₦airaland Forum

advanceDNA:
So how is he supposed to handle it.....?? Any ideas

Let me guess...you expect him to just walk away..and lick his wounds quietly.....thats maturity abi....?? U women like using this word "maturity" when a man doesnt do what you want or he does whats best for him


If he doesnt do it this way...the girl will have the chance to lie to her family and wedding guest that he's wicked, immature, broke her heart and disappointed her and her family....

abi u think the girl will expose the real cause that she has been fvcking another man even days to the wedding ?

Everyone will have the notion he's a horrible guy...because they will always feel pity for the bride in such situation..... He will only be able to explain himself to few people who may even think is just lying and looking for an excuse .....


But whem you women do the same...you will say you are saving other women from falling for a beast and cheat like him...ok ooo

Especially in this age that 99.9999% of the population will support the lady by the time she spins the story. (Yet, folks will be screaming "men's privilege"

madridguy:
Write about something else they won't listen.

According to a estimation in 2020, Islam has 1.9 billion adherents, making up about 24.7% of the world population.

Stop blasphemy against the messenger of Allah PBUH.

Right about something else? The way muslims feel entitled is just insane. No one must say anything about your prophet, even if it's recorded in your scriptures?

Should other religions begin to kill muslims for saying things about their religion which is clearly wrong?
Example, calling Jesus a mere prophet is blasphemous to Christianity or saying that disbelievers are worse than cattle, should be met with death?

Everyone is free to express himself and ideas must be scrutinized, else they are wrong and should be abandoned

Hashabiah:
[s][/s] It seems you can't read . So don't quote me again with your stupidity

Great.
I now understand better.
If you can't back up simple claims and just deflect from main point, then I wonder why you have to respond in the first place.

Enjoy your hate and reject any Visa for you (or family) to move to the west.

Hashabiah:
[s][/s] Why should I care about what happens to Nigeria when people like you choose to support westernized democracy that does not work in the interest of Nigeria and Nigerians ...? You capitalist pigs keep swallowing all sorts of westernized bullshit and propaganda that adds nothing to your growth or development in the short term or in long run .

But when people like me support Russia or other communist states that kick against America and European hypocrisy, you are quick to throw online tantrums and start reflecting on "Nigeria and her problems ". Rubbish

Why should I care about what happens to Nigeria
This is pathetic. Because the terrorists are likely to spare you, so it's not a problem.
Lemme guess, you are another "peaceful" muslim.

westernized democracy that does not work in the interest of Nigeria and Nigerians
Would you like to tell us what works? Dictatorship or (Sharia)?

You capitalist pigs keep swallowing all sorts of westernized bullshit and propaganda that adds nothing to your growth or development in the short term or in long run .

Then the name calling comes in.
Again, what's the relevance of this with what I said
If you are angry with the west, settle it with them. It's not my business

But when people like me support Russia or other communist states that kick against America and European hypocrisy, you are quick to throw online tantrums and start reflecting on "Nigeria and her problems ". Rubbish
All you need to do is show me how I throw tantrum because you support Russia.
I only asked why such care is not shown towards Nigeria

Hashabiah:
True talk . Vladimir Putin's speech exposed the so called "Weapons of mass of destruction " in Iraq that the US tossed up and down for years.

But thank God we know the truth , and Ukraine must pay for having a hand in the destruction of lives and properties of innocent Iraqis

Who will pay for the destruction of live and properties in Nigeria by the hands of terrorists?

Whenever nations like Syria, Libya, Yemen, "Palestine" are mentioned, some folks go wild. But I wonder why they care less about the destruction happening in their one Nigeria

stamapro:
Him for just shot her comot for there. Thank God, say madmen no plenty for Russia.

That's an Israeli Soldier

Funny how a geologist is quick to propose freezing and thawing weathering mechanism. This guys are just too blinded by the lie that the ancients were not intelligent.
Many believed that the Egyptian pyramids and many others all over the world must be alien technology. Smh

lilbadroo:
Pastor Enoch Adejare Adeboye, The General Overseer of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, has explained why he will get vaccinated.

He explained that he will get vaccinated if it will help with furthering the gospel while he was making a speech at his church’s monthly Holy Ghost convention which was held on the 1st of October, 2021.

.He also encouraged his church members to get vaccinated

Read Full Post:

https://www.entstoday.com/this-is-why-i-will-get-vaccinated-pastor-adeboye/

The bolded is not true.
He only said he isn't making any statement on official grounds concerning vaccination. That is, if they are afraid and believe that vaccination would make them safe, then they should go for it. This implies that if they, after being careful and following simple precautions, believe that safety is of the Lord, then there's no need for vaccination.

I thought that Muslims in Nigeria would be concerned, since they care about human lives more during Israel and Gaza conflict.

No need.
I'm yet to see those screaming up and down during Israel and Gaza crises.
No one is condemning Taliban killings now.

Rather, they are invested in the Jos issue, calling the attackers (maybe avengers) terrorist.

Not a failure in its entirety, it's more of a learning process. Noting the limits of theories in reality and making adjustments.

It was recorded that the missile did not release from the bomber aircraft. But now it was cleanly released and even did maneuver, just that it didn't ignite. Hence, it's easy to go back to the drawing board to troubleshoot and possibly fix it.
It's just a learning process, common with Engineering testings

Monogamy:
I never knew we have so many active Fulani on social media until this weekend when the news about the Jos attack on Fulani came in.

As for what happened, I have nothing to say

You said my mind.
When Muslims kill Muslims, no probs (like in Afghanistan)

When Muslims kill non Muslims, still more jubilation

But when non Muslims kill Muslims, then all hell is let loose

There's no monopoly to violence

LordReed:
The laws of logic are descriptive, they can be taught to anybody just like any other concept. Concepts are not tangible material that you pass by hand to someone else, they are communicated so that others understand it. This is not a valid example, try again.



No empty tomb has been found that one could conclusively say Jesus was buried in so again not evidence of a resurrection.

I guess I need to put it this way since you seem to be turning it around
You claimed that Every objectively existing thing can be seen and experienced by all.

Now, are you standing by your definition of objectively existing thing?
If yes, Laws of logic cannot be seen and experienced. In fact, it's not just a concept, it is transcendent.
Hence, do they exist?


The case of the empty tomb is summarized thus:
If the tomb was not empty, it'll be easy for critics to point to his Jesus dead body to deny the claim of his resurrection by his disciples. The fact that they couldn't do that, but resorted to the irrational idea that his disciples stole his body proved that the tomb was empty.
That's what I meant. I felt you'd know that, but I was wrong in such assumption.

hopefulLandlord:
don't you think a god that exists, created every fibre of my being and everything around me, knows all of me even better than myself knows what to do to convince me of his/her/it's existence with no input required from me?

You may be right or wrong.

kingxsamz:
Good!
All I see is progress.
Anyone who feels hurt by this "new change" can cry in the corner. 10years from now religious lies would be obvious for all to see. I love to see it.

Enjoy your delusion.
You're not the first or the last that'll make such prediction

LordReed:
Haba now everyone can know what the laws of logic are, that's not an example at all.

I can certainly grant that someone called Jesus lived and died, any other thing such as resurrection has no proof other than subjective experiences. Even what Paul had was a subjective experience as described in the Bible.

Well, I used that since you defined what objectively exists as what can be seen and experienced.
And the laws of logic can't be seen nor experienced, yet exist.

Well, subjective experience was not the only proof. The empty tomb has no explanation also. Hence, folks tried to argue that he didn't really die, in order to explain the empty tomb.

LordReed:
I don't understand when you say there is no evidence. The history of humans clearly delineates this development, that is the evidence I am referring to. Are you saying human history is just a story or what?



Other animals have not developed the cognitive abilities we have so while they have rudimentary elements of morality or codes they are not as sophisticated as ours. Example, some animals will refuse to shock another of their species even though they know they'll be rewarded if they do. Also Chimpanzees are known to punish members of their groups for violating social codes. These are rudimentary aspects of morality even though they can't write them or communicate them to us.



Never said it connotes good. It is the basis from which morality begins. To survive is a goal, those things that help survival of the group are seen as good and the ones that don't are seen as bad. It's a group dynamic not an individual thing alone.



Now here we go again with this atheistic worldview. We have spoken about this before that there is nothing like atheistic worldview. If it were me now you'd be claiming I am not listening yet here you are unable to change.

Atheism is compatible with the fact the people care so I dunno where you got the idea that it is opposed to the fact.



What?

I don't understand when you say there is no evidence. The history of humans clearly delineates this development, that is the evidence I am referring to.

Are you saying human history is just a story or what?
It's the history I want you to show me. When and where did humans decided that coming together will help survival? What were they doing before coming together?

You are yet to show me the history you talked about. So why asking me?

Other animals have not developed the cognitive abilities we have
It's not that THEY HAVE NOT. They can't. There's no known mechanism for development of cognitive ability.

while they have rudimentary elements of morality or codes they are not as sophisticated as ours. Example, some animals will refuse to shock another of their species even though they know they'll be rewarded if they do. Also Chimpanzees are known to punish members of their groups for violating social codes. These are rudimentary aspects of morality even though they can't write them or communicate them to us.
Most of these though impressive, are just attempts to anthropomorphize animals. Especially, that of the chimpanzee. The interpretation of the observation were highly anthropomorphic (I wondered how such was interpretation of not even debated. Maybe to give credence that they share ancestor in support of the ruling theory).
Anyway, those are not morality to them. It's more of survival instincts. Hence, coming together doesn't provide support for we know as morality

Never said it connotes good. It is the basis from which morality begins. To survive is a goal, those things that help survival of the group are seen as good and the ones that don't are seen as bad. It's a group dynamic not an individual thing alone.
Alright, my bad.
But what helps survival of a group can't still be termed as good. Example: to reduce competition of food which helps survival, a group could attack to kill or drive away another set of people or animals from that source of food.
Is that a definition of good to the victims, using your logic?
In same vein, should allowing others to share from the limited resources, when they can easily be sent away be regarded as bad? Since it doesn't help the survival of such group.

Now here we go again with this atheistic worldview. We have spoken about this before that there is nothing like atheistic worldview. If it were me now you'd be claiming I am not listening yet here you are unable to change
It's you having good conscience in which the implications of such philosophy does not agree with you, making you to deny that there's an atheistic worldview. (Cognitive dissonance?)
In fact, same Dawkins I mentioned was asked in an interview that such implications would result to a moral vacuum. He replied:
All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth
Of course, you'd object that that's him and not you.

Atheism is compatible with the fact the people care so I dunno where you got the idea that it is opposed to the fact
It's not that it is not compatible, but the crux is that it is indifferent.
Hence, atheists can be good people (depending on the definition) or bad. The godless world doesn't really care whatsoever. It's more about surviving and passing on ones gene

LordReed:
I used dream and fiction to illustrate I am not talking of something else. Talk about looking at the finger.

Your subjective experience cannot be verified as true, it's that simple.




It is not my standard it is what we naturally observe. Every objectively existing thing can be seen and experienced by all. You say your Jesus exists yet we can't see or hear or experience him in any tangible way except by subjective feelings. BTW who told you I reject it a priori? I have had lots of come to Jesus moments both as a Christian and as an atheist. I recently had a dream in which a hermit looking black Jesus gave me a joint to smoke and it cleared my mind. Do you deny my experience? Do you think everything I said about my dream is true? Or do you think it was a subjective experience?

It's what I said I'm not debating - subjective experience. There's a lot of responding I'm doing, I can't afford to answer many topics at the same time.

But on the other hand, not every objectively existing thing can be seen and experienced by all. Simple example is laws of logic.

Anyway, the reality of Jesus is that he existed on this Earth. Died and rose.
He doesn't need what you're talking about to explain his existence

Bacteriologist:
Wrong dumbass. Your writeup looks like it was written by an intern Christian apologist.

I will explain to you what atheism entails. Atheism is simply a rejection of the god claim.

Theist: "god exists."
Atheist: "I don't believe you."

Simple. Read that conversation as many times as it takes you to finally understand it.

If we are both handed a sheet of paper right now and asked to write what we think is right and wrong. I'm sure we would both write some things as right. And some things as wrong. That's the sweet spot of human consciousness, despite different beliefs, we can still agree on some basic concepts of morality. No god needed at all.

Also, have you ever heard of the word consensus? Of course not, you haven't. That's how secular laws are made. Arguments are made for and against certain regulations. And the one that sits with majority of the group/people is passed. Which explains why alcohol was once illegal but now is. Same with marijuana and the abolishment of death penalty increasingly becoming legal in many countries.

In fact, that is how the Bible you hold dear was compiled except it was a far less rigorous process. Men like you literally voted for which books to include in the present day bible. And left out some other books.

You wouldn't know that. Since you're likely still a baby Christian trying to ace your apologia class.

Man made god. And man had morals before he made God. Therefore, morality exists without God. Period.

Wrong dumbass
Whoa!!!
Calm down bro. No need for ad hominems yet. (There may be reasons brought up to justify insult anyway. I may come back to this later)

Your writeup looks like it was written by an intern Christian apologist
Alright, I'll just pass

I will explain to you what atheism entails. Atheism is simply a rejection of the god claim.

Theist: "god exists."
Atheist: "I don't believe you."
I don't believe you was never the historical definition. But it became acceptable since Anthony Flew's revised it in 20th century. Justifying such revision that it's to escape the burden of proof.

But this has not always been the case since atheism has sought to explain the world from the premise of THERE'S NO GOD, by providing explanations which are mostly contradictory to the theist's. For example, the universe is eternal, or recently, the universe was made from NOTHING, by NOTHING,.

Simple. Read that conversation as many times as it takes you to finally understand it.
Yes Sir

If we are both handed a sheet of paper right now and asked to write what we think is right and wrong. I'm sure we would both write some things as right. And some things as wrong
Still begging the question. What is right and wrong? How do we know what's right or wrong?
Let's see your answer below

That's the sweet spot of human consciousness, despite different beliefs, we can still agree on some basic concepts of morality
Human consciousness? What is human consciousness? How did consciousness (if it exist in such worldview) emerge from MATTER?

Also, have you ever heard of the word consensus? Of course not, you haven't. That's how secular laws are made. Arguments are made for and against certain regulations. And the one that sits with majority of the group/people is passed
Consensus still prove nothing. That many people agree that a concept is good does not necessarily make it good. The verdict of consensus can always change, which implies that they were WRONG earlier.

Which explains why alcohol was once illegal but now is. Same with marijuana and the abolishment of death penalty increasingly becoming legal in many countries.
Exactly!
Hence, consensus cannot be an absolute standard to know what's good or evil.

So far, it has been difficult in explaining morality under atheistic philosophy. We have some form of conscience, NOT because we are just mere bags of chemicals who dance to the tune of DNA screaming "I must survive". Rather, because we are special beings made in the image of God of dominion and love, but endowed with free will since we are not robots. This, you won't like. Because you don't just want to hear the concept of God.

In fact, that is how the Bible you hold dear was compiled except it was a far less rigorous process. Men like you literally voted for which books to include in the present day bible. And left out some other books.
You'd of course easily believe this since it'll lend credence to support your rejection of the scripture. Men like you who don't want God to exist sought for ways to prove themselves right. Misrepresented the canonization of the scripture and such misrepresentation is swallowed gullibly by folks like you.
The fact that men were led to safe guard the canon from ever increasing counterfeit has given anti-theist a straw man to attack. Pathetic that one sees a variant of such straw man in this age of information.

You wouldn't know that. Since you're likely still a baby Christian trying to ace your apologia class.

Alright "Prof"! If that would make you happy.

Man made god. And man had morals before he made God. Therefore, morality exists without God. Period
Nice syllogism
Just that your first premise is born out of your atheistic conviction. It's not the reality. Hence, you conclusion is invalid.

LordReed:
And I explained to you that the law is the outcome of people cooperating so that even if the universe doesn't care we the people in the universe do. To say that atheistic philosophy does not recognise criminal acts is wrong. Atheistic philosophy recognises that the universe does not care and doesn't make a judgement on any action but it also recognises morality is an outcropping of the people who do care.

1. There's no evidence for such evolutionary explanation of how morality "evolved". It's just a story.
2. If cooperation of people in order to survive birthed moral code, how has that not happen among animals which also cooperated to survive? Many animals are still loners, while others live as family to which enhances chance of survival
3. To survive does not necessarily connotes good. The popular "man must survive" slogan can be used to defend almost anything, ranging from fraud to looting.

That people care is a fact that we are not what atheistic worldview describes us.

A. From atheistic philosophy, there's no absolute good or evil.
B. We recognize some actions to be good and others evil
C. Therefore ...

LordReed:
If Jesus exists then the subjective nature of encounter won't matter however we are yet to see an objective encounter which is what happens with real things. Dreams as opposed to a written work of fiction for instance, both are fantasies but one is in a tangible form while the other is not. One can claim anything about their dreams, there'd be no way to verify the truth of what you say about your dreams.



On the converse there is no evidence that anyone had an encounter with Jesus before they were preached to. So is it that the Jesus would not be able to show himself to someone who has not been preached to and explain himself properly? Is that not what would happen if Jesus was real and objective?



Again why does an objective existing Jesus need other people to explain him why can't he explain himself?

Sorry, your first paragraph has nothing to do with the crux of my discussion. I'm not interested in discussing another thing. I have a lot to respond to already


This is your criteria. Nothing suggest that your criteria for determining reality of Jesus MUST be followed. Like I always say, even if it is met, you'd still either dismiss it or create another (because you already reject it a priori)


Again, you don't set the standard. Cos you can change it if it is met. (Atheism revisionist definition is a good example of how standard can be changed)

Bacteriologist:
Wrong. There are wrongdoings in "atheistic worldview."

A lot of laws and entire constitution in many countries in the world today are based on secular values.

Which is at least 100000x better than the so-called "morals" in religious books where slavery is endorsed (Bible and Quran), rape is allowed, ethnic cleansing and killing of children oppression of women rights (Bible and Quran), and all other sorts of horrible sh*t in all the supposedly moral religious books.

Emotional rants

Who defines what's right or wrong? Why should one's good be acceptable?

If some laws are based on secular values, what determines that those laws are "good"?

Deep things that has no place emotional rants. Don't be a wannabe, understand what atheism entails. It's more than rejecting God

IMAliyu:
Makes sense, thanks.

KnownUnknown:
Lol. It is strange that you get a kick out of the phrase “blind pitiless indifference” and find it “atheistic”.

The world has a “blind pitiless indifference” regardless of atheistic or theistic world view and it doesn’t have anything to do with morality or criminality. COVID—19 is part of the pitiless indifference of the world and so are things like Tsunamis. COVID does not recognize atheism or theism, if you’re not careful, you might contract it and die. A tsunami will crash into shore, cause damages, and kill people regardless if the people on shore are atheists or theists. That’s the blind pitiless indifference of the world. Your prayers and your god do not matter.
The sun doesn’t shine to give you light or give you skin cancer, it’s just an event that happens to sustain life. At least, that what it seems.

There’s a video circulating of a priest muttering that old mumbo jumbo called prayer in a church when an earthquake struck. Your god did not stop the earthquake from damaging the church nor did he stop the debris from smashing into the priest’s head. Sounds like a case of theistic pitiless indifference…….better yet impotence borne of nonexistence. No, earthquakes happen because of the movement of the earth’s crust and the earth’s crust is pitilessly indifferent about the priest, his prayers, his church, and his god.

Context is always important in discussion. I definitely get what you are saying, but you seem not to understand mine.
I wasn't just talking about forces of nature, rather, the world (universe) and everything in it.

Refer to my discussion with reed to get the context.

LordReed:
You still aren't answering the question, is it your summation that atheistic philosophy permits criminal acts? Because that is what I conclude unless you mean something else.

I already explained that there's nothing called CRIMINAL ACTS in an atheistic worldview because there's no absolute morality which can be logically derived from the implications of such philosophy. This implies that what we call ungodly acts is neither wrong nor right, hence, is just it.
That was why I said that such worldview doesn't eschew what we call ungodly acts.

Deemystic:
I didn't need to engage your points one by one. I already saw the crux of everything you said and picked it out. In fact I didn't even read everything you wrote but just by you mentioning "encounter with Christ" I already knew where you are driving at and that place is a place I have been and seen it for what it really is -- an illusion.

The knowledge that led you to Christ is what prepared your mind for an encounter with him. I can bet my life that this encounter with him wasn't objective, it was subjective. They are always subjective. That's why God/Christ's existence is still been debated till today because a subjective encounter with Christ only exists in ur mind, it's not real for someone who has had an encounter with Amadioha or for a person whos had none.

If someone living in a remote village where no one knows Christ encounters Christ then there will be no need to take the Gospel of Christ to places where his gospel hasn't been heard.

Someone living in a remote island can't have an encounter with Christ. An encounter usually follows a pre-existing conscious or subconscious knowledge about him. If it's possible for someone in a remote island to have an encounter with him, link me to any piece where a tribe or person that had never heard of Christ encountered him already before they were preached the gospel and converted.

The idea of taking the gospel to people who haven't heard is so that it can be impressed upon on their minds until Christ becomes a reality to them.

Xtianity started 2000 years ago, it first reached Nigeria 400 years ago. So for 1600 years, no where in history is there mention of our ancestors encountering this Christ before the missionaries came. But in 2021, encounters with Christ stories have suddenly become replete. People are having visions, dreams, trances and hearing voices from Christ only after the missionaries have come and gone.

I didn't need to engage your points one by one. I already saw the crux of everything you said and picked it out. In fact I didn't even read everything you wrote but just by you mentioning "encounter with Christ" I already knew where you are driving at and that place is a place I have been and seen it for what it really is -- an illusion.
Of course, your opinion and disdain for what you understood with the word encounter must have made you think I was talking about visions or dreams of seeing Jesus. Hence, you assume that it's a place you've been and label it illusion.
You built all your arguments on this assumption which is obviously wrong.
Of course, any form of encounter is subjective, it cannot be repeated (reason I wonder how you've been there. Lol)
A change in heart, doing what you can't do before and ceasing to do some things which are contrary to the will of God was what I referred to.
Now, we need to check your definition of ILLUSION. LOL

The knowledge that led you to Christ is what prepared your mind for an encounter with him.
Now that I have explained what I meant with encounter, this your statement becomes invalid.
Why not dwell on the knowledge? After all, knowledge led you to the belief of there's no God (though in changing ground, atheists have tried to redefine it as lack of belief in God, to remove burden of prove. How cowardly?).

I can bet my life that this encounter with him wasn't objective, it was subjective. They are always subjective. That's why God/Christ's existence is still been debated till today because a subjective encounter with Christ only exists in ur mind, it's not real for someone who has had an encounter with Amadioha or for a person whos had none
Again, this is not your definition of seeing Jesus. It's unfortunate that you built so much on a wrong premise. This could have been avoided if you had not allow emotions to judge but calmly try to understand what I was driving at. I went on to explain that he should seek knowledge, as I didn't ask him to seek encounter.

Isn't it funny that you claim that Christ existence is debated BECAUSE of the subjective nature of encounter? How does Christ existence depend on encounter? I laugh more when I see wannabe atheists trying to debate the existence of Christ, showing that it's just their wishes. They reject him (as a belief system of theirs) and then begin to look for evidence to prove it.

Someone living in a remote island can't have an encounter with Christ. An encounter usually follows a pre-existing conscious or subconscious knowledge about him. If it's possible for someone in a remote island to have an encounter with him, link me to any piece where a tribe or person that had never heard of Christ encountered him already before they were preached the gospel and converted.
Your first statements cannot be taken as absolute. You don't have all the knowledge, so you can't make a claim.
Secondly, absence of evidence is not the evidence of it's absence.

Lastly, even if it was reported that what you want happened (using your definition of encounter), you would still scoff at it because you already BELIEVE that it's impossible. And explain it away as hallucinations or any other thing.

Xtianity started 2000 years ago, it first reached Nigeria 400 years ago. So for 1600 years, no where in history is there mention of our ancestors encountering this Christ before the missionaries came. But in 2021, encounters with Christ stories have suddenly become replete. People are having visions, dreams, trances and hearing voices from Christ only after the missionaries have come and gone.
Like I said earlier, absence of evidence is not same as evidence of it's absence. You don't have ALL knowledge.
Also, how many history has your ancestors kept? How many things do you know about your ancestors, if you want to appeal to them keeping history?
Again, what would be the reaction or how would they have explained such incident (I am just using your definition this time, though I explained what I meant earlier)?

Lastly, the knowledge of the missionaries would set the tone to explain whatever anyone sees. As you wouldn't know what it means if you don't have a prior knowledge.
It takes a Paleontologist (trained with knowledge) to recognize a fossil, else, another person will just wonder and probably leave it.

LordReed:
Blind pitiless indifference refers to the universe not to people. The people within the blind pitiless universe still need to survive and they have come to realise that cooperation is the way. This cooperation gives birth to morality and law thus lawless is not permitted in a cooperative society.

So you agree that you are saying atheistic philosophy permits criminal acts?

Let me put it more in context, since you said earlier that you don't have problem with what he said.
The universe we observe has at its bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music
In such thinking, humans are part of (the product of) this universe of no GOOD OR EVIL. And Just like bacteria, they have DNA which NEITHER KNOWS NOR CARES (that is, still blind and indifferent).

I leave that to you to make your conclusion

LordReed:
Ok so you are saying atheistic philosophy permits criminal acts?

Smiles

What's criminal acts in an ATHEISTIC WORLDVIEW? In a world of BLIND PITILESS INDIFFERENCE?

Deemystic:
Ur personal encounter doesn't prove anything. It's all in your mind. Why can't someone in a remote island who's never heard of Jesus have a personal encounter with Jesus?

Most of you lots are the same. You leave the moon and focus on the finger pointing to the moon.

Why not engage all my points one by one to keep it in context? You left the parts where I said that knowledge led me to Christ and encounter SEALED it.
Must you rip out of context in order to present a point?

Why can't someone in a remote island who's never heard of Jesus have a personal encounter with Jesus
The answer is that you don't know if anyone who haven't heard of Christ before have encountered him
You can't make a claim that it hasn't happened nor that it has happened.

Sorry pal, even with ripping statement out of context, you still don't have a point (as your question is almost rhetorical)

LordReed:
So is it not the same when you say atheist world allows these things? Are you not in effect saying atheist thinking permits these things?

I thought I have explained what worldview mean
For Christians, the Bible largely shapes how a Christian see the world.
For an atheist, atheistic philosophy largely shapes how he see the world.
This concepts and philosophy is what I referred to as 'world'.

Part of such philosophy is what Dawkins expressed. So in essence, such philosophy which describes atheism was what I said would permit such ungodly acts. Of course, a self professing atheist may not follow the philosophy completely (reason I call many "wannabe atheists", but it doesn't change the philosophical ideas of atheism.


You seem to be looking for a way to equate worldview with worldview practitioners. But I think it's a futile effort, because it cannot work.

LordReed:
Next time I will acknowledge so that it's clear.

Now to try and understand lemme illustrate, if I said "Christianity permits slavery" what would you think was the implication of that statement?

I hope so


Simple!
When we say Christianity, what we mean is what the Bible teaches IN CONTEXT.
So YOUR statement should mean that the Bible permits slavery.

Image123:
Don't mind him.

2Th 2:10 KJV And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 KJV And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Wow!

I'm not conversant with this scripture before. This just explains it all.
It's Romans 1v 18-22 and 28 that I was used to.