₦airaland Forum

Most ass-backwards country in the world. An embarrassment to any sane Muslim - not that it would stop them from giving the country money during hajj.

9inches:
It's either you did not read the whole thing or you have to work on your assimilation. "So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

I can't believe this. The level of intellectual dishonesty in this comment shows that your faith-based willful blindness to fact and denial of reality. The full quote: "*.Trying to take a long view of things, is it conceivable that one could found anything durable on falsehood ? When I think of our people's future, I must look further than immediate advantages, even [p. 59] if these advantages were to last three hundred, five hundred years or more. I'm convinced that any pact with the Church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful character of such a compromise. Thus the State will have based its existence on a foundation that one day will collapse. An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure science. That's why I've always kept the Party aloof from religious questions. I've thus prevented my Catholic and Protestant supporters from forming groups against one another, and inadvertently knocking each other out with the Bible and the sprinkler. So we never became involved with these Churches' forms of worship. And if that has momentarily made my task a little more difficult, at least I've never run the risk of carrying grist to my opponents' mill. The help we would have provisionally obtained from a concordat would have quickly become a burden on us. In any case, the main thing is to be clever in this matter and not to look for a struggle where it can be avoided. So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the [p. 60] stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity." Look at the bolded part you left out, we can see that Hitler was clearly opposed to atheism despite being critical of Christianity in private, making him a theist or deist. This however, doesn't change the fact that he used Christianity in his public speeches to solicit support.

9inches:
By this argument, you are saying morality is a majority-minority thing, aren't you? That justifies the extermination of the jews in Nazi germany- the accepted views of the society was imposed on them. The "rest of the world", out of sheer envy and hatred, took a high moral ground to attack a prosperous and independent nation. SUBJECTIVE [suh b-jek-tiv] adj. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).

This is the last time I'm going to explain this. Morality is heavily influenced by the social environment we are raised. If it was based on solely in the morality of the majority, then why did I say that we must try to convince others? Your morality is personal to you and that is a fact. To your second point: The invasion of Germany was a good thing because there was a very empirical effect, the death and suffering of millions of Jews. Hitler also dominated Europe with such rapidity that he proved to be a legitimate threat to the world powers.

9inches:
Moral absolutes do not depend on acceptability. It's a standard with which we measure our morality. A homosexual should not be harmed in any way regardless the society/country. A white male in Europe or America still has more opportunities than a minority. Affirmative action as a diversity program is a form of sacrifice to accommodate others (which can be seen as a virtue) if done willfully. It's even the asians that are at the short end the stick on this particular issue especially in the US.

Would you have said that a homosexual should not be harmed before exposure to the Internet? Would you have said that if you had been born in the 1950s. Would you have said that if you were born and raised in Maiduguri? Has this always been your position on this matter?

9inches:
I don't just declare rape is bad, I advise girls to always have 'protections' in their bags incase such inevitable happens.

That said, the ancient slavery is different from modern slavery or rape. Unlike rape victims, slaves willfully become slaves for different reasons ranging from owing debts to serving punishments for crimes committed.

Really, you mean to tell me that all slaves were willing participants? I wonder it they could just walk away or if their owners weren't allowed to beat them to within an inch of their lives (The Law of Moses permits slave owners to beat their slaves provided that it takes a few days for the injured slaves to die)?

I wonder if this makes pedophilia okay if the 7-year-old victim gives 'consent'?

9inches:
Christianity has never been in support of slavery. Christianity recognises moral absolute that every human was created with an innate value.

Therefore regarding as unethical, labour practices that enable people to be controlled, exploited and deprived of their innate dignity and freedom. And no, you can't use a single sentence or proclamation to end societal vices.

This seems more like your own modern and subjective interpretation of Christianity.

Christians have been responsible for anti-Semitism, racism, religious crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The Hundred Years War, and witch burnings throughout history.

Are you sure those people interpreted the Bible the way you do?

Besides, if the Bible can't stop people from doing what they want, then how is it a source of objective morality.

butterflylion:
Abeg shut up and go and sleep with your red herring. Here you are talking about SUPERMAN and when facts are given you, you suddenly shift to SUPERMEN and ideas of SUPERMEN or SUPERPOWERED men. Was it SUPERPOWERED men you talked about or SUPERMAN?

Even kingebukasblog responded by telling you Jerry Siegel originated the idea and you never said anything about that not being your original intent but when I slapped you with fact you suddenly shift goal posts.

You are dishonest and are not worth the time of any reasonable person in an argument. Goodnight!

Now you exact what it's like to argue against Christians who then shift to deistic idea of God.

This has been a nice thought experiment. I simply flipped the script on theists today and they all ragequit.

If you can say God exists outside time and space. Why can't you believe that Superman existed long before Jerry Siegel decided to put his history into writing the same way Bible stories were written a long time after the fact?

You theists on Nairaland lack self-awareness to the extent that you couldn't see that I was completely mirroring your common arguments.

They all ragequit. Priceless!

butterflylion:
E be like say you never sabi Wetin Wikipedia be and why it was created.

The biases of Wikipedia are mostly kept minimal due to its large and active community. This is especially so in OBJECTIVE articles on science and history.

butterflylion:
Chai! This is the lowest level of rational thinking I have ever witnessed.

Jerry Siegel originated the superman idea while Tossing and turning in bed one night in 1934. Surely you should be able to realise that once the originator of the Superman idea has been identified then all other details required would fall in place.

Show us your own discovery of who invented the God idea. Shikena.

No, he said that. There have been ideas of superpowered men existing through history. Superman is just a modernized version. The way Islam shows us a version of God.

butterflylion:
Again you lack comprehension. Wikipedia also CITES SOURCES that are in disagreement with your different independent studies performed in each case. I repeat, WIKIPEDIA IS FOR EVERYBODY AND FOR NOBODY!

donate your brain ogbeni. You are not utilising it well.

Where are those sources?

butterflylion:
I swear down you no get okpolo at all. Superman has history which can be traced to his originator even up to the day and time the idea popped into his head and Kingebukasblog has offered you some of that history. You on the other hand said you have evidence that God was an imagination cooked up by men and we are simply asking for this evidence and you are showing us Wikipedia.

Lmao

Show me the time the idea popped into his creator's head.

butterflylion:
Wikipedia in agreement? Do you also realise that Wikipedia is also in agreement with studies that refute those you hold dear? Wikipedia is for everybody and for nobody (according to our able Presido)

I told you that comprehension is your problem, didn't I?

I said that Wikipedia CITES SOURCES that are in agreement with different independent studies performed in each case.

KingEbukasBlog:
Please can you provide evidence that ancient tribes men created the God and not quotes from a book . I need to see pictures of these tribes men , their names , the date and time of this event . I'm being patient here .

If you insist what you quoted is true , then I can insist the bible is true . Since the creation story , the flood and Exodus can be taken as allegories.

You are no match son . Take your "L" and depart in peace

Show me the pictures of Superman being invented. I've shown a reasonable amount of evidence while you've done nothing but blow steam.

It's obvious that your belief is based on faith rather than logic.

By calling the flood and exodus allegories, then we can say that the Bible is a lie. Since it makes no effort to make that clear.

butterflylion:
You keep making the same mistakes. You accuse theists of solely believing the written words found in the bible and here you are solely believing the written words found on Wikipedia.

Childish comparison really, Wikipedia cites reliable sources that are in agreement with different independent studies in each case.

butterflylion:
Do you see how ignorant you are? So an agnostic cannot believe in intelligent design? Atheism is simply a rejection of deification. They can believe in anything else!

This is from the wiki page you lifted his comment about the origin of God

Wright has a strictly materialist conception of natural selection; however, he does not deny the possibility of some larger purpose unfolding, that natural selection could itself be the product of design.

That's from his wiki page.

Design by chance or deliberate design for purpose which his statement clearly says it's for purpose. Does chance create purpose ?

We are still waiting for the evidence you have about those who originated the God concept. Me I can do without pictures.

The link says he has a materialist view of natural selection. He believes that design is a possibility. How does that make him an intelligent design proponent? Do you know what 'materialism' even means.

It's basic reading comprehension.

I won't be wasting my time replying the likes of you.

butterflylion:
If you say the Bible makes false statements this means you must have the true statements of how the universe was created and how long it took. Also you must have counter evidence to the flood and counter evidence to the exodus.

Can we see them?

Age of earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C2615462069

Historicity of the Flood (click on the historicity link)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_flood_narrative?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C4906237335

Historicity of Exodus (click on the historicity link)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C6051660724

butterflylion:
Robert Wright who wrote the evolution of God has declared that comment of yours above as grossly misrepresented. Oya take and read.

http://evolutionofgod.net/coyne

Oh and by the way Robert Wright believes in intelligent design.

Point 1: Can you quote where he said that? I'm not seeing it.

Point 2: Quoting from the webpage:

In other words, if there’s a God involved, it’s a God of a deistic sort, who set the whole system, including natural selection, in motion and then kept his paws off. The process would be “guided” by God, and “driven” by God, in the sense that every Ford is “guided” and “driven” by Henry Ford. Moreover, I’m agnostic on the question of whether there’s even a deistic sort of God. But, you may ask, if I’m agnostic, then how can Coyne quote me saying things like this: “God was so wise that he set up a world in which the rational pursuit of self-interest leads people to wisdom.”?

How can an agnostic believe in intelligent design?

KingEbukasBlog:
Going by this and I can firmly prove God's existence by quoting this

In the beginning , God created Heaven and earth

Citation : The Bible (Genesis 1 :1 )

But the Bible clearly makes false statements. The universe wasn't created in six days, there was no global food, The Exodus never happened.

That's like citing Action Comics #1 and saying that Superman exists.

I knew your knowledge was no match for mine in this respect.

KingEbukasBlog:
I answered your question : since non existence cannot be proven , then provide reasons why you think there is no God

Oh you did , you claimed that God is a fictional character created by ancient tribes men

Can you provide evidence including pictures and names of these ancient tribes that created the fictional character 'God' . Also include date , place and time this event took place

At least we know we can do so for Superman , can't we ?

Now that I've put my write-up about the how the God idea got started. It's your turn to start disproving Superman!!

Can't wait.

KingEbukasBlog:
Prove it !

Early gods were a progression from animism. Animism is the belief that attributes spirits to animate (humans & animals) and inanimate objects (trees, clouds, the Sun, the moon, etc.).[1]


As society progressed from hunter-gatherer societies into larger communities, law had to be instituted due to reduced familiarity of the people. These were given through the combined effort of the political and religious leaders. Hence, certain actions were said to have divine repercussions.[2]


The monotheistic 'God', evolved from the amalgamation of the attributes of different gods. The ancient Jews brought attributes of El, Baal and a host out others into Yahweh. Evidence that Judaism came from polytheism can be seen in early Genesis where God says 'let is make man in our own image', also where God consults among the heavenly what to do during the Tower of Babel saga. As Judaism progressed to become monotheistic, this phrasing was never used again.[3]

Citations: Robert Wright, The Evolution of God (2009) [1] Chapter One [2] Chapter Two - Three [3] Chapter Five - Six

KingEbukasBlog:
I told you not to bother if you can't provide your reasons like your supreme leaders did . You claim it is impossible to prove non existence , then provide reasons why you think there is no God Or it is impossible to do that too

I asked a question first, your attempts to divert attention from it show your ineptitude in logic.

Or are you really just a dishonest jester?

Ermacc:
Superman is a fictional character created by Jerry shuster and Joe siegel in the 1940's.

God is a fictional character created by ancient human tribes.

KingEbukasBlog:
How many times have I given examples of people who thought they could disprove the existence of GOd

Stephen Hawking : There is no God because the universe created itself because there is a law such as gravity

Rebuttal One : A thing cannot create itself

Rebuttal Two : Laws do not create anything , they are merely descriptions of what happens under certain conditions


David Hume : The universe is a necessary being since it is eternal , there is no God ( medieval age )

Rebuttal One : All scientific evidence indicate the universe has a beginning , there is no evidence or indication that the universe is eternal .

Rebuttal Two : An eternal universe though there is no such thing does not preclude the existence of God , it renders God impersonal if such exists .

If you can't provide "evidence" or reason there is no God like these people have done then don't bother .

What do these arguments have to do with mine? I said proving non-existence is impossible.

Simply put, I lack belief in God the same way I lack belief in Superman. I want to assume that you also lack belief in Superman.

Now, the difference is you believe non-existence can be proven while I don't. So show me how it can be proven with the case of Superman. Simple!

You can either do it or admit ignorance.

If you do not do any of the those two then you are nothing more than a dishonest jester. But I know you aren't.

KingEbukasBlog:
1. Appeal to ignorance

2. Where is the evidence that proves that this a consensus ?

So you're going to run away from the question again, aren't you?

Just as I expected.

KingEbukasBlog:
You always appeal to ridicule . Its not only fallacious , it is also cowardly .

Be a man and give me one reason you claim there is no designer .

I claim they're is no designer due to lack of evidence of one.

You say evidence of non-existence is possible to bring to the table. So why so you always run away from demonstrating what such evidence would entail?

And I'm the one being dishonest.

butterflylion:
Typical red herring blooded atheist. Abeg shift make we hold beta discussion. Carry your red herring and sit down somewhere with a bottle of coke (the bill is on me.)

Ok, thanks for your input.

KingEbukasBlog:
Where is the fact used in rejecting the existence of God

Where is the fact rejecting the evidence of Superman?

Martinez19:
Christians pray in the name of Jesus, they believe the teaching of Jesus yet there they have a trust issue. Why don't they trust Jesus when he said that if you pick up a serpent, it will not harm you? Jesus said if you drink poison, it will not harm you.

Let us look at Mark 16:18

Well... The last pastor who did that died from a snake bite.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=22551754&sid=81

Ermacc:
that's the problem, there's no unified agreement to anything. It teaches nothing.

So how does that cause confusion?

Ermacc:
The teachings of atheism breeds confusion. It lacks order and direction.

What are the teachings of atheism?

Amberon11:
Its the same analogy. Nothing makes it different.

No, not really... People living in poverty still have hope, can still be happy and enjoy success in many different ways.

Your family burning in hell is a whole other story, there's no escape, their skin peels off, worms dig tunnels into their flesh, they hope for death but it doesn't come. All while you praise the guy that did that to them.

9inches:
You are the wrong one here. Go and read up on Hitler's belief system; maybe you will forgive yourself for setting yourself up. I did not forget you said the Nazis were evil in your opinion. My point is, your subjective moral opinion which does not trump another persons' (in this case, the Nazis) subjective morality. By that worldview, it would be tyrannical for you to impose judgement on the Nazi officers.

I think you are the one with some reading to do. https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C7404623959 Furthermore, I agree with you that I can't impose my morality on others. And that is very good because others shouldn't be and to do the same to me. Rather, we are supposed to try to convince others why our views are right. However, the accepted views of society can and will be imposed on you to a certain degree. The Nazis went against the morality most of the world and paid the price.

9inches:
Maybe I should have used societal norms to represent both the laws and attitudes, since you weren't getting the point. Not oppressing any human being is a moral absolute regardless of what the societal norms is. One can only measure the degree of conformity to that moral absolute.

I disagree, we all have acceptable targets for oppression. A homosexual in Nigeria would be happily lynched by 'good' Christians and Muslims. A white male in Europe or America is more likely to be passed over for a woman or person of colour for a job or university admission due to diversity programs. Throughout history, in almost every culture. There have always been people who have gotten the short end of the stick.

9inches:
@bolded, you did not get that from me? I'm sure if you go through my previous posts, you will see me saying slavery is bad. I did say the following as well:


"If I go to preach the gospel to prisoners (even those on death row) on how they should be of good behaviour, it does not make me a supporter of the system that put the prisoners there. If the apostles were to be the judges, they will all receive mercy and forgiveness, but unfortunately they weren't."

I believe rape is bad. I'm sure you agree with me. Now, do you tell rapists to treat their victims romantically or to sedate their victims to reduce the trauma? Or do you just declare that rape is bad?

A single sentence prohibiting slavery could have stopped the Christians in Europe and America from starting the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. We didn't get that. The Bible clearly failed in this regard.

Amberon11:
Actually you're the one with zero sense. I thought you always posited that there was no hell or heaven? So hell exists now?

The bolded is a very silly statement. That's like saying "only a psycho will be rejoicing in his wealth while others are poor? Senseless!!!

Poverty is decidedly different from getting roasted and getting eaten by worms for ever and ever, dont'cha think?

There's a post on the front page right now talking about how people were killed while worshipping in church in Anambra, and what do I see? A bunch of people using that opportunity to mock religion.


What is wrong with you guys? Are you too socially inept to empathize with the victims and their loved ones? Must you push your agenda at every single opportunity? And why are those comments receiving likes? There's nothing remotely cool about not recognizing the time and place to make your point.


This is incredibly low-hanging fruit that you guys are picking here. It achieves nothing, it just makes us look like a$$holes. We should try to be better than that because we are more than our beliefs. We are people first and so are the victims of that attack.

9inches:
So you believe nothing is morally right or wrong? See, if Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Lenin had believed that there was a moral standard outside of themselves that rested in God, and not their own preferences, perhaps over 104 million lives would've been spared.

Wrong, because Hitler was clearly opposed to atheism. Likewise, you've conveniently forgotten the part where I said that Nazis were evil in my opinion. You've also conveniently forgotten the religious violence we've faced throughout history. Look at Islamic terrorism in recent times, aren't these supposed to be people with 'objective morality'?

9inches:
You're buttressing my point - moral law does not change, societal laws do.

What do societal laws have to do with the way attitudes towards women and in extension, blacks? The changing attitudes are caused the change in societal laws. LGBT discrimination dropped to a minority BEFORE the law could have was passed. In fact, in a democratic system, your argument is completely wrong.

9inches:
Mind you that we are talking slavery of a different kind here, not a systematic oppression of one ethnic group or race by another. The ancient slavery was one of conqueror to conquered and there was nothing that resembled the racist transatlantic slave trade we all know. Ancient slaves served their owners as administrators, financial agents, physicians, secretaries, house servants, cooks, farmers, etc. In addition to the verses you quoted, Apostle Paul in Gal. 3:28 writes, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile (Greek), neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In the ancient world, a man setting his slave free and submitting to a woman would have been an outrageous and humiliating thought. Therefore, Paul’s ultimate mission is to see women, slaves, and all races treated equally. But in order to accomplish this, some measure of submission to culture was necessary. In thesame way, Paul encouraged wives to submit to their husbands so that their husbands may come to know Christ, and in time, understand their calling to mutually submit to their wives and to empower women.

I thought you said the Bible didn't condone slavery? Let me ask, which is worse: Rape at knifepoint or rape by sedation? Rape at knifepoint may be more traumatic but does that justify condoning rape by sedation? Why not just speak out against rape? Why not just speak out against slavery? Would you like to be subjected to treatment of slaves even back in Biblical times? Would you like it to happen to your son? Then stop being a slavery apologist.

9inches:
What does that make it, objective or subjective?

Subjective.

9inches:
Moral law does not change, societal laws do.

I disagree, women weren't allowed to vote in civilized countries until the 19 century. Since then, not only laws but attitudes have changed towards the treatment of women.

9inches:
It wasn't approved/sanctioned either. Peter told slaves, “Be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing. For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly” (1 Pet. 2:18-19).

Peter and the other apostles knew that slavery was wrong, but they also knew that it was better to conquer evil with good (Romans 12:21) than to commit evil in order to achieve good. That’s why Peter asks what good it does for a slave to commit evil against his master and then be beaten in return. At least when a slave is beaten for no good reason and does not respond with evil (in imitation of Christ, who endured similar abuses without retaliation), he will stand blameless before God (1 Peter 2:20). Loyalty to a master was also a common way for slaves in the Roman Empire to earn their freedom. After serving a master faithfully, a slave would be released as a libertus.

I still don't see where it condemns the act. Ephesians 6:9 and Colossians 4:1 show that although early Christianity wanted fair treatment of slaves it never once condemned the practise of owning and trading people.