₦airaland Forum

Pstor Chris is the antichrist, he is recruiting to his armagedon army.

there is nothing wrong with the chip

so i ask again, is this wrong?

is this wrong?

waiting on God is a waste of time, people may visit who ever they want to, its none of your business

people have the right to be satanists

Paschal007: Yeah me too. But to say she's biased is not just true. Y'all should serve your well deserved bans and stop whining.

no one is whining, am protesting against discrimination just because am an atheist. xtians would cut my throat if i speak of atheism in public with the way this is going. I fight for the right of everyone to worship whatever and the right to not worship anything on nairaland. I fight for the right of the satanist as well as the atheists. we all have our rights and this discrimination must stop.

I request that my thread "Atheism 101: a guide for new atheists" be on front page pls. God bless

Paschal007: How do you know that?

oh common, i have been nairalanding for some time now

I take a slightly different position which may cause philosophical purists some heartburn. I assert with confidence that "god" does not exist. Purists would take issue with my apparent assertion of a negative proof. That is not the case, however. 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.. As yet, those making that rather extraordinary claim have yet to provide one single shred of objective, irrefutable evidence in support of their claim.
I arrive at my position from another direction. If I come to you and tell you that invisible beings are present in the room with us, but that I just made them up, you will still be unable to prove that they don't exist. And yet it will be obvious and factual that they do not exist. It will be quite clear that it is an invention and there is certainly no rational reason to "believe" it (and probably very good reasons not to).

Someone has to say it, so I'll do it - There is no "god". Period. It a childishly obvious fairy tale, and, like Santa Claus and Superman, should never be believed by an adult with a working brain.

Believers of the ancient god-fables will of course rail at that pronouncement. Well, sorry, but they've had 2000 years to make their case and all they've managed to do is make a lot of people very miserable. They have resorted to everything from the Manchurian Candidate-style brainwashing of defenseless children (see Jesus Camp), to torture and murder, to genocide and religious war and still can't prove that their alleged deity exists. Threats and intimidation have always been much more persuasive for them than the merits of the concept. Despite the efforts of their best minds, they have manage to produce only the lamest of arguments. In the end they are left with the same tools as any charlatans - pretty lies, a story that is just too good to be true. Can't collect until after you're dead and no one ever asks for their money back.

For the beginners, atheism is quite simple - where theism means a "belief in god(s)", a-theism means "without a belief in god(s)". Essentially it pertains to those who do not subscribe to the ancient god-fables. It is the default state of all Humans from birth. In its basic form it is not an assertion that god does not exist, it is simply the philosophical position that one does not happen to share that particular belief. It is merely an "Excuse me?" response to an unbelievable tale. Atheism in its "harder" form is the clear recognition the all god claims are merely ancient mythology and are obviously false.

I take a slightly different position which may cause philosophical purists some heartburn. I assert with confidence that "god" does not exist. Purists would take issue with my apparent assertion of a negative proof. That is not the case, however. 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.. As yet, those making that rather extraordinary claim have yet to provide one single shred of objective, irrefutable evidence in support of their claim.
I arrive at my position from another direction. If I come to you and tell you that invisible beings are present in the room with us, but that I just made them up, you will still be unable to prove that they don't exist. And yet it will be obvious and factual that they do not exist. It will be quite clear that it is an invention and there is certainly no rational reason to "believe" it (and probably very good reasons not to).

To me, it's as if the god fables are presented anew. It is known that the current version of "god" was invented and modified by a committee of vested interests within recorded history. The evolution of "god", from early polydeities to the currently accepted and locally popular version of a single omnipotent deity, is well documented. It is a confabulation of previous myths which were then discarded. "God" is a distilled and finely tuned anthropomorphic manifestation of the fables and guesswork of men who thought the earth was flat. In reading history, we can watch the invention evolve. Since it is an obvious, and flawed invention of ancient ignorance and superstitious, I feel OK about dismissing it out of hand in exactly the same way that the purist will dismiss Santa Claus and Superman without much mention of negative proof.

To me it is of some significance that the alleged xian deity does not yield to examination. The harder we look, the more invisible he gets. All the clues are exactly the same as for something that is non-existent - it cannot be seen or detected in any way and never leaves any objective evidence of any sort. Yeah, I know - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but at some point we can stop looking for unicorns.

The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum. ~ Havelock Ellis

Among the primitives, it appears that rumors and fantastic stories were passed on as fact with little critical skepticism applied. Few were savvy enough to question such things and those who were, were strongly dissuaded from doing so. There was little that resembled scientific methodology and there were few tools available for critical examination of such stories. This does not add to the credibility of the ancient myths. It shows them for what they are - urban legends so poorly reported and so unverifiable that they could never be used in a news report today. In fact people who claim to speak to gods are now routinely confined and heavily medicated. As students of History and Science, we know that the ancient myths can be disregarded as far as they represent an understanding of the workings of the universe. They correspond to reality not at all.

For my part, I don't see how grownups can believe any of that shit.

Paschal007: Obviously she's been warning you for such a long time.

she never warns the xtians, as if nairaland was made for xtianity.

the whole wide world knows Jesoul is biased towards atheist. She would rather we have our section.

how did i miss this post. this is great

Top 10: Benefits of Atheism

1. Atheists earn higher incomes. (10-15% higher, according to 1989 study)

2. Atheists stay married longer. (21% of Atheists have been divorced vs 29% for Christians) -Barna Research Group 1999

3. Atheists are less likely to end up in jail. (Atheists comprise 15% of US population, however, only 1% of US Prison population are non-believers.)

4. Atheists are more likely to climb to the top of academia. (97% of the National Academy of Science Members are atheists. The 3,200 members includes more than 200 Noble Laureate recipients)

5. Atheists are less likely to succumb to the lure of authoritarian regimes, that promise miraculous and divine sent decrees. You think Hitler could have convinced a nation of Secularists/Atheists that slaughtering Jews was a good way to spend a Sunday? But far easier to do so when working with devotees of the anti-Semite Martin Luther.

6. Atheists live longer and happier, according to a 2009 poll conducted by Erasmus University Rotterdam

7. Atheists are not required to hate anyone. There is no doctrine that promotes in/out thinking.

8. Atheists have higher morality developmental growth. Famous American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg writes that at moral development’s highest levels – moral judgments must be justified on rational moral grounds rather than by appeal to the order of nature or to religious authority or revelation. While Freud suggested that religion served to undermine moral responsibility while promoting fanaticism, he contended that people who behave morally only out of fear of a supernatural penalty, would be unlikely to respect and care for others from an altruistic perspective.

9. Atheists achieve deeper levels of critical thinking and free thought.

10. Atheists are way better in the bedroom. (My own anecdotal experience)

*Correlation doesn’t equal causation, but it’s nice to have some fun with it.


CJ Werleman
Author ‘God Hates You. Hate Him Back’
www.GodHatesYou.net

youngchopper: @ op. Answer me dix ? Av u ever read anywere or heard any rumour dat it was human dat built the sun,moon stars etc. There must be a creator (GOD) who supercidez human being. Can science as well stop the moon or sun from shining? Lord is a patient and merciful God. The same way every product on earth as a producer like wise our creator

that is a very dumb question, not worth an answer

striktlymi: Good afternoon ooman,

Sorry it took me quite a while...like they say: 'better late than never!'.



#Saying okay with a pinch of salt! Other interpretations of that verse are:

Good news:
11 To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see.


NIV:
11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

I think that all the verses are saying the same thing in essence so that is a lame excuse

striktlymi: There is really no need to refute the above. All I need do is show that the above still applies to those who hold the view that God does not exist. To hold this view is to believe in an assertion. An assertion that cannot be subjected to the scientific process is equally accepted based on faith i.e. the Theist have faith that God exist and the Atheist (for those who assert that there is no God) have faith that God does not exist.

contrary to that, we dont have "faith" that God does not exist, we are certain that God does not exists, absence of proof is lack of proof in this case because God is a person with consciousness not a thing that must be spoken for always so that didnt work.

striktlymi: Hence, the saying: "Faith is not Math and Math is not Faith" is true and can be applied to both those who believe in the existence of God and those who believe he does not exist. Refuting the comment does not even come to play cause like I have mentioned in a previous thread I believe that the comment is accurate.

Faith not been Maths and the vice versa never applies to both atheists and theists, remember that it is because we lack the mathematical and philosophical evidence for God, that is why people become atheists in the first place. If there is by any chance that we can prove God like we can prove baryons exist, NO ONE WILL DOUBT GOD because we would have been able to quantify him in the least sense of quantification of an omnipresent God. I hope you understand that.

striktlymi: The above is true and I do not dispute it but however your assertion that God does not exist is not quantifiable and science has no party in it. It is simply your opinion and belief; or better still: it is your faith that God does not exist just like it is my faith that he does exist.

As i already written above, it is because we lack the mathematical and philosophical evidence for God, that is why people become atheists in the first place. If there is by any chance that we can prove God like we can prove baryons exist, NO ONE WILL DOUBT GOD because we would have been able to quantify him in the least sense of quantification of an omnipresent God. I hope you understand that.

striktlymi: Not quite! Energy cannot be quantified directly. We really do not 'know' much about it...the best science can do is to make do with relative measures...as a substantive thing, energy cannot be quantified in itself. We know it exist because of the 'observable universe'. Now, God like energy is best observed through his works in nature and really he is better experienced than proved...I believe he exists unless you or someone else can prove otherwise.

sorry but energy is quantifiable, that is why we have units for it, remember Joules, when we say 10 joules of energy was used in doing something, we mean that 10 joules of energy was expended. For example, biometric studies showed that
330KJ/hr (Kilo Joules of energy per hour) is used in writing, 500kj/hr in typing, 1200-1500 kj/hr in playing football, depending on how active the player is etc. Energy adsorbed or used is totally measurable, do not say that again or i might ask you to check into your chemistry textbook once again.

About experiencing God, believe me, i was a xtian, i thought i experienced God, i later understood it was a condition of self induced mild psychosis. Events of healing by pastors that looks like miracles are ecopsychosomatic reactions (a very recent area of study). There are no spiritual implications at all. Another prove against the existence of God is that nature lacks intelligent control, yet controls itself perfectly, this therefore proves that it also had an unintelligent beginning

striktlymi: Belief in God is refutable because God is not subject to the scientific process. Note that SCIENCE does not refute the existence of God, some human beings do and when they refute it, they do not make use of the scientific process...just like you won't accept the existence of God based on one's personal experience and faith, I do not expect you to want someone to accept your assertion that God does not exist based on your faith and lack of personal experience.

Actually, science refutes God. This is why a student who started learning as a christian later graduate to become an atheist in the first place, because science refutes God. There are so many things in the observable physical world that shows that God does not exist. Nature can only lack intelligent control when a God does not exist.
Remember that computers are infallible except faulty, that is the work of intelligence, nature however is fallible in its perfect pristine state, this is why we have mutations in unborn children. This disproves the existence of a creator intelligent God. It is not science that is refuting God actually, IT IS NATURE ITSELF.

striktlymi: For me the argument of intelligent design is really not scientific. Yes it gives credence to a creator but still I am yet to see someone base this argument on the scientific process. Claiming a right of ownership over something is actually a human thing. We are so engrossed in the accumulation of wealth in whatever form they come. A creator is quite different from a maker. When a product is made, the maker would want to claim legal ownership because of the ability of another to make a similar product cause the materials used are readily available.
However, a creator causes 'things' to be from 'nothing'...there is no need to seek a patent cause his creation cannot be 'replicated' cause of the nonavailability of materials, hence there is no fear of duplicity. God is the creator and he is free to give whomever he wills the works of his 'hands'.

I only used patent as an analogy, i never expected you to base on it, that is hair splitting.
You say a creator causes things to come from nothing, explain the nothing you mean. Do you mean a creator God has the ability to call something from absolute nothing? Then you will be contradicting the famous creationist saying that NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHINGS, EVERYTHING COMES FROM GOD. Mind you, if everything comes from God and if God is a conscious being, then everything has to be conscious, but in the world we observe today, consciousness is ONLY brought about by the right network of brain cells, any impairement causes the condition of insanity. THIS PROVES THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT SOME SPIRIT BUT ONLY THE RIGHT NETWORK OF CELLS. besides, if nothing comes from nothing, WHAT DID GOD COME FROM. You see that something must have come from nothing because in the quantum physics sense, there is really no "nothing". I say it is unconscious unintelligent energy, you say it is a conscious, intelligent God but what do we see in nature, UNCONSCIOUS, UNINTELLIGENT ENERGY, WHY? BECAUSE GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

striktlymi: Until better evidence comes, I am a fan of evolution but not in its entirety...I accept evolution to the extent that the scientific process can accommodate. Evolution does not explain perfectly the design we have in nature. Can you tell me how, when and why evolution started and back up your theory with scientific evidence? When I say evidence I mean facts and not theories.

Evolution explains perfectly the deisgn we have in nature. Have you read about quarks, there are 3 different types of quarks, the up quark with +2/3 charge, the down quark with-1/3 charge and the strange quark with -1/3 charge.
The proton is combination of two up quarks and one down quark giving a total of +1, the neutron consist of two down quarks and one up quark qiving a total of zero, other combination makes up the electron. This area is called particle physics. Now because the sub atomic particles are finite in the charges that made them up, they always combine in a definite proportion, if you are a chemistry student, you would remember the law of definite proportions, that a sample will always combine in the same ratio anywhere. Because of this specificity of subatomic particles, we have repetitive patterns in nature. WHAT WE HAVE IN NATURE ARE REPETITVE PATTERNS AND NEVER DESIGN, DESIGN IS A LAME MAN'S TERM.

striktlymi: Can you tell me how, when and why evolution started and back up your theory with scientific evidence? When I say evidence I mean facts and not theories.

Ok, to start with, am not a cosmologist so i will recommend, A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING BY KRAUSS for you to read to learn the evolution of the universe. The oldest fossil evidence of life appeared aound 3.2 billion years ago, very VERY simple cells existing separately and in colonies, this underwent mutations till it gets to us. This very simple cells must have evolved by chemical evolution, however, there is no standard evidence for this yet, only logical philosophy, once we have standard proofs for it, which researches are making progress on, we will be able to make life in the lab.
One living prove of evolution is man itself, yes us. We have balck, yellow, brown and white people. This differention is perfectly distributed into specific habitats, the black in the hottest areas of the tropics, the whites in the coldest areas of the temperate regions. Even though man evolved same time and same way, with the same color according to fossil evidences of Neanderthalensis( who's genome was drafted in 2010 for the records, habilis, erectus), we are now differentiating into different colors because we live in different environment. This is the theory of evolution in action, nothing more is more clear than this. And we are not just differentiating into colors, we are also differentiating morphologically, the whites have thin lips, we have thick lips, they have pointed nose, we have broad nose, they have wavy hair, we have wooly hair. This is evolution at work. This cannot be the work of your God, remember that God destroyed the world and saved only Noah, now, since God has already completed his work on the seventh day, how then are we, black people here. Did God get to work again? or did we evolve? The Bible never said God got to work again, so we must have evolved. That is the bible helping in proving evolution right even though evolution says whites came from blacks and the bible is implying that blacks came from white, it is still helping in proving evolution.

striktlymi: The above is not correct cause you missed what that passage of sacred scriptures was trying to pass across. The author never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God. Evidence as used in that passage has nothing to do with proving something scientifically. It is rather meant to show that the Christian is meant to be steadfast in his or her beliefs even though he or she is yet to 'see'.

I understand quite well the author never set out to prove or disprove the eixtence of a God, he was only passing accross the word of God as inspired to him by the "Holy Spirit". Now I would be wrong if the Holy Spirit was wrong when he said the faith is the evidence of you believing in a God, yet the evidence is lacking. I think the message is quite philosophical and therefore worth considering. The verse wanted believers to feel they have the full evidence for their believe, and yet the evidence is lacking, you can't say that is wrong, except you are saying the bible is wrong. There is no other way to understand that.

striktlymi: The above is your own interpretation and opinion! Every Christian is supposed to be assured and confident in his or her beliefs. Personal experience is key here! One's personal experience gives him or her the evidence required in being steadfast in the belief of God.

Do you even grasp what confidently assured evidences means at all. Ok, there you are, wanting me to believe in God. The bible says, "without faith, you cannot please God" in another place it says "for a man to come to God, he must first believe that he exists", in other words I MUST FIRST HAVE FAITH before i can believe God, and faith is the confidently assured evidence of things i can't see, and these evidences are lacking. Do you understand? Now i am an atheist because the meaning of faith has made it impossible for me to believe in a God, because the concept of God lacks the confidently assured evidences required for non believers to believe in God. Do you understand?

striktlymi: The conclusion has to do with your own understanding of the definition of faith and not what the author had in mind.


Thank you!

My conclusions are based on the messages found in the bible.

[quote author=Pvin][/quote]yes

Pvin: Please bro, why do u think hell to be a best place for enternity?

because it will be filled with strippers, rappers dancers and the world best scientists who are atheists. work will continue in hell until we can figure out how to escape to mars or goldielock. Unlike you in heaven where all you sing for all eternity is holy holy holy to your God.

Hell is just the perfect place for eternity

Olugbenger: Thank GOD

MMW are you seeing this?

Olugbenger: Sori

I just posted a thread that you are a scammer. you sorry

Olugbenger: Yeah....good news

i just reported you to the administrators for saying i posted what i would never "ooman: sori for not believing all this while....
Now i acknowledge GOD exists!"

Olugbenger: Yeah....good news

you must be cra.zy, if you dont stop that i will report you to the administrator and you will be banned. Do you know what crime you are committing and its penalty in real life?