₦airaland Forum

careytommy:
i wonder why anybody is wasting his precious time replying atheist. recently some of them in carlifornia were going about attacking christians for not supporting gay rights. our believe in god is called faith. we don't need to prove anything to anybody

Why are you confusing issues? are there no Christian Gays? isn't there a gay Bishop? how are yu sure those who attacked Christians were not Agnostic? members of the church of satan? buddhists? hindus? paganists e.t.c. or even members of the church.

Kuns:
Mazaje,

Easy bro,  

Don't let these religious freak upset you, you have passed that, how can you vex get because of a lunatic.

Religion drives our people Krazy, their act krazy ,  their god doesn't even look like them ,  can you see how krazy than is ,  but they think they are cool because they have an oyinbo god.

They God and them don't have the same DNA and RNA ,  so they are a bastard children for their gods.


They will see be the oyinbo slave whereever their spirit is going ,  we will be laughing at them ,  

Kuns, I would hastily conclude that you are blabbing rubbish as well but if I make the allowance that you indeed beleive and can prove what you are saying, can you first of all start by defining some of the terms that you use in your long treatise cos most of them like:

4th Density, Adamite, 3rd density e.t.c cannot be found in any dictionary I can think of.

davidylan:
Paul, the chief apostle to the gentiles, the one who wrote a lot of the epistles, was a lot worse than i am. He openly gave some over to Satan to be taught a lesson. Christianity is not the same as allowing unwise people walk all over you. Maybe you need to study it a bit more.

How does that explain your twisting of people's statements and general lack of integrity? or you are saying Paul was a fraud like you? I don't recall him engaging in dubious tactics like you while debating.

davidylan:
Why do you have a particular problem with my belief system? How does it infringe on your freedom?

Have you proven ANY of the scientific questions i posed to you?

It infringes on my freedom in no way but I have a right to express my opinion as well as to point out deception or fallacies wherever I see fit.

I never said science explains everything but you claim to know everything (or at least that you know a God that knows everything) and I asked you to prove it but you only descend to petty babbling about some people you supposedly respect even though you learn next to nothing from them.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=208074.msg3254343#msg3254343 date=1229910474]It is very true dear, believe it. I know it knocks you off your seat because you've programmed yourself to see the Church the way it isn't and you just can't hate to be wrong, that would injure your ego and false sense of knowledgeability.[/quote]Unprovable and unsubstantiable, I take them as your beliefs about me and you are welcomed to them.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=208074.msg3254343#msg3254343 date=1229910474]No I don't know all about my religion, but I most definitely know more than you do. From what you posted you know nothing, because I know you don't. Once again sorry to knock you off your seat and the belief of the Church that you have convinced yourself of. Simply stating that you know that the Christian religion has a God who has a Son born of the Virgin Mary proves nothing. Anyone can google this up. Do you have knowledge of this God, do you have knowledge of the Son, and his Mother, do you know the mysteries of the faith? Sir unless you can answer these things for me, you know nothing. Just as I can't boast about knowing science because I haven't studied, you cannot boast about knowing Christianity.[/quote]Still largely unprovable and unsubstantiable, but even you should be able to see the hypocrisy of your statements as you initially said I knew "nothing" which I then demonstrated that I did know something no matter how little it is. You then proceed to categorically tell me that you know more about it than I do which I won't question or argue about because it is a moot point as we both agree that we don't know all about it and so cannot in anyway be taken as authorities on it. I'm sure your mysteries exist only in your belief of the church that you've conviced yourself of.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=208074.msg3254343#msg3254343 date=1229910474]a. that it is composed of human beings trying to understand its concepts, symbolisms and meanings. Scientists are involved in this process, I assume you know that they fall into the category of 'human beings'[/quote]Thanks for answering the question, if human beings (mankind) are still trying to understand it, then how can we be sure what mankind is telling us about it is true? and why should we close off all other possible explanations of how we came to be here or even the possibility that other religions may be right?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=208074.msg3254343#msg3254343 date=1229910474]That is your misconception as having it as an absolute truth that must not be questioned. Maybe you haven't noticed but people question it everyday and we are more than happy to respond. Why don't you stop your generalizations and assumptions, leave it at the door if you are going to have this discussion with me. I show people when it is they have resorted to assumptions, and you and several others on this board have done so. The whole notion of Christianity can never be questioned is new to me, mind telling me where you got it from?[/quote]I meant that the practitioners of the faith do not question it as I've never seen any of you question anything on this forum but I will accept your word for it that you question it possibly in your private moments but not in the open so that you are not seen as a turncoat perhaps.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=208074.msg3254343#msg3254343 date=1229910474]You may not know what religion is. Yes we do have our beliefs, but we are human and we are growing and we have mysteries in our faith and as time passes we understand more about our lives, our purpose, our earth, and we do so by acknowledging that we didn't make ourselves as we are matter and matter gets created, and submitting ourselves to the life source that gave all its breath.
Are you slowly catching on? Don't mistakenly define religion as what you think it should be.[/quote]I will take your definition of "mysteries" to be things you can't really explain or understand but for which you accept a particular explanation which you beleive to be true but cannot prove in anyway and those are what I term as beliefs for which I have no problems save the tendency of people to confuse such beliefs for established fact and a propensity of people to close off their minds to alternative explanations of such beliefs. I rather choose to say "I don't know, but I beleive this" rather than call it a mystery and then proclaim it as absolute truth.
And I don't mistakenly define religion as anything more than a system of beliefs that guides people's actions, but while I accept that it is not a complete definition feel free to correct me if it is in anyway largely wrong.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=208074.msg3254343#msg3254343 date=1229910474]Well then sir you need to do your research and history doesn't paint a different picture, you only see what you want to see. It has always been open to experimentation infact the theories in science and the environment for studying science today derived from those who were in the Church. Our system of higher learning derived from Christian monks, they are the reasons you still have much of the knowledge of the pagan world and history today. They thought it important to preserve them. They thought it important to study philosophy and yes most of them studied the philosophers that were known to them at their time, I know several Christian writers who studied the work socrates and plato and such.
No scientists were not just random people afterall they got their commission from the Church, don't for a minute mistakenly think that science debunks Christianity or God for that matter. Science understands that which is already created, what we understand today have always been there, it took us time to understand them better and realisie their existence. There are several things that are existing that we have no understanding of or haven't "discovered."[/quote]We can agree to disagree about this but I know for a fact that not all early scientists were christians and not all of them got their commision from the church. I do agree that there are always people who buck the trends of their times hence the Christian monks who studied philosophers and I never said science debunks christianity as you aptly summarised though I would make a slight correction to say that "Science understands that which already exists" as creation (at least as stated in the bible) has never been proven to be a fact.
But science does debunk some of the myths propagated by the early christians such as the issue of the sun revolving round the earth which someone has already posted here and which set you off like a rocket but for which a pope gave what more or less amounted to a public apology for IMO.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=208074.msg3254343#msg3254343 date=1229910474]I'm so happy you brought up the questioning part because I did speak to a few of them at my parish today, and they asserted me that science in no way proves God to be non-existent and are very willing to answer your questions, so you can post them and I will be sure to e-mail your questions to them.[/quote]You are very right and science does not in anyway prove God to be non-existent but it does not also in anyway prove him to exist or prove him to the the God of the bible and nothing I know of does (but if there is anything you know that does, I'm open to discuss it)

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=208074.msg3254343#msg3254343 date=1229910474]The problem is not within the Church, it is with what you've already made yourself believe about the Church and the Christian faith. It is with your assumptions. You seem to assume that science is the know it all of all things and that without scientific theories or calculations nothing can be proven, and that if evolution exists then there couldn't possibly be a God. You've forgotten the human mind is unseeable and cannot be calculated, Just like God which is why I have asked you do you think that thoughts are real.[/quote]Unprovable and unsubstantiable statements once again and only proves that you have not read much of what I've posted on the forum. Science doesn't know all things and a true scientist only accept those things that can be proven as fact while he theorises about other things and this is the difference between theories and laws.
Religious beliefs are at the least Theories and at the most laws but so far, no one has devised a way to prove them.
I don't even accept evolution as fact even though it is more beleivable to me based on the facts on ground than the creation story of the bible which is a lot lacking in detail IMO.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=208074.msg3254343#msg3254343 date=1229910474]So believe me scientists work with the Vatican and there are christian scientists, they happen to channel science towards doing what science actually does which is explain that which can be seen or matter, or that which is created.[/quote]Good, maybe over time we will have a lot less closed minded people such as we see on this forum who assert belief as provable fact.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=208074.msg3254343#msg3254343 date=1229910474]haha no it only proves that people that practice religion are human.[/quote]I did say it was inconclusive, but if those who practice religion are human? why should we beleive what they are telling us knowing their propensity towards politics and deception?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=208074.msg3254343#msg3254343 date=1229910474]Correction, I have shown you, but you have decided that what I show you doesn't measure up. And until we start using scientific calculations, your standards, it will never be enough.[/quote]You have not shown me using any other standard whatsoever and I didn't say anything about calculations. Gravity never needed any calculations, its existence was a fact even before scientists numerically computed some aspects of it against their defined standards. Its effects had always being evident.

Besides note that I never for once claimed that God does not exist, I have only said that there is no proof that he exists or that he is the God of the bible. I've only asked people to accept the probability that he does not exist as no one can prove that he does.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=208074.msg3254343#msg3254343 date=1229910474]Can you scientifically calculate my thoughts or prove that my thoughts are taking place?[/quote]I might not be able to, but if you accept my definition of thoughts I gave earlier, then I can prove that your thoughts are taking place simply by noting when you make decisions. Some scientists claim that thoughts take place in the brain and they prove this by showing increased electrical activity in the brain when people are trying to make decisions.

Religion could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how it is practiced, it is unfortunate that most of its evil stem from people refusing to separate between beliefs and facts and leave that room for rational decision making rather than being tied to unquestionable religious instructions.
I will draw an analogy with the terrorists who carry out suicide attacks beleiving they will go to heaven or something of the sort.

davidylan:
u're better off not even posting at all because shld you goof again i will not hesitate to clarify it. What nauseates you is the very notion of christianity . . . that is your main headache . . . many of you just wish it would disappear into the night and you can continue a life of sin with no consequence.

Sorry . . . and like i always love to close with fluffy skulls like you . . . before you say something always think twice. You don't want to end up looking like a fool. Might make you feel nauseous again.

You are better off not posting as well as not even claiming yourself to be a christian cos you have neither intellect nor integrity even the misguided christians at least had integrity.

I have no problem with your beliefs, problem is that you state them as facts and I have only asked you to prove it which you have failed woefully at doing.

Please be sorry for yourself cos you are the one claiming unsubstantiated fact and showing yourself off as an idiot to all and sundry and while you are at it, take your own advice and don't apply it only to the things you say but even to your fundamental beliefs, you don't want to make more people nauseous.

davidylan:
Excellent. we are on the same footing. Now that we have that cleared up, allow me space to concentrate on people with more to say than just popping up to sound verbose.

Thanks very much, I hope you will do the same cos I'll be releived to be free of you twisting my statements and your 2 faced nature was starting to get me nauseous.

davidylan:
my dear . . . you rant a lot but make pretty little sense. I'd rather have Bindex . . . at least he makes an effort to sound credible.
you simply appear here to insult your own sensibility not mine.

You all bandy the word "science" around way too often. First time i saw it i thot i was in the presence of scientific intelligensia . . . only to realise it was just a group of fluffy-brained noise makers.

Same opinion I have of you mate, only difference was that when I initially saw your copious bible quotations and prayers (which later turned out to be snide remarks disguided as prayers) I thought I was in the presence of a genuinely misguided but sincere christian only to realise that I was dealing with an utter hypocrite who would stoop to desperately low levels even some thieves wouldn't to twist other's statements while peddling falsehood in order to make none existent points.

davidylan:
this is the same person who said this the other day - scientific formula are consistent

which is it? Science is consistent or not rigid?  

If indeed you love science so much because you've got to prove why people should beleive you, then all i ask is that you PROVE two things to me through science:

1. How did earth as we know it appear from nothing?

2. Did we descend from apes? How?

Thank you. Surely if you can badger me about the tower of babel this shld be chicken feed for you members of the church of science.

Why do you always make such a fool of yourself? is scientific formula the same as science? or more appropriately, does a part of something equal the whole of it?
And your selective reading demons have come to haunt you again as you did not complete that statement about scientific formulae being consistent and defining the conditions under which they operate.

davidylan:
His points were no different from yours, we only appreciate the fact that he showed a lot more aptitude to genuinely understanding issues than the mockery you guys are making of urselves here. Each time you bring up the word "logic" . . . it makes me laugh. Maybe someday before i'm 70 i will see this evasive "logic".

You said its a snake . . . why don't you tell us how you came about that?

I see your multiple personality disorder showing up again, go see your shrink.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=208074.msg3254164#msg3254164 date=1229904724]1. Then you know nothing about religion or at least the Christian religion.

2. The Church is a living Church and as any living organism it constantly grows and science helps it to understand God and God's creation. That is the misconception you have. You view the Church as something stagnant and never growing, while it is very evident that she does.

3, It's funny the Church works with scientists everyday. The Church too was open to experimentation and clearly understands better now than she did then. Who do you think the scientists were by the way? Some random people? No, they too were of the Church.

4.Unfortunately some politicians used the Church's powers negatively and that it is why the Vatican is a country on its own. We are no longer under the influence of greedy politicians.

5.We have shown you several times why you should believe, but you refuse to accept what we show as valid evidence. But I have been asking this one question and no one seems to answer, maybe you can. Are thoughts real?[/quote]This is totally untrue and I'm sure even you don't beleive what you are writing, but lets assume for a while that you do.

1. I never claimed to know all or even much about the christian religion or any religion for that matter but you have lied that I know "nothing" about the christian religion and you are not supposed to lie in case you've forgotten.
At the least I know that the christian faith beleives in a God who has a Son born by the virgin mary.
Pray, are you implying that you know all about your religion?

2. Growing in what sense? a. that it is composed of human beings trying to understand its concepts, symbolisms and meanings? or b. it is an incomplete religion that requires the input of scientists to make head or tail of it?
In either case, why not have it complete before it is accepted as a religion? or what then is wrong in having a belief that it may be wholly or partly untrue and state it as it is rather than holding it out as an absolute truth that must not be questioned.

3. I doubt that the church works with scientists as a foundational principle at least history paints a very different picture to your statement. It may now be open to experimentation but was not from the onset (virtually all religions are open to science now apart from the ascetics after all, who wouldn't ? And yes the scientists were random people only that some of them were christians but I'm sure if you questioned them, the sincere ones among them would admit that their christianity was only a belief which could not be proven in anyway and who knows, you may even find out that quite a lot of them also have some or all of the questions that have popped up here.

4. Politicians are everywhere as politics is part of human living, the fact that they are also in the church only suggests that religion is also a human concept having nothing to do with a supernatural being whatsoever, even though that is in no way conclusive.

5. Correction, you think you have shown us why we should beleive but all you have given us are inconclusive ideas which could be interpreted in a whole lot of ways and no hard or undeniable facts or empirical evidence that would compel us to toeing your line of thought. (Consider the fact that only a fool would deny the existence of the force of gravity on earth)

To answer your question

Human thoughts IMO are real as far as your definition of thought is "the sequence of internal unseen human activity that leads to decision making" please note that this is my own definition and might in no way be complete, I also don't know in what direction your question is leading but I reserve my comments.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=208074.msg3254120#msg3254120 date=1229903370]And I guess the scientists of that time thought differently. Why don't you get your head out of your arse and know history before speaking?[/quote]Big difference, the Scientists kept on studying and were open to experimentation and new facts while the stupid church claimed unquestionable supernatural knowledge.
Besides science is not a religion and never holds anything rigid because you've got to prove why people should beleive you and that is what we ask of you and you all seem to be failing badly.
And I'd rather my head remain where it is as its being in your arse is in no way enticing.

davidylan:
Sorry, those who are "fool" of themselves are clueless people like you who are quick to beat the drums of science. At the end of the day it turns out you really are no better than high school students who just happen to hate christianity.

I repeat - going to the internet to borrow talking points wont help you.

I can venture with all certainty that Bindex had NO IDEA that there are areas on earth where the sun can stay in the sky for 24hrs which is why he framed his question the way he did. While my response does not adequately address his point, it was meant to show him that there are certain things about nature that even he does not know.

Bro, when you have something to say beyond these boring repetition of noise making then we can talk. Gone are the days when athiests like Nferyn would talk and even christians would stop to listen.

Now all we have are trolls pretending to have a brain.

come back Nferyn . . . we don't mind that you are an athiest.

Your hasty generalizations and baseless accusations all over again, the same things you are quick to accuse others of.

How can you be certain that Bindex had no idea of the effects the earths inclination and revolution round the sun had on different locations of the earth when your idiotic church once thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved round the earth?

And you show how you are no better than a baby just learning how to toddle when you come here to rehash fables told you by some charlartan every weekend while he smiles to the bank with your money, I wonder how much grey and white mata you have in your brain.

And if you appreciate your Nferyn so much, did you ever ponder/mull over his points or you were stupidly applauding his grammatical constructs? I don't think so because he obviously never imparted any logical or even sensible reasoning in you at all.

naijacutee:
I'm going to have to continue with this drama tomorrow. I need my beauty sleep.

Now I lay me down to sleep. . .

Need another Lullaby? a pity I'll be back in the office tomorrow, its been an interesting weekend.

davidylan:
I know we need to ignore them but sometimes you gotta set them straight. For far too long they've been used to getting away with lies, halftruths and poor scholarship.

They bark about science all the time, turns out they have NO IDEA about science itself.

Stop that hollow sermonization, it is you who need some setting straight when you give answers like this

Lofoten in Norway has 24 hrs daylight in the summer . . .

In response to a statement like this

The sun can not stand for more than 24 hours. Thats a myth.

In what way have you countered what he said? or proven that the sun can stand for more than 24 hours? you always beat your chest over nothing, you could be a lot more intelligent but you are too full of yourself.

@Kuns

I beleive you are only propounding the theories of another religion which you cannot prove in anyway cos I seriously doubt that you can prove any of these statements:

you see, nuwubian, nubian (falsely called niggers, nigerians, african, Afro this or that, Igbo, Yoruba,) is a new being from atomites or adamites (not the bible adam of genesis 2:19 or white magic, but the atumite
when the minds of those people capable of entering the new sun cycle have been qualified and the people are nuwaubians, god incarnate.
9 ether forces first visit the minds of their posterity (descendants), because they know that nothing can be done right unless the mind is right.
the mind cannot be right unless it has accepted the right knowledge.

You are out of your mind and in his mind.
you all share in a mental reservior, which vibrates on the 4th density.
everybody partakes of the mental olane, intellect, ideas, creation, etc.
you vibrate on the 3rd density, and have your own portion of it called "my mind', or that, which is mine, but it is all one.

But hey, you're welcomed to your beliefs as long as you don't intend to compel all of us to become "enlightened" as nubians or intend to perpetuate any genocide against your so called "ignorant" ones.

naijacutee:
I must say though, I respect you duduspace for your matured take on this issue - and in many ways, you are right. We christians have no right to condemn you, as we are not infallible ourselves. Theists believe in God for many reasons - some of which, even an agnostic would find morally "wrong" (e.g to take advantage of peoples naivety, to appear to be what we are not).  In many ways, yes, we do not often do as we should and it is not in our place to judge anyone - simply because we are all made from the same rough material. The nature of this "rough material" means that we often do things which we know are wrong - things which we could have chosen not to do, if we wanted.

The respect is mutual, I appreciate people who are able to approach issues from impartial viewpoints by appreciating all views and independently thinking through them. And I'm not even pointing accusing fingers at Christians, I'm only exhorting them to be a bit more sincere in defining or explaining their beliefs rather than putting them forward as fact.

naijacutee:
Salvation comes by belief, and belief is not something that comes by winning or losing an argument - therefore arguing about topics like these are to an extent, futile. Belief is something that begins with a will, or a desire, and this part of desire is what makes us different from animals. Yes, animals in themselves do have a will - they can desire food and go out and get it. They can desire another animals "bedroom", and fight it for its sleeping place. The one thing that we have, which they do not - whether it is a gift or a curse is up to you - is this thing which we label as "soul". This unique ability of man to "know himself" - the ability "to thy ownself, be true". This "soul" thing is undeniably distinctive, whatever name we choose to call it.

I don't necessarily agree with you on this point because it is actually your belief that salvation comes by belief something you can in no way prove to be true. And I'm not sure about your conclusion on what separates us from animals cos I can point out to you that the animal would not fight another animal if it doesnt in a sense "know himself/itself" i.e. having a reasonable estimate of its capability and whether it was strong enough to tackle another animal in battle which would amount to having a soul according to your definition. The musings of the Preacher in Ecclesiastes is food for thought about this.  

naijacutee:
I do agree with you that Jesus was misunderstood a lot - otherwise he would have to give lenghty talks explaining himself over and over again! A lot of his parables were misunderstood as soon as they fell out of his own mouth - and not just by the Jews/laymen but also by his disciples! However, it is a good thing that he didn't leave us in the dark, was kind enough to explain what he meant. You are right again about christians crucifying Jesus. It is hard in this day and age to find a place where the unbiased word of God not just taught, but also practised. Even Mahatma Gandhi came to the same conclusions as you did. He said "I like your Christ. I do not like your christians. Your christians are so unlike Christ." After reading studying the Bible, he came to the conclusion that Jesus was The Way to God. He decided to attend a church, but was turned away at first glance simply because of the colour of his skin. He ended up saying "I would have been a christian, had I not met one." These things and so much more christians do often makes one wonder if there's something fishy somewhere. Thankfully, there are two sides to the coin. There do exist also, christians who try to live up to the "standard which we should". Faith is something which needs not to be shouted. The evidence of faith is in the action. A person goes to the ATM machine, puts his/her card in and waits for money, because he/she has faith in the banking system. He/She  is assured that the bank will keep his salary where they say they would, and give it to him/her when he/she wants it. It's the same with faith. George Muller, an ashewo man, gambler and thief one day decided to put his faith in God. Yes, he talked about it - but his actions spoke the loudest about his faith. He, in 1836 took in 30 orphans with no provisions for for feeding or clothing. 30 hungry mouths to feed, 30 feet to wear out 30 pairs of shoes, 30 clothes to buy. Yes, he went ahead and believed that he was doing this in the name of God, and if those children went hungry, the discredit would go to God. It didn't. The children didn't go hungry or naked. By 1870, over 2000 orphans were housed, clothes and fed on a daily basis without George Muller ever askinga soul for funds.

I guess you probably think I've been disappointed by some Christians in the past hence the reason for my Agnostic leanings but that is not totally true as it is inherent in man's nature to deceive, even the bible itself says never to put your trust in man.
I've also never said it was useless to follow some/all  of the teachings of the bible or that the bible was evil or that all christians were evil. In fact I beleive a lot in the teaching of Jesus which says that the 2 important laws to follow are:

1. The love of God (with God in my opinion being whatever your moral compass is)

2. The love of your neighbour as yourself (seeing as it is that the law/morality is made for man/mankind and not vice versa)

but I do not hold those beliefs because I'm looking forward to some streets of Gold (though that would be cool if it were true) or 70 virgins at my service (though I wonder what the fuss is as they would not remain virgins after my first encounter with each of them) but because they make for an orderly, fair and equitable society which every rational thinking person would appreciate.

naijacutee:
The issue of Plato & Socrates. Yes, they very "wise" men, with inherent beliefs which changed the world, in a way. Yet, were any of them prepared to die to prove that a.) these beliefs were true b.) these beliefs would save them from the very death which they were going to die? Let's not talk about Plato, because he made sure he enjoyed his life until the ripe old age of 80 when he died at a party or something, I can't remember. Socrates was poisoned, but even though he was complacent, he was not so dying to prove anything about his death, or how it would save him alone - not to talk of anyone else. He was dying because the people of Athens wanted him dead. The cirumstances are worlds apart.

You are being a bit unfair to Socrates as he did die for his beliefs but you do have a point as they never claimed to be saviours of the world as Christ did. I still wouldn't begrudge anyone who chose to worship Plato or Socrates though, (afterall some people have started a church of "Diego Maradona"even though they may seem foolish to me as Christianity seems foolish to some people.
You can beleive whatever you want to beleive but always leave room for the probability that it might not be true and don't be too surprised if it turns out not to be.
Even facts atimes turn out not to be true or not to hold in all circumstances but they are usually backed with some empirical evidence that does make sense,  besides facts as we know them are simply " Our current understanding of the evidence we gather in our attempts to understand more about the world we live in" thus they remain facts only to the limits of their validity.

@Kuns

Are you claiming to know everything?

Chrisbenogor:
Even animals have meaning to their lives no?

I'm not sure o but who knows? animals can act like human beings atimes for example guy chimp dey toast babe chimp  even dey give am flower in some instances. And the babe chimps self dey do shakara (if dem no dey in heat that is).

and Ecclesiaster 3:18 - 19 makes for an interesting read in comparing humans and animals.

Chrisbenogor:
The strongest position any theist can take is that they believe by faith, they should never try to defend logically it just creates problems for them, david took the blue pill

Interesting analogy you make, considering this:

So what are the advantages of taking the blue pill? As one of the characters in the film says, "ignorance is bliss" Essentially, if the truth is unknown, or you believe that you know the truth, what is there to question or worry about?


To justify taking the red pill we might ask what is the purpose of an ignorant existence? Further still, what is there in merely existing? Simply existing brings humans down to the level of objects; they might have utility or even purpose, but where is the meaning? Existence without meaning is surely not living your life, but just experiencing it. As Trinity says to Neo, "The Matrix cannot tell you who you are."

Chrisbenogor:
Ok duduspace I think you are agnostic, with strong atheistic leanings on the God of the bible.

I'm definitely Agnostic, but I lean more towards beleiving in the God of the bible than even David  realises because I do find a lot of Good stuff in the bible that provides a moral compass which helps one to be at peace with oneself and the society at large. Though I'm not sure if that is because I'm from a christian background.

I also actually respect the teachings of Jesus Christ a lot considering he had a lot of radical ideas relative to the mainstream beliefs of his time hence leading to his murder at their hands. He is mostly misunderstood and misrepresented in my opinion. I tend to beleive that a lot of these so called "christians" would be some of those who would crucify Jesus if he came to the world to day because they would consider him to be an heretic as he always questioned the accepted laws of the Jewish society while some of us would at least be open minded enough to hear him out.

But as I said, those are my beliefs and even if I'm wrong I'm sure I can look forward to better treatment from Jesus at my judgement than from misguided blokes like David who are claiming to be authorities on what they don't know.

@chrisbenogor

I don't beleive he does as I see the facts available to me now, but I'm never hasty to draw firm lines because I can't really prove that he doesn't. So I'm okay with people who believe he does exist as long as they own up to fact that it is just a belief which cannot be proven in anyway.

I do beleive that there is likely to have been some intelligence behind the creation of the world because everything does seem a bit too perfect to have been by chance but it is just a belief I have because there is no other "complete" rational explanation available from elsewhere at present. But that intelligence which some call "God" could well have been the biblical God, Allah, Buddah, Krishna e.t.c for all I know and care.

And there are lots of actions and behavior attributed to the biblical God that does give me concern, but they might not really matter in a way if he is truly God because I really can't help wondering if I have a right to question "my creator"(supposing he is truly my creator that is) but I'm sure he wouldnt blame me if I ask those questions with my limited knowledge (having not given me enough evidence to come to a definite conclusion about him)

Bottomline: There are some things I might never know or be sure about so I reserve the right to beleive whatever I want to beleive about them while remaining open to explanations I consider rational. But those are my beliefs and I don't demand that anyone holds them as I do.

Chrisbenogor:
After 14 pages, after 2008 years, after 66 books of the bible, after apocalyptic threats, after all said and done - God is not coming down.

Maybe, just maybe he is waiting for us to come up instead?

but our scientist have tried and built planes to go up but we didn't see him, they tried again and  built space shuttle still we never saw him.

They even built all manner of telescope, still we never saw him. I wonder where he is coming down from?

I also wonder how tall the tower of Babel was and what its foundation looked like, it must have stretched from earth to Jupiter and beyond.

NB: I'm still not saying he doesn't exist o, I'm only saying that he is not likely to be coming down anytime soon at least not physically.

davidylan:
- about this issue of being a "freethinker" . . . its been addressed before. There is no such thing as a "freethinker" . . . everyone is influenced by certain circumstances that moulds there thought process. This idea of "free thinking" is as false as duduspace claiming he is an athiest because he "used brain" to question the bible.

And you wonder why people get angry and pour invectives on you? your hasty conclusions can be quite annoying, you continuosly oscillate between moments of brilliance and what I would term close to utter stupidity.

1. I never claimed to be an atheist, you are wrongly assuming that because I dare to question some of your beliefs.
2. Are you inside my brain to know what I'm thinking? how then can you categorically say that what I said was false?
3. "Use your brain" in the context I've used it implies thinking about an issue from a purely logical and impartial point of view.

While I agree with you that people's thinking are influenced by a lot of things (and not just cirumstances that mould their thought process) that does not exclude the concept of free thinking (even though I'm sure your concept of free thinking only narrowly include anything that questions your belief in the Biblical God because I'm sure you are not miffed in any way if anyone says that Allah, Budday, Krishna e.t.c. don't exist).
My concept of free thinking would be an openess to listen to all views, logical and impartial consideration of those views within the limit of your knowledge and accepting the obviously true, rejecting the obviously false and reserving your judgement on the ones you are not sure about.
Of course you can choose to believe what you want about those things you are not sure about but never take them as fact but as probable explanations which may or may not be true.

Double post.

I think the 4-2-3-1 is a more attack oriented variation of the 4-5-1 that doesn't rely on a target man for goals but relies on the pace and dynamism of the more advanced players. It also allows you use a deep lying play maker in the Pirlo/Alonso/Carrick/ mould along with a destroyer in the Gattuso/Flamini mould without rigidly tying down any of them into the Makelele role as is typical of any of the 4-1--- based combinations
As someone noted earlier, allows your front playes switch around such as when ManU plays Ronaldo/Rooney/Tevez or Berba.

You can also afford to play a high defensive line with the assurance you will have ample players in defensive positions to track inrushing midfielders when yur opponent is trying to counter attack.

The 4-4-2 is the most balanced formation that makes good use of the wide areas of the pitch and works quite well when you have 2 pacy wingers who are also good crossers of the ball (as we had in Finidi and Amunike a combination we have never quite managed to replicate) it is however conservative and doesn't make allowance for exceptional players in either defensive or offensive roles for either your team or your opponent and is often useless against a 5-3-2 and 4-1--- based formations where the other team basically refuses to play and put most of their players behind the ball  unlike the 4-2-3-1 where players can move around, probe, switch play around and find chinks in the opponent's defensive setup.

The 3-5-2 is basically an attack oriented form of the 5-3-2 and requires very mobile fullbacks with high workrates, IMO the only people to have successfully pulled off this formation have been the brazillians with Cafu and Roberto Carlos as it usually relies on you outscoring your opponent as you lose in the wide areas of your defence what you gain in attack (you would recall that the Brazillian 2002 team usually had goals scored against them while the 1998 team lost the final in 1998 after Ronaldo did not turn up and they were beaten 3-0 by france). It is a tournament formation and I doubt if any league team can sustain this formation over a season as the full backs will burn out quickly and possibly get muscular injuries.

The 4-3-3 formation could be a more attack oriented 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 formation depending on its implementation and is not much favoured by tacticians nowadays and hardly ever works out in my opinion because I've hardly seen a successful team with it though there are days it does seem to work well. A team famous for using it but which flopped at USA 94 was Colombia with Asprilla, Rincon and Valencia upfront though they did famously beat Brazil 5-0 during the world cup qualifications, topped their group and were greatly hyped before the competition but never made it past the group stages after being beaten 3-1 by Romania who played a classic counter attacking game while Brazil won the competition. The Netherlands have also experimented with it using RVP, Robben and RVN/Kuyt/Huntelaar in recent times but have not had much success with it either.
I personally think it either isolates the strikers from each other too much when they try to use the wide spaces or becomes too narrow when the strikers converge in the center thereby allowing the Defenders pick them off easily while allowing the midfield get overrun  when the team is on the defensive due to the advanced positions of the forward players and the concurrent reduced number of players in the defensive zone of the midfield.

@naijafan

any idea where I can get more materials on buddhism? would like to know more about it, I've heard quite a lot but would appreciate any info on how I can get more resources to understand the basic tenets and concepts.

Christianity I know well having been born into it, Judaism I know from the Old Testament, Islam I know to be largely Arabicised Judaism (i.e. Christianity without the New testament and Mohammed bigging up himself as a messanger of God) but I don't know much about these oriental religions.

NB: Just went through the page on wikipedia and it is looking very complex and of course the same old doctrinal differences are springing up again. Anyway, if it makes some people happy it is all good provided they keep it in the realm of "belief". Funny thing is that Buddhist are reported to be between 230 million to 500 million all over the world and that multitude of people are going to burn in Hell fire if we are to beleive David and co with their concept of a God who delights in roasting people like bacon in one huge pit of fire.

LadyT:
Very unfair comments there. David has anwered all questions and taken all the onslaughts and has not walked away. Why can we not defend ourselves? We must sit back and take insults? Or allow false stories to be spread. Its a debate things get heated and many of the non-believers are saying trying to upset people which is sad!

He has answered bunkum though I do appreciate his courage in holding on to his convictions, if only they weren't inherently flawed.
He is actually an intelligent guy who is simply indoctrinated with a religious belief that he does not question. I'm sure if he allows himself the luxury to just question those things (probably without the nagging fear of going to hell) he might even be a better debater than any other person on the forum.
Religion always makes asses of all of us when we rigidly hold on to it even when it is baseless.

Besides, David doesn't always play fair himself as I've shown a couple of times during our discussion,  As some say "All is fair in love and war" though I don't necessarily subscribe to that school of thought.

davidylan:
dudu, long story don tire me. Knock yourself out . . . my belief aint going no where.

Fine with me as long as you know them for what they are "beliefs" and not try to force them down other people's throat as fact.
Hey who knows? you might find out one day that they are totally untrue.

davidylan:
duduspace . . . i am prompted to ask again . . . what is it about christianity that inspires so much hate and rage in you? do you insult your muslim neighbours so willingly when you both discuss religion?

You are beginning to sound like a scratched record so I won't answer that.

davidylan:
Would you also hold the very same belief about athiestic dogma? That the statements of Dawkins himself are not conclusive and only appeal to people like you who want to hold unto anything anti-God?
There are two sides to a coin.

Yes I hold the same belief, I don't think I ever called myself an atheist, I am who I am (and I'm not trying to ape the God of the bible there). It is not easy to prove a negative. Have you ever seen -1 of anything? besides I don't think it is necessary.
I don't think Dawkins expected his statements to prove anything, he was only trying to figure things out and he found out that the existing explanations somehow didn't make much sense.

davidylan:
God is not science so cannot be bound by the laws of science which is obviously the writer's belief. However the big bang theory is the athiest's way of explaining the creation of the earth. If the big bang is true . . . then it shakes the very foundations of science since matter cannot be created.
Now that is the angle i am looking at . . . you on the other hand only want to see your own point of view.

Another unfounded statement which cannot be proven, so why should I beleive it? and I do see the hypocritical tendency again, you use the laws of science when it favours you and discard it when it doesn't. How can we also beleive your 7 days creation story when science (despite its limitations) have proven that the earth has existed for much longer than the 3000+ age your creation story would imply as the age of the earth.
The Big Bang Theory is just that "a theory" which is being rigorously questioned and researched daily but your biblical creation story is only a "belief" which we are not even supposed to question even in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary and differs from religion to religion.

davidylan:
this is beside the point and makes very little sense whatsoever. That the sayings of Christ are not understood the same way by all means what? That christianity and the bible are false?
so because i do not understand mathematics and my classmate does means maths does not exist?

A distinct possibility but not exactly what I meant, the point I questioned was the statement by the author that Jesus could only be viewed in either of two ways, I was only introducinga third option but it is obvious you see every question asked or point raised as implying that what you beleive is false.

davidylan:
which "earlier discussed inconsistencies"? The ones you cannot even substantiate?
Why not start with the inconsistency of the big bang? why are you so fixated on Jonah and his fish? Do you understand how to scientifically explain how you got here?

If you still don't see them as incosistencies or contradictions then there is nothing more I can do to help you, you might change your mind if you go over the points again. No one said the big bang theory was perfect, I'm not even saying I beleive in it but it is an alternative possibility to the creation story which might be true for all I know but has not been proven by anyone to be true and remains in the realm of belief to which I have no objection barring when such beliefs are presented as fact.

Bottomline: My position (if you haven't figured it out by now) is that when it comes to creation and how we came to be here, noone can say with any certainty that it happened in a certain way but if someone is going to tell us in the future it is likely going to come from science in my opinion because they keep open minds rather than some people who are only fixated on beliefs and give no room for alternative explanations.

davidylan:
The problem with this is that athiesm itself is largely built on the very "philosophical pontifications" that you berate. A lot of the athiestic claims is basically that the bible is not "logical" enough.

I wonder why I answer you atimes because yu're a very dogmatic individual who can't even try to reason otherwise, where exactly did I say that Atheists were right and Christians wrong?
I only said his statements were not conclusive either way and that there were different ways of looking at his points such that they would only appeal to someone who already holds the same beliefs as he does.
You are obviously not even considering my points and only bent on hammering the same beliefs for which you have no reasonable evidence or proof.

davidylan:
I'm not sure you read the article with an open mind. The writer was making precisely the point i highlighted in blue . . . he is using the very same philosophy of athiesm to ask the question . . . how can the big bang occur from nothing?

the problem is that there is no evidence that any big bang even occured at all so to accuse the author of presumption as to HOW MANY big bangs occurs is preposterous.

A big bang is itself an enigma to science since matter cannot come out of nothing.

You are the dumbo who is not reading things with an open mind (except of course if your definition of someone with an open mind is someone who holds the same beliefs with you) as my question was based on the premise of where God fits into in the big picture. Was it/he the nothing out of which something came? or the uncaused out of which the cause proceeded? bearing in mind that the writer of the article was already alluding to the fact that there is a contradiction in something coming out of nothing.

And for the big bang theory, I was pointing out that the concept of "The Big Bang" does not exclude the possibility of more than one big bang so to wave it away on the basis of the conditions necessary for the big bang to produce matter requiring some intellectual being is not entirely right. Besides the writer was willing to consider the possibility of a big bang unlike you, seems he is a bit more open minded than you are?

davidylan:
Again you only quote half-way . . . a favorite past time of athiests. Jesus Christ carefully explained that point to Nicodemus in so much that he ended up becoming a follower of Christ later. If he was misunderstood he wont have followed Christ at all.

Your hyprocritical nature on open display for all to see again, here is the sentence once again  "when he says a man must be born again, they initially thought he meant for a man to go back into his mother's womb"
You deliberately omit my use of the word initially and then proceed to totally miss the point of what I was saying which was basically that there are still largely divided opinions on the meanings of some of Jesus' statement even within the christian religion.

davidylan:
this is absurd. Would you say that how a genuine $5 bill relates to other fake $5 bills, Z$5 bills is largely left unexplored?
The bible makes it abundantly clear that besides Jesus Christ THERE IS NO OTHER GOD. What else is there to explore?

Which is the fake and which is the original? sorry I forgot it is based on your beliefs or do you have any facts to prove that Christianity is the original and all others fake? oops I forgot again "The Bible makes it abundantly clear, " despite all the earlier discussed inconsistencies? going around in circles aren't you?
Think and use your brain my brother, don't be locked into only one way of thinking, expand your horizon and just leave that little room that there is a very probable chance that what you beleive might not be true. If you are a judge, I'm sure you would send an accused to the gallows even if there was reasonable doubt.

naijacutee:
You also have the freedom to make of anything in the Bible what you will.

To those feel that there is "not enough evidence" for Christianity, and who will like to consider evidence provided apart from the Bible, I have attached a brief discussion of this as an attachment to this post. (So as not to paste it on here, and hence be cramming preaching down your throat)

P.S : It starts to get interesting from Page 3

P.P.S @ duduspace - It would be senseless to defend a cause that one does not believe in, at all costs. About the existence of God, this is something I do know/am very very very very very sure about . And I'm not "defending" per se, I'm just trying to provide reason and evidence for what I do know and believe in. Besides, if God is big enough to do all the mighty things that he did, surely he is big enough to defend himself? In his own time? (Not when we demand that he does, as he is not answerable to us - it is the other way round!)  

Interesting read this but still largely with a lot of assumptions, illogical conclusions and largely recoursing to the bible for its authority despite your claim that it provides evidence apart from the bible. Most of the "supposed evidence" are mostly philosophical pontifications from which widely different conclusions could be reached.
For example when the writer says:

But how can the universe come into existence out of nothing?  This is a philosophical, not a scientific question.  Out of nothing, nothing comes,   The atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen gives this illustration:Well, what’s true of the little bang is also true of the Big Bang.  It must have been caused.  From the very nature of the case, this cause would have to be uncaused, immaterial, changeless, timeless, and enormously powerful.

If nothing comes out of nothing, how can immaterial become matter? how can caused come out of uncaused? how can change come out of changeless and time out of timeless?
It proves my point that "God" in this sense is man's creation, some sort of place holder for the limits of man's knowledge.

when he says:

Moreover, the evidence for the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life points to this cause’s being a personal, intelligent mind,   Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 to the power of 10123.  There is no physical reason why these quantities have the values they do.  The inference to an intelligent Designer of the cosmos seems far more rational than the atheistic hypothesis of chance.

The writer is presuming that only one big bang occcured but does he have any way of knowing how many big bangs occured before there was a successful one? extreme mathematical theorist will tell you that due to the inherent nature of probability, if something has a chance of happening whatsoever, no matter how little that probability is it will one day happen if the number of experiments are large enough.

when he says:

Today there is virtually a consensus . . . that Jesus came on the scene with an unheard of authority, with the claim of the authority to stand in God’s place and speak to us and bring us to salvation.  With regard to Jesus there are only two possible modes of behavior:  either to believe that in him God encounters us or to nail him to the cross as a blasphemer.  Tertium non datur. [There is no third way.]

I totally disagree because Jesus often spoke in parables, for example when he says a man must be born again, they initially thought he meant for a man to go back into his mother's womb. It is a fallacy to say that there is no third way? he could largely have been misunderstood in his statements.

He is right about one thing though:

In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback.  Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.

because he exists as a placeholder in the limitation of human knowledge and because no one really knows or can say with certainty what happened in the past and how the world was created or what will happen in the future but some people are falsely claiming to know it with certainty but can't convince those who query and question them to validate what they claim to know with hard facts and reason.

Besides, even if we beleive in God, how that God equates to the God of the bible and not Buddha, Allah, Krishna, Zeus e.t.c is largely left unexplored.

Monicaa:
Wow! I'm so shocked to see there are much more of u that doubt the existence of God, It's so sad,

Dios u said u don't know how, why, when n, u were created, Don't u think it's because u r ignorant of the fact n trying to hide the truth, Do u think u just came from nowhere n even if u did, don't u think there was someone, something, somewhere that came about that nowhere

Those scientists that claim all sorts or evolution n people tend to believe them; those apes or whatever, did they just fall from the sky or just appeared from nowhere, n the scientists themselves, have they tried to find the source of the apes or sand or whatever they claim?? Everything still adds up to one thing as they/we keep going back to what source, someone/thing created those. What of life? Why are we breathing? Why is there also death, that we cease to stop breathing n so much more? How on earth cn we deny God?

Adam Brody, I know 4 a fact u r talking out of anger because of ur heart that got broken, i understand the pain and all these is just to cover up the pain but my dear u know the truth, how did u claim u were religious in the first place? what made u believe in God then?

No one is really talking bout a particular religion but we believe there is God, not some sorts of statue(man-made) buddha, hindu,

At the others that believe there is no God n be careful of ur words n how u describe him even if y'all doubt him, don't talk about him anyhow because u wouldn't even talk bout ur ancestors u never met or seen but still give them respect.
God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ.

Firstly, not everyone beleives in evolution and the scientific world is subject to proof and counter proof but even when people make claims of evolution, there is usually some fact or physical evidence they point to backing it up.

And the first cause argument can be used to argue both against and for God, "Why stop at God?" if something has to create something? then doesn't that same reasoning means that even God must have been created by something? and even if we all agree to end at an infinite God somewhere, how are we sure that God is the same as the God of the bible or Allah or Shiva or Buddha? and when you point at Hindu and Buddha as man made statues, remember that your God once lived in an ark abi is it not in the Old testament?