₦airaland Forum

gensteejay:
I tend to avoid arguments with atheists because of statements like this.

Good for you. But i must ask, statements like what? Like telling you there is a distinction between reading and knowing what you are reading to be true?

I'm beginning to think there is an irony in your chastising LordReed for his supposed misused intellect.

There are thousands of gods and goddesses in history. Are you saying because you're an atheist we should wish not a single one of these deities existed and are/were worshipped at one point in history?

Nope, these are your own words not mine. I didn't even imply them.

And what exactly does this has to do with my reply to you?

If one makes this sort of claims (doubting their existence and contributions to human history) when discussing about historians, philosophers, explorers who are long gone, the intelligence of such a person is highly questionable.

And the same thing applies to a person doubting whether those gods and goddesses really lived on earth at one point in history.

Are you replying someone else? Because there is absolutely nothing connecting this reply to my statement above.

It is almost like you are replying some other arguments in your mind and not mine.

No one alive today has met Columbus (an Italian explorer), Mungo Park, Pletomy, etc. but only unlettered folks don't know about or doubt their existence.

And we all heard stories about them in books, movies, and other means.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to doubt their existence either or require more concrete substantiation to the story attributed to them.

You aren't still saying anything.

I have not recommended any material to him or any other atheist. This sort of things (research) is a personal endeavour.

Research when used this way is a weird concept. What do you mean research? How do you establish the validity of your research material? Searching for information on Google and YouTube? Is that how truth is established?

A smart person knows how to critically look at contents of books, articles, etc. to determine the veracity of the author's claims.

This is my question: You asked him to read more but didn't show how he could tell the material you recommend is likely to be true.

Which you could answered simply without going through the trouble of writing such long reply that didn't even attempt to answer the question.

You seem very "smart", my comment was asking to know how to could establish the credibility of the things you read

Indulde me, assume i am not smart enough, help me understand how you deternine the veracity of an author's claims.

gensteejay:
You just need read more. You, atheists, are as close-minded as the religionists you criticise. Read more and broaden your horizons.

The gods and goddesses have not been existing on this planet for quite a very long time. They are dead.

But that does not mean they long no exist in some other parts of the universe. The earth is an extremely tiny part of the universe, which makes the planet plays a tiny part in the grand scheme of things.

Death is an illusion as our life in a physical world is a projected/simulated reality. The real world is where our spirits reside and evolve to after death.

Dead people still exist on other planes. And some still operate on this planet.

I suppose all this is nonsense to you.

Just read more to grow and be open-minded.

Reading more is one thing, getting the impression that what you read is true is an entirely different thing.

You asked him to read more but didn't show how he could tell the material you recommend is likely to be true.

gensteejay:
Did I use the word, "exists"? I used "was". Go through my posts again.

All those gods and goddesses are long, long, long gone from this planet. But they did live on earth thousands of years ago.

So, the advanced extraterrestrial theory then? The Gods were advanced alien beings?

I can't believe my own thread has left me behind

hopefulLandlord:
I fail to see how this buttresses the statement that science had its roots in religion. or could you explain what you mean by "had its roots"?

Already done so above

hopefulLandlord:
philosophy bro

Nope. I meant religion.

Science and theology are both still philosophies

5. Your hugs must be done telepathically

6. Kiss? No, unless you want to be damned

7. When you are horn_y, pray about it, God would send an angel of telepathic masturbation

8. When you go out on a date, should be in a church

9. Must never wear any clothing above your knees when together.

10. Dry humping is fair game, if you do it under the sheets.

11. No sex? That's rookie level, don't even think about it or it is as good as you have done it, you know what that means.

12. If your d**k happen to accidentally slip into the vayjay, don't move, stay incredibly still, that way, you will be invisible to God's lidless eyes.

13. A wet dream is a sign of succubus

calculator123:
the crisis, the issue we face in the world today all boils down to Religion. it has done more harm than good, it has killed our humanity and has made us believe one after world exist while neglecting to live fully in this present one..

Ok, that's one big claim. So, tell me how the issues and crisis we face in this world boils down to religion?

hayoholla:
Johnnydon, I think in my own view, we should ask which started first, religion or science? During mans earliest time, there was a need to form a school of thought, kind of like a creed that encompass the moral, philosophical and scientific view of which earliest man must follow. Hence , the need for religion. But was it really religion, I don't know.

Yes, it was in fact religion. Ancient religion and science were inseparable from one another. Take for instance, in ancient Mesopotamia, when administering the medicine for tooth ache, you'd be required to recite a form of cosmological poem, it was short, but it began from recounting how the universe was created down to the worm that causes toothache - You can see how something as simple as curing tooth ache bears a largely profound spiritual, religious and cosmological significance to them.

Science in its raw form is simply a philosophy of nature, trying to understand the world. These ancient sciences did just that. When on high the heaven had not been named, Firm ground below had not been called by name,
Naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter, (And) Mummu†-Tiamat, she who bore them all, Their waters commingling as a single body;
No reed hut had been matted, no marsh land had appeared, When no gods whatever had been brought into being, Uncalled by name, their destinies undetermined—Then it was that the gods were formed within them.

The Enuma elis

This almost poetic short story up there, attempts to answer the same cosmological question big bang also attempts to answer today, the short comings and limitations around it is from its lack of methodical empiricism.

It is both setting the ground for the fundamentals of their spirituality and answering the question of how we came to be here. Only the priestly class held these knowledges or even studied to find out more, they charted the stars, read the clouds, observed planetary orbits and practiced what you could correctly identify as the beginning of every form of science we have today.

These two only differed in application, while modern science has come up with determined guidelines and methodology, this ancient methods was less methodical. Modern science is an open source pool, ancient science was mystic, assessable only to the priestly class.

Then many concept easily explained away in science today was vaguely understand by them if I am right. The mentality of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Pandora box was yet opened. Also, I think the answer to your question may not be far fetched, if we have to consider and study human brain development for reasoning along the course of human civilizations. This makes me understand that atheism and its like are newer or recent concept, the moment human started to employ the use of logic and reasoning.

Humans have always been reasonable beings - i am finding it difficult to understand what you mean by "moment humans started to employ use of logic and reason"

Shepherd00:
No, because your atheist brothers will shit over my answers with some shit like, which god are we talking about? Vishnu or allah and all the other gods?

If anyone asks a question that bothers on Christianity, I'll answer on that bases.

LOL, we just agreed that you should make Christianity your focal point, whoever asks you such questions as above, we can both agree would be idiotic.

Shepherd00:
Alright then. I quit. I won't talk about Religion in general. I'm a Christian and that's what I'd talk about.


Godbless

Christianity is a religion, so you can still answer the question with christianity as your main point. the premise remains the same.

LordReed:
Sent you a text

Got it

LordReed:
1. Please go ahead and provide evidence for your god.

2. How you able to say anything categorically about your god? And why is making inference from what you say about your god wrong?

Can you dial my line again?

hakeem4:
This was popularly presented by William paley the watch maker analogy is used to describe the intelligent designer. The watch maker asserts that anything complex will require a designer. The way paley put it was that if you walked down a road and you find a wristwatch, if you look at it you would know it’s too complex and orderly to come by a random process, that it requires a designer. Just like how the universe and life is, it also requires a designer. This is the most common excuse given by theist and deist and these are some of the flaws they commit:
1. First and foremost, this is a false analogy fallacy
False analogy fallacy means that because two things have the same property in one aspect, they have the same property in all other aspect. So paley’s logic go thus;
the watch is complex = it requires a designer
life is complex = life also requires a designer

using this faulty logic to reason I can as well say

the watch is complex = it was created in 2006
life is complex = it was created in 2006
so this means that because 2 objects share the same property in one does not mean they share other properties.

To be honest, this your particular argument is poor. Doesn't refute what it hoped to refute at all

gensteejay:
You're mixing things up.

Science, religion, law, education, etc. all had their roots in philosophy in the traditional sense of it as a field.

I don't have the time and strength to type lengthy posts.

No, i am not. I'm simply saying, Religion and scienxe were once indistinguishable from one another.

There is no need for long write-ups, it is a simple observable historical fact as shown on the examples above; Egyptian, Sumerian or even traditional Igbo religion

gensteejay:
Science had its roots in philosophy, not religion.

Religion is a philosophy.

At what point is that? And what specific religion are you referring to here?

Seems "science" just got a new meaning on this thread.

Quick example; Ancient Egyptian religion or Sumerian Ancient religion.

No, science didn't get a new meaning on this thread, the definition of science as used here simply means, study or philosophy about the world/universe.

Shepherd00:
I'd like to be part of this discussion, but you seem to be talking about Religion in general terms.

Let's define the term here. What religion specifically are we talking about?

Religion: A system/Institution of belief, worship or rituals

The reason I'm asking this is, some responders are making it sound like it's a Christian thing or maybe Islam too (?).

Apart from these two religions, (I may be wrong) they are no other religions which teaches AfterLife.

A lot of religions teach Afterlife actually, even ancient Egyptian religions is credited with the original idea for judgement after death which Christianity borrowed heavily from when formulating their doctrines.

Even Igbo Traditional Religion also believes and reaches the concept of life after death.

malvisguy212:
religion has help to inspired man to do Good ,religion is the ultimate source of HOPE , removed religion and the ultimate question will be WHAT DO WE LIVE FOR ? I believe people will do terrible things with or without religion, take a look at the Soviet Union, populated with mostly atheist, even there name seems UNITY but they slaughter there own people. and what about north Korea ? I believed if atheism hold ground just like religion the Human Race will be Long gone by now.

Systems or institutions built on atheistic footings can be just as oppresive and murdererous as religion i agree.

We can all agree that as humans, we all have great potentials to do great good or evil irrespective of belief or lack thereof.

I only disagree that without religion, what do we live for? Yea, a lot actually, we live for a lot without religion.

calculator123:
I will prefer a religiousless world.

Why?

budaatum:
No, I would not prefer to live in a world without religion.

It is religion that evolved into education and is the foundation of education the world over. Remove the foundation and you'd be building on air and I have not seen that accomplished anywhere.

True, science in fact had it's roots in religion and at some point in human history, religion was same as science.

OtemAtum:
I always will.

Things like Country, corporations, ethnicity, race, tribe, cultures should be wiped out?

Michellekabod2:
If so,then religion should be wiped off....every "institution" of belief,worship et Al demands alots from it adherents, impose rules and controls minds

But there are many institutions that operate literally the same way.

E.g: Country.

Would you want this wiped off too?

OtemAtum:
Definitely there are

Would you want them eroded too?

Oma307:
we have to understand what religion is, from your own perspective before we can answer this controversial question

A system/Institution of belief, worship or rituals

frank317:
I would have preferred a world where the kind of religion that is practiced around me does not exist.

Believing in anything can always exist. But if religion is all about what I am seeing...

- different beliefs hating on each other and condemning themselves..
- people praying instead of acting and thinking their useless prayers is effective, thereby indulging in self deciet..
- indirectly promoting laziness and living a wish
- Living a hypocritic life and a holier than thou life
- deliberately being a sheeple..


Religion should just go if possible... But mugus must always exist.

Ok, so basically you are just against certain aspects of religion and not an entire erosion of the entire institution?

OtemAtum:
I would have preferred a world without religion. It would be a more peaceful world because Muslims would not have to kill others, Christians would not have to make noises into our ears and traditional worshippers would not have to 'taboolarize' everything or use fellow humans for rituals.

Are there other institutions or structures that are also sources of violence as religion?

Are there other sources of noise other than religion?

I have been meaning to ask people this, to understand the reasons for such positions on this particular matter.

What do you think?

Would you prefer to live in a world without religion?

Why?

or

Why not?

Nackzy:
If you look at it critically instead of her investing, she's using it on cloths, mentality of a typical Nigerian, Tomorrow you will see post like, Formed BBnija this n dat needs 3million to be flown abroad

Or it's just for the photo? Ever thought of that? She didn't buy it, just lent it for the photo

Abukia404:
Didn't you read where she said it was a gift?

Is it really? Like Nina's Bentley right?

Michellekabod2:
Me too...hope to see you someday to discuss

where in Abuja are you?

shadeyinka:
At the Spiritual level I can tell you that man was uniquely designed.

At the Physical level however, I don't know!

Other than the fact that man has lots of unique features like bifocal sight, opposing thumb, slow reproductive maturity, big brain, bipedal....I can't say man was designed from an artistic point of view or designed from the scratch!

So, it is possible that man wasn't designed at a physical level then?

Emusan:
Is still the same with orderliness. Don't forget those specific functions what set of rules each specific part must rely on.

Something can be ordered and still not have specific parts with specific functions. A circle is an ordered pattern.

A circle can come as a result of conscious intent - design

And it also can come from a random process even chaotic ones if you will.

If earth wasn't placed at the right orbit, it can't support life, true or false?

I actually do not know. We are carbon based life, so we can't really conclusively assert what and how life could exist based on our experiences on earth.

Life could happen anywhere even on Jupiter.

Heck, Titan is one of the biggest candidates based on our own standards to possess life in this solar system and it's not even close to where the earth is.

Now imagine a universe with so many planets we don't even have the number to quantify it. You can't possibly account for the right conditiond necessary for life except for the type of life that you are used except you are saying that life can only possibly happen one way.

Besides, for planets not to switch their orbit is another design mind. Imagine, if Jupiter suddenly switch to earth orbit.

Lol. The bigger pointet to conscious intent would be if the planets switched suddenly without apparent physical cause.

Earth is at the right mile/per hour now that's it could support life.

What mile/per would be wrong?

It didn't!

Now let me ask you, if oxygen quantity isn't default, when last did it change?

The time bacteria first evolved

No math here, for something to be repeating itself million times shows it was designed that way.

No math to know that Manual transmission will continue in gear 1 till eternity if driver fails to switch while automatic transmission shows gear can be switched without driver's knowledge.

So, you reached a quantifiable variable of 0 for a probability problem but couldn't show the logical deductions (maths) that led to that conclusion?

That's not a good way to make a case of your argument being valid bro.