₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight: My guy, no need for drama; you supported Plaetton's notion that there was something to be afraid of, or nervous of, on the part of theists with respect to the possible discovery of the higgs boson. Can you kindly show how this is the case?

You are funny. If there is a drama, then you wrote the script when you ignored that I only took the first line (one that was addressed to you in particular)from Plaetton and did a "Deep Sight" with it. Something you missed while talking of missed innuendos.


If you claim not to be bothered by it, or find it boring, then thats that.

What do you want again ?

plaetton: Scientists scoff at the idea of spiritual phenomena simply because there are no tools or parameters with which to objectively observe , measure and analyse such.

Perfect. B[b]a[/b]ng on point.

I am not sure that Deep Sight will ever grasp this exceedingly simple and SELF EVIDENT explanation.

ea7: If you want to see a real exercise in sophistry along these lines, read Alvin Plantinga. . . And be prepared to get angry.

I couldnt believe what I was seeing when I picked up Platinga.

aletheia: ^
How about "The Infinite Improbability Drive"?


Just joking: Readers of HHGTTG will recognize the allusion.

Cant get enough of the series.

^^
Barge? Where ?

I did a mimicry of your "gbam/gboga" and you dont like it or even recognize it but you'd like to claim innuendos were missed ?

You called my name in the previous post. You should have kept it out of your mouth.

As for your personality, its easy enough. Lets not even go there

Deep Sight: Pefect. B[b]a[/b]ng on point.

I am not sure that either Plaetton, Jayriginal or persons such as thehomer or Idehn will ever grasp this exceedingly simple and SELF EVIDENT explanation.

I doubt you understand half of what you say or what you argue against. Your dogma blinds you.

[quote author=emöfine2]Boring? On the contrary I find this news quite exciting and intriguing.[/quote]Its significant news but I prefer to "Siddon look" (with apologies to late Bola Ige) until the data is fully collated and a more or less stable statement of fact is released on this issue.
Thats why my "boring" is in quotes.

Deep Sight: Clever by half? Nah. It truly escaped you then.

I was referring to the lousy fact that some people repeatedly conflate the whats and hows with the whys and wherefores.

As crude example, a person who discovers exactly what makes a car work cannot for that reason conclude that it had no maker. It is a repeated trend amongst baby atheists; the assumption that discovering nature's secrets renders nature self existent.

Lol, you are the one chasing shadows. Verbal gymnastics wont save you my brother. You're the one who missed it.

Deep Sight: @ Plaetton and Jayriginal, you guys are too damn funny. What on earth does the discovery or non discovery of that particle have to do with the existence or non existence of God?

You see, these are knee jerk reactions on your part, and they confirm the innuendo i was making in my one line OP. I knew very well that that innuendo would be lost on most, as it has on you both.

You are trying to be clever by half. It wont fly.

What if I told you I find it "boring" as well ?

EDIT:
Just so its clear, I did not mention god and neither did Plaetton.

So, "God" ?

plaetton: Boring or just scary to you?

GBAM !!!

MyJoe: I wouldn't say this at all. There is nothing to scare theists about this Higgs Boson thing. Nothing.

Unless MyJoe speaks for all theists, I'd suggest a revision of the above statement.

Theists

1) Pastor AIO -- Possibly the most open minded theist on this section.
2) JeSoul -- The Lady of the section.
3) Uyi Iredia -- not your "I believe in God because the bible said so" type. Has some unique perspectives on his theological position.
4) Debosky -- not a regular here these days but surely one of the more objective theists ([size=4pt]apparently a ladies man[/size])
5) Joagbaje -- not out of the soundness of his arguments but for the fact that he has been attacked so many times but I havent seen a reprisal on his part.




Non-Theists
1) KAG -- What can I say ? A sound mind. Her posts were always great to read.
2) Martian -- often retorts with poisonous wit. Can be quite brutal. I've chortled at many a Martian post.
3) thehomer -- I fancy him a fan of "The Simpson's" like me. Usually clear in his posts and "armed" so to speak, for a good debate.
4) MyJoe -- Clear and concise without any abrasive tendencies. Can propose or rebut without alienating anyone.
5) Mazaje -- goes hard. Point blank. Lately Ive come to notice a softer side of him though. Doesnt seem too active anymore (or maybe its me).
6) Evil Brain -- for being a fellow Pastaferian.
7) Purist -- reminds me of MyJoe. Usually clear and straight to the point.
8 ) Plaetton -- remarkable ideas on certain subjects which others might dismiss outright. This makes it the more interesting to hear for instance, an atheist discuss a concept like the "soul".
9) Deep Sight -- flamboyant with words and possibly the most colorful person on the religious section.

Pastor Kun: Truth be told our knowledge of the cosmos is so infinitesimal that is almost impossible to make any definitive conclusion on a subject as remote as the origins or age of the universe.

!

The "soul is sometimes personified eg being weary, overjoyed etc.

Most will recoil at the thought of the soul being hungry (for mortal food).

Is there a way to reconcile these seeming contradictions ?

One way to look at it is to observe that the "soul" seems fully capable of being involved in non material things (per the examples above). However when it comes to the more "human" attributes eg hunger, it would seem no one would argue that the "soul" cannot be involved.

Flowing from this, is there anyone that is willing to argue that the "soul" can feel physical pain ?

To get an idea, consider "hell" and the attendant agony. From the claims, it is the "soul" and not the physical body that will be in "hell".
So, if anyone is willing to argue that the "soul" can feel physical pain, will the person agree that the "soul" might also hunger (particularly considering that thirst is mentioned as a consequence of hell CF: The parable of the rich man and Lazarus Luke 16:19-31).

JeSoul: My brother no wahala jare. Beef is with mr Mike Wall for a shoddily written article.

And no beef either with this "saying something didn't need god is very different from saying god didn't do it", the issue is commenting on God at all! in the context of a scientific discussion.

Fair enough.
Cheers.

dorox: Could you please explain the difference to me , i seem to be a bit slow this morning.

God didn't do it is self explanatory.

It didn't need god means it could have happened without god (not that it happened without god). Its certainly not the same as the first statement above.

Jesoul, haba.
I simply gave the topic the same title with the article. Was I supposed to retitle it?

Also, as I pointed out, saying something didn't need god is very different from saying god didn't do it.

Filippenko stressed that such statements are not attacks on the existence of God. Saying the Big Ban.g — a massive expansion 13.7 billion years ago that blew space up like a gigantic balloon — could have occurred without God is a far cry from saying that God doesn't exist, he said.

Why the paranoia ?

I don't think you can use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God," Filippenko said.

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

All these went unnoticed ?

Something else may fly over heads again. Notice the words 'divine spark', and what I really mean is notice that the words are in quotes.

JeSoul: These kinds of articles are embarrassing.

Both the author & the OP went with the title: "The Big B@ng Did Not Need God", yet a direct quote from the scientist in question says this: "The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there," said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley."

Can anyone spot the difference? It is great to continue researching these things but lazy, casual articles like these are just disappointing particularly because they're not telling us anything new or substantive.

There is nothing new in this article. They're saying the big bang may not have needed a divine spark. Anyone equally armed with enough technical jargon can also write an article and says the big bang may have needed a divine spark. And then they backtrack saying....the laws of physics may have been enough BUT they don't know what initiated the laws of physics to begin with - if physics itself may/may not have been a result of a divine spark.

Furthermore the article is full of so many "maybes" "mights" "possiblys" "could haves" etc I can start a festival with them... I mean what does this statement even mean:
? what? where's the research to show this? or is all that is required to pass off as 'science' these days a barrage of speculative unsubstantiated technical jargon flung one after another to bamboozle the casual reader?

Abeg, next.

JeSoul, you see I put the link there ? You also see I said I might edit later ?

Its simple really. Saying something didnt need god is not the same as saying god isnt a factor!
He said it didnt need god. He didnt say that it occurred without god. You spot the difference.

Keep your blood pressure down.


PS
If the author titled his piece one way, am I supposed to change it ?

Uyi Iredia: * Okay. It's good to know that you agree that the scope of religions are much wider than its contextual definition in a dictionary. Noywithstanding your fraudulent use of the tern non-atheism which can be taken to mean theism. Note that in one breath you acknowledged that the supernatural doesn't have to exist for a thing to be a religion & yet you scorned dictionaries for not acknowledging this. Besides, the simple fact is that there are religions which do not involve worship of deities. I hope you are willing to stretch your logic to include atheism as a religion.

Adjust your reasoning process.

Thank you.

Our universe could have popped into existence 13.7 billion years ago without any divine help whatsoever, researchers say.

That may run counter to our instincts, which recoil at the thought of something coming from nothing. But we shouldn't necessarily trust our instincts, for they were honed to help us survive on the African savannah 150,000 years ago, not understand the inner workings of the universe.

Instead, scientists say, we should trust the laws of physics.

"The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there," said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. "With the laws of physics, you can get universes."

Filippenko spoke here Saturday (June 23) at the SETICon 2 conference, during a panel discussion called "Did the Big Bang Require a Divine Spark?" [Images: Peering Back to the Big Bang]

Quantum fluctuations In the very weird world of quantum mechanics, which describes action on a subatomic scale, random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness. And this can lead to very big things indeed, researchers say.

"Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos," said panelist Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the non-profit Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute. "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it."

"So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe," Shostak added. "I don't know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider."

Filippenko stressed that such statements are not attacks on the existence of God. Saying the Big Bang — a massive expansion 13.7 billion years ago that blew space up like a gigantic balloon — could have occurred without God is a far cry from saying that God doesn't exist, he said.

"I don't think you can use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God," Filippenko said.

The origin of the laws of physics If we're after the ultimate origin of everything, however, invoking the laws of physics doesn't quite do the trick. It may get us one step closer, but it doesn't take us all the way, Filippenko said.

"The question, then, is, 'Why are there laws of physics?'" he said. "And you could say, 'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'"

But that answer just continues to kick the can down the road, because you still need to explain where the divine creator came from. The process leads to a never-ending chain that always leaves you short of the ultimate answer, Filippenko said.

The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve.

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

The History & Structure of the Universe (Infographic)The Universe: Big Bang to Now in 10 Easy StepsThe Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)Copyright 2012 SPACE.com, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.The interior of Mars holds vast reservoirs of water, with some spots apparently as wet as Earth's innards, scientists say.

The finding upends previous studies, which had estimated that the Red Planet's internal water stores were scanty at best — something of a surprise, given that liquid water apparently flowed on the Martian surface long ago.

"It's been puzzling why previous estimates for the planet's interior have been so dry," co-author Erik Hauri of the Carnegie Institution of Washington said in a statement. "This new research makes sense and suggests that volcanoes may have been the primary vehicle for getting water to the surface."

The scientists examined two Martian meteorites that formed in the planet's mantle, the layer under the crust. These rocks landed on Earth about 2.5 million years ago, after being blasted off the Red Planet by a violent impact.

Using a technique called secondary ion mass spectrometry, the team determined that the mantle from which the meteorites derived contained between 70 and 300 parts per million (ppm) of water. Earth's mantle, for comparison, holds roughly 50 to 300 ppm water, researchers said.

"The results suggest that water was incorporated during the formation of Mars and that the planet was able to store water in its interior during the planet's differentiation," Hauri said.

Some of this water apparently made its made to the surface in the ancient past. NASA's Spirit and Opportunity rovers, which landed on the Red Planet in 2004, have found plenty of evidence that Mars was far warmer and wetter billions of years ago than it is today.

The two golf-cart-size robots have even spotted signs of ancient hydrothermal systems, suggesting that some places on the Red Planet once had both water and an energy source — two key ingredients for the existence of life as we know it.

While the new results should help scientists better understand Mars and its history, they could also shed light on the evolution of large, rocky bodies in a more general sense, researchers said.

"Not only does this study explain how Mars got its water, it provides a mechanism for hydrogen storage in all the terrestrial planets at the time of their formation," lead author Francis McCubbin of the University of New Mexico said in a statement.

The study was published in the journal Geology on June 15.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47948831/ns/technology_and_science-space/

PS: I am posting from my phone. I may edit later.

[This essay won second prize in a competition and was published in Freethought Today 12:7 (Sept. 1995), p. 8. The Freedom From Religion Foundation which publishes Freethought Today comes highly recommended as a very human, professional, national organization for freethinkers of all varieties, and their publication is an excellent source of relevant national news and commentary.]


A Fish Did Not Write This Essay
by Richard Carrier

It's remarkable how many people insist I am not an atheist. It seems pretty obvious to me that I don't believe any god exists, and that pretty much makes me an atheist. Nevertheless, here these people are, so insistent that I cannot possibly be an atheist. "You're too nice," they say, or "you really believe, you just don't know it" (how's that again?). Sometimes I hear something like "You believe in something, and that is really god" or "you are still looking, but you'll find Him" (he's invited to stop by my house at any time). When I have the time to converse with these people, however, it usually comes down to this: I'm really an agnostic, they say, because I am willing to admit that I don't know there isn't any god. It is apparently so important for people to believe that I'm "really just an agnostic" that I find this to be a haunting sign of the hold religion has on people. It is tragic that the mere thought of a good friend or relative being an actual, avowed atheist is so horrible that it must be denied.

Sometimes I have the chance to explain that I am an atheist not because I know there isn't a god, but because I don't believe there is. If someone insisted that their pet fish could talk, I really couldn't say I knew it didn't, especially if I could not go and see for myself, but it would still be fair for me to say that there are no talking fish. The relevance of this is that I do not believe god exists any more than I believe fish can talk. Certainly, I have not examined all species of fish, nor every single fish for that matter, nor could I ever accomplish such a feat, but the claim that they exist is so contrary to my own personal experience and reliable facts that I simply will not believe it unless very definitive proof is provided. Of course, if I visit someone's pet fish and it talks to me, I am still wiser to test the possibilities of trickery or insanity before believing it can really talk. But if I found many fish that talked, trustworthy people confirmed it, scientists published carefully researched papers about them, and newspaper headlines read "INCREDIBLE DISCOVERY: TALKING FISH!" then it would be more than reasonable to believe they existed. No one really disputes such common sense, until it is applied to religion.

I've never seen or talked to a god, nor seen a god do anything unmistakably godlike. People insist they know one exists, but most of them really say they only feel it, and don't offer any other proof. Indeed, it is odd that those few who honestly offer the more genuine proof of actually hearing god talk are branded insane even by the believers. Believers are probably right about that, but their own "feeling" that a god exists isn't any more convincing to me. Anyone might "feel" that fish could talk, but that wouldn't mean it was so, nor would that be a very reliable way to know it was true even if it was. People still say there are billions of witnesses to god's existence, but since the vast majority of them only "feel" that god exists, even trillions of witnesses wouldn't count for much. I am astonished how many people think that if the Earth stopped rotating we would all fall off into space--they just "feel" intuitively that this is true, even though the exact opposite would happen (people at the equator would actually gain a few pounds). I agree that billions of people "feel" god exists, but feelings are only evidence of what lies in our hearts and dreams. Feelings do not tell us much about reality outside of ourselves.

People also say that the bible says a god exists. The bible also says a guy lived inside the belly of a giant fish for three days, somehow failing to be digested in its stomach acids; and that a flood "so great" that it covered all the mountains with water occurred to fulfill a genocidal whim of an apparently uncreative god (why not just make everyone vanish instantly and save the world's people and animals the suffering of being drowned?). Since these all sound like tall tales to me, I think god is probably a tall tale, too. Basically, if the bible said there were talking fish, I wouldn't believe it until I saw one myself (the bible does fittingly claim the existence of a talking ass). Likewise, the bible may say a god exists, but I still won't believe it until I see one myself.

Most people I meet, however, don't realize that I am first and foremost a freethinker, and only an atheist as a result of applying freethought to the evidence available to me. The reasons I have for being a freethinker are actually rather different from the reasons I have for not believing in a god. I sometimes wear a shirt that says, "we all need humanity, not religion; reason, not faith." This has sometimes triggered interesting conversations about why I am a freethinker. "That's pretty harsh," some who read that shirt say. I ask why. It seems reasonable to me that if religion vanished from the earth, but was replaced by the entire human race working humanely together, nothing would be lost, and everything gained. Thus, we need humanity--that is, our own humanity, as well as the entirety of the human species. But we do not need religion--it offers nothing that cannot be gained through other means.

It also seems reasonable to me that if people lived by reason instead of faith, a great many tragedies would be averted, and an equal number of advances would be made, especially in human behavior. I do not claim this as a recipe for utopia, only for significant improvement. How many times do we find ourselves saying of a criminal or a politician, "They are just so stupid! Any rational person would have acted entirely differently." A criminal or politician can have all the faith we want them to, but they will still do stupid things--and that's the problem. Thus, we only need people to act intelligently. We can do without faith. In fact, the "faith" of Islamic suicide bombers and abortion clinic murderers is actually a real threat to humanity, as was the "faith" of Red Party members in their belief that communism would lead to utopia. People can do without faith. They can't do without reason.

It is usually argued, of course, that we need religion in order to get humanity to behave and work together. All evidence is to the contrary. Religion has not notably improved human behavior. The pagan Romans were far kinder than the Inquisition Christians. Nor has religion united Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, or Jews. It has quite unmistakably divided them. In fact, religion will never unite them, because a religion requires that they all share the same beliefs, without offering any reliable evidence that their ideas are more correct than anyone else's. Reason, on the other hand, is the only thing that can actually unite people of diverse opinions. Reason, by definition, bases its decisions on evidence available to everyone, and allows people to disagree when this evidence is lacking. Religion will never do that, and that is the problem with it.

It is also often argued that we need faith just as much as we need reason. Usually, this claim is based on a very loose definition of "faith." Many have said that atheists have faith like everyone else, and that no one can do without having faith in something. However, this is misleading. If you mean by "faith" nothing more than "belief" then you can dispense with the word altogether. In reality, faith is usually employed to describe a particular justification for believing something, rather than to simply say you believe it. If I say I believe there are no talking fish, it isn't very productive to say that this proves I have "faith" that fish don't talk, because I don't believe it on faith. I believe it because of the evidence of my senses and the evidence presented by people employing a reasonable method of getting at the truth about things. However, to say you have "faith" that god exists means more than just saying you believe it. It means that you believe god exists because you have faith that he does. It is this meaning of faith that reason stands opposite to. I do not believe anything on faith. I only believe things because I have good evidence to support them. And that is what reason means: basing all beliefs on the evidence of the senses, and on nothing else.

Of course, some try to take issue with this. For one, they say that I have only replaced faith in god with faith in reason, but I only believe in reason because the evidence of my senses has always confirmed that reason is reliable. I do not believe in it on faith. [b]People also say that I actually do believe in things that I have never seen demonstrated, like the existence of uranium or that my friends would defend me in a life-or-death situation. And this, they say, proves I do have faith in some things. But even these beliefs are not really based on faith. The evidence of my senses has so far proven that certain sources are reliable enough to believe without direct evidence to the contrary. Science, responsible journalism, and people I know who honestly use tried and tested methods, have all proved themselves reliable to me through my own senses. If their claims suddenly widely contradicted my personal experiences, I would cease believing in their claims. The claims of the bible obviously fall into the 'unbelievable' category. That is why I think the existence of uranium is far more likely than the existence of a god. I do not believe this way because of my faith in science, but because the evidence of my senses tells me that science gets things right far more often than the bible. Even more than that, science much more quickly admits an error than any religion will.[/b] Likewise, my faith in friends is also based on prior experience. The evidence of my senses proves so far that honest, compassionate, mature people will defend their friends. Thus, all my beliefs are rooted in evidence, and not in faith.

Why do I think this way? It seems almost silly to ask such a question. Does it really make sense to base your beliefs on things for which you have no good evidence? "Faith in god" is not the same as faith in science or friends or even everyday assumptions like "a fish did not write this essay." Faith in god means faith that something astoundingly incredible, that is both unproven and unprovable, is true. That is simply not reasonable to me. I will never base my beliefs on such stretches of imagination, because it so easily leads to error and self-deception. Though my heart may tell me many useful things about me, only my mind has anything useful to say about the outside world. And it tells me that god, like talking fish, is the grandest of fictions.

I suspect that many people think they need to believe in a god for life to have meaning, and this may very well be the only reason they believe in god. More than a suspicion, this theory has been confirmed several times by the open admission of believers I have spoken with. However, it is not rational to believe in something only because you need to, especially when it stands a good chance of not being true. It is unwise to build an emotional investment in any idea that could be wrong, lest you bind yourself to a bad idea that can mire you in error and misery. We can all easily see that a compulsive gambler "needs" to believe he'll win in order to keep placing his bet, but that need has no correspondence with the truth. If the odds are 10 to 1 against, no matter what a gambler needs, he is not likely to be right about winning the bet.

Since I have always lived my life with meaning and joy, without needing a belief in god or an afterlife, I know that such beliefs are unnecessary. And I have also personally encountered hundreds of other people who find ample meaning in life without needing to believe in god or heaven, so I know I am not just a fluke of nature. So when anyone asks me why I am a freethinker, I usually start off with the short answer: it is not necessary or reasonable to think any other way. And as a freethinker, if any believer tries to argue that you cannot prove a god does not exist, simply ask them to prove this essay was not written by a fish. Maybe then they will begin to understand.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/fish.html

Interesting read. Olumba has as much right as anyone else to call himself God.

Uyi Iredia: I DID NOT isolate the last statement. I took a group of statements including the last statement of a paragraph. Besides my point was holistic in that it could safely be extended to all the points you made therin, never mind the fact that I was focusing on a particular aspect of your statement. Taoism and Zen Buddhism (in particular) in fact included non-worship of deities, however over time it did include this aspect. BTW, I am not excluding the struck out part. Except you have changed your mind as regards it.

No I havent changed my mind.
What you didnt get is that I already acknowledged the existence of 'religions' that do not include the supernatural.

jayriginal: There have been dictionaries and reference materials that hold that religion does not necessarily include the supernatural. I call bullsh1t on that.

My calling bullsh1t on that is probably what you have misread and thats why I struck it out for easy comprehension. Is there anything wrong with the statement ?

This here

jayriginal: Most fail to see that when the logic by which atheism is a religion is applied impartially, non atheism is also a religion. Non worship of every and any deity also becomes a religion.

is quite easy to decipher. I cant imagine you missed it (even if you dont agree) except you are arguing for the sake of it.

An anecdote:

The story was once told of a carpenter who came to learn that the Constitution granted him freedom of association. Consequently, he decided to join the Nigerian Medical Association. He cried foul when he was not allowed to join and continually harped on his constitutional right to freedom of association.

He insisted on his position, even when it was explained to him that while the provision was indeed in the constitution, it was a 'qualified' right and as such had application only in a particular sense and not universally.

Deep Sight: If I was christian, I would probably argue that here, Jesus was speaking metaphorically in terms of teh extent to which a believer must go for the gospel. However since I am not a christian let me just openly admit that I do not understand this hard saying.

If there are any bible teachers in the house, please come and explain this hard saying for us.

I've seen an alternative "explanation" for this which suggests that he was talking about sacrifice and persecution (if I remember correctly).

Makes me wonder.

Deep Sight: Even if it is granted that the US Supreme Court deployed such an interpretation in that regard.

I really wonder whether the fact that atheism is considered, in the realm of law, a religion - thereby makes it in fact a religion.

American law for that matter.

Purist: . . . , I'll like you to fill in the gaps. All atheists believe in __________. This belief in __________ is central to atheism. If you don't believe in ___________, you cannot possibly be an atheist. E.O.D.

Oya Uyi, over to you.

Uyi Iredia: How ?

See here.

jayriginal: Most fail to see that when the logic by which atheism is a religion is applied impartially, non atheism is also a relgion. Non worship of every and any deity also becomes a religion.

You isolated the last statement whereas, they are meant to be taken together. Do you read a difference in meaning now that the two statements are paired ?

There have been dictionaries and reference materials that hold that religion does not necessarily include the supernatural. I call bullsh1t on that. (bullsh1t too).

Now minus the struck out part (which is a matter of opinion on this issue) what is the problem with the statement ?

Uyi Iredia: The bolded comment displays gross ignorance on the evolution of religions. I want you to do a bit of research on religions such as Sikhism, Buddhism, Taoism & Zen Buddhism. These are religions which were simply rules for living (akin to a code of conduct) over time due to political changes they became religions. Atheism is a non-worship of deity but atheists are coming together to give structure to their beliefs & that my friend is how a religion starts. Check history.

After reading what you yourself bolded, perhaps you are the one displaying monumental ignorance ?

MyJoe: Of course, you are right about there being no consensus among Christians on the biblical position on most things and about the Bible being open to different interpretations on matters. But on this particular one, if a debate were orgnanised between me and the person taking the literal viewpoint, I would land so many kicks and uppercuts as I cite verse after verse that he would end up looking like Rodney King after an encounter with the LA police.

Seriously, though, most Christians try to construe the meaning of scripture text from the surrounding words or by making reference to other verses. They usually resort to "revelation" when the argument is not going well for them. It's dishonest.

Unfortunately, logic would not be the final say in such a debate. Each side would have his supporters cheering him on mindlessly.
Still, I daresay I can find verses which can be used to support the literal point of view. To find arguments isnt that difficult. I simply need to claim revelation and the faithful take it in well, . . . faith.
See here . . .

Image123: Faith in God{the One you call the Christian God} supercedes reason. Faith is not opposite of reason or without reason, it is greater than and in a more advanced plane than reason. Unfortunate that such information could melt a fuse or two in you guys anytime it's re-stated.

https://www.nairaland.com/955608/did-god-want-dana-flight/12#11116068

MyJoe: Well, it was Jesus himself giving the reprimand and it appears Peter accepted it. Of course, he did! It was his Lord talking. But if you have any doubts about this case, perhaps because the word "sin" was not used, what about the adulterous woman? In that case, Jesus simply said, "madam, no do am again" - go and sin no more. No mutilation recommended.

You see I have this one neatly tied up?

Actually you dont. Very little if anything can be neatly tied up in the bible (figuratively speaking). You have simply offered a position and supported it from the bible. Anyone else can counter you and support his/her claim from the bible and be entitled to be taken to be correct.

Dont forget, the issue here is who's 'revelation' is correct and not who is making the most sense.

Martian: Sweet Jesus

If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Nowif one takes this as a metaphor, it's kind of crazy. But when one takes it literally, how can one not say that this guy wasn't on PCP or the equivalent of crack cocaine during that period.

These folks took it literally
https://www.nairaland.com/964490/8-cut-off-p.enises-testicles

MyJoe: Yes, because Jesus reprimanded him by invoking the law that anyone who kills by the sword would die by the sword. You see, he asked them to get swords, yet only one of them defends him with with it, and all that one gets is a reprimand. Maybe he had other things in mind as per the sword matter...? That's just my speculation, though. I think the reprimand proves conclusively that Peter's act was deemed a sin.

And you would preach that if you had the inclination to do so, whereas I'd preach something quite different if my inclination was at variance with yours and we would each have our followers.
Who would be right and who would be wrong ? We are using the same bible afterall (and perhaps the same spirit ).

PS:
For the records, I do not see how the reprimand proves conclusively that Peter's action was a sin but I'm not willing to be drawn into that for now.