₦airaland Forum

donmayor:
[quote author=Seun link=topic=21115.msg573071#msg573071 date=1156086959]Gd doesn't exist. The devil doesn't exist. You are to blame for your mistakes only.

I guess thats a not funny joke right? Even scientist are now starting to believe in God based on discoveries from the DNA,[/quote]Now tell me exactly [i]what [/i]discoveries in the DNA lead [i]who [/i]to start to believe in God? Names and events please

donmayor:
and one Naija man whose forefather believed in the devil before he ever saw a computer is saying no devil, no God. Go examine your head o, awon ota le o o.

Is it so difficult to accept that people have worldviews that differ from yours?

Hugoboi:
My dear administrator,I hope this desnt earn me a ban!!!!

Bans are not earned, they happen, like forces of nature

Hugoboi:
BUT ONLY A FOOOLLLLL SAYS GOD AND THE DEVIL DONT EXIST

You people really can't get by witout spreading insults, can you?

Hugoboi:
>>>>JEEZ THIS IZ 2006 MAN.!!!!

One wonders sometimes

obiora:
hi

I need info about universities in Belgium.
As u can see in my profile my wife is a nigerian
and she really wants to get into university here.
I don't know if there is anyone around here who can tell me
in wich university she can start or anything.
i know some people here are also from Belgium ( like nferyn)
or holland
maybe u guys can help us out.
thanks a million.

A lot of questions. I don't really know where to start. I guess it mostly depends on her residence status, her previous credentials and the language she wants to study in. I know most universities have good programmes for foreign postgrad students, but I don't now if that is applicable to your wife.
The university where I studied (VUB) does have an excellent social infrastructure, so if money is tight, I would advise you to ask for info at the university itself.
Actually, that's the best thing you can do: contact the uni, explain your specific situation and they will definitely guide you in the process. Anyway, congrats to your wife for picking up her studies again and best of luck.

Nia:

@Nia,

It might be that your encounters are somewhat coloured by observational bias and perhaps by the specific cultural context of the place you reside in.
[SNIP]

I know. I actually wanted to include that in my post. That my background in a deeply religious society might have been at work when I perceive this people in their natural elements and everyday lives. Hmnn, I suspect that would prolly be the case for a while. I do like that Atheists tend to be more laid back and relaxed about many things, but i'm just not sure the belief that "anything goes" necessarily makes the world a better place (of course neither does the extreme opposite).

Why do you assume that so many atheists think that anything goes? When there's no external, unquestionable basis for morality, there's room for rational situational ethics. There is a sound evolutionary basis for human altruism, even without divine commands.
I personally am a weak utilitarian humanist and I am every bit as moral as your average theist, definitely far more than the average

Nia:
I prefer to take each issue as they come, so to speak, rather than an ultra liberal kind of outlook on everything. I'm not saying theist cannot be extremely liberal, but it tends to be more of a characteristics of atheists.

That all depends on the source of their opinion of specific issues. If there is no rational basis for a specific moral position, I tend to discard it. An example: most theist objections against suicide are religious in nature and not really rational. In this specific case, I would say, as long as one hasn't made any lasting commitments like having children or marrying, one is free to decide what to do with his own life, even if it means terminating it.

Nia:
This, of course, doesn't change the posts I made earlier in this thread. Cause generally speaking, I have no problem getting along with or being married to an atheist.

Happy to hear that

chinani:

This freedom allows amore genuine besis for a humanistic morality, as it is not something absolute, instituted from above, but a personal choice.

This is a value judgment. While I may agree with it, I don't think that you are more equipped than the Pope or Al haji to decide which peoples are more genuine. As long as one views his life meaningfully, isn't the source of meaning secondary?

Obviously it's a value judgement. Whether I'm more or less equiped that e.g. the pope to make such a judgement is really not relevant. I personally [/b]see far less value in the morality of people that act good [b]out of fear than in that of those that do so out of their own free will. You have to admit that there are a considerable number of theists that are steered by fear of the adverse consequences of sin. I don't know how many times I've heard Nigerians proclaim they are looking for a god[b]fearing [/b]partner to share their life with (and then settle for something not quite like that ).

chinani:

Let me turn the argument around, what is the value of moral behaviour if it is borne out of fear for eternal damnation?

I think the concept of hell has little moral value. I think it's primarily negative and antithetical to God. I don't believe in hell.

Still, hell is a central concept in Christian theology. Few Christians will claim not to believe in hell without separating them from their fellow Christians.

chinani:

Now, why would you assume that atheism would lead to a higher proportion of nihilistic or apathetic thinking than among theists? It might very well be possible that the exact opposite is true (Calvinistic determinism, End Times prophecies, etc)

Well I did not assume. I interpret the views of atheists as nilhistic and sometimes apathetic. (Not all of them.) Your post made me realize that maybe this is a value judgment borne out of my subjectivity. This may be true but even when I try to be neutral that is my interpretation. Again, let me stress, I do not be all or most. . .a better way to think of it is greater than the percentage you'd find in a random sampling of the population and greater than the percentage you'd find in a sampling among believers alone.

I guess that's a classical example of observer bias and the influence of secundary cultural factors (as I pointed out in my reply to Nia). I would like to see some hard data to support that last assumption

@Nia,

It might be that your encounters are somewhat coloured by observational bias and perhaps by the specific cultural context of the place you reside in. I'm assuming now you live in the US and it takes a special kind of person to come out if you're living in a place where theism is the norm (the same goes for Nigeria to an even larger degree), this obviously means that the more extreme people (both positively and negatively) are likely to draw attention.
Where I live, religion is a private matter and it is not done to publicly express your religious affiliation. In this context someone's atheism is as inconsequential for a public persona as someone's favorite colour.
If you mean by spirituality a feeling of awe and wonder over the marvels of the world, the feeling to be deeply connected and responsible for the world, then it does not take any kind of religious belief to feel that.

chinani:
Some atheists are apathetic or nihilists as a extension of the (non?) religious beliefs. I meant all these things.

It's a common phallacy among theists to assume that because no external ultimate sense to existence can be detected in a purely materialistic world that an atheist cannot personally [/b]give sense to his or her existence, on the contrary. This freedom allows amore genuine besis for a humanistic morality, as it is not something absolute, instituted from above, but a [b]personal choice.
Let me turn the argument around, what is the value of moral behaviour if it is borne out of fear for eternal damnation?
Now, why would you assume that atheism would lead to a higher proportion of nilhilistic or apathethic thinking than among theists? It might very well be possible that the exact opposite is true (Calvinistic determinism, End Times prophecies, etc)

chinani:
@Topic
I guess it'd depend on how their beliefs influenced their lifestyle.

Can you be more specific? I mean, how would (the absence of) God-belief be a determining factor in one's lifestyle?

@simmy
You do have a point that the species definition is somewhat problematic (e.g. for non-sexual reproductive species or some plants). All classification by humans can only be called an approximation exercise. There is not always digital divide between different species, especially around speciation events (ring species are another example of the gradual move from one species to another).
However, precisely the observation of ring species shows the explanatory power of evolutionary thought. In Richard Dawkin[/i]s' book [i]The Ancestor's Tale, speciation as a gradual process of population divergence is clearly explained (The Salamander's Tale, pp. 252-261). Populations at the extremities of their geographical spread are clearly reproductively isolated, even if they are in the opportunity to procreate, whereas any population can and does interbreed with it's neighbours (though at a lower rate than within a population).
Mind you, the adaptations of the different populations have gone through do not mean that populations at the extremities of the geographical spread cannot survive/live in each other's habitat, they just don't interbreed.
Now, can you explain ring species to me, assuming that those divergences are only variation within a specie? Why don't these populations interbreed? Why do they occupy different ecological niches? Why do some, at the extremities of the geographical spread, occupy the same ecological niches, while being clearly phenotypically distinct?

Tom: Opening Christmas presents can be such a drag

Tom: what would life be without a GameBoy?

Aicha the clown

Bobbyaf:

Why? Please ellaborate and substantiate this statement.

Well no one was there to see exactly what took place, so the evolutionist has to base his arguments on assumptions first then try to find evidence to match the assumptions.

Incorrect. I think you need to inform yourself about how science works. First there is the data, then scientists try to make sense of the data by hypothesising. These hypothesises get tested, people try to falsify the hypothesis. Once enough evidence speaks in favor of a hypothesis (and no [/b]evidence [b]whatsoever falsifies it) it can be ellevated to the level of theory. Theories live or die with the evidence in it's favor/disfavor. The theory of evolution has expanded to include the findings of molecular genetics, developmental biology, etc. After more than 150 years, it's a theory that is so well grounded in the evidence that in all confidence, it can claim the label fact.

Bobbyaf:
The christian by faith, which is another form of assumption, albeit a good one, , attempts to base his arguments on evidence also.

Faith is acceptance of truth [b]without [/b]evidence. A very different mode of thinking than science. I wonder what evidence exactly the literalist creationist christian uses to support his position? Is it another circular reasoning whereby the Bible is used to justify the [i]truth [/i]contained in the Bible? This kind of logical phalacies doesn't do the trick you know.

Bobbyaf:
When you stop to listen to the attempt to supply an abundance of evidence as put forward by the advocates of TTOE, and the way it is presented, and in such jargon, with its confusing terms, you begin to wonder.

You have to understand that science isn't easy. You won't always get neat simple answers to complex questions. Understanding what science has to offer takes a considerable intellectual effort and some things (such as quantum mechanics) you can only begin to grasp after years of hard study and even then it's above most people's intellectual potential.
So if you're complaining about the complexity and jargon of biology, you're only saying that you either don't have the ability or the inclination to study the materials. Now, there's good news for you, evolutionary biology, contrary to quantum mechanics can be explained in simpler terms. The website on evolution at Berkely university does a splendid job in that regard.
When you want to discuss the primary evidence on the other hand, you will need to study the subject in more detail.

Bobbyaf:

Please ellaborate. This rambling is void of content as it stands.

My English is clear. The onous is on you to explain the jump from unicellular life forms to complex ones. Explain the jump. The bible accounts for a creation of mature humans, and animals who procreated after their own kind. This has continued fom generation to generation. We see it happen everyday.

1. There are several credible hypothesises on how unicellular life evolved into multicellular life. Findings from molecular genetics (i.e. implications of mutation rates of non-coding DNA) do point conclusively in the direction of common descent of all life from unicellular life. There's no silver bullet found yet though.
2. The alternative you present (Genesis) is so profoundly falsified on all accounts that I won't even bother to discuss it here (if you really want to do that, open another thread and I'll happily join in)

Bobbyaf:

You mean these or rather these?
Funny that I can present them after a 1 minute internet search while those pesky scientists have never been able to find them, ever? Or wait, I just refered you to scientists that were able to present them, oh my

I don't have a clue what you're trying to say here. I was hoping you'd address the thorny issue thats been plauging evolutionary scientists for awhile now. In my ignorance I may have overlooked such a dscovery of the missing link, but please be kind enough to show me a reasonable link that will reveal the truth and not some lame attempt at falsifying the facts.

1. Those thorny issues only exist in the minds of creationists, unless of course you're referring to specific mechanisms of evolution (e.g. to what level is punctuation responsible for speciation events)
2. So you're accusing my sources of falsifying the facts. Prove it.

Bobbyaf:

The Theory of Evolution is not a cosmological theory, but only deals with life, after the first replicators arose. It does not deal with the origin of life and it does not deal with the origin of the universe.

Which carries us right back to square one. Where did life come from? Before there even was an earth where did the bio-molecules come from that program life?

You really are clueless, aren't you? Evolutionary theory doesn't deal with the origin of life, try a search for abiogenesis. Order, complexity and self-organisation can come into existence through relatively simple natural means. Just look at the formation of hurricanes, cristalisation processes and many auto-regulatory chemical processes (e.g. the ATP cycle)

Bobbyaf:
So why was the origin of life associated with it, that is the Big Bang? If there were no Big Bang there could have been no life on earth, according to these scientist, right? TTOE had its connections tied up with the Big Bang.

The Big Bang exlains biodiversity as much as water explains me being born. Without water, I wouldn't be here. Your point?

Bobbyaf:

Order does not imply design, only in the overactive minds of those adhering to a theistic cosmology

So what does if not design? Take a look at nature and tell me if you do not see design and order? Take a look at human cells. Look at the amazing chemical network of hormones working in harmony. Only an all-powerful-Creator-Designer God could have designed man's body.

Personal incredulity at it's best. Do go and study some biology before you come with these crackpot explanations and while you're at it, maybe you can focus on self-organising systems, as they show how simple, unintelligent causes working on independent components can produce incredible complexity and order.

Aicha: repeat after me: expressive

Aicha: need to try my new bike

Tom is thinking (or so it appears)

Some new pics:
Aicha: birthday girl at school

Bobbyaf:
I agree, and as a matter of fact it may require more faith to believe in TTOE than is required to believe in creation.

Why? Please ellaborate and substantiate this statement.

Bobbyaf:
The bible simply has given a summary of what we have seen around us.

And has been falsified on many occasions if one is to take it's content literally.

Bobbyaf:
We who are looking back at both accounts can only use what is now to explain what was then. I mean how could one unicellular life form have developed into so many varied lifeforms, possessing such complex and orderly processes, under the situations that have been presented by the advocates of TTOE?

Please ellaborate. This rambling is void of content as it stands.

Bobbyaf:
Today we see a cell producing similar cells, after its kind.

Hugh? Be more specific please. What cells produce what cells under what conditions and by which processes. Could you also define kind?

Bobbyaf:
The biggest thorn in the flesh for advocates of TTOE, is the missing links, for which they have not been able to give a reasonable answer. If a fish over time lost its fins to develop limbs, how come sceintists have never been able to show a creature showing the changes. Where are the intermediary forms?

You mean these or rather these?
Funny that I can present them after a 1 minute internet search while those pesky scientists have [b]never [/b]been able to find them, ever? Or wait, I just refered you to scientists that [b]were [/b]able to present them, oh my

Bobbyaf:
One of the things that strikes me about the advocates of the Theory of evolution, because that is all it is, a theory, is their inability to see the illogical conclusion, or assumption, behind order after an explosion (Big Bang).

The Theory of Evolution is not a cosmological theory, but only deals with life, after the first replicators arose. It does not deal with the origin of life and it does not deal with the origin of the universe.

Bobbyaf:
In this part of the universe if something explodes it leads to destruction, and not order.

Meaning? As if the Big bang was anything like a simple explosion. Don't apply our simple sensory understanding of the world surrounding us to something as profoundly against common sense as the Big Bang.

Bobbyaf:
More and more scientist peer into the universe and marvel at the orderliness of the same.

Order can only be stated in relation to non-order. Our universe is far from orderly, there are small pockets of order, though.

Bobbyaf:
They see a design, yet fail to acknowledge a Designer.

Order does not imply design, only in the overactive minds of those adhering to a theistic cosmology.

Bobbyaf:
Strange indeed.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails

simmy:
I do not neccesarily have to prove creationists right, all i have to do is prove t.oe wrong

To achieve what exactly? The truth [/i]of the creationist pov? That approach hardly fits the bill. All I've currently seen from you are arguments from personal incredulity, i.e. [i]I [/i]don't understand how the TOE explains X, thus TOE is false.

simmy:
Mr.kag
I'm not going to xchange words with u until u explain to me in your own words y the african elephant is considered a different specie 4rom the asian one if u can't , then we have nothing to speak about Nb, fossil records are there, these things are supposed to be common knowledge

Simple: reproductively isolated populations are considered different species. Maybe you could address the arguments of KAG instead of comming up with [i]new [/i]arguments against the TOE that have been refuted time and time again.

simmy:
It's easy to poke fun at creationists and their "Goddidit" answer to everythng but u just have to face the fact that some arguments presented by t.oe are far more incredulous than a creationist answer as silly and unscientific as it sounds

Be my guest, dear simmy, what arguments presented by the TOE are incredulous and for what reason? By the way, arguments from strawman versions of the TOE, that say thinks like pine trees evolve into dogs are [u]not [/u]what you should be looking at.

Also, can you provide an alternative explanation to the fact that the fact that [i]mitochondrial dna divergences among species are perfectly in line with the cladistical prediction made from the fossil evidence and with common descent

says simmy, our clueles creationist who fails to be convinced by any type of evidence that does not point in the direction of the active hand of the creator. Dear mr. simmy, do you have an alternative explanation for the fact that mitochondrial dna divergences among species are perfectly in line with the cladistical prediction made from the fossil evidence, except for the usual goddidit of course

@ Maxwelle,

I don't really get your point, but it seems that you are a proponent of theistic evolution, which is a perfectly reasonable position. The idea that a deity created our biodiversity by means of evolutionary processes does not contradict the scientific evidence.
However, when people propose that a literal interpretation of the Bible is correct, they are clearly in conflict with reason, reality and science.

Christian fundamentalist logic:
Our senses are limited and incapable of perceiving all and everything thus my version of Christianity is true.

Funny, anecdotes upon anecdotes are somehow proof for telekinesis. Anyway, why don't all these people take up the Randi Challenge, an easy way to 1 million USD.
Go for it, telekinesis supporters, bring your favorite [i]mindovermattermover [/i]to the challenge and the good life awaits you.

kaecy5:
@nilla
it is quite unfortunate that muslims are to be blamed for terrorist act
but if i might ask how many xtians have u seen that is a terrorist?
no one yet

That is if you exclude Timothy Mc Veigh and the pro-life nutcases that attack abortion clinics. Anyway, you're right that there are currently far less Christian than Muslim terrorists, but it hasn't always been like that.

dignity:
I'll be back soon.

Thanks.

Hopefully with some solid evidence. I don't hold my reath though

dignity ,

I'm looking forward to your arguments. Please don't run prematurely if you find your arguments refuted.

Best Regards

No Audi in the list. Give me an A4 quattro any time. In the absence of Audi I choose Volvo V50. Enough space for the kids, very comfortable, enough horsepower and safe as houses. Nothing comes close to the safety of a Volvo

Bobbyaf:
I read some of the refutations from the first website.

And?

Bobbyaf:
Did you see the streaming video? What are your views concerning the polonium halos.

That they can be formed over longer periods of time under specific geological conditions. There are credible hypothesis proposed, none of which assume an instantaneous creation of granite in a young earth. There is no evidence for such an even, only a tiny mystery in the formation of polonium halo's (which only means that our knowledge concerning these halo's is incomplete). It's the same old tired deadbeat God-of-the-gaps explanation, personal incredulity neatly packaged in a physicists wrapping. Gentry is using a normalised physicist's explanation without considering the specific geological processes at work and explicitely excluding al explantions that are evidence for an ancient earth.
[url=http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6020_issue_22_volume_8_number_1__7_24_2003.asp#Gentry's%20Tiny%20Mystery%20Unsupported%20by%20Geology]This article [/url]on the NCSE website should shed some light on the issue.

polonium halos as evidence for a young earth refuted:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm

babyosisi:
KAG like Bejoule says,it only takes a time of problem for you to start saying"Oh God" and soliciting for prayers left right and center.
America took out prayers and any semblance of Christianity from the schools and work place but guess what happened after Columbine school massacre and 9/11 terrorist attacks,people were holding hands in public places and calling on the Almighty for strength and deliverance.

Actually in the US religion is not banned from public places at all, only government can take no action to establish a religion. Proselitising by officials, in whatever capacity they may be, is explicitely forbidden by the US constitution. When an authority figure, embellished with official power, such as a teacher in a public school starts the morning class with prayer, he/she is actually forcing his/her religious belief on the class. As far as I know, no people have ever been denied the possibility of expressing their religious beliefs, as long as they're not proselitising.
As for prayers and turning to God in a time of crisis, that's to be expected in a religious country like the US.