₦airaland Forum

@ Noetic
It is beyond belief you do not know the meaning of the word source. Here are some definitions to help you out;

beginning: the place where something begins, where it springs into being; "the Italian beginning of the Renaissance"; "Jupiter was the origin of ,

Source - http://www.google.com.ng/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Z4M&defl=en&q=define:source&ei=OF5QSqOSC8WYtgfPpemfBA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

person, place or thing from which something comes or is acquired

A source is where something originates from. It is not and can never be a transmitter of the thing in question. If you give a thing to be passed on to another person and then passes to another person ad infinitum, no other person along the chain can claim the source of that thing but you.

What is wrong with the statement i made;

You also do not know that the sun makes its own light, it does so by a process know as nuclear fission.

You said "Not even a primary school child should say this", yes you are worse than a primary school child. Who does not know that the moon sometimes is not even present in the night sky? sometimes it follows the sun for more than 24hrs of a complete day, then the moon is not in the night sky even for one hour.  It is only when it move to the other side that it stays in the night sky for 12 hours, that is when you have a full moon. Even a toddler is aware that the moon rises an hour later ever night and eventually it will rise just before dawn.

Are you that ignorant that the moon is not always present in the night sky?
Let me teach you a bit on how to exercise your brains scientifically;
Go out every evening say around 8:00pm and mark the position of the moon every night for 28 days. You will learn that the sun moves nearer the sun every day until it moves exactly with the sun, and in such times the moon is not present in the night sky.

Please explain what you mean by the moon ruling over the night, because i think you have a problem with understanding English definitions of words.

I sometimes hate pursuing a scientific argument with you because you show absolute ignorance of science and ready defend your ignorance to irrational heights. You are not even disposed to reading the argument and deciphering its meaning before arguing. You then beat your chest and repeat your motto "I Have Been Able To Show" or I have Been Able To prove" this and that.

@ Noetic
It is beyond belief you do not know the meaning of the word source. Here are some definitions to help you out;

beginning: the place where something begins, where it springs into being; "the Italian beginning of the Renaissance"; "Jupiter was the origin of ,

Source - http://www.google.com.ng/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Z4M&defl=en&q=define:source&ei=OF5QSqOSC8WYtgfPpemfBA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

person, place or thing from which something comes or is acquired

A source is where something originates from. It is not and can never be a transmitter of the thing in question. If you give a thing to be passed on to another person and then passes to another person ad infinitum, no other person along the chain can claim the source of that thing but you.

What is wrong with the statement i made;
[quote]You also do not know that the sun makes its own light, it does so by a process know as nuclear fission.

You said "Not even a primary school child should say this", yes you are worse than a primary school child. Who does not know that the moon sometimes is not even present in the night sky? sometimes it follows the sun for more than 24hrs of a complete day, then the moon is not in the night sky even for one hour. It is only when it move to the other side that it stays in the night sky for 12 hours, that is when you have a full moon. Even a toddler is aware that the moon rises an hour later ever night and eventually it will rise just before dawn.

Are you that ignorant that the moon is not always present in the night sky?
Let me teach you a bit on how to exercise your brains scientifically;
Go out every evening say around 8:00pm and mark the position of the moon every night for 28 days. You will learn that the sun moves nearer the sun every day until it moves exactly with the sun, and in such times the moon is not present in the night sky.

Please explain what you mean by the moon ruling over the night, because i think you have a problem with understanding English definitions of words.

I sometimes hate pursuing a scientific argument with you because you show absolute ignorance of science and ready defend your ignorance to irrational heights. You are not even disposed to reading the argument and deciphering its meaning before arguing. You then beat your chest and repeat your motto "I Have Been Able To Show" or I have Been Able To prove" this and that.

[/quote]

The sun gives the moon its light, as such the moon reflects the light it obtains from the sun, the moon is therefore a [b]source [/b]of LIGHT.

Not even a primary school child should say this. Does the moon not rule over the night?

Noetic is a worse illiterate than i imagined, the nomadic shepherds who wrote Genesis had more scientific knowledge than him.

How can a person living in the 21st century make those above assertions and many more i do not have time to go into.

Is Noetic saying he does not understand the meaning of the word source? Is he saying he does not understand that the sun is the source of all the light we visualize objects with with ( except the stars). Every thing we see is as a result of reflected light from the sun including you and the moon and planets.

You also do not know that the sun makes its own light, it does so by a process know as nuclear fission.

You said "Not even a primary school child should say this", yes you are worse than a primary school child. Who does not know that the moon sometimes is not even present in the night sky? sometimes it follows the sun for more than 24hrs of a complete day, then the moon is not in the night sky even for one hour. It is only when it move to the other side that it stays in the night sky for 12 hours, that is when you have a full moon. Even a toddler is aware that the moon rises an hour later ever night and eventually it will rise just before dawn.

Go back to nursery school.

The term " falling under anointing" did not start from the new style of Christianity ( Pentecostalism), we africans had been doing it for hundreds of years if not thousands, it is an inherent part of our African religious practices. You either work your self into a trance by dancing, repetitive chants or vigorous dances until you lose all sense of being. Also the state can be induced by hypnotism, where by you submit your will completely to that of the hypnotist. It could be a professional hypnotist or a pastor, imam, guru, etc.

Now if you do not give in to the effects, you will never fall under anointing, even if the pastor pushes your head forcefully.

I no not understand what Christians gain after the "Anointing" apart from giving their whole life and possessions to God (or is it his representatives). Because you will see the same people rolling on the floor and speaking tongues week in, week out, without any change in their life or their situations.

Also the term "being in the Presence of God" is very strange. It connotes that there are places on the earth or is it in the universe that God is sometimes absent from and therefore is oblivious of what goes on there.

@poster,

It is refreshing that some people can go beyond the fear barrier and as ask real probing questions about what we are asked to believe. It is good sign that some minds are evolving.

it is funny how some people can ramble for hours about a simple question without even attempting to answer the question of " who is God". We are waiting for a physical description and all neotic2 can describe is his interpretation of his personal feeling about how the though of God makes him feel.

Davidylan also has not even provided his own physical description of God. He is trying to use the question to attack his obsession - Evolution. I stopped taking him serious as a scientist when he ask questions like "Why have all single cell bacteria not evolved into multicellular bacteria" or is it big animals like whales and elephant.

The physical description of God to me depends on who is doing the describing.

To a Yoruba - God is Olodumare, with Yoruba physical features looking after Yoruba people.
To the Jew - God Is Yahweh, with Jewish features, language and culture, to take care of Jewish interests.
To the Europeans and a very few Jews (before commercialization of Christianity), God is a Jewish man with Roman features, with a mixture of Jewish/Roman language and culture.
To the Indians, God is Indian, Brahma, Shiva, etc, with Indian features and value system. , The list goes on and on.

How Mary got pregnant without sperm? CLONING of course. Mary supplied both set of 23 pairs of chromosome. The only problem is the question of where Mary got the Y sex chromosome to become male, since his DNA contained only two XX chromosomes from Mary.

Maybe God contributed his own Y chromosome since God has XY, since he is male. That means any cell of Jesus would reveal the actual building block of of God (DNA), if it could be found.

Jesarmy,

What if you are not a seeker of salvation? What if you reject the offer of salvation and want to be left alone to live your live quietly until you die? What if you are not seeking selfish aggrandization and just interested in leaving the earth a better place whatever their beliefs?

Note: How is this thread a resource for genuine salvation seekers> have you said anything new, that genuine salvation seekers have not known for the last 1900 yrs or so.

God was created by the powerful elites in a society to control the populace and arrogate absolute power to themselves by claiming to be the spokesman for an all powerful and all conquering invisible ( to the masses anyway)god, or a spokesman of a spokesman of the god. The God is often a carbon copy of the society that crates it. The people are kept in check by offering a system of carrot and stick - fear and reward, for remaining loyal to the spokesman of the spokesman of the God. Sometimes a king that is able to acquire absolute power transforms to a god, or a reincarnation of god, or the only messenger of god. Finally the King will direct a holy book to be written by the few literate men available according to his dictates, and if one already exists will appoint scholars to re-translate  the holy book to meet his purpose and the holy book will be declared law.

Michael Jackson may be physically dead but his memory will remain with us for decades or even millennia  to come. Who know a religion might spring up to worship him 500yrs from now, he might be said to perform miracles by floating across floors without touching it, spinning around faster than a spinning top, and changed his race from black to white at will.

Of course the religionists, especially the Christian variant would happily say he cannot make Heaven, which is reserved for special people that shares their beliefs. It provides for them an euphoric sense of importance and self worth, even if their lives have no purpose and meaning to anybody, save probably their wives and children. It would make them feel more special than the most popular man in the universe - MICHAEL JACKSON.

Michael was not just a star, he was a SUPERNOVA, shining brighter than all the stars in the Galaxy, put together.

What surprises me is Davidylans apparent ignorance of the basic theory of Evolution, I can understand Olaadegun and Noetic because of their lack of science education, but how do you place Davidylan's ignorance since he claims to be a Biologist. Is the Basic Theory of Evolution not included in your course study or you did not bother to study it.

How can a Biologist as questions like "How come the bacteria had not become multicellular in all the billions of years of Evolution?" So you were not taught the driving force of evolution?. Evolution never said that all specie of all organisms must evolve at the same rate and the same time. Factors such as Environment, Food and adaptation plays crucial role in Evolution according to the theory. You should know that some organisms even some mammals had changed little in millions of years. A good example is the Blue Whale, it had remained virtually unchanged in 65 million years. It is the only mammal known to have lived with the dinosaurs. Even if you do not believe in the theory due to religious convictions you should at least grasp what it is about, so as not to disgrace yourself among your peers.

I think your Religious fervor is conflicting with your scientific training, I think you should change profession.

OLAADEGBU:
See what a black man who has been brainwashed by the evolutionary fantasies of his heroes that he cannot even see that they are cursing his ancestors. If someone was to denigrate your forefathers with abusive words that person would probably walk away with a black eye but here are some white racists who have brainwashed you into believing that your grandparents were at one time Mr. Fish and that they eventually became monkeys (ape-like creatures) before they gave birth to you and that the white race have evolved than the blacks and you are here accusing your black brethren of having a low IQ believing that you are more intellectually advanced than them. Even my ancestors, (not yours since you believe that they were fishes), had more sense to know of the existence of the creator God even though some of them might not know Him intimately.

As i have said the need to defend your faith makes you argue aimlessly, how can you allege that evolution theory was primary denegrate the black man? or that the black race is a member of another specie different from the white man. When did any evolution theory refer to my grand parents or even to my great²⁰ grand parents. You reasoning seem to be supporting the assumption that blacks have inferior IQ to whites or else how would you explain the facts that white had more sense to study nature and science and produce things that is beneficial to the whole world, your ancestors had only sense to know and worship Gods, both local and international, without making any beneficial contribution to themselves not to talk of others.

OLAADEGBU:
You can now see how silly it is for someone to claim that he is intelligent to believe in evolution, even our black African ancestors will not make this mistake. Evolutionism is intellectual suicide. It is an embarrassment on the human psyche, it is what can be rightly called as "intellectual genocide".

If Evolution is as stupid as you assert, then how come it had gained huge popularity since it was first proposed by Darwin, How come all the major universities in the world and almost all the professors of science in the world subscribe to it. If Evolution is intellectual genocide, then we would have no universities or scientists left in the world ouside theological universities.

How do you expect our ancestors to understand evolution when even you living in the 21st century do not have a clue as to what it means. What branch of science or sublect did our ancestors study.

OLAADEGBU:
Don't deceive yourself into thinking that evolutionism is science, if it is any thing at all it is bad science. Let me give you a scenario and see if you can answer me without the usual cop-out of the "I don't know" mantra. If every creature "evolved" as you want us to believe, without any Creator can you answer these pertinent questions. Take for instance the first bird. Was it male or female? Let's say it was a male. How did it produce offspring without a mate? If a female evolved, why did it evolve with differing reproductive organs? Did it evolve by chance, or did it evolve because it knew that it was needed by the male of the species? How did it know what needed to be evolved if its brain hadn't yet evolved? Did the bird breathe? Did it breathe before it developed lungs? How did it do this? Why did it evolve lungs if it was happily surviving without them? Did the bird have a mouth? How did it eat before it had evolved a mouth? Where did the mouth send the food before the stomach evolved? How did the bird have energy if it did not eat because it didn't yet have a mouth? How did the bird see what there was to eat before its eyes evolved?

The stupidity of your argument is only surpassed by the extent of your ignorance. To even give those questions attention is like giving attention to someone asking how the picture of a baby you are looking at suddenly became a grey haired old man standing before you now, so it was not possible for the baby and the old man to be the same.

Although that is your first attempt at actually using you reasoning power to ask questions on evolution outside your usual Google, cut and paste method. It was a woeful attempt, I can even bet you will not find that kind of question in any creationist site. Also I do not think any Evolutionist will attempt to answer a question as stupid as those you asked of evolution. It means you do not even understand the literary meaning of EVOLUTION, so start with a dictionary.

OLAADEGBU:
There you go again, bluffing and attacking the person instead of the issue at hand. Again I assert that evolutionism is not science, it is just intellectual genocide masquerading as science. It is true that I am neither a scientist nor a theologian but I know a scientists when I see one. In the thread on the Questions for atheists and evolutionists on post #166, where I refuted the reasons you gave for the origin of life I did not see you come back to lecture me. Real scientists like Noetic, Daviddylan, No2Atheism and the likes can attest to the fact that you evolutionists are con artists, trying to give the impression that you are rocket scientists when you are not so as to deceive others into swallowing your Darwinian doctrine of "goo to you via the zoo." A good place for you to learn is what is called proper science and not what you call the theory of evolution. Let me quote a British journalist and philosopher, Malcolm Muggeridge who said:

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

I hope you can now see how ridiculous evolutionism is perceived and how it cannot be equated with real science. I do not have to be a rocket scientist to realise that.

Just as it is highly irrational for an evolutionist (non scientist) to argue with a real scientist (biblical creationist) on science. A pilot is good at being a pilot and a musician is good at being a musician just as a con artist is good at being a hustler. You should know by now that evolutionism is a faith based on fantasy while biblical creationism is based on facts that support the Bible. Both are based on faith but my faith has a foundation which is Christ, the solid rock on which I stand and all other grounds are sinking grounds.

This is a quote from Charles Burckhalter of the Chabot Observatory;

"The study of the Book of Job and its comparison with the latest scientific discoveries has brought me to the matured conviction that the Bible is an inspired book and was written by the One who made the stars."

The rejection of the Bible's account of creation as given in the Book of Genesis is what I referred to earlier as intellectual genocide. This is because it has eradicated man's purpose of existence and left a whole generation with no certainty as to its beginning. You will rather the world's population believe your own version of how the universe, earth and life begun which gives birth to painful conjecture of human beginnings. You speak in speculation, the uncertain language of those who drift aimlessly across the endless sea of secular philosophy. Everyone has a choice of whose report to believe, the report of the Creator God as written in the Bible or the report of secular philosopy. As for me and my house we have received the report of the Lord who was an Eyewitness to the acts of His creation. Let the whole world be liars God will remain true to His Word. One with God is a majority and the people that lived during the antidulivian age will testify to that.

The Bible, on the other hand, deals only with truth and certainty. It talks of fact, reality and purpose for man's existence. The darkness of the raging sea of futility retreats where the lighthouse of Genesis begins.

Itis obvious you do not understand the meaning of the word science, so how do you know a scientist even if he is standing on your nose. Now wonder you rely on the words of others you believe are scientists, without understanding the topic in question. Also no wonder you call biblical creationists, scientists. Please explain the science behind biblical creation.

Please explain how the book of job compares with the lastest scientific discoveries. Which aspect of the book of job is science? is it the resurrection of his wife, children and animals?. I do not know where you get your stories from.
Please lay out the FACTS behind that support the biblical stories.

Well to me the Bible did not provide a reasonable purpose of existence, which is to be a servant to your God for my entire earth days and the reward is the priviledge to continue the servitude till eternity, to be given a drug like euphoria to make the praise singing and worship more bearable. I do not want that sort of purpose for my life.

You assume your whole household must worship with you, what happens if your child changes church or religion? you will disown him or her. Talk for your self and probably your wife, you remaining household will choose their destiny.

I know arguing with you is like talking to a statue and expecting it understand what is being said.

It is absolute deceit to call Pastor Adeboye Nigeria Living Legend. The problem we have in this country is that we interpolate our own personal or group interest or preference to cover the whole of Nigeria. I say Silverbird and Vanguard are practicing what is called the Nigerian Syndrome (lies and deceit). If they are honest why did they not tell use the criteria used for their polls and the demographics of their voters. Today we do not know the number of people that actually voted to represent the whole of Nigeria. Some of the problems with the polls are;

1. The survey was carried out using only SMS, now how many percentage of Nigerians have a phone.
2. The rumour is that a text cost N50, what is the percentage of the people with phone that can afford N50 and what percentage of people that can actually afford to throw away N50 will actually be motivated to vote and what was the motivation?
3. What percentage of even people with phone were aware that a poll was taking place.
4. What section of the country participated in the poll.

From the result i can say that it was mainly the Lagos - Ibadan axis Christians and a few other yoruba states of the south west and probably a few yorubas in Abuja that participated and so their preference is not used to represent the whole of Nigeria. I doubt a yoruba muslim would vote for Adeboye.

If you go to a cow herder or a farmer in Kebbi and tell him that Adeboye is his Legend he will think you are crazy. The problem is if a poll that is skewed to favour the North is carried out and the Sultan of Sokoto is said to the Nigeria's Legend, i am sure Redeemers would cry foul, and blame OIC for trying to Islamize Nigeria

I think the Redeem people want to impose Adeboye on Nigerians to make themself feel important, because outside the traditional services to his flock, i do not see how Adeboye has impacted positively on the life of the average Nigerian.

At least Kano and that Lady Modupe Ozuzua (cant remember her surname) has spent millions of their hard earned money to nurse back to life helpless babies and children, and Gani and Enahoro had spent their whole life fighting for the welfare of the poor, but Adebayo? i dont know.

It is absolute deceit to call Pastor Adeboye Nigeria Living Legend. The problem we have in this country is that we interpolate our own personal or group interest or preference to cover the whole of Nigeria. I say Silverbird and Vanguard are practicing what is called the Nigerian Syndrome (lies and deceit). If they are honest why did they not tell use the criteria used for their polls and the demographics of their voters. Today we do not know the number of people that actually voted to represent the whole of Nigeria. Some of the problems with the polls are;

1. The survey was carried out using only SMS, now how many percentage of Nigerians have a phone.
2. The rumour is that a text cost N50, what is the percentage of the people with phone that can afford N50 and what percentage of people that can actually afford to throw away N50 that will actually be motivated to vote and what was the motivation?
3. What percentage of even people with phone were aware that a poll was taking place.
4. What section of the country participated in the poll.

From the result i can say that it was mainly the Lagos - Ibadan axis Christians and a few other yoruba states of the south west and probably a few yorubas in Abuja that participated and so their preference is not used to represent the whole of Nigeria. I doubt a yoruba muslim would vote for Adeboye.

If you go to a cow herder or a farmer in Kebbi and tell him that Adeboye is his Legend he will think you are crazy.

I think the Redeem people want to impose Adeboye on Nigerians to make themself feel important, because outside the traditional services to his flock, i do not see how Adeboye has impacted positively on the life of the average Nigerian.

At least Kano and that Lady Modupe Ozuzua (cant remember her surname) has spend millions of their hard earned money to nurse back to life helpless babies and children, and Gani and Enahoro had spent their whole life fighting for the welfare of the poor, but Adebayo? i dont know.

It is absolute deceit to call Pastor Adeboye Nigeria Living Legend. The problem we have in this country is that we interpolate our own personal or group interest or preference to cover the whole of Nigeria. I say Silverbird and Vanguard are practicing what is called the Nigerian Syndrome (lies and deceit). If they are honest why did they not tell use the criteria used for their polls and the demographics of their voters. Today we do not know the number of people that actually voted to represent the whole of Nigeria. Some of the problems with the polls are;

1. The survey was carried out using only SMS, now how many percentage of Nigerians have a phone.
2. The rumour is that a text cost N50, what is the percentage of the people with phone that can afford N50 and what percentage of people that can actually afford to throw away N50 that will actually be motivated to vote and what was the motivation?
3. What percentage of even people with phone were aware that a poll was taking place.
4. What section of the country participated in the poll.

From the result i can say that it was mainly the Lagos - Ibadan axis Christians and a few other yoruba states of the south west and probably a few yorubas in Abuja that participated and so their preference is not used to represent the whole of Nigeria. I doubt a yoruba muslim would vote for Adeboye.

If you go to a cow herder or a farmer in Kebbi and tell him that Adeboye is his Legend he will think you are crazy.

I think the Redeem people want to impose Adeboye on Nigerians to make themself feel important, because outside the traditional services to his flock, i do not see how Adeboye has impacted positively on the life of the average Nigerian.

At least Kano and that Lady Modupe Ozuzua (cant remember her surname) has spend millions to nurse back to life helpless babies and children, and Gani and Enahoro had spent their whole life fighting for the welfare of the poor, but Adebayo? i dont know.

Typical of religious fundamentalists, they prefer to attack personalities instead of idea, soon they will turn their verbal attacks into physical attacks. Even if Darwin and Co were said those things, did it remove anything from his observations and theory. If he held those views, those are his personal views. Most European of the 16th and 17th century held the view that Blacks were inferior because of the state they met us. Also most blacks saw the whites were superior, in fact this inferiority complex still afflict a lot of blacks. In fact we blacks depend on the white for every thing, our religion, our language, our clothes, etc. we are wholly depended on white technology to survive. So do not use 16th century attitudes to fault current scientific thoughts and theories, i do not see the connection.

Olaadegun, it is fruitless discussing with you, you have zero understanding of the concepts you are attempting to argue, you have been copying and pasting for as long as i have known you. I had tried in some occasions to educate you on basic science but you are usually not interested in learning. You just continue to spew out the some religious dogma we had heard since our toddler days. Also i had advised you to be content with your religious dogma and leave science.
It is highly irrational for a non scientist ( a theologian) to argue with a scientist on science. It is like a pilot arguing with a musician on the workings of a plane.

You should get it into your psyche that the Bible and it doctrine does not make sense to over 60% of the world population. I find it hard to believe that one book is an authority unto itself, meaning the Bible is the only proof of the authenticity of the Bible, or the Bible is the proof of God and God is the the proof of the Bible.

noetic2:
I must confess ur arguments reflect intellectual bankruptcy. First and foremost atheism is NOT science. It has NO relationship with science.
The basic conclusions of the atheists science betrays any claim of scientific enquiry. As all offered substitute for God's existence have failed the simple test of observation, repetition and experimentation. I cant even believe anyone can confidently claim atheism is science considering the ridiculous and illogical postulations offered on this forum.

Your own arguments goes beyond logic, even spiritual logic. You go round and round in circles and take anybody that argues with you on a meaningless cyclic journey.

I had already said in another thread and argument with you that to me Atheism is not Science, but said Science is Atheism. Lots of people disagreed with me, maybe because i put it too strongly, so i will rephrase it to Science supports atheism. I took the pains to highlight three main "facts" of your religion with God at the center as against three main "facts" of science without a God, explaining the creation of the universe, the earth and life. The scientific explanation supports Atheism rather than Theism. So it is becoming annoying when you just hang unto you mindless mantra of Science has no relationship with Atheism. Are you saying science supports the the existence and input of your God in its own explanation of the universe?.

[/quote]

noetic2:
I wont jump the gun. But can u present ur alternatives for the GOD question and we will together make a scientific enquiry using the the three highlighted basis of scientific enquiries above.

This is pure linguistic semantics. From the definitions of science above it is deducible to a kindergarten student that the underlying aim of science to to prove and establish claims and facts.

Please jump the gun. Let us have the God question so we can use the tools of science to provide you with a answer.
It is amazing how certain religions can make a mind argue meaninglessly, I said science goes on to prove and not to disprove and you echoed exactly the same statement, so what are you arguing about?

[quote author=noetic2 link=topic=283796.msg4033451#msg4033451 date=1245098345]This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. I also cannot make a meaning out of this.

I have NEVER associated atheism to science. you did. It is up to u to establish how scientific an atheist belief is.

No atheist has been able to establish a rational/logical/scientific/intellectual basis for the non-existence of GOD. if u have let us see it.
Dont hide under the banner of science, You CANNOT prove that atheism IS science because it is NOT.

That means you do not read post and digest the content before you hit the reply button. I took the pains to explain how science will discard's any theory it cannot provide proof for and not go about accepting a theory because it cannot disprove it. I feel you did not take science beyond JSS, so you might not understand what i am talking about. Up till today a complete solution to the medium light travels had not been agreed upon, It does not mean we should adopt Ether because its non - existence cannot be proved.

noetic2:
u wrongly assume that a christian has not asked himself and answered ur pertinent questions of "who created GOD?" and "what is GOD?". Christians have repeatedly answered this questions, to themselves and to atheists. u like other atheists have found these answers untenable but have refused to offer better alternatives. ur inability to proffer an answer and ur search for it does NOT make u an independent thinker.

To think that there is NO GOD and also not to have ANY evidence to back of this claim, is simply an attempt to exonerate one self from spiritual and moral ,  . . . atheism has NO link to independent thinking. There is no independence of thought in randomly assuming that there is no GOD.

Gani Fawehimi is a muslim and Fela is not an atheist. If according to u, these people are independent minded and non-conformists, then that proves that atheism has no link to being non-conformist. Atheism is a belief state like christianity, islam and hinduism.

noetic2 what happened to original Noetic?

Anyway i am reluctant to get into your wrapped argument, that atheism is unreasonable because they cannot prove the NON-existence of God. That is the dumbest argument i had ever heard.  I think you should look for the meaning of science and scientific reasoning.

Science was not set up to prove the non-existence of any thing, Science investigates and proves existence of phenomena and laws governing those phenomena, using the tool of observation, recording of data and inference from the correlated data. I do not thing k any scientist that goes about proving non existence would be considered a scientist. Let me give you two examples,

Because of the observed huge source of energy that emanates from certain points in space and that these sources seems to suck up all matter and even energy within its vicinity, certain scientists have speculated the existence of Black Holes as being responsible. Now a scientist that want to prove that it is not a black hole that is responsible will be required to prove the existence of something else that is responsible for the phenomenon and not expend energy proving the non existence of Black Holes.

A second example is Ether, it had been speculated since Newton days that it is theoretically impossible for energy to be transferred from one point in space to another without a medium. Like movement of water waves from one point to another without water  or sound waves without air. But light waves seems to move in a vacuum, so for it to make sense, some scientists speculated that a medium called ether, that is invisible and massless, and  pervades the whole universe is the responsible medium for transferring light waves. Now many scientists had set up experiments to detect the ether and up till today none had detected it, so ether had been thrown out as a theory. But no scientist had setup experiment to prove the non existence of ether, the experiments were set up to actually prove its existence.

So please stop singing the Mantra of No scientist have been able to prove the non existence of God, you should ask Scientist set up experiments to prove the existence of your God, once you have been able to provide adequate data.

noetic2:
What does an independent mind/thinking have to do with atheism or religion?

Martin Luther king, a christian opposed conventional christianity and made waves of reforms that popularised pentecostal ism. The likes of Nelson mandela, Mother theresa, Raila Odinga, MKO Abiola, Ken Saro Wiwa et all have over time stood up for what they perceive as injustice in their own societies. These are black people who lived in predominantly black communities. They stood up for what they believed in and fought for it. Their position/independent mindedness had nothing to do with religion or atheism but individual convictions.

All over the world, people of all societies have lived in boxes that limit independent thinking, including slavery and anti-women discrimination, none of which is immune from atheism. People have stood up based on human needs and challenged the status quo.

To falsely identify atheism with independent thinking is disguised foolishness. cos independent thinking has to be rational, coherent and logical. whats the rationality of a belief that cannot be defined and substantiated?

While religions have dogmas that have no place in the intellectual circuit, atheism CANNOT however be likened to independent thinking because of its prevalent and inexplicable dogmas and irrationality.

Independent thinking is good and should be encouraged, but atheists should NEVER be mistaken for independent thinkers. They are as irrational and dogmatic as the religion subscribers they antagonise. Atheism has NO connection to independent thinking or intelligence.

I agree with you that a few Black Americans like Martin Luther Junior, Malcom X and a few other were able to challenge the oppression of the American Society. I do not deem their struggles as exactly being non-conformist, I would rather term it being conformist and brave enough to fight and die for that conformity. Let me explain further.
The concept that discrimination of Blacks by the American society was the main beliefs by almost all blacks in America since the slave period, and they had been various struggles among blacks against discrimination. So the fact that Martin Luther King decided to fight discrimination was not a novel idea, the novelty he introduced was to Change tactics, from using individual and often violent methods to using an organized group (civil rights movement) and non violent methods (intellectually). It would have been thinking out of the box if Martin Luther King was white since it was unthinkable then for a white man to disbelieve discrimination. Same goes for Mandela.

Nobody had said that an atheist is necessarily intelligent, i am sure there are lots of atheist with low IQ, but what you can not take away from the atheist is his ability to think beyond what over 95% of the world population think. When an atheist breaks the fear barrier and ask the radical question " who created God" and "what is God" and "where did God come from" Then to look for answers outside where you are told to look. Then come to your own independent conclusions.

Atheists to not have a guru or a master, they look for answers to their questions where they can.

My own examples of non conformists are Fela, Tai Solarin, Gani.

We seem to have a basic misunderstanding or disagreement of my position as above

Let me tell to the process of believing in anything. First you get a piece of information, either directly ( first hand account) or indirectly, you compare the information with your own store of information (what you accept to be possible) and personal experience (belief system). If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system, you take the story as true, but if the information given is either insufficient or contradicts with your own store of experience and stored information, you reject the whole story.

You should be aware i was talking about belief as opposed to scientific knowledge. First let me give you a definition of belief;

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

How beliefs are formed
Psychologists study belief formation and the relationship between beliefs and actions. Beliefs form in a variety of ways.

* We tend to internalize the beliefs of the people around us. Albert Einstein is often quoted as having said that "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Political beliefs depend most strongly on the political beliefs most common in the community where we live.[4] Most individuals believe the religion they were taught in childhood. [5]

* People may adopt the beliefs of a charismatic leader, even if those beliefs fly in the face of all previous beliefs, and produce actions that are clearly not in their own self-interest.[6] Is belief voluntary? Rational individuals need to reconcile their direct reality with any said belief; therefore, if belief is not present or possible, it reflects the fact that contradictions were necessarily overcome using cognitive dissonance.

* The primary thrust of the advertising industry is that repetition forms beliefs, as do associations of beliefs with images of sex, love, and other strong positive emotions.[7]

* Physical trauma, especially to the head, can radically alter a person's beliefs.[8]

However, even educated people, well aware of the process by which beliefs form, still strongly cling to their beliefs, and act on those beliefs even against their own self-interest.

Source - Wikipedia

What i was trying to explain is that our belief system is a culmination the interpretation of all our past experience, experience of people we trust, the information we have stored from books and other sources and from information from trusted sources ( parents, pastors, gurus, etc).

Let me give one example, a person born in Tibet would find it difficult to believe that his salvation lies with a "convicted criminal" who was sentenced to capital punishment (hand on a cross) for "treasonable offense" in Palestine, by Roman authorities more than 2000 yrs ago. It will even be more absurd for him to believe this person was a God and was Killed because of the sin he had committed by being born before he was born or the sins he was about to commit. Now would you blame him no, because he had accumulated a different belief system which made those propositions absurd.

But this was NOT the point Wirinet was making. He was commenting on how people accept or reject candidate beliefs. When one accepts/rejects a belief it does not mean that the belief is true(valid)/false. It simply means that one has check it against some "standard" system, and one accepts or rejects it based on that one's already established "standard" (or belief system, to use Wirinet's words).

So Huxley was right in saying exactly what i mean.

Let me go further.

Let me tell you how a person come into his beliefs.

When a child is born, he has no beliefs or belief system, he is basically an atheist. He is then Christened, baptized, named and given the religious instructions of his parents. He then starts to take on the belief systems of his parents. ( you can often hear one to two year olds singing praise songs). Then the child goes to school and given further indoctrination by teachers the child comes in contact with. By the time the child goes through secondary school, the belief system of the child would have been a mosaic of the beliefs of his parents, his teachers, his friends( the dominants ones) and the books he had read. By the time he finished university his belief system will be almost complete and set. It could only be broken by either traumatic event of other equally strong emotional disturbances or disappointments. That is why it is almost impossible for someone to change religion after the age of 30.

Let me also digress by telling you how the Europeans manage to convert Africans to Christianity.

When the missionaries first came to Africa, they found the task of converting the people virtually impossible, the natives were happy and satisfied with their traditional religions. My people the Itsekiris and the Ijaws were about the first to come in contact with the missionaries, but they refused to convert for a very long time. Even the binis had to be converted at gun point. Anyway what the missionaries did was to set up schools, which went on to teach western education and values along with their religion. So by the time the child finishes school, he would be mentally European and Spiritually Christian. So by the time the stubborn elders pass away, we were left western educated Christianized Africans. So the missionaries tied education to Christianity. That was how black Africa was Christianized through the back door.

The Mohammedans did not have time for that, they used brute force to convert the adults and set up schools for their children after.

Now when you talk of scientific knowledge, then you can talk of "empirical verification and falsifiability". Belief systems holds no such standard.

I hope Huxley understands my arguments now.

@ Poster

Yes i love the way you summed it up. It is extremely difficult for blacks to be an atheist. This is due mainly to our traditional root and history. As you have said, our educational system - both traditional and modern does not encourage independent thinking.

In our traditional societies, the pronouncements of elders are not to be questioned, especially by the younger ones, so naturally we were not taught to think outside what we were allowed to think. We still believe today that the words of our elders are words of wisdom, and is the most effective tool used in religion. That is why their authoritative figures carry such appellation as elder and father.

Also our current educational curriculum does not encourage independent thinking. God help you if you question your lecturer or teacher about a subject he is deemed an expert. We are taught to "return to sender". Give the lecturer everything he taught word for word and you are sure of an excellent grade.

The same thing affecting religion also affects other aspects of our lives, especially the political arena. |A president or governor cannot condone dissenting views, so all meetings at taking critical decisions are just endorsements of the presidents/governors wishes, if you dare to raise questions, you will suffer the Atiku/Pedro treatment.

Same also goes on in our offices, you never challenge the decisions of you boss, if you do not want to join the unemployment statistic.

I think anyone able to develop an independent mind up to becoming an atheist in our society will have a really difficult time in school, office and gatherings, because he will not conform.

huxley2:
OK, I see what you mean, but I think the phrasing is rather unfortunate.  Atheism is NOT science, and Science is NOT atheism.  However, science is guided by the principle of methodological naturalism (MN).  MN is the principle that, in the conduct of science ONLY natural means and explanation will be provided, sought and accepted.

My friend Huxley, We are on saying the same thing, so i am yet to see where we differ. Yes science (according to MN) only provide, sought and accept ONLY natural means and explanation, so anything out side that( including supernatural and God)  cannot be said to be science.

huxley2:
NOTE that MN does NOT say that the supernatural does not exist.  MN is silent about the supernatural - it neither accepts nor denies the supernatural.

Yes MN does not explicitly say God and the Supernatural does not exist ( in fact science does not categorically say anything does not exist), what its asserts is the God factor is not necessary to explain existence or the workings of the universe, and thus the existence of a God or Gods is incompatible with science. THIS IS THE SAME POSITION TAKEN BY ATHEISTS. If you read all my posts, i had never said God does not exist, what i say is that God does not need to exist. You allow Pilgim.1 to distract you with her word play and gymnastics.

pilgrim.1:
Lol, this is not disturbing. . . perhaps dear huxley can now see an example of an atheist who makes unfounded statements in equating science with atheism.

The Wikipedia quote does not lead to the inference that science is opposed to theism - you make that huge 'leap of faith' because you already made a fallacy of assuming "science is atheism". Sure, we know that atheism is opposed to theism; but 'science' is not atheism and does not stand opposed to theim.

Both theism and atheism are worldviews - or simply, 'belief systems'.
On the other hand, science is not a worldview or 'belief system' - as such, both theists and atheists re engaged in the practice of science. I don't know where anyone could be called a scientist on the basis of whether he is an atheist, because that would leave you to explain how MANY theists are also scientists. The idea that 'science is atheism' is the biggest fallacy going in all possible worlds.

huxley2:
Now, to discuss the supernatural or the natural, one needs to invoke a different doctrine, that of Philosophical Naturalism (PN) or Metaphysical Naturalism (MPN).  PN (or MPN) is in the business of addressing the question of natural and supernatural.

Now Huxley, what ever you call it, science by its very definition does not recognize something that is unmeasurable, unrecordable, unanalyseable and unexperimentable. They should call it something else - maybe spiritology but definitely not science.

@ Pilgrim.1,
You always amaze me with your accusations, you say i am  making an unfounded statement by equating science with atheism.  You now make your own unfounded statement by saying that the Wikipedia quote does not lead to the inference that science is opposed to theism. If you say that science is not opposed to atheism then lets go over the basic assertions of both;
 [table]
[tr][td]
Science
[/td][td]
Religion
[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Universe came about as a result of the Big Bang and earth formed after some 12 billion years
[/td][td]
Heaven and Earth came about as a result of pronouncements from God in Six days
[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Life started through evolution by simple elements combining to form nucleic acids and finally a self replicating system - DNA, then after billions of years evolving to form all the diverse life on earth - including humans
[/td][td]
God created all animal and plant life from his pronouncements but made Man from dust and woman from a rib from the man, all in a days work.
[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
The natural universe follows a set of laws, some known and some yet to be known, whereby certain actions and processes lead to a fairly predictable outcome.
[/td][td]
The universe depends on the wimps and caprices of a God or inter play of gods, and out came of actions and processes cannot be predictable.
[/td][/tr]
[/table]

These are just basic outline of the opposing views of science and theism. there are hundreds more. So please can you explain to me science is not opposed to theism.

Because an scientist is an individual, and as an individual he can believe in a God or a set of gods, that was why i said that ATHEISM IS NOT NECESSARILY SCIENCE. That is why i get annoyed when you attempt to use the belief of one atheist to equate the beliefs of all atheists since the dawn of history. If we look closely enough you will find out that no two people have exactly the same set of beliefs. If we apply the same logic to Christians  you will find so many variety and opposing beliefs. I have been to a church that not only accepts divorce but alllows a man to have more that one wife, while i have met Muslims who vows never to have more than one wife. Also beliefs among Christians on trinity, revelation, drinking of alcohol, heaven, what happens immediately after death  and hundreds of other beliefs differ among individuals, even of the same congregation.     


Ps: I made an error in typing atheist instead of scientist, meaning an atheist is not necessarily a scientifically minded person.

huxley2:
OK, I see what you mean, but I think the phrasing is rather unfortunate.  Atheism is NOT science, and Science is NOT atheism.  However, science is guided by the principle of methodological naturalism (MN).  MN is the principle that, in the conduct of science ONLY natural means and explanation will be provided, sought and accepted.

My friend Huxley, We are on saying the same thing, so i am yet to see where we differ. Yes science (according to MN) only provide, sought and accept ONLY natural means and explanation, so anything out side that( including supernatural and God)  cannot be said to be science.

huxley2:
NOTE that MN does NOT say that the supernatural does not exist.  MN is silent about the supernatural - it neither accepts nor denies the supernatural.

Yes MN does not explicitly say God and the Supernatural does not exist ( in fact science does not categorically say anything does not exist), what its asserts is the God factor is not necessary to explain existence or the workings of the universe, and thus the existence of a God or Gods is incompatible with science. THIS IS THE SAME POSITION TAKEN BY ATHEISTS. If you read all my posts, i had never said God does not exist, what i say is that God does not need to exist. You allow Pilgim.1 to distract you with her word play and gymnastics.

pilgrim.1:
Lol, this is not disturbing. . . perhaps dear huxley can now see an example of an atheist who makes unfounded statements in equating science with atheism.

The Wikipedia quote does not lead to the inference that science is opposed to theism - you make that huge 'leap of faith' because you already made a fallacy of assuming "science is atheism". Sure, we know that atheism is opposed to theism; but 'science' is not atheism and does not stand opposed to theim.

Both theism and atheism are worldviews - or simply, 'belief systems'.
On the other hand, science is not a worldview or 'belief system' - as such, both theists and atheists re engaged in the practice of science. I don't know where anyone could be called a scientist on the basis of whether he is an atheist, because that would leave you to explain how MANY theists are also scientists. The idea that 'science is atheism' is the biggest fallacy going in all possible worlds.

huxley2:
Now, to discuss the supernatural or the natural, one needs to invoke a different doctrine, that of Philosophical Naturalism (PN) or Metaphysical Naturalism (MPN).  PN (or MPN) is in the business of addressing the question of natural and supernatural.

Now Huxley, what ever you call it, science by its very definition does not recognize something that is unmeasurable, unrecordable, unanalyseable and unexperimentable. They should call it something else - maybe spiritology but definitely not science.

@ Pilgrim.1,
You always amaze me with your accusations, you say i am  making an unfounded statement by equating science with atheism.  You now make your own unfounded statement by saying that the Wikipedia quote does not lead to the inference that science is opposed to theism. If you say that science is not opposed to atheism then lets go over the basic assertions of both;
 [table]
[tr][td]
Science
[/td][td]
Religion
[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Universe came about as a result of the Big Bang and earth formed after some 12 billion years
[/td][td]
Heaven and Earth came about as a result of pronouncements from God in Six days
[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
Life started through evolution by simple elements combining to form nucleic acids and finally a self replicating system - DNA, then after billions of years evolving to form all the diverse life on earth - including humans
[/td][td]
God created all animal and plant life from his pronouncements but made Man from dust and woman from a rib from the man, all in a days work.
[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
The natural universe follows a set of laws, some known and some yet to be known, whereby certain actions and processes lead to a fairly predictable outcome.
[/td][td]
The universe depends on the wimps and caprices of a God or inter play of gods, and out came of actions and processes cannot be predictable.
[/td][/tr]
[/table]

These are just basic outline of the opposing views of science and theism. there are hundreds more. So please can you explain to me science is not opposed to theism.

Because an atheist is an individual, and as an individual he can believe in a God or a set of gods, that was why i said that ATHEISM IS NOT NECESSARILY SCIENCE. That is why i get annoyed when you attempt to use the belief of one atheist to equate the beliefs of all atheists since the dawn of history. If we look closely enough you will find out that no two people have exactly the same set of beliefs. If we apply the same logic to Christians  you will find so many variety and opposing beliefs. I have been to a church that not only accepts divorce but alllows a man to have more that one wife, while i have met Muslims who vows never to have more than one wife. Also beliefs among Christians on trinity, revelation, drinking of alcohol, heaven, what happens immediately after death  and hundreds of other beliefs differ among individuals, even of the same congregation.

Atheism is not necessarily science, but Science is Atheism.

The very definition of Science is opposed to Theism. For those that do not understand the meaning of science they can try any online dictionary;

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]

In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[2][3] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes called experimental science to differentiate it from applied science - the application of scientific research to specific human needs - although the two are often interconnected.

Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested.

Source   -  Wikipedia.


Mean while Theism is the complete opposite of science. Theists rely on assumptions, holy books, holy spirits, authoritative assertions and pronouncements of priests, threats, blackmail, carrot and stick, deceit and outright falsehood to propagate their ideas.

I am often amazed at theist (very lazy lot) who wait for scientists to spend their life time and life saving searching for the answers and solutions to the world around them only for theists to claim the discoveries as the work of their personal deity and claim the benefits of the discoveries.

huxley2:
Interesting.  Can someone be healed of, say sicklecell anaemia of the fullblown variety?

No, I doubt someone can be healed of full blown sickle cell condition. Because if a person is born with a gene that produces a large number of defective red blood cells, then nothing can change that gene. But a person who has a strong faith or who has a very strong will to survive will live longer than a person who quickly gives up on life. People with terminal cancer have been known to live beyond the periods prescribed by doctors.

My cousin (more like my brother) had the worse form of sickle cell. He barely survived his first year. But he was so determined to live life to the fullest, he was not particularly a Christian, i would term him an Agnostic.

He defied medical explanation twice. He was once given a wrong blood type ( in UCLH London) and his blood clotted badly, the doctors were amazed he survived that. He had battled leukemia for close to 7 years, survived chemotherapy twice, and finally gave in to the leukemia in 2004 at the age of 32. While passing through all these, he had a diploma in cinematography and film production and became the youngest member of the British Guild of Directors. He learnt Japanese, worked on a  MTV and lot of music videos for upcoming musicians, and produced and directed many short films. What kept him going for so long was his love of Life and faith that he could beat the decease.

Healing is a misunderstood word and the healing process is still poorly misunderstood by many people, even some doctors. The most fraud perpetuated by modern day Christianity is through the use of healing as a tool for deceiving Christianity.

Faith healing is an aspect that medical science had not studied but which had served humanity for thousands of years before modern medicine. But is is vaguely recognized that the secret to a speedy recovery from a deadly decease sometimes requires some level of faith or inner strength. It may be obtained by religious convictions, by a believe in a loved one or a strong will to live. Because the extent to which the mind has power over the body had not been fully analyzed medically. That is why when new drugs are being tested a placebo is given to a second set of test patient with the same condition being analyzed to cancel out the effect of faith healing. If you give out cockroach eggs to 100 people with malaria, chances are that at least 5% would record a cure.

I had practice faith healing in my youth days and a lot of times it works. The mechanism by which it works sometimes involves hypnotism, a certain state of mind had been known to produce endomorphines and other chemicals in the body that aids the healing process. But there is a dangerous aspect of faith healing is where the body is deceived into not perception of pain in a region of the body. Pain is usually the bodies warning mechanism that something is wrong, then comes fever and other signs. Now if these signs are not perceived as a result of faith healing, the condition would deteriorate till the point that by the time the actual condition is perceived it would be too late to treat. That is why i think medical profession should look into faith healing.

Problem with healing by pastors is that they have very poor healing statistics. If you have a 100 people requiring healing, at best 10 people might be healed after their shenanigans, the rest are given the usual excuses of God's time is the best or they do not possess enough faith. That means success rate of less than 10%. Contrast that with a doctor that is only able to heal 10% of his patients. If his success rate is not up to 90 %, i am sure his license would be withdrawn, no excuse would be entertained.

@ Pastor AIO
I ready enjoy reading your perspective on the search for the ultimate truth. You are quite unlike others who rely on emotions and populist assertions to support their argument. You are one theist i enjoy following as i follow most of your posts, as you are a well researched fellow.

Now lets look at your arguments;

Nature is not an object.  Nature is a concept of one way the world works that is contrasted with the super-natural.  In order to know what you are talking about when you say Nature we need to have it defined well.  Do you get that?

Yes nature is everything that is perceived and known of the universe and how the elements that make up the universe interact with each other, from the smallest known element - mesons, pions, gluons, etc,  to the largest - galaxies, quasers, etc.  The whole is held in an energy-matter equilibrium.

So for you to say Nature is one way the world works, are you saying the supernatural is an alternative way the world works? Because according to the supernatural way, nothing is known for certain and no formula or method  can be worked out to understand the supernatural universe.

Pastor AIO:
To make my point, let me turn things around.  I say that there is no such thing as the Natural, only supernatural.  Everything is supernatural.  thundder, lightning, leprosy, boiling a cup of water, everything.  A supernatural agent is making everything happen as it happens.  Nature is a fallacy.

This is where i am lost, because according to you supernatural  is opposed to natural, that is it is beyond natural. But all those processes above is clearly understood, and can be replicated and controlled by anybody. this same argument is what gave rise to science. Because science had shown that a supernatural agent is not necessary for for the formation of the universe, Earth, Life, Eclipse, etc.

Once you have a definition, then what determines how you classify events rests on whether or not they fit the definition.  It is an arbitrary definition but the one we are working with at the moment.  Nature relies on Space and Time and it's influences traversing space and time.  Armed with this definition there is not way that Newton would think that modern technology were supernatural.

Yes nature relies on space-time-energy continuum because we are incapable of  escaping that capsule. I feel newton would view today's technology as supernatural (until he his taught post newtonian physics) because he will have to grapple with atoms, electrons, radioactivity, viruses, and a host of other issues that was not known during his time. He would not be able to phantom how a Light Emitting Diode works not to talk of how your computer and internet works.

If newton were however, using our definition, to see a glass dematerialise and rematerialise elsewhere he would call it non natural.  If by definition, in nature bodies have to travel through space then such vanishing and reappearing elsewhere could be occurring according to some Law of the Universe but it wouldn't be a Natural Law.  A spiritual or divine Law perhaps but not a Natural law.

According to quantum mechanics, it is possible for information ( a set of parameters defining a particle) to dematerialize at a point in space and materialize in another point in space.

Whether or not there were minds then (another interesting idea but miles divorced from the trend of this thread now) the fact of nature is that impressions were being made by objects upon each other.  The laws of nature tell us that marks of water erosion upon landscape cannot have been formed prior to water being present on that landscape.
So it seems that whether or not there is a mind to perceive events those events are still believed to interact according to the laws of nature.

Also according to Einstein, time is dependent on the frame of reference the two objects are traveling relative to the speed of light, so it is theoretically possible to perceive the water erosion prior to the water being present. Although i must confess the theory has to do with moving bodies.

You said supernatural events happens  all the time and many things flout our known natural laws, can you please give examples. Because i had expended a lot of energy in the past looking for supernatural occurrences,  been to babalawos, mamalawos and even prophetesses but had not been able to prove their efficacy. Most of them are like psychologists, they feed you back with information taken from you, and i always provide wrong information of course.

The main problem with these spiritualists are that they are more slippery than a snake in a pot of okro, they make a vague prediction, if it comes to past they would take huge glory, if it fails they have numerous excuses. When a big pastor or G. O. dies in a ghastly accident like Oshoffa or Odukoya, they will claim God had called the person to come to heaven, but if a non-believer dies, they will say God or Devil has dealt with the person.

Finally, as i always say, our over reliance on spiritualism is nothing new, it is a phase in our spiritual evolution. Others like Europe, China and the original Americans had far more elaborate spiritual systems than ours, remember people used to be tried and burned for witch craft. Even India that was number one in terms of Juju is going IT and leaving spiritualism. So i believe we too will leave all these spiritualism and embrace NATURALISM (science) in the near future.

Wow seven pages of threads attempting to revive the religion vs science debate at attempting to explain the Known and unknown universe, which had separated along parallel lines since the separation of science from alchemy, spiritualism and the supernatural more than over 5 centuries ago.

At least I've been able to demonstrate the fallacious logic of typical atheistic excuses. None of you have been able to adduce the sort of "evidence" for your own disbelief in precisely the same way as you demand of others. If you haven't seen this, it is because you never honestly wanted to see it. If on the other hand you have seen it, please proceed and adduce such had evidence against the existence of the supernatural in all possible worlds. I'm eagerly waiting, thank you.

Pilgrim.1, who have you been able to demonstrate to, the so called fallacious logic of the typical atheist excuses? can you name any atheist that sees your logic? or is it a member of your religious sect that you have been able to demonstrate your logic to? I think you have been able to demonstrate your logic to your self.You are engaging in intellectual maturation, and espousing of self stimulating logic make you feel euphoric.
I have decided not to even go into your so called logic, because to me it defies the very definition of logic. The ancient Greeks who believed that the universe is made up of four elements - water, earth, wind and fire, had better logic.

Pilgrim.1 keeps throwing all kinds of stories from around the world to support her belief in the supernatural - ghosts demons, devils and goblins. How do you expect anyone especially atheists to believe these stories? Let me tell to the process of believing in anything. First you get a piece of information, either directly ( first hand account) or indirectly, you compare the information with your own store of information (what you accept to be possible) and personal experience (belief system). If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system, you take the story as true, but if the information given is either insufficient or contradicts with your own store of experience and stored information, you reject the whole story. Now if we are to believe everything that we are told or read, then we would become a candidate for Yaba Psychiatric Hospital.

I have been told lots of bulshit stories by people i know, A friend told me he had an encounter with a mammy water in his village once, but when i asked further whether the mammy water breaths with fins or lungs or both, or if the mammy water is a physical or spiritual being, i could not get a satisfactory answer, so i discarded the story. I have heard people say a woman turned to goat, snake or even bird. I disregard all the stories. A lot of other people might believe due to different belief system.

When i was younger, i believed a lot of what i will term rubbish today, I was a ardent follower of Lobsang Rampa before i discovered he was just an Irish Plumber who had red the book "7 years in Tibet", I believed in UFOs and all of Arthur C Clacks stories, the Lockness Monster, Yeti.  I did a lot of research on the so called supernatural and found all the stories inconclusive. If someone can provide hard evidence (verified  photos, videos and audio) of their existence these things, then It might begin to dent my long established belief system.

@ Pastor,

To me the supernatural is what is not understood under our present stage of scientific development. At one time and with all cultures, thunder and lightening was a supernatural event, Leprosy and other bacteria and viral infections were demonic attacks, madness and other mental conditions was a spiritual attack, so was movements of the planets and comets, volcanoes,   earthquakes, etc. If a witch can be verified to fly on a broomstick, then we will need to examine the process which propels the broom and replicate the system. that is the way an atheist like me reason, it will  not be enough for me to accept the notion that the propulsion system of the broom is too mysterious to understand so it must be the work of God, Satan, Angels, Demon or Santa Claus.

Hello my friend, why did you add 2 to your name? was huxley original axed my Nairaland God - Seun.

Anyway to your question, Incest is Immoral. I view morality/immorality to laws aimed at aiding the progress of societies. Incestous relationships have a high probability of resulting in defective and weak offsprings, and over generations, the society or species would face the threat of extinction. Even animals mave a way of avoiding inbreeding. The closer the relationship of the incenstious couple,the higher the probability of genetic defect.

When someone says that some countries allow for incestious relationship, i think that is not exactly true. It depends on the definition of incest. Some societies like African societies view relationships with cousins (even if it is 5th cousin) as incestious, while Arabs allow for marriage between first cousins and uncles. Eveb the jews used to promote relationship between uncles and nieces. (abraham's marriage to his half sister was odd and i do not think it was repeated any where else in the Bible).

I do not think there is any society that condones sexual relationship between a mother and son or between a father and daughter or between actual brothers and sisters (except some instances in the Bible).

pilgrim.1:
@wirinet,

I used to be inclined to your idea that arguments between theists and atheists could not get anywhere. Not anymore - I'm convinced this is getting somewhere, and it should. The reason why many people still hold that idea is because they've been asking simplistic questions and dragging on to too many unrelated issues until the gist of the argument gets lost somewhere. This time around, all such unrelated arguments will be kept to the background as much as possible, while we take a different approach - that of presenting occurrences within the atheist community that atheists cannot easily dismiss out-of-hand.

We all live in a single world with varied experiences. The atheist who assumes all things must of necessity be narrowed to his naturalistic worldview must also be prepared to replicate phenomena that are well-attested to occur outside the ambit of his naturalism. This is not about the usual tireless 'prove' this and that about Christianity. No; rather, I'm asking the typical NL atheist to understand that his naturalism is a weak tool for explicating the realities of our world.

Let me ask you how far you if you have gotten anywhere since this thread started. In the three pages that have been written on this tread, have you been able to convince a single atheist that his belief and world views are wrong? Have you been able to convince any of the infallibility of your beliefs and convinced him to change over to yours, so please explain how you are getting somewhere.

Please explain how in one breadth you said that they ask simplistic questions and then say they've been asking simplistic questions and dragging on to too many unrelated issues. I think both theists and atheists agree that the complexities explaining life on earth, creation of the universe and interraction between the universe is anything but simplistic, and any attempt at its explanation would require numerous seemingly unrelated disciplines and issues.

The atheist assumes all things must of necessity be narrowed to his naturalistic worldview because this is what had allowed the human race to make the quantum lead it has achieved within the last 300 or so years. When the world assumed supernaturalistic worldview human and societal development stagnated for centuries. It is this naturalistic world view that allowed man to land on the moon (higher than the tower of Babel), Split the atom to create tremendous energy and understand the fuel burning in the sun, develop antibiotic to cure diseases and drugs to cure mental illness, crack the human genome, and lots more.

If naturalism is too weak to explicating the realities of our world, then please how supernaturalism is able to do it better. And can you use your supernatural tools to replicate the well attested phenomena, supernatural or otherwise. I honestly do not understand how you feel you have added a new insight into the age long questions of existence and all observable phenomena when you are still using the reasoning of Neanderthal man or pre-historic man. Even a bushman in the middle the Kalahari has a similar world view as you hold. All through recorded history man had held the same view you seem to have just discovered, it is the atheist world view that is very new.

Supernatural phenomena, if real have little or no effect on the world of today, science and technology has taken over according to the Naturalist worldview.

@William_c,

You are wasting you energy, the argument presented by pilgim.1 will forever be cyclic, she wants you and other atheists to accept her world view however irrational it may be to you. She keeps forgeting that her religion is first based on the assumption of the infallibility of any part of the Bible, and since atheists and other religion do not hold that view, then i do not know the common grounds for argument, same for Koran and numerous other sacred religious books. It is amazing how they take one innoculous line like "the earth is held by nothing" and build the whole laws of mechanics around that and probably relativity too, and then claim the bible is the greatest science book ever, but ignore sentences like Atlas holding the earth, or the Earth being held by pillars or even the earth having corners. ( they will say these are figurative sentences)

I have said it time and time again: RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS ARE A WASTE OF TIME

Argument between theists and atheist cannot get anywhere same for between christianity and islam and between anyother religion. When i was at university my born again room mates and i would argue for days without out getting anywhere. Each person is dug into his/her mind set and belief system, changing that mindset is almost an impossible task. I know for sure that a person is ready to defend his belief system with every thing they have both rational and irrational, and attacking a person's belief system is taken as an act of war - figuratively and sometimes physically.

Becoming an atheist is a slow and gradual (and sometimes painful) proccess.  I do not subscribe to atheists trying to convince theists to give up their religion or rediculing any of the theist religions and putting themselves on a high pedestal. Atheists should be contented they have found the truth just like the religionist should be contended they have found the truth.  it should be left at that as they both live in seperate worlds like fish and birds.

One I can think of is:

Saudi Arabia is not lying to the world that it is practicing Democracy. They did not call the world to monitor elections only to make a fool of themselves.