₦airaland Forum

Image123:
Like me proving that you didn't eat yesterday.

I think it makes sense to you why atheists are not meant to prove your god doesn’t exist

2dominate:
Ch 35 verse 25
Verily, We have sent thee with the truth, as a bearer of
glad tidings and as a Warner; and there is no people to whom a Warner has not been sent.

After mentioning that the Holy Prophet has been sent "as a Bearer of glad tidings and as a Warner" the verse proceeds to unfold a great truth which had remained unknown to the world till the Quran revealed it. It says that it is not the Holy Prophet Muhammad alone who has been sent as a Divine Messenger to call men to God but there had been sent to every people in the past a Divine Messenger who preached to them the same message of truth and righteousness. This great and noble principle leads to the belief in the Divine origin of all religions, and in their Founders as Divine Messengers, and thus it becomes an article of faith with a Muslim to believe in and equally respect and revere all of them. By giving to the world this sublime truth, Islam has sought to create an atmosphere of amity and goodwill among different creeds, and to remove and banish that rancour and bitterness which has embittered relations between the followers of these creeds all over the world.

I did not see where it’s states that anyone who doesn’t worship in the Islam way will make heaven.

Image123:
He's not burning in hell like you stated, stay focused.

But Mohammed is probably in Christian hell

2dominate:
Those before the advent of Islam, Even some of the early muslims died before salaat was made obligatory.

So how about a Christian today that doesn’t worship as stipulated by Islam?

Image123:
The Koran acknowledges Jesus as a prophet strengthened by the Holy Spirit.

So anyone who doesn’t worship like the Quran stipulated will make heaven?

Pelecius:
Lol

It's just funny that wannabe atheists won't be truthful to accept the fact that it takes great faith for them to accept what the belief.

At least, anyone seeing this will notice the "evolution" of wannabe atheists as they ask for proofs and then just dismiss it when presented with one.

you are absolutely correct

Pelecius:
Smiles
Most times, it ends this way.
I asked simple questions, you evaded them. Turned to me to provide argument for my case, I did and advised that you get more info. You weren't interested in trying to even check but now resorted to the commonly used last tactic - "you deny evolution because you don't understand it" and the "this is scientist talk and not ignorant folk's discussion" argument.
And then the elephant hurling "Nothing makes sense in biology outside evolution", attributed to Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the leading evolutionists of the last century.

Like I repeatedly asked, how do we get higher life forms from simpler ones through adaptation and speciation? When we know that the difference between higher life forms is the information contained in their genome. And we know that adaptation and speciation are mostly caused by loss of information, so how can evolution (molecules to man) be explained through adaptation and speciation?

No evolutionist have an answer. But they'll rather use subtle adhominem "you don't understand evolution" when confronted to provide evidence

Do enjoy yourself

Thanks for your understanding

MaxInDHouse:
Oh sorry!

You just woke up one beautiful morning and all you thought is come on social media where millions can read your story only to tell them How you became an atheist and you feel you won't answer thought provoking questions to help you know that you're just like every other person that makes personal decisions on what appeals to them!

OK i've heard you Mr Atheist!

Thanks for your understanding

MaxInDHouse:
Of course you can't defend this thread in face of real scrutiny!

So keep it to yourself nobody cares about how you became whether a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Judaist, Atheist or Agnostic.
If you want to preach you need to be fully competent and completely equipped to handle scrutiny!

I didn’t create the thread to answer to your questions. I created it to let you know how I became an atheist.

I am not here to take questions that are off point. Hope you get it?

2dominate:
For those who followed Jesus true teachings we believe so, but for those who interpolated it teachings and those who followed blindly then we believe otherwise.

Show me this in the Quran.

Image123:
As your usual ignorant self, you have not read the Koran. You just speak without thought or reasoning.

Alright please kindly educate me

Pelecius:
Really? Will you truly change your mind or apply gymnastics to what I'll provide so as to hold on to your atheistic faith?

But "aside the Bible..." Is the atheist ploy and tactic of separating the theist from his source of authority. It's like saying that one should explain Newtonian Physics without referencing the work of classic scientists. Or evolution without referencing the work of Darwin. It's futile since info are not brought out of vacuum. But I'll go ahead to play your game anyway

Many Historians, through whose works we know some ancient historical figures mentioned Jesus in their work. The chief I'll mention are
1. Tacitus
2. Josephus

I'll await the gymnastics

great, I totally agree with you

Pelecius:
Of course, you probably weren't aware of (though a highly simplified version of) the fact that Scientists who accept the word of God (and even through which modern science was built upon) already explained such concepts. But even if you knew, you probably weren't interested as Kepler explained and faulted your arguments earlier.

Cant you see that I am no longer interested in debating your kindergarten logic and scoliotic opinions.

The cheetah has nothing to prove to a group of dogs in a race. We have applied the theory of evolution in all fields of biological sciences, there is no point proving anything to someone that doesn't understand simple terms like speciation and adaptation.
Whatever rocks your boat is ok by me,

2dominate:
Nope we as muslims believe in Jesus and also other religions divine, but also believe that they were interpolated after their demise.

That means christians will go to Muslim heaven

Pelecius:
You don't know, but you accept it? I taught you became what you wanted all along because you claim not to see evidence for God. Wow!

There's no need to use sarcastic epithet. I'll just give a short summary. Study and review literature from creation journals to get technical expatiation of the subject.
Since the creation model rest on various (short but inexhaustible) statements from the Bible, hence, adaptation and speciation were used to explain the rapid diversification of life forms from the few which disembarked on the ark. And rapid speciation is still being observed even when most organisms have "specialized" by loosing much genetic information from a more general ancestor.
The "be fruitful and multiply..." Command in Genesis is also observed to have limits since it explained that organisms are to reproduce according to their kinds. But since what is being observed is that organisms loose genetic information through speciation, it follows that the ancestors (original created kind) have enough genetic makeup which allows for variation within itself, so as to adapt to various environmental pressure.

ok

MaxInDHouse:
With the highlighted in mind!

Please can you tell me your own definition of ATHEISM?

I dont think I am ready to move from pillar to post with you.

MaxInDHouse:
Most people here are offended anytime you say something that contradicts their line of thought!

You didnt say anything that contradicts my thoughts, you only created a topic that never existed on this thread.

I cannot remember saying i dont believe in god because i have not seen him.

Pelecius:
Like I said, the first statement is a statement of faith. It's an atheist creed.
You are not an historian, so it's easy to just say WHAT YOU WISH and hence, believe it.
To believe you, one will have to discard all ancient history, which is nonsensical at least.

What type of archaeological evidence do you want for a man? How many ancient figures have archaeological evidence for them? Do you doubt existence of Aristotle, Plato etc? If no, what archaeological evidence do you have for them?

Provide any evidence aside the Bible That Jesus existed, I will change my mind

Pelecius:
Do you notice you have been avoiding my question, which evolutionists want us to believe?

I'll repeat it again.
How do we get all life forms from the first simple cell?

I don’t know, just tell me how creation incorporates speciation and adaptation.

I want to learn that from a guru.

MaxInDHouse:
Haaaaaaaaaaaaa, have i offended you?

Please i tender an apology if i did!

I just want to know your views about a person you can't see yet He lives!

why do you think that I am offended?

Pelecius:
Lemme leave the first paragraph


You are just using the usual bait-and-switch tactic. Mere equivocation.
That organisms adapt and there's speciation are mechanisms which even predate Darwin. In fact, it is part of the Creationist model. The difference between the two groups is that evolutionists believe that All Life Forms arose from the UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTOR while Creationist believe that organisms are created in distinct kinds with enough genetic information to allow for speciation from such distinct kinds.

So how do we get plants and animals from the FIRST CELL? Since That's what evolution assumes.

There is not word like evolutionists, it’s a word used by scientifically illiterate people to describe those who accept the evidence in evolution.

I don’t think you deserve any further answer unless you grasp the basics of adaptation and speciation. It’s funny to think that you even know whatever you are saying.

How is speciation and adaptation part of creation model? Please educate me

Pelecius:
That's the burden of proof game most atheists play.
Now you want to tell us that your points have being refuted but you are an atheist because there's no proof for God?

The simple proof for God is Jesus. I told you this before but you attempted to deny his existence on earth. I responded that it is your atheistic bias (denial) that prompted that idea, because you'll have to discard all ancient history to be able to deny the existence of Jesus.
But you'll not want it that Jesus existed since you may not have reason to hold on to your atheistic believe.
Once again, the proof of God's existence is the fact that Jesus walked this Earth

Jesus never existed. That’s another problem.

No archeological evidence he did

Pelecius:
Of course, that's the usual tactics. But how does speciation and adaptation produce the evolutionary tree of life?
What evidence is there which support the idea that ALL LIFE FORMS as we have it now branched off from the first universal common ancestor (supposedly a "simple" cell)

Not forgetting the ignored part of my response since there are no evidence to support those atheistic statement of faith. Yet they make us look like they don't accept anything without evidence

I don’t even accept the evolutionary tree, I have not seen evidence for it’s accuracy, it will only give a basic description of how it happened. I don’t advice you to believe it either. A lot of scientists don’t take the proposed evolutionary tree seriously but the idea behind it is what we have evidence for.

But we have evidence that organisms adapt and change over time, which is evolution. You really don’t know what you want.

keppler:
I remember a day my dad was teaching us about Noah’s flood and then we got to that point where god said he’s using the rainbow as a sign to remind humanity that he would never destroy earth with flood. Even as a 9years old, that part didn’t make sense to me, because I see it in the news frequently of flood destroying farms, properties and even killing people
I'm surprised that you tried to equate FLOODING THE EARTH to LOCAL FLOODS. I want to believe that you didn't read it well, else, you must have seen the difference.
Your skepticism would be valid if you have witnessed flood destroying the earth again. But of course, it didn't happen (Whether the Bible is correct or not). I believe this should not be part of your reason as it was invalid in the first place.

I taught them that god never change but in my mind, I wasn’t convinced because while reading the Bible, there many instances of god[b] changing his mind[/b] and even regretting his decisions
Again, this is false equivocation. I don't know anyone who understands language (English in this case) who would agree that CHANGING ONE'S MIND is the same thing as CHANGING ONESELF. I don't need to say much on this again but this is another reason you gave but is invalid to begin with.

I always think about it that the god of Old Testament seems different from what is portrayed in the New Testament, something changed
Nothing really changed. He is still the consuming fire (Heb 12:29), it is still a terrible thing to fall in to his hands (Heb 10: 31), we still need to behold his ...severity (Rom 11:22). Just as he yearn for us as a Father to his son (Jer 31: 20), He gathers his children with GREAT COMPASSION after chastising them (Isa 54:7) He is compassionate and gracious... and abounding in love (Psa 103: 2) and so many others.
Again we are beginning to see the trend that the reasons are mostly borne out of incomplete knowledge or invalid premises

After having background knowledge in genetics, molecular biology and biological metabolism, it was clear that every living thing are the same basically
Of course, that is the data on ground. Now, interpreting it depends on the lens with which one wants to use. The theist argue that that same raw materials can be used by a designer to produce different products - God is sovereign to use same material to produce spectrum of living things. The atheists arguing with the background knowledge that there is no God, sees same data as one thing leading to all (I just simplified it anyway).
So, this has not proved anything as both can not experimentally prove their case. It is almost unfalsifiable. So, here we go again...

I discovered about Big Bang theory, theory of relativity, string theory etc, it took a lot of time before I could grasp them but when I did, it became clearer that the Bible is not consistent with anything in reality
Though the big bang ( through which the string theory too somehow depends on) was of theistic origin and one of the Nobel laureates who confirmed the CMB did his work with a theistic motivation that the universe has a beginning, but the entire theory and its offshoot have been hijacked so that it has no theistic influence. The way data are being interpreted as I said earlier is usually based on which lens you are using.
Finally on this, your last statement is also false. It's in fact a statement of faith as all I need is to show just ONE thing in reality that the Bible is consistent with. The Bible talks about the heavens and earth having a BEGINNING and we know at least (even with so much materialist interpretation) that the universe has a beginning. I don't need to give other life lessons that the Bible teaches which is consistent with reality again.
Once again, we are yet to see any valid argument

It was difficult for me to accept this truth
Here we go again. We are to accept your "truth" which is full of invalid proofs anyway

I met with lot of renown and brilliant people in the field of biochemistry. They were realistic in their beliefs and will not believe anything unless you can back it with evidence
I expect that these brilliant people would accept abiogenesis with zero evidence. Maybe I should not jump into conclusion yet sha

I was very free to come out clean with my realistic traits. A lot of my lecturers didn’t believe in god. I became a full fledged atheist in Europe by the time I finished my program
I think we should have seen by now that those REALISTIC TRAITS were not as a result of conflict with what the Bible teaches, but could be your inner desire (The Bible said that folks in the last days will gather teachers to teach them what they want to hear 2 Tim 4:3... This could be another consistency with reality I think.)

so far I haven’t seen anything consistent with the Christian God
Well, if you ask, I believe you should see. But I have a feeling that 2 Tim 4:3 is talking about you. Even if you see, you could still fulfil Rom 1:18 and maybe to verses 21.

Just provide evidence for your god and I will immediately change my mind.

MaxInDHouse:
Please do you believe in air and gravity?
If you do have you seen any of the two?

When did I tell you that I don’t believe in god because I cannot see him?

Pelecius:
If asked the evidence that evolution occurred, we may get evidence for adaptation or speciation which no informed one disputes, yet the "enlightened" ones want to tell us that it is evolution - the type that brought about all life forms from the first single ancestor.

But do we need to talk about the evolution when we can't even get how the first cell came to be? Worse, materialists have definitely reduce science to physics and chemistry, claiming that whatever can't be observed, tested and experimented is unscientific. But of course, same should go for evolution (it has never been observed and it'll never be, because no one can live for millions of years that's believed for it), abiogenesis (more researches are making the little hope fleet away, but that's the only atheistic myth for origin of life; so they have faith that it'll be cracked one day), panspermia (only pushing the problem of origin of life to outside of the earth. Again, no evidence of aliens, but the faith believe that given the vastness of the universe and the faith that abiogenesis occured even without evidence, then life must have arose in other places).

It's not lack of evidence for God' that makes people abandon Christianity, it's mostly the rebellious nature of man that kicks in. Then one use materialism to justify oneself in an intellectual manner.

your first comment is funny.

Evolution is actually speciation and adaptation. Do you even understand what you are saying at all?

1Sharon:
Flying spaghetti monster is sarcasm designed to mock believers

lol

ThothHermes:
I don't have the kind of evidence you want. Nobody does. You will never get it.
It's like trying to get an FM station on an AM frequency.

theres no kinds of evidence.

Evidence is always evidence; repeatable and measurable. You will create different kinds when you want to hide something

Enceladus:
Is the current C the speed of light on a one-way trip or on a two way's trip divide by 2 ?

Also my initial statement is why did Einstein believe that the true value of C is the value of C he was using.

you are having a lot of half baked opinions.
A method of measuring the speed of light is to measure the time needed for light to travel to a mirror at a known distance and back. Have you ever tried it and got a different figure?

Enceladus:
What kind of fallacy is E=MC ^2?

I will leave that to you to read on that. Reading about special relativity and why c's current value was assumed will help you get to the fact.

Saying the world is built on fallacy is also a fallacy.

I am referring to why everything in the world is literally built upon e=mc² .

Wow, you think think C current value was assumed?
Are you kidding me? Why do you lot have peripheral knowledge on stuffs and never want to dig deep?

Enceladus:
Fallacy this fallacy that. The world is literally built on fallacy if you don't know. E = mc² is a fallacy btw so stop whining about fallacy.

Also the only response you could give to my claim was that it has this and that dogma characteristics. Is that not a fallacy.

Anyways, I am not interested in this round-robin debate because it is leading nowhere.

What kind of fallacy is E=MC ^2?

Saying the world is built on fallacy is also a fallacy. But first, explain to me how theory of relativity is fallacious?

Enceladus:
First, this is not a philosophical debate and I also laugh really hard at people forming atheism. Being there, done that.

I will only talk about the bolded because that is where you started getting things wrong. One thing you should know is religion creation most times is not a conscious effort. Carl Sagan once said Religions arose in part as attempts to propitiate and control, if not much to understand, the disorderly aspect of Nature.

I am not here to argue with you about religion. I don't belong to one. Though I have massive knowledge about the one's that interests me including the science religion.

so we should believe you because you quoted Carl Sagan’s opinion on religion?

That’s another fallacy, fallacy of appealing to authority.

Mention any religion that doesn’t hold infallible dogmas, I will wait.

Science is a religion is strictly your opinion and it’s not true.