₦airaland Forum

Op, hell is the best place to spend eternity.

Segeggs: Dawkins said dat lie first

Shouldn't you be begging for your next meal all over nairaland and facebook?

How can an ordinary beggar know what is true or lie?

Ortarico: The gospel truth which thou has chosen to ignore!

There is no other gospel apart from that of the flying spaghetti, there is no other truth apart from the fact that the flying spaghetti is the only TRUE god.

991: there are millions of members/followers of other religions in the world who wouldn't agree with you on the above, it's always funny when people disregard as well as discredit other religions/gods believing that theirs is the 'ONLY'. Sometimes it makes me proud and strong as an Atheist. ' you believe in jesus and disbelieve in others, me I believe in none. You are just one god away from Atheism.

Dawkins said that first

Ortarico: Silly and infamious commentary! For you can never suppress the truth.

What is the truth?

striktlymi: Delete pls! double posting!

I posted it for you to see.

The dumb xtians can write on cowardice of atheism, now they have no clue what to write here

Ortarico: If I were God, I would certainly regret having made mankind. I mean look what idiots we are!

God regretting making man as it's termed as "Anthropomorphism"........for it's just like seeing a tender father injured & affronted by his son's folly, stubborness & rebellion angers him & makes him wish he had been childless!

It's actually true in Gen 6:6 that God "regrets." The passage caught my attention in the same way many years ago as it has yours now. I would say that your "guess" is quite correct.
Therefore, there is no reason to think that "regret" is an actual representation of God's view of things. If we understand it as a conscious anthroponomorphism (ascribing creaturely & human traits to God), we can realize that the Holy Spirit is allowing the human author a certain liberty to express divine realities in human terms & let it go @that. Understood? What other question(s)?

Dumb and insincere explanation.

Because the lord your god who made and control your mind is evil.

Chokolee: You must be really confused right now..dont worry it wont take too long.

Am not confused, you are because you so much want his one million dollars. Those who take his side will be condemned along with him. Remember revelations.

Jesoul, MMW, I want to open a thread, The Atheist Chatbox, where I will be posting on how to become and remain an atheist, what it means to be an atheist etc AND I WANT IT STICKIED.

When you assure me of this I will open the thread.

Let there be no discrimination, its a sin unto hell.

The flying spaghetti bless you.

Prayer never work, its a waste of time.

Joagbaje: The bible is more current than tomorrow's news paper. These signs are only beginning . The real sorrow will take place after rapture. Heaven will lose its lights
2 Peter 3:10-11
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

Xtians are the dumbest people on earth. The bible is full of lucky guesses, so is tb joshua.

lagerwhenindoubt: (purposely) blissfully ignorant of the obvious he means

https://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/tcr/lowres/tcrn691l.jpg

fu'k you all

annyplenty: Then, kindly dont derail the thread. it is meant to call people to seek HEAVEN, and not hell, before it is too late.

heaven, hell, what is the difference. both are boring places to spend eternity

[quote author=Ile-Ife][size=15pt]To avoid being banned, please ensure that your post is not offensive to Christianity.[/size][/quote]nothing good comes out of xtianity

annyplenty: I hope your comment will change when you see the sun turned to darkness and the moon turned to blood.

Nobody can pretend not to see that events are happening so fast and so strangely these days and men are afraid because of what are happening
and they dont know what might happen next.

This was the same way Noah warned people and they gave glossed away the message God was passing.

Messiah is coming. Repent and be saved. Shalom.

i cant believe u believe the sh.it you are spitting out.

Dont worry about Noah's people, hell is the perfect place to spend eternity

chukkynwob: Oh I get ignoring the BIG ELEPHANT in the room....

what?

Le Ostrich: She is known as a Seductress, so I guess she is possessing you already

YES YES isnt she sweet. when will she visit me. I really need to, you know, with her

@ chukkynwob: great Chuks, here you are bashing me again.

According to present knowledge you are right.

Abiogenesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth.
Precambrian stromatolites in the Siyeh Formation, Glacier National Park. In 2002, a paper in the scientific journal Nature suggested that these 3.5 Ga (billion years old) geological formations contain fossilized cyanobacteria microbes. This suggests they are evidence of the earliest known life on earth.

Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the natural process by which life arises from inorganic matter.[2][3][4][5] The word is usually used to describe the processes by which life on Earth originated. The earliest known life existed between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon.

But i and some other staunch evolutionist and supporter of chemical evolution prefer they be used differently because of the history of the term, hence its philosophical explanation.

its because of people like you, before we say one or two things, you would quickly burst in that pasteurazation proved it wrong, which it truly did, which is why we prefer it to be sepratate, got it?

chukkynwob: Philosophical implications I politely asked for new information all I read here are insults.

Unless you have any new information? Abiogenesis is one and the same with chemical evolution i.e spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter/chemical/whatever-the important fact is that it all the components have to be non-living.

great Chuks, here you are bashing me again.

According to present knowledge you are right.

Abiogenesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth.
Precambrian stromatolites in the Siyeh Formation, Glacier National Park. In 2002, a paper in the scientific journal Nature suggested that these 3.5 Ga (billion years old) geological formations contain fossilized cyanobacteria microbes. This suggests they are evidence of the earliest known life on earth.

Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the natural process by which life arises from inorganic matter.[2][3][4][5] The word is usually used to describe the processes by which life on Earth originated. The earliest known life existed between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon.

But i and some other staunch evolutionist and supporter of chemical evolution prefer they be used differently because of the history of the term, hence its philosophical explanation.

its because of people like you, before we say one or two things, you would quickly burst in that pasteurazation proved it wrong, which it truly did, which is why we prefer it to be sepratate, got it?

.

i feel like mastur.bating over her.

striktlymi: Good morning ooman,



I never gave you an excuse. I gave you alternative interpretations in order for you to attempt to understand the message the author was trying to relate. Apparently you still do not understand it. Not that I blame you though, even some christians find it hard to understand sacred scriptures.

I always wonder why your "sacred scriptures" are hard to understand by those to whom it was sent

striktlymi: The bold would really make the scientist laugh! You assert that God does not exist with certainty when you do not have one shred of proof and you say that your thoughts are not based on faith?

Faith is synonymous with belief and as a matter of fact faith can be seen as any belief that is not backed up by proof. You hold the belief that God does not exist and for this very reason it is very appropriate to say that your assertion my dear friend is based on faith.

I agree that a negative cannot be proven. The burden of proof is obviously and necessarily on the affirmative position - the one that claims that god does exist - rather than on those who failed to fall for it

striktlymi: People become Atheists for many different reasons and not just because of the bold.

people become atheists only for lack of mathematical and philosophical evidence, people dont just become atheists, some say they lost their faith because of evil (philosophy), others because of science (maths)

striktlymi: It's understandable that you missed the point I raised. Energy is not directly observable...the measures you have given only reflect what have been observed indirectly in relation to Energy. I believe Richard Feynman (a theoretical physicist) puts this in proper perspective: "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount.".

I never said energy is directly observable but measurable, there is a difference between the words, open your eyes and read well

striktlymi: I am not one to run after or attribute everything to a miraculous work. Many of the so called miracles in Nigeria are very fraudulent. If I talk about experiencing God and you talk about the "Nigerian style" miracles then I guess you don't know what it means to experience God.

i told you i thought i experienced God, its all farcical hallucinations

striktlymi: Really??...Okay here is your chance....below is an algorithm which summarizes the scientific process...use it and show that science refutes God.

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/overview_scientific_method2.gif

accordin to your chart, which is nothing but a secondary school teaching of scientific method, the results gotten in science always show that nature lacks intelligent control. science searches nature, only to discover that apparent designs are no designs at all.

striktlymi: The above is a classic example of the fallacy of false cause.

I will save you the trouble of mentioning the "many things". Just pick two of your best and explain.

The above is incorrect. Intelligent control is basically needed when one attempts to make some specific things. Man by nature does not have the ability to 'create' i.e the ability to cause something to be. We make do of the lesser alternative, which is to make something out of what has already been caused to be. Intelligent control is needed when we want to make some of the items produced follow some specific 'commands'.

But when a creator who causes things to be is required to create there is absolutely no need for any 'intelligent control' because what is 'created' is not made from another 'created' thing and a creator unlike a maker can cause his creatures to be self sustaining...the problem here is that while you want to attribute things possible/impossible to humans to the creator, I make no such assumptions.

By saying "The above is incorrect. Intelligent control is basically needed when one attempts to make some specific things." are you saying that the creation of your God is purposeless? since you are implying that he wasnt making a specific thing

by saying the above, do you mean that your God created nature to kill unborn children by causing mutations in them, to cause cancer through rays and others, to cause dieases through HIV, are these the intelligent works of your God?

Did you not read when i said nature make mistakes in its pristine state without human intervention, mutation in babies that causes many diseases one example. It is the nature of DNA to be fallible, showing unintelligent origin

Besides, human inventions are automated to work perfectly. God is an omniscient being, i expect no mistakes from a perfect God. Do not compare human intelligence with your Gods, i cant believe am the one to have to tell you that.

striktlymi: WRONG!!!

Is there really an objective way to determine what is faulty? The act of something being faulty is rather subjective. What I might see as faulty might be working perfectly for you. Something is only faulty when it is not working as it was designed to. If a computer is designed to consider the operation:

(Start)===>(Get sum)===>(Average = Sum/2)===>(Output = average)===>(Stop)

but instead it performs the operation: (Start)===>(Get sum)===>(Average = Sum^2)===>(Output = average)===>(Stop)

then we can say the computer is faulty but note that the computer only performed the operation it was designed to carry out even though we see it as being faulty. In a similar vein the creator has so designed nature to be self sustaining such that there are laws inherent in mother nature and when these laws are tampered with the result is what is not meant to happen. The way nature acts or reacts does not mean that nature is faulty, she only acts in the way she was designed to.

Now, humans were designed to act free...we can choose to alter some of the cause of nature by some of our actions...this does not show that the design of man is faulty...it only shows that man is misusing the privileged granted to him by the creator and in the process his actions affects that of other creatures too. Mother nature follows some set rules put there by the creator and each time mother nature follows those rules it gives credence to the existence of the creator.

You claim that your God have created nature to be self sustaining, why then does nature self destruct itself, why does fire spontaneous start to kill life in a particular habitat. A computer that is self sustaining is automated by humans and will continue to function until tampered with or faulty, but in nature, things in their natural state are already faulty, solar flares occur from the sun, asteroids crash into the earth to kill people, animals kill animals, people kill people by natural instinct, is this a self sustaining act of intelligence or self destructive act? Nature obviously shows no intelligent thought in it affairs and origin.

striktlymi: Well it would be unfair for you to use something I can't respond to.

i didnt say you shouldnt respond to it, i only said you shouldnt base on it.

striktlymi: Anything yet to be caused to be.

According to you, if your God was uncaused, THEN YOUR GOD IS NOTHING.

striktlymi: I mean whatever 'is' was caused by the creator.

If "whatever is" was caused by a creator, and if your creator "is", who caused him/her?

striktlymi: Let them defend their argument and I will mine.

You disagree with that statement because it also creators problem for you. so now you actually believe that something can come from nothing. Actually, there is no " nothing", everything, every vacuum is filled with unconscious energy that cannot be created or destroyed. Exactly what i want you to believe. but still we have a problem with what this eternal thing is, you think its a conscious God, which is logically impossible (until it can be observed otherwise, at least), i believe its an unconscious energy, which is the perfect explanation and the only one proved by nature itself.

striktlymi: Having the ability of causing consciousness is not the same as making everything conscious. The creator can choose what becomes conscious and what does not. Man has the ability to walk and also can choose to make a robot walk like him but this does not mean that everything made by man must walk because man has the ability to walk. The above is just your own theory.

The above is not my theory. robots did not come directly from man, remember that, but everything came DIRECTLY from God, therefore everything has to be conscious. A cell that came from me, a living being, has to have life. Do you understand?

striktlymi: The subject of consciousness is something I would rather not go into but since it is on the table I will just have to talk a bit about it. I am of the opinion that consciousness is something humans are still trying to understand. We really do not yet understand it in its entirety. There are some questions that comes to mind after going through your analysis. If consciousness is only brought about by one's brain cells, why then can't we bring back a freshly dead body with 'working body functions' to life by just implanting a fresh brain into it?

Striky, i would say you disappointed me by saying the above. Death is brought about by disintegration of DNA material. i will stop there and tell you this. Search for Deinoccocus Radiodurans. Its a "miracle" bacteria that can "resurrect" itself. Yes it can come back to life after being confirmed "clinically dead" by various techs. This is what happens in it. Since the DNA is unconscious, the bacteria have two copies of its genome, one functions for normal life processes which makes it alive, the other is dormant and is half the first genome, when the bacteria "dies", that is by hunger or by radiation or by any laboratory procedure that kills every cell that never resurrects, the dormant one will be stimulated chemically by the non functionality of the working genome, the dormant genome then rearranges the metabolic genome, then the bacteria sprout to life again, in less than 2 hours. Research is on going to use this technique to raise human dead cells too. This bacteria is an extremophile, so this property is not surprising when explained by evolution.i see no reason why an intelligent God would give such property to bacteria that cannot mourn death and not human that loses his own children to death

striktlymi: @'Bold: I don't believe I ever used that phrase. If I make heaven, I will surely remember to ask God where he came from.

I obviously see that even though your answers are so easy because all you need to say i that the creator did this or that and chose to do this or that the way he pleases, you still lack some answers, disappointing.

since you lack answer to that, you are obliged to believe that it is possible for life to come from none life, since you will never agree that another creator God created your own God who created you, and even if that is true, then the question continues until we reach an eternal unconscious entity, ENERGY ITSELF, from which the first God evolved from and then made all things, like we evolved by chemical evolution and then made everything we have.

striktlymi: Explain how it all began...don't start from what is being postulated already in evolution...Even evolution cannot tell us how it all began.

The bold is your opinion on the matter.

I recommended a book for you, read it, if you still have questions of how it all began, then ask. the book is new and it explains how it all began

striktlymi: Evidence as used can imply being witnesses. I have had personal encounters with God which has gone a long way in strengthening my faith in him. Hence the faith I have constitute 'evidence' on a personal level. Evidence as you know it is not what the author tried to pass across. The above is really your own interpretation of the message.

I dont like your insincerity on this subject. YOur God wants me to worship him, he gotta offer me proof of his existence and that is faith. Dont think that a dreamnight of seeing God saying, ah oh i am god and stuff will make me cry to his fit, i need confidently assured evidence, i need faith. i need faith to believe God exist. You are there, i cant see you, i have faith you are there because i can communicate you, i need such obvious communication with God too, not some whisper after which you will blame me for not listening enough.

striktlymi: You really are getting it very wrong. Personally I don't mind you being an atheist if in right conscience you believe that is the way for you. And frankly I don't want someone to become Christian when the individual is not convinced about Christianity. That conviction needs to be there and it only comes when one has had a personal experience with God. That is God's job not mine!

same here, but dont forget matt. 28v19-20. It is your obligation.

striktlymi: I will advice you explain things you know something about. Interpretation of sacred scriptures is really not meant for everyone. I do understand all that you have put forth.

Interpretation of holy scriptures is obviously for you, by inference from your answer, so pls, interpret the verses and tell me i do not need faith to believe in God and that i do not need confidently assured evidence to believe in God, tell me i only need to be baptized and brainwashed and we can call it even right now.refer to my picture

striktlymi: WRONG again!!!

One is only free from the burden of proof when he or she does not make an assertion of his or her own. Anyone who makes an assertion is bound by this 'burden' whether you choose to call it positive or negative assertions.

An atheist who refuses a belief is free from this burden cause the onus will be on the one who asserts to prove his or her position if he or she wants the Atheist to accept his or her claims.

But when an Atheist holds an assertion of his or her own then the burden of proof is on that Atheist also. There is no running away from this one.

we are together in a room, i say santa clause is here now, you say its not because we both can't see it and you dont really care if santa clause is present or not and i want you to really believe so you will not lose your present from santa clause, the burden therefore, is on me to prove my assertions, because i am the one trying to convince you, remember that.

chukkynwob: Phew!!! Ooman!!!!!
Please what is the difference between chemical evolution and abiogenesis?

And you had the guts to compare Electrical and Electronics Engineering to repairing TV?

Please let's pretend I'm illiterate, can you enlighten me on the differences?

Logicboy smh!!!! You believed that chemical evolution is different from abiogenesis

dont be so dumb, they have different philosophical implications dunce. read the history of abiogenesis and chemical evolution, then check out pasteurization. pasteurization now proves wrong life originating from organic decaying matter which is what abiogenesis originally means. abiogenesis is wrongly used by many to mean organic evolution this days neglecting the philosophical implications, such dunce like yourself.

chukkynwob: I cannot believe you said that chemical evolution is different from abiogenesis and Sir Logicboy defender of atheism concurred...It really places a chink on your armor in the sense that everything is true as long as it is antiGod.

dont be so dumb, they have different philosophical implications dunce. read the history of abiogenesis and chemical evolution, then check out pasteurization. pasteurization now proves wrong life originating from organic decaying matter which is what abiogenesis originally means. abiogenesis is wrongly used by many to mean organic evolution this days neglecting the philosophical implications, such dunce like yourself.

dont be so dumb, meteor shower is not a new thing

Joagbaje: I'm still waiting . Tell us from scriptures . The bible is our reference. The antichrist will not believe in any God . He will come in his own name

John 5:43
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not:if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Daniel 11:37
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god:for he shall magnify himself above all.

The antichrist will disguise to get your attention.

Chokolee: Fallacy!!
I think you really meant to say; You changed and misplaced things brother

believe it or not, pastor chris is the anti christ

Joagbaje: Really? kindly Explain this from the bible . So the antichrist is from Nigeria ? I thought he will be from Middle East

yea, i thought he will come from Asia too but things change