₦airaland Forum

naijadeyhia:
Again I suggest you read that thread so you would not keep shooting yourself in the foot. Between the purported Lucy and todays man is a huge gap which Evolutionists attempted to fill using the piltdown man. I gave the link for you to peruse.

I will not force you to read the thread but don't be upset if I do not respond to some of your questions if I find them unintelligent.

Smh...what makes you think i did not read it and ddnt agree with it?,because it was totally false,i knew this was a total waste of time...chaow

naijadeyhia:
If you had read the thread you would have seen a clear biological truth regarding chromosomes in man.

Apes have 24 pairs of Chromosomes and man has 23 pairs and we know that 1 pair of missing chromosomes will make man unable to reproduce. So if Apes had evolved to be Apes with 24 pairs and man has 23 pairs how would man have evolved from Ape if not via reproduction and genetic influence during embroynics? So if the Ape lost a pair of chromosomes so they would evolve ro man with 23 pairs of chromosomes how then was the Ape able to reproduce?

WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES............

naijadeyhia:
If you had read the thread you would have seen where I appealed to every interested party or anyone willing to comment ro first of all read the thread and the links so they would be informed enough before asking questions so as not to derail or seem unintelligent. Your questions show you deliberately refused to read the link which I put up there as foundation.

Kindly read it pls.

An African apelike species evolved probably around 6 million years ago with two skeletal characteristics that set it apart from modern apes: small canine teeth (the teeth on either side of the four front teeth) compared to the long canines found in almost all other primates, and, most importantly, bipedalism or walking on two legs as the primary mode of locomotion.

The name australopithecine means “southern ape,” in reference to South Africa where the first known fossils were found. Many more australopith fossils have been found in the Great Rift Valley in eastern Africa, in countries including Ethiopia, Tanzania, Kenya, and Chad.

The very early years of the transition from ape to human, from 6 million to 4 million years ago, is poorly documented in the fossil record, but those fossils that have been discovered document the most primitive combinations of ape and human features.

Fossils from different early australopith species that lived between 4 million and 2 million years ago show a variety of adaptations that mark this transition much more clearly. Among the genera that are included in early australopith species are Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, and Aripithecus; a species of the genus Kenyanthropus; and four species of the genus Australopithecus.

Probably the best-known australopith specimen is “Lucy,” the partial skeleton of a female discovered in 1974 in Hadar, Ethiopia. Lucy belongs to a species, Australopithicus afarensis, which thrived in eastern Africa between 3.9 million and 3 million years ago. Scientists have found several hundred A. afarensis fossils in Hadar. Lucy lived 3.2 million years ago.

Another very exciting Africanus afarensis site was discovered in northern Tanzania at Laetoli. In addition to fossilized bones of A. afarensis, researchers in 1978 discovered trails of bipedal human footprints preserved in hardened volcanic ash over 3 million years ago. The footprints provided irrefutable evidence that australopiths regularly walked upright.

By about 2.7 million years ago, so-called robust australopiths (in contrast to the earlier, gracile forms) had evolved, with wide molars and premolars and a facial structure that indicate that these robust australopiths chewed their food, primarily tough, fibrous plants, powerfully and for long periods. Several robust species have been identified, and the last robust australopiths died out about 1.4 million years ago.

The genus Homo first evolved at least 2.3 million to 2.5 million years ago. The most significant difference between members of this genus and australopiths, with which they overlapped, was their significantly larger brains (about 30 percent larger, though still small compared to modern humans).

Scientists divide the evolution of the modern human genus into three rough periods: early, middle, and late. Species of early Homo, among them Homo habilis, resembled australopiths in many distinct ways, but they had smaller teeth and jaws, more modern-looking feet, and hands capable of making tools. They probably lived from between 2.5 or 2.3 million and 1.6 million years ago.

The middle Homo species, including Homo erectus, evolved anatomically to be more similar to modern humans but their brains were relatively small (though bigger than australopiths). They probably overlapped with earlier Homo species, as they developed perhaps between 2 million and 1.8 million years ago. Homo erectus was a very successful species of the middle period; fossils have been found throughout Africa, Europe, and much of Asia, and the species may have survived for more than 1.5 million years.

The final transition, from the middle to late periods, happened about 200,000 years ago. Late Homo species, including Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, evolved large and complex brains, leading eventually to language, and developed culture as an increasingly important aspect of human life.

naijadeyhia:
Did you read the thread and the links I added? I suggest you do so you would answer this particular question yourself because if I answer it you would not believe me.

So whats the point of the discussion you were saying we should have earlier on!

I ask you a question and you want to run away

It wasnt the link i asked for where the 95% of DNA similarities came from, it was you and i am waiting for your answers...

Meanwhile i would just drop this here, the DNA sequences are exactly the way we would expect them to be if evolution was true...the incremental similarities with closer and closer relatives in the family tree

naijadeyhia:
I am talking about Y chromosomes and not X

Oh so is that suppose to disprove evolution then, the differences in the y chromosome?

According to you, the similarities is 95%, thats still a superb A, so how do you account for all that similarities?

naijadeyhia:
If you are going to contribute later let me give you something to chew on before you do.

DNA difference between man and Ape amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!

The average ape gene has 100,000 base pairs (a base pair is essentially 2 amino acid molecules). How can 100,000 base pairs suddenly materialize inside of an ape's sperm? And even if 100,000 base pairs can materialize out of thin air, how could all the base pairs be perfectly sequenced so that they form a gene that actually helps the ape evolve into a man?

Let me do the math. 100, 000 x 150,000,000 that would be 15,000,000,000,000 (fifteen trillion) base pair differencs

How is it possible that these 15 trillion different base pairs would materialize out of thin air and become new genes when Apes have no Gene Addition machanism and indeed it is impossible to add a Gene to a chromosome.

You see why i say you dont understand it...

The similarities that is often said we have with the chimp dna is not the entire dna sequences, that is a misconception.

Human and chimp DNA is nearly identical when you compare the bands on chromosomes, the bundles of DNA inside nearly every cell. Which two chromosomes are more alike?

The light and dark bands on chromosomes, reveal similarities and differences among human, chimp and mouse DNA.

Human and chimp X chromosomes both contain about 1,100 different genes, or sets of instructions. Each gene affects a particular trait in the body.

Each human cell contains roughly three billion base pairs, or bits of information. Just 1.2 percent of that equals about 35 million differences. Some of these have a big impact, others don't. And even two identical stretches of DNA can work differently--they can be "turned on" in different amounts, in different places or at different times.

naijadeyhia:
If you did not want to read and discuss intelligently why come here? Your comment has been noted though. Thank you

How can i discuss intelligently when you know little about evolution and frankly, you dont wanna learn...

If i was to invest time to discussing wit you, it wud only end one way, the way we started, so whats the point?

Jadonjack:
This isn't the kinda argument you should be making

What differentiates my logic from your 'my should be' conclusion?!

Well, let me tell you somethings you obviously don't know(if you are a christian)

- Every theist(christian) believes in the bible
- The strongly believe in everything the bible teaches them about God

Now if you'v got a bible close to you, please read Job 11 7-10, jeremiah 32:17, psalm 147:5, and tell me how its isn't a must for God to be omnipotent before he can be referred to as one

Oga, u obviously dont knw me, i am not a christian...i am an atheist and i tot ur question was valid, i saw a flaw in the logic and wanted to point it out, you started throwing insults...

God means different things to different people, so based on the definition of the god, you know whether it exists or not...you dont just conclude that no god exist because noone can be omnipotent, thats bad logic...

Oga, you are just looking for argument...i would suggest you go to a beer parlour, buy some drinks and then argue to your fill who is better? Messi or Ronaldo...

Jadonjack:
I strongly believe you need to work on your comprehension sense bro(no offence)

BTW, will you tell me a god that is omnipotent?

I do take offense, if you throw insults to people who question your logic, what differentiates you from a religious ranter?

This is your logic
A. No being can be omnipotent
B. God is omnipotent
C. Therefore God doesnt exist.

Your logic is already flawed because there is no rule that says God must be omnipotent, and so i said, your conclusion shud be "a God who is omnipotent cannot and doesnt exist".

If you cannot be challenged without throwing insults, then i dont see why you should be challenging theists at all...

Jadonjack:
Of course it has... Since no being is omnipotent, it means the God we were made to believe can do all things does not exist.

In other words, according to the religious books, for you to be God, you should be able to do all things....

If you can't do ALL things, you are not God and if nobody can do ALL things, it simply means there is no God.


Got it?!

@bolded, you are already presupposing that God must be all-powerful which necessarily doesnt have to be so...

There are different definitions of God, so you concluding that there is no God just because no being is capable of omnipotence is really off.
Your conclusion would have made more logical sense if no God capable of omnipotence exists.

There is nothing wrong wit it nah

shadeyinka:
dalaman
donnffd
TrajansKong
jayriginal
plaetton
frank317
What do you say to this. Is homosexuality not a disease?
eck out how Homosexual demons are transmitted.

https://www.nairaland.com/3239874/ogun-teacher-caught-sucking-students

https://www.nairaland.com/3219285/gays-born-gay-kleptomaniacs-born

There are rapists, both heterosexuals and homosexuals... To use a brush to paint all homosexuals just because of what one sick child molester did is just not right...

tripplephi:
your mentality is really one that needs scrubbing o.... lols you are funny to your detriment... NOW LETS LOOK AT THE WATCH MAKER, the question is not the one who makes wristwatches... ITS ACTUALLY THE INVENTOR.... INVENTION IS CREATION, only ONE invents... we have many MAKERS but ONE CREATOR..... because to CREATE IS NOT THE SAME AS PUTTING THINGS TOGETHER, CREATING IS ACTUALLY BRINGING WHAT WAS NOT EXISTING INTO EXISTENCE AND IT CAN BE IMPROVED UPON, We have only one NAIRALAND but the IDEA of FORUM was not invented FIRST by the owner of NAIRALAND, for the owner of NAIRALAND simply applied what was already in existence amongst many FORUMS.

You seem to drive home my point even more...

You start with invention, only one invents, yes, i agree but can there be invention without knowledge?, can there be knowledge with interaction?, can there be interaction without a group?...

Using the same watch illustration:

Noone would think about creating a watch if people ddnt need it.

People wouldnt need a watch if there was no concept of time.

The inventor of a watch wouldn't have been able to build a watch without prior knowledge of gears, pulley and levers in which he obviously ddnt invent.

The concept of timing, hours, seconds, days,months e.t.c was also a concept incorporated into the invention in which he obviously had no input to.

WHEN YOU PEOPLE COME HERE TO TRY TO PUT UP YOUR MUNDANE BELIEFS UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE THOSE OF US WHO ARE WATCHERS AND WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN EVEN FROM THE ANCIENT DAYS, TO PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE ONE TRUE AND ONLY WISE GOD, IN HIS WISDOM ALL YOUR RANTING IS PURE FOOLISHNESS..... because there is only ONE YOU.... If we now follow your ideology and claim MANY gods, then the gods will be of importance as only what they have made.... no one will need the go of stone or the god of plastic if the person is already wealthy and working with the god of FIRE n IRON, then we would also tend to learn that there are hierarchy in the order of gods, ad eventually still arrive at the unavoidable conclusive fact that these others gods also are subject to another god who can do all what the other gods can do.... ALL THESE TALKS WILL STILL NOT MAKE YOU CHOOSE YOUR FATE IN THE AFTER-LIFE...... Jesus is the way, the truth and the life..... you can not come now with ideologies based on lame theories and start a new order that really has no foundation. it will end you up in confusion. the devil is the author of confusion, do not be his assistant.

The idea is not to promote polytheism, but to acknowledge that its a far better option to monotheism.
Noone is an island, and so the concept that only one being who existed before every other being and just happened to have infinite knowledge is absurded because by definition, knowledge is a shared commodity.

How do you know you are you?, because you see other people and can differentiate them.

How do you know how to speak?, because you grow up in a community that expresses themselves speaking

How do you know you are alive?, because you withness other people being alive.

If you were locked up in a tower the day you were born for twenty years and suddenly was released, what exactly would you know?

The answer is simple, Nothing

Knowledge is a product of a shared community...

The fact that your God knows anything at all means he must also be a product of a community.

Noone can be an island of knowledge

I can understand that the ancient Egyptians or Greek's idea that there are these principles of day and night, lightning, war, love, sea , nature e.t.c and the need to personify it(Zeus, hermes, hades, Ra, e.t.c).

It is very understandable and even more reasonable than Monotheism(the idea that there is only one God). That to me is the height of delusion and absolute loss of rational thinking.

Apologists tend to use the watch and the watch-maker illustration as an example of why there should be a God but with close examination, that same illustration gives away the idea of mono-theism, how?

Yes, a watch must have a watchmaker, but those that mean that every knowledge that ever had to do with creating a watch originated from this watchmaker?, those it also mean that there is only one and one alone in the history of watchmaking?.

The idea that there is only one God is just as ridiculous as there being only one watchmaker in the whole world, it doesn't make any sense and the fact that people would carry on believing in something that doesn't make an rational sense is beyond puzzling.

If truly there is one God, and he really does exist, then it is understandable why he is such a sadist, self-absorbed, incompetent, selfish being.

Antiparticle:
This your post is full of both correct science and shockingly incorrect pseudoscience.

This is the only correct paragraph in your whole post.

Classical mechanics and hence biology can be used to explain the germ theory of disease. Your attempt to use quantum mechanics here is redundant, unnecessary, and disingenuous.

This post is full of both science and pseudoscience. It is indeed true that when you make an international phone call your voice is converted into electrical signals which propagate at the speed of light (typically via cell phone towers and then deep sea fiber optic cables in most cases).

However, it is completely UNTRUE that telepathy works because of this same principle; this is absolutely INCORRECT pseudoscience. You imply that telepathy works because one's voice directly propagates to the listener even if the two parties are a continent apart; this makes ZERO sense because an acoustic signal (voice) propagating through air would lose all its energy within a short distance. If I shouted your name in Nigeria and you live in America, there's NO WAY for you to know that I am calling your name because the signal would have lost ALL its energy before it even propagates one mile from you, let alone the 8,500 kilometer distance between Lagos and New York.

The "signal to noise ratio" of the acoustic energy arriving in New York from Lagos would be undetectable because it would be overwhelmed by the acoustic noise floor. Another thing is that the acoustic energy of your voice will travel at about 768 miles per hour and NOT the speed of light, which is opposite to your strange assertion that the acoustic signals from your voice would also travel at the speed of light (670 million miles per hour).

One more thing: the claim that telepathy ever works is itself búllshit. What people claim to be telepathy is merely the ability of one or two parties to be able to read and identify shared environmental or psychological cues, not via some sixth sense that violates the laws of physics. The prophets who supposedly read your mind are psychological experts who can already identify some basic information about you based on what you tell them, the way you dress, your facial expressions, and so forth. The idea that true telepathy is real is a farce.

Oh my goodness. This paragraph is COMPLETE PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC BÚLLSHIT. There is no evidence whatsoever that we dream because our brains pick up electromagnetic signals from the environment. A very trivial experiment that disproves this is to place someone in a very thick wireless-interference-free metal box for ten nights, it is very likely that the person will still dream at least one of the nights! (I propose a thick metal box because it would block off electromagnetic waves that are used for wireless communications).

I am very shocked at the boldness of your misinformation. This is completely wrong. If "miracles" were indeed solid science, why is Nigeria still pathetically lagging in the fruits of science and technology?

Your post is extremely misleading and plain inaccurate as well as disingenuous. I would advise you to in the future not make bold & confident assertions on topics that you have very little to zero expertise in.

I scanned through this thread looking for a post like this just to save me the stress and time typing all this many many corrections, and the painful part of the whole matter was that people were praising him as one kind intelligent person...kia, NO HOPE FOR NIGERIANS AT ALL

Florblu:
May Lucifer help you find yourself in hell,then you will know real hell is

You seem so sure, its like you have gone there before!, how was it?

OsoDupe:
Yes, she is, have you seen her baby pictures? So masculine

Do you pay attention to those conspiracy theorists who dont know their left from their right...

All these long arguments over people that do not or did not even exist...smh, some people get time sha

Thank you for this.

The apologetics have found a way to mask many portions in the Quran as not been literal or in a different context, they claim that the fundamentalist interpret the quran wrongly.

Every act of violence inspired from the bible or the Quran is actually read the correct way, if you refuse to be violent then it is obviously not because the religion is a big proponent of peace but because of your deeply held convictions not to be violent.

One thing scary about islam is that unlike the violents act portrayed in the bible in which you can read a context to it, the violence against infidels and non-believers is pretty much ambigious and actually rewarding.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Their apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

sukkot:
yeah the word KILL is not a literal word although some crazy people take it literally. its like the word STONE. some fools take it literally. these are old words which meant different things when the bible was written. to kill someone means to change their paradigm. change their outlook to life. like if the person is a thief you try to kill him meaning make sure he sees that stealing is evil and to stop it. and if the person does not listen ? you stone him to death which stoning means ' punishment and judgement ' meaning you punish them till they die to their evil way. simple and straightforward

psalms 78 vs 2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
"If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you."

What exactly is not literal about this?

If you are honest, you would acknowledge that this was the Law and everyone was to abide by it. Now i am sure the Op doesnt mean for you to carry out this despeakable acts, No, but what its trying to portray is the barbaric nature of those laws and the mentality of the people who were the pioneers of the three major Abrahamic religions.

If a religion was based on laws like these, what gives it the right to claim absolute morality?.

Ok, lets give them the benefit of the doubt, they were primitive, they ddnt know any better...agreeable, but they had the almighty God by their side giving them these laws.

God is suppose to be the same yesterday, today and forever...meaning he doesnt change, now if he doesnt change and he gave these people these laws, and we can all agree they are as barbaric as it gets, then who is to say that the God is also not barbaric then, barbaric now and barbaric forever.

Why should any of us worship such a barbaric God?

Well, you might say jesus came and erased the old covenant.
Hmmmm, that might be true, but then you would admit that God changes, and if he does that, then why should we bother worshipping him, what if he decides to change the convenant again in the future?

Why worship an inconsistent being?

So you see my friend, we have a no win situation...

We agree on alot of the points you raised, infact in some cases, you were repeating what i was saying, but somethings dont bond well

winner01:
You started by saying morality is subjective, and in one breath you are trying to merge subjectivity into objectivity.
Subjectivity entails the personal opinion of each Individual.
So if one decides to kill every persons involved in your question below, it might be his subjective opinion and he is fully entitled to it.

Yes, i said that morality is subjective, but one thing you fail to realize is that subjectivity can also be objective. I would give you an example; Consciousness, Nothing is as subjective as consciousness. i am only aware of my own, i cant be sure of yours, and likewise you are only sure of your own and cant be sure of mine, but every human being presently on earth has some form of consciousness which makes it objective in a manner of general speaking.

Something so subjective can be objective also.

Mere chemicals, no matter how bundled, do not express emotions of any sort.
No one speaks of happy blood, sad water, frustrated amino acids etc.
In my opinion, there is something that controls these bundled chemicals (man) that you speak of, there is something that reflects these feelings in us. And this "something" never gets old even when the body does.
This "something" in man remains aware of its environment till it leaves the body and never returns.
Ill like to call this "something" a special sense of self which never grows old even when the body does.

On this we disagree, your idea of chemicals bundled together is misleading, let me elaborate, when you are happy, you are happy because a mixture of dopamine, oxytocin and serotonin has been released in your brain which makes you feel good, relax, rewarded. Your feelings are owed to the way Neurochemicals interact with your brain. So, yes, bundled chemicals trigger responses which are termed emotions and not "something" that never gets old.

We are not aware of our environment because of our big brains. Dolphin's have the same brain size and they cant perform half as intelligently as man.

The brains of sperm whales and elephants are far larger than that of man and they many not make better deductions.

Our self awareness is not due to our big brains. There is something else responsible.

We are aware of our environment precisely because of our big brains. I am sure you have heard something called the Encephalization quotient which is the measure of relative brain size defined as the ratio between actual brain mass and predicted brain mass for an animal of a given size. it is hypothesized to be a rough estimate of the intelligence or cognition of the animal.

Guess what? Rabbit has an EQ of 0.4, Mouse - 0.5, cat - 1.0, Dog - 1.2, Monkey - 2.1,Elephant - 2.2, chimpanzee - 2.5, dolphin - 4.14, Humans - 7.6...

What does this tell you?, it is no surprise what so ever that humans are this intelligent, and it also tell us where this intelligence is coming from, our brains.

so why go anywhere else?

You have diverted from subjectivity to objectivity here.

Like i said before something subjective can also be objective in a general sense.

Some people derive maximum satisfactions from things such as rape, bestiality, paedophilia, necrophilia and it makes them very happy. Yet, if good and bad is based on our individual subjective opinions, then what makes one happy may not necessarily make another happy.

Looting public funds, for example, may not make me happy. But it obviously makes Nigerian politicians happy. And if morality is based on personal opinion (subjective), then I cant condemn them. I can only stick to my opinions.

Yes, i totally agree... Like i said before, Morality is subjective and everyone has their own take on it, but heres the thing, we are social animals, we live in tribes and communities, and why do we do that?, it increases our chances of survival, it was an evolutionary advantage. Now if we are to survive together, we must agree to work together and have a beneficial relationship. You wont do things that wont harm me and i wont do things that wont harm you. A pretty descent agreement if you would ask me for us to survive in this harsh reality we became awakened into.

If we have someone going about killing people, raping or stealing, that obviously is not in the groups interest and should be eradicated or removed for the group to survive. its simple survival instincts.

Our imaginations are subjective.
I may like outcome A, you may prefer outcome B.

I agree with you there

Here, you have dived deep into objectivity.
But still, what is good for people may not always be right.
As a matter of fact, in our world today. What people feel is good for them is not right 80% of the time.

Some people feel happy using hard drugs, yet many society condemns it.

Like i explained earlier, the group have a beneficial working relationship that would maximize the survival of every member thereby overriding some few individuals subjective morals to ensure a safe and surviving community.

You have presupposed that John should think like you, and that your thinking should be right.

Actually, John may do anything based on his personal opinions and we may still not be able to Judge him using our own personal opinions.

i ddnt presuppose anything, i was asking what you would do if you were in john's scenerio.

People should understand that morality is innate, not subjective. Everyone has an inbuilt moral code and I will like to prove it with these two analogies I once read in a book. I want people to follow me on each.

But you just agreed earlier on that some people enjoy raping, is that part of the inbuilt moral code

If we keep a mind as open as that of the 5-year old, we ultimately have to start with God? or everything is absurd. Either God is and has spoken, or nothing really matters

@bolded, thats absolutely not true, our survival matters and thats what we have been doing since the first life arose 3.8 billion years ago.

Its cool to find open-minded atheists and ill like to post some of their eye-opening quotes;

The atheist activist and president of American Atheists David Silverman says:
“There is no objective moral standard. We are responsible for our own actions….” “The hard answer is that moral decisions is a matter of opinion”.

Atheist nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would also claimed “When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. For the latter is not self-evident… Christianity is a system”. Nietzsche went on to see that if God does not exist then “everything is permitted”.

Atheist philosopher Julian Baggini captures this best: “If there is no single moral authority (i.e. if there is no God, then) we have to in some sense ‘create’ values for ourselves… that means that moral claims are not true or false in the same way as factual claims are… moral claims are judgments that it is always possible for someone to disagree with… without saying something that is factually false… you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error”.

Philosopher Michael Ruse notes by claiming that our “sense” of morality is a byproduct of socio-biological evolution:
“In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate… Ethical codes work because they drive us to go against our selfish day to day impulses in favour of long-term group survival and harmony… Furthermore, the way our biology forces our ends is by making us think that there is an objective, higher code to which we are all subject… ethics is a shared illusion of the human race”.


These are honest quotes from some people who were open-minded to an extent.

I agree totally with every quote above, i dont want a morality that is based on an universal authority, rather i want a morality that it thought out, reasoned, debated and evaluated over and over again as we find out new truths about the world and our place in it.

Moral values and duties can only be grounded in God and If these young atheists on Nairaland will be open-minded and honest,then they will agree with atheist philosopher Richard Taylor who said:

“to say that something is wrong because… it is forbidden by God, is…. perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong… even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable… The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone”.

Like i said before, Right and wrong is not a universal concept, rather it is a human concept. An animal doesnt know what is right or wrong, an intelligent computer cannot understand the concept of right and wrong because it is a concept that originated from the human mind and like every other excuse for religion, claiming that God has the absolute right to it is just a cop out way of avoiding to deal with its complexity.

Weah96:
The question you mean to ask is, [size=15pt]why not murder your mother or a small child since there is no reward for sparing their lives when you die?[/size]

Or why not embezzle money or tell lies if no one is going to punish you after death?
Many Christians do exactly those things. So ask yourself, would you enter a police precinct with baggies of cocaine to advertise your cocaine market? When a pastor tells a lie, he automatically shows me that he's an ATHEIST.

Whenever you commit any of your numerous daily sins, it's like you're flirting with a life long prison sentence in the silliest way ever. It's like you're handing business cards for your cocaine dealing business to the cops hoping that they don't beat your brains out.

Why does it sound like you don't know what the atheist argument actually is?

The claims made and implied in the bible are INDEPENDENT of these your questions.

Someone claimed to have communicated with a non human. The non human told the person that it was God the creator and gave them a guide book containing instructions for life. The book ended up in your hands.

Atheists are calling the book writing prophet a liar. In your case, we're saying that anyone who endorsed the compilation of that book was telling LIES. Prove that there is a non human who talks. Then we can decide whether the thing created the universe.

I sincerely would have hoped you ddnt reply him...Live and let live, i would always say

shadeyinka:
There is no complexity in this. In either case, murder will be involved... Because there is a deliberate choice between the life of one person and the life of others.

In the face of instinct, the driver is most likely going to sacrifice one person over many.

However,

In terms of morals, the driver will not take a deliberate action that will kill anyone. Murder is murder. No difference BTW killing one person or five.

However, whatever the case, the moral man will bear the guilt of his action. No position can be justified morally.

You seem to misunderstand the point of the example.

Given two tough choices, which would seem a bit less terrible and does that choice have anything to do with your religion?, since its widely claimed that those without religion have no morals...

However no action is still a deliberate action of murder, because he or she would be choicing to kill the 5people when it can be avoided...

The goal is to portray the complexity of morality and to shut down the hecklers that claim morality belongs only to religion.

KingEbukaNaija:
The dust means stardust not sand . Misconception conflated with ignorance is certainly a gallimaufry

Oh really?

Genesis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This sounds like stardust to you...

The dishonesty amongst you guys eh, its sickening...kia

Expression01:
i have seen hundreds of those fabricates and aint gonna believe any that life came from the non-living or life started in water

But you can believe that life was created from dust, which in common sense would be sand. I am sure you know that the constituents of sand are silicon and oxygen popularly called silicates.

It doesnt take a genius to see that if life was made from dust, then the main element in all life should be Silicon.

Last time i checked, the six most abundant elements in all living organisms are carbon, hydrogen, Nitrogen, phosphorus, Oxygen and sulphur.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071125203241AAoTnBj

Silicon doesnt even make the list, infact you never see silicon in organism on this planet called earth.



Ignorance is a disease, but do you know whats more deadly than ignorance?, Archaic Dogmatic belief...

Why dont you create threads that have the following topics!!!

-Astronomy or Astrology

-Chemistry or Alchemy

-Round earth or Flat earth

This is obviously a no brainer...

First of all, calling it principle of creation doesnt change the fact that it is an opinion.

Secondly, There shouldn't be a comparison, just the same way you wouldnt compare the above mentioned.

Evolution is a fact that has been proven by numerous pieces of evidence and fields of study, that no serious scientist argues about its validity, what is argued is the specifics and how speciation occurs and so on, but the bottomline is never disputed.

Watch a science documentary, read a scientific article, or pick up a biology journel or textbook... you would hear or see things like "when animals first crawled out of the ocean 500million years ago" or "when the dinosaurs got wiped out 65million years ago", or "when humans split of from chimpanzees 6million years ago"...these are everyday sentences and the fact that someone would even think of asking this question shows how little you spend reading or watching documentaries.

Yes, i think religion has a foundation for morality.

All the religions in the world tends to have absolute ideas on what morals; proponents of the religion should have, due to the characteristic of the religion.

Now does that mean that Morality comes from religion?!, No.

Does it mean the morals you get from your religion is the right one?!, not necessarily.

Consider this, a christian would read his/her bible and see "suffer not a witch to live", his morals of obedience would be questioned if he does not adher to this barbaric teaching. The painful thing about it is, he or she would believe he is doing the work of God and is morally upright.

Can we really say this person is immoral when he is only an obedient servant of God and doesnt know any better that witches doesnt exist?

Can we say christianity is immoral if it offers morals that are fictional in character?

Morality is complicated and i dont know all the answers, but i do know that the idea that morality comes from religions is a very wrong idea and shoud be dismerited, at the same time Religion should be appreciated when it contributes a little quote to the Morals of the society too.

Jadonjack:
According to the bible, no human being is morally perfect, which means human can behave in a mean, cowardly, selfish, cruel way, and so on... God on the other hand can not behave in those ways because according to the same bible, he is morally perfect.

And if he cannot act in any of those ways, it simply means there is something he cannot do which makes him non omnipotent hence he doesn't exist......

Valid question, Nice premise, horrible conclusion...

He existing or not has nothing to do with his omnipotence, so your logical conclusion was off, just wanted to point that out!

To say i am awesomely inspired is to understate my feelings...

Amazing post you have there, fell in love the moment i saw the topic...

Most of what you wrote is the exact same way i feel about the cosmos and our part of it. I think it was carl sagan(might be wrong) that said we are the universe's way of experiencing itself.

Neil degrasse also said that the most amazing fact of th e universe to him is the fact that the atoms that makes up our body were born in the belly of dying stars. I, personally would go further and say the most amazing fact about the universe is that all the energy that makes up our atoms was around at the instant of the big bang, 13.8billions years ago...Amazing

I also ponder on the amazing fact that the odds of me being here, on this wonderful blue rock floating in space was freaking astronomical, and even if i am here for just a blink of the eye, i am eternally grateful to be experiencing myself(myself being the universe)

This in my opinion is true spirituality...

Nice work cloudgoddess, i hope my future wife is half as intelligent and awesome as you

winner01:
Just stop and think about it. It’s impossible for something to come from nothing. To say nothingness caused nothing and created everything is absurd! Nothing will always remain nothing.

Ever heard of Virtual particles(particles that pop in and out of existences)? I guess not

I suggest you read more about Quantum mechanics and you would be amazed the crazy things that happens in the quantum world.

The Universe is not here to make sense to you, so to say "nothingness caused nothing and created everything is absurd!" is just your feeble mind not grasping all the wonders and mysteries of the Universe.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627596-300-quantum-wonders-something-for-nothing/