₦airaland Forum

Christianity is such a nihilist religion that the absence of God breaks down all morals and meanings of life. Which further suggests life has no inherent meaning.

Isn't God first and foremost Life?!

OLAADEGBU: I know what you atheists want. I also know that you know in your heart of hearts that God exists it is just that you don't want to believe it and try suppress this truth with this theory of evolution and thereby keep up with your sinful lifestyle.

How did you know what's inside the "hearts" of atheists?! Tell us how you managed that.

okeyxyz: @PAGAN, @Uyi, @macof

I expect this sort of reaction from you guys. It's the normal reaction you get from a conventional minded person(the bible says carnal minded ). You minds have been trained to think in a linear, physical, scientific manner and you reject any other form of reasoning that does not fall in line. However, spiritual people like moi understand there are other forms of operations apart from what is physically/scientifically or conventionally acceptable.

Now conventional thinking tell us that if Mr-A was born before Mr-B, then Mr-A is older and deserves more respect than Mr-B right? But spiritual people know it is not necessarily so. Take the yoruba traditional regard for twins for instance, they know that though taiwo was born before kehinde, but actually kehinde is the older of the two, and that he(kehinde) sent taiwo to check-out the world first before he(kehinde) comes out. Nice!! init?? . Jesus also understood this principle when he said "before Abraham was born, I am.."(John 8:58) , and the people then thought him to be insane, just like you guys think I am insane by writing what I wrote (mehn!!, I'm on fire!! ). So the fact that one person or institution came before another does not necessarily mean it is more authentic than the later. It could be that the later sent the former to prepare the way for it's(the later) arrival. This principle is universal in all spheres of hierarchy, eg: You don't go to see the president directly, you must first go through his protocol officers, secretaries, security, etc. That you have seen these other officers first does not make them more authoritative than the president. This is how it is with spiritual matters too.

So pagans discovered science, mathematics, medicine, etc, I don't dispute this. My position is that these things must first be in place before the true christ doctrine(again, not conventional christianity, it seems you missed this emphasis in my second post) arrives.

I have a million more mysteries I could share with you guys, but you wouldn't understand them, they'd be foolishness to you. (Matthew 7:6, 1 Corinthians 2:14)

Actually the Persians saw generations marked by a prophetic coming. Zoroaster, Jesus, Mohammed, Ahmad, Joseph Smith etc. Christianity makes a lot of sense within the overarching context. However for you to extract Christianity from the motley of religions and proclaim it as the true religion without justification is mere bigotry (that reaches Olaadegun's level)

Can there be a proper belief in a deity without religion. I'd say no.

My reason being that: Religion creates a communication with the deity. The rituals, the prayers, the sacrifices relate to this fact, and our understanding of the deity flows down this same channel. Even for deists like Thomas Paine, he spoke of positive sciences in a religious manner.

Logicboy03: Religion has little to do with civilization.

A road is built to travel from one place to the other
A house is built for shelter
A monument is built to glorify a specific thing.

Fact remains that religion takes credit for things which should be normal thoughts. eg morality.

I doubt if civilizations are about a solitary road or a house

Rather you have to explain culture, elaborate mythologies and structures and their laws and philosophy of the community..

^^

Also you didn't prepare a good or rather a foundation at all of establishing the connection between dreams and spirituality. I will bluntly say NO to your OP.

joel lala: I understand where you are going but we should also know that we are connected to the spiritual realm via our dreams..thats the aspect am taking about.

How are you going to substantiate/prove that claim? What makes the spirit world connect to our dreams? To everyone's dreams?

OLAADEGBU: What experience of yours makes you arrive at the conclusion that the theory of poo-to-you-via-the-zoo is solid proof?

I don't understand what you said.

Useless OP

Nobody agreed with the fool what Moral rules were. So he has no topic.

@OP

Dreams are modes of self expression by your deep layers of personality: subconscious or unconscious. Secrets, fears are frequently exhibited this way.

One has to admire Jesus, he has held minds in cages centuries after his death. AMAZING!

What ever you think about God forms the religion.

Archaeologists generally believe religions promoted settled lifestyles and in turn civilization. The towers of Sumeria, the pyramids of Egypt have been inspired by religious thoughts.

I define religion as a subculture of thought.

Of course religion seems to cause war and conflicts, however it isn't religion per se, but rigid narrow mindedness. A refusal to view the world through multiple standpoints. Ppl like Olaadegu.

OLAADEGBU: I don't answer hypothetical questions. Are you saying for sure that cars can self assemble without the input of human intelligence?

What if I said so?! How would you disprove me? You will disprove me by referring me to the fact our knowledge of the causal connection btw a carmaker and a car is by experience. That would be the solid proof. However such proof can not be used in the case of God and the Universe.

OLAADEGBU: And which "priori knowledge" told you that metal, left to itself, would eventually form into engines, transmissions, wheels and all the other intricate parts needed to produce a car?

Good question! What if I said cars self assemble, how would you disprove that satisfactorily?

OLAADEGBU: With my limited knowledge and my physical senses I have the evidence of God's existence as I have said earlier. When I look at a building, how do I know that there was a builder? I couldn't want a better evidence that there was a builder than to have the building in front of me. I don't even need faith to know that there was a builder. All I need are eyes that can see and a brain that can think.

The same principle applies to the existence of God. When I look at creation, how can I know that there was a Creator? Creation reveals to me that there is a Creator. I couldn't want a better evidence that there is a Creator than to have the creation in front of me. I don't need faith to believe in a Creator, all I need are eyes that can see and a brain that can think.

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

But if I want the builder to do something for me, then I need to have faith in the builder. Likewise God, for

"Without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6).

If you need to know more about God you need faith based on His Word and World.



Turn the question around and lets whether you are dealing with facts here.

To be an atheist you must be certain that there is no God, are you certain? For you to be certain you must have absolute knowledge of everything. Let's say that you draw a circle which represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, to be certain that there is no God you must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock, and nothing is hidden from your eyes, you will be certain that you know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother, you will be certain of what amount of gold or petroleum there is in China etc before you come to the conclusion that there is no God.

You are either deceptive or indulging in self deceit.

The causal connection between a builder and a house, is that of experience. No man can claim as a result of a priori knowledge that houses are built by men, rather he acquires such knowledge by experience.

The deception you tried pulling is: a fallacy of over-generalization of claiming that all systems including the universe is created. When in actual fact you ought to establish an experiential causal link between the Universe and God.

2. As your second point, my stand as an atheist (quasi atheist) on a priori objections to the nature of God (as defined). You have claimed God is a contradiction. I need not provide all the knowledge in the world, to point that out.

OLAADEGBU: Through God's record of cause. He didn't leave us without a witness. As I said before, the infinite Omniscient God is outside of time, to Him a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. He sees time past, present and future in a stretch. He knows everything thing before it happens because He created time. He is not bound by time and He sees all life and history from start to finish simultaneously. The Holy Scriptures attests to this through the holy prophets who God used to let folks know what was to happen. He knows all things before it happens. He knows how the universe began and how it will end and He has recorded this in the Bible for His children to know. And I know that it is true because prophecy and true science confirms His Words.

Unfortunately you are a witness to what's overreached greater than your limited knowledge. It makes your witnessing untenable. How were you able to know God lives a second as a thousand years when your lifespan is miserably smaller. The problem with your kind, is you are too negligent and careless with lies!

The idea of God you espoused (as a fact) is well beyond your experience/witnessing, that only throws out your credibility!

Self sacrifice very stu.pid!

Society bent Michael's mind to the extent that he lost whatever value he had for his life and his future, and made him believe self sacrifice for OTHERS is the ultimate goal. That other people are more valuable than him. Whereas its not. Society poisoned him.

He is dead, and most likely to be forgotten.

^^utilitarianism is altruistic in nature and ethical values are placed on the welfare of others/majority.

However even though you claim your moral values are not qualified by virtue of their consequences, rather they are. The consequence of all moral actions to you are tied to the benefits it lends to "people".

Try to let your moral values stand alone without dependence on ppl's benefits or harms and see if you can make value judgements.

Moral universalism is not about having absolute morals that are the same for everyone in the world. No. It is just that there are certain issues in ethics that are universal.

Logicboy what doesn't the above really mean?? Moral issues are universal?! What makes them moral in the first place?! If morality isn't universal, definitely there is different/subjective moral outlook and judgment, issues wouldn't be the same!

For example, societies which don't recognise property, wouldn't have issues with theft or larceny!

@logicboy

You are exactly guilty of what I accused you of.

First of all you defined morality as (in your own words)

But how do we know what is good? How do we know how to ground our morality in reason? The simple answer is using logic to weigh our actions and deeds with respect to harm and survival of our fellow humans

Which is what utilitarianism is summarily about! And that was an unjustified assumption you made: that the survival and harm to our fellow humans is greeted with good and bad. Obviously the individualist is an evil in this dispensation!

Reason and logic are rubberstamps to dress up your prejudices against the individual.

To further prove the inconsistencies in your utilitarian morality, human sacrifice for the good of all is approveable (you even dine with Christians), justice for the minority wldnt exist.

Morality is entirely subjective, with a little bit of common sense, sentiment, bias and abstract. There is no such thing as universal morals!

@logicboy's OP.

I have serious objections with your write-up, it is a bit careless. Your definition of good (which is of universal appplication) is more or less utilitarianism. Which means whatever is considered by the most to be beneficial to the most is good, and whatever is harmful to the most is bad. Also that utilitarianism is self evident.

I believe that's a lie. First of all, utilitarianism is built on its own assumptions ( that what's beneficial to the majority is good) without which it is far from self evident. No pattern of reasoning without preconceived bias can lead to utilitarianism.

2. What's good for sheep is not the same to wolves. Both have different constitutions, in that condemning wolves with the standard of sheep is to create a standard of hypocrisy! There is no basis to believe predators be ruled under prey morality. People are unique and need different standards to develop themselves.

3. What does being "good for the sake of being good"?! Why not the other way?! Being "bad for the sake of being bad". So far they have the same VALUE.

Considering the fact that information begins to exist just after data is being processed, then information is created by the brain (matter). Note the brain develops the representation of other matter/data.

OLAADEGBU: Ouch! At least you confirm that there is absolute morality since you cannot give one instance of a culture or society that sees lying as a virtue, which is inconsistent with your atheistic view of life.



I do not claim to be Omniscient. Only the infinite God is Omniscient, unchanging God has all knowledge (Colossians 2:3). Whatever knowledge I've got is from the Omniscient, infinite God that you deny. On the other hand, atheists who are so certain that there is no God are the ones claiming to have all knowledge in the universe. With all the knowledge you've got you couldn't fathom the ultimate cause of the universe or where life emanates from.



Get an afterlife.

How did you with your limited knowledge know God is omniscient?! Either you merely believed what the Bible said without caring whether its true or false.

Mr anony: I note your objection but nothing about it changes the point I'm making which is that the immaterial has caused a material change. Feel free to call it "data" or "information", also feel free to describe the process in more detail. The fact still remains.

So to simplify if you like;

"Immaterial data has caused a change in the mass of a material brain" This shows a direct causal link between non-matter and matter.

Please provide a refutation if you may

Data and information are not the same, the need to process data is the direct cause of brain mass increase. Not data per se.

I hope he picks up foolish Christians on their way wherever in the afterlife.

OLAADEGBU: What's your evidence that I lied? Do you believe in your worldview that lying is wrong?



Can you tell me one culture that believes lying is a virtue?



Please tell us the origin of life and of the universe. What is man's purpose in life and what happens after man dies?



Treason is a sin. God is rightly angry at you for your treason against Him.



To be precise. All who go about their own self righteousness are like filthy menstrual pads before God. Atheistic evolution is in fact a religion that you use in dumbing down your conscience from feeling guilty. The alarm of your conscience is still ringing but you have stifled it with your "religion" which deceives you into a false sense of security.

I didn't say lying is good, obviously in respect to my whole post I clearly find lying as distasteful as I find you.

Your lies of omniscience. That you know the actual causes and nature of the Universe, and afterlife whereas you are negligent towards the real facts.

You are a lost cause.

"The last Christian died on the Cross".

Christians fail to realise that matters of this world aren't theirs to fight. They should look forward the pearl Gates of heaven (kingdom of heavens) in themselves.

The false prophets are those that teach Christians to live and find meaning on earth.

Mr anony: Earlier in the thread we looked at the case of London cab drivers gaining increase in brain mass due to additional information from learning new routes.


Number 3 is fact. Learning new information causes the creation of new connections between neurons in the brain and hence an increase in brain mass.

Noooo anony. Note that data is received by the senses not information, data is unprocessed and must be processed before perception. Hence the need to process more data is responsible for the brain mass. The brain functions to process data, for it to process information like seeing the future.

Gombs: Ok, lemme don't assume..pls furnish me with a detailed account of how the universe and man came about.

This is the common mistake most lay theists make, rather than stand on their feet, they rely on uncertainties and gaps in human knowledge to make their claims. And whenever such gaps close up, they are left with nothing.

Our knowledge about Universe keeps changing and evolving, from seeing it as static and mechanical, to an ever expanding, ever changing and puzzling mindblowing quantum facts.

Our knowledge remains as it is our knowledge.

There lies the strangeness of free will, moralities and "truths" are coloured by it since free will is neither restrained by any of moralities or "truths".

Same as God freely willed what is good and evil. God decided the moral characters of all actions, and treated them in that regard.

Man can likewise, with the strength of his free will reverse/upturn that morality/truth as he wishes.

2. Nature ought to reveal who we are not how we should act. If we were part of Nature, there wouldn't be the need to act a particular way, if the influence of Nature is unavoidable, inevitable.

I doubt if you'd support the vicious cannibalism that exists in the wild.

wiegraf: These are the same people who will whine about evolution implying some races are superior (a patently false claim) therefore it is bad, yet here they are using nature as an excuse. Okay then, if they insist on nature, then well, some would say black man is inferior naturally, as we tend to live in conditions less 'ideal' than those of caucasians the last few hundred years or so. So, shouldn't we be 'cured' of our blackness as well, isn't it abnormal as well? Isn't nature about bettering our lot, and black man doesn't seem to be good at that, therefore aren't we unnatural as well? This all assumes homosexuality is intrinsically 'bad' mind you, another false axiom.

It's more complicated than that, but meh

Being intellectually deraved or stupid is not an immoral-ity. Same as a predator attacking a prey. Morals have nothing to do with Nature.

Mr anony: Lol, so according to you I have neither shown nor not shown a direct causal link between the immaterial and the material. You are being incoherent here please explain yourself.

Let me recap by simplifying the terms for you.

1. Is information non-matter= Yes
2. Is the brain matter = Yes
3. Does information effect brain size = Yes
4. Conclusion: Non-matter causes an effect on matter

Which of numbers 1-4 do you disagree with?

I know as a fact that information is processed data, but how processed data affects the brain, Mr ANony only can educate us on that.

Besides, it seems there isn't an actual divide between mental states and the physical structure of the brain, it appears both affect one another mutually.

Upon reading the OP, Freewill jumped into my mind.

Freewill is the total self autonomy of control. Man equipped by freewill is in a position of power/authority. He can do and undo. Man can actively choose whether or not to follow the laws. The authority of all laws rests on their acceptance by the recipients.

NOTE: man through his freewill is sinless, because he can make and break moral laws, create and destroy such. Before man becomes a sinner, he must choose whether or not he wears the shame, must accept willingly the idea of sin. Hence sin is meaningless without acknowledgement.

2. It is lame for both (theists and atheists) to seek out moral basis from Nature! For atheists, it is implicitly accepting some form of external overarching purpose in Nature which governs man. It is a bad idea to behave as a plant.