₦airaland Forum

bindex:
I had the same experience about 3 weeks ago in Maiduguri, a guy was being mobbed for stealing another man's genitals, I had to intervene and plead with the ignorant blood sucking animals to please try and hear the guy out, to cut the story short I was accused of being one of the guys friend and accomplice because I said that I do not believe that a man can steal another man's genitals using magic,the entire story was a joke,we asked them to show us the guy whose genital was stolen and they showed us one guy in his mid 20s, my soldier friend asked them to show us his genitals so that we can confirm that it was stolen and some in the mob started to shout and say that Islamically its wrong for a man to see another man's genitals, how they knew that the guys genitals was stolen is what I just can't understand . If not because of my friend who is a military officer and was in uniform that was together with me I believe I would have been killed or mobbed. After the whole drama the guy now said that his genital has been returned . My friend together with some of the animal savages then took the accused person to the police station, when he became lucid he was asked to explain himself and he swore that he doesn't know what the people were talking about, the accused man said that he once did something very bad to the young man's uncle and the guy promised to revenge, he said he believes the young man's uncle sent the young man to set him up and disgrace him for the offence he did to him a very long time ago.The whole saga was just a joke. I have learnt not to say anything again to anybody again when it comes to any of these rubbish, nonsensical and stupid beliefs. Nigerians/Africans are just too blind and stupid. Its only in Africa that you hear this kind of ridiculous stories and yet we get mad and angry when white people call us animals. I still have some few months to finish my NYSC and after that goodbye Nigeria. Atheist are not welcomed here at all.

What a story! Africa is in dire straits and it appears to be getting worse. I had a thread here calling for more atheist activism in our communities. I think for political reasons, I should have worded this as rationalist activism. That would achieve the same goal without the theist finding the atheist confrontational.

I have heard some heart-rending story about the plight of atheist in Nigeria which has got me to rethink the strategy. Maybe this should have been called the year of "Rationalist Activism". The goals of atheist activism and rationalist activism are exactly the same, but RA does not appear to directly confront theism, which appears to be the biggest reservation some members here have raised.

1 Corinthian 5: 13 - But them that are without God judgeth. From the King James Version.

What do you think?

Image123:
@kola oloye
huxley has 'taken his time' to read 1Corinthians5.so what's the lesson there sir?

@huxley
DON'T BE SILLY.

This verse is just classic

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.



Hope you learn from that.

Why then do we need all the courts of law in the nations of the world? Is is OK for a Christian to practise as a judge in courts of law?

kola oloye:
please take your time and read that your 1 Cor 5 again. It is wrong to be quoting out of context.

1 Corinthians 5
1It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles,
that one should have his father's wife.

2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness;
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters;
for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous,
or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

The master of blanket bible quoting is back. Can you function in a world without the bible? I doubt it.

Derison:
Huxley,

I didnt run away, i went to read on some of the things you said and I will like to correct some of the assumptions that u make

1)  There are no evident transitional fossils,  Correct
2)  Evolution does not prove the existence or not of a creator (U are getting me wrong there)
3)  Physics does not exactly state what was pre-big bang.
4)  Then the universal constants: the probability of its success is slim and if we were to look at mathematical probability,  it shouldnt have happened, and we shouldnt have been here.
5)  Where does intelligence come from:
6) Evolution remains seems rather speculative to me: e.g. this bird's beak is shaped like this because its ancestors had to adapt to the kind of nut on island x, why didnt they die off of hunger? Just like saying because i want to fly my descendants my grow wings.

Hello Derison,

NIce to know you are still about and have responded to my post albeit without even attempting the questions I asked above.  I hope you find the information you are research, cuz I am looking forward to a rather sane and interesting chat with you.  Something relatively rare amongst theists.  

Now, you said I made some incorrect assumptions, which you were going to correct.  What are these assumptions and how did you redress them?


I asked that we focus initially on the theory of evolution and transitional fossil.  In due course we may come to deal with the other subjects, namely Big Bang, existence of creator, intelligent design, etc, etc.  That is how an organised conversation is generally conducted, rather than the scatter-gun approach you appear to favour.   So let us deal with biological evolution first and if we have time address the other issues later.


Can you take a look at these questions please?

1) If you forget about Darwinian evolution for a minute, how would you explain the fact that these changes in biological lifeforms exist?

2) Why is it that no fossils of horses, or rabbits, or humans, or birds are ever found in pre-cambrian rocks?

3) Why is it that all early lifeforms were only single-cell organism and why don't we find multicell organism in rock made of these single cell organisms?

4) Do you know what stromatolites are?

5) Have you heard of an early fossil fish call tiktaalic, recently uncovered in Northern America?



That should build the platform on which to progress subsequent discussions.  

Thanks.

Hello Derison,

Did my questions scare you off? I am very sorry if they did for it was hard to tell just how solid your mettle is even though you appear to have taken action to educate yourself.

A_K_O:
God looks not on the outward appearance, but on the heart.

God chose the young novice called David to be King, what was He turning the throne of Israel to?

If so, why was he busy giving Paul instructions about how women sho present in church? Or are women just free-for-all tools manipulable by just about anyone?

Derison:
Mr, Huxley,

I will assume that u do not like religion because it is incoherent and lacks evidence, and for the most part I agree with u, there can only be one true way: that is the question that led me to agnosticism, is there a God, can we know him/her, and of all the religions that abound which is true? Now, evolution makes some guesses that seem logical (but are guesses nonetheless), and for one there is a lack of transitional fossils: and much as we know that we might have evolved (I say this because i suppose that if we did evolve, there might have been an intelligent being behind it: a thought i still don't take too seriously) we are not sure what sprung the process into being. In Dawkins Blind watchmaker, i find faults in his logic because he assumes that evolution is process that is lacking of a designer (I am yet to see a process that displays intent without thought: yes I am aware of Jay Gould's metaphor of spandrels, but spandrels are not as significant as the building) and then again if a process gets better then there must be intelligence behind it, and as I know evolution is a process (that is unintelligent: but at the same time intelligent> what could be more equivocal) that has nothing in mind but succeeds in getting better all the time.  What happened before the big bang remains a question to be answered, and more importantly we must ask the question how did intelligence arise from chemical compunds?  I may be asking questions that project me as confused, but if evolutionists ask for certainty I must ask how certain are u that we evolved, and that there wasnt an intelligent being behind that process, and the fact that we share genetic similarity with certain animals does not prove that we evolved, it proves that we need a certain makeup to survive life, saying that the fact that the only difference between our genetic make up and that of an ape is 1% is proof of evolution is as lame as saying that a counterfeit painting probably came from the same painter.

FYI,  I don't believe in a 6,000 yr old earth,  Genesis doesnt even agree with that.

Hello Derison,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate it.

You may seem confused, but that is OK. We are ALL subject to being confused with respect to such difficult questions and given that you want to pack as many points as you can in your post, it may come out as incoherent. That's is OK. Allow me to try to point out some issues.

Firstly, let me summarise the questions you have and se if we agree on what your "problems" are. From your post, your touched on;

1) Evolution, and there being no transitional fossils
2) Even if evolution was true, it must have been driven by an intelligent agent
3) The cause or prime creator of ultimate reality
4) The age of the earth and the inference of age drawn from the bible.

There may have been more, but these are the keep themes I got from your post above. Each one of these can form the subject of a voluminous book in itself, but I would like to suggest we dwell on item 1) "The Theory of Evolution and transitional fossils"

I am sure you know what the scientific definition of evolution is, but it bears repeating again. Evolution simply means change. In fact, in every sense of the word, evolution means change. Thus you can speak of cosmic evolution, biological evolution, the evolution of the Super Eagles team, etc, etc, etc.

But Darwinian evolution ONLY addresses biological evolution or biological changes. Biological evolution has been known to humans for many centuries, even before Darwin. If you check the literature, you will be surprise how far back evolutionary thinking goes back. What was not know until Darwin was a plausible mechanism that explains the observed changes. Enter the concept of "theory".

Basically Darwin proposed a theory that explains adequately the observed facts of evolution - the notion of Natural Selection. There may well be some other force driving biological change, but to this day none has been found and Natural Selection has not been falsified even after 150 years of constant attempt at falsification.

So even without Darwin's theory, we are still stuck with the facts of evolution that would need explaining. Facts don't go away because we have not got explanations (theories) for them. They are indifferent to our attempts at explanation. Allow me to ask some questions;



1) If you forget about Darwinian evolution for a minute, how would you explain the fact that these changes in biological lifeforms exist?

2) Why is it that no fossils of horses, or rabbits, or humans, or birds are ever found in pre-cambrian rocks?

3) Why is it that all early lifeforms were only single-cell organism and why don't we find multicell organism in rock made of these single cell organisms?

4) Do you know what stromatolites are?

5) Have you heard of an early fossil fish call tiktaalic, recently uncovered in Northern America?



Try and answer the above questions and hopefully that should help illuminate the issues you are having difficulties with.

Derison:
i just want to say something briefly: I have read Dawkins, Hitchens, some of Dan Dennet and none of Sam Harris but have watched their video the four horsemen (they are the four most prominent Atheist world over) and I read a lot on evolution, and i consider myself an open minded christian, I was agnostic before that. Now in the light that we evolved, we must ask ourselves whether morality has a basis at all: all that atheists and agnostics say is that if we have a society with no religion of any sort such a society will be good for all of us, I am certainly sure that is a lie, people will always be good or evil, But we must first ask ourselves what role does good or evil have when all we are here to do is to ensure our genes survive. I have heard that we should not see God as a source of morals, but instead see morality as being shaped by human solidarity, now that is even a worse joke, I should be moral because of all of you, you all must be mad: I see it this way there is nothing wrong in stealing since the thief is more fit than the victim, and rape is just the male desire to ensure that his genes are spread wide and that he has more offspring than the rest of us, the truth is that if we remove religion, then there is nothing to hang unto other than another imaginary concept called human solidarity.

And as for the concept of evolution: you have to be kidding me, because it seems that the creatures wished their changes into being and then it happened overtime, i hope my oldest ancestor wished he could fly so in a billion years time my descendants will. Evolution and religion require a lot of faith, and if i might end it here the modern trend that secularism is taking is nothing short of the bigotry they accuse people of faith of.

I must commend you for having read those authors. You sound like a reasonable theist. But my question to you is the following:

What are your scientific arguments against The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection? If you have got no intelligible arguments against it, you cannot say accepting TTE is a faith position.

Have found some videos of Alan Guth on Youtube talking about CI. Here is one of them

I cannot find the article I read, but Wikipedia has a good write-up on CI. Check it out. It talks about the predictive power of the theory. It also talk about work underway to verify the theory with some subtle measurements of the CMB

m_nwankwo:
Hi again Huxley. CMB is an evidence for Big Bang Theory. It is not an evidence for cosmic inflation. If Big Bang is as is postulated currently, the the two poles of the universe are so far apart that they have no contact with each other and that implies that the energy, space time etc will also be different. Observable data however show that the extreme poles of the unverse are similar. This in simple terms is the Horizon problem. Astro physcists tried to explain this apparent contradiction by propounding new theories, the best of the theories are cosmic inflation and variable light Speed. The question is why are their no observable evidence so far for cosmic inflation and varying light speed?

Ah, I see. I did not know that it was called the Hoziron Problem, or maybe I forgot. Let me try and explain it as I understood it when I first read about it.

Cosmic inflation essentially describes the period in the universe's expansion where it is postulated that the universe grew by exponential rates within the first few nanoseconds or less. Now, why this postulation? Because, as vast as the universe is, it remains a matter of great puzzlement how such a vast universe could have attained uniformity in temperature that it currently exhibits.

Cosmic inflation (Alan Guth et al) proposed that in the first few nanoseconds of the expansion, a period called inflation, all the forces of nature (strong force, weak force, electromagnetic and gravity) formed once combined force. As the universe expanded during inflation and before these forces broke apart, a uniform temperature was locked into the fabric of the universe. That is the gist of the theory. Of course, there is more.

Now, Cosmic Inflation does not challenge or invalidates Big Bang. Cosmic inflation is a refinement, focusing on answering the question of the uniformity of temperature in the universe. According to an article I read some months ago, CI is well attested by experimental evidence. Give me some time to track it down.

m_nwankwo:
Nice video. The narrator pointed out evidence for the Bing bang Theory. I guess it will be better if you also post video pointing limitation of the theory. That will give readers a balanced view which they can expand on if they are interested in cosmology. For example you should have a video on the Horizon problem. Why are their no observable evidence or data for theories used to reconcile Horizon problem with the big bang theory? Specifically, why are their no observable evidence so far for cosmic inflation and varying speed of Light theories?

Would glad to if I can find them and if I knew what these problems are. On the question of observable evidence of cosmic inflation, have you ever heard of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), measured stretching of space between gallaxies from the Hubble Telescope, etc, etc. Do you think these do not count as evidence? If so, why?

Watch the debate here .

If you are a theist, do you [size=14pt]know[/size] that God exists or do you [size=14pt]believe[/size] that God exists?

Just thought I would resurrect this old one to see if people have any new thoughts about it.

Are there any Sussicorn (Respect) converts now on NL?

pip lord:
WHO IS [b]God [/b]TO YOU? ARE YOU A BELIEVER OR AN ATHEIST?

Good questions. For me, I don't know. Who is he/she/it? And how do you come to know about God? What are he/she/it's attributes?

Learn more about the Big Bang here

From one maniacal delusion to another demonic delusion. What difference does that make?

Image123:
@huxley
every single book in the old testament is pointing to Jesus Christ.unfortunately for you,you're incapable of seeing that even if I showed Uwhy,because the bible is a spiritual book and you're BLIND to spiritual things.Except you become born again,you cannot see.IT'LL be like you trying to teach your intelligent dog arithmetic.that is impossible,except the dog were COVERTED to a human being.that conversion will be a miracle.do you believe in miracles?

Is it as much a spiritual book as the Koran is?

A great video series by AronRa. Have a look at one of them here

15 Evolutionary gems
by Nature, Pharyngula
See Nature's article "15 Evolutionary Gems" in PDF form here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

From Pharyngula:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/evolutionary_gems.php

This week, Nature magazine published a short list of recent important developments in evolutionary biology that support the theory of evolution, as a tool to help explain that evolution is definitely a dynamic and useful theory in our field and to demonstrate that the evidence is still growing. Here's a short summary of the 15 stories the editors picked out, but you should also read the freely available article, 15 Evolutionary Gems. Teachers, put this in your classroom!

1. The discovery of Indohyus, an ancestor to whales.

2. The discovery of Tiktaalik, an ancestor to tetrapods.

3. The origin of feathers revealed in creatures like Epidexipteryx.

4. The evolution of patterning mechanisms in teeth.

5. The developmental and evolutionary origin of the vertebrate skeleton.

6. Speciation driven indirectly by selection in sticklebacks.

7. Selection for longer-legged lizards in Caribbean island populations.

8. A co-evolutionary arms race between Daphnia and its parasites.

9. Non-random dispersal and gene flow in populations of great tits.

10. Maintenance of polymorphisms in populations of guppies.

11. Contingency in the evolution of pharyngeal jaws in the moray.

12. Developmental genes that regulate the shape of beaks in Darwin's finches.

13. Evolution of regulatory genes that specify wing spots in Drosophila.

14. Evolution of toxin resistance.

15. The concept of evolutionary capacitance: the idea that environmental stress can expose hidden variations that are then subject to selection.

What happened to the children, who for centuries have been trapped in Limbo? Have they now been released into heaven in spite of their original sin? Have they gone to hell although they might not have committed any sins themselves?

ttalks:
Mr. Huxley.
You just have a way of going on and on about things you obviously do not understand.If u do not understand what the scriptures say, that is ur own personal problem.
What u've said here is just proof that u do not understand anything in the bible.If u claim that the old testament never said anything about Jesus being the salvation of human beings it shows the limit of ur understanding;very porous.
I will not waste my time arguing over this issue with u becaus it's of no use.
You are obviously one of the lost ones that probably has no part in God's salvation.For ur information, this salvation that is talked about in the bible has been earmarked for a select people; some people will not have a part in it.
Everything u're doing here;disagreeing and disproving of what the bible says, is no surprise.
It is all part of God's plan.So,no matter what you say or do,just know that u are simply fulfilling ur purpose as planned by God.

I'll leave u with this little info about one part in the old testament that talked about Jesus and what he was coming to do for his elect:

Genesis 22:15-18
(15)  And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
(16)  And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
(17)  That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
(18)  And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Galatians 3:6-29
(6)  Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
(7)  Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
(8  And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
(9) So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
(10)  For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
(11)  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
(12)  And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
(13)  Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
(14) That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
(15)  Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
(16)  Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
(17)  And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
(18)  For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
(19)  Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
(20)  Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
(21)  Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
(22)  But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(23)  But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
(24)  Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
(25)  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
(26)  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
(27)  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
(28)  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
(29)  And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This is just one of the parts of the old testament that talked about Christ and his purpose on earth as clearly explained in the new testament.I don't expect this to change ur mind; I'm only laying down an undeniable fact.

It is more frutiful to debate with others who believe in Christ but might be going about the faith wrongly than to waste precious energy trying to convince someone who obviously does not believe in God because he has been given over to a reprobate mind by God;Romans 1:28.

However u want to continue as regards these truths are ur own business.As I will always say, you are simply playing out ur role as commissioned by God.

Wish you had paid more attention to the main thrust of my question instead of spewing out rubbish that has little bearing to the question.

I asked if there were any prophecies in the OT that specifically predict the dying of Jesus on the cross as a method of human salvation. I also asked if Jesus's 2nd coming was predicted in the OT.

You have responded to none of these questions. I am not surprise, anyway, for such evasiveness and shallowness is typical of Christians.

Christians claim Jesus Christ is the messiah prophesied in the Jewish scriptures as coming to save the Jewish people. But does the OT give any inkling as to how Jesus was going to save his people?

Does the OT prophesy Jesus as coming to be killed by crucifixion by Roman soldiers? Or was his death later presented by the New Testament writers as a theological, instead of the physical salvation from the world? Is there anywhere in the OT in the death of Jesus is presented as the method of human salvation?


The NT presents the doctrine of the 2nd coming of Christ in bodily form. Is it possible that Jesus's 2nd coming might not occur as given in the NT, considering that the OT could not get the event of his first coming quite right?

Is there prophecy in the Old Testament about Jesus Christ coming to die for mankind's sins?

bawomolo:
bro you are being a bit too idealistic here. what you can wish for as an atheist in Nigeria is acceptance and not deconverting people. tai solarin try am, it no work.

See you point, but I live in hope. After more that 15 years of trying, I have never managed to get a single member of my family to agree with me on the issue of god and christianity. The stranglehold is so strong, especially if you are in Africa, because the community at large held to bolster the community delusion.

I hear since Tai Solarin's death his school has adopted religion and Christianity, much to the disrespect of his memory. Is that true?

Lady,

Responding to you would be like talking with a 17th century infant.

Bye!

mazaje:
@ poster

your girl should know about it but as per your family hmmm that one na hard nut ohh. they will never accept most especially if they are conservative christains, family is VERY important because they are the people you can always fall and count on when every body fails you. so in other not to break that bond its better you go along with them. i made the mistake of telling my family that i was an atheist and suddenly things started moving badly between us. i had to recant and tell them that jesus paid me a visit in my dreams and i am now a born again christain. do you know that my mum believes me! she told my younger brother that it was her prayers and fasting that worked and made jesus to visit me  . so go ahead and tell your girl but your family should not know about this.

Feel for you.   I think the bombshell approach is too much for  most families to take.  That is why I suggest a slow-and-steady approach, slowly casting doubts on the standard christian narrative.  In fact, you will be surprise just how effective this method is at reducing potential tension, if you have already prepared their minds by casting seeds of doubts.   You may even deconvert some familly members.