₦airaland Forum

Ptolomeus: All your arguments were demolished.
You have not presented a single element that brings clarity to the discussion, you've only taken a blind defense of a lost cause.
I confess I have been very easy to show that God has given us pests.
So it was fun in front of their weak and contradictory arguments.

aletheia: Furthermore, the Bible condemns in clear terms slavers. . .and prescribes rules that mitigates the baser aspects of slavery. In ancient societies, slaves had well-prescribed legal rights. Your ignorance is compounded by your assumption that all slaves were so because they were seized and sold off into slavery, ignoring the record of history that shows that quite a number were born as slaves or forced into slavery by misfortune.

aletheia: Illogical emotional rantings. So some servants are not beaten, whipped or mutilated by their employers because they are paid. Clearly you are a dunce!

aletheia: When the bible uses the term bondservant? Is it any different from slave.

aletheia: .

Clearly we must add critical reading of a passage and understanding it to your educational requirement list. Or is it a question of having poor English reading skills? You ignore the key phrases "he shall be punished". . .which show that he will die for killing another human being. The other key phrase is "since the slave is his own property" which clearly shows that slavery was an economic system of production.

aletheia: Moreover, you dishonest f[b]o[/b]ol are deliberately silent on verses 26 and 27 of the same chapter: which show that the intent and spirit of God's commands do forbid mutilation and force.

aletheia: Failing to logically make your case . . . you appeal to emotions. Nonsense. There is no God --- you say. Why then does God's condemnation or not of slavery bother you? Why is slavery a bad thing? Your deficient argument is summarized thus:
1) Slavery is bad because some slaves are beaten & mutilated. Unfortunately for you --- one needs not be a slave before being beaten and mutilated.
2) Slavery is bad because slaves are not paid. Quite silly argument because --- your definition of payment is quite narrow. Not all economic exchanges need involve money. The slave works. . .in exchange he is clothed, fed, housed and taken care of when ill. Isn't that basically what he would use any earned money for?
3) Working as a servant is better because servants are paid (really - all servants are paid?) and are not beaten or mutilated (yeah, right - how naive you are)

aletheia: 3) Working as a servant is better because servants are paid (really - all servants are paid?) and are not beaten or mutilated (yeah, right - how naive you are)

Mai-suya:
^
given a world population that runs in billions, I won't call the ratio you provided as negligible. Also bear in mind that this ratio varies significantly in different regions, countries and cities. Adjusting the age to the marriage age (aprox. 15) will also tilt the ratio a bit, and many other variables and provisions you need to take into consideration. Note Islam does not recognises homosexuality or lesbianism, infact they are crimes as far as Islam is concerned.(that wil also affect the ratio).

ea7: Let's discuss atheism vs deism. Merits and logic of both sides . If some theists would like to chip in their own two cents, they are free, however buzugee, rastamouse and snthesis(for a different reason than the other two) can watch from the sidelines. If Davidylan wants to join in, he'd better be civil. Okay 3,2,1, let the games begin!!!

Blackteeth: Oh I see. Its better saying this than all your bu.llshit talks about everything creating itself from matter that came from nowhere. Do you think human suffering is the heavy evidence that God doesnt exist?

OLAADEGBU: The Wandering Mind

Ptolomeus: Exactly dear friend.
It seems that the blame for everything bad is the devil or Adam ...
Since we do not agree with these aberrations, surely they will say we are demons ...
What are some philosophies simplistic!

Deep Sight: I have read the link and I must say it was glaring from the context of the first usage that our logicboy did indeed think Israel is in Europe. Funny enough, the subsequent excuses, such as Trade Agreements and Sports, are actually economic matters. As far as political alliances go, the United States, as you mentioned, is actually Israel's cheif allied party in International Politics.

Deep Sight: I have read the link and I must say it was glaring from the context of the first usage that our logicboy did indeed think Israel is in Europe. Funny enough, the subsequent excuses, such as Trade Agreements and Sports, are actually economic matters. As far as political alliances go, the United States, as you mentioned, is actually Israel's cheif allied party in International Politics.

aletheia: Christian apologist theories? And I haven't even quoted one Bible verse yet. Is that what you call what I wrote above? You are more confused than I thought. Wait until I start the apologetics.



F[b]oo[/b]lish child. So if one practices humane slavery --- without beating or mutilating his slave --- then that's good? Go and do some thinking and reading, then perhaps you will realize what exactly is wrong with slavery --- and it is not the mutilation or beating that some slaves endure. For one who egomaniacally calls himself "logicboy". You are apt to fly off the emotional handle . . . presenting ill thought out & illogical arguments.



Clearly we must add critical reading of a passage and understanding it to your educational requirement list. Or is it a question of having poor English reading skills? You ignore the key phrases "he shall be punished". . .which show that he will die for killing another human being. The other key phrase is "since the slave is his own property" which clearly shows that slavery was an economic system of production.

Moreover, you dishonest f[b]o[/b]ol are deliberately silent on verses 26 and 27 of the same chapter: which show that the intent and spirit of God's commands do forbid mutilation and force.

Slavery was very widespread throughout the Middle East in ancient times. The Israelites simply adopted the custom of their many neighboring cultures. . .just as they adopted the monarchial system. God included regulations to control and limit the practice. Simple


If it was accepted in their time --- why is that a problem for you. It was an economic system. . .and a means of production. The Bible prescribed rules for it just as it did similarly for other aspects of economic practice.

musKeeto: @DeepSight: https://www.nairaland.com/913787/5-things-that-turn-christians/4#10639520
Get ready to be really disappointed..

Blackteeth: Now I suspect logicboy to be a theist or an atheist who has long accepted the truth. I guess he is just playing arround and pretendind to be an atheists.

Deep Sight: Of course that is true of all life we have observed in this realm.

This can only mean that there is a pre-existent life.

That pre-existent life which is the cause we refer to is intangible and thus eternal.

Material life is tangible and thus not eternal.




Gotcha. Don't even know the discussion you guys were referring to. Can you give me the link?


I will look for the link for the discussion.

As for material and intangibel lives, you should know that I will never believe in an intangible life since I am an atheist

aletheia: Hahaha. . .so what is wrong with slavery is whipping & mutilation? Meaning by your infantile reasoning, those slaves who were not whipped or mutilated, had a good thing going.

The education of "logicboy" begins. . .

Typical of you poorly educated sort with grandiose delusions of enlightenment. You see slavery and the imagery for you is the transatlantic slave trade and it's associated evils. You ignore the basic fact that slavery is first and foremost an economic system of sinful Man just like Capitalism & Communism which it predates. And like Capitalism & Communism: there are associated ills and evils. The decline of slavery was just a question of time with the advent of the industrial revolution & the advent of mass production techniques.

Here is your assignment: Go research the link between the invention of the Cotton Gin and the American Civil War.

Furthermore, the Bible condemns in clear terms slavers. . .and prescribes rules that mitigates the baser aspects of slaves. In ancient societies, slaves had well-prescribed legal rights. Your ignorance is compounded by your assumption that all slaves were so because they were seized and sold off into slavery, ignoring the record of history that shows that quite a number were born as slaves or forced into slavery by misfortune.

Being ignorant of this facts; you chose to hide behind "whipping, chaining & mutilation".

This link will help further your education

Deep Sight: You need to understand that believing in God is not the same thing as being Religious. Alot of people who believe in God are entirely non-religious.

It is false to say that a higher IQ creates a greater likelihood of being an atheist.



What has Havard got to do with this? Why are you shying away by introducing Havard or even the presidency. I mentioned neither. I mentioned only a man, Barack Obama, and his faith. By your own attestation, you had said that no creationist can be intelligent: that was your statement, was it not? Barack is a creationist, and you admit he is very intelligent indeed: so your initial boast simply has been put to sleep, period.



Yes.

And by the way, there is no scientist on this planet who understands the big b.ang. Knowledge about it is scanty, and still very much being researched.



You are getting distracted by something, is there a se.xy secretary in your office strutting about? Lol, I never mentioned these. I simply drew your attention to the fact that scientifically, it is proven that life only comes from pre existing life. That is very solidly scientifically proven. Suppositions to the contrary are not proven: they are speculations. This renders the position of the theist in line with proven science.

Thus, atheism is unscientific.

PS: Is Israel also 'politically' in North America?

Deep Sight: ^^^ Nope!

jayriginal: A better headline would have been,
"Oyedepo Slapped With Suit for Slapping Female Worshiper"

Blackteeth: Thats why you are an atheist. Because you saw that the bible contains flaws, therefore God is fake. What a conclusion!
Think beyond the bible my friend.

Deep Sight: I dont agree, but let us leave that as it is a distraction. Semantics may be getting in the way.



All physical living things, yes.



God is timeless. God is not material or physical and as such your presupposition does not work with regard to God.



Good, and neither goodness/perfection or omnipotence are required to sustain such a definition, are they?

musKeeto: And this is coming from logicboy who on another claimed Israel is in Europe... a waste of time and internet connection..

Deep Sight: You speak about processes such as photosynthesis, adaptation, etc. That misses the point because the question of God's existence is about how the matter and energy that led to these processes exist in the first place? Do they magically pop out of nothingness? Is that scientific?

When you say that religion has an invesrse relationship to intelligence, I think thats is a presumption, and a high-handed one at that. I disagree: Geniuses the world over are often deeply religious people. I mean you cannot look at people of outstanding accomplishment globally and think that the fact that they are religious renders them less intelligent. Its a fallacy. Very soon you will be telling us that Barack Obama is less intelligent on account that he is a person of religious faith?

Atheism is NOT scientific. The fact that many scientists may be atheists does nothing to make atheism scientific. Infact, as I said earlier, atheism is anti-thetical to every known scientific canon. Scientific laws thoroughly negate the premises of atheism. As far as science is concerned, the laws of motion, laws of cause and effect, all tie up with the experiments of Loius Pasteur which show, up till date, that life only comes from pre-existing life

Arguing the contrary will amount to toeing the long discreditted perspective of spontaenous generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

As such, atheism is indeed eminently unscientific.

Goshen360: IGNORE MY COMMENTS AND DON'T COMMENT HERE SAYS INSTRUCTION/OP. OLODO

aletheia: For one who calls himself "logicboy". . .your "logic" is terribly deficient.

1. Is it a necessary condition of slavery that slaves gets whipped, chained & mutilated? Answer: NO

2. Do all slaves get whipped, chained & mutilated? Answer: NO

3. Why is it so difficult for you to answer my question in clear, lucid and logical terms --- what is wrong with slavery?

4. You asserted that Jesus is a coward for saying nothing on slavery. . .and yet your own cowardice is revealed by the plain and simple question: what is wrong with slavery?. A direct question which you have assiduously failed to answer while hiding behind emotional bluster.

It is ironic "logicboy" that you appeal to emotions. Logic I thought does not require emotions to state it's case.

The simple question --- what is wrong with slavery? has revealed your vain empty emotional grandstanding for what it is.

Now be man enough to answer the question so that we can proceed with our conversation. . .

Goshen360: WHATEVER. JUST LEAVE US. GO AWAY FROM THIS THREAD PLEASE OR I GO REPORT UNA TO MODERATORS. PLEASSEEEE. LEAVE US. THE OP SAYS ATHEISTS ARE NOT NEEDED AND IT WAS SIMPLE AND CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING. WETIN SEF?

Deep Sight: Nothing to do with God. Greed, Power and empire building are your answers.



Scientists don't exist only in the United States, do they? Anyhow that is actually beside the point. You sought to show that "converting" more atheists is a good thing. How does your statistic show that to be a good thing? Are the scientists who are atheist, by that reason alone, better people and better human beings than their theist compatriots?

Deep Sight: That's your assumption. I say to you that God is natural. In fact, I say to you that there is nothing supernatural in existence anywhere. Oya, ride with that.



The mathematical standards in terms of probable proof which are accepted in mainstream science as proof in terms of quantification of probabilities are the same standards that are outrightly rejected in terms of the calculation of the probability of the existence of something like the human brain alone.

That ought to be food for thought for you, Kind, noble, lofty and gentle sir.



Do not make a caricature of theistic propositions. Bigfoot is just that. The God proposition is altogether serious, sober and reasonable: it states that a pre-existent causative element necessarily triggered this reality. Comparaing such a serious philosophical notion to big foot is just big mischeif.

bigd4050: I agree with the intention of what your saying. I think that scientific laws can help us. "Something can not come out of nothing". While that debunks evolution, it doesn't help creationism either, because where did God come from? We can say that he exists out of the laws of this universe, but that isn't proving he exists either. Scientifically, it leaves us at a stalemate.

Goshen360: I changed my mind. Abi e don become sin to change one's mind? I don't want to argue with Atheists plsssssssssssss. Infact, you guys are distorting our discussion here plssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss. Did the OP said you guys are NOT needed or not? It means says una no dey hear word. Leave us plsssssssssssssssssssssssss.

Jenwitemi: Why the insultive word, though? Is that another sign of atheists winning theological debates?

Deep Sight: This is false. God has never been a reason for anybody's acts of murder. Greed and power in the name of religion rather are.



Reflecting on this only shows that the common denominator (religion) is not the problem. If it were, why do you have category A in your above?



Don't make general claims, produce statistics. Besides if most scientists in Norway for example are agnostic, that would largely be because most of the population is agnostic anyway. Nothing special there.