₦airaland Forum

alotofgrace:
well we can't debate this on and on....the truth is there are strange phenomena on this planet that are beyond out six senses....we're just not used to it here... moreover the US government would not tell u the truth

You do know that we have instruments for detecting stuff our senses can't don't you?
And I'd like to know how you can be aware of things the "US government"won't tell you, conspiracy theories?

Weah96:
You have no shame. And you're a dishonest person. What you're doing is the equivalent of TROLLING, by pretending that you were born mentally challenged or that you are dyslexic. There are other id.iots like you here.

You never know, he might actually be mentally challenged...
I mean how is a blood sacrifice not a sacrifice?

The first religion would be animism and anthropomorphic deity worship...Some Africans still practise animism..

Animism :



Animism is used in the anthropology of religion as a term for the belief system of some indigenous tribal peoples, especially prior to the development of organized religion.

Although each culture has its own different mythologies and rituals, "animism" is said to describe the most common, foundational thread of indigenous peoples' "spiritual" or "supernatural" perspectives.

The Animistic perspective is so fundamental, mundane, everyday and taken-for-granted that most animistic indigenous people do not even have a word in their languages that corresponds to "animism" (or even "religion" ; the term is an anthropological construct.



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism

alotofgrace:
let me rectify your flaws sire!

1. aliens sightings aren't fake. It can't be fake in different locations on earth. i believe those externals follow radio signals into our atmosphere and only advanced countries got this.

It can be....when accounts can't be demonstrable nor well constructed an empty claim of alien encounter can be dismissed as it were easily claimed.

2. God on moon was no hoax. It was there on nasa.gov

It still amazes me that in the age we live in people would cling on to hoaxes rather than well evidential phenomena...
can you please direct me to the page on nasa.gov and why nobody got a Nobel prize for discovering the supernatural?

3. Science and religion are embedded in each other. there is a way you combine red, blue, and green you'll get white. there is a way you'll combine same colours you'll get black. So in every black is a white and vice-versa. So is science and religion. In fact the science lord, Albert Einstein, puts it this way:

https://www.nairaland.com/1932478/reason-why-atheists-dont-cant#26856962

look up my response to the above hoax constantly being propagated by theists..

Hmmmm....we do need to broaden our stand in the galaxy.
I mean we just live on one planet alone...which could change sporadically as it did for the dinosaurs(thus rendering them extinct)
I think we could terra-form other places to suit our long term survival, but that only depends on our willingness and cooperation to do so....

in mormon Christianity you can preach to the dead and they'll be saved...

RexBrita:
@ Davien
You want to drop this line of questioning. The idea of a fora like this should be to educate. Arguments don't change people.

@Hiswordxray
Same goes for you bro. Jesus said no one cometh to Him except the Father bringeth him. You could say what u believe but you won't be able to force it down.

Educate? You demonstrably lied throughout this topic.....and pretend to agree with my response when it's a rebuttal...

Hiswordxray:
I believe in the God that is standing at my side and speaking to me just as you believe your father exist because he is there.

Okay, what is the color of your dad and "god"?

justlove91:
@davien
You haven't read the book because if you had you wouldn't say the proof of the afterlife can not be demonstrated. That is actually the theme of the books, hard core materialistic demonstration of afterlife beyond any doubt, so put off your assumption cap and step out of this your belief that it can't be demonstrated.
Just go ahead and read the books then see whether it can be demonstrated or not.

First off, my atheism(nor any) isn't based on materialism, secondly I would like you to just cite an experiment it demonstrated of an "afterlife"...
Because reading a book is one thing,a peer reviewed demonstration is another and had he actually made this demonstration it would be demonstrated on James Randi's wager for $1 million...

wiegraf:
The immediate resurrection of Adam might not have the desired results to various of the parties involved. It could spell the end of all Lilith-based life, end of. No chance of resurrection from the heavy fallout expected from the magnitude of such a Second Impact and the surviving Lance of Longinus' actions, considering we weren't supposed to be here in the first place, ie Original Sin. The resurrection of Adam's progeny, the Angels, on the other hand could result in less severe results, as well as aid Lilith and the secret societies, and this is what is planned.

This progeny, fantastic beings with fantastic abilities will seek to resurrect Adam. Again, we will need counter measures against these beings: they most certainly not be allowed to revive Adam and initiate their own version of the Second Impact. And like I've stated the wheels are already in motion and their arrival imminent. Our technology most certainly cannot face up to them. Indeed technology alone cannot solve this problem, spiritual measures are also required.

However, in order to combat these Angels, we too will build our own "Angels" using their DNA, having similarly fantastic abilities and what not. Difference being we will imbue them with human souls. Brilliant, don't you think?

These behemoths, codenamed "Evangelion" (as Eve was said to be created from the ribs of Adam, and we are using the DNA of Adam to create them) will look like this

https://static.zerochan.net/Neon.Genesis.Evangelion.full.232276.jpg

Bahdt a$$, no? I hope they'll let me pilot one, but the requirements to become a pilot are rather stringent.

I knew it! Your story sounded too similar to neon genesis...

justlove91 so if reading a book can convince you of things which are non-demonstrable,why not read the book of mormon? here's a link too...

http://www.originalbookofmormonrestored.com/Original_Book_of_Mormon_Text.pdf

KingEbukasBlog:
OP , dont mind the atheist ,.., God exists outa space and time . He made them ..atheists haven't wondered how outer space that created the medium for their big bang came about ?

If the big bang is real , what about the universe , how was the universe itself , other planets , the comets that brought water formed ? Where do water , gases like oxygen, nitrogen come from ? What was the reason the sun was formed . the sun is before the earth as in formation , then the big bang , then earth ... . all na mistake ... Haha checkmate atheist !

But wait , I need answers oo

logicmind , seun , davien , johnydon22 , blueyedgeek

It's obvious you are calling me out....and so you're trolling as usual...
I've known from previous conversations I had with you that giving you basic answers that you're supposed to know doesn't help..

RexBrita:
@ davien

I really think we agree. Or better put, I agree with you 100%. My write-up addresses the perception that atheism (and indeed all the other –isms) antogonize religion. Religion, atheism, pantheism, monotheism, polytheism, science and the likes, all represent the numerous ways man seeks for meaning and purpose in creation. If we forget the nomenclatures used by the different lines of thought in this pursuit and remove the ‘cloaks’ with which they respectively dress their present understanding, it will all be the same essence, at different levels.

Please read my response to Plaetton above. Whatever school of thought you represent, there has got to be a name you call things - both what understand and what u are yet to understand. Attempt explaining your analysis of my write-up to a 15 year old or to an illiterate adult. If you don’t take time, you will create another religion for them.
So I quite agree with you.

If you "agree" with me you wouldn't say the bolded...
You are grouping atheism I.e a lack of belief with theism I.e belief..
atheism doesn't claim to give meaning to anything..
You have been propagating lies from the very beginning of this thread, that just shows how trustworthy you and your religion are..

RexBrita:
Some people say they don’t believe in God.

You do realise that you yourself don't believe in "god"(in the context of other religions) right?

But everyone does.

Oh so you believe in "allah,thor,...." and other monotheistic "gods"? besides you being demonstrably wrong,you are applying your belief of a monotheistic(singular) "god" to everyone....polytheists believe in "gods" and not only "higher power"(using your term) "gods",but also "demi-gods"....would you call those mutually exclusive beliefs,a belief in "god"...

Lets see where this presupposition leads to...

Except that atheism does not approach belief in God in the manner that theism/conventional religion does.

Note the bolded,and now understand that a belief in "god" relies on faith.....what is the rational approach to a faith-based system?

What has history taught us of having "faith in god/gods"...did it ostricize people more than bringing people together?

Atheists lack a belief in "god/gods", that's it....it is generally because it hasn't/can't be demonstrated and/or verifiable...

If I make a claim that everyone believes in an invisible pink omnipresent dragon because they feel hot at certain times(analogous to a "higher power" ),how would you respond to that pressuposition?

How can anyone ever know,test or even demonstrate that?

Now how can one move forward and say everyone believes in it?

Isn't that dishonest?

The Higher Being
Every living person knows they have no control over some systems in the world and which no other human being has control of.

True(about mysteries),that says nothing about "god/gods"...

When people didn't know what force moved the earth it didn't make hindu mythology(or any) of it(the earth) being perched on a turtles back' true..

Some examples will include the planets and their movements; the sun and it’s rising; the seasons; growing and aging; etc.

We actually have a good comprehension of this, planets are formed by accretion disks of stars, it(the sun) appears to be rising because of the rotation of the orbiting planet earth(thus giving a certain side light and the other darkness)....and the axial tilt is mostly responsible for the seasons...

The sophistication of these systems leaves all men curious and marveling.

True....although this has decreased dramatically when we understood the systems at play...

We all recognize that something higher than us is responsible.

The only thing recognized are natural forces...the four fundamental forces(gravity,electromagnetism,weak and strong force)

The grand phenomenon is called by different names. Theism calls Him/It, God, in many languages. Atheism calls It Energy or Force or any such name. But they refer to the same thing.

Atheism doesn't call "god/gods" energy, that's pantheism(go look it up), atheism only refers to a lack in belief in "god/gods"...

It's pantheists that believe "god/gods" to be natural forces and phenomena,not atheists...

Like all other religions, atheism claims superiority often attacking perceived/assumed weaknesses of other religions. Like atheism, all other religions have pockets of unresolved questions which binds to the non-stop pursuit to know more.

And here comes the dishonesty and equivocations....atheism by definition isn't a religion otherwise you'd be a polytheist..

The problem with calling atheism a religion is that it turns you into a polytheist,if nobody doesn't believe in "god/gods" then you'd be a believer in all religions because they all have different "god" beliefs,making you a polytheist.

God, Energy - similarities
It cannot be made nor destroyed.

Nice work,equivocating "god" to energy doesn't make it("god" automatically latch on to the definition of energy...
By the way,do you know that energy can be reduced to matter and that energy is not always usable?(hence the term latent energy)...is "god" also that way?

We obey His/It’s laws whether consciously or not: for example we have no choice but to grow to maturity; food air and blood pass through different track in our body; physical laws like gravity.
We interact with Him/It but cannot see Him/it.

Again equivocating what happens everyday to "god/gods" doesn't make it true...I could also say we do those things because we are following a simulation made by an uber transcendent cow...

Spiritual laws guide our physical lives too for example religion says "what you sow, you reap";

Does it now?
So before religion,was that observation non-existent?
did people sow corn and reap apples?

With that said,if your religion ever claimed that...it would be a coined term from that observation..

atheism formulated that action and reaction are equal and opposite (Newton’s law).

Another dishonest equivocation, atheism isn't equal to science,and you even failed to state the conjecture...It's every action has an opposite and/or equal reaction..
Spend twenty naira/lose twenty naira

The similarities are endless if ones avoids the 'temptation' of superficiality.

There are no similarities,you are only making an equivocational fallacy....energy can be tested and measured,can we measure "god/gods"?

Seek and you shall find
We don’t understand all of this great Being so we keep striving to know.

No,the case is that religions have been written to riddle mysteries with bigger untestable mysteries...so as to put a fullstop to questions...so normally you'd want to know more about any "being/beings" religion claims made everything....the greeks strived to know more about hercules,zeus,medusa and their mythologies and now you also want to know more about your mythology and your preconceived beliefs...

Religion seeks more in churches and similar organization using faith and inspirational documents passed from generation to generation while Atheism seeks to understand it in labs by conscious observation and analysis using logical processes (SCIENCE).

Again, this is dishonesty.....Atheism addresses only a lack of belief in "god", atheists(the people who lack this belief) are more attuned to demonstrable and testable methods that doesn't make atheism science or scientific..

Conclusion
The conclusion is that God loves everyone.

No, the conclusion is that you are lying and spreading misinformation...

However you seek him, you are welcome.

It's funny something that you defined as a force somehow has a gender(something only physical things have I.e by definition)
Is gravity a she then?
Is the strong/weak force a hermaphrodite?

Theism approaches God as a higher being that human logic alone cannot interpret.

which is it? "higher force or being"?

Most times, logical reasoning is skipped entirely so that faith takes preeminence.

Like when? In a courtroom does logical reasoning jump the window when the jury has a gut feeling outside of evidence that the accused is guilty?

A lot of questions are left unanswered, just like every answered scientific question in Atheism leads to many more questions that need answers.

Again science isn't a branch affiliated with atheism, it is merely a tool we use to understand the environment...

Atheism may not have the structural complexities and peculiarities or conventional religions with worship centers, modes of worship, religious leadership, hierarchies, etc but it is none the less a religion for 'believers' who do not want to adhere to theology without proof.

This is oxymoronic,a religion by definition follows a theology,so how can there be a religion that doesn't follow theology?

Can there be molecules that aren't molecules?

Aren't those statements oxymoronic to you?

Humans' continued search will one day lead us to TRUTH.

If you are referring to science then you are wrong, science doesn't lead people to "truth",but to conjectures and observations that best give account for phenomena in light of evidence....
It is like a guiding stick...it could lead you to things but it can't tell you what they are.

That time, only one Religion will be practiced: LOVE.
So which ever you follow, never stop seeking the Truth.
And you will be free indeed.

You've been speaking of "love" all day but yet adhere to a religion that degrades homosexuals and supports slavery?
This so far has been a pathetic and a dishonest apologetic....it was nice evisceration it.

macof:
Ok, are u having a nice day?

yes I am, you?

isan:
Any religion we practice is our choice... Religion should not be d deciding factor in relationship.

In actuality religions aren't choices, you were indoctrinated(instilled from birth) into one that's why you think they are choices, you're either convinced or not convinced in a belief....So you can't be in a belief that you're not convinced about.

macof:
Certainly you lack the understanding of the word "culture"

I meant cultural divides, it was a typo dude...I think ethnic prejudice best defines the context I used..

That dream will become a reality once secular laws are passed,laws that allow equality for all human life,with no religiosity or culture attached..

Crimescene:
I need your opinion. How can the earth be 4.6 billion years old when since Christ, there has been only 2000+ years and since Moses there has been about the same time span?

Radiometric dating confirms(using different isotopes),that the earth is 4.5 million years old...

Your religion claims your "saviour" came 2000 years ago to fulfill jewish prophecies..I.e the return of "immanuel"

Science,with empirical/demonstrable methods have given us a good comprehension of the earth.

Your religion was established in a pre-scientific era,where "bats were fowls" and it was believed that you could cure leprosy by dipping "birds blood" on the infected.

So it is really up to you to learn about the two I.e science and religion...

How "supernatural" was once the answer for everything,and how "natural" is now the answer for those things..

I would advise you to go read on radiometric dating methods and the various isotopes used to do so,you could even watch videos on youtube on the subject.

menesheh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApLgbO_z2tg

The basic foundation of fundamentalism..

Humanity may colonize the entire galaxy one day or atleast some parts of it...

Liekiller:
Firstly, I never claimed that it is a "credible" website, and I didn't use it as "evidence" for anything. I merely put a small part from it (that can be considered a point of view) on here for discussion. The website actually just lists reasons why the person who made the site considers the bible to be evil and doesn't believe in it. While I agree with the general conclusions drawn by this person, this is not "evidence" for or against anything. It simply describes alternative conclusions one can come to when reading the bible critically. Secondly, you are free to go to the website and check whether or not it quotes the bible wrongly.

Liekiller wonderful rebuttals,nice thread....you should also look into the foundational falshoods of creationism if you can...

Agnosticism isn't a position on it's own, it extends to theism and atheism...
Anyway I'm here, what's the discussion?

Joshthefirst:
One becomes an ardent follower in "science" once the concept is the of evolution of all organisms from a common ancestor. It cannot be proved. It cannot be observed. It is an interpretation of the timelines. An opinion of history, not science.

So your DNA is an opinion?

The hardy weinberg equation used to trace back paternal/maternal relationiships is also an opinion?

It's I guess also,only an assumption that evolution is used as a heuristic tool in tracing retroviral insertions?

It's also only an assumption that is used in studying leprosy and congenital illnesses?

My lack of belief in that particular interpretation would not invalidate my position as a scientist.

Your phrasing would have been correct if evolution were a belief,so no.
You only object to the science so as to hold a literalist interpretation of christian mythology.

If stephen Hawking refuses to believe in the common ancestor concept it wouldn't make him any less a scientist.

Actually it would,you see scientists go by empirical methodology so if he objected to it,he would have to have a scientific argument against common decent and it would have to answer why evolution fulfills biochemical,archeological,anatomical,behavioural predictions...

Without it he would only be voicing an empty opinion,of which would degrade his own credibility...

Please try to make your points quick and precise. Instead of leading in different directions.

I believe anyone that has read our discourse well knows the truth of this..

Joshthefirst:
Although this is a straw man, since you put it up as the owner of the thread I will address it. Note that before this I did not bring up anything about the fundamentals of creation and existence, you did.

what fundamentals? and when did I agree it's a creation?

Equivocation yet again

I keep telling you that until you can demonstrate "creationism",you can't call anything natural,a "creation"....

Now, the general informed theist's POV is not that everything came up out of nothing. Please go and educate yourself and stop misyarning here.

So now I'm the uneducated one here? From someone that believes two loaves and a few fishes could feed thousands

Anyway lets see if this accusation is true,shall we?

We believe that since something always has an origin and a cause then the universe had an origin.

I'm going to pawn you in two ways,first using your own bible,next through a well constructed argument...

So you believe something always has an origin do you? you're bible states in john 3:8;

"The wind blows where it wishes and you
hear the sound of it, but do not know where it
comes from and where it is going"

So as a biblical literalist/creationist joshthefirst how can you go against "god's word" and say that something always has an origin?....or would you now interprete this verse because it's uneasy to you?

And then my other say is about energy,it has no origin...merely vessels or if you will,bodies that dissipate and/or utilize it...

Again we have the virtual particles in quantum mechanics that make up for a vacuum and its potential vacuum energy..

And minus the universe, this origin is timeless, spaceless, unchangeable and infinite. As this origin is infinite, then it is extremely powerful. This is basically the God-definition.

This is a childish and basal form of logic(no offense intended)..

Subtracting the properties of a body does not give you any idea of its origin...

If we subtracted the properties of a human,would you say the origin is a brainless,boneless,handless,invertebrate-less,unintelligent something?

Or lets use your "genius logic" to find the origin of DNA,so it would be an oxygenised-pronucleic base,no?

mako007:
what are you now?

I'm an atheist

His apologetics were also ousted by a group of agnostic christian theists...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omdkrD5WB4k

To follow up on the above rebuttals... check the link below

Eric hovind commentaries by King crocoduck


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPXZ_6QayZg&fulldescription=1&client=mv-google&gl=NG&hl=en

The links below are a testament of his dishonesty

Eric hovind vs 6th grade atheist..

[lnk]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhDPrP-tpeo [/lnk]


Eric hovind commentary

[lnk]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPXZ_6QayZg&itct=CDsQpDAYACITCJ-D_O6V7MMCFcOkvgodyoEACVIYRXJpYyBob3ZpbmQgY29tbWVudGFyaWVz&hl=en&gl=NG&client=mv-google [/lnk]

Eric hovind has made a series of apologetics used by most creationists here on nairaland..(most notably OLAADEGBU )

In his $24.95 video series entitled "Beginnings" he displays the common dishonesty and misinformation of creationists..


http://creationtoday.org/product/beginnings-exploring-biblical-creation/



Eric Hovind


It’s time to start your journey through Beginnings, the curriculum that will educate, entertain, and prepare you for the most pressing topic of our day— creation versus evolution! Join Eric Hovind for six fascinating sessions:

Session 1: They’re Both Religions

Session 2: How Old Is It?

Session 3: It Was Good

Session 4: Dinosaurs With Man

Session 5: Fact vs. Faith

Session 6: The Truth

Beginnings is a creation experience for small groups, churches, and individuals from all walks of life. Creation Speaker, Eric Hovind, explores the age-old questions of life, the evidence for a young earth, and how dinosaurs fit in with the Bible. The included guide provides an introduction to each lesson, creative challenges, great discussion questions, and practical ways to apply each lesson to everyday life!

Answers are found in the Beginnings.

Next up is the son of the convicted criminal kent hovind...

"Eric hovind"


[b]
Eric Hovind attended Pensacola Christian Academy, a
kindergarten to grade twelve Christian school operated by
Arlin Horton that teaches young Earth creationism, finishing
in 1997.

Hovind's one attempt at completing a credential
in higher education was Jackson Hole Bible College in
1999, which is not a real college.

Jackson Hole is an
unaccredited, one year Christian school at a campsite
that offers a "Diploma in Biblical Foundations" (not to be
confused with real credentials such as degrees that take
years of study complete).

Unlike real college classes that
are taught by people with PhDs for several weeks,
Jackson's classes last only a week, such as its
"backpacking" class.

This means Hovind has no education or credentials in
science. He has admitted that he has never taken a class on evolution at a secular college and judging from Hovind's
own biography he hasn't even spent one day in any science
quoteclass at an accredited community college.

This is despite him operating a million dollar store that specializes in DVDs that accuse scientists (people who have spent decades in classes and labs) of being wrong.

In 2013, Eric Hovind served as a "teacher", if one calls it that, at Jackson Hole Bible College, where he taught
" Presuppositional Evangelism in the 21st Century" for a week. This is the same argument that got publicly torn apart by a child in 2012.

Apparently, the students and operators of the "college camp site" aren't as smart as the child and can't see the flaws in Hovind's arguments as he was invited back to teach "Presuppositional Evangelism in the 21st Century" in 2014. [/b]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_Hovind

Joshthefirst:
First, it is very relevant for the topic as it shows that one of the most prominent thinkers who ever lived believed in a creator.

And he also believed in alchemy,does that make him correct on all counts?
Stephen Hawking even with his discovery of "Hawkin radiation" about black-holes,would be laughed to scorn if he believed the earth was flat.

Thus showing that belief in a creator does not make one any less of a scientist. Creationists are no less scientists that evolutonists.

Doesn't it strike you as odd,that as scientists that they were..... they only made relevant contributions following empirical methods?
No contribution whatsoever was made in the alleged "creation science" because it isn't a scientific proposition whatsoever.
And why do you keep using the term "evolutionist"? when evolution is not an "ism"?
This is another dishonest tactic...

And I was merely trying to prove plaetton wrong and show up his bold lying.

Okay,did you succeed? or did you as usual give no coherent answer?

Your second point makes no sense ma'am. why would I point to an evolutionary biologist for validation as a creationist? And yes, there are very reputable scientists of our modern world who believe in God. Look at the recent debate between ken ham and bill bye and see ken mention some.

Is ken ham a scientist? and would it even matter?....I could also list scientists who also believe the earth is flat and 9/11 was a conspiracy, does that make it true?

And who are you to say I don't even understand the idi.otic philosophies you call science? For your information I was an ardent follower and product of this system you follow before I began to think straight and apply common sense and question what I found out to be my beliefs. Your arrogance is sickening.

"ardent follower" you say? since when does one become an ardent follower in science?

You didn't even know the basics of Newton's principles and you're claiming to be an "ardent follower"(which is a ridiculous and fallacious term by the way)

And your last point merely shows you know little to nothing about Newton if you think he questioned "common belief" in a creator in secret.

Well how do you know he didn't?
In an age of "thought police", where you could be killed for not believing what you were told...burning at the stake was the scare tactic christians used then, now it's hell...