₦airaland Forum

Choose the answer which, when matched with that word, best resembles the relationship existing between the other two words.

For example:

Portrait is to picture as ___ is to book.

A) ethnography

B) biography

C) autobiography


In this case, answer would be biography

Okay, folks, stay tuned. Let's see how well you know your English.

Coming right up.

luxanne: I beg to differ, the world is in his present state because of man.

Man made the world what it is, by deviating from what religion truly is and doing that which selfishly please them, they should be blame for how you feel and not religion.

What about believing in God cos he loves and forgives? Did the wise man forget that part?

First of all you gotta prove that your god does exist. I mean, how could a supreme being be up here and do nothing while women and children are ràped, abused, and killed on daily bases? If he does exist, then surely, he must be the cruelest being ever in existence. A being devoid of mercy and compassion, that sits back and watch his creations decimate themselves.

No Sis, the most logical conclusion is to surmise that there is no god. We are masters of our own destiny. Man answers to no one but to himself and to the government. No afterlife. After death, your consciousness twitch off forever, so to speak.

Man invented the concept of god to help him cope rather than face reality. Religion is nothing but a mask, a state of being mentally enslaved, nothing more.

luxanne: I used to frequent religion section when I registered but what I saw there made me stop especially from that dude called logicboy, dunno if he still frequents there.

All you guys do is fight all day, it's insane.

Btw, you need to update your thread.

Darwinian 'Survival of the fittest', that's the religious section.

lana_Vello: "best defence is attack"
ikr,buh we both know thats wen you're at loggerheads or in a war situation.
y wud u attack in a peaceful scenario all in d name of defence?

First of all, there has to be peace. Take a trip to the Religious section and see the evidence on ground. Atheists are discriminated upon from left, right and centre. When all the moderators officiating what is suppose to be a general section are all Christians, what do you expect?

No atheistic topic ever make the front page, cuz the mods never recommends it to the Super Mods, we get banned more often than the Christians, etc

We are an embattled group, mate. Don't just stand outside the door peering in, come inside the room and see what is really going on.

The best way atheism can survive the bigotry of religion is to stay aggressive. Sitting back on our laurels can only invite suppression.

luxanne: Religion isn't a fraud, lots of people can attest to that.

You not believing in it does not mean you sholud speak about it in such manner, what happens to respecting other people's beliefs?

Yes it is. The world is in her present state because of religion.

How can you have respect for something that drives man to kill his fellow man? Something that glorifies murder, something that man uses to con his fellow man, something that devide instead of unite.

Sorry Sis, but Religion doesn't deserve my respect.

A wise man once said "I refused to believe in a god that will burn me in hell for not worshipping him."

He was a King.

Not when someone try to shove his baloney down your throat. Sometimes, it's better to be the aggressor in other to survive.

A Footy quote summed it all up "Best defence is attack"

lana_Vello: lol,he's a self-acclaimed atheist i presume

I don't believe in Religion or in any concept of supreme being(s). You may call me an atheist, but I see myself as a free thinker.

How so?

noblefada, sorry mate. But your explanations are turning out to be full of holes! You gotta step up your game if not for your own sake, then, for the sake of your belief.

I normally don't comment on gay themed threads like this one, cuz the content always disgust me (I won't lie to you, I don't like gays). But I will make an exception this time to address a certain mannerisms that always struck me as hypocritical.

Why do you feel that you must let everyone know that you are not gay, even as you defend them? The way I see it, If you feel that homosexualism is not wrong, then you owe nobody any explanation, even if you are heterosexual. If you don't have a thick skin, then spare everyone your hypocrisy and keep your peace.

You call someone like me a bigot, and yet when your sexual orientation is attacked, you feel incline to distance yourself from homosexualism. Why? Why do you care what people think of you? What makes you any better than a gay hating someone like me?

The lady wanted to give birth in London, but the 'spoil sport' of a baby had other ideas. Too bad.

Reyginus: Mods I don't think this is fp worthy. My reason: it lacks the mark of what a debate really is. Secondly, it breaks rule 2.

Spoil sport

The thread remain a huge victory for atheism, unless the Christians show up and start refuting those claims. I posted a similar topic in the Islam section, and it was baptism of fire!

dareabiola98, I appreciate your effort along with the other Muslims that contributed so far, unlike your Christian counterparts, you at least showed up!

Anyways, my original questions remained unanswered, thanks.

noblefada: Pls go back and read it again I made that clear, He died in a battle against the Philistines who of course were responsible for his death.

Okay, so I may've missed the part where you said that the philistines were responsible for his death, so what?

The bible never told us that the Philistines were responsible for Saul's death. To be responsible for ones death literary translate: to cause someone's' death however indirectly, but to kill on the other hand, is simply to put an end to, to extinguish. It was very literal when it said Saul died in their hands. It specifically used the word killed to drive the message home.

Blah blah blah,

In one verse, it clearly stipulated that God was the instigator, in another, god was replaced by satan as the instigator in chief. How does that even make sense?

Okay, even if god had allowed satan to incite David, how could God sent
Satan to do a job and yet God is not
responsible for the sin?

noblefada: No I didn't hint that, Saul fell on his sword and died after been fatally wounded by the Philistines, what I ws trying to say was the fear he had about what the Philistines will do to him actually befell him.

Still doesn't refute the verse that stated that he died in the hands of the philistines.

In fact, you seem to be arguing on my side.

Going through your explanation again, I realized that I May have spoken in haste. You hinted that Saul wasn't dead when he fell upon the sword, which prompted the 'Philistines to finish up the job. 'They cut off (beheaded) and abused his body' - your words not mine.

That implied that the Philistines were the original killers, but that wasn't the case as this verses below showed;

1 Samuel 1-6 Philistines fought against Israel; the Israelites fled before them, and many fell slain on Mount Gilboa. The Philistines pressed hard after Saul and his sons, and they killed his sons Jonathan, Abinadab and Malki-Shua. The fighting grew fierce around Saul, and when the archers overtook him, they wounded him critically. Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and abuse me." But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him. So Saul and his three sons and his armor-bearer and all his men died together that same day."

The bold clearly proved that Saul commited suicide, rather than in the hands of the Philistines like 2 Samuel 21:12 stated. So did Saul died twice or something?

Sorry mate, the contradiction is back into play. You refuted nothing. Nice try though.

Let's see what you got.

Now, don't feel smug, because that one is pretty straight forward. I left it out of my original post for a reason, you know? Why it took you so long to explain, still baffles me. Could it be that you are scared you might shoot yourself in the foot?

Alright, I concede that one, the contradictions are officially refuted.


Now here comes the hard one;

2 Samuel 24:1- And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against
Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

The contraction

1 Chronicles 21:1- And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Refute this one, and I will acknowledged your bible knowledge prowess, however grudgingly.

lanrexlan: We give the answers in the clearest manner,with logical reasoning and proofs.We deliver the message and Allah gives guidance.....Peace

Then indulge me by providing the answers in the clearest manner as possible. This is what tbaba failed to do.

lanrexlan: Tbaba has clarified most of your posts,we aren't here to convince and it's not a must you accept our answers.....Peace

Then what's the point of all this then? What's the point of this thread. What's the point of your contributing? How do you expect me to see things in your perspective, if you don't go the extra mile?

[size=16pt]Who Killed Saul?[/size]


Saul was slain by God

1 Chronicles 10:14- And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse

Saul killed himself

1 Samuel 31:4- Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.

An Amalekite killed Saul

2 Samuel 1:8-10 “He asked me,‘Who are you?’ 'An Amalekite,’ I answered. “Then he said to me, ‘Stand here by me and kill me! I’m in the throes of death, but
I’m still alive.’ “So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that after he had fallen he could not survive. And I took the crown that was on his head and the band on his arm and have brought them here to my lord.”

No! It's the philistines!

2 Samuel 21:12 he went to the people of Jabesh-gilead and retrieved the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan When the Philistines had killed Saul and Jonathan on Mount Gilboa, the people of Jabesh-gilead stole their bodies from the public square of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hung them.

I know where you are going with this, to you it's a metaphor. Ordinary, I would have no problem agreeing with you on that, except, I will no sooner start questioning everything else in the holy Quran. Which one is metaphor and which one is real? Quran's credibility will come under attack.

Geez! This noblechild character...

What has that got to do with the topic for goodness sake

Why should I bother with something that wasn't even a contradiction, or related to the topics that I posted. On top of that, it was a lost Christian that mistaken my thread for a Christian chatbox.

Why should I treat something that I or any other atheist didn't ask? Since when do a Christian(the questioner) become an ally that I should challenged your irrelevant and unnecessary explanation?

Honestly, dude (I don't call people dude unless I'm really exasperated), I think it would be better if you quit commenting on this thread, till you have something meaningful to contribute.

Don't let the door hit you on your way out, bye!

lanrexlan: Sire,all your pots have been treated.....Peace

When? The only one I remembered that made a semblance of sense was the first one that goldpen helped clarified.

So which other ones were you referring to?

JMAN05: If you are giving the explanation, will you believe?

If the logic is sound enough, I will give it the benefit of doubt, in other words I will leave it alone. But it never happened, as you can see.

You know what, guys? Let's just move on. Treat my other post, if you can.

The rest of your post is incomprehensible, so I will only treat the below.

dareabiola98: The Qur'an,revealed 1434yrs ago when no 1 had gone to space is telling u that the moon and the sun is in its own orbit and it swim as do every object in the galaxy,A fact just know to man not more than 100yrs ago...not after the first,second,third or fourth visit but after countless visit and researchs...Yet,this had been reaveled to a man in the sandy desert,not learned nor educated...Allahu Akbar

A Ten year old will tell you that the Sun do move, when asked. Why? To a physical eye, the Sun motion is visible, which is merely an illusion. But to the uninitiated, the motion is as real as the color of your skin. Therefore, early astrologers were able to deduced incorrectly that the Sun orbits around earth by following it's flight path as it seemingly make it's journey from east to West everyday. Any ordinary man with without any scientific help would easily make the same mistake. But it's what was evident before your naked eyes, right? This sentiment continued for centuries until it was eventually refuted by Galileo.

So how exactly did Allah came into this, again?

What's your point, really?

I'm embarrassed for you. You are really a dolt.

khattab02: As salamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. Jazakallahu khairan to u all who are refuting. Ray McBlue u are welcome to challenge the Qur'an. Ray stop dragging issue of the orbit of the sun, it a universal fact today whether slow or fast the main point is that it does. Next quetion please.

Allekum Salam.

There is orbit and there is ORBIT. Moon floats in an orbit around the earth while Earth floats in an ORBIT around the Sun. One is relatively fast, while the other is exceedingly slow. One have a short term effect, one has a lasting effect.

Which one was the Quran talking about? Until that is clarified, I will continue to drag the issue. Thanks.

golpen: 1. Thank God you knew that and you're agreeing to the fact, but yes it is very slow. VERY SLOW still remains it does. If some astronomers don't agree to the theory, it scientifically renders it hypothetical which only first has to be confirmed in the scientific world. The Qur'an maintain its stance.

In a corporeal world, standing on the earth, the Sun seems to move, in fact, Quran actually believed that the Sun sets in a muddy spring.

Quran 18: 86 Till, when he (the
traveller Zul-qarnain) reached the setting-place of the Sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring…

That verse clearly proved that in the Quranic context, movement of the Sun(orbit) is very noticeable indeed and surely couldn't be the same one that science is talking about.

And please don't give me the symbolic representation crap.

golpen: 2. I'll like to deny that the Qur'an claims we have day and night because they orbit. According to your posts, your are assuming that stance because 'day and night' occurs concurrently with 'moon and sun' orbiting in many verses of the Qur'an... But this is it (my thought though)...

The verse pitted the Moon and the Sun together in a 'floating orbit'. One can only assume that their respective orbits contrasted the other, thus causing day and night.

golpen: The Qur'an possesses several values, which includes the scientific (as you'd confirm @least in some areas) and poetic or do I call it literary...the occurrence of 'day and night' with that of 'moon and sun' is mostly as a satisfaction of the literary value portrait. Just like you hear in several limericks or lyrics; "wherever I GO, whatever I SEE". The two words 'go' and 'see' occur together mostly in the english literary genre but it doesn't mean that going always determines seeing.

There you go using the infamous symbolic representation excuse! You might as well say that Allah wasn't being literal when he recorded that he created heaven and earth.

golpen: Therefore, in the arabic context, which is the best point of view, it suits the literary portrait and not the scientific. Thanks.

That is you owning up that the verse is scientifically incorrect, right?