₦airaland Forum

histemple:
And Solomon was a product of that evil relationship. Even his son Solomon (who is a bastard) was made king and he did not only marry 700 wives but was committing adultery with 300 women.

Yet these two were God's most precious.

Tells you somethign about the types of people after God's own heart and therefore what sorts of things this God wants and likes.

winner01:
I can say the same about my self and billions of other people who have examined the claims and available evidence and have found them logical. You might see no reason to believe in God but millions of other people do. Does that make you in any way superior than any of them?

Most of them have bad reasons or haven't thought things through but I have.

winner01:
So tell me, how do beliefs work? Did you carry out your experiment to arrive at the conclusion you so willfully defend with your life?

My life is not at stake. Beliefs regulate how one would interact with the world. Whether you would like something to be true or not doesn't make you believe one way or another.

winner01:
I did not appoint anyone as the father of science, the world did. Except you have another title for a man who founded the scientific method.

No title at all.

winner01:
You still dont get it. You have given zero room for examining the available claims and evidence with your bent preconceived notion. You first appealed to authority before i did. Here is proof:

Have you forgotten how to read your own posts? It was in response to your claim that many great scientists have alluded to the importance of religion. Do you think you don't have a preconceived notion?

winner01:
You think you know what christians believe just because you claim un-evidently that you have read the Bible. How do you explain the case of atheists who became christians by reading the Bible. I want a list of things that you believe, not about christianity but about atheism.

I actually know what Christians believe and have read the Bible. You'll have to ask those atheists. Just so you know, there are Christians who stopped believing by reading the Bible. Others by learning more about the world. How do you explain that? Your desire for a list reveals that you've not thought things through. Do you think you can give a comprehensive list of what you believe?

winner01:
You made serious claims without any evidence, people can see that;

1. We seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
2. Religion closes the mind

You dont need ad hominems to sneak your way out of this one.

There's no ad hominem attack in my response. The evidence of religion closing the mind is what you've displayed with your rejection of the theory of evolution. I never said "we seek knkowledge for the sake of knowledge". Take the time to reread what I wrote.

winner01:
@ bolded, religion gives millions of people meaning also. Why do you earnestly seek to take that away?

Who says I want to take it away? I'm simply pointing out the fact that religions are not true.

winner01:
What have you come to learn? And why are you so sure that it is christians who "sometimes" use their brains and not atheists. Maybe you should give us examples of atheist inventions and innovations that prove this baseless point you've made.

What I meant by the sentence "what we've come to learn" is about what we have discovered so far. I thought that was obvious. Because Christians are the ones who believe false things about the world. What is the relevance of examples of "atheist inventions"? Again, you don't seem to understand that what I'm responding to are the false beliefs of Christians.

winner01:
I've not come to see lists of names but to see the evidence you claim to have. The ideas you so much condemn is what brought rise to the modern science you are trying so much to hijack.

You mean the idea that zombies roamed a city 2000 years ago somehow means that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant?

winner01:
You have really exalted yourself to a point where you feel you can judge how much christianity is incompatible with science. Faith in God is different from the faith you're talking about. Christians seek to know more about our world as commanded by God. Science does not rely on faith but pseudoscience does. And pseudoscience seems to be the official anthem of contemporary atheists. You have faith that macro evolution must have happened even though you were not there and the available evidence points away from it. Now that is pseudoscience.

One doesn't have to be present at every event to know that they occurred. After all, you weren't there during Jesus' conception yet you believe he was born of a virgin. You weren't there when he died yet you believe zombies roamed the city after he died. You weren't there when Noah was loading the ark yet you believe the story. You weren't there when Balaam's donkey spoke yet you believe it spoke. These beliefs are worse than pseudoscience. They make no sense at all.

winner01:
On the contrary, it is you who have hidden truth from yourself or better still, tried to suppress the truth. What basis do you have to claim that religion is on a lower level than science? What names would you call the worlds greatest christian scientists? Why are you trying so hard to side with science when it has absolutely nothing to offer atheism?

The basis that religions require false beliefs. I won't give them any names. Actually, science has given some good reasons not to believe in your God.

winner01:
Let me try to agree that fossils are rare. lol. Over 1.5 million species, and the fossils go missing in all the very important places? I'll leave people to make their deductions from this.

Don't just agree, look it up for yourself. Fossils go missing in the important places? That statment makes little sense. We don't have fossils of all the animals that ever lived but you think that the fossils we do have aren't important? Sheesh.

winner01:
You cant give any other example because there isn't any other except the pseudoscience of macro-evolution. We have not failed to learn, it is you who has failed to learn, unlearn and re-learn. Even the major proponent of evolution admitted that he had removed the process of "Observation" from his pseudoscientific theory.
https://www.conservapedia.com/images/c/c6/Evolution.jpgLate in Charles Darwin's life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design. In a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

That single theory is more than enough to show my point. I see that you have your Darwin quote-mine dictionary ready. Please can you tell me what that quote was in reference to?

winner01:
I looked it up reluctantly because i knew it would be the same stale stories.

1. Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963
2. Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock.
3. Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
4. Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

The species formed in all four evidences are similar to their parent stock in appearance and features. And this is absolutely not proof of macro-evolution but adaptation (otherwise known as micro-evolution) and mutation.
It is the same phenomenon at work when the average height of men and women increased by several inches in the Western world over the course of the 1900s. Of course, better health and nutrition played a large part in producing larger-sized people. In the same way, microevolution is at work when breeders produce varieties ranging from Chihuahuas to Great Danes within the one species Canis familiaris the domestic dog.

These examples show, as in the rest of nature, that all species do have a margin of change available within their genetic pool to adapt to conditions. This trait is found in man, who can adapt to freezing weather, as the Eskimos do, or to the broiling sun in the desert, as bedouins have done. But bedouins and Eskimos are still human beings, and if they changed environments again, eventually their offspring would also go through minor changes to better adapt to their new environment.

What has never been scientifically demonstrated in spite of many examples of wishful thinking is macroevolution, or the change from one distinct species to another. Species of Elephants or any other land mammal never evolved into a whale or otherwise, Dogs have never evolved into birds or human beings as evolution outrageously suggests.

The evidence available has continued to prove that; There are invisible but firmly fixed boundaries that mutations and adaptations can never cross. Why then do you choose to believe that it happened by faith?

Maybe you can learn more HERE

Looks like you don't know what the theory of evolution actually states. You should look it up. Secondly, you need to know what species are according to biologists.

winner01:
All you done from the start is maintain incoherent judgement. Which ideas have you examined yourself and what date was the idea reviewed by you. You people just believe that once you are atheists, you can start to preach science as if it is related to atheism.
The careful analysis of ideas, claims and evidence available is what made me find my place as a child of God.

I've examined the ideas of your God and found them wanting. As I said earlier, science gives good reasons not to believe in your God.

winner01:
The hindus who gave us numbers are theists. What exactly has atheism done for humanity?

They're still not Christians though. Atheism has helped us shed your useless God.

winner01:
If millions of people, me inclusive, claim that God answers our prayers and it works for us, then what exactly is your problem?.

The fact that it is not true.

winner01:
Why are you trying so hard to disprove the real life experiences of others and instist that yours must be accepted.

I'm not. I'm just telling you that your religion is fatally flawed.

winner01:
We will continue to believe in God and God will continue to reveal himself to people. The best you can do is to wail online or pick up arms to annihilate religious folks like atheist leaders have done in the past. Either way, religion will continue to grow.

Sure you can continue believing all you want. It still won't make those beliefs true.

Interesting15:
David remained a role model to Christians in different dimensions. A common sherpherd who rose to become Israel's greatest king, this Patriarch is worthy of emulation by Christians today.

In the Bible, God repeatedly refer to David as a man after His own Heart. We are going to see some of the things he did that earned him that honorable divine title, alongside how we Christians today can become brothers and sisters after God's own heart too. I pray God open our understanding. Amen.

1. First of all, David won God's heart by keeping God's commandments 1 Kings 14: 8. David was a lover of God's law and he made God's law his close companion. When the children of Israel were yet to enter the promised land; years before David was born; God knew the children of Israel would demand for a king someday, and He gave them certain principles for kingship (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). One of the principles is that: 'it (the book of the law) shall be with him (the king), and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes.' vs 19. This was something that contributed to David's success as a king, as well as his relationship with God.

As Christians today, we need know that one important factor that will determine if we will win God's heart or not is obeying God's commandments. If you want to win God's heart, you need to keep His commands passionately. And following King David's footstep, you need to be a lover of God's word (the Bible). Study the bible regularly, ask the Holy Spirit to help you understand and live by it, and you are on your way winning God's heart.

2. David followed God wholeheartedly. David put God's will above his own will. He was always interested in the things of God (he even said he prefered to be in the house of God than any other place). He is always interested in knowing God's will before he take any step (reference: 1 Samuel 30).

To win God's heart, you need to give God your all (put your will under God's will). Anything God want is what you want; anything God doesn't want you don't want it. It means, if you have the interest in pursueing a career, and God said 'I don't like this', you need to drop it. And if you don't have interest for something and God said 'I want you to go after this', you need to go after it. That is what David did that made him a man after God's heart.

3. David feared God. When Saul sinned against God, God removed him afterwards. When David sinned against God, God embrace him afterwards. Why? Because David acknowledged his sins due to the fear of God in him, and he seek repentance. David feared God and ruled with the fear of God- that pleased God.

To be a Christian after God's own heart, have the fear of God and let the fear of God shape the way you think, act, and behave. And then, God can boast of you to satan that 'This is one of my children whom I so much love'.

God bless you all.

You mean the David that killed a man, stole his wife and God who doesn't like abortions decided to kill the baby from that union as punishment? Sure he was a man after God's heart. They fit each other.

KingEbukaNaija:
You don't get it young man , you are the one that have no argument or rebuttal . It's them same old since God does not exist , then what ever is being said is not true . You have absolutely nothing worth rebutting , don't flatter yourself claiming that I'm falsely accusing you .

These people sef

You dull child, go and play with sand and let someone better qualified than yourself speak on your behalf.

winner01:
You'd have to be everywhere (omnipresent) and know absolutely everything (omniscience) to make such a claim.

No I don't. I've examined the claims made about your God and found them illogical. Unless illogical beings can exist, I see no reason to believe your God exists.

winner01:
Beliefs dont work that way. But if it was a dawkin or hawking that explained a theory on something that happened millions of years ago. You would believe it. But since the father of science was a christian, then he must have said nonsense. Great inni't?

You seem to have a preoccupation with names or some sort of ranking in your mind that makes you think others have to therefore accept whatever claims you make when you drop some names with the claims. As I said, beliefs don't work that way. Now you're appointing some people as fathers of science. You clearly have failed to understand how science works and how scientific claims work.

winner01:
The same way far greater scientists and philosophers have argued in favour of a Creator.

In that case, why don't we examine the actual claims made rather than you simply naming people and saying they're great people and therefore must be right.

winner01:
Like the way you take time out to find out what christians actually believe? What do you believe? Maybe we should start from there.

Yes. I actually know what Christians believe. I've read their Bible. Do you want a list of things I believe?

winner01:
You have made two serious claims without any evidence whatsoever;

1. We seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
2. Religion closes the mind

You've failed to even grasp what I've said so far. Take the time to re-read what I wrote. I gave you examples of what gives some people meaning. That religion closes the mind is a fact that you're displaying right now.

winner01:
Who are these prominent scientists and what have been their significant contribution to science. Maybe you should mention 10 and I will also mention 10 christian scientists and their contributions. You can increase the number if you want. I can also give you a list of scientists that founded what you are busy merrying about today. Its strange you choose to doubt the writings of people who where actually there and choose to believe the writings of scientists who were not there but opted to build on a theory of a man who had doubts about his claims.

You've come once again with a desire to see lists and lists of names. This is why I say you've failed to understand what is under contention. What we're considering are the ideas themselves not the people. The fact that some Christians could sometimes use their brains to sensibly come up with useful things isn't what is under contention. What is under contention are the religious ideas that make little sense in view of what we have come to learn.

winner01:
Many prisons were built by the Nigerian government, you can as well conclude from that that the president does not exist. We will keep pursuing truth irregardless of how you badly want to separate christianity from science. If matters were already decided in religion, You still wont own a phone today,

Christians separate themselves from science when they rely on faith. Science doesn't rely on faith. Or is there a scientific basis for believing that zombies roamed a city some 2000 years ago? Or that virgins give birth to humans?

winner01:
Somehow, just somehow, you already have a notion that religion is at a lower level, and this same same mind of yours is open.?

You have this notion yourself. You've just hidden it from yourself. I've exposed it by pointing out your use of "scientific priesthood".

winner01:
Ever heard of a scientific consensus? okay. There are about 250,000 different species of fossil plants and animals in the world’s museums. This compares with about 1.5 million species known to be alive on Earth today. Given the known rates of evolutionary turnover, it has been estimated that at least 100 times more fossil species have lived than have been discovered. But have you ever questioned the consistency of the fossil gaps if you've even heard anything about that? Why do the fossils go missing in all the important places? Answer that and you'll see how science has been hijacked by pseudo-scientists and reduced to any other method that draws conclusions without observation or evidence.
In that you will understand what i meant by scientific priesthood or authority.

This again shows your ignorance. You need to first educate yourself on the process of fossilization to even start to see where you're missing things. Fossils are rare because of the nature of the fossilization process. First read up on what that process entails.

winner01:
Naah, A better exhibition of faith is the fact you believe that a samsung 15 mpxl camera was created and a 574mpxl human eye came by accident.
Whatever you meant by zombies is yours and yours alone.

The theory of evolution is one example of the rigidity of religion and its failure to learn.
Read your Bible to discover these zombies. It looks like you don't even know what Christians believe or are supposed to believe.

winner01:
Among nothing my friend. Absolutely nothing. No specie has been observed to change into another distinct specie. Dont attempt to remove the word observation from the definition of science.

Actually, this observation has been made. See here. Again, don't just believe what your fellow ignorant religious people say, check these things out for yourself. Besides, your conception of science seems deeply flawed. You need to look that up too.

winner01:
Yeah omniknowest. Its just strange that your intelligence leads you to believe that your intelligence was created by mindless matter rather than a creator.

I don't find it strange.

winner01:
They are close-minded, but somehow they attained scientific feats that scientists of today are yet to equal. And the ones of today are still up in their quest of finding out more about the universe. You know i just laugh when atheist try to cling to science to validate their stand. It shows how insecure they are. Atheism is not science. Find something else you can cling to, maybe bestiality or something nasty.

And this tells me that you're not up to the task of having a coherent discussion. Your desire to rank people as great and not great is just baffling to me. You need to learn to examine the ideas themselve. The people may be of historical interest but the ideas themselves should be the focus. I know atheism is not science and Christianity is not science. Do you wish to practice bestiality? Or is it incest? That is really up to you.

winner01:
Other fields of science is science. You sure did not read the Op. Maybe i should ask again: How can you know from science if science is the best and only form of knowledge?
Science was founded in a bid to know more about ourselves and the universe. If the christians that founded science were like you, there would be no science today.

And the Hindus that gave us their numbers must be Gods. Your confusion makes it difficult to have a sensible conversation.

winner01:
God has always answered my prayers and the prayers of many others, its just a matter of time. Your bid to desperately cling to science wont stop anything. It will only keep showing that atheism is baseless and that you need a place to find solace when asked to justify your atheistic claims.

Sure he has. If things happen as you want, he answered. If they don't, he's waiting. If you die and it never happens, he said no. Why can't he simply tell you no to your face right there and then like I can? Is he afraid of you?

rawgame:
As in, like seriously? OK then you are little different because most Atheists will not want to answer this as it will make them sound ridiculous.

Well I've answered it.

rawgame:
This is getting interesting, what if I may ask? But you just admitted that this equation makes sense
NOBODY+NOTHING=EVERYTHING

I don't know. It makes sense because our understanding of "nothing" has changed

rawgame:
My emphasis was that Einstein actually made a discovery(which means it was not known) that the universe comprises of these basic components. This discovery was parallel which a Biblical account. Moreover, Einstein also stipulated that this components had a beginning.

Your emphasis is still wrong. The concepts were known before Einstein's time. And creation is not energy. Trying to force the words of ignorant people in history to fit what we know today is a poor line of reasoning.

rawgame:
Your definition of dimension is most likely that of spacetime then which is on a spatial(length, breath and height) and temporal(time) basis which makes it four in all. You are also correct anyway. But there are other definitions of dimensions. Dimensions could also be regarded as aspects or attributes. Which also makes me correct in this regard. However, I was also concerned with that of a physicist. "physical properties that are regarded as fundamental measures of a physical quantity." I hope you understand me?

No I don't understand you. The author(s) of the Bible didn't get it right. Einstein didn't stipulate time, space and matter. You're just making things up and forcing them to fit while throwing in Einstein's name so you won't really be questioned. If you're moving from spatial dimensions to dimensionless physical constants, then you're talking about something else and are merely exposing your confusion on this issue.

johnydon22:
Its mostly sad when you don't really understand the scientific thesis you used...

there is another thing i noticed that is laughable, theists open threads trying hard to reconcile scientific facts with their religious texts.

you see threads like 'Science agrees with the bible' where they try hard to reinterpret religious texts to mean what they want.

when you open such a thread you'll still see a situation when evolution comes up, the same person who opened the thread will be the same to say science is nonsensical and irrational propelled by the devil..

outrightly deny and talk down on the same science you are begging to agree with your religious texts.

it's hilarious

most of these arguments are based on emotions and gut feelings rather than intellectual curiosity and honesty

I find the attempt to drag science down to the level of religion curious because it suggests that on some level in the mind of the person doing that, they accept the poverty of religious ideas.

johnydon22:
I stopped replying mentions when i notice they are based upon premises such a person is ignorant of, you shouldn't have bothered.

what people fail to grasp is, if you take the universe and everything to a state of nothingness, that means nothing exists and if nothing exists then there are no laws, not motion, not cause and effect or gravity, thermodynamics because there is nothing.

so if there is no cause and effect law then the universe even universes are fully capable of generating themselves.

secondly 'CAUSE and Effect' also is epileptic in the quantum scale; subatomic particles has been noticed to speed up all by themselves without any external force acting on them, particles pop in and out of existence (quantum fluctuation)

but yet science does not propose nothing, theist only think "nothing" because that which science propose is not "God"



Exactly and we do not know of events before the Big Bang or even the nature of the universe we live in

if there are certain critical amount of matter in the universe then universe will continue to expand forever.

if there are more matter in the universe then the gravitational effect will be enough to reverse the expansion and thus crunching everything back into a small point.

which if is correct science then thinks the universe is an eternal cycle, expansion,;contraction and expansion.. this big bang then might not be the first; only or last...



sure 3spartial dimensions plus time

it's a waste of time teaching one who pull off scientific conjectures they don't even understand just to argue.

Right on all counts.

I just have some spare time and have decided to poke these religious folks a bit. It used to be the case that they would accuse non-believers of just dumping quotes from scientists. Now we have religious people who just dump articles and when pressed, find themselves unable to defend the article.

hturb:
...pls b4 I reply u,I need to knw ur definition of evil?

Needlessly causing people to suffer.

KingEbukaNaija:
This is not even worthy to be called a rebuttal , nondescript if you ask me . You kept reiterating the same idea in different ways hoping to prove a point - its a logical fallacy , argumentum ad nauseam . The fact is that you dont understand the purpose of religion or its omnia circa

Looks like the usual religious encounter. When you have no arguments or rebuttals, throw mud and make false accusations. When you have an argument, let me know. Otherwise, be silent and let those who are better qualified speak on your behalf.

winner01:
You are missing the point here my friend. My position is that God is the source of all Knowledge. God is why we should even engage in science to know more about the world we live in. I'm laying emphasis on the pointlessness of everything if God does not exist.

Well God doesn't exist and I don't find things pointless.

winner01:
I agree with Sir Francis Bacon, who is credited with formulating and establishing the scientific method when he said; "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind."

Whether it was Francis Bacon who said that or the mechanic in Mushin, beliefs don't work that way.

winner01:
Religion is different from science just as philosophy is different from science. But all function like the hand to grasp the reality of God's power and might. Religion tries to help us know more about God, Science tries to help us know more about our world. Both are extremely useful in their own rights. Many great scientists have alluded to this.

Actually, philosophy has been very helpful it kicking God out of the picture. Many other scientists and philosophers have given very good arguments against your God.

winner01:
Absolutely not. That was a logical premise which most atheists argue in favour of. Atheists like to believe that everything real is reducible to scientific principles alone. Everything—from the universe, to human emotion, to spiritual experiences—is explainable through scientific research. That is why you propose scientific scrutiny when theists give their spiritual experiences. I'm at loss on why you dont agree with this premise.

Because you're wrong. There are lots of atheists who don't believe what you're ascribing to them. Rather than trying to force them to fit your preconceived notion, try to find out what they actually believe.

winner01:
Religion helps people to find meaning to their lives, it helps people to know more about God, it encourages us to find out more about our world as these great men proved (HERE).
Religion compels us to pursue truth which is exactly why great scientific communities and universities such as Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, and many others were founded by Christians.

Literature also helps people find "meaning". So does having the goal of seeking out knowledge for its own sake. Religion actually closes the mind to the world. Most of the prominent scientists today are not Christians so giving me a list of people in days gone by isn't useful to me. Many torture chambers were built by Christians and many slave holders were Christians too. If religion compels you to pursue truth, then you would learn when to change your mind about certain issues "decided" in religion.

winner01:
You missed my point. My point is this. How are you sure that what you believe right now is the truth and will not change later in the future. You seem so cocksure of your stand even though the scientific priesthood might change its stand tomorrow. If this is not an exhibition of faith, then i wonder what is.

I know that what we know today is more accurate than what we knew 100 years ago. You're talking about a "scientific priesthood" as an attempt to bring scientific endeavours down to the level of religion but it just won't work.

An exhibition of faith would be believing that zombies roamed the earth on the death of a person.

winner01:
And what do you mean by better information? Evolution?

Among other things, yes.

winner01:
You dont need to reply just because you want to sound intelligent. I suggest you re-read the post and see tha point i was trying to make.

I already know I sound intelligent. I wonder if you understand the implications of what you've said.

winner01:
If science was this close-minded to possibilities, you would not own a cell phone today.

That's just it. Science and scientists generally aren't closed minded but religions and the devoutly religious are.

winner01:
Whether i like it or not, your stand must be true and mine must be false. Thats just typical.

Well it is true.

winner01:
What if we aren't dealing with matter? , what if we are dealing with real emotions, real feelings, spiritual experiences and related occurrences?

Then evaluate them with some other tools. And certain fields of science like the social sciences play important roles there.

winner01:
Never mind, I'm wrong and you're right, yeah?

Of course.

winner01:
May God open your close mind.

Well God has failed to answer so many prayers that one more failure won't matter to him.

SUPERPACK:
if compared to the life of other prophets.
1. David
2. moses
3. elisha
4. joshua
.
he was right.
bt in comparison to today prophets he was absolutely wrong. He should be judged by what is attainable in the dark ages,
.
The fact that the 1st popes were married and had children, bt pope francis is nt married does nt make them devilish or sinners, The standard then justified their action.

But some Muslims today think it is a good idea to marry 9 year old girls. They think Sharia law is a good idea. I'm judging Muslims today by the standards available today. They are so afraid of free expression that they bar non-Muslims from posting in the Muslim section on an anonymous forum. Think of how scared and intolerant they must be to do this.

SUPERPACK:
nw how is marrying a 6 year old according to his era standards make him a paedophile, The minimum age for marriage in the US State of Delaware in year 1880 was 7 or was it muhammed that sanctioned it.
1. did moses nt kill the pagans
2. did he nt share war booty. Numbers 31:35-40 .
3. did he nt encourage the trading and capturing of female slaves, Deut. 21:10-14. Judge 21:10-12
4. moses also took peoples land and property forcefully.
5. he also encouraged young slave bride for the israelites. Numbers 31:35-40
6. He made it lawful for them to marry children 6-9years as long as they have attained puberty. Numbers 31:18
7. he also committed mass genocide of the canaanite.
8. He commanded the israelites to kill those who blasphemed God by stoning. Leviticus 24:14
.
So if muhammed with a jewish ancestry was wrong then moses one of the most important prophet of judaism is wrong,
.
because all what muhammed commanded the muslems to do, moses commanded the jews to do too.

In that case, it looks like the Jews became smarter with time while those following Mohammed's teachings are still confused about whether or not it is a good idea to marry 9 year old girls.

saleeman4:
Backup all what wrote with prove please.....

On this forum, Muslims won't allow non-Muslims post in the Islam section. What are they afraid of?

rawgame:
Please my questions will be a little bit science inclined. Questions to Atheists:

A. Does this make sense to you?
EVERYTHING= NOBODY + NOTHING

Yes.

rawgame:
B. Mathematics is a perfect science and the foundation of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, which provided proof that the universe and time itself had a beginning. Since nothing comes from nothing, what option does that leave us?

There was always "something".

rawgame:
C. Einstein also discovered that we live in a world of time, space and matter. How did the bible get this right? In Gen. 1:1

In the beginning (time), God created (energy) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).

That scripture also incorporates a three-dimensional world. Which was later stipulated by Einstein as time space and matter. How did the author of the bible get that right?

We always knew we lived in a world of time, space and matter. Einstein described it better for us.

The Bible is still wrong though. We live in a four dimensional universe.

hturb:
I'm willing to answer any athiest logically..Gods the God I serve yahweh is logical.. U can see the proof all around u.

Okay. Why is Yahweh so evil?

winner01:
1. We cannot know from science if science itself is the best source of knowledge.

Well we know that religion is definitely a poor source of knowledge. What we know from science is that it works when applied to its areas of specialty.

winner01:
There are two possibilities when it comes to human knowledge through science.

The first is that everything real is actually reducible to scientific principles. Everything—from the universe, to human emotion, to spiritual experiences—is explainable through scientific research.

False. This is a philosophical position.

winner01:
The other option is simple: Not all existence can be explained through science.

Still doesn't mean religion has anythign useful to contribute.

winner01:
2. Scientific consensus can and frequently does change. This limits its epistemological authority.

This is not a bad thing at all. I change my mind when better information is available. What do you do? Ignore better information? Pretend it doesn't exist? Remain ignorant of it? What?

winner01:
3. Only supernatural theism provides a rational justification for scientific work.

False. What is the rational justification for believing that zombies roamed a city some 2000 years ago? Or that all the animals on earth could fit in a wooden boat a few thousand years ago?

winner01:
4. Only supernatural theism gives us assurance that real scientific knowledge is possible.

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga is famous for articulating what he calls the “evolutionary argument against naturalism.” The argument is complicated in detail but simple in premise. Plantinga begins by putting two facts alongside each other that nearly all atheists agree on.

-First, the theory of evolution is true, and humans have descended from lower life forms over time.
-Second, humans are rational beings in a higher degree and superior way to lesser-evolved creatures.

Plantinga then directs our attention to a tension between these two facts. If humans are a more evolved species of primate, then our cognitive faculties (i.e., the parts of our body and mind that allow us to be rational creatures) have evolved out of lesser cognitive faculties.

But, Plantinga says, if God does not exist, then the only factors that affected human evolution are time and chance. Based on time and chance alone, why should we be confident our rational minds—which are merely the sum of lesser evolved minds plus time and chance—are actually rational at all? What basis do we have to believe our own conclusions? How do we know we’re actually capable of knowing truth more than a primate? If the only players in our existence are lesser creatures, time, and chance, how do we know we’re even highly evolved at all?

I really don't see what the problem here is and experiments bear these facts out. Why should I believe that I'm using a computer? Or that I can communicate in English? The fact that I'm doing them is reason for believing that I can do them. We are primates whether you like it or not.

winner01:
This astute observation was echoed by Thomas Nagel in his recent book Mind and Cosmos. Nagel, an agnostic philosopher from New York University, argues that human comprehension of the universe cannot be explained merely by atheistic evolutionary processes. It makes no sense to assume humans can make sense of their world on a conceptual level if human consciousness arose out of the very world it responds to. Nagel agrees with Plantinga that atheistic naturalism cannot explain why human beings can be rational creatures and do rational things that should be trusted.

Scientific knowledge is only possible if things unprovable by science are actually true. If Carl Sagan is correct and the material universe is all there was, is, and ever will be, then science itself is nothing more than a shot in the dark. If, however, human beings are the products of an infinitely greater mind, then we have justification for believing that true and false are realities and not just the shadow puppets of our ancestors.

Science is our best shot in the dark when dealing with matter in the universe. Whether you like it or not.

winner01:
This article is an excerpt from the work of Samuel James who works in the Office of the President at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention

God bless you for reading.

Yes. Accept my blessings mortal.

KingEbukasBlog:
I should listen to rappers ?

Listen to that part of the track

KingEbukasBlog:
Every gender was annihilated . The babies when they grow up would still be killed . Don't you get , they'd face death either way

All people will eventually die so it makes no difference if we kill 6 month old babies? What sort of argument is this? The girls were saved for some other nefarious acts.

KingEbukasBlog:
Lol . What the heck is this

An opportunity for you to learn. Listen a few seconds in to this masterpiece.

KingEbukasBlog:
God is a consuming fire - that was my response . God shows you love and metes you the appropriate punishment. for any sin , peccadilloes included . The love he showed is precluding those babies from being eternally separated from Him in hell . I think He did them a favor

You think killing babies is a favour to them? What sort of monster has so turned your mind around that you think that killing babies because they're boys is appropriate? This ignores what happens to the girls. The devil himself never gave such evil commands.

KingEbukasBlog:
I am not a child . Well Im gregarious but in a mature way though . This is non issue , a cavil . I am not a muslim . End of

Just sit boy, you might learn something. Do you have to be Muslim to know Islamic militants are Muslim? Yes or no.

KingEbukasBlog:
God is also consuming fire . Oops ! You didn't see that coming .

You're right, I don't see meaningless responses coming. Now can you actually answer my questions?

KingEbukasBlog:
Young man , I'm not a Muslim

Child, do you have to be a Muslim to know that someone else is a Muslim?

KingEbukasBlog:
Answer my question . Which is better ?

I've answered it. They're both bad and killing children because they're boys is even worse. No one said they went to heaven the last time I checked. Did God tell you they went to heaven?

Now, please answer my questions.

1. Is killing babies because they're boys a sign of love to you?
2. Is torturing people for 20 years a sign of love to you?

dalaman:
Suprisingly he is one of the few christians that will tell you that genocide is moral under his divine command theory. Other christians will dance around the issues, run away from it and never give clear answers. It's just funny that those that give clear answers always fall short end end up shooting their selves in the foot.

Yeah. Had discussions along this line with even worse apologists on this forum. They always dance away to other issues and eventually just run away without answering. This one tried to run but had to be forced to answer head on. At least he answered. Let's see where he can go with this.

KingEbukasBlog:
I cannot explain everything .

Of course you can't but you speak to God who can so ask him and let us know.

KingEbukasBlog:
It is . God the owner of their lives had come to take what he had given . As far as the purpose was to save them from an impending condemnation in Hell .

Thank you for your straightforward answer. you're one of the few Christians I've encountered who think genocide is a moral command. With this, you've successfully proved that with your God, all is permissible including genocide. Thanks again for your clarity.

Given that you and your God think genocide is a good idea, why should either of you be considered as useful sources for information on morality?

KingEbukasBlog:
I'm I Muslim ? Why do you keep asking me about the activities of the lslamic terrorists ?

Because you can identify that they're Muslims based on their beliefs. Just as we identify Christians. Based on their beliefs.

KingEbukasBlog:
So would it have been better if they had grown into adults , killed and thrown into hell - facing an eternal punishment ? Answer me .

Well you've raised another point showing the immorality of your God. Punishing someone for what they've done makes sense but throwing people you claim to love in hell makes no sense at all. I've answered your question now will you please answer these questions including one you've raised for yourself.

1. Is killing babies because they're boys a sign of love to you?
2. Is torturing people for 20 years a sign of love to you?

KingEbukasBlog:
God's prescience saved the babies . They would have been defeated , killed and sent to hell if they become adults . To preclude the spread of something ominous , you destroy the root of the problem - the seed of evil was destroyed to prevent more evil . They are safely in heaven with God since their lives were taken when they were babies .

Yet there's evil today so your God failed as usual. He failed with Noah's flood and failed with this attempt yet you avoid the question. Here it is again.

thehomer: But my question is, whether or not the command your God gave is moral or not. Was that command to kill babies because they're boys a moral command? Yes or no with your reasons please.

Please answer the question first. The question is about the command itself. Is that a moral command?

KingEbukasBlog:
Redefinition ? I won't engage in a logomachy with you but the fact remains that if someone is a Christian then it means he adheres to the teachings of Christ . Christ deprecated violence and if someone partakes in violence then he is no longer a Christian and is doing so in accordance to his own will .

I sense the weakness in this response , I guess my rebuttal hit you hard .

Are the members of Boko Haram Muslims?
Yeah. You keep sensing whatever you want.

KingEbukasBlog:
Everyone knows that God commanded those against the evil ones using Israel as his executioners , it is apparent that Christ brought an end to that . You are not making any sense . God is not subject to his laws . God is not evil but a loving God . Atheists are being used as tools by the devil that's why they become refractory when they control power - satan's myrmidons unleashing evil and wickedness on mankind

Is killing babies because they're boys a sign of love to you?

KingEbukasBlog:
In that dispensation , God used Israel as his executioners . It is not obtainable now , in this dispensation . The same way animal sacrifices are no longer used to propitiate God but salvation . Try harder you might make sense . Obviously not today , or ever

Is your God not supposed to be the same yesterday, today and forever?

But my question is, whether or not the command your God gave is moral or not. Was that command to kill babies because they're boys a moral command? Yes or no with your reasons please.

KingEbukasBlog:
Should we call people who carried out wicked acts against humans Christians ? Christians are people who adhere to the teachings of Christ . Where did Christ command violence. He deplored violence and preached love . Go back to the basics young man

Screw your rubbish basics talk and redefinition of what it means to be a Christian. If someone believes the teachings of Christianity, then they're Christians. Whether or not they commit crimes isn't what determines whether or not someone is a Christian. Or do you think Boko Haram militants aren't Muslims? Aren't members of ISIL Muslims? Try to think you child.

KingEbukasBlog:
It's understandable when people use religion as a tool to carry out their reprehensible acts . But when there is no religion and these acts are still done it proves it is a disposition , it is innate . There is no hiding this one . These people showed atheism for what it is . Give them power and their true color would be revealed .

With religion, these acts and worse have been commanded and praised. This proves an evil disposition in your God. Your God revealed his character in the desire to kill babies just because they're boys. Even worse, he claims to love humans. What sort of person loves humans yet kills babies because they're boys? Your God it that type of person.

KingEbukasBlog:
You mean taking the life he gave to them ? We have discussed this before . God is not subject to his laws in the first place . Why are being obdurate .

So you think it is right for your God to command the killing of babies and for humans to carry it out. So, would you commit genocide if your God asked you to?

KingEbukasBlog:
This is an ignorant comment . Do your research please . Atheists have the disposition to hate , terrorise , they are bleeping misanthropes . Give them power and watch them carry out despicable acts for their selfish gains - their hate for the religious would be unleashed . Stalin , Mao , Kim J , Hitler , Castro all came with the pretext of helping the country , targeted the religious , persecuted and eliminated them . Wicked souls

Really? So if I gave you examples of atheists who weren't hateful, would that change your misunderstanding that atheists have the disposition to hate?

How about if I gave you examples of religious people, Christians too carried out terrible deeds using their Bible as a reason? Or the ultimate example of your God who orders the killing of babies because they're boys?

You're deeply misguided and it is funny that you think Stalin or Mao's actions means that all atheists are bad people.

KingEbukasBlog:
He is worse than evil , a pathetic anti-theist and atheist .

Okay. How about a God who orders the killing of 6 month old baby boys?

@OP such a pointlessly long article.

If you want a conversation, we can begin with a few statements and you can use selections from your article if you think it will help you.

Firstly, is your God a moral agent?