₦airaland Forum

frank317:
why will an atheist be less likely to want to get married?

It's a statistical reference not that every atheist will be less likely but the fact is atheists will probably rethink the traditional meaning of marriage and in doing so will not accept the religious connotations. That is not going to be a simple process and finding people that accept your redefinition is not going be easy either.

jimmynauty:
The people in that story received from HIM, Yahshua.. so have you humbled yourself to receive His Words afterwards He will grant you your desire.... Keyword are you HUMBLE or just want to play with His word

Where do I meet this Yahsua?

Amatarasha:
Lordreed isnt an original atheist but African atheist who shout blood of Jesus sighting mere cockroaches at night!
Who takes him serious

[img]https://c./Qi5QCoA8CiUAAAAC/cardi-b-turnt.gif[/img]

frank317:
I am not sure I agree with this....

possess these qualities: good job, relatable, good looking and u will get married if u are interested. many ladies say God fearing man is a criteria but, like god that quality is a mirage and never seen

I would say it's not really about people not wanting the atheist but of the atheist being less likely to want marriage.

hopefulLandlord:
Was it nairaland statistics you looked at or worldwide statistics? because OP is referring to nairaland atheists

Worldwide I think it was but might have been US based I can't recall.

hopefulLandlord:
because he didn't question the premise on which you created this thread, something he should've done

Because I have looked at actual statistics and it does seem like atheists are less likely to be married.

jimmynauty:
Scenario: The people looked to Yahshua and received His words almost the whole day and were famished, tired and hungry....

Are you famished, tired and hungry?

Not right now but in an hour or so I will be. Are you going to multiply bread for me to eat?

TenQ:
At the point of singularity all laws of physics break down. Even if we want to say the universe had always existed, the increasing entropy of the universe shows that the universe could only have been eternal if it's entropy was a constant. A contradiction: meaning that the universe could not have existed forever.

If the universe entropy is increasing, we can easily trace back to when entropy would have been minimum. As we cannot have negative entropy, we arrive at the same point of the universe not being eternal.

Sorry dear.

My question was about time not entropy. Try again but answer the question this time.

JackDaAlienz:
I went to my uncles home for christmas holiday and what i experienced there was dissapointing

How can a GROWN MAN not control and enforce home traning on his 4 little kids.
He always leave everything for the wife, who is overwhelmed and is not doing a good job either.

The worst part is that he will allow these kids to be awake watching tv till 12 am midnight while he will be playing video games.
If the kid misbehave, i correct them, they start crying loud and this man will always come out and defend them.
He cant command his kids to go to bed, he always beg them.
A grown man begging his kids to go to bed..
Wtfffff
And if you see how big this my incle is you will think he is ufc fighter but at home his children are the boss.

He always talks like he is smart but i feel PITY for him when these Children grow up to be mannerless cult boys, he will be scratching his head asking what did he do wrong.

Some men are not fit to be fathers
some of them are still Baby Adults that cant train their kids.

From your description it seems your uncle is overindulging his children. There is a place for allowing children to be children and there is a place for discipline. However I don't agree with you that they must necessarily become bad just because parental care is lacking. They will certainly make serious mistakes if they grow up spoilt but it takes more than lack of parental care to become a bad person.

jamesid29:
Again the summary of the text wasn't excluding the origin of the universe as opposed to the the origin of inflation. Read the whole page and the preceding page I posted sir
No such demarcation is made by the theorem, hence why I pasted the whole page and it's preceding context.
Basically, In the beginning was the beginning:
https://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning.
(Kindly read it, it help explains how the on a popular level, the beginning is the beginning. There's no beginning to the universe prior to the inflation. It's an interview with Dr Vilenkin)

You can subsequently download the free online peer reviewed article I posted also. Here is the link once more: Mithani, Audrey; Vilenkin, Alexander (20 April 2012). "Did the universe have a beginning?". arXiv:1204.4658". - free online.(https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658)

Also read the free article online I posted earlier from Vilenkin where he states his theory and proposes his hypothesis of how the universe could have begun through natural processes. https://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

Also do read "22.2.2 A Proof of God?" from the pictures I posted on pages 331,where Vilenkin propses his own hypothesis on the second part of the cosmological argument( I'm guessing you know what it states).

In any case, I've given you multiple sources on what the theorem states, written by one of the authors itself. if you still choose to mis-interprete a single line of a summary without interacting with any other thing, maybe you should take a step and realise, maybe you are the one holding on strongly to a philosophical bias.




PS: I made an edit to the wiki page, removing the assertion made by the previous editor which none of the source materials nowhere makes and was contradictory to assertions made in the rest of the article.

Listen to Sean Carroll here:

https://slate.com/technology/2016/02/sean-carroll-talks-about-the-beginning-of-the-universe.html

TenQ:
You just showed an example by not attempting to understand what you have rejected yet relishing the fact that your claim of lack of belief is the most intelligent response to whether you believe that hair on people have any benefit.

Agnostism is a position that claims that knowing is impossible!

Therefore your choice is based on not knowing.

Does not knowing make your position TRUE?

You are beginning to sound like your brain needs a reset. My claim that I lacked belief was clearly predicated on a lack of knowledge but here you are attempting to twist it up according to what ever delusion is driving you.

Is it that you just post stuff without bothering to understand what you quote. You posted a definition of agnostic that says is not known OR cannot it be known, clearly implying that there are 2 possible agnostic stances on the knowledge claim. But here you are insisting that it is exactly the one that fits your narrative. If you purpose for this discussion is to win then I am not interested because it means you are ready to use any means necessary instead of settling down to absorb information.

I didn't make a choice. The meaning of the word you brought was unknown to me, how can I form any belief or disbelief in what I don't know? The simple fact is in that state I have no belief but if you want to keep arguing you'll have to do it with yourself.

TenQ:
Can you define the universe?
[color=white]Is the universe the same as the gravitational singularity that inflated to form space, time and matter as we know it?
[/color]

The universe is the sum total of all that exists.

If time began how there be a before?

jamesid29:
Like I said sir, all known physics and theory states that the in universe has a beginning. Inflation might be eternal to the future but not to the past.
This is not just my opinion or theistic bias. This is standard cosmology.

A number of physicists have tried to create models of an eternal universe especially since we don't have a quantum theory of gravity but the BGV theorem is sweeping in its generality. It makes no assumptions about gravity or matter. Gravity may be attractive or repulsive, light rays may converge or diverge, and even general relativity may decline into desuetude: the theorem would still hold.
Basically as long as the average expansion rate is positive along a given world line, or geodesic, then this geodesic must terminate after a finite amount of time.

As you said sir, there has to be something before the universe. The first speck of space, energy & the fundamental laws have had to come from somewhere but that is outside of the hard sciences and into the realm of the meta physical & other disciplines.
But the point is, this universe did have an ultimate starting point. Any other conclusion draws not on what we know, but on what we don't know.

By the way, Vilenkin etc are agnostic as far as I know and do not ascribe the beginning of this universe to a deity or affirms the existence of one. As stated above, that's outside of what physics or what the theory can describe and of course speculations abound.
What is affirmed is that given the theorem the only way to avoid a beginning is to appeal to unknown physics.

Read this to get started:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/07/06/did-the-universe-have-a-beginning/?sh=5138f1244100

Image123:
i don't ask you to, you are the one who keeps living in denial and questioning of the existence.

Except you are the one in denial. More and more people are beginning to realise that homosexuality is natural and normal but you'd rather act the ostrich.

Image123:
Homosexuality is not normal, okay or acceptable by Christian standards. You are discussing on the religion section of the forum. It is also not okay or acceptable by Nigerian standards from the little i know. We don't live in your bubble.

Neither do we live in yours. This is religion section not Christian section. Nor is Nigeria the only country in the world.

jamesid29:
Science says that sir. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.
Every known physics we have points to a universe with an ultimate beginning point.
What science can't say is what was, prior to the universe.

You would only say that if you thought there was nothing before the BB. There was something before the expansion began, you cannot discount that something.

NewSoul:
Ok thanks I love this answer of yours. You could have done things differently if you had been an atheist at an earlier age but you still love the woman you married even if there's now a contrast in belief. You are still tolerant, loving, provide, and taking her views into consideration most time. Don't you think your Christian upbringing made you have these attributes and that's why you can still live peacefully with her. You know Bible stated that we should love our wives and a part said one that is unable to provide for his family is worse than an infidel. Don't you think that all these teachings have subtly registered in your subconscious that's why you can peacefully cohabit with her?

Sure some of my upbringing plays into the way I behave but I will argue that I would have arrived at some of them by rational thought just without any religious attachments or connotations.

Image123:
No, it's not okay and acceptable simply because Sodom and Gomorrah think it is okay and acceptable. There are things terrorists and extremists think to be okay and acceptable which you do not think are, there are things you think okay and acceptable which is haram to some.
In the context of our discussion as a christian in the religion section, it is not okay or acceptable just like other sins like lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, divorce etc are not normal, okay or acceptable.


cc elated177

I am not a Christian so I am not talking as a Christian. You defined normal and homosexuality meets those conditions. If there are other conditions then your meaning of normal must be different.

NewSoul:
Most atheist are single and unmarried. Why? most of you if not all of you. The only one I know who is married is married is LordReed and even he got married as a Christian (Maybe he would have been a bachelor) if he had been an atheist at an early age.

I am just curious to know don't take it personal because I for one do not even fancy the idea of marriage. I have seen so many and I can't pinpoint one and say I'll like this type for myself. But is it that you guys have lost the capacity to love? Because they say God is love and you people say there is no God. If you say there is no God then there can be no love and when there is no love. How can you love your partner and family?

So why are most of you within marriageable age still single? You haven't found atheist like yourselves or what?

I think most are unmarried because they have to rethink what the concept of marriage means without any religious ideas as the basis. It is not an easy thing to do. If I was unmarried when I became an atheist I would have taken my time to redefine it for myself then looked for a partner who would agree with me. That process could take some time in this our neck of the woods where people aren't so open about their lack of belief in deities. Also many atheists decide that the concept of marriage is not really something they want to trouble with and would just prefer to have a romantic partner without the usual ceremony that comes with getting married.

Let me also add that I would have experimented with other forms of union if I was unmarried just to see what best suits me.

DeepSight:
For it has always seemed somewhat odd to me, that one may create something, and then proceed to sit in magisterial judgement over it - in terms of condemning it to destruction or granting it life. In terms of saying that it is good or evil - Because - any such judgement is necessarily a judgment of the Creator itself and no one else, surely?

Who else is responsible for the nature of a created thing if not the creator of the thing?

Agreed. The creator would be judging the creator's own abilities and efforts.

TenQ:
That is nonsensical! It's like basing your "lack of belief" on ignorance and not on any sensible judgement.

The sensible question you should have asked is: what is Ito?

Your refusal to KNOW actually doesn't change anything about the question asked.

It is the explanation that a rational man will use as a basis of Belief or Disbelief.

What if I ask you another question:

Do you believe "hairs" has any function on humans?

You are starting to lose it.

You are trying trick questions now because your position is just full of self deceit. I attempted to define ito but you said I was wrong but instead of you to actual define ito you thought you could trap me. One cannot have beliefs in what one doesn't know however that lack of knowledge came about. Your trap fails. Lack of belief is not disbelief. Stop dribbling your own shadow.

TenQ:
A Belief is a mental position or judgement people make when they have an incomplete information to fully KNOW! The mental position may be taken from logical/rational or emotional perspective. There are also varying degrees to which the logical/rational or emotional arguments is pursued.

This means that ALL forms of agnostism is primarily a BELIEF!

A belief is not necessarily a faulty premise on which judgement is made because in reality manytimes we make decisions where the outcome is not GUARANTEED.
Example:

I take a flight believing that the aeroplane will not crash mid-flight.

Wrong. Agnosticism is a position about knowledge not belief.

TenQ:
It is scientifically accepted that the universe has a beginning about 13.8billion years.
It is scientifically accepted that the universe with end through the dissipation of its energy.

The universe cannot logically create itself.Why?
It needs to be a timeless constant entity.
It should not be subject to the laws of physics

Wrong. Science doesn't say the universe has a beginning.

TenQ:
No!
It's not urine.
Urine is ìtọ̀
Saliva is itọ́
I am asking about "Ito" sounds like (Omi=water) in pronunciation. It's actually an old Yoruba word (depreciated).

So, here is the question again properly put
Do you believe "Ito" has any function on humans?

I lack belief of the ito since I don't know what it is.

Laggafin:
You simply sleeping and heavily snoring

Yeah sure while you are wide awake making nonsense conjectures.

khilardz:
It's quite obvious that Peter still retained his loyalty to the Jewish religious law of an eye for an eye despite spending number of years listening to the teachings of Jesus christ.

A lot must have gone through Peter's mind the night that Jesus was arrested. They were twelve gallant Jews mostly from the streets of Galilee. They could have taken on the Roman soldiers and it could have been a fair fight with a good chances of escape for them, but Jesus picked up the fallen ear of his assailant and magically restored it, then followed them to be crucified like a the lamb that he is.

Peter must have wondered "what manner of man is this Jesus? he doesn't get angry" the only time I could recall Jesus angry was when he went to Jerusalem and found the temple crowded with traders and he was angry why they had turned his father's house to a market place.

Every other time Jesus was paying taxes with a penny from the fish's mouth to the Jews, being nicer to Mary who listened to his teaching as opposed to Martha who busied herself preparing sumptuous meal for the lord Jesus who had visited, and so many good and cheerful things he did even at the point of death!

I like to think that the Jewish religion is more human, direct and realistic which is true to the nature of man as opposed to the Christian religion. It is the nature of man to get angry or afraid when in an unpleasant situation. When faced with a threat, a man either stand to fight back or take a flight to stay alive, and yes, we got this nature of ours from God.

Let me take you through what I understand to be the nature of God.

When Saul was commanded to destroy the Amalekite and all that belonged to them, he disobeyed by looting the remains and God was angry with him which eventually cost him his kingdom but David who was lustful and even went as far as murdering someone's husband just to cover his tracks
of adultery was forgiven! To even crown it all up, that same woman became the mother of the heir to the throne.

David even earned the reputation of being the man after God's heart. Now David is the man that really appealed to the emotions of God, David practically had a romance with God, go read the book of Psalms to confirm this. What do you expect of a man who spent everyday of his young years in the wilderness alone with sheep and the vastness of nature at his disposal, He mastered the art of flattering God with sweets words. In the sweeter parlance, he knew how to tickle God's fancy, thus, he was able to get what he wanted from God. God couldn't help it but forgive him.

From David's story, I learned that God is just as emotional as man, he gets angry, he gets happy, he can be flattered and can as well change his mind.

However God, as much as being loving, kind and being subsceptible to woos, so many accounts were recorded when he got extremely angry and did disastrous things, even many of the Jewish prophets took after him, like Moses smashing the tablets he spent days to obtain when he met the Isrealite serving a graven image or was it Elisha when he commanded bears to devour the little children who made fun of him?

Jesus taught us to shun things of the flesh and reverence the things of the spirit but here I am wondering, if God really made us in his image and likeness, then the flesh should be God like, we only need to be like David, that is, to have to ability to woo God to favour us regardless of our shortcomings because God has emotions like us and can be made to change his mind.

Just wondering, what do you think?

I think the god is just a mental construct and largely is an aspect of the individual ego. That is why your god always knows you perfectly but doesn't know what you don't know or otherwise can't find out. The changeableness of your god is a reflection of this.

TenQ:
I think I see your point now. I have defined agnostic theist from a Christian point of view and that would be a narrow definition.
In other words, Just as agnostic-atheist is defined from the point of view of unbelieve, agnostic-theist are defined in terms of belief.

Even though I agree with you on this, I think the view possesses an inherent contradiction and illogicality irrespective of how we choose to define agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist.

How can one believe or disbelieve that which is impossible to know?

I guess everything is not on the sensibility of the position but the emotional disposition. The human mind is a powerful engine.

Because that is how beliefs work. Beliefs do not require explicit knowledge in other to be formed. People believe all sorts of things they either have no knowledge or very poor knowledge of.

TenQ:
Rather than deal with the obvious, can see an adoption of a new definition here by the owners of the language. I admit that language vocabularies grow with time. Even the distinction of the definition of who is MALE and FEMALE is now blurred now.



Akukuja actually means nothing: it was an "invention". I should have used one that exists to illustrate my point

Here is one - it's old Yoruba word, "Ito" pronounced like (ata- pepper) (sounds musically like "jingle" in the Christmas song jingle bells). I've given you enough hint

So, here is the question properly put
Do you believe "Ito" has any function on humans?

Urine? Do you mean ingesting it? I believe it might provide marginal usefulness when ingested but too marginal to be truly useful. If you mean just its expulsion from the body then yes I believe it has a lot of functionality for humans.

PastorM:
Omicron has taken over the UK so festivities are slow. We don't yet know if we're heading for another lockdown. I think Boris would have called it by now but his popularity has taken a nosedive since we found out that last Christmas, when we were told to practice social distancing and not to see relatives over Christmas, Downing Street were having a Christmas party

Germany and France have added the UK to their red list so it's not looking good.

Just saw that today. Didn't know UK was having another surge. Stay safe and Merry Christmas in advance.

Laggafin:
From covid to implanting chips.. an agenda is gradually unfolding

What has Covid got to do with brain chips?

PastorM:
LordReed, where ya been? Missed you man

Doing some interesting things irl. How have you been? How is prep for the Christmas festivities?

johnydon22:
The Bible is littered with instances of God showing favoritism.

In fact, the whole basis of thy judeochristian faith stems fundamentally from the idea of God's favoritism

Showing the roots of his appearance as a tribal war god.