₦airaland Forum

hahn:
Why should an African be concerned about Jewish law in the first place?

Gee i wonder why...

Africans shouldn't revere or keep such laws we all have ours.

but it is a piece of antiquity like

Hammurabi code
code of nesilim
code of assura
twelve tables
egyptian book of the dead..

so should be enjoyed as a piece of historical antiquity. .

lepasharon:
I think the carcass/ meat of pigs is unclean. You are not even supposed to touch it. Nothing wrong with living pigs tho, you can rear them, have them as pets. Just don't consume it. Do you understand Jewish Law?

shotster50:
A lot of these so called Ogbanje cases are Psychological but because of our deep rooted superstitions.. we would rather believe the absurd than the obvious.....

dabosuker:
Anybody that thinks that should be flogged abeg

They are your brothers in the conspiracy theory world na... very soon their mother will be aliens too sent by the government...

dabosuker:
lol

Tell me about about Area 51 bro .......something is definately there..i bet you

dabosuker:
some part of History as we know it , may just be a lie that has been spread & forced to be accepted, the pyramids, sphinx & other structures defy modern construction techniques, how about Nascar lines & we suppose to believe primitive man did all that . I do not think,..I know deep there in my heart there is a global conspiracy

You are a conspiracy theorist

Apparently you might also believe that the U.S defence department is holding some Alien visitors somewhere..

menesheh:
i cant imagine you wasting such precious time arguing with a obstinate person. the guy is cunningly trapping you into lecturing him what he should pay for by arguing ignorantly.

Tjayjosh:
I think the real problem is that of downplaying sin. You find it shockingly unfair that the recompense for a mere lifetime
of sinning should be an eternal punishment. Or maybe you reject the
idea of hell because, in your mind, sin isn’t all that bad. Certainly not bad enough to
warrant eternal torture. You are angry because, you cannot live the kind of life that God requires. Sin appeals more to you. And if hell is the penalty for sin, then there is no need for the existence of a God, hence God is barbaric, and hell is not justifiable. No wonder Jesus said: And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because there deeds were evil. For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved (John 3:19-20). Believe it or not, take or leave it. Hell is real.

To say this is an idiotic assertion is an understatement.

My life as always goes as good as i want it, i do the things i love and don't do the things i don't like.

What you term sin remains a religious construct that has no weight on the moral tilt of an action.

I refute the punny idea of hell because i find it destroying to the psychological freedom of a child of which you are a victim. .that's why am here to help people like you.

Here to refute barbarism and show people how wrong it is to harbour such evil in their minds.

Hell is simply a construct of sick minds corrupting the greek concept of tartarus so to me the idea of hell is just like a child telling me a ghost is seating in a dark stair case

I am only here to help victims like you to think about these nonsensical concepts you hold onto because of the fear indoctrination has infused into you..

What i find to be real immorality, evil and sadism is to harbour in my heart a sick monstrous concept that is going to burn billions in a literal fire.

Such barbarism is too evil and sick for me to be ok with....So i refute them and make nonsense of them to free a lot of victimized minds holding on this fear of which sadly enough you are one of, you should be thanking me

KingEbukasBlog:
Evolution/Abiogenesis/Big Bang have provided actual proof supporting their theories . Though according to you , these theories are being modified , why don't you agree with the present proof supporting these theories

So to feel good about yourself you resort to ad hominem
lmao ... always insecure about his intellectual capabilities

Lmao. . that post is open for people they actually can see the resounding nonsensical straw man there.. Calm down and get schooled boy

Here is the drill again
Let science produce an absolute truth on the origin of the existence of man and then the argument will be valid . Its that simple though . No need to throw tantrums like a petulant child

Now the argument has reached where i wanted..

Now it is clear that all your arguments here rest on the logical fallacy "Appeal to ignorance"

Science don't know the answer yet therefore i insist on my beliefs instead of saying i don't know. . Now i just got what i wanted.. everyone can now see it clearly here...

I'm enjoying this more than you
The more you compare entirely two different concepts with arrant balderdash posing as a reason the more derogatory to logic your futile attempts appear

Oh now it is ad hominems Aaaaaw this is so cute

I am very sure i have cleared how my question remains a very valid question of which you have just given us an incentive of your answer above..

Its not really good dodging questions like you have been doing for hours now

KingEbukasBlog:
As funny as it is , presently I dont even need Religion to know an always existing being is responsible for our universe

Which remains a nonsensical claim until you provide actual proof of your claim, proffer methods of deduction because people needn't believe it because you said it... Oya over to you again

According to you , science has not found out the truth of the origin of the universe . So when it finds out we will know which is more reliable :-

Chai am a gonner

is this what your little brain is telling you from my post? that is a drunk statement.

Here is the drill lets run it again..

Which of the two is more reliable...Science that asserts it's postulations are
not immutable and are open to more study and reviews in order to arrive at
truthful approximation

or religion like above that has established the dogma of man coming from a
deity that must be held on to as immutable truth...

The more you misrepresent my assertions the more you demean yourself here.. Go on ...l likey

KingEbukasBlog:
You really have comprehension problems .

More ad hominems to clutch on, let us leave it to the readers here to determine that from the posts shall we?

[quote author=KingEbukasBlog post=38573990]You must shallow in reasoning . You accused me of taking the whole time
writing my rebuttal and I explained why

Sarcasm bob don't get worked up

How are contradictions dogmatic . LMAOOOOOOOOO

Now you are laughing at your own ludicrous post of listing out Asa contradiction as a way to show christianity is not dogmatic... You actually listed contradictions out for me as dogmas...look it up above

Hahahahahahaha am laughing with you on that...

I have already shown you science and religion are not related . And you still
childishly clutched to comparing both

We both agree science and religion are opposite methods of knowledge deductions of which is the real root of my question. . which of the methods of knowledge deduction is more reliable..

Stop the dodge work...

The truth has always been there

Yes and it needs to be uncovered through study and research not primitive superstition held as truth... this has always been the basis of the question you keep dodging. . you always keep proving it right ...

Stop making illogical comparisons

I see you have nothing to offer .

Lmao. . Bursted are we?

You have been shown how both science and religion postulates options of how life began and how science maintains it is still studying to know how it actually happened and religion holds it's postulation to be an immutable truth.

Everyone can see the question is so so valid that you need to dodge to save your neck ...

Which is more reliable among the two options of knowledge deduction. . Stop the mary go round

justlove91:
The books I posted has nothing to do with near death which shows that you haven't read the books, you're just repeating your preconceived ideologies. Check out what I presented before asking for more proof as if you're that serious to know.

In fact I didn't expect this from you, you're not handling it in a scientific manner at all.
To have a scientific mind is to have an open mind before drawing conclusions.
Near death ko
And don't forget to answer my question: Have you ever look for God existence OUTSIDE religion?

KingEbukasBlog:
If that's what your mighty brain could deduct from my statement , then its pretty obvious why we're still lingering on this argument - religion vs science

Hahahahahahaha as usual more ad hominems even when i tried to boycott it. . This is just a question and all this higi haga is to dodge it?

This is funny

Do you even know what dogmas are . Am not sure you do

And below you just agreed to one of the dogmas...

Have you disproven that ?

Abiogenesis claims life came from the non -living without the need of the supernatural

Abiogensis here is a hypothesis that postulates life emerged from non-living matter and abiogenesis does not claim this to be true but an open ground to more study which has now vindicated my question


Which of the two is more reliable...Science that asserts it's postulations are not immutable and are open to more study and reviews in order to arrive at truthful approximation

or religion like above that has established the dogma of man coming from a deity that must be held on to as immutable truth...

Please tell us the more reliable method because you just killed all your running around here..

Am in school and the wifi is usually poor . You are now making false accusations ? Are you this insecure ?

Lmao as usual he pulls up an explanation where it is not needed...i don die!!!..

Sorry to burst your bubble between

You still dont understand my explanation after four examples . No wonder

You explanation has been shown to be one nonsensical word salads that attributes contradictions as dogma. . .

The answers are already there . Science is still searching for it

Exactly the point but religion thinks they have the answer which still boils down to my question.

Which is more reliable among the two..

One that agrees it doesn't know and is trying to know or one that thinks it already has the answer that must not be questioned... all your dodging still lands you the same place

The same way the omnipotence paradox presented itself as a valid argument for centuries . Obviously you are oblivious to the absurdity of this paradox, I think you should have a knowledge about it and then evaluate your 'logical and valid question'

Now as above i have shown how your childish clutch of omnipotence paradox in no way relates to my question which as usual even your posts a confirms to be valid.

Science agrees it doesn't know the origin of everything yet but is working towards ascertaining that truth.

Or religion that has reached a conclusive immutable assertion that is closed to question and study..

Which is more reliable?... Going round doesn't help you here

justlove91:
1. Through studying and independent research.

2. Because my own concept of God is logical to me and those with open mind. I only disagree with Allah or Yehwey because their concept contradicts my reasoning.

3. You talk of PROOF as if you will even take the time to check it out before dismissing it. You asked for proof from me before, and I created this thread because of you https://www.nairaland.com/2173445/afterlife-proof-atheists-whoever-cares

only to see that you don't even read the books before you start refuting them.
I know you don't just wake up one day and become an atheist, you did your studies, likewise if you really want to know about the existence of God you should be able to at least read the proof presented after all you asked for proof. Those books are not religious books so don't tell me you know their content already.
All I see you(and other atheists ) refuting always is the religion concept of God.
Let me just ask you this question: Have you ever taken the time to look for God OUTSIDE religion?

Tjayjosh:
Why is the idea of Hell so repulsive to you?

KingEbukasBlog:
Your posts contain so much unnecessary fatuous rigmaroles which give a false impression of being knowledgeable

Just like Omnipotence paradox , this comparison is derived from your inability to understand that Religion and Science are different concepts . Apparently , your wrong stance on Religion-Christanintiy - as dogmatic can be drawn from ludicrous misconceptions and poor understanding of intricate issues due to the manner they were/or arw being portrayed in the bible or by christians .

How exactly is Christainity dogmatic ?
1. There are discrepancies in the presented historical events in the bible due to various possible reasons which even I have admitted to . A quick example :
The death of Asa Baasha in the bible . Two different verses in the bible hold what appears to be different time or periods of his death .
2. There are different concepts of Yahweh , Jesus , Hell believed by Christians . Some believe hell exist , some believe hell does not exist .
3. There are various practices performed by some christian institutions , churches , and even lifestyles of some christians that are not generally accepted .

------------------------------------------
Science is the study of nature . Discoveries of obscure facts made through science you brag about have always been there or are bound to happen .
Now look at this :
1.Through science it was discovered that liquid water flows in mars after the planet was thought to have only dry land . Now former studies showed that the planet only had dry land and new evidence confirms the presence of liquid water . Does it change the fact that water has been present all this while on the planet ? This progress made is as a result of proven failed scientific studies and observations which had preceded it .
2. The escape velocity has always been 40,270 km/h and science discovered that . If science had earlier proposed the escape velocity as 36,000 km/h and people once believed that it is due to the level of ineptitude shown by scientists .
3. Through science we understood how the body works - the functions of cells , organs and systems . If science had once proposed through various observations that the lungs was a reproductive organ and then found out it is actually used for respiration , its failure on its path because the lungs have always been a respiratory organ .
4. Through science we understand that the earth is not flat but spherical . But does it mean the earth has not been spherical all this while even before the "discovery"?
Facts/possibilites/event outcomes in nature have always been /will always be true or present . Science just discovers and explains how these facts/possibilites/event outcomes are to be seen as true .

justlove91:
Like I said in my post God is logical, and any idea I see of God that is logical to me is the truth. You pointed out the falsehood of the religion God because it's not logical.
For example I was born into a Muslim family and when I found out their idea of God is illogical to me and contradicts my morality I left it.
So am for logic

donnffd:
You want to wait till evolution is complete before you can believe it but I am sorry to burst your bubble but evolution can never be complete, its just the best guess, that's all science is , a best guess based on the evidence and measurements taken. If you believe gravity then why can't you believe evolution, Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravity 400years ago,it worked in all the scenarios we could have measured until late 18th century when it failed to explain the constant speed of light, Albert Einstein brought out his theory of gravity called the general theory of relativity which expanded on Newtons own and it has passed almost all the test given to it, but those that mean its the last straw,I think not,we still don't know what dark matter and dark energy is, when we do,we might have to revise Einstein's theories, but that doesn't mean Einstein or Newton for that matter was wrong and doesn't mean we should not believe it because it's not complete. Like I said earlier, its the best guess based on all the known evidence and measurements and so it would do for now

ifeness:
I agree with you. There are not only possibilities but signs that our ancestors had contact with humanoids who looks different from us. They probably were light years advanced than we are. They may have accelerated our technological advancement. The anceint humans may have mistakely worshiped them as gods until this day.

If we take a look at the African traditions,example the Yoruba's Orishas,Horus,Osiris The Dogan tribes,The Native Americans,The Greek Titans...they were all said to have flew like birds in the sky. The bible is most likely an alien account book(obviously edited from Sumerian books) The pyramids are way too advance for our present day humans to figure how they were built

Talk about the Sons of god(obviously we are one of the many planet in our Solar system). How did Elijah flay in flying Chariot? Jesus walked on water?that defies the law of Gravity and only technology can be used to defy the laws of gravity.

Talk about DNA and genetic alterations and manipulations. How did humans start making light bulbs,cars,iphones.atomic weapons. Its shocking how much we have advanced in the past 100 years.

There are different races on the planet,how come? Sometimes I feel we are different races from different Star systems mingling together. Why do the Europeans care so much about Mars? Perhaps it used to be their home planet.

The Annunakis may not return but they have inter-breed with humans and he have their genetic codes. Or are we being monitored to see how much we could advance,learn to live with each other as different races?

I may be wrong but I think religion was formed by those who know these guys and are trying to hide these knowledge from us.

justlove91:
@op
I commend you for the write which aims at showing the absurdities of the religious God.
I must say many people associate God with religion and that's where the problem lies and where religion fuels the disbelieve in God. God is not like what religion depicts, that kind of God is a figment of their imagination.
God is logical anything illogical should not be associated with God.
I only will urge atheists to look for God else where, I repeat religion has nothing to say about God, they have no idea.

dabosuker:
i believe ETs had something to do with the history of humans not necessary every life form on earth, just humans since we must have been the most advanced life form they saw when they touched down. they probably tweaked our DNA , played with our genes ; which probably led to religious & cultural creation stories & myths etc. buts its just an hypothesis for me, but it does more or makes more sense to me than religious stories.

And the Anunnaki don't want to come back now and meet us? Or maybe that generation of Anunnakis are dead but their children can come na and we can even establish interstella diplomatic ties with them..... Till then the story is still just hypothetical like other religious story.

Anyway the vikings also claim their Gods Odin and thor are extra terrestrials that visited them from the realm Asgard using and intergallactic bridge known as Bifrost...

about that water flowing in mars... ..I would have been disappointed or lost it , if they did not find any currently flowing even though there exist river channels & ripple structures in mars , I just knew liquid water just had to be there in the present , just as i believe life is thriving in Mars currently , it is not yet found though, but maybe thats because we are looking for familiar life , rather than life adapted to planet Mars.

Off course Religion would crumble, people would loose it , go GAGA , that's why i keep telling people to start to prepare their minds , that we are not so special , planet Earth is not so special!. people like me would still be sane ,,when the announcements start coming in. In 2008 the Vatican even tried to prepare the minds of people for the existence of ETs.

I might be crazy , but am keeping my mind open, In the Universe.... THE POSSIBILITIES ARE ENDLESS.......

starlingslimnet:
Let me for once ask you for proof, Can you kindly present the Scripture that says God create Hell for mankind?

Not being realistic about your answers regarding disowning but i spare you that; it says much to the reader.

Not surprised you called this prevarication but to save the so called "prevarication" kindly provide the scripture that says God made hell for humans.

starlingslimnet:
In as much they disown me as their father and refuse my offer of reconciliation till nothing could be done then am no more their father. And since am no more their father am not responsible for whatever they get themself into.Am I?

starlingslimnet:
If your children disown you are they still your children? Yes Or No

starlingslimnet:
Like YAHWEH did i will. I will reach out for reconciliation just like a father will do. If they refuse who is to be blamed,Me or they?

dabosuker:
BULLS EYE!

hahn:
This is why I said their discussions give me a headache.

Actually i enjoy it

When you are engaging a theist, your words doesn't make the most damage the damage is made mostly by their assertions

because they don't realize they ridicule, murder their religions and God concept with the assertions they pour out.

I do this for people reading the arguments so they can weigh, compare and contrast and see for themselves.

starlingslimnet:
Is that your fear?

starlingslimnet:
You mean you believe the fairy tale Bible written by drunken men?

Lmao. . now he has moved on to believing the fairy tale stumped are we?

Hahaha you are even confused jumping from one premise to another when you get stumped...

Such petty tales..

Actually now that the topic has now shifted to believing the story, a resound NO i don't..


we are here discussing the story as concept found in a book so that people reading this now will think about the absurdities and outright implausibilities of such stories.

For me i am too good to harbour such barbarism in my mind..

starlingslimnet:
Good. So in short you will kill the enemy.
Now if you will kill an enemy without giving him a second chance at reconciliation do you now have any right and righteousness to castigate YAHWEH who gave his enemies chance to repent and reconciliate with him and they refuse when you didn't think of giving your enemies a chance?
Do you now have the mouth to castigate YAHWEH for planning to destroy his enemies who refuse to repent one day when you plan to do the same?
Now who is lieing?