₦airaland Forum

Sandazblack:
Always an afonja cow from yoluba republic of skull miners they never disappoint with their beer parlor analysis

Afonja this, Agbado that. Still doesn’t detract from the fact that Obi is just as corrupt as the rest.

bobchigar:
Sharp Man. He find something to say to satisfy CAN. When he returns to shrine, he will change it to please it.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. — Seneca/ Ooni of Ife

Jokerman:
All things were created by God according his pleasure. And man is the best of creation.

How did a being think yo create human body and all the systems in it? Think about it bro

Yes o! Obatala did a miraculous job innit?

Babysho:
How could you ever say Obi is the same as these hardened criminals. Y'all not even doing any sort of research, you're just going with the crowd. Watch his Town Hall meeting with channels yesterday on YouTube please.

WGAF about the words coming out of his lying mouth when his actions and record speak for themselves. From his record, how is he different from the rest of the miscreants?

Sandazblack:
These are the thieves Agbado boys are hailing, they ransack your common wealth and all you do is clap and hail them like some cursed people tueh

Soso990240:
All Dem Emilokan will not near this thread. Na to de scan the whole Nairaland de look for Tinubu post, to continue their Praise singing

You Osu people act as if the incompetent that dresses as if he is in perpetual mourning is different from the thieves in the OP.

Before the Europeans were subjugated and converted by the Romans, their juju was also indigenous. After Roman conquest they embraced Roman juju in the form of the jew god nailed to sticks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphic_wooden_cult_figurines_of_Central_and_Northern_Europe

Edusouls:
of course they embraced the true son of the most high living God, JESUS CHRIST his blessings showered upon them making their life and surroundings enviable

Jesus showered his blessings on them is the nonsense you are taught. Their land and surrounding were funded by looting and plundering other places. Not that your leaders don’t loot and plunder too but the difference is that they applied and invested in science and technology with the stolen loot. But stay there thinking some jew fairy tale character showered his blessings. If the magic jew had blessings to shower, your land wouldn’t be filled with misery and impoverished people despite all the Christianity in the land.

Edusouls:
people pray to get visas to travel to their land, not Africa that worship wicked and unforgiving deities for thousands of years before Christianity came, still till today we embrace Christianity selfishly for our own interests rather than to serve the people, see our land? Una think say God be fool

The other lie they told you is that your deities are “wicked and unforgiving” but I wonder what is more repulsive or wicked than the god you worship. Your god was created by greedy, violent, and unscrupulous people whose agenda was to acquire wealth by all means possible. Your Bible is filled with tales of violence and wickedness by the Hebrew shit you call god but somehow that doesn’t count in your mind. God has to exist for it to be a fool, but fools say in their hearts that god exists.
Anyway my point remains, your “wicked and unforgiving” deities are cut from the same cloth as your Hebrew deity and they are all juju.

rickyrex:
well nah people like una dey think say person wey make am do juju.

It doesn’t work like that. The juju works by extorting people stupid enough to place religious authority on a pedestal. This way they tithe and offer their way to untold riches. The Catholics also employed violence exerted by various European governments they influenced. Regardless, juju nah juju.

rickyrex:
nothing like juju ogbeni. even here in nigeria, catholic church has the most beautiful building

Another example of their juju working well.

Juju pass juju. Look at all the buildings, gold, marble, precious stones, and fine linens. Their juju pays off handsomely.

LordReed:
How could the author of Genesis have seen everything in Genesis?

You are yet to prove even 1 case of me lying so you can put your trash accusations in your pocket. LoLz.

Go to the minute 4:25 of the video to see how the conversation between the god and the author of genesis went.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2af4gcS-b9Y

Kobojunkie:
1. You find the same pattern wherever you find religion. So, this isn't in any way unique to the Christian religion. Religion is a system that is built on doctrines and traditions conjured up in the minds of men and designed by men with the intention of wielding authority and power over the minds and lives of their fellow men.
So naturally, it follows that there will be many interpretations as each sect will work to dominate its own base using its own version of the template.

How is the Bible or any other religious text exempt from what you wrote?
Are they also conjured up in the minds of men and designed by men?
The Bible as the template is a good example of your final point seeing the myriad of interpretations including yours.

Wilgrea7:
Compliments of the season sir
When i talk of a "higher cause", like i pointed out to Endtimer, I'm not necessarily talking of a conscious one, or a centralized one.

Giving a negative definition of this “higher cause” does not clarify your idea.

Wilgrea7:
We all understand the law of cause and effect.

No, I’m not aware of such law. Things really can’t be boiled down to simple cause and effect. Myriad things work together to form temporary structures or events but most of it can’t be boiled down to cause and effect. Take daylight for example and how it happens, can you describe it as simple cause and effect?

Wilgrea7:
Our universe, regardless of how we observe it, seems to have a cause. Or a reason for existing.

It could very well have a cause or causes and reason or reasons for existing but it’s definitely not apparent to me at least.

Wilgrea7:
Like i also mentioned to Endtimer, it seems to lead back to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing"

What is “nothing”? Can you imagine nothing? Rhetorical questions.

Why does everything exists? That question is beyond humanity’s pay grade.

Wilgrea7:
So in regards to that, I classify whatever reasons for this as the "higher cause"

Can I classify whatever reasons for the “higher cause” as the “highest cause” or are we to abruptly terminate this chain of cause at “higher cause”?

Bat4ever2023:
thanks, unfortunately the family isn't in Nigeria. Nigerians authorities will just bill you and set you free. So how do i make reparations. Note. The person committed suicide because of my actions.

Then find the family and quietly do the needful. Besides, I wouldn’t want to go to a Nigerian prison or deal with Nigerian authorities either.

Bat4ever2023:
I was once a serial fraudster before i accepted Jesus into my life. Note. Jesus himself has claimed me as his own person.
Now I've put on the white garment that we were told to do in revelations. Unfortunately it seems as every time i sleep. I hear laughter in the background with the cries of a woman. As if the person laughing is enjoying the tears. Sometimes i wake up as i myself partook in the enjoyment.
I took this issue to a friend of mine who comes from a very ancient Jewish lineage. He advised i do some Jewish customs.
Unfortunately. It seems as if I'm having a big crisis of faith. Do i follow his customs or what.
I asked the holy spirit and his answer was that i am fighting against myself.. I brought this here to hear opinions from my Christian Brethren.

Christianity and Jew nonsense: the refuge of the scumbag.

A thousand magical Jews named Jesus can claim you, you can talk to a thousand Jewish people claiming descent from ancient savages, you can ask a thousand holy spirits but you will never find peace.
You don’t get to kill people then absolve your conscience with that Christian jew nonsense. Either go confess to the legal authorities or go find a way to quietly reduce the pain of the person’s family.

Wilgrea7:
Belief seems somewhat irrelevant here, considering we have evidence for a "higher cause" (once again, not necessarily a conscious one, or what people would consider a "mind, or anything in the religious sense". But then again, I wouldn't go as far as to describe this general concept as "god" because of what the name often implies.

What is the evidence for a “higher cause”? How does this evidence show its singular and not multiple?

Endtimer:
Let's not pretend like you're smart enough to know.



This is what I mean when I say you simply aren't very intelligent. I mean that as an honest observation and not an insult. It would be smart of you to wait for others to do the thinking and to simply copy and memorize what they say. The example given had a point, which you've scarcely addressed, instead choosing to attack it because you do not know how examples work or because you simply cannot wrap your head around the point. The last part quoted above is simply you insisting that your point of view is properly basic.



The dimwittedness on display here is as amusing as it is frustrating.



No. Actually it is simply more vocabulary that you do not know and are too lazy to investigate. This is the second time you've failed to make an elementary inference: "proper basicity" cannot be about chemistry. Why would a human being even think that. Furthermore, you are as arrogant as you are uneducated, unable to ask for the definitions of terms you are ignorant of because it would expose the intellectual underclass you belong to.

Now, this is “proper basicity”. Still don’t know what chemistry has to do with it though. Lol

Endtimer:
You cannot seem to grasp that we both bear burdens of proof in this argument as we are both making claims. You are stuck imagining a scenario where an atheist is approached by some proselytizer who alone bears the burden of proof by virtue of starting the conversation. In reality however they are both obligated to have evidence pointing them to their views regardless of whether they are arguing against people who disagree and even before they begin discussing these views with others. To put it so simply that you could hope to understand, I am asking why you are an atheist in the first place, with the caveat that you must include reasons pointing toward a godless universe and not just away from religion. I am also extending this question to Wilgrea7.

I’m not an atheist. The supernatural or the so called “divine” is just a subset of fiction. Since gods are supernatural or divine, they are obviously fiction. Gods also do not appear outside of fiction, be it religious or profane, and their actions are extraordinary and unlike what actually happens in reality. I have no belief or unbelief in Thor and regard him as an extant work of fiction and same goes for El, the Mesopotamian fiction you call “God”.

Endtimer:
I should also add that the first sentence of the above paragraph isn't entirely true. I was merely being gracious. Nobody who believes in the existence of "god" (as I've defined the concept earlier in this thread) has to provide reasons for this belief as it is properly basic.

Yes, you do have to provide reasons if you insist in an argument that your god is more than fiction. If you believe Thor is more than Scandinavian fiction or Marvel comic fiction it’s up to you to provide reasons than don’t consist entirely of your beliefs(opinion, faith). Same goes with “God”.

Endtimer:
Everybody comes to that conclusion naturally.

That’s a joke. If they came to the same conclusion naturally, they would believe the same thing. However, your opinion about gods is entirely dependent on your genealogy and geography.

Endtimer:
For instance, if we take a number of people, wipe their memories and dump them naked on various uninhabited islands they will sooner or later come to the conclusion that "god" exists.

No, they would not.

Endtimer:
I know this for a fact, because it already happened: fragmented and completely remote human societies all around the planet all came to the same conclusion (feel free to ignorantly point out exceptions).

It has never happened. No one comes to an opinion about gods on their own and like I said before, it is totally dependent on on your genealogy and geography. They have been and there are still atheistic societies and gods themselves were created by ancient people based personification of the natural world. No society came to the same conclusion so that’s just one of your baseless claims.

Endtimer:
The reason for this is that the existence of god is self evident. We know that god exists just as we know that we exist. However, for the sake of kindness I will (and have) provided evidence that our common sense as a species is rational. It is time for atheists to do the same!

All these is meaningless babble. Gods are obviously fictional and that is the only thing that is “self evident”

Endtimer:
The point of the example given, was that the atheist caveman believes the truth-claim: "there are no other planets", and feels no obligation to provide evidence to support this because he had never considered any alternatives prior to the theist caveman's challenge. The view is self-evident to him and that's that. Ironically, you continue your response by insisting that your point of view is properly basic:


To beat a dead horse further, the above is only true if the second caveman is not concerned with believing the truth. I suspect, however, that you truly did misunderstand the story I told. For emphasis: the atheist caveman is making the claim that other planets do not exist, much like modern atheists make the claim that god does not exist. Unless atheists are ok with believing lies then they have an obligation (to themselves at least) to have reason for believing as they do.

Lastly, I should note that your feigning ignorance about the definition of the term "god" is a shameful attempt at winning any argument. It is also not true. Not only have I pleaded with you to use a dictionary to enlighten yourself, I have also defined it several times already in posts on this thread, although not addressed to you. You should have left the thinking to the more intelligent atheist I was already conversing with.

The only reasonable thing you said is “don’t beat a dead horse further”.
Another reason why your analogy is senseless is the you can’t use something as apparent as a planet for your ridiculous analogy about the vague idea of god and your continued attempt to shift the burden of proof is farcical. Both cavemen would be aware of planets by virtue of the definition, “wandering star”, your theist caveman does not have to rely on making claims without support. Both caveman CAN SEE the “wandering stars”
Your analogy would be better if the “theist caveman” claimed that those planets are gods. Yet, it would still be up to the “theist caveman” to convince the “atheist caveman” that the wandering star is indeed a “god” and that is after explaining what a “god” is. The “atheist caveman” can they show the “theist caveman” that those planets are not gods but similar to the ground they stand on.

Endtimer:
I was talking about proper basicity and do not need a lesson in effective caveman communication.

Is “proper basicity” a synonym for “proper bullshit”? Or what does chemistry have to do with this?

KnownUnknown:
No, it is not the same thing. I didnot take a position of belief or unbelief about the existence of a non-defined “blue thing”. The “blue thing” is essentially meaningless because the person claiming it exists can’t even define it therefore I don’t believe the person’s claim.

Endtimer:
You do not believe the other person's claim that the blue thing exists; therefore you do believe it does not exist. This is surprisingly simple logic, even for you and yet you fail to grasp it. Like a child, you want to play at words and suggest that you do not believe the person, but as I've demonstrated, belief in anything is binary (like being pregnant) inasmuch as you possess basic knowledge concerning it. You may oscillate between believing it and not as you learn more, but you cannot avoid one of these positions except by virtue of stupidity. Repeatedly claiming that the blue thing is poorly defined is only a justification for your belief in its inexistence, rather than the proof you imagine it is that you believe neither in its existence nor inexistence.

What’s the main difference between 'belief' and 'believe'? So, 'believe' (with a v) is a verb. It means to have confidence in the truth. Then, 'belief' (with an f) is a noun. It means a religious faith or the feeling of being certain that something is true.

Because 'belief' and 'believe' are almost homophones (words that sound alike), they are often confused. Here are some tips on how to tell them apart.

https://ielts.idp.com/prepare/article-grammar-101-belief-vs-believe

sonmvayina:
Ask for wisdom and understanding...it will become clear..

Pull your head out of your ass and it becomes clear.

sonmvayina:
I agree...

Just based on context..that is what I am clarifying...I know they never existed...

You know that characters from Hebrew mythology never existed so what the hell are you complaining about Christianity for?!
If you were capable of honesty you’d tell them the nonsensical Hebrew god is not real talk-less of the super jew bastard that crawled out of a virgin’s ass.

Endtimer:
You would still be saying you do not believe in the existence of the blue thing!

No, it is not the same thing. I didnot take a position of belief or unbelief about the existence of a non-defined “blue thing”. The “blue thing” is essentially meaningless because the person claiming it exists can’t even define it therefore I don’t believe the person’s claim.

Endtimer:
Here's a story to make it illustrate our arguments. The theist and atheist are like two cavemen who've spent their entire lives living between rocks, when all of a sudden one asks the other if he believes in the existence of other planets. Perplexed, the atheist caveman asks what a planet is (which would be understandable for a caveman as he doesn't have access to dictionaries or the internet or kind adults to ask).

After being brought up to speed on what a planet is, the atheist caveman rejects their existence on the grounds that he cannot sense them whatsoever. He spends the rest of his time saying things like:



It does not occur to him that he, like the theist caveman, wants to know what is true and should question what positive proof he has for his belief. After all, he is making the unsubstantiated claim that "planets do not exist" and is at a loss for ways to prove it. Even worse, the theist caveman has provided evidence indicating that it is very likely there are other planets. The atheist caveman, however, is unfazed. He assumes he is right and has no obligation to himself to ask whether his view is warranted at all.

Your analogy is nonsensical. You calling one caveman atheist and the other theist when the discussion is about planets is senseless. A handful of planets can be seen with the naked eye so all one caveman has to do is show the other how to observe and explain phenomena. There is no belief or unbelief required because the issue can be settled by simple observation. The idea that the “theist caveman” would be calling it a planet and not a god is a joke. You keep being disingenuous by trying and failing to shift the burden of proof from the people making claims about deity to those who don’t have to do nothing but point out the nonsensical nature of the beliefs.
Your piss poor analogy is because you are unaware that the five brightest planets - Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn - have been known since ancient times and can easily be seen with the naked eye if one knows when and where to look. So your “theist caveman” does not have to resolve to Christian apologetics and mealy mouthed bullshit to show the “atheist caveman” that planets exist.

Endtimer:
I am pointing out here that the reason the atheist caveman doesn't bother coming up with proof that planets do not actually exist is that he assumes that his point of view is the properly basic, neutral starting point. He believes he is correct from the start and just has to disprove the theist caveman's points to remain correct. Fortunately, Wilgrea7 has begun to understand me. Hopefully, you will too.

The second caveman does not have to provide proof that planets do not exist; that’s utterly senseless. It’s up to the first caveman who happens to know about planets to show the other where, when, what, and how.

sonmvayina:
If I call you a dummy you will be angry..

But you are a dummy.

Moses was addressing the people in front of him...he was referring to Joshua who took them into the promised land...
If it is going to happen 1000 years later, why should it concern them ?
Mr max, there is no jesus in the old testament,..Christianity is not derived from Judaism...

ABRAHAM, Jacob, Moses, King David, and King Solomon in all his splendour, never existed, a 15-year study of archaeological evidence has concluded.

The study - by Professor Thomas Thompson, one of the world's foremost authorities on biblical archaeology - says that the first 10 books of the Old Testament are almost certainly fiction, written between 500 and 1,500 years after the events they purport to describe.

Professor Thompson's claims, outlined in a new book, The Early History of the Israelite People, are being taken seriously by scholars.

The British Museum's leading expert on the archaeology of the Holy Land, Jonathan Tubb, said last week: 'Professor Thompson may well be right in many of his arguments. His book is a work of tremendous scholarship. He has been meticulous in his research, and brave in expressing what many of us have thought intuitively for a long time but have been reticent in saying.'

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/leading-archaeologist-says-old-testament-storeis-are-fiction-1500431.html?amp

Endtimer:
On the other hand, God, I believe, is the actual existence of deity.

God is the actual existence of god.

Wilgrea7:
If I asked you. Do you believe in the blue moving thing? I'm sure your response would be something like "what??"

It seems more difficult to form a belief on something that lacks a clear definition. If further pressed on the issue in the absence of evidence, i think most people would just simply say they don't believe in the blue thing.

I don’t know about most people but I would never simply say “I don’t believe in” the blue thing.
I would say I don’t believe you ( the person making the claim) because “the blue thing” is probably nonsense.

Endtimer:
This new ignorance schtick is already old. Other than distracting from more important points, what do you aim to accomplish by asking me to serve as a dictionary. The basic assumption that I and Wilgrea7 are operating on is that everyone involved in this debate has basic knowledge of the English language. If I use a term in some special way, I will let you know. Until then rely on Oxford's or Merriam-Webster's.

The schtick is that you argue based on your assumptions that you would rather remain unchallenged. It’s a valid question because a deity is not something you can point to and have it understood universally.
I wouldn’t ask you what water is because it’s universal and apparent.
I don’t know what deity is but I won’t take it against you if you can’t explain it.

Endtimer:
While this is just more willful ignorance, I will clarify that agnosticism as I used it is related to theism and atheism, rather than Gnosticism. This is a simple contextual inference. It is simply a relatively neutral starting point for us to discuss our beliefs without solely appealing to proper basicity. We assume that we know nothing about the existence of god (or whether there is a god) and propose and oppose the motion with our own points.

Like I said, you are already assuming things so what’s the point of the debate? I mean you already assume that whatever god is, it must be singular.

Endtimer:
This is different from the usual sport where the theist uses points and the atheist counters them like a penalty shootout. This is a complete match, with both teams trying to win by scoring goals and defending against others.

There is no match and the atheist would be wasting time arguing against a theist whose only position is making outlandish claims and arguments from ignorance. I mean you claim the atheist is wrong because they haven’t refuted a proposition that can’t be refuted. How does one argue against the nonexistence of god?
Why is god subject to argument in the first place?

Endtimer:
Why is that exactly?

To understand what they mean by it.

Endtimer:
While this point is irrelevant to the larger theme of your post, I couldn't resist referencing it. According to you, the assumption here is that "god exists" and yet this is something "the theist needs to prove". Maybe you cannot see how that doesn't make any sense.

It makes sense because it was the response to your claim that the assumption in this arguments is that “god does not exist”. The assumption is obviously the theist’s position that god(s) exists and you are being disingenuous by saying it’s the atheists position. The atheist wouldn’t have to counter the assumption of the theist assume in the fist place.

Endtimer:
While you are yet to point out your view on the matter in a complete and logical sense, I already suspect that you are committing the fallacy of appealing to ignorance because of the same proper basicity (or self-evidence) I've recently discussed on this same thread. When you do make your own points I will try to address them.

How am I appealing to ignorance? I haven’t even said anything about your proposition being true or false because you haven’t clarified your position. This has been about the arguments between theists and atheists.
So, what is a deity?

First of all, my view is that atheists leave room for theist objection when they say they lack belief in god not that the theist’s position is strengthened in any way, shape, or form.

Endtimer:
I am simply trying to get him to provide positive proof for the inexistence of deity.

That is disingenuous and he should ask you:
What is deity?
Can you show what a deity is?

Endtimer:
Assuming we start from the position of agnosticism and both have to prove our points (as it would be in any rational debate), the scales would swing massively in favor of theism.

Assuming you start from the position of agnosticism, he should ask what you mean by agnosticism?
Why agnosticism and not Gnosticism?
There are multiple definition of the gnostic/agnostic afterall e.g.
Gnosticism: Knowledge that “scriptures” are allegorical
Agnosticism: Lack of knowledge about the allegorical nature of scripture.

To your point, beginning from a position of agnosticism (as you define it) means there is some presumption which implies there is proof. If he argues based on those presumptions, he would just be wasting his time.

Endtimer:
This is largely because the assumption in these arguments is usually that god does not exist and that the theist is making an outlandish claim that he needs to prove.

No, that’s been disingenuous. The only assumption in these arguments is that “god” exists, which is a claim that the theist needs to prove. The other party does not have to prove anything, especially if they don’t presume that they know what you mean by “god”.
IHe should ask you, what is “god”?

Endtimer:
The atheist simply sits and judges the performance, often shooting down the theist's proofs and imagining that he is demonstrating that god does not exist.

The atheist is still right about that despite his presumptions. Shooting down proofs does not demonstrate that “god” does it exist, it just a means the theist’s position is baseless and without support.

Endtimer:
It simply does not occur to him that he needs to provide evidence confirming his own position, rather than just tearing down other's.

He does not need to do anything but question. He does not have to prove anything unless you ask him:
What is this god that you lack belief in?

Endtimer:
Like I've said before, this is because the starting assumption is that atheism is the natural state of things and the believer wants to disrupt the natural order, but must have just cause - in the form of proof - to do so.

Atheism is not a natural state of things.
Theism is not a natural state of things.
The natural state of things is “What the Bleep is a god?”

Righteousness2:
Man's inhumanity to a fellow human.

The Wickedness, evil and abominations in our Generation is out of this world.
Sodom, Gomorrah and the rest did not do up to this.

These are sort of wicked Wickedness that made God to repent for creating man.

[b][/b]

WARNING!!! GOD WILL DESTROY HUMANITY AGAIN!!
Flee from the Wrath to come. The Only Escape route is through a Genuie relationship with JESUS Christ.

F#ck you, the disgusting creature called Muoka, and the Hebrew nonsense you call god. Aren’t there stories of your god and his chosen savages kidnapping and raping in that collection of bullshit you call Bible? If your psycho god were real the rapists in the OP would be his people.

P

Aemmyjah:
Where are Zeus records?

The universe bears testament and is evidence of Zeus’ maximally great immaterially spaceless and timeless glory.

Kobojunkiee:
BULLSHEET!

what is your evidence that it’s BULLSHEET?!