₦airaland Forum

KingEbukasBlog:
The slogan "God With Us" ("Gott Mit Uns" ) was a holdover from the Weimar Republic days

I find it weird that he didn't change it. Coupled with all those quotes that you claim are 'before he became atheist', your argument is weak.

Whether he was Christian, or atheist, or whatever is immaterial. He was a crazy tyrant and whatever he did should not be used to dehumanize another group.

KingEbukasBlog:
These are quotes of him when he was a christian . stop the disingenuousness , you certainly know what I'm talking about

'Gott Mitt Uns' was on the Nazi uniform belt.

KingEbukasBlog:
Lol . Sorry bro ... I couldn't keep up with the falsehood . So many magical transformations . What about the putative ancestors of whales and Penguins

You're probably just going to pretend like you don't remember and ask the same silly question in another thread.

All these analogies are flawed, God never made direct contact with all his people, rather he over 4,000 contradictory messages through untrustworthy men and then expects you to first believe he exists (with no conclusive evidence), and then choose the right path.

That's a terrible dad.

KingEbukasBlog:
dinosaurs to cows

To birds, blogger.

KingEbukasBlog:
That life as complex , beautiful , and ordered at it is appeared from nothing , that cockroaches magically transformed to man over eons of time No thanks

One modern specie doesn't evolve into another. All these arguments and you still on square one? Yet you have the gall to call atheists close-minded? Shows your level of reasoning.

asalimpo:
Saying there is no God, blew away most of you iq.

your IQ*

UyiIredia:
Funny, someone thinks he's more rational by ditching a position that tells you you were creates to accepting one that says you came from ape ancestors. I think it best they sleep with the fishes. They are already doing that.

Reading this post just reduced my IQ by 2 points.

LoJ:
Nice story. I actually found it too short for my taste. I would have liked you to go into more details

Thanks

Must have been an error, the full post should be on display now.

WARNING: Quite long.

It was a journey. It started when I was 14 and by 16, I was an agnostic atheist.

As a child, my parents encouraged a very strong reading culture in me and my siblings, we had wildlife, medical and general science encyclopedias, a massive Chamber's dictionary, a (now outdated) guide to the nations of the world, a pocketbook on the internet (this was around the late 90's and early 00's), and a shitload of business books.

I have always enjoyed learning about wildlife and the universe. After a while, I found it difficult to reconcile science with what the Bible says, for example, 'if the world is truly young, how did dinosaurs live before man' and 'if the world is actually old, that makes that particular part Bible allegorical, so what other parts of the Bible are allegorical'. I tried to find answers by reading through different websites of Christian apologetics, and although their explanations weren't totally convincing, I always told myself that was what faith was all about, so I HAD to believe.

As we grew older, our home gradually became a very devout household (although my siblings and I were less enthusiastic). I never quite mastered the art of playing sports, so I spent most of my leisure time watching TV and reading books - including the Bible. I read the Catholic Bible, the KJV, the NIV, the RSV, TEV, and the New World Translation. Trying to improve myself, I read 'Our Daily Bread, Word of the Day, Rhapsody of Realities, and rather reluctantly, Open Heavens (I've always found it a bit dull and wordy).

I drew comparisons between the beliefs of different Christian denominations and pentecostal churches, but never really saw how the denomination and church my parents picked were better than some of the others. The actions, and utterances of respected men of God were full of deceit that the people bought wholesale.

We even had a prophet who told us stuff and weird shi,t like that, but never seemed to know things that had any real impact on the world. One day, I decided to find out why scientists preferred evolution over creation; I was shocked to find all the overwhelming evidence in support of it. I then decided to read the Bible while sidelining all my personal biases, I saw that didn't hold up to reality, and that it had a very primitive and questionable morality (why would God kill gays if he made them that way? why would he endorse slavery? hy try to make it seem like females are somehow inferior? why are time and place such major factors in determining religion?), all the prior knowledge I had about it's history, the discord between the gospels and so on, that I had been putting in a hidden compartment in my brain suddenly became clear to me.

I realized that it was man made.

I then began observing the world in an unbiased manner, the religious Africa, Middle East, and to a lesser extent: South America are among some of the worst to live in the world. I would see people fall down during prayer but would stand my ground when the pastor is basically trying to push my head back while applying pressure to my temple, my observations finally gave me the courage to perform my final test, the prophet. She is a good friend to the family, if she found out I was testing her, it would have all come down on me, hard.

So I asked to tell me about a friend, someone who I completely made up. She told me that he was going to make me unserious.

I chuckled.

So that's my (long) story of deconversion.

lordnicklaus:
Everyone ran away and my aunt had to open another business elsewhere. Believe me, if you come to my village ehn! (I am from Akwa Ibom state), you would believe in God. People can murder people from afar by just standing close to a grave and pouring drinks and chanting, before you know it, someone in America is dead or has run mad. People in my village are skilled in those kind of stuff....

Would be nice if they used their amazing superpowers to kill members of Boko Haram. Or, I don't know, make an actual impact on the world.

Modern scientific consensus puts the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years old ± 0.1 billion years. This was estimated by literally finding the oldest piece of rock we know and dating it using radiometric dating.

For the curious, this is how radiometric dating works.

Some people argue that the earth is young (< a million years old). So, I'll like to use this opportunity to call on vooks to explain how that time frame was arrived upon.

mrZENographer:
Mr Dondi, God is not the cause of rape, you are the cause of rape. You have already raped my thread with ur mouth, so why are u blaming God for ur actions and the yesterday actions of ur friends.

Happy Easter because God so loved D world.... John 3:16

If I had the power to literally do anything I wanted to, then there's no excuse.

Joshthefirst:
How does using several rock samples reduce an error caused by a fluxing magnetic field that affects all the rocks under its influence?

By using many samples, scientists can find the prevailing trend in the results, while anomalies will be discarded. Simple statistics.

Also, that sort of error should cause wildly varying results and not within a specific time range, all the time, in different geographical locations.

Matthew: So, on the first day of the week after Jesus’s death, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary…


Mark: The other Mary? It was Mary, the mother of James…Salome was there too…


Luke: And don’t forget about Joanna…and there were some others, I think.


John: Guys, it was just Mary Magdalene, and she immediately went and got Simon Peter and another disciple to come and take a look.


Matthew: Whatever, not important. Some people…


John: Just one per…


Matthew: SOME. PEOPLE…went to see the sepulchre where Jesus was buried.


Mark: They were bringing some spices to anoint the body.


Luke: Yeah.


Mark: And they were all like, “who will role the stone away from the entrance?”


Matthew: Uh…but didn’t Joseph roll the stone in place all by himself?


John: No, I’m pretty sure he had some help, it was a big-ass stone; it covered a sepulcher, afterall.


Matthew: Well, in any case, they arrived at the tomb and BAM, there was an earthquake and an angel came down from heaven, rolled the stone away, and sat on it!


Luke: What?


John: Earthquake? Dude, everybody knows the stone was already rolled away.


Matthew: No seriously, guys, I heard it was an earthquake.


Mark: Nonsense. The stone was already rolled away, and there was a young man dressed in white arraignment sitting inside the cave.


Matthew: The angel.


John: TWO angels, actually.


Luke: Well, I heard there were two men in shining garments; I guess they could have been angels. But they weren’t already there; the people were standing there all like, “um… where’s Jesus?” then two men appeared beside them.


John: No no, they were already there, and they asked Mary, “why are you crying, woman?” and she said, “because they took my LORD!” And then Jesus suddenly appeared behin…


Matthew: Whoa whoa whoa. Stop. Jesus definitely was not at the tomb. He comes later. It was just the angel, and the women were scared of him because his countenance was like lighting and because the soldiers became like dead men. And the angel said, “don…


John: What soldiers? “Countenance like lightning?” What does that even mean? No, Mary saw Jesus and thought he was the gardener, and that he ha…


Matthew: AND THE ANGEL SAID… “Don't be alarmed! You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, but he isn’t here. He is risen! Go, tell Peter and the disciples that Jesus is going to Galilee and that they should meet him there like he told them to.”


Luke: Right, and THEN the women ran to tell the disciples.


Mark: No, they didn’t; they were scared. They ran away and didn’t tell anybody; silly women. Anyway, so then, Jesus appeared to two of his disciples as they were walking in the country, and then to the others as they were eating some meat.


Luke: Nah, the women did tell the disciples that Jesus had risen, but they didn’t believe them. Then later, he confronted two of them in the town of Emmaus, but they didn’t recognize him, so Jesus was like, “hey, why are you guys so sad?” And they said, “because Jesus is dead, bro; haven’t you heard? What, have you been hiding under a rock or something?” Then they asked him to come to dinner.


Matthew: Wha…you’re both making stuff up. The disciples went to the mountain top in Galilee, like Jesus told them to, and there he was! He said, “go, tell people about me and baptize them and stuff.”


John: A mountain? It was a locked room, dude. And, as they were standing around, he suddenly appeared in the middle of them all.


Luke: Yeah, and they were all scared because they thought he was a ghost.


Acts: No, he actually appeared to all of his disciples over a period of 40 days.


Luke: Shut up, Acts.


Acts: But you wrote me...


John: No, Luke, they weren’t scared, they were happy, because Jesus was back!


Matthew: NO… it was a mountain, LIKE I SAID, and not all of them were happy; a few of the disciples doubted him.


Luke: Yeah, but he showed them the little holes in his hands and feet to prove it.


Matthew: Anyway, as I said before, he told the disciples to go and baptize people and forgive them their sins and the like.


Luke: But he told them to chill in the city for a bit first, because God was going to give them special powers.


Corinthians: And later, he appeared to 500 people at the same time!


Mark: Shut up, Corinthians.


Book of Mormon: Hey guys, guess what? After all that stuff, Jesus went to AMERICA so he could preach to a lost tribe of Israel!


Matthew: Uh, who let this guy in here?


Luke: Get the hell out of here, you crazy bastard.


Book of Mormon: I’m a thing!


Matthew: Just…no. Okay?


John: But he did appear 8 days later in that same room to Thomas, who had been doubting him because he wasn’t there the first time. Then he did a lot of other miraculous things with his disciples as well.


Luke: No, after the appearance in the room, he led them out of Bethany, and, as he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.


Mark: Well, at least we agree on the basics.


[url=https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/4c3c5p/in_honor_of_easter_the_biblical_resurrection/]Source[/urll]

Joshthefirst:
You shouldn't"t be saying anything other than an apology for misleading.

You came here and lied claiming life has been created in the lab. Apologize for your mistake.

Wait, if an artist chisels a rock down to make a sculpture, then by your logic we can say that he didn't really create the sculpture, right?

Joshthefirst:
Nothing in that article points to this.

So this thread is basically untrue. And you're basically lying.

This is the sort of thing that some people do that makes me angry, this article points out that they worked on the M. Mycoides cell and to create Syn3.0, a synthetic cell that has a lower number of genes than any other bacterium found in the wild and can still support life.

The Guardian corroborates the story.

So does Medline.

Don't lie to protect your fragile beliefs.

Joshthefirst:
What about the imbalance of the two isotopes in carbon dating? And the flux of the magnetic field?

Error margin is reduced by using several rock samples for the dating.

vooks:
A single topic, a single thread, no trolling, no deviation. Make specific claims, support them. Make my day Negro

I will find a good time to begin, take your time to type replies because proper citation is highly recommended.

Joshthefirst:
Your version of radiometric dating is circular because it is based on the assumption that the fossils were laid down in a slow and uniform manner over millions of years. How can you make a close-minded assumption and conduct a procedure based on the assumption and make the interpretation based on the assumption that you originally based all the other assumptions on?

Close-mindedness

Do you see the circle? or should i draw it for you?

Fossils are dated using surrounding igneous rocks, if the alleged 'assumption' was a false one, then the readings should be anomalous to each other, but rather all the fossils that lie within a given sedimentary layer happen to fall within a given range. Furthermore, this assumption has no effect on the age equation that is used, still we get similar results with only a small margin of error.

vooks:
Young

A single shred of evidence for the same

Good answers! Let's hope that you practice what you preach.

vooks:
[size=1pt][/size]
These topics are quite wide. Pick any topic of your choice, invite me and I will make mince meat of the few neurons that make up your brain

Before we do that there are two questions I'll like to ask:

1. Are you a young or old earth creationist?

2. If anything, what can change your mind about evolution?

KingEbukasBlog:
CoolUsername ... are you dprodg ? I just need to be sure that Im right

Nope

vooks:
The fact that you call tumors facts and demand they be disproved reminds me m0rons abound on NL. Read a book on homology

You have failed both in the humour and making-a-point department.

vooks:
Dating is a sham. It is circular reasoning per excellence.
One example will suffice; Mungo Woman in Australia. I'm not here to mother you so look it up

Dating is a sham? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I dunno what to say to you, but for the sake of others.
HOW RADIOMETRIC DATING WORKS

vooks:
Don't be a m0ron. The point is embryo homology means NOTHING, or rather the conclusions drawn therefrom are arbitrary.

If you know how embryonic formation relates to genetics, you'll see the connection. But I doubt that you'll look at it with an open mind so...

vooks:
There is enough genetic variety in any organism to manifest these differences. The information is ALREADY there.

O rly?

Because the experiment that I cited actually involved a beneficial additive mutation in e.coli. Did you not do your damn research?

vooks:
I don't need to disprove a claim, I only need to critique its evidence for which there is none. I may for instance claim that there are Giants on Uranus. You only need me to prove it. You don't prove a negative. Brush up your logic son

More obfuscating ignorance from your end again. Sir, it is rather poor etiquette to read the source I cited, the Lenski experiment is a very good example of evolution in action, so to come here and shout 'bring the evidence forward' is poor form on your part.

EDIT: Added a source that doesn't require registration.

vooks:
Similarity points to COMMON Designer not descent.
Did you know that horses have more genetic similarity to bats than cows? Genetic homily is a myth

And how does this disprove the point? Your fact (apart from making you look smart) doesn't disprove that all animals share a common ancestor. You neglected to mention that the bat is also mammal just like the horse, the fact that they branched from a common ancestor is not in disproved. Read a real book on this subject.

vooks:
First, you assume there are 'simple' animals. This is circular reasoning. You assume some animals are 'simple', then you assume the more complex evolved from the 'simple' form, and finally you sedimentation takes forever. You need to know that fossilization is the exception not the norm and countless of life forms are virtually unknown because they never fossilized. In short, grow a brain

This is another poorly though out response. There are absolutely no dinosaur fossils after the cretaceous period or mammalian fossils in, say the devonian period. Why is fossil dating suddenly an exception when the dating methods give accurate readings for known objects?

vooks:
Did you know that human and frog fetuses BOTH have digits(fingers,thumbs and toes)?
The embryo homology was debunked before your grand parents were conceived. A word is enough for the wise

Once again, you've shot yourself in the foot, this only serves as an argument AGAINST intelligent design, or whatever goalpost-shifting intellectual standpoint that you're arguing from, because why would a designer have foetuses go through these stages (that only stand as evidence to exclude said designer from the equation)?

vooks:
Since when did adaptation equate evolution?

Another falsehood from history deniers such as yourself, what exactly drives an adaptation? Isn't it a series of inherited genetic traits that were favoured by natural selection? Wasn't that the case in the Lenski Experiment? Or was it FSM's Noodly Appendage?

vooks:
Im insincerely curious as to whether you possess the capacity to learn

I can ask you the same question but I already know the answer to that (you're the same guy who can't even think of a better alternative scientific model but yet tries an fails to disprove evolution with falsehood). I'm only responding to your post for the sake of others that you may have misinformed.

7) They eat babies. /s

lordnicklaus:
Those who calculated the age of the earth and call it bible based were wrong. The earth was created in 6000 b.c or more than that. The Tell el Amarna tablets prove that...... Anything that seems to prove you wrong becomes a hoax. Your mission, I know is to remove God from the minds of people. The time of the flood is quite older than 2,000 b.c.

Please refer to my modified post that has sources included.

lordnicklaus:
Lol! Noah's flood happened even before the oldest civilisations, Sumeria and Babylon were built. Before the flood, men dwelt in caves. The ancestor of the Egyptians, Mizraim, son of Cush, son of Ham was born after the flood. The pyramids were probably built by the slave Israelites. Anyone telling you that Egypt existed then is only fooling you...... Then tell me how Noah's ark was discovered on Mount Ararat between Armenia and Turkey and the ark is as large as 5 stadia.

You seem to be mixing up fantasy with reality. Literal interpretation of the Bible sets the age of the earth as [url=creation.mobi/6000-years]6,000 years[/url]. The time of the flood is set at about 2,000 BC, but during that time Egypt was a flourishing and wealthy kingdom. Pick up a history textbook sometime, eh?

Also, the 'ark' conundrum was a big hoax; for the sake of your reputation, please refrain from using that point in a serious argument from now on.

[s]EDIT: Typed this with low battery, would cite sources later.[/s]

EDIT #2: Sources added!

KingEbukasBlog:
So how does this preclude the original text from being inspired by God

That was never the original intention of the statement. There are many reasons out there to show that even the original text was man-made and this isn't one of them. I'm simply saying that the Bible that Christians read is an imperfect and flawed version of the imperfect and flawed original text that makes up the book. This makes it even more difficult to take what it says as fact, since it can be translated to mean something different as it suits the reader.

KingEbukasBlog:
No digressions

So do you now admit that this statement is wrong

... because there are original texts of the scriptures

What on earth are you talking about? Can the average Christian read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek? They rely on the Bible that has been translated and edited by people and yet, try to pass it off as flawless. They (apologists mostly) then scream 'translation error' when the book stops making sense to them.

Ayomikun37:
You've SEEN a human transform into a snake?

What!

Holy Law of Conservation of Matter!

KingEbukasBlog:
so what happened to the original text ?

The original texts (that were selected by the council) had to be translated to latin before they were compiled to form the Bible.