|Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New|
Stats: 2,757,133 members, 6,552,348 topics. Date: Saturday, 23 October 2021 at 09:46 AM
|Jobs/Vacancies / Re: Self Employment Opportunity: Transcribing For A Living In Nigeria Part 1 by DoctorAlien(m): 3:27am On Feb 12, 2020|
Good day guys. Please who knows how I can create a PayPal account through which to receive money from qa-world?
|Religion / Re: Resurrection Contradictions by DoctorAlien(m): 3:03pm On Feb 01, 2020|
I posted an article on this long before now:
|Religion / Re: Christ’s Resurrection—four Accounts, One Reality by DoctorAlien(m): 3:02pm On Feb 01, 2020|
|Religion / Re: Nobody Needs Jesus Or Religion to be Righteous by DoctorAlien(m): 3:53pm On Jan 25, 2020|
MrPresident1:Nope. Instead they are pertinent questions naturally raised by the assertions he made.
The point is proved, there are people who have no knowledge about God who do good by nature.There may well be people like that but that is not really the issue. The issue is this, can the concept of universal "good" exist without God?
Another issue raised by this is the definition of "having no knowledge of God". Does it mean, for example, having never read the Bible before? I would not really agree. Indeed there are people who live their whole life without being able to read. Yet such people are not exempt from God's judgment. We Christians believe that God implanted some form of moral compass in the human conscience, such that there is some perception of the difference between right and wrong naturally in humans, no matter how darkened by our fallen state this moral compass is. That is why apostle Paul talked about some people having their conscience seared with hot iron. For conscience to be so marred that it can be described as having been seared with hot iron, it must have started out in some form of good state.
Nature means it is coded into their DNA. Which can further be nurtured by parents and environment.Which part of the DNA codes for "knowing right and wrong"? What is right? And what is wrong?
Wild animals have a natural sense of right and wrong talk less of human beings!
What is right? What is wrong? Who defines it?
|Religion / Re: Blind Faith in Jesus Christ ? by DoctorAlien(m): 3:40pm On Jan 25, 2020|
frosbel2:Yes it makes sense. Just like one can love, for example, the person in a far away land who provided the scholarship funds that made it possible for him/her to go to school, even though the person has never seen the benefactor before, but have read about him in a book which agrees with every known reality including the things about the character of the benefactor that can be discerned from the benefits which he bestowed.
2. How can we believe the one we cannot see, we cannot hear and that we are not 100% sure exists ?We read about this One in a Book which claims to have been written under the guidance and direction of the same One. With the way the Book has been proven accurate in all the ways in which it has been tested, it is rather wise to place trust in the Book as true.
3. How come 99% of Christians are not filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy ?Please who conducted the research and revealed the statistics? What is the definition of "of inexpressible and glorious joy"? And what do you call the feeling that emanates from knowing that there is a God who created everything, and that He loves you so much that though you disobeyed Him, He spared nothing in making sure that provision is made for you to be reconciled to Him, and that at last you will be ushered into a universe free from every taint of suffering and death?
Is blind faith really faith or just plain foolishness.
Well, I am yet to understand what blind Faith is, but I'm sure the faith Christians possess is not some mere ungrounded wishful thinking such as:
1. The universe created itself from nothing
2. Life, with all it's staggering complexity, arose from random interaction of atoms that ultimately came from nowhere.
|Religion / Re: Nobody Needs Jesus Or Religion to be Righteous by DoctorAlien(m): 3:02pm On Jan 25, 2020|
frosbel2:Please what is "moral"? According to which universal standard is this determined?
are built into us as human beings, we know right from wrong because it is programmed into our DNA.Nonsense. Which part of the DNA codes for "knowing right and wrong"? What is even right and what is wrong?
It is our choice to do bad or goodTrue. But the questions remains whether there is any reason why doing "good" should be chosen in a Godless universe. Even worse than that is problem of knowing what "good" is in a Godless universe.
and each choice we make , makes it easier the next time to repeat the same decision, i.e evil decisions leads to more evil while good decisions lead to more good.Surprisingly you decided to reference a well-known principle in the Bible here, i.e. that people become set in their character as they do more and more of either good or bad things. But in a universe without God, does "good" and "bad" have meaning? Do they matter anything?
Nobody needs Jesus or Religion to be GOOD or remain BAD.Please who defines what is good and what is bad?
Its a matter of CHOICE !!Yes. Choice/freewill is a very big part of God's relationship with man. You're even exercising your own freewill by choosing to deny God. However, none of us is free from the consequences of the choices which we freely made.
|Religion / Re: Why Are Religionists So Comfortable With Threatening Others With Hell? by DoctorAlien(m): 9:23pm On Jan 23, 2020|
You mentioned fairytales, and I listed examples of things that can be classified as fairytales. That is in no way deflecting.
There is nothing about BBT more scientific than creationism. BBT is not scientific because scientists talk about it; scientists talk about creationism too. BBT is not scientific because it is naturalistic. Science is not naturalism.
So, you have no point.
|Religion / Re: Why Are Religionists So Comfortable With Threatening Others With Hell? by DoctorAlien(m): 7:31pm On Jan 23, 2020|
LordReed:Please what are you talking about? And how do I do such a thing?
The same story you are trying hard to justify. That is a poor excuse for why we have no evidence for the existence of what this god supposedly wrote by himself. If a child gave you such an excuse you'd be cross.I didn't set out to tell you what happened to the tablets of stones which God wrote with His own fingers. Neither did I claim to have knowledge of what happened to the stone tablets. I instead corrected the erroneous idea underlying your initial question, that the breaking of the tablets were an excuse for anything.
We may not know where the stones are today but we know exactly what they contained. As for the stones themselves, they were hid in the ark of the covenant. Humans weren't allowed to open it and look into it. But God first spoke the contents of the stone to the hearing of all Israel. After that, He wrote what He spoke on the tablets of stones with His own finger. Moses recorded God speaking the contents of the table, and the things He said in Exodus 20:1-17. Later, in Deut. 5, Moses recounted the things which God spoke, and confirmed that the same things were written on the tablets of stones. They would have been quickly memorized by the Israelites, and passed down over generations. Scribes copied them over and over again as they reproduced the Torah. So we know the contents of the tablets of stone.
I believe I haven't deflected. Otherwise, point out how I've deflected.
And oh, I am not anti-science. However, I'm anti-naturalism.
|Religion / Re: Why Are Religionists So Comfortable With Threatening Others With Hell? by DoctorAlien(m): 6:23pm On Jan 23, 2020|
LordReed:No it doesn't. The Bible is a beauty of 66 books in the most sublime of harmonious relationships.
Imagine it says the god stood by as the stone tablets it wrote with its own hand were destroyed.I suppose you're talking about the moment Moses threw down the tablets of stone in his hand containing the 10 Commandments, which God wrote with His own finger. Well, yes Moses did throw them down in anger at the fact that the Israelites were already committing idolatry just days after hearing the 10 Commandments spoken by God with His own voice. And yes, the tablets did break. But have you not read the part where God instructed Moses to hew out the exact same type of stone tablets, and to come up into the mountain again, and that He would rewrite the exact same 10 Commandments on the new tablets of stones? And Moses sure did, and God wrote on the new set of stone tablets the exact same things on the first tablets which Moses broke.
Maybe there's lesson there. God is willing to pardon us when we do wrong, just as He pardoned Moses for breaking the tablets.
Who doesn't recognise a "the dog ate my homework" excuse when you see it?which excuse please? Point it out.
A bunch of iron age fairytales with no real support is as discredited as it can get.This description fits things like big bang theory, evolutionism, etc.
|Religion / Re: Why Are Religionists So Comfortable With Threatening Others With Hell? by DoctorAlien(m): 5:08pm On Jan 23, 2020|
Bacteriologist:But God did not create evil, which in this sense is rebellion against Himself. That's absurd to even think of. He couldn't have created rebellion against Himself.
and then creates human beings (and some angels) with the ability to commit evil.The more correct word to use is "freedom to rebel against Him, should they choose to", instead of "ability". Meanwhile, not some angels, but all the angels. They had freedom to make choices regarding obedience to God, but they were not free from the just consequences of those choices they willingly made.
Then turns around to blame humans and the angels for the same mess he created in the first place.which mess anyway? Giving man freewill? The only other option would have been to make robots which cannot freely choose to do what they want.
Your god, if he exists at all, is a moral thug.According to which standard of morality?
Do not preach or quote the Bible at me. I'm not interested in discussing a book that was used to justify the enslavement of my ancestors.You purported to show the absurdity of an idea in the Bible, and I quoted a passage addressing that same idea in the Bible so as to set it straight, and you're cancelling it? Sort yourself out man. Meanwhile, that those who engaged in slave trade quoted the Bible to support it does not mean that the Bible supports it, just like a person committing murder and quoting the Nigerian constitution as justification for the murder he committed does not mean that the Nigerian constitution supports murder.
If you want to talk about the Bible maybe let's bring out the parts where owning other people as property(slavery) is justified, homosexuals can be killed and women cannot teach in churches because they're women. Or where people picking up sticks or herding their cattle on the Sabbath can be put to death.You would have to show by what universal moral standard these things are bad.
What a loving god we have here... right.Quite a loving God, who was willing to give everything, including His only begotten Son, to save man from the damnation which man rightly deserved. Such love!
A god that says: "oh love me and obey me or else you will burn in the fire I prepared for my enemy Satan(whom I created anyway)"Do you have any idea that there is anything called the moral law (whose principles are expressed in the 10 Commandments) by which God governs the universe? Anyone who will suffer damnation will have been shown to have transgressed that law.
Like who the **** creates his own enemy?There you have the answer. God didn't create His own enemy. However, He created beings with freedom to choose to become His enemies. The only other option would be to create robots which could never disobey Him, because they're just that: robots.
And how are most of you Christians comfortable with this kind of love? And have the guts to call it unconditional?How much more unconditional can that Love get which is willing to suffer what is justly yours, that you may enjoy what justly belongs to it?
"Love me or Burn in hell."By the time they're being destroyed, even those about to be destroyed would acknowledge the Justice of God's judgment.
Isn't unconditional love. Unconditional love makes no demands. It loves WITHOUT CONDITIONS.There is no incompatibility between God's inexplicable love and the existence of a moral which can never be set aside, and by which God rules Creation, and which stipulates penalties for its offenders. For there to be no law is for there to be anarchy.
A god that punishes people forever for finite crimes, is again, a masochistic, moral thug.Sinners cannot live forever, though it be in another portion of God's creation. Living forever is the exclusive reward of the righteous. Sinners will simply be put out of existence by means of a fire that will not be quenched to it has completed its work.
NO..in the sense that you choose to interpret it.So are you the one to say which is the correct interpretation?
Some parts of the Bible even says a particular part of the body will burn for certain thousand of years.is this not the case with most skeptics trying to discredit the Bible? They hardly even know what they're trying to discredit. Please the Bible does not say this anywhere.
But yeah...anything to defend god..We don't defend God. Instead, God defends us. He's our Defender. But we answer purported attempts at discrediting the Bible.
Jesus Christ!! How are a lot of you not disgusted by the concept of an eternal fire created by a so-called loving god?
Except that nobody will burn forever. The sinners would simply be returned to the state in which they were before they were created: the state of non-existence.
. (Edit: it has been brought to my notice that there are no biblical references that states that the body burns for a certain number of years.)
Next time, make sure you know very well what you want to criticize, and save yourself the blushing.
|Religion / Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by DoctorAlien(m): 5:05pm On Jan 23, 2020|
Bacteriologist:You are just asking me to state the criteria for judging the true religion. But I'm almost 100% sure that you will reject them if I proposed some criteria. So I asked you to enumerate what you think would be the criteria for deciding which one is the true religion. We will then examine those criteria, and agree that they're worthy to be used as yardstick for measuring the true religion. We will then proceed to determine which religion fits those criteria perfectly.
Because you only sound like "Oh I'm going to point out a possible fallacy here while also committing another fallacy by saying that the messages of an eternal god who wants us to know the truth could have been manipulated and distorted by humans."Can you prove that it is fallacious to claim that the revelations and messages could have been manipulated?
By saying that you're assuming that God only communicates once and goes into hiding afterwards thereby leaving humans to be able to twist and misinterpret his messages.But I did not imply that "God only communicated once and went into hiding". You're assuming it at best, and forcing it into my mouth at worst. To show how utterly wrong you are, the 66 books of the Bible alone, which were inspired by the Holy Spirit, were written over a space of about 1500 years or so. The book themselves also tell of God communicating to man since man was created. I wonder how that counts for "communicating once and going into hiding". God has continued to communicate with humans through holy men throughout history. But that in no way makes it impossible for fallen humans to distort the messages and revelations which God has given. Indeed that is what happened.
As a Christian that will be dishonest, because the average christian really believes that god still talks to us till today.Yes. Through many means, but primarily His Word. God is talking to us and to all humanity through the Bible. And He will not hold guiltless those who having known refused to heed his warnings and entreaties in the Bible.
So if we have a dead man who is still able to communicate about how we actually died I don't see how his message can be twisted.Well, what we have here is even better than the case of the dead man. God has been communicating to man over the span of time. Each new revelation agrees and is in harmony with the ones before. But never make the mistake of thinking that God will repeat what He has caused before to be recorded and preserved (in the Bible). They are there for our study.
But your analogy to compare God to a dead man actually looks on point. God has a lot of properties that are similar to that of a dead man who no longer exists and can't do anything.
But my analogy did not compare God to a dead man. My analogy drew parallels between the way stories (e.g. about how a man died, or about how any other thing came to be) have tendencies to be corrupted with time, and the tendency for fallen man to corrupt God's revelations. Think again.
I don't believe that there can be anything like a true religion because I don't accept that there's any God to have a religion for in the first place.Then why are you asking after the true religion if you've already concluded that God does not exist? This is just like saying "I don't believe that God exists but show me the true way (religion) which leads to God."
Sort yourself out man.
|Religion / Re: Why Are Religionists So Comfortable With Threatening Others With Hell? by DoctorAlien(m): 9:18pm On Jan 22, 2020|
But the whole confusion clears up when we understand that Satan himself, his evil angels and evil human beings will be punished together in the same fire, and all of them annihilated.
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels:" Matt. 25:41
The fire was prepared for (the punishment of) Satan and his angels, but those sinners will partake in it because they chose to side with Satan against God.
And no, they will not burn for eternity, even though the fire is called eternal fire. The fire will consume them "forever and ever" in the sense that they will cease to exist in entirety.
|Religion / Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by DoctorAlien(m): 9:02pm On Jan 22, 2020|
First, let me expose a potential fallacy which may rear its deceptive head up at this point. The fact that there are many different religions and perceptions of God is not proof that there is no true religion and perception of God, just like the fact that there are many versions of the story of how a dead person died is not proof that there is no true version of the story of how that person died. But just like it is natural for us to conclude, in the case of the dead man, that there must have been a true story of his death which has been distorted to produce many different versions of the story, even so it is natural for us to conclude that there must have been an original true revelation of God which became distorted with time to produce many different and often conflicting religions we see today.
That said, I think it's time to know what you think. What qualities would you expect the true religion to have? What criteria do you expect the true religion to fulfill?
|Religion / Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by DoctorAlien(m): 5:58pm On Jan 22, 2020|
Bacteriologist:The first point to note is that this is just it: you putting it to me. It does not amount to proof. Next, anything you have to say about the laws of logic can equally be said by Christians about their own axioms. One of such Christian axioms is "The Bible is true". So with equal breadth we say "The veracity of the Bible is the single most honest way of explaining reality". And I really mean it. What makes sense in the world today apart from the revealed light of the Word of God? Life, death, suffering, happiness, beauty, logic, morality all make sense only in the light of the Word of God, which is the Bible.
Everything that we can explain todayThings that you can explain, starting with what as axiom(s)? Or has it not occurred to you that every single thought takes for granted (i.e. as given) some other thought(s), until you certainly arrive at the axioms which cannot be proven true?
and that we can claim with a certain degree of boldness to be correctCorrect with reference to what? Let me help you: it is still the laws of logic - the same things we're yet to determine on whose authority we are to receive it as true and thus totally binding on our thought processes.
have all been arrived at using the laws of logic.This is the conclusion of an elaborate circular argument. You're essentially saying "all the statements we're able to formulate while today which are in agreement with the laws of logic, we formulated taking for granted (without proof) that the laws of logic are true". That amounts to saying nothing.
Notice how I didn't say MOST. ALL of them.see above.
Using the laws of logic,You mean taking them as true? But that is exactly what is in question. Why should they be accepted as true? Why should their negations not be accepted as true?
someone who is hundred of miles away over the sea can observe the same things I observe and come to the same conclusion that I have.The person is able to do so building on the same laws of logic whose source of supreme authority over our thought processes as truisms we're trying to determine.
The laws of logic are the single most consistent ways of explaining reality.see above.
You are assuming that mathematics is actually real.whether mathematics is real or not has no bearing on this issue. It is not news that mathematics is analogous to logic, and logic is not tangible too.
The numbers are imaginary and are only used to explain reality. Like if I have 1 plate in my left hand and 1 plate in my right hand I can conclude that I have 2 plates.On whose authority should we believe that 1=1 is true? Someone can as well believe that "1 = not 1". Such a person can conclude too that you have "not 2" plates. You have to prove him wrong then, and you can't do so by starting with the assumption that "1=1" is true.
So I know that 1 <insert object> + 1 <insert object> gives 2 of that object.Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. Someone can know too that 1+1 = not 2, based on another set of laws of "mathematics", say one which permits e.g. that N = not N. Why then must N = N govern our thought processes as true? On whose authority do we accept that law of identity as a truism on which to build our thoughts? Christians say that the laws of Logic are grounded in God, the supreme Lawgiver, Whose sanction certifies the veracity of those laws, and Who imprinted them in our minds.
It is just another conclusion based on the laws of logic.You mean a conclusion starting with the assumption that the laws of logic are true? But why should we believe that they are true? Why are their opposites not true?
And it is astronomically consistent. Anyone on another planet will use logic and arrive at the same conclusion: that for example having 1 atom plus another atom makes 2 atoms.see above
I don't just have faith that 1 + 1 = 2.Oh yeah. I don't just have the faith that God exists. You say I should prove it? I say you should prove that 1+1 = 2.
It is an explanation of reality.Same applies to God. God is the only meaningful explanation of reality. In fact, more than that, it is on the authority of God who sanctions them, that I receive the laws of logic as truisms on which to build my thought processes. Without such authority, the negations of the laws of logic stand on equal footing with the laws of logic themselves.
And it has been provenproven, taking what statements as starting point? Still the laws of logic. You can't escape it
to be correct method of explaining reality.correct/in agreement with what? Still the laws of logic, whose claims to truth we're calling into question apart from the authority of a universal Lawgiver (God).
Or at least OUR reality.that comes a bit closer to the argument.
I know that 1 ≠ 2Someone can know too that 1 = 2.
because I cannot, for example, give 2 people 1 WHOLE thing.But you're assuming for example that 2 people = 2 people. That is essentially the law of identity. Prove the person wrong who says that you can give 1 whole thing to 2 people because 2 people = 1 person (negation of the law of identity). In fact prove the person wrong who says that it is true that "not whole = whole".
I can only give 1 person 1 whole thing. If I'm going to give two people 1 thing, I have to divide that one thing into two and then I get ½.Elaboration of a circular argument, which avoids the main question. You've already landed at point where a division of 1 gives 1/2. But we're yet to agree on whose authority we should receive it as true that 1 is always equal to 1. You're yet to address the equal claims of a hypothetical different set of mathematical rules which permits for 1 to be divided and 50 gotten as the answer.
And I can continue to derive all the other numbers based on the same logic as an explanation of reality.you can do so assuming that the laws of mathematics are true. But we're yet to agree on whose authority those laws stand to be compulsorily accepted universally as true, since they cannot be proven, and their negations stand on equal footing with them.
So the numbers are basically like a language I can use to decode what I am perceiving and actually do not require faith to accept them as correct. Because it is CONSISTENT and it allows me to transact and interact with other people without cheating them or feeling cheated myself.The question here is not the consistency of a logical system. Rather, the question here is the veracity of the axioms of that logical system. Any logical system is as good as its axioms. Should it be found that there is no basis on which to receive the axioms of that system as true, then the whole system is on shaky grounds, no matter how internally consistent it is. Christians posit that it is on God's universal authority that we receive the laws of logic as truisms. It is God's special sanction that elevates the laws of logic above for e.g. their negations.
Lol no FAITH ON THE OTHER HAND is an incredibly ambiguous way of understanding or decoding reality.when you're yet to prove that you do not receive it by faith that the laws of logic are true.
Faith is the reason why a deist looks at the sky and say "Oh god must have made these things even though I have not seen him or have objective proof."Faith is also the reason why an atheist would look at the statement "A thing is itself" and say "Oh this statement is true, even though I cannot prove it."
All of them would be right according to faith.Yeah. In fact the Bible says that the just shall live by faith. It appears that the starting point of our logical system is faith in the trueness of the axioms our logical system. In fact, the faith is this, that the laws of logic have the sanctions of a universal authority, which sanctions makes them true, and their negations false. Without that special sanction from the universal authority, both the laws of logic and their negations stand on equal footing on the scale of acceptance. That universal authority is God.
Logic would ask what is the evidence to describe what the sky is made up of and/or where it came from and/or who made it if there is indeed evidence to conclude that it was made.But your logic has not asked you for the evidence that the axioms underlying your logic are true?
Logic is careful in observing all the evidence before arriving at a conclusion. Faith is not.Lol. What are the evidences you examined before concluding, for example, that "a thing is itself"?
Faith allows people to make different kinds of conclusions based on the same observation because it is flawed. When using faith you can leap above the evidence and make conclusions. Logic does not allow for that.Creationists and evolutionists observe the same things in the natural world, yet they come to different conclusions as to the origin of those things. Which of them uses faith and which of them uses logic?
Indeed we do accept that in certain situations 1 does not equal to 1. That is why we have different bases in mathematics (base 2, 8, 10 etc)red herring. That is neatly and entirely out of the discussion.
We have only chosen base 10 because it is a more accurately convenient way of explaining things. Science does not claim absolute truth. And neither does mathematics. But if there will be anything like the truth then it sure does sounds like logic is the best way to get there. And not Faith.Logic which begins with faith - faith that its axioms are true? It seems faith is everything.
Your attempt to undermine rigorously tested, verified, widely accepted and demonstrably consistent logic and exonerate ambigous, unreliable, flexible, often inconsistent faith is defeated.
Nah bro. You're yet to show how faith is not a good way to determine truth, especially when the way in which we determine truth (logic) is built on the faith that its axioms are true.
|Religion / Re: New Year's 2020, & Of Course Has 20 Repeating Itself, but Why? Happy 2020 Y'all. by DoctorAlien(m): 12:32am On Jan 22, 2020|
Thanks a lot, and Happy New Year to you too sir.
|Religion / Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by DoctorAlien(m): 10:34pm On Jan 21, 2020|
But, good sire, everything you "know" is based on pure faith - faith that the axioms of your logical system (the laws of logic as we know them) are "true". And you cannot prove that the laws of logic are true (neither can you prove that they're false). So on whose authority do you receive the laws of logic, to have and to base your thought processes upon, including the one which leads you reject the truth of the claim of God's existence?
You ask whether anyone needs faith to know that 1+1=2. Well, it may surprise you to know that you believe that 1=1 purely on faith. (Let's not even progress as yet to 1+1). 1=1 is essentially a statement of the law of logic which states that a thing is itself (called the law of identity). Otherwise, why is 1 not equal to 2?
So, essentially, the Bible is right when it says "By faith we understand..." (Heb. 11:3). By faith in the universal authority of the Lawgiver whose laws indisputably govern our thoughts, we understand that that same Lawgiver exists.
Note that it does not help to claim that the laws of logic are just a description of the way human beings think. That does not remove the question about the trueness of such way of thinking. Put in other words, should we accept that the laws of logic just describe the way human beings think, then a different set of laws of logic, (say e.g. "1 is not equal to 1" ), should it be encountered in human reasoning, cannot be said to be less true or more true than the laws of logic as we know them, since that different set of laws of logic would equally be describing the way (some) human beings think.
So, you see, faith is everything.
|Religion / Re: Christ’s Resurrection—four Accounts, One Reality by DoctorAlien(m): 1:09am On Jan 02, 2020|
|Religion / Re: The Religious Nature Of Evolution by DoctorAlien(m): 9:24pm On Dec 28, 2019|
A very good way of pursuing wisdom: totally ignoring the opposing views.
|Religion / Re: “No To Racism” Campaign Backlash: How Can People Be So Blind? by DoctorAlien(m): 9:23pm On Dec 28, 2019|
Lol. I know at least a PhD geologist and a PhD astrophysicist who are creationists. All they have encountered in their study in those fields have not convinced them to believe in evolution. Could it be that the idea of evolution is not as essential as it seems in those fields?
I don't have the time to dwell on whether geologists and astrophysicists conduct experiments or not. However I believe it is not hard at all to get what Ernst Mayr and E. O. Wilson were trying to say.
|Religion / Re: “No To Racism” Campaign Backlash: How Can People Be So Blind? by DoctorAlien(m): 7:03pm On Dec 28, 2019|
Ad hominem. Very logical argument.
|Religion / Re: “No To Racism” Campaign Backlash: How Can People Be So Blind? by DoctorAlien(m): 6:54pm On Dec 28, 2019|
Don't try to shift the goalposts. We all know that in this discourse, there are only two opposing ideas: creationism vs evolutionism (which is an outgrowth of naturalism). Christians don't oppose geology or astrophysics. But we oppose evolutionary ideas.
|Religion / The Religious Nature Of Evolution by DoctorAlien(m): 6:49pm On Dec 28, 2019|
by Carl Wieland
Renowned Canadian science philosopher Dr Michael Ruse made astonishing admissions about the religious nature of evolution at a symposium titled ‘The New Antievolutionism’ (during the 1993 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.) These statements shocked his colleagues because he has written a book, But is it Science?, denouncing creationism because it is religious and was the last person expected to give the game away.
He appeared to admit that evolution is based upon dogmatic exclusion of a miraculous creation/creator—in effect, a faith commitment to naturalism, the unprovable, religious belief that no supernatural element exists or is relevant.
Ruse said this (emphasis added):
‘at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may.’
He went on to defend this unprovable assumption by the fact that, in his view, it works. Nevertheless, said Ruse,
‘evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.’
Further on, he said that one can’t just say that evolution is science, creation is religion, period. One has to have some other ‘coherence theory of truth, or something like that. I still think that one can certainly exclude creation science on those grounds’.
Law professor Phillip Johnson has severely criticized Ruse’s anti-creation testimony at the 1982 Arkansas trial at which the sorts of admissions above failed to surface. Johnson quoted Ruse as stating that it is OK to say different things on this subject to different audiences:
‘I mean I realize that when one is dealing with people, say, at the school level, or these sorts of things, certain sorts of arguments are appropriate. But those of us who are academics … should recognize … that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which—it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law—but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things.’
Many people do not realize that the teaching of evolution propagates an anti-biblical religion. See The Religion of Humanism.
|Religion / Re: “No To Racism” Campaign Backlash: How Can People Be So Blind? by DoctorAlien(m): 6:00pm On Dec 28, 2019|
"evolution science" sounds so much like "creation science".
|Religion / Re: “No To Racism” Campaign Backlash: How Can People Be So Blind? by DoctorAlien(m): 5:56pm On Dec 28, 2019|
"For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”
—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.
“If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.”
—Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simple a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.
|Religion / Re: “No To Racism” Campaign Backlash: How Can People Be So Blind? by DoctorAlien(m): 5:39pm On Dec 28, 2019|
budaatum:A philosophy which is an outgrowth of Naturalism.
Did you learn your evolution in religion class?No, thankfully.
That would explain your ignorance despite being repeatedly educated about it.
Yes, including all the PhD scientists who don't see evolution as science.
|Religion / Re: “No To Racism” Campaign Backlash: How Can People Be So Blind? by DoctorAlien(m): 5:32pm On Dec 28, 2019|
Is evolution science?
|Religion / Re: “No To Racism” Campaign Backlash: How Can People Be So Blind? by DoctorAlien(m): 5:26pm On Dec 28, 2019|
At least, the Christians have the Bible to interpret differently. Which equivalent do the evolutionists have (to interpret differently)?
|Religion / Re: “No To Racism” Campaign Backlash: How Can People Be So Blind? by DoctorAlien(m): 5:01pm On Dec 28, 2019|
If only there was a central, unwavering authority on evolution from which we can evaluate the positions of evolution, just like the Christians have the Bible as their authority. I'm saying because someone like Dr. James D. Watson saw reasons to put "races" on a scale of superiority based on evolved intellectual capacity, stating that no firm reasons existed for one to anticipate identical intellectual capacities in peoples separated geographically in their evolution. And it appears many other scientists hold the same views as Dr. James D. Watson, but in secret.
|Religion / Re: “No To Racism” Campaign Backlash: How Can People Be So Blind? by DoctorAlien(m): 4:40pm On Dec 28, 2019|
You were far more specific in this post on what is "thoroughly meaningless" and "rubbish" than Lord Reed was. But if the "meaningless statement" and "rubbish" refer to the biological arguments for racism, then I'm pretty sure the OP was not peddling such rubbish, because the OP is not a piece putting forth biological arguments for racism. How then could he be right in saying that I was peddling "thoroughly meaningless statements" and "rubbish"?
And then how did I cling to the "races can be ranked on a scale of superiority", when in fact the OP identified Stephen Jay Gould as an anti-racist?
|Religion / Re: “No To Racism” Campaign Backlash: How Can People Be So Blind? by DoctorAlien(m): 2:25pm On Dec 28, 2019|
I'm very sorry that I wasted your time. It was never my intention.
It may well be true that those who engaged in abominable acts tried to bring arguments from the Bible to justify such acts. But simply repeating the claim that people tried to justify such acts with the Bible is useless, akin to one repeating that someone tried to justify bank robbery with the Bible.
The only pertinent question is: are their arguments valid?
|Religion / Re: “No To Racism” Campaign Backlash: How Can People Be So Blind? by DoctorAlien(m): 1:16pm On Dec 28, 2019|
fieryy:But we have seen that any arguments from the Bible to support such disgusting things are bound to fail. The Bible asserts that we should love our neighbours as ourselves. The Bible knows just one human family, not many races.
Up till this date a lot of Christians strongly believe black people are descendants of Cain, with our skin color being the mark of Cain.I have to tell you that the fact that I just learnt from you this theory of black people descending from Cain proves that those who hold it are a negligible minority. Anyway, just a quick reading of Genesis 5 will reveal that Noah, from whom the black people today descended, himself descended from Seth and not Cain. Such is often the nature of these arguments brought against the Bible: they're quickly exposed as false by some of the most simply presented statements in the Bible.
Others used/use the curse of Ham to justify slavery.The main question is this: are they right in doing so? There can be only one answer: NO!
There's also sth called a Christian identity - a white supremacist interpretation of Christianity.Then such a thing is in direct contradiction of the plainest principles set down in the Bible, shown forth, for example, by this verse: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28
Africa, Asia, America were colonized based on the belief of the white race being superior to others.A belief which is utterly unfounded.
That belief had been justified with the Bible.Please how did the Bible justify the belief that the whites are Superior to others? Notice that I don't even want to call the whites a "race". This is because the Bible knows only one race: the human race.
The Bible is still used to justify homophobic beliefs, racism etc.The Bible condemns homosexuality, yes. However, we do not sit as judges over homosexuals. We condemn the acts, while we seek to win the individuals over to Christ. Every sin is abominable to God, and so with the mouth with which we condemn all forms of sexual immorality, that is the same mouth with which we condemn homosexuality.
As I had shown, the Bible does not support "racism".
|Religion / Re: “No To Racism” Campaign Backlash: How Can People Be So Blind? by DoctorAlien(m): 5:29pm On Dec 27, 2019|
The memoir from which the quote was taken may not be dedicated to the discussion of evolution. However, the particular quote in consideration is undeniably referring to evolution. In the quote, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that:
1. He believed that intellectual capacity evolved.
2. He held that no firm reason existed for it to be anticipated that identical intellectual capacities would be found in peoples separated geographically in their evolution.
All references in this quote are clearly to evolution.
Maybe Dr. Watson is not alone in his views actually. Indeed it Dr. Watson did not intend for his views to be made public. (See this article from The New York Times.)
|Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health |
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket
Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2021 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 494