₦airaland Forum

Kay 17: 1. The worship of Baal for example. Jehu murdered an entire family for it. He murdered thousands of ppl in a temple because they worshipped Baal. The ten commandments forbid the worship of idols.

Did he prevent foreigners from worshipping their gods? Whenever the israelites went after foreign idols --- did they not subsequently accept that they should not be doing so because they were violating their own covenant?

Kay 17: 2. Pls use your superior intellectual sense to explain how that verse preached free speech.

It suports free speech because it does not prevent the fool from saying there is no God; it simply tells him that he is a fool for saying so. Afterall your colleagues exercise their free speech by calling theists "deluded", "reetards", "nutjobs" etc.

Finally, take your time to meditate and think deeply on the truthfulness or otherwise of the verse.

Kay 17: 3. That's different from what you said earlier.

Nope, I have not said anything different from what i've been saying.

Kay 17: 4. Are you saying now that Science don't underpin Faith anymore??

Your quote:

"Faith informed by knowledge (including science) and reason (including philosophy) UNDERPIN Christianity."

It seems your problem is with my use of the word 'underpin'. If I've misused it, I have already clarified with my other posts.

For avoidance of doubt: what I meant by "underpin" is in fact "support".

As I said above, Christianity stands on its own irrespective of Science but is supported by it.

Kay 17: 1. Jesus never did preach on tolerating foreign religions. Moses destroyed a gold calf, in Mosaic law the worship of idols was punishable by death. Jesus supports this, because he claimed he hasn't come to change Mosaic law.

Foreign religions for who? Did they prevent foreigners from practising their foreign religions?

Kay 17: 2. Meditate on the verse? Or understand it? The verse is very clear. It condemns atheists.

This is the problem of atheists and many others; they go to town on Bible verses and the whole Bible when it is clear that they have not been diligent or intellectually rigorous enough about it. Oh, and NO, the verse simply tells a fool about his folly.

Kay 17: 3. You said Faith is supported with Science to authenticate Christianity. But the implication of Bacon originating Science, is that it was absent at christianity's roots. Therefore your claim falls apart.

My point is that what we know of Science and Philosophy today and at any time in history is actually supportive of our theistic faith.

Kay 17: Simply show how Science was present and used to prop Christianity in the 2nd century. Thank you.

No, the point is not that science is used to prop Christianity. Christianity stands irrespective of science but is also supported by it.

Now: your point was whether science was present in the second century in the age of Christianity and for which you want an example: OK let me give you just one example in this manner ---- do you believe that astronomy is science?

Kay 17: 1. An isolated verse isn't effective.

I gave you two verses. Beyond that, study the teachings of Jesus and his disciples as recounted in the Bible.

Kay 17: 2. That doesn't. Apparently its condemnation. A legitimate basis to persecute atheists.

You say this because you have never studied that verse or meditated deeply on it. And no it is not a basis to persecute atheists. Now, here is a thing: "separation of church and state" is now a tool/basis to persecute theists e.g. the school girl prevented from making a heartfelt tribute to her grandfather.

Kay 17: 3. Was Science in the 2nd century when Christianity originated and developed?? I didn't talk about Bacon. You introduced him. How is his name relevant to our discussion?

Yep, science was; and you have already accepted Bacon's role in the origination of modern science.

^^^ As I always say, when this place was still a little saner it was the Christians pointing out problems with many of these purported Christian practices ---- whether it is noise pollution and nuisance, or even misrepresentation and misapplication of scriptures. Look, there are even still examples on the forum presently ---- the guy lying on people in one video like that etc etc etc

Kay 17: 1. We agree on this.

I'm glad we agree that (a) jerks can be called jerks, (b) free speech is a Christian value, and (c) that it was Christians and 'religious people' who gave the world free speech as a human right.

Kay 17: 2. Provide a biblical provision that praises free speech. I'd mention the intolerance towards other religions of other nations. And the intolerance towards idol worship in Israel.

1. Let the wheat and tares grow together
2. The fool has said in his heart that there is no God (Forgive me but I have done this deliberately; the passage supports free speech )

Kay 17: 3. Good point, Francis Bacon gave us Science, however if science wasn't formalized in the time of Francis Bacon, then it further stresses my point that Science wasn't present as at the time Christianity originated because Christianity was over a thousand year old as at the Bacon's time.

No; rather I think you should study the meaning and history of "science"; and notice that my reference to Bacon was of modern science.

Kay 17: 1. Called such a person a jerk is likewise free speech. However, free speech isn't a Christian value. Galileo persecution is an example.

1. So jerks should not complain when called jerks.
2. Free speech IS a Christian value; and it was the Christians and 'religious people' who came up with the idea of free speech as a human right; if it had been left to militant/evangelical atheists, we would never have free speech as a human right ---- only speeches promoting atheism would be tolerated. Example: school girl who was prevented from making a heartfelt tribute to her grandfather simply because she mentioned God!

Kay 17: 2. Nobody knows what that means.

I don't know what you are talking about. Oh, by the way, evangelical atheism is still a religion.

Kay 17: 3. Christianity in the 2nd century was unaware of science.

Evidently, you have not read the Bible or if you have, you do not understand it. In any event, it was the Christians (e.g. Bacon) who gave you modern science. And of course we cannot forget the contributions of the Moslems too to global knowledge.

Kay 17: 1. That is part of the right to free speech, one can act as a jerk if he likes, one can be wrong if one wishes to. Most established religions deny ppl free speech cos they believe such ppl are wrong, which is tyranny.

So if a person comes to a public space and acts like a jerk, why then should he complain when he is called a jerk and a fool? Afterall that is what he is.

EDIT Christianity does NOT deny anyone free speech!

Kay 17: 3. To treat the antithesis of a subject the same as the subject is contradictory ridiculous. However atheism on its own can't be a religion.

Evangelical atheism is a religion; it might be an idiotic religion with idiotic values; it is still a religion.

Kay 17: 4. Faith rather than Reason or Science is the basis for JudeoChristian God.

Faith informed by knowledge (including science) and reason (including philosophy) underpin Christianity.

Kay 17: I don't understand why atheists don't deserve the use of public space? Religious leaders get to enjoy free speech, but it irritating for atheist or antitheist to speak?!

As to the illogical nature of atheism, its dependent on the purported being God. His existence appeals only to Faith. Faith itself is a trust authority, not really sound in epistemological terms.

It is not illogical to pronouce God absent on the sole basis of Reason and empiricism.

1. Nobody says atheists should not use 'public space' to speak. However, using public space to speak is not the same as using public space to behave like jerks.

2. Why do atheists not buy TV and radio slots to preach their atheism message and evangelise for their religion?

3. On this forum, no one has prevented atheists from evangelising; look the 'religious people' (actually including both Christians and Moslems) have been quite tolerant of the evangelical atheists and their nonsense and obnoxiousness. We know that if the atheists had control they will NOT be as tolerant as the 'religious people' have been. Heck, the 'religious people' were even voting for one of you atheists in that recent voting exercise! If that is the intolerance of 'religious people', let us compare it to the intolerance of the evangelical atheists and see which is worse!

4. The illogicality of atheism is not dependent on any particular 'God'; atheism simply does not stack up in the face of scientific and philosophical knowledge TODAY or at anytime.

Stalwert: I live in Nigeria, I am a muslim and I live near two churches, and they do Nite vigils and Sunday service, but do you know what, I do what our religious leaders have ask of most of us Nigerian TOLERANCE!

it is all rubbish! If the problem is with the nuisance factor, we will see lots of threads complaining or appealing that Christians etc should not constitute themselves into a nuisance.

I am a Christian who spends a lot of time in Nigeria and I find that A LOT of 'churches' in Nigeria are unquestionably nuisances with their loudspeakers that are being used to disturb others (Christians, including myself, and non-Christians alike) unnecessarily.

HOWEVER that is not because of Christianity at all or even because of the nuisance people's own Christianity at all; it is a function of a society where we have lost a proper sense of real values and have a wrong understanding of what is right. Let me demonstrate:

-- the chap who lives in a face me I face you or even a block of flats will turn up the volume of his Michael Jackson or Kollington Ayinla, so that his neighbours can hear and so that they will take
-- the Okada chap will put a horn on his bike which is the same as that on a 911 bus making a blaring noise; hence, I like that old saying: since Rasaki buy Kawasaki, we no hear word again.


So the excuse that it is in your face and that is why they come to forums to behave like jerks ----- just does not wash.

JeSoul: @Enigma, I rescind my last comment to you on that thread...there are not many at all. I tried and failed while attempting to count...

My dear sis, I know that even when we seem to disagree you have enough idea of my thinking process so I'm not usually bothered on such occasions.

In all honesty, my own approach has always been to leave others alone be they Moslems, Eckists, Grail movement, atheists etc. My own concern has always been with "the lost house/sheep of Israel".

If our friends had not become as obnoxious as they are, I would have continued keeping away from them.

(And touching on something you said further in your post) I too will continue adding a smiling face for "my friends" here. lol

Here

Goshen360: ....and you have narrowed definition of evangelism just like you have for slave to servant huh?.... same bullsh.it as usual...

And of course, bros, evangelical atheism is a religion. That has long been established and is no longer something I see as a matter for extensive debate here.

Stalwert: ^
I think the most irritating of all is to see atheists spend all their good time arguing with people they claim believe in fairy tales, I mean it does just make sense, I for one cannot spend my valuable time arguing with an adult who believes in tooth fairy, I mean believe what you want, I don't see how it disturbs, but on the contrary atheists I have seen in the forum spend good time refuting what they call simply fairy tales, that in itself is plain ridiculous indeed unless you guys really have nothings most of the time!

+1

And the excuses they give for their obnoxiousness on forums like these are just nonsense.

^^^ 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.

Kay 17: So what have we learnt about the soul? HOW is the eternal nature of the soul known?

Maybe that when a person is drunk or mad he is not quite himself?

^^^^ Did Jesus resurrect? Did His "soul" die in the meantime?

What kind of body did He have after resurrection?

^ Put simply, to say something is transcedental is not necessarily the same as to say it is immortal.

((((Also, understanding the real essence or the real being helps to understand why some would say that Jesus is God and the Father is God or that Jesus preexisted the physically incarnate Jesus ----- NB this is not to rehash the Trinity debate; just an explanation in light of my understanding of the context of the discussion here))))

^^ We had a little amusement some time ago about him even blurting out "Oh God" when he was flummoxed in that exchange. I'm too lazy to search for the threads/posts now.

One thing that I have said here a couple of times and that is widely recognised is that, for all his achievements elsewhere, Dawkins is actually a philosophical and theological dunce.

Anyway, an interesting assessment of his tactics here http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Why wouldn't Higgs disagree with this man driven by hate? . . . .[/quote]One interesting line from the Higgs interview I put in bold below ---- especially for comparison with all the shouts of science science science and 'science debunks faith' that we hear on this forum.

"The growth of our understanding of the world through science weakens some of the motivation which makes people believers. But that's not the same thing as saying they're incompatible. It's just that I think some of the traditional reasons for belief, going back thousands of years, are rather undermined.

"But that doesn't end the whole thing. Anybody who is a convinced but not a dogmatic believer can continue to hold his belief. It means I think you have to be rather more careful about the whole debate between science and religion than some people have been in the past."

He said a lot of scientists in his field were religious believers. "I don't happen to be one myself, but maybe that's just more a matter of my family background than that there's any fundamental difficulty about reconciling the two."

^^ Even the Higgs of the Higgs Boson fame says that Dawkins' fundamentalist approach is embarrassing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism

Thanks again manmustwack; now it's Bright Omokaro 10-10 aka 'ojoro cancel.'

manmustwac: Bella3 & Ishilove
Both your offtopic comments are derailing the thread & will just provoke others

I am sorry but if you want to act fairly and impartially you must also hide the post immediately above theirs and which they responded to.

To Ishilove, Bella3, honeychild & manmustwack (see I even added the k oga Mod) --- thanks.

I had not made a single comment on the thread up till that point; and i am happy to continue to respect the purpose of the thread and those who are sharing their experiences.

Ishilove: . . .
Enigma, egbon, jo, ma binu. He is young and impressionable. . . .

He had been warned severally* several times.



* I reaaaaaaaly detest the use of that word in Nigerian English.

^^ Once again, as long as you will call your father a reetard . . .

Logicboy03: Nope. Anony doesnt troll, he make dubious arguments.


Enigma is a confirmed reetard like his christard brother, Frosbel.


Joagbaje is more sane than both of them. Joagbaje is only a thief.

As long as you will also say your father is a confirmed reetard.

Hmmm

Personally, I only consider about two of them such (one not even active for some time) on this forum.

^^ Actually it is not impossible to discuss cordially with a person who is an atheist or even to have 'community' with atheists.

The first thing is that all parties seem need to be reasonable and respectful but on this forum alas . . . . .

Mek una no vex but I wan nack just one more -- this time from John Gray (although before this latest development).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/02/alain-de-botton-atheist-temple-defunct

Establishing atheist places of worship isn't exactly a new idea. . . . an ambitious programme of atheist church-building was part of the Religion of Humanity, invented by the 19th-century French thinker Auguste Comte.

An obsessive and at times unbalanced personality, Comte – a fervent believer in phrenology, like many atheists at the time – developed an elaborate daily ritual that included tapping the forehead at the points where science had supposedly located the impulses of progress, altruism and order. He also created a "virgin mother of humanity", based on a married woman whom he had fallen in love with. When she died, he appointed her grave a place of pilgrimage.

Such eccentricities were not destined to last, but a number of atheist temples were established – not only in Paris, Comte's base, but in Rio de Janeiro, New York, Liverpool and London, where a church of humanity opened on Lamb's Conduit Street in 1870. In line with Comte's creed, these were temples where disciples could worship the new supreme being – humanity. As far as I know, none of the buildings is used for religious purposes today, though the Brazilian church seems to have been active until some time late in the 20th century.

JeSoul: ^no wahala. The god of men does that, the God of the bible doesn't do that .

Abi now.

Enuwe, one commentator say na una Americans dey usually get there first and do dis kain tin. Indeed, seriously for a minute, we have noted a number of previous examples on this forum. I like to c&p one or two of the things wen de guyman tok.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/for-gods-sake/post/first-atheist-church-opens-in-london/2013/01/07/ed6136fc-5918-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_blog.html

The first atheist church has opened in London, and it serves as yet another reminder of three important facts connected to the ongoing cultural struggle between many believers and non-believers. First, principled atheism is as much a faith as is theism; no matter how much many atheists would have us believe otherwise. Second, the human longing for community transcends the often bitter divides about where to find it and how to celebrate it. Third, like most so-called firsts in the world of faith and no-faith, this one is not really new.

And it is for placing itself on the same continuum as theistic systems, that I am most grateful to the founders of this new church. The decision to believe or to disbelieve is just that, a faith claim. Nobody can know for sure when it comes to finite beings making claims about either existence of non-existence of the infinite. But, as this new church reminds us, we can see more of ourselves in each other than we often do.

In recognizing that we all make the decision to believe or not for a variety of reasons, with some going back and forth about exactly where they stand on that issue, we can recognize that both faith and non-faith are personal journeys which seek both communities of affirmation and the possibility of finding greater purpose and meaning in our lives. Perhaps it is because we are so very alike, we believers and non-believers, that some of us fight so hard to distinguish ourselves from each other. Perhaps.

JeSoul: hehe

Haha...on point!!

Yep, indeed; and that seems to be the attitude taken by the American Supreme Court and Court of Appeal when they ruled that atheism is a religion under the American Constitution.

JeSoul: Atheist daddy G.O. has spoken hope the followers have heard.

Only as this is England he may be more like the +Cantaur +Cantuar (I'm showing off!) who can often be ignored by some of his supposed 'flock'.

By the way if the Church of Atheism people choose to collect tithes nobody is going to arrest them for doing so; presently loads of fraudsters and even convicted fraudsters are collecting tithes in the UK and noone is doing any gaaadeeeem thing about it.

JeSoul: I thought atheism was not a religion?

I have a "quote" for you.

From https://www.nairaland.com/966459/arming-faithful-against-logic/4#11182579

Enigma: . . . in one of the older debates, Jesoul said something that I agree with: ordinarily we would not dignify atheism or even evangelical atheism with the status of religion. For me, however, the present intellectual, political and legal realities as well as the statements, actions and activities of evangelical atheists themselves (including the fundamentalists among them) mean I must accept the situation that evangelical atheism is indeed a religion --- no matter how unpalatable I and others may find that.