₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
This is not true, TenQ. The Samaritan did not believe, yet Christ said do as he did!

In fact, Jesus himself did not believe what those he constantly argued with believed. And I'm certain they too would have claimed Jesus was going to hell.

And demons also believe, but I doubt you'd say they are going anywhere else but to hell.

You've gone completely at tangent!

Believe what?

Me believing that Buhari is a good man has nothing to do with my salvation!

1000WaysToLive:
These two claims you made are wrong by definition.

Subjective and relative moralities are distinct things, objective moralities are not absolute, and gods literally cannot be the source of an objective morality.


For a thing to be objectively good or bad, there must be something good or bad -about a thing itself- and -in fact-.

That's it, that's all, that's the only way things can be objectively good or bad.

18 year old is age of consent in the western societies is an objective moral law set by the government. Sleeping with a girl of 17 years 9 months will send you to jail as raping a child.

1000WaysToLive:
Not opposite, just disparate. Science studies what is. Religion proclaims what ought to be.

Science is a process. Religions are ideologies.

At least it is good that you are not taking religion and science as opposites like some "educated ignorant" Atheists

Near1:
This is begging the question. You're assuming the conclusion you're attempting to demonstrate. Simply repeating your argument doesn't lend it any more validity.

You've said NOTHING either!

Near1:
Wrong. I don't believe in Batman because there's zero.point.zero evidence of Batman's existence.

You should have the courtesy of asking me why I believe or don't believe something, rather than telling me my own motivations. That's very rude, but at least we've now confirmed irrefutably that you are comfortable speaking out in ignorance.



Wrong. It's about weighing the (lack of) evidence and following it to a conclusion. You have no evidence for Batman, and no evidence for your little godling.



Who cares what you think is hilarious about me or anyone else? It's almost as if you think I value your opinion of me. To answer your question directly, the Christian religion is profoundly antiscientific by its own admission and the behavior of many of its adherents. Science, on the other hand, is not terribly anti-religious.

Indeed, there are quite a few scientists who are believers. But when preachers stand up against a scientific discovery, do they present evidence? Generally, no, at least not anything that's worthy of probative value rather than "God says" bullshit.

Everything without an physical evidence doesn't exist: is this your point?

FemiAjani:
What evidence is available? The archeology will say quite a lot about the day to day lives of those in the civilization. Any writings discovered will give their stories on what they think happened. Comparison of the evidence will give as good of a description as is possible. Do you think it is possible to accurately reconstruct the empires and civilizations that came before us at all? I think we can get some approximations, but there will always be questions that are unanswered. And, the only way to answer them is a scientific approach to ALL the available evidence.



I think this is clearly false. We use science all the time to help us decrypt history. It often gives us quite deep insights into the past that even the writings of those from the time cannot give. By dealing with the scientific evidence we can learn a great deal about history. Often, that scientific approach reveals a lot about the written texts, both their biases and their meaning. For many ancient civilizations, all we have is the scientific evidence to decrypt what happened. The little writing available gives very little information. Yes, history gives a frame of reference for understanding art, music, and literature. By understanding the context, we can understand the intended goals of those endeavors and their impact both on the past and on the present. But I call bullshit when it comes to religion. It was originally proposed as a way to understand the world around us by those who had not yet developed the scientific method. As such, it is full of superstition and propaganda. Eliminate those and the rest can be studied by the scientific method provided it has anything real to say.



That is, of course, an asinine argument. What is right or wrong is determined by people who want to live together to make their lives easier. The rules for a working society are not that difficult to figure out and are completely natural and based on human biology and psychology. Something is wrong when it harms human well-being. No deities required.



So many different issues here. Why identify a first cause with God (assuming there is a first cause)? What is the problem with being godless? Isn't that simply being honest?

Archeology doesn't tell a story that doesn't exist already.

By the Christian definition of God, He is the immaterial UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of Everything. Being godless is a choice not to have the interference of the Uncaused First Cause in your life. He can't be explained away

FemiAjani:
Well, we don't have a tested quantum theory of gravity, that much is true. But I'm not sure why this is relevant. In fact, often the philosophical question of what something 'truely is' is simply mental masturbation. A thing is defined by its properties, including how it interacts with other things. Secondly, history would say something about the development of physics: which ideas worked, which ones didn't, what roads were investigated that lead nowhere, etc. Chemistry can help with sociology. Thirdly, the concept of 'God' isn't well enough defined to test. It's like asking if science can prove or disprove fremlins. You give me a good definition first and then we can look into it. The problem is that theists can't seem to agree on the properties of their deities. Please note that science looks at the facts and religion looks at the feelings. Science is about knowledge and religion is about feeling good about yourself.

Except your argument is that it is possible to unravel God as defined by Christians with science.
For God is the Uncaused First Cause of Everything thus beyond time t=0 when energy, time and space didn't exist

chryssanthe:
Clap for yourself!

You just admitted that you and, according to you, all your "brothers in Christ" will be raping your own children, pets and any animal you happen to find "attractive" and eating your neighbours and coworkers, the moment you decide there is no god!

WE, inferior, immoral atheists, do not look to our government to tell us not to rape our children and eat our parents. WE, inferior, immoral atheists, have our own moral compass, yes, informed by society and by humanity as a whole, but still our own, not IMPOSED upon us by laws and government.
You (and, apparently, all religious people) have no morals of their own and need SOMEONE ELSE to tell you not to rape children and eat other human beings.

Congratulations, you're an outstanding human being. You should be proud of yourself.

Congratulations too!

Tamaratonye1:
No, that's not what objective morality means. It's rather ironic that you accuse her of not knowing the difference and then go on to demonstrate that you, yourself, don't know the difference.

Absoluteness is a qualifier of moralities and applies to both objective and subjective moralities.

Subjective morality is absolute!?

You amaze me.

Tamaratonye1:
I understood your point well enough, but mine doesn't seem to have registered with you. It depends upon the assumptions and definitions, just as what history is depends upon definitions and assumptions. The only question being whether or not in the set of reasonable definitions and assumptions that one can make about the subject, is there a set that demonstrates the opposite of your conclusions, and I suggest that there are.

As to history, your analogy, besides being a false one, shows the same problem. You define history as being a frame of reference of art, story, and past time. If I conceive of history somewhat differently from you, being only about what is past, then it may at some point in the future be possible to accurately reconstruct all of the past. It's not currently possible, but this isn't about what is currently possible but about what is possible in principle, and since whether it is possible for science to demonstrate god's existence being false depends critically upon cherry-picking your assumptions and definitions such that your chosen conclusion results, that is a form of begging the question and makes your conclusion invalid.


I fail to see how this is at all analogous. Failing further elaboration on your part, I'm dismissing it as much. And since I said that in general that things would not change much, either you simply didn't understand what I said or you're reaching in order to be argumentative. I didn't suggest throwing out any bathwater, and as far as having a point, my only point was that in some, religion is an enabler for their evil. If you want to dispute that, I'm all ears. Instead you've made a tortuous and poorly explained analogy which doesn't at all seem cogent. I think you're just looking to say "nuh uh" to anything anyone says.


That's nice. Even if I were to agree, that has nothing to do with the third question or my response to it. This is a species of ignoratio elenchi, a fallacy whereby even if what the arguer says is true, it would not refute the point they are responding to. Since I've responded to such questions elsewhere, I'll simply note that in this context this is irrelevant and therefore a red herring.

It's pretty obvious now that you're just pissing into the wind for the hell of it. You'll make any response to points made just to be contrary and that is arguing in bad faith.


To the best of my knowledge, I have never asserted the words you attribute to me here. I'll need you to cite the relevant context where I said this before I can respond. At this juncture I'll simply point out that again you are playing games with definitions here. In addition to being dishonest it renders your conclusion invalid.

Your argument seem to say that Religion and Science are equivalent in their sphere of reference and that All religions are bad (without giving any content reason). The third point you were totally off as you didn't address the fact that Atheism is a belief system.

midnight378:
actually that is not true.
have you never studied the Bible ?
The standards there changed countless times.

Objective standard is any standard you can't bend at your whim.

Example is legal age in most western cultures set at 18 years old. Even if it changes to 17 years old, it is still an objective standard for citizens.

A man who had sex with a 17 years 9 months old girl would be attested for rape

FemiAjani:
Any religious code is adopting the subjective opinions of some deity. Saying that is objective is like my claiming everybody asking me what is moral would give an objective morality. Sorry, but it doesn't. You mentioned that objective morality gives a standard from God. That claim is simply pushing the subjective morality back one step. Why does God think that sin is moral or immoral? If it is simply his whim, then it is not objective: it is simply the subjective opinion of God. If, instead, it is based on some deeper principles, then morality doesn't come from God, but from those deeper principles. You asked if sex with an animal wrong if there is guarantee that the animal is not hurt, that adequate protection against STDs are used and no danger is posed to the society? Well, can the animal give consent? if not, then it is immoral.

Furthermore, your asking if there can possibly be no uncaused first cause that exists is a rather twisted way to ask the question, but yes, of course it is possible that there is no first cause of everything that exists. For example, there may be many different uncaused causes. That even seems likely since it is not uncommon for two different events to have no causes in common. So we expect a wide diversity of causes as we go back in time. To think all of those causal lines converge to a single 'first cause' would be quite remarkable and unlikely. And, of course, we know that uncaused causes happen all the time: most quantum events are uncaused in any classical sense. As for the universe as a whole, it is far from clear that there needs to be a single cause for the whole thing. And, in fact, since ALL causality we have ever seen has been inside of the universe, and since causality is simply another way of saying there are natural laws, the very idea of a cause for the universe seems self-contradictory.

The subjective code of a deity makes it objective for man.
Sometimes, a government steps in to fulfill the same role.

The age 18 years old as a baseline for consent is an objective rule made by government. If a child is 17 years 9 months, you cannot have sex with her as an adult without the risk of legal infraction.

You have no point dear!

Tamaratonye1:
The act itself indicates a danger to society. Animals cannot consent. Leaving aside for the moment the wrongness that is animal rape, you've just identified somebody who isn't overly concerned with consent and may not always be content to limit their predation to the livestock. Letting your rapists get a start with non-verbal victims is not something that any smart society encourages.


That's because you're using simple logic and common sense to try and understand the most complicated and least common event in the history of history. Common sense is wonderful for not grabbing hot objects, sticking your tongue in electrical outlets, and avoiding a host of other common everyday hazards. It is complete rubbish at understanding the origin of the universe.

As for bestiality, it is highly subjective if you need no permission from an animal to kill and eat it. BTW one of the conditions is that it poses no harm to the society. Would it still be wrong?

Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?
You evaded the question:
Logically, infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible. It has to terminate somewhere and that is the where the Uncaused First Cause of Everything is waiting

midnight378:
allow me please to answer you.
yes it is NOT wrong, and it's precisely what Genesis describes, and you should know the answer to this if you have ever read your Bible.
you see your god is too stupid to figure out what to do about Eve.
you do read the Bible, right ?
your god has exactly that occur as He tried to figure out what to make for Adam as a helpmate.

Genesis 2:18-20
The Lord God said : "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him". So the Lord God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be a suitable partner for the man.

so as you can see from the Bible, your god is too stupid to make a partner for the man, and to compensate for His stupidity , they had to have "tryouts",...
and as part of that, your god had to have Adam sleep with pretty much every animal in existence . since your Bible mentions none of the things you're worried about, sex with animals is totally a part of god's master plan, and He totally approves of sex with animals . Hehehehe

In other words, bestiality is objectively wrong with God but to you it is subjective

TenQ:
Here is it again

Quran 33:56
إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ وَمَلَـٰٓئِكَتَهُۥ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى ٱلنَّبِىِّ ۚ يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ صَلُّوا۟ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوا۟ تَسْلِيمًا
Google Translate:
Indeed, God and His angels send blessings upon the Prophet, O you who have believed, pray upon him, peace and blessings be upon him.

Composition101:
إِنَّ الشيطان وَمَلَائِكَتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ ۚ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا صَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا
Google Translate:
Indeed, Satan and his angels pray to the Prophet ۚ O you who believe, pray for him and give peace
The only difference between the two is the change of one word highlighted.

Suddenly, the meaning changed!?
Who paid Google to mistranslate the Holy Quran?
Who is fooling who?
What then is the correct translation?

Can muslims explain why or how?
What other things are Muslim Apologists hiding under the elusive perfect language (Arabic)?

For your comment if you love the truth:
AntiChristian:..
compton11:
haekymbahd:
mhmsadyq:
alfarouq:
ictplotter:
Watinani:

Do you know why you've been silent?
The TRUTH is obvious to you.

The lies of Islam bursted!
How many more lies bursted will open your eyes?

GoodIsGod:
This is what many don't know. Including the Jehovah witnesses who claim they do researches.

Shalom Bro!

leofab:
but they wait for thousands of years until the colonist were able to build ships that can navigate to Africa.. God must be so patience.. meanwhile the devil has been in Africa all along didn’t wake for the European.. well I guess you know who is the master.

Exactly!
God requires man only to preach to man!

naijapips02:
From oshogbo abi?

It's Iragbiji!

budaatum:
Do not deny what you see with your eyes, TenQ. An atheist may reject God, but still learn from the God Books, as I am showing you.

Jesus taught about the reject God Samaritan and said "go and do likewise", as opposed to like the Levite and the priest who sinned precisely because of their supposed non-rejection of God.

That parable today would read, a Christian and a Muslim for the priest and the Levite, and a pagan or atheist for the Good Samaritan.

The Levite committed a sin of Morality and Love.

As a Christian on NL against Muslims I commit no such error.

A Muslim or Atheist is going to hell because of what they have believed: I use every means to cause their eyes to be opened to see the peril ahead of them.
I show them the truth
I present arguments against their beliefs
I punch holes in their defences
I blunt their attacks

Just for one purpose: that their eyes will be opened.

How can I be in paradise knowing that if I have pushed harder some of the rejects of God would also be in paradise.

If you think me using a long stick to hit a person in the process of electrocution is evil, what is you alternative?

budaatum:
There are things my parents taught me that I have gone rogue on, TenQ. Thankfully, my parents do not claim to know it all, so part of their giving birth to me and pouring everything into me included giving me the tools (knowledge) and also paying for me to acquire more knowledge from elsewhere so I may be useful both to myself and the society.

It would have been difficult for me to be "Economically, Emotionally, Socially INDEPENDENT human in the society" if they had kept me at home (in their garden) and refused to pay my school fees so I might go out and acquire the knowledge they enabled me to acquire. I'd be like those begging for manna from heaven if they had not bothered.

There is no child that is perfect just as their are no sons of God in this earth that have not gone rogue against God once in a while.

The difference is when a child of God goes rogue (commit sins), he comes back in repentance.

Atheism is the total Rejection of God just as a child totally rejecting his parents.

It simply means that this child will reject the authority and influence of their parent on them, pack out of the parents house and be in total control of their lives BEFORE the time of their INDEPENDENCE is ripe.

Buda, If you had chosen this path, you would be useless both to yourself and to the society. You would be fit for removal from the society either in prison or in DEATH.

There is ALWAYS a time to be under the Authority of one's parent: when a child becomes dysfunctional before this time, a ROGUE and VAGABOND is the resulting adult person .

1Cor 2:9:
"But as it is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him."

There is time for everything!
The earth is a school!

Voice22:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuStN-geSdk


https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cimbpi3o4X-/?igshid=YzA2ZDJiZGQ=

Only Muslims will understand how one can pray before slaughtering a human being like themselves!

budaatum:
My point is precisely that you have not in any way insulted me and that's why we have come so far despite disagreeing.

Trust me. I am very most honoured.

Thanks bro!
The fruit of the Holy Spirit does not condone rash and vile behaviour. If it happens, I must have allowed my flesh to rule over me

budaatum:
But that is the difference between you and I, TenQ.

God made you, and unfortunately, not even to be fruitful and multiply and subdue, but to work and take care of a Garden of Eden.

My mummy and daddy made me, and they empowered me to be independent so my life would be more purposeful instead of working on a farm as their slave.

I guess that's why they fed me lots of fruits of knowledge instead of making me fear learning. It's so I may be free.

Your Parent gave birth to you and poured everything into you so that you would become Economically, Emotionally, Socially INDEPENDENT human in the society.

You could have chosen to go ROGUE and HAYWIRE! If you declared your independence before your nurturing was over, I tell you Buda, you'll by now be useless both to yourself and the society!


This is exactly with us and God as the Earth is a school to prepare us for the future
1Cor 2:9:
"But as it is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him."

budaatum:
But back to this. You must try hard I guess to understand, and that includes you acquiring knowledge.

Everything Jesus is written to have taught is immensely powerful knowledge once understood instead of merely believed. I can stand here turning the other cheek and let you slap me till you tire, for instance, and I'm claiming there's immense power in my doing so if you use your brain. But if I detect you don't use your brain, "peace unto you' as I dust myself off and leave your presence, is an option too.

Note how far we've come without actually insulting and needlessly being rude to one another and you might get my point. If we were stupid and could not discuss without the insults we'd not have gotten this far. Just watch my responses to the rude guy and see how they differ to my responses to you and you might see what I mean.

I hope I've not insulted you in any way!? It must be unintentional if it I did so. Forgive, it's not in my nature.

The words of Christ is Spirit and Life to those who understand Him.

Mat 13:13:
"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."

How can one understand the Words of Christ when you are moved only by the LOGOS and not the RHEMA!?

Christ expects a CONVERSION after hearing His words
Mat 13:15:
"For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted , and I should heal them. "


Of course, only those who know that they are sick need a Doctor!

Mat 9:12:
"But when Jesus heard that, he said to them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."

Your apparent health prevent you from understanding Christ!

budaatum:
No, TenQ, it's not a contradiction, though I'm not averse to contradictions myself. After all it must be a contradiction that atheist me is quoting Bible.

Not a contradiction!?
What a joke!

budaatum:
I never claimed taxonomy is not science, TenQ. Just that using ones senses to investigate trumps just naming things.

One can name electricity for instance, but naming it does not mean one knows the science of making electricity.

Taxonomy starts with naming of living things. Adam did just that well before Eve was made...well before his fall.

budaatum:
Yuk! What are you? Don't you wonder why God created you with a mind instead of you being some God's useless tool?

Thankfully, you said "if", so God might not have created man. But assuming God did create man, why choose to accept the purpose of "put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it", when you can be "in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground"?

Would you not rather be the boss than the slave, TenQ?

If God created me to be a Car, my joy will be to obey His every touch and go where and how He wants me to go!

If God created me to be a Rocket, my joy will be to go in any direction he sends!

If God created me to be a submarine, I'll plunge as deep as He wants.

If God created me to be a missile, I'll detonate my cargo anywhere He directs.

See Buda!
This is were Sons of God (with free will) are different from those who place themselves on reject list.

How do you feel to a lawn that has other mind of its own except what you want it to be?
You own this pet that is uncontrollable: hasn't it conferred on itself the right of being Quarantined and Chained down like a wild animal?

That is why the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil gives you by CHOICE your INDEPENDENCE from both your Creator and His purpose for your life.


You see why I seek no independence from the One who made me!? My life would be purposeless without Him.

Oyiboman69:
what was the God of the colonial masters then?

See the irrationality of your question!

The proof that Nigerian criminals and Nigerians are the same : they have the same President (Buhari)

I salute your brilliance!

Near1:
When you understand why you cannot believe in Batman, you'll understand why I cannot believe in your god.

You cannot believe Batman because you KNOW that he doesn't exist.

Near1:
We can address your silly claim that atheism is a "belief system" quite simply: tommyrot. The word means nothing more nor less than lack of faith in any deities.

Until you KNOW for a fact that God (the UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of EVERYTHING) does not exist : every thing is about reasonable excuse making it a BELIEF!

Near1:
I don't know, but I find what passes for evidence as so laughably thin that it seems to you have to suspend rational faculty in order to accept it.

There's a few problems with this statement. Being fallible is not the same as being useless, though; that's your first misapprehension. Here, let's do an experiment: turn off your computer and pray to your lord that your thoughts may be posted on this forum without any devices. "Well, that's stupid!" you're probably saying, and you'd be correct. Because despite its fallibility, science has come up with astonishing insights, and our knowledge continues to advance based on its findings. And applied science works.

The same cannot be said of religious faith. That's why when you want to shitpost this garbage, you turn to science and not your Batman: because you know your Batman cannot get a goddamned thing posted.

I find it hilarious that some educated folks think that Science is the opposite of Religion!

Is Religion opposite in meaning to Science?

whytediamond:
What's the difference between twelve and half a dozen?

What is the difference between The same difference between Nigerian criminals and Nigerians?

chryssanthe:
Provide evidence that "Spiritism" is a thing

How can "++ism" be a thing?
As yourself again naw!

chryssanthe:
With god, morality is still subjective, from gods view!
You really dont know the basics my dear

So you need a god to keep you from Bestiality and Cannibalism? Hehehehe


Duh. It is obvious! You have not said anything profound here.
And you say that as if it was something bad.

Seems you don't know the difference between objective and subjective morality.

Objective morality means ABSOLUTE code of living
Subjective morality is a RELATIVE code of living.

Example:
God: it is a sin to commit Fornication
You: as long as the sex is between consenting adults and is done safely.

Objective morality gives a standard from God.


Let me ask you a question as an Atheist:
Is sex with an animal wrong if there is guarantee that the animal is not hurt, that adequate protection against STDs are used and no danger is posed to the society?


Please don't doge this question!

chryssanthe:
God does not exist. Therefore, i do not have any trust in him. Like i dont have trust in anything else that does not exist.
What is so hard about that to understand?
Oh, i see, you need to make mental gymnastics, in order to drag down disbelief to the level to your unfounded belief. If you had any good reasons for your belief, then you would give those reason instead of this mental bend backwards!

Yeah, gnostic and agnostic atheists dont believe in your god
Duh!
And water is wet.

Oh, and you present that "uncaused first cause of everything" as if it was real. Got any evidence to support your claim?

Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?

Please wade me through: as for me it seems to contradict simple Logic!

BigBashiru:
Very nice distinction...and all Christian missionaries that came were not from Europe...some must have come from egypt ad Ethiopia as there were Christians there even from bible times....

Christian missionaries came from America, Britain, Canada, Ireland, France. Is Canada in Europe?
Did America colonize Africa?

Oh, no distinction as ALL Nigerians are 419!

rusher14:
But they had slaves and servants and took for themselves land and choice locations for their 'business'.

Show me just one example of a Christian missionary who came to Nigeria to take slaves!

chryssanthe:
Lean back a minute and re-read what you just wrote.
By your own logic, every disbelief in something is a belief system. LOL

But reading your next paragraph pretty much tells us why you are so confused. You choose to believe and think everyone else does as well, and you are most probably interpreting this "choice" (to not believe) as a belief. You are utterly confused!

Exactly the point, you don't even know how to distinguish between believing and knowing.

I asked you a simple question:
Do you know or believe in the existence of not of Batman or Superman!

One choice has to do with certainty and the other has to do with reasonable evidence!

Your call!?