₦airaland Forum

FatherOfJesus:
Well, you do not have to insult someone who is beating you in a debate because you have started failing to comprehend the discussion..

I'm sure you were not taught that in your church but I understand how cognitive dissonance works.

Oh! Sorry if that hurts.
You could not read along your lines that you started the insult.
I don't need to understand your trash when I have nothing to loose with my belief.

I have told you to keep your belief and keep your distance from believers. It stinks so badly when you are on the other side

Felimax:
Oh! Sorry if that hurts.
You could not read along your lines that you started the insult.
I don't need to understand your trash when I have nothing to loose with my belief.

why are you using harsh words?
Did I trigger you?
If insults can conjured God's into existence, he would exist today

I have told you to keep your belief and keep your distance from believers. It stinks so badly when you are on the other side[/quote]lol,

Dtruthspeaker:
Right now you were about the gospel of science but I see, when I respond, you go mad!

Nope, gospel of the flying spaghetti monster. The one and only true God which you cannot disprove.
He created yahweh

Dtruthspeaker:
There was no insult only observation of irregularity and unreasonabllity of your response, which proves an inability to counter.

So, There is no thing further to be said.

I'm only making a quote by our great Flying spaghetti monster, the creator of heaven and earth

FatherOfJesus:
why are you using harsh words?
Did I trigger you?
If insults can conjured God's into existence, he would exist today

I have told you to keep your belief and keep your distance from believers. It stinks so badly when you are on the other sidelol,

Be gone!

Felimax:
Be gone!

Why you dey vex?
If you don't want people to mock your beliefs, don't keep laughable beliefs

Felimax:
I will give you an absolute definite answer if you can provide me a definite and precise answer to when you will expire from this world. I am not against science, not at all but science should keep it's distance as to what I believe.

I don't know when I'll die, and I know neither do most people. How does this matter?
I hope you are not deflecting?

You're mistaken here, science is just a methodology for investigating the world and making discoveries.
It's when these discoveries don't align with the beliefs in a religion, that the followers of this religion get offended, and start trying to compete with and discredit science.

Some of the greatest inventions and discoveries of man where from people who so much believe in God.

God has nothing to prove of His existence. It makes so much sense when people don't believe in God. For me I find this phenomenal very interesting.

Yes, they were and these people believed in different Gods and also the place of their Gods in this world.
The most popular of such people was Einstein which believed in something akin to a pantheist, deist God.
Even so their discoveries were still done using the scientific methods, and at no point do they ever use "God of the gaps" with in their respective domains and discoveries.

FatherOfJesus:
Why you dey vex?
If you don't want people to mock your beliefs, don't keep laughable beliefs

Laughable beliefs indeed! When my 32 is almost shattering in laughter.
In fact, let us continue laughing ourselves to greatness.

If only you know the way I admire you people ehn, you will not believe.

I swear, I don't want you to believe in God cos if all of us do it just will not make sense, trust me.

Lolz, one said he is even the Father of Jesus! My belle o! Sometimes we go to the zoo to confirm if actually the animals we are seeing onscreen are real.

Felimax:
Laughable beliefs indeed! When my 32 is almost shattering in laughter.
In fact, let us continue laughing ourselves to greatness.

If only you know the way I admire you people ehn, you will not believe.

I swear, I don't want you to believe in God cos if all of us do it just will not make sense, trust me.

Lolz, one said he is even the Father of Jesus! My belle o! Sometimes we go to the zoo to confirm if actually the animals we are seeing onscreen are real.

Well, you cannot prove that I am not the father of Jesus

MaxInDHouse:
Walahi talahi i love this statement!

This is how SCIENCE don't know some 4,500 years ago that God hangs the earth upon nothing whereas the Bible knew all along back then:

 He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, Suspending the earth upon nothing! Job 26:7

You can believe that if you want, but that is not a very scientific statement, it's vague enough to project your own meaning onto it.

First the earth doesn't "hang" it's in orbit around the sun, and if it were not in orbit, there exists no directional force in empty space that it would fall towards to require hanging. And second why the northern sky? The sky is equally distributed in both the northern hemisphere and southern hemispheres, so this doesn't make sense.

This is how SCIENCE don't know when the Bible talked about the water circle thousands of years ago!


He draws up the drops of water; They condense into rain from his mist; Then the clouds pour it down; They shower down upon mankind Job 36:27-28

I'll give the Hebrew writers this one. A fairly simple assessment of the water cycle, which was possible to do even back then.

This is how SCIENCE don't know when God said the earth is Spherical whereas scientists back then thought the earth is flat!

There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze, And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. Isaiah 40:22

People from the past generally believed the earth was flat, and this very passages is used by flat earthers to defend such beliefs.
"Dwells above the circle of the earth"
"Spreaded out the heavens like a gauze, like a tent"
Does this sound like the description of a spherical body, with a layer of atmosphere? Or the flat earth model? See image below.

by around 500Bc most ancient Greeks thought the earth was spherical, and by around 250Bc Eratosthenes devised an experiment that proved the spherical earth and produced a fairly accurate estimate for the circumference of the earth to this day.

This is how SCIENCE don't know when God forbids men from touching excrement or dead bodies but back then scientists used excrement to make ointment for curing wounds!

I'll need a reference to the bolded.

A peg should be part of your equipment. When you squat outside, you should dig a hole with it and then cover your excrement! Deuteronomy 23:13

Now there were men who had become unclean by touching a dead body, Numbers 9:6

A fair level of hygiene, most other cultures figured out.

This is also vague, like the writers Drew some parallels and could figure out it was bad but not why. No mentions of why it was bad, like they didn't know the existence of germs.

This is how SCIENCE don't know why God created flying creatures with electric resistance legs but after thousands of years they discovered electricity!

Bird legs are not non conductive, they stand with both legs on the wire, above the ground, because of which the power doesn't flow through the bird and electrocute it, should the bird touch another wire or piece of equipment that's grounded, power will flow through it and it will be electrocuted.
There's nothing special going on here, you could touch a wire carrying current, provided you are not grounded, or insulated from the ground and be fine.

This is how SCIENCE don't know how God made a Android TV with internet for his prophet to see what's happening inside the Jerusalem temple right in his own house! Ezekiel 8:13-16

SCIENCE don't know any of these until thousands of years later!

This is just your own imaginations.

So let me ask you this, if you knew, or your book knew about all these things.

Why did you wait for science to have to discover and invent it?
Why wait for science to discover something before piggy backing off that thing by reinterpreting a passage to claim you always knew, instead of using it to lead in the scientific fields right now.

I should be able to learn the secrets of nuclear fusion and derive useful formulas from the bible if it was such a book.

FatherOfJesus:
I disagree with you sir.

While, the concept of science didn't exist until Galileo Galilee. Let's break it down.
What's science?
Science is a methodology, which includes making an observation, creating hypothesis and then setting up experiments to test such hyputhesis before reaching any conclusions. That's a direct opposite of any religious including Judaism.

Religion is philosophy and philosophy is not science. They don't make rational conclusions from tested experiments, they make conclusions from rationalism/arguments and not empiricims which make religion any not science.
I do not see anything scientific about the Judiast Torah.
If you are arguing that some jews are/wer good scientists then I will agree but the religion in itself has nothing to do with science. In science, your beliefs are useless, you have to dump them before entering the lab.

Observation is a part of science and the religious stories and characters they created were based on observations of nature. You can say “science didn’t exist before Galileo” but knowledge and expertise accumulate over time and the predecessors of of Galileo performed basic science of making observations and forming hypothesis of sorts, and performing experiments . Do you really think mankind didn’t perform all these “science” before Galileo? Galileo’s and co can get credit for standardization of science but no one gets credit for creating science. Humans have been performing science since primitive people made observations and experimented with nature in order to thrive.

More ancient cultures than the Hebrews were probably the originators of the concepts these religions are built on and some of these concepts made it into the Torah and other places. Of course you do not see the science in the Torah because it’s written in allegories that are not easily decipherable unless you have a base of knowledge that’s broad enough.

In your other reply, you called some ancients “primitive agriculturists”. Before we could get “modern agriculturists” some people had to do the “primitive” part. Same with science. Before “modern science” existed, some people had to do the primitive part. Human knowledge accumulates over time and doesn’t just pop up in a vacuum.

Their observational skills helped organize primitive societies and helped them develop religion.

IMAliyu:
I'll need a reference to the bolded.

Scientists always hide under civilization to project there ignorance so even though you know better they'll stand on the achievements of civilization to lay claims that they know more than you.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.medicaldaily.com/use-poop-medical-treatments-throughout-history-400497&ved=2ahUKEwiHjfOg5vn3AhVTe8AKHYetCOQQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0udmpG_3fYIovh-LFAu1G2

Only the Israelites insisted on what their God said about the danger in the use of excrement! Deuteronomy 23:12-13

That's the link and you can also see how poop (excrement) was prepared in ancient times for ointment by SCIENTISTS!

KnownUnknown:
Observation is a part of science and the religious stories and characters they created were based on observations of nature. You can say “science didn’t exist before Galileo” but knowledge and expertise accumulate over time and the predecessors of of Galileo performed basic science of making observations and forming hypothesis of sorts, and performing experiments . Do you really think mankind didn’t perform all these “science” before Galileo? Galileo’s and co can get credit for standardization of science but no one gets credit for creating science. Humans have been performing science since primitive people made observations and experimented with nature in order to thrive.

I don't know why this should even be an argument.
Religion is philosophy and philosophy makes observations but will never make hypothesis to test or any form of experiment. Religion is never science, that's why their beliefs are immutable. Scientific theories and concept are fallable and can be reviewed with better evidence. Religion in all kinds is conservative and immune to change. They don't test anything, they just stop at the hypothesis stage (at least in philosophy) .

More ancient cultures than the Hebrews were probably the originators of the concepts these religions are built on and some of these concepts made it into the Torah and other places. Of course you do not see the science in the Torah because it’s written in allegories that are not easily decipherable unless you have a base of knowledge that’s broad enough.

Torah is not written in allegories. It's written in clear terms based of the understanding of ancient individuals of how the world works. Modern jews who obviously have seen and with the help of science that those stories are nonsensical now claim its allegory in other to reconcile their faith with reality. Ofcourse we know that's dishonest and hypocritical but we don't mind, as long as they don't make their books the universal truth. They can call it whatever but we are damn sure that Torah is not allegory. It was a literal interpretation of what the ancient people believed unless you want to keep living in denial

In your other reply, you called some ancients “primitive agriculturists”. Before we could get “modern agriculturists” some people had to do the “primitive” part. Same with science. Before “modern science” existed, some people had to do the primitive part. Human knowledge accumulates over time and doesn’t just pop up in a vacuum.

Their observational skills helped organize primitive societies and helped them develop religion.

There was nothing like science before Galileo. Science is a methodology with strict principles to follow. While those principles may have been subconsciously practiced by individuals, there wasn't an organized body of knowledge called science until 1700s.
Stop living in denial, it's foolhardy to try to say any religion operates in scientific principles by claiming some religiois are allegories. This is a subtly way of saying that those religions texts are not realities and allegorical books can never make it to science.

FatherOfJesus:
I don't know why this should even be an argument.
Religion is philosophy and philosophy makes observations but will never make hypothesis to test or any form of experiment. Religion is never science, that's why their beliefs are immutable. Scientific theories and concept are fallable and can be reviewed with better evidence. Religion in all kinds is conservative and immune to change. They don't test anything, they just stop at the hypothesis stage (at least in philosophy) .
Torah is not written in allegories. It's written in clear terms based of the understanding of ancient individuals of how the world works. Modern jews who obviously have seen and with the help of science that those stories are nonsensical now claim its allegory in other to reconcile their faith with reality. Ofcourse we know that's dishonest and hypocritical but we don't mind, as long as they don't make their books the universal truth. They can call it whatever but we are damn sure that Torah is not allegory. It was a literal interpretation of what the ancient people believed unless you want to keep living in denial

There was nothing like science before Galileo. Science is a methodology with strict principles to follow. While those principles may have been subconsciously practiced by individuals, there wasn't an organized body of knowledge called science until 1700s.
Stop living in denial, it's foolhardy to try to say any religion operates in scientific principles by claiming some religiois are allegories. This is a subtly way of saying that those religions texts are not realities and allegorical books can never make it to science.

There is no argument. I’m just telling you how things are without the misinformation and bias.

Here is an example of peope doing “science” before 1700.

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/big-history-project/solar-system-and-earth/knowing-solar-system-earth/a/eratosthenes-of-cyrene
“Eratosthenes was also the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth’s axis, which he figured with remarkable accuracy; the finding was reported by Ptolemy (85-165 CE). Eratosthenes also calculated the distance from the Earth to the Moon and to the Sun, but with less accuracy. He made a catalog of 675 stars. He made a calendar with leap years and laid the foundation of chronology in the Western world by organizing the dates of literary and political events from the siege of Troy (about 1194–1184 BCE) to his own time.
Yet his most lasting achievement was his remarkably accurate calculation of the Earth’s circumference (the distance around a circle or sphere). He computed this by using simple geometry and trigonometry and by recognizing Earth as a sphere in space. Most Greek scholars by the time of Aristotle (384–322 BCE) agreed that Earth was a sphere, but none knew how big it was.
How did Greek scholars know the Earth was a sphere? They observed that ships disappeared over the horizon while their masts were still visible. They saw the curved shadow of the Earth on the Moon during lunar eclipses. And they noticed the changing positions of the stars in the sky.

Measuring the earth

Eratosthenes heard about a famous well in the Egyptian city of Swenet (Syene in Greek, and now known as Aswan), on the Nile River. At noon one day each year — the summer solstice (between June 20 and June 22) — the Sun’s rays shone straight down into the deep pit. They illuminated only the water at the bottom, not the sides of the well as on other days, proving that the Sun was directly overhead. (Syene was located very close to what we call the Tropic of Cancer, 23.5 degrees north, the northernmost latitude at which the Sun is ever directly overhead at noon.)
Eratosthenes erected a pole in Alexandria, and on the summer solstice he observed that it cast a shadow, proving that the Sun was not directly overhead but slightly south. Recognizing the curvature of the Earth and knowing the distance between the two cities enabled Eratosthenes to calculate the planet’s circumference.”

Like I said before, just because you take the Bible literally like the people you mock doesn’t negate the fact that it contains allegories, and the characters in the allegories are inspired by the natural world which they made observations about. Just because scientific methodology wasn’t standardized before 1700s, doesn’t meant people didn’t practice science prior to Galileo. Go back a further 2000 years from Eratosthenes and people were practicing science, go back another 2000 years and they were practicing science. Some people had to crawl before Galileo could walk and modern day scientist could run.

I didn’t say religion operates in scientific principles. I only opposed your claim that the Bible was written by “goatherders” when they were composed by scribes with observational knowledge of nature. Science wasn’t standardized in their time and religion isn’t science but that doesn’t mean they didn’t practice science. They had to make observations in order to construct those allegories.

How sure are you The Torah doesn’t contain allegories when you seemingly don’t understand what an allegory is based on this quote of yours.

“It's written in clear terms based of the understanding of ancient individuals of how the world works. “

So because Adam and Eve was written in clear terms it is not allegorical?!

KnownUnknown:
There is no argument. I’m just telling you how things are without the misinformation and bias.

Here is an example of peope doing “science” before 1700.

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/big-history-project/solar-system-and-earth/knowing-solar-system-earth/a/eratosthenes-of-cyrene
“Eratosthenes was also the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth’s axis, which he figured with remarkable accuracy; the finding was reported by Ptolemy (85-165 CE). Eratosthenes also calculated the distance from the Earth to the Moon and to the Sun, but with less accuracy. He made a catalog of 675 stars. He made a calendar with leap years and laid the foundation of chronology in the Western world by organizing the dates of literary and political events from the siege of Troy (about 1194–1184 BCE) to his own time.
Yet his most lasting achievement was his remarkably accurate calculation of the Earth’s circumference (the distance around a circle or sphere). He computed this by using simple geometry and trigonometry and by recognizing Earth as a sphere in space. Most Greek scholars by the time of Aristotle (384–322 BCE) agreed that Earth was a sphere, but none knew how big it was.
How did Greek scholars know the Earth was a sphere? They observed that ships disappeared over the horizon while their masts were still visible. They saw the curved shadow of the Earth on the Moon during lunar eclipses. And they noticed the changing positions of the stars in the sky. "

nobody is arguing this with you. People practice science subconsciously before Galileo but there notjing like an organized methodology or principle called science it didn't exist.
No peer review process, not process of making hypothesis and no strict standard for practices. It wasn't science it was something else.

And again, I am yet to see how Judaism did any science before or after Galileo.

Measuring the earth

Eratosthenes heard about a famous well in the Egyptian city of Swenet (Syene in Greek, and now known as Aswan), on the Nile River. At noon one day each year — the summer solstice (between June 20 and June 22) — the Sun’s rays shone straight down into the deep pit. They illuminated only the water at the bottom, not the sides of the well as on other days, proving that the Sun was directly overhead. (Syene was located very close to what we call the Tropic of Cancer, 23.5 degrees north, the northernmost latitude at which the Sun is ever directly overhead at noon.)
Eratosthenes erected a pole in Alexandria, and on the summer solstice he observed that it cast a shadow, proving that the Sun was not directly overhead but slightly south. Recognizing the curvature of the Earth and knowing the distance between the two cities enabled Eratosthenes to calculate the planet’s circumference.”

how does this make your claim that some religion can be called science valid?

Like I said before, just because you take the Bible literally like the people you mock doesn’t negate the fact that it contains allegories, and the characters in the allegories are inspired by the natural world which they made observations about. Just because scientific methodology wasn’t standardized before 1700s, doesn’t meant people didn’t practice science prior to Galileo.[/quote"] Jesus was conceived by a virgin without fertilization. Is that an allegory?

The problem with this allegory thing is dishonesty, it gives religious people the room to interpret their books however it pleases them. That's why you can see plathora of interpretations for a particular text and baselss arguments from different people even within the same sect. There's nothing allegorical in a statement "the sun stood still" . It's a way of living in denial and never wanting to accept that their books are wrong. They are just wrong and nothing like subtle allegory.

[quote]I didn’t say religion operates in scientific principles. I only opposed your claim that the Bible was written by “goatherders” when they were composed by scribes with observational knowledge of nature. Science wasn’t standardized in their time and religion isn’t science but that doesn’t mean they didn’t practice science. They had to make observations in order to construct those allegories.

Like I said, they are not allegories. They are the special of how ancient people perceived the world. They didn't have they kind of knowledge we have to see the world from a broader view. They inserted God into anything they could not understand. That's the fact, any other thing like the "allegory" claim is dishonesty. Call a spade a spade, those books are wrong. Don't sugarcoat the truth in form of allegory

How sure are you The Torah doesn’t contain allegories when you seemingly don’t understand what an allegory is based on this quote of yours.

allegories claim does not make sense. It gives room for manipulations and many subjective interpretations hence unending arguments. The text is what it is. Ancient understanding the world. No need sugarcoating it

“It's written in clear terms based of the understanding of ancient individuals of how the world works. “

So because Adam and Eve was written in clear terms it is not allegorical?!

Adam and Eve maybe allegorical to you but not to the person who wrote the original text. They meant what they wrote.
It's allegorical to you because you have more nderstanding of the world and you know that it cannot be true. That wasn't the case when they were writing those texts

FatherOfJesus:
nobody is arguing this with you. People practice science subconsciously before Galileo but there notjing like an organized methodology or principle called science it didn't exist. No peer review process, not process of making hypothesis and no strict standard for practices. It wasn't science it was something else.

They didn’t practice science “subconsciously” but consciously. Just because it wasn’t the standardized methodology doesn’t mean they didn’t make observations, form hypothesis, and experiment. Their observations form the basis of religious lores and persons.

FatherOfJesus:
And again, I am yet to see how Judaism did any science before or after Galileo.

You are not alone but amongst the multitude. Build your base of knowledge and you might see it.

FatherOfJesus:
how does this make your claim that some religion can be called science valid?

I never made that claim. I said the progenitors of religion were protoscientists who developed myths and characters based on their observations(1st step on science). You claimed there was no science before Galileo and I posted Eratosthenes as an example of science before Galileo. Again, just because there was no standardized methodology doesn’t mean science didn’t exist prior to Galileo.

FatherOfJesus:
Like I said, they are not allegories. They are the special of how ancient people perceived the world. They didn't have they kind of knowledge we have to see the world from a broader view. They inserted God into anything they could not understand. That's the fact, any other thing like the "allegory" claim is dishonesty. Call a spade a spade, those books are wrong. Don't sugarcoat the truth in form of allegory. allegories claim does not make sense. It gives room for manipulations and many subjective interpretations hence unending arguments. The text is what it is. Ancient understanding the world. No need sugarcoating it. Adam and Eve maybe allegorical to you but not to the person who wrote the original text. They meant what they wrote.
It's allegorical to you because you have more nderstanding of the world and you know that it cannot be true. That wasn't the case when they were writing those texts

They are allegories regardless if you understand them as such or not. Look beyond the literal interpretation. Yes, they are based on ancient people’s understanding of the world but they had to make observations in order to compose the allegories. You are right that it gives room for manipulations but what is religion without manipulations?

How can you say what the author of Adam and Eve means when you don’t understand the story?!
Being the FatherofJesus, do you know that your son is also an allegory?

KnownUnknown:
Tlhey are allegories regardless if you understand them as such or not. Look beyond the literal interpretation. Yes, they are based on ancient people’s understanding of the world but they had to make observations in order to compose the allegories. You are right that it gives room for manipulations but what is religion without manipulations?

They are not allegorical to those who actually wrote. The allegory thing is scam

How can you say what the author of Adam and Eve means when you don’t understand the story?!
Being the FatherofJesus, do you know that your son is also an allegory?

people can come up with many nonsense if they believe it's inspire by God. We have several evidence for this

KnownUnknown:
They didn’t practice science “subconsciously” but consciously. Just because it wasn’t the standardized methodology doesn’t mean they didn’t make observations, form hypothesis, and experiment. Their observations form the basis of religious lores and persons.

nobody made any scientific finding from religious lores. No one makes any reasonable scientific finding from fictions

You are not alone but amongst the multitude. Build your base of knowledge and you might see it.


I never made that claim. I said the progenitors of religion were protoscientists who developed myths and characters based on their observations(1st step on science). You claimed there was no science before Galileo and I posted Eratosthenes as an example of science before Galileo. Again, just because there was no standardized methodology doesn’t mean science didn’t exist prior to Galileo.

religion has never been proto science. Religion is fiction and never realistic

Epistemology could be considered protoscience and not theocracy. Theocracy is Bunch of ridiculous claims by people with little knowledge of how things work

FatherOfJesus:
They are not allegorical to those who actually wrote. The allegory thing is scam

people can come up with many nonsense if they believe it's inspire by God. We have several evidence for this

It depends on what science means.



As for the Bible and the Quran.., people like budaatum, known.......,etc keep repeating that you don't understand or condemn your assessment of such books....., anyways , people will keep having different definitions for things.


But some bastards will never be forgiven by me here no matter what!!





Let's see the worst that could happen offline!