₦airaland Forum

Reyginus:
Of course I'm not. I'm questioning everything now.

Hahaha @JackBizzle prepare our banquet table because very soon, someone will grace our banquet hall

JackBizzle:
Shut up.

I don't know why dblackninja is encouraging your folly.

No am not encouraging anyone. All my comments are based on a premise which I mostly highlight in bold. Always take note of the bolded words.

Reyginus:
It's really serious. I'm learning to take pity on those who doesn't know what they are doing or saying. I used to laugh or get irritated but I realized I ought be better than that. When I see arguments like that I only take pity on the proponent.

You should do same. It's not really funny. I'm beginning to agree no one does wrong willingly. We don't really know what good and evil really means. If we do we'd strive to always do the better of the two. It's not funny.

I share the same pity for you Atheists too. For one to be sure none of these is true he must have absolute knowledge of everything in the heavens. Is there anyone or atheist with such knowledge? I doubt. JackBizzle, I love Christ like I love Socrates but I'm yet to lead the life.

Haha you pity atheists because they don't have absolute knowledge of everything in the heavens. Which heavens are you talking about?

And you know of course that you're an atheist waiting to happen Cause am 1,000,000 % sure that you're no longer a devoted catholic

Absolute nonsense my friend. Who will determine whether they gave a satisfactory answer or not? Didn't you see how James Randi Foundation organized their own "One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge" ?

If James Randi answers that Chopra clown, let me fall in a lagoon!

lordnicklaus:
Nay bro!!! My mum was actually married to him but we left due to the whole saga....
He usually had fits once it was twelve midnight. Once it was 12:00 am, he would behave like someone who was concussed and would start foaming at the mouth and peeing on himself..... It was finally revealed that he had not done his usual sacrifice to Olumba Olumba.

Oh okay sorry to ask. Didn't know it relates to your family.
But don't live in fear [of spirits, deities etc.] because of what you saw and/or what you think you saw. It will only diminish your full potentials.

Reyginus:
Yeah. If you go through it you wouldn't be making baseless arguments. Religion is the worship of a Supernatural but I worship a Supernatural but it's not a Religion. You need Honesty and an open mind to learn.

Very good. They just wanna win an argument, that's the problem. Macof is strong headed but folykaze likes to learn, though you won't see him admit it. You can read his lines..his doing all those things so that he won't appear defeated. That's okay by me so long as the core objective has been achieved
If I didn't drop my argumentum spirit in a closet, we would have reached 200 pages by now.

KingEbukaNaija:
Kingebukasblog is an influential figure , so you'd expect people to learn a few things from him .

https://www.nairaland.com/3128430/proof-gods-existence-found-kind

Influential ke? Lol.
So he writes and he learns from what he wrote..that's good anyway

KingEbukaNaija:
What will I gain exactly from inveigling you into accepting/rejecting that

What will you gain from lying? My brother there's nothing there (Uru adįro na isi azů)

KingEbukaNaija:
Microbes transforming into human beings with different genders . Yours is worse than a folklore . And being obdurate about magical gibberish masquareded as science is deleterious to a sound mind .

You need to read before you refute something. Who told you that microbes transforms to human beings?? Go and read the evolution theory again.

I like folklores, but the bible is the most incoherent of them all.

KingEbukaNaija:
Great minds think alike . It's all coincidence I think , you know like atheists think all miracles are fake even when the evidence is clear and compelling and think they are just coincidences .

Kingebukasblog is better , more composed

Hahaha stop deceiving your self brother. You can fool no one

urahara:
And he uses the word "void" to ignorantly ridicule atheism

You can add scamvolution to it.

KingEbukaNaija:
And for atheists to take these theories and assumptions as facts WHEN THEY DONT KNOW means there is something wrong somewhere . Your "rebuttal" works both ways

Dis guy, chai
Most of us take it as being closer to the truth. There are many things we don't know yet in this tiny world of ours not to talk of the universe. Until there are clear facts, we are just speculating.
Adding a folklore to it as a fact will lead us no where.

HardMirror:
Tell me ke?
I knew, but I wanted it to be clear that he is one and the same and does not have to throw us any red herring

His structure of writing is the same. Uses those types of pictures in both accounts. Uses most of the words he replied me and others in this account as well. Check him out bro, don't be deceived by his claim

KingEbukaNaija:
Wait did Johydon22 just state that Nobody knows yet ?No one knows yet but you guys repudiate the "God-hypothesis" and consider other theories . That's being unreceptive of information and can be delineated as ignorance

Atheists and close-mindedness

There's a reason we call them theories. Call the bible and other religious texts "God--hypothesis" (that's the worst hypothesis of all time), but for someone to take them as facts , that means there's something wrong somewhere.

HardMirror:
*hisses*
Yet he calls kingebukablog his good friend so we'ld think he is different. I no get him time

The guy told you that? and you believed

HardMirror:
Hmm. Dem ban am before?

That I no fit answer. I like the guy but don't follow his moves..so don't really know.

lordnicklaus:
Paper picture.

I believe you were planning to join their crusade then. Why did the follower perform such thing in your face?

lordnicklaus:
Yea bro! I mean, na so Olumba picture go dey shine and the eyes go dey move for the picture.

Woooooooo! A paper picture or a portrait?

johnydon22:
It's an inconclusive argument always has been..

If one says 'God created the universe' to fill the gap of ignorance on universal causality then God here becomes the subject.

who created God?

if then you say God is 'eternal' in order to save a step and cut the enquiry at that point.

then what was the need in the first place of invoking God for the universe, we could have simply then saved that step and said the 'universe is eternal' and the case it closed.

this is a speculative argument because the premise being dragged is somewhere nobody really knows yet.

thats the plain truth, no one knows and the problem here is the inability for people to agree I don't know rather than aiming to fill that gap of ignorance with 'gut feelings'

Thanks my good brother. The sad thing is, people claim to know what they actually don't know. Tell them anything, they'll rather won't like to know that they don't know.

lordnicklaus:
Hey bro, it is surprising that you also know of Olumba Olumba. I once stayed with one of his followers. You wouldn't believe it when I say I saw magic happen right before me.

It's an occult religion though.

Really lord? Please narrate further, I love magic.

HardMirror:
Can't afford to miss you mean.

Get the ball rolling

kingebukablog I know, but who is kingebukanaija by the way?

Both are the same one and only troll

Reyginus:
Amen. I wish you can learn what it means to learn.

Hahaha No be small thing ooo

blueAgent:
Zombie. only a foolish pastor would reject my writeup. its funny how an Apetheist like you could quote Bible.

Name calling will do you no good. Hmmm try am naaa..if that false spirit is not cast out of your sorry ass make I know wetin cause am

As for quoting the bible, am well versed in a lot of fables including the bible--the authors can lie ehh...that's how you know a goood fable

FOLYKAZE:
I defined Religion as bond between man and the Sacred.

Now, let me help you fuse the above definition into the other one you draw here.

What is the bond? The institution or system which is the foundation of belief, ceremonies and rules.

What is the Sacred? God or whatever. . ..

If religion is the bond between man and the sacred; it is the samething as defining religion as a system of belief, ceremony and rules (bond) used for worship (man does) a God (sacred).

We dont have problem here.

I was the one that questioned if devotion for football team is a religion https://www.nairaland.com/1412636/non-christian-chatbox-sticky/144#46436668

lol

The site is superb. It support my argument

Chai! Alright I believe you have learnt something

FOLYKAZE:
You defined religion as the belief in God. That is wrong as that statement is a definition for Theism. There is a wide difference between theism and religion. One can choose to believe in God without being religious. Another can be religious without believing in God. These are two different grounds. You need to come out clean.

One need to go back to the root; etymology of a word before one can arrive at the actual meaning of it.

Religion originates from the latin word "Religare", which means "to bind". Therefore, from it root meaning, religion can be define as the bond between man and the sacred.

My definition is broad and cut across many angles. Meanwhile, the other definitions you provided are too narrow, exclude many belief systems. They are too vague and ambiguous.

Which part of your definition is broad? Or are you using my own definition??
You said:' "This is why another dictionary define religion as an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods"

Ex...Football is a religion. It does not entail belief, not to talk of beief in one non-existing God. But football can be sacred to fans. There can be some piety/relious devotion to football player. All in all, this definition applies to all dimension of religion.

And I said it You are now using my definition as your own. You were the one asking me whether football is a religion and I replied.
https://www.nairaland.com/1412636/non-christian-chatbox-sticky/144#46438363
Macof come and see what your senior brother is doing.
Chai! Chai! There is Orishaooo! There is Orishaooo!!

Now you wanna use it to buttress your own point
It only shows that what I was teaching was sinking but you are just adamant in other to win (don't worry, I'll still find that trophy).

Break Spirituality down etymologically and help us with how you arrive at the definition above.

Now since I've seen that you learn quickly but forget easily (or maybe you're doing that on purpose), let me give you some well deserved definitions of spirituality.

Spirituality
1.The quality or state of being spiritual--spiritual in the sense of: (a)Of or pertaining to the spirit or the soul.
(b)Of or pertaining to spirits; supernatural.
(C)Of or pertaining to God or a place of worship; sacred.
This (c) now leads us to the second and equally important definition of spirituality.
2. Appreciation for religious values.

Edit: Saw a site that gave a detailed explanation to spirituality better than mine. Do well to visit it
http://matadornetwork.com/bnt/what-is-spirituality/

FOLYKAZE:
Buddhism is very popular and I knew you will be familiar with it than Yoruba spirituality.

Your definition of Spirituality is one sided. You cut it from religion perspective. This angle is diluted, corrupted and irrelevant in this debate. Note the word especially in your definition. Especially is used to single out one person, thing, or situation over all others.

And you extricated yours from religion! I know why I gave that definition. It doesn't mean I don't know what you were talking about, that's why I gave room for other definitions of it by saying there's no single, widely accepted definition of spirituality. I just wanna help you widen your perspective because I know you have a war against religion (not even knowing that you're still deep rooted in religion). My definition of spirituality still stand till tomorrow no matter your opinion of it. All you need to do is widen your perspective.

On religion, we have not make a clear ground. W only agreed on worship. . . We have lot of religion which do not have room for God. They are called Non-theistic religion. God are not rule out but are basically not revognised. Like in Buddhism and Taosim. They tend to be more spiritual than been religious. I only wish you can come forward with a better definition, better argument and rebut my own position.

If we haven't reached a common ground then why am I seeing religion all over your post above?
Why not say Non-theistic spirituality? You know all these yet you're still arguing blindly. You can still go back some pages and find the 2 definitions of religion I gave you.

Spirituality is about connection.

Religion is about binding.

Spirituality is about appreciation for religious values

FOLYKAZE:
Your wishes and opinion have no relevance here.

The point we were arguing is that religion and spirituality are different things. Even though religion adopt some spiritual act, spirituality stands on it own. I even used a water and gulder analogy. There is always a tasteless, colorless, odourless and pure spirituality. This stand above religion.

You aint making sense when you defined religion as believe in God or some crappy supernaturals controlling power. Your definition is not acceptable when there are facts that some religion do not have room for believe in God or supernaturals.

I did not simply reject your definition. I found some loopholes therein and throw it back at you. The reason I dont buy most definitions from people is because what they submit is incomplete, one sided and fallacious. How do you want me to accept a definition from religious perspective? How do you expect me to accept a definition of religion that holds that it is a believe in God when religion like Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism and many imperial cults do not recognise the existence of God?

Wishes can never drive your point. Come forward with strong rebuttal if you have any problem with my submission.

I thought we are already done with religion where I gave you 2 widely accepted definition of it and you at last accepted the term. It seems like it's this Buddhism that you just got hold of since we started discussing about spirituality that is making you change your perspective. Tell me how does Buddhism preclude from both definitions of religion that I gave you?
Hmmm!

KingEbukaNaija:
Such gallimaufry of thoughts !

What kind of wack thinking is this . Ive not seen so much garbage in one post .

You have your proof for the non-existence of god.
Read again. This time slowly. Digest and comprehend.

If everything has a source and god is that source, then god must have existed without it before he created it. So if god created time and space, he must live outside of time and space. Thus he is non-existent.

If all life must come from something and that is god, god is not alive and hence non-existent.
If moral must come from god, god lacks moral.
If logic comes from god, god is illogic.
If nature comes from god, god is unnatural.
If existence comes from god, god is non-existent. If god is the cause of everything, god is void

KingEbukaNaija:
Humanoid robots are less powerful than man , therefore man should be called a super-robot . Well I'm not surprised this type of ratiocination
is coming from an atheist .

Now I see, taking superhuman to mean an advanced form of a human being. Well we are digressing. This is not what I came to do.

Is the cause . He is not bound by the laws .

Since you need a proof that there's no god, Here we go..

If everything has a source and god is that source, then god must have existed without it before he created it. So if god created time and space, he must live outside of time and space. Thus he is non-existent.

If all life must come from something and that is god, god is not alive and hence non-existent.
If moral must come from god, god lacks moral.
If logic comes from god, god is illogic.
If nature comes from god, god is unnatural.
If existence comes from god, god is non-existent. If god is the cause of everything, god is void

KingEbukaNaija:
Why stress yourself with the pronouns . Just say God and continue ... smh . Another atheist I have to engage in a logomachy with . Anthropomorphic means described with human features to a being not human . I can see aliens today and describe them as anthropomorphic so that you'd get a vivid description - it does not make them super-humans

I don't think we have to even dispute over this. What is a superhuman exactly? You have given human attributes to something powerful and beyond the capabilities of a human, yet you're stressing your self with the word superhuman?

God is not a thing . If you gona make further pejorative descriptions about God , then just forget it

Am just trying to get a vivid picture of what you call god.
So if I get what you were trying to say all along, you meant that this god which is not bound by any laws, is the source of the universe right?

KingEbukaNaija:
Not a superhuman , humanoid robots are designed in the image of man- resembles man - but man is not addressed as a super-robot . God is not bound by laws of nature , morality laws etc

You said it/he/she is anthropomorphic and a deity as well--that means a superhuman. Or aren't you the one that used the terms?

Anyway you said that this thing, not bound by any laws is the source of the universe right?

KingEbukaNaija:
Trolls are gadflies and trolling is fun to anyone who is not being feasted on .

A conscious anthropomorphic deity who created the universe . Well , apparently , atheists think this is a hypothesis - "God-hypothesis "- since scientifically the cause of the universe is unknown .

The thing is , atheists repudiate/abnegate the God-hypothesis without proof . So the purpose of this thread is to address this pathetic mentality . If God is one of the "possibilities" for the cause of the universe , why do they reject it ? Isn't that close-mindedness Or better still being ignorant ?

In essence a superhuman, an almighty being not bound by anything right?