₦airaland Forum

davidylan:
I had those examples in mind and was half expecting someone to bring it up. No you miss my real intent there . . . Christ told those people you mention to "tell no man" . . . of course He knew they would tell anyway.
While the church ACTIVELY takes strict measures to prevent their "healed" from having contact with the press (seizing video cameras, preventing journalist's access to the "victims", Christ did none of the sort . . . rather He healed virtually ALL in the presence of witnesses (both followers and enemies).

Well you were trying to derive a theology from non-facts and I thought it was important that I point this out. This is what you actually said and it is likely that if I had not drawn you attention to what the bible actually says, you would have gone on propagating your own version of theology.

contrary to your church, there is nowhere in the bible that Christ barred those He healed from speaking to others about their miracles. Why is the press barred from speaking with or taking pictures of your "healed"? Why are the "healed" kept in special waiting rooms immediately after "recieving their healing"?

After all, what is new in that? Since when did theology actually start relying on facts?

So by the standards of JC, it is legitimate for the pastors of today to bar the "healed" from speaking to anyone, never mind the media. They would be following in JC's footsteps.

imhotep:
@huxley
If you are so sure of yourself, why do you have to wait for the Vatican (a religious domain) to authenticate your scientific (and 'rational') theories??

Where did I say, or implied I was waiting for the Vatican to authenticate my theories? C'mon, show me.

Pilgrim.1,  thanks for your response which was a much greater improvement to your earlier post on account of you supplying reference, etc, to support your position.  Great.

I am rushing off to work now and shall respond in details myself when I get back.  I shall also be quoting from some famous atheist of the past and present about how they view themselves and their definition for atheism.  These are;

Baron D'Holback,
Bradlaugh
George Smith
Michael Martin
Nicholas Everett
J L Mackie

etc, etc

So I shall need access to their published words, which I can only access from home.  In the meantime, if you can check these names out, that would help advance the discussion further.


It is worth noting that in classical times, the Christians were called atheists by the Romans

But the whole multitude, marvelling at the nobility of mind displayed by the devout and godly race of Christians, cried out, "Away with the Atheists!"
-- The Martyrdom of Polycarp 3.2

Christians were atheoi, "no-godders," and thus were considered a serious political and religious threat.

Well Pilgrim,

Thanks for responding promptly. I guess you are still about to read and respond to this but I shall not be able to respond right back as I shall rush off to bed as I have got work tomorrow. I shall pose a few issues nontheless;

Firstly, your method of discussion is rather strange, to say the least. You keep making glibe accusation of illogic, bad reason or assertion etc, yet you fail to show how my reasoning is illogical or bad, or support your assertions. I would be interest in seeing how my reasoning is bad; Here are some examples of what I mean;

Atheism actually is concerned about the philosophies and worldviews of other people.

You missed the whole gist by a mile. Go back and read carefully what I said and not assume that I accused you of what you didn't say.

I am familiar with most of the articles on the infidels' websites - I used them heavily against Christianity while I was a Muslimah. . .until I realized that most of the things I was holding from such websites are simply dishonest manging of the Biblical faiths. What is new there?

Would be interested to see you thing are dishonest about this site? I challenge you to show me. Alas, you won't.

If Sussicorn is projected as a "god", then you would not be dealing with the question of atheism. The idea of making atheists out of theists is a contradiction of your own position - because you're force-fitting a bad logic to obfuscate issues even more.

Where is the bad logic?

So far, your presentation has not convinced me otherwise.

I'm familiar with some of those names; not familiar with others. yet, those whom I have read are not as brilliant in defending their positions, dear huxley. Even if I were to believe that you've actually read those guys instead of just mentioning them, you would have come away doing a better job thinking for yourself than trying to present their shadowy ideologies as if they hold good rationale.

Which of these authors have you read and can you tell me the main tenet of their idea. Mind you I have got all their books on my desk right now (except Drange). Can you give me a gist of what you read in the books you read. Did you purchase these books or borrow them from a library?

I'm grateful for the distinction. Yet, even at that, you have not yet defined what atheism itself actually is.

What the hell is this. I define atheism and went so far as to give links to many sites. Did you miss all of that.


OK, my question to you is the following;

What in your view is atheism?


Will pick from your definition of atheism tomorrow, as the classical standard definitions appears to make no headway with you. Lets look at your definition of atheism.

BTW, why would you as a Muslim read the infidel website (http://www.infidels.org)? Just curious

~Lady~:
Huxley,

I think you're confusing resepct for unexamination.
You can disagree with a worldview and still respect it.
For example I disagree with atheism, however I respect whatever reasons you give me to the belief of it and I respect you for it. And in return I expect you to respect mine.[b] We can have dialogue without you calling my belief barbaric and outdated. [/b]Just as you would get offended when I said "intelligent" people lacked reasoning.

We can dialogue without disrespecting each other, or insulting each other.


No one wants to dialogue with you because for someone who prides himself with being knowledgeable you are very rude and uncivilized.

hello Lady,

I see you point, but pardon me, if I disagree. Views do not deserve respect. However, I respect your right to have whatever views you may want, however good or nonsensical these views may be. You have every right to have your views. I do not criticise you for having them, generally, unless they are so reprehensible as to make you an outcast. Although I criticise the christian worldview, I think the VAST majority of christians are good and decent people, so the you NOT fall under the reprehensible category.

But if someone were to hold view in favour of child abuse, of slavery, say, I will not only criticise the view but also criticise them for having those views. I hope you see the distinction.

You are most probably a very nice and companionable person. However, you have allied yourself to a belief system whose godhead is a barbaric monster. In doubt, just read the old testament books like Leviticus, Numbers, Judges, Exodus. On that portrayal, is a there any other way this god could be described?

Just as you would get offended when I said "intelligent" people lacked reasoning.


I would criticise this view from the point of view that it is too crude a generalisation, which in anycase may actually be wrong. But it would not offend me. Why would it offend me?

I try not to be rude to people. In fact, if you have seen most of my post, I am usually very courteous to people. But I take exception when people start calling me names. I generally don't mind if people call me fool, foolish, or insult my intelligence. These don't disturb me. All I ask is that people look at my arguments and try and debunk them if they can, and possibly learn from them, as I learn from others,

Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican
by News Daily


http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/lg626722-vatican-evolution/



Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

VATICAN CITY, Sep. 16, 2008 (Reuters) — The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation.

Earlier this week a leading Anglican churchman, Rev. Malcolm Brown, said the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain.

Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and Pope John Paul reiterated that in 1996. But Ravasi said the Vatican had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views.

"Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session," he said, adding that Darwin's theories were "never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned."

Creationism is the belief that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible. The Catholic Church does not read the Genesis account of creation literally, saying it is an allegory for the way God created the world.

Some other Christians, mostly conservative Protestants in the United States, read Genesis literally and object to evolution being taught in biology class in public high schools.

Sarah Palin, the Republican candidate for the U.S. vice presidency, said in 2006 that she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in schools but has subsequently said creationism does not have to be part of curriculum.

THEISTIC EVOLUTION

The Catholic Church teaches "theistic evolution," a stand that accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.

It objects to using evolution as the basis for an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text.

As Ravasi put it, creationism belongs to the "strictly theological sphere" and could not be used "ideologically in science."

Professor Philip Sloan of Notre Dame University, which is jointly holding next year's conference with Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University, said the gathering would be an important contribution to explaining the Catholic stand on evolution.

"In the United States, and now elsewhere, we have an ongoing public debate over evolution that has social, political and religious dimensions," he said.

"Most of this debate has been taking place without a strong Catholic theological presence, and the discussion has suffered accordingly," he said.

Pope Benedict discussed these issues with his former doctoral students at their annual meeting in 2006. In a speech in Paris last week, he spoke out against biblical literalism.

(Additional reporting by Tom Heneghan in Paris and Patsy Wilson in Washington; editing by Robert Hart)

davidylan:
donnie, on one of your sites i found this incredible falsehood under the title - WE NEED A PROOF OF MIRACLES?

I immediately disagree with this unbiblical statement - [size=18pt]The tabloids and some uninformed respondents ignorantly requested proof of the genuineness of miracles received in the healing ministry of Pastor Chris. What they have not realized is that miracles are not in the realm of science and therefore cannot and should not be subjected to tests for proof of authenticity.[/size]

Now, based on the same scriptures, that is a lie of the devil. There are uncountable examples of Christ healing the sick IN THE PRESENCE OF MANY WITNESSES, BOTH BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS!

Remember Christ's healing of the 10 lepers? Mathew 1: 44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Now if miracles are not supposed to be subjected to proof of authenticity why did Christ ask the man to show himself to the priest?

contrary to your church, there is nowhere in the bible that Christ barred those He healed from speaking to others about their miracles. Why is the press barred from speaking with or taking pictures of your "healed"? Why are the "healed" kept in special waiting rooms immediately after "recieving their healing"?

Man, your theology stinks. Just read you bible carefully;


Luke 8:

52And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.

53And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead.

54And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.

55And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.

56And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done.


Luke 5:
11And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him.

12And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

13And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.

14And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

15But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities.


Matthew 9;
27And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou son of David, have mercy on us.

28And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.

29Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.

30And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.

31But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.

pilgrim.1:
Well, glad to see you bring these up, although I believe some of the reasons I offered here and here would answer those questions above.

More reasons could be given, as the case may be. Yours is also a worldview - and the question we should be asking now is for you to give us reasons why your own worldviews should be respected and protected; and if not, also give us reasons why your own worldview should be attacked.

All worldviews (including mine) should be subject to the most tranchant examination and where the soft spot found, attacked. I make no exception to this general rule.

pilgrim.1:
Hi huxley,

It was refreshing to take a breather as the thread progressed. I may not always have as much time, though; but will chip in highlights between times. So here goes:

I find that a reasonable admission on your part - and you surprised me because you're one of the few rationalists I've actually discussed with who calmly admit the veracity of this fact. You indeed surprised me; but what more could I say than that it tessellates with what I have often tried to state consistently: that most rationalists of atheistic leanings are not rational (please observe I said 'most', not 'all'). However, I would have to sadly admit that the same applies to quite a lot of theists in the general sense.

If you really knew what atheism and philosophical atheism was, you would not have been that  surprised. 

I have to keep saying this - atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s) (or to use the stronger definition, which BTW is a more recent formulation, the denial of the existence of god(s).

It says nothing about how such lack of belief was derive. For instance, an infant has no appreciably notion of god(s).  Therefore, an infant is an atheism (more precisely, a natural atheist).  Let me give you a definition from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism);


Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.

Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere; and some religions, such as Jainism and Buddhism, do not require belief in a personal god.

The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion. With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists.


Why don't you take the definition that atheist themselve have defined for themselves.  Atheism says nothing about ones other philosophy of live or ones worldview, except that which ever worldview or philosophy they chose, this would be devoid of god(s) or deities.

Atheism has a very long history. I really wish you could read this page on wikipedia, but alas, I suspect you will NOT.

Why don't you learn about atheistic religions like Jainism and some forms of Buddhism to see that atheism does not necessarily translate into rationalism.

Having rejected religions, most philosophical atheism would natural (given their tendency of higher learning) search for worldviews on which to anchor their metaphysics.  Thus there are atheists who describe themselves as;

Metaphysical Naturalist,
Naturalist,
Humanists, etc, etc.

There really is not a great deal of differences between these positions. On the political front, a lot of American atheists would describe themselves as libertarians.   I own personal position is this;

Atheist -> Philosophical Atheist -> Metaphysical naturalist
On politics, I verge toward Libertarianism

Many atheists, especially the philosophical ones, would describe themselves in a similar fashion.

This is where I do not necessarily agree with you. Like I said, I have actually held extensive discussions with many who describe themselves as atheists but who actually are not such. Maybe sometime soon, I would take a moment to post a clinical analysis about this fact; but for all practical purposes, atheism simply is the denial of the supernatural - whether God (or gods), spirits, ghosts, paranormal phenomena, or metaphysical reality. For anyone to claim the title of "atheist" and still believe in the supernatural is a case neatly tucked away as bordering on anonym.

Like I said, there are many atheist who are also irrationalists.  Atheism is not guarantee for rationalism.  However, a philosophical atheism, is by necessity an rationalist and also hold the scientific enterprise as the most reliable source of knowledge about the nature of reality. While such atheists are unlikely to accept the existence of the supernatural, they would at the same time subjects any such claims to the scrutiny of scientific rationalism and if no conclusive results can be obtained, reject such claims or suspend judgement.

I understand you, huxley; and like I said, it is not in my place to disparage you for what you believe. You believe that you belong to a group of guys who entitle themselves as "philosophical atheists", don't you? That's admirable. However, their inferences are both wrong and mismatched. I shall show you why that is so, in due course.

You may criticise, if you want.  In fact, I do encourage you to scrutinise the atheistic arguments as best you can.  All forms for intellectual scrutiny is a healthy thing.  Why don't you give it your best shot?

Let me give you a flavour of the philosophical atheist arguments.  I cannot elaborate on any of them for lack of time and space.

1)    Ontological arguments
2)    Cosmological arguments
3)    Teleologocal arguments
4)    Arguments to/from miracles
5)    Arguments from the nature of god and morality
8-)   Argument from religious experience
9)    Arguments from scale
10)  The problem of evil
11)  Arguments from non-belief
12)  Arguments from naturalism, evolution and rationality.

To do any form of justice to your attack of philosophical atheism, you really have to familiarise yourself with some or all of these atheist arguments.  Otherwise, you would be attacking a strawman of your own creation.

You can start by checking out the following source:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/logical.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evidential.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/meaningless.html

In reality, you are proposing the existence of "Sussicorn" but not actually believing in it yourself. That does not make me an atheist, not at all. However, if you were actually to believe in Sussicorn as a god, my rejection of your religious belief does not make me an atheist - not at all. It only makes me a non-Sussicornian who believes in another God instead of Sussicorn. Not believing in your own "god" whom you called 'Sussicorn' does not make me any less a theist - I simply believe in a different God as revealed in the Biblical faith. But for all practical purposes, both the Sussicornian and the Christian are not atheists but theists!Do you see the difference?

I said you are an atheist with respect to Sussicorn, because, presumably, you do not believe in the existence of Sussicorn. You are a non-Sussicornian (Asussicornian), just as I am a non-theist (atheist).

Presumably, you are also an afairyiest, an azeusist, an amithrasist, an athorist, asangoist, etc, etc.  Just as I am ayahwehist (or ajehovahist).  Why are you an amithrasist?  If you understand why you are amithrasist, you will understand why I am ayahwehist.

That is why I would like to show you that philosophical atheism doesn't handle philosophy quite correctly.

How did you arrive at this assessment. Have you seen any defense of philosophical atheism?  Why don't you take a look at the work of the following philosopher - Michael Martin, Theodore Drange, Nicholas Everitt, Walter Kaufmann, David Eller, George H Smith,  J L Mackie, etc.  These are some of the most foremost philosophers on this subject.  Just search for these names on google or Amazon and read reviews of their work.

Atheism (philosphical or not) has nothing to do with the end of slavery, for one. Please don't let people like Dawkins deceive you with wild claims, if that's where you're tending to. He is one of those whose very irrational rants are now held as redundant among many atheists themselves; and I don't think you should be holding this cheap glory every single time a discussion is broached.

Who said atheism was responsible for the end of slavery? Did I say this?  Are you trying to misrepresent me? (Remember the commandment - thou shalt not bear false witness.)

I was simply saying that if worldviews are to be respected and protected, as you propose, then it necessarily follows that we should also respect worldviews tolerant of slavery, child-abuse, genital mutilation, apatheid,  infant abandonment?   Was there anywhere I attributed the end of slavery to atheism? PLEASE, show me where I said this, or implied this.

If worldviews are to be respected and not scrutinised and criticised, how would societies have advanced.  How would you forebares have abandoned their worldviews and adopted an alien worldview from the Middle East?  If Jesus had not examined and criticised the extant worldview at the time, what would be your religion today?

Coindidentally, I have debated Catholic doctrines on this forum (which is not the same thing as putting down any Catholic believer). However, even my own local Church has issues that I cannot always digest - and that is a humbling thought, because it makes me the wiser to realize that such issues are not for public angst. Let me explain, if I may:

One should not berate Catholics on just anything they fancy. Many people immaturely condemn and berate the catholic Church before they even understand what is being said. This is unhealthy. In my understanding, the events leading to the stance on condom was predicated on cases of promiscuity; and the Church had to take a defining stand on such issues. Now to answer your question - do I think that is sinful or not, and worthy of respect? I think it does us well to respect the catholic tradition for taking that stance for the reasons it gave. If atheism says that is wrong and not worthy of respect, then atheism should proffer a better solution to the moral issue of promiscuity. Can we see you do that? Talk is cheap, and it would not be grand to disparage people for their convictions when we have nothing better to offer in the event.

The Catholic problem with condom use is NOT about promiscuity.  Absolutely WRONG.  You need to inform yourself on that subject.  It is about the prevention of conception. 

Atheism don't NOT make any arguments for promiscuity, conception, sexuality, etc, etc.  Get that in your HEAD.

Please, give your reasons here whether worldviews and religions should be protected from criticism and rigorous examination. Would be most helpful if you could defend your case with pertinent examples. For instance;

1) If worldviews were respected and protected, modern-day democracies would be non-functional

2) If worldviews and religions were deserving of respect and protection, the Igbo practice of twin-abandonment would still obtain in parts of Nigeria.

3) If worldviews were deserving of respect, the Roman practice of infant abandonment would have lasted much long. It was eliminated thanks to humane ideas from the Christians.

pilgrim.1:
Hi again @huxley,

Having taken a short break to let the thread progress, I should at this point like to point out something which predictably is the default attitude of atheistic rationalism:

Welcome back and nice to read from you again. Am looking forward to some insightful criticism of atheism rationalism.

pilgrim.1:
Take a good look within your own heart. This zeal with which you project such a warped idea is admirable, especially because up until now you really are not demonstrating a rational thought process in your submissions. Beliefs are connected to people - regardless of whether they are theists or atheists[b]. I hope you are quite aware that atheists also "believe" idiotic sentiments about themselves and their worldview - if otherwise, it would not hurt to do some broadening of mind search in that arena. [/b] Whenever the question is broached as to what people believe, atheists are quick to say that they "do not believe" anything, or rather that they "lack belief" (whether in God or paranormal phenomena). On further scrutiny, it turns out that they hold their own beliefs as well, and it is a wonder that these same set of people are quick to accuse others of "blind faith" when they themselves have beliefs that they cannot prove!

You are absolutely correct. To be an atheist does not necessarily mean that one is rational. The are many atheists are there who "belief" in things like the existence of ghosts, medium, psychic phenomenon, etc.

To repeat, atheism is a simply lack of belief in god(s). It says nothing about how that lack of belief originated. This lead me to the notion of the philosophical atheism. This describes an atheism derived from the examination of all the notions of gods available and rejecting them as totally nonsensical. It is with this latter group that I belong.

Supposing I were to propose the existence of a god called Sussicorn (I think you are an atheist with respect to Sussicorn). Why would you disbelieve the existence of Sussicorn. I reject your god for exactly the same reason that you reject Sussicorn. Tell me, why are you NOT a Moslem or a Sussicornian?

pilgrim.1:
The difference intelligent people make is this: they do not necessarily seek to attack people for their beliefs. Beliefs make worldviews, and there's hardly a person on the face of the earth today who is not identified with a particular worldview. This connection is so very thick that to attack one is to attack the people themselves. You may disagree, but just as we know that atheism (a worldview) is connected to atheists (the people), so we kknow that anything said in disfavour of atheism is bound to stir the reaction of atheists.

One may not have the same convictions as other people; but to seek to deliberately attack their worldview and to glory in that adventure is quite idiotic in itself. It confirms that atheists themselves are actually disturbed about their own cherished beliefs, and that is why they have no peace of conscience until they have sought to undermine what they cannot disprove. Often, some untaught and unschooled rationalists hide under the cover of "belief in science" as if theists themselves are not scientists. This is why you guys evade the real questions of the day and seek to misrepresent issues, blur the lines, and when you cannot get the cheap applause you seek, the default thing to do is "attack" people's beliefs.

We, as a civilisation, are here today because progress means the seeking out and weeding out of bad and errant worldviews. Why have the worldviews tolerant of slavery, witchhunts, inquisitions, crusades, human sacrifices etc, etc, not with us today? Could it be because they were sought out, attacked and eliminated?

Today, for instance, the Catholic church is promoting the worldview that use of condoms is sinful. Do you think that this view is worthy of respect?

Worldview, opinions, beliefs are NOT deserving of respect and protection. Every view should be subject to critical examination and if found wanting should be heavily attacked. Of course, people themselve should not be attacked.

In fact, your notion of respecting worldview would naturally lead to the death of democratic governments. Imagine, if the ruling parties worldview were never subjected to critical examination. Is that the sort of society you would like to live in?

pilgrim.1:
Abandoning children - is that what you're suggesting is the better atheistic thing to do in such circumstances? Or are you so tuned out of the normal that we have to beg for calm explanation at what you're driving at? I don't really get you in that quote above, I beg that you please expatiate so we don't misread you.

You could do with your own advice about your own "belief", you know. If you showed some respect and stop misrepresenting your own persuasions, maybe you would come off better than you have attempted all along.

Abandoning children: Is that what I suggested. This is typical of your misrepresentation. You are the one claiming that worldviews should be respected and protected, correct?

OK, if worldviews ought to be respected and protected, then by your reasoning, twin-abandonment ought to be respected and protected. Why is the fault in my reasoning here?

BTW, why did you forebares abondon their native worldviews and adopt the Christian one? Are you supposing that the Christian missionaries NEVER attacked and criticised the native African worldviews the encountered on the continent.

My dear, it really helps to be logical and consistent in your thinking. I have challenged you guys to should me ONE single instance of a fault in my logic (that is not to say I am infallible), but alas, you have not been. I really look forward to such faulty logic being found as it is by identifying such do we make progress.

~Lady~:
Approaching people as if they're evil will get you no where, and in case you don't know, you catch more flies with honey. Attacking people's beliefs and disrespecting them is no way to get them to understand you and your view. It also wouldn't hurt for you to take a step back and try to see the other person's view.

It is a shame you failed to recognise the difference in my approach. I attack and make fun of idiotic beliefs and superstitions, but I very rarely attack people. I have respect for people but NOT for beliefs, which do not deserve any protection.

Imagine if the Christians had respected the Igbo practice of abandoning twin children in the bush. Would they still be children dying as a direct result of this idiotic belief.

BTW, you Christians are not averse to attacking other people's beliefs too. You not only attack within yourselves, you also attack other theists as well.

Why don't you show respect for other people's belief and STOP evangelising, leaving people in their cherished and protected beliefs? It that not hypocritical of you to go out and try to convert people.

A_K_O:
God did think this one through.

The problem many atheists/agnostics have is that they try to rationalise God in their minds and that is just impossible.

You can't understand God except by faith. Sorry, its not easy but that's the reality.

One of the primary reasons why God created man, Adam, was for fellowship. Remember that until he sinned, God used to come in the cool of the day to 'play with' Adam.

It's very 'silly' to communicate with a being you can't see and think that he/she actually hears you. But that's what God demands. And it cannot be understood with the natural mind.

Eventually, we will have eternal fellowship with God in heaven, by His grace.

I hope I have done some justice to your question.

Did god know that Adam&Eve were going to sin before he created them?

bluespice:
this are my exact words
on the 2nd page of this thread
but u clearly overlooked this tiny bit of information


emm please do u know the meaning of the said commandment?
if u do,
u'lld know i have in no way fallen foul of it

ok now the word theory
lets go back to the basic scientific processes

first of all u make an observation- in this case existence of fossils etc

then a hypothesis is made - whatever it was we don't know today

then a prediction- for now ill go with they were created and still exist or something like that

then the true test the experimentation step- this is where all the previous steps will be subjected to tests
this point, the findings are called Theories as they are proven but no extensive research that proves that without any doubt the prediction is true

when a theory is able to pass this stage then and only then is it a law

now note this theory of evolution is still a theory why?

no research can ultimately prove that the theory of evolution is the reason and only explanation for fossils

ok i digressed a bit but do u see where i going to?

OK, punctuation and formating aside, I see what you are trying to say. But my charge to you is that you claim a law is the ultimate explanation for observed phenomenon. And I say, not neccesarily. In fact, the use of laws in science is fast falling into disuse. Although in some cases theory and law are used interchangeably.

Check the following theories;

The gravitational theory
The general theory of relativity
The Germ theory of Disease
The Atomic Theory
etc

By your reckoning, are you saying that these are not accepted as well supported (because they are NOT laws)?

If a hypothesis is very well supported by the facts, it is generally taken as a theory and all of the above meet the criteria of scientific theory. Surprise Surprise, they are NOT generally called Laws.

Check out these sites. They may help your understanding;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law


Now, where is the evidence that I am passing off theories, "educated guesses" as facts? You still have not provided these.

bluespice:
are u serious?
like are u for real

for someone of your calibre,
u definitely have selective reading abilities

go to the 2nd and 3rd pages of this thread is all i've got to say

and for my skipping punctuations class,
i was busy learning how to make factual and strong arguments so pardon me

CAn you remember one of the 10 Commandments that goes "Thou shalt NOT bear false witness against thy neighbour"?  I Think you are coming close to falling foul of this commandment. You owe to yourself to redeem yourself  by providing evidence for what you charge against me.

bluespice:
are u serious?
like are u for real

for someone of your calibre,
u definitely have selective reading abilities

go to the 2nd and 3rd pages of this thread is all i've got to say

and for my skipping punctuations class,
i was busy learning how to make factual and strong arguments so pardon me

The burden of proof is on you. Until then you charge remains baseless and unsubstantiated. Not surprising since you are approaching this with the religious mindset, a mindset that does not admit of the rigours of evidence.

bluespice:
oh my gosh!
huxley u havproved the very first statement i made as a reply to this thread
u have no idea how to maintain a discussion
geez!
i have strived to make my posts as easy to understand as possible
going to great lenghts to abstain from "big words" and ambigous statements so as not to distabilise your otherwise myopic method of reasoning
but u have shown that all my efforts were in vain

please how hard is my post to comprehend?

and for asking me about the "educated guesses" u have passed of as facts,
lets start with the basis of your "argument" The Theory of Evolution

my breaking down of what a theory is and what a law is has clearly shown that though the Theory explains a lot, it still is first and foremost a Theory and not a law

Davidylan, Pilgrim 1 and so many others have shown u repeatedly over the course of this thread the many probabilities and assumptions u have passed off as facts
if u can't remember,
do yourself the favour of going through this thread from the begining

My dear, a little advice - could you work a little on your punctuation and formatting. As it is, there is no knowing where sentences start/end, no capitalisation, you are hitting the carriage return at mid-sentence, etc, etc.  Makes for difficulties in reading.  Did you take a class in puntuation at school.  Anyway, that is by the bye.

my breaking down of what a theory is and what a law is has clearly shown that though the Theory explains a lot, it still is first and foremost a Theory and not a law

Lets examine the above statement, shall we?  Where have you shown that?  If you make such a claim, would it not be expected that you would show the evidence for your claim?  Where is it?

If you make an accusation, the onus is on you to provide the evidence, not the other way round.  Show Nairaland the assumptions, probabilities, theories, etc, etc I have passed off as facts.

A_K_O:
God did think this one through.

The problem many atheists/agnostics have is that they try to rationalise God in their minds and that is just impossible.

You can't understand God except by faith. Sorry, its not easy but that's the reality.

One of the primary reasons why God created man, Adam, was for fellowship. Remember that until he sinned, God used to come in the cool of the day to 'play with' Adam.

It's very 'silly' to communicate with a being you can't see and think that he/she actually hears you. But that's what God demands. And it cannot be understood with the natural mind.

Eventually, we will have eternal fellowship with God in heaven, by His grace.

I hope I have done some justice to your question.

Supposing I were to say that you just made all of this up, what would you say?

A_K_O:
Yes I did.

If you're not happy with that I could change it back and move it to the recycle bin. Reason?

Not only is it a 'smart' title which is against the rules, the title itself is most likely to be offensive to most christians, puting it in the context (or the absense thereof) of the video.

About the video, how verifiable is what the guy is saying; i.e. is there video evidence of what he's describing?

For me it's no more than comedy.

Hey, am easy. Just wanted to know what happen.

This guy was making claims about the power of god and I was simply reflecting that. How am I to know if any of these is the truth.

BTW he is NOT the only one who claims receiving direct instructions from god. How are we to know who is lying when god's ministers claim such communication with god?

A.K.O,

Did you change the subject of this post?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAgLVFx_yh8&eur

Enjoy

That is like scientists freaking out because Einstein's theory of Gravity is being taught alongside Newton's theory of Gravity.  If you are so sure of the veracity of your theory then allow for pupils to be taught all theories and to choose for themselves.

Can you explain what you meant by the above statement?   I did not quite get your meaning.  That is why is my response I used the word "suggesting"  while refering to that comment. Further,  my question was NOT a rhetorical question. Because you used  the words "freaking out" which meant the sense you may have wanted to convey was obscured, I was really seeking for more explanation.

My response was in the form of question, seeking more explanation for your comment.

Are you suggesting that Einteinian mechanics invalidated Newtonian mechanics?  If so, how come we are able to design bridges, buildings, satellites, space travel etc using Newtonian mechanics if the latter was invalid?

In fact, I debated what word to use in place of "invalidate".  I tried "falsified", "obsoleted", first, but felt they did not sound right, but settled with "invalidated" because it sounded simple.

In the strict sense, you are right - Theories replace other theories,  but the facts falsify or uphold  theories.  Mark you, nowhere have I said the opposite.

I probably owe bluespice an apology.  Having re-read her comment, I think I get the point she was making. The poor formating of her comment did hamper comprehension.  We are all quilty of that (poor formating & writing) sometimes.

. . . all this goes back to my post

huxley, theories are products of educated guesses

if with your "education" u pass of guesses whether educated or not as facts,

the fate of science i laughable at best

But I still take umbrage at the comment.  I would like to challenge her to show where I have been passing off "educated guesses"  as facts.  "educated guesses" are at worst just guesses or at best hypotheses, which are NOT facts.  Where are the "educated guesses"  I have been passing off as facts?

I see that your understanding is strained.  Okay, I'll break it down to bite size pieces for you.  First I was using your analogy of a burgled home so we could stay on the same metaphor.  I didn't think that you'D trip over your own metaphor.  It must be your advanced scientific mind.
The point I made is that even when a method based on a certain theory 'works' that it could just be a lucky coincidence or due to it's approximating the truth, but even then that doesn't mean that it is truth.

The point I was making with the analogy of the burglarised house in the absence to any witnesses is with modern scientific methods it is possible to gather evidence from the scene of the crime which might lead to the culprit of the crime.  However, that does not stop you from luckily stumbling onto the culprit.

The point about science is to NOT having to rely on such lucky coincidence.  Hence, the need to systematise the scientific methodology. Built within the scientific method is the notion of repeatability and verifiability.  Any procedure that relies on luck would NOT be considered scientific for these reasons, and of course, it would lack objectivity.

Scientists may arrive at breakthroughs by serendipity (like the discovery of pennecilin) but having made that breakthrough, if the discovery then passes all the other test of science, then it is treated as scientifically recognised outcome.

A propos the atheism questions, you may be interested to learn that some of the best arguments for atheism are actually NOT scientific in nature.  They are rather metaphysical. I have got a library of books of the most prominent atheist philosopher in the last 100 years.  Guys like J L Mackie, Theodore Drange, Walter Kaufmann, George Smith, David Eller, Nicholas Everrett, etc.  These scholars argue to atheism with little scientific input.  So the argument for atheism comes from many different lines, science being just one of them.

Science help in understand nature, and to the extend that understand reality, this does NOT conform with the god (and his acts) of tradition monotheism as narrated in their holy books.

Did god create the world in seven days?  Versus  Big Bang Cosmology
Did he subsequently flood the earth killing everyone?  Versus  Geology
Are all humans spontaneous creations from mud about 6000 years ago?  Versus The Theory of Evolution.

What would you do if most of the main tenets of you worldview are contradicted by the evidence?  Would you continue to hold that worldview or would you discard them and go on the side of the evidence?

Pastor AIO:
Huxley, please I find your whole stance/attitude offensive to Science.  Stop wearing science as a badge as if your opinions and science are synonymous.

What specifically about my position on science do you find offensive?  I would like to see instances where my opinion violates the basic tenets of science.

It is particularly frustrating when people make claims and accusation without provide any evidence or substantiation to buttress their claims.

Pastor AIO:
I can't speak for bluespice but what I understood by her statement is that If the likes of you are the custodians of Science (which you're not, thank God!) then the future of science is doomed.

That is NOT what she said.  This is what she said, which in no way bears any resemblance to what you just stated.

the fate of science i laughable at best

Pastor AIO:
Furthermore, the fact that a theory works and is supported by evidence does not mean that the theory is a fact in itself. Just like Miasma theory worked.  If you clear the area of decomposing stuff your health will improve.  That doesn't mean that the theory is the Truth, that disease travels in the odour of rotting objects.

Man, how many time am I going to explain the difference between a theory and the facts that support the theory.  It is really frustrating to have to go over this again.

A theory is NOT an fact.  Theories are human conceptualisation of natural phenomenon (facts).  They are different things - the one man-made, the other natural.  Hope this example will help you;

[table]
[tr][td]Facts[/td][td]The Theory[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Objects attract each other [/td][td]The Theory of Gravity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Some germs cause diseases[/td][td]The Germ Theory of disease[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]The Universe is expanding[/td][td]The Big Bang Theory[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lifeform undergone change[/td][td]The Theory of Evolution[/td][/tr]

[/table]

Where have I conflated these two notions? I do not think I have.  I would like to see evidence that I have conflated them.

Basically, the Miasmatic theory of disease has been replaced by a far better theory with greater explanatory powers.  While it had some merits, it did not have the power of the germ theory.  The germ theory identified the particular agents responsible for disease, viz, germs, bacteria, virus.  These terms were unknown to the Miasmatic theory.

Example - some advocate of Miasmatic theory strongly resisted the washing of hands by doctors and surgeons in hospital because they believed that only the air in the hospital were responsible for diseases. In fact, under this theory, the idea of infections and cross-infection would hardly have developed to what it is today.

Basically, the only thing Miasmatic theory had going for it was the fact that it identified the air as a medium for the transport of diseases.

Science is about improving human understanding of reality. Where a better explanation comes along that explains all or most of the facts, that theory replaces the old one. Hence, my earlier charge that the teaching of medicine based on Miasmatic theory would be a retrograde step. But it does not mean that it should not be mentioned as one of the theories that once held sway. The danger is that no scholarly programme would ever complete if time was spent examining every superceded theory from the past. Imagine having to learn what the Egyptians, Igbos, Japanese, Eskimos, Pigins, Native American,etc, etc,etc thought about diseases from 8000 years ago till the present. Which ones should you examine in details? Would ever have completed school if education in all the various subjects was conducted on this basis?

Pastor AIO:
If my house gets burgled to use your analogy, and I walk down the street looking for the culprit and I pounce on a guy who seemed to have a guilty look on his face and arrest him . . .  if after taking him to prison we then discover that he was the culprit and I recover all my goods in his house does that mean that my methodology of pouncing on guilty looking persons is the proper way of discovering the culprit.  Many theories, maybe all theories, work under limited conditions.  Some theories work at night only, Other's work at a certain temperature, others work at a certain scale, whether sub atomic, or intergalactic.

This was just vacuous rambling.  I don't know what you are trying to get at here.

Pastor AIO:
Huxley please go and find out more about what you're talking about before you keep embarrassing yourself.  If you want to convince people away from religion then you will need to really know what you are talking about.  At the very least you need a tight argument, not one with soo many holes that have nothing but your vitriol to progress it.

Where are the holes in my arguments?  Some examples would be useful.

bluespice:
now this is the height! i said the fate!
since thats too "big" a word for u to understand let me help u out
future
A final result or consequence; an outcome
an event (or a course of events) that will inevitably happen in the future
destiny
lot
are these synonyms enough?

This is the statement you made

the fate of science i laughable at best

Can you explain why you say the fate (future, outcome, destiny etc, etc) of science is laughable at best? Supposing there had not been the scientific enterprise in the last 300 years.  Where do you think humanity would be today?

Let me give you an idea;

We would have no treatment for cholera, malaria, dyphteria, etc
We would have no electronic, xray, ultrasound, chloroform, anesthesia
We would have no harnessing of solar energy, . . .

More ideas - Compare countries of high scientific literacy with those of little literacy.  In which of such countries would you rather live?

The halmark of a slowpoke is one who make an argument with not a single efforts to substantiate them. Even if the evidence you provide to support your argument is wrong, it provide some level of reasonableness.  You have just shouted and disappear, rather like a baboon, without even so much as a defence for your claim. What a mess religion does to the mind.

debosky:
I heard no news of the event either - how can millions be healed when only thousands were present?

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but the Notting Hill Carnival shut down train stations as well, and I was in London over the weekend and saw no evidence of the city 'shutting down' because of any crusade - heck with 60,000 people filling the Emirates and countless football stadiums around the city, I don't think this purported event caused as much 'disruption' as you think.

nothing new then. that is how myths and legends begin and spread. reminds me of the myths of a certain radical jew about 2000 years ago. see how beautifully embelished it grows with each telling and the passage of time.

davidylan:
How does he know this occured in the cambrian period if such ever existed? Your own wikipedia link describes the biota thus: [size=18pt]The biota of the Burgess Shale appears to be typical of Middle Cambrian deposits.[/size]

Even they are not sure and yet you are so confident these animals were from the cambrian period? This man sef.

just as we don't know the true value of pi or square root of 2, this language is the geological equivalent of approximation in geological description. they can hardly said "it was approximate typical of . . .".

davidylan:
did they really stand up for Jesus or for Pastor Chris? I can only see one individual getting all the "glory" hear and it certainly aint Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately not one of these "millions" has come forward to verify these "healings"

1. So Wembley stadium can "stand up for Jesus"?

2. I can't but laugh when i see "pastors" claiming to go for "outreaches" in big cities when villages are starving for the gospel. The Brits gave us the gospel . . . why are we going there for outreaches?

3. Methinks you shld have re-worded your post to read - NIGHT OF BLISS London was indeed an emotional time with Pastor Chris!
When Pastor Chris came, the whole of London stood still for him, employing the trump card of the name of Jesus!!!
It was a fleeting and ephemeral emotional rollercoaster ride with the Pastor.

I don't see anywhere the "Lord" is indeed glorified here. Is He glorified in closing down streets, shutting down train stations and drawing crowds? [b]Is He glorified in unverifiable miracles [/b]and emotional (but spiritually empty) excercises in religious jamboree?

do miracles need verification? how come? and how would one go about verifying claimed miracles?

davidylan:
How does he know this occured in the cambrian period if such ever existed?

ok, i see your problem is with the name.  let us call a period about 450 mya owomuloyean. from radiometric dating we know the earth is about 4.3 billion years old.  so there must have been a period 450 mya, called owomuloyean, correct?

davidylan:
clearly you have an over-inflated ego. You think you know a lot about science . . . sorry, its not the gauge of intelligence.

The value of pi has nothing to do with the issue at hand. [size=18pt]Did the cambrian period exist or not and what proof is there of its existence?[/size]

you seem to be stumbling around for any excuse.

No we can't. Did a super planet ever exist? What is pannotia? Was there ice at the poles 400ma ago?

Do us all a favour, educated speculation is not a substitute for truth.

why don't you read up a bit about the Burgess Shale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_shale) and learn about the animals of the Cambrian?

bluespice:
. . . all this goes back to my post

huxley, theories are products of educated guesses

if with your "education" u pass of guesses whether educated or not as facts,

the fate of science i laughable at best

Suppose, you were taken ill and rushed into hospital for X-ray, NMR, ultra-sound , etc. Would you be laughing at the fate of science. In fact, these very scientific products have saved many of my close friends and family from severe medical emergences. For which I am very thankful to science.

That you are using a computer to communicate with me right now is a great triumph of science. That you do not appreciate this is testament only to your ignorance.

davidylan:
Poor analogy. There is CLEAR evidence that your house was burgled no?

Ok lets discuss your cambrian period - it has a date (488 million years ago) . . . now buddy, WHO made that date and based on what evidence? Please don't tell me carbon-dating because we all know its nothing but speculation at best.

wikipedia defines the geography of the cambrian period as such - Cambrian continents are thought to have resulted from the breakup of a Neoproterozoic supercontinent called Pannotia. The waters of the Cambrian period appear to have been widespread and shallow. Gondwana remained the largest supercontinent after the breakup of Pannotia. It is thought that Cambrian climates were significantly warmer than those of preceding times that experienced extensive ice ages discussed as the Varanger glaciation. Also there was no glaciation at the poles. Continental drift rates in the Cambrian may have been anomalously high. Laurentia, Baltica and Siberia remained independent continents since the break-up of the supercontinent of Pannotia. Gondwana started to drift towards the South Pole. Panthalassa covered most of the southern hemisphere, and minor oceans included the Proto-Tethys Ocean, Iapetus Ocean, and Khanty Ocean, all of which expanded by this time.

Pay close attention to the number of times "possibilities" are being passed off as "FACTS". Can someone give me concrete proof that any super continents once existed? Who called them pannotia and gondwana? How are we sure that 400ma there was no ice at the poles?

O boy this is the best science can do, make educated GUESSES at what life could have been in the past. It is nowhere close to conclusive and objective proof. Its funny that the same fellows hankering for "proof" of the existence of God prefer to bask in the uncertainty that much of science is, believing it is evidence of their own "intelligence".

One little step forward.  so you agree that one's presence is not required in order to study the past.

Clearly you do not know a great deal about science. Roughly speaking, it is a systematic methodology for investigating nature.  It does not claim perfection, but that does not mean that it cannot get close to it.

In my previous career as a design engineer we designed and build engineering installations from Nuclear power station, offshore platform, etc using the value of pi = 3.14 and g=10.  These were perfectly good and safe design.  However, these are not the precise values of these parameters, but those approximations were good enough to be useful.

So too are many areas of science.  What is the precise mass of a hydrogen atom?  Well no one know, I suppose, but we have an approximation good enough to allow the design of nuclear reactors, X-ray machines, etc, etc.

Using the same techniques, we can derive good enough approximations of the past.  And science is honest and cautious enough to say just that.  Hence, the tentative nature of the description you posted.

Have you ever heard of radiometric dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating)?  RD are particularly accurate (not precise.  I hope you understand the distinction) at  determining dates in the distant past.  Carbon dating has a limit to about 100000 years and beyond that RD is used.

Have you ever heard of a phenomena called magnetism?  It too can be used to study the history of the earth.  The earth has an enveloping magnetic field, which permanently leaves its imprints on rocks as the solidify from say, lava. Studying the orientation of magnetisation in rock it is possible to trace the positions and movement of rocks over the crust of the earth.

Man, do yourself  a favour and educate yourself, rather than drinking from the cesspit of religion and the bible.

davidylan:
your "questions" (if we can dignify them as such) are meaningless.

I asked a cogent question - did the cambrian period REALLY exist? [b]Where you there? where is the concrete evidence? [/b]Who coined the term, why and on what basis?

Phd's may be cheap but go get your own first.

With that comment you have just revealled just how un-educated you are (despite your attending schools/university). Let me ask a slightly different question;

Supposing you return home one day only to fine your home had been burglarised in your absence. The fact that you were not there, does that mean your home was not burglarised? Do you think, it is concievable that the burglars left behind traces of evidence that might be studied forensically to determine who the culprits?

If it is, why could such techniques not be applied to study the geological past?