₦airaland Forum

dalaman:
So says the man that calls himself an atheist.

lol

Spiritual atheist.

How many times do I need to tell you I am not atheist but spiritual atheist who tend to define God as an existing entity?

Stconvict:
Shakti is the Goddess of energy, then Bobola is the God of palm wine.
Wait, let me come up with another one. Johnathan is the Diety of good luck.

Hilarious!

There is something we call shaktism. Google that and educate yourself.

That you are a child who can fathom and make joke of God doesnt mean we here are like you.

Nonybb:
Liar Muhammad, a demonic idiot. No difference between him and their paedophilic prophet Muhammad

he pain am.

ifeness:
Everyone should do what works best for them. I read everything but follow none. Where was Ifa when the Europeans came over?

Yoruba people says Eni ya ra ni Ogun n gbe.

Europeans have their own form of Ifa which is called geomancy.

Do not try bringing colonialism and slavery into this because all nation of man is guilty of this. Yoruba people conquered and enslaved some people too. That was then.

ifeness:
That is your problem. It doesn't affect me,I do whatever I want and I don't have rules set up in ancient scrolls.

Alot of ancient religion see individual as God.

Ask your Yoruba people. Ori eni ni Orisha eni.

Yoruba dont have scroll but we have Ifa.

ValerianSteel:
I'm speaking about the larger percentage of atheists worldwide.

I'm glad you said Unjustified religious belief

That's cheap for you to point out but in the case that ever happened,he has positively channeled his energy to seeking the truth about religion and the belief system he once was a part of and now he is man of his own footing,knowing where he stands on religious lines not because an incident in the past supposedly jeopardized his faith but because he has a certain amount on wisdom at his disposal to support his distaste for religion and God in all entirety.

that you cannot justify religion belief is not enough reason to disbelieve in God. God has more to do with religion belief. We have lot of people who belief in God but do not have or hold to any religion belief.

I dont want to talk about Johnydon any longer.

I hold that atheists should look deeper into religion belief and justification of God on a literal sense.

Shakti is a Goddess which represent Energy. We are know energy exist so do Shakti. I think you see the uncertainty of atheists wh only bark around Jehovah and Allah?

Atheists here/worldwide are God-haters. Simple

ifeness:
Why should I reply when you clearly do not understand what I'm saying. I don't want to talk about oduduwa and those DNA stuff,no time for all that.

The only God I believe in is myself and my body is my temple. It takes a brave mind to assume we are not the only intelligent beings among billions of solar system. There is nothing wrong in thinking life only exist on this planet.

Still theism

Johnysky:
I have been banned for replying your post.. Please the bolded is false, the guy only used it as an analogy ..he was giving someone an e.g and he used my name to relay his analogy..

Please relaying such lies against me is offensive to me and i beg you please don't do it again. ..

Lol

I read about it on this forum na.

No vex sire

ValerianSteel:
One thing any religious bigot needs to know about Atheism is that to even identify as an atheist means that person has reached level of intelligence and intellectual prowess that others are not yet open to because they've have found knowledge and understanding where others fail to see it.

Before any bigot takes on an atheist anywhere in the world,they should always have it at the back of their mind that the atheist they are engaging are far more intelligent folks than they are who utilize the potentials of the wisdom at the disposal to expose the truth.

It's a tough job educating bigots regularly.Good work however,man was never educated in a year.It's a life long process.

Eweso chief.

Atheists here are simplly noisemakers who couldnt justify religion beliefs. So most form attack against unjustify religion belief.

I also heard Johnydon22 was raped by his priest. How would you want such person not attacking forefront everything that has to do with God?

ifeness:
We have no clarity on whether oduduwa was from benin or mecca or from the sky. If he indeed came from the sky then he is an ET because he wasn't born here,but certainly not a god.

Oduduwa desending from the sky account is allegory. I wounder what evidence you are looking for in allegorical account. Oduduwa was not from mecca. You are merging the two sides of the account as one. The account contain historical reveleation and cosmological account of the Yoruba people. In the historical sides of the story, Oduduwa is not from Mecca or son of Lamurudu.

Oduduwa is the essense of Iwa (character). The chain on which Oduduwa climbs down is DNA. The account holds that this chain connect the ancestors realm to phyiscal plain. On the physical plain, the chain went deep into a body of water and life came out. This proves that life started in water and every living soul has DNA which extended to ancestors.

DNA carries the gene which determine our trait and behaviour. This coded information passed from parent or ancestors is Oduduwa (Odu ti o da iwa, reserviour of behaviour) which pass down on DNA (alleorical chain).

Ogun was said to mould the bone. Ogun is allegorical depition of what we know as Metalic entity or simply Iron. Science states that Calcium which is metalic element makes the bone. So we can simply deduce Ogun in the account is not human but calcium.

ifeness:
If indeed the wheel flying in the sky was a true story,then it could only be other people with advance technology visiting the planet,or perhaps having contacts with humans

ETT have no evidence just like Allah

ifeness:
Lets not forget what happened when the first black people saw the american ariplane,they worshiped it like a god.

Proof this assertion is correct. When? Where? When did amazement become identifying an object as God?

Yanga sleep Jeje. Dino and Fayose go wake am

Lai is here. . .everyone need to take cover.

ifeness:
Did I say ETs are gods?

You have argued Oduduwa is a martian who visited and landed in Ife sometimes ago. And you are doing it here arguing that the Lord in the wheel of ezekiel and of Elijah is ETT

ifeness:
Being an atheist is not believing in deity gods,I mean all of them. You and I are same on that except that you only believe in Yahweh

You guys should stopp all this. It is stale already.

Believing ETT are Gods is theism. There is no evidence to prove ETT really exist just like Jehovah and Allah.

Atheism is disbelieve in everything that is know as God. Astrolatist who believe the stars are Gods would take atheists as mad people. Imperial cultist would think atheists as Insane folks because their gods exist as human

KingEbukasBlog:
Lol . This guy .

Please God is not energy but energy is inherent in God's nature or being . Being as in wholeness . God exists as three persons - the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit . God is an entity

Trinitarian I guess. Jesus says ye are Gods. We do we fall in in this trinity if we are gods?

Dont you think. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It is eternally existing.

God is the begining and the eternally exist.

johnydon22:


There is a different between anthropomorphical representation and lingual expression..

There is no belief in lingual expression, the word is just used to quantify the value, Just like you and i know the Gallery of a theater is God.

So atheism entails disbelief in Personal Gods (Independent humanoid deities) But in terms of lingual representation there is no belief there so there can not be unbelief.

Atheism only negates Deities

You can only choose to apply the normal lingual expression as in the case of a pantheists referring to the universe as God and i as an atheist or any other person just refers to it as the universe.



There cannot be a belief needed for such values like i demonstrated above.....E.G the gallery of a theater

See this guy doing wordplay like Vector. Lol.

There is no clear difference between anthropomorphized representation of an entity and lingual expression. They are both sugar coating and raising values of an entity. They both do not rule out representation of an entity.

Non-personal God does exist as impersonal force. Eledumare is a non-personal God. Brahma is a non-personal God. I can authoritatively say here that non-personal God is common in Asian religion.

An impersonal god sets the universe in motion but has no interest in the unintended consequences of his initial creation. A non personal God does not answer prayer or interact with humans. A non-personal God minds his business. Even Muslims have argued Allah as impersonal God. You have shown you dont know what impersonal God is.



The question simply is, do atheists believe in impersonal God?



And another thing. . .God is the samething as deity. Quit worplay here

johnydon22:
Hahahahahaha i don die .. You don't even know what Pantheism means.

Pantheism means the universe in entirety is God not distinct components of the universe like stones.

It means everything in unity as a whole is called God..



Ooh meeeehn you fall my hand... Pantheism is not theism and so can never be paganized.

It is atheistic in the sense that it rejects the idea of Personal Gods, and i am not a Pantheist, people call me Atheist.

Because while a pantheist calls the universe God, i just call it the Universe (The word God is a lingual representation here )

Is atheism disbelieve in personal or anthropomorphized God OR disbelieve in anything know as God?

Do you believe in non-personal God?

KingEbukasBlog:
Your problem is with Religion and not God

Let me understand your conception of God better.

- Is your God a self existing entity? If it is, what is it?

- Lets assume an entity is anthropomorphized as Jehovah and it is not really a human as descibed in the bible, what is this entity?

- A deduction was made out of John 1:1. In the begining was a word. And the word was God. The word is a sound energy. Can we agree Jehovah is a form of energy?

Teempakguy:
i don't think this is the kind of thread you can derail tho.

okay, you know what? fine.
i'm finally ready to learn. seriously. i wanna experience this God.
you said it yourself, you can only know God through experience. so, what are the requirements for this experience to occur?
note: i'm genuinely interested.

Do you smoke? Lol.

That is when you can experience Jah

Teempakguy:
i

I think you and Jonny have done an impressive job educating me here.

I will use your points as a lead when I choose to read further on moon landing

Ishilove:
I dey o. Long time, where's your fellow priest macof?

He dey. Nairaland is becoming dry. My guy dey look for greener pasture.

Hope you still dey hear from your BF logicboy

Teempakguy:
1. there were no stars on the background because the visits were during the lunar day. they went to the moon in the day. not the night. the rays of the sun washed out the possiblity of the stars being seen.

There was another light shown in the video. It is actually not a star and appears close. Something above the space (dont know the name for their ship).

If the sun brightness stop other lights from appearing, why was the said light appear bright?

And another thing, there were many shadows. This shows there were more than one light source there. Shine a light on a pole, you will only have one shadow of the pole and not multiple shadows.

Teempakguy:
2. the flag waved because of vibration. as the flag was put into the ground, it vibrated due to obvious reasons. hence the flag shook and waved.

the flag waved not when touched only. It continue waving. See it here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3aRRzN5FeI

Teempakguy:
3. again, the seemingly multiple light source is from the sun. as you can see, the whole landscape of the moon is bright. if they had gone to the moon in the night, everywhere would be pitch black.

What ya say about the shadows? This is evidence of multiple light source.

Teempakguy:
here is a video of an astronaut dropping a hammer and a feather together on the moon. if this were the earth, what do you think would have happened?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

I watched the video. It kinda impressive.

Ishilove:
This one is sango's priest

Iyawo nylon bag.

How far na?

johnydon22:


Lol.. Its the New Horizon space probe, not a manned mission

You are right.

I learnt that there is a probe moving toward edge of our solar system

johnydon22:


I have watched original NASA released videos on the Apollo mission, there wasn't no multiple light source unless reflection can be termed another light source.

Mind you Nasa does a simulation before embarking on any mission and what you might have seen might be a picture of such simulation..

If the Sun is the major light, there can not be multiple shadows.

Try shining light on a standing object, you will see only one shadow of the object. This negate the filmed vision which shows different shadows of an object.

johnydon22:
The Van Allen radiation belt is like an umbrella of charged particles surrounding the earth, this particle possess very high radiative charge and so dangerous to human exposure.

It was discovered in 1950s and was one of the main obstacles man had to overcome in moon trips..

The thing is the Belt is not impassable asin cannot be passed, actually it can the danger is exposing a human to high radiation and it is more than dangerous.

After many research of which Van Allen himself also contributed to, it was deducted that at the speed the probes would possess the lining of the space craft was enough protection.

Van allen radiation belt is not an impassable shield but rather just a shield of charged particles .. the high radiation is the problem not the shield.

SPEED was the solution..

You have a good arguement here.

But NASA's Orion Engineer Admits They Can't Get Past Van allen belt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE

in 3:30 mins, just in case you want to skip ahead. The NASA scientist freely admits, "We must solve these challenges BEFORE we send people through this region
of space"

these are the words of NASA engineer

johnydon22:
The moon is almost like a vacuum with gravitational pull relatively low.. The flag was not fluttering in reaction to a wind or anything but rather to it's own weight.

Take for instance when you touch an X-ray film, it flutters ...

This was the same effect the moon environment had on the flag, mind you a pole had to be crossed horizontally to keep the flag up.

The flag was not fluttering in reaction to wind but rather reaction to the effect of the astronauts were lending on it because they were fixing the flag and touching it.

If it starts fluttering in the moon environment it would continue for a little more time.. Could give you a video of a space walk and you will see strings were also fluttering, this is not wind..

fabrics are more like an X-ray film.material in zero G.. [/i][/b]

The flag didnt only move when touced. It moved free even after Apollo moved away from it


watch the vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3aRRzN5FeI

johnydon22:
Conspiracy theories really went delusional and ignorant on this one.

Cameras capture stars in relation to their power, the cameras used on the moon were rarely 33MM cameras and the light from the stars were too dim to be captured remember an even more brighter light source the sun was just around the corner..

it was impossible to capture the dim light of stars with an opposing brighter light working against it using relatively small power camera.

The astronauts also took a UV picture which captured the stars, they don't always mention this one right?

try capturing the night sky with your phone bro, you would rarely see one star in the picture depends on the magnitude of your phone's camera.

I wil add a picture of a space walk, tell me if you see stars.[/i][/b]



I have seen many of them

But this same camera captured another unidentify ligght source

KingEbukasBlog:
No I meant images of the planet and its moon were taken and released by NASA

You are right on this.

KingEbukasBlog:
That's what I'm saying , the Family Guy creators already knew of this and decided to ridicule it . You could watch it on Youtube though . Neil Armstrong killed the guy who witnessed the deception in that episode .

But I dont have my doubts . Does it change anything ? Man has made it to Pluto and its real this time .

Or was it staged ?

Pluto? Guy no make me laugh abeg.

Teempakguy:
hmmmn. and did you attempt to consider certain counter explanations?

Let me have it if you have.

I will really appreciate

KingEbukasBlog:
Even Family Guy did a satire on that in one of its episodes .

Seriously the video I watched on Youtube is putting some doubt in my mind about the mission

johnydon22:


Yes man really did and there have 6 of such missions . . . The Apollo missions are factual and satellites have captured images of the Apollo sites

I have seen some of the conspiracy theory videos you might have watched and i would like you to bring the points they proposed so both of us can analyse them and reach a conclusion..

The multiple light source, a radiation belt which a Nasa officer was quoted saying passing through it is yet impossible, the flying flag. There was no stars visible too.

I got the video on Youtube. Many things were mentioned which indicate the mission was staged

Rilwayne001:
Quran 9;123 should not be read in isolation because it is part of a story or directive which starts from the beginning of the chapter. That verse alone does not make the surah/chapter or matters of war in the chapter. I will implore you to read from the beginning.

Asalamalekun.

Guy give me that mtn stuff na?

johnydon22:
.

I have a question for you dude. I know this is not the right place to ask but pls understand this is the only means I can pass my question across to you. And I belief you wil answer me rightly.

Pls, did man really step foot on Moon?

I saw some videos online and it making me confused as par concluding if the Apollo mission was staged or not. Pls how true was the mission to the moon?

plaetton:
Atheism and theism are not opposites.

What kind of nonsense is this? If atheism and theism are not opposite, are you impling that atheism is a state of belief and idea?

Generally, we know theism is a belief. And the opposite of belief is disblief. Atheism as we know is disblieve in the existence of God as opposing to theism which is believe in the existence of God.

Thiests hold the position that a God exist.

Atheists negate this position.

If this isnt opposition I dont know what eslse to call it.

Telling us here atheism and theism are not opposite shows you dont know what you are saying.

plaetton:
One believes in a set of things without proof, the other does not believe same for the very obvious lack of proof.
If theists had a shred of proof for any one of their beliefs, then their beliefs would no longer be a matter of faith.

Theism is the believe that God exist. There is nothing more to add or remove there. The issue if there is a prove for the existence of God is another thing entirely which has nothing to do with theism.

There are evidence for the existence of some theistic Gods everywhere. Some religion took after natural entities as the Gods served in it. The astrolaty religion took celestial bodies as Gods. Polytheistic and animism religion took Nature as God. You, plaetton, on this forum stated that energy is God. While we know this Gods are provable as to their existence, they remain theological body (theism). This put into trashcan your claim that theism believe in something that cannot be proven. It exposes hypocrisy and double-mouthed nature of you who once claimed energy is God and have verifiable proof of existence to turn-around and tell us theism is believe in things that cannot be proven and not opposite to atheism.

No one would prove whom God is when you dont know what you are looking for. Consciousness is God. Energy is God. Reality is God. Illusion is also God. These and many more are concepts of God which different religion embrace.

Consciousness is God of Yoruba religion.

Energy is God in Shaktism.

Reality is Hindu God.

Illution is Hindu satan.

So tell me sir, which concept of God does your atheism negates? Does your atheism applies to some Gods or all Gods?

Lets start from here