Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> You err by surmising that I don't believe in evolution because I haven't studied it well enough. that is the connotation in your post. I am well aware of (and keep abreast with) the 'evidence' and counter arguments against them. Evolution still requires faith, especially so, since it deals with the origins of man.

The evidences for a lie can be overwhelming.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> inconclusively

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> yes

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> Straw man again ! Science and Religion are tied down to ideologies. Why ?  Look at the definition of ideology.

It applies to both science and religion. You don't equivocate my use of 'ideology' to your own definition of science and religion. I hope I have made this lucid.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> I know so. You ask

I reply that it is exactly what science says. It is a religious inquiry into reality that engenders science.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> i was particular to use engender (or cause). Your use of 'influence' implies that religion indirectly led to science_not so. Religion (or religious thinking) which birthed science still influences science (and the scientific method) today.

Uyi Iredia:

You only asserted otherwise. by the way, as i gave with examples (like Semmelweis'),

Uyi Iredia:

science relies as much on authority as religion relies on evidence.

Uyi Iredia:

The differences and similarities are obvious.

Uyi Iredia:

An iteration (and rephrasal) of points in my former post should keep our discussion in check.

>>> The errancy of polarizing science and religion is highlighted by my 2 core points:
[list]
[li]The fallibility of polarity[/li]
[li]Their immutability in philosophy[/li]
[/list]

At this point it should be obvious that my intention is to blur the line between science and religion by means of two crucial elements common to both of them. Reason and Faith.

*Polarity is fallible because it ignores parallels between two concepts. it ignores their ambiguity and the fact that ambiguous concepts are handled by arbitration. I gave an example using good and evil to explicate this point. When you polarize 2 concepts, you ignore their similarities ab initio

*Religion and Science are philosophies. I expect that anyone should know that various 'isms' (e.g theism, deism, stoicism, platonism, communism, materialism, monism, evolutionism inter alia ) overlap and intertwine as regards the concept of science and religion. The plan was to make one realize this: the fact that religious and scientific worldview causes one's perception of reality highlights their similarity (they are one and the same expressed in different ways).

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> Enmeshed in reality. In subjects like knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. All of which follow from reality >>> Perhaps so, given the fact that we can never have absolute knowledge of reality in its entirety, perhaps not_going by your definition of religion of course. I'm ignoring their differences_obvious ones given in your arguments. I'm thinking similarities_obvious ones you ignore in my arguments.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> Going by your definition of religion and faith. This further goes to show how subjective perceptions can be. Why others don't come to the same conclusion puts a question mark ? on what you have said.

Uyi Iredia:

A pity that scientists have to preach the scientific method to the uninitiated.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>>  In a dark room a person places a candle, then walks away. Two persons chance upon that room. One describes it as a dark room with a candle.The other person describes it as a candle in a dark room. Either way they are right, its a matter of perspective. I propose the same happens for science and religion who are the persons. The perspective is faith.

Uyi Iredia:

>>> the fallacy of equivocation in this context goes deeper than the change in how faith is effected. It is based on what faith is predicated upon reason (evidence). I excused myself from this fallacy by saying that while faith (belief) is the same the reasons for such faith is prone to ambiguity.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>>    not good enough. seen stuff like that

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> no  >>> but accidental discoveries (like those of Oersted and Faraday) have further advanced science. don't get me started on this one

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> What's false ? My assertion ? or the examples given to support it ? perhaps the part where i mentioned clout ?  let me make this clear. science is primarily based on authority. the dissension here is the basis for such authority, as i denoted it isn't always evidence. Political clout wielded in scientific circles has a secondary role (if not a primary role_and arguably so) to play.

Uyi Iredia:

>>> furthermore, if i had any doubts about my assertion; this statement you made (note the bolded part)  erased it.

this further goes to show that science is asserting itself as the only viable means of perceiving reality. it is becoming an authority_an interesting fact

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> no >>> but they were most definitely revised

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> i can clearly see that

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> They ARE in a single category_in Life, in Nature (and as I've repeated by the dozen) in Reality

thehomer:

I'm not sure of what you're implying here but the fact that two things are similar on some level does not make them the same across board.*1

Why are you ignoring their differences when that is the point of contention?*2

The very fact of subjective perceptions is one of the shining lights of science.*3

Yes. Unlike religion and some other similar activities, scientific thinking does not come easily. One must work at it.*4

This is a poor analogy. Here's a modification to make it clearer.
One person describes it as a dark room with a candle another describes it as a room with spirits causing the darkness that are being chased away by fairies magically igniting their wands.*5

I don't see the reasons as being ambiguous. One has a lot of evidence the other very minimal evidence unless of course one makes some unfounded assumptions.*6

I put those up for comparison of evidence we have about religious activity and scientific thinking not tool use that has also been observed across other species.*7

I'm not talking about accidental discoveries. I said modifications of scientific theory are done deliberately.*8

Your assertion is false and even your example backs it up. Einstein's theory was accepted because it worked not because it was Einstein that proposed it. Your claim about the modification being based on clout i.e the person proposing it is plainly false.*9

I really don't understand what problem you have with qualified people evaluating evidence in their fields. If you want to be able to evaluate it, then put in the work required.
I don't know what you mean about science being the only viable means of perceiving reality but one thing that I do know is that scientific methods are the best ways we have of gaining knowledge about the world we live in.*10

Since the texts were not rewritten then someone else can go ahead and use another interpretation. How then can you tell who is right and who is wrong if the text remains the same but two people in the same times draw different conclusions from it?
*11
Good.*12

Which of course places it in with all other human activities. So will you now say that all human activities are the same because they can all be shown to be similar on some level?*13

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> Without an understanding of that explication, this post will tend to redundancy >>> i hinted this by saying that our discussion needs be put in check >>> state what you make out of that paragraph >>> (you should note) that it is the core of this debate

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> as antagonisms against similarities you ignore >>> because of your rigid adhesion to your own definition of faith, religion and science

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> same goes for religion >>> 'subjective perceptions' is one of several phenomena common to both science and religion >>> think 'revelation', 'intuition and 'imagination' (examples of aforementioned phenomena)

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> if you think so by all means create a new religion >>> at the least a small church

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> my analogy is apt for my conception of science and religion >>> yours is also suited for your own conception (or rather, definition) of religion in particular >>> we are both even in this regard

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> what kind of 'unfounded assumptions' ? >>> the evidence for a scientific school of thought crumbles when a new one comes up (think Ptolemy and Copernicus) >>> *at this point, i see our mentations and worldview, as equal to that of the characters Neo and Smith in The Matrix Trilogy. I hope you are thinking what I'm thinking*

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> did you bother to compare dates  >>> between the three ? *it seems at some point we are going to argue about evolution. sooner, than later*

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> i was hoping that you would infer that 'accidents' do modify scientific theories

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> a rather weak argument since you jumped over how it was earlier rebuffed >>> also you reassert your point without even considering the possibility that my statement is true_with apt examples to back it up  >>> Political clout has a role to play in scientific circles >>> please do some homework on this

Uyi Iredia:

*10 >>> I have no problem with qualified people >>> *another parallel between science and religion. i'm thinking 'teacher' and 'cleric'* >>> but >>> qualified people doesn't always equate to evidence/proof beyond all doubt >>> a lie can be syllogistically and logically proven

Uyi Iredia:

*11 >>> i will >>> once you explain the notion of 'subjective perceptions' (which i opine equally applies here) >>> so you don't you accuse me of equivocating

Uyi Iredia:

*12 >>> i was being sarcastic >>> it is your pedantry (something you earlier accused me off when I 'came strong' against Deep Sight) that is causing conflict of our opinions

Uyi Iredia:

*13 >>> They aren't the same >>> but human activities are 'the same thing in different ways' or 'different attributes of the same thing'

thehomer:

Evolution is not really about belief it's about whether or not you accept a scientific fact.*1
I'm asking if you have actually considered the evidence and if so, what are your particular objections? I'm not implying that you've not studied it well enough.*2

What was inconclusive about it?*3

Have you considered that it is because they are human constructs? I mean consider languages. Human languages are similar in some ways.*4

If it is a straw man, you need to show the misrepresentation I'm making of your argument.
The point I'm making is that whatever your dogma, beliefs or myths, science works consistently if done properly while religion is tied down to dogma etc.
Please point out the straw man or state your argument clearly.*5

Can you present evidence of this in any religious text? Or are you simply saying this because it is now current knowledge? I hope you realize that when these religions were invented, the original practitioners did not know the chemical constituents of water.*6

So do you mean religion in general or just Christianity? Your claim of religious thinking influencing the scientific method is simply false unless you have the evidence to back it up.*7

What does the story have to do with authority? Can you compare the authority of any scientist to that of the pope?*8

Which is not at all.*9

Yes and the similarities basically end on the fact that they are both human constructs. It's the differences that are so engaging.*9

This is the aptest way I can express it: Belief is the 'espirit de corps' of any mode of thought.

Note that it is from a belief that a school of thought flourishes. Varied people contribute to such a belief and articulate reasons for such a belief till it becomes the very cornerstone of the existence of such people.

Science and Religion are inescapably tied down to ideologies. They influence the worldview of a person.

It applies to both science and religion. You don't equivocate my use of 'ideology' to your own definition of science and religion. I hope I have made this lucid.

Religion may be tied down but science is not tied down to ideologies this is one of the reasons for its universality on earth. The very same electromagnetic principles work whatever the ideologies of the practitioners.

thehomer:

I already said I don't understand what you were trying to say there.*1

I already said they had some similarities considering that they were human constructs.*2

You misunderstand me. I mean that subjective perceptions are one of the things science avoids but religion uncritically accepts.*3

I really don't need to. We've seen the rise and fall of several religions. And, there are quite a few examples of new religions.*4

No we are not. Your religious view accepts subjective entities such as demons and similar creatures I only included them there for clarity.*5

Scientific views do not randomly change. They change based on evidence.
I mean unfounded assumptions like uncritically accepting the Bible as being absolutely true on all matters.*6

What's the point of doing that? Your reference was about a totally different fact.*7

Why would I infer that? It's humans that modify the theories based on what has been discovered.*8

Then please present these apt examples of science being primarily based on authority.
Political clout? I'm not speaking about scientific circles. I'm speaking about scientific theories. I think you need to present your evidence of political clout making scientific theories better.*9

Please what are the qualifications of the cleric?
Science does not deal with "proof beyond all doubt".*10

Yes it does. By subjective perceptions, I mean awareness via the senses that are made by an individual which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. Now, what do you mean by subjective perceptions?*11

I did? I don't recall doing that.*12

Good. Then I think a good approach then will be to focus on their differences rather than their similarities because I think we both agree that they are similar on some levels.*13

Yes and the similarities basically end on the fact that they are both human constructs. It's the differences that are so engaging.

Also in my opinion, getting a message across is better done using simple words. Except where there really is no better option.

Uyi Iredia:

i wasn't able to upload this post yesterday >>> due to a break in internet connection

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> that's because of the clout behind evolution >>> scientific facts can be wrong

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> i'm still skeptical about evolution >>> let's trash this issue out b4 engaging ourselves on evolution >>> d'accord ?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> b'cos of the subjectivity and ambiguity of what constitutes evidence >>> you assert otherwise based on your own perception of science and religion

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> true human languages are similar in some ways >>> but that isn't the way i'll define their similarity >>>

my speculative comment on the similarity of human language is that : Human language is a common way of expressing a perception of reality that is mutually shared between two or more people

observe that this definition is not restricted to human beings alone >>> it can apply to inter-species language

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> i earlier mentioned that science and religion are tied down to ideologies >>> i meant that both have a doctrines and beliefs central to their mode of operating >>> *this is why i put down the definition of ideologies_which you ignore* >>>

observe my train of thought. note how the bolded part is reflected in your counter-argument.

look at what you wrote

now make the distinction between an ideology as a guiding principle and ideology as a worldview >>> and admit you erred

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> going by your logic >>> should i deduce that scientists were skeptic about the water they saw before finding out its chemical constituents >>> even the fact that such 'religious' practitioners could observe the attributes of and therefore name water shows their scientific ingenuity_unless you want to argue that the people who originally named (what is now called) water were scientists

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> the fact that you admit that human constructs are similar on a given level is enough evidence. I had previously stated that both science and religion have common footing (and are therefore invariably enmeshed) in philosophy >>> this is where the impact takes place

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> Albert Einstein, Aristotle, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Thales, Charles Darwin >>> even Galileo Galilei was well respected by the church that's why what was a certain death sentence was commuted to house imprisonment >>> *note that you didn't argue the fact that neo-platonian philosophy seriously impacted upon church doctrines* >>> so many of them >>> do you want more ?

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> okay >>> you have effectively made it clear that you can never consider otherwise.

Uyi Iredia:

*10 >>> b'cos my posited 'errancy of polarity' is so pervasive in the mindset of opposing sides

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> u never said "I don't understand" >>> You said "I'm not sure of what you're implying here" >>> state what you make out of it and let's work from there

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> i know >>> but you said that's were the similarities end >>>

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> how so ? >>> illustrate this differences with examples *i intend to show you parallels between science and religion that'll be observed in your examples*

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> same for scientific theories >>> if you suppose it is easy to be religiously minded >>> attempt it

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> and you assume that it's all Christians that believe in demons ? and similar entities ? >>> note that i haven't even given my definition of religion >>> only vague hints >>> i'd say we're still even >>> you clarified my analogy based on your own definition of religion >>> and faith

Uyi Iredia:

i haven't forgot the fact that you equate faith to religious faith

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> and what constitutes evidence can be very random and is open to falsifiability >>> even despite being rigidly defined >>> BTW not every Christian assumes the Bible to be absolutely true >>> hence different Christian sects_the same goes for other religions

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> it wasn't about a totally different fact >>> you should have noted that the dates in tool-making correlates with the time such religious rituals were first observed (from the website you referred me to) >>> even in your website there were images of spear heads (hint of scientific thought) made at about the same time the python stones were carved

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>>  exactly >>> what has been accidentally discovered

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> i didn't say political clout (wielded in scientific circles) makes scientific theories better >>> i asserted that they served as secondary basis (and arguably a primary basis) for acceptance of a theory >>> i have already given examples of Einstein and Semmelweis' >>> those should suffice as grounds *and before u cry foul*>>> if I were even to bring anymore i would advance that of Ptolemy vs Copernican models of the universe as another good example of political clout helping to advance a theory >>> asking me for evidence without bringing objections based on your own research into my assertions shows me that u don't want to think otherwise

Uyi Iredia:

*10 >>> and what are the qualifications of a teacher ? >>> then I have reason to be skeptical on evolution >>> BTW what does science deal with ?

Uyi Iredia:

*11 >>> by subjective perception I mean a person's way of interpreting a concept, subject, idea et al

Uyi Iredia:

*12 >>> you'll recall this

Uyi Iredia:

*13 >>> in doing that we miss out on parallels that can be attributed to both >>> hence my use of the term 'errancy of polarity'

Uyi Iredia:

On our former debate

BTW i still thought on questions you asked me in the post 'Is God Evil ?'

>>> The more I think on it >>> i still conclude that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent (hereafter referred to as omni-attributes) entity follows given the same characteristics in nature >>> would you acquiesce to the fact that nature has these omni-attributes ? >>> do you have a different conclusion ? *which could possibly be predicated on evolution*

Uyi Iredia:

this is why i think that IF i were to drop Christianity >>> the most plausible path for me would be deism >>> not atheism

Uyi Iredia:

On this thread

>>> I must still stress the fact that I didn't just wake up to say that Atheism is a religion >>> i thought about it >>> so far the only worthy counters I've gotten from these thread are

*Deep Sight's connoting the fact that i risk branding a mere belief as a religion
*your mention of the fact that the defining atheism as a religion would strip the definition of religion of its essence
I decided not to add expatiate on my other points in my post on "The errancy of polarizing science and religion"  because we are still debating on points I've raised >>> however do comment on upon the following

---

An (edited) excerpt from my memoir on this topic

My aim is to demonstrate that atheism_especially 'militant atheism' advocated for by Richard Dawkins is a religion_

Uyi Iredia:

"You do not prove (or explicate) a non-belief"

Uyi Iredia:

"That you do not play basketball does not mean you do not participate in sport"
- Uyi Iredia

Uyi Iredia:

The problem for me is not whether Atheism is a religion. It is on articulating why it is a religion. I opine that the least clearance that could be granted for Atheism (as the homer stated) is that it is a religious position (which I interject to be a religious mold of thinking). To this end i propose that

Uyi Iredia:

"Atheism as a religious bent could evolve into a religion or birth a religion"

"A rejection of belief in deities is primarily founded upon materialistic beliefs embodied by a scientific worldview"

- Uyi Iredia

Uyi Iredia:

I believe humanity is witnessing the birth of science as a religion with atheism as its harbinger. I'm inclined towards the homer's posit-that atheism is a religious position. My view goes further; i believe that as a religious position, atheism can, and has already evolved into a religion. My ground for this bias as i earlier implied the way militant atheism is spreading.

Uyi Iredia:

Given the fact that all religions revolve around a deity, or a person/object that is deified ; it could be that the grounds for polishing atheism as a religion is flimsy. This is not so. Why ? because militant atheism clearly evinces the fact that atheism has climaxed to a point where the worldview it . It espouses has been deified. It clearly shows that a concept can be deified and birth an irreligious worldview. This might be what makes atheism unique as a religion_especially as a religion that denies all others.

---

Deep Sight:

@ the homer.

You get energy to dey bother long tori sef.

Deep Sight:

The reason I refused and still refuse to give any time or effort to this thread is simply this. Many people have called me an "argument junkie." My younger brothers say the same all the time. They used to say that it is only when I wake up and come to the living room to join the rest of the family that all sorts of different arguments and discussions start. Pastor AIO even gave me a subtle yabb the other day, saying that what i relish is endless banter to and fro withoutr head or tail.

Truth is, I absolutely LOVE debate. But in taking wisdom from all that people have said about me, I must acknowledge that it is not every discussion or debate that one must per force enter. There is no battle: and even if there were: there is no compulsion to "win" it.

Deep Sight:

The proposition contained in this thread is far too nonsensical to be entertained. You waste your time.

. . .

harakiri:

All these dumb Christians never give up do they (the OP most especially included). Even invalids in the psych ward will laugh at the topic.

So freaking dense ! ! !

My goodness!

thehomer:

I'll take it any way you want. What is it about evolution that you are skeptical about?*1

Subjectivity and ambiguity? Please demonstrate this. Not just on my own perception, but on that of a majority of humans on earth.*2

I think that definition is restricted to humans. The first two words were "Human language" I don't think that would also refer to say pigeon language.*3

You said religion and science were tied down to ideologies that implies that they are [b]not ideologies but are made subject to ideologies. My point is that whatever one's ideology i.e beliefs, etc, knowledge gained from scientific principles will still apply. This of course means, that science is true, independent of ideologies. Do you now see my reasoning?[/b]*4

This line of argument is simply irrelevant and is a poor attempt at evading a direct request. I'm not simply talking about the water molecule, I'm saying that knowledge that water had smaller constituents was not known until scientists worked on it which occurred much later. This is why such information and similar ones are absent from old religious texts. All they contain is information that was available to them then.*5

Why don't you simply present evidence for your statement of religious thinking still influencing the scientific method today? And that of your religion birthing science? Or are you evading another direct question?*6

thehomer:

All right, what it seems to me that you're saying is that religion and science are the same because you notice some similarities at some point. e.g the fact that science and religion can influence a person's worldview makes them the same.*7

Ok. A person claims to have detected a new type of radiation. This will be reviewed and analyzed and if found to be consistent, will be accepted. Compare this to a religious belief in which a person claims to have heard an animal speak to them or to have heard God speak to them and this is taken as a fact.
*8
So you actually think scientific theories are adopted in the same way as religious beliefs?
I really cannot attempt to be religiously minded since I've seen the light.*9

Then please present your definition of religion.*10

Yeah so?*11

Huh evidence can be random? I'm sorry, but you are again flat out mistaken. What is considered scientific evidence is carefully selected to match what is being studied.
Again, the important thing is that many Christians accept the Bible uncritically. The multiple sects is of course a point against Christianity.*12

Again, tool making is not a sign of scientific thinking. You may recall that tool making has been noted in at least two vertebrate orders so it is not even exclusive to humans unless you wish to claim that other animal species are scientific.*13

Why do you deliberately misunderstand what I'm saying, is it the discovery that rewrites the theory or [b]the humans? Please understand that the discovery may change how humans view the world, but it is humans that write the theories.[/b]*14

What do your examples have to do with political clout making the theory accepted? How did Einstein's theory require political clout for it to be correct? And Semmelweis? What does that have to do with anything being discussed?
Your claim about political clout being required for a scientific theory to be accepted is simply false. You are yet to present evidence of this.
Please understand that Einstein's theory was accepted because it was correct. The predictions made with it were accurate and have been tested several times and found to be accurate. This is why it is accepted not because of political connections. Unless you can show that the political connections that made it correct or more accurate.*15

A teacher requires specialized knowledge in his required field.
So what? Be skeptical. All I request is the parts of the theory of evolution that you're skeptical about and some signs that you actually have some basic knowledge of the theory. On a side note, I'd also like to know if you have a better explanation for the diversity we see.
Science deals with evidence.*16

Ok. How much value do you place on subjective perceptions? Do you place this above or below testable hypothesis?*17

nd the last sentence?*19

Well if that's been your goal, then you're not meeting it in this discussion.*20

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> we'll talk on that later >>> meanwhile check [url=http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/this out[/url]

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> i have

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> it would >>> inasmuch as constructs are similar at a given level >>> the resultant plasticity would allow my definition of language to apply to pigeon language

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> yeah >>> which was why i said it was straw man

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> so you think religious people didn't inquire into the constituents of water ?

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> which is why i asked for an example >>> my post is replete with the evidences you hold so dearly

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> bad logic >>> as i presumed that is hampering our discourse >>> my core point can be summarized thus : as long as one makes a dichotomy out of the concept of science and religion one invariably precludes their similarities >>>

Uyi Iredia:

the relevance of this to my castigation of atheism (militant atheism to be precise) as a religion >>> is captured by the quote i made earlier >>> "A rejection of belief in deities is primarily founded upon materialistic beliefs embodied by a scientific worldview"

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>>

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> it shows

Uyi Iredia:

*10 >>> not yet

Uyi Iredia:

*11 >>> and what can be carefully matched is random >>>

Uyi Iredia:

anything can be chosen to be carefully matched >>>

Uyi Iredia:

true, multiple sects is a point against Christianity and science >>> BTW Christians also critique the Bible >>> resulting in skeptics as yourself >>> or other likely results

Uyi Iredia:

*12 >>> so what ? >>> random discoveries/occurrences effectuate scientific theories

Uyi Iredia:

*13 >>> j'adoube >>> but not because i made a false blunder >>> i'm aware that other species also make use of tools and this is a sign of cognition (not scientific thinking) >>> however your presenting of farming as evidence of scientific thinking is flawed

Uyi Iredia:

>>> there are a species of ant that engage in a form of farming *they capture another genus of ant and rear their milk* >>> i am also aware that bees produce honey (a type of animal farming i presume ?) >>> i came across these facts in an encyclopedia "Tell Me Why"_evidence of course >>> it is likely that other species can exhibit scientific thinking >>> i intend to check this out in the forseeable future

Uyi Iredia:

*14 >>> based on what ?

Uyi Iredia:

*15 >>> redundant and circular >>> those were solid pieces of evidence which you hogwashed >>> nevertheless google Thomas Kuhn >>> then let's talk >>> otherwise >>> kaput

Uyi Iredia:

*16 >>> same goes for the cleric

Uyi Iredia:

check my previous post again >>> i have 'filled in the gaps'

@DeepSight:
It takes a lot of understanding to get what noetic is saying. "Christianity is not a religion". Why?
My personal definition of religion (open to criticism):

Quote
Religion is a strong belief in a supernatural power (i.e. Deity) or powers (i.e. Deities) who is (are) the personification(s) of (a) force(s) that control human destiny, some part of the world or some aspect of life.In the light of my definition above, humans who believe in a religion or the other carry out relevant activities to ensure that they are in the right standing with that deity (or those deities) to prevent damnation and secure serenity and success either in this life, or in another (if they believe in a life after this one), or both. It is an ever-reaching attempt by man to reach and experience the divine.

Deep Sight:

^^^ That really struck me - This person argues that christrianity is not a religion, but that atheism is a religion? ? ?

Good grief.

Mudley313:

^^^you should know contradiction is in the hypocritical nature of most believers of the mostly inconsistent book of jewish mythologies and fairy tales. they label their tyrannical god loving and peaceful and other mythical figures like satan and allah evil while at the same time overlooking or even justifying obviously atrocious acts the bloodthirsty genocidal jewish god of the old testament committed. they condemn polytheism but are okay with 3 gods: the egoistic monster that is the father, the acclaimed miracle working jewish carpenter who was executed like a common criminal that is the son, and the ghost that impregnated another man's virgin wife without consent. it's only christians who would arrogantly argue that the worlds largest religion, christianity, is actually  not a religion, while in the same hypocritical breath label something obviously anti-religion as being a religion. and you wonder why they're so divided in the interpretation of their own delusions

jmaine:

The hate of Saul towards Jews in the bible was worse than what you feel your dishing out. But the good news was, the same energy he used in persecuting and killing Jews was the same or even more energy he used in winning back souls for Christ . You utterances towards anything Christ could be said to be very foul. You will end up using the same Filthy mouth of yours to Glorify God and preach his gospel. If you dare say over your dead body then so shall it be. Your lesson will be other people gains.

Mudley313:

Deep Sight:

WHERE IS INESQOR? ? ? ?

I just came across YOUR OWN definition of religion in an old thread in your Mavenbox days -

KunleOshob:

^^^
Nairaland has really changed Inesqor

InesQor:

@kunleoshob
LOL! You are only partially correct. Nairaland changed mavenbox. InesQor has always been like this <the rest has been edited out>

MyJoe:

Right. As a people watcher, I personally find the transformation from mavebbox to InesQor unbelievable. I would guess it takes a highly developed spirit or intellect or both to achieve this feat. Not that mavenbox's spirit has not been sighted hovering around a post occasionally but that is only human and it was always quickly reined in. Bravo!

Deep Sight:

Given the foregoing, your contributions to this thread are paradoxical.