₦airaland Forum

Backslider:
@kag

Lets us Debate with Decorium.

I thought I did just that.

God Bless

Why, Cthulhu out for lunch?

Drusilla:
Kuryurdey,

It depends on what you mean by 'superior' or 'better'. Politically?

Politically Christianity and Islam and Hindu and many other faiths have been equally successful at forming their people into one cohesive group and allowing that group to attain power politically for themselves.

As they say: Religion is the only platform on which successful revolutions have been run.

Absolute nonsense. There've been many successful revolutions that weren't run on religious platforms. From the revolutions inspired by the Wobblies and Joe Hill, for example, to the French revolution, and the different renaissances - revolutions of subtle imports.

Even in Communist states: Tolstoy considered his program to be christian.

Really? Which Tolstoy?

In Vietnam they had to tear down temples to Ho Chi Min.

Therefore, their "revolution" was run on a religious platform.

And it's equally true that all of the places where these religous groups wanted political control, they used religion as the excuse for outright brutality and more, to get control of the area.

You said it.

If your thinking of people's personal feelings about their religion, then it will mostly be a thing of yes my religion is superior and better, because it is my religion and I believe that your religion is false. How can I respect something I think is untrue?

What about if you just respect the person and his/her opinion then?

Backslider:
all of that

God can hate you to make you love him God can love you to make you hate him. God has dealt with Isreal so ruthlessly if he did to some others like that I don't know if they will still believe in Him. About millions of jews were slaughted by hitler( This is recorded in the Bible where God said he will stir up the wind and Gather them from everywhere) and look at the suffering in Africa and some say Africans are cursed. The jews were killed robbed raped and chased. Dont get me wrong I don't have any partiality I am jst saying that he deals with people individually and this is a sign of the end of the world.

For a second there, I thought you were talking about an insane human despot that's gotten over drunk with power. I guess absolute power does corrupt absolutely; that, or the create your God in the worst possible light project(ing) has taking a turn for the worse.

pblessed:
when we say Jesus is God, that's a very right statement, for one, biologically, he was the son of God, i'm sure that shouldn't be a problem, the life he got was from God as no child can be born without a sperm and the sperm is got to be from a man, but the sperm that fertilized Mary womb was from God, his word, so whose traits and genes do u think Jesus had, God's offcourse.

So for this He is God.

I take you accept Apollo is the biological son of Zeus, yes? Furthermore, if the Christian/neo Jewish God has genes, is it safe to assume he has not only chromosomes, etc, but he also has a colour and a penis?

Eurphoria:
This Jesus and This GOd must be something special that more and more people want to debate, argue, chat, talk, fight, for it.

People are still arguing about the shape of the Earth (some think it's flat, you should visit a flat Earth forum, arguments galore), go figure. I remember mentioning to someone that Dune wasn't that good a movie, he lost it, go figure. PS3, xBox, Wii, generate a lot of debates and fightes, go figure. Just a few examples.

Even the non beleivers all seem to be obssessed with whether he is true or not. it is funny.

Well, seeing as they've moved on from Juno and Apollo, it's only right that they tackle immediate societal ills

I don't think anyone needs to prove to anyone. I don't really think anyone needs to beleive either. It is a personal thing and will not waste my energy to prove to anyone his supremacy in my opinion . This Jesus this God must be something special see how it stirs people, persecutors and beleivers alike lol.

Did you just waste your energy posting the exact same thing you did just a couple of posts above? Yeesh!

I dare an unbeleiver to say out loud one day, when they are alone, just them and their own heart beat and mutter these words ''God or watever you call yourself prove me wrong!

I did https://i18.tinypic.com/2qbt2ys.gif.

Just a few points.

neelsel:
Oxygen is vital to our survival, yet we cannot see it but accept and acknowledge its existence and presence, Without oxygen, we die,,,simple,

Well case solved,

We cannot see God, but we know He is there and so to is vital to our life.

Simple, We don't need to see to believe,

Oxygen can be tested for and "seen" though you have to tinker around with it; oxygen can also be seen in its liquid form. As a final thought, too much oxygen will kill you (and you won't understand why). Basically oygen is nothing like Jesus/God - maybe except from the too much part, n'est pas?

By the way, what did your post have to do with the OP?

Eurphoria:
This Jesus and This GOd must be something special that more and more people want to debate, argue, chat, talk, fight, for it. Even the non beleivers all seem to be obssessed with whether he is true or not. it is funny. I don't think anyone needs to prove to anyone. I don't really think anyone needs to beleive either. It is a personal thing and will not waste my energy to prove to anyone his supremacy in my opinion . This Jesus this God must be something special see how it stirs people, persecutors and beleivers alike lol. I dare an unbeleiver to say out loud one day, when they are alone, just them and their own heart beat and mutter these words ''God or watever you call yourself prove me wrong!

Many unbelievers do it because they drank blood from the skull of virgins (on that damned being's persistence), so they need to argue the case of Jesus to forget their anguish, and quell their fear of Cthulu's rage. It certainly couldn't be something as mundane as Christians have made Jesus into such a big deal (by hook or crook, usually by the latter, sometimes with the former) that people, including non-theists, decided to reallytake a look and tell what they've found.

mrpataki:
@ Kag,
Never kneew there are quite great number of pervs on this forum

I'm a perv because I offered a rebuttal?

Maybe we should start from the fundamentals, how your science cannot find a definite definition to ENERGY?Am sure you were told it can neither be created nor destroyed. Only God can do that.
Are they not interwoven in eachother?

Science cannot find a definition for energy? I thought it was this: "The scientific definition of energy is the ability to do work." (source. I can't say I've heard of the defining energy controversy, maybe you could enlighten me.

As to your God creating and/or destroying energy, could you show me where or offer some evidence for her do just that?

An atheist tells you there is no God, a scientist believes there is God so where do they both allign? I ask you kag.

Atheists tell you there is no God;THEISTS tell you therre is one; scientists can belong to either group (or be agnostic).

When idiots like you have eaten to the excess there is nothing they would not say just to perform their enterprise.

Their enterprise? I have an enterpries? News to me.

Good luck to your smugly ignorance

Good luck with your smug ignorance.

Olorididan:
@KAG
nferyn has already stated that "it is simply a lack of belief in Gods"

I have problems with that definition because it seems to encompass people that belong or have aligned themselves to a different label.

what I'm trying to see if possible is whether it is possible to take a body of non belief and give it some sort of central coherence.

I think it's possibel. I could be wrong, but I think humanism might be an example of just that.

Many people feel that Atheism suffers from the "anything goes" syndrome. That if you don't believe in something you'll believe in anything. I want to see if any coherent body of thought can come out of the vastness of the belief in "anything" or "nothing". There aren't many atheists around but I'd like to know their thoughts and whether we can give these thoughts any sort of collective direction and maybe form something out of it.

Not believing a God exists is not the same thing as believing in nothing.

One common denominator found among many atheists is the belief that there is no existence before and after life. Note I did not say no existence of a God. Further to this is the belief that there is no existence of a God before, during and after life. Which leaves life as we know it. It is within this realm that most atheists base their beliefs.

Yes.

But if we do not exist before and do not exist after, then could it be argued that we really do not exist presently.

I disagree. If we did not have consciousness before we came to have one, and we lose it when we die, all we then have is the present where we exist and believe we exist, that in itself tends to make the present that more precious. Basically you can't argue something doesn't exist in the present because it didn't in the past and will perish in the future, else you'd end up invalidating the existence of almost everything in the present.

We are simple physical manifestations of nothingness. If we are not the manifestations of a greater being, we are the manifestation of nothing are we not?

Not quite. We are physical manifestations that exist, or believe we exist, because we've acquired self awareness. As to what we are a physical manifestation of, we aren't the physical manifestation of anythinng - which shouldn't be confused with nothingness.

If so we need to ask is it possible for nothingness to become something without a "God" or soem force or the other making it so and if so how?

Yes, it's possible. One example of something coming from nothing that I've given on numerous occasions, is that of virtual particles - they come into existence through quantum fluctuations in vacuums. They don't need a force or "God" to make them.

goodguy:
Anybody can make this statement. Even non-theists!

Yes, but that doesn't invalidate what it represents.

kimba:
I don't see atheism as an act of ignorance.

heres a summary from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Still going along the ignorance line, I would rather say Atheistm is an act of willful ignorance.

Weird.

Its like saying theres nothing like air since I can't see it.

Actually it isn't.

On the other hand "a wrong view of who God is" has also led some people to the belief that He doesnt exist. When we were young, we were told, if you don't like your teacher, you wont like his/her subject, and passing the course will be the next thing to difficult. So also, if one has a wrong and biased view of something, he/she will always find a reason to disprove, condemn, belittle and make mockery of whatever such a thing is. And the truth is there is an answer(truth or false) for everything.

Maybe theists just haven't - despite thousands of years of honing - gotten the hang of their deities yet, so they can project them in anyway that doesn't fall apart on closer inspection.

Christianity is experiential. Its not the 1,2 and 3 do this and then I believe you exist kind of mentality that we have. Without experiencing Christ, you don't have a story to tell, you don't have a testimony. Clean and clear you heart out of all the biases, invite Christ into your heart in a genuine manner and see if you wont feel His presence.

I don't know, based on what I've seen there's probably no more than three or four Christians then, because most definitely haven't "experienced Christ (the love thy neighbour Christ, not the I come to bring tribulations Christ). Anyway, I have the T-Shirt.

There are many people who are naturally blind. We pray for those, that they may see.
Its a greater problem when others, who have eyes, close them and say 'I can't see'.

Rather appropriately, the naturally blind don't see after the parayers, but soon scientists may have figured out a way to cure all levels of blindness. Fitting I'd say.

Why not?

mrpataki:
@ nferyn,
See who talks of science, you talk as if you have ever had any contributions to the science in its entirety.
Question1. Tell me what significant contribution you have ever made to science aside from sitting inside a laboratory allday performing an experiment that the great scientist of old have done.

Wouldn't that be a contribution in itself? Repeating experiments that great scientists of old have done, could yield better understanding that could be transferred to future generations, and even sometimes could lead to discoveries that were missed before. In fact just extolling and popularising the works of great and not so great scientists is a huge contribution in itself.

So, what contributions have you made to sceince?

Question2. Do you know that even Isaac Newton declared the kowledge of a God or you want to know of Faraday the father of electricity? or Charles Darwin?

What about Faraday and Darwin? Do you know Christiaan Huygens was very possibly not a theist? Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins don't declare the knowledge of God. Is that relevant? Probably not.

You give us links as if you were the originator of it, are they not the same atheist like yourself who brought out such links.

You're confusing atheism with science.

Look all around you, and tell me how your stupidity made you not to see there is a God out there.

OMG, you're so right. How could I have missed it?! Lightening  just streaked across the sky - I know Zeus is mad at someone; thunder roll - Thor and Fria are bowling again; maybe we'll see a rainbow tomorrow - Leprechauns are leaving pots of gold around; I have to leave soon, there's the sound of strong wind again - Amun-Ra is waxing strong again. I bid a goodnight, and now that I've seen the light - "Thus spake Zarathustra"

fellow:
I must say i am impressed with the quality of posts on this topic. Well as for me i believe there is a GOD though i have not seen him and would have loved to.
Come to think of it, we humans have always tried to tempt GOD to prove his existence not to us personally but so that everyone can see and testify to it.
It was this that led to the israelites quest to find out about HIS existence by trying to build a skyscaper that could touch the high heaven but as my bible told me this was not be be as GOD in his infinite mercies created a language dispute amongst them.

Are you sure it was the Israelites? Anyway, it doesn't look like different languages developed in that way.

Typical case in this modern world is the CLONING of different species of animals,

I get the point you're trying to make, but I wouldn't put much stock in the obscure journal claims. I also don't think it's playing "God" (whatever that means) it's simply finding, exploring and doing things.

[b]Despite this grand act by different scientists, i still believe there is a GOD because even during the good old days of our ancestors like Oracle said, They believed in a God which peeps like oduduwa, Obatala, and the likes came down from and goes by the name OLODUMARE.

Wouldn't that be evidence of Gods getting created to serve roles people needed to be filled?

Anyway much as the facts do not actually butress the point of the existence of GOD, the mechanism of the human nature and structure doesn't not go along with your theory of THE BIG BANG, I don't think that could have structured the beautiful and careful creation of man talkless of a woman. Critically we are the work of an artist and creatively carved out which implies that something somewhere created us and that should be GOD.

The Big Bang describes the expansion of the Universe; the theory of evolution explains human nature and structure and attraction to females. By the way, my head hurts, my eyesight isn't great, and my back needs tweaking, my throat pipes keeps getting congealed with phlegm. Can I sue this artist you call God?

I am Out[/b]
[quote][/quote]

Donzman:
Are you kidding?, Atheists claim superiority without a doubt and you're already proving the point. Ironic, isn't it?

I doubt that. Some atheists may claim superiority, but generalising never gets people anywhere (I should know because I'm superior )

Oracle:
Deathadder, my question for you is: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE BIG BANG?
If yes WHAT DOES HE/SHE LOOK LIKE?

The Big Bang isn't a being nor an entity, it is simply a description of an occurence billions of years ago. What you've asked is similar to asking who the reaction between 2 carbon and 6 hydrogen molecules look like.

Olorididan:
Most religions believe in the existence of a God. Most atheists believe there exists no god. So

Is atheism a belief in itself?

I'd say so, but it depends on how you apply the word and its implication in a sentence. For example, when belief is used in atheism, it is akin to: I believe that the tooth fairy doesn't exist in pretty much the same way I believe my chair won't become animated and run off with me.

If so what do atheists believe?

Almost anything but Gods

Or Is atheism actually a religion?

Is theism actually a religion?

We all know what the world's religions believe in. But what are atheist's beliefs regarding existence and can we take (hopefully from the posts below) the (or) a body of atheist opinion and thought and use it as a basis of another religion?

Atheists have many differung beliefs regarding existence, and there are atheists who belong to religions (for example atheistic Buddhists),.

olabowale:
@KAG and company: Is Physics the only descipline in human field of knowledge?

No

Does human have unlimited knowledge in its history, analysis from a dt?

dt?

Is it not true that human of yesteryears might argue against what we know as possibility or absolute today?

I'm sure they did.

Is is not more than likely that there will be a new knowledge 'considered more advance than today's best knowledge' tomorrow and beyond, if human continue to advance?

It's likely. Relevance?

Finally, can you use Physics 'please no help from Biology or Chemistry or other scientific descipline' to explain the existence of what we know as human, today, 'a classification that you and me belong to', please hurry!

Nope.

If you can not do this, convincing all of us, without any doubt, please how can you then use it to explain the 'Superior Being that those who believe in His existence call GOD the Almighty'?

I've only seen the religious try to use physics to account for the existence of a God, not vice versa.

Please think and do not give us the ambiquous song and dance you use in every entry you have made so far!

To be honest, you're the only one that either gives ambiguous responses or gets simple fundamental things completely wrong (or put in a nonsensical way). See the post I responding to, for an example.

Uche2nna:
Well I think that no matter what I say u guys are going to come up with a _{'more rational argument'}. That is allright because I think it is always hard defending what u do not see.

But if there's, by your estimation, a more rational argument, shouldn't the rational be encouraged and if possible be held more favorably?

An d that is why HE is GOD and we are just humans.We can not just formulate a physical equation and expect HIM to fit into that Equation.HE is spirit,defying all the laws of time and space u can think of.That is Y we can not rationalize HIM with our humanly brain because HE is way far INTELLECTUAL than the human brain.I know I might be going a little spiritual now, this is because I can afford it.

Some would argue that those traits are an argument against her existence. Her ability to not only change unreasonably when faced with counterarguments to her existence, but to also possess characteristics that are synonymous with non-existence show, at least to me, the workings of humans trying to protect an idea.

I have experienced HIS power and that is y I know that HE EXISTS and that to me is more important than anything we men can come up with.

That is fair enough. Would it bother you to know that many people with different Gods have felt the same thing you have, and also have the same conviction you have?

We(Men) say that it took some million years for our earth to evolve.

Billions.

That is on a human time scale which is very different from God's time scale.HE said that it took HIM 6 days.Who am I going to believe? Man or God.I think I will take my chances with God.Moreover there is nothing to lose in believing that HE exists,right?

Well, the Bible God never actually said it took her six days, that's your interpretation of the Genesis account. Incidentally, many Christians and Jews don't think the six days was literal.

Also, I don't know if there's nothing to lose in believing the Bible God exists, as it depends sometimes on individuals, and at other times it depends on how choices and morality are influenced by that belief.

I am still thinking about the Big Bang theory.I will get back to u later with that

No problem.

Uche2nna:
Ok No need arguing with you guys.U win I lose

I don't look at discussions in that light. IMO, nobody wins or loses (that's not quite true, but it's true enough for this particular post), all we (people) should get is a good discussion at worse (it doesn't always go that way though;I remember some of the nuts I've debated or conversed with), and a lot of reciprocal learning (or something) at best.

Interesting read buda atum.

Uche2nna:
Laugh my ass off

Are you gonna bring up the Big Bang theory like you promised? Also, I really would like to know why you think the theory of evolution is falsified or dead.