₦airaland Forum

Gpdwise:
u can't blame religion for our problem, religion isn't the EFCC or Nigeria police
religion isn't our judicial system.
religion isn't even our educational system or our society. while put the blame on something most people visit weekly or at most twice a week and claim they keep the law only with their lips. habbah allocate ur blame to right quarters na

I am not blaming religion, you are the one that said religion makes us the best we can be then i pointed to Nigeria that is almost 96% religious yet is moraly bankrupt at every level

Gpdwise:
that isn't what religion is abt!! its abt making u the best u can be and not make u as pathetic as ur quote suggests

You can be the best you can be without religion - human behaviour transcends religious influence.

Nigeria is a very religious country why is it that your statement does not hold true for this scenario?

Gpdwise:
imagine I tell u I follow nothing!!
and you have something that gives you hope and a feeling of connecting to something that can change ur situation in a moment, something that gives you hope , that gives your life a sense of direction and I should leave it all for NOTHING

It is the bleakest form of existence, the saddest form of life i know for people to say that without a particular thing or someone they have no direction, purpose or meaning to their life - they have in admiting that make out their life to be pitiably dependent to derive meaning.

You do not need anything to give you direction, or hope ora sense of connection - these are all around you, you are the driver of your being, of your purpose and meaning - Don't demean yourself by roping them around and elusive abstract vague idea, that makes your life likewise vague.

MrPresident1:
God and Israel his woman playing love

God is a really Hot dude in a holy way

Gpdwise:
if its not a religion its now what!!! oh I forgot its NOTHING

Yes it is nothing, it is not an organization, a philosophical system or belief system - it is just a label given to people who lack belief in God(s).

Let me explain -

Theism - the belief that there are God(s) : theism is not a religion, neither is it a philosophical system or organization, its just a label for people who have a belief in God(s).
But then religions can be from the basis of theism, like Islam, christianity, Hellinism - they are theistic religions but in general theism is not a religion.

Atheism - Non-belief in God(s): its neither a religion, philosophical system or organization, it's just a label for people who have no belief in God(s).
A religion can be operated on the position of atheism - like Jainism, Taoism etc.

Theism, Atheism are not religions - simply positions of belief and unbelief.. Let me hope this clarifies you

frank317:
Hmmm... So in other words, God does not know (or chooses not to know) the decision we make. He just knows the future of the decision we make.
I think I am like that too... I know if my son does no read he will not pass his exam, but I know if he studies hard, hard he will pass exam. U see, there is nothing special in God after all.

U think God is playing a wicked game with us? Well I think all ur explanation up there is an insult to God if he exists. You just dissected him like he is just an ordinary being like u. How did u even know he puts his omniscience on hold. Who told u that? You just thought it out? And at the end of the day, your conclusion is that he is playing wicked Game with us.

How about just saying u don't know anything instead of making a mockery of your assumed existent God.
Thanks

For the fact that in order to defend the incompetence of the God(s) as the definition reveals, people with God(s) must at that every juncture make up abilities, attributes for god or formulate how god operates all by themself is enough not only to show you but also he who is formulating these excuses that God is a human invention, humans say and decide who god is, how it acts and what it likes.

A DIVINE FORCE OR CREATOR - MERE THINKING OR EMBLEM OF EVIDENCE.

This is my own reply to lordnicklaus' thread bearing the same topic above https://www.nairaland.com/3359189/divine-force-creator-mere-thinking

This will form a part of the totality of this work "Songs of the world" let us try to eat the mysteries that plagues us with rational objectivity, sincerity and depth.

lordnicklaus:
The perception of a powerful force responsible for the expanse and its workings is one that has always been of debate amongst people of different philosophical views. Whether Theist, Atheist, Agnostic, Deist, Pantheist or Spinozist, we all know that the universe was set in motion by a force. A powerful, absolute and infinitely complex force which is not fully grasped by most people. Some view this force as a powerful, infinite, animate and super-intelligent being who still has control of the created universe. Others view this force as inanimate and in no way intelligent and infinite but see it as a transient and chaotic phenomenon which could one day implode the universe into a singularity devoid of living matter. Others hold that such universal uphold or cause can never be entirely grasped and that trying to understand the entirety of its working is futile. Others see it as an intelligent uncontrolling being who makes no moral law neither is He concerned about any humanitary affair. The last set view it as being within us and around us (i.e nature).

Now, are the perceptions of the first and third sets of people based on mere thoughts or actual evidence? If you see them as mere thinking, then what fact or emblem of criticism vehicles you to conclude in such manner?

I am going to start this long article with the scripture, i will quote the Hindu scripture. A particular hymn in the Rigveda sings at the end part of the litrary eloquent work

The Rigveda just like the topic of this article speculates on various cosmic forces which might have fashioned the universe. It concludes with a passage of most Sophisticated scepticism ,

"beginning: 'But, after all, who knows, and who can say whence it all came, and how creation happened.'"

And on this ground i'll based my argument - we are about to address a very delicate topic which is shielded by the unforgiving curtain of our ignorance, we can only speculate, assume, wish, think or try rationalizing but as far as empirical knowledge goes "We do not know"

First what is the cosmos?

We are familiar with the earth, less so with the solar system of many worlds, less with the milky way galaxy, even less so with the virgo cluster, the entire billions of galaxies that makes up an almost infinite expanse of space we call "The universe"

But is this expanse 'universe' all there is? There might be more or there might not be, it is either this is the entirety of all that the cosmos is or it is not - but if there are more like expanses out there then in oneness we can refer to them alongside us as the cosmos, nature.

The broarder the reality strectches the less our familiarity with it's truths, the more mysteries it presents.

So what is the truth of our universe that has posed the greatest question we ever faced since the inception of human enquiry - the answer remains we do not know yet.

There are infinite possibilities of varying mind buggling realities, all humbling in their own sense and only through consistent study through empirical means can we hope to decifer the mysteries that darkens our mind.

Na Arean sat alone in space as a cloud that floats in nothingness. He slept
not, for there was no sleep; he hungered not, for as yet there was no hunger.
So he remained for a great while, until a thought came to his mind. He said to
himself, ‘I will make a thing.’ -
A myth from Maiana,


Before heaven and earth had taken form all was vague and amorphous . . .
That which was clear and light drifted up to become heaven, while that which
was heavy and turbid solidified to become earth. It was very easy for the pure,
fine material to come together, but extremely difficult for the heavy, turbid
material to solidify. Therefore heaven was completed first and earth assumed
shape after. When heaven and earth were joined in emptiness and all was
unwrought simplicity, then without having been created things came into
being. This was the Great Oneness. All things issued from this Oneness but all
became different . . .
-Huai-nan Tzu, China [ first century B.C.]

These two represent different line of thoughts about universal causality - one holds for a created universe, the other for an uncreated cosmos, these represent a faction of our enquiry interface.

One proposes a thinking nebulous entity in nothingness from whence with purpose and will everything was caused into existence, the other proposes a rather simpler beginning, an evolution from a fundamental oneness, uncreated and unplanned and an 'unguided' grand formation based on the physical properties of the elements involved.

Intelligent design

Design and nothingness are incompatible notions, they are contradictory, to use them together is nonsensical, beacause design is based on a model and in nothingness there is no model.

The argument on intelligent design theory has always proposed a cosmos caused/created by an intelligent being from nothingness.

Nothingness cannot be designed, so if the creator caused the cosmos from nothingness then it is not design, design deals with fashioning the subject.

Johanness Kepler understood this, he knew they could not be a design without a model and this model must be as old or even older than the creator itself and having being a lover of a parfectly geometrical cosmos, he pointed at Geometry as the model for the cosmological design. he said

"Geometry existed before creation, it is co-eternal with the mind of God, it provided God with the model for creation, Geometry is God himself"

Kepler believed not in a God figure of unsatiable piety and worship, not in a figure of embodied wrath seeking retribution and reverence, God became more for Kepler than just a divine angry authority over man but rather God became a divine Geometer who in co-existence with divine geometrical manifestations figured out a model for his creation to be based in an eternal loop of unending existence.

But then Kepler's perfectly geometrical cosmos was not so geometrical after all, his faith in the divine Geometer began to wane, he found the orbit to be elliptical rather not perfect circles, moon craters [perfectly geometrical depressions] turned out not to be a work of intelligent beings on the moon as Kepler thought only intelligent entities were capable of such geomtrical formation which he argued could not be a product of random chance.

But a falling rock of great magntitude will create a local explosion at impact that will lead to equal perfect symmetrical projection at all angles thereby creating a perfect circle.

Turned nature not only was capable of geometrical designs randomly from chaos and chance, nature also was not ruled by a geometrical model.

His faith in the divine Geometer was shattered, his love for a cosmos modeled on geometrical perfection was wounded and he remarked.

"the facts of nature which i had rejected subtly came through the back door to be accepted. Oh what a foolish bird i have been"

- Again there is still another problem with the intelligent theory, let me assume the materials for creation were already present, all the creator needed was to fashion out an ordered system intelligently.

intelligent design theory proposes a universe impossible to slowly consistently evolved in complexity, proposes a complexity that must require a divine mind but then this divine mind even though a likewise ordered system does not need another bigger divine mind in order to be caused or designed

It is a dishonest special pleading, as Carl Sagan would say "If you argue that God created the universe then it begs the question how/who created God, if you say God is eternal in order cut the enquiry at that step then why didn't we in the first place save that step and say the universe is eternal?"

Remove the special pleading and the hypothesis falls apart: If complexity must connote design then the creator must be also have been designed and an infinite regress is sparked

But if the creator, a functional system, an intelligent entity can be without being designed then i believe the intelligent design hypothesis kills it's own argument because it has shown that something [creator] can be a complex system without needing to be designed therefore what stops the cosmos from being thus?

---

[b]which makes more sense: The most simple of chain causes slowly evolving in complexity or a fully functional complex intelligent creator without history, formulating a cosmos without model but also from nothingness.

Now to explain the scientific model -

Someone once asked me: If there was nothingness how then could everything come from nothingness as science would propose?

The universe is made up of matter and their are numerous fundamental particles of matter, in fact i am one of those that share same thought with Carl sagan that there actually might be an infinite fundamental particles of matter in a downward regress.

So as i was saying; these physical particles and matter are responsible for how our physics occur, the laws of physics as we observe, cause and effect, gravity, thermodynamics

Now if you run everything into nothingness, no particles, no energy then there is no law of physics which means there is nothing like "Cause and effect" and if 'Cause and effect" is not in place then 'effects' can take place without cause, the universe is fully capable of creating itself from nothingness, an intelligent being is fully possible of evolving from this effect of nothingness.

-But science doesn't really propose an effect from nothing, there are many possibilities of our causality and only through study are we ever going to decifer it.

.........On one is a cosmos from nothing

..........On the other is an eternal cosmos with a circle of existence as the Hindu's first thought [a universe of infinite circle of end and beginning] which means the big bang was not the first or will it be the last

..........On another hand a creation from pre-existing universes [string theory]

…………On another an infinite regress of universe both upwards and downwards [this speculates that everything is a universe of it's own, even the protons of an atom are in fact huge universes in their own sense, therefore our universe might just be a tiny particle in an even larger universe upward] This is one thought i found likewise humbling and profound as a universe of infinite circle of existence

We are on a boat paddled by speculation, it is no doubt as we are now that in fact our universe evolved from a simpler form, the problem now is the mystery of causality.


Was too long so i have to cut it a bit. . . will continue in next submission.

Cc. lordnicklaus, hardmirror, butterfly88, Hcpaul, weah96, ranchhoddas invite others

i will just remove all his teeth for him with slap what nonsense!!!

What is the matter with the demented police of U.S.A why are they killing African Americans like this

orble:
Guy, U are really funny.


BTW, let the game begin!

You wanna know more funny truth here goes:

Go out in any street here in south and preach something like " other gods like Jesus, yahweh, baal are false gods only brahma is the real god"

if you survive being lynched by an angry mob of Christians - you'll then see first hand who is persecuting who.

But this christians do everyday, deriding other gods form a huge part of their day to day sermons and evangelism but if you do same to their gods you get "THE" treatment.

here is another test:

We'll print two shirts with writings on them.

I will wear the one with "God exists" while you wear the one with "God does not exist"

we'll wear them for 1 week then we'll compare the way you were treated with the way i was treated and you'll see another first hand case of who is persecuting who.

What the hell is this.

There is this problem pravelent in the Christian mindset and that is the "Persecuted mindset"

Christians always accuse others of persecution even when they are the majority and are part of the lot persecuting others.

Christians would be the ones persecuting others and also the ones shouting persecution.

they'd be the first to exhibit acts of terrorism like burning down traditional shrines but shout "persecution" when they retaliate..

They feel it is their divine mandate to propagate and peddle their belief while denying others the right to do so.

McSterling:
They don't believe all the stupid parts

Seriously, they respect the fact that postulating theories about the natural world like Genesis does, isn't within the realm of religion. In such instances, science has the upper hand. Nothing beats evidence.

If you believe some part of the scripture and not the others, it is not the scriptures you believe but yourself - Saint Augustine of Hippo

McSterling:
The thing is that faith fills a void for many that nothing else can. It gives their lives purpose, a sense of direction and meaning. They might not subscribe to any form of organized religion but they still retain their faith or spirituality. Many people cannot stomach an atheistic view of life, and it's not their fault. It doesn't mean they're stupid either. I don't blame them. The origin of this void humans feel lies in the brain.

I agree but our progress should be judged by the depth of our questions and the sincerity of our answers and our tendency to agree with what is objectively true other than what feels good

Wow. That's great, but I thought Buddhism was more progressive.

Buddhism only developed on the tenets of Hinduism

omohoneyland:
Are they not going to charge for logistic. who will pay sir?

If we agree on 13k then i will pay for the way bill charges

McSterling:
True, when religion makes claims about the natural world that contradict science, the believing scientist would have to modify that aspect of his faith in order to remain objective. I don't know how they do it, but I admire them to a level. When a man modifies his religious beliefs in the face of scientific evidence, it is testament to his being reasonable. That is clearly not blind belief.

For clear cut objectivity there must first never butter notions held on to by faith into objective deductions, Only 10% of elite physicists are religious - this is a few whose convictions we must respect by the fact that they do not impose their 'personal convictions' on the discipline they practise.

I for one think since 'Faith' lacks cold objectivity and facts there really is no need to exercise it as regards truths concerning reality - to believe something by faith means one has no objective reason to believe it at all

I applaud the religious scientists..

Science and theology inhabit "non overlapping magisteria" to use the words of Steven Jay Gould. But this doesn't mean an individual cannot practice both at the same time. He'd only have to respect each magisterium accordingly. A religious scientist who respects the magisterium of science would know that religion has no business telling us how the earth began. Same way science has no business telling us what's right or wrong or the meaning of life.

Science is the theology of reality as Thomas Paine would say, it is the poem of natural reality.

Theology aims at establishing elusive truths - I agree both should not overlap and each should maintain their own boundaries.

Human morality and ethics are for human politics and since we must invoke an emotional part of our thinking - i think theology also comes as a handy tool even though ultimately human behaviour is independent of these basis.

There is a humbling existential realization that science reveals - i think if one wants the warm and cozy hopeful feel religion can provide such succor.

Mind you, the term "religion" does not describe only Abrahamic ones. Some religions do not make explicit claims that science can contradict. They have nothing to fear from science. Abrahamic believers are mostly the ones who have something to fear, as they like to overstep their magisterium.

True i completely agree.

A religion like Hinduism is one i think deserves so much respect, they possess eloquent theology, honesty and respectable myths.


"beginning: 'But, after all, who knows, and who can say whence it all came, and how creation happened.'"
this is from the Hindu rigveda

Such honesty deserves to be encouraged and secondly they do not aim at imposing their belief as truth they only present a subtle way they think one can look at what is - such humility and honesty i think abrahamism lacks

If any religion can be reconciled with modern scientific findings it will be Hinduism - while most religions talk about the world, it talks about the universe, while other religions talked in thousands of years as regards the cosmos, hindu theology talked of billions of years.

they proposed a circle of universal effect, a universe under going infinite end and beginning - a possible truth the big bang model is leading modern cosmology towards.

@bolded, not necessarily. @unbolded, I agree.

Agreed

DoctorAlien:
I'm happy you accepted that GOD exists. Now I tell you that GOD lives in my heart. He talks to me and He directs me. I hear Him speak.

What now is your problem?

I have no problem at all i am quite happy about your openess in clarifying your belief.

Jealousy = emotion [a neurological projection of the human brain]

Since to you God is established just like emotion it means.

God = emotion

Therefore Jealousy and God are of same essence and not an entity...

You have done marvelously well - Have fun worshipping God [your emotion]

There is nothing like 'Advantages of atheism" it is just a position of unbelief in God(s) not a doctrine or philosophy ..

These are human behaviourial potentials you've listed up there and frankly anybody theist, atheist can live as such or contrary.

It's not a trade mark of a brand

DoctorAlien:
Bro, it's been established that GOD exists. How? The same way it's been established that "jealousy" exists.

You got it very correctly - God exists just like Jealousy, Jealousy is an emotion not a being, not an entity.

Therefore just like "Jealousy" "God" is also not a thing, not a being nor entity but an emotion, your emotional projection..

You solidified your words here

DoctorAlien:
Bro look at it this way: I tell you I have jealousy in my heart. Can you disprove it? Or can you ask me for a proof that I have jealousy in my heart?
.

Just like your "Jealousy" is your emotion so also is your "God"

Thank you my brother, you've done good. . . The best part is that you said it yourself not me.

Pidggin:
Are you an athiest?

ok this is all you could bring - nice. have fun

omohoneyland:
Lagos state. do u have any body around, this waybill i don't understand it

It's quite simple - you go to a transport company example like peace Mass and enquire how to make a way bill, you'll give the parcle to the driver alongside the number of the recipiant, once the driver gets to the city he'll call the recipiant who will come out and recieve his package.

lordnicklaus:
I am sorry for his childish display. I apologise on his behalf. I sure hope his banters would not leave this thread ending up in insults and squabbles. Just table your opinions and neglect every tantrum thrown.

I admire you a lot, you and dorox seem to be the most reasonable Christians i know of here and i've hoped on addressing your topic immediately i saw it was you.

I am going to write a very long comprehensive reply with the utmost objectivity i can offer.

But permit brother to do that in my thread "Songs Of the world" i'm going to quote your question and carefully tender my own thoughts on it - my reply to this thread will form a chapter of it's on in my work "Songs of the worlds"

McSterling:
Yes, religion and science aren't at war since they operate in different realms, but that's not the way a lot of people see it. Many religious people feel threatened by science and are often on the defensive when science is mentioned. They feel religion and science are in conflict, that personal faith mandates their opposition to the theory of evolution, that they have to reject scientific evidence to remain faithful. But that isn't really the case. Many scientists/evolutionists are people of faith too. Accepting science doesn't necessarily mean ditching religion. Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive.

You see in order to hold on to a scientific view of the world and still be a person of faith you must have to trim down the level of your faith or be dishonest in your scientific outputs.

Science is incompatible with theology - so for one to agree with evolution and still be a person of faith such a person must first "disbelieve" a 6 days creation tale, or creation by vomit, or from wood logs or at least find excuses to tag them alegories.

Science is not at war with religious postulations but at almost every juncture science contradicts religious ideas therefore is seen by the overly pious as dangerous to the faith [which i can argue it is]

Theology is lacking greatly in meeting with the intellectual satisfaction of the new evolved intellectual ground we are on and so it barely will thrive for so long.

Science do not find excuses for disproven hypothesis', they are discarded as bogus but in the enterprise of faith an excuse is needed in order for the faithful to hold on to their conviction.

For one to exercise FAITH you must be willing to disregard the Facts of reality and for one to practise science you must be willing to place FACTS before faith.

DoctorAlien:
So instead of someone to accept that he was made by a loving Creator, he would rather believe his a product of randomly moving subparticle or whatever?

Our aim should be to establish objective truths not base our conviction over what "makes us feel good or loved"

The truth should not matter whether it makes you feel good or not - what matters is that it is the truth.

It is sinister for you to propose a mode of deduction based on your emotions and need to be loved.

objective truth is above that platform

DoctorAlien:
I tell you that GOD exists and that He talks to me. Can you disprove it? Of course not!

Just like you can disprove he doesn't have a golden pig he talks to right now in his room.

Can you?

Why is it that you all don't really check to see how ridiculous your assertions sounds before posting them.

Objective truths are established by Empirical/Factual observations and discoveries.

-Personal truths are established by Faith [ Personal conviction] and incessant repetitions

Here now lies the difference- science operates on the platform of seeking objective truth through empirical means.

Religion is about faith.

they are both different enterprise with different goals and methods - there is no need to reconcile both since there is no war in the first place neither were they one and same reoncilable enterprise.

Science is science - Religion [theology] is religion.

The only problem always arises when people tend to have the idea that they can/should push their personal convictions as objective truth - that is when faith clashes with facts, that is when science becomes disrespectful to theology.

And more so Religion has always been on the hostile end against ideas that contradict their personal convictions even if that idea is the truth.

Like the case of Copernicus asserting that the sun is the center of the solar system and not the earth as the church taught.

It was a severe blow to the face of the church who found the idea that "God's precious" earth was just a tiny planet orbiting a massive sun very ridiculous and blasphemous - they even killed people in order to kill this idea that contradicted their faith.

Saint Bernard said during the trial of Galileo
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as saying that Christ was not born of a virgin"

Today Copernicus, Galileo has been proven right and faith demoted. Our ego to push ourselves as the apex of creation has been wounded badly by that one discovery by Copernicus.

Every great truth in science began as a blasphemy to the church.

But here is the truth about human ideas The truth has nothing to fear from alternate ideas or criticism, Only dogmas aim at suppressing alternate ideas in order to remain relevant

Any idea that thrives on suppressing contradicting views is most likely untrue.

I'm on the side of establishing objective truths and not personal convictions and gut feelings.

People go to religion to be messaged not informed, they go to be told what they want to hear, they go to be told what will make them feel good and hopeful, they do not for objective truths, they go for personal truths, they go for personal feelings.

Only one discipline exists to inform the human mind and that is science - it does not aim at telling you what you want to hear or what will make you feel good, it wil tell you what is objectively true as study reveals.

it is a humbling and fascinating discipline

its a severe mark of chronic hypocrisy in Pentecostal christianity that they chastise the catholics for having pictures and statues of "Christ, mary, saints" etc in their homes and churches and accuse them of idolatory while they [pentecostals] also have pictures of their pastors[G.O] in their homes, cars, Churches and advert banners.

If you want a classical example of unparalleled hypocrisy - study christians.

it's a nonsensical notion since the bullet do not know a believer from a non-believer it certainly means at that point the believers faith, prayers and piety is useless.

KingEtienneSky:
LOL..... A factual statement. I discovered this a long time ago, when we had a "debate".....

It amazes me the alacrity by which such a person spews his ignorance around without shame.

There is no shame in ignorance only when attendant behaviour, irrational thoughts and untold arrogance takes the place left by ignorance.

It's a pity

omohoneyland:
Am In Ajah Side. What Do U Think

which state is Ajah side in?

Oh christ !!! Not again please jeeeez!!!

omohoneyland:
Am In Ajah Side. What Do U Think

That doesn't sound enugu to me, I'm ready to pay 13k for it if you will send it through way bill, the ram is too small though

MrAnony1:
I SEE AND i LIKE. . . . AND I WISH I WASN'T SO CHOKED UP WITH WORK. Anyway Godspeed. Lemme just follow the thread.

Baba welcome