₦airaland Forum

debetmx:
silly thread

If it were about allah and his own killing injunctions, I bet you will be here contributing to the thread. One thing I've noticed is that when confronted with something unpleasent about the bible, such as Jephthah killing his daughter, Christians will try to get around this by saying that this passage was mistranslated, or that you've misinterpreted what was clearly stated as some are trying to do here on this thread. But isn't this the wrong approch to take? It looks like what's going on here is that the person's moral standards are at odds with the bible, so they try to change what the bible says. But if the bible is the infallible word of god, then isn't this approach completely backwards? Wouldn't it be more sensible to change your moral standards to fit the bible, not the other way around? After all, if the bible says that smashing babies' head against rocks is a source of happiness, why argue otherwise? Instead of trying to explain it, why not just accept it, and force yourself to be happy in that situation?

This topic is very funny and truly revels the minds and thought process of those that are religious. Its truly funny.  . The mind of the religious person is fundamentally driven by anxiety layered over a fragile sense of self-identity constructed upon a system of beliefs that is both logically inconsistent and highly suspect to them as can be seen from this topic. I can not just understand this Fhemmy guy.  He keeps insisting that his god does not change when a simple reading of the bible shows a completely different and constantly changing god?

People need to observe the context in which these things were written before making any comment on them. Some parts of the bible was written when people were living like barbaric animals. It was written when stoning a person to death for picking sticks on a day of holiday was considered to be the right and holy-thing to do. Will god tell you to kill your child or neighbor today? Its depends. In societies where people commit these acts and get away with it, god tell people to kill their witch children. In societies where it is completely not acceptable, god never tells any body to do such things. When one looks at the Bible without the blinders of belief one can clearly see it for what it is: a collection of myths written by primitive men.

oloriooko:
@ poster.

I think you are obviously a novice to the bible. Please do not display your ignorance of the bible; it's pathetic!

Let me put you straight about the whole gist, but before i do that, i hope you have the capacity to take (ingest and digest) what am about to dish you!?

Because "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." Heb 5:14

So you see, its a long gist which am sure you cannot handle because it takes the help of the writer to understand the hidden truths in the verse you quoted.

If you are ready just let me know, I will open your eyes bro!

This guy is completely deluded to the extent that he will rather lie to himself than face or accept reality. The problem is that if these verses were from the koran or any other religious book, He will clearly see and address it for what it is. I just can't get it when people turn a blind eye to the irrationalities of their religion yet clearly see those of others?

noetic16:
I should be the one asking u this question.

.

GBAM GBAM GBAM

from the above statement it is quite obvious that u understand the issue at discourse. Laws and morals are two completely different things. morals are independent of laws. . .but laws are derived from morals.

Laws are a reflection of moral values and code of conduct. You can not separate the two.

u have chosen to ignore the context in which the posers were raised. . thats misleading.

NO, I haven't and it is not misleading.

what is the moral crime commited if a 35 year old chooses to serve his nation in the capacity as president?

The moral crime is that the person is NOT eligible and as such has violated the established law.

what is the moral crime commited by an entrepreneur who chooses to invest in a monopolitic sector?

If the law is against monopoly and an entrepreneur decides to run into the monopoly venture then that entrepreneur has committed a moral offense.

The 35 year old and the entrepreneur have committed no moral crime

They have as long as they have broken the law(which is just a reflection of societal moral values)

do the police arrest people for lying to a friend or their spouse?

Yes, if your friends reports you to the authorities for lying or leading him astray you will be prosecuted.

. . it is morally wrong to lie to anyone. . .

but the police do not arrest anyone for lying to a friend.

It depends on the type of lie. If your friend reports you for telling lies in a business or some other venture you will be arrested.

but the police arrests anyone who lies under oath. . .why? . . . .cos the laws says no one should lie to the judge or under oath.

Sure.

this my dear, infers that the law does not enforce moral values. . the law is indifferent to moral values. the law (police) only enforces stipulated laws.

The law is a reflection of societal moral values.

and where is your proof?

Why do parents spend a lot of time teaching their children the difference between right and wrong and trying to enforce moral discipline in their wards? Why do they parents not just allow this conscience to guide their children and teach them all the moral values automatically? I will say it again that there is nothing that is embedded in human conscience. People learn what to accept as morally right or wrong through trail and error.


Here is what Ancient Greek philosopher called Democritus (ca. 460 BC – ca. 370 BC) had to say about the early man.

"Democritus thought that the first humans lived an anarchic and animal sort of life, going out to forage individually and living off the most palatable herbs and the fruit which grew wild on the trees. They were driven together into societies for fear of wild animals, he said. He believed that these early people had no language, but that they gradually began to articulate their expressions, establishing symbols for every sort of object, and in this manner came to understand each other. He says that the earliest men lived laboriously, having none of the utilities of life; clothing, houses, fire, domestication, and farming were unknown to them. Democritus presents the early period of mankind as one of learning by trial and error, [/b]and says that each step slowly lead to more discoveries; they took refuge in the caves in winter, stored fruits that could be preserved, [b]and through reason and keenness of mind came to build upon each new idea."

Human conscience came about as a result of trial and error. The ability for humans to self reflect or their actions was and still is the guiding principle of human morality and conscience.

What is God?

When asked whether or not we believe in god, most of us answer "No".

But as an atheist, how do you define what it is that you don't believe in? What is your idea of a god? I know that theist have different definitions of god or what the word is suppose to mean. I just want to hear the opinion of the atheist on this.

The most fundamental and profound discovery of the 20th century was that not everything in nature has an explanation according to scientist. At a fundamental level it is quite random. Virtual particles flutter into and out of existence. No cause, They just do according to scientific observations. What "causes" a particular atom of U-235 to pop off and decay? Nothing. It just does. (granted the force is mediated by the W particle, but that is what doesn't have a cause.)

And indeed as later developed, the universe itself to me is most likely simply the result of quantum fluctuations in the vacuum. No cause. It just happened. Just because everything within the universe has a cause which lies within the universe doesn't mean that you can deduce that the universe itself has a cause. Just as from "everything within the universe lies inside something else within the universe" does not allow people to deduce that the universe itself lies within anything.

This guy is really up to something.

noetic16:
atheists CANNOT explain the source of their morals simply because they have a conscience.

Consience it self had to be developed. Its wasn't set in stone at all. Our ability to self reflect as humans leads to what we call conscience. First comes self awareness then awareness of others with whom one finds oneself interacting. We only began making conscious rules when we got enough sense to do so. It was like we created an organization first and then wrote its constitution but as we got better and better in knowing things we became aware that we must decide objective or goal first before we do things to bring it about. In the beginning we were just aimless and wondering about just like babies till we found something that catched our eyes instinctively. If we found something interesting we remembered it otherwise we just moved on and so forth.

Babies are free of any sense of morality but they learn as they grow what is rewarding for them and what lands them into trouble, pain and suffering etc so from that they decide in which direction they should move next. All this goes to show that there was never any such thing as an absolute code of morals as religious people will have us believe. This is more obvious from the fact that individuals have different tastes and likes and dislikes and the same is true about groups. The conflict of interests leads to fights and whoever survives learns from that as to what they should or should not do next time. This is how rules and laws or constitutions come about and objectives or goals are decided.

In other words every time we accomplish something or wreck somethings we learn what we should or should not do next time ie we modify our behaviours as individuals or as a group or as groups.

noetic16:
here we go again. . . toneyb running round in circles.

What is noetic arguing about?

Are morals not legally distinguished from laws?. . . . . . .

NO, NO and NO. They are the same. Here is what morality means. "Morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society." Laws are made to uphold societal moral values.

is it morally right to . . ,  . a. disqualify a person from running from president because he aint 40 years old in nigeria?

If the law of the land stipulates that the required age for contesting presidential office is 40, then any body under 40 that seeks the office of the president has commited a moral offence.

b. tell an employer the barest minimum he can pay a person?

Any employer that pays his/her employee below what the minimum wage that is stipulated by the law of the land is has commited a moral offnce according to the law of the land.

c. limit competition in certain areas of the economy, thus creating monopolies?

If monopoly is an objection or a violation of the law, any body that violates such a law as commited a moral offence.

d. refuse to give students free education?

The failue of the govenment to provide free education in countries where the govenment has made it mandatory that they provide free education to its citizens is morally wrong and thus can be said to be a moral offence on the part of the govenment.

e. practise communism?

There is nothing morally wrong with communism as long as the people agree to liove by it and accept its principles. It might be considered morally wrong by those who do not accept that system of govenment.

which of the above a-e has any link to moral codes of right or wrong?. . .they are neither right or wrong, but are LAWS of certain countries. morality my dear DIFFERS on a large scale to LAWS.

They are ALL right or wrong depending on weather a group of people choose to accept them as their moral code of conduct. Lets take the minimum wage issue, Once it has been determined by the govenment and made law it becomes morally reprehensible for any employer to violate it and pay less than what has been stipulated as the minimum wage.

u miss the point there. the point is that while the law of the land prescribes a punishment for an offence. . the punishment in itself is immoral by the standards of the land. would the land be better off enforcing its laws, or ignoring them for the sake of morality?. . .that was my simple poser to u.

Laws only enforce the moral views of people. Moral rules come about after a goal has been formed
It is the behavior that will have the best chance of allowing the people to reach the goal.That also shows why when there is no goal morality breaks down.

e.this is OUTRAGEOUSLY FALSE.

The laws of a country are reflected from the history of that country. the 25th amendment was as a result of Wilson's terminal illness. Nigeria's national assembly is debating a similar law as a result of the present scenarios in the country. this shows that laws are a product of necessity, they have a starting point and are repealable. This is quite unlike morals.

I am sorry to say but you don't know what you are saying. Laws are ways which a society upholds its moral standards.

morals are universal codes of conduct embedded in the human conscience. morals date as far back as the first family on earth.

This is VERY FALSE. There is nothing that is embedded in human conscience. People learn what to accept as morally right or wrong through trail and error. Tell me, Do the cannibals who mazaje allude to that ate the flesh of their enemies think they were doing something morally wrong? What about the Nigerian tribe who killed their twins? Do they believe they were doing something that was morally wrong? If morality is embedded in human conscience then why will a group of people decide to eat the flesh of another group of people? Why will some people choose to stone to death their disobedient children?

when abel was killed. . . .Cain knew he did wrong, yet there was no law prohibiting him from doing so. why then did cain feel guilty?

Humans have the ability to self reflect on their actions.

Morals are as old as man. Laws are man-made. They are therefore not the same.

Laws and morals are the same thing. Laws uphold what people choose as their moral values. People create their moral values and use their laws to uphold them.

God's name does not have to be called. . .the question is. . .does the hindu have a conscience? who gave it to him/her?

Their conscience like that of every human evolved. Why do parents spend a lot of time teaching their children the difference between right and wrong if their conscience is enough? Why not leave the conscience of their children to teach them all they need to know about morals? Morality must be learnt as mazaje said.

1. my reference to holiness and faith is a justification of my point that laws do have a beginning.  otherwise by what standard was the pre-moses generation judged? by what laws?

There are countless socities that lived in places like China, Indai, Egypt, North and South America thousand of years before Moses. They like every body learnt about their own morals. The pre moses generation set of moral code of conduct for themselves and used their own laws to uphold them.

2. The laws of moses are NOT the moral standard of God. The bible talks about the descendants of Esau (the edomites) as a people of God, who the children of Israel were forbidden to war against. how did these people become a people of God? since moses was not their prophet, did they have another intermediary to God? did this intermediary receive laws from God as moses did? how? when? why? if he did not recieve laws, how then were the edomites able to live by God's words to be called a people of God.

I do not accept anything the bible says as true. I thought the bible said that Yaheh created everybody? Why then do you find it difficult to accept that he called the people of Edom his people?

my dear your assertion in referring the laws of moses to the moral values of God is without any factual basis.

The laws of Moses were there to uphold the moral values of Yaweh according to the bible.

3. if u followed my primordial post, I did state clearly that laws are deduced from moral values. God telling the children of Israel how to deal with their slaves was God giving laws by virtue of His morality.

Laws are NOT deduced from moral values. Laws uphold the moral values of people.

Deep Sight:
Mind all - I am referring to the third video in the 3rd post in this thread.

I have not watched the first two.

I'll address them when I get back. I'll be going out shortly.

@ Deep Sight.

That video is pure CRAP. The video is FULL of logical fallacies and question begging.

To answer the question of morality these are some of the things we need to have in our minds.

1)Morality is not absolute rather it is relative because it is arrived at by way of trial and error over period of whole human existence by various human groups. Some moral values have changed with time that is what was moral between a group of people once upon a time in a place may not be moral at another time in a different place or amongst a different people.

2)Absolute morality was never a tribal concept rather it is a religious concept based upon belief in all knowing gods who revealed to people how they should conduct themselves. However, even religious people are not able to agree as to what is moral and what is not. Different religious people have different beliefs and laws etc.

3)Morals that survive the test of the time may well become wide spread and one day may become universal when all groups of people find them equally useful.

4)Just as we humans learned through exploring what we should eat or drink etc etc so we learned what rules were better for us to live than having no rules at all. Rules came about because people as individuals could not exist on their own and being interdependent creature we became organized in to groups and rules just came about all by themselves. That is because earlier humans were not that self conscious or self aware as we are today. For example, leave some kids on their own in a place where they have means to survive and watch them how they form into a group and each of them becomes aware of ones strengths and weaknesses relative to others and so they fall in to place.

Or this very forum is an example of how we became organized into a discussion group and see how the rules of this forum came about. Need is mother of invention. For example, a person ate something and died because it was poisonous so others became aware that they should not do this seeing what happened to the person who did that. Like a baby he puts his hand in the fire and when learns it burns he does not do that again because it hurts him. This baby then warns others not to do what he did.

5)Some time when there is a debate between atheists and theists, theist always bring in question of morality that is how do atheists get their morals.

The simple answer is where do the religious get their morality from ie make it up as we go along through trial and error. No theist as yet managed to prove existence of his/her god. Moreover they too have laws of abrogation ie their gods changed laws with time just like us atheists.

6)We humans define all things objectively for our own use. Things that are irrelevant for us we pay no attention to them because we have no use for them. Morality only matters for a group or groups. In a group individuals have to live by a code of conduct or custom that helps the group to be at peace within so that it survives and prospers. Likewise morality could become relevant between groups if their interaction becomes inevitable ie there has to be a basis for their successful interaction.

noetic16:
1. your argument is fundamentally FLAWED simply because u choose to mix up morality and laws together.

Let me give you a definition of morality as defined on Wikipedia. "Morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society." It goes on to say that "For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred.". Morality is simply that which distinguishes between right and wrong. Laws are also a form of moral code of conduct.

morals differ greatly from laws. . .but laws are deduced from moral values

.

No they don't. Ever heard of moral laws?

take for instance we all believe that it is morally wrong to kill/execute any man under any circumstance

FALSE because it's NOT every body that shares this belief.

. . . . but the laws of the land states that prisoners of war or persons guilty of murder must be executed by firing squad.

Its not every land that has this law.

does this execution violate moral codes and standards?. . .YES it does cos we all subconsciously adhere to "thou shall not kill".

Killing as a means of self defense is allowed in some places. A lot of people believe that killing their enemies is the right thing to do.

would society be a better place if there are no laws? . . nope.
would society be a better place if the laws of the land are not implemented. . .nope.
Laws and moral values are different. . . .they differ and cannot be weighed on the same pedestal. This is to highlight the flaws in your notion that the bible God was morally debauched.

Laws and moral values are the same. Stealing is a law and a moral value, Child abuse is also a law and a moral value same with despoil, extortion, drunk driving etc, But these moral values differ from place to place. Laws and moral values are the same. They can not be separated.

The (moral) values of God as depicted in the bible are very very universal and applicable to several generations.

VERY FALSE. Calling the name of Yahweh in vain is of no importance or meaning to a Hindu.

that explains the relevance of these values (depicted as holiness, faith, uprightness et all) in an age like ours. . . .an age that has outlived the antideluvian races around which the biblical years were formed.

Holiness and faith are of no use to a buddist or some other person whose religion does not share those attributes.

The 613 laws of moses are NOT the moral values of God. they CANNOT be used as a measuring standard for God's moral inscription to man. The laws were deduced from the moral values of God. these moral values preceded the laws.

The laws of moses ARE the moral laws of God of the bible. Its funny that you are now trying to throw what the bible says under the bus. If the laws of moses are not the moral laws of Yahweh then what are they?

we saw God condemn the killing of Abel. . .was there any law forbidding such killings as of then?
we saw the likes of Abraham and Enoch called "upright" by God . . . . .was there any law by which their righteousness was measured?. . Nope.

The same God that condemned the killing of Abel also urged his chosen men to kill others no? I don't really understand the point you are trying to make here.

Righteousness (moral values) of God preceded the laws of moses. . .u cannot call those laws the morality of God.

Yahweh's moral values ARE the laws of moses.

2. perhaps u need to clearly define what u mean by objective morality?
u must bear in my mind that "objectivity" itself is subject to some elements of sentiments. take for instance. . how would anyone decide that a moral value is objective?. .  . .especially when u consider the diversity of human beliefs and cultures which naturally influences norms (which are mistaken for human values).

I was careful to state that I was talking hypothetically and that morality is not objective, It varies from place to place as explained by mazaje.

3. the likes of slavery et all were proceeds of war. ,  just as oil fields and gold deposits are the proceeds of war in  this age.
with regards to slavery. . . God's acclaimed morality can be measured. God asks that (hebrew) slaves be released after 6 years (exodus 21). while there was also several laws given by God to protect slaves . . . . .prominent commandments/laws calls for peaceful co-existence amongst the people of God.

Isn't it the same god that gave laws(moral values) on how people are to go about when selling their daughters into slavery?

ayettymama:
theres one thing i have always said

Christians believe and are expected to practice peace, compassion, respect and love. . . . loads of it!

we are taught to love each other and be loved, we are taught not to hurt anybody!!

why do people have a problem with it?- if i was a non christian i would join quickly!

the evidence of God is shown through the holy spirit, miricles and wonders we see everyday and the testemonies of his children

the evidence of satan are the atheists and people that make sense out of evolution and philosophy

im baffled by the fact humans coming from monkeys is more believable than a perfect God

big bang and evolution- THEORIES i might add of which there is ABSOLUTELY no proof!!

my point anyways- if its not bothering you leave it alone!!!!

You have just displayed your ignorance about things you know absolutely nothing about. If you don't know anything please keep quite and stop displaying your ignorance.

viaro:
That is not philosophy but rather your own idea of what you don't know nor can handle. If that is what philosophy is to atheists, then no atheist should be found claiming to be a Philosopher, yes?

I really don't care much about philosophy and all that it entails, To me it is nothing other than endless opinions and counter opinions that are usually flawed and tricky(not always). There are atheist that are really interested in it and are good philosophers(good for them). But I don't like it and I don't care much about it.

viaro:
And how many times do we see atheists reharshing their retired strawman fallacies for their atheism? Is it any wonder that even in the matrix of modern philosophy, atheists are generally spectators and never able to attempt any discussion on philosophy?

And what is philosophy beside endless opinions and counter opinions which mostly involves and relies on flawed and tricky reasoning?

The arguments for christianity and the God it is trying to sell are by now ancient. They all go back to Augustine, then, 650 years later, to Aquinas, and basically all a rehash thereafter.

Back in ancient times, philosophy was science. But as science progressed, the arguments for christianity (and deism) have remain rooted in the arguments of the old philosophers. In the logic of the scholastic school. In the manipulations of language and verbiage and nothing more. Nothing new ever seems to be added by christian apologists even in the face of the fact of advancement of science and the scientific process. "Proofs" for the christian God are static, unchanging, and repetitious. The modern day apologist are now trying to take very different approaches but they still end up short most of the time. They are now trying to drop most if not all the traditional attributes of the christian God because they notice that those traditional attributes are contradictory.

How many times per month does a new christian apologist show up espousing the argument for natural religion as a "proof" of the existence of the christian God?

Kay 17:
it is not a question of function, but origin and it is inconceivable to think an entity in the sky imposes moral rules which in no practical manner does it affect him. morality is a necessity in every society.

I just don't get it when some Christians like davidylan ridiculously claim that their god is the source of all moral or some objective moral code of conduct. That argument is AWFUL. If objective morality exits(which it doesn't) then the god of the bible does not exists. When we appeal to our moral intuitions nowadays we all intuitively "know" and agree that things like rape, slavery, child abuse etc are wrong. But this is exactly what makes davidlylan's case so absurd! Because davidylan's candidate for the source of morality is a character described in the bible. And yet the bible is FILLED with the God of the bible producing acts and injunctions that strike many of us and a great many christians included as being against our moral intuitions.

It's like saying we all agree that math is valid and objective so there must be a great mathematician from which math flows. And then saying "Hey, I've got the best candidate for who that mathematician might be, here he is described in this old book!" But the character in the book is found espousing all manner of wrong mathematics, like 2 +2 = 5. If you are appealing to the objectivity of mathematical formulations like 2 + 2 = 5 as a starting point for the existence of a great mathematician, it sure invalidates any candidate who isn't getting math right.

It's also ironic that people can go right to the bible and find God making commands of exactly the type we living in the west will all understand to be "moral abominations" for instance child abuse and slavery are obvious moral wrongs in most western societies. We would call any parent who beat to death or stone to death his children for talking back to him a child abuser or a parent that sells his child into slavery a crazy person. Yet this is what God asks Jews to do in the old testament, directly violating our modern moral intuitions. This character is getting the "moral math" wrong and therefore can't be a candidate for the source of our modern day "objective" moral intuitions if anything like that were to exists.

toba:
U ve alleged dat information is superior to data.God gave vivid info about his existence.

Did any god give you vivid information about his existence? How can we use such vivid information to objectively get information from this god directly? If there is a god that gives people vivid information about his existence them why are there so many different gods with so many different information about their existence?

Like i said information cant come from non information.Theists are informed about Gods existence&their information came from information provided by God,nature&man.

So according to you the information about Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Chineke, Brahamidu all came from those gods?

MyJoe:
Highlighted position is tendentious and not borne out by the facts.

The vast majority of those who engage in rituals and not poor and uneducated. They are usually from the middle and upper classes.

There are educated illiterates and a lot of the people that engage in these act of sacrificing people to "evil spirits" are not people that I will consider to be educated at all. Education does not mean having a university degree.

Once a reverend gentleman I knew of was accused of making money ritual with his son. He subsequently lost his position in the church. From this we can assume that (1) The leadership of that parish of the church believed it. (2) He did not deny it. There are other possibilities, of course, but on the surface of it, it does look like a confirmed case.

Of course the leadership of the parish will have to believe it. Most Churches believe in these kinds of stories. The last time I checked most of the followers of pastor Adeboye believed that he drove a car on empty tank for over 200km. The guy doesn't have to deny it. I know of people that were accused of witchcraft back when I was in Nigeria but did not deny the allegations. They did not deny it because nothing they said mattered to those that were accusing them. Denying the allegations might even prolong the case, sometimes its better to let things die off on their own when you know that they are baseless. The man must have had his reasons for not denying it.

InesQor:
@toneyb: Heard of the two of them but I think Randi's beliefs are extreme i.e. the extent to which he rapidly dismisses stuff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi and http://www.randi.org/

He knows magic very well and is better positioned to dismiss it than others, having being a great magician for over 30 years, He knows all the tricks involved.

lagerwhenindoubt:
No myth or urban legends can make N50 notes appear in a box that you actually spend and it does not disappear.

Here is my personal story

In Awodi Ora Secondary School, AJ City Lagos.

I and four unnamed friends were party to a con that saw us losing N5k each. we arrived at the conclusion that we had been defrauded but nothing will change our minds that it was actually possible that for a fleeting moment, the spiritualist created money that we spent and could have spent even more had one of us not refuse to lick the oath kolanut.

We were broke youths in those times and a friend told us of a money-doubler that could change our fortunes.
1: We had to part with N1,000 which we did and he put it in a small box the size of a Chivita juicebox. he chanted something and opened up the box and gave us N5,000 each. you can imagine our delight. we went out and spent these monies with the fear that it will magically disappear.
2: The spiritualist further asked that if we could raise N10,000 each, we would get N50,000 after the ritual, N10k for secondary school students is easy, make fake requests for expensive text books, steal or borrow (all we did) and brought to the spiritualist.
3:He made us swear an oath to some money spirit that we cannot reveal the source of our wealth until after 5 years (heck who would want to reveal such a hit) so we sealed the oath by licking a piece of kolanut passing it on to each other. One friend refused but it did not stop the ritual anyway.
4: He got a chicken and killed it right before our eyes and rubbed the blood on all the monies we donated and tied it in a black nylon bag and asked us to return at night by 9.00PM at an unnamed location. (in an abandoned warehouse behind awodi ora estate)
5: We went there ahead of schedule and waited till 9.00 to forestall any chance of crockery incase he had any ideas.
6: He arrived at exactly 9.00PM and told us to clear the area as he prepared it for the spirits. at the end he rolled out a white piece of cloth on the grass and started chanting and I SWEAR the wind picked up (just like in the movies) and when it died down, he held the torch to the ground and We saw bundles and bundles and bundles of N50 notes wrapped in unmarked clips. i SWEAR!!! it could easily have been N1 million. We made for it quickly and as we fell over trying to grab as much as we could, the money vanished in our hands. ( i felt cold hard cash in my hands that night). He told us that the spirits were displeased because one of us did not lick the kolanut. That was how we lost our N10k and raised another N5k to at least get something, and that was when the spiritualist never showed up again, N15k gone into the wind. but i will never forget how the money appeared and how it disappear. I felt it, squeezed it but it shrunk and vanished right in my hands, we were definitely broke and frustrated the rest of the year. but one amongs us (The one who told us of the spiritualist was high on dough)  

What do you have to say to that, we were conned alright, but can the con go as far as making money appear and disappear right before your eyes

Please google Jame Randi and Darren Brown, Their videos on you tube will help you out.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=408331.msg5633296#msg5633296 date=1267800203]Hi Toneyb,

You hear it not only in Nigeria but in every other place where physical claims or rather scientific claims are made without providing even an iorta of scientific evidence. Claims are cheap but scientific evidence do require much more. Once the average man start to ask for evidence, then these stories will disappear. I would have offered the secret behind some of these tricks as I have encountered the claimants on several occations but I guess I will keep quite. If people honestly believe such things, then the only thing that will convince them is when they have lost all their money and possesion as they seek to patronise those who claim to spin money from corpses. Best Wishes.[/quote]I completely agree, Such myths and urban legends are bandied only in places were the people are ignorant, uneducated or unenlightened. There are so many reasons why people bandy such urban legends as you have said.

davidylan:
What is most funny is the fact that mazaje and jagunlabi seem to be grasping at the MOST EXTREME of situations to justify their claim that morality isnt set in stone.

for example jagunlabi talks of this - If you find yourself and your family in a collapsed society

In such a "society", there is virtually NO LAW or NO MORALITY left!

We are talking about a NORMAL FUNCTIONING SOCIETY no places with earthquakes!

Morality isn't set in stone. If you have any evidence to show that it is then you can go ahead and do so.

Why do we hear of these things only in places like Nigeria?

@Toba

You come here, display your complete lack of knowledge of the science you are trying disparage or claim is lacking and get angry when people say you completely do not know what you are talking about.

toba:
IF THEY CAN'T SEE THE SUN, THEY CAN FEEL ITS HEAT. there's a funny thing about the blind or those who close their eyes to keep from seeing the sun: even though they cannot see it, yet when it shines in its full strength, the heat it radiates can nevertheless be felt. So it is indeed true that atheism is rightly defined as a denial of God in the midst of knowledge of His existence.

How does one feel the heat that your god radiates?

nuclearboy:
Over and over, I get to wondering who Viaro really is - one time, I thought he was Maven. Now it seems he is Toneyb. Very civil conversation between two opposing factions. Now, if only it was DeepSight. Thats the only person its obvious he isn't on NL. All the vitriol is reserved solely for OOI's messiah  

So now Viaro is now toneyb?

@OP:

Have you considered that the most significant evidence of God is this discussion and the fact that the question even came up? "Nothing" is rarely discussed. What ought be discussed is which of the "gods" is God and which are pretenders - differing cultures that never met in ancient times all had their deities - why do you suppose everyone could be fooled? What fooled them - God or nothingness? Or maybe, since its all about evolution, humankind didn't develop brains till atheists came onto the scene - when?

Evidence against the existence of any God(s) generally is also evidence against the existence of any specific God you wish to consider.

If there is no evidence that a red crow exists, there is clearly by implication no evidence that a red crow called Toney exists.

Every God is just another in a long line of utterly unsupported ideas of Gods and Goddesses through human history.

davidylan:
Which is why i wonder why the atheist . . . who knows nothing . . . spends so much time berating the God of the bible.

Just as you spend too much time berating the god of the koran no?

toba:
Empirical or no empirical,d wind blows&no1 hetherto knows where it comes from,Yet when it blows everythng light dances to its admiration.Not only light thngs,av seen a storm/wind pull down a very very firm building.This shows there must be a force more powerful that d wind obeys/propels d wind to blow.Until dat force says stop,d wind wouldnt.[b]Now we read in d bible dat Jesus was journeying wit his disciples on a boat.He was fast asleep,suddenly a wind/storm came&almost overturn d boat.Jesus was woken&he immediately spoke to d wind&it ceased.Jesus demostrated force stronger dan d wind.So there exist a God d strong/light wind obey[/b]s

Why does your "evidence" for god has to be stories written about a god by men? Will you point to a god that exists on its own independent of the stories that men write about their various gods?

viaro:
Were the things you were shown 'empirical evidence' for the non-existence of God and the supernatural?

No, but no body has ever shown me empirical evidence for the existence of God and the supernatural even when I was a theist. All the "evidence" that were presented to me were stories about god and the supernatural and not empirical evidence. Once i was provided with evidence to show that those stories  that were provided to me were false, I accepted and moved on.

Of course, your personal beliefs were subjective and could anyday be proven false; such would not therefore mean that that is conclusive evidence for the non-existence of God and the supernatural. I'm sorry to note that I cannot take your anecdotal claim as meaningful here, because there are many atheists who have become theistic believers independent of the atheistic cultures that were part of their experiences, did you ever think about that? Such things had nothing to do with whatever any society accepted or not, and your preference to not believe is just that: your choice - and it has nothing to do with 'empiricism'.

What anecdotal claim exactly? I was just trying to point out to you that I am not as close minded as you think. I have changed my mind based on the evidence and i can change my mind base on counter evidence too. Thats the point i was trying to make.

I asked you to answer me a simple question - was that hard?  
I wasn't asking you to split hairs over Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists, or flat earthers - my focus was specifically atheists who believe in spirits! Things that have to do with alien abduction have nothing to do with anyone's worldview in so far as alien abduction is not a belief system! You atheists make me laugh when you throw tantrums in the way you appeal to fallacies in your arguments.

I answered your question. Hinduism, Scientology and Islam are all believes, why dwell only on alien abduction . I know that there are atheist that believe in spiritualism. I have friends that are atheist but believe in some kind of spiritualism. How does their belief in spirituality give credence to spirituality? Does the belief of Scientologist give credence to Scientology?

Creation and Cosmology. Choose your poison and let's discuss philosophically., if you may.

We can discuss both, that is if you will agree to discuss it on a simple level that any body can understand.

That's okay - atheists are never able to handle philosophy anyways.

Not really, there are so many that do .

davidylan:
Is something biting you?  

Certainly if you feel the concept of God is incoherent . . . you wouldnt be here night and day beating yourself up about it right?

I guess its you that something is biting. You believe that allah is nothing but a stone god that is nothing but a fruad i bet you wont be here night and day beating yourself about it right?

viaro:
That's okay with me. You knew you were not interested in philosophy (which was specifically what I asked for), and you are the same fellow to have posted a vid trying to gull the public with 'dualism in philosophy'? I wonder why you atheists are very scared of this thing called 'philosophy', though. Bro, if you were not comfy with what I specifically asked for, why try to cheat with that vid? I'd say next time that you carefully check and weigh your atheistic assertions before trying to blow smoke in our eyes about "conclusive evidence" about realities.

Sorry bro, I apologize, I should have posted a caveat and caution before I posted the vid, Some salient points were raised in the vids, that i thought explained what you asked me. I wasn't trying to cheat per-say.  

In due course.

OK. I will be waiting to see them.

While I appreciated your elborations, it was narrow - that was my point, unless you're saying that your own limited elaborations should be taken as the totality of all that can be known about mind and consciousness. Remember: if it was a simply case of chatting about these things, we would long have been done - but when you make very broad assertions about "conclusive evidence", someone would just have to call you up on that!

OK I understand.

I'm not here to force you into philosophical discussions - but next time to be so quick to post a vid about dualist philosophy as your answer for 'conclusive evidence' when you're not quite prepared to stand up for anything philosophical. Atheists who make very careless assertions about realities with such finality in their tone should be smarted up for what they brazenly claim

I shouldn't have posted the video since it goes into the philosophical line before going into the line i wanted it to go. It was silly of me to expect you not to look at it from that perspective.

No. I was not talking about abstract qualities of human experiences, for the soul if not an experience. Our feelings, thoughts, decisions, etc. are not 'part of' a living being, in so far that they are experience. However, I said simply that the soul is a part of a living being because it does not occur as a sponteneous experience of the brain such as feelings, thoughts, decisions, etc.

Please vairo, can you show me that the soul is a part of a living being? Where does the soul reside in living beings? Do animals have souls?

Please let us see the reviews asserting such, thanks.

Vairo are you saying things that I did not say again? . Please re-read my previous post again.