₦airaland Forum

Take God out of reasoning and NOTHING is ultimately meaningful-

*Time
*Matter
*Space
*Morals
*Compassion
*Justice
*Life
*Death
*Education
*Friendship
*Government
*Capitalism
*Communism
*Pain
*Pleasure...

Nothing will be meaningful and your arguments will only be based on another meaningless variable: your view/opinion.

.

randomperson:
God is not like me and I don't want to be like him... I am more consistent in my principles and infinitely more considerate in my relationship with other people

You can have principles but if they worth that title they are not yours, you adopted them and that you say you are more consistent in your principles??

The more you know, the more you honestly know you have more to know- that you don't really know much because there is infinitely more to know.
Imagine how different your attitude will be if you can just acknowledge that, if there is God, He knows all things and His reasoning and decisions will consequently be definitely different from yours.

jonbellion:
actually the problem isn't the belief in God
The problem is religious Gods
Religious Gods aren't real
I cant say the same for a supreme being
But the supreme being is NOT the a Abrahamic God
You can be a diest
Deism is much more logical
Diests acknowledge God
But they don't see why a perfect God should demand worship from it's followers and punish those who don't abide
Same with atheists
And that's the kind of God religion portrays
I'm an agnostic athiest
I'm very much open to the idea of a creator
If I should acknowledge one I'd be a diest
Thiesm is dumb

The assumption you are making is: IF IT DOESN'T APPEAL TO MY REASONING, IT IS NOT CORRECT.

I guess you know that's not always true.

ScepticalPyrrho:
It implies that you've been deceived. It means you and every other person you've held with high regards were either gullible or taking advantage of other gullible people.

Lastly, you'll have to find a way to live with this fact, and religion is not an option, because it's not the solution but where to duck for the while.

The harder part is when after all this exposure, you decide to keep deceiving yourself, and lying to your intellect, and force yourself to remain religious by attacking atheists on nairaland just to find solace when there is non.

Bitter truth bro.... No one "knows", you just believe that's all. It is never enough, except you shut down your reasoning faculty.

I know God is real to the point that if I say otherwise, I know it is a pure lie... because this "Knowing" is not academic. It's deeper than knowing Buhari is the president of Nigeria. It's an experiential knowledge.

The problem is, people who don't know God personally trying to convince someone who does otherwise instead of honestly asking how to know.

akintom:
Stop all this childish rathole.

You folks premised the evidence of the existence of your God, on known variables (completely subjective for that matter).

But a scientific observation of these variables showed mere illusion and delusion.

We demanded an empirical evidence, all you folks have been fooling around is bulk passing.

Emperical evidence like what? Are you already assuming
1. that there must be a particular way to identify God different from what you consider as not enough evidence

2. that with your current mindset you will recognize the existence of God if all "evidences" are presented to you?

3. that God is under obligation to subject Himself to your reasoning whereas you have no obligation to seek Him as Someone worth knowing personally and a very important Treasure to find? etc



Get serious. If anyone thinks he needs better education, he gets ready to give it what it takes. The school and knowledge will not come to you, you are an active participant. That's how life is.
And you don't seek an information that you've already concluded doesn't exist. Do you?

ScepticalPyrrho:
@ pdbonline,

It is hard to be an atheist, it is harder to be an agnostist.

And it all comes when you are ready to seek facts and not baseless claims.

Why is it hard?

Skeptics have often pointed out that no archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ has been discovered. And they are correct, at least perhaps up until the present. A recent incredible discovery may put to rest that criticism.

A secondary issue must first be considered. Is it reasonable to expect such artifacts or inscriptions? After all, the man Jesus was not a prominent governmental leader. He was essentially an itinerant preacher, with few possessions, and eventually suffered the death of a common outlaw. Would the Romans have recorded His life or death with an inscription or statue? Certainly not.

Actually, Jewish archaeological evidence of the entire period is rather sparse. There are the remains of large and extensive Roman cities, and adequate inscriptions of leaders, including Herod, Pilate and Festus. There are also influential Jews such as Caiaphas, but almost nothing can be found recording the lives of ordinary individuals. And remember that in A.D. 70 Jerusalem was totally destroyed by Titus. What may still exist is buried under the thriving modern city. Certainly the odds are against an artifact's survival.

The scarcity of archaeological artifacts can be contrasted, however, with the wealth of historical evidence for Christ. Soon the apostles had written letters detailing Christ's life and teachings, to be followed by the writings of Paul all widely copied and circulated, within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. The Roman historian Josephus mentioned Christ several times while relating noteworthy civic events, including the execution of one named "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ/Messiah" referring evidently to Jesus' brother James, leader of the early church and author of the New Testament book bearing his name.

The new artifact is an ossuary, a medium-sized box in which human bones were placed for permanent burial after the flesh had all decayed away. This practice was employed for only a brief period of time from about B.C. 20 to A.D. 70. The box is made of a soft, chalky, limestone, common to the area. The contents have long since vanished.

Most remarkably, an inscription has been etched into the side which reads, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" in the Aramaic script of the time. Careful studies, including scrutiny under a scanning electron microscope show the inscription to be genuine. The patina, or oxidized surface equally covers both box and the interior of the etched letters. The recognized expert on such matters, Dr. Andre Lemaire, concludes: "I am pleased to report that in my judgment it is genuinely ancient and not a fake."

All three names used were common in that era, but seldom was the deceased's brother mentioned, unless that brother was noteworthy. To have all three listed, in correct Biblical relationship certainly supports the possibility of this being the ossuary of the Biblical James.

With or without the ossuary or other archeological evidence, we can still be confident that the events are true. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith, well grounded in the facts of history, and the Bible is an entirely accurate document. On its teachings we can base our lives and eternal destiny.

Cite this article: John D. Morris, Ph.D. 2002. Has Archaeological Evidence for Jesus Been Discovered?. Acts & Facts. 31 (12).


http://www.icr.org/article/has-archaeological-evidence-for-jesus-been-discove/

Edenoscar:
Another stupid statement again, you bring up a God who supposedly recides outside space and time and then ask atheists to disprove it, next thing you would do is ask us to disprove russel's teapot and when we cant that means it exist!

Are you acknowledging that you lack capacity to know God exist by yourself? That's understandable and reasonable than claiming God doesn't exist. After all, we didn't know many things we now know about our own Galaxy centuries ago until we had the capacity (Telescopes and so on) to acquire such knowledge. The later claim is simply unscientific and equally irrational.

God reveals Himself to people. You will be right if you acknowledge your inability.

An2elect2:
Have you Christ? if you have him nothing will move you.

The day He revealed Himself to me, everything changed. I am a living testimony that Jesus is real.

Deicide:
Atheism is not For the Weak minded my Brother... It's not for those that cant face Reality..

So what is reality.

randomperson:
Atheism is foolish?? Now, shall we consider what u consider wise...
- that the sun was made before light
- that u were made from dust
- that Noah packed millions of species of animals into a boat- carnivores included- for hundreds of days- though some animals don't even live that long,
- that a good god accepted a human being as burnt offering
- that a good god provided wild animals to tear 42 children to pieces
- that an omniscient god was surprised and sad that people were evil.
I could go on and on but it won't serve any purpose, u need your delusions

You have many things to learn. Unfortunately, you believe you know already so teaching you is of no benefit.
Next time when you check out stuffs in the Bible, know what it means to be "God" first before going ahead because you reason as if God is like you.

peacesamuel94:
Even the devil is not an atheist.

He knows better.

Foolishness of atheism is revealed in the very idea that there is no God.

I am yet to see any of you prove the validity of your godless claim based on evidence which you always want us to believe you use. You only derive pseudo-satisfaction in ATTEMPTING to prove others wrong.

That something looks inconceivable or incorrect to you doesn't make it so. That's one reason students fail some multiple choice questions: they did not pick a correct option because it doesn't look like it. May just be that your mind lacks the capacity to handle some information about Christianity you think is wrong.

I am not ready for argument, just stating my reality.

1. God is MY Father and MY God. I know Him personally

2. Because the more I reason and discuss with atheists, the more the foolishness of atheism hits me. Pardon me if you are an atheist. Just sharing my personal observation.

3. Because I rely on the grace of God to keep me from deception and God has been faithful to show me the errors of my mind at my down times.

If you have believed in Jesus that He died for you and, risen from the dead, He is your saviour and righteousness, according to the Bible, you ARE ALREADY A SAINT- separated to God and precious to Him.

However,
according to the leadership of the catholic church, apart from being a catholic, to become a saint

1. you must have lived an exemplary and pious life,

2. performed at least two miracles and

3. you must have died

This is very different from what the Bible in Colossians 1:12 says, that God Himself has qualified us-not just to be saints but to partake of all the inheritance of the saints, He only requires us to live like that too. God's word in the Bible is given for correction of even the Pope (2 Timothy 3:16-17) but, as Jesus warned, religious TRADITIONS can make the word of God of no effect in people.

BIBLE EVIDENCES AGAINST CATHOLIC SAINTHOOD

PIOUS PEOPLE?

According to God's word, it is not because of what you have done, rather it is what God Himself decided to make all His people to be.
This can be noted in the commands given to those who are ALREADY SAINTS of God

i. Psalm 31:23

"Oh, love the LORD (Yahweh), all you His saints! For the LORD preserves the faithful."


ii. Psalm 34:9
"Oh, fear the LORD, you His saints! There is no want to those who fear Him."

Why give such instructions to saints if that is what is required to be saints?

iii. Also, we see Apostle Paul address his letters to the saints or the churches of the saints, yet in the letters he gives them instructions on how saints ought to conduct themselves. For example

Ephesians 1:1 reads

" Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God,
To the saints WHO ARE IN EPHESUS..."

And in Ephesians 5:3,6 he says,


"But fornication (sex with someone you are not married to) and all uncleanness or covetousness , let it not even be named among you, AS IS FITTING FOR SAINTS... Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience."

iv. Peter also wrote as an apostle of Jesus Christ to all the Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia and called all of them saints.

"YOU ARE a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a HOLY NATION, His own special people that you may proclaim the praises of Him Who brought you out of darkness into His marvelous light."(1Peter 2:9)

The Greek word translated as "holy" ( hagios) in the above passage is the same word translated "saint" all through the new testament. So the whole nation of Christians are saints already.


FIRST DIE?

It is also obvious from the forgoing that the saints according to the Bible are all Christians and so they became AND WERE ADDRESSED AS SAINTS while living somewhere physically on earth.

- We've seen that the whole church members in Ephesus were called saints above (Ephesians 1:1)
The Bible also has record of

- Saints at Jerusalem (Acts 9:13)

- Saints who live in Lydda (Acts 9:32) etc

So they were regarded as saints while they live. No ceremonies required and no distinction among Christians as it concerns who was saint.


MIRACLES?

There is not one Bible passage that supports the concept that performing a miracle qualifies you to become saints talk less two.

To the contrary, we have Bible passages that show that being a saint is not why you can perform miracle.
Example: After performing a miracle, Apostle Peter himself- whom Catholics say the church was founded on- said to those who were amazed:

"Men of Israel.. why look so intently at us, AS THOUGH BY OUR OWN POWER AND GODLINESS we had made this man walk?" (Acts 3:12)


This is clear and we should submit to God's word regardless of who we are and accept what God says about us, rather than make everything about some privileged few.

Source(plus some editing):
http://house-era.com

If you are an atheist please calm down and don't read defensively. That will not be rational, objective reading.
Nothing in this post is intended as an abuse or meant to embarrass anyone. So no one-theist or atheist- should read that in-between the lines. It's not it.

It is alright that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion in a free speech world, however everyone is not entitled to being correct regardless of how long or how many people have agreed or disagreed with the expressed opinion.

Atheists usually claim to base their lack of faith in God and their believes on scientific submissions and reasoning. Theists rather claim that faith is not in conflict with reason, it is only reasoning from a different paradigm.
Below are few common unscientific and/or irrational atheistic assertions.


1. If there is life after death, after-life experiences (so called near-death experiences) will be the same.

Why? Who has done the research and came up with the data on which that conclusion was made? None. Rather the data collated is giving an information to the contrary which is what should be believed.

You use tests to decide whether an hypothesis is true or false. When you go from conclusion to test, that's no longer science. Rather than say, "We observe that after-life experiences are not the same; let's find out why," you hear, "because near-death experiences are not similar, it shows it is not real."
My question again is why should the experiences be similar before they can be real? Assuming for a moment that the after-life is the real life and people who die leave there to come here sometimes temporarily and then go back, will the person that appears in Beijing China describe the same experience as the person that appears in Washington D.C. or Hawaii? So isn't it even more reasonable to assume that after-life experiences will be different going by what we already know?



2. If there is God, He should prevent evil from happening, otherwise God Himself- if He exists- must be evil.

Questions:

a. What is good and what is evil? Maybe this imperfect illustration could help a bit: A baby feels pain whether someone who wants her hurt inflicts injury or a nurse gives an injection for vaccine. Should we say the nurse too is wicked for causing pain? Will the baby understand that the nurse is working for her good?
By the way, who has known the mind of God that he should tell God what is right and who is wiser than an existing God who created wisdom?

b. What authority gave credence to that assertion that God must prevent evil?
You can't say the Bible is not dependable and yet depend on it to decide who God should be- especially when you decide to be selective based on what appeals to you. There is nothing rational about that assumption except you first accept that the Bible is reliable, and if it is reliable then you must approach the book with that mind-set otherwise you will see only what you want to see.


3. God is only an idea, God is not real.

Is this a scientific statement? No. To be scientific, it must be an observation that can be demonstrated by testing and reproducible under similar circumstances. Has that happened? No. No one was there to observe and definitely no one has attempted to reproduce the event of the beginning of all things.

In other words to make an assertion on the topic of the reality of God and be correct could only mean that you are either God telling us that you don't exist (irrational) or you do or you've experienced Him personally and you know He exists (rational). That will be reality and only theists claim such rational experiences. So the actual unreal idea will be the idea that God doesn't exist.

#Atheist #Atheism #Religion #Logic #Rationalism #ProofofGod #Evidence #Fait

donnffd:
I am pro-choice, i believe a woman should be given the right to do with her body whatever she seems fit...If she wants to have an abortion, then its should be her right to do so.

Thanks for the reply.

ScepticalPyrrho:
I believe people are becoming more informed than ever.

Only women in rural areas may still depend on abortion as a birth control measure.

I don't see an unborn child an independent life. It relies on supplies and attachment to a womb to survive.

Unborn child isn't a human person, getting rid of it isn't the same a taking a life.

There are living organisms in all unwanted growth in our body and we get rid of them without a flinch.

We kill mosquitoes everyday. If we follow the argument that assumes the fertilized egg is life to its full implications, the male semen is also life. Therefore use of condoms is a destruction a potential life too. You can further argue that a male who has erection without "releasing" has hindered the possible existence of a child...

An already born child is independent on someone else's freedom and has equal rights to life.

*MyTake*

It can be argued too that while a fertilized egg grows to become an adult human, neither the egg on its own nor the male release on its own grows to become human. It's the value of human life rather than the presence of life that births such positions.

Someone may also argue that even a newborn left alone will die- absolutely dependent. And while in the womb, it became dependent, in most cases, as a known consequence of the decision of the woman to have sex.

*I don't want this post to become a debate. I was just curious about the possibility that atheists (like people with other views on God) don't necessarily share the same position on abortion.

hopefulLandlord:
I'm torn between opposing or endorsing it

I'm of the opinion that it should be allowed under certain circumstances like pregnancy through rape, inability to take care of the child, health problems, war, famine etc

I'm however against unregulated abortion, a situation where anyone can just keep aborting without cogent reasons as it can lead to using abortion as a means of "Birth Control"

Thanks.
But is that wrong? I mean for someone else who believes in abortion to use it as a form of birth control?

ScepticalPyrrho:
I get you.

Apart from the cost of doing either of the above.

Most women who dont want pregnancy are not prepared to have the child. Hence, there is no point to bear the burden of pregnancy, or pay an highly expensive fee to preserve the foetus by any artificial means.

That's one reason I wanted to know if we have atheists like that. And I realized that there are those who consider themselves "strong atheists" who are completely against any form of abortion. One even said, "It is very wrong to take another life just to spare yours."

Or would you suggest that the State should begin to preserve all unwanted pregnancies?

It's even worse to think the child would be put through the trauma of growing up to know the mother wasn't willing to have it naturally.

I'm yet to see the good in all the options you've identified.

The ideal is to be proactive and avoid getting pregnant if anyone doesn't want a child. That's more responsible, less traumatic and more cost effective for the woman and child.

But I'm sure that there are those who having missed the first step will rather spare the life of the growing child at any cost, especially when they discovered there are women willing to take up the surrogate parental responsibility.

ScepticalPyrrho:
Can you put this in simple language?

Maybe I can learn something new.

What I'm trying to say is: instead of abortion just to be free of the burden of pregnancy, the fertilized egg can be allowed to grow outside the biological mother either as "test-tube baby" or in the womb of a consenting woman (surrogate mother). What happens afterwards depends on why the mother gave her up that way.

ScepticalPyrrho:
It's you I don't get.

Why would you preserve a "fertilized ovum" to grow up without maternal or parental care, so that it "may" survive?

What good will that do?

okay.
There are surrogates mothers. I've seen one before. She helped another woman carry her baby to term. The child is returned to the family. Some prefer this to adoption. They want the child but don't want or medically can't sustain pregnancy.

There was really no denominations in the bible. The church are not people who attend church services. They are those whom God has called out of the world to Himself through faith in the love of God as revealed in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.(What Jesus called being born the second time- without which no one-Bishop, Pastor or Pope, member- will enter the Kingdom of God.

joefredd006:
Jeez! have you ever heard of the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the early church in Antioch, a communion of believers in Christ, baptised by the spirit, presided over by Apostle Peter. Have you heard of the various epistles to the various churches in Samaria, Ephesus, Thessalonia, and others presided over by the Apostles. This led to the coinage of the name 'catholic' (universal) as it was fast spreading. Still presided over by Apostle Peter and he went on missionary journeys to admonish the people of the 'new faith'

What about a statement like:
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on
this rock I will build my church, and the
gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matt 16:18)

Now have you asked yourself which church Christ was talking about. Coza, Redeem, Or Rhema. I guess not.

'...and the gates of Hades will not overcome it'' don't turn yourself into a gate of hell that questions a direct order.

Drop your phone once in a while, and pick up the bible. it surely has all the answers, even more than google

ScepticalPyrrho:
And what good would that do?

Well, that would be inhumane.

Sorry, i don't get the "What good will that do", so the second statement was totally lost.

ScepticalPyrrho:
No.

I can't remember anyone at the time of discussion or argument.

okay thanks. Got some online now.

ScepticalPyrrho:
My position on this issue is hinged on the principles of liberty and freedom.

A woman who feels the pregnancy is a burden can do away with it...

Even if the foetus is to be considered a person, it inhibits the rights of the woman to freedom and liberty. No one should be that much of a burden on any other person, knowingly or unknowingly. Except, the affected person is willing to bear the burden.

On the principle of freedom and liberty, what if the woman gives the fertilized ovum up to grow somewhere else. She will still be free and fertilized ovum may survive. Just thinking since you gave a reason.

Found a website that seems to help: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/members.html

Ranchhoddas:
Is abortion illegal in Nigeria?

Yes, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.

Skepticalpyrrho have you ever met atheists who don't agree with abortion?

ScepticalPyrrho:
My position on this issue is hinged on the principles of liberty and freedom.

A woman who feels the pregnancy is a burden can do away with it...

Even if the foetus is to be considered a person, it inhibits the rights of the woman to freedom and liberty. No one should be that much of a burden on any other person, knowingly or unknowingly. Except, the affected person is willing to bear the burden.

okay thanks

randomperson:
Totally for abortion. The foetus is not a human being both scientifically and legally. And a lot of people are dying because of the criminalization of abortion. I personally don't see a drawback to legalizing abortion

Are you suggesting that if the foetus is a human being legally or scientifically it should not be aborted?

Thanks for the answer to my real question anyway.