₦airaland Forum

donnffd:
Beautiful question!

The difference between a deist God and no God at all is absolutely nothing.

There is no point if he wasnt responsible for anything whatsoever except for starting the universe, so whats the point?

Well maybe to overcome death, who knows? And to find meaning and hope from that ultimate being to conquer a universe so indifferent. #Just thinking #

Pdizzle:
Science is not anyway related to Christianity, scientists who were Christains made impact when they ventured out of their beliefs. If they were how ever related the bible should be a blueprint to many scientific discoveries we have today.

How do you know they made impact when they ventured out of their beliefs? Can you prove this?

donnffd:
If we saw an amputee grow back their limbs
If we saw new species forming from the dust
If we saw virgins giving birth
If we saw people walking on water
If we saw snakes and donkeys talking

That would be a start...

This argument goes beyond religion, the question of God's existence is also a philosophical argument, but from what you are saying, you want God to perform magic to your face to convince you, if truly God exist. Let me ask, what would convince you of the Deist God?

The issue is if you lived in the time of the Nazis and Hitler, and you were a German, how would you convince the Nazis that they are being immoral or wrong? Afterall they were not wrong from their point of view. If they had succeeded, it would have been beneficial to your country and this is rational. If you quote golden rule to them, they would ask, what makes the golden rule meaningful to me at the expense of my happiness? This isn't rational. How would you as an Egyptian in those days convince your fellow country men that using slaves to build the pyramids or the city was wrong?I have seen atheists condemn bestiality and then appeal to conscience and nature, but this would be meaningless to another atheist who doesn't see any meaning in nature or conscience itself, since they seem useless anyway and define no ultimate purpose. Atheists can be very moral people, yes! But if we take atheism to its logical conclusion, nothing really matters in the end, it all boils down to personal preferences.

donnffd:
What are you saying?, i ddnt even mention God in my question, why are you jumping the gun?...smh




Firstly, atheism is not a belief system, so perspective changes from atheist to atheist, so your first line of action should have been to ask my views on certain things instead of speaking generically.

Next, I asked you that question and used an example to illustrate my point, in the example, you ddnt say i ddnt have an invisible unicorn, you only said you wouldnt believe it until i brought sufficient evidence.
Now thats how i view my own scepticism, There hasnt been a single shred of undeniable evidence supporting any claims of the supernatural and the immaterial world, so why should i believe in such things?.
People claim God is immaterial and outside space and time, but how do those people know if they are also bound by space and time, and has never left space and time to see whats beyond?

So is it trusting in my disbelief to not agree until given reasonable evidence?

So what would then be reasonable evidence to you? Do you mean evidence in terms of matheematical proof? In my view the arguement is all about reasonable belief given the evidence and not a form of scientific evidence which l believe you are asking for. But first tell me, what is reasonable evidence?

donnffd:
First of all, i ddnt compare any concept, i asked a simple question, how do one trust in skepticism?!

Secondly, God (the ultimate) as you like to call him is only that to you, i would assume you are a christian, your God is as real as a unicorn to a muslim, hindu, buddhist, jew, taoist, and yes, an atheist. Not all religious people even believes your God is real, and would gladly compare him to a unicorn just the same way you would compare their gods to an imaginary object.
So, if you get annoyed that one doesnt believe your God exists, then you wont have any meaningful discussion with anybody on earth who isnt a christian...

Lol, why should l get annoyed? The concept of God goes beyond religion and is a viable concept in philosophy, and only ignorant atheists still sprout that old worn out line of the likes of Betrand Russell who compare the God concept to a material entity, so l think you do not even understand the discussion in the first place.
To answer your question, putting trust in your skepticism (maybe not the best way to put it) means you think the other positions are dumb, and when you disbelieve something, you become so sure that your doubt is warranted and cannot be cured, you go ahead to shield your non belief from every possible answer. This is no longer free thinking or skepticism, an example is how atheists conjure up all sort of silly explanations to explain away the experiences of those who see things around them even when they are unconscious. I am not saying atheists must believe in the possibility that the brain does not totally control the mind, or that the natural is not all there is, but having the super intelligent air and confidence about your worldview in cases like this is not reasonable.Let's just all keep searching with an open mind.
I defend your right to believe that the material world you see is all there is, but it is also reasonable to believe that there is something beyond us which we continually seek.

donnffd:
How exactly do someone trust in their skepticism?, i am curious...

Imagine this scenerio, we are friends, and i come tell you, i have an invisible pink unicorn in my house, but you cant see it, you obviously dont believe this because from what you know about the real world, unicorn doesnt exist now talkless of an invisible one. You then tell me that until i provide evidence for my invisible unicorn, you wont believe in it...

From the scenerio above, how exactly are you trusting in your skepticism?

When you keep comparing the concept of God( the ultimate) to unicorn, then you do not allow for any meaningful discussion.

OLAADEGBU:
Isaac Newton was an ardent student of the Bible, he also had faith in the infallible Word of God unlike the modern atheist evolutionists. He was able to think God's thought after Him and as a result discovered together with his peer, calculus, he also formulated the laws of motion and gravity, he successfully computed the nature of planetary orbits, he made many discoveries in optics and invented the reflecting telescope. When we get to heaven we may have the privilege of asking him whether he actually believed in Jesus' death and if he's not in heaven then who will ask him, you?

Isaac Newton was an Arian Christian who took a lot of his time to study theology and the book of Daniel. Arian Christians believe everything about Jesus except that they believe he was a creation of God, the first creation, but not God himself.

It is not totally wrong to be a skeptic, to ask questions and try to find answers. Seun's posts on the bible from what l have seen are just skeptical. The problem is when you begin to trust your skepticism, you become right in your own eyes, you want to confirm your own beliefs doing everything possible to counter the other side, and seeing only what you want to see.
We the religious are sometimes guilty of this, and subconsciously atheists are also guilty of this. This is where the atheists crosses the line of skepticism into pure undiluted bias.

Demmzy15:
OK, sha don't present points from there when you're in a discussion with me, if not I'll disgrace you!

But you Muslims go to antichristian websites to present materials against Christianity, why the double standard? If wikiislam is wrong,prove them wrong. Truth is truth no matter where it is found. And those Muslim websites you guys enjoy reading, l hope you are open minded enough to cross check their facts and lies? Or you just believe everything they say because you want to believe?

crusadistic:
Muslims far advanced what was to be found in those greek books which was more of philosophizing than actual science with some exception in Greek mathematics.Moreover,how did the europeans even come in contact with the greek books in the first place?
My main point here is on ISLAM...all those advancements were all from different races not even arab alone and all happened under the Islamic caliphates.were the Muslims to suddenly surpass the west today,I wouldn't place the achievement on Islam,as we know they are run more according to the west than Islam.

If that is your point, then you are right, Islam brought them all under one rule which enabled unity and progress. But again this is not unique to Islam. When the Roman Empire fell due to Babarian attacks, the barbarians themselves were all brought together by Christianity because they converted to the christian religion. The church then helped in preservation of Roman culture and Europe ascended slowly. Contrary to what some atheists would tell you, the dark ages was the natural result of the fall of the Roman empire and this was inevitable. Also the catholic church was all for learning, and there were great philosophers and readers in those days. The difference is that they only improved slowly and did not have access to the works of the Greeks like the Muslims.
The real reason why the west took science to another level from the 15th century is majorly because of the printing press. The printing press was most useful to the Europeans because they felt the need to print the bible for everyone to read. With the advent of protestant theology, salvation for the individual souls was dependent on the bible, so everyone had to read the bible, this improved literacy rate in the west by far, and in turn, tons of scientific materials were printed as well, and studied by the common man.

terrezo2002:
Do you think it is easy to invent explosive vest? Please respect these people and their religion o.
It takes knowledge of combination of physics, chemistry and biology to make these things

Was it invented by Muslims or Chinese?

crusadistic:
In other words,there existed cave men living in Europe then wahlaa! all of a sudden appeared them Galileo, Newton,Faraday,kelvin...

Why is the muslim world not as advanced if they were truly that great? Why didn't we have computers,aeroplanes,radio,etc from them.
Like l said, the Muslims had access to Greek books the Christians did not have until they came in contact with Muslims, then they went beyond what the Muslims,chinese, or even the greeks had ever done.

crusadistic:
Go and argue with the historians who term it Islamic civilization. There is also reason they say western civilization and not xtian

Science and invention has been on for a very long time in the world, the more united and prosperous a society is the more creative it becomes. This also happened with Great Britain, when they had their industrial revolution. Note also that no Muslim scientists of the ancient world can be compared to the likes of Newton, Albert Einstein, Leonardo, or even Archimedes of Ancient Greece. If Islam truly inspires science this should not be the case. Muslims only improved on existing science( which is marvelous), but if you take away the contribution of Muslims just like the Hindus and Chinese, the world would hardly feel it compared to that of say Newton, Faraday or lord kelvin.
Also ask yourself this, if Muslim scientists were that good as you claim, then we should have seen great discoveries from them in those centuries or even now. True, Europeans learnt somethings from Islamic researchers when they were still in the dark without the existing Greek materials which the Muslims had access to. But Alas, when Europe got on her feet, they didn't just improve on existing science, they practically turned the world around, and they didn't need Muslims or Islam to do this

macof:
Did he learn that from the Catholic university or he went out of the little christian box?

didn't yours reject it?

What is this little Christian box?

Elohim1:
The Author Of Act Is Also The Author Of Luke But His Name Is Not Luke Nor Is His Name Act!! Probably His One Of Paul Disciples

Who Said The Nicene Was Concerned With Naming The Books In The NT?? They Were The One Who Brought The Recommendation In Which The Book Will Make It In. This Is To Seperate Heresy From Orthodox Teaching Cause They Were Many Books And Christians Then Believed Diff Things The Council Was Created To Address That Issue

Wasn't Luke a follower of Paul? Luke was already one of Paul's disciple. Nobody said Acts is the name of a person.
What you are saying about Nicea is correct but even before that, these were the most widely accepted and circulated books in the Christian community, this is why they were canonized, many of the other books were written by gnostics, there are however some books left out like the epistle of clement, didache, etc. In all, some of those books are still part of the massive catholic oral tradition. But go do some research you would find that none of those books left out can be dated earlier than our gospels. Even gospel of john the latest gospel, has a small portion of its manuscript dating back to AD 125.

Elohim1:
I Guess U Haven't Done Ur Research Well Mark & Luke Is Not The Name Of The Authors Google Is Ur Friend If Mark & Luke In The Bible Was The Author It Will Be A First Person And Not A Third Person Comprehension!! The Name Mark & Luke Was Used To Honour The Person Or For The Gosples To Be Included In The New Testament Ever Heard Of Nicene??

I don't have to google anything, l already know where you are coming from. Like l said before there is no conclusive evidence of mark being the author, but it is hard to find a scholar who would not agree that Luke is the author of Luke and acts, though there are a few that disagree. But this shouldn't matter anyway, Luke was not even a disciple, what is important is that we have the gospels from between 40 to 70 years after Christ, which is just a generation of the events, and this is good enough for historicity irrespective of the author.
The Nicean council was not concerned with naming authors of the bible, most of the authors were named in the second century. The Nicean council was in the 4th century to refute heresies and define the Catholic dogma.

Elohim1:
Good So Basically The Gospel Was Written By Unknown Roman Writers?? And It Is Said To Be An Account Of Jesus Life Did Jesus Have Any Roman Disciples That Spoke Greek??

Were you one of those Roman writers? Just wondering how you know they were written by Roman writers. Greek was a common language in the empire just like English today, since mark and Luke were educated, of course they would speak Greek, no big deal there. It is most likely there was an earlier Hebrew version of Matthew which the present Greek Matthew was compiled from and there are scholarly indications of that, though not yet agreed on. Having the gospels in Greek is no problem since most who accepted the gospels then were gentiles who spoke Greek not Aramaic. To conclude then that the gospels were written by Romans is a far stretch without any scholarly backing.

Elohim1:
The Gospel of Mark is 16 chapters long, shorter than the other three gospels. It is considered by most scholars to be the first of the four gospels written with a date between 50 and 70 CE.

Who Wrote The Q Source??

If it was written between 50 to 70CE, then that is 20 to 40years not 60years. Q source is probably the earliest compilation of the teachings of Jesus, they may just have been passed on by oral teaching before it was compiled. Q source is hence from the early disciple community and the author is unknown. Note also that this Q source is hypothetical.

Elohim1:
And Were Did Luke Get His Source From If Mark Was The First Book Written 60 Years After Jesus Death??

Q source, older than mark. Besides it is generally believed mark was written 40years after and not 60.

Elohim1:
And U Found Out That Jesus Deciples Wrote Those Books??

Luke wrote the book of Luke and Acts, Mark may have written his gospel though not yet an established fact, scholars still doubt the authorship of Matthew and john the apostle. I fail to see what all of these have to do with anything though. You may have to open a separate thread for these, so as not to derail your thread where the debate is hot between Iceland and North Korea, Lol.

Weah96:
Winner01 knows what the argument is but prefers to play dumb. Listing atheists dictators who also happened to be communist leaders is willfully ignoring the argument.

True, communism is an ideology, but atheism is the backbone of communism. When there is nothing above humans, then you can decide to make the state your god, or the president. No matter how atheists spin it, communism go hand in hand with atheism.
The point is atheists do this all the time, the OP even calls the con man Hitler a christian who was influenced by Christianity. So why is winner wrong when he shows how the communists were at least subtly influenced by atheism?

Elohim1:
And Have U Researched Jesus Historically In short Have U Researched The New Testament Historically??



Jam 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain.

Yes sire, l have! Trust me.

stephenmorris:
did malvisguy,kingebukanaija and winner01 tell you this they hid it because they knew the truth but prefered to die of lies
Education
Main article: Education in the Soviet Union

Soviet pupils in Milovice, Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic), 1985
Before 1917, education was not free in the Russian Empire and was therefore either inaccessible or barely accessible for many children from lower-class working and peasant families. Estimates from 1917 recorded that 75–85 percent of the Russian population was illiterate.

Anatoly Lunacharsky became the first People's Commissar for Education of Soviet Russia. At the beginning, the Soviet authorities placed great emphasis on the elimination of illiteracy. People who were literate were automatically hired as teachers. For a short period, quality was sacrificed for quantity. By 1940, Joseph Stalin could announce that illiteracy had been eliminated. Throughout the 1930s social mobility rose sharply, which has been attributed to Soviet reforms in education.[137] In the aftermath of the Great Patriotic War, the country's educational system expanded dramatically. This expansion had a tremendous effect. In the 1960s, nearly all Soviet children had access to education, the only exception being those living in remote areas. Nikita Khrushchev tried to make education more accessible, making it clear to children that education was closely linked to the needs of society. Education also became important in giving rise to the New Man.[138] Citizens directly entering the work force had the constitutional right to a job and to free vocational training.

The country's system of education was highly centralized and universally accessible to all citizens, with affirmative action for applicants from nations associated with cultural backwardness. However, as part of the general antisemitic policy, an unofficial Jewish quota was applied in the leading institutions of higher education by subjecting Jewish applicants to harsher entrance examinations.[139][140][141][142] The Brezhnev era also introduced a rule that required all university applicants to present a reference from the local Komsomol party secretary.[143] According to statistics from 1986, the number of higher education students per the population of 10,000 was 181 for the USSR, compared to 517 for the U.S.[144]

What you want to tell us here is that winner and kingebuka give one sided stories only. Well, this is all about playing the atheists' game. I'm sure you also believe all those nonsense about Christianity causing the dark ages, and how Christians are so dumb and took the world backwards, and impeded science or killed all scientists then, etc. Atheists never gives you the whole perspective of things when they tell their tales and you cheer them on, so why not winner 01? Even winner gives us more facts than atheists in most cases.

Elohim1:
What If Christianity Is The Wrong Religion And Islam Is The Right One!!

Irrelevant to me, when reading the Bible how many times did you see the word religion? In fact how many times did it argue on what religion is right? The bible to me is more about your spiritual growth in Christ than your mental beliefs just that sometimes the right belief speeds up this growth. Hence it is more reasonable to accept christ.
But if Islam is the right religion, Allah should not blame me, l just don't see it. If l did, then l would accept Islam. Why would l miss such a party in heaven with so many virgins? But on a more serious note Elohim, l preach Christ not religions of men.

Elohim1:
So Basically We Atheist Love For Noting Unlike U Theist Who Love Because Of Goody Goody Rewards That Ull Receive In Heaven??

Hmmm not totally correct, but you almost got it right here. You are not far from the kingdom of God( in Jesus voice).

Elohim, as a theist myself l'm not saying you guys lack morals, atheists of course are humans and like every other human can be very moral people. The argument on morality does not question the atheists' ability to be moral, but the basis for this morality. The answers from atheists' are usually an attack on the Christian Bible, and the commands of Yahweh in the old testament, even though the argument is based on having God's nature as the objective basis for this morality, ie if there's a God whose nature is Love, then one must love at all times, hence it is always morally right to love, note that this has nothing to do with the command of this God, which means if he doesn't command it, love is still the ultimate, love is objective. Atheists can even love more than Christians, but they remove this objectivity and fail to replace it with something tangible in their worldview.

When atheists appeal to their conscience to condemn something, l get confused. what is conscience by the way? Isn't the atheist conscience just the firing of molecules from the brain in random directions? These could easily lead to delusion. The Christians believe conscience is a God given gift, the writing of God's laws in our hearts, so they can appeal to their conscience. Why should l respect the atheists' conscience when it is nothing but a chemical reaction?

JackBizzle:
The bible does not cover underage marriage or se.x. How can an absence of a law in the bible be congruous to a presence of a law in the country?

Guy, go and take more sleep. I think the powerful knockout you were given is still affecting you.

Na wa o, but this is quite simple na. Those in ancient times were probably more ignorant of the devastating effect child marriage had on the body. With more knowledge we know in our time, a child of 14 does not have her body fully developed, hence our societal law sets the bar at 18. This law is congrous with the biblical ethics that our body is the temple of the Holyspirit , hence we must do everything to protect the young female body, since you want Biblical law, is this not good enough? Must it be Thou shall not marry a child? Lol, atheists nor go kill me yo.

hopefulLandlord:

Is there a problem sire? Or you do not understand what l meant. If God is the Good as Christians claim, then good is the ultimate. Morality becomes objective, morality is objective because of God not necessarily because of the commands of the old testament which you atheists love so much. For you atheists, you can be the most moral beings on earth but you cannot explain to your fellow immoral atheists in all cases why your stance is the more rational one.

hopefulLandlord:
Good to see that passive aggressive stance of yours loosen a bit

My conscience finds it wrong

But that's my conscience and I've always maintained that conscience and society determines what's right and wrong for me

YOU Christians claim bible is your source of morality and won't take conscience as a valid answer when given for bestiality and insest

Since that same book didn't condemn what we now call "child marriage" (mind you, what we call child marriage now is a lot different from those times, an 18 year old should not be in her father's house in those days) what makes it wrong? Like I said, if you say its a Personal thing, then all good, that's valid enough for me personally but since you didn't take that Personal explanation when tendered for bestiality and insest, it would be hypocrisy to tender it now

I need you to understand where I'm coming from

Let's assume you are arguing with a fellow atheist who sees nothing wrong with bestiality. How would you convince him or her about your stance? I'm curious.

hopefulLandlord:
Christ never condemned it

This is very simple, so unless you said Christ condemned it personally to you and only you, then all good

Christ never came to dictate for us, he came to challenge our thinking about God and righteousness. For example it is still a surprise to historians today that the average Roman of ancient times saw nothing wrong in gladiatorial sports, it was fun, and a way to enjoy themselves the way we gather to enjoy football, the film Spartacus depicts this. When the Romans became Christians, a monk put an end to these practices, it did not just go down well with the spirit of Christianity. Probably other christian Romans in those days would argue like you that Christ did not condemn it. Also some Christians argued that Christ did not condemn slavery, but some Christians had always argued that it was at odd with the spirit of Christ, (google popes and slavery). Christ never condemned them. Note that no society ever condemned slavery including the atheists. The Christians led primarily by William Wilberforce and evangelist John Wesley condemned slavery even though other Christians argued. Be it in the bible or not, they knew that some things were at odds with the general teachings of Christ and their conscience.
Now if it was an atheistic society, some atheists would argue against your doctrine of moral evolution to condemn these practices, as long as slavery helps your society, there is no reason to condemn it. Afterall slaves built the pyramids of Egypt, they also helped greatly in some of the projects for their masters, allowing the free citizens reap from their labor. How would you have convinced your fellow atheists hopefullandlord, about the evil of slavery?