₦airaland Forum

CatfishBilly:
So, what you're saying is (I'm paraphrasing) reading Bertrand Russell made you a stronger Christian, while it made me an atheist?

Yes it did. I cannot be swayed by the philosophical musings of any man especially when I know it's all within the limits of HIS own mind and DESIRES. I simply develop my own musing from his own in relation to my belief and move on.

CatfishBilly:
You read Bertrand Russell and you're still a Christian?
How did that happen?

I just answered that.

[quote author=IamaNigerianGuy post=58213268][/quote]I know. But not all knowledge is lost. In a lot of negativity I look for positivity.

For example if someone says AD is A exclusive of A and since it's all part of the alphabets then O shares or does not share the same nature then I simply look for the WHY and create my own philosophical position from that. I read to grow and not to copy and paste.

No living person no matter how enlightened holds all the answers. We all work within limits.

IamaNigerianGuy:
A miracle! First common ground I have found with @spacetacular ;

We have a lot of common grounds sir affinity would show that we do a lot more than we both think. I love Bertrands works and his sound reasoning most times.

I have a few of his books such as Why I Am Not a Christian and Religion & Science plus a few others. I read the history of western philosophy briefly (not completely) and that was about 4years ago and come to think of it I cannot fathom why I didn't finish it.

KingEbukasBlog:
I don't think he understands what you mean . I think you are expecting too much from him while in reality he offers so little or just nothing.

Oh my word! How can anyone not understand what it means to have an opening argument when he wishes to have a debate?

He asks questions and does not know that an opening argument is either in support or opposition to the position he wishes to occupy which in this case is atheism.

You cannot call anything a "debate" until you have given us an opening argument. How is this too hard to understand?

IamaNigerianGuy:
@ lepasharon: I have consciously and intentionally refrained from commenting on this thread

Let me just add that a belief in God should be a personal matter, while science should be public and be used as a tool. When you mix both you can get into sticky situations.
Furthermore, I see a lot of ignorant positions taken here by many contributors especially on the side of religion. The atheist/humanist side exhibits much better erudition and sounder arguments (though I am not an atheist).
This debate is very old, dating back at least 500 years to the reformation in Europe and the Age of Enlightenment. It has influenced the course of history, wars, politics and civilization. The positions being rehashed here have already been advanced and developed on.
Many people need to catch up on their reading of Luther, Calvin, Descartes, Bertrand Russel, Dawkins and others.
A very good book you can download online to get an overview of the arguments is A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russel. It is one of the best books you might ever read.
@lepasharon
@JackBizzle

Hey JackBizzle do you remember I quoted from Bertrand Russell and you rubbished it. Here you see him being mentioned again by someone who obviously knows much more than you do.

Read up and stop clowning.

JackBizzle:
Swerve.

I am still here and will be until you do the right thing by FIRST presenting your opening arguments.

JackBizzle:
Hahn, hardmirror, lepasharon


I suspect this to be an alt account. The stoopidity and azzlicking is all too familiar

Whose arse am I "licking"? I simply agreed to a post which echoes all I tried telling you and preventing you from doing last night. Stop being scared of me but rather do the right thing so you can have a "credible debate".

Present your evidence and arguments which support your questions. You occupy a side of the debate divide so its only proper we read your opening arguments.

KingEbukasBlog:
In the same olodo thread you opened questioning miracles and instigating a conflict between science and religion , you still want the limb of an amputee to be restored ? You also questioned the resurrection of Christ claiming that it contravenes science insinuating that it should regarded as a myth , yet you desire what you are against , a miracle ?

Ladies and gentlemen , the devil must be embarrassed by the vacuity shown by modern atheists. The reasoning is just egregious!

I did try to forewarn him about the futility of this piece which he began and appealed that he save himself from embarrassment by first stating his opening arguments which supported his questions but he chose to yell and bicker and thinking he can have his cake and eat it too.

Here he is now making an obviously mutually exclusive comment (having his cake and eating it) which is impossible.

I did say he talks first and thinks later. He keeps confirming it.

Joshthefirst:
Amen! And thank you very much!

Have a great night. Try not to let these guys keep you up. It isn't worth it in the end. I am turning in for the night. Cheers then!

Joshthefirst:
yes I am.

Good to know! Stay true to your goal and the rewards are limitless. Strive to start your own practice no matter how small and be a people person. Most of all, keep the faith and continue to earnestly contend for it. God bless you

adepeter26:
Ayé swear for you?

Did you leave out yourself from those who might have something "sensible" to say?

Joshthefirst:
lol

Test them out well ma'am. There are fiery acid spitters here, but I can already see you've got them handled already.


Lol. I'm not so old, here or for real, people thought I was an old man when I first came on. I'm in my twenties.

Young but already well established in God. Very encouraging! I also gather you are a medical student?

adepeter26:
Mehn, tìrẹ for that spacetacula-r oo.

She wanna be relevant by fire by force...

Damn

aww little Pete i am so sorry i burst your bubble and ruined your fun for you. I know you just wanted to sit back and laugh at Christian comments while mocking them. Do not worry, this would not kill you. My "relevance" was cemented before today.

Joshthefirst:
and I've actually been here since 2012 in a different moniker.

You are an old horse

Here i am still testing out my wings.

Joshthefirst:
I understand. I always try to take advantage of threads like this to make put forward a point or two too, and if they deteriorate as in the case I'll show below, I let the conversation tether to a halt.

what are you saying? Communication is exchanging information. I'm not trying to link anything together, you are. Communing with God is exchanging information and presence with God, a spiritual entity. Science deals with what we can handle.

There you are going around with your dogmatic idi.ocy.
Let me show you: There is evidence of God. No matter how idi.otic you prove to be, you will never successfully deceive yourself completely into ignoring God's existence.

You've ended our conversation.

I hope you know i was not trying to tell you what to do but i could see the intention of all this right from the start. Even his comments which you responded to proved me right. You are a wise soul.

sonofluc1fer:
How are you doing? You sound pissed.

Nope! Not pissed but actually being logical in truth. They are the ones pissed because i am stating exactly how their so called civil debate should go.

If i ask you questions without also explaining why i asked those questions and you answer first when i have made no submission of my own then i can simply use your answers to steer the so called civil debate the way i want it to go. That is a diabolical kind of common sense because it is manipulative and that is what is intended here.

JackBizzle:
Don't be annoying. Yes I called for a civil debate. The term 'sky daddy' is just a joke. Stop the hypocritical overreaction.

Communication is a science. You can't claim that spiritual is different from science then now link them together as spiritual communication.


There is no evidence for a God. No matter how much faith you have, you will never see physical evidence for God.

You called for a "civil" debate but never laid your arguments down but rather started it with derogatory words. You already had an end in mind before asking your questions so let us know your end aka your arguments along with your evidence which brought about your end position.

Now THAT is a proper "civil" debate.

Just in case you do not know what a DEBATE is all about allow me show you.

debate
dɪˈbeɪt/Submit
noun
1.
a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.

So where is your argument?

sonofluc1fer:
Hallo dear.

Hello son of the morning star.

JackBizzle:
Supporting arguments? What did I post in the op?


You are as dumb as felixomor. Enough said.


Just gerrout

Do you just say space is waste with no supporting evidence?

Do you say science is against religion with no supporting evidence?

Do you say resuscitation is impossible with God with no supporting evidence?

Let us have your supporting arguments. Simple as that.

JackBizzle:
Supporting arguments? What did I post in the op?


You are as dumb as felixomor. Enough said.


Just gerrout

Oh shut up!

Why did you ask the questions you did?

Did you have an ignorant position or an already informed one as an atheist?

Remember you conceived this on my page and I know why you decided to start this topic.

Let us know your own position regarding the questions you asked then we would have a foundation to stand on when responding.

Surely you know the way debates run or don't you?

@ joshthefirst looking at your ID I can see you have been here since 2014 and I am just fresh on the scene but I think you need to be wise. Questions are thrown at you from a position already occupied by the one asking the question.

In the midst of the question he is also making known what he thinks about the answer you would give even before you have had the chance to give it.

You are being goaded!

When anyone asks a question you have the right to also ask WHY such questions are being asked so he or she can back them up with explanations (arguments). Do not just respond when atheists ask questions. They already have an end in mind and just want to use you to prove they were right all along.

hopefulLandlord:
Lepasharon caused this by mentioning someone OP deliberately left out

OP already foresaw this which explains his refusal to mention that person

The topic drew me and not the mention from anyone.

Ask Jackbizzle to come give us his supporting arguments. You cannot have your cake and eat it too can you?

CatfishBilly:
Another promising thread derailed.
What is wrong with you people sef?

There is nothing profitable about a selfishly one sided thread. All debates have positions. He cannot be moderator and debating at the same time. So In order for him to relinquish his deliberate attempt to moderate he needs to first drop his arguments which support his questions. That is simply common sense debate.

hopefulLandlord:
I don't have to pitch you, you've done that already from that pedestal you are, you're the "Queen" and they're the "pawns"

You made them your pawn by first deliberately refusing to drop your arguments which support your questions. You see there is a clear divide between atheism and Christianity and when an atheist asks questions he does so from a position of his knowledge and not arbitrarily.

We need to see his position which his questions originated from. Simple as that.

hopefulLandlord:
of course, you're also wiser than those other Christians that's responded so far

They have the wrong approach, you have the right one

they're now pawns cuz they didn't see the bait, you saw the bait

they're not very wise, you're too wise and you need to direct them

if only they were British surgeons like you are

Now you are trying to pitch me against my fellow Christians. Classic!

However it still does not obstruct the truth which I have spoken. Let your arguments which support your questions be presented first and let's subject them to scrutiny via our responses to your questions. Is that too difficult to do?

hopefulLandlord:
you're too smart to fall for the bait unlike your other sisters in Christ who, unfortunately, aren't as smart not to see the bait

SWERVE!

In your attempted sarcasm you have spoken the truth. This is a bait and you wish to play Christians for fools by only seeking their side of the argument without offering yours first.

"wisdom is profitable to direct". My wisdom speaks contrary to your position.

hopefulLandlord:
of course, you're smarter than those "Christian folks"

SWERVE! Leave those Christian folks you're smarter than to keep attending to the thread, you won't be missed

Stop trying to force me away for bursting your bubble. I am not smarter but I know baits when I see one and this is a bait and I wouldn't want my brothers or sisters in Christ Jesus to be your pawn which is what you are actually trying to do.

The originator of this piece has to table his arguments first. Or is he asking questions from a position of ignorance?

hopefulLandlord:
of course, you're definitely smarter than everyone that's responded and are responding to OP

Mrs surgeon

Stop being vapid! Stick with the proper way debates go. Questions come from personal opinions already formed. If you wish to have someone counter your position then make your position known with your arguments then proper counters can come.

However you know if this is done then you would have no control so you simply baited the Christian folk and they are biting without first pausing to consider the essence of it all or the true reasons behind the questions.

My vocation isn't the focus but if you wish to take jabs at it then have fun but still the proper order has to be observed.

hopefulLandlord:
still nothing said

many people have responded and are responding to OP already, there's a reason he refused to mention you and you're proving him right with each inane post you make here

You wish to shut me up because I am giving the right approach this ought to have followed. I am sure you are glad that others are simply leaping before looking because that way you control them and dictate the pace.

Joshthefirst:
Once again, you're comparing things that have nothing to do with each other. Science is not competing with faith or prayer as you make it out to be. Prayer is (or should be) a very personal activity, and it's results are subjective, and personal, not a lottery. You can mock prayer if you want, it's like pushing against a hill. Humanity will always reach out in prayer to deity.


Prayer is not an idea. It is a personal and powerful communication with the supernatural. For me, it's everything communication can be and more.

"Thank God for science"

This ^ is a prayer for me, thanking God for blessing man with intellect to learn about and control his environment!

Prayer is made out to compete with science by people like you, but it is exponential synergism for me.


good.


My prayer has done many things, it has enriched my relationship with God, and saved lives, it has healed me and others, it has changed destinies in the unseen realm.


Science helps us a lot. But prayer helps me even more. Communion is the drive of my life. It helps me do my science more effectively. It has helped me speak better, it has made my intellect sharper in grasping scientific entities you do not know about. It has enriched my life and my relationships. The Holy Spirit is awesome, you know nothing about him, and I pray for you, and pity you for it.


lol. God imparted the mind and intellect that makes you understand the words I type, that activity that makes your neurons synapse and store information, the voice of your mind that expresses communication to itself. God is the creator.



It did, thank God. And the way of salvation remains open to you, because of God's grace.

I no dey Enugu o. Cold is finishing me on the plateau.
I'm always up for a daily, should I challenge you? Or will you do the honours?

Sir you are playing into their hands. The originator of this piece needs to first back up his position with his arguments. Only then can he ask any question he pleases which he thinks might refute his position.

He already has an opinion which was why he asked the questions. Allow him to back up his opinion FIRST with his personal evidence.

hopefulLandlord:
Still nothing said

SWERVE!

Nothing can be said when the poster has also said nothing. He must first lay his own argument which supports his claims then something can be said. Any reasonable person ought to know that is the proper thing to do.

You do not make claims and pretend they are questions without giving YOUR reasons (arguments) why.