₦airaland Forum

^^^ Oh, wicked, you, Noetic.

Quick math.

Reconcile these:

"Before Abraham was, I AM".

And -

"The father is greater than i am". . .

"I ascend to my father and your father, my GOD and your God". . .

"Eli Eli. . . _{(allah, allah)"}

[quote author=Okija_juju link=topic=355592.msg4977783#msg4977783 date=1258935927]Nature aint a being but more like a force.[/quote]And who told you this for certain?

[quote author=Okija_juju link=topic=355592.msg4977730#msg4977730 date=1258935170]I would calll such a force nature.[/quote]Does nature self-exist, or does it require a cause? A source?

What is nature?

Do you not think that the resort to the word "nature" is escapist, as nature is as indefinable and as requiring of a meaning as the idea of God?

[quote author=Okija_juju link=topic=355592.msg4977730#msg4977730 date=1258935170]That sounds better and would be more acceptable than GOD.[/quote]What is so unnaceptable about the idea of the existence of God? If you regard evolution, chance, etc as possibilities, why must the possibility of a Deity be ruled out? Tell me

@ Okija - PLS just as a quick aside: what is the meaning of "ara ga gba ndi ara?"

bawomolo:
i won't assert that but it's plausible.   If the universe does need a cause, is that cause God?

The cause is nothing but . . .  the cause! I call that cause "God". Do not mix this up with any of the Abrahamic ideas of God?

noetic15:
xtianity is not a religion.

And what might it be, pray tell? Do you know the meaning of the word "religion"? A dictionary definition, please.

noetic15:
even the devil accepts the existence of God. the question is are u on God's side or the devil?

If God is the source of all things, then darkness and the "Devil" also emanate from HIM. Be careful.

noetic15:
what are u free from? and whats the truth u claim to hold?

Free from dogma. And the truth is LOVE & UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD.

noetic15:
P.S atheism is synonymous to ignorance.

I certainly agree. But we must hear them out: because religion (esp. dogma) is more silly.

^^^ @ Naijababe - once we do not sucscribe to orgarnised religion, but still accept the existence of God, they label us as confused.

I think we are free and true.

oyb:
warning to Osisi and Davidylan

mazaje:
As if moslems do not have VERY DEEP SEATED HATRED for people of other religion most especially christians. . . . .

I BEG you both, and all others: please do not turn this thread into another christian v. muslim duel.

Bawomolo, Manmustwac - i await your responses.

Thanks.

manmustwac:
Am a British Born Nigerian. Spent most of my life here in London but have lived in Nigeria for about 6 years. I come from a weak Catholic background, i say weak because my mother didn't start taking me, my junior bros and two junior sisters didn't start going to church until i was about 10 years old. There was nothing like dogma or indoctrination. We weren't even persuaded to read the bible.

Church services to me was boring and i always used to daydream during the sermon. At age 14 one Sunday during one of my daydreaming sessions i just told myself that this whole idea of an old man just saying let there be light and creating the world in 6 days was a false. Since i schooled in England i'd already known about dinosaurs and evolution. I found that theory easier to believe.

Four years later at age 18 mother stopped taking us to Catholic Church coz she felt more at home with our African white garment churches so started attending that instead. So eventually my immediate bros started going to Church of England which he still attends till today, my junior sis under the influence of one of her friends or somebody knocking on the door became a Jehovah's Witness and she persuaded her immediate junior who takes after her to become a Witness too. As for me am a 100% confirmed athiest and i've never looked back since.

I even have a junior bros and sis who weren't born the time we started going to church i'll describe them both as agnostic athiests because they've both have not been influenced by the bible or church and they're both free from religious dogma and indoctrination unlike most Nigerians who have religion indoctrinated into them from a young age

I'll answer your second question tomorrow

Hi Manmustwac. So you appear to agree that this is a disdain of religion, and not a rejection of af an intelligent first cause of all existence?

The One
The primeval Source of Being is [size=16pt]the One and the Infinite, [/size] as opposed to the many and the finite

Thank goodness. Can you now find a place and a sense, a reason in that which i had tried to propose: namely: the nature of God as being a oneness of infinity?

bawomolo:
My main point is that the universe doesn't need a God to exist.

Thus you assert that the universe does not need a cause to exist. . . ? Please confirm.

bawomolo:
not by my physical eyes but it should be observed. the christian God did appear to moses (well his backside )

And what do you suppose it would take to "observe" God, if he did exist?

^^^ Dont worry. We are quite familiar with him.

naijababe:
@ Deepsight
Correct me if I'm wrong but u sound like u are influenced by the likes of Thomas Paine, Voltaire and others from the Age of Enlightment.

Verily verily. . .! But i find that that which i reflect upon, they have already propunded, and not that i directly glean from those great writings. I have actually not read some of them!

Chrisbenogor:
If God did exist he did a pansy assed job in creating man, I watched the horror of what the militants did to people in Port harcourt, innocent 'sisters' being raped (two are officially dead now a third still missing) mercilessly.

Yet again, i have to remind you (for the umpteenth time) that a discourse on a balanced prime mover cannot be determined by reference to imperfections in that which we see: given that the Abrahamic idea of a merciful and perfect God is not being propounded.

[quote author=Okija_juju link=topic=355592.msg4977314#msg4977314 date=1258929108]Funny part is

Just like most atheist, I was also born into a christian home, raised in the christian way, read the bible from genesis to revelation _{(I actually did thanks to morning devotion)}, actually gave my life to christ _{( a common christian initiation ritual)}, I preached in my junior secondary days _{(i''m talking about in front of the general assembly every morning)}, was nick-named "Pastor", In fact my father became a pastor at some point with our home being used for church meetings every tuesdays, I went the whole 9 yards.

Then one day, I heard my father expressing his deep seated hatred for muslims and Hindus as he always does and for some reason it got me thinking. So I decided to see what other religions were all about, so I became friends with a muslim who bought me the translated version of the koran.

With this I started thinking about the deity called "GOD", and realised that man actually created God and not vice versa. For a being whom we have never met, seen, nor heard, we seem to know so much about him, his family _{(apparently he has a kid)}, his thoughts, his feelings, his likes, his dislikes, e.t.c.

Then one day some evengelist came preaching and used the story of JOB to make an illustration, and I just lost it. I became an Atheist 3 years ago and i am loving it.

I now realise that life isnt as complicated as we see it.[/quote]Hi Okija –
Do you realize that what you have expressed is a distrust of religion and dogma, and not a rejection of the idea that a Prime Mover exists? At the risk of sounding like a broken record, i do not refer to the Abrahamic God, but the idea of an intelligent first cause of all existence in a non-religious but humanistic sense.

[quote author=Okija_juju link=topic=355592.msg4977314#msg4977314 date=1258929108]With this I started thinking about the deity called "GOD", and realised that man actually created God and not vice versa.[/quote]Man created his own IDEA of God. Since we are certain man did not create the universe, perhaps we might want to reflect on what did?

[quote author=Okija_juju link=topic=355592.msg4977314#msg4977314 date=1258929108]For a being whom we have never met, seen, nor heard, we seem to know so much about him, his family [sub](apparently he has a kid[/quote]I feel you on this. But that’s the tom-foolery of religion.

bawomolo:
rejection against norm and convention moved me to deism (a much safer place than organized religion), rejection against the idea of God existence moved me to atheism.

Thus it is safe to assert that you believe that the universe erupted by chance, meaninglessly, purposelessly, and from nothing?

bawomolo:
I have no problem believing in a God that can be observed or experienced.

Assuming God exists, would you expect that HE/SHE/IT would be such an entity as to be observed with your physical eyes?

Since we mention the word physical, maybe i should also ask if along with rejecting the existence of God, you also reject the existece of all spirituality?

Pastor AIO:
I don't see what is so impossible or impractical about rejecting any concepts of God that one might dream up.

Baba ke. Mo ti re fun yin jaare.

wirinet:
@ Poster,

I am trying to understand your thread. I know the thread specifically refers to Bawomolo & Manmustwac whom are the atheist that catch your attention , but you made a sort of reference to all atheists.

You said "I have heard from many of the Atheists on this forum (though not in decisive or concrete terms)." You did not elaborate what the subject matter was, what was it you have heard from atheists that was indecisive and inconclusive according to you - Atheism or Theism?

No Atheist has ever laid down anything decisive or conclusive: nor is it possible for any atheist so to do: atheism being a negative assertion: and negative assertions regarding abstractions cannot be proved in general terms: the burden rather rests on the positive asserters to prove their assertions: hence all the trouble i have gone to in presenting proofs of the existence of God.

wirinet:
Then you went further to state that "The best postulations I have received have come from persons who are not atheists". Still i am still at loss as to what these postulations are. Is it postulation about religion, philosophy or theology?

Those best postulations I refer to are Pastor AIO and Krayola debunking my proofs of the existence of God based on logical reasoning: not that they do not believe in God, but they seek to fine-tune all lines of reasoning by debunking that which does not add up. They have been brilliant at this.

wirinet:
At least here we see you are talking about the belief in deities and the supernatural. I think the Atheist stand is the most simplistic of all world views, it does not need exhaustive and esoteric explanations. It simply state that the universe as we perceive and experience it, nothing more nothing less. We rely on our own experiences, perceptions and knowledge to interpret the universe, not some ancient revelation to an ancient people, and definitely not on revelation received by any other guru, pastor, reverend, imam, etc. We are open to receive information and knowledge from what ever source we can find, but we are not bound by any such knowledge if it is incompatible with our present understanding of the universe.

This is good. But please note that as I have severally suggested this militates more against dogma and religionist ideas than against the idea of a prime mover, yes?

Hi Bawomolo -

Thank you so much for taking the time to make your responses.

A few comments.

bawomolo:
what pushed me away from christianity was my growing liberalism.  As we all know, anyone who supports assisted suicide, abortion and gay marriage isn't exactly going to be enamored with Christianity.

Might this suggest that your atheism is based on a rejection of norm and convention; a rejection of that which is accepted as proper in society as opposed to a definitive rejection of the idea of the existence of God? I ask this because i find within most atheists backgrounds a rejection of religion or convention, rather than a rejection of the idea of a Prime Mover.

This idea appears to be supported by your assertion -

bawomolo:
It all started about 5 years ago when i became disillusioned with with sectarianism in Christianity and religion as a whole.   I began to wonder whether God really wanted to be worshiped and if any religion had a monopoly on the "true" word of God.

So what do you make of this idea: that it is religion and the religious type-cast of “God” that may be your annoyance: and not necessarily the idea of a Creator per se?
Thanks for your response in advance.

^^^ Ok, first off: what is your religious/ cultural background, as per family.

Then what conviced you to tow you present path (atheism)?

@ Mavenbox -

One human fallacy, theologically speaking, is to think that one can reason out the nature and causes of everything, including the possibilities and/or purposes and wisdom of a divine God that yourself, or someone else, believes in. If you could do that, then you wouldn't be a human being. You would be one-kinda-god too. But even at that, there will still be a form of hierarchy and the god-that-you-are will have to defer in respect to another god or the other (if there was no such hierarchy, chaos would be the order of the day, Im sure you know that). Therefore, when there is hierarchy, someone has to be at the pinnacle of the gods. The most supreme, ensuring that things go according to THE PLAN.

Now, tell me, as a human being, can you, at once, see all the sides of a cube (not the net layout, but a solid form)? Since you cannot, would it indeed be wise/foolish for a human being to see some of a cube's sides (most probably three), and thus conclude that the cube has only three sides, and that whoever says it has six sides is definitely a liar? I do not deem such a judgment to be sound, rather it is inadmissible.

I have to say that in the case of unsure conclusions due to a perceived lack of completeness of evidence, good judgment would involve careful observation of all other possible perspectives.

Following your reasoning above, it is not apparent that you have considered all possible perspectives. However, I do not feel like arguing with you. I'm just expressing my views. Best Regards.

This is brilliant. You earn my deepest respect. I totally agree.

But what say you on this: No one can understand God: but is it not rationally possible to infer that such an entity must exist?

_{P/S: That pic is beautiful}

Bawomolo! There you are!

Please indulge my queries. . .

Thanks!

viaro:
There are a whole lot of things askew in your summations, Deep Sight. For one, I wonder how you of all people proceed to talk about God Almighty when you have not been able to articulate just Who He is to you in your worldview. If others are speaking about God Almighty, you may hold your silence and observe without trying to define for them what they should believe, especially where you're not inclined to holding the very axioms about the Almighty that you might grant unto others.

I am certain that this does not require a response at all; but for the excess of my restlessness let me say this: Christians, Muslims, and indeed myself, all ascribe to the idea of the perfection of God - yes? So that is agreed.

But let us assume that it is not agreed. One thing which is per force agreed among all persons and institutions who sucscibe to the idea of God, is that He is very great indeed - certainly much greater than human beings in all respects - yes? So don't worry about my articulation of God: as far as this discussion is concerned, we may limit ourselves to the foregoing: namely that he is perfect; but if that is disputed; then let us at least say he is great: much greater in every respect than any human being. Happy? We proceed!

viaro:
Second, there is no need to "rationalize" God Almighty in any form. To have a need to do so is to open up many doors to box Him up in certain ways that may be polarised towards your own ideology as distinct from the persuasions of other people.

Don't worry about the word "rationalize." You seem to be placing too much emphasis on that word. I simply meant in general terms that which seems to approach common sense, or the obvious. For example, if Mr. X were to state: "that goat in my yard is almighty-God in goat-form" - i might reply - "can anybody rationalize the almighty as an animal - less than a human being?". There would be no need to fly down on the word - "rationalize" here, because the hardened anti-rationalist can easily argue: God is omni-potent - accordingly he may take the form of a goat if he pleases."

So please leave off on the word 'rationalize" - as an aside i can tell you that my perception of God is via intuition and the Spiritual: i "rationalize" only for the purpose of discussion and philosophy.

viaro:
Dear Deep Sight, it is disappointing to read that from you! You drew hasty conclusions there that completely evaded the question of His actual death - that is where you see the "courage" you are seeking, and not in the that utterance of prayer. His demeanour at the Trial; the excoriation He endured; His demonstration of forgiveness to His accusers. . these are all points of reference to ponder for yourself and come to ask simply: can you, Deep Sight, envisage any "capabilities" of the same "courage" if put in His place?

I have no idea if i can endure such. However I know very well that throughout history men have endured even worse forms of barbaric and inhumane torture when trying to protect their families or loved ones, without asking anyone to "let the cup pass" over their heads. If you will study in particular the mental aspects of the oriental marshall arts, you will find that it has long been considered a thing of honour to endure pain and death for an honorable cause. There have been many hundreds of thousands of human beings throughout history who have endured such unflinchingly; certain of their cause, and the purpose for which they fight. There have been others who have volunteerd outright for such, as opposed to seeking for a "cup to pass over" their heads.

Let us in this briefly and sincerely return to the first point i made - namely that God is perfect, or very great indeed.

Viaro, i apologize in advance for this remark: but it seems you are employing unpardonable double standards here.

Here is my reason. Under Christian doctrine, Jesus was unblemished: without sin - and therefore perfect. This perfection streams from his very divinity - the fact that he is God HIMSELF in human form. God is not capable of sin; and accordingly Jesus could not sin.

The above sentence shows one thing: namely that the attributes of Jesus spring from his nature as God - his divinity, which is perfect. Thus he does not sin because he is God.

I hope you can already see where i am going with this. You accept the above proposition: but when it comes to other patterns of his bahaviour you conveniently flip the table. You are happy to ascribe the prayer in Gethsemane to his "human" fear - hello - why can we not also conclude that since he was "human" then he could sin? The truth is this: your line of reasoning, if followed, should also apply to such attributes as fear: namely - he is God, and as such can know no fear. He is perfect, and as such will be stout hearted in facing the sacrifice necessary to redeem his creatures. And if not perfect, he is at least greater than all men, and as such, would not make a request which mere mortals have in many instances risen above.

This is all the more central when you consider the following (christian doctrine) -

  1. He knew the purpose and reason for the sacrifice even before coming into the world

  2. He loved his creatures and wanted to redeem them accordingly

Viaro, if Jesus knew the purpose of the sacrifice, it would be grossly irresponsible and cowardly of him to request that it should not take place. And given the fact that he is supposed to be almighty God himself, such a request becomes both paradoxical and demeaning of his inner nature.

The above regardless, most shocking is that you missed the core element of my post:

This statement shows something cardinal: if Jesus were God, as you lot like to claim, his will, and the will of the Father would be absolutely inseparable! This prayer shows clearly that the Father’s will could be different from Jesus’ will, when he says – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”.

There it is: the core element of my surmise is not even the fear and courage element: it is the evident dichotomy of will.

If Jesus is truly God, or part of a trinity as you claim, then his oneness with God will cardinally be a oneness of will, even before a oneness in any other respect. It is inconceivable, that we should speak of a divine being who is God, that could have a will different from the will of God. Haba, let's try to be sincere please: i cannot see how his appearance in human form would suddenly destroy his divine will, or the oneness of his will with God.

"Nevertheless not as i will, but as thou wilt."

Recall that he says this in prayer, to a being he considered greater than himself (Jn 14:28). A being he severally addressed as "my God." (Jn 20:17).

This is the damning part: his revelation that his will could be different from, but subordinated to the will of God, hammers down the coffin on any suggestion that he is himself God. You know this to be true, Viaro - please do not descend into a whirlpool of "we cannot rationalize" in an attempt to evade this glaring fact.

I know you will have no choice but to revert to the age-old defence. . . "he was only human. . . it was his human-part speaking. . ."

To that i say - give me a break! Almighty God in human form must per force be a cut above ordinary humans! - As is the case with the fact of his being without sin!

Banom's ceaseless vulgar insults to Tpia merit a permanent ban. I don't know Tpia and i could not care less, but it was utterly childish and distasteful. I am sure that she too, possibly deserves some discipline, but i am yet to see evidence of her misbehaviour, save where she was responding to Banom's taunts. Tudor, i don't support.

I have heard from many of the Atheists on this forum (though not in decisive or concrete terms).

The best postulations I have received have come from persons who are not atheists, but engage my propositions in an apparent effort to distill or debunk specific lines of reasoning. Of these, the best have been Pastor AIO and Krayola: i am in fact preparing a GCON award for these excellent men of reasoning _{(although pastor is still a very confusing person).}

Some of the others have made some attempts: never exhaustive, but at least setting forth some reasons why they find the whole idea of Deities and the Supernatural. . . . well, laughable or at most, unnecessary. These are Mazaje, Chrisbenegor and a few others.

Some attempts have been based only on snipy extracts against the more ludicrous aspects of the religious nature of man: Think Huxley.

In this thread i am interested in hearing the exhaustive views of Bawomolo and Manmustwac.

I have heard precious little from Bawomolo, i see that these days he mostly drops one-liners, but doing some research, i found that he has been very exhaustive in the past.

I discern, without hearing much from him, that Mr. Bawomolo is a very decent person with a good head on his shoulders. I also see that he does not like arrogance or pretentiousness.

Manmustwac, our dear moderator, seems a practical man who regards only practical things as being useful.

I would like to hear from you both: what are your perspectives, backgrounds, and what exactly informs your positions.

I will not be arguing anything in this, thread, i just want to hear from you both.

Bawomolo seems to seek a logical proof of God's existence, without which, he damns the idea:

bawomolo:
Thanks to the greek and egyptians, we know 1+1 = 2. what can be used to substantiate the existence of God??

In the course of this we might also wish to delve very briefly into Mr. Bawomolo's perspectives on Homosexuality. I ask this because it might be interesting to see if there are any co-relations between your perspectives on ethics and your perspectives on spirituality, (if any).

bawomolo:
there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, i repeat nothing is wrong with homosexuality

if you want to be a booty pirate or carpet muncher , go ahead.

Manmustwac entirely denies the existence of the Spiritual -

manmustwac:
When i got off the train i had to enter a bus so since i know am in the bus i know the bus dose exist. So how can u tell me that if i see God in the flesh i'd be fooling myself? Besides why didn't your God come down from Heaven to stop 9/11 u seriously think that if i saw him on live TV i would still be denying his existanceThis is the crux of the problem now. If u can't explain to me, then why should i believe? I have never seen my spirit, i have never felt my spirit so i don't believe i have a spirit. And i don't see how i can experience something that i don't believe in. I

Manmustwac, can you give us a brief chat on your statements that you have never "felt" your spirit and also -

manmustwac:
Well the obvious answer is because i don't believe there is a God. God dose not exist. He exists only in your imagination
Now your being really funny  If God came down from Heaven NOW! and i see Him in the physical flesh. Trust me i won't come up with any excuses. Seeing is believing

Let's hear from you both. Cheers.

Xristo, I am willing to spend some of my time putting you through a short course on the history of Religion, Theism and atheism.

Your posts suggest that you desperately require some learning.

Quit this now: this attempt has been feeble beyond compare: no; comic and farcical, more like.

It should be noted though, that most of th atheists on this forum are really people who have developed a distaste for religion (justifiably) and not really people who have in their minds or hearts settled the question of the existence of a supreme Deity.

Can any one rationalize God Almighty in human form not being capable of the virtue of courage, which many mere mortals have shown in abundance even at the point of death in battle?

I gave David this in a recent debate, and he took to his heels -

The most spectacular of all his prayers, for me, is the statement in Gethsemane – “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt”

This statement shows something cardinal: if Jesus were God, as you lot like to claim, his will, and the will of the Father would be absolutely inseparable! This prayer shows clearly that the Father’s will could be different from Jesus’ will, when he says – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. For me this is the most damning verse against the idea that Jesus is himself God. Because it shows a clear dichotomy of WILL between the father and the so called “son.” But I expect that in your usual fashion you will disregard Jesus’ own words in favour of your dogma.

In defending this, don’t you even dare bring up the lame line that it was his “human fear” that was speaking. Even mere mortals have shown great courage at the point of execution, or in battle, and you want to convince me that ALMIGHTY GOD, in human form, was not capable of stout hearted courage (especially when he was divine, and knew the purpose of his mission on the cross, and how sacred it was). Mere men have laid down their lives for their countries, happily and without asking for the cup to be removed from them. Gallantly! Now GOD himself, in human form, is not capable of such courage, to save his creatures?

The extent to which millions of Nigerians follow and adore "Bishop" Oyedepo (i wonder who gave him that title?) and Enoch Adeboye is really eye-opening.

These men are fraudsters far worse than the likes of James Ibori, the Delta Bastard and hired assassin.

It convinces me that Nigeria is the nerve centre of religious stupidity and gullibility in the world.

The reported pattern suggests very cleary movement of funds and not necessarily expenditure.

Most likely he is repatriating funds to accounts in Naija.

This only makes sense, if you take a moment to consider his Real Estate in Lagos and Abuja alone.

Pastor AIO:
These are questions whose comprehension I can barely grasp. I don't think they even apply to the points I raised. My issue is merely one to do with the english language. When the word 'perfect' is used, it is used to refer a specific function. Things are perfect for a certain situation. Perfection doesn't mean anything if it stands alone.

and btw neither does 'great'. If God is great, what do you mean? Great at what? Other people in history that we've called Great were called so for a reason. Alexander the Great was a great soldier and empire builder. Charlemagne was also a great warrior and empire builder. Is that what we mean by Great when applied to God? That he is a great warrior?

My dissapointment is steadily increasing.

Perhaps we need to start ab initio, since you are a theist after all, and ask what exactly you understand by the word - "God."

Because I know very well that an accurate view would be to state that HE/ SHE/ IT is the source, synopis and core-egg of ALL existence.

Given that, how could you have said this -

Is that what we mean by Great when applied to God? That he is a great warrior?

God, my friend, is not just a "great warrior" or "great artist" or "great whatever," but rather the absolute oiginal and infinite greateness of ALL Things. All existence.

That's why i spoke about a summit of all perfection.

Now you are beginning to wander again into the muddled grey zone that i found you in when i opened this thread. You are exasperated that the word "perfection" should be used in describing God. You insist that you are discussing "grammar" alone. This comes shortly after you tried to ascribe a "fall" and "sacrifice" to God ever before he created anything.

I am frankly worried.

And concerned that the underlying confusions (or contradictions) within your spiritual world-view still remain unabated.

KunleOshob:
It is a wonder that most pentecostals who see everything wrong with the catholics would swear and hold on tightly to the cannon of scriptures chosen and imposed on us by the catholic church which they so much despise.

GBAM! This is soooooo apt!!!!!!

Noetic - Was the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholics in their decisions?

Up to the point of inquisitions, torture of heretics and sale of indulgences to forgive sins? And the Holy Spirit was guiding that same barbaric lot in selection of scripture? ? ? ?

What is the Bible?