humans.

We need Him to survive but he does not need us to

Like any other social animal I need food, shelter, and relationships for my survival, none of which have been provided by me praying to a magical being in the sky. I don't need to believe in such things to survive, neither do the millions who live in nonreligious developed countries and are prospering.

And neither do you, you've just been brainwashed to think you do, brainwashed to think he does things for you. When in reality he does nothing; you only attribute all the positive things in your life, which would have happened anyway via your actions or the actions of other human beings, to him - the same way a Muslim would attribute all the good things in his life to Allah or a Hindu would attribute them to Krishna. That is what religious indoctrination causes one to do. It's psychological trickery, confirmation bias, delusion. Swimming gleefully in one's own mental world of unproven assumptions and faulty conclusions made on emotional whim.

just like a child needs a parent

The child & parent analogy doesn't fit here, because a parent actually physically provides things for their child, nurtures & raises the child, and exists undoubtedly. The same can't be said for gods, which have not been proven to be anything other than human imagination, psychological trickery, and ancient myths taken seriously for far too long. Maybe a better analogy would have been, "we need him just like a child needs an imaginary friend" -- which is, of course, not at all, if we are fully in tune with reality.

darkenedrebel:
theists would find it hard to comprehend the same way atheists would so long as their backdrop in physics is at most, basic. on what plane of existence is there even a semi-rational link betwixt religion & the ability to comprehend the concept of the big bang?

is this an under-the-rose obsequy you're hurling at theists? you think atheists are more intelligent?

relent on your false pulpitry, milady. you're embarrassing yourself.

Its not about ability to comprehend, but rather willingness.

I did not intend to suggest that a typical theist is dumber than a typical atheist, and I apologize if my message came off that way. But a theist is in fact more likely to have all manner of psychological barriers preventing them from even wanting to understand such ideas, let alone following them through far enough and patiently enough to grasp a decent understanding.

It's why so many theists say things like, "the Big Bang is something coming from nothing!" or "evolution is monkeys turning to humans!" whereas atheists rarely if ever make such claims, even if they are unfamiliar with these topics. It isn't because the theists are stupid or that their brains are innately incapable of processing it. It's because their indoctrination has put them in a position of unnecessary skepticism and even disdain towards these scientific ideas, so their only "understanding" consists of incorrect and shallow caricatures, fed to them by fellow theists who are also determined to view the ideas as incredulous and worthy of ridicule in order to support their beliefs. This is a perfect formula for at least an initial misunderstanding, or the "flying over ones head", once they are exposed to the real explanations behind these things.

I fully believe that any human being with a healthy brain can understand these concepts. It's why I try to educate people here on NL as much as I can. But the false misconceptions, negative biases, fears many theists heads are filled with involving these topics can be a real barrier to that understanding.

francis247:
Man exists for God's pleasure; to worship and serve him just like your gadgets and other possessions exist for your pleasure and to serve you. What's so difficult to comprehend about this FACT?

The very idea that the supposed creator of the universe needs to be "worshipped" and "served" is a glaring sign that he is modeled after (in other words, invented by) humans. Only humans possess an ego capable of desiring worship and adoration. A truly perfect being would not need such a thing at all.

Recognize that even mere humans can be freed from egotistical need for praise, greed and pride; Buddhist practitioners meditate until those states no longer plague their minds - yet supposedly, the very source of the trillions of galaxies in this universe, the creator of light years of explosive and reactive celestial bodies, possesses such character flaws? For some reason, this all-knowing, infinitely powerful being capable of any feat, is saddened and angered when he's not acknowledged by tiny apes on a tiny blue ball of dirt?

dabosuker:
Hmnnn, your thoughts , Opinions & expressions in this Topic, I well appreciate. ...Thank "God", for female minds like you, that have no fear to use their "God given", brains.

Thank you so much, I appreciate that

EmekaBlue:
Nobody really knows...For me its a serious mystery man cant comprehend..Its above our medulla oblangata

We are capable of understanding our origins and we do know quite a bit about them now thanks to modern science. It sucks that most Nigerians are lacking that education.

robinsoncrosoe:
here is an intelligent lady.suprised a lady in nija can reason this way.

Thank you very much Though to be fully honest I have been studying in America for some time now.

goingape:
So your family mate with apes and begat you due to your explanation

Or your grandfather is a descendant of apes

This isn't how evolution works, you are ignorant on what the process entails. Please read the explanation I posted about ten posts above.

sinceraconcept:
I've always wondered about this too. Pls shed more light on it. I've always wondered if other living organisms also had their Adams and Eve to multiply into different species too just like humans

You're on the right track The phenomenon you are looking for is called speciation. It doesn't quite happen in an "Adam & Eve" fashion, in that there are never just two founders of a population, and new species never arise completely independently of others like Adam & Eve did, but from pre-existing forms dating all the way back to the very first life form. A population (the total number of members that belong to a particular species, like all polar bears alive at a given time) can be relatively small or relatively large depending on the type of species (microorganism populations are typically extremely large in comparison to populations of large mammals) and the conditions of their particular environment.

Speciation is a branching process, this is exhibited in the phylogenies of all species, including that of humans. A phylogeny is a diagram that shows the past speciation that led up to a group of more recent (usually presently existing) species over time. My favorite image of a phylogeny tree is this one, because of how comprehensive and appealing to the eye it is, and because of the notes which are worth reading:
https://45.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m56317FbtQ1rw7qibo1_1280.gif

If you look closely, two branches on the outer edge can always be traced backwards in time to a convergent point. For any pair or set of species being compared, that point can be more recent in time than another pair or set. This convergence point represents the most recent common ancestor of those species you are tracing.

Look at the far bottom right of the image (brown), and you will see that the convergence point for humans and chimpanzees is very recent in evolutionary history (about 7 million years ago) compared to, say, the most recent common ancestor of humans and snakes. The same is true of the most recent common ancestor of starfish and sea urchins; we can say that starfish & sea urchins, or humans & chimpanzees, are more closely related, because the ancestral species that divided to eventually give rise to either set, did so more relatively recently.

More specific, "zoomed in" phylogenies (ones that include more precise dates and the names of the specific species each branch represents) can be constructed for any clade (a common ancestor + it's decendents) you want to look at. For modern humans and all of our closest related known species:

[img]http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evograms/hominid_evo.jpg[/img]
I like this image a lot too because it also shows when certain defining genetic traits are thought to have arisen in these speciating hominid populations (due to mutation and natural selection), given present archaeological findings and genetic sequencing data.

I hope that was helpful!

Omero:
Ok, God the greatest physician will make the operation smooth and successful. Thank u Baba God in advance.

If physicians are needed what role is a god playing abeg?

thegreatm:
wow, this is amazing.. This child could have died for all I know. God saved him for a purpose... God will surely fix this... he makes no mistakes

You are forgetting that this same "god" would be responsible for the child being born with this defect in the first place.

englishmart:
God has a good reason for everything

He destroyed this child's physiology, guaranteeing health problems and perhaps death in this child's near future unless the mother can find a surgeon skilled enough to fix the problem HE created, and even if she does find such a specialist the probability of her being able to pay for it is slim since she is clearly poor - a situation god is also responsible for if he is indeed responsible for all of our fates. What a useless god if this is his best work.

And how twisted it is for someone to believe that a genetic deformity like this has a "purpose". It absolutely does not, and the only solution is ACTION guided by rigorous study and evidence-based practices, not religious myths that effectively do nothing to cure the biological ills of mankind.

goingape:
going by this! you are buying the ideal that YOU originate from APE!


science can talk RUBBISH.


this is a centuries debate and no reasonable answer yet known.

Sorry but inflated egos do not change or discredit scientific evidence. That you refuse to accept something because it makes you feel uncomfortable, angry, or shamed, does not make it false.

Furthermore, a reaction of anger and shame does not even make sense when you actually understand the process of biological evolution; sharing a common ancestor with a certain species does not mean we are somehow less capable as human beings; it doesn't devalue our species in any way, it only shows how far we have come through gradual genetic change over the eons, which I personally find awe-inspiring and wonderful. No one is equating you to an "unintelligent/ugly/wild monkey" when they say our species evolved, that perception is mindless ego and ignorance talking.

*And just to clarify:
Evolution doesn't state that our ancestors were "apes" as in the apes we see in the zoo today. What it does say is that humans share a common ancestor with the modern great apes like chimpanzees and bonobos. If you trace back human lineage, there are no chimpanzees or bonobos anywhere in the genealogy. However there is a species that split into seperate populations, which diverged into seperate evolutionary paths like a branching tree. One path led to humans (& other hominid species which have now gone extinct such as Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc.), and one path led to chimps & bonobos.

Anjelus:
May God in His infinite mercy shine His face upon you because going by all you have written is obvious you have a very wrong notion about God from the beginning because Christianity is not about activity but relationship, how can you place your evaluation of God on mere working of miracles which can be done by a wizard or herbalist.

Because this god says himself in the book he supposedly authored, that he does indeed work miracles for his followers when asked. He doesn't say "sometimes", or "maybe", or "according to chance". He claims it boldly.

If the bible was truly the inerrant word of an infallible god, the statements within it would stand firm always. You wouldn't have to make excuses for him like the ones you are making here.

The answer is that the biblical account of human origins is glaringly false. The bible was written and compiled by people in ancient 1st century civilizations who had no way of knowing their true origins due to the absence of modern archaeological, biological & geographical knowledge, talk less of having any clue about DNA and genetics and how to trace lineages by studying sequencing data.

There is no possible way, genetically or geographically, for all humans to have originated from a single pair of humans located somewhere in the middle eastern territory 6,000 or so years ago. There are even manmade tools and relics found throughout the world that date back far older than the proposed creation of biblical Adam and Eve. Modern humans were preceded by a large population of pre-modern hominids (not a single pair), and the many races we see today are a result of over 100,000 years of migration, adaptation, and genetic diversion from Africa.