₦airaland Forum

exu:
maybe it's just me but atheism appears to require as much 'belief' as a religion (say Islam or Christianity)...

To say that current ideas on 'God' are misguided/wrong isn't hard, the evidence is there...but to say that there isn't something out there that is greater than us, something that man has not thought of yet requires a lot of faith in oneself...

Why is that? I know of no atheist that claims there is nothing greater than us. We're just grains of sand in the cosmos.
To positively proclaim there is a supreme being, possessing all of these qualities (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, ...) takes a lot of faith (and twisted logic to make everything fit)

That only applies if the fetus is a person and from the moment that fetus becomes a person.

shredbaron:
Interesting! So how do you explain the various religions? The Bible for instance? Is it some sort of a mass conspiracy? If so who is behind the conspiracy?

Why do I need to explain the various religions?
As far as I know, there is no mass conspiracy. There is a mass delusion. religion sticks for many people for a number of reasons:
* fear of death
* need for purpose
* need for an explanation for the less than perfect functioning of this world
* overall irrationality of the human race (which was evolutionary understandable for wandering hunter-gatherers, but no longer functional in our complex societies)

Why not? It's not an absolute right, but then again, no rights are absolute.

Agnosticism is a position in which you say that you cannot possibly have knowledge of a supreme being. You can believe in a supreme being and at the same time state that you cannot have knowledge of that being.
You have agnostic theists and agnostic atheists

shredbaron:
@nferyn

You must mean you are yet to be convince that he does exist.

No, I am convinced that he does not exist. His properties are contradictory and logically impossible

chrisd:
You have some valid points. What if you were told you must do it yourself, cut it in pieces. Would you do it?

Why is this relevant? I have no idea if I would do it. I would certainly do all I can to avoid being placed in such a position. Abortion is not a visit to the dentist.

otitoloju:
It's definitely not a belief. A belief is anchored on faith and conviction. I doubt if an atheist can relate to such principles.

It is not a belief. It is the opposite of a belief. It is the lack of a belief in a supreme being.
A belief does not need to be anchored on faith and conviction. It can be anchored on evidence and logic as well. Hence my belief in the Theory of Evolution.
I can indeed not relate to the principle of faith. Faith is belief without evidence. I cannot relate to such a concept
Conviction on the other hand, I can relate to. I am convinced that the monotheistic God does not exist.

loco:
My dear,

Atheism is a philosophy. It is the lack of interest in a supreme being a Deity and any God or gods what so ever. Don't need the concept, don't care!

Can you explain to me the atheist philosophy. I, as an atheist, am not aware of it being a philosophy.
What does the atheist philosophy tell us?

@ chrisd

Thanks for your well thought out response. You do make something criminal by definition. Your terminology is not as neutral is it may sound.

Our main point of contention is in the use of the term person. Please read the earlier posts in this thread to get a gist of my opnion.

shredbaron:
@nferyn

Ok. But what do they evolve from? How did the one living molecule from which they evolved come to be? Or, how did the inorganic or non living thing from which the living molecule evolved come to be?

As I said, I don't know for sure. The Big Bang theory is currently best supported by the evidence, but there's a lot more uncertainty involved in the orgin of the universe than in the process of biological evolution.

shredbaron:
I stand corrected. Abiogenesis is the theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper conditions. Once formed evolution takes over and it develops or evolves to an organism capable of independent life and reproduction. Note that these are theories, I suppose inspired by Dawin.

Abiogenesis is not directly inspired by Darwin. Abiogenesis is no theory, it is the study of how life arose on earth. A scientific theory is something completely different. I see that you use the colloquial meaning of theory. Maybe the late Stephen Jay Gould can clarify thing better than I can. I will quote the relevant paragraphs from http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html (emphasis mine) Please go and read the whole article, it's well worth your time.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

shredbaron:
"Four and a half billion years ago the young planet Earth... was almost completely engulfed by the shallow primordial seas. Powerful winds gathered random molecules from the atmosphere. Some were deposited in the seas. Tides and currents swept the molecules together. And somewhere in this ancient ocean the miracle of life began... The first organized form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan [a one-celled animal]. Millions of protozoa populated the ancient seas. These early organisms were completely self-sufficient in their sea-water world. They moved about their aquatic environment feeding on bacteria and other organisms... From these one-celled organisms evolved all life on earth" (from the Emmy award winning PBS NOVA film The Miracle of Life quoted in Hanegraaff, 1998, p. 70, emphasis in original).

Sound familia to you? Just as farfetched as the bible if not more so!

It doesn't really sound familiar to me. In fact, it shows a misunderstanding on the orgin of life. It is incorrect to call the protozoa the first organised form of primitive life. Bacteria can carry that title with just as much right as protozoa. And not all life evolved from these protozoa, bacteria have a higher biomass than all other life combined. We even have evolved symbiotic ex-bacteria in our cells (mitochondria).

Anyway, the big difference is that this (incorrectly described) scenario may be far fetched, but it is based on solid evidence. The Bible is based on no evidence whatsoever.
And to be honest, common sense is not the best guide to judge science, after all, Quantum Physics is anything but common sense.

shredbaron:
Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the “spontaneous action of Nature” into living animals. His hypothesis was ultimately rejected, but... Aristotle’s hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation or natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today. This version, which postulates chance happenings eventually leading to the phenomenon of life, is biology’s Theory of Evolution (1997, p. 105).

This quote only shows that the author either has no idea what he is talking about or deliberately mirepresents the theory of evolution.
Evolution does not go from molecules to cells via random mutation or ,natural slection. Evolution starts with existing replicators. These replicators (which can and usually are be different from cells (read Dawkins The Selfish Gene for more in depth info - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0192860925/qid=1135866080/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-8137714-3567327?n=507846&s=books&v=glance )
It is certainly not random mutation or natural selection. Evolution is natural selection (and other mechanisms, such as sexual selection and gene flow) working on random mutations within a population of organisms. This is a fundamental characteristic of the Theory of Evolution. Chance is but a tiny element of evolution (via random mutation and copying infidelity)
This deliberate misrepresentation of the Theory of Evolution is most likely the work of a creationist. Deceit in the name of the Lord is probably not a sin in his eyes.

shredbaron:
More like you don't care. I, on the other hand, spend sometime pondering these issues. It is either that the world came about as postulated by Darwin, Aristotle and the rest of them, (unsubstantiated hypothesis which are to this day still tentative), or as discribed in the bible. Jury is still out! Bible however looking good so far!

Actually, I do care and contrary to what you think I too do spend some time pondering these issues. You did not really seem to read my statement:

nferyn:
Why does saying 'I don't know' take as much faith as saying 'a supreme being clicked it all into place'. The first statement does not have any implicit assumptions, the second statement assumed a causal relationship between a supreme being and the universe as it is. If you add assumptions to a statement, you need either evidence or faith in these assumptions. As there is no evidence, you need faith.
In conclusion: the first statement does not require faith, the second statement requires faith. Faith in the existence of a supreme being and faith in the supreme being causing the universe.

This clearly shows that it takes more faith to believe in a supreme being than saying I don't know (yet).
Your slur about unsubstantiated hypotheses, is just a slur. The Theory of Evolution is solid as a brick wall. I am yet to see the first piece of evidence refuting the theory and it really wouldn't be that hard to do: one fossil out of place, characteristics of organisms that do not fit the tree of life, ...
And please do read the article by Stephen Jay Gould, it can clear your misconceptions about scientific terms and concepts.

The absence of belief in a supreme being, nothing more, nothing less.

It seems that some people are proud about their ignorance.
Why don't you present an argument against abortion instead of stating your opinion without any justification.

layi:
Why can't we know anything about them? What if i tell you that you are a spirit beign as well but lives in a human body just for u to function on this physical planet---a part of GOD's grande design to build and usher your spirit into eternity?

This reaches the core of the argument. You assume that it is so. You cannot possibly know this to be so, you can only believe in it. If you had knowledge of it, you would need evidence.

If you dissect your last sentence:
(1) GOD: assumption of existence, no evidence
(2) grande design: based on (1), assumption: knowledge of intentions of (1), in logical contradiction with omnipotence and omniscience of (1), no evidence
(3) eternity: assumption of existence of non-temporality, not knowable to temporal beings (us)

This is all talk without a solid basis. It only makes sense if you ascribe to (1) and if you do not question the foundations of your belief in (1)

layi:
Have u got any proof against the existence of your very own spirituality?

I have not made any positive statements regarding the existence of spirits. If you make an assertion, it is up to you to bring the proof, not up to me to disprove your assertion

goodguy:
I disagree with you, nferyn. When we talk of spirits, we're talking about the supernatural. You do not feel spirits with your senses. When people feel spirits, whatever goes on within that person at the moment is supernatural. It's now beyond human comprehension. So they are not material in any sense.

Ok, I follow you here, but where does that leave us? We make sense out of this world through our senses. Everything that does not ultimately come from our senses cannot be communicated. It is a non-topic, pointless conversation about the sex of the angels.

goodguy:
As nicetohave has said, you will never be able to tell honestly, because you can only explain form with your finite senses.

I don't understand the point here

goodguy:
There's actually more to this world than what we humans can explain. It only takes the inspiration of God to understand them. But since you do not believe there's God, you will continually use what you know as a human being to defend your arguments.

We can explain many of the things we could not explain before. These things used to be attributed to the supernatural and are now firmly in the realm of the natural. It is a continuous retreat of the God-of-the-gaps. Sure, today there are still a lot of things we cannot explain naturally. Does that mean that you have to insert a God by default?

nicetohave:
exactly!!! the that is the reason why people feel spirits or ghost can permeate matter and move through walls without opposition, but then that is because the spirit being does not possess the same quality as the physical being, it is not limited by time because time is created to govern us and not the spirit realm, that is why death is a transition into timelessness, is it formlessness----? you will never be able to tell honestly, because you can only explain form with your finite senses.

And by definition, this is all beyond our grasp. It is futile to talk about it or even try to understand it, because we cannot. Death being a transition of the spirit implies existence of that spirit in the first place
When people feel spirits or ghosts, the ghosts have substance, which is in contradiction with their non-physical properties. Our senses require matter to work on, even light has some properties of matter.
If these spirits exists, we cannot know anything about them. If we can know something about them, they are material in a sense and thus self contradictory.

The only non-contradictory God, is the God of the agnostic theist, which is a retreat into ignorance about the properties of that God, an eternally unknowable mystery.

LoverBwoy:
NFERYN...n fellow landers u seem to have done da research n passed da several beaurecracies...
basically i want to open an account in nigeria without obviously have to go their and show them my " drivers liecense" and "nepa bills"...which i will be able to view online,transfer funds to relatives from my nigerian account possibly to their account or pick up...
and if there is any that allows transfer of fund from an international /uk account[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font][size=8pt][/size]

Well, I didn't have to go through this ordeal, it was my wife. Luckily, she was introduced to the right people, so everything went smoothly.
When making international transfers, make sure that you have an account in the currency you're sending, otherwise you'll pay an exchange commission and you'll only get the current official exchange rate. Not a smart thing to do. For a Euro acount with UBA, you need to make a deposit of €1000, I expect a similar amount for an account in Pounds or Dollars.
Once that account is set up, SWIFT-transfers are relatively easy and the costs are negligable if compared to Western Union and the likes.

shredbaron:
If you have already concluded that GOD does not exist then you are way ahead of me. We grow up realising that there are two schools of thought. That there is a supreme being that created all things; or that the universe evolved from nothing.

A supreme being implies that it exists to start with. This just pushes the question a little further without actually solving anything. It only brings redundancy. Who created the creator?
The universe does not evolve. Only living organisms evolve. You're mixing up two different things.

shredbaron:
It sure does not start from a human being called Adam or anything remotely resembling humans.

On that we agree then.

shredbaron:
For me, to say that the universe just happened or evolved takes every bit as much faith as believing that a supreme being clicked it all into place. I am still open to finding out if God did it all!

Why does saying 'I dont know' take as much faith as saying 'a supreme being clicked it all into place'. The first statement does not have any implicit assumptions, the second statement assumed a causal relationship between a supreme being and the universe as it is. If you add assumptions to a statement, you need either evidence or faith in these assumptions. As there is no evidence, you need faith.
In conclusion: the first statement does not require faith, the second statement requires faith. Faith in the existence of a supreme being and faith in the supreme being causing the universe.

shredbaron:
Once again good for you if you have enough evidence to arrive at this conclusion.

I do not need evidence. I do not profess a belief in anything. I am an agnostic atheist, meaning that I lack the belief in a supreme being and that I cannot have knowledge of the the existence of a supreme being on a metaphysical level. I can clearly say though that the specific God of the monotheistic religions does not exist, because that God is logically impossible.

shredbaron:
Do share it with me sometime. For me evolution does not explain how the first organism popped into existence enough to satisfy my curiosity. And, you also say it does not touch on creation. So where is the evidence? How did it all come about.

The Theory of Evolution does not deal with how life started, that is the field of inquiry of abiogenis. Evolution explains the mechanisms by which simpler life forms evolved over to to reach our current biodiversity. Maybe you should read a bit on evolution before you misrepresent it's content.
http://evolution.Berkeley.edu/ is an excellent starter.

shredbaron:
I think dropping the whole God concept merely because if a few contractions, real or assumed, before I figure out which they are will be premature. Like I said looking forward to seeing what conclusive evidence you have been able to collect.

I do not drop anything. I do not posses it to start with. The God concept only introduces more questions than it solves. Every time someone tries to explain the God concept, they come up with self-contradictory nonsense. Why would I need such a concept?

whiteshark:
Blasphemy!!!!

I am not the one calling the coconut with another name than His, you are. In your wicked tongue, you proclaim the god of the coconut instead of the coconut. there is no god but the coconut, certainly not a god of the coconut.

whiteshark:
I never acknowledged any other god outside the sacred coconut and you know it!!

You are denying your own words. [i]Peter [/i]whiteshark it is, isn't it? Anyway what an example to follow.

whiteshark:
I frown very deeply at your accusations and I will definately take this one up in the next councle meeting.

The truth stands on it's own and does not need your frowning. You have spoken profanely about the name of the coconut and shouldn't enter any council meeting prior to the moment all tress you've planted bear fruit.

whiteshark:
I have always worked for the general good and progress of the temple and you cannot deny me of that!!! I will see you there and make sure you have facts to back up your utterances of straight to coconut hell u go!!

You have not done any such thing. The coconut has given you everything and all you do is drink it's juice. You are sapping the lifeblood of the coconut and I can definitely deny you of that. It is my duty to defend the coconut against false prophets.
If you would truly understand the doctrine of the coconut you should understand that there is no such thing as coconut hell. You've been brainwashed by non-coconut churches and you want to insert their wicked messages into the good news of the coconut. You are truly a heretic. Planting more coconut trees will bring you to your senses.
Now go and plant....

whiteshark:
thank u thank u thank u.... I see we are making good progress. If an Idol worsahiper like Ijebu man can repent from his attrocities and become a member then we have all cause to give thanks to the god of the coconut.

On a more serious note. I have not recieved any donations (cash of kind) to the development of the temple and its message and I seriously frown at this...... I hereby task all member to send their yearly dues to my office as soon as possible. I need not remind you of the consequncies that will befall defaulters oh so let us all act now to save ourselves from enternal destruction from an angry God. A word is enough 4 even the foolish sef.

You bloody heretic. Destroyer of the faith. Most wicked of them all. How dare you deny the truth of the coconut by proclaiming that there is a god more high than the sacred coconut?
The coconut is all and all is the coconut. By denying this very truth, you have shown yourself unworthy of embodying any of the cocnut offices. Our coconut is not angry, it is you, in your wicked ways that project your own anger on the coconut. You are unworthy. Repent by planting more coconut trees and spreading the good news for all humanity

shredbaron:
It sure is contradictory. So which concept are we getting rid of? That God gave us free will; that he is omnipotent and omnibenevolent; or that he exists in the first place?

That he exists at all.

shredbaron:
I think there is a lot of evidence to support the fact that God gave man free will. One obvious one is Him putting a tree of which fruit man was never to eat in the garden of eden. This gave man the option to do so at any time if he should choose to. This was at the very beginning of time. Why, if he already knew how this will end? Where it starts getting dicey for me is the all knowing concept that people keep throwing around. To what extent is that the case?

The evidence only exists if you start from the belief that God exists and that the Bible is his word. If you do not start from that assumptions, the evidence is no longer there.

shredbaron:
As for God not being existent at all, that is a whole huge debate. Evolutionary theorists have debated that to death. My personal view is that it is a copout. Like you said there are many contradictions about this God or shall I say appear to be many contradictions about him. Are there really or are these mere misinterpretations by various people eager to believe that God is everything imaginable?

Actually, evolutionary theorist do not touch the existence of God at all. Evolution has nothing to do with the concept of God. The Theory of Evolution starts after the first life forms were there. It does not touch on the beginning of life or on the orgin of the universe. The theory only explains the diversity of life we encounter on earth today and in the past.

And why would that be a cop out? In view of the evidence, it is the most logical conclusion.

[quote author=Hnd-holder link=topic=1170.msg27119#msg27119 date=1124109480][SNIP]
The temporal lobe in the brain is the area where NDE's are experienced. If one doesn't believe we have a soul, then you are stuck trying to explain why we have an area of our brain which allows us to experience an NDE. Some will say it is there from an evolutionary standpoint to ease a person through the dying process. But this cannot be so because there is no survival advantage to thinking that you are leaving your body at the point of death. Possibly it is an advantage to people witnessing the death since the dying person will not appear to be struggling, although just prior to experiencing the NDE, the person is for visible practical purposes, already dead. Still this is not a trait that could be passed on in any preferential way.[/quote]Another God-of-the-Gaps argument? Sigh...
1. Evolution only gives an appearance of design. Many features of speciments have no apparant functions. NDE can be a byproduct of the lack of oxygen in the brain. There's the weird practice of strangulation sex that apparently brings a deeper climax because of lack of oxygen in the brain.
2. We know currently very little of how the brain functions in normal circumstances, let alone extraordinary circumstances. The prudent thing to do in such a case is just to say we don't know instead of trying to find explanations that are even further away from reality.

My guess if that the notion of God giving humans free will came from the problem of evil. It is impossible to explain evil in this world if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But then again, this creates more problems than it solves.

In light of the self-contradictory nature of this God, the best to do is to get rid of the concept altogether as it has only explanatory power for the gullible that can brush aside these contradictions

shredbaron:
God gave man free will. Freedom to choose how to live our lives; whether or not to believe in him and even whether or not to continue living. Does this take away his ability to predict, unequivocally, the path our lives will take until the end?

Yes it does. If not, free will is only an illusion and everything is predetermined.

nicetohave:
I have read with admiration our varying views on this topic but i must say i am most impressed by your deduction about the cessation of time as a quality of eternity, stunned because i wouldnt have thought about it but you are right, you are right and yet you do not see your need of eternity.as an intellectual you will do well to check up this bible verse (Revelation 10: 4-6) time shall be abolished and eternity shall be inevitably ushered in, this life as we know it in the physical goverened by time shall pass away and eternity as God has prepared it for us, not governed by time or any known laws of gravity shall be ushered in.

But you also see that this implies nothingness, the non-existance of substance, as there is only self-reference

nicetohave:
The inaccuracies is in the human mind, as it perceives it, not in the word of God

So god put his word in front of fallible men, who inaccurately translated it into the Bible?
Or is it that the Bible is God's word, but that our inaccurate minds cannot understand what's in it?
Or perhaps the inaccuracies of the human mind cannot perceive the word of God and the Bible is only an approximation for it's intended audience (the ancient Israelites)?

nicetohave:
in a way i can see where your spirituals deficiency is facing, you are only concerned about the seen world which is how, and not the unseen spiritual world which is why, but the difference is what is seen is temporary but the unseen is eternal,

That's a claim I do not subscribe to. Nothing is eternal. For things to be eternal, no time should exist.

nicetohave:
when your family and children and friends pass away before your eyes, what will be left of the purpose which you find in them?

Probably none. I could die happily in the knowledge that I've had a fulfilling life. I do not fear death, I only fear the process of dieing.