₦airaland Forum

davidylan:
TTE isnt based on either of the two above. Prove me wrong.

Davidylan,

To be sure that we are talking about the same thing, can you address these first please?


1) What is The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as espoused by the biological scientific community? I want you to define what these biological scientists mean by TTE as originally advanced by Charles Darwin, providing significant reference material from recognised and leading scientific books, publications and experts.

2) What is the Theory/Law of Gravitational Attraction as defined by the scientific community? If you did not know much about the theory of gravity, where would you turn to for information about it?

noetic:
ur intelligence or lack of it amazes me, considerin ur legendary posts about religion on nairaland. cos even my illiterate great-grand mother understands that genesis 1 account of creation is best understood when juxtaposed with genesis 2.  y? cos the narrative subjects of both chapters best illustrates the explicit meanings intended.


I will save the narrative for another time and jump quickly to answer ur questions.

1).  Genesis 1 describes God`s view of the creation. To fully understand this one has to look at the nature of God. Two biblical verses illustrate this one is John 4:24 : God is spirit and they that worship him must do so in spirit and in truth. and they second that illustrates that God has made all things right in his own time (cant lay my hands on that verse at d moment).
There was day and night on the first three days from the spirit. its physical manifestation was being awaited.  read Genesis 2: 4-6.

You claim that Gen 1 is best understood in conjunction with Gen 2, but you fail to provide any explanation whatsoever as to how to derive the "true" meaning out of these.  I await such as you promise.

This is Genesis 2 4-6 below;

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Where does it say anything about the physical manifestation of LIGHT, replacing the SPIRIT manifestation of LIGHT?   Can you describe the mechanism by which spiritual light is replaced by physical light.  Just as you ask for the full explanation for the scientist's origin for life, I nothing less that a full step-by-step account of how spiritual light is replaced by physical light.

noetic:
2). A day is a day. 24 hours.

NOPE, you are wrong.  A day is define as the period of time it takes for a planet to rotate about its axis.  Thus a day on the earth is 24 hours, but a day on pluto is not 24 hours but about 6.4 earth days.  In facts, some planets have days that are much much longer than their year (the period it takes a planet to revolve around the sun).

So when Genesis talks about days/nights, are these earth day, or are these days on the other planets?

noetic:
3). Limiting the concept of the light to the sun is very uninformative. Last time I checked the dictionary, one of its definition of the light was:   spiritual illumination or awareness; enlightenment.
It is simply an acknowledgement of a spiritual realm where light (not subject to physical analysis)exists.

By light we mean the physical entity constituted of photons or radiation that comes from the stars to illuminate things.  I don't mean it in a metaphorical sense.   If there were "days" before the sun was created, were these "days" meant to be a period of time illuminated by photons?  Where these photons from God or from some distance star?

noetic:
4). God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day

God made two lights. The moon ruled by night and the sun by day. Science says the sun gives the moon its light. This is no contradiction as long as the moon still rules by night. Is there anyting i was supposed to deduce from ur question? cos it sounds meaningless. At least i was xpectin more totful questions.

Well, this question was quite simple, but you are getting more and more mired in your deception.  I thought you said god made the following lights - spiritual light and physical light from the sun.   Now you are adding a third light, the light from the moon into the picture.   Just think about it - the moon is a lump of rock.  The last time I checked it does not emit its own light and has never.

noetic:
5). Rubbish. The bible gives no account of the creation the other planets. I will reserve my opinion on that.

Yes you are right, the bible gives no account of the creation of the planets, consequently they (the planets) do not exist.

noetic:
6).  Check answer 5.

See above;

noetic:
7). please be objective. what has the law of gravity got to do with the lack of objectivity of the evolution argument when juxtaposed with creation?

I simply asked why you accept The Gravitational Theory?  What evidence about this theory do you find the most pursuasive and how are you sure that the scientific community are not deceiving you about Gravity?


Now, can you deal with these, please?

1)   What is The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as espoused by the biological scientific community?  I want you to define what these biological scientists mean by TTE as originally advanced by Charles Darwin, providing significant reference material from recognised and leading scientific books, publications and experts.

2)  What is the Theory/Law of Gravitational Attraction as defined by the scientific community?   If you did not know much about the theory of gravity, where would you turn to for information about it?

Pastor AIO:
Hello Huxley, You have broached this very same issue before in another thread titled ,'Who is God?'
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-136794.0.html#msg2321153

In that thread I sought to show the distinction between God and 'the concept of God'.  Here's what I said:
. . . but let's get back to eightfootmanboy.  He is right to pick at all these conceptualisations of god and expose them as incoherent babble.  Yet God is not a concept.  He puts the cart before horse by saying that first we've got to know what we are talking about before we decide whether we believe in it or not.  For me the Experience precedes the Conceptualising. The Concepts are nothing but INTERPRETATIONS of the experience.  Furthermore the concepts always fall short of the Truth. 

One thing that can be said about cognitive categorisations is that they are binary.  Things fall into an either/or box.  Either it is or it isn't, one or the other.  What then if one has an experience that confounds all cognitive categories?  They babble and come up with all sorts of nonsensicalities in an attempt to articulate it but these will always fall short of the mark. 
Something that often occurs with such an experience is the sense of superlativeness.  Hence God is Great!  But that is sheer nonsense.  Something can't be just great.  We need criteria.  Great at what.  To be a great seducer of women is to be poor at fidelity.  So Allahu Akbar is a complete and utter nonsensicality unless we know what Allahu is Akbar at.  Akbar at killing?  Or Akbar at Dancing?  Akbar at what? 

God is ineffable.  But 8foot would say then what are we talking about?  An experience, I would answer.  An experience that actually occurs but boggles the mind.  I know it exists because I experienced it.  That I can't define it is a secondary consideration. 

I also addressed these issues in another thread thus:  This is from this thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-124348.32.html#msg2146381

When you have experienced the divine though, many of the 'equivocations' that prop up in the concepts of God start to make sense a little bit.  For instance the claim that God is Love.  At the risk of confounding the matter further, I understand the statement cos it's possible to feel Love as something almost tangible and it seems to be all around coming off the trees and the rocks and all around, everywhere.  I bet I'm starting to sound like a right nutter, but it's the best I can do.  It's like a feeling of being cared for and being safe.  Being Loved. 
The saying that God is Great also might come from a sense of superlativeness and vast awesomeness that it is impossible to describe.  Again it doesn't fit into any of the categories of cognition.

The question I wanna ask is, 'Can experience continue after conceptualisation stops?'  And the answer to my question is, 'yes, absolutely'.  The Concepts are merely interpretations of reality.  Concepts occur in the brain. 

But this Conceptualisation of God does not just stop with God.  Remember the Spinning woman website I showed you? From this thread

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-241320.0.html

the website is here:

http://delicategeniusblog.com/?p=552

There it is clear that Perception at it's most fundamental level is an interpretation of Reality.  All the categories of perceptions whether it is spinning left or it is spinning right are but fabrications of the mind.  Perception and Conception are similar processes of Cognition and obey the rules of cognition which introduces the limitations of mutually exclusive opposites.  So something cannot be going left and going right at the same time, it has to be doing one or the other.  In the case of that woman spinning.  What is that picture REALLY doing?  We know what we can see it doing, but what is it really doing?  And if we cannot define what it is really doing then can we say that it is impossible to discuss it's existence?

And one last thing.  8foot challenges theologians to come up with a concept of God that is not based on physicalism, or placing it above physicalism.  The guy needs to first define physicalism or naturalism because every definition thus far offered by naturalismist (sic) cannot cover all phenomena that we know occurs.  Hence why there has been no established definition yet. 
Apart from that I really like the videos and I like the guy.  He has great charisma and is quite a funny orator.

Wow, this takes another twist. You seem to have reduced god to mere experience and experiencing. What is becoming more and more obvious is that the further one probes into the ontology of god the more the adept redefine him/her. In the times of Moses, this god use to manifest himself as a burning bush, or column of smoke, etc. In the early first century, he manifested himself in the form of Jesus. So if the Christian narrative is to be believed, these were attempts of of god ontology somewhat.

Now, you have reduced him to experience and experiencing. Is the god you experience the same god that the moslem, Sihks, Shaman, etc, etc, experience?

noetic:
ur intelligence or lack of it amazes me, considerin ur legendary posts about religion on nairaland. cos even my illiterate great-grand mother understands that genesis 1 account of creation is best understood when juxtaposed with genesis 2.  y? cos the narrative subjects of both chapters best illustrates the explicit meanings intended.


I will save the narrative for another time and jump quickly to answer ur questions.

1).  Genesis 1 describes God`s view of the creation. To fully understand this one has to look at the nature of God. Two biblical verses illustrate this one is John 4:24 : God is spirit and they that worship him must do so in spirit and in truth. and they second that illustrates that God has made all things right in his own time (cant lay my hands on that verse at d moment).
There was day and night on the first three days from the spirit. its physical manifestation was being awaited.  read Genesis 2: 4-6.

2). A day is a day. 24 hours.

3). Limiting the concept of the light to the sun is very uninformative. Last time I checked the dictionary, one of its definition of the light was:   spiritual illumination or awareness; enlightenment.
It is simply an acknowledgement of a spiritual realm where light (not subject to physical analysis)exists.

4). God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day

God made two lights. The moon ruled by night and the sun by day. Science says the sun gives the moon its light. This is no contradiction as long as the moon still rules by night. Is there anyting i was supposed to deduce from ur question? cos it sounds meaningless. At least i was xpectin more totful questions.

5). Rubbish. The bible gives no account of the creation the other planets. I will reserve my opinion on that.

6).  Check answer 5.

7). please be objective. what has the law of gravity got to do with the lack of objectivity of the evolution argument when juxtaposed with creation?

I would officially like to know where u stand on the evolution debate. Cos if this is just another one of those meaningless atheistic one sided narratives u do on nairaland, please count me out.

Otherwise, if u are an evolutionist who knows ur onions, please count me in. And u can start by addressing the posers i raised to bawomolo and KAG in one of my earlier posts about the origin of life.

welcome on board.

I shall address your-what-passes-for-responses later. But for now, can you answer these questions?

1) What is The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as espoused the biological scientific community? I want you to define what these biological scientists mean by TTE as originally advanced by Charles Darwin, providing significant reference material from recognised and leading scientific books, publications and experts.

2) What is the Theory/Law of Gravitational Attraction as defined by the scientific community? If you did not know much about the theory of gravity, where would you turn to for information about it?

Evangelical forms of Christianity is sweeping the world apace but recent research reveals that the majority of the evangelical population are simply people who have converted from other Christian denominations into Evangelicalism. The proportion of brand new converts is much much smaller than inter-christian sect conversions. In fact, this is such a great cause for concern for the Vatican, especially in places like African, where the growth of evangelicalism over the last two decades has seen a major reduction in Catholic numbers.

The evnagelical movement is fronted by a multitude of high-profile and spectacular and flamboyant ministers who are now able to "plant" churches in many parts of the world. The likes of Adeboye, Deya, JB Joshua, Hinn, Pastor Chris, etc, etc, etc now have ministries in many countries across the world and patronise glossy TV channels to spread their muck into the homes of millions. I personally know of many Africa homes where they watch nothing else but these rubbish.

For the large part, these ministers/pastors/bishops are speaking to the choir or converted audience. Their message is really aimed at those already disposed to believe the non-sense they spout out. They target the flocks or followers of other ministers, essentially. When a follower of one minister gets disillusioned with a certain pastor/minister, he/she simply turns around and starts attending the service of a rival minister, transfering his/her tithes payments to the new ministry, much to the delight of the new pastor and chagrin of the old. Such musical chair is essentail what happens in the modern evangelical movements, and I see this amongst my family and friends who are adherents of their pastors.

The testimony of the Nairalander SirJohn is a case in point, in which he describes how he becomes disaffected as a follower of Pastor Chris, having discovered the scam perpetrated by the pastor. I don't know who he follows now, but he is ripe material for sucking into some other charismatic pastor. Essentially these churches compete for the same gullible audience, with the audience regularly moving from one whorehouse to another.

Moderator has done it again, deleted my post. What is the bloody point of having this forum if the MODs go about deleted post? C'mon MOD, go find something useful to do.

0thello:
Should have shown him an ostrich,  Nothing more vestigial than a bird with wings that cannot fly. Or you should have shown him an appendix, nothing more vestigial than an dietry organ that is irrelevant to our diet. It hasn't been phased out because natural selection is all but a distant memory in regards to humans.

He's a slowpoke, look at how he tries to back slide his words yet he was the one who put forward the proposition that mutations aren't beneficial and are in fact only harmful. I never once argued against the evidence that all cancers are the result of mutations either in proteins or DNA. I never really spoke on the subject at all. I was too busy wondering what my insurance premium was and seeing if I could get a second opinion from www.insurancexpert.co.uk/.

I dunno though, Daviddylan.com seems like the only place when you want advice on how to fake a claim. With advice like that you could be pulling off Eddie Guerro insurance fraud and not even know it.

I could tell you, but you wouldn't be convinced. Who's fault is that? At one end of the spectrum you could be considered the most gullible tool in the universe for believing in Christianity with the pitiful evidence (if any) for it & at the other end you reject evidence that runs counter to your asserted beliefs despite the despite the amount of evidence for them. You can lead a horse to water but you can't MAKE it drink after all. Now I wasn't here for whatever you and Huxley have had in the past however your reluctance to accept information is a testament to the futility of actually providing you with information. You don't even acknowledge when someone has provided it, confirmation bias.

So let's just all go our separate ways, you don't have to bark at us because you have a religious claim to up hold and you can carry on giving insurance advic,   I mean training in molecular Biology.

MODS delete posts?

Oh YES, and he has been very buzy tonight.

Time to enjoy some words of wisdom from Ingersoll. The above website has been demised, but you can now listen to the same delivery here

[url=http://www.reasonworks.com/BS%20Your%20Parents%20Never%20Taught%20You.html] HERE [/url]

about 15 minutes and not yet deleted! WOW!

The moderator appears to be very busy tonight - removing many of my postings. Hello Moderator, how very biased you are!

I gather the spam filter is playing up.

learn about evolution here http://www.youtube.com/user/EvoBiologist

0thello:
Hey there Huxley, well I don't really know if he is David Dylan JR. However he's marketting a website in every email he sent to me as an attachment (most likely from a company email).

It says (as followed: , see what's new on my blog, http://www.davidylan.com/,  
, Lord, I want to be just like You
'Cause he wants to be just like me
I want to be a holy example
For his innocent eyes to see
Help me be a living Bible, Lord
That my little boy can read
I want to be just like You
'Cause he wants to be like me


I'm not going to debate biology with him, he's so full of shit. At the end of the day he's some punk insurance sales man (most likely) who has a small grasp on biology but ultimately hasn't gotten much further besides wikipedia and a few laughable sources.

Now, we know just how dishonest and deceitful he is.   To see more evidence of his deceit, see the this thread in which we debated The Theory of Evolution (TTE).  I ask many questions, such as:

1)  On the subject of avatism, I asked whether it was conceivable that humans could develop feathers since he was arguing that human tails were simply deformations.  He said NO.   When I asked Why, he evaded and provided no response, although he seemed to be very sure that humans could never develop feathers as simple deformations in the same way the human tails are deformations.

2)  I also asked him what conclusion he could draw from the fact that he shares most DNA material with his siblings  than he does with me.  He also evaded as is his wont.

In fact, that thread is very instructive as to his methods, and these are poeple who claim to have the high moral ground!

huxley:
Some videos about evolution here

What is happening to my postings today?

rockhaven:
this is what usually happened when GOD called a man to preach and he decides to be a banker in addition to gospel preaching.we pray that GOD will intervene and save this man from the hands of his enemies.

When god called him to preach, did god not realise that he was going to go into banking and financial scamming. What sort of god is that if he did not know these things?

0thello:
This is futile, it's like arguing with a third world child, as I said in my initial response to you. You're a creationist, and are going to argue in circles, when posed questions you'll deflect (which you have) when met with evidence you merely scoff at it without providing a single counter argument unless it's in the form of butchering the actual process. Just like your use of cancer as mutation in general (which is so flawed in its reasoning and accuracy that to point out where you've gone wrong would be insulting to YOUR intelligence.

David you're a lost cause, do not email me again, do not ever, ever go behind my back and then shift the onus of your deceit on to me. A message to anybody here. David is no Biologist, the only thing you need go to him is for Insurance advice.

http://www.davidylan.com/index.php

Hello Othello,

Good to see online and taking on Davidylan. I glad you have quickly realised just how deceitful and dishonest he is. By the way, is the website related to him, or just mere coincidence?

Some videos about evolution here

noetic:
unlike evolution creationism answers the very basic origin and "evolution" of life.

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5[b] God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.[/b]

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 [b]God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. [/b]17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
       in the image of God he created him;
       male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Look above at my highlighting of your post above.   From that, you will see that the sun and stars were not created until the 4th day.  Now answer these questions:

1)  How could there have been day/night on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd days without the sun?

2)  What is the definition of a day?

3)  Where did the light in the first three "days" come from given there was no sun until the 4th day.

4)   The lesser light (ie, the moon)- Is the moon a source of light by itself?

5)  We know that the planets are held in orbit around the sun by the gravitational attraction of the sun.  If the earth was created before the sun, 4 days before the sun - what was holding the earth and the other planets in their orbits about the sun.

6) When did god create the other planets?

7)  Are you also in opposition of the Theory of Gravity as you are about The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?


I await your responses to these questions with bated breath, or are you gonna evade them?  I guess I know what you might do.

I will be most disappointed if this is a surprise to anyone! Large Christian ministries and financial/sexual scam go together like hand and glove.

JeSoul:
lol . . . I gotta admit, you have your moments of genuine humor.

  So is anyone going to help out Huxley?

How was I suppose to understand this comment;

JeSoul:
lol . . . persecution card? I will assume that to be an attempt at a joke. I will not 'address' those questions becos you raised them. I'm not worried about therationa tpaine Huxley and what he thinks of my 'credibility'.

If Bawo, Chris, Manmustwac or Mazaje opens a thread and raises those questions and invites opinions from christians, I will be the first to jump on board. Becos I know you're not really intrested in discussion as your history here has shown . . . small wonder no one but AIO replies your threads. I've already said that the only thing you've shown you care about is ridiculing, slandering, jeering, scoffing and mocking christians and christianity.

Literally or metaphorically?

I need someone to help me pose a question on this board, as I have just learnt that some people (eg, JeSoul ) will not address questions that are posed by me, Huxley. 

I need a thread that asks the following questions:

Atheists care first and foremost,  about the majors claims of religion such as;

1)  The existence of a supernatural realm and a god that inhabits that realm

2)  The nature of God and his attributes (otherwise known as the ontology of god)

This is essentially what atheism is supposed to adjudicate on - nothing else.   

Now, if you are making a claim fo the existence of an entity, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for that entity.  Atheists have no burden of proof on this subject.  Take the following little thought experiment as an example.

Do you believe in the existence of Sussicorn ?  By the way, you have every right to ask me about the ontology of Sussicorn.

If you don't, why don't you?   Think of all the other gods that humans have venerated in the past- Zues, Wotan, Appolo, Sango, Thor, etc, etc.  Why don't you believe in any of these gods today?  If you understand why you don't believe in these gods, you would understand why atheist don't believe in your god.


If you choose to make a thread for this, please title it something like "What does atheism address primarily?"

Blood_Shed:
This post just made my day. I'll download some now.

Very much appreciated

Am glad you found this useful. Makes my efforts all the more worthwhile.

On this day (10th May 1994) Jeffrey Dahmer was baptised and as Jesus said in Mark 16: 16;

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


he was gladly received into heaven a few months later (Nov 28 1994) after he died. Halleluuuuuuuyaaaah, the power of baptism is awesome.

JeSoul:
*did not waste my time reading ^^*

Huxley I have 'known' you since the first day you started posting on NL and the only thing you've shown you care about is ridiculing, slandering, jeering, scoffing and mocking christians and christianity.

Why did you not address the issues I raise above? These are the issues at the heart of our (atheist) refusal to believe the claims of the religionists. You would gain more credibility of you had attempted to address these issues, but instead you decided to play the persecution-complex card. And then you cry foul when we despise and hold your belief in contempt!

To paraphrase the bible - it would have been better if you had kept your mouth (fingers) shut (unfolded).

Pastor AIO:
Did you see this post, Huxley
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-247892.0.html#msg3607980

Yes, I did. I was very bz at the time and could not respond then. But with the passage of time I soon forgot to respond. I shall do so today.

tpia:
I dont think picking out verses here and there, is the same thing as knowing the bible. More like he memorized his catechism.

What does "knowing the bible" entail? Take someone like the scholars Bart Ehrman, Robert M Price, Burton Mack, John Dominic Crossan, Gerd Ludermann, Graham Stantom and William Lane Graig,, who are all academic contemporary bible scholars.

How would "knowing the bible" be used with respect to these scholars? Do they have to agree on a doctrinal line established 1800 years ago, to be described as "knowing the bible"?

Does anyone now believe in Sussicorn? If you don't, you are missing a great opportunity to bettter you life.

JeSoul:
My brotha you may be suprised to know that a lot of biblical christians share a lot of the sentiments you expressed above. We do care along with you that 'religion' in Naija is for the most part negatively affecting the nation. We do care just as much as you do.

The thing is most atheists throw a blanket and condemn all things christian. So much good, so much work and charity is done by true christians practicing true religion all around the world. But most atheists turn a blind eye to that and instead focus solely on the famous pastors aka wolves in sheeps clothing saying "this is what christianity is". This to me is an intellectually dishonest position, they are obviously mostly emotionally driven and it immediately takes away any credibility from the atheist.

  These atheists chanting "death to religion", how many people have they themselves clothed? fed? helped? housed? for these people they supposedly 'care' so much about? I'm not saying they shouldn't condemn wrongdoing when they see it, but the way most of them go about it here on these boards shows their motive is not anything close to compassion or care, but moreso a public show of their unhealthy obsession and hatred for religion.

For your information, atheists care first and foremost,  about the majors claims of religion such as;

1)  the existence of a supernatural realm and a god that inhabits that realm

2)  The nature of God and his attributes (otherwise known as the ontology of god)

This is essentially what atheism is suppose to adjudicate on - nothing else.   

Now, if you are making a claim fo the existence of an entity, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for that entity.  Atheists have no burden of proof on this subject.  Take the following little thought experiment as an example.

Do you believe in the existence of Sussicorn ?  By the way, you have every right to ask me about the ontology of Sussicorn.

If you don't, why don't you?   Think of all the other gods that humans have venerated in the past- Zues, Wotan, Appolo, Sango, Thor, etc, etc.  Why don't you believe in any of these gods today?  If you understand why you don't believe in these gods, you would understand why atheist don't believe in your god.

The cold and indifference hand of nature trods along uncompromisingly. What a shame she does not live in a community that has the likes of Pastors Chris, TB Joshua, Adeboye, Deya, Jakes, Hinn, et,c etc, who would have saved her life through the blood of Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus.