₦airaland Forum

Nothingserious:
Do we need 5 scientists to confirm your stupidity and foolishness too?

LMFAO! They're all hard at work confirming yours. That's how bad yours is.

Nothingserious:
Lol!

You will see myriads of conflicting answers on the true definition of atheism and the rationale for their non belief in God.

What does true definition of atheism mean?

Why would a myriad of reasons for no belief be a bad thing? Atheists don't have a creed or liturgy or baptismal process to which you must kowtow to to become and atheist so why would you surprised by differing answers?

Steep:
Atheists are living in denial. All evidence points one direction which is God the ultimate creator.

What evidence? Can you list 5 evidences for the existence of your god?

Nothingserious:
Two tough questions for atheists:

1. what is atheism?
2. Why do you not believe in God?

Why do you imagine they are tough?

1. The definition of atheism I hold is the lack of belief in any god or gods.

2. I don't believe any gods because there has not been sufficient evidence to establish the existence of any such beings.

Image123:
Remember that you are not in any way fascinated with a sky daddy or FSM. You'd doze off talking about such. But you can't do without revelling about God.

Oh I am fascinated by FSM I wish more people would talk more about FSM. Sky daddy is your god na, the one who you believe sits on a throne in the sky. LMFAO!

Revelling about god, what does that even mean? LoL

Image123:
With God, it's possible. Only believe.

Such a god won't have needed a comparatively small wooden boat in the first place. LMAO!

Alao046:
Then the penguins walked all the way from Antarctica to Israel to enter the ark. And after that, they walked back after the flood
All these bible stories self ehn

They must have given African snails a ride home on their way back to Antarctica. LMFAO!

Image123:
Same, your fascination about the never existed God is the joke.

Exactly! It's a fascination with a highly comedic proposition. A sky daddy or a Flying Spaghetti Monster! LMAO!

hahn:
Alcoholic or non alcoholic wine?

Asking the pertinent question. LoL

TrajansKong:
You are a voice in the Naija wilderness.

Your words fall on deaf ears.

We worship power unquestioningly.

The greater the power the greater our adoration.

Perfect obedience to authority is our highest goal.

We are happy to be a race of slaves.

Now and forevermore.

Your words make me sad by how true they sound.

Nothingserious:
Something you talked about for over 3 days is what you deny now?

Wow! That’s a damn hard record you break each time with lies and falsehood.

I am surprised we didn’t need 5 scientists to help you respond to this.

“They argued two very different positions regarding the observations of electrons behaving as a particle in some experiments and a wave in others, even though an electron shouldn’t be able to be both...

Even with their opposing theories, both were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922: Bohr for his atomic model, and Einstein for his work on the photoelectric effect (instead of his then-controversial theory of relativity). So how did the two physicists receive prizes for the same thing in the same year? Einstein was actually awarded the 1921 prize a year late, due to a technicality.“

You're such a dumbass. You would have quoted me by now if I had mentioned anything about subjectivity or biases. What a fucktàrd.

You should have claimed that scientists said I argued about subjectivity and biases with you then we would have required you to name them. Dickwad.

Dtruthspeaker:
First, all cargo ships then were wooden boats. Secondly, yep Same Noah who Lived when others who did not follow him into the ship, died.

LoL! No evidence of that event so why should I believe there'd be a repeat?

Odoogu:
Then good for you. you have nothing new to learn here then...
or
You really had no intent of knowing, you just wanted to satisfy and justify your day own beliefs.
Whatever rocks your boat. Stay safe.

I don't know what is in your mind until you express it hence the questions. I try not to guess what is in people's minds.

Image123:
There was never a gotcha except that you were playing a ostrich in the sand about wizards and witches in the first instance. The point was clear enough but we had to dance around it.

LoL then you have said so when I asked. You even waited for me to give the meaning before you spoke up. LMFAO!

Image123:
You're probably on some malignant God forbidden weed or something. It is more ridiculous fascinating all lifetime about a dead God, don't you think?

Bwahahahahaha! Dead god? Nah more like never existed god. LoL!

Nothingserious:
You always miss the point why?
You said no controversy and I showed you.
You mentioned something about the years of the award and I showed you.
You talked about subjectivity and biases and I showed you.

You can running around in delusion and lies.

LoL! Here we go shifting goal posts again. I said there was no controversy between Bohr and Einstein over the Nobel Prize. Now that you have seen that there wasn't you want to shift the goal post.

You're a fuçking brazen liar. At no point did I talk about subjectivity or biases with you nor could you point out anywhere I made such an argument with you.

Delusion upon delusion. Bwahahahahaha!

Dtruthspeaker:
Yep! That's Exactly what the people in Noah's days said until God Moved.

LMAO! Noah the man that made a wooden boat over the course of 120years and was himself 500years old. A wooden boat that is not up to half the size of our largest container ships but could hold 2 of every animal on earth. Is that the same Noah you are talking about?

Nothingserious:
I say you speak first and read later.
It’s up to you to read and make up your mind on what transpired in the controversy surrounding Einstein’s Nobel prize. And to say you didn’t even know the technicalities in the delay by 1 year is amazing.

I won’t comment on the arbitrariness and subjectivity of the panelists.

“There were a bunch of reasons why Einstein was never given a Nobel Prize. Being Jewish and pacifist were big ones. The Nobel committee didn’t want to honor someone who was so outside the mainstream. The biggest reason, however, was that he was a theoretical physicist. The prize had, up until this point, primarily been given to people who proved things through experimentation.

In 1919, evidence for the General Theory of Relativity was finally found during a solar eclipse when British astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington detected light from stars which was bent by the gravity of the sun.

Everyone figured that 1920 would be the year when Einstein finally won his Nobel Prize. Instead, the award was given to Charles Edouard Guillaume “in recognition of the service he has rendered to precision measurements in Physics by his discovery of anomalies in nickel steel alloys”.

Yeah, Guillaume was just as surprised as everyone else that he won.

Well, OK. Maybe there wasn’t enough time for the result to sink in. Surely, 1921 would be the year that Einstien would win, right?

In 1921, they gave the Nobel Prize in Physics to no one. Yeah, they decided to give it to no one, rather than give it to Einstein.

The attitude of the Nobel committee was summed up by one Allvar Gullstrand, a Swedish ophthalmologist who sat on the physics committee. In his diaries, found long after his death, he wrote of the 1921 physics prize, “Einstein must never receive a Nobel Prize, even if the whole world demands it.”

By 1922, the Nobel Committee was looking ridiculous in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of the physics community for not giving Einstein a prize.

The rules of the prize stipulate that if no one were given an award in the sciences, it would roll over to the next year. So in 1922, they could retroactively give the 1921 prize.

The committee determined that they had to give the award to Einstein to maintain their respectability in the scientific world. It was just a matter of what they were going to give it to him for. This was probably the only time in the history of the Nobel when the winner was determined before the reason for the award.

In 1922 the nominations poured in again, and again there were dozens of nominations for Einstein and the General Theory of Relativity. However, there was one nomination for Einstein which wasn’t for relativity. Carl Wilhelm Oseen, a Swedish physicist, nominated Einstein for his work in discovering the photoelectric effect.

The committee decided to give Einstein the 1921 award, which wasn’t given out the previous year and give the 1922 award to Niels Bohr who developed the theory of the atom. By giving an award to Einstein and Bohr at the same time, it eliminated having to give one to Einstein by himself.

So Einstein won his Nobel Prize, but it explicitly was not for relativity. In fact, when he was notified by the Nobel Committee they stated:

… the Royal Academy of Sciences has decided to award you last year’s Nobel Prize for physics, in consideration of your work in theoretical physics and in particular your discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect, but without taking into account the value which will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future.

They left the door open for a future prize, but none was ever given.

Einstein didn’t really care much about the prize. He didn’t attend the prize ceremony because he was lecturing in Japan. All the money he won went to his ex-wife in a previous divorce settlement. Later in his life when he was asked which honors he was more proud of, he put the German Physical Society’s Max Planck Medal first and didn’t mention the Nobel Prize at all.


https://everything-everywhere.com/how-many-nobel-prizes-should-albert-einstein-have-won/

LMAO! Once again you prove you merely use articles to stroke whatever delusive fantasy you draw up in your head. No where in the article does it say there was controversy between Bohr and Einstein over the Nobel prize but trust your delusion factory to dream up one. Bwahahahahahaha!

Odoogu:
You've mentioned "god" enough times like you know something but not too sure about it.
I know the meaning of secular and it's still what it is.

For every revelation there is a genesis. I will also want you to look up the history of Egypt, the journey of israel to canaan with a focus on the surrounding countries.
Peace!

What is the meaning of secular that you know?

Huh? You are the one speaking as though you know all about the god so I ask you these questions.

I have looked at the history of Egypt and there is no evidence that the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt nor is there any evidence that they made a journey in the numbers or time frame you are referencing.

Odoogu:
Which church and which state. Secular government is run by people with different ulterior motives. The church as what? Kindly educate me is all I ask.

My God wouldn't order me to kill. Maybe your god or some other people's god would command, but my God wouldn't order me to kill.

Aren't you also concerned about people who kill out of impulse or some bizzare traditions and beliefs?

Just look it up. Church as in religious institution, not any particular denomination or religion. I suggest you also look up the meaning of secular.

I don't have a god. You acknowledge that your god has ordered people to kill, on what basis can you say your god will not so order you?

I am concerned which is why I don't want such people and people with such gods that can ask them to kill to be in a position to get away with it.

Nothingserious:
We might as well conclude we really cannot know anything, our discussion inclusive.
See last paragraph below. All what we know might as well be erased.

“What are Christians accused of lacking? He suggests this criticism arises out of an idea called foundationalism. He explores the idea that theism is rationally acceptable only if there are good arguments for it. He suggests that this treats religion like a scientific hypothesis, but questions whether that is reasonable. He suggests that this lays down a standard that the very argument itself cannot meet.

Foundationalism itself fails to meet its own standard used here to reject religion.

In fact it leads to the rejection of most of our beliefs, not just theistic ones.”

But it seems you agree with foundationalism.

I would argue that evidence is necessary to distinguish between true and false propositions because there must be a method in other to tell them apart, if you care about distinguishing them. Otherwise the alternative would be to accept every proposition without qualification. If as you say proof isn't necessary for your beliefs then I don't see how you can distinguish truth from falsity.

PastorM:
Is it wrong for me to think this way as a born-again Christian?

I most times can't understand why Christians and Moslems would be attacking each other. I've seen a lot on this forum. Christians saying something against Mohammed. Moslems saying something against Jesus. And it goes on.

The atheists saying derogatory things about God etc.

Charlatan pastors fleecing their members etc. If everyone got up and walked out en masse one day, the other 'pastors' would learn but it'll never happen. Not in Africa anyway.

I think there would be more peace on earth if there was NO religion whatsoever but then again, Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send [or bring] peace, but a sword." However, it is NOT the Christians who are wielding the sword!

Ignore my rambling ojare. Sigh!!

I feel you. I do wish that sometimes too but I don't think the problem is religion per se. I think it's a communication and understanding problem.

As for atheists saying derogatory things against your god, for me it is merely a literary device to get people to pull back and take a second look. Authors use it all the time to make people have deeper thoughts but religious people balk at any criticism of their god or religious figures and refuse to engage in logical, constructive thinking. Like I said anyway it's a communication problem.

Please more ramblings, it keeps it real.

Odoogu:
Religion into political dominance what's that?
I'd love to hear more about it. So as not to confuse you, we were only discussing history. Anyone or group of persons killing people on godlike commands are termed terrorists today. The bible says, whosoever hates his brother man is a killer, you don't even need to carry out some supposed godlike commands b4 you become a murderer.

I, odoogu, am different from the taliban. I won't force you to accept christ, but, yes I will urge you to and neither will I kill you if you don't oblige.

Stay safe.

Read up on the separation of Church and State, also on secular government.

Simple question, if your god gave you an order today to kill would you obey it or not?

Dtruthspeaker:
Yes, dem talk so, however, no be bin know how to properly arrange bible prophecies.

BUT WE ARE AT THE END OF THE PROPHECIES SO THEREFORE, WE HAVE A CLEARER VIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PAST AND WHAT IS COMING.

NOW, THE ONLY PROPHECY REMAINING TO BE FULFILLED IS "HIS COMING" (by my own calculation).

So till then!

We dey wait but certainly not with baited breath, more like with mirth filled skepticism. LoLz

Nothingserious:
I am happy you are saying this on a public forum.

A simple cross-referencing can cure you of this malady.

Go right ahead. Even the mentalfloss article you quoted does not use the word controversy in that snippet but sure go ahead and show me the Nobel Prize controversy between Bohr and Einstein. LoL

Nothingserious:
“I believe that I had cornflakes for breakfast, that my wife was amused at some little stupidity of mine, that there really are such ‘external objects’ as trees and squirrels, and that the world was not created ten minutes ago with all its dusty books, apparent memories, crumbling mountains, and deeply carved canyons. These things, according to classical foundationalism, are not properly basic; they must be believed on the evidential basis of propositions that are self-evident or evident to the senses.”

~Platinga

Evident to the senses is not the same as I have eliminated falsity. Hallucinations are evident to the senses as well.

Workch:
Its a shame that people believe things that cannot be proven to be true.
How can one believe something that won’t work 1 in 100 trials?

Hope is very powerful. They are constantly told that the god can solve their problems using examples from the Bible. Even when they have not seen it happen in real life that hope keeps them believing. Also they are told the god works in mysterious ways so even if he never does that particular miracle for them he will use some other means. It’s a very engaging sequence, it seizes the mind in a perpetual and perpetuating grip.

NovesaTillie:
I moved to this city because of my new job and my neighbors have been very homely and helpful to me especially the ones next flat,a young man and his wife with a kid . They have been very kind to me, sometimes when I get home late from work his wife calls me to join them for dinner and hangouts. M
My issue now is I am beginning to grow fond of the man because of how gentlemanly he treats his wife and how dotting he is of their son. He ticks all the qualities that I dream of and sometimes I just feel like inviting him over to my place when his wife is out to tempt him a little
What can I do to stop this feeling?
I don't want someone else man or to destroy a cute family

Please don't insult me. I am in a relationship though very young relationship. I'm just human admiring someone else.

You are infatuated. If you succeed in tempting that guy you will have ruined the very thing that makes you like him. That is what you should be thinking about. It is fine to desire such a person but if you ruin the very thing you like then there be nothing to like again. Keep your admiration distant, do not act on those feelings.

Nothingserious:
Quote from Alvin Platinga below:

Critics claim that Christian belief is not rationally justified or justifiable: what, precisely, is the infirmity or defect they are ascribing to the Christian believer? What, exactly, is the question?


What are Christians accused of lacking? He suggests this criticism arises out of an idea called foundationalism.

He explores the idea that theism is rationally acceptable only if there are good arguments for it. He suggests that this treats religion like a scientific hypothesis, but questions whether that is reasonable. He suggests that this lays down a standard that the very argument itself cannot meet.

Foundationalism itself fails to meet its own standard used here to reject religion. In fact it leads to the rejection of most of our beliefs, not just theistic ones.

How much meets the classical conditions for being properly basic?

Not much, if any.

I believe that I had cornflakes for breakfast, that my wife was amused at some little stupidity of mine, that there really are such ‘external objects’ as trees and squirrels, and that the world was not created ten minutes ago with all its dusty books, apparent memories, crumbling mountains, and deeply carved canyons. These things, according to classical foundationalism, are not properly basic; they must be believed on the evidential basis of propositions that are self-evident or evident to the senses.


There are many beliefs which we rely on that in fact cannot be provided with good arguments that make them scientifically proven. The existence of external objects are difficult to separate from our perception.

Memories are hardly scientifically proven and yet we believe them and rely on them. In short, the standard that people make when critics suggest Christian theism unreasonable, is so high than many everyday beliefs would also fail the test.

Finally, Plantinga explores the idea of warrant. He considers those who argue that religious belief is wish fulfillment (Freud), or some sort of dysfunction (Marx). He notes that both begin their arguments from a position that claim theism is false. This is not argued, merely stated or asserted as a given. He continues to explore classic arguments against Christian belief (which he calls defeaters) and makes counter-cases. He believes none of these make serous challenges to the warrant Christian belief can enjoy, if it is true. The crucial difference here is not that he is arguing Christian beliefs are true, but that they are warranted if true.

https://www.reonline.org.uk/teaching-resources/16-plus-philosophy/warranted-belief-alvin-plantinga/

This doesn't answer the question. You said "The Christian faith and belief in God actually does not need proofs for their validity", in other words you don't need proof for them to be true. The question now is how did you eliminate the possibility that they are false since you don't need proof.

Nothingserious:
Yes just the way you read the Borh-Einstein Nobel prize controversy upside down. Lol

Do we also need 5 scientists to explain the article properly to you and the TECHNICALITY that led to the awards in separate years ( 1 year difference)?

Simple fact there was no controversy. That is a story you made up in your head from a poorly written article. If you had spoken to 5 scientists they would set your delusion factory of a brain straight. LMAO!

thatsleepboy1:
Come with proof biko as I've done above and I'll still be doing, is it the 72 virgins in Aljana or the one that koran said that all Muslims will first go to hell before they'll be shipped on a thin thread to aljana where wine and women will be plenty and you can decide to divorce the 72 virgins and order for fresh ones? Or the jinns that peeped into heaven and was chased back or when muhammed's daughter fatima asked her father about her place in the hereafter and he said he doesn't know where he was going to and or where mohammed admitted that he had contacts with demons?. Or mohammed hiring assassins to kill his enemies and saying allah sent him ( he obviously did cos he's an Idol just as OGUN, SANGO, OBATALA, ORUNMILA is cos these latter are more revered and better than allah.)

You can't even read half of what I wrote cos appolyon and moloch are really doing wonders in y'all's life.

Is it the stories of turning water to wine or multiplying bread and fish that you believe are true? Or is it how a person lived in a fish for 3 days and was spat unto land? Or is it a global flood that was survived by 8 people in a wooden boat with 2 of all the animals in the world? Which of these would you like to show me evidence of?

Workch:
Anyone who can turn just 1 out of 100 bowls of water into wine?
I just require just 1% success rate from you, that’s how easy it is for anyone to even convince me with a testable evidence.

Although 1% isn’t a scientifically significant result but I just want to give theists the opportunity to convince atheists without plenty talks and numerous excuses.

Successfully turn 1 out of 100 bowls of water into wine, I will serve your god and I will also give you 100k cash.

Forget. If they could they would have already. They've had almost 2000years to perfect that yet not even a hint at that possibility. Besides you think people with that kind of power would have already eliminated hunger in the world but nah they a busy hiding under the guise of church.