₦airaland Forum

PhysicsQED: Does anyone really seriously believe these things in bad are bad?

That's part of his write up I dont agree with.

Honestly I was quite shocked that anyone could say those. Not that I regard them all as "good". . . . but most of them are harmless. . . . some even positively defendable!

Logicbwoy: 1) I have seen this copy and paste elsewhere. Why cant people use their own words?


2) There is no proof of God. Your last statement is false. Consciousness is not evidence.


3) Many things your copy and paste claims about atheism negatively are the negative effects of christianity. Just projection.

Copy and Paste? Even with the link and title. You d.aft little piece of snuckle from the rotten faeces of an orangutan, please just move on and have a nice day, and pick up the noodles you call a brain behind you.

I'm not looking for your infantile kind around here.

Next.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I still hold the stance that God never changes and is forever the same.[/quote]But he changed his ethics from genocidal barbarian in OT to all-loving sugar daddy in NT, abi?

He also changed the requirements for salvation between people living pre-christ and people living post-christ, no?

Did Job have to believe in Jesus to be saved?

Did Elijah have to be beleive in Jesus to be taken up to la la land?

Little misconception. Jesus "flouting" the sabbath is not on the basis of "impracticability" but on the basis of what the sabbath is meant for i.e. the sabbath to give man a day of rest and not to imprison man to "no work" also on the basis of the law of the sabbath being subject to Him since He is God.

Jesus is God? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Are you mentally stable?

The words of Jesus:

John 8:40: “, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

John 14:28: "You heard me say,'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

John 20:17: "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

Mark 10:18: “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

Guys from the foregoing there can be NO DOUBT, that Jesus NEVER, NOT EVEN FOR ONE SECOND, regarded himself as God.

The words of the Apostles:

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Acts 2:36: “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Let’s face it: the Trinity was created by the Roman Catholic Church and not Jesus Christ, and now people are ready to die to affirm the truth of it, disregarding Jesus’ own words.

So beware: calling him God – or “part of God” – is definitely blasphemy.

OLAADEGBU: It is the blood of God who became man so as to make man become the sons of God.

So God has blood?

Is God physical, so as to have blood?

Why are you so INTRINSICALLY foolish?

Sirniyeh: Devotedone, from your long explanation or description, what is the real answer to the question, "what is God?"? In your own concise word, how can you convince a 12yrs old boy of who and what God is?

Tell him that God is an idea that is the perfection of what he himself is: and that he must strive to that idea.

OLAADEGBU: You surely need to be washed in the blood of the Lamb, it is the precious blood of Jesus which is the blood of God.

O, and you surely are a ritualistic devilish animal if you can suggest such a barbaric practice as being washed in another human being's blood.

In fact, you are a vampire.

“THE New Atheists” is the name given to a group of writers, including Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens, who take a more aggressive approach to opposing religious belief than atheists and agnostics have traditionally done. This New Atheism is, in its origins and aims, a type of moralism: a protest against the injustices of the world. The world, marked as it is by so much injustice, innocent suffering, and cynicism of power cannot, it is claimed, be the work of a good and just God. Such a God must be contested.

In his absence, man is called upon to establish justice.

The atheist’s claim, however, that humanity can do, and must do, what God cannot is both presumptuous and intrinsically false. Indeed, this idea has led to widespread cruelty and the violation of justice. We have seen the contemporary results: nihilistic yet impeccably democratic legislation that repudiates life itself! I am thinking here of existing, enacted, and pending articles of legislation that legalise the use of various drugs, the practices of prostitution, contraception, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia, cloning, in-vitro fertilization, and the hollowing-out of human dignity through genetic manipulation, human trafficking, and other new forms of slavery.

On a global scale one can also add to this list: the inequality in the distribution of goods, the depletion of the earth’s resources, and the increase in poverty, famine, and illness. Also, one cannot forget the brutal campaigns that were waged against religion in the 20th Century by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. A world, which seeks to create its own justice purely through human reason, the very existence and origin of which the atheists cannot explain, is a world without hope. No one and nothing can guarantee that the cynicism of power, whatever beguiling ideological mask it adopts, will cease to dominate the world.

Contrary to the New Atheists, faith is necessary as a purifying force for reason, to liberate it from its blind spots and help it to be more fully itself. Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth. When human interests and values are based on reason alone, apart from the truth that transcends them, the individual and his human rights, dignity, worth, and capacity for self-realization are at the mercy of caprice. When man rejects absolutes, he ends up judging by pragmatic criteria, which are based essentially upon experimental data, in the mistaken belief that technology must dominate all things. All of life’s mysteries are then reduced to problems that must be solved in commensurate with the human mind that has posed them.

However, beyond man’s intellectual ability to solve problems there are mysteries, which engage, not only the mind, but also the heart, body, and whole being. These mysteries do not challenge us to master their complexity; rather, with a sense of reverence and awe, they invite us to marvel in contemplation at their core simplicity. God has given us an image of himself. This image we see in Christ, who was made man, was crucified, and who stands in complete opposition to the many false images of God created and posed by the atheist. God has revealed his true face in the figure of the one who suffers, who shares man’s God-forsaken condition by taking it upon himself. This innocent God who suffers, has attained the certitude of hope: there is a God, and God can create justice in a way that we cannot conceive, yet we can grasp it through faith. No doubt, the question of justice constitutes the essential argument, or in any case the strongest argument, in favour of faith in eternal life.

In our everyday lives, we experience many greater or lesser hopes. But when these hopes are fulfilled, it becomes clear that they were not, in reality, the whole. We discover that man has need of a hope that goes further. We realise that only something infinite will suffice for us, something that will always be more than we can ever attain. This great hope can only be God, who encompasses the whole of reality and who can bestow upon us what we, by ourselves, cannot attain.

To protest against God in the name of justice is self-defeating. The New Atheists forget that man always remains man. They forget man’s freedom; they forget that freedom always remains also freedom for evil. They believe that once the economy, for example, has been put right, everything else will automatically be put right. Their real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favourable economic environment. Indeed, the kingdom of good will never be definitively established in this world. Anyone who promises a better world, guaranteed to last forever, is making a false promise; he is overlooking human freedom.

The New Atheists are wrong to believe that man can be redeemed through science. This kind of hope is deceptive. Science can contribute greatly to making the world a better place; yet, it can also destroy mankind and the world unless it is steered by forces that lie outside it. If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man’s ethical formation, in man’s inner growth, then it is not progress at all, but a threat to man and the world.

The tragic consequences of atheism demonstrate that the growth of our technical possibilities has not been matched by an equal development of our moral energy. Moral strength has not grown in tandem with the development of science; on the contrary it has diminished, because the technological mentality of our time has largely confined morality to the subjective sphere. The security we all need as a presupposition of our freedom and dignity can only come from the moral strength of man – not structures – and where this is lacking or insufficient, the power man has will be transformed more and more into a power of destruction. Man, ultimately, is not redeemed by science but by love. In this sense, it is true that anyone who does not know God, even though he may entertain all kinds of hopes, is ultimately without hope. The new moralism of the atheist uses terms like progress, freedom, liberty, equality, justice and peace. But these concepts are decidedly vague and largely confined to party politics where they are open to all kinds of abuse. In contrast, being in communion with God draws us into his “being for all” and makes his way of being our own way of being. God commits us to live for others, but only through communion with him does it become possible truly to be there for others, for the whole.

The first essential setting for learning this hope in God is prayer. When we pray properly we undergo a process of inner purification, which opens us up to God and thus to our fellow human beings. The second place for learning hope is in suffering. Suffering is a part of our human existence. What heals man is not sidestepping or fleeing from suffering, as the atheists do, but rather our capacity for accepting it, maturing through it and finding meaning through union with Christ, who suffered with infinite love for us. A society that is unable to accept its suffering members and incapable of helping to share their suffering and to bear it inwardly through compassion is a cruel and inhuman society. Our lives are involved with one another. Through innumerable interactions they are linked together. No one lives alone. No one sins alone. No one is saved alone.

Atheism is incapable of saving man for it is essentially a materialist ideology that reduces man to a mere machine. When man is nothing more than a product he becomes subject to the control of man. Imperfect individuals must then be weeded out; the path of planning and production must aim at the perfect man. Suffering must disappear, and life is to consist of pleasure alone. In the final analysis atheism encourages consumerism, selfishness, power, and pleasure-seeking – denigrating the importance of faith and scoffing at the “absurdity of thinking about God.” Perhaps the great tragedy of this world is that atheists have no one to really love. Since there is no one to love they never think of the love of God. Their life is tragic indeed.

• Kokoski lives in Ontario, Canada.

http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93213:kokoski-limits-of-the-new-atheists&catid=38:columnists&Itemid=615



. . . . . I disagree with many aspects of this Christian's write up. But some aspects are very telling in a way that I have never seen any atheist being alive to. Things about human consciousness which hint at the obvious existence of that ultimate consciousness which is called GOD.

Also, things on essential humanity. . . . . any human being [like thehomer] who sees humans as only highly evolved apes is missing something about what it means to be human.

Thoughts, anyone?

I need to return to that thread by Plaetton on Consciousness. I have a lot to say there.

I repeat that knowing sentient consciousness is the biggest, most obvious, and most simple proof of the existence of GOD, except to the willfully blind.

vb0mb: Everything with one eye now symbolizes illuminati. C'mon enough of this illuminati conspiracy. Ok so all blind people with one eye are now members of illuminati or what?

Most people who talk this trash do not even know s.hit about it. They should start from the Bavarian Illuminati, trace the history and see that the b.loody thing doesn't even exist anymore.

[quote author=PAGAN 9JA]no thanks i have a good water supply. i dont need to have a bloodbath.[/quote]Honestly i don't know how people can still consider human sacrifice to be their salvation. How is that different from the Aztec rituals?

And these same, consider such to be lofty indeed: even looking down on those of us who reject such primitively barbaric notions.

If Jesus has been executed in modern times, the instrument of execution would likely be a gun, a hangman's noose, an electric chair, or lethal injection.

That would mean that you would have either a gun, a hangman's noose, an electric chair, or the injection thingy as the symbol of christianity today, in the same way as the cross [or stake] is: for that was merely the Roman instrument of [tortured] execution.

Disgusting.

[quote author=Area_boy]How can we then prove the existence of souls?[/quote]1. [from where]- - - > Came to be - - -> WAS - - > [To where?]

2. Energy Balance and the laws of thermodynamics are also highly suggestive. . .

Lol. This man sef. Incorrigible!

Martian: Hopefully, while running away, you will be abducted by the ETs that are CURRENTLY visiting and we won't have to hear from you again.

To Nirvana.

While we're at it,why don't you post a picture of the Saqqara Bird and claim it's an Airplane........lol

I made no such claim sir. I posted images for discussion.

And yes, aside the saq bird, there are other sculptures far more airplanelike made in ancient times, and you know it.

As I recall it, you called this one a dragonfly or some other such improbable gibberish -

You see, this is why every sensible African should adamantly support the creation of a unified African state as the United States of Africa.

The synergy would be incomparable.

It would INSTANTLY be one of the major countries in the world - with of course a permanent security council seat and veto.

the expanse of its economy and population could catapult it within say. . . 50 years to being the number one industrial, economic, political and military giant in the world.

World domination. Where's Pinky and the the Brain. . . .

My personal experience of predictive dreams has led me to the (perhaps seemingly absurd) conviction that some experiences and events can hardly be avoided.

Martian: There is a difference between the possibilities of extra terrestial life and the "ancient alien" stories you are fond of.

Ancient Aliens perished with Atlantis -Plato

1. You scoffed, on that thread, also at even the suggestions of CURRENT extra terrestrial visitations.

2. Given the short age of our civilization and the long age of our universe, it is contradictory to accede to the possibility of extra terrestial life and scoff at "ancient" aliens. . . mark you - what we call "ancient" . . . are happenings only a few thousand years ago. . . a nano second, in cosmic terms. . .

*Runs away very fast, expecting bullets*

thehomer: I don't think so. The ability to apply mathematics and technology the way humans do I think is pretty much incomparable to what other animals do. If they've been looking closely and are intelligent, they should be able to realize that fundamental difference.

Aha. From he who asserts that we are all apes.

@ OP, You'd better hide beneath a sofa and hope and pray for your dear life that a poster called Martian does not come across this thread.

Ah Jo, granted that prophecy may be given in part, the act of editting was wholly unnecessary since it is already known that prophecy may be given in part. That was fraudulent. Don't defend such please.

Hallo Idehn. . . you asked for a week or two. . .its been about a month now. . .

Any intention to address this thread?

Hope all is well.

Cheers.

davidylan: perhaps you're just afraid of evolutionary events that may take place in the dark?

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! ! ! ! ! !

[quote author=Area_boy]LoL. don't bother. I prolly was more evangelical than you in my days. My search and questioning opened up a whole new field of reason. Now I saved myself from the delusion that is god (Abraham's one to be precise).

At one point, I held on to Christianity for the moral values we can learn from the bible. This fell apart when I read the bible from top to bottom. Morality is not a product of religion (this can be argued in so many different ways) I must confess though, the only inspiring part of the bible in my opinion is the Sermon Jesus gave on the mount.

However, we can equate it to the golden rule. So that throws the whole point of the religion out of the window. I'm an agnostic and will only come back to religion when I see concrete evidence. In absence of that I'm sure I'll keep an open mind to everything else

I'm sure Jesus would love me and you. But that doesn't prove he is god [/quote]PERFECT!

Ah well maybe i've been a tad sensitive, but i'd rather leave the issue, cheers.

And as for chess... How wud u know? I've only played online with Inesqor. Are you Inesqor?

Ah well maybe i've been a tad sensitive, but i'd rather leave the issue, cheers.

the mistake was all mine, for mentioning them at all.

I'd kill for my family, pentecostal or not.

Please martian just leave it and kindly insult me and not my family again, however pentecostal they may be, and however anoymously you liberaly do so.

Thanks

Wow. Brilliant thread. I have alot to say here, but using my phone now. Will revert when on the laptop.

I will say alot here, especially to atheists, because they shockingly dont recognize that consciousness, and particularly knowing sentience, is the most unshakeable and obvious proof of the existence of that ultimate sentience that is called GOD.

@ Pastor AIO, great rally u had there with Kag. I wonder is KAG is aware of the existence of chess playing robots and their ability to respond to complex strategic scenarios with jaw dropping intelligence. Such robots are neither self aware or conscious, not to speak of possessing knowing sentience.

I'll be back.

Martian: Awwwwww, chess playing pentecostals. How nice!! they are probably as good as chess playing 5 per centers, but that doesn't mean both parties do not have some outlandish beliefs. So them outwitting you at chess is not a big deal.............just step your game up and stop getting outwitted by those pentecostals.



Unforseen result? Is some non physical force going to strike me? Your siblings are Pentecostals and penticostals are some of the best sheep a MOG can ask for, so saying you can outwit them with you deep sighted rhetoric is not an insult..............it's a fact. Defeating you at chess is not a big deal either because you probably SUCK!

please u do no know them. They do no participate on this forum. So please direct ur insults at me andd not at them. That is only fair. Ur words annoy me. I am sensitive about my family because they are who i live for.

Being religious does not equate to being stupid. Thats the point. Most scientific feats in the worlld today were acheived by religious people. That was the chess point, in case u didnt get it.

As much as i hate to congratulate him, my eternal nemesis enigma once quoted a statement to the effect that myths may be myths but are not necessarily spiritually or psycologically uselesss. I dont expect u to understand that tho. Infact, i expect insults frm u for saying so.

Anyhow just direct ur unsults at me, and not my family, the extent of their being which u hve no clue of.

Thanks, as i anticipate, to be a gentleman, this being on faith, the substance of things unsubstantiated.

As a matter of fact, they outwit me everyday. We play chess, and they defeat me everytime.

But please i would rather not mention my family again lest u create some unforeseen insult, which wud make me want to break ur head, obviously impossible, online.

My word. And only few noticed his innuendo.

Taking into account the meaning of the word "delirium" he's simply saying he's apologizing, but also letting y'all know that he thinks its madness to bother to apologize.

Frankly, i stay with thehomer on this one. I am notoriously thick skinned on this forum and will not take anything too seriously. All the yabbis is part of what makes this place fun. As Fela wud say..." make i yab dem?"..... "Yab them!"

The only things i take real offence at are the one that go below the belt, such as when Pastor AIO shared an email i sent to him here publicly, or such as when Martian directed insults at my family members simply on account that i mentioned that they are pentecostal, and that i disagree and debate with them. One should not insult people one has not even intertacted with, and he vd he ceratinly hasnt.

All other friendly bashing is just in the game. Part of the play.

Personally i think NL would be boring without a bit of that.

Imagine a board full of bored old sages boarding on their tiring wisdom onboard.

Nah

Excellent Idea

thehomer: Nope. The same error is there. The key is for you to note what you're comparing which are a probability/improbability figure and the age of the earth.

And it is perfectly logical so to do.

If a certain event has a probability of lets say 1 in One zillion - any event at all - what are the chances that such an event will occur within any specifically given vastly shorter period of time - say, in the next ten seconds.

As far as I am concerned, the age of the earth cannot accommodate the timespan required for -

1. Chemical elements to form the supposed first-unicellular-life and -

2. Unicellular life to develop into super-complex creatures such as humans.

- - -> If it is assumed that there is no intelligence or guidance behind the process.

caezar: There might be a technical error in comparing different values of different units but the meaning of the post is quite clear. The statistical improbability of complex designs means that, given the age of the earth, it cannot be realistically expected that complex organisms evolved via micro-evolution in such a relatively short period.

Exactly. Gravely improbable.

thehomer: The answer you gave there is erroneous because you're comparing two things that shouldn't be compared.
You're comparing the age of the earth which is a measurement of time to probability which is a ratio. And that is a category error.

There's no error there: I think I have explained it better by slighty editting the text in red. Read again.