₦airaland Forum

^^^

My purpose in this life is NOT a journey. . .my purpose is to live a life that has meaning. My life is NOT a journey to any where.

Romeo4real:
When humans attempt to use their understanding to comprehend and infinite phenomena, it usually results in confusion.
The questions you posed are a good example of this.

The usual god can not be understood mantra that is always used in explaining absurdity away. . .

Why cant God be jealous or vengeful? Because of YOU think he "should" be or "shouldn't" be?

Why should god who is alleged to be the creator of the universe be jealous of anything? God is said to be jealous simply because the people that created the god concept created it to suite their behaviors that is why the various gods display human emotions. . .A good that is supposed to know all things, and can do all things is not supposed to display human emotions. . .We display emotions because we do not know all things, A man will display violent or angry emotions when he discovers that his wife is cheating on him because he does not know everything. . .A god that is said to know all things and have the ability to do anything and yet displays human emotions like, anger, surprise and jealously is impossible. . . .Such a god is only possible if he is a creation of man. . .All the gods posses "human" attributes, like anger, jealousy, bias (having a favorite people) etc given to him by the "humans" that  created them. The arabs are allah's chosen people, and arabic is the special language that allah speaks and will judge verey body with. . .Yahweh is the god of the jews and they are his chosen people etc. . .

Why shouldnt  he appreciate praise? If you create something that lives, wouldn't you want it to praise you once in a while for its existence?If you provide and protect  for your creation, wouldn't you want appreciation for that?

Human beings create cars, robots, and other very complicated machines, when last did you see people creating machines and making them to worship them?. . . .Is there any evidence that any god provides any protection to any body?. . . .

The Bible says God is our father, and we are his children. Please tell me what father does not take joy in his child's existence? Tell which father would not want praise and appreciation from his children. Tell me what father would not be jealous if his child starts to worship another man or object as his father. Tell me which father does not punish his children if they disobey the rules he laid down for them to follow.

Children do NOT worship their parents. . .Why should children not disobey their parent if their parents keep telling them to do crazy things, Like commanding them to kill others, practice sexism, discrimination etc?. . . .And what father is it that does not even listen to his children's cries? I have said it so many times what evidence is their to show that the christian god protects christians better than non christians? Any evidence to show that christians are having a better father who loves, provides and protects them more than non christians?. . . .There is absolutely NO evidence for this. . . .

Men have disowned their children for marrying people they disapprove of, for living lifestyles they don't agree with. Some men have killed their children because they felt they brought dishonour to the family - Whilst no one condones this behaviour, it sure doesn't seem to be classed as some type of enigma.

Are you for real?. . .

Why should creation not need a design? Man was created for a purpose. For that purpose to subsist, there has to be a design. The design allows Man to survive and procreate. And the same with animals and plants.

What purpose was man created for?. . . What purpose are bacteria and fungi created for?. . . For what purpose was a tape worm created ?. . .For what purpose was a mosquito created?

God created everything for his pleasure. Its like asking an artist, who created a picture, why he made that sweeping brush stroke, at that angle, at that location on the canvass and in that colour. He did it because he wanted to - for his own pleasure.

God created everything for his pleasure but the same god is alleged to be fighting with his creation all the time, eh? . . . .In the bible you read of places where god gets so mad at his alleged creations that he has to come down and physically fight them and kill them, he ends up staining his cloth with their blood . . . .What pleasure is that? Does your good derive pleasure in blood and death or what?. . .Where is the pleasure when he is said to be always fighting or cursing the alleged creation, he created for his 'own pleasure". . . . .

If you only you can understand that the ability of the human mind to comprehend is extremely limited. To even begin to understand, you cannot think with the shackles the physical world has put on you. Unburden yourself, free your mind, expand your consciousness, and meditate. That is when understanding and acceptance begins.

The same discredited mantra of human beings having limited ability to comprehend things. . . .Yet it is the same human beings with their limited abilities to comprehend things, that your god always use to fight all its wars, tell people about him and propagate his alleged message, build it temples and place or worship, give money unto him and offerings, fulfill his plans, tell others about his needs and wants etc. . .God has never done anything for himself. . its always humans with their limited abilities that are doing EVERYTHING. . . .  . . .So funny. . . .

Deep Sight:
This thread is not about proof of eternity. It is simply a request to understand the Purpose of the life of a man called Mazaje.

The man called Mazaje has given you the purpose of his life. . .

1. WHY?

I believe you have read it, because I have written. . .

2. By what methods? A hired assassin who makes millions of dollars murdering politicians and retires to luxury in the Bahamas with his beloved wife has also made his life meaningful. This is incontestable.

Sure. . . .

3. Further on (2) above, the live of the assassin, his wife, his victims, and his instigators will ALL end in NOTHINGNESS – and accordingly it is inconceivable that what he has done –

Sure, just as a lion that kills a gazelle and offers it unto its cubs as food, dies and ends up in nothingness. . .or a fly that lays its eggs on the back of a butterfly, as the egg grows the body of the butterfly serves as a means of sustainability for the newly formed maggot, the maggot eats its way through the flesh and other organs of the butterfly till it dies, the maggot turns into an adult fly dies and returns to nothingness. . .That is how nature operates. . . .Its a cycle that also includes violence and death. . .

a. Has any relevance whatsoever to anything

b. Is wrong or right in any sense.

Simple reasoning shows that it does. By the simple principle of a destination’s relevance to a journey.

Destination is of NO relevance to a journey. . .Making sure your journey is worthwhile is more important than the destination. In this case the destination is unknown it is only imaginary because no body has ever produced any evidence to show that that there is any evidence for human consciousness surviving bodily death . . .All hypothesis that follow are ONLY assumptions that have NO evidence at all. . .I repeat destination has nothing to do with journey, making your journey comfortable, joyous and stress free is more important than the destination. . .

Where the destination is NOTHINGNESS (as you have confirmed is your view) then INELUCTABLY, the journey results in nothingness, and is as such absolutely meaningless[/b]

FALSE. . You are just begging the question. . .The journey is a worthwhile endeavor and as such it is NOT meaningless. . .Are you saying that life is only meaningful when people believe in the after life? Your hypothesis is completely false and ridiculous because observable evidence does not support your completely baseless assertion. .I gave you an example already, I said that the people here are all atheist who mostly do not believe in an after life but the value life(human, animal and plants) and their environment MUCH more than your average Nigerian that focuses more on the after life and forgets that he has a live to live here on earth. . .Why is that so?

This is cast in iron, and is mathematically correct as well.

Again I assert that this equation –

0 + 1 – 1 = 0

SUMMARILY proves that a life with nothingness at both ends amounts mathematically and affirmatively to zero, and is as such irredeemably meaningless.

You are just trying to hard to convince yourself that your baseless and failed hypothesis carries any meaning. . . .

noetic17:
I never submitted NDE as a fact/evidence for anything, All I wanted was to hear your opinions. They come across as delusive and not objective. If there are after-life and NDE experiences, does that not suggest a life after death?

NDE does NOT suggest any thing about life after death, It is a natural occurrence, it has been induced artificially in the labs. . .I repeat the fact the people from very different cultures and religions ONLY "experience" life after death situations they have been indoctrinated with or life after death experiences that agrees with their religious and cultural beliefs shows that that the hypothesis is a sham. . .

Who really was Paul of Trasus?. . . .

Apostel?
Disciple?
Believer?
Fraud?
Crazy  end of day zealot?
Opportunist?
Charlatan?

noetic17:
^^^ @ mazaje

Asking for facts is one thing BUT living in DENIAL is a completely different one.

How do u explain the many non-religious people who have experienced after-life or near-death-experiences?

What do you know about near death experiences?. . . .Go educate yourself about it. . .NDE is NOT an evidence for an after life but a natural occurrence that can and has been induced artificially in labs. . . . Who are the religious people that have experienced life after death?. Do you not wonder why Muslims claim to have life after death that agree with their religious doctrines and teachings, in fact dreams, visions or activities that promote these experiences are encouraged in some Islamic school of thought? Do you not wonder why Hindu's have life after death experiences that have to do with reincarnation which also agrees with their religious beliefs? There are so many documented cases of reincarnation in India. Christians also have life after death experiences that involve the christian teachings and doctrines. . . .All these various and conflicting claims are enough evidence that the life after death hypothesis is a sham. . . .

My take on this still remains, Why attribute something that so many people are doing to the supernatural?. . .What exactly is the supernatural?. . . .Magicians do "supernatural" things all the time that seems to break all natural laws, but when they explain their tricks, people laugh it off and admit that they are very clever people. . . .Are there other natural laws that we haven't discovered yet?. . . .Disease, earthquakes and lightening were considered as supernatural events about 2000 years ago. . .An airplane flying from here to Nigeria would be considered a supernatural activity about 2000 years ago. . . .When men understood how to control things they sent themselves to the moon. . . .There are places in the human body where once you are touched you will loose your consciousness, some people know it and use it(I watched a documentary on it on the national geographic channel). . .If I see a man flying around I will not be quick to label it a supernatural event. . . .When most supernatural phenomenon are studied a natural explanation is found. Even if a natural explanation isn't found it does not mean that it is supernatural since it exists in the natural realm. . . .Who knows, 200 years from now there might be new laws that will be added to what we now know as natural laws. . .  .Just as i said the ability to create objects that can fly for hours in the sky will be considered a supernatural thing thousands of years ago. . . .

I just don't get this fallacious and ridiculous arguments deepsight is proposing. . . .Why does life have to be eternal for it to be meaningful when the eternal concept is only a hypothesis that has no evidence to back it up at all. . . .People are here and as such they need to make their lives meaningful. . . . .The life after death does NOT give life more meaning, There is no evidence to show that it does. . .Religious societies that believe in the afterlife do NOT live meaningful o morer purposeful lives than atheist societies. . . .There are so many things here that make life meaningful, the after life is not one of them. . . .

^^^^

I tire for deepsight ohhh. . . .

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=436863.msg6002803#msg6002803 date=1273061323]'Created out of thin air like all other religions'.
You're an atheist so you can be forgiven for thinking all religions are based on hoaxes. Religion itself isn't the be-all. There are people who serve God but detest organized religion and won't be caught dead in a temple or mosque or church. Not everyone needs it.

There are religious hoaxs and those who use existing religions to defraud. While Randi exposed many frauds, he also came across the baffling and bizarre. But those didn't publicize themselves. The one million dollar challenge of his foundation remains untaken not because there aren't those who can prove him wrong, but because the mentality of someone who would go to prove the supernatural to collect a million dollars, and the mentally of those who can actually prove it, are VERY DIFFERENT.  The latter simply do not publicize themselves. You won't find followers, you can pass them by on the street and not know what they're capable of, they won't advertize themselves and you may even know one for years without any inkling of what they can do.

Lamaist monks regard the Western materialistic lifestyle with amazement and contempt. Some of them are so advanced in using their minds to effect changes in the physical and unseen realms. If I told you what they were capable of, you would not believe me, And THEY don't publicize themselves either, not even among other monks. There are people like that the world over.  I can bet you they've ZERO interest in either taking up the challenge, which they'll likely consider foolish, or in anyone's one million dollars. That million dollar challenge does something clever; it brings the fakes out of the woodwork to try and win it.[/quote]OK. . .Here is my personal take on all these things, I have had my own personal experiences from people that can do extra ordinary things but unlike most people here, I do not ascribe it to anything supernatural at all since all these things are been done by so many people regardless of their race or religion. . .I have a friend who is from Ireland. He is an atheist but has amazing abilities. . . He is like a fortune teller, He does things that leave me speechless some times, He did the same thing over the weekend with regards to the chealse liverpool match. . .He predicted that Chelsea will win by 2 goals and that drogba and lampard will score the two goals and it happened exactly as he said. . . .He gets some things right and gets some others wrong which is normal with all the people that have these abilities and that also shows that it is a very natural and human thing since they sometimes get it right and sometimes get it wrong, There are others like Daren Brown who also have amazing abilities, they do things that people will consider supernatural even though they themselves to not believe in the supernatural realm at all. . .

I believe that all the people that posses these abilities are all part of the natural world and since there are so many of them doing all these things every where regardless of religion, race or culture. I just wonder why people chose to tag it as supernatural, I believe that there is a part of the natural human existence that we are yet to understand that gives some people the ability to do some of these amazing things things. . .Muslims, Atheist, Christians, Hindus, Taoist, Deist all perform these things so why tag it supernatural since it is human beings that are doing it?

Deep Sight:
IN NOTHINGNESS!

Let us make it clear -

The chart below shows clearly that the ultimate purpose in Mazaje's view is nothingness.


[center]Nothingness
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Death
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑

Purposes while on Earth
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Birth into life on Earth[/center]

People live and die and their is nothing wrong with it because that is how nature operates, animals, humans planets and stars all come into existence live and then die out after some time. . . .Death appears to render life meaningless for many people like you because you guys feel that there is no point in developing character or increasing knowledge if our progress is ultimately going to be thwarted by death. That is a very false premise because there is a point in developing character and increasing knowledge before death overtakes us. We have to care about there here and now in order to provide peace of mind and intellectual satisfaction to our lives and to the lives of those we care about for their own sake because pursuing these goals enriches our lives, . .

From the fact that death is inevitable it does not follow that nothing we do matters now at all. On the contrary, all our actions shows that our lives matter a great deal to us. If they did not, we would not find the idea of our own death so distressing. . . .it wouldn't matter that our lives will come to an end. The fact that we're all eventually going to die has no relevance to whether our activities are worthwhile in the here and now. . . .We are here so we must have to make our lives worth living, Again I ask how does the knowledge that death ends it all make life not worthy of living?. . .How does it minimize the importance of life and how does the life after death hypothesis make life more meaningful? Pls answer the questions. . . .

aletheia:
Why should your life be worth living? What intrinsic value does your life possess, different from say, a bacterium that it should be worth living?

Why should my life not be worth living?. . .On what basis did you come to the conclusion that a bacterium's life should not be worth living?. . .I am not a bacterium so I don't know what it takes to be one, but all I know is that making my life worth living gives me a great deal of happiness, comfort and also a great sense of fulfillment. . .

Yes, you are alive, but why is it important for your life to have meaning, seeing as it will all end in futility

Death is completely irrelevant to the question of the meaning of life, If human beings were naturally immortal and if there were no such thing as death there would still be a question about whether or not our lives had meaning. The underlying assumption behind this claim of yours (which I find completely ridiculous) is that life is meaningless because it ends in death  and as such for something to be meaningful or worthwhile it must last forever   . . .The fact that many of the things we value and cherish greatly (such as relationships with others) and activities that we find worthwhile (such as sports, getting and education, sexual activities, luxury, pursuing our dreams or goals in life or raising a child) do not last forever shows that life does not need to be everlasting to be meaningful at all.

We are alive and for that reason its up to us to make sure that our lives are meaningful and worth living. . .How the eternal hypothesis of life after death adds meaning to life is yet to be shown. . . .

Bastage:
LOL. A Muslim who's whole life's yearning is to go and pray to a rock in Mecca, criticizes Christianity?

The irony is amazing.

By the way. You even managed to get the Bible passages wrong. Go and look them up in their original Greek.

. . .The deluded goons spends a lot of his time bowing down and and praying while facing a rock called the Kaaba five times daily, yet he has the audacity to say that others are worshiping idols. Does the deluded goon know that Allah is nothing but an arabain idol god?

Krayola:
@ mazaje . . If u compare those passages u may notice that there are some similarities between Paul's teachings and those attributed to Jesus.  On divorce, "compensation", and to some extent the Last Supper. I'm not sure if any of those passages are controversial and I don't have access to any commentaries I can check right now. . .

on divorce

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (New International Version) - Paul
10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife

Jesus in Synoptics Mt 5:31-32, Lk 16:18; Mk 10:11-12 & Mt 19:3-12
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[a] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery

18"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery


On compensation

Paul -  14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.


Jesus (Matthew and Luke)
10 Don’t carry a traveler’s bag with a change of clothes and sandals or even a walking stick. Don’t hesitate to accept hospitality, because those who work deserve to be fed.

7 Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.


On last supper.

Paul  1 Cor 11:23-24 and 1 Cor 11:25

Jesus  Mt 26:26;Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19. Mt 26:27; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20

There are some similarities, so I think your claim that Paul was totally oblivious to the life and teachings may be misguided.

I haven't had time to go thru all of them but I'm trying to. I'll try and post all the related verses later.

I'm just trying to see if we can find out what nuggets of Tradition Paul had access to, and where he had to be creative and improvise. I'm not one of those that are extremely suspicious of Paul. I think he may have improvised too much and been a lil too creative, but I think he had good intentions and was sincere in his beliefs. These things that give u concern happened over the course of centuries. . . when Paul was doing his thing there was lil to no benefits/prestige in being an apostle. In short, I think u are overly cynical when dealing with anything Christian. I think we can be skeptical without accusing every single person of one form of malice or another. Sue me 

All I said was that Paul never mentioned any of the important events surrounding the life of Jesus or any of the things the gospels said Jesus did(miracles, virgin birth etc). . .He spoke of Jesus as some one who lived very long ago . .There are similarities as well as differences in their teachings. . . .But the truth is that Paul was just another religious zealot, you seized on the early Jesus movement and gave it a life of its own. . . .

Krayola:
@ Mazaje. U do have a point. Paul was not the founder of Christianity, but his version was adopted by the Roman empire. So Pauline Christianity is what most refer to as "Christianity".

I don't think it matters if Paul used the word "christian' we know that to mean people who believe Jesus to be the Messiah.

Thanks for the clarification. . . .

Paul is one very strange person. . .The letters of Paul were allegedly written by him to various other early "Christian" communities, though the term Christian is not found in any of the works of Paul which I personally find to be very strange. Is Paul truly the founder of christianity as you said? I saw Bart Erhman the other day on TV saying that some editing of Paul's letters took place as well, some thing which he says has happened with all of the works of the bible. . . . . He also said that it is actually more difficult to detect changes that were made to the letters of Paul than it is to detect changes that were made to the Gospels because there are fewer copies of the letters of Paul.

As for the letter's that were alleged to be written by Paul and the gospels, there are so many differences in them, Paul never says anything about the life of Jesus at all, all he said was that Jesus was born of a woman no mention of virgin birth even when his letters were to the gentiles who might have not heard about the Jesus he was talking about, he does not talk much about the events in the life of Jesus, he does not mention any of his miracles but speaks of Jesus as somebody who lived very long ago etc. . . .Who ever he was he was just a person that wanted to begin his own movement for reason's best known to him. . .Seized the early Jesus movement and created his own cult out of it, from there his works were also seized on by the roman catholic church and they propagated it from then on. . . .

@ Cha-Hauka

Go read the koran, its all in there. . . .

noetic17:
source? links? anything to verify the information above? 

Here are some links for you. . .


This link give all the information about the hoax, which was done to see how people love to believe in anything. . . .

http://www.skepdic.com/carlos.html

For Alvarez, the creation of the character "Carlos" was a performance/experiment to see how far he could take his creation, but his purpose was not to make people look foolish. He hoped to liberate them from a false belief. However, the result of the performance seemed to demonstrate how easy it is to create a cult from scratch and how, even when the truth is revealed to them, some still refuse to accept it. The "Carlos" hoax also demonstrated how gullible and uncritical the mass media are when covering paranormal or supernatural topics. Rather than having an interest in exposing the truth, the members of the media were obsessed with "Carlos" the phenomenon and transformed his character from a hoax to a myth. The character Alvarez had so arduously created was transmogrified by the press. The media didn't even need to do any research to have determined that "Carlos" was not genuine. The biggest clue was handed to them on a silver platter: "Carlos" performed for free. He offered crystals from Atlantis for sale, but took orders rather than cash. Every journalist should know that the first sign of an authentic fake guru is greed.

José Alvarez had hoaxed an entire continent with his art. But he had created something that the media and his audiences would take from him and recreate to suit their own needs. One lesson here has to be the magician's refrain: deception requires cooperation. Another lesson might be that the need to believe in something like a "Carlos" is so great in some people that we must despair of them ever being liberated.

Here is more from wikipedia. . . .

In 1988, Randi tested the gullibility of the media by perpetrating a fraud of his own. By teaming up with Australia's 60 Minutes program and by releasing a fake press package, he built up publicity for a spirit channeler named Carlos who was actually artist Jose Alvarez, a friend of Randi. Randi would tell him what to say through sophisticated radio equipment. The media and the public were taken in, as no reporter bothered to check Carlos's credentials and history, which were all fabricated. The hoax was exposed on 60 Minutes; Carlos and Randi explained how they pulled it off

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

Is allah all knowing? . . .The koran says that he is not. . . .

Deep Sight:
Right. Let’s start with the term “meaning” as you have defined it.

You talked about a sense of Purpose, and direction. I will address these two terms first.

Now I am going to lay down TWO premises: and if you disagree with the premises then do not bother with the further arguments – just state to me your reasons for disagreeing with the premises.

The first premise is this –

- If everything that exists ends in nothingness (ceases to exist) – then all existence has collapsed into empty nothingness and accordingly the purpose of all that existed comes to nothingness.

So? of course everything that exists will surely cease to exists. . .I don't see anything wrong there. . .What do you mean by empty nothingness?. . . What is empty nothingness. . . .You are just begging the question with all these "arguments" of yours. . . .

It is in line with this premise that I seek to challenge your view which suggests that it is possible to have “Purpose and Direction” in a life which will end in nothingness – that is  - a life that does not have a spiritual post-script or further continuation.

My life has purpose and direction even though I do not subscribe to any elusive or bogus spirituality that serves no purpose. . .I said that I live in a completely atheist country and the people  who live here lead lives that have a great sense of purpose and direction, I learn how to value life of human and animals much more as I came here NOT in Nigeria a country which happens to be one of the most religious and spiritual places on earth. . . . .Go to lagos and you will see for your self that human and animal life is of NO value to the people that live there. . .Come to Helsinki and see how the atheist people value life and how they have given it purpose and turned it to something that is worth living. . . . .Life will cease to exists, but as long as it is here, you have to give it meaning and make it worth living. . . .If you don't understand this explanation then, I have no other explanation to give to you. . . .

If ALL existence were to collapse suddenly, such that nothing exists, anymore, then what would have been the purpose of all that went before?

Nothing. . .Over 90 percent of all species that have ever lived are now no more, Nature is wasteful, things come and go, that is how nature is. . . .Death is inevitable. . . .

Incontrovertibly, all that went before has ended in nothingness, accordingly, the ultimate purpose of all that existed would be nothingness – thus that there was no such thing as purpose or direction.

This is a bogus premise and nothing but question begging. . . . .As long as you are alive you have to make sure that your live has some kind of meaning so that life it self will be worth living. . . .How does the eternal or spiritual hypothesis add meaning to any person's life? The here and now is very important, as such you have to make sure that it has meaning and is worth living. . . .

Don’t worry, I do.

The question is this –

1.   Do I do good because I expect a reward. Answer – NO.

2.   Why do I do good? –Answer – Because it feels good and right.

3.   What makes it feel good and right?

There is a sense of accomplishment that comes with doing good that wants people to do good and makes it feel right, the ability to self reflect also makes doing good to feel right, Society also makes doing good to feel right. . . .

IN A FINITE EXISTENCE, THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. . . .

Because if it all ends at death, a person who utilizes vice to obtain great wealth and enjoys himself in the Bahamas with much Jezebels around him, will have no misery at all. . . when he dies, all will amount to nothingness, and his actions will be nothingness.

I hope you see what I am getting at.

You are not getting at anything, You are just begging the question, There are laws in place set out by humans to make sure that people do good and aviod evil. . . If you utilize vices and do gain wealth, you might be caught and sent to prison, the fear of that alone will make any reaonable person not to want to steal, I will organized societies like the one I live where the laws are strickly adhered to, you there not steal, and the fear of been miserable when caught is enough for people not to want to steal. . . .

Human's set their laws so that justice is served in the here and now. . .Eternal justice is of no use to the human society since most laws involving humans are set according to the here and now. . . .A person that steals and goes of to the bahamas to enjoy will suffer if he gets caught. . . .If he gets away with it then, it all ends in nothingness. . . .After all nature itself is NOT fair. . .A simple look at the animal kingdom and the human society will tell you that nature is NOT fair at all. . . . The fear or life after death does not add to anything, it does not make people better at all, in fact in some cases it makes people worse off. . . .Why care about the here and now, when you believe that there is an imaginary better place for you?. . . .every body has just one life to live and making sure that it has meaning and is worth living is what is paramount to most people, not some imaginary after life hypothesis that is only enforced out of fear to gain  control and to want people to do according to what others have imagined or hypothesized. . . .

aletheia:
Why do you consider it necessary for your life to have a purpose or meaning?

I consider it necessary because it makes life worth living. . . .

To what end? After all, when you die, you decompose to the elements and whatever you do will not endure beyond at most a few generations. Not so.

I am alive and because of that i will like my live to have meaning. . .What has death got to do with my life, death is or comes around only when I am not, so why worry about something that comes around only when I am not?. . . .As long as i am alive, there is more reason for me to make sure that my life has meaning to me. . . .What meaning does eternal life add to the life you are leaving now? Why should some one be good only because he is afraid of some eternal punishment?. . . .Who then is better off, a person that does good because good is good enough or a person that does good only because he is afraid?. . . . .

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=436863.msg6001575#msg6001575 date=1273044604]You're going to Tibet, Vesc? Frakking cold there, baby. No one will tell you before you'll skeddadle back to the tropics.

Read some books on the admirable James Randi, who teamed up with Australia's 60 Minutes producers to invent the religious Hoax called Carlos. His neighbour, Jose Lois Alvarez, a young artist, was  offered the role of Carlos, and he was intrigued and accepted. He played his part to perfection. Randi and his foundation have done a fantastic amount of work for decades, exposing religious fraud and so-called psychics and fake faith healers who leech the gullible of their money. People like  Ernest Angley and W Grant and Uri Geller and Peter Popoff and many more. Popoff, a faith healer, declared bankruptcy after Randi exposed him as a fraud. The objective of the religious hoax they deliberately created with the Australian media house was to forcibly show the public how very easy religious fraud is, how people are desperate to believe and don't care what they're believing. They even had a holy book which Randi and Alvarez came up with, full of vague, mystical sounding words, saying nothing at all. Carlos travelled to different countries and won converts. Not only were the publicn taken in but many of the world's major media were behind him, and promoted him. The whole thing got far bigger than Randi and 60 minutes coould've imagined. When the hoax was revealed, some of them refused to depart from the fake religion, declaring that detractors were after Carlos and they would stick with him to the end. The gullible media houses were furious with the Australian producers. Imagine what 'Carlos' could have done, the money he would have made, the branches of his religion he would have in many countries, if he had been a genuine fake mystic instead of an experiment.

Do some finding out about James Randi and the incredible work he's done.  His foundation offers one million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate the supernatural or paranormal beyond all doubt. No one has won that money yet.

Whle he has exposed many religous fraud and countless so-called psychics, he has once or twice verified strange abilities in people, but these people don't claim any supernatural, paranormal or religious power, much less try to get a following and milk their converts.

Go do some reading for a change. There are hundreds of religious hoaxes. Don't get all hot and bothered over one.[/quote]Scientology is a new religion that began as early as 1952, It was created out of thin air like all other religions, but still has a lot of followers. . . .The religion worships a God called Xenu that was created in the imagination of the founder of the religion. . .There are millions of scientolgist in the world today. . . .

Romeo4real:
@ Mazeje - I started to reply to your posts, but stopped when i realised how futile it was.  Futile because you refuse to argue objectively, engage in intelligent debate, and constantly put forward spurious and inconclusive evidence as facts.

I  have always been careful not to label anything as a fact. . .Pls show me where I labeled any of my assertions as facts. . .I have always been careful to use the phrase"best explain". . . .

- You refute arguments, whilst declining to put any of yours forward.

I have put so many of my arguments forward. . .

- You claim to be an Atheist, but have argued for the concept of a Creator, Many Gods, and Oneness of Infinity or whatever.

You have to look at all of these arguments in context. . . .

- You claim the Earth began from a Singularity, but have refused to tell us where this Singularity came from.

I was very clear to say that I do not know where it came from. . . .

- You ridicule the account of creation in the Bible into question, whilst  ignoring the gaping holes in the competing scientific theories you put forward.

I do acknowledge the gaping holes, but I still maintain that they best explain what we see around. . .The scientific theories that have been proposed are themselves not with out errors, a fact that I have stated so many times. . . .But I still maintain that they best explain what we see around compared to the genesis creation account that explains nothing at all, and does not match the observable evidence. . . .


-

You offer "observable evidence" as irrefutable proof, without the necessary caveat that it is inconclusive, and it cannot be relied upon because it is is constantly changing.

OK. . . .I concede this point. . . 

- You contest facts based on your opinions and views, and offer no conclusive evidence or proof to back yourself up.

Some times, I contest things because they do not add up at all, and not because I have any conclusive proof. . . .

- You say God did not create the Universe, yet offer no clear alternative theory as to WHO or WHAT created the Universe.

Same answer as above. . . .

- You dismiss my assertion that there may have been two Suns at some point in our Solar System's history out of hand, despite there being a - current scientific hypothesis that supports it.

If such an hypothesis is strong it will be in the mainstream cosmology books and publications, no?. . .I asked you some questions with regards to this but you did not answer. . .

- You consistently assert that the Sun is older than the Earth, despite the knowing the science behind the claims is inconclusive.

Inconclusive as it is, there are still other basis to come to that conclusion which I have stated. . . .

From the above, You can see why it is a waste of valuable time engaging with you in a debate.

OK. . .what ever

toba:
I recently spoke with a judge who told me the different evidences that are tenable in the court. He said it includes eye witness, DNA and written materials provided that its in line with the subject matter.

Now the biblical account were written mostly by eyewitnesses, who were first hand partakers in the events that happened and were recorded. The bible may have been compiled into a single piece, yet the various stories reported were from various authors.

How then do u validate or invalidate the stories reported by eyewitnesses, which includes the existence of a God and how the God expects people to live and be to be admissible as an evidence

The bible was NOT written by eye witness accounts. . .Was moses whom the creation account is traditional attributed to his name there when the earth was created?. . . .Why then do you say that he was an eye witness?. .

^^^

You have just said what I have been trying to say all along. . . .

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=436863.msg5997548#msg5997548 date=1272986072]God's truths are eternal and he has been talking to men since time began, so naturally some of their teachings predate the birth of Christ as Jesus by thousands of years.  He came a mere two thousand years ago. I was fascinated to find some things that are taught in Lamaist Buddhism verified by present-day American Christians in their after-death experiences. And these Christians have no idea! Meanwhile, these Lamaist teachings are thousands of years old.

Another thing is, and I don't expect you to get this, Christ Himself teaches you what is true and what isn't. If you're thirsty, he leads to himself in stages. Who God is, and his laws do not change and never will. It's human beings that get busy projecting their worst onto God when they want to justify their evil. What demonstrable good comes of religious killing? Notice how all religious killing benefits only the killer? To get something he covets, or to satisfy his blood lust or an excess of religious zeal, the stuff of psychosis. What is it to God that you want 70 vaginas or your neigbour's land or virgins from Midian? But they've no qualms about slandering his character to justify their atrocities. Once you know the laws that undergirds His creation, and you understand a little of what God is, what is false and transgresses it is remarkably easy to see. It's like the laws and penal codes of a country. Once you undertstand it, the criminals are very easy to see, because they break these laws. He may kill his neighbour for a promotion or to get his wife or a contract. He may say he hears a voice in his head and it's the voice of God and it told him to kill. (Many of
these psychos are in psychiatric hospitals but don't imagine it's a recent phenomenon. People have been hearing 'voices' that tell them to do evil for thousands of years.)  How the criminal justifies his actions is irrelevant, we know a crime has taken place.

So are the laws of God and its transgressions instantly apparent. They hold true for all creation, all men, in all places, for all time. Detecting what departs from it, what is false and what violates it is as easy as detecting a criminal that's broken the law.[/quote]Very nicely put, Are you a pantheist, since you believe that religions are neither completely right nor completely wrong? Or have you completely separated religions from God?. . . .

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=436863.msg5997517#msg5997517 date=1272985784]I'll answer you in two posts.

You want to know why I believe some aspects of the bible but disregard others. You think, because people have been indoctrinated to think it's 'holy' and 'infallible', you must then either believe EVERYTHING it says or nothing at all? ALL OR NOTHING is a false position, a false dichotomy. You must realise that human beings are the most unreliable 'inspired' witnesses you can imagine. We have an incredible capacity to first deceive ourselves, and then go out and deceive others. The bible is a collection of writings by human beings, most of whom are humble enough to acknowledge this fact by NOT claiming divine authorship. From where then comes the absurd premise that I must believe every word ordinary human beings wrote as divine and infallible? If THEY claim divine authorship, then the duty falls on them to PROVE beyond all reasonable doubt, to supply irrefutable evidence that they are, in fact, channeling God and not merely relaying their own perspective on things.But then most of them do NOT claim divine authorship. From whence then comes the absurdity of their infallibility? Nowhere but indcotrination. And sometimes, plain
laziness on the side of Christians. Some so-called religious authority says, 'Here are some doctrines to believe. Thank you and goodbye', and they sit by the doctrines till they die.The FACT that the bible has been tampered with countless times doesn't help its infallibity case either. It was with the Roman Church for one thousand five hundred years before other people took it from them and made it public, so they had plenty of time to do whatever they wanted with it.

I know what you're asking next. If the bible has been tampered with how do I know what to believe and what to accept?
VERY EASY, that one. There are many ways. There are many scholars in different countries across many ages whose field of expertise is biblial history, verification and textual analysis. They've spent centuries at their work and there is an incredible amount of material available on the subject. They tend to agree on what the additions are and when it was added. One scholar is Bart Earhman, an American bible scholar. He has an ax to grind with Christianity becuase of his indoctrinated fundamentalist Christian past and his arguments are sometimes slanted, but his credentials as a scholar is SOLID adn his research and books very valuable. There are and have been many scholars in bible veracity for hundreds of years. They don't tell me what to believe though. Their reearch is helpful in separating what biblical authors actually wrote from the many, many additions and mistranslations. It's doubtful they'll ever get them all, but they're getting there.

Another thing is, God's laws and truths are eternal and are not confined to any one religion or tribe but are ABOVE religions, and hold true for ALL his creation. God has been revealing himself to men since time began. From the little they receive, religions spread like weed. Bear in mind that the human mind (brain) is complicated, as are human motivations, so not every truth or vision or whatever is God-inspired. Some are just outright religious hoax because you will always find people ready and willing to believe anything. A media house in Australia set out to see if they could create a religion from scratch. They secretly invented a religion, found a charismatic 'mystic' to be its proponent and launched the experiment. It succeeded beautifully. This 'mystic' attracted followers from many different countries, devoted to the death. When the media house sponsoring the hoax revelead it to the public, many of the adherents refused to believe it was a untrue and stuck fast to that religion. Invented right before their eyes! With how much more salt should you take so-called holy books and religious traditions that has had thousands of years to accrue credibility
and glamour and, er, 'infallibility'.

I'm not saying all religions are false. They're not. There are countless religious hoaxes and charlatans. But there are religious truths and the genuine articles as well. The fact that some are false presupposes that some must be true. Something is false only because there is the genuine to compare it against, otherwise it's not false at all. God is true and real and He forever reveals himself to us. But human beings are what they are, and there are no such thing as 'infallible' or holy books.[/quote]Hmmmmm. . . .I am truly short of words. . .I very much understated what you are saying, but how do you reconcile all these things?. . . .

Deep Sight:
Can you please elucidate on what you mean by "meaning?"

By meaning I mean a sense of purpose, belonging, happiness and direction.

In a void of spirituality - namely - a universe and world without a supervening order or purpose - what is the point in doing any of these things?

The purpose of doing what I stated above is that it provides life with meaning. . . .Do you love your family because some supernatural force told you to love them, or do you appreciate your environment because oneness of infinity told you to do so?. . . .I just don't understand what you are trying to say. . .What has spirituality got to do with loving your family, and others around you?. . . .I try to be good to people around me because doing good it self is good. . .People should try to do good because doing good is a good thing not because of some undefined spirituality that serves no purpose. . . .

Would it not be equally sensible to grab all that you can for yourself, brutally eliminate your competitors, live large and enjoy the best that feminine temptations have to offer?

No, It seems you have no concept of disinterested goodness, I don't really know how to answer you but let me try. . .I know it might sound too optimistic to expect people to be good without a carrot and stick. I know the usual bribery that religions have to offer. What can atheists say to the person like you who says keeps on saying things like "What's in it for me?" when admonished to be good? What can atheists offer to compare with the bribery of heaven and the terrorism of hell?. . . .An atheist can not offer all these imaginary promises because they are NOT necessary for a person to be good, Goodness or evil has NOTHING to do with spirituality or religion.

Why then should a person be good, Because being good and living virtuously is the only way to a fulfilled and self actualized life. By living virtuously we sustain those vital social relations friendship, family, community without which life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Vice leads to misery. Man is a social and political animal who can sit back and self reflect on his action, Its good to do good and avoid evil because goodness sustains us all, and evil destroys us all. . . .

After all, when you die. . . nothing awaits you - whether you were good or bad.

The specter of eternal reward or punishment is of no use to me since there is no evidence to show for any of the bogus hypothesis. . . .Besides, all the efforts of fire and brimstone preachers have not succeeded in making heaven or hell real for most people. The fear of a miserable life in the here and now seems a better motivator for doing good or bad.

Also a strong argument can be made that brutality and survival of the fittest is healthy for society as it makes each individual stronger and thereby improves the strengh, resistance and longevity of the Group as a whole.

This is completely FALSE. . . . .

Given this, why is there a need to be moral or loving of your fellow man at all?

Because generosity ultimately promotes happiness. If I display love and generosity towards you there is that tendency that you will reciprocate that gesture towards me, If I display evil to you, there is also that tendency that you will do the same to me, that is the basic human way of interaction, And that is how human beings function, Our ability to self reflect our actions towards others helps us to evolve or morals and way of life and makes us to be more accommodating and tolerant. A society with love and good virtures, is better than a society of war and endless vices. . .I live in a completely atheist society and it is by FAR more moral than Nigeria which happens to be one of the most religious countries in the world. . .

What dimension do such things exist in?

I don't know. . . .

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=436863.msg5996366#msg5996366 date=1272972682]I don't 'believe strongly' in the Hindu's Karma. I'm just learning and don't have the firmest grasp on this yet. Reincarnation isn't automatic, nor is it the only thing that can happen to one. But sowing and reaping is clearly biblical, and Christ did say John the Baptist was Elijah. As for Jehu, the writers of the Old Testament did not know we would be having this discussion and so fail to oblige us by recording every single event in every characters life till death and afterwards . Christ does not tell us anything about anyone else but the Baptist either, and then only because He was asked. It could be because it's really none of our business. Our own life is there to sort out.

If you believe God sends people to kill other people on his behalf, kindly stop bothering fundamentalist Muslims who do this. Embrace them instead. Shake them warmly by the hand. They're doing God's work.And please don't come back with something like your God is the true God and it's all right to kill in his name, but the Moslem God is the false God and it's wrong for Moslems to kill in his name. Please, anything but that. Murder is either wrong and against God's will in all times and all places from eternity to the present, or it isn't. And it is this God that told the Jews in one of his commandments, Thou shalt not kill.

If God set up the laws that undergirds the universe and one of them is sowing what you reap, how can it then turn around and be independent of God's will? HE put the thing there so it IS his will, no?[/quote]Mad Max what kind of Christian are you?. . .You seem to believe in some aspects of the bible but disregard others completely, Not that I am saying it is right or wrong because I am in no position to say such a thing, I just want to know why you hold such a belief. . . .

Romeo4real:
I am not sure if Mazeje really knows what he is. I believe he is still on a journey - though he will be loathe to admit it. Yes he has renounced Christianity, but he seems to flit between Atheism, Deism, Pantheism and even Polytheism when it suits him. He has made statements that align with each of these beliefs at various times.

Whats he does know, and to no end, he has made us clear about, is that he does not believe in Christianity or the Christian God. I make these statements on my observations thus far.

I am an atheist, I do not believe in any God/Gods because all the Gods/Gods were created by men and their various superstitious beliefs. . . .

Deep Sight:
Given that you now hawk an atheistic worldview, can you share with us the following -

  1. What the purpose of LIFE is - if any

The purpose of life IMO is to strive to fill each of the days we have to spend here on earth (hours, and minutes) with meaning. We should strive to fill them with learning and gaining wisdom, with compassion for the less fortunate, with love and tolerance for friends, strangers and family, with doing any job we want to do or are supposed to do very well, with fighting against evil and obscurantism, to protect our planet and all the other animals that we share it together with and YES, with enjoying sexxxx, TV, good food, arts, sports, parties, cars, modest luxury, and other fascinating stuffs that life has to offer. . .

One thing that if find absurd with the theistic argument is that life has to be everlasting for it to be meaningful . . .Why should life have to be everlasting to be meaningful? It smacks of monumental egotism. Surely there is something monstrously egocentric in thinking that my life is of such transcendent significance that I should be an exception to cosmic laws, that my ego should survive when, animals, planets, stars, and even galaxies are no more.

2. What the purpose of YOUR life is - if any

I have already stated it above. . . .

3. Whether your atheism also connotes strict materialism - to wit - do you believe that non-physical things exist.

Sure non physical things exists. . .Your thoughts are non physical but they exists. . . .

Many thanks.

D.S.

Romeo4real:
So your evidence is that someone else's evidence does not add up?  And we are spending our precious time  debating with you?

What exactly is your evidence mythical narratives that we written by men long ago? Men who do not even know what the stars are?. . .Is that what you call evidence?. . . .

. Again, Please show us the observable evidence that says God did not create the universe and something else did. And stop using the account in Genesis as proof of this! Please!

Even you are wise enough to know that the genesis account can not be supported by the observable evidence. . .Which god really created the universe? There are many religions with many god all claiming that they created the universe? Did your god alone create the universe? If he did then show us how he created the universe alone. . .The last time I checked the BOGUS genesis creation account was there to tell people how he created the universe. no? You said that your god called yahweh alone created the universe, it now up to you to provide evidence that him alone created the universe and not some other god called oneness of infinity. . . .

I need to put this spurious statement to bed once and for all. On what proof is this statement based? Is it based on the same scientific studies whose that are constantly being changed when new info comes to light?

It is the same new info that comes into light that shows that your own god's account of creation is BOGUS, no?. . .Little wonder your fellow christian cosmologist like William Craig and others all relegate the supposedly godly account of creation to the status of allegory. . . .

The Earth's age – 4.54 Billion years, was calculated using by a combination of Carbon-14 and Radiometric age dating of meteorite material. The Sun's age is calculated at about 4.57 billion years old - using the same Radiometric Dating method. Note that this method calculates from meteorite samples from the Solar System, not from the heavenly bodies themselves. This method of dating is known to be greatly subject to errors and highly fallible. Subsequently, there is no clear scientific consensus that the Sun is indeed older than the Earth.

OK. . . . .I know about this already, but it still gives us an idea of the difference in the age of the earth and the universe. . . .

Moreover, the difference is well withing the error margin of Radiometric and Carbon Dating techniques. Even Wikipedia, which I don't like to quote says - “The exact age of Earth is difficult to determine.”, and  “Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions rich in calcium and aluminium) – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old,[8][9] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth”  This would put the Earth and Sun being formed around the same time.  So , enough of your erroneous statements.

Where in all of these does it say that the earth was created before the sun?. . .Is that not what your god told people to write?. . . .Your evidence to show that the earth was created before the sun and all the stars that exist in the universe is WHAT?. . . .

Well your “observable evidence” also shows that the Moon was indeed created after the Earth – just as the Bible says. How come you don’t mention this?

Ohh ok. . .The moon was created after the earth, The bible got it right, that mean the bible is right, But the same bible says that all the the sun and stars were created on the same day with the moon, no?. . . . .

And why do you keep going on about the account of Genesis in the Bible to support your assertions? I have already shown you how that premise is suicidal to your own notions.

I keep going about the account in genesis because that is how the God who you keep saying he created said he created the universe, no?. . .The genesis account is said to be God's account of how he created the universe, If your God version is wrong, as observable evidence shows, why then do you keep, saying that he alone created the universe?. . . .

How do you know this account of creation is not of our Solar system, rather than the Universe? How do you know if this account is correct or incorrect? How do you know if your current “observable evidence” is correct or incorrect?
Scientist are already revising their calculations for the age of the Moon based on new info. They recently revised their calculations for the age of our Solar Systems based on new info.

Where does it state in the genesis creation account that, the account is only for the creation of the solar system? Why are other planets not mentioned in the alleged creation account?. . . .What about the existence of other planetary bodies, like asteroids, comets, dwarf planets etc. . .Did your god forget to include them in his solar planet creation account, if we are to go by your assertions?. . . .

Mazeje, why do you constantly peddle spurious, unproven, and easily refutable info as fact here on these forums?
Of course he cant - He cant, because even the science he slavishly follow cant. Moreover the dating methods used are known to be inconsistent and error prone.

True, the dating methods might be error prone or inconsistent but the still remain our best methods of knowing or having an idea of the universe around us. . . . Is there any better method of dating to be found in the bible or any religious text?. . . .

I am sure you meant the “Sun”. And Yes, Carbon 14 Dating was one of the methods used to date the Earth, in conjunction with Radiometric Dating, but they are both prone to errors. Moreover, the ages arrived at respectively are well within the margins of error – 4.54 to 4.56 Billion yrs, as opposed to 4.57 Billion to render the results inconclusive.

Ok. . . I know that they are prone to errors but they still remain our best dating methods for now. . . .

Romeo4real:
It is a fallacy to assume a finite construct can comprehend infinite phenomena. Science is constantly adjusting it theories and hypothesis to fit with recent discoveries. Science is constantly creating new terms and constructs to explain itself out of holes it previously dug - And this is just in the Physical world

Recent discoveries like what?. . . .I thought the scientific process is what is discovering things. . . .When was the last time religion discovered any new element, new planet or new method of curing diseases?. . . .The last I checked religionist are the ones trying to use scientific discoveries and assign to their various gods. . . .Now we have christians that are saying that the creation account in genesis is an allegory, and claiming that their god created the big bang. . . .

Science discounts tha spiritual world altogether, because it cannot explain it. Science attempt to explain the Supernatural and Paranormal using criteria devised for the physical world - No wonder it fails.

Supernatural, paranormal. . . .Science has also failed in explaining alien abduction. . . .Ohh how sad. . . .

It is clear there is a spiritual dimension to this physical world, and ethereal plane, where physical or natural laws do not apply. This has nothing to do with any religion, though the Bible make it clear that it exists, and it is evidenced is all religions worldwide. The Law of Karma is a spiritual law which science would be at pains to explain. Far Eastern principles of Qi or Chi, Yin and Yang, Feng Shui are based in spirituality. Science has long accepted that Acupressure and Acupuncture are indeed real and viable, though there is no convincing scientific argument that explains how they work.

Philosophers have long understood, that lack of evidence, is not evidence itself. Someday, science will catch up.

What exactly is natural and what is supernatural?. . . .What exactly is the law of karma?. . . .I am NOT saying that a spiritual dimension does not exists, even though I have never objectively experienced any, but why ascribe strange phenomenon to some spiritual dimensions?. . . .Long time ago diseases were said to be caused by demons, evil spirits and gods, no?