₦airaland Forum

Pastor AIO:
I get your point, I think.  It is one thing to prove the possibility of something and quite another thing to prove the actuality of it.  But I think that the difficulty with proving actualities lies in the scope that we're considering.  Is there a flying green bear orbiting the sun somewhere in the universe.  Well the scope is just too large to cover.  But if you limited it to within this solar system, then I believe that a painstaking procedure would be able to establish the fact. 

. . . BUT huxley, you need to save that 'NL is a learning platform' jive for someone who knows you less.  Scoring cheap points against religion is your stock in trade.  Even your comment ' You guys may be seeing it as a platform to win/lose debates' is itself a cheap shot.  Who do you mean by 'you guys'?  Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining.  It's part of what I find endearing about you.

I think you erred here. To orbit the sun means that it is within the gravitational domain of the sun, so we will need to be looking for it only within the solar system, rather than elsewhere in the universe. However, if it is actually orbiting the sun, but is outside of the solar system, then it is likely that the sun and some other massive star (or object) form a binary pair such that their center of gravity is the axis of revolution of the bear. In that case, the bear could be way way way out there in the universe, which will make the search of it even more onerous.

In fact, we do not have to go out into the universe to show that such a prove is not tenable. Let me re-phrase it slight and change the domain and see what we get;

1) Prove that there is NO disappearing and re-appearing green bear that inhabits your home.


This is nearly equivalent to the flying bear circling the sun, only that this time this bear disappears and re-appears. Amongst other things, you will have to show that you have looked in every little nook and cranny at exactly the SAME time to rule out the existence of such a bear. If you look sequentially at location A, then location B, then C, etc, etc, it could be argued that while you were looking at location C, the bear might have gone over to A, and that is why you could not find it at C.

Two imfamous Christians organisation (BioLogos Foundation & The Discovery Institute)  have unsheathed their swords to take on each other over doctrinal issues - namely the issues of our origins.  Why it has had to come to this without God intervening is beyond the minds of casual observers like myself.  Now these two institutions have decided to go into the battle of ideas and culture all for the sake of their God.

Not only is this so very funny and hilarious (              )  but it is reminiscent of the Arian controversy of the 4th century from which the present incarnation (pun intended) of Christian doctrine emerged.   What will the beknighted merchants of ignorance not try and sell to their credulous and gullible sheep?

Read the article below;

---

Reposted from The New Scientist

[size=18pt]                                             Christians battle each other over evolution
[/size]


The Discovery Institute – the Seattle-based headquarters of the intelligent design movement – has just launched a new website, Faith and Evolution, which asks, can one be a Christian and accept evolution? The answer, as far as the Discovery Institute is concerned, is a resounding: No.

The new website appears to be a response to the recent launch of the BioLogos Foundation, the brainchild of geneticist Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and rumoured Obama appointee-to-be for head of the National Institutes of Health. Along with "a team of scientists who believe in God" and some cash from the Templeton Foundation, Collins, an evangelical Christian who is also a staunch proponent of evolution, is on a crusade to convince believers that faith and science need not be at odds. He is promoting "theistic evolution" – the belief that God (the prayer-listening, proactive, personal God of Christianity) chose to create life by way of evolution.

It sounds like a nice idea, but to my mind any time you try to reconcile science and religion by rejecting Stephen Jay Gould's notion of "non-overlapping magisteria" and instead try shoehorning them into a single worldview, something suffers. My concern is that science will take the hit – and Collins's speculative arguments about divine intervention via quantum uncertainty seem dangerously poised for the punch. The Discovery Institute's concern, on the other hand, is that Christianity will take the hit. "For Christians," they write on their website, "mainstream theistic evolution raises challenges to traditional doctrines about God's providence, the Fall and the detectability of God's design in nature." For them, reconciling evolution and religious faith is simply a hopeless endeavour.

I think it's interesting that the Discovery Institute – which has long argued that intelligent design qualifies as science – seems to have given up the game and acknowledged that their concerns are religious after all. It's equally interesting that the catalyst doesn't seem to be someone like Richard Dawkins pushing atheism, but Francis Collins pushing Christianity. Perhaps the Discovery folks realise that Dawkins's followers are never going to be swayed by intelligent design; Collins, however, might very well cut into their target audience of scientifically-curious evangelicals.

The Discovery Institute has now made it crystal clear that they have no interest in reconciling science and religion – instead, they want their brand of religion to replace science. Which makes it all the more concerning when their new website includes resources and curricula for high-school biology classes, and promotes the pseudoscientific documentary film "Expelled" as part of their campaign to introduce non-scientific alternatives to evolution under the banner of "academic freedom".

Watching the intellectual feud between the Discovery Institute and BioLogos is a bit like watching a race in which both competitors are running full speed in the opposite direction of the finish line. It's a notable contest, but I don't see how either is going to come out the winner.

Pastor AIO:
Can we prove a negative?  

For instance can it be proven mathematically that apart from the number 2 there are absolutely NO prime numbers that are even numbers.  I believe that the mathematical proof of this exists.  

It can also be proven that one cannot quench thirst by pouring beer down one's earhole.

So I would conclude that negative statements can be proven.  

So can it be proven that there is absolutely NO god in existence?  Theoretically yes.  So therefore anyone who feels they are bad-ass enough to make such a claim needs to start working on their proofs.  Such a proof would have to embrace a concept about all the possibilities of Being/existence and then demonstrate that No God can viably be found in any of the possibilities.  

The only intellectually honest position that someone who hasn't experienced God can take is that they do not know.  That is called Agnosticism.  

What I love most about this thread is Amnesty claiming to know who is allowed to be a humanist and who isn't.  Imagine if it was someone like Davidylan saying that someone who does such and such cannot be a christian.  Imagine how the hordes of Atheists would descend as indeed they have done in other threads.  

I notice that none of the other atheists have come to support Mr. amnesty.  Poor dude has been left out to hang.  . . . and for once I find myself relishing Pilgrim's mauling of another Nairaland.  This is probably why I like Nairaland so much, it never runs out of people ready to make such dumb comments.

I agree with some of these but alas disagree with others as well.  As per proving negative,  it all depends on how the proposition is constructed.  Take the following examples;


1)  Prove that there is NO flying green bear orbiting the sun at 1000 miles/hour.

2)  Prove that 3 is NOT an even number.


Which of these is accepted formally in mathematical and philosophical logic as admitting to logical proof?  And why?  (In fact, it is even more complicated than this, but I shall leave that out of the discussion for now, until it is broached by someone)

As to Amnesty, my view is than NL is a learning platform for people to sharpen their views and ideas.  You guys may be seeing it as a platform to win/lose debates.  I see it as a place to share information with the hope of getting closer to the true nature of reality.  So if he hasn't quite firmed up his ideas, you can be sure that pretty soon he will.  At least he is not delusional as most of his opposition.

C-NOETIC:
I have no appreciative "knowledge" of TEQATA, as such to "believe/disbelieve" in TEQATA is impossible.

But Mr B clearly "believes" in the non-existence of GOD, why does he have a problem when his "belief" is placed under the microscope of scientific knowledge?

Au contraire - Mr B has been given some information about GOD which are clearly contradictory and the best position for him to take is to suspend belief in GOD. So in effect Mr B has no substantive information about GOD. The info he has so far amounts to saying that 4 = 9, which is illogical and make no sense.

C-NOETIC:
To ontologically define an "entity", u must have an appreciative knowledge of that "entity".
so the ontological definition of GOD is not in any way linked the Mr B's belief. For Mr B to believe in the non-existence of GOD, it is safe to assume that he has an understanding of GOD. That "understanding" is what this thread intends to probe scientifically and intellectually.

He simply believes God does not exist, he should scientifically and intellectually tell us why (evidences).

OK, let us replace GOD with TEQATA. Do you believe TEQATA exists.

C-NOETIC:
why does Mr B have a problem stating his case?

No. He has no problem. To him the word GOD is ontologically meaningless as the word TEQATA, FAIRIES, SUSSICORN. Can you convince him that these other words represent non-existent entities?

davidylan:
perhaps because Mr. A has done that so very many times, is tired and wants Mr. B to justify his own inane point of view.

OK, Mr B needs to justify his positions just as you need to justify your belief in Santa Claus, Fairies and Sussicorn. How's that?

For fairness, why don't you also challenge Mr A to justify his position of belief in the existence of a God?

pilgrim.1:
When someone says that it is NOT a Christian teaching or doctrine, we would like to know then how he agrees that it is perfectly okay for Christians to do that very thing. If Scripture has been manipulated and twisted, we also would like to know if he has done that same thing (manipulating and twisting) for his own "perfectly okay" recommendation of the same thing he condemns.
_____________________________

Salvation is not based on any type of giving - call it whatever one may: tithes, contributions, donations, alms, offerings, firstfruit, seed-sowing, etc. Giving is connected with temporal as well spiritual blessings; but tithing in itself was not taught as a salvific matter as if it brings anyone to hell for failing to do so.

Pilgrim, how do you know tithing is NOT a salvidic issue? Any reference will be welcome. And can you show how other issue which you think are salvidic are expressly mandated in the scriptures?

pilgrim.1:
No; there are other types of giving which provide funding for churches.

When one gives to the church, what makes one a tithe and another not?

There appears to be a lot of controversy amongst Christians about the subject of tithing. But why is it scuh a hot issue? Is it because;

1) It has got salvidic potential and anyone does not tithe is jeopardising their salvation?

2) It is the mainstay of the income of most churches?

3) As a doctrinal issue, the bible is equivocal about it?

In my experience, Christian just love to hear such tales about their god coming to the rescue of a believer caught in straited circumstances, and the non-believers losing out ( losing their lives of their properties).  It seems to give them reasons to be Christians.

This is strong evidence just how warped their moral compass has become, rejoicing and gloting  for the demise of the non-believers, with a "I told you so" attitude. This is infantile and barbaric morality.

Further, they select only those events that appear favourable to them and ignore or forget about those that don't depict their religion in a "good" light.  In fact, this reminds of the dozen or so people who died as a result of generator fumes inhalation while they had gathered for a 24 hours prayer vigil.  Why don't you ever see Christians refering to this incident as glorifying the power of god?
http://www.javno.com/en-world/generator-fumes-kill-17-at-nigeria-prayer-meeting_164892

mactao:
Don't expect to understand the Bible, huxley2. You're not a Christian. How long will it take for atheists to get this into their heads?

Mt 13:13-14

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
KJV

In you, huxley2, is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah.

I guess that is the same reason why you don't understand the Koran, although it is "true", you cannot understand it because you are not a moslem.

Christians - What makes the Torah and the Bible the word of God but not the Koran?

What kind of a god is this that causes people to sin only so that he would come and slam down on them with barbaric plagues and pestilences? Worse still, rather than simply punished the individual that he has pushed into sin, he has the bile to inflict an entire nations, including millions of innocent babies, children, animals, etc with gruesome illness and eventual painful death.

Well, it is the god of the Christians - the selfsame Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the alleged lover of his enemies, lover of children, hater of pigs and fig trees. Why did he have to act in this barbaric and reprehensible way? Please turn to Exodus, where Dog actively HARDENED the Pharoahs heart;

Exodus 9: 12;

10And they took ashes of the furnace, and stood before Pharaoh; and Moses sprinkled it up toward heaven; and it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast.

11And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils; for the boil was upon the magicians, and upon all the Egyptians.

12[b]And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.[/b]

13And the LORD said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me.


And[b] Exodus 10: 20[/b];

18And he went out from Pharaoh, and intreated the LORD.

19And the LORD turned a mighty strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and cast them into the Red sea; there remained not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt.

20[b]But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go[/b].

21And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt.



Why did God have to do this, actively causing the Pharoah to disobey him? Did he do this so that he would come along and display his barbarism and murderous tendencies on the Egyptians?

OLAADEGBU:
You better believe it, and I truly hope and pray that you have not crossed the line of no return, that is, beyond redemption because this may explain the delusion you are basking in.

You can see evidence of delusion on display right there.  Where in Romans 9 did you see what you are saying, are you sure you are not disillusioned?  If you draw near to God He will draw near to you and if you distance yourself from Him do you think He will become nearer? [size=16pt] Pharaoh hardened his heart against God and of course God permitted his heart to be hardened,[/size] it is up to you what kind of heart you want to have.  A heart of clay or of stone that water cannot permeate, if your heart is a heart of clay and water pours on it in the form of rainfall when the sun shines what do you think will happen to the clay?  It will harden up.  Will you now say that it is the fault of the sun? No, it is the state of your heart that will determine what you will get from God.  Check your heart and listen to the word of God below.

He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.  -- Proverbs 29:1

Wrong, wrong, wrong, you deluded liar. God actively HARDENED the Pharoahs heart, as per Exodus 9: 12;

10And they took ashes of the furnace, and stood before Pharaoh; and Moses sprinkled it up toward heaven; and it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast.

11And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils; for the boil was upon the magicians, and upon all the Egyptians.

12[b]And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.[/b]

13And the LORD said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me.


And[b] Exodus 10: 20[/b];

18And he went out from Pharaoh, and intreated the LORD.

19And the LORD turned a mighty strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and cast them into the Red sea; there remained not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt.

20[b]But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go[/b].

21And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt.



Why did God have to do this, actively causing the Pharoah to disobey him? Did he do this so that he would come along and display his barbarism and murderous tendencies on the Egyptians?

Tuesday 26 May 2009.

In life, there are powerful words that can make or mar an individual, family, church community or even nation. Never underestimate the power of a havoc word. Satan and his cohorts have ruined the lives of millions by this. On the other hand, God uses the miracle word ro reverse any evil the devil had done. In the Name of Jesus, I command every word sent to cause havoc in your life to lose its power. A brother was involved in a fatal accident. He was left in a coma. The only reason he was not taken for dead and buried as because he breathed occasionally. Each time he took a breath, he called one word that can reverse his situation - Jesus. On the seventh day, that miracle Name finally reversed his situation and he lived.  The Name Jesus will work for you this year.

In an estate containing 15 houses, a fire broke out one day.  It progresses from one house to the next. It was meant to engulf all the houses in the estate. One of the houses was owned by a believer inn Christ. As she prayerfully resisted was appeared to be inevitable, she simply engaged one word  - Jesus, with her mouth.  Her house was the eigth on the row.  Fire engulfed the first seven houses, jumped over the eighth and burnt the nineth and the rest. Fourteen houses were lost to one havoc word Fire yet one was saved by the word Jesus.  Matthew 1:21 says "And she shall bring forth a son and thou shall call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins".  Quite a lot of things are loaded into the name Jesus.  Your salvation from sin, Satan, self and the world is in that Name. It is the only authentic, Heaven-certified, earth and hell recognised name capable of salvaging any mess.  Are you in a mess and it seems there is no way out?  Call that name Jesus.  You will find a way emerging.  That name contains all medications that sicknesses require to flee.  Also, according to Acts 10: 38, the Name can nullify oppression of any sort.  Jesus is also the Name for victory.  If you call that Name, defeat will give way to victory. This year, as you call that Name in faith, it will work wonders in your life and circumstances.



Adeboye appears not to know the meaning of the word "fatal", but that is the least of the problems with these falsehood, which his drones love to just swallow.

Great Lecture. Watch it here .

amnestylaw:
Iwant to disagree with those who say that being an atheist means being religious because atheism to them is a religion. They went further to say atheists do not beleive in god. That is the fallacy of the argument--- atheists do not disbelieve god because they cannot disbelieve a god that does not exist. You disbeleive something that exists. For example, i can stop beleiving in the 7-point Agenda or my parents. I cannot beleive somebody or something i don't have knowledge about. Atheists lack beleif in god because, when people say god exists, whether the christian god, islam's or other gods, the atheist will say, since i can't see your god or because you cannot prove that your god exists, then i lack a beleif in s/he.

Spot on. Looks like we got a new rationalist here. Welcome to the fray

mrmayor:
Hello Nairaland, Mrmayor is back,

Hi, I've been away for almost two years now and wow! nairaland is rocking! I just couldn't help replying to this post.

@ Angelgirl,

My dear, I understand how you feel, its really hard expressing any opinion that does not accept the existence of a God, Allah, Satan or Mammywater, you can imagine a Rivers man, born and bred in Ijawland who questions or says that Mammywater aka ''Owo"does not exist! It just unacceptable. I can't tell you how many debates I've had with family and friends about why an All Loving, All Caring, All Knowing God who allows evil in the world, and a contradictory Bible, a cousin actually calls me the Anti-Christ.

My views especially about the churches, Pastors or question of tithes hurts my family members and putting a lot of stress on my relationship with them, I keep most my opinions to myself, what really gets to me is the inability of Nigerians to accept responsibilty for thier actions instead of blaming it on the devil imagine ( Blasphemy Against The Devil), its really sad.

@
Horus, Huxley, Tonye, Bindex, Banom,

You guys are doing a great job, thanks

Welcome back and looking forward to see you more often now that you are back.

[size=16pt]                                               Waking up in America
                                             by Marshall Evans[/size]


Reposted from [url=http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,3884,Waking-up-in-America,Marshall-Evans] here [/url]

Introductory note: I happened to have breakfast with Marshall Evans (not his real name) at the American Atheists conference in Atlanta in April 2009. He looks exactly what he is, an American military pilot, flying jets from aircraft carriers. Perhaps naively, I was surprised to meet such a man at an atheist conference, and I curiously asked him about his story. When I heard that he had been home schooled by fundamentalist parents, who had thrown away his treasured collection of science books because they mentioned Darwin, I wanted to hear more. When I heard that his atheism and his liberalism had caused his mother to disown him and his brother to sever all connection with him as ‘the enemy’, I was moved to ask him if he would like to write a brief account of his life for RD.net. He was modestly diffident about it at first, but I persuaded him, and here is the result.
Richard Dawkins


Waking up in America

by Marshall Evans (this is a pseudonym, but the story is true)

I am an American Atheist. I don’t believe in miracles, holy books, superstition, or any kind of faith in the afterlife. But, I wasn’t always this way. I was brought up to have faith in Jesus Christ (the only way to salvation) and the “Holy Spirit” was to be my personal messenger, an inner voice to guide me through life’s tricky paths and lead me to God – the creator of the universe – who resided in heaven to welcome me to eternal bliss upon fulfilling my purpose in life.

Allow me a moment of special emphasis, I once truly believed all of this.

My mother recently confided in me that she thought I would be something special when she was pregnant with me. Perhaps this was the reason why my parents were more lenient with me than my siblings when I began to question things. You see, when I was raised in the Judeo-Christian faith, there was always one problem that kept coming up; my mind was always at work. My sister once remarked that she could see the gears turning in my head. Those gears were beginning to turn mechanisms of doubt. Even so, I was told by my parents that doubt was a natural consequence of faith and that it only made our relationship with God stronger. So I was able to make sense of things. There was a sentimental logic in God sending his only son to die for the world. This type of self-sacrifice was a message for the world. It was a beautiful message of love which seemed to get perverted at times by sinful men who made a bad name for Christ. Yet, even they could be forgiven. This simple message was such a wonderful thing, right?

Still, something was wrong. Eventually I would figure it all out. I could sense that there was something awesome about the universe. At that time in my life, all awe was taken up by God –about whose nature I could find only the most cryptic clues. Unfortunately for it, but fortunately for me, the Bible was unable to provide satisfactory answers for my increasing curiosity. I wanted to know everything I could about this wonderful world and the God who created it. Thus began my early interest in science.

I would collect everything “science.” My school library had a program for earning “book bucks” which could be used to buy used books. Sometimes, I would trade classmates my lunch for book bucks, and I suspect that my teachers, once they realized what I was up to, made sure that I was simply given more of them. By age nine, I had two shelves of science books and I imagined it would take me a lifetime to read them all.

Age nine was an important age.

It was that same year that my parents decided that my siblings and I should be pulled from public school and schooled at home. After going through my science books (remember my hard earned book bucks), my parents discovered something in all of them: Darwin. There were either brazen descriptions of evolution or arrogant references to the age of the earth being in the billions – instead of 6000 years (fundamentally derived from Biblical truth). I never had a chance to read much of those science books. My parents threw them all away.

As a momentary aside: In some circles of thought there is an evil in America that seeks to pervert and destroy God’s word. That evil is Darwin’s theory of evolution. Behind his theory lies a world view which subverts morality and causes society to act in the exact opposite of God’s word. Simply put, it is a lie from Satan that is being used by sinful men to pervert society and destroy God’s message – and eventually all of those who follow. At least that’s what my parents said.

“…savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. [30] Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.”
-Acts, chapter 20, verse 29-30

I never fully questioned any of this as a child because it seemed like my parents knew what was best. When they talked about these things, the “friend versus foe” mechanism overrode critical thought. But I was still young and I had to be on their side. I would go on to become the “good” son. That, however, did not last.

At age 18, despite my homeschooling, I managed to get into a university to pursue a higher education and a better life, a pursuit I was able to continue through attaining a Masters degree. After finishing graduate school, I joined the military and went on to fly jets from the flight decks of one of the most spectacular displays of scientific and technological innovation, U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. My parents were very proud of my accomplishments and even made reference to me as their “self-made man.” This reference has a special kind of irony for me.

I actually went more than a decade calling myself an agnostic. One reason for that was the process by which I came to my non-belief in faith-based assertions of truth. More than that was a need to prevent division between my family and me. Agnosticism provided philosophical blinders to allow my family to view me as a “backsliding Christian” instead of a “traitor.” Eventually, I accepted that I am an atheist (under Dawkins’ scale, I am a 6 out of 7) and thus began my fall from grace. All of the taboos of thinking, formally part of my programming, have slowly eroded to a basic understanding of what we know versus what we don’t know – and this has helped shape my cultural and personal values. Now I have become, in the eyes of a few, one of the aforementioned “savage wolves.”

Once I accepted that this life is it and came to terms with it, the idealistic principles of making the world a better place became much more focused. I became a more liberal person. When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, my being a liberal as well as an Atheist was like I lived in Sodom and summered in Gomorrah to my family. Just before the election one of my brothers sent me email stating, “You are the enemy. Goodbye.” He then deleted me from his MySpace account. Then my mother called to disown me as her son. That conversation was painful. Not only did she disown me but said that I do not deserve to wear the uniform of a U.S. military service member because I had betrayed the Constitution of the United States, a document I swore to protect. I know what our constitution and our other founding documents say, and when I asked my mother how, specifically, I had betrayed our country, she couldn’t answer. I think the reason for that is that she has a religious idea of what the United States is about, not based on any particular item included by our founding fathers. It is true that America still faces an identity crisis, one that in my opinion will soon be resolved. Our country was founded on freedom and liberty, and I stand, now and always, behind those principles. In fact, I have discovered that the very reason to found a country on those principles was to preserve and protect the pool of ideas which have made our country great.

That wasn’t the first time I was attacked for my atheism or liberalism. The U.S. military attracts many fundamentalist Christians. About five years ago, I had a roommate (a military colleague) who saw himself as a kind of Crusader for Christ serving in the army of God. This is not a fabrication of his ideology. He once told me that the historical Crusades were a “just and noble time for Christianity” – his words, not mine. Others have joined our military for this same reason. While I was his roommate, he was intent on trying to convert me back to Christianity. He had been a philosophy major, so I can see how it became frustrating for him when, time after time, I defended my position. He once got so frustrated that his response was to tell me that I shouldn’t be in the military since, as an atheist, I had no bearing on right and wrong; argumentum ad hominem. Eventually we ended up in an altercation in which he punched me in the face and broke my nose. I am not one to go around and tell everyone around me what my views are or to create division so let me be clear: This guy meant to convert or destroy me. Though uncommon in the majority of American society, this type of person is much more common in our military.

As I said, I am an American Atheist, and the sad reality in America for many is that I have gone to the Dark Side. So here I am, trying to find my way in this life. How do I deal with such irrationality, from my family and colleagues, in a society that is meant to have enlightenment principles of liberty and freedom as its cornerstone? If you don’t know what it is then you probably shouldn’t read any more of this. I don’t want to spoil the trip for you.

My personal quest for truth could be a work on its own. Suffice it to say, I have never discovered any form of absolute truth in my thinking. Instead, my journey has led me to discover the process needed to point me in the right direction. In short, I have come to terms with ambiguity in truth because I have realized the difference between meaningful truth and blind faith in assertions of absolutes.

There was a moment at my university where I suddenly realized that my faith was invalid. It was a life changing moment. I can, and always will, remember the exact place, the exact time when, with absolute clarity, I saw that the enormity of possibility trumps any belief in truth that requires faith. I could never fully discover, not in a thousand lifetimes, all of the roads of possibilities without taking that shortcut of faith, a shortcut that dilutes the very idea of truth as a meaningful concept. My interest in science became a love affair on that day. For the first time, I could see how small I was in comparison to the universe of possibility. On that day I reconciled with my nemesis, which I now identify as the scientific process. I had made peace with it. Though science will never find all of the answers, we can now see the universe like none of our ancestors saw it before. Regardless of whether I find all of the answers to my questions, I have the conscious realization that I am only a small observer in a very big universe, a universe of infinite possibilities, and I am lucky to see just a glimpse of it. I am sure that someone has said that before, but it still seems profound.

Then there’s my family. When my own mother disowned me, that had to have been the most insulting display of ignorance that I have ever witnessed. I didn’t get mad. Somehow, I could see things through her eyes and realized that she is trying to hold onto something that is slipping away from her. To her, being an American has a very religious and ideological significance that isn’t written down anywhere. It is a deeply held belief that exists in a declining minority of people, started by the “Christian Revival” movement of the early 19th century. It’s a form of identity which is becoming irrelevant, as it should. Though I may rejoice in this, I still have empathy. I took a page from Jesus and turned the other cheek. After my mother called me, I sent her flowers for Mother’s Day, and wrote these words:

“All children come to differences with their parents at some point. That is just the nature of things. Whatever else you might think, I am still your son and you are still my mother. With Love and good memories!”

My mother responded within days and we have reconciled in a private mother and son kind of way. I didn’t realize, when I sent the flowers, how significant the message was; which is why I shared the story in this article. We all come from a very frightening and confusing past, but in the end we are a product of those things. It’s an evolutionary concept that has implications in social memes. Some ideas which strive to exist in a free society are simply irrelevant and will cease to be; it’s a probabilistic certainty. This is true for the American identity as well.

When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, I watched in tears as he proclaimed the very message that humanity should, and I think will, aspire to. It’s a powerful message that will live with me and will probably shape the historical identity of what it means to be American:

“To those – to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.”
-Barack Obama, 11-04-08

America has come a long way. To those who don’t understand the significance of these words, let me put it in perspective. I have lived in a country where the scars of slavery, racism, and injustice have been an unfriendly and inhibiting source of division. On that night, November 4th, 2008, I saw a change that was, improbable as it may seem, an inevitable consequence of a free society –words spoken beyond the scars and anguish from which they arose. This is the power of ideas. My own ideas seem irrelevant against ones that are so great, and they should be since mine are just a few from the countless possible ideas. I have come to terms with my atheistic worldview, but more than that, I have struggled with and finally settled on my own identity as an American. My parents tried to shield me from things that they see as evil, but I had the freedom to form my own ideas.

I am an Atheist. I am an American. Though I will never be perfect, neither will America. Ideas born within a free society are the closest we may ever get to sacred truth. Some ideas might even be immortal. Amen.

I bet she will give birth to Jesus . This is the 3rd cumming,

Looks like you just confirm what you suspect most think of you - yes you appear to be pretty retarded. From the structure and content of you post, you appear very confused, incoherent and beknighted. For you information, atheism and sexuality are poles apart. Go learn, or worse still, bury you head in the cesspit of religion.

OLAADEGBU:
[b]The uncreated Creator who created us created us in His own image, even though man has now rebelled and now wishes to create God in his own image the moral law of God still remains in us as a witness.  Do you know that your conscience, that part of you that always alarms you of what is right and wrong even though [/b]we silence it with our rebellious thoughts of man's ideologies and because of the sin nature in us, just as the alarm clock rings and because you want to sleep a bit more you silence or muffle it. The thief does not really think that the law enforcements' existence until he or she gets caught red handed.   God's moral law was revealed to us to remind us of how far we have gone and also to show us how we can trace our way back to the source of the moral law.  Even though man has decided to write his own moral ethics which he can always delete according to his selfish motive but you have to be aware that at the end of the day we all have to be accountable to the giver of the moral law and the giver of life.

Could the creator have foreseen the future rebellion in the man he was creating?

Hello Anglegirl

Am curious about how you became an atheist - what was your most pursausive argument to turn you to atheism. And secondly, do you life in an very religious environment? If so, how did you find the independence of thought to break out on your own route? Thirdly, are you "out" as an atheist in your community?

Mad_Max:
Er-nowhere did I state my faith is based on hearsay. It is not. You merely assumed that, and you're free to. Many Christians have a personal relationship with God, and know him and his power and grace in their lives; it's nothing new. He reveals himself. But there are Christians who don't know him personally,but 'borrow' from others. I'm telling the poster to not rely on hearsay,but know God for himself too; God isn't to be found in empty religious rituals. He takes the emptiness away and gives it all meaning.

You've gotten the erroneous impression I'm interested in debating my personal convictions and spiritual experiences, and the equally wrong impression explanations are due you, from me.I gave answer to the guy's post,as others have done. If he has questions about anything in my post, I'll be happy to elucidate.
You're not asking me anything in your post, you're telling me.
Run along now, Bindyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

How do they know him? Have they met God, spoken audibly with him, felt him, touched him, smelt him, tasted him?

Do they know him in the same sense that a madman "knows" his "demons"?

How about these:

"But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" (II Kings 18:27)

pilgrim.1:
Hallo huxley2,

I'm doing very well, thanks. And you?

Am great.  Thanks for asking.   You done with all ya exams now?

pilgrim.1:
The distinction is simple enough: science is an endeavour while scientists are its practitioners. The endeavour cannot of itself do anything other than what its practitioners do with it.

I'm not sure that is the case; for some 'scientists' who have demonstrated that they are unwilling to consider new findings (for whatever reasons) are not doing theology. I think you're mixing up ideas here. The example you gave about Fred Hoyle attests to the fact that while he was disinclined to consider other models and theories on his enquiry, he nonetheless was not doing theology (we remember he was an atheist, but later leaned toward the Panspermia of agnotic deism). He simply did not start out as a theologian arguing against other models, and his obstinacy cannot be described as 'theology'.

I erred here with my use of the word "theology".  I should have put that in quotes to indicate that I did not mean it in the normal sense of the word.  I was looking for a word that combines the sense of dogmatist and some sort of personal commitment of an idea couched around the kind of sophistry of religious theology.  I could not find it, so I wrote just theology without putting them in quotes.   Put I hope you get my point.  

pilgrim.1:
Glad you know that - and it's not peculiar to scientists with a religious/theistic worldview.

This is quite a hot and vexing issue  - the question is - given a certain truth about the nature of reality how should one live or derive a worldview based on that truth.  Consider the following;

1) For instance, supposing it is shown categorically using the tools of science that women and genetically "inferior" to men with respect to mathematical abilities.  Should we define public policy based on such results?

pilgrim.1:
Religions of themselves have not and do not make such "mistakes" - any religious person could make pontifications, and please always keep in mind that religion covers even atheistic religions as well. That aside, we know that there are dogmatic atheists without a religious leaning who nevertheless do the very same thing that you just described above.

Are you kidding me?  Does not the Abrahamic religions make claim about the origin of the world, humanity and other life?  C'mon, you cannot be serious.   What was all this business of six-day creation all about if this was not a claim about our origins?

pilgrim.1:
I don't think you're actually holding a gist here, my apologies. I may understand that you meant the opposite of your statement above, because you're saying that these things are "capable of being verified" and are regarded as "factual claims". I don't know. However, if that's what you actually meant without editing, then what then is the problem if one makes a statement that is a "factual claim" or one that is "capable of being verified by science"?  All the same, the one issue that I see here is that you're again making the very same mistake I hinted at earlier to Krayola - one should not just make reactive assumptions in the idea that one worldview is superior to another, because it seems that's what you're pointing to in your premise.

What does "holding a gist" mean?  That is a strange turn of phrase.

"Capable of being verified scientifically"  means just that.  It means it cann be taken into the lab and subjected to testing, probing, measuring, x-raying,  mathematical analysis, etc, etc, etc and shown to be true or false.  The fact that something is capable of being verified scienctifically does not mean that it should or must be verified.  There may be other concerns that override our search for the truth about the entity in question - issues like cost, ethics, etc, etc.

pilgrim.1:
First, you would have to understand your own question before making a sweeping assumption. Scroll back: if, as you said, the claims under investigation are regarded by you to be "factual claims", what then is the substance of a "variance" from what is "factual"? This is why I often take a cautious approach when using language that may becloud one's reasoning.

It is easy to see what a factual claim is.  A factual claim is a claim whose outcome are typically of a quantitative nature or objective nature.  For instance - Noah stay in the ark 50 days,  a bat is a bird,  diamond is composed of nitrogen atoms.

pilgrim.1:
However, a second consideration would be to examine the veracity of one's approach: on what grounds would a an atheistic naturalist assume that his own worldview has all the answers about the "true"  state of reality?

I doubt if there are any naturalists who claim that their worldvew has all the answers.  I don't know of any and I am sure I will NEVER meet any.  I would hope that anyone who describes themselves as naturalist informs their worldview from the sciences. Consequently, they are subject to the success and shortcomings of science.  But more to the point, I would hope that their philosophy puts human interests first if there is a conflict between "truth" and human interest.

Charity to whom? Himself - with an expensive oil being splashed on him rather than selling it and giving the money to the poor?

What do yall think about the almight good Lard commanding such acts at this in Hosea?

Hello Pilgrim - how dey bodi di do today?

pilgrim.1:
Em, guys. . . (Bobbyaf, Krayola, ladies and gentlemen of this thread),

Let me throw in this bit. I think that so many times people use expressions that do not address a particular enquiry, which often lead to the mistaken idea that one is superior over the other. This is the case often times when people are employing the fallacy of ad hominem arguments to make deductions or inferences which are far removed from reality.

   - - - - - - - - - -

@Krayola, perhaps you need to reconsider the strain of your arguments. You are operating from what seems to be a very mixed up ideology. For instance, consider these premises in your quotes:
[list][/list]
No, 'science' doesn't have the ability to do so - you most probably meant that 'scientists' search for answers (afterall, what did you mean by "they"?). And yes indeed, we have on record so many 'scientists' who claim to have "answers" about the reality of the world we live in, even though those claims are as dogmatic as religious statements.

Not quite sure what distinction you are making here. Science is the institution or endeavour whose primary purpose is to search for answers about the nature of reality. The scientific institution is peopled by individuals from all walks of life but as long as they follow the dictums of science ( the scientific method, etc, etc), they are doing science and they can be called scientists. ALL GOOD scientist recognise that ALL scientific positions are provisional and anyone who derives a dogmatic position about what he accepts from science and is unwilling to accept a new and better position is SURELY not doing science, but theology.

I know of few cases where scientist have not thrown out their previous old ideas to welcome in a new and better explanation from a new theory. A very good case is the long debate about The steady State Universe Theory espoused by Fred Hoyle and the Expanding Universe model. In spite of all the evidence to refute the Steady state model, Hoyle stuck to his guns about it until very close to his death when the evidence of Cosmic Microwave Background proved too overwhelming to refute. This is very good science and the scientific establishment needs people like Fred Hoyle, and extremely clever man, to force scientist to check, recheck, verify, reverify every single recess of their theory. This is what gives scientists the confidence that they have a sound theory in their hands.

Further it is possible to step outside of science and derive metaphysical or philosophical "doctrines" from the results of science or from a corruption of the results of science. However this is NOT science.

pilgrim.1:
Also, this:
[list][/list]
This is where you got it all wrong and merely repeating the same recycled and unjustified dogmatic statement you've heard from naive minds. "Religion" does not claim to have "all" the answers - there are many religions in the world, and most of them (including Christianity) do not claim to have ALL the answers. At least, I know that the Bible does not claim that any man fully understands 'all' matters of spirituality and the reality of our world. Even in atheistic religions, their informed adherents do not make any such claims as you assumed - people just make this unjustified assertion without having carefully investigated the veracity or substance of that idea.

Worldviews should not be confused for science; and the mistake you're making is to use one worldview (atheism) to argue against another worldview (theism) - and that is not science that you're dealing with. To pit "science" against "religion" in the manner that you're doing is NOT science, but rather atheistic philosophy; more so, because by the statement: "Science searches for answers, they don't claim to have them all", you're assuming that there are no qualified theists who pratice science. Now, who are the "they" in your assumption - atheists? Even honest atheists would not make the mistake that you're making. So, please carefully consider the premise of your arguments.

The mistake that most religions have made, especially the Judeo-Christian, is that they have not confined themselves to the esoteric metaphysical worlds of the supernatural, but have tended to make pontification that could be verified using the scientific process. This is ultimately their undoing. Judeo-Christianity has made claims such as the following which are capable of being verified by science:

1) The origin and structure of the universe

2) The origin of life (and human life) and the diversity of life

3) Myriads of factual claims such as describing a bat as a bird, whale as a fish, rabbit as chewing the cud, etc, etc.

These are primarily scienctific claims and they could be investigated using the scientific method. Now, the question is - what would you do if science finds that the religious narratives of these claims are at variance with the "true" state of reality?

Turn to Luke 18:


20Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

21And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

22Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

23And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

24[b]And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God![/b]

25[b]For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.[/b]

26And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?




And Matthew 26.

7There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.

8But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?

9For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

10When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.

11For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

12For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.

13Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.


And Matthew 19;

20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

OLAADEGBU:
This is the evidence that the Vatican and its adherents don't believe the Bible to be the Word of God.  Do you believe the geneaology of Jesus that Dr. Luke traced back to Adam? (Luke 3:23-38), and that is if you still believe that the creation account and the characters of Adam and Eve are just allegorical.  Do you also believe that the 10 commandments are also allegorical? since God stated that He created the heavens and the earth in 6 days (Exodus 20:11) which confirms the creation account in the book of Genesis.  If you still insist that they are allegorical, is Jesus also a myth or a legend since He is traced back to Adam and to God? 

If you can still claim that all the characters named above are myths, legends and the accounts allegorical then there will be no doubt as to your need to receive Jesus as your Saviour and personal Lord.

Absolutely, the 10 commandments are allegorical. Why else would God command his people not to cook a baby goat in his mother's milk. Does this sound like a REAL commandment to you?