₦airaland Forum

@Zino Ben,

Thank you again.

Okay, I have been testing your waters to see if you guys actually have a solid grasp of what you have been arguing. Because it had seemed to me that such was not the case, I decide to broach questions to solicit answers from those inclined to atheists/rationalists atheists to speak for themselves so that we know what exactly you guys have to offer.

Zino Ben:
Then who conjured the name athiests? Since your beating around the bush and not specifically trying to zone the idea of the word athiest to a particular founder.

To be sure, I was not beating around the bush or trying to waste anyone's time. I have been reserved on giving that answer because I wanted huxley to actually go back and study hard to be informed on the issue - since he is the only person I have read hitherto bandying that idea on this Forum. I do promise to come back and share the etymlogy with you from at least 3 different sources. For now, I maintain that all things considered, it was not devised by theists.

Zino Ben:
At least we can trace the catholics to rome and the protestant churches to the calvins and lutherians. Where will you now say an athiest or group of athiest woke up one morning and decided to tag themselves as athiests. Wasn't it during the inquisition the issues of infidels, heretics,athiests, non believer and a host of nonsensical names were given to people who faulted these christian beliefs?

No, Zino. . . you are far from it. If you can be patient until I have helped huxley out on this issue, youwould see the difference. But then, I know where you probably might have caught that idea from; but wherever it is you might have got it from, it is incorrect - and informed atheist are not too happy that so many rationalists have been misled to assume such is the case, because it was a mistake from an atheist who did not check his references carefully before publishing it in his book.

Zino Ben:
I see from your previous posts your aversion to richard dawkins especially in reference to his book "the god delusion".

I'm sorry, but it's true that I'm quite averse to that book. It has proven to be a minus for him, and quite a surprise to me personally that so many informed atheists have rebuffed his rants in that book.

Zino Ben:
The beauty of a free world is that you have the right to criticize the book from A-Z but that rule cannot be applied to the bible without a deluge of prophetic doom sayers reciting insults and curses laden verses in the bible and talks of blasphemy.

As you can see, I don't count in that list. My approach is to enter a dialogue and reason out issues without disrespect to anyone or their convictions. I have always stated to huxley repeatedly that "attacking" one's beliefs is not to be mistaken for intelligent discourse - and I'm a disciple of that idea.

Zino Ben:
I really cannot hold forte for richard dawkins and you have a right to pick issues with him.

On the contrary, I don't have issues with him. The reason why I make reference often to him is because I have come across the same ideas that are inadequately expressed in his book being circulated on the forum - and perhaps it might help whoever is doing such to be careful not to hold ideas that have become weltered from the cold.

Zino Ben:
Not my problem one bit. I am not a member of Richard Dawkin's movement and i don't intend to be although i agree with some parts of his book and disagree on some. So your argument of using his movement as a general preposition to lump all athiests is faulty once again.

I'm sure the examples I gave does not show that they were all the handiwork of Dawkins - so even if he were not on the scene, it nonetheless is a fact that other atheists have assumed their cause as a movement.

Zino Ben:
Also in respect of the other world movements that  highlighted as athiest organizations, you are quite wrong there again because these groups have their own philosophy and rational on why they were formed independently to propagate their own views.

So, what is wrong in the same thing I said? They formed those organizations as movements - you may not identify as a member: that's okay; but it does not deny the fact that those who have been the vanguard of those movements have thought it otherwise. My problem may be that I applied it in a general and umbrella way - yet, even speaking broadly, atheists see atheism as a movement.

Zino Ben:
While some speak about the issues of science, some speak under the banner of humanity and morality and some speak about issues relating to logic and so on and so forth. There is no general banner or tag that so called athiests fall under such as the word "Christians" that covers everyone who believes in jesus christ. All the various christian denominations from catholics to pentecostals  to white garment to mormons etc still fall under the name christians and believe in one book "the bible" and propagate its sole ideology. QED

Your "QED" doesn't quite close it, Zino. The question is about "theists" or "atheists". I hope you know that "Christian" is a subset of "theism". . . and it is incorrect to lump them the way you assumed above. Under the broad term "atheism" comes your adjectives of humanists, rationalist, philosophical atheists etc; so you cannot hold this idea that there is no single "banner" under which atheists stand.

Zino Ben:
You can't say all athiests believe in the issue of evolution but i can say all christians believe that jesus christ ressurected. That major difference in ideologies does not make the  International Humanist and Ethical Union,        World Atheist Conferences,Atheist Center (a social change institution founded by Gora), Atheist Alliance International or  American Atheists Conference bind on each other.

This again is a simplistic formula that does not reach the mark. All those unions and cnferences bind themselves in one common cause - the stand against the core values of theism. If that is not it, please show me kindly of any one of those groups differ from that one premise. When you mention evolution, you make it sound as if there are no Christians who believe in evolution including the faith of the resurrection!

Zino Ben:
For you to say athiesm is a movement is totally ill concieved.

That is what most atheists would like to think. . . but I'm not doing the thinking for others who see themselves as a movemnt. It would only mean that such atheists have got it all wrong again.

Zino Ben:
I don't belong to one and i don't have any fellow athiest

That's good for you. But should we ignore the fact or pretend that others have indeed a membership to those unions? I appreciate the fact that you speak for yourself; but Zino, this is not a discussion about you, rather it is about atheism as seen on the front line today. Where I have taken an utterly incorreect assumption, it would only do well to point them out as such. But I have always maintained a stance to actually back my statements with attested and verifiable references, as in the examples I gave above.

Zino Ben:
Sitting beside me now trying to convert or preach the goodness or beauty of athiesm or on saturday mornings i have to attend a sermon on "why the noah's ark story is the greatest fabrication of all time" like christians will do on sundays.

Lol. . . you may not attend such gatherings. Others have constantly been about that same business many times and still have the same discussion slated for their next conference.

Zino Ben:
I see the few non believers on nairaland like huxley, manmustwac and the other guy all expressing different views in relation to their dislike of the bible. I havent recieved any form of pamphlet or email about a meeting of minds to propagate athiesm or to form a movement. Even the akieredolu chap who professed he is a rationalist didnt specify that he was in a movement or an athiest movement for that matter. So picking out isolated groups or conferences of athiests doesnt make them a movement.

Zino, calm down. There's no need to take a tangential curve on this discussion, abi? Relax, the case of Akeredolu is clear - go back and see it. As for those on Nairaland, no one is making a point here about you guys gathering for a fellowship of atheism. However, atheists outside the forums came together to form those unions and conferences for the "necessity of atheism" - and your protests here are seeming to conveniently ignore that fact!

Zino Ben:
A movement is formed to influence the happenings and activites of a certain society. What significant gain has the so called athiest movements achieved?

I don't know what gain they have achieved, even though they actively came together to form those unions. They haven't lost faith, though. . . because more conferences are planned (one of them I read recently was on the theme: "the necessity of atheism". Now, let me ask you for their sake: Is that necessary at all?

Zino Ben:
Have they prevented national anthems or pledges from using god in it, such as god bless america or so help me god?

Maybe they didn't work as hard enough. Phew. What can I say? But we know that their predecessor tirelessly tried to fight against paryer in American schools? Ring a bell?

Zino Ben:
Have they prevented presidents from being sworn in without using the quoran or bible?

They might have tried, and nobody listened to them!

Zino Ben:
Some movement i say! compared this to the christian cult that controls the very facet and existence of the western world

Lol, Zino. . . are you so resigned to that fate?

Zino Ben:
Please feel free to share some of them with us and see whether there hasnt been any major criticism from so called athiest themselves over this creed in contrast to finding one single christian that criticizes the bible openly!

I admit and applaud your humour. Yes, indeed there are creeds held by those atheists; yes, other atheists have criticized them; and yes, there are so-called "Christians" who criticize the Bible openly - Rev. Shelby Sponge! Brother, we need to read wide O. . . things are happening that you surprisingly seem not to be able to sketch!

Zino Ben:
Once again give a better defination and see if your defination doesnt summarize the obvious that non believers simply don't believe in these holy books because of the errancies and fallacies inherent in these books.

I'll do so summarily.

Zino Ben:
Vey funny! You say our world view fails to live up to its claims to rational thought process. Okay quick question that deals with rationality. I read a chapter like 2 kings 2:23-24 and the only thing i can get from there is that a holy prophet under the command of god ordered 2 bears to kill 42 children because they called him a baldy. Logic tells me that such a person who ordered such a massacre is demon to say the least and if it is the same god of the bible that you christians so revere as the alpha and omega of intelligence and mercy, then i see such a god as a cosmic idiot to say the very least for this singular act.

If I square that on atheism, you simply are not rationally defending yourposition - which is: the denial of (or lack of belief in) the existence of God. I'm not playing around your question, but a necessary factor is to be consistent with your apologetics: you cannot stand with either legs on two divides - either God exists or He does not.

Zino Ben:
Now that is my rational thought process at work. Now defend the irrationality of my allegations. Try your very best to justify such brutality and see who really fails to live up to its claims to rational thought process. Anyway i wont even bother asking you to do so because you will always pretend that such a verse doesnt exist and skip right through it. By the way, it is a very effective trick of christians when you are confronted with these embarrassing issues.

I may not justify anything here - not that such would make me lose face. Not at all. In like manner, I wonder how many atheist have actually justified the brutality of atheistic communist leaders against theistic people. . . even to the point of brutal murders of millions. No, I'm not trying to play the statistics card here. . . and huxley knows only too well not to wave that card in my face.

Zino Ben:
Very funny! Do you want me to pull out over a 1000 posts attacks from christians towards unbelievers on nairaland?

Please do so. . . and enjoy the needless effort. As if that is to atone for the unnecessry and irrational "attacks" that rationalists on the Forum have constantly reminded me is their glory for posting on the forum?

Zino Ben:
Talk about kettle calling pot black. If we were just as gullible as some folks on nairaland, we would have accepted the bible hook line and sinker without asking any question and just become converts because the bible said so.

Doesn't make sense. I can speak for myself - and I've always called for reasona and tried to address questions. Where people feel that it is their glory to be irrational, I simply let them be, because there would be no fruit in discussing with someone who is not going to be coherent at the end of the day. But to assume that Christians are averse to questions about their faith is unwise - it is not the attitude the Bible teaches (see 1 Peter 3:15 for example).

Zino Ben:
But when we reply that the bible also said these horrendous things and ask for explanation, you immediately assume that to be unintelligent and unhealthy and a form of attack. Talk about double speak!

This is not doble speak - I often quote huxley himself who has said several times that he delights in "attacking" (his very words). So, who's doing double speak here, Zino?

Cheers.

@huxley,

huxley:
Who said atheism was responsible for the end of slavery? Did I say this?

No, you did not say that. If you read me, I applied your logic to what you are failing to understand, so there's no need for your overreaction there. Please read it again.

huxley:
Are you trying to misrepresent me? (Remember the commandment - thou shalt not bear false witness.)

Where have I misrepresented you or accused you of saying what you did not say?

huxley:
I was simply saying that if worldviews are to be respected and protected, as you propose, then it necessarily follows that should we also respect worldviews tolerant of slavery, child-abuse, genital mutilation, apatheid,  infant abandonment?   Was there anywhere I attributed the end of slavery to atheism? PLEASE, show me where I said this, or implied this.

You missed the whole gist by a mile. Go back and read carefully what I said and not assume that I accused you of what you didn't say.

huxley:
If worldviews are to be respected and not scrutinised and criticised, how would societies have advanced.

Scrutinizing worldviews is not the same thing as glorying in "attacking" worldviews. I hope you know the difference?

huxley:
How would you forebares have abandoned their worldviews and adopted an alien worldview from the Middle East?  If Jesus had not examined and criticised the extant worldview at the time, what would be your religion today?

As a Christian, do I represent the ideology of "attacking" people's worldviews as a remedy for the deficiencies in what you fail to grasp? Critical thought is not the same as "attacking" people's views. The first is reason worked out into finer pieces; the later is fatally unintellectual.

huxley:
The Catholic problem with condom use is NOT about promiscuity.  Absolutely WRONG.

Thank you - I said "events leading up to". Please read the backdrop - it didn't happen in an instant.

huxley:
You need to inform yourself on that subject.  It is about the prevention of conception.

The prevention of conception came later, not precede the events that mooted a call for the "bull" on that issue. Where are we missing it, huxley? I am willing to be educated on this - by any reasonable Catholic who can set us straight thereto.

huxley:
Atheism don't NOT make any arguments for promiscuity, conception, sexuality, etc, etc.  Get that in your HEAD.

Do I take it then that you guys always make noise and have no solution to the same issues you deplore? Is that a rational answer to a simple question I offered?

Thanks again for your attempt, huxley. I still await a seasoned presentation of your version of philosophical atheism.

Cheers.

@huxley,

huxley:
To do any form of justice to your attack of philosophical atheism, you really have to familiarise yourself with some or all of these atheist arguments. Otherwise, you would be attacking a strawman of your own creation.

Lol. . . Repeat after me, huxley: "the goal of reasoning is not to attack". Again? "the goal of reasoning is not to attack." And again. . .

You get my drift? I have not sought to attack your worldviews - I have only asked for the rational behind your motive for an adventure of slurring the convictions of other people and glorying in that adventure. My approach in doing so was to enter into dialogue with you, ask salient and relevant questions, define our terms broadly and reject any blurring and obfuscation of lines, as well as see why such efforts of seeking to attack other people's convictions are quite in violation of the said rational process!! And for me to have any good grounding, I should indeed be familiar with the terms - no less philosophy, talk less of "philosophical atheism". I do not see anything philosophic in the idea to people's beliefs have to be attacked before you can find a raison d'etre for your own worldview! That sort of attitude is neither rational nor intelligent.

huxley:
You can start by checking out the following source:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/logical.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evidential.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/meaningless.html

I am familiar with most of the articles on the infidels' websites - I used them heavily against Christianity while I was a Muslimah. . .until I realized that most of the things I was holding from such websites are simply dishonest manging of the Biblical faiths. What is new there?

huxley:
I said you are an atheist with respect to Sussicorn, because, presumably, you do not believe in the existence of Sussicorn. Or you are a non-Sussicornian (Asussicornian), just as I am a non-theist (atheist).

If Sussicorn is projected as a "god", then you would not be dealing with the question of atheism. The idea of making atheists out of theists is a contradiction of your own position - because you're force-fitting a bad logic to obfuscate issues even more.

huxley:
Presumably, you are also an afairyiest, an azeusist, an amithrasist, an athorist, asangoist, etc, etc. Just as I am ayahwehist (or ajehovahist). Why are you an amithrasist? If you understand why you are amithrasist, you will understand why I am ayahwehist.

All these are desperate reactions to force-fit a wrong logic to your arguments. I would have hoped for your sake that it would have worked. Sorry, it didn't.

huxley:
How did you arrive at this assessment. Have you seen any defense of philosophical atheism?

So far, your presentation has not convinced me otherwise.

huxley:
Why don't you take a look at the work of the following philosopher - Michael Martin, Theodore Drange, Nicholas Everitt, Walter Kaufmann, David Eller, George H Smith, J L Mackie, etc. These are some of the most foremost philosophers on this subject. Just search for these names on google or Amazon and read reviews of their work.

I'm familiar with some of those names; not familiar with others. yet, those whom I have read are not as brilliant in defending their positions, dear huxley. Even if I were to believe that you've actually read those guys instead of just mentioning them, you would have come away doing a better job thinking for yourself than trying to present their shadowy ideologies as if they hold good rationale.

@huxley,

huxley:
Atheism says nothing about ones other philosophy of live or ones worldview, except that which ever worldview or philosophy they chose, this would be devoid of god(s) or deities.

Atheism actually is concerned about the philosophies and worldviews of other people.

huxley:
Atheism has a very long history. I really wish you could read this page on wikipedia, but alas, I suspect you will NOT.

Don't be so assuming - I have read that article and more. The difference I make is that I don't read with my brains under my mat! When I read a so-called scholarly write-up, I'm careful to think for myself as I read along rather than first check my brains at the door and just swallow whatever the writer of acclaim says. I'll give you an example:

Richard Dawkins is the propfessor of public understanding of science at Oxford University, yes? Yes. When I read such a scholar, I'm careful to read carefully what he states. His academic title does not define for me what makes sense - I should rather be able to reason along or else reject what he states in some issues: and so I agree with so many atheists who have rejected most of his atheistic rants as redundant and quite embarrassing to the atheists themselves. In due course, I shall share a few of these with you, if you haven't read him yet. Please don't bluff this, because i won't waste the time to call you to account on that.

huxley:
Why don't you learn about atheistic religions like Jainism and some forms of Buddhism to see that atheism does not necessarily translate into rationalism.

I already stated that Jainism is not atheism by any stretch. What has atheism got to do with an ancient religion of India or any other place for that matter?

huxley:
Having rejected religions, most philosophical atheism would natural (given their tendency of higher learning) search for worldviews on which to anchor their metaphysics. Thus there are atheists who describe themselves as;

Metaphysical Naturalist,
Naturalist,
Humanists, etc, etc.

I'm grateful for the distinction. Yet, even at that, you have not yet defined what atheism itself actually is.

huxley:
There really is not a great deal of differences between these positions. On the political front, a lot of American atheists would describe themselves as libertarians. I own personal position is this;

Atheist -> Philosophical Atheist -> Metaphysical naturalist
On politics, I verge toward Libertarianism

For all of that, atheism is at the root of the "-isms" you share with others, yes or no? Given that, is it not correct to say that it is not simply a lack of belief that you've been passionately endeavoruing to postulate, but rather an active denial of theistic core values?

huxley:
Many atheists, especially the philosophical ones, would describe themselves in a similar fashion.

I don't hold it against them - just as well, their description does not quite score the mark.

huxley:
Like I said, there are many atheist who are also irrationalists.

No, "irrational", not "irrationalists" - a world of difference between the two.

huxley:
Atheism is not guarantee for rationalism. However, a philosophical atheism, is by necessity an rationalist and also hold the scientific enterprise as the most reliable source of knowledge about the nature of reality.

What then is the difference betwen rationalism and atheism as you have expressed above? Don't you see the further tediousness of blurring the lines? I don't mean to be dogged about what you're sharing with me; but dear huxley, I would like to follow your offer to reason with me as well ask that you be clear to persuade us of the rational behind your worldview.

huxley:
While such atheists are unlikely to accept the existence of the supernatural, they would at the same time subjects any such claims to the scrutiny of scientific rationalism and if no conclusive results can be obtained, reject such claims or suspend judgement.

Please, huxley, I'm on person that is not inclined to subscribe to tis idea of "scientific rationalism". The concept is an anomer, as rationalism being a worldview is not to be confused for "science". It is as much to say that someone is hooting for "scientific theism" or "scientific believism" - a crass and most abject ideology I would ever come across. I ahve often stated that atheism is not science; and neither should we be swayed by the idea that "rationalism" could be cosmetically dressed up with the adjective of "science".

Science is not an end in itself - it is a tool of investigating our observable world - and even at that, it has its limitations in investigating all forms of realities. There are anormalies in the reality of our existence that scientific models cannot explicate - such as in the example of the paranormal and supernatural. For people to hold the idea that just because they cannot understand a particular event would necessitate its rejection or denial, does not mean that such thinkers are wise at all.

huxley:
You may criticise, if you want. In fact, I do encourage you to scrutinise the atheistic arguments as best you can. All forms for intellectual scrutiny is a healthy thing. Why don't you give it your best shot?

it is not my aim to "attack" or "criticise" - as I have always stated that it is not the goal of reason to do such. However, what you have presented is not even up to scratch as a challenge for my "best short".

huxley:
Let me give you a flavour of the philosophical atheist arguments. I cannot elaborate on any of them for lack of time and space.

1) Ontological arguments
2) Cosmological arguments
3) Teleologocal arguments
4) Arguments to/from miracles
5) Arguments from the nature of god and morality
Argument from religious experience
9) Arguments from scale
10) The problem of evil
11) Arguments from non-belief
12) Arguments from naturalism, evolution and rationality.

Interesting. . . and maybe some day we may take them piecemeal and enjoy the feast. For now, I just want to ask you what scientific models you would employ to critically and clinically analyse morality?

Hi huxley,

huxley:
If you really knew what atheism and philosophical atheism was, you would not have been that surprised.

I have carefully examined both concepts before replying - and even your latest reply still adds nothing to further convince me that you have a good grasp of the distinction, if any at all.

huxley:
I have to keep saying this - atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s) (or to use the stronger definition, which BTW is a more recent formulation, the denial of the existence of god(s).

The two concepts are not the same, and I would have hoped that you knew the difference. A lack of belief is not the same thing as the denial of the existence of God. They are worlds apart, my dear huxley.

huxley:
It says nothing about how such lack of belief was derive. For instance, an infant has no appreciably notion of god(s). Therefore, an infant is an atheism (more precisely, a natural atheist).

An infant is not an atheism athiest, and atheists who are well reasoned will tell you that!

huxley:
Let me give you a definition from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism);


Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.

You anticipated me with Wikipedia; and well to note that an infant can neither "affirm" nor "reject" theistic convictions. Even if one were to assume a "simple absence" of belief in deities, it still does not describe infants as qualified under that title of atheists - because you'd be properly be looking at agnostics, a word which incidentally was coined by Thomas Huxley who could not properly identify himself as an atheist. It is vital that these issues are clearly defined, because blurring the lines is why many people continue to assume that some rationalistic arguments are anything but rational.

huxley:
Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere; and some religions, such as Jainism and Buddhism, do not require belief in a personal god.

I'm sorry to observe, huxley, that the lines are yet being blurred here. Jainism should not be compared to atheism at any stretch for the simple reason that the same Jainism (जैन धर्म) is an ancient religion of India. Atheism on the other hand is passionately steeped against all forms of religious expressions.

huxley:
The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion. With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists

Well, I'm just as glad that this is reposted for us to read: and Zino Ben had intended for my attention that the term was derived by theists. I adre say that Wikipedia got this one wrong; and I would simply ask that he looks carefully at the subscript of that article confirming that atheists use this term as self-descriptive.

huxley:
Why don't you take the definition that atheist themselve have defined for themselves.

For the simple reason that they are always shifting the goal post and never been consistent with their definitions! Often is the case that they constantly revise their terminologies on this subject so that the obfuscation leaves one wondering why they make one feel that they have no clue what they are trying to hold out for themselves.

@Zino Ben,

Lol. . . I was hoping that you'D throw this boju-boju syndrome behind you and be rational. haba. . . afterall, I asked for rational (ie., thoughtful) answers, abi?

Anyhow, thank you for your attempt to answer.

Zino Ben:
1. Athiesm is a word conjured by you theists. Athiest is just the opposite of thiest. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Sorry, atheism was not a word conjured by theists - and atheists themselves will tell you that! For one, many atheists do not like to use definitive terms which are in currency among theists; and as such, they would not fancy calling themselves by titles devised by theists.

Another example that people often drivel about is the idea that the word "evolution[i]ist[/i]" was coined by theists. Not true, because that assumption is often held by people who are not comfortable with rational discourses and only hope to blur the lines as a get-away quick backdoor. I've often reminded a gentleman who kept shlepping that idea that he should remember that Dawkins both addresses himself as an atheist and an evolutionist, and he would never have accepted the terms for himself in the same way as theists refer to themselves as believers.

Zino Ben:
2. Athiesm is not a world movement. Never was, never being.

I'm sure you haven't checked the issue properly. Atheism is actually a movement - Richard Dawkins and his new atheists adulators are passionate about their atheistic worldview. Second, I wonder that if atheism was not a movement, why then do we have several incorporated atheistic bodies as outlined below:

        International Humanist and Ethical Union
        World Atheist Conferences
        Atheist Center (a social change institution founded by Gora)
        Atheist Alliance International
        American Atheists Conference
       
Please note the highlighted words; and even if one were not to highlight them, it is no use gainsaying the fact that those involved in those conferences, unions, alliances and associations have often presented themselves as a cohesion of a movement.

Zino Ben:
There is no cult like status or group that practices and preaches a particular doctrine.

They do, it's just that you have not found out. Humanists as well as atheistic rationalists have their various creeds that they hold passionately - and these are the very core of their message, their worldview as well their raison d'etre.

Zino Ben:
Athiests are people who don't just believe in stories that emanated from some ancient books as true especially as it relates to a particular deity. Whether you are talking about allah, buddah, zeus, jehovah or whatever.

That is a reductionist idea of atheism and does not reach an average definition of what atheism actually is.

Zino Ben:
Once you cannot substantiate its existence in a logical way that makes sense then it has every right to be counternanced and marked rejected until there is a more reasonable evidence that appeals to non theists.

Atheism is not science, nor has it disproved the veracity of theism.

Zino Ben:
To some atheists, they use science to rationalise their dislike for religion

That is why I stated earlier as I've often done: atheism is not synonymous for "science".

Zino Ben:
. . and to some like me we use common sense and reasoning to reject such stories emanating from these so-called holy books.

Not many like you have demonstrated common sense and reason - and that is why your worldview fails to live up to its claims to rational thought process.

Zino Ben:
Whether you call them atheists, rationalists, freethinkers or whatever, bottom line we don't believe these crappy holy stories and we only attack back when you push your ideologies into our faces!

Concluding remarks shows just how "rational" your worldview tends to be - because often is the case that your fellows assume that the goal of reason is to "attack" others. That is quite unhealthy and unintelligent. But thansk all the same for your attempts.

Cheers.

I'm sure there are quite a number of items that many would find enriching in the OP.

However, there are indeed many issues that one may find quite untennable in the strain of thought expressed in Akeredolu's piece. These issues can be funneled down to just onw thing: the simplistic ideology that feeds the attitude of some (I said "some" people to misrepresent what they cannot handle. Let me highlight just an example:

anonimi:
My sixth reason is privacy. Christopher Hicthens put it like this - "If religion were true, it would be like living in George Orwell's world - where even the smallest details of your every action and every thought are monitored, and where you can be prosecuted for even "thought crimes". Very scary indeed! I feel lucky that nobody is watching me 24/7, and so I have a sense of real privacy.

Although both Akeredolu and Hitchens may not subscribe to the concept of sin, but to connect Christianity in such a manner as if it prosecutes people for "thought crimes" is quite childish. Christians do not prosecute anyone for "thought crimes", and if Mr. Hitchens should know better! What such analogies tell me is that Mr. Akeredolu (in agreeing with Hitchens) does not like to examine his own conscience: and so he must necessarily look for someone else to blame for his unease. Of course, after the blame-game, he may find the ticket he desired to claim that he is quite happy to live as "a rationalist". Cheap logic.

Perhaps, this is where I may have to repeat my previous questions to rationalist atheists:

What actually is atheism?

Who is an atheist?

Is atheism, as a worldview, a movement that atheists are passionate about?

I think the time has come for them to speak for themselves and let us know what they actually believe. The lines have been blurred for much too long, and we would not like to see this obfuscations constantly bantered. Clarity and consistency are the keywords here. Responses in a rational manner would be quite appreciated.

Cheers all.

Hi manmustwac,

Thanks for your comments. It seems that we're both thinking from different logic, but my persuasions are precisely as were stated, and I'll show you why:

manmustwac:
The opposite of yes is no, the opposite of right is wrong, the opposite of true is false the opposite of fake is genuine and the opposite of beforelife is afterlife. So if there is an afterlife there must be an beforelife. Now i don't think u can remember where you were 20 years before you were born in the beforelife can you? So how can you tell me where you will be 20 years after you die in the afterlife?

Lol, thanks for the lesson. . . but again I must remark that you're making very simplistic statements. If the opposite of afterlife is beforelife, then what is the opposite of the present life? You cannot make such collocations about the reality of life on opposite ends, because that will leave your equation seriously in need of reformulating to insert the presentlife.

manmustwac:
When you die it will just the way it was it the beforelife.

And how was it the way it was in the "beforelife"?

manmustwac:
You return to dust and thats the end.

Okay, if that's what you believe.

manmustwac:
No mind to think, NO eyes to see NO ears to hear NO nose to breathe, If your very lucky you could get another 5 million to 1 chance to fertilize the egg or life as a form of living bacteria

Where does luck come into the picture where you have already concluded a finality of "that's it"?

manmustwac:
And your statement dose'nt make sense because first your saying. There are things which are beyond human explanation Then you say the reality of the afterlife is one of them How can you say that something thats beyond explanation is a reality? Theres no logic in your statement.

There's a good logic to state the premise as it is in my quote. It does not mean that the reality of the supernatural does not exist. The problem is that while it may be quite tomfoolery to deny it out of hand, there are dimensions of that reality that are beyond explanation. Let me give you a few examples:

1. the paranormal is one reality that many people cannot logically explain, but yet they cannot deny its existence.

2. there are issues in life far above what many people may try to explain; but the inability to adequately explain them does not negate their existence.

Now posit both logical statements together and you'll find that they are not the same. What is the difference? The difference is simply that many people may "attempt" to explain some phenomena because they know it exists, while the former simply points to the fact that people do not make the attempt at such explanations.

Where does that leave us? Simply here: the attitude of rationalists to deny what they cannot explain. That is a simple philosophical logic - and this is one thing that not many people can handle.

Cheers.

You can listen to an mp3 sample here if you have Quick Player.

Why is it that no brother and/or sister responded to this gentleman's request?



_{Maybe it could elicit some good responses if moved closer home to the appropriate section?}

huxley:
I prayer from the bottom of the being, dear Father,. . .

This is the funniest thread going! How did I miss this? Say after me: "I prayer from my heart. . "

Lol. . . anyhow, we all make typos. The one thing this atheist should involve in the test is faith. How does he expect to get the expected results by missing the necessary condition for such a "test"?

Here again is the first lesson in this regard: "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).

I guarantee that the "test" (in one may call it that at all) will procur some result will the necessary conditions are met. Good luck.

Lol, interesting summations so far.

Abeg, I wan ask simple questions from atheistic rationalists in the house:

What actually is atheism?

Who is an atheist?

Is atheism, as a worldview, a movement that atheists are passionate about?

So many questions atheists have been asking Christian theists. I think the time has come for them to speak for themselves and let us know what they actually believe. The lines have been blurred for much too long, and we would not like to see this obfuscations constantly bantered. Clarity and consistency are the keywords here. So, atheistic rationalists, can we hear you, hmmm??

Thank you.

davidylan:
Better you people stop revealing your crass ignorance of this book called the bible.

Hehe. . the best part of it is the entertainment such ignorance provides.

Hi Zino Ben,

Zino Ben:
My problem with all this christian bible wielding twits is just that they are like an army of ants. The more you swipe them away, the more they multiple and sting you to death.

When people make such assumptions, it constitutes a sad misrepresentation of what a dialogue is. The goal of reason is not to "swipe" anyone, be that as it may. And no Christian I know would conscientiously sting you to death.

Zino Ben:
. . but when you show them the utterly nauseating and noxious parts of the bible which they knowingly skip and hope no one notices, they immediately try to explain the metaphorical aspect of it and tell you that you shouldnt quote the bible out of context but you should read it as a whole. It really doesnt make any iota of sense.

The same could be said about atheistic rationalists who are too embarrassed to account for the nauseating record that such philosophy upholds. Just because not many people are actually repeating the sad results of atheistic creeds does not mean that nobody is aware of them.

Hi skyone,

skyone:
Also lead by example, have you prayed yet!

I humbly acknowledge your graciousness. Let's keep praying. Be encouraged and God bless you.

skyone:
Please give us a comprehensive definition of a true christian.

Maybe in another thread - let's leave this one for the prayer request. Cheers.

Well, glad to see you bring these up, although I believe some of the reasons I offered here and here would answer those questions above.

More reasons could be given, as the case may be. Yours is also a worldview - and the question we should be asking now is for you to give us reasons why your own worldviews should be respected and protected; and if not, also give us reasons why your own worldview should be attacked.

Well, so many times they would interprete such as a 'retreat into unintellectual silence'. As the wise preacher said: there's a time for everything - a time to speak, and a time to refrain from speaking. Where issues invite a discussion, we may speak; if otherwise, we should just let them be.

@mazaje,

The one thing that amazes me with rationalistic activists is that they themselves are often not rational. How does this thread harm you, mazaje? It was a request - if you don't want to pray, it wouldn't hurt you to hold your rationale. There are other threads both in the religious and political motherboards where such issues have been repeatedly discussed, debated, deliberated, decided upon and decayed out of boredom. I think for the sake of finer qualities, it won't hurt to have a cordial relationship with topics of thread, a case in point being this one.

Cordially, pilgrim.1

huxley:
Worldview, opinions, beliefs are NOT deserving of respect and protection.

To make such a claim is to invite critical disrespect upon philosophical atheism - because it is also a worldview. Is that what you are persuading us to believe?

huxley:
Every view should be subject to critical examination and if found wanting should be heavily attacked.

But your philosophical atheism is already found wanting! However, it is not in my place to come so low as to "greatly attack" your persuasions. Rather, I think a better way is to seek an enabling environment for dialogue and true reason - these are the issues and elements that make for sound intelligent exercises. Ridiculing people's belief is the first violation of philosophy - did you check it out?

huxley:
Of course, people themselve should not be attacked.

This is a soft-pedal from the stance of attacking their beliefs. To say something in disfavour of atheism is to stir the comfort zone of atheists themselves. Fact.

huxley:
In fact, your notion of respecting worldview would naturally lead to the death of democratic governments.

Quite to the contrary, it would promote a healthy dialogue for reason.

huxley:
Imagine, if the ruling parties worldview were never subjected to critical examination. Is that the sort of society you would like to live in?

One can critically examine the political views, policies, and persuasions of those in government without deliberately attacking anybody.

huxley:
Abandoning children: Is that what I suggested. This is typical of your misrepresentation.

I asked for clarification simply because that is what your wording suggested. That is why I asked for the alternative action an atheist would have taken.

huxley:
You are the one claiming that worldviews should be respected and protected, correct?

Correct. Do you have a problem with that?

huxley:
OK, if worldviews ought to be respected and protected, then by your reasoning, twin-abandonment ought to be respected and protected. Why is the fault in my reasoning here?

The fault in your reasoning is that you enjoy the end of such practices of as abandoning twin children in the bush, while at the same time calling for a dissrespect to those underlying principles that brought an end to such practices.

huxley:
BTW, why did you forebares abondon their native worldviews and adopt the Christian one?

I don't know and may not speak for them. I may speak for myself and still answer the question, though: I left my former faith and became a Christian when I could no longer hold the false allegations my former religion had made against the Biblical faiths.

huxley:
Are you supposing that the Christian missionaries NEVER attacked and criticised the native African worldviews the encountered on the continent.

I'm not that gullibly, huxley. Your logic is not really catching on here. I didn't claim some Christian missionaries never did that; but what I do claim is that it was wrong of them to have done so. They acted contrary to the stipulations of the Bible; and such disobedience and abberation do not define the Christian faith.

huxley:
My dear, it really helps to be logical and consistent in your thinking.

I believe I have maintain that consistency throughout. The logic? Lol. . . huxley, you have very much to learn.

huxley:
I have challenged you guys to should me ONE single instance of a fault in my logic (that is not to say I am infallible), but alas, you have not been.

Don't praise yourself so much, huxley. I've already faulted your logic in the theory and fact issue, until you asked me to drop it! Again, I ave faulted your presumption to make atheists out of Christian theists. What is your question again?

huxley:
I really look forward to such faulty logic being found as it is by identifying such do we make progress.

Ya. Please scroll up and see why you haven't impressed me with philosophical atheism.

Best wishes.

Hi huxley,

It was refreshing to take a breather as the thread progressed. I may not always have as much time, though; but will chip in highlights between times. So here goes:

huxley:
You are absolutely correct. To be an atheist does not necessarily mean that one is rational.

I find that a reasonable admission on your part - and you surprised me because you're one of the few rationalists I've actually discussed with who calmly admit the veracity of this fact. You indeed surprised me; but what more could I say than that it tessellates with what I have often tried to state consistently: that most rationalists of atheistic leanings are not rational (please observe I said 'most', not 'all'). However, I would have to sadly admit that the same applies to quite a lot of theists in the general sense.

huxley:
The are many atheists are there who "belief" in things like the existence of ghosts, medium, psychic phenomenon, etc.

This is where I do not necessarily agree with you. Like I said, I have actually held extensive discussions with many who describe themselves as atheists but who actually are not such. Maybe sometime soon, I would take a moment to post a clinical analysis about this fact; but for all practical purposes, atheism simply is the denial of the supernatural - whether God (or gods), spirits, ghosts, paranormal phenomena, or metaphysical reality. For anyone to claim the title of "atheist" and still believe in the supernatural is a case neatly tucked away as bordering on anonym.

huxley:
To repeat, atheism is a simply lack of belief in god(s). It says nothing about how that lack of belief originated. This lead me to the notion of the philosophical atheism. This describes an atheism derived from the examination of all the notions of gods available and rejecting them as totally nonsensical. It is with this latter group that I belong.

I understand you, huxley; and like I said, it is not in my place to disparage you for what you believe. You believe that you belong to a group of guys who entitle themselves as "philosophical atheists", don't you? That's admirable. However, their inferences are both wrong and mismatched. I shall show you why that is so, in due course.

huxley:
Supposing I were to propose the existence of a god called Sussicorn (I think you are an atheist with respect to Sussicorn). Why would you disbelieve the existence of Sussicorn. I reject your god for exactly the same reason that you reject Sussicorn. Tell me, why are you NOT a Moslem or a Sussicornian?

In reality, you are proposing the existence of "Sussicorn" but not actually believing in it yourself. That does not make me an atheist, not at all. However, if you were actually to believe in Sussicorn as a god, my rejection of your religious belief does not make me an atheist - not at all. It only makes me a non-Sussicornian who believes in another God instead of Sussicorn. Not believing in your own "god" whom you called 'Sussicorn' does not make me any less a theist - I simply believe in a different God as revealed in the Biblical faith. But for all practical purposes, both the Sussicornian and the Christian are not atheists but theists!Do you see the difference?

That is why I would like to show you that philosophical atheism doesn't handle philosophy quite correctly.

huxley:
We, as a civilisation, are here today because progress means the seeking out and weeding out of bad and errant worldviews.

I'm persuaded or inclined to believe that philosophical atheism falls under that category - judging by your wrong inference of making a Christian an "atheist" to Sussicorn. To mismatch people that way is quite bad, erratic, and does not even qualify as a worldview. Would it then be correct to say that you give good moral grounds to weed out philosophical atheism as well?

huxley:
Why have the worldviews tolerant of slavery, witchhunts, inquisitions, crusades, human sacrifices etc, etc, not with us today? Could it be because they were sought out, attacked and eliminated?

Atheism (philosphical or not) has nothing to do with the end of slavery, for one. Please don't let people like Dawkins deceive you with wild claims, if that's where you're tending to. He is one of those whose very irrational rants are now held as redundant among many atheists themselves; and I don't think you should be holding this cheap glory every single time a discussion is broached.

huxley:
Today, for instance, the Catholic church is promoting the worldview that use of condoms is sinful. Do you think that this view is worthy of respect?

Coindidentally, I have debated Catholic doctrines on this forum (which is not the same thing as putting down any Catholic believer). However, even my own local Church has issues that I cannot always digest - and that is a humbling thought, because it makes me the wiser to realize that such issues are not for public angst. Let me explain, if I may:

One should not berate Catholics on just anything they fancy. Many people immaturely condemn and berate the catholic Church before they even understand what is being said. This is unhealthy. In my understanding, the events leading to the stance on condom was predicated on cases of promiscuity; and the Church had to take a defining stand on such issues. Now to answer your question - do I think that is sinful or not, and worthy of respect? I think it does us well to respect the catholic tradition for taking that stance for the reasons it gave. If atheism says that is wrong and not worthy of respect, then atheism should proffer a better solution to the moral issue of promiscuity. Can we see you do that? Talk is cheap, and it would not be grand to disparage people for their convictions when we have nothing better to offer in the event.

But what about "respecting" the atheistic worldview? Again, it is not my place to disparage anyone for their views. I believe that we can dialogue without disrespecting anyone or their belief. To take the stance of deliberately disrespecting people's beliefs is both unwise and fatally unintellectual. The same could be said of me if I went out to disparage you on your belief in philosophical atheism.

Hebrews 13:3 - Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.

Lord Jesus, even in the most difficult of circumstances,
we can still thank You for mercies.
We continue to lift our hearts to You in this situation
to give strength and succour to our brethren in India
. . . as well in other places where they are located.

We pray also for their persecutors - that their hearts may be turned to You
in times like these, the dire events make one wonder if we can pray for such people
Yes, Lord Jesus, we can pray and indeed lift our hearts on their behalf
that they also may come to Your saving grace.

In Your precious Name, Lord Jesus. Amen.

Hi again @huxley,

Having taken a short break to let the thread progress, I should at this point like to point out something which predictably is the default attitude of atheistic rationalism:

huxley:
I attack and make fun of idiotic beliefs and superstitions, but I very rarely attack people. I have respect for people but NOT for beliefs, which do not deserve any protection.

Take a good look within your own heart. This zeal with which you project such a warped idea is admirable, especially because up until now you really are not demonstrating a rational thought process in your submissions. Beliefs are connected to people - regardless of whether they are theists or atheists. I hope you are quite aware that atheists also "believe" idiotic sentiments about themselves and their worldview - if otherwise, it would not hurt to do some broadening of mind search in that arena. Whenever the question is broached as to what people believe, atheists are quick to say that they "do not believe" anything, or rather that they "lack belief" (whether in God or paranormal phenomena). On further scrutiny, it turns out that they hold their own beliefs as well, and it is a wonder that these same set of people are quick to accuse others of "blind faith" when they themselves have beliefs that they cannot prove!

The difference intelligent people make is this: they do not necessarily seek to attack people for their beliefs. Beliefs make worldviews, and there's hardly a person on the face of the earth today who is not identified with a particular worldview. This connection is so very thick that to attack one is to attack the people themselves. You may disagree, but just as we know that atheism (a worldview) is connected to atheists (the people), so we kknow that anything said in disfavour of atheism is bound to stir the reaction of atheists.

One may not have the same convictions as other people; but to seek to deliberately attack their worldview and to glory in that adventure is quite idiotic in itself. It confirms that atheists themselves are actually disturbed about their own cherished beliefs, and that is why they have no peace of conscience until they have sought to undermine what they cannot disprove. Often, some untaught and unschooled rationalists hide under the cover of "belief in science" as if theists themselves are not scientists. This is why you guys evade the real questions of the day and seek to misrepresent issues, blur the lines, and when you cannot get the cheap applause you seek, the default thing to do is "attack" people's beliefs.

It would be unwise for me to descend to the same level, although that is not a difficult thing to do. To do so is to become as irrational as your strain of thought suggests - and perhaps by prognostication, one may expect the usual overheated reaction that has become second nature to atheistic rationalists. I won't go there; but what I'll always try to do is reason out issues as sanely as the facts present themselves. Theories are not facts, remember? So, good luck in your adventures, if that indeed is what you would still be engaged in - many people are beginning to distinguish the difference for themselves (which incidentally is one other reason why atheistic rationalism is feeling itself under some pressure).

huxley:
Imagine if the Christians had respected the Igbo practice of abandoning twin children in the bush. Would they still be children dying as a direct result of this idiotic belief.

Abandoning children - is that what you're suggesting is the better atheistic thing to do in such circumstances? Or are you so tuned out of the normal that we have to beg for calm explanation at what you're driving at? I don't really get you in that quote above, I beg that you please expatiate so we don't misread you.

huxley:
Why don't you show respect for other people's belief and STOP evangelising, leaving people in their cherished and protected beliefs? It that not hypocritical of you to go out and try to convert people.

You could do with your own advice about your own "belief", you know. If you showed some respect and stop misrepresenting your own persuasions, maybe you would come off better than you have attempted all along.

Cheers.

manmustwac:
So when your dead your dead finito that the end.

It is not as simplistic as that. There are things which are beyond human explanation - and the reality of the afterlife is one of them.

Correction:

Kind friends have called my attention to a few slips in my reply just above. Rather than edit them, I rather would like to leave them and acknowledge them as my oversight.

Correct 1: most articles report the scientists as Russian geologists, not German geologists as I had indicated:
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=172694.msg2816494#msg2816494 date=1221677742](a) the "scientists" are German geologists; I wonder why German newspapers and media did not carry the story (as far as I know). . . but it had to travel to Finland to be publicized.[/quote]My bad. I had read the same article in other mirror websites where it read "German geologist", and that was why I did re-check.

Correct 2. the temperature mention was in degrees Farenheit, not Centigrade:
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=172694.msg2816494#msg2816494 date=1221677742](b) something is quite not right with the "microphone" lowered into the hole to capture the screams. In the first instance, at 2000 degrees centrigrade, the microphone would not have survived the heat.[/quote]My bad again. Hence, 2000 degree Farenheit equates to 1093.33 Celsius.

Readers opinions welcome.

I would like to first give a shout out to all in the house!

Philippians 1:3 -- I thank my God upon every remembrance of you:

        Analytical, JeSoul, Gamine, FiFio,
        OLAADEGBU, kola oloye, dudu-bobo,
        debolay, Joge, davidylan, JustGood,
        daruche, Congruent, kingsikaz, bezco,
        obinna5000, A_K_O, Raimond, Easyy,
        Hoping, dudu-bobo, Ruddyface, brainwave,
        Moyola, kingsikaz, dara-mi, Goodnews4u,
        Queenisha. . . Queenisha again. . 
        echelon, codename47, thetruth90,
        beewhyfocs, Pataki, Ruby_Pearl, smile4kenn,
        NaijaEcash, sbm4real, uniquelove, mekk,
        OlowoTee . . . OlowoTee again O. . 
        Missy B, ima1, LASIEFAIRE, emmydee,
        sly-k, tkb417, onyinye2, nwakaibe,
        agaba123, jaysworld, oziomatv,
        begood1, yicob, echelon,
        (plus all who I failed to mention but are in my heart: fill name here _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _)
        . . . and the entire members of the Nairaland Christian E-Fellowship!!

You were all the cause of my joy today!
A song came into my heart, and I just couldn't stop singing it over and over again!
As I praised Jesus my wonderful Master. . .
I felt so deeply moved to give thanks for people
people who have touched me in one way or the other
people who give me reason to say "thank You, Lord Jesus"
people who make a difference in several more ways than they realize. . .

I just wanted to say "thank You Lord Jesus for all these wonderful people"
And may their joys never end
their testimonies be ever fresh
their expectations be fulfilled
their fears dispelled
their confidence multiplied
their wisdom in You stabilized
their service in Your Name be blessed and fruitful
their environment always secure in Your love


They will be a positive impact wherever they go
a constant resource to whoever contacts them
a blessing to all they meet
. . . and forever, may they all continue to be Your special treasures!


Amen! and Amen! and Amen!!
God bless you all, in Jesus Name!

Hi ecomog08,

Your efforts in reposting that article and link are well appreciated, I'm sure, by all who would read it. However, there are a few things that I feel compelled to point out as a caution to readers at large. First, let me state unequivocally that I believe in the reality of the other world - including Heaven and Hell. So, please all, whatever you read me say here should not be misconstrued as though I was trying to rubbish the reality of these phenomena: quite to the contrary, I do believe in the reality of Heaven and Hell as enunciated in the Bible.

That said, I find the article quite quizzical to digest. The one question that crosses my mind thereto is whether the whole report is Biblically defensible. After having carefully analysing it several times, I find that it does not measure up to scrutiny of clinical analysis or a balanced view of the Bible itself. Let me explain.

First, here is a very poor critique of the said article: '. . .there is no Ammenusastia newspaper in Finland.' I don't know who posted that critique on the net, but there are quite some vital pieces one may harvest as a guide to query this "sounds in Hell" article.

However, a few things that came to mind when I first read the article are these:

(a) the "scientists" are German geologists; I wonder why German newspapers and media did not carry the story (as far as I know). . . but it had to travel to Finland to be publicized.

(b) something is quite not right with the "microphone" lowered into the hole to capture the screams. In the first instance, at 2000 degrees centrigrade, the microphone would not have survived the heat. Why am I worried about this? because we know that the normal melting tempeartures for metals are below that range. An example:

[list][li]Lead melts at 327.5deg. centrigrade[/li][li]Iron melts at 1535 deg. cent.[/li][li]Nickel at 1453 deg. C.[/li][li]Copper at 1084 deg. C.[/li][li]Gold at 1064 deg. C.[/li][/list]

Now, what material was this microphone made of that it could survive a heat of 2000 deg. centrigrade?

(c) even those websites that are trying to defend this article are getting the whole issue about Hell wrong - if we examine them Biblically. How? Well, on these two premises:

[list][list](i) first hand, Hell is not located at the core of the earth where molten magma spews out to the surface of the earth (anyone familiar with the science of plate techtonics would find this easy to capture:[/list][/list]

[list][list](ii) at present, nobody is in Hell. To assume that people are presently in hell and screaming is a violation of the teaching of Scripture - because the first to be cast into that place are the beast and the false prophet (Rev. 19:20), followed by the Devil himself (Rev. 20:10); then followed by the wicked and unrepentant (Rev. 20:15).[/list][/list]

The English Bibles use the word 'Hell' in various contexts; and we are to distinguish Gehenna from tartarus - these are not the same sphere!


On the whole, I found about 35 issues terribly wrong with that article. Now, I do not have the slightest desire to cause a furor for those who are persuaded that this article reports a real event. My concerns, however, is that if it was a hype that cannot be defended, it only goes to show the sad situation where people just about ferret "anything" (regardless of whether it is false) in order to persuade men to believe in Christ. Sad, I say, because even the Lord Jesus Christ will not tolerate duplicity in the least.

So, where do I stand in all this? Here: my heart knows that God is sovereign - and there are events that can happen in our world which we canot explain. I have seen this in paranormal cases. However, please tread carefully and understand that Biblical truth goes hand-in-hand with integrity.

Thank you and God bless.

mikail001:
The Almighty Father severed part of Him, the Creative Will-that Which is the Holy Spirit and creation began on account of that.

Uhm. . . I don't understand how the Almighty Father severed part of "Him" - severed part of who?

@Olabowale,

I had to leave you for a while to calm down. When someone points out a simple issue, you always lose control of your center of gravity. Get ready to "manifest" again after I point out a simple thing here:

olabowale:
1) And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Mark, Chapter 12, Verse 29

2) [29] "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

From the above, we read that the writer was telling us what Jesus said to answer a question from a person in the
audience. Please tell me where Jesus, a Jew, an israelite, even for the fact that his mother is a Jewel is telling us
that he is not part of those who will have to take the Lord and God of israel not as his own One Lord? Am going to be
generous to you and quote verse 37. I will like to compare it, since you brought it up!

Where in those verses did Jesus say what you tried to make Him say earlier? Where did He say exactly: "I am not God"?

olabowale:
a) 37 David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"

Now tell me if the speaker in 37 is Jesus himself or somebody else? Please study the tone of speech here. Jesus
could not referring to himself as "calls him," and "can he!" Please pay attention.

The whole context showed that Jesus was speaking of Himself when He mentioned "the Christ". Start from verse 35:

[list][li]35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? 36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.[/li][/list]

David called the Christ "Lord" - are there more than one Christ in your theology? If Jesus was speaking about someone else, can you tell us who that someone else is?

olabowale:
I see that you understood Zero of Islam, in the time you were are Muslim! Muhammad (AS), the explainer of Qur'an in his hadith, say that when Allah created Adam, as a living man, He took from the body of Adam, the souls of his children! Please note that Eve was not yet created. Allah put all the souls in one assembly (Soul is equal to spirit of human, while still in heaven and not as human on eart, with flesh and bones), where He asked them; Am I not your Lord? And they all answered, yes You are our Lord! (This is where Fitra was attached to man, while still in spiritual rhelm!). Allah then says that you are now witnesses against yourself. In plain English; if you choose another 'lord,' other than Allah you are the transgressor who have served aforehand as witness against his/her own soul!

Allah was never Lord, and I rejected him. Are you satisfied now? I've told you, if you want to discuss, do so.

olabowale:
While mankind were still in this assembly, Adam was shown the souls of his children. He saw the soul of King David, who he gave 40 years out of his own life as a gift to be added to King David's life! And Eve was not created at that time. Is it therefore a thing too difficult to absorb that even before Eve was created from a pice of what is removed from Adam, I Olabowale, you Pilgrim.1 (kilo ruko Yoruba e?), all of us the sons and daughters of Adam, including yes, Jesus and Muhammad, were, before Noah or Abraham arrived on the surface of the earth?

I hear. Amin.

olabowale:
I thought you will be engaging. Anyway, you try sha! At least you are making the christians kind of think that there is a dialogue going on.

I invited you to a dialogue, and the invitation is still open. What I don't entertain is the attitude of misrepresenting issues and then turning to demonize your own people simply because you don't agree with them. That attitude is unhealthy, and I don't want to help to foster such.

Olabowale,

olabowale:
I submit to you, in the maintime that verse 29 of mark 12 simple says that Jesus, from his own admission, is not God or Lord, the Creator, the Cherisher!

It did not say so. That is why you needed to have quoted it directly.

olabowale:
The burden of proof is upon you. Just saying yes, is a very foundamental way to deceive. Proof is needed!

No one reading what I stated have cried the way you're doing.

olabowale:
The tone of speech indicates somebody else, other than Jesus is giving this opinion.

Can you please show us who this "somebody else" was?

olabowale:
Oh, I get it; Its the inspiration at work. The same inspiration that inspired Mark 12 verse 29 which completely opposes verse 37! Thats interesting.

Simply quote the verses and sho where Jesus made your own denials. Thank you.

olabowale:
And it was a writer that is telling us here that Jesus said this verse. Please lets Jesus speak for himself!

He spoke for Himself, as is clear in that verse.

olabowale:
And by the way, before Noah, which was before Abraham, I Olabowale was.

You're now better than Muhammad who never said such a thing, abi? You're quite a fellow, but sorry about forcing your own ideology to help cover the gaps in your theory.

Shalom.

@Africakel,

Africankel:
Notice I said the song "I surrender all" is a very beautiful song, I sang it, I loved it, I still love it, But as the revelation of who the Christian is progresses, You will get rid of such songs.

Christians still sing that song and many others - it does not turn them out to be rebels as you inferred.

I'm a bit concerned about this attitude of Christians reacting this way. I know many mature Christians who have been blessed and enriched by that song, not because they are "rebelling" or newly coming to Christ. Rather, some I personally know have always found strength in that song when faced with the temptation to make some hard choices in life. An example: an elderly couple whose son was killed while sharing the Gospel in the middle East, gave thanks to God for the testimony of their son's life. As they sang the son's favourite song, it strengthened his elderly parents who responded to God's call upon their lives through that son to give up their comfortable life to go and live with a local community in a remote area in India. For several months, they saw no results and asked us to constantly pray for them. Our local church (then I was still in Atlanta, Georgia) never stopped praying for them. Several times the elderly father was beaten by native Indians for sharing the Gospel; but they were never discouraged.

One day, as the wife was about leaving back for Atlanta, she felt the Lord asking in her heart if she regretted giving her all to Him. She burst into praise and sang that song again - a turning point that made her change her mind. The next day (which was supposed to be her flight schedule), a local neighbour rushed to this couple's small hut and begged them to ask prayer of "your god Jesus". The couple were surprised, but prayed for her anyhow. She went back and brought her sister - same thing happened. That same evening, 3 families had come to receive the same Gospel that they rejected and constantly sought to beat the elderly man for.

Why this report? Because many times people do not know what they are saying when they interprete things in their own small understanding. That same song which you argued that it makes rebels of people is the same song that strengthened this elderly couple who suffered the lose of their son while evangelizing in the middle East.

Africankel:
You don't surrender you life to God again and again and again!

You do. James 4:7 was written to admonish Christians with these words: "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." Romans 12:1-3 carries the same thought ("ye present your bodies a living sacrifice," - v.1). Same thought expressed in Rom. 6:13 - "but yield yourselves unto God". All these are addressed to Christians, and it all depends on what context we use the word "surrender".

Africankel:
THE DOVE:
Mattew 3:16 ", the Spirit of God descended lika a dove, and lighting upon him:
Luke 3:22 "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dave upon him,
John 1:32 , I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove,

The writers DID NOT DESCRIBE the shap of the Holy Spirit, when you study the bible, try to use the original manuscript, Spirit is Greek: 'Pnuema', Pnuema mean "wind", tell me, how can u see the wind?, The wind blows everywhere,, Hear me! John was talking about the landing of the Spirit, He did not drop with the accerleration due to gravity on Jesus, He landed in a bodily shape, with the landing of a dove! Thats what he's talking about, Its got to agree with all scripture: there's no scripture that likens the Holy Spirit to an animal or a bird, it is an insult! God said to Moses and the Children of Israel, when I appeared to you, you did not see any form or shape, therefore, make no images to represent me.

There's really no need for anyone to argue about this. I don't know how many people have argued that the shape of the Holy Spirit is a dove - I don't know if that is what people are thinking. However, the writers did mention that the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove.

Gravity could be described in other ways if that is what the writers had in mind - and your explanation does not really fit what they had in mind.

Cheers.

Dear shawn123,

shawn123:
@olabowale and Pilgrim
i don't think its a wise idea to keep castigating each other's religion. The truth is we would not get anywhere by saying the quran said this and the bible didnt say that. can't you both see that both of you will never convince yourselves of anything with that tone. I for once never listen to anyone that has a so much dislike for what i believe in. If you got facts for me then fine, let hear it.

Well said. I have often presented facts about what I state; but if that does not go down well with oga Olabowale, I don't see any reason why he should be castigating the convictions of Christians. The idea that it is okay to ridicule the Biblical faith and nothing should be said about Islam should make us ask why Olabowale is so discontented with the muslim childboard/section.

shawn123:
Please can anyone give me the answers to what i have been asking? i need to know the gospel writers/ dissiples. those that were alive during the time of Jesus and those that came afterwards that neve met Jesus. thanks , its for a comparison course report am doing,

Can you share with us what this "comparison course" is all about if the basic textbook (the Bible) is always ignored for that course?