₦airaland Forum

sleek_p:
"Ride's the best chicks" was missing from your list.

This sort of talk is common in regular parlance, but I personally do not subscribe to it. What does "the best chicks" mean? Not only does it not make sense, I think it is demeaning to women.

Taken from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html.



The case of the pregnant 9-year-old was shocking enough. But it was the response of the Catholic Church that infuriated many Brazilians. Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. "God's laws," said the archbishop, dictate that abortion is a sin and that transgressors are no longer welcome in the Roman Catholic Church. "They took the life of an innocent," Sobrinho told TIME in a telephone interview. "Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored."

The case has caused a furor. Abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger, both of which apply in this case. (The girl's immature hips would have made labor dangerous; the Catholic opinion was that she could have had a cesarean section.) When the incident came to light in local newspapers, the Church first asked a judge to halt the process and then condemned those involved, including the 9-year-old's distraught mother. Even Catholic Brazilians were shocked at the harshness of the archbishop's actions. "In this case, most people support the doctors and the family. Everything they did was legal and correct," says Beatriz Galli, the policy associate for Ipas Brasil, an NGO that fights to give women more say over their health and reproductive rights. "But the Church takes these positions that are so rigid that it ends up weakened. It is very intolerant, and that intolerance is going to scare off more and more followers." (See pictures of the Pope's last visit to Brazil.)

Brazilian devotion to the Catholic Church has declined over the past several years. Whereas Brazil was once an almost entirely Catholic nation, only 74% of Brazilians today admit allegiance to Rome, with large numbers, especially the urban poor, having defected to Protestant Evangelical sects. Many more water down their Catholicism with dashes of African religions such as Candomble or spiritist beliefs such as Kardecism. Only recently has the decrease in Catholic affiliation seemingly leveled off.

Evangelicals have not projected a united pro-life platform in Brazil, certainly not one as monolithic as the Catholic Church's. But at least one major sect, the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, has taken a stance that showcases its differences with its Catholic rival. The Universal Church's television channel TV Record recently aired spots featuring a woman declaring, "I decided who to marry. I decided to use the pill. With my vote I decided who'd be elected President. I decided to work so that I won't be discriminated against. Why can't I decide what to do with my own body? Women should be able to decide for themselves what's important."

The public-relations campaigns of the Catholic Church's rivals do not impress Archbishop Cardoso Sobrinho. He told TIME that the Vatican rejects believers who pick and choose their issues. Rome "is not going to open the door to anyone just to get more members," he said after comparing abortion to the Holocaust. "We know that people have other ideas, but if they do, then they are not Catholics. We want people who adhere to God's laws."

In Brazil, that hard line carries over into public life and government policy. While equally devout neighbors Mexico, Colombia and Uruguay have taken steps to give women more of a say in the matter of terminating pregnancies, Brazilian public opinion supports the status quo, and the country's Congress last year voted overwhelmingly to reject a modest attempt at decriminalizing abortion. The advances that have taken place are mostly local initiatives carried out almost surreptitiously, such as the move by São Paulo states to offer the morning-after pill and heavily discounted contraceptive pills at state-run pharmacies. (See pictures of São Paulo trying to renew itself.)


President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva did make a halfhearted attempt to spur a national debate last year, calling abortion a public-health issue — even as he declared himself steadfastly against it. But with the Church quick to stifle such talk and the general public not sufficiently engaged to demand action, the debate never took off. In truth, abortions and unwanted pregnancies are a sad constant in Brazil. Although abortion is illegal, an estimated 1 million women each year have one. The poor are forced into clandestine clinics or take medication, while the better-off are treated by qualified physicians at well-appointed surgeries known to anyone with money and overlooked by colluding authorities.

That secrecy has a price. More than 200,000 women each year are treated in public hospitals for complications arising from illegal abortions, according to Health Ministry figures. Those who don't have the courage or the money to be treated take the pregnancy to term. Although the fertility rate has fallen considerably in Brazil (from 6.1 children in 1960 to about 2 today), 1 in 3 pregnancies is unwanted, according to Dr. Jefferson Drezett, head of the Hospital Perola Byington, Latin America's largest women's health clinic. Meanwhile, 1 in 7 Brazilian women between the ages of 15 and 19 is a mother, and the average age at which women have their first child has fallen to 21, from 22.4 in 1996, according to a government-funded study. (See pictures of America's purity ball.)

Those numbers shock the Catholic Church. But the Church's response to the Recife rape and abortion has shocked public opinion. Some Brazilians hope the controversy may compel the country to deal seriously with an issue that affects so many of its citizens. "Brazil wants to be a world leader, but the government can't guarantee equality for women," says Galli. "This is not a topic that anyone wants to debate."

Which Christian pastors ride the best cars? Lives in the best homes? Has the best birthday parties? Has the best suits? Has the best holidays? etc, etc, etc?

About time this charlatan and truly vile man gets his just desserts.

Religions and their gods can be dismissed without examining their holy books. To examine their holy books is to dismiss them thoroughly.

huxley (that is Nairaland huxley)

KunleOshob:
Thanx for your prompt response, granted that religion as been used to perpetuate evil by men and used to manipulate and take advantage of other men i can understand your contempt, but the fact that most religions have been abused does to mean that God doesn't exist. Do you beileve that the earth and all that is in it is just a freak of the cosmos, isn't there enough evidence of intelligent design at play with all the harmony we have in Nature that makes our possible existence and survival a reality? As advanced as we humans are we cannot produce ordinary matter talkless of simple life forms yet we know how complicated our make up is. There are a billion and one things we humans cannot do yet they exist in perfect harmony in nature, is it possible it just came out of no where with no intelligence behind it. I know no religions answers all question about our reality or our ontology but that is not enough to say God does not exist. Can you state in clear terms why you hold on to the belief of NO God despite all the evidence? (lets leave religion out of this)

I take from this that you amke God the ultimate designer of the universe? But that, unfortunately, only begs the question, "Who designed God?". Is there some other superior God who made your own god? If you know the answer for who made your god, then you will know how this universe came about.

mecylee:
huxley I have been following your critics and aguement against religion, God of the bible and his creations and am yet to know or understand what you relly believe in, please could you let me know where you stand is [color=#006600][/color]

What is your question?

Pastor AIO:
. . . So Huxley How do you INVENT an ethical system that is free from the spectre of Existentialism? If not you, then how has Paul Kurtz done so?

Do you know what existentialism is? Just in case you don't:

From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

I don't understand. What does existential mean. Can you explain to me how you understand it and how it relates to your question?

Pastor AIO:
[size=20pt]Let this thread and the OP stand as a testament to the vitriolic and hate infested state of Huxley's mind. What is the Rational line of enquiry that is pursued here? [/size]

This is a disproportionate reaction to a thread that makes no antagonistic attack on the subject of the thread. It was just asking a simply and straightforward natural question that is asked on many thousands of men as the visit health and fertility clinics. If Jesus was a man, could such questions not be asked of him? If not, why not?


As a Christian, you have obviously got you head buried deep in the cesspit that is the bible (with your arse emitting the violent stench that you ingess through your mouth) to realise the full implications of the question. OK, let me spell it out for you;

Even in Jesus's own time, or shortly thereafter there were violent debates about the nature of Jesus - was he fully human, was he only apparaently human, was he fully spirit, etc, etc. This question was at the centre of the first church council t Nicea. In fact, Paul so much as informs us that those who believe that Jesus was not fully human are from the devil. So if Jesus was fully human, he would have had natural human male characteristics, assuming he was healthy.

With that in view now, can you address the question rather that this vitriolic diatribe.

KunleOshob:
@Huxley
This might be a bit personal but i am curious to know your professional and educational back ground. Also what fuels your passion for disparaging belief in God, as different from the practise of any religion. I can understand if you don't beleive in religion but i cannot fathom someone as intelligent as you not believing in the existence of a supreme being cause the evidence is so glaring and is all around us.

Hello Kunle,

I currently work in Information Technology, specialising in Middleware Technologies, and an employed fulltime working for a global bank. Yes, that is what pays my wages and allows me to feed my family. It is a very good position and the employer is also one of the best you can get.

However, in the past, I have held many different roles. I have worked as a Civil/Structural Engineer, Mathematical Analyst, Research Assistant and Math Lecturer, and prior to my current incarnation I worked as software developer. But these are the jobroles that have paid my wages in the past, my true passions are in the art learning, living and philosophy.

I consider religion one of the unfortunate relics from the infancy of humanity that still impedes human progress, hence my contempt for religion.

Listen to Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is true here at Point Of Inquiry.

Watch Jesus telling major league lied here and here

davidylan:
I was going to explain in detail but i was waiting for you to help me out with the details to this - The first man was placed/created on earth by Sussicorn.

As soon as you fill me in on that i will promptly send you my own detailed calculations of how i arrived at that answer. Remember it is also ok to say "i dont know".

Thank you again for your erudite explanation.

Sussicorn made the first woman out of the entrails and gonads of an ape. And He made the gave birth to the first man through a slit on his side after 3 years of manancy.

I think one of the most egregeous of his lies was when he lied that he was going to return the the lifetime of his listeners. 2000 years later, he still has not returned. Is that a lie ir what?

OLAADEGBU:
@huxley,

Lame excuses. Your inability or unwillingness to answer any of these questions only goes on to prove that your religion, secular humanism, a religion based on blind faith, something like building your castle in the air, without any foundation.

You have every right to ask any questions and I would answer them as long as we are speaking in terms we all understand. Hence, the need to provide definitions were there is risk of ambiguity.

OLAADEGBU:
@KAG,

Where are the missing link of an eye, in the fossil records or in the museums?

@huxley,

Go and answer the questions and challenges I posed to you before you start to ask for diverting questions and where is the fulfilling of your pledge of a £100.00 in the thread of Questions for Atheists and Evolutionists?  Go back there and read my answer to your challenge.

Now back to the quotation of the "Greatest Atheists"

"Information is not knowledge" - Albert Einstein

Show me where you have answered the questions. If it meets with unanimous approval, you will get the £100.00 .

In the interest of clarity, I would only answer questions that do not contain any ambiguous terms. If you are going to use such terms, they MUST be clearly defined using standardly accepted words and definitions. Below are terms I consider ambiguous.

1) Theory
2) The Theory of Evolution (or evolution, for short)
3) Spirit, Spiritual
4) Soul
5) God(s)
6) Satan/devil
7) Big Bang
8.) Gravity

The onus remains with the questioner to rid their question of all possibility of miscontrual and double-meaning.

davidylan:
thank you very much, i'll start with your first question:

1) How many hot dinners did Jesus have in his entire life of earth? - 987

No way. That cannot be the case. How did you come up with this figure?

Assuming Jesus was 30 years old when if left the earth, and that he starting having hot dinners at age 10, and that he had one hot dinner per day, that gives a figure of about 7300 hot dinners ( [30-10]x1x20=7300).

So it looks like you are way, way, way wrong. Or you are just making things up. Remember, it is OK to say "I don't know".

Would Jesus, the Christ, have been capable of fathering Children? Would he have been capable of sustaining an erection, penetration and ejaculation, the acts necessary of the natural impregnation of a woman?

davidylan:
They are very easy but to answer them i need to determine one basic fact that i think you can help me with:

- how did the first man appear on earth?

Thank you for your kind and erudite explanation of such a simply matter.

The first man was placed/created on earth by Sussicorn. How is that for terseness?

OLAADEGBU:
Thanks for filling in the missing link but on a second note did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?

If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his or her right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance? In fact, man cannot make anything from nothing. We don't know how to do it. We can re-create, reform and develop but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. Yet, the eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation of the human body.

The ball is now in your court

Interesting, you seem to "know" a lot of facts about the eye. How many different diseases of the eye are there?

OLAADEGBU:
Is that a cop out or another way of saying "I don't know"?

OK, let me make it more specific:

OLAADEGBU:
Here are some questions that you have been trying to avoid, now that you have shot yourself in the foot by opening this thread you have nowhere to hide except behind your thin index finger.

Kweshuns

[list]
[li]Give us just one irrefutable proof of evolution, i.e. a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world and human life.[/li]
[/list]

The unshakeable proof of the truth of evolution is the equally irrefutable truth of the existence of Sussicorn.

OLAADEGBU:
[list]
[li]Where did the dinosaurs come from?[/li]
[/list]

What are dinosaurs?

OLAADEGBU:
[list]
[li]Where are the missing links in the fossil records or in the museum? especially the missing link of an eye.  Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?  a true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages.[/li]
[/list]

What are missing links, transitional forms and fossils?  Can you define these terms first?

OLAADEGBU:
[list]
[li]Where did the law of gravity come from?[/li]
[/list]

There is no such thing as the law of gravity.

OLAADEGBU:
[list]
[li]Give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase information in the genome?[/li]
[/list]

Why is this relevant at all?  I see no relevance of this?

OLAADEGBU:
[list]
[li]Any hypothesis or model meant to explain how all life evolved from lifeless chemicals into a complex cell consisting of vast amounts of information.  Can you explain to us the source of information and how this information was encoded into the genome:[/li]
[/list]

Sussicorn did it

OLAADEGBU:
[list]
[li]How can you proof to me the existence of Charles Darwin?[/li]
[/list]

If you convert to Sussicorn and show great dedication, reverence and respect to Him, then he will reveal the proof to you.


Hope that clears thing up now.

OLAADEGBU:
Here are some questions that you have been trying to avoid, now that you have shot yourself in the foot by opening this thread you have nowhere to hide except behind your thin index finger.

Kweshuns

[list]
[li]Give us just one irrefutable proof of evolution, i.e. a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world and human life.[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Where did the dinosaurs come from?[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Where are the missing links in the fossil records or in the museum? especially the missing link of an eye.  Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?  a true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages.[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Where did the law of gravity come from?[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase information in the genome?[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Any hypothesis or model meant to explain how all life evolved from lifeless chemicals into a complex cell consisting of vast amounts of information.  Can you explain to us the source of information and how this information was encoded into the genome:[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]How can you proof to me the existence of Charles Darwin?[/li]
[/list]

PS:  I will not accept "I do not know for an answer" I expect you to have a foundation to your beliefs.

If only you had been a believer of Sussicorn, you would not be needing to ask these questions. All believers in Sussicorn have good answers to these questions.

Christians, why are you neglecting these questions? Are they not easy enough for you?

I think the divorced woman should remain single in order to avoid contaminating other men with the sin of adultery. "Afterall, she has had had children by her first husband". What does she need sex now for. In fact, my advice to her is this - have a clitorectomy and you will be fine. This is what Jesus said:

Luke 16:18
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

I think the divorced woman should remain single in order to avoid contaminating other men with the sin of adultery. "Afterall, she has had had children by her first husband". What does she need sex now for. In fact, my advice to her is this - have a clitorectomy and you will be fine. This is what Jesus said:

Luke 16:18
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

DeReloaded:
who's IIRC? Never seen his/her posts.

Never seen Huxley make a post about Islam either

Of course it doesnt only lie on you guys, also lies on the fact that any critcism against Christianity is allowed while the admin and co only remove the ones directed towards Islam

Just to correct matters and throw some light on this issue.  Yes, I have made relative fewer post against Islam under the Huxley pseudonym.  Basically I got sick of having to have new pseudonyms each time I turned my attention to the Mohammedans.  My first account (therationa) was banned after I posted some material critical of the muslims.  The account was banned and all the post were removed.  I then started two other accounts and reposted and they too were banned and the posts removed.  Another account (tpaine) and suspended for some time.  It was at this point that I created the Huxley account, under which I now operate.

I have had about five threads created under Huxley removed from the Islamic section, so you see, their way of dealing with their critics is to remove threads - which is quite frustrating.  That is why I post very infrequently on the Islamic section. It is not that I have no arguments against islam - au contraire.

Horus:
Very interresting questions.But where are the so christians to answer them
I am not surprised to discover that the christians cannot answer the tough questions about Christianity on this thread.

If these questions had been raised by a known and professed muslim, you could be sure the christians would have been up in arms, throwing mud across over to the muslims. In fact, if some other christian had raised similar but questions that ellicit docrinally different responses, they would have come out again like hawks.  The religionist love nothing more than shouting at each other - faced with rationalism they put their tails between their legs and run back to mummy.

When was the last time you did something that is generally considered immoral and, if you do not mind, what was it?

Imagine you were secluded in an island in which you were the only human inhabitant and you have no contact with other humans, is there anything you could do (assume it does not have effects beyond the island) that could be considered immoral?

If you are a philosophical atheist, then you do not need to know about the finer points to refute or challenge them. I do not need to know the finer points of Islam, Christianity, Sihkism, or Sango, etc, etc to refute these religion. It is the more substantive claims (the claim of a deity and the existance of a supernatural realm) that the philosophical atheist targets. SO the atheist is not so much concerned with things like transsubstantiation, the trinity, virgin birth, sin, sacrifices to Ifa, Mohammed, etc, etc, etc. Atheism is concerned with the question of ontology of the deity.

Church of painter breast here

Similar thing about a Nigerian 419er was caught and reported by a daily new paper in England, the Telegraph, about 10 years ago. In that case the 419er was made to present himself, partially nude with a circle embossed around his left breast. That was so funny. Let me see if I can find the story.