₦airaland Forum

noetic:


look at ur folly, huxley. This is d height of desperation.

the intelligence of ur questons have a lot to say about ur intellect.

My lack of intelligence is not the matter at discussionn here. Just look above - those are the questions for discussion, not my palpable lack of intelligence.

noetic:
@  Huxley
Rubbish. I am not asking u for the layman definition of atheism. any idiot could have said that.

I am asking u to define the subject of ur disbelief within the scope of rationality. I know ifa. And within the limits of human vocabulary he is called the yoruba god of divination. the key word is divination.

Now, this will not work because this is dishonesty and misrepresentation. You asked for the definition of atheism, NOT the subject of my disbelief. This is gross dishonesty and it will not work with me.

If you want to change the scope of the question, you are welcome come, but not misrepresent the initial question you asked. That is called shifting the goal-post.

noetic:
I have an appreciative understanding of ifa, as such I can make an intelligent decision of either believing or not. I choose not to belief, in other words, I disbelief. Now any ifa apologist can engage me in an informed debate concerning my disbelief, cos I do know the concepts and principles of ifa.

You have an appreciattion if Ifa, do you? Then give me its ontology then. Is Ifa human, a rock, a tree, an animal, a spirit. Ifa-apologist certainly believe he exists. That is why the make devination to him. But devinations and existence are two different things. Muslims pray to Allah, but does Allah exist?

noetic:
Unlike ur glaring hypocrisy, I have continuously defined Him within the limits of my vocabulary and so also have several christians. Our understanding is the basis of our belief state. What understanding do u have of Jehovah GOD that necessitates ur disbelief?
who is Jehovah God? What is ontology?

Show me where you and other christians have defined God and his ontology.

noetic:
I dont know who or what sussicorn is. Since I have no knowledge, big or small about sussicorn, how do u expect me to make a rational, intelligent and logical decision to either belief or not to belief? I have no appreciative understanding of sussicorn. To say I believe or dont believe would be unintelligently irrational.

Since u dont believe in God. I am assuming that the basis of ur disbelief is rational and intelligent and also an informed one. So again I ask,
Who is Jehovah God? What is HIS ontology?
Is it safe to say that all atheists are a bunch of uninformed idiots?

I did discuss some of the elements of Sussicorn's ontology on the thread about Sussiscorn. For good measure, here are they;

1) Half immaterial, half material
2) Born by his father after 3 years manancy (When a man is carrying a baby, a very very rare condition). Sussicorn has no mother.
3) Sussicorn is both male and female
4) Sussicorn is the mother of all humanity.

I "believe" in Sussicorn because, his ontology seems plausible to me. Now you tell me, what is the ontology of Ifa, Yahweh, Allah

Can you keep the insults down. I thought Christian were above such debase behaviour.

Does anyone not believein Sussicorn?

I have been accused to asking too hard questions - questions that Christian find hard to answer.  Now I want to change the tone and ask relatively easier questions.  Here we go:

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

2)  To the nearest centimeter,  what was Jesus height?

3)  To the nearest centimeter, what was the length of Jesus's penis erect?  What was its circumference?

4)  Who was the oldest of Jesus apostles?

5)  On which day of the week did Paul convert to Christianity on the road to Damascus?

6)  On the day that Jesus rose into heaven, exactly how many people believed he was the son of God?

7)  On which day of the week, year and hour is Jesus going to come back?

8.) How many stars are there in the universe?

9)  How many grains of sand are there on the planet?

10) How many living species are there on earth?

11) To the nearest day, how many days in total was Jesus on the planet earth?

12) At what speed did Jesus ascend into heaven?

13)  How many people attended the party where Jesus turned water into wine?  How many gallons of wine did he make?

14)  What was Jesus favourite meal?

15)  To the nearest person, how many people were there on the planet on January 1 2009?

16) To the nearest person, how many people did Moses kill in the bible?

17) To the nearest person, how many concubines did Abraham have?

18) On how many occasions did Jesus experience wetdreams, that is, the natural emission of semen?

19)  Was Jesus sexually fertile?

20)  Who was Joseph's (Mary's husband, and Jesus's father) father?

While you are at that, why don't you try these bible related questions. As a christian, I would expect you to know them.

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

2) Who was the oldest of Jesus apostles?

3) On which day of the week did Paul convert to Christianity on the road to Damascus?

4) On the day that Jesus rose into heaven, exactly how many people believed he was the son of God?

5) On which day of the week, year and hour is Jesus going to come back?

noetic:
Am I supposed to encourage your " I dont know" attitude.

If u are going to keep telling me "I dont know", what then is the point of debating?

"I don't know" is a legitimate answer. Ok, let me try you with these:

1) How many stars are there in the universe?

2) How many grains of sand are there on the planet?

3) How many living species are there on earth?

noetic:
u haven't even answered the 2 questions I asked u, how will u survive 20?

Letting u post all ur questions and me answering them aint an issue. But ur deception and inability to answer my questions is a barrier.

Where are the 2 questions that you claim I have not answered. Go back to the thread and highlight them and let us see. If I truly have not answered them, then that is my oversight. Highlight them and I shall endeavour to answer them if I have the answers.

I said "My word is/was my bond" and I stcik by that. But are you? When you said the following, were you under any duress?

noetic:
yes i agree

You agreed to take part in the 20/20 debate-athon and I have kept my side of the agreement. Have you? Think about it.

Run from where? Was it not you who ran away, tail between legs, from our 20/20 questions debate-athon? I have got my question ready and you agreed to participate.

Here it is.

Enjoy!

Listen to this and it will make you think.

Listen here .

Enjoy

I thought I share this video with you guys. Shanedk produces extremely good videos about alomost any subjects. Enjoy

I thought I share this video with you guys. Shanedk produces extremely good videos about alomost any subjects. Enjoy

davidylan:
Huxley here is the real problem - it is ok for you to simply say "i dont know" (even though your entire claims are based around stuff YOU DONT KNOW!) but imagine we christians simply responded to all your questions with "i dont know"?

What claims are based on things I don't know? Do you know what scientific inference is? Of course, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer, but what do you christian claim not to know?

Let me make more concrete. Suppose someone who was adopted at birth only discovers in later life that they were adopted (a close colleague of mind just went thru this) and that for medical reasons they would like to know their real biological parents. Would it be possible to use scientific test to weed out possible candidate for people who might claim to be his biological parents and siblings?

If yes? How so? How could it possibly work when the siblings may have no memory of him/her and may not have been at his/her birth?

davidylan:
I see Huxley has largely avoided noetic's questions with the usual "i dont know".

By the way Bawomolo, it is very disingenous to start claiming that evolution does not deal with the origin of life when the illusion that all life evolved from ancient protists is the very basis of Darwin's tree of life.

When you come to know something, how do you come by that information? Do you

1) Generally discover the fact personally?

2) Read it from from material like books, journals, etc. If you get from books, journals, how did that information come to be in those books, journals?

3) Is it possible for other people to gain similar knowledge from the books, journals, etc, etc you have read?

davidylan:
I see Huxley has largely avoided noetic's questions with the usual "i dont know".

By the way Bawomolo, it is very disingenous to start claiming that evolution does not deal with the origin of life when the illusion that all life evolved from ancient protists is the very basis of Darwin's tree of life.

What would you rather I do? I know that for you guys these debates are a platform to display your knowledge (or lack thereof). If I do not know, I do not know. Do you want me to make it up. That is not avoidance.

If there is a knowable answer then it is already in some book, or journal or magazine somewhere, or it might still be lying out there waiting to be uncovered. The true state of affairs is that that information is not in my mind.

Where is Neotic? Why has he retracted from our agreed debataton after he had gladly agreed to participate?

Pastor AIO:
This post

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-148054.32.html#msg2477582
shows why I know kurtz is wrong about philosophy.  Especially where he claims that his 'philosophy' stretches back to Athens.

I have read that stuff of your several time and I still could not understand what you were saying there. In fact I did ask you to define and explain what Spirituality is but I have stopped waiting, knowing how difficult this is for you.

On the issue of his philosophy dating back to Greece, I think he meant it in the sense that most of Western philosophy traces its history back to Greece. Almost everyone on philosophy would readily admit it, that the philosophical tradition of Western thought has a great deal of Greek influence. But do you think contemporary notions and concepts of philosophy would be defined in the same way that that Greeks defined them? Absolutely NOT. But the idea of inquiry learnts from the Greeks lives on in modern philosophy.

Just as modern democracy has very little in common with the democracy practiced by the Greeks, but still it is widely recognised that modern western democracy traces back to the Greeks.

Pastor AIO:
It does suit me a lot more and I will answer the question in the affirmative.  God is a source of help and many benefits. And to contrast this with what Mr Kurtz is saying that humans (without God) can solve all their problems by themselves, I know that to be absolute kaka.  Can you demonstrate or even suggest an argument as to how this will be possible?

By the way, Religion does not necessarily take man out of the center of the equation (as it were) but rather seeks to make Man whole, complete, fulfilled, ie fully man.  In order for man to be fully man he must come to atonement with God.  This is my religious stand, just to make this clear.

This is a bizarre notion.  How has God helped or is helping to solves man's problem.  Some of humans biggest problems are what are generally called natural evil in philosophy, ie, these are the harm and suffers that comes to us just as the result of nature going about it business.  Thus we have earthquakes, tsumanies, volcanoes, diseases, droughts, climate change, etc, etc.  Every year, hundreds of thousands are killed or left destitute from the natural events.  Yet god sits on his thrown, folded hand and amuses himself at the suffering on his beloved creatures.

Can you name just one thing that god has done that has demonstrably  seen to help mankind? All the development that humans have achieved have been from their own sweated brows. I know christians are wont to make the argument that god gives us the knowledge to solve our problems.  Ah right.  Why is taking so long to give us the exactly correct knowledge to treat cancers, malaria, AIDS, heart diseases.  The more he delays the more his beloved children die.

Pastor AIO:
My brother it is either you want to talk about Paul Kurtz - the great intellectual, or you don't want to talk about Paul Kurtz the great intellectual.

which is it?
The words that you say have evoked such strong sentiments (highlighted in red) were that Paul Kurtz was demonstrating little knowledge of philosophy or religion. If you disagree then what you have to do is tell me how he demonstrates that he actually has this knowledge.

Did you show how Kurtz is wrong about religion and how your are right? Have you show how you have a better understand of the philosophy of religion? I await to see that!

Pastor AIO:
When you go on at length about some issue that has no bearing on the subject of discussion then I sorry to say but that is a RANT. Take a strong view about the violence of religion when we are discussing the violence of religion, by all means. Otherwise it is an aside, which is okay in small doses, but if it goes on at length then it is a RANT.

Did you check out the meaning of the word rant?

It does suit me a lot more and I will answer the question in the affirmative. God is a source of help and many benefits. And to contrast this with what Mr Kurtz is saying that humans (without God) can solve all their problems by themselves, I know that to be absolute kaka. Can you demonstrate or even suggest an argument as to how this will be possible?

By the way, Religion does not necessarily take man out of the center of the equation (as it were) but rather seeks to make Man whole, complete, fulfilled, ie fully man. In order for man to be fully man he must come to atonement with God. This is my religious stand, just to make this clear.

How can you on one breath say the following:

God is a source of help and many benefits.

And on another breath, agree with the comments:

What religion tells you to look inward to God for solving your problems?

These two statements are contradictory. How can you hold both positions?

I would have liked more background for these question, for I do not know or followered the context in which they were initially raised.  But since you post them here, I shall attempt them as posted.

You simply described the behaviours of RNA without sheding light of the origin or evolution of life.
U are discusing the self replicationg nature of RNA, while we are asking the pioneer formation of this RNA? how did it happen? which was the very first? what was its structure?

I don't know.  Can you give some more context?

the commonest law of biogenesis says life begets life. Biology butresses this. Yet evolution claims that the first
substance of life were formed from non-living substances reffered to as "spontaneous generation". or am i wrong? RUBBISh,  . . . .  .
can u explain this contradiction?

I do not agree.  Can you show where the law of biogenesis says that life begets life?  Can you provide some credible and peer-reviewed definition of biogenesis that states that?

I also do not agree with your claim about evolution.  Can you provide evidence that this is what evolution claims?  

Darwin claims that all organisms on earth are descent from a common ancestor or a last universal ancestor.
Whats ur explanation for the mitochondria gene exception? what is the identity and nature of the last common universal ancestor?

I do not know what mitochondria gene exception is.  I shall do some research and get back on this one.

On the last common  universal ancestor, that I do not know.  It could well be that none has been found to fit the deception of the common ancestor to all life, or it could be that it is know by science but I don't happen to have that knowledge.  I shall have to research this too.

I am asking very simple straight forward questions here.
Evolution traces life to phylogenetic tree that that postulates three domains of life namely bacteria, archea and eucaryota. What is the major consesus or common denominator to whom life might can be traced to between these three?

ditto

Evolution claims that increasing complex chemical reactions that resulted from simpler chemical reactions are
the last traces of life. Me the creationist is asking u the evolutionist, what was the singular first chemical reaction that kick started life?
and what were the substances that made up this reaction?
what was the structure of the first living things?

I don't think it is known or knowable but this has nothing to do with evolution.  Evolution is about how life diversified, not how life started.

Has anyone else lost the ability to edit their post once it has been posted?

manmustwac:
Waz up Huxley? You know its usually difficult for people who come from developing countries to become Atheists. So i would like to know what happened in your life or what was it that u experienced that made u realise that God is imaginary?  

Very good question.

I shall start with the very broad-brush and thowaway comment  - The majority of people in the world, particularly in the developing countries (where access to education and scientific rationalism is low) have a stranglehold affinity with superstitions and other forms of irrationalism.

I was raised in a Christian family in Cameroon and my family was a religious vagrant, moving from catholicism, seven days adventism to apostolic to full gospel to . . . I started having doubts about the claims of religion when we were SDA and as you may know SDA are great stickler for the bible and I did read the bible alot as a teenager.  I was about 11 when my family converted from Catholicism to SDA, and my ever abiding memory as a new SDA convert was the criticism I would get from my Catholic friends that we were encourage to read the bible, together with the mockery of going to church on saturdays while everyone else went on Sunday.

Reading the bibel sowed the first seeds of doubts in my mind, but I could not really articulate them then.  I was about 12 or 13 when these narratives from the bible became to disturb me. The doubts appear to me in the approximate chronological order;

1)  The concept of the Chosen people.  I found it difficult to accept the fact that God could have create all humans but chose just a small tribe (the Jews) as his own, at the detriment of all other tribes. I felt this was grossly unfair.

2)  The amount of violence perpertrated by God in the bible left a cold chill down my spine.   The narratives in  Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Judges I found particularly gruesome and loathsome.

I tried to seek answers to these, but as usual, the people I thought would know all had very unsatisfactory answers.  I put these thought behind me and just concentrated as school and some months later I left home to attend a boarding secondary school.  The first year at boarding school, although I had still not got answers to my questions, I attended church a couple of times, but by the end of that year, I had virtually decided that I could not commit by convictions on something I knew so little of.  I stopped attending church, stopped praying and would still reading the bible occasionally.  In fact, I had decided that the elders in the community were either gullible, stupid, deceitful and just plain ignorant and that I could not rely on them to help reach to anwsers to my questions.  I decided that I was going to seek answers for myself by educating myself.

At around that same time, it occurred to me that I did not have to rely on the bible alone for an understanding of what was happening in Israel, Palestine, Romans, Jesus, etc, etc.  I realised that there might in fact be other sources of information that could provide better data about the history, and socio-political and economic of the time and place.  Somehow, I also realised that I did not have these material close at hand.  So I consigned the thought of researching this to the background and concentrated on my exams.

At about that same time I started to become interested in the claims of the various witch-doctors, jazzmen, magicians, soothsayers, etc, around me.  I guess it is the same in Nigeria. In Cameroon there are all sorts of supersitious claims and organisation that promote and support these claims.  It then occurred to me that these superstition were not dissimilar for the Christian belief that I had but I did not have the means of articulating or dealing with such ideas.

Then at age about 16/17 I had a conversation with a friend who display doubts and contempt for the bible and I secretly thought that I had found a soulmate.  I cannot remember exactly, but I left that conversation with my third major doubt, namely:

3)  That sin originated in heaven, in god's own backyard and that if he could not bring his own home in line, how much less the earth.  When my christian friends tried to rationalise this with the concept of freewill, which argument was doomed from the start, I knew this was an unanswerable question. If god endowed his angels with freewill, which caused them to sin, then it look to me that god was an inedept overseer at least and a callous and murderous and vindictive tyrant at worst.

Upon this realisation, all my sympathies with the god of the bible, Jehovah, had gone.  I had not prayed not gone to church on my own volition for about 3 years,but would occasionaly accompany friend if they wanted company. At church, I would be busy eyeing girls or just daydreaming or silently making further of the priest/pastor.

Some years later, at 20, I came to Manchester/England and the veil was lifted.  By the end of my first year in Manchester, I had succeeded in tracking down ALL the material I had so wanted to get hold of about 4 -5 years earlier.  Manchester University has a great library and besides reading my core subject, I spent a great deal of time in the humanities section, reading up on religion, history of the Roman empire, etc, etc.  I even stumbled on a piece of manusscript of the Gospel of John at the library - it is called P52.  Do a google of John gospel P52, and you should find that it is house in the Manchester University library, John Rylands library.

By the end of my first year in Manchester, all my doubts had been removed.  I knew that I could NOT rely of faith as a need of understand the nature of reality.  I had decided that scientific rationalism was the route for me.  I did not call myself an atheist then, but I was also reluctant to decribe myself as agnostic.  It would be another 4 or 5 years before I would readily self-identify as an atheist, by this point I had overcome or become thickskinned about the risk social ostracism that being called an atheist might engender.

Part II)
At 7:20 he makes some humungous sweeping comments that convinces that not only does he know little about philosophy but he also knows even less about religion. What religion tells you to look outward to God for solving your problems? Are we not told rather to look within and that God has written his statutes in our hearts and that his will is the very substance of our natures. I think that he is picking and choosing, like they all do, which ostensible aspects of religion he is going to pit himself against. It is a lot easier to challenge those demagogues and religiously derived ideologies that have little in fact to do with religion. All religion and philosophy that I'm aware of teach that there is an essential nature or aspect to man. And that man has deviated from this essential nature.

I took a strong view of what you wrote because you also wrote words that evoke such strong sentiments - look at what I have highlighted in red from your comments. I took a strong stand by pointing out just how religions over the years have sought to present itself as the arbiter of morals and ethics and how on the moral and ethical bandwagon, they have repressed society, persecuted their opponents, etc, etc. Why is that when one take a strong view of the violence of religion, it is called a RANT?

Now, on the substantive point about whether God solves the problems of believers, which was my main beef, you made the statement:

What religion tells you to look outward to God for solving your problems?

As I pointed out earlier, my problem is NOT where God resides as whether he has promised to help or solve the problems of his followers. To that end, I am prepared to conciliate and make the statement slightly in favour of the point you are trying to make and see if it help things. Let us change the statement to the following, which is what you favour with all the ABIDING stuff you posted earlier:

What religion tells you to look inward to God for solving your problems?

Does this suit you more? I think it does because it locates god where you argue he is.

Now, do religions NOT promote the notion that their God is there to help its followers, amongst other benefits?

m_nwankwo:
Those interested in comparison of Neanderthal and human genomics can read the paper below:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18304371

Many thankz for these posts. I shall certainly follow some of these out.

ow11:
Why are you attacking christians?
Have you visited other websites to attack the Far East religious adherents?
What about Nigerians who are adherents to their ATR gods?
How do you hope to convince them that everything has a natural explanation?
I have barely seen threads opened by you having a go at muslims? Your nemesis _Davidylan seems to be more adept to doing it?

Am not attacking christians. Am attacking their beliefs. Hope you know the difference. Am attacking the belief because it forms a core of the irrationalism that are hurting human civilization.

No I have not visted other sites to attack their religions. For one reason, I have to concentrate first for things close to home, and that is christianity. Secondly I was raised christian so I know more about christian beliefs than about eastern beliefs.

I attack all beliefs in superstitious irrationalism, equal opportunity attacker of gods.

I tried attacking the muslims but my threads get deleted and I got banned several times.

noetic:
Question 2:
What is Atheism and the rationality of ur beliefs?

I will help u paint the larger picture:

I define atheism as an irrational state of mind. . .  .where the subject of ones disbelief cannot be substantiated or defined.
Implying that an atheist lacks the rationality to substantiate the subject of his disbelief. By answering this question, u might prove me wrong.

Take for instance: I dont believe in the potency or imotality of Sango (yoruba god of thunder) and Ifa (yoruba god of divination).
I know who Ifa is, I have witnessed his divination abilities and sacrificial capacity. But I chose never to belief in him, my  choice is a function of rationality, intellectualism and an educated and oriented analysis. In other words I know who ifa is but dont believe in him.


I dont believe that a violent revolution is the answer to Nigeria`s numerous problems.
I know what violence is. I know what revolution is. and I know the history of Nigeria.
So my choice of disbelief is informed by knowledge and rationality.


I dont believe that the major division in nigeria is on tribal lines (between hausa, ibo, yoruba and other ethnic minorities). I believe that Nigeria`s main dividing point is between the oppressors and the oppressed.
I know the history of nigeria. I know who the hausas, ibos, yorubas are and I also know their history.
I know who and it means to be oppressed and I can identify an oppressor.


I dont belief that Communism is good for anyone.
I know what communism is. I know the history of its chief protagonists. And I know the concept of the major alternative to communism (democracy). My choice is rational and well informed cos I have an appreciative understanding of the concept I dont believe.


Now lets come to you: You HUXLEY (an atheist) [b]dont believe in the existence of Jehovah God.
Who is Jehovah God? What is His ontology? [/b]

Atheism is the lack of a belief in god(s) or the belief that there is no god(s). The former is usually called weak atheism and the latter strong atheism.

Now, you said you do not believe in Ifa and Sango and you further claim that you KNOW Ifa. How do you come to KNOW Ifa? Is Ifa a rock, a tree, a doll, an animal? What really is Ifa? And why don't you believe in Ifa?

You ask - who is Jehovah? What is his ontology? Well, that is really for you to answer. I don't know what it is? I cannot believe in something that I don't know what it is. You are the one who claims to know Jehovah, so you tell me. I might as well ask you:

Who is Sussicorn and what is his ontology, and do you believe in Sussicorn?



My view, and the view of most atheists, is that you need an ontology of god or gods first before one can form a belief about the god. No ontology, no belief.

Pastor AIO:
The greater part of the above is just a mindless rant, I don't know how to address it.  I suppose you got to vent and now hopefully you've got it out of the way and we can continue to discuss.  The main thrust of this is about ETHICS, is it not?  Paul Kurtz seeking an 'ethical alternative to religion'.  Please Huxley, perhaps you are not sure what ethics is, let us look at a couple of definitions. From here:
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/whatisethics.html

Also
From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Funnily enough, you called this post of mind a rant without address a single element of the post.

huxley link=topic=148054.msg3647915#msg3647915 date=1238101853:
Look the history that humanity has traversed, a history in which religion and various forms of supernaturalisms and spiritualism have defined the way in which humans have lived.  There is no gainsaying that from this history, it would appear that there is no possibility or morality and ethics without religions/spiritualism.  Time was when if you were not with the eclesiastic  you would be branded a witch/wizard, bad person and your character would be maligned by the very religious.

The religious were in charge of all aspect of life, from what type of sex was legitimate, to the food you eat, to when to work, to the type of clothes to wear, to what sort of medical attention one could receive.  If you did not toe the religious line you were branded immoral and unethical. Even though morality and ethic are/were not necessarily bounded together with religion, it paid the religious authorities handsomely to portray it as though they possess the moral and ethical high ground on all aspects of life.

This deference to religion is still prevalent in most societies today.  Whenever they is a great human issue at stake, you see they always wheel out the clerical authorties to pontificate on the matter - not that they should not have a say.  They should as members of the general public.  But why are they also treated as experts on morality and ethics.  Why is the archbishop always the first to be contacted for things like stem-cell research, capital punishments, artificial insemination, euthenasia, etc, etc, etc.   Why do we see relatively fewer professional philosopher on the public media dealing with these issues.   And why do these religious authorities always have to find an approach that they think will please their various gods.

Does this not smack of the religious claiming territory as though they have sole right to the moral and ethical space.  See how for nearly eight years, reseach in stem-cell was hampered because of religio-ethical agendas of President Bush. I think this is what Paul Kurtz is getting at.

In the minds of many people, if you are without religions, you might as well be thrown into "hell".  In fact, I have heard religious people say that if there is no god, they would go out there and kill, steal, and commit all sorts of crime and offense against the person and the state.  They take the view that without religion/god ALL things are possible.

So you are right in saying that you can be good without religion/spiritualism, but the religious leaders would not want that to be heard and known widely because it would undermine their position and authority, which position is already so threatened with the spread of general skepticism about the religious narratives.

What about the above is essentially untrue?    Did I claim anywhere that ethics is confined only in the religious sphere?  Please, please, please, STOP misrepresenting me.

Have the religious authorties in the past not sought to define the way one should lead their lives?  Did you address that point?

Have they not tried to decide what type of sex pleases god?  Did you address that point?

Have they not persecuted their opponents, calling them names like heretics and infidels?  Did you address that point?

Have they not tried to decide what sorts of food to eat?

Have they not told us how to raise our children?

Have they not persecuted others for holding views at odds with theirs?  Is this not true?  Did you address it.

And you have the effronterie to call the post  RANT.  Now, tell me which part of the post is untrue.

[quote author=Pastor AIO link=topic=148054.msg3650099#msg3650099 date=1238155708]So yes, religion provides ethics but so do many other things too.  I'm still trying to find a way that your rant relates to the subject of our discussion.  Many societies in history have developed ethics that have little to to with religion.  Wherever there is the idea of the right way to behave (which is everywhere ever since the dawn of man) there is ethics.  The Spartans had ethics based on their need to subjugate their neighbours and their slaves.  These had nothing to do with religion.  Everywhere people developed work ethics which had nothing to do with religion but rather the need to have a productive society.  I feel like I'm going off on a tangent trying to address your crazed ramblings.

The point Kurtz was making was that to the ordinary person, they wrongly believe that morals/ethic are the province of the religions, and that without religion one cannot be moral/ethical. And that the religious authorities are reluctant to disabuse their sheep about the notion that there can be morals/ethics without religion, for fear of losing face and authorities.  

I am sure if you survey the religious christian community, you would find that the vast majority would say that they get their morals/ethics from the bible.  I guess in excess of 90% would say that their bibles is the standard for moral and ethical guidance.  But is that really the case that they get their morals from the bible?  I submit NOT.

For instance, if they did some of the things that Jesus advocated they would either end up dead, fiancially bankrupt, encarcerated, etc, etc.  Why do they not follow ALL the ethicical injuctions of Jesus?

[/quote]

Pastor AIO:
Okay, let's start here.  The above is what you have said in response to my saying this: You even made the most pertinent point bold.  Thank you!  

Now is this really the reason that you didn't respond, due to my 'dishonesty'.  I don't believe you, but I'll leave the matter of who is being dishonest because it will only detract from the main points of this thread.

Please consider these biblical statements:

1 John 2:27 and yourselves, the unction which ye have received from him abides in you, and ye have not need that any one should teach you; but as the same unction teaches you as to all things, and is true and is not a lie, and even as it has taught you, ye shall abide in him.

1 John 2:24 As for you let that which ye have heard from the beginning[b] abide in you[/b]: if what ye have heard from the beginning abides in you, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father

1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time: if we love one another, God abides in us, and his love is perfected in us

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words which I speak to you I do not speak from myself; but the Father who abides in me, he does the works

1 John 3:24 And he that keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in him. [size=18pt]And hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given to us[/size].

So if you still believe that christianity tells you to look outside of what abides within, or that I am caricaturing by asking that 'What religion tells you to look outward to God for solving your problems?  Are we not told rather to look within and that God has written his statutes in our hearts' then it becomes obvious to me that the reason you understand so little of christianity is because you were never a christian and your experience of it was just superficial nonsense.  God is a very real internal experience for christians and from within we get all the instruction we need to live.

Well al you have done by quoting those passages from the bible to support the claim that god abides in you.  With due respect, that was not by point of contention, although this too can be contested by other claims from the bible.  I shall leave the issue of where God abides for another debate.

The point you were challenging was NOT where god abides, but

What religion tells you to look outward to God for solving your problems?  Are we not told rather to look within and that God has written his statutes in our hearts and that his will is the very substance of our natures.

I took from the highlighted text that you meant that no religions tells its devotees to look for God to solve their problems.  That is the point I am contesting, whereabout the God abides is not the issue.  whether God abides in you or without is not my point, but whether you should turn at all to God.

If you do not understand the distinction, shout out now.

The quotes from John that you posted only address the issue of where God abides.  Now, supposing God abides in you has he promised that he would solve your problems?  I submit that he has, and that is why I posted the other bible passages where he clearly lays out such promises, which you have uniquely failed to address.  Did you address any of these:


Psalm 91:

1 ¶ He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

2. I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.

3 Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.

4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

5. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;

6. Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.

7. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.

8. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.

9. ¶ Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;

10. There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.

11. For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.

12. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

13. Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

14. Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.

15. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.

16. With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation


Have you never seen these passages from your bible were god promises really benefits to his followers:

Mark 16:

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Luke 10:

17And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
18And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
19Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
20Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

1 Peter 5:
7  Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.



Why do Christians spend a vast amount of their time making supplicatory and pertitionary prayers to their God?  Is it just to amuse God or are they NOT also asking God for favours - like financial success, safety on the roads, healing from illness, bread on the table, pregnancy, marriage, etc, etc, etc.

Are you saying that Christians who plead to God for these favours are misguided?   That is the issue I was alluding to, not WHERE God reside, although that too is a separate debate in its own right.


Now I could go without address this verse which you posted:


1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time: if we love one another, God abides in us, and his love is perfected in us

Are you really sure that no one has seen God?  I bet I can find bible passages that suggests the opposite.

I understand many people, believers and non-believers, would like to ask me a number of questions.  I have started this thread as a platformm for bringing your pressing questions to me and have them answered.  You are welcome to ask all manner of questions but only personal questions and questions relating to my family will NOT be answered.  All other questions will be answered in due time.

So now is your time to rid yourself of those nagging questions that have disturbed you for years and months.  I shall do my best to answer them as honestly as possible, using extra relevant material where possible.  Where I do not know the answer or cannot obtain it from anywhere, I shall say so.  After all, I am as ignorant as the next man/woman but I know how to fix areas in which I am ignorant.


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:
Bastage, its obvious you have a serious disconnect with rational thinking . . . when i count the number of "papers" huxley posts i'm not refering to mere links that he himself NEVER bothered to tell us why he posted them. More like he was putting up just about anything in his desperation to change the subject when he found himself unable to explain the point in his first paper.

His first paper was the ONLY one with which he tried to defend evolution, when that fell flat he resorted to panic posting of just anything. similar to your own dishonest attempt to escape by posting a search page on mitochondrial DNA that didnt explain nothing.

You people seem to think we cant reason.

You are trully mad. All the papers I posted have links to the source of the material and how many of the papers did you engage? Methink just one, the first one. As I said in my earlier comment, the paper itself is not so much about evolution as about one line of evidence for evolution.

If is an evidence for evolution in the sense that evolution predicts Africa as the origin of humankind and the first paper confirms that. Now, what if the paper had found that humans originated from Australia or Pakistan? Not would have refuted the TTE with respect to human evolution.


Now you guys accuse me of not answering questions but I think the opposite is true. How many questions have I failed to respond to and where are they? If you are honest you would show me right now or re-ask the questions and I would at the very least attempt them. This is your opportunity to ask you questions or ressurect earlier questions that you think was left unanswered.

But I know you will make another excuse and run away and dishonest as you and your ilk are. I challenge you to ask your questions now OR you better stop accusing me of avoiding questions as this is grossly dishonest.

On the other hand, I have asked, repeatedly, questions after questions, like:


1) What is the definition of biological evolution as accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community?

2) Why are mammalian fossils never found in pre-cambrian rocks

3) What conclusion can one draw from the fact that you share more genetic material with your siblings than with Richard Nixon or myself?



And I still await your responses. Now, who is being dishonest here?


If have the floor to ask your questions, either here or on a separate thread and I shall respond in due course (within 24 hours) as am off to bed now as it is 1:10 am and i have got work tomorrow.