₦airaland Forum

Vavavoom,

Most of Abiola Businesses died or were mere carcasses while he was alive. Even Concord Airlines did not survive when he was alive.

He hurriedly invested his loot in businesses he knew nothing about to give a farcade of "Good Businessman", but most of the businesses did not last 10years.

Deep Sight,

Since you are the only person who have the temperment  and patient to go the distance with Noetic, I want you to add this to your question;

Since no person from the East or west Knew of people living on the African Coast until Portuguese explorers were able to sail beyond " the sea of Darkness" which is present day Cape Verde", around1440 AD, How do you think the natives who had never seen or heard of a white man, accept the white man's saviour as his own? How can you expect him to accept a white man such as Abraham, Jacob and Isaac as his ancestors?.

The same applies to the Americas, as the Western Men did not even know that a continent almost 20 times larger than their own existed until Columbus sailed in 1492. Before then the American natives did not know white men exists, so how do you expect them to agree that white men were their ancestors and saviour,
instead of the Gods that have served them for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Then would it be fair or sensible for God to sent the Natives to hell for refusing the saviour of white men who came to steal and plunder their lands and kill of their people. Would that not be a very cruel, partial and unjust God.

Although by principle, i am a supporter of what june 12 stands for, I had never been a supporter of Abiola as a person. Abiola was a principal actor in institutionalizing corruption in Nigeria. Who is saying IBB is corrupt and Abiola is not even though they are blossom friends, it was corruption that brought them together. It was Abiola that financed the coup that ousted Buhari/Idiagbon government, Abiola benefited tremendously from the "friendship" of IBB during most part of his reign.  Abiola was never a successful business man, please name one business that Abiola set up that was a success. Was it Abiola Bookshop, Concord Newspaper, Abiola farms, etc. Please name one. What we were hearing as propaganda was that 95% of Abiola businesses were overseas, so where are they. Abiola successful business was Government business, if fact by the time of June 12 elections, the government was owing Abiola Billions of Naira for contracts allegedly executed but could not be sighted on ground.

I think a lot of posters on this forum are too young to know the ITT deal during the reign of Muritala, It was common knowledge of the day that Muritala was tricked into signing an over blown contract (addition of one zero) by Abiola, with help from Shehu Yaradua, OBJ  and some others. It was that singular contract that made Abiola and that was why Fela sang about it. It was not news then.

I admire Abiola for fighting and dieing for what he believed (he was elected president of Nigeria - free and square), but that does not make him a saint.

Deep sight,

I appreciate you style of writing and your vast knowledge, it shows you have read extensively and deeply. Your introductory style is strikingly similar to Lobsang Rampa. I suspect he has some influence on your views and writing style, please correct me if i am wrong. I used to be a fan until i found so many inconsistencies in his postulations.

Anyway i think you will make a good author.

@ Poster,

Are you saying there was no rainbow prior to Noah's flood? Or there was no rain before the flood? or even rains before the flood did not produce any rainbow?. Please explain further.

noetic15:
Same old wirinet. . . . .always running round in circles.

1. u still have not told me how the plants came into existence? . . ,  .if u can answer this, then we can assume that all plants died during the flood and then find out how come we have plants today.

2. does ALL rain water contain salt? . . . . NO. . . . .could a saltless water/flood have killed the plants? . . .yes. . ,  . do plants grow sporadically?. . . . ,  YES YES YES

Senseless arguments, 

This thread is not about how plant came into existence but about the possibility of the Noah's story being true.  If the story did not make provision for plants that exists today, that is an evidence that the story is not true.

Yes rain water does not contain salt and yes saltless water will kill most plants, so what is your argument. What do you mean by plants growing sporadically, you mean they spring up from nothing? Please explain.

Furthermore where did the extra water that flooded the whole earth a few thousand meters above see level come from? The amount of water that is on earth is constant, and what happens in terms of rain is that water is evaporated from the oceans and deposited on land as rain. To increase the sea level by that account to cover mountains would require water from outer space. And then the increased water will never return but change our sea level for ever unless it was pumped back into space.

As was mentioned earlier, it would have been easier and more cost effective for God to just have decreed everything but Noah and family out of existence and recreated them again a day after. Afterall he created the universe and all that it contained in 6 days by decrees.

noetic15:
a. how did the plants come into existence in the first place?

b. does ALL rain water contain salt?

The same old Noetic we know, spewing ignorance, insults, one liners and anything his fingers can type, just to defend his untenable dogmatic position.

So you do not know that majority, (over 90%) of the water on earth is Salt water, and that salt water covers about 70% of the earth's surface. So if the surface of the whole earth should be covered by water, you expect it to be fresh water?

Please always think before you hit the reply button

39, and still a virgin? wow,

You need to get pragmatic and do something before it is too late. You should realize your biological clock is ticking fast and your shelf life is 11 years give and take a couple of years. If you do not want a sarah-like miracle ( and there had been very few since sarah). You better dump start doing what a woman is built for.

I just must tell you that practically, men are not looking for virgins any more, they are looking for a suitable companion who can make them remain indoors.

Can somebody tell me how the Plant kingdom survived the floods. Plant could not have survived the salt water as a result of a global flood. Noah would have needed to take the seed of every seeding plant and a sample of every seedless plant.

Or maybe God recreated all the plants.

Pastor, i tend to agree with you 90% that

How do you know what the Right thing is?  It is written in your heart. and it accessed through the Spirit.   It cannot be codified into laws and ethical systems.  Such Laws and ethics might help to point you to what is within but they are not it.  Quite possibly they can also become a stumbling block and actually block you from accessing what is within due to an excessive fixation on the Law.  eg.  Parzival's failure to ask Amfortas about his wound because his uncle had given him strict rules not to ask personal questions.

But do you agree with me that the two world religions - Christianity and Islam as interpreted today had killed the the ability to know what the right thing is. It has effectively killed the conscience, by postulating that you can escape the guilt of doing the wrong thing by a simple proclamation, maybe Asking Jesus to forgive one his sins or shouting Allah u Bakar,. The conscience becomes clear of guilt to commit another wrong again, and the cycle goes on and on. That is why i feel adherents of the two religions engage in  more wrong doing than any other beliefs, including atheists. They are taught another person takes the responsibility for their individual sins.

I find this teaching destructive to the human race.

Tell me what you think

Deep Sight:
This is very well said, and i am already aware that it is also the view point of Krayola.

But two things need to be noted.

  1. The creation of a Child-Board does NOT restrict freedom of speech, because everybody can post topics still. It only ensures that THOSE who want to fellowship without being heckled or irritated can do so in peace. For the skeptic, he remains free to post whatever he likes in the general section. Why must we insist on a Noetic going over to the Muslim Board to harras them unduly? Cant he harras them in the open section

 2. If the Muslims have people who are intolerant, the truth is there are also some fanatically intolerant christians, and they, just like the muslims, deserve to have their peace if needed. Importantly, this is not about intolerance, but about the right of some people to have an e-fellowship without being heckled. Again, skeptics are free to post anything in the general section.

In a multireligious nation with two predominant religions, it can never be justified to have a Child-Board for one religion and not have one for the other.

The keyword is not child boards or sub-forums, but topics. In a general religious forum, you post and participate in topics that catches your interest. If you gate crash in a topic with irrelevant posts, you will simply be ignored like a pest, as is done with most of Abuzola's off-topic spam posts. I think it is better for every one to be in the same room but choose topics and persons that meet our fancy. For example there is an e-fellowship topic that had been running for a very long time time, you will find that most atheist and Muslims will avoid posting there. Most born-agains post there undisturbed.

Muslim child-Board could be justified for two reasons;

First, as i stated earlier Muslims are very very intolerant and take their religion as a matter of life and death, so it is better for us all to have them have a sub forum of their own, or would you like a fatwa proclaimed against you.

Second, as far as Nairaland and infact cyberspace is concerned Muslims are a minority and the educated (non Boko Haram) ones are a minority of a minority. If they try mixing things up with the highly educated and exposed christians who form the Majority of members on Nairaland, they would be overwhelmed and that would discourage them from participating in Nairaland at all.

Thirdly, the Muslims are more cohesive than the Christians, if you want Sub-forums for Christianity, then you will have to provide for Catholic, Redeem, Winners, Christ Embassy, Chosen, Cele, Jehova Withness, Anglican, Synagogue, and all the other hundreds of denominations.

To me i like the way the religious section of Nairaland is being run. If you segment and segregate the sections into childboards and sub-childboards, you will kill the very essence of Nairalland that makes it so popular.

People should learn to live with criticism of ones ideas and faiths, we should learn to argue our belief against the beliefs of others. That would make us see the other persons point of view and make us learn to tolerate other people's religion in real life.

You people should learn that the world had left autocracy and embrace democracy, and the main tenant of democracy is Freedom of expression and association. If you advocate for restricting and segregating religious opinions, then you are also advocating for physical segregation of people based on religious views. You should as well advocate for Christian only schools and universities, where other religious faithfuls are shut out. You can then extend it to political views, sexist views, and a whole lot more.

Yes you get the occasional Abuzola and Noetic, that part of life, we have to learn to accommodate them, just like we have to accommodate an errant family member. I think the moderators is managing them as much as they can, besides they bring their own flavour into the mix.

I think a child board was provided for the Muslims because they are much more intolerant to criticism. The ones who could stomach criticisms like Abuzola find the general thread more exiting and spends more time there.  The ones that gets a fit if Mohammad or Allah is insulted restricts himself to the muslim board.

We are living in a religious global village  now (except Iran and a few Muslim states), learn to live in it.

at least from this story we can see that heaven is not a spiritual realm as propounded by new testament writers but was a physical place above the clouds where God resides, according to old testament writers.

Why won't prostitutes pay tithes and the representatives of the Christian god (pastors) receive it. After all no pastor had ever asked for the source of income of the tithe payers. Their followers pay tithes to ensure and increase in business ( no matter the type of business). In the tithing world, prostitutes are the saints, we have armed robbers, extortionists, corrupt public servants, drug barons, 419's aka yahoo yahoo boys, and the rest of them all paying tithes.

A cousin who was engaged in the oldest profession came to live with us once (about 10 yrs ago). Every evening before setting out to business, should should pray and shout "robocatca, remamakatabosa, and all the likes for a full one hour, disturbing our ears and peace every evening. i  am sure she was a faithful tither because she attends all the Night vigils, mid week service and all other programmes. I guessed the tithing worked because she was catching one white man after another. She was dealing in dollars.

It is a pity that most people including some so called scientist do not understand how science works. You cannot say that the theory( let me use Laws) of gravity is flawed. It is not flawed!. You can say Newtons Law of gravity is incomplete, but you can never say it is flawed. In science you must specify the conditions under which your observations and and data is obtained. Newton was dealing with billiard balls and objects with very low velocity, and his Laws hold till today for all objects on earth within those range of size and velocity. Till today if you want to design a car, a plane or a space shuttle you use Newtons laws. If you want to predict the motions of the planets newtons laws are accurate to 99.9999%. Newton did not observe objects traveling close to the speed of light, and definitely he did not observe neutron stars and black holes.

Einsteins on the other hand was observing objects traveling at the speed of light and he was observing massive and very dense objects in space. So he had to modify Newtons laws to accommodate the new data and newtons laws break down at those velocities and densities.

Another good example is Dalton Atomic theory. Dalton was observing simple elements and not heavy nuclei of radioactive elements. And Dalton laws is still valid till today. Atoms still behave like balls possessing whole numbers, that is why one atom of hydrogen would not react with half of oxygen. You chemical equations still follows Daltons Laws, but if you get to uranium then the law changes.

Science works by making provisions for additional data, they do not make their inferences based on hunches, inspirations or revelations.

O.K, lets agree to disagree on the topic, but i need to point out one correction to your statement below;

viaro:
I could let you hold your own personal belief for yourself - I have no problem with that atheistic belief. I'm not going to stir your nest by asking you questions directly (lest I quicken your ire); but if the universe was "uncreated", I guess we would have to rewrite reference books that peg an age of the universe (anywhere between 4 billion to 6 billion YA). As far back as one can fathom for the age of the universe, it would not be sound for me to hold the view that the universe is "uncreated".

The reference books you refer to did not exactly say that the universe was created at any particular instance of time, what it said was that the universe was already existing but was without space, meaning all the universe was concentrated in a zero dimensional space. And without space you cannot have time. It was from this universe that the present universe consisting of matter/energy, space and time was created at about 12 billion years ago, and some scientists estimate that the universe would stop expanding due to its gravity and contract back to the crunch it began with in another 38 billion years or so.

Now if Theists say that their God is the force that created the present universe and it had always existed, then we would be saying the same thing. But if they tell me that their creator god is one Yahweh, Allah, Pharaoh, Jesus, Zeus, Caesar, other ancient king like personalities with all human attributes. Then i will have to vehemently disagree.

Peace!

viaro:
That's a nice way to start off a discussion, ain't it?
But let me assure you: I'm not being dishonest at all. What your problem is can be easily solved: you're simply too busy pointing fingers at others and looking elsewhere.

Certain dogmas - as what? Me? Where? I do hope you have your wires in place? WHERE did I postulate that a creator must have created THE Creator? Did I tie that on the neck of any atheist? I have several times noted that such a proposition does not fall within the purview of theism - and I stood out for why that could not be. If you hold that the contraption is by necessity your worry, then deal with it. Since it is not mine, why should I answer your roll-call?

Another way os saying that is: you have nothing intelligent to put forward. All the same, I'll keep my fingers crossed.

I know what atheism is - don't start to even pretend you have a clue. Also, it is good to note the highlight in yours. By extension, THEISTS do not hold a claim of "a creator for THE Creator". That is why the question about "who created the creator" does not arise in the first place since THEISTS did not make that claim. For an atheist to adduce that a creator must have created the Creator is to assume what is not in the domain of theism (at least, I speak for myself). If a theist had postulated that a creator created THE Creator, then the atheist would be spot on to ask: "who created the Creator" - and then the theirst should address that question. Since it is not the claim of a theist, what is the grounds for the atheist profeering a question that he himself does not even know how to think through?

Again, that is not my claim - so enjoy your hideous duplcity. What have I said about there being 3 or 4 ceators - did I say that is what exists? Was that my claim as a theist? You did not carefully weigh issues before venturing into your mud-slinging drama. Could you not have discussed issues more reasonably instead?

I did not hold a "3 or 4"-creator having created THE Creator hypothesis. The Trinity does not superimpose your dramatic twist up there, because even as you described it, there's nothing to show that one creator had created the other, which then led to the third creator bbeing created by the other two. Rather, what you described is simply pointing to the creation - not the Creator. The 3 or 4 hypothesis that you desperately are trying to resolve for your drama does not even begin to scratch the surface for you.

Why i accuse you of being dishonest is because you keep shifting the goal post. You keep vacillating between arguments and subjects.

First the subject matter was not whether theists postulate that there must be a creator for the creator. The argument is Theist claims that everything in the universe must have been created by a creator, and the next logical question would be "how did the creator come into existence?" The theist want us to accept that an uncreated being created the universe while the Atheist believe that an uncreated universe is still in the process of formation and in the process creating new forms and objects.

Also the subject matter was never whether three or four Gods created the creator, no body brought up that argument. The subject matter was where there were 3 or 4 gods at the beginning creating the universe together or only one doing the creating while the others watched. Nobody said one God created the other Gods. (although that can me found in other mythologies). Because the Christian Bible clearly states the presence of other gods during creation.

viaro:
I don't make claims as highlighted in yours. But if the atheist believes that a creator must have created THE Creator, would it not be genial for the same atheist to tell us how that is so?

You are being very dishonest, you try to tie in certain dogma to atheists and then base most of your arguments on your preconceived assertions. i am not even in the mood to respond, but i will all the same.

You said "Since an atheist believes there could be a 'creator' who creator THE Creator, he needs to show others who that 'creator' could be - both by necessity and validation. Failing to do so only presents the enquirer as both mischievous and unintelligent."

First Atheists do not believe there could be a creator for the creator, they do not even believe in a creator. Please check the meaning of Atheism. It is in response to arguments that the universe must have a creator that the atheists asks, who created the creator.

About there being three or four creators, you are also dishonest there. The Christian religion is still in confusion where there was one creator in the beginning or there were multiple (most Christians say there were three - The Father, the son and the holy spirit.) They say one God (Father) thought of the creation and used the word (son) and the holy spirit manifested the creations. So the 3 or 4 Gods hypothesis is a theist one and not postulated by atheists.

Pastor, you too much.

I think you should go into teaching Philosophy or something related. You would contribute a lot to reducing ignorance in the world. Please do not even consider leaving NL. You have to learn to take the good with the bad and the ugly.

See linguistic gymnastics, you theists are something else.

When the Atheist say the universe came out of nothing, the theists would say "you are senseless, how can the universe as complex as it is with all the complex life forms comes out of nothing. It is evident that everything was created by a highly intelligent and infinitely complex creator".

Then the atheist asks please tell me how this creator came to be? who created this creator? and the theist answers, "you are very stupid for asking that question, how can an infinitely complex and and powerful creator be created. Can't you understand that he or it have always existed and not in need of any creator? How can a creator have a creator? In fact all atheists are stupid and foolish".

The atheist scratches his head  

Christianity give a person a delusion that he is greater than great men, both today and in the past, like Ghandi, Dalai Lama, Mandala, Mother Teresa, Einstein, etc ., not because he has done anything to contribute to the developments of mankind, but because he believes in one stupid assertion brought to him by his conquerors to enslave his mind to stop him from thinking straight. Meanwhile while his conquerors had move on to better things and better purpose of life, my ignorant, psychologically and economically abused brothers are still holding on to unrealistic beliefs. My people have become more fanatical that the originators of the religions. Both christianity and islam. It is a good think Jews shut their religion against us. Or we would have claimed their religions more than them.

KunleOshob:
I am sure what you mean is the "Law of Gravity" gravitational force is a well established and proven law unlike evolution which is merely a theory and remains unproven to date. i am sure you know the difference btw laws and theories in science.

Kunle, what is the theory of gravity and what is the law of gravity. Please explain the two to me. You chose the most difficult theory of physics to prove your point. A common theory of evolution is much more accepted in science than a common law of gravity. Till today we do not know what gravity is and what causes it. Even the exact measurements and how to measure it is controversial.

The problems of not being able to distinguish between metaphors and literal descriptions in the Bible was not created by me but by the Christians themselves, who want us to take every verse in the Bible literally. I also understand most verses of the bible has a lot of literal value as they are brilliant works of literature just like the Odyssey and the illiad. But the Christians especially the pentecostal Variety wants us to take every prose and verse literally. Thereby wanting us to believe that a man survived inside the stomach of a whale for 3 days.

haba Manmustwac, the poster did not see me as a candidate for either heaven or hell, so wish one be yer own. Abi you be messenger of Satan. You get another list?. So lef me alone. When i finish here, i don finish. No heaven or hell. To me both are the same thing ( i think hell is even better- at least Satan does not require you to sing and clap yourself sore day in day out till eternity. You only have to cope with the heat. Who knows we might evolve internal cooling systems after living there for a couple of million years  .

I had wanted to open a thread about this Jesus (and Peter) walking on water Miracle. I wanted to ask that why is it that of all the miracles that Jesus was said to have performed, it is this one that have defied repetition. Our Miracle working pastor had claimed to heal the deaf and blind, heal leprosy, cure AIDS, cancer in infact cure all illnesses, Even some said they had raised a dead man from the grave. But why had none claimed to have walked on water? after all they can perform all miracles Jesus performed - with enough faith of course.

The walking on Water miracle is actually Flying in the Air miracles, Because if you can defy gravity to the point that only your the sole of your feet are touching the water surface undisturbed by the undulating waves, then you are flying over water and not walking on water.

So i am waiting!!!!

@ Deep Site,

Sorry i could not complete my post last night, my times expires at 9:00pm.

Now lets analyse your response.

Deep Sight:
I hope you realise you have neither addressed what i rasied nor made any point.

Why the hell are people so black and white? ? ? ? ?

Once somebody sees somethings of value and interest in a compound book such as the bible, such a person must be a fire-breathing-born-again christian-in-disguise? ? ? ? ? Good grief! ! !

I have learnt something in life: nothing is ever as bad as people claim it to be. And nothing is ever as good as people claim it to be.

Things are not black and white!

Thus, there are illogicalities in the Bible just as surely as there are things to wonder at. As well as useful bits of history.

The persons (like you atheist lot) who seek to state that there is nothing worthwhile in the bible or quoran are just as off-the-mark as the persons who seek to state that there is nothing wrong in these books!

Get it? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Please what are your points?

That God spoke to Job And taught him astronomy and cosmology?

Ok lets analyze this Job and how he saw the world around him.

Who was Job, lets get our description from the Bible as that is our only source.

1There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

2And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.

3His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.

Job according to these passages was a very wealthy herdsman, the writer of the passage thinks he is the richest man in the east (middle east), and he has 10 children.

Now the story did not claim it was written by Job, but it was written about Job by another person. So what was written was the unknown author's perspective and not Job's.  I wander why Christians always associate authorship with the characters of a story.

So what are the Author's perspectives of Nature?

Now lets take a look at Job chapter 38

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:
2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel
       with words without knowledge?

So according to the author of  Job, god talks to him through storms (thunder i guess). Job thought thunder was a god voice talking to certain people.

4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
       Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
       Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its footings set,
       or who laid its cornerstone-

The author of Job thought the earth was built the way you build a house, complete with foundation footings and cornerstone.

7 while the morning stars sang together
       and all the angels shouted for joy?

The morning stars were the planet Venus and Mercury by ancient Greek thought, because these stars (planets) were sometimes visible  just before dawn, at other times they are visible just before dusk, then they are known as evening star. This shows Job had Greek influence.

13 that it might take the earth by the edges
       and shake the wicked out of it?

Now this is the same Job you claimed knew the earth was spherical talking about the earth having edges. Wow Jobs Sphere has edges.

18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
       Tell me, if you know all this.

Yes i can comprehend the expanses of the earth, it shows that the person that wrote Job could not comprehend the earth beyond the middle east and maybe southern Europe.

19 "What is the way to the abode of light?
       And where does darkness reside?

20 Can you take them to their places?
       Do you know the paths to their dwellings?

Darkness residing somewhere?, Job did not know that darkness is simply the absence of light.

22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
       or seen the storehouses of the hail,

Snow and hail having storehouses? That means Job has no idea where snow or hail comes from

31Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

32Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

Job's author was highly influenced by greek mythology .

To to your verse; He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing - Job 26.7.

Please tell me how this can be translated to mean the earths motion in space. What does the" he stretches out of the North mean? North of where?.

you are being very dishonest by implying that "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers" is telling us that the earth is spherical.  I am sure this statement is from the perspective of a sailor who sees a circle around him at see. Are you also then implying that some God seats physically above the earth, because  that is what this author believes.

Please Deep Site convert to Christianity so we can understand your positions, stop tittering on the border.

Deep Sight:
Mantraa -

You have stated that the questions asked in the book of Job are an example of the writer's ignorance of the forces of nature. You shame yourself. Check out the following:

In ancient times it was generally believed that the earth was flat. It was also believed that it was supported by something or the other beneath its flat surface. Many myths evolved about the things that were supporting it.

However without any geological, astronomical or cosmological knowledge, Job wrote:

He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing - Job 26.7.

How did he know that the earth hangs on nothing, so to speak?

The shape of the Earh.

Despite contrary assertions, the fact of a spherical earth was clearly proclaimed in the Bible by the prophet Isaiah nearly twenty-eight centuries ago ,  "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers [etc.]" Isaiah 40:22 (NKJ). When Isaiah wrote this verse he used the Hebrew word "khug" to describe the shape of the earth. Although this word is commonly translated into the English word "circle," the literal meaning of this word is "a sphere."

How did the prophet know that the earth was a sphere? Science did not know this until about 20 centuries later?

I would be highly interested in seeing you attempt to explain these away: but i would advise you not to be too desperate to come up with an unlikely explanation.

Would you like to take back your words about Job merely showing ignorance?

Because i am certain that if you atheists lived in those times, just like every body else, you would have believed the earth to be flat, and not known that it was hanging more or less, on nothing. - The prophets would clearly have been miles ahead of you. So please, give some respect.

You might therefore want to see these words in a different light -

36 Who endowed the heart with wisdom
       or gave understanding to the mind [h] ?

I share the same view with mazaje, if you believe in the Biblical God, why not proclaim your self a Christian?, why the semantics of calling yourself a deist.  So that at least we will know your point of view when discussing with you.

I am disappointed at your reference to biblical verses quoted by you refering to the earth suspended in nothing and the circle of the earth. If such statements was coming from Mr Olaadegun or Davidylan i would have understood but from you that claims to have sufficient knowledge of astronomy, it is a shame.

If you job fully instead of pick and chose as employed by Christians, you will see that he got so many things wrong. But you people (Christians) would only highlight verses that have the slightest correlation with scientific facts of today.

The so many absurd things of the bible would not be mentioned by you, like the sun standing still for three days, and so many others.

The one that annoys me most is the fact that Africans find the white man, with white skin, features, clothes, etc, as objects of worship and reverence. All the statues and images of objects we worship, be it Jesus, Mary or the saints are all white. You would have though that our African Traditional Religions would be immune from this colo-mentality. But in my research, I had gone to a few Babalawo shrines and you will be surprised, that there is always an ugly looking white (sometimes red) skinned doll at the centre of the alter. You will see it even in our home movies.

Is there some power associated with white skin.

our children play with dolls of white skin.

Is the black skin really evil?

noetic15:
@ wirinet

1. I STRONGLY disagree with your notion that destinity is what a person makes of it,  . . .for obvious reasons

a. Have u ever put into consideration the billions of people who have no say in their destiny. . . including u? . . .did u have a say in where u were born? how and when u were born? did u have a say in the choice of your parents, nationality, race or heritage?
b. how about the millions of war victims, who are traumatised by the policies of a group of men? WWI, WWII and other wars? how about the victims of ridiculous economic policies in zimbabwe, nigeria and other parts of the world? do these people have a say in their destinies?

My point is that, by choice none of these victims would love to be born in Africa or impoverished nations, no one would choose to live in dehumanising and inhuman societies with devilish policies. Destiny is far bigger than u think of.

I do concede that a man's actions or inactions have a say in what he makes of his life, but the most potent decisions in a man's life were not taken by him.
No man  chose a. where he was born
b. who his parents would be
c. how he would be born
d. when he would be born
e. the family, race, country of birth.
If a man has no say over these things, it is pertinent to state that whoever decides these things still has a bigger say in the life of man.

Yes i do know that destiny is far more complex and bigger than i stated. This is a post on what life means to an atheist and not about destiny, that was why i just mention my simplistic view of destiny. But in recognition of the complex nature of destiny was why i made the following statement

I believe your destiny is what ever you want it to be within educational, social, physical, medical, gender, etc. limits.

But if i am to elaborate a little further i would say the effect of destiny on individuals is similar to the effect of gravity on objects in space. The gravity of all celestial bodies influence each other and the closer their proximity the greater influence they exert on each other (sometimes you must factor in their relative sizes too). For example the earth is mainly influenced by the gravity of the sun and hence the destiny of the earth is to go around the sun through out its life (it was born by the sun anyway). but the moon also in very close proximity to the earth exerts a significant influence on the earth's destiny. Also other bodies that exert some influence on the earth are, in order of importance ; Venus, Mars, Jupiter and the rest of the planets. Others of minute influences still, are; the other solar systems in our galaxy, other galaxies and galaxy clusters.

In comparism with an individual, our parents naturally would exert the greatest influence on our destinies ( since also they gave birth to us), then comes other close family members like brothers, sisters, uncles aunt and cousins. Then comes more distant people like friends, classmates, acquaintances and colleagues. The only difference of humans to celestial bodies is that we can decide at some point to change the course of our destinies and redirect it.

So a person born in a war torn society or a poverty stricken community has a natural course of destiny attached to his movement through his life, but most often we find such person employing enough force (determination) and with the help of other bodies (people) changing the course of his pre-destined destiny and becoming a very huge success. Carry out a survey of the most successful people in the world today (including Nigeria), you will find out that they fall within this class. only few people with a well laid out and rosy destiny rarely make it.

I hope you have an idea of my definition of destiny. So I still say at the end of the day we ( our will) exert the greatest influence on our individual (and even collective) destinies.

noetic15:
2. I also disagree with your postulation that God has to be seen before He can be remembered.

your notion of God as a distant non-existent person is not the same for many others. Some have a close inter-personal relationship with Him. so when u call for a visual experience like Thomas did in the bible. . .others are merely content with prophecy, visions, revelations, inspirations, miracles or manifestations of the spirit to serve as their basis of belief in God.
This fact of their might be unacceptable to u. . .but does not proof them wrong.

before you remember something, such a thing would have been perceived before.

I do not have any notion of God as a distant non-existent person, i do not have the notion of God being a person at all - male or female. I have no notion of God.

My favourite character in the new testament was Thomas, he has a scientific mind. How can you tell me someone rose from the dead and expect me to believe it without any evidence. He got the evidence he needed and believed. I am waiting for my own evidence.

about the others that believed a story or stories based on hearsay (the miracles were all hearsay as no original eyewitness recorded the events) , visions, revelations, inspirations. Vision, revelations, inspirations and dreams are often a reflection of our beliefs, aspirations, expectations, fears, etc. that is why a Muslim would have visions of Jinns, a catholic would have visions of Mary and the Ifa priest would have visions from Sango. About prophesies, i seem to concur with Thomas paigne who said Prophet and prophesies are words that have changed meaning. In ancient times the real meaning of a prophet was Poet and his Poetry was termed Prophesy, and you had a poet attached to kings and priests as they are the only ones rich enough to afford them. Anyway that is an argument for another day.

noetic15:
3. Its ironical that u mention ignorance. We need to largely define what ignorance means. Cos to u, I am ignorant simply because I fail to see things from your world view. I disagree.
your world view is a very biased and dogmatic one. There has been no concrete reason to support your dogmatic beliefs about the non-existence of God, so it is impossible to see things from an atheistic point of view. . .as such a non-atheist CANNOT be considered ignorant in this context.

I know i sound dogmatic in my labeling of theists ignorant. That is because most theist i come in contact with has no basis of their own for their beliefs, especially Muslims and Christians. If you asked them why you believe in Christ or God? what is God? even when did God create the world or even what is the meaning of the word Bible and when was it compiled and by whom. You will be surprised most  Christians are ignorant of even Christianity. A favourite question i love asking Christians is What is the meaning of Amen and Halleluyah, which they shout everyday of their lives. Only very few are able to provide answers.

I respect highly theists like Pastor AIO, he knows the basis of his Christianity.

No i never run!

I was impressed with your last response, it contained valid and reasonable arguments. I will respond later as i am busy right now.

Are you the same Noetic I know or an imposer?

muhsin:
Any way, did you creat yourself?

No i did not create myself. What of you did you create yourself? if not what created you? when and why?. Did you ask to be created or was forcefully created for a purpose you have no say in?

Your answers would be appreciated.

MyJoe:
I believe God does not intervene in human affairs because I have take a closer look at things and found this to be so. I strongly suspect that God created the world in the beginning, put perfect laws in place to govern it, and left it - not because he does not care but because the laws are sufficient to govern it. In the physical realm the world governed by the laws described in physics. In the spiritual realm it is governed by what they call Karma in the East.
When you die, you come back. The life you live now will likely determine the amount of difficulties you will face in the next life. If you were born into circumstances that afforded you a lot of comfort and happiness, it is likely because you deserve it. Same goes for those who experience suffering. If you close your palms to your fellow man, you may have nothing in your next life. If you share your last, you will have abundance so that you can continue the good work. If you are wicked, you will come back where you will suffer much difficulties so as to learn power is not your sole right. Many, on learning the truth about reincarnation, realise that their life encounters may be the result of Karma, accept it and try to move on - this is known as "meeting your Karma".
But the above should not be taken too literally to mean that someone who is born into wealth is being rewarded and someone who is born poor, blind or sickly is being punished. Sometimes it is all meant to teach you a lesson. It may be that you are poor and you think all rich people are wicked. You may be born rich to show you that is not so and to give you the chance to use money well. For example, I have a friend who has never tasted alcohol in his life. He said he had an uncle whose life was ruined by alcohol. Now, it is possible he was a drunk in his last incarnation and was sent there so he may learn early on in life.
My observation is that prayer changes nothing, except, sometimes, the person praying. God does not intervene. Religious people can afford to wicked to their fellow man because they claim to love God whom they can't see. If only they know that all God requires is that they love their fellow man.
This makes sense TO ME much more than the heaven taught by the Abrahamic faiths.

You are on the right path to self discovery (call it buddhahood for want of a better word), we have all been there. It takes a great leap to see the fallacies of the Abrahamic religions we had been forced to believe in since childhood. Keep on searching, don't relent, you will slowly get the full meaning and purpose of existence.