Joseph1013's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Joseph1013's Profile › Joseph1013's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 (of 184 pages)
Mindfulness:No sir. that it exists only in the minds of people shows that it is NOT a fact. You dont have to rewrite the English Language to make your case. Here is the definition of what a fact is in the Oxford dictionary fact Pronunciation: /fakt/ noun [b]A thing that is known or proved to be true:[/b] |
Sagamite:I keep asking myself if she is actually employed. Maybe she's a student, but even at that, why would a sound person be on every post looking to be the first to comment. So many things are wrong with my people. Kids in civilized societies will not think of doing these. Beats me, honestly. |
PastorAIO:[b] First of all, people who put their faith in folklore often have difficulty understanding that an analogy (such as this story), no matter how clever (and I'm not saying this is), is still just a story. An analogy usually serves as an explanation for something else, but it is never any sort of evidence or proof. It is just a story. If it were about two books on a shelf talking about an unknown wizard that would make them watch Messi and Ronaldo at the Bernabeu, the dialogue could be almost the same. And you know what, the Skeptic book would be right. If its point is that we can sometimes be mistaken, and we agree that at other times we're not mistaken, then story isn't helpful. It's like saying, "Once, people believed the world was flat, so how can you be sure 1 + 1 = 2?" The story gives no guidance in helping us figure out when we're mistaken and when we're not. The story has no meaning beyond whatever understanding others bring to it. It's not a worthwhile argument. Analogies are not proofs. This entire story relies on the reader already knowing what life after being born is. It presents a false dilemma with a counter argument that the entire reading audience already knows is false.. What if the child was arguing about meeting dragons after being born. "Don't you want to meet a dragon after you are born?" but see that would not work because we all already reject dragons as not real. The same can not be said of the mother eating them as food. It is a silly story. It only seems smart because it is using knowledge the reader already has to prove something they already know and then uses that by proxy and metaphor to try and prove something completely and utterly unconnected and irrelevant to the conversation. Also, Science pops in here! If your skeptic baby represents the skeptics of the world (including most scientists) then there are plenty of naturalistic ways the existence of a mother can be determined conclusively. In fact, let me surprise you a lil here. Recent research indicates babies pick up the rhythms and prosody of their mother's language while they are inside her! That way they come out primed to pick out the sounds of their native language from amidst the millions of other noises and sounds they are exposed to in their environment. The very first few wails of French babies are different in rhythmic structure from that of German babies, and conforms to the structure of their respective native tongues. If normal non-conversational babies can do this, the very accomplished ones in your story certainly can without resorting to faith. There's plenty other issues with the story but the above should conveniently serve. [/b] |
^^^ Is this a response to my REVELATION post? If yes, then it's a good use of metaphor to make a point. Although in driving it, it makes a straw man argument for rational empiricism. The reason it seems appealing is because of the poetic comparison of various elements. Let's try this: Two men stood at the edge of a cliff. Said one to another "I'm gonna jump using the invisible rope." "What rope?" said the other. "There must be a rope here." the Believer affirms. "Nonsense." said the Skeptic. "We can't see a rope so whaaaaaat? Does that mean a rope does not exist. Can't you see how far the ground is? There must be a rope...". Bla bla bla... I'm on the road now. I will compose something substantial later. But in the meantime, it doesn't make alot of sense. |
Cmon...get him the LEXUS dammit. And hey, welcome to NL |
[b]Examine the following quotes: “When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are.” ~ Martin Luther "Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding." ~ Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43. "The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion -- no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced -- YEA, he hath established it." ~ John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 93, verse 1, trans., James Anderson (Eerdman's, 1949), Vol. 4, p. 7 "Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'" ~ John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72 "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." ~ Martin Luther, Table Talk Knowledge trumps beliefs all the time. [/b] |
[b]HOW REVELATION UNDERMINES EVERYTHING... My new friend, mindfulness, often use revelations as a reason why he firmly believes there is a God. He even says he has revelations everyday. I hear it from several people too. Infact, when I speak with people about their believe in their god, the personal experience argument is one of the top three arguments I hear. The personal experience argument could take the form of: 1) I was a lost/wicked/sick/worthless person. 2) I asked God to reveal himself to me. 3) God did reveal himself & it was a wonderful experience. 4) My life has changed for the better. 5) So I KNOW God exists. When people tell me stories like this, I never deny their stories--I always assume they are telling the truth. They may not be, or they may be exaggerating, but I can't tell so I assume their story is true. I go a step ahead and tell them that I RESPECT their position. But, if their story is true does that prove their god exists? No, not at all. We know beliefs can change people. For example, good teachers take advantage of this fact. They encourage their students to believe they can do well and students often respond by achieving higher grades. People make huge sacrifices, up to and including sacrificing their lives for a belief. During the Second World War Japanese kamikaze pilots flew their planes into battleships in the certain knowledge they would die. Motivations for this sacrifice were complex but many pilots believed their Emperor to be a god and that their death would serve their beloved god and protect their country. It was reported that pilots were often extraordinarily blissful immediately before their final sortie. Today, suicide bombings are seen almost daily. Many of these bombers believe their sacrifice will guarantee them a place in paradise. So, a belief alone can make people do extraordinary things. No supernatural intervention is necessary and the belief does not even have to be true. Another fact shows the weakness of the personal experience argument. Life changing encounters with a "god" are not confined to the Abrahamic god. Hindus also report such encounters with their gods. If Yahweh and say, Vishnu, cannot both exist, either the Christian or the Hindu or both must have had a life-changing experience with a non-existent god. These things lead us to the inevitable conclusion that our brains can "manufacture" life-changing experiences--no gods are required. In fact, this has been established in laboratory experiments where people report such experiences after being subjected to cranial electromagnetic stimulation, drugs and even simple meditation. All this means personal experience and revelation is an unreliable way to determine that a god exists--there is simply no way to distinguish a self-created experience from one induced by an external supernatural agent. Of course, it is possible that all such experiences are self-induced. That brings us to a final and crucial point. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are revealed religions. They arose because, some 3,000 years, ago the god Yahweh allegedly revealed himself to Jewish prophets. We have only the dreams of these men to attest to the existence of Yahweh. But what if the experiences of Abraham, Moses and all the other prophets were no more real than the experiences of the electricians, agbero drivers and Melon-Selling Abokis I speak to all the time? What if these ancient prophets were as deceived by their own brains as people are today? In that case, all the Abrahamic religions would have been founded on nothing more than the delusional experiences and revelations of a handful of Jewish tribal leaders. The honest truth is, they could have been--we have no way of knowing. One thing we do know is the experiences of the prophets MUST have been delusions, if the god they communed with is not real. And we also know we cannot use personal experience as evidence for the existence of a god. So we need to be sure Yahweh is real BEFORE we believe anything the prophets claim was revealed to them. Unfortunately, the prophets could not show Yahweh was real and nor, since then, has anyone else. Personal experience and revelation is a terrible argument for the existence of God but revelation is a pretty good way to start a religion. It is good, not because it demonstrates truth, but because we can all have "god" experiences and the experience is so powerful that it promotes belief and overwhelms reason. It is time for reason to fight back. Thank you for reading! [/b] |
Mindfulness:Oga sir, I was merely responding to your comments when you said the all-knowing-Bible-God that exists in people's minds can be proved. You think I made that up? I swear, I didn't. See for yourself: Mindfulness: ![]() |
rabzy:[b]No sir, it is worse when you know the idioms of the language with which the Bible was written. I have told you several times that the originals of the Biblical manuscripts are lost, what we have are copies of copies of copies by people who did not have an encounter with the characters. That is why the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars do not believe in the inerrancy of Scriptures. Only the most of fundamentalists still hang on to those notions. Personalities like Moses, Joshua and Abraham are not historical figures. There is no archaeological proof that the Red Sea was ever parted. There is no worldwide flood that submerged mankind. There is no tower of Babel whose project God killed. These are all myths and legends that were used to entertain kids, the same way the Tortoise and his canny ways were used to entertain us as kids. I know it's difficult for you to believe you have believed in lies of Christianity all along, but that's the truth. You've been lied to, there is no nicer way to say this. [/b] |
rabzy:Una wan rewrite your Bible, shey? Here is the preceding verse: Genesis 24:1 The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. Then Genesis 24:2 For he has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. No Sir, land is not resting on the seas and oceans. That your Bible says it does not make it a fact. Yes the Bible was written in medieval times and has to speak in language that people would understand, it does not have to speak in scientific terms. In the Psalms 75:3 it is not talking about what the planet earth rests upon, it used pillars as a figurative sense. Pillar is the support of buildings and God is saying when the earth quakes and people tremble, it is he himself that holds the support. He is the ultimate support for the earth and all its inhabitants. These are idioms and illustrations for people to understand and figures of speech to make a lasting impression on people. Till date scientists still talk about sun rise and sun set but we all know the sun does not rise nor does it set. So if someone says meet at sunset, we know what that means even though the sun actually does not set.[b]What you have written above is called gibberish. Which God is the support? How has God demonstrated that he is the support of the earth? You talk of when the Earth quake, does he mean he no longer supports when there is earthquake? If he indeed is the pillar as you posited, is he not strong enough in support for thousands to die via earthquakes every year. For your information, that verse does not say God is the pillar. it says God holds the PILLARS, meaning there are pillars. Stop changing the CONTENT of these verses. There is always this intellectual double-talk that I see when I discuss these things with religious people.You say the Bible was written for medieval men hence the language, yet you ask us in the 21st century to live by it. When the Bible commands not to eat pork, you all go shouting that it is because God is omniscient and knows that Pork has excessive fat that is unhealthy yet when we show you that the same Bible tells us God holds the pillars of the earth, you say it is figurative. Who art thou fooling? [/b] We talk about the four cardinal points of the earth, there are no such points, they are just reference points for directions. We all talk about North, South East and West. Everywhere is north of a place and south of a place. But for easy understanding and to set directions, we choose a place as the 'true north'. Longitudes and lats are imaginary lines but they are part of our everyday speech. The angels standing at the four corners of the earth is the same as this. I didn't learn about the four cardinal points from the Bible, i learnt it from a geography which is a branch of science. And till date it is still being taught.You are grasping at straws. Herein lies another inaccuracy of the Bible. The heavens are not stretched out over EMPTY space. The space is not empty! Research that... And you are twisting it. When scientists say the universe is expanding, they are not saying that it is stretching. It is not stretching. What scientists are saying is that more distant galaxies are moving away from us faster than closer ones. I repeat, they are not stretching. The Bible knows nothing about astronomies. There was no vegetation before sunlight. There was the sun before the Vegetations. What Genesis detailed was the preparation of the earth for human habitation. The sun, moon and stars including the earth has existed as planetary bodies.There are so much assumptions in your writeup that one would think that you were there when God was making all these things happen. If the sun, moon and stars had existed as planetary bodies before Genesis 1, why would there be darkness on earth? Why would he need to create light into existence before there would be day and night? This writeup lacks substance. The apologists you quoted have a poor grasp of the hebrew language that the Old Testament was written in and your submission is even at variance with their explanation. What you have up there is your own interpretation that is not supported except by your mind, and you have no evidence to tell us that they happened in the same sequence as you posited. |
Mindfulness:Rev 7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth. Only a flat object has four corners. Think square, rectangle... Psalm 104:5 The Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. The earth does not have a foundation that will make it move. You have to read my writings and not argue for the sake of it. This verse says that the reason the earth does not move is because it has a foundation. In English language, the symbol ';' means that the next words explains the last words. North, South, East and West maybe?Why maybe? Because it fits what we have found out scientifically? Explain it away when it's convenient. Yeah, right! Who or what is "it"?Again, I say quit arguing for the sake of it. You should have read the context of the verse to know I have no business with 'it' or 'who'. I'm only interested in the fact that the Bible wrongly says you can hold the ends of the earth. Here is it from verse 12 12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; 13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? You cannot hold the ends of the earth. The earth does not have ends that can be held. First of all, how can the devil take you there? Ever met him?Why are you asking me? Ask the Bible. How is the question relevant? Where is written that the moon has its own light. The moon shall not cause her light to shine means that it will not.Is it right to ask you to go for an English lesson? 'his pen' means the pen that is his. 'her light' means the light that is hers. And the context of 'her' refers to the moon. Simple enough? It lets the sun light through. It dims this light and in this way creates what we call night.Read it again...it calls the moon a lesser light. THE MOON IS NOT A LIGHT. Aarrgghh. You make unnecessary arguments. I know that stars don't fall but the reason is not because they are bigger than the earth. And again shall could be replaced by will. It refers to the future.SHALL is not same as WILL. Refer to an English Language textbook. And don't let Christians catch you changing words in the Bible else this verse will be your undoing Rev. 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book ...God shall take away his part out of the book of life. ![]() Come on!Show me how God told you that's what he meant or I say that's your own interpretation. How do we know which verses to take literally and which ones we should not? Symbolic meaning, I guess. Same as above. HOWEVER, where I do not agree with you, is when you claim that God does not exist. The all-knowing-Bible-God exists in people's minds. This can be proved. He is also part of your thoughts. He occupies your mind strongly enough for us to have this conversation here about "him", whether he is a person(laity), imagination or wishful thinkingYou keep putting words in my mouth. I did not say that God does not exist. I ask that you prove to me that God exists and why I should believe the definition you give to it. Your subjective feeling of God cannot be taken seriously. There are millions of subjective feelings like yours all over the world which are all at variance. If you say it can be proven, PROVE it. |
[b]No Mikel, Victor Moses in Sunday Oliseh's list https://static.pulse.ng/img/incoming/crop4041456/4762784411-chorizontal-w644/Sunday-Oliseh.jpg Chelsea players John Mikel Obi and Victor Moses have been ignored by Sunday Oliseh for the Super Eagles 2017 African Cup of Nations qualifier against Tanzania. Oliseh today, Monday, August 17 released a 18-man foreign based players for the qualifiers that will be played in Dar es Salaam. Captain and first choice goalkeeper Vincent Enyeama leads the list which include few returnees like Joel Obi and Emmanuel Emenike. It seems Oliseh has chosen to leave out players who have not been playing regularly for their clubs. Brown Ideye and Victor Anicheibe have also been left out. All the 18 players invite are expected who will join up with the 23 home boys in Abuja on Monday, August 31. The Super Eagles take on Tanzania in Dar es Salaam on Saturday, September 5. The Full List: Goalkeepers: Vincent Enyeama (Lille OSC, France); Carl Ikeme (Wolverhampton Wanderers, England) Defenders: Leon Balogun (FSV Mainz 05, Germany); Kingsley Madu (AS Trencin, Slovakia); Godfrey Oboabona (Caykur Rizespor, Turkey); William Troost Ekong (FK Haugesund, Norway); Kenneth Omeruo (Kasimpasa SK, Turkey) Midfielders: Joel Obi (Torina FC, Italy); Izunna Ernest Uzochukwu (FC Amkar Perm, Russia); Obiora Nwankwo (Coimbra FC, Portugal); Lukman Haruna (Anzhi Machatsjkala, Russia); Rabiu Ibrahim (AS Trencin, Slovakia) Forwards: Ahmed Musa (CSKA Moscow, Russia); Emem Eduok (Esperance ST, Tunisia); Emmanuel Emenike (Al Ain, UAE); Anthony Ujah (Werder Bremen, Germany); Sylvester Igboun (FC UFA, Russia); Moses Simon (KAA Gent, Belgium) http://pulse.ng/sports/football/super-eagles-no-mikel-victor-moses-in-sunday-olisehs-list-id4079551.html[/b] |
[b]A LOOK AT THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD... Could it be true that God knows everything? If yes, it means that he understands the geography, biology, physics, astronomy and all the laws that govern our universe. If Bill Gates is omniscient about Microsoft, then he understands the most rudimentary things in the Windows operating system. So let's see if this is true about God as revealed in the Bible. Come let us examine him fairly: 1. The All-Knowing Bible God states in his Holy-Book that the earth is flat. Psalm 104:5 The Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. Question: Where is the foundation of the earth located. Doesn't the earth move? Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. Question: Where are the four corners of a sphere located? Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? Question: How can you take hold of the ends of a sphere? Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. Question: How can you see all the kingdom of round earth from a high mountain? 2. The All-Knowing God states in his Holy-Book that the moon has its own light. Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. Fact: This is not true. The moon does not have its own light. Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Fact: The moon is not a light. 3. The Bible God educates us that the stars are in reality little lights in the sky and that they only shine at night. Mark 13:25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. Fact: Stars don't fall. Stars are bigger than the earth. 4. The All-Knowing God of the Bible tells me that the sun goes down at nights and rises in the morning. Ecclesiastes 1:5 And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place. Fact: The Sun does not rise and set. It does not return to its place. It is the earth that goes around the Sun. 5. The All Knowing Bible God says that human-beings can think with their hearts. Matthew 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. Fact: Not true. Nothing other than the pumping of the blood happens in the heart. The brain does the thinking. Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. Fact: Again, not true. The brain is to be blamed, not the heart. I am certain of this conclusion that the all-knowing bible god isn't so all-knowing after all. As a matter of fact we can't do any less than to conclude that the bible's god either does not exist and that men made these things up according to the knowledge of the world they had at that time.[/b] |
Mindfulness:LOL...It explains itself. |
Manu does not have a team again, so nothing to fear for the lad. I don't agree with icon about that team. Didn't he watch the first game with Brazil? Compare that performance with the rest in the tournament. You're simply rationalizing the loss with your pre-tournament bias. Isn't you guys that said Serbia is a very beatable team, who will not go far, so we should pray to play them instead of Germany? But who won the tournament? That shows you don't know as much as you think you do. You may have followed other teams, but that team was different. If we had played to our strength and Manu was not sentimental in his selection, we'd have won the tournament. You keep your best team on the bench, professional players, and you say the team is not a champion material. Of course! Only players on the field can make things happen. And yes, the ones on the pitch just were not good enough. History will not forgive Manu Garba for ruining that team's chances. |
[b]GROUP HALLUCINATIONS A group hallucination is a sensory hallucination induced by the power of suggestion to a group of people. It generally occurs in heightened emotional situations, especially among the religiously devoted. The expectancy and hope of bearing witness to a miracle, combined with long hours of staring at an object or place, makes certain religious persons susceptible to seeing such things as weeping statues, moving icons and holy portraits, or the Virgin Mary in the clouds. Consider Michael George, owner of a home in Kampung Mahandoi, Malaysia, where a statue appeared to be crying tears. The 13 inch (33 cm) statue was brought from the Philippines. When George brought it home, his son noticed liquid droplets around the statue’s eyes. They called a priest to view it and tried to keep things secret but someone took a picture, posted it on the Internet and all heaven broke loose. Almost immediately, he had people lining up to see the statue, which appears to cry once a day at various times. To accommodate viewers and believers who come to pray, he’s thought about building a grotto for the statue. The weeping statue is one of the more popular “miraculous” events in the Catholic Church. A statue, usually of Mary, the mother of Jesus, mysteriously begins to have what appears to be tears or blood forming, dripping and sometimes flowing from the area of the eyes. Often seen as a sign of a message or warning from Mary, there have been at least 15 known cases of weeping statues worldwide since 1949. Out of them all, only one – in Akita, Japan – has been recognized by the Vatican as a genuine weeping statue, though Skeptics have accused the Vatican of not allowing independent verifications.The rest have been proven to be hoaxes, usually caused by someone secretly applying water or blood, natural condensation, group hallucinations or trickery. Hollow ceramic or plaster statues that are glazed can be made to cry by scraping off a tiny bit of glaze on the bottom, allowing the statue to absorb water or another liquid through it and then making a tiny hole in the glaze near the eyes. In group hallucinations, those witnessing a "miracle" agree in their hallucinatory accounts because they have the same preconceptions and expectations. Furthermore, dissimilar accounts converge towards harmony as time passes and the accounts get retold. Those who see nothing extraordinary and admit it are dismissed as not having faith. Some, no doubt, see nothing but rather than admit they failed would imitate the lead given by those who did, and subsequently believe that they had in fact observed what they had originally only pretended to observe. Not all collective hallucinations are religious, of course. In 1897, Edmund Parish reported of shipmates who had shared a ghostly vision of their cook who had died a few days earlier. The sailors not only saw the ghost, but distinctly saw him walking on the water with his familiar and recognizable limp. Their ghost turned out to be a piece of wreck, rocked up and down by the waves. References Parish, Edmund. Hallucinations and illusions; a study of the fallacies of perception (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1897). Slade, Peter D. , Richard P. Bentall. Sensory Deception: A Scientific Analysis of Hallucination (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_statue[/b] |
Mindfulness:You know, I respect your experiences. I respect your claim when you say you have and continue to receive revelations. But I cannot accept them without proof. A certain man also said he received revelations where God told him to rename his church The Redeemed Christian Church of God. The man, though an illiterate, claimed God gave him the instructions in English. His claim can be respected but accepting it as true without evidence is asking for too much. For if we do his and yours, what is stopping us from accepting claims by complete lunatics the world over who also claim to have revelations of being the Coming Christ and asks that men come to them to get to heaven. Various claims abound on Youtube. A messianic claim like that is by an Australian as revealed in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML2Oa4Oigvo . It is because of such things as this that I cannot accept your claims at face value. I need more than your words on anonymous internet to take them serious. |
Mindfulness:I thought my opening post answered those questions. You should take a look. |
Mindfulness:Actually, the proofs that he actually existed are very weak, surprisingly. Recommended watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U It is so well researched that I'm pretty sure nothing comes close to it for detailed Biblical analysis. |
[b]IS LIFE POSSIBLE WITHOUT GOD? I am bemused when Christians and Muslims say they would be nothing without God, or even, that they could not live without God. They surely overlook the fact that there are 1.1 billion people in the world who live without a god of any kind. This alone demonstrates that living without a god is possible. But it shows something more important. We can surmise that many of the 1.1 billion unbelievers grew up as god-believers and later discarded their god-beliefs. That gives them something that few believers have--the experience of living both with and without gods. So we know a large number of people not only live without gods but they PREFER to live without gods. They have tried both and have made their choice. I am reminded about a friend whose mother often told him she despised yoghurt even though she admitted she had never tried it--she thought it looked horrible. Several times this friend had asked her to try it but she doggedly refused. One day, this friend concealed yoghurt in a fruit dessert and watched anxiously as she eat it. She finished it and then asked for more... Whilst millions of people say their lives are so much better without the god-superstition, Christians and Muslims insist their lives would be empty. The truth is they will never know, until they try.[/b] |
Mindfulness:It is mine. From several articles I have read about the incident, including wikipedia. I got to research the incident when Richard Carrier used it as an analogy as to why Jesus did not exist as a historical figure. |
I'm really surprised at Landmark University owned by Oyedepo. It has some of the best infrastructures in Nigeria. The idea is to have it in the class of Covenant University. But then, infrastructure is not only varsities made up of. |
Mindfulness:[b]Interesting. Meaning your position is pretty subjective... It reminds me of the Roswell UFO incident What REALLY happened? A guy found a bunch of sticks and tinfoil in the desert. (His unique experience) In the summer of 1947, a United States Air Force surveillance balloon crashed at a ranch near Roswell, New Mexico. The military reported that the crash was merely of a conventional weather balloon. In the 1990s the US military published reports disclosing the true nature of the crashed Project Mogul balloon. What was SAID to have happened? Immediately afterwards people claimed it was debris from a crashed Unidentified Flying Object, UFO. Between 1978 and the early 1990s, UFO researchers interviewed several hundred people who had – or claimed to have had – a connection with the events at Roswell in 1947. Hundreds of documents were obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests. Their conclusions were at least one alien craft had crashed in the Roswell vicinity, aliens – some possibly still alive – had been recovered, and a government cover-up of any knowledge of the incident had taken place. Over the years, books, articles, television specials, and a made-for-TV movie brought the 1947 incident significant notoriety. By the mid-1990s, public polls such as a 1997 CNN/Time poll, revealed that the majority of people interviewed believed that aliens had indeed visited Earth, and that aliens had landed at Roswell. According to anthropologists, the Roswell Story was the prime example of how a discourse moved from the fringes to the mainstream according to the prevailing zeitgeist: public preoccupation in the 1980s with "conspiracy, cover-up and repression" aligned well with the Roswell narratives as told in the "sensational books" which were being published. And this all happened in the 20th century in the United States, in the era of universal literacy, modern journalism, TV and radio. If such a legend can grow so fast and still have millions of believers in modern times, how easy do you think it was for a legends to have been made up and believed in by people during antiquity, where literacy was probably 5 percent or less, there was widespread superstition, and there was no newspapers, or journalism, or mass communication? It buttresses the point that experiences can not always be trusted because they are prone to be interpreted subjectively. Goodluck to you, buddy.[/b] |
[b]"Through a microscope, the cutting edge of a beautifully sharpened ax looks like the Rocky Mountains, all jagged and irregular, but it is the dull heft of the steel behind the edge that gives the ax its power. Similarly, the cutting edge of science seen up close looks ragged and chaotic, a bunch of big egos engaging in shouting matches, their judgment distorted by jealousy, ambition and greed, but behind them, agreed upon by all the disputants, is the massive routine weight of accumulated results, the facts that give science its power. Not surprisingly, those who want to puncture the reputation of science and drain off its immense prestige and influence tend to ignore the wide-angle perspective and concentrate on the clashes of schools and their not-so-hidden agendas. But ironically, when they set out to make their case for the prosecution (using all the finely polished tools of logic and statistics), all their good evidence of the failings and biases of science comes from science's own highly vigorous exercises in self-policing and self-correction. The critics have no choice: There is no better source of truth on any topic than well-conducted science, and they know it." - Daniel Dennett[/b] |
[b]WHY BASH SCIENCE? There is hardly any time you will discuss with religionists about their need to engage reason and validate evidence that you don't get some pretty anti-science perspective. Science is not perfect. It's an ever-tightening spiral that gets us closer and closer to understanding the world we live in. Which means that our ideas start off clumsy and then become more and more refined as we get learn more and get closer to a better understanding. The fact that science disregards old ideas or attempts and offers new ones is not a weakness; it's its strength. Because -- unlike some other bodies of "knowledge" we could name -- science has no qualms about changing its position based on new data. As such, science represents the best set of objective tools that we have for understanding the world we live in. Science is not an entity. It's simply our best explanation for how the world works. Simple as that. Prior to the scientific method of learning and testing, life was exponentially harder and more confusing: Why did my cow die? Why is the earth shaking? What are those lights in the sky? Why did my wife give birth to a dead child? Science is the process by which we found the correct answers to those questions. And, while it's not perfect, it's provides us with the best tools for the job that we've ever had. So, I ask these people that have enjoyed and are enjoying all that science has suffered to achieve but yet downplay its influence: what alternative to the scientific method would you propose for learning about the world we live in and how to solve problems?[/b] |
rabzy: [b]I stifled a laugh when I read this. Seriously? Of course, there are copies. That's what I've been talking about. What I ask you for are the originals. I mean, it's like when we all go for interviews and they request for our credentials. They may already have the photocopies but they demand for the originals. Why? Because they don't trust any of us. But know this, in ancient times, there was nothing like the accuracy of the photocopying machines and therefore huge errors are known to be the norm. I assume you went to a Secondary school. I remember that when I was in Secondary School, there were times that for certain reasons, I was unable to copy notes in class, so when I am able I do collect notes from my mates to copy, I don't know if you noticed but it was the norm to misplace some words, omit some alphabets and often times completely overlook sentences and paragraphs. Know this, there are countless copies of the books of the Bible. You have only one access to a book in the Bible called Acts. Are you aware that there are six books found to be the Book of Acts? And none of them was exactly identical when compared to the other? Do you know that there are over 40 gospels and none of them are identical. Do you know that the Book of Mark has several copies that do not tally word for word? Do you know that the Book of Matthew and Luke were copied from Mark and then embellished with other stories to make them bigger? Brother, the scrolls seen in the Dead Sea is the Sinal Bible. It is the most trusted (or one of two) piece of document for the New Testament for Biblical scholars. If you read it, the differences you will find therein compared to the Bible you have at home are huge. Over 14,000 diferences is no joke. That is why so many reknown scholars of the biblical text do not believe in the inerrancy of scriptures. A layman can be convinced of the errancy too. All it takes is to read the following stories in the four gospels: - The resurrection, Mary Magdalene, and the empty tomb - Luke and Matthew's conflicting nativity stories - The fig tree's withering - A centurion and his messengers - Jesus healed the blind before entering or after leaving Jericho - Jesus' last words - Jesus did and didn't carry his cross - John the Baptist and Elijah - The Last Supper and the Passover meal - A man's ear is cut off before or after Jesus is seized - When was Judas paid? You will notice that they all give different accounts of the same things. [/b] The technicality was that they were trying to bring in something that the constitution has specifically ruled out..creationism. So whether it was true science, since it was proven to be linked to creationism, its out. The case of whether it was design or not was not properly explored and it would have been best explored outside the court room, where scientists from different fields who discuss it scientifically in front of their peers. Many evidences would be tabled..refuted and others brought forward..just like it is presently being done with the different variants and understanding of the evolution theory by its proponents.[b]How can you use that excuse? Wasn't slave trade in the constitution in the past before it was repealed? Were black men not to marry whites in the constitution? Were women not supposed to vote in the constitution in the past? All these were ruled out before sufficient arguments were made to the effect that it was not the right thing to do. What you just attempted to do is called playing the victim. If you bring facts to the table and convince the judges, you will be helped accordingly. How do you think it can be explored more than it was explored? One of the best places, and perhaps the best place, for cross-examination is the Court of Law. You bring your facts to the table and you defend them. That's why the court of law is said to be the last hope of the common man. The major players of Intelligent design in the World were brought forward to testify. I can bet that those of Creationalism who appeared in that case are more knowledgeable than you about Intelligent design. They have written books that you lots refer to and hold as sacred. They have been interviewed on International TV. They have donw documentaries and have foundations committed to Intelligent design. But upon close scrutiny they fell like pack of cards. Their facts were no longer facts. They resorted to half-truths and outright lies. Are you aware that the court case was not a one day affair? It went on for months and various experts were interviewed on the subject. They brought evidences and they were eventually found out to be shams. They could not have done better than they did from their weak position. And no, evolution is a theory generally accepted in the Scientific world. Any evidence brought forward is not brought to refute it. Any evidence brought is to consolidate on what is already established to be true.[/b] |
Mindfulness:How did life teach you that God is life? That God is in all of us? God can be found? God can be found in stillness? What are your experiences? |
rabzy:This attempt is lame at best. I could start a whole thread on why predestination is true. I will concede that I held the opposite position while still a Christian therefore I had alot of armours to counter the proponents, but looking back, that was the classic me using scriptures clearly to win arguments. The 'founding' used in the verse I gave you refers to before God founded the earth. That's why John 1 could tell us that Jesus was the force of creation. I gave you two verses, there was no attempt to explain the second one. Intentional? And I ask again, are you a Jehovah's Witness? |
rabzy:Here are the verses: The Earth was founded upon waters Psalms 24:2 For he laid the earth's foundation on the seas and built it on the ocean depths. The Earth has pillars Psalms 75:3 When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm. Vegetation before sunlight Genesis 1:12 The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. Genesis 1:14 Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years. And God saw that it was good. We all know by virtue of scientific breakthroughs that these all are false. But we can forgive medieval men who wrote the Bible for thinking they are true. Right? |
[b]SALINE BATH TO PREVENT EBOLA INFECTION ANNIVERSARY Exactly a year and one day ago, in Nigeria, some people had a saline bath to prevent ebola infection. Happy anniversary to that stupidity! Thinking back on that experience, I could glean some lessons. There were 2 groups of people A) those who were absolutely sure by reason of their scientific knowledge that a saline bath could NOT prevent ebola infection. I belonged here. B) those who were not sure. Let's focus on group B. Group B could be divided further into 2: B1) those who were not sure but were ready to VERIFY before going ahead with it & B2) those who were not sure but didn't bother to VERIFY before going ahead. I remember that some folks in group B1 called some medical practioners to find out about the hoax. They were the wise ones. Group B2 folks just went ahead perhaps because of natural incapability or fear of the unknown. This fear of the unknown is also called Pascal wager. It says: if you say XYZ is true and it ends up being untrue (false positive), you have nothing to lose but if you say it's untrue and it ends up being true (false negative), you have everything to lose. That's why some people fell into group B2. In fact, some people planned to have the saline bath first before calling to verify and they did just that. The fear of the unknown is not a proof that anything is true. Fear can't be a proof. The only way to be sure if anything is true is to verify. While there are answers already to some questions, the whole humanity still doesn't have answers to some questions. Most of such questions form the bedrock of religious belief. Concerning such, we're all in group B. We're uncertain. We don't know. But why some people will recklessly go ahead & practise what they believe without evidence (B2), some others will be circumspect to VERIFY before practising (B1). Hoaxes build up over time. We finally discovered that the saline bath was invented by just 2 people who started it on social media & by 24 hours, thousands of people had had a saline bath. Now imagine a hoax that has perhaps lasted for thousands of years! Hoaxes also consolidate with time. Any lie can become the 'truth' if it stays around long enough. People start rationalizing it and it becomes difficult to break. I remember how it later became difficult to convince people against the saline bath. I even came across a highly placed, educated, individual who became so attached to the saline bath hoax that he started justifying it despite all contrary evidence. If that could happen for a cheap hoax that only existed for 72 hours, imagine a hoax that has grown over thousands of years! Pascal wager fails & concerning beliefs, why do we need to belong to B1? 2 reasons: 1) Because the whole belief may be a hoax. The saline bath was a hoax invented by some people for whatever reason. Reasons similarly exist for people who invented beliefs too. Would you rather try to verify a belief or would you be content to have fallen for someone else's cheap hoax? 2) Pascal wager talks about a false positive as if it's innocuous. But it isn't. Those who had the saline bath because of Pascal wager suffered a lot. In fact, a number of people died & another sizeable number were only saved by emergency care in the hospital. That's apart from the inconvenience in those who didn't even fall sick. So doing false positives — doing something just to be on the safer side without evidence — comes with its negative effects too. Moral: It pays to have some evidence for anything before engaging yourself in it.[/b] |
Mindfulness:Interesting. God is life. God is in all of us. God can be found. God can be found in stillness. How do you know all these things? |
PastorAIO:Can you link me up with the documents? The largest-ever study that seem to provide evidence that 'out of body' and 'near-death' experiences have been conclusively accepted which came out late last year has been concluded by researchers to not be as impressive as thought. |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 (of 184 pages)
