₦airaland Forum

If you do not know something and/or its attributes...it is daft to assert that it doesnt exist. Insisting that God doesnt exist without even knowing his attributes or being able to prove it is madness. No?

mazaje: What is god?. . .Tell us what god is, tell us its attributes and show us how it exist, once you do that you will be provided with evidence to show that it doesn't exist. . .insisting that god exist without being able to provide any evidence for it is shameful, no?. . .

If that is your evidence for God's non existence, why cant we tell you to humble yourself to God and you will find him...as evidence of his existence.

nnofaith: you need to humble yourself and enter the atheist spirit. then god will unreveal himself.

mazaje: The thing is even Africans that are into the business of making drugs use the same principle. . It is universal. . .Your god isn't universal, its just a idea that some people happen to accept while the majority reject. . .Genesis has been translated literally for a long time until science came and showed that it was wrong. . .

But sha you have no evidence that scientists use micro evolution to make anything. You just believe what they wrote abi...

mazaje: You don't want to address anything. . .What am I to do with the position of the catholic church?. . .Where in the bible is evolution supported?. . . .Where does the bible support evolution?. . .You just do not want to accept that your church elders are going against the bible by accepting evolution. . .Which part of evolution states that women were formed from the ribs of men?. . .The bible does not agree with evolution period. . .

Olodo...the Bible is not a science textbook. When Jesus said he came to set fire to the earth, he wasnt with matches and petrol. Block head.

You already lied that the Catholic Church was against evolution...and you cannot prove that...now you ask what you are to do with the Churches position. Be truthful with it. Period.

Oh...so you admit that you have no evidence of your claims. You are just happy because you think that others dont have evidence as well as if that helps your caseou are just a sheep that follows whatever Atheistscientists, historians and media tell you. If they tell you God is real, you will follow in that line of thought. You are a joke.

mazaje: I have told you that I don't believe in macro evolution. . .It is already clear that you have no mind of your own and you are not interested in any truth, you have no evidence to support anything, you are just happy to know that others do not have evidence as well as if that helps your own position. . .You are just a sheep that follows what ever men of the catholic church conceive and tell you. . .If they tell you that god is an allegory, you will follow that in that line of thought. . .You are a joke. . .

mazaje: When did any god personally tell you that he created anything?. . .The only reason why you accept that the jewish god created anything is because the europeans conquered your land and systematically made your ancestors to accept their stories. . .If you were born into a hausa family from kano state, the arabic version of god is what you would have been defending here, while throwing away the jewsih version of god you are supporting here. . .No god has told you anything. . .You only subscribe to STORIES written by men and their imaginations. . .Thats all. . .No god exist only man made stories and ideas about what ever form of god they chose to conceive and imagine. . .Your post up here is simply asinine. . .

It is the same europeans that wrote it in a science journal that micro evolution is used in making drugs and vaccines and you believe with ever witnessing it yourself.

It is the same europeans that told you that genesis was written in a literal sense and you believe without being there when it was written.

mazaje: Where in the bible does it say that people evolved?. . .The bible said man was created fully formed by god and woman from his ribs. . .Jesus himself said adam was the first man created. . He didnt say adam evolved. . .So how does the bible support evolution, tell me. . .The ONLY reason you are talking about evolution is because your ex pope supports it. . .Else you will never give it a chance as a possibility. . .The bible does NOT support evolution, if it does then please show me how. . .Catholic leadership clearly does not support creationism, because they are always saying that its not true, they either call it an allegory or a myth. . .They have never supported the idea that it is factual, or ever happened. . .

Since you are on auto-repeat, lets go.

Stop exposing your ignorance. Obviously you dont know that a Catholic priest Jean-Baptist Lamarck prefigured evolution long before Darwin ever dreamt of it.1. Official Catholic teaching has never been against evolution. It is only against the Atheistic interpretation of evolution.2. Official Catholic teaching has expressly defined the role of evolution in creation. So it allows individual Catholics (including popes) to believe what they want.I challenge to show me something contrary to what I have said.

Where is the evidence for your claim that God doesnt exist? Simple.

Logicboy03: Ah but atheism is not a claim- it is a disbelief in God. The same way you disbelieve in the toothfairy.


Imagine someone asking you to prove that fairies do not exist with all an angry tone. Is the burden of proof on you to prove the fairy's non-existence? no



However, a belief in something can be a claim.

I believe that I will eat fairy dust tomorrow-
-CLAIM; fairy dust exists.


I believe in Allah
-CLAIM; Allah exists


(both Fairy dust and Allah have to exist for the above statements of belief to make sense)



So......the burden of proof rests on you the theist not the disbeliever.



Fortnately for you, I go beyond atheism to say that Allah and Yaweh do not exist. Why? There are self-refuting contradictions. A 10-feet dwarf can not exist the same way an omniscient God who knows everything but gives freewill can not.

I have never said man didnt evolve from fish. Neither have I said man did. I simply dont know if physically man did..and I dont assert what I am not sure of unlike you.

All is say is give me evidence that you evolved from fish.

They are two different things.

Mr Troll: This your statement always makes me laugh "if evolution is true then god made it so"

Obviously, you're waiting for science to discover something and then jump in and claim that your god did it! Hehehehehehe. All the while still saying that mman didn't evolve from fish but just in case he did evolve from fish though...

I have never said man didnt evolve from fish. Neither have I said man did. I simply dont know if physically man did..and I dont assert what I am not sure of unlike you.

Mr Troll: This your statement always makes me laugh "if evolution is true then god made it so"

Obviously, you're waiting for science to discover something and then jump in and claim that your god did it! Hehehehehehe. All the while still saying that mman didn't evolve from fish but just in case he did evolve from fish though...

So which experiment or test have you carried out personally that proves that you evolved from fish...

Or that you are even a fully evolved human?

Abi, like mazaje, you are waiting like sheep for someone with a microscope to write it in a science journal?

Evil Brain: Abeg, stop talking nonsense.

Just because you're not smart or knowledgeable enough to understand or test scientific theories, doesn't mean the rest of us aren't. Most scientific theories can be tested by simple experiments within the reach of smart secondary school students.

Even advanced particle physics can be tested and improved by anyone willing to learn maths and buy a pencil and paper. Atheists don't sit around waiting for someone in garish clothes and a silly hat to tell them what to think like you religious sheep. If you still don't understand that some people apply scepticism to everything they hear, then you have clearly learnt nothing from debating with atheists.

We are not like you. We do not think like you. Don't insult us by claiming otherwise.

If you take it to be fact because you read it, we Christians can take God to be true because we read about him in the bible.

mazaje: I read it in scientific journals. . .Do you deny that fact?. . .

How do you know it was written in a literal sense?

Do you have observable evidence of that or were you present then.

My friend. You and the Atheists that believe in macro evolution just believe things without evidence, dont you?

mazaje: There are space observatories like Kepler and Hubble among many others that have shown us magnificent images of the universe. . .Star formation, planetary formation etc. . .The myth written inside the bible does not come close to observable evidence, Christians know this and have relegated the creation myth as an allegory, when it was never written as an allegory. . .Who ever wrote it truly believed that was how his god created the universe. . .

mazaje: The way your religion teaches you that its god created the universe is the same way other religion teach its adherents that their gods and goddesses created the universe. . .Your religion alone does not have the monopoly to that claim. . .The bible is making scientific claims that it can not and will never back up because the writers of the myth know nothing about how the earth and the universe came about. . .

I am a wine maker. I say I make wine. You say it is untrue, that science has discovered that during fermentation, yeasts interact with sugars in the grape juice to create ethanol, commonly known as ethyl alcohol, and carbon dioxide (as a by-product), giving us the alcoholic beverage.

My dear, either the winemaker is non-existent or your brain is.

mazaje: You are just in a fix, the only reason you are not haranguing the evolutionary process is because your former pope and many cardinals accept it. . .Your former pope even went as far as saying that evolution is not just a hypothesis but a scientific fact. . .This position is completely different from what was written in the bible. . .Man according to the bible was created whole from the dust of the ground and women created whole from the ribs of a man, evolution states that men evolved from other hominid apes. . .How do you reconcile the two?. . .Remember the catholic church used to be against evolution, when presented with the evidence by the scientific community some of them at the top accepted it. . .The pope knows very well that the people that wrote the bible know nothing about how the universe came about. . .Their writing when looked it it honestly does not agree with observable evidence. . .The former pope knows this that is why he left what was written and went the scientific way. . .

Stop exposing your ignorance.

Obviously you dont know that a Catholic priest Jean-Baptist Lamarck prefigured evolution long before Darwin ever dreamt of it.

1. Official Catholic teaching has never been against evolution. It is only against the Atheistic interpretation of evolution.

2. Official Catholic teaching has expressly defined the role of evolution in creation. So it allows individual Catholics (including popes) to believe what they want.

I challenge to show me something contrary to what I have said.

You're no different. You say "(some) scientists tell me...:

Mr Troll: @bold, we are done with you then. You have no business discussing facts and evidence. Say 30 hail mary and 40 our father as penance for wasting our time once again.

wiegraf: Your book of fairytales makes a scientific claim, does not back it up, then you complain when people demand evidence to back up its assertions and point out the many glaring, ridiculous faults with most of said claims.

And you expect to be taken seriously?

Do we look like your slaves?

You are the slaves of all the people whose words you believe without witnessing the said events: scientists, historians, your parents, the media etc?!

wiegraf: All those bibles, that's a lot of potential toilet paper being wasted, no?

Your textbooks and newspapers too?

wiegraf: And note, if you hold it's not literal, just why do many of your genius peers waste our time trying to validate it scientifically? Remixing and twisting it anytime science shows this absolute truth for all times and ages, the supposed ultimate answers, to be nonsense?

My Church does not remix and twist its doctrine. It is atheists that do so.

wiegraf: How do you even know it is not literal, because science says so? By that definition, jesus didn't even exist...

Science says nothing. It doesnt speak. Majority of scientists in the world are people of faith. Many know Jesus is.

What about baptism and holy communion for example...are they essential or non essential?

modupe01: Some of the non-essential things that is not worth splitting our hairs over are:

Whether we should stand up or sit down while preaching;

Whether we are to wear tie or not while ministering;

To wear hat or tie scarf in ministering;

The style of music we play;

To wear shoes or not;

To wear gowns or not in the choir;

For those in the pulpit to stand while those in the pew sits or vice versa;

Days of fellowship on week days or weekends; etc

You can add more examples.

@ mr troll and wiegraf,

If logicboy can understand something that I cant I would commit suicide.

Ah! First you said the burden of proof is on the believer, upon reading my copy and paste, you suddenly think the burden of proof is on both believer and Atheist.

You arent as block-headed as I thought after. You still learn something every once in a blue moon.

So where is the proof for your negative claim that God doesnt exist?

Logicboy03: Lwkmd

The guy is trying to convince you that the burden of proof is not on him.....


He who makes a claim both positive or negative has to prove it........

What is your opinion?

That the killing of humans in the womb isnt murder?

cold: Your opinion. Simples!

You're saying a baby born prematurely is not a human being?

...since he is not biologically independent and should still be in the womb.

That would be preposterous.

Chrisbenogor: My position however is different
A fetus is not a human being, all innocent human beings deserve to live. There is no reason whatsoever to kill a human being unless he or she has committed a crime which is punishable by death according to the laws of the land. A fetus however does not qualify as a human being because it is biologically still dependent on another human being to become fully independent. There has to be a line... a line where all of us christian muslim budhist traditional worshippers atheists all agree and that is when the child is born. At that point it does not matter if the child was a result of rape, incest, whatever it is that child is now a human being and ready to be accorded all the protection a human being should have.

So what is a human being?

...and why is it wrong to kill a human being?

Chrisbenogor: How many kids have you adopted? Your blood relatives adopted? I am sure it's zero.
The fetus is not a human being.

Are we supposed to tolerate murder because 7billion have divergent views?

cold: ^^Pure undiluted sophistry.A misleading and fallacious method of reasoning.You folks only see the world from your own small prism.You fail to take into cognisance that the world is made up of 7 billion people,all with divergent views on a plethora of subjects.

How can you BELIEVE that without scientific evidence, Atheist.

You believe most things based od FAITH.

You are the one in denial.

How are you sure you are a fully evolved human? Any scientific evidence?

You just BELIEVE so, dont you?

Logicboy03: They are just in denial and too scared to accept that thrir beliefs are quite useless

You never read anything and believed without witnessing the event?

Everything you know, you witnessed?

mazaje: Which reality?. . .The myth that claims the sun, moon and stars were all created on the same day. . .When did god personally tell you that he wrote or told any body to write any part of the bible?. . .So the ancient jews that wrote the genesis creation myth are your gods?. . .

The Catholic Church created the Bible and is the sole earthly authority to explain it, not mazaje.

My religion teaches me that God created the world and everything in it. My religion doesnt tell me the scientific method that God used to create it (we believe it could be evolution, we dont care much). The Bible is not a science textbook...and only a slowpoke would expect it to give scientific details of everything.

Even in our day to day communication, we dont always use literal language.

It is not evolution that made man...evolution is only a decription of how man physically came to be. We are saying, if evolution is true, God caused it to happen.

mazaje: The bible has EVERYTHING against evolution. . .Which part of the bible states that humans evolved from apes for example ot that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs ?. . .Didn't the bible say god created humans and birds?. . .Where did it say they evolved form other creatures?. . .Get real my friend. . .

Are you a chemist....or into pharmaceuticals?

How do you know it is the principle used in creation of drugs and vaccines?

You read it somewhere?

mazaje: Sure macro evolution is unconvincing to me and very possibly false, so i disregard it as a factual explanation, but micro evolution takes place all the time. . .It is the principled used in the creation of many drugs and vaccines. . .

That is the Atheistic definition of evolution. My religion tells me that God infused our first parents with a soul. That why we are "man."

That's the difference between you and any other specie.

Evil Brain: That makes no sense. While many educated Christians (and apparently catholic clergymen) like to play politics and deceive themselves, the fact is that evolution and Christianity are completely incompatible.

Evolution shows us that there was never a first man or woman. No Adam and Eve means no garden of Eden story, no original sin and no fall. No fall means no need for a Jesus to die for anybody. Evolution destroys the very foundation of christian theology, that's why fundamentalists hate it so much.

Then there is the fact that evolution ties in so neatly with cosmology, geology, paleontology and archaeology; all of which show clearly that there is no need for a god of any kind for the world as we know it to exist and no evidence of one anywhere.

There is no atheistic interpretation of evolution, there is a religious misunderstanding of it.

Well, it is difficult yo know who pretends or not. But one thing we can know for sure is that yhe Catholic Church teaches that abottion is evil. You can gind that much in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

What do these "churches" teach?

Noneroone: The Anglican church does not support it either. The question should be whose faithfuls engage in abortion most and i guess catholics. Though they pretend a lot.

My friend, I have visited pentecostal churches and most of the preaching is on prosperity and anything that makes the congregation comfortable.

Even if I didnt visit, their sermons are all over the TV all over the world.

Just look at daystar chanel on dstv, 20hrs out of 24 they are talking about how you can give them money to get blessings.

If you think otherwise, tell me just ONE concrete thing that any pentecostal church has done to protect the life of the unborn.

seyi360: by what parameter(s) did u arrive at your biased,hypocritical and inbalanced assessment of Pentecostal churches in Nigeria?

Read and educate yourself.

The concept of ‘burden of proof’ (Latin, onus probandi) originally goes back to classical Roman law, and it remains important in legal theory. Who has the burden of proof, and what it consists of, is determined by a judge or by established rules which vary across legal systems. The same is true of formal debates which occur in a variety of formats. The idea of ‘burden of proof’ also has application in non-formal settings; for example, in academic disputes or public controversies. However, without a judge or rules to determine who has the burden and how it is to be discharged, it becomes unclear how the concept is to be applied, or even whether it has clear application.Yet although the concept of burden of proof in informal settings is ill-understood, that does not stop many from confidently proclaiming how the burden of proof should be assigned. The most egregious mistake is to think that it is a matter of logic. Rather, the burden of proof is a methodological or procedural concept. It is, in Nicolas Rescher’s words, “a regulative principle of rationality in the context of argumentation, a ground rule, as it were, of the process of rational controversy” (Dialectics, 1977). Another error is to presume that the burden falls on whoever is making the grammatically positive statement. However, positive statements can often be translated reasonably faithfully into negative statements, and vice versa: the statement ‘everything happens for a reason’ can be expressed as ‘there are no coincidences’, and ‘there is nothing supernatural’ can be restated as ‘reality is wholly natural’. A third problem is that to be taken seriously many negative statements – ‘there are no atoms’, ‘there are no coincidences’ – require evidence, whereas the corresponding positive statements do not.It is sometimes said that one acquires a burden of proof if one’s statement runs counter to received opinion, and it does seem that burden of proof often falls in this way. But this proposal has problems too – one being that a person can legitimately take on a burden of defending a widely-held position to those who are ignorant of it or its defense (teachers do this, for example). It may be that the best we can hope for is something like the following: in situations in which participants to a discussion are expected to take seriously the claims made by other parties, all participants bear a burden to provide support for their claims, if asked (see James Cargile’s paper ‘On the Burden of Proof’ in Philosophy 72, 1997).The concept of burden of proof in informal settings is too complicated to sort out here, but fortunately, we don’t have to, because the question of which side has the burden of proof in an argument is largely independent of the question of what evidence is required to rationally believe any of the positions. Suppose for example that someone claims that there are no electrons, and that person bears the burden of proof. It’s not the case that so long as their burden hasn’t been discharged people can rationally believe that electrons exist without evidence. On the contrary, as evidentialism says, evidence is required for the belief to be justified even if there is no burden to defend the belief. This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something we have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism.

Mr Troll: my good reetard, it is very simple. If you say your yahweh exists, simply prove it. You cannot turn logic on its head by telling the other person to prove he/she/it does not exist. By using your silly logic, we can claim the existence of anything we care to imagine, FSM for example, because the other party cannot prove its non existence. Simply put, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Daz all Italo.

Chrisbenogor: Bros,
This is very simple common sense, aside from the fact that none of the crowd calling it murder bother to check if these babies have been thrown into canals or abandoned in motherless babies homes or even sold.

A sin is a sin is a sin. If it is wrong to kill a one minute old baby by throwing him in a canal, it is also wrong to kill a baby one minute before birth.

YES or NO?

Giving up a child for adoption is a good option.

[quote author=Chrisbenogor]Lemme ask you then if a pregnancy would kill a woman, would you allow her carry it till the end still?

For example...

My response would depend on the case.

But before then, ponder on this: If sustaining your terminally sick child would be such a strain on your resources and would make you starve to death, would you kill your child?

Chrisbenogor: Do you think it is morally right to ask a woman who was raped by an armed robber to keep a child that would remind her of the trauma?

In as much as it is a very difficult and traumatic situation, it is still wrong to kill the innocent human being. The right thing to do is to spare the life of that innocent child of God.

Again, ponder this: if a man discovers that the boy he has grown to know and love as his son is actually the product of his wife's affair with his driver, should the man keep the child that will traumatize him in his home or should he kill the boy?

So you agree that human beings should not be killed. So please tell me why human beings should not be killed but lower animals can.

What makes us special?

Chrisbenogor: I am pretty sure you can do better than that, the debate on abortion since forever has and will always be where the line is drawn on who is a human being.

Chrisbenogor: How is abortion evil?
The catholic church has till this day refused even accent to the use of proper contraceptives.
I have no problem when you guys have an opinion on religious issues, but when common sense says otherwise then there has to be a problem.

So common sense is to kill an innocent human being?

The devil sure knows how to make evil look like good.

Chrisbenogor: Baby factories have been popping up left right and center, this menace has to be curbed and at the root of the matter is giving these young women the chance to terminate it before it becomes a bigger crime.
At least Imo state can become the capital in Nigeria where people travel to have a proper medical termination of their pregnancies.

Pregnancy is terminated by birth.

Human life is terminated by abortion.