₦airaland Forum

Thelstan:
You have posted extracts of the argument from the other side. 100 such points. AND you have provided links to the website. I doubt that we need to wait till you post the entire contents of that website and maybe its sister websites till we have heard the other side. I'm certain if we were all posting all the data from external sites there would be no viable discussion at all. 

afam4eva:
\
True True. They're the best. A guy downloaded 30 music videos in less than 5 minutes in my presence. Their internet is very fast.

Thelstan:
I am totally in love with this thread!


Jayriginal kindly stop spamming the thread with posts from that website naa. We have seen the link and extracts already.

Deep Sight:
Perhaps I found it compelling because it is indeed common-sensical to think that a thing displaying very complex elements of design and inter-working features is designed? A person who thinks the contrary should be tasked to prove so - simply because it appears like fantasy or witchcraft, to imagine that such a thing springs into existence by itself, just unaided?

I think its actually a laughable non-starter. The world is teeming with too many elements evincing such particular and staggering design that it is almost disingenous to state that one has seen no evidence of design or a designer.

Please let's be fair to each other. I provided the link, and you know very well that in that thread I have already addressed fully all the arguments i regard as absurd in the article - so I DID NOT pick and choose - and certainly did not ignore anything - whether or not you agreed with my conclusions.
Also you should note the context in which i sourced that quote - not to dispute the existence of God - but simply to discuss burden of proof.

I think that he who asserts the more bizzare thing has a greater burden of proof. And one look at the human anatomy (particularly the brain) is enough to convince me that it is more bizzare to regard it as being undesigned, than it is to regard it as designed.

Deep Sight:
Bump! For Jayriginal and Plaeton to review. . . . . . .

egift:
HELL EXPLAINED BY A CHEMISTRY STUDENT


The following is an actual question given on a University of *Washington *chemistry mid-term.

The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :


Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets
to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.


This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct, leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'

Deep Sight:
I found this argument compelling because I am aware (in law) that the burden of proof is by no means static.

plaetton:
Even if the burden of proof shifts to the nay sayers, all they have say is very simple:
I do not see god, I cannot detect god through any instrument, I dont know anyone who has seen god, therefore, god does not exist.
That is sufficient repudiation of the theist claims.

Jenwitemi:
Now, that is a good start, even if it isn't quite irrefutable.

Martian:
This Dawkins quote is often used as support for intelligent design while the person using the quote conveniently omits the rest of the paragraph.

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams

Martian:
They didn't say, "neutrinos are faster than light" and then say the burden on proof is on the rest of us while refusing to offer evidence.
If anyone says an intelligent creator exists, then the burden of proof lies with the person.
I can't claim that there are 10 intelligent designers and ask someone else to disprove them. I have to prove that they exist.

mazaje:
I duff my hat for you Jayriginal. . . .

Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason.

-Martin Luther (First Psalm Lectures, Luther's Works, Vol. 11, p.285)


Christ wants to slay reason and subdue the arrogance of the Jews,

-Martin Luther (Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Luther's Works, V.22, p.320)


Whoever wants to be a Christian must be intent on silencing the voice of reason.

-Martin Luther (Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Luther's Works, V.23, p. 99)

5 Samson went down to Timnah together with his father and mother. As they approached the vineyards of Timnah, suddenly a young lion came roaring toward him. 6 The Spirit of the LORD came powerfully upon him so that he tore the lion apart with his bare hands as he might have torn a young goat. But he told neither his father nor his mother what he had done.

If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it.

-William Jennings Bryan (three time US Presidential Candidate)
http://www.searchquotes.com/quotation/If_the_Bible_had_said_that_Jonah_swallowed_the_whale,_I_would_believe_it./91179/

Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

the earth was created in six literal days; women come from a man's rib; a snake, a donkey, and a burning bush spoke human language; the entire world was flooded, covering the mountains to drown evil; all animal species, millions of them, rode on one boat; language variations stem from the tower of Babel; Moses had a magic wand; the Nile turned to blood; a stick turned into a snake; witches, wizards, and sorcerers really exist; food rained from the sky for 40 years; people were cured by the sight of a brass serpent; the sun stood still to help Joshua win a battle, and it went backward for King Hezekiah; men survived unaided in a fiery furnace; a detached hand floated in the air and wrote on a wall; men followed a star which directed them to a particular house; Jesus walked on water unaided; fish and bread magically multiplied to feed the hungry; water instantly turned into wine; mental illness is caused by demons; a “devil” with wings exists who causes evil; people were healed by stepping into a pool agitated by angels; disembodied voiced spoke from the sky; Jesus vanished and later materialized from thin air; people were healed by Peter's shadow; angels broke people out of jail; a fiery lake of eternal torment awaits unbelievers under the earth , while there is life-after-death in a city which is 1,500 miles cubed, with mansions and food, for Christians only.
From Dan Barker; Losing Faith in Faith

Enigma:
Below are statements by four highly placed and highly read Christians, that I personally respect, making statements that non-Christians can go to heaven. Of these four, Billy Graham is probably the most well known evangelist in the world in the past few decades and it can be argued that as far as can be seen no one living presently has done more than him (publicly) to "win souls for Christ". The others are all respected by millions of Christians worldwide; I even included a Nigerian because of the audience of this forum.

I think if people like these can say it is possible for non-Christians to go to heaven, people who argue otherwise should think twice and take time to think about other possibilities.




1. Robert Schuller & Billy Graham Interview (Sorry I can’t find a link for the interview on its own without misguided negative comments)



Reported by The Christian News October 20, 1997

"Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?

Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer--you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious, of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ, I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for his name whether they come from the Muslim world, or Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ, because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think they are saved, and they're going to be with us in heaven."

Schuller: What, what I hear you saying, that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?

Graham: Yes, it is, because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived."

Schuller: I'm so thrilled to hear you say this. There a widness in God's mercy.

Graham: There is. There definately is"



2. Archbishop of Canterbury says Non-Christians Can Go to Heaven



3. Pope says Non Christians Can Go to Heaven



4. Cardinal Arinze says it is possible to get to heaven without accepting Jesus.

During a group discussion of religious leaders from around the world, held at the Thanksgiving World Assembly in Dallas, Texas, in March of 1999, Cardinal Francis Arinze, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, is quoted as follows:

"(A document from the Second Vatican Council) says that God's grant of salvation includes not only Christians, but Jews, Muslims, Hindus and people of good will. That is, a person can be saved, can attain salvation, but on condition that the person is open to God's action. , " ,

Robert Ashley, news director at Dallas radio station KHVN-AM, asked Cardinal Arinze: "So you can still get to heaven without accepting Jesus?"

Cardinal Arinze answered: "Expressly, yes (he laughs with the audience)."

Source: 'If God himself gave freedom', article © March 20, 1999, by Brooks Egerton, staff writer of The Dallas Morning News, third edition, page 1G.




PS apologies: now edited to fix codes for links!

Enigma:
In addition most people who say that only "christians" will go to heaven or "non-christians" will not go to heaven simply do not know the Bible well; some have not even studied the Bible at all; maybe some have listened to a misguided preacher or 'wo/man of God' who him/herself has a poor understanding of the Bible.

Those saying "non-christians" will not go to heaven should go and do a simple study of John 10:16 and Romans chapters 1-5 (or if too lazy read only Romans chapter 2). And then try to square that with what they are saying. By the way, this is a rather simple assignment; there are far more complex exegetical exercises and Bible passages on these questions that some people are just giving opinions without study/knowledge.

Even the nature of Christ, His words, His purpose and His actions go against all these saying that all "non-christians" are not going to heaven nonsense.

Martian:
Concerning christian apologetics and the various "arguments" for God's existence,
Why do theists have to argue to prove that their gods exist. If you claim god exists and there is undeniable proof, then they shouldn't be any arguments whatsoever about your god being real. The universe is not evidence that your god exist and whatever your particular holy book says isn't proof neither. The complexity of a cell is as much an evidence for God as it is an evidence for Super Aliens who seeded life on planet earth.
We don't argue about the existence of the sun and the resultant photosynthesis and warming of the planet because all we have to do is gaze up to see the evidence. We don't argue about the importance of water because we can see what the absence of water can do to a landscape. We don't have arguments about Alexander the great because we have a historical documents attesting to this fact. My point being, things that exist do not need arguments, they can be easily proven without resorting to complicated arguments. No one argues about gravity, do they? Relativity might even be wrong but we KNOW that what goes up must come down (except maybe at lagragian points)

We argue about ideas and not things that exist, so god is an idea. A very human idea.

JeSoul:
Actually I don't think Godfather & Enigma are commenting so much on the "mental capacities" of the new age Dawkinian atheist - okay maybe they are. But they are (as I am) more concerned about the stark absence of scholarship, especially for self-anointed disciples of "free-thought" and "intellectualism". The seeming inability to present an argument that accurately and objectively ¹presents & ²counters the other side.

Hence you have christians who are simply tired of this like my in-law Enigma responding as he is here.

Lets just say there is plenty of misunderstanding and miscommunication to go around. The vast majority of atheists we see - including the big shot priests like Dawkins - spend most of their time ridiculing religion - surely you can understand why theists aren't falling over themselves to accomodate them .

JeSoul:
^lol. Enigma is a lovely guy once you get to know him don't mind the fire on this thread, he's absolutely sweet

Enigma:
Yep I am a Christian meek and mild and all that --- but I am also very capable of thugging it out when necessary.

davidylan:
godfather, you hit the nail on the head gbam!

For example - i doubt jayoriginal bothered to read what he was copying and pasting . . . apparently it wasnt necessary to determine if the 100 points raised were rational as long as it ridiculed the theistic viewpoint.

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN, a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe.  Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

first off, isnt the atheist counter logic here even more ridiculous? How does the atheist aim to prove that such complexities like the cell just appeared out of random? What is the atheists logical explanation for the above beyond "we dont know"? It takes far more faith to believe human body systems appeared out of thin air than a belief in God.

plaetton:
You are beginning to sound like frosbel. Everone knows her antics so we are all used her. But you Enigma, You are becoming an Enigma. It seems that you see this forum as a theatre of war rather than a place to share opinions.
You just cant refrain from getting personal and calling people names.
What would your world be like if everyone agreed with your points of view? If things you read in this forum angers and enrages you, then disengage yourself from it. You do not know anyone well enough to call them fools, idiotic, dishonest etc. I would rather enjoy reading your points of view rather than the sniper attacks on individuals and imaginary foes. Also, your points of view are more important to us than posting remarks or statements from sources we dont know and dont care about.
Just out of curiousity(no ridicule intended), are you a pastor or one those that earn a living from religion?.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=4959.msg186216#msg186216
Seun

The questions you ask are legitimate and they are good questions. . . .

In summary, I am saying by all means challenge the existence of God, but do not do it on the wrong premise: "them say". Do it on the basis of your own knowledge, understanding and reasoning.


Seun

If that's the way you feel, that's fine by me. It's your call; wish you all the best.

Enigma:
4get_me

Your pointing a finger at me does not make me "vex" or even raise an eyebrow. I simply suggest you debate the issues rather than make assumptions about someone else's background, knowledge or experience.

Enigma:
4get me

No need to get heated up or be unnecessarily sarcastic.

Enigma:

If you want me to bother to respond to your posts, the first thing you will have to do is to observe basic courtesies and keep out personal comments.

Enigma:
Does Christianity teach you to curse people?

Enigma:
donnie

I did not expect any better (than throwing abuse) from your type. It is the fruit of your type of "christianity" evidently.

JeSoul:
Enigma your hobby here is proving quite useful. I think I should consult before posting on threads lol . . .
Funny you're also speaking to Plaetton/jayriginal above here.

plaetton:
I cast my lot with those who seek to know rather than with those who say they already know.

plaetton:
@jayriginal: You are Hilarious. You have me rolling on the floor with laughter. Just shows that there are two sides to every issue.

Enigma:
Here on Nairaland we have seen several instances of bizarre misrepresentations of the arguments/positions of the theists or of Christian theology by the local evangelical atheists that highlight in stark relief the obtuseness and sciolism (and even dishonesty) of the evangelical atheists. An objective intellectually minded person coming across the material posted from godlessgeeks would probably assume that it is merely parody ----- until he begins to see the evangelical atheists use the material in serious debate or argument! In fact, the fellow who posted it here and his supporter probably think it is new to Nairaland, when in fact one of their local champions here has been quoting from or referring to it for some time now.  The sad thing (for them) is that they cannot raise their game or drag themselves up intellectually to a point where they can have a genuine understanding of the arguments. As one poster put it with deliberate crudeness not too long ago: "e pass their mumu brain".