₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
I believe it because it was observed. Have you got a witness for your belief?

OLAADEGBU:
No. They were created on the same day with mankind and that was about 6,000 years ago.

guardian: Pope Francis is one of the most hated men in the world today. Those who hate him most are not atheists, or protestants, or Muslims, but some of his own followers. Outside the church he is hugely popular as a figure of almost ostentatious modesty and humility. From the moment that Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio became pope in 2013, his gestures caught the world’s imagination: the new pope drove a Fiat, carried his own bags and settled his own bills in hotels; he asked, of gay people, “Who am I to judge?” and washed the feet of Muslim women refugees.

But within the church, Francis has provoked a ferocious backlash from conservatives who fear that this spirit will divide the church, and could even shatter it. This summer, one prominent English priest said to me: “We can’t wait for him to die. It’s unprintable what we say in private. Whenever two priests meet, they talk about how awful Bergoglio is … he’s like Caligula: if he had a horse, he’d make him cardinal.” Of course, after 10 minutes of fluent complaint, he added: “You mustn’t print any of this, or I’ll be sacked.”

This mixture of hatred and fear is common among the pope’s adversaries. Francis, the first non-European pope in modern times, and the first ever Jesuit pope, was elected as an outsider to the Vatican establishment, and expected to make enemies. But no one foresaw just how many he would make. From his swift renunciation of the pomp of the Vatican, which served notice to the church’s 3,000-strong civil service that he meant to be its master, to his support for migrants, his attacks on global capitalism and, most of all, his moves to re-examine the church’s teachings about sex, he has scandalised reactionaries and conservatives. To judge by the voting figures at the last worldwide meeting of bishops, almost a quarter of the college of Cardinals – the most senior clergy in the church – believe that the pope is flirting with heresy.

The crunch point has come in a fight over his views on divorce. Breaking with centuries, if not millennia, of Catholic theory, Pope Francis has tried to encourage Catholic priests to give communion to some divorced and remarried couples, or to families where unmarried parents are cohabiting. His enemies are trying to force him to abandon and renounce this effort.

Since he won’t, and has quietly persevered in the face of mounting discontent, they are now preparing for battle. Last year, one cardinal, backed by a few retired colleagues, raised the possibility of a formal declaration of heresy – the wilful rejection of an established doctrine of the church, a sin punishable by excommunication. Last month, 62 disaffected Catholics, including one retired bishop and a former head of the Vatican bank, published an open letter that accused Francis of seven specific counts of heretical teaching.

To accuse a sitting pope of heresy is the nuclear option in Catholic arguments. Doctrine holds that the pope cannot be wrong when he speaks on the central questions of the faith; so if he is wrong, he can’t be pope. On the other hand, if this pope is right, all his predecessors must have been wrong.

....

hahn:
Why didn't what work?

redditor: I dealt with a guy once who wanted me to take on his road traffic accident PI claim. He had written a poem, in Yoruba, about the accident. He refused to tell me anything about his case until he's read the whole thing, in Yoruba.

Among other problems, I can't speak any fucking Yoruba. As in, not one word. As in, that day was the first time I had ever heard of the Yoruba language. I'm not even from a part of the world where I might readily be mistaken for someone who speaks Yoruba. It's a West African language, and I am really, really obviously not from a West African background.

I try to explain this to the guy who becomes very agitated and insists that he must read out his poem in Yoruba. I give up and tell him to get on with it so we can talk about his claim. He does. It takes him nearly 20 minutes to finish.

Anyway, after he's done, he finishes and sits back with a big smile and says that he's certain I'll take his case on now. I begin to ask him some questions about his case, but he refuses to answer. He says that this poem (in Yoruba) is everything I need to know about his case.

Basically, I tell him to Bleep off and stop wasting my time. He does, but not before standing around outside my office for an hour or so, reading out his poem, to no-one in particular, over and over again.

In Yoruba.

sonofluc1fer:
Yay.

Ersan:
OMG And the supreme faggit reappears! All hail mighty wiegraf. The greatest jobby jouster on nairaland.

JackBizzle:
My fellow brothers and sisters, I hope you are enjoying the public holiday weekend!

I am confused by a question I keep asking myself whenever I enter the religion section- why is kingebukasblog always lying?


What is the motive behind Kingebuka's lies? There are many christians on the religion section but most of them do not lie like this guy does with atheism. Even when the lying christians lie, we can observe their motives which are usually 2 in nature;

1) To promote their church or pastor
2) To convert sheep.


Kingebuka does not have a church, even though he is a christian and he does not really do evangelism. He just argues with lies and strawmen. So what is his motive? What does he gain from lying about religion and atheism?


I am seriously thinking that this is a psychological problem. I swear, if I were a religious person, I would say that it is a spiritual problem involving the demon of lies possessing our dear Ebuka.

Please, atheists and deists in the house, help me with this conundrum!



cc Akintom, hopefullandlord, muskeeto, dalaman, hardmirror, johnydon22, cloudgoddess, felixomor, adepeter26, catfishbilly

hopefulLandlord:
A rug rider crawls into a cave in the 7th Century CE, the Angel Gabriel appears out of nowhere and whispers words of profound wisdom to the rider. Gabriel's whisperings are then somehow documented by the rider for all Eternity as the Words of God for the future benefit of Mankind. Fast forward to the 20th century CE. Erwin Schrodinger picks up his pencil and proceeds to write out the Wave Equation of the Universe which replaces the role of Newton's laws and conservation of energy in classical mechanics. It is an equation in terms of a wave function which predicts analytically and precisely the probability of events to within an accuracy of 10-decimal places. Why does anyone in the 21st century CE, astonishingly, still give any credence to the writings of a delusional 7th century ignorant goat herder who claimed an angel spoke to him in a cave? Apparently there are still approximately 1.5-billion or more Neanderthals out there who still "believe". Beats me!!!

wiki: In philosophy, "the Absurd" refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible".[1] The universe and the human mind do not each separately cause the Absurd, but rather, the Absurd arises by the contradictory nature of the two existing simultaneously.

Accordingly, absurdism is a philosophical school of thought stating that the efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning will ultimately fail (and hence are absurd) because the sheer amount of information as well as the vast realm of the unknown make total certainty impossible. As a philosophy, absurdism furthermore explores the fundamental nature of the Absurd and how individuals, once becoming conscious of the Absurd, should respond to it. The absurdist philosopher Albert Camus stated that individuals should embrace the absurd condition of human existence while also defiantly continuing to explore and search for meaning.[2]

.........


In absurdist philosophy, the Absurd arises out of the fundamental disharmony between the individual's search for meaning and the meaninglessness of the universe. As beings looking for meaning in a meaningless world, humans have three ways of resolving the dilemma. Kierkegaard and Camus describe the solutions in their works, The Sickness Unto Death (1849) and The Myth of Sisyphus (1942), respectively:

-Suicide (or, "escaping existence" ) : a solution in which a person ends one's own life. Both Kierkegaard and Camus dismiss the viability of this option. Camus states that it does not counter the Absurd. Rather, the act of ending one's existence only becomes more absurd.
-Religious, spiritual, or abstract belief in a transcendent realm, being, or idea: a solution in which one believes in the existence of a reality that is beyond the Absurd, and, as such, has meaning. Kierkegaard stated that a belief in anything beyond the Absurd requires an irrational but perhaps necessary religious acceptance in such an intangible and empirically unprovable thing (now commonly referred to as a "leap of faith" ). However, Camus regarded this solution, and others, as "philosophical suicide".
-Acceptance of the Absurd: a solution in which one accepts the Absurd and continues to live in spite of it. Camus endorsed this solution, believing that by accepting the Absurd, one can achieve the greatest extent of their freedom, and that by recognizing no religious or other moral constraints and by revolting against the Absurd while simultaneously accepting it as unstoppable, one could possibly be content from the personal meaning constructed in the process. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, regarded this solution as "demoniac madness": "He rages most of all at the thought that eternity might get it into its head to take his misery from him!"[6]

Teeeg:
This guy is so hilarious! He played Huell in Breaking Bad.

SweetBoyFriend:

You can laugh at him all you want but he has accomplished many things you cannot achieve in your lifetime

Lavell Maurice Crawford made 1 million dollars in his Can a brother get some love

Made millions of dollars on the movie Breaking bad

Performs all over the world

Has a mansion in hidden hills, calabasa, California, the same place Drake lives, a place you can't afford to buy a house in

Has a wife and two kids

His mother works for him and he pays her salaries

Tell me one thing you have successfully achieved in your life, I'm waiting

Etogist:
Abortion and Masturbation are two different things. The former aborts an already formed baby a human being, while the later is an expulsion of sperm cells.

Image123:
Thank you.

hardwerk:
so in your right senses you belief this video?

Dawdy:
Earth is flat. Watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zy_qg5EbJk

hardwerk:
bros are you naturally deluded and daft or are you just playing according to a script ?

Image123:
Yes boy, i thought before you asked the question, when i replied and after. Not sure you are. The love for wonders is not the same as doing wonders, you refused to think. Just like the love of money is not the same as having money. Someone might be neck deep in poverty and love money to an uncomfortable extent ready to do anything for 500naira. The love for wonders is putting wonders on a scale and priority it should not be. Again, doing wonders is different from an obsession, weakness, gullibility and love for wonders.

Image123:
Yes boy, you should know with all your dedication to talking
about and against the Bible. Why be ignorant about what you
criticize, no solid grasp.

Image123:
Yes boy, you should know with all your dedication to talking about and against the Bible. Why be ignorant about what you criticize, no solid grasp.

Image123:
You have itching ears that's why you chose to believe what you believe.

Image123:
There are enough warning and caveat in the Bible against falsehood, and the love for wonders. Christian faith is not founded on entertainment.

waking times: A study conducted by researchers led by Kathleen H. Corriveau of Boston University examined how religious exposure affects a child’s ability to distinguish between fact and fiction. They found that religious exposure at an early age has a surprising effect: it makes children less able to differentiate between reality and fantasy.

The researchers presented three different types of stories – religious, fantastical and realistic – to a group of 5 and 6-year olds. Religious children were divided into three groups: children exposed to the Christian religion either as churchgoers who attended public school, non-churchgoers who attended parochial school, or churchgoers who attended parochial school. The fourth group of children included non-churchgoing children who attended public school and had no exposure to religion in either church or school. The goal of the research was to find out if religious exposure would affect the child’s ability to identify if the lead character in each of the stories was real or make-believe.

The study found that children who attended church services and/or were enrolled in a parochial school had a much harder time differentiating between fact and fiction when compared to children of non-religious background. The study, published in the journal Cognitive Science, states:

“The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children’s differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories.”

The most surprising aspect of the research was how children’s upbringing affected how they judge the main character in fantastical stories. These stories included events, brought about by magic (in Study 1) or without reference to magic (in Study 2), that would ordinarily be impossible. Secular children were much more likely to identify the characters in these stories as make-believe, while children with religious exposure were more likely to identify them as real.

The researchers found that all children, regardless of their religious background, identified the main character of the realistic stories as real. When presented with religious stories, that included “ordinarily impossible events brought about by divine intervention,” children who attended church or were enrolled in a parochial school, or both, identified the lead character as real, which isn’t unexpected. On the other hand, children with no religious exposure judged the protagonist of the religious stories to be fictional.

The study’s authors suggest:

“…even if children have no natural inclination to believe in divine or superhuman agency, religious instruction can readily lead them to do so.”

“…religious teaching, especially exposure to miracle stories, leads children to a more generic receptivity toward the impossible, that is, a more wide-ranging acceptance that the impossible can happen in defiance of ordinary causal relations.”

The results of this study could lead one to think that religion, intentionally or not, takes advantage of the natural gullibility of children and molds them into believing in the power of divine characters presented in religious teachings and literature such as the Bible. About 28 percent of Americans who participated in the 2013-2014 Gallup survey believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and should be interpreted literally, while another 47 percent think that the Bible is inspired by the word of God. It is pretty clear that we are not born believers, but are shaped into believers depending on our exposure to religious teachings.

It is difficult to prove if growing up in a religious setting turns children into better people, and some studies have even shown that religious children are meaner and more punitive than secular children. The study by Corriveau et al. identifies an addition effect of religious teachings and how they create tremendous support for antiquated and fantastical stories by feeding them to children from an early age, giving the powers that be the ability to use religion for the justification of impractical or even malevolent acts.

The full study can be viewed here: http://www.bu.edu/learninglab/files/2012/05/Corriveau-Chen-Harris-in-press.pdf