₦airaland Forum

Seun:
Lets assume that you are right and banks need a certain level of capitalization. How do you determine how much capitalization a particular bank needs? Isn't not something for the management of each bank to decide? Since when have Government bureaucrats been more adept at predicting the needs of an industry than industry insiders themselves?

Either you put up capitalisation requirements or you have strict, enforeced guidelines that banks have to live by. In Belgium, banks can never borrow out more than 2 times the capital they have at any time, they cannot use the money deposited by their customers to make investments (only long term loans are acceptable), they have to use their own capital. There are lots of other guidelines they need to follow, if they cannot meet hese requirement, they are not licensed to be a bank.

A bank is not just any business, it is paramount that the deposits of the customers are protected, even if the bank goes down. This was not the case during the twenties and thirties of last century and it brought down the whole world economy. Free markets are not an all or nothing affair.

I have, but I'm affraid not all participants in this thread follow me in my reasoning.

You got me lost here.

Anyway, have we conclusively established that Free will is incompatible with God's all-knowing nature?

chrisd:
In other words all you need is bluff and success will come.

I'm not capable of this level of shallowness. I'd rather die.

There should be strict guidelines for operating banking services though. Maybe the way these consolidations went was not kosher, but Banks do need a certain level of capitalisation.

chrisd:
Trying to be on top of things. I don't know about that. One thing is for sure, if you want that try law instead, much better.

Sorry to all the lawyers and other practitioners of a legal profession in here, but I find law the most intellectually unchallenging thing to study. You need a good memory and a minimal level of common sense, intelligence is not even required.
What I actually want to say is that I do not want my professional and social situation to prevent me from increasing my overall knowledge and understanding.

Hi Nicetohave, let us indeed not lower ourselves to a shouting contest, I appreciate you too much for that. I will once more answer your objections to the best of my abilities (and obviously I too make typing mistakes )

nicetohave:
nferyn, read my statement carefully, i was merely appealing to both you and everyone contributing to this thread, i mentioned panthress too.........no harm is intended and i have a measure of respect for you.

Point taken. I will no longer debate pantress, as she is unwilling to address any of my arguments anyway.

nicetohave:
Again you are getting me wrong, there are several criteron the bible gives for making the diagnosis of a fool " he who replies a matter before hearing it out is a fool" that is another example or statement, being a fool in one regards means you are acting out of congruency, it doesnt make you a fool in every facet of your life, again sorry..........no offense meant, but if a man insists there is no God then without fear or favour he does not know what he is talking about, he is deluded.

I was only stirring up the debate. Do realise though that the liberal use of the word fool to someone that does not share your epistemiological framework comes over as insulting.

nicetohave:
No sir, God is not a gap filling default---instead all knowledge is given by him, and man will never fully discover the functioning of the human body as someone has opined...........because the secret things belong to God, he fortold the explosion of knowledge he also foretold men shall seek knowledge to the ends of the earth yet some questions will remain unanswered, i will wait till explanations can be given to why HIV disappeared from a man's system, at an advanced AIDS stage, until then.....

This is starting from a position that you can obtain knowledge outside a rational framework through faith. I disagree. No knowledge is obtainable outside of rationality. Your position is that what appears to contradict any rational explanation you might have for that phenomenon by default is attributed to God. Mine is that I assume by default that there is a rational explanation, only that we do not have knowledge of it yet (or possibly that I am not qualitied to judge - e.g. I am not going to enter into a discussion about theoretical physics).

nicetohave:
so what do archaelogists do? nferyn, you are a master of words and i rever you for that but be careful how you criticize the use of my terms, i am a meticulous and thorough person even though you may not think so because you think i worship a God of default.
Archaeology by dictionary definition :The scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts and monuments) of past human life and activities

That's the dictionary definition and there's nothing wrong with that. Archaeologists do limit themselves to the remains and artifacts from human (that is homo Sapiens) civilisation. The study of the fossil remains of species we evolved from is not part of their field of study.
It is the scientific study of past human cultures by analyzing the material remains (sites and artifacts) that people left behind (http://www.saa.org/publications/sampler/terms.html )

nicetohave:
There is no such word as paleologists but if you mean paleontologists then paleontology by defintion is a science dealing with the science of past geological periods known as from fossil remains.

The human factor at play, I indeed meant to use the word paleontology.

nicetohave:
Anthropology is the science of human beings, theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings.........paleo-anthroplogists will just be a combination of the above two, they do not study fossils, archaelogists do, they only use fossils to predict geological periods.

This is incorrect. Paleo-anthropology is the scientific study of human fossils. Merriam-Webster online defines it as a branch of anthropology dealing with fossil hominids

nicetohave:
No sir, transplants between homo sapiens are not always successful, well i will assume your statement is based on your limited knowledge of immunology, and you miss the point of my main argument here.

Could you restate your main point, I'm obviosly missing it. What I was trying to say is that it does not make sense to use unsuccessful transplants over the species boundaries as evidence against common descent.

nicetohave:
We shall continue to go back and forth on this issue, please i have not laid claim to be able to proof to you that there is a God, infact i have continually said that only he can do that despite all our eloquence however i know he exists and i am merely pointing out to you evidences of his footprints in the course of men, you and i, believe it or not and as i always say, whatever you chose is amply rewarded accordingly.

The main issue here is that what you consider knowledge is very different from what I consider knowledge.

nicetohave:
I am open to corrections because i am human, corrections on certain statements made because like everyone else i am human and error-prone, because of the most read and eloquent i am the least yet this one thing i know, all life comes from God and all life will be accountable to him, whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not; there is no escaping that

So you say, without conclusive, rational evidence.

chrisd:
You should try science then

I will try to stay on top of things as much as I can. Once the children are a little older and I'm financially more secure, I will return to my former passion

chrisd:
Perhaps, the problem is that we do not actually know what the true is. So one can never be sure so am keeping an open mind.

I think a fundamental difference between ourselves is that you label that what you don't know as God. I do not label it at all. For me, there is no possible knowledge that falls ouside the scope of rational scrutiny. Faith is entirely unnecessary.

The traditional view that our genetic code is only a blueprint to syntesise proteins is already very old news. There is far more interaction between the environment and the genetic code than previously thought. I have just bought an interesting book on evo-devo, Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom. I haven't started reading though.
The interaction between code and environment could possibly cause this to happen. Still a lot to be discovered. Here's my sense of wonder

I can connect to that feeling, especially as a physicist, you are so far on the edge of human knowledge that it can be hard. I guess that would be less of a problem for people involved in the historical sciences.

It does however seem to be an emotional need rather than an intellectual one. It must have a lot to do with the environment in which you grew up in and were socialised in. What gives meaning to our lives is an intensely personal thing and a projection of on's specific frame of reference is not very fruitful.

I was wondering, as an outsider, what this will mean for the financial services offered, especially concerning electronic payments and ATM's? Do you have any insights to offer on that?

I'm not saying there need to be collisions between the two. If you're flexible, you can make both fit. What I'm wondering about is why there needs to be a God belief in the first place. What is the source of that belief and what is it's nature?

I still have trouble understanding why intelligent people come to position of believing in a supreme being. I can understand the emotional need, but I do not see any intellectual basis for that belief.

chrisd:
Why I Am A Catholic - Faith + Reason

Catholic Reason understands that faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth, and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.

What is God for you and how do you acquire knowledge about him?

It's true that the Catholic Church is a very big house that accomodates a lot of different people. As I already mentioned before, I come from what used to be a very Catholic country and a lot of people in my family were and still are deeply religious.
What makes me appreciate Catolics over Protestants is that usually they are not the judging kind. You can have fulfiling relations with them, even though you may have very different worldviews.
On the other hand, there are quite a few nutcases among Catholics as well. I wouldn't want to be caught in the same room as the followers of Josemaria Escriva or Msgr. Lefebre.

chrisd, can you explain why you are Catholic?
Also, I don't really see how you not finding a church that believes in reason would make you an atheist. Can you explain?

chrisd:
This is where Christianity differs from Judaism and Islam in it's application. Both Judaism and Islam strees the importance of knowledge and learning very much.


You forgot me, and I am catholic. What shall we do now. Can you change it a bit nfern

I was generalising. I certainly do not want to imply that each and every Christian shuns the quest for knowledge. It's just saying that an active search for understanding is much more stressed by Islam and Judaism. There is very little anti-intellectualism among Jews and where Islam seems to be backward, it more of a cultural thing that something ingrained in the religion, but of course, my understanding of Islam is limited.

@ Pendelite
And you base your assessment on what exactly? Do you have any data supporting your assertion that former prostitutes will always go back to their former employment?

yummy:
it's simply lack of development that makes us accept other people's language and even prefer it to ours. go to Spain, germany and France. they stick to their language. on the other hand, we need an official language in Nigeria since we have different languages there. assuming we all understand just one language, then it would av been so easy to stick to it.

You can have several official languages. Belgium is very small (only 10 million people), yet we have 3 official languages.

c0dec:
ok. crazy arguments up in here

i'm not entirely sure what atheists believe in (i'm guessing science) but i just want to lay down my views on the whole issue.

Atheists only lack the beleif in a supreme being. There is no positive belief involved. Of course most atheists believe in the value of science, but that has nothing to do with atheism.

c0dec:
Well, i believe God has to exist. there has to something a reason that explains how this world came about and don't tell me it was a chemical reaction or some big bang theory some old geek imagined. well, science may have the answer but science is far from answering the question about "soul" or "being" - the very element that makes us who we are.

The best current explanation for the existence of our universe is the Big Bang theory. If you would want to put a God at the creation of that, you would still need to explain the creator of the creator. Putting a creator as the source of everything does not solve a thing.
We currently just dont know.

c0dec:
i remember when i was like 11, lying down, about to doze off and then i started thinking and asking myself these questions:
why am i here?
why am i in this body
why am i on earth?
was i destined to exist?
what if my parents never met? would i still exist?
if i was destined to exist, would i have had a different container (i could've been american or an aborigin )

Why does there need to be a reason?
What do you mean by container (if it is physical body for your soul, you were already firmly reasoning within the theistic frame of reference)

c0dec:
somehow, i believe we are all destined to exist. the human being is too complex enough not to believe there's isn't some nature behind our existence.

This doesn't make sense. Care to explain tha statement?

c0dec:
if an alien came to earth and he had to pick a religion, he'd be mighty confused. each religion strongly believes they are on the right path to eternal happiness. so if there's a truth, which is it? i believe this is major point that fuels the atheist's belief (or lack of belief, if u may say).

You have no idea. Your belief is false.

c0dec:
but i know one thing for sure, and that is there exists a supernatural being!

And how do you know that?

Couldn't sleep, so I'll give it a try anyway.

Nnenna1:
Hey Nferyn ,


Can you give me one instance where atheism requires dogmatic faith? I know of none.

We're all in this argument together aren't we? And the fact you "believe" in your arguments proves something. Athiesm may be the antithesis of belief as we know it, but it is a belief in non-belief, and does have that human drive to prove to others, whenever possible that this belief in non-belief, is the only way to go. It's really not much different than any other religion in attitude, except that it is a free-thinking one, with no shackles or pressure. Christians, muslims, Judiasts etc try to bring out the "evil" in athiesm, as does athiesm in trying to show the ignorance in conventional religion. Some athiests I know of were brought up in agnostic or athiestic homes (as in any other religion) , thereby fueling their belief. I don't know, that's how I see it.

To me, there's a huge difference between faith and belief. If you believe something, you accept it to be true. That acceptance can be based on many thing: evidence, a conviction, proof, authority, ...
Faith is a specific kind of belief, it is a belief without evidence, a belief based on acceptance of authority, not on questioning. You can have faith in something, even after researching your belief, but ultimately, the source remains acceptance. You may say that it is the antithesis of belief, but it really isn't. If you are atheist, you just lack the belief in a supreme being. There are implicit atheists who never consciously entertained the idea of a supreme being - I was such an atheist untill I got in contact with theists later on. This contact has changed the nature of my atheism into an explicit atheism, because I have seriously thought about the possibility of a supreme being existing and after doing that, I have dismissed that possibility for several reasons.

Anyway, I still see nothing dogmatic in my beliefs.

Nnenna1:
All christians, (whether they like to admit it or not), have entertained the possibility of God's non-existence, as am sure, you have entertained the possibility of his existence. But our contrasting convictions have a better stronghold. No one has an absolute proof of God's non-existence, despite what we see.

Here's where most forms of theism break down. The moment you start thinking about God, you start thinking about his nature. By thinking about his nature, you assign properties to God. The moment you assign properties to God, you investigate whether or not they can be true. The properties of the monotheistic God of Christianity, Islam and Judaism include omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. These properties contradict the physical reality of evil in the world and make free will impossible by definition. This God cannot exist, unless these properties are different in nature than what our understanding of them is. In that case, God is entirely unknowable and all attempts to say anything about the nature or intentions of God become futile.

Nnenna1:
We haven't even used any of our devises to leave the solar system yet. Nor have we dug below 1% of the earth in which we live in. All our findings (in the physics realm) have been based on doppler effects and theories, and since, as of now everything seems to correlate, we are confident in it. Also, (although I don't see it), there might be the possibility that God does not exist because the physicality of it all seems to lean towards that direction, that all we see is all we get, right?

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.

Nnenna1:
This is paragraph going to show my bias, but, as all religions (as far as I know) believe in the non-physical presence of God or gods, and anti-religions believe in proof, there's not going to be any resolution based on evidence. you're going to look for it and not find it. I've seen strange unexplained stuff that will make you laugh, and even if you saw a ghost that told you about God, you'll dismiss it as a hallucination. It's all faith.

Why? The moment you start describing the properties of God, you make him open for envestigation. There does not need to be any faith involved.

Nnenna1:
Even if there is no God, I think we should all live as if there is one.

Why?

Nnenna1:
I still don't see the pleasure of living life without the presence (or, in your eyes, supposition) of God all around. It's pretty depressing thinking we're all just a bunch of advanced egg+sperm/atom+molecue beings that just came by chance when our parents performed the necessary act of reproduction by introducing one body part to the other as a part of a physical mechanism, with no purpose or meaning to life, only to end up dying and rotting into nothingness whenever some phyisical reaction collides with us, and that it all ends there.

Don't you see the wonder of our physical reality? Maybe you can read Dawkin's book Unweaving The Rainbow
(see:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618056734/qid=1136765599/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-8137714-3567327?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)
Why do you need an external purpose or meaning of life? You have the freedom to make your own purpose. What's wrong with that?

Nnenna1:
Or that we wouldn't really leave a legacy because in five million years the sun will darken and become a brown star and the earth will freeze out, and tada! the earth and human love and show is all over, that's all folks! If so, there's no point in restraint.

So you know for certain that we may not have found a way to escape that faith as a human race? The knowledge of our finite existence would rather make us focus on living a fulfilling life than waiting for a reward in the hereafter. We have evolved as a social species and our happines is tightly linked to the well being of our peer group (familiy, friends, relatives, ...), so we strive for the best interest of the group and not only of ourselves as individuals. There are no religious sticks or carrots needed.

Nnenna1:
We can all live like animals do, do whatever pleases us and not care at all: we'll all vanish to non-existence anyways.

But we never would for the reason I mentioned above.

Nnenna1:
If that is our truth, I prefer to live under an illusion.

It is the bleak theist image of what an atheist truth is. Certainly not [b]the [/b]truth. Do read Dawkin's book, I'm sure you'll like it.

Nnenna1:
No offence, I think that the root of atheism is rebellion and pressure and the desire to break free. Most athiests are this way because the church/mosque/synagouge/shrine had infuriated them or their parents in one way or another. There is some grudge somewhere. I really see nothing else at all.

Again, this perception is based on your theistic frame of reference. If all you have is a hammer, all problems are going to look like nails. We, as humans, do not have the perceptive framework of bats. We cannot see with sound and bats cannot see like we can. Try to step outside of your framework and try to look at the world as if nobody had ever come up with the idea of God. If you can, you'll understand what I'm trying to get at.
I hold no grudge against beleivers, I just cannot understand them. I do have a problem though with a lot of forms of organised religion, because of the fact that the human race could use it's limited resources more wisely.

Nnenna1:
I'm not proud of what christians have done in the past: catholics and the inquisition, crusades, and protestants with slavery and witch hunts, because these were not the true foundations of holiness. Christ would not have entertained any of this: he sat with sinners and prostitutes and laughed and joked with them. Being good and showing love to others in God, and being a fanatic are two different things.

Can you say, with a high degree of certainty, that the historical figure of Jesus existed? Can you say that what has been writen down in the Bible is actually the message of Jesus? I truly admire Jesus message of love, kindness and understanding, but do I need God to be so?

Nnenna1:
We love (tough love, just love, just plain old love) and leave the rest to God. And believe you me, this world needs a lot of that right now. No, I don't want to convince or change you. But I think you might want to consider the rationality in the irrationality of the other side. Pick a scriptural book, anyone (bible, torah, zohah, koran etc) , or all of them, and read them without devising arguments and trying to tear them apart. Don't even read them metaphorically. Read them as a coherent whole and as a trustworthy text, no matter how hard it is. Look for sanity in the insane, then you just might understand.

I think this would be impossible. My knowledge is part of my being and I cannot possibly put it at the door, even if I would like to do that.

Nnenna1:
Hell, I might even win you over sometime. I think I like you , and I hope we'll talk some more soon. And no, you didn't sound like you were mocking christianity or whatever, so you don't need to apologise. (gosh, I sound like some *let's kiss and make up* Barney the dinosaur guy ) Later.

I think it's highly unlikely I could become a Christian one day. But thanks anyway for this inspiring conversation.

Hi Allonym,

In the argument from causality, there are a lot of implicit assumptions on the nature of reality that should not be taken for granted.
1. Ultimate causality comes from a universe in which time is linear and unidirectional. It appears that way because that is the natural human interpretative framework. We are not certain that this is indeed the case, some recent research in physics seems to point at the possibility of a bidirectional time dimension (I just started listening to The Fabric of the Cosmos audiobook, that's why I mention it)
2. Postulating an uncaused cause only makes sense in a linear, unidirectional time. If time were to be circular, there would be no need for an uncaused cause.
3. All the talk about man's spiritual nature is just psychobabble.What is labeled as spiritual is always founded on a basis in the material. It is just a problem of representation, where the representation is seen as independent from what represents.
4. By associating spirituality with intelligence and free and then using the label spirituality to the first cause, the author is using an imperfect pars pro toto construct. This is a very loose association and does nothing to validate the statement of an intelligent first cause, let alone a supreme being or a personal God.

@Nnenna1
Thanks for your wel thought out response. I currently do not have the time to answer in detail and your posts certainly deserves a well thought out detailed response.
You seem to be a person person from whom it is worth learning about your spirituality. I look forward to our future online encounters

PS: are you a physicist?

panthress:
Haha i do use my brain i can't be bleeped to read your long bullshit.
comin from someone like u look whoz talkin about education
when u stop copyin n pasting bullshit that i can't read because its too long, holla atme
ps
when i mean bullshit i mean bull's rubbish

You do like to insult people, don't you? Does it give you a kick of sorts?

I do not refute the possibility of you having gone through an extensive education and schooling.
What a wasted effort it was if you don't even want to put that knowledge to use
And please stop talking about copy and paste, will you? Address the arguments instead of using lame excuses not to read.

ijebuman:
It originated from Europe so its the 'whiteman's religion' just like ifa is a Yoruba religion (since it originated from Yorubaland).

Actually, it originated in the Middle East and was prevalent in most of Northern Africa before the spread of Islam, but Christianity in it's current form is most definitely a 'whiteman's religion'

snazzydawn:
ah bon?montre moi comment.salut!!!

Ne trouves-tu pas les accents sur ton clavier?
Ah, je comprend. C'est un clavier QWERTY. Mes excuses.

Je vous souhaite une bonne soirée et beaucoup de succes avec cet essai de créer un endroit pour les francophones.
Faites attention à un petit détail quand-même: les accent sont là pour les utiliser

nicetohave:
nferyn i will advice we watch our temper in writing, i will hate seun closing down this thread because this is one that should last and last for others to read..............panthress please put your argument forward and leave out the other insinuations, nferyn is speaking for himself (and ironically against God) let God defend himself, you just do the talking.

It's funny you address me here, while it was [i]pantress [/i]that insulted me continuously.

nicetohave:
Well according to the bible definition, a fool is one who says there is no God, that makes you and the author of your references fools (remember this is not an intellectual definition)

No, it is an insulting one. You know perfectly well what kind of effect calling someone a fool has.

nicetohave:
It will interest you to know that the pioneers of the works of medicine are not people who say there is no God, infact time and again the works of medicine lay credence to the fact that "there has to be a God somewhere" when on a daily basis we see people who have no reason anymore to continue to live physiologically being snatched from the jaws of death and come back to life, how do i explain that, science?

Your point? What is your argument here? Something happens. We do not have a conventional answer to that happening, thus by default, God exist?
This is the famous God-of-the-gaps argument. Have you noticed that these gaps become smaller and smaller over time, as science, technology and medicine advance?
Our current understanding of the human body is sketchy and vague at best, we are just beginning to unluck the secrets of the human body. The new science of Evo-devo is giving us interesting avenues of research and probably understanding.

nicetohave:
no i will be a megafool to say that, something brought them back not medicine anymore, we only become living testimonies of what we have seen, the works of the living God! and that goes for my predecesors in the profession who have certified countless miracles.at least medical records don't lie and can't be altered.

Can you make your argument explicit here? Is this another testimony for the God-of-the-gaps?

nicetohave:
The anatomy of the human body alone makes foolishness of evolution,

How? Bring forth your arguments.

nicetohave:
what archeaologist do is compare fossils that are merely imprints of the remains of carcasses,

Archaeologist do no such thing. This is the work of paleologists or paleo-anthropologists. Please get the scientific field you criticise right.

nicetohave:
how does that animal function physiologically beyond its remain? does its cells, organs and systems and physiologic functioning bear any semblance to man's? why then are zoonotic transplants so unsuccessful if there are similarities in them? all we hear is they evolve, even if we evolve.by what mechanism? has science explained it? or we are yet to get there yet? who set does mechanism in motion? or are they "auto-controlled? give me a break folks, what are we arguing for and against here?

Please do your research on evolutionary theory and then you have a basis to talk from. It is obvious that transplantations between members of the species homo sapiens sapiens are always successful, aren't they. I'm quite sure you know immunology far better than I do. Delve into that knowledge and you'll have your answer. please stop putting up strawmen.

nicetohave:
If you read my contributions here and on other threads we have argued to and fro, you will see where i had asked you "what authenticates your references?" you apparently overlooked it due to human frailty.

I may have. Can you point me to an instance where I have overlooked that? The authentication of my references is usually peer-reviewed scientific research. I use references from reputable scientists who have sturied their field of expertise. If you ask me for an authentication of a specific source, I will do my best to provide it, then I will kindly return the favor and ask you to do the same for your sources.

nicetohave:
anyway what i do is argue for and against, i have asked myself "what if there is no God" what if all these is just a calculated deceit, have i believed in vain?, well i read the arguments brought forward not just by you but others who believe christianity and the bible is just a hoax and your argumens does not stand the test of time, even though you said you have read the bible (which i strongly doubt by some statements you make and your absolute lack of clue on certain issues) i will advice you look at the argument and check the reference that gives evidence to the existence of God, you can start by visiting HISTORY.COM, you can't read enough of strong evidence to the existence of a powerful, merciful and awesome God.read accounts of scientists who after strange and unexplanable discoveries have nothing to say other than there is a God somewhere.

I will have a look at your source history.com. Would you be so kind to go to my references and refute their arguments, as you currently have not done so.

nicetohave:
Sudden infant death sydrome (cot death), we don't even know the pathophysiology of it talkless of finding a remedy is that what you bring forward? I practise and teach only that which medicine has taught me but beyond that my faith makes me whole, everyone's faith eventually will be the dividing line between life and death, if some believe in putting the bible under the baby's pillow for a malady which science has profer no cure,then its up to their faith.

I'm very sorry if having brought up this here has annoyed you or irritated you. I did so because there used to be a herbal preventive medicine against cot death that was used by the so called witches in the Europe of the Dark Ages. Unfortunately the knowledge of their medicine died when they were burned at the stake. The inquisition authorities told mothers from that moment on that they should not use the ungodly knowledge of these witches, even if it was effective. They told people to put a Bible or crucifix under the bed of the infants. Unfortunately, it did not prove very effective.

Nnenna1:
[SNIP]
It's all a matter of faith in both sides (yes, atheism, too is a religion [in a way] and requires dogmatic faith, as christiainity). And it's only when doubt begins in the minds of both that there is change. Nothing more.

Can you give me one instance where atheism requires dogmatic faith? I know of none.

Nnenna1:
And using unrealiable urban legends to prove christianity only makes athiests laugh, so does using scientific proofs too prove cases to a christian--although science is a firm institution, it is never stable. In 200 years, scientists will discard and even mock our theories and findings, the same way we do the ones before us.

That depends on which sciences you are talking about. This is probably true for physics, but it is highly unlikely for the natural historical sciences (geology, biology)

Nnenna1:
But I have a feeling that what I will say will make no difference, and you guys will just keep it up.

The problem is that some Christians consider every and any form of questioning to be mocking. I have never mocked of anybody's religion on this board. I have asked questions and dismissed unsound arguments, but I have never mocked their religion. If I would have done so by mistake, I hereby appologise.

panthress:
dumbdown your arguments, dude uve chewed enough magic mushrooms today, get off da chain gang, copyin and pasting is not argument onye ara

1. If you would actually use those grey cells of yours and exhibit some cortical activity, you could start by reading my arguments. I regularly provide references to the sources of my knowledge, as I do not want to take credit for those ideas. Some people here are so intellectually bankrupt that they don't bother to do that.
2. If I write about my argument for the non-existence of God, I do not need any sources, because that argument is mine and mine alone. If you would have bothered to read the previous pages, you would have noticed. Now you're just talking out of your ass.
3. You continuously insult me and then have the nerve to say that I'm insulting you. I wonder what kind of education your parents gave you (or maybe it's just you)

nicetohave:
Thank God for women who can speak better and louder than men, i keep telling nferyn to tell me on whose authority were his "cut and paste" site references are written but he wont answer me, just because some fool wrote it on the net does not make it consumable and healthy for human consumption, thanks panthress

This is the first time you tell me anything [/i]about the authority of my references. Is lying for the Good Cause now fashionable among Christians?

Obviously, as you call all non-believers [i]fools [/i]on the Bible's authority, those people will be [i]fools [/i]in your eyes. Why don't you throw away all of our scientific knowledge. After all, a lot of it was based on the work of [i]fools
Why don't you go and practice an uniquely Christian medicine and discard all the knowledge of those non believers. Just put a bible under the bed of the newborns to prevent cot death, that's a uniquely Christian remedy.

John Lennon wasn't mocking God or Jesus at all. He made the factual statement that The Beatles were more popular than Jesus when alive, that's all.