₦airaland Forum

Hmm
And again, Dawkins himself said he was indeed talking about erm directed panspermia in that video.

Hmmm

Once again, Dawkins himself said (or admitted) specifically that he was talking about erm ---- directed panspermia.

^^^ And as I keep saying, Dawkins himself confirmed specifically that he was talking about erm ----- directed panspermia.

^^^ Re the 'good fundamentalist' part; well, there are now fundagelical atheists too . . . . .

Just like Dawkins himself lied and assassinated his own character when he admitted that what he was talking about in that video was indeed --- directed panspermia. Nice.

Hmmm

In his own self-rebuttal, Dawkins said specifically that what he was talking about in the video of the OP was indeed directed panspermia. In any event, anyone truly knowledgeable about these things knows he was talking about directed panspermia --- even if he did not use those specific words.

^^ And Dawkins actually did mention 'directed panspermia' specifically in his self-rebuttal.

Creatrixity: ^^what is stupid?hear yourself logicboy..here are possible scenarios for the origin of life according to panspermia..

Apparently the originators of the panspermia theory got confused..so next time before you get all worked up and post insupportable stupidity...think!!

And Dawkins' case is worse ---- he was not just insinuating panspermia; he was insinuating directed panspermia.

When he was subjected to ridicule, he made a disingenuous self-rebuttal that he was just "explaining" how directed panspermia might work. Yeah right, pull the other one.

^^^ Yep, it is very misleading and even fraudulent to say that the [Roman] Catholic Church "created" or "canonized" the Bible or whatever.

And it is still a lie to say that it was the "[Roman] Catholic Church" that "wrote" or "created" the Bible and "declared it the word of God".

Sheer fraudulent nonsense.

Logicboy03: Second, they claim that Dakin believes in god and intelligent design. Enigma goes to every thread like an OCD shouting "evangelical atheism" every time

As long as you will also say that your is an OCD.

advocate666: Unlike the brainwashed sheeple that call themselves godly or theists, atheists are free thinkers, don't have a leader, can say whatever they want, even have the right to doubt themselves, or even worship Satan!

You don't get it. It is a mockery of your so called omnipresent, omnipotent god that humans have to debate his existence for him to exist. The day you stop believeing 100% in him, he stops existing. Very onmipotent intelligent designer. Don't make me laugh.

Rubbish! "Freethinkers" my leg! That is why atheists' thinking is shaped by prats like Harris, loonies like Barker (appropriate name) and dunces like Dawkins.

Look, evangelical atheists now clearly have doctrines and an evangelical atheist who departs from the line is warned to beware of 'heresy'. I don't even need to go outside Nairaland for an example. Just one example follows where a normally brash evangelical atheist quickly fell in line when warned by another evangelical atheist that what he said is not "the default atheist position" i.e. what he said is heterodoxical or heretical. See here https://www.nairaland.com/999529/paul-kokoski-new-atheism-enigmas/2#11578089

In fact it is so bad for the evangelical atheist religionists that when someone renounces atheism they brand him an apostate guilty of apostasy ----- just as with other religions. A clear example is what happened to them when Antony Flew renounced atheism. For most of the 20th century Flew was the atheist's chief and foremost apostle --- even senior to the mumu Dawkins. When Flew renounced atheism and turned to Deism/Theism, some of the evangelical atheists went into apoplexy. Dawkins accused Flew of "Apostasy" but disguised it in a big word -- 'tergiversation'. Look in the dictionary and see that the word is just a fancy or pompous way of saying ------ apostasy.

Evangelical atheists are the dumbest sheeple there is ---- blind being led by the blind. Mumu followers of fools calling themselves "freethinkers". Yeah right.

^^ Oga Anony, me too I learn from posts by you and Ihedinobi (even as infrequently as he makes them) and quite a number of others here. Na so life be.

davidylan: I think Mazaje got it right when he concluded that Dawkins sounded unsure of himself and deluded in that video. Obviously here is a man who does not even believe his own theories. To think he is the grand patron of the atheists here.

Compare with something I said on another thread quite recently.

From https://www.nairaland.com/1162960/irrationality-atheism#13845944

Enigma: ^^^ Most things about evangelical atheism are senseless. Even fundamentally, atheism let alone evangelical atheism is illogical and irrational. All the books that their bishops and evangelists are writing - when examined intellectually, logically and philosophically - simply amount to building castles in the air. As a professor in one of the great universities said: you can pass our exams by writing bulls.hit ----- as long as you write the bulls.hit well.

Look even their pope and Dady G.O. (aka Richard Dawkins) knows it; even his statement and actions betray his knowledge/awareness (deep down) of the illogicality and nonsense of his position.

Take for example his papal declaration or fatwa that his followers should mock and ridicule people of faith ---- is that rational discourse by the standard of any intellectually or logically sound person?

"Mock them, ridicule them --- in public" he declared.

Ah, we had a little fun with this video in the past --- Olaadegbu will remember.

Indeed talking about evangelical atheists' Daddy G.O. Dawkins' acceptance of a possible designer/creator for the earth he went even so far as to insinuate the possibility of "directed panspermia" --- though later, perhaps because of deserved ridicule, he made another video to say he wasn't per se supporting "directed panspermia".

try69: Maybe you would need to explain what the concept of "SOWING" is all about.. I thought any form of giving can also be termed "sowing"..I am even of the opinion that giving to the less priviledged ones amongst us attracts the "better" harvest.

Na so Jesus talk oh! Na de very thing wey Jesus talk be that. In fact, Jesus said that when you give to and help such people, it is Jesus Him VERY self that you are giving to and helping.

Na "pastors" when want line dem own pockets and enrich themselves while fleecing the flock dey emphasise "give to pastor", "give to pastor", "give to pastor".

They will say that the apostle Paul encouraged giving to "pastor"; true in a sense but then of course the most fervent pleas that Paul made for giving ---- were once again, like Jesus, for the poor and underprivileged.

Meanwhile there is no problem that Matthew might have omitted 'neither the Son'; since as Matthew stands in even the KJV, for the perceptive and informed, it still harmonises with Mark. And once again the scholarly literature has an explanation of why Matthew might have deliberately omitted the phrase.

Anyhoooos Matthew 24:33 36 as it stands in the KJV: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only".


Once again in any event, all that is diversion and obfuscation: what I am waiting to see is proof of the fraud, error or whatever that led to the translation of John 1:1 as "the Word was God"

^^ But we are talking about players ----- not leagues!

And whatever league a person is playing in, if he is good he is good. Ti won ba nko iyan ninu ewe, eni ma yo a yo. Meaning: even if them serve several people pounded yam in inside leaves, some people go still belleful!

^^^ If you say so. The fact is that the 'local champions' beat the European champions.

The performance of the 'local champions' and the oyinbo wayo that was used to eliminate them is what led to something that we now see today: that the final group matches in a group in major tournaments are played at the same time.

In that same tournament of 1982, the other local champions from Africa i.e. Cameroun did not lose a sigle match; they drew all their matches and were level with the other teams on points at the end of the group stage.

Let us even go back a little. In 1978 when Africa had only one team, the then 'local champions' from Tunisia beat the better fancied Mexico. News reports had it that some Mexicans committed suicide because their pride was dented that some 'local champions' from Africa beat their team.

I have been reading some of the arguments and it breaks my heart to see some of the truly great African players of the 1970s and 80s referred to as "local champions" because they did not play in Europe. In reality many of these greats were better than or comparable to their contemporaries in Europe.

It is important to be mindful of the circumstances at that time: in the first place, simply put, not many players went 'abroad' to play in a foreign league. Look even Pele did not play in Europe! He remained in Brazil, only going to America (I mean America! i.e. in footballing terms) at a very very late stage. What about all the other great Brazillians that never played outside Brazil?

Also, in those days while Europe and others had several teams in the World Cup Africa had just one (I think 2 by 1982?). And do you know one thing? In the 1982 World Cup the "local champions" from Africa i.e. Algeria beat West Germany ---- except that W Germany were only and merely European champions at the time.

And do you know how the Algerians were eliminated from that tournament? Only as a result of one of the most disgraceful oyinbo ojoro in World Cup history. Read this article called "The Day the World Wept for Algeria" http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/13/1982-world-cup-algeria

Incidentally, that article brought up another name for me -- Merzekane Chabane!

Nightshift: I would have loved to leave Ernest Okonkwo to pass the judgment if he is alive, but Tolu Fatoyinbo would equally do. Those commentators saw these men in action over a dozen times . The sight of Okalla between the goal- posts terrified many strickers to hell, literally !

Correct, though on one occasion Roger Milla took advantage of Tonnere Kalala's policy of '10 men in our half and only Milla in Ranger's half' to score a goal in which he 'heighted' Okala (would you believe!) when almost all Rangers players had gone into the Camerounians' half hunting for goals.

Nightshift: Sagamite doesn't know about Emmanuel Okalla's quality either . He was very much like Thomas N'kono. Okalla can be compared to Germany's 'Titan' Oliver Khan as well. His generation didn't make it to Europe, but definitely belong to African's best .

If you ask me, I will say Okala is superior to Khan; maybe he can be compared to Sepp Maier.

In fairness though, I may be biased towards the ol skool.

Make una sef leave them alone!

I agree that it is now hardly worthwhile to have sensible discussions of Christian issues here but still it is even better to talk about light hearted things than bothering unnecessarily with these fellows.

An aside, I see a poster called Ngodigha reading; there used to be a goalkeeper (?) in Naija called David Ngodigha if my memory serves me right.

Sagamite: https://www.nairaland.com/1176158/sagamites-top-30-greatest-african/11#14035645

If you are not at the world stage while your peers are going to the world stage and being outstanding, the you would struggle to claim greatness over them most times.

In the 70s not many African players at all made it to Europe; the world cup every four years allowed only one African team.

Honestly, seeing these guys play in the conditions that prevailed when they did and comparing them to the modern era only increases my respect for them.

There are loads of others: in Nigeria alone you still have Usiyen, Odiye etc etc etc

I haven't read the whole thread and may have missed something or some of the arguments. However, I think it may help if the OP were to set out criteria for people to make judgments. For instance, there have been great African players who were not really known on the world stage as such and would easily be overlooked.

For me, in terms of pure skill, I would rate Henry Nwosu as one of the very best players Africa has ever produced. Then you have great goalkeepers like Okala (Naija), Ogedegbe (Nigeria), El Kramy Ahmed (Egypt), Nkono (Cameroun) and behind them Bell (Cameroun), El Batal (Egypt) Attouga (Tunisia) {{{and half-jokingly Pondamali (Tanzania}}).

Great defenders who were not really on the world stage would include Sofoluwe (Nigeria), Chukwu (Nigeria) etc.

Great midfielders like Kunde, Mbou Mbou (both Cameroun), one dark skinned (Algerian/Moroccan?) chap whose name eludes me now; even Yousef Fofana though maybe more a striker really (CIV), Abdul Razak (Ghana).

I simply mention these names just to highlight the fact that there have been great players not known as such on the global scene. Obviously, there are great players in the more modern era and who are known on the world stage such as those that may have already been mentioned by others like Milla (Cameroun), Okocha (Nigeria) etc etc so no suprises that they seem to be overlooked in this post. I do not even claim that the players I have mentioned would necessarily be in top 30 on agreed criteria but just that there have been great players that might not be easily remembered. Incidentally, the Algerian teams of the late 70s and 80s had quite good players e.g. Belloumi, Bensaoulla Tedj etc etc

It is all well and good to say the church should have 'structure'; but it is pitiful to be flippant and dismissive of Jesus' words that where two or three are gathered in His name there He is in their midst.

For example, I see a reference to "the local church"? OK then: which is 'the local church' in Yaba or Ikeja or Ikoyi? And what is a "local assembly"?

When two or three gather together, why is that not a "local assembly"?

Do the different denominations and abominations holding different church services at the same time on the same street even sometimes in different parts of the same building ------ more importantly never coming together and worse even competing with one another --- amount to a "local church"?

Digression:

Meanwhile @frosbel

Here on this thread you are saying some people are in a cult; whereas only a few hours earlier you had yourself said that the Pentecostal movement attacks those opposed to them by calling them cults. https://www.nairaland.com/1171911/it-true-man-christ-not/5#14022724

Interesting.

Ihedinobi: And here I was thinking you had some real thing to say so I could correct myself. First, what debate do you mean? You think this is a debate? It's a comic session, dude! Second, who did I call "omodemon" and where?

De whole thing na comedy --- baaad comedy. De comedians are poor and only funny by accident through their monumental ignorance and their comedy is no better than slapstick providing no intellectual challenge.

omonuan: Okay dude what is rubbish? Are you saying that some gospels were not burn in Nicea? Am not sure what you are saying.

What gospels were burnt at the Nicene conference?

omonuan: Just do your own research please, many gospels were burnt at the treaty of Nicea. This is a truism. Please re-read my post, Idid not say people were burnt.

Whether na people or na gospels, the claim is still absolute rubbish aka tosh.

davidylan: when i reply now you will start crying waa waa like a girl and omonuan will be rubbing your head and telling you pele.

The baby on the bus goes waa waa waa . . .

omonuan: Just do your own research please, many gospels were burnt at the treaty of Nicea. This is a truism. Please re-read my post, Idid not say people were burnt.

Na so!

Absolute rubbish!

omonuan: There those Nigerians that just think their own understanding of the Bible is sacrosanct ala Ihedinob but this an issue for another day. nevertheless, the people who edited the Bible in Nicea in 325 AD could not have succeeded without Constantine who had absolute power. As the convener of the conference, he could have just simply vetoed anything which he did any way. Do you know that Mary Magdalene and Thomas had Gospels? At the conference many other gospels were burnt because they did not fit into the agenda.

But why do people say such wholly ignorant rubbish as these?

To use technical parlance, this quoted post is absolute bollocks?

Which people were burnt at the Nicene conference?