mama-g:

@poster

You called him God right?

Yeee--es?

When God was in the process of creating the world, did he know that he was going to have to send his son (or himself) to come down to earth and died for the salvation of some of his own creatures, ie humans?

Did he have fore-knowledge of this at the time of creation?

Apart from the doctrine of hell (which promises eternal torment to those who end up there), what moral teaching in current circulation is [b]uniquely original [/b]to Christianity or derives from Jesus?

Pastor AIO:

I don't detest atheists and in fact I associate with them all the time. It would be impossible to get on in this world otherwise.

I've just got back from 9ja and I am certain that there are more atheists in 9ja than anywhere else in the world.

The human mind is a funny complex thing. What you think you believe consciously is not what you actually believe subconsciously. I believe that your subsconscious is expressed in one's behaviour that might be contrary to what one consciously professes.

Nigerians go on the way they do because deep down, without their knowing it, they don't actually believe in God.

How could you assert that? When a man goes about his life professing a strong belief in God and Jesus and organises his life in such a fashion as to venerate and celebrate God/Jesus, are you saying that he actually does NOT believe in God? Is he doubly deluded, or is he simply acting in a way to deceive the people around him?

SCYLLA:

Huxley is it possible for you to email me pdf's of your books on religion?

Hello, and thanks for asking. Unfortunately, I have not got many pdf's of the books I have got. But I would not mind sending you hard copies of my spare books. Drop me your mailing address at therationalist@yahoo.co.uk, and I shall see if I can despatch a couple out to you.

Listen here

Anyone fancies reading this book?

I can't remember what you mean.  IS that the link to a book by George Smith?


Here is a pdf of the classic book by George Smith

http://www.federacionatea.org/documentos/thecaseagainstgod.pdf

And more;

6
7
8
9
10
11

noetic2:

do u think that this event was just a random possibility?

Which event are you talking about?

If you are alive today, count yourself extremely extremely luck (if it is indeed good to have lived). What do you think your chances of existence were? Let attempt a small computation;

You are the result of the union of one egg from your mother and one sperm from your father. If a different sperm had fertilised that egg cell, you would be a different person today. What are the chances that that particular sperm merged with that particular egg to produce you? Given that each male ejaculate can contain up to 500 millions sperms, you were one out of about 500 million to succeed in that race to fertilised that egg on that particular day.

If your parents had had sex on a different day, you would not be here to day. So of all the days available, if your parents had chosen a different moment to have intercourse, you would not be you.

Now, just by considering the number of sperms (and ignoring all the various other relevant factors) from your father and computing the odds back through the generations, the probability of your existence becomes vanishingly small, but nontheless, non-zero.

The fact that you are here is evidence that although a probability may be vanishingly small, if does not mean that the event it describes is not realisable.

So be grateful for your time in the Sun and make the most of it. Don't waste it chasing after vain promises of rich rewards elsewhere.

horse703:

i do not believe evolution has been proven by any of those fields u have mentioned, if so just give me a summary of how these prove evolution.

Science is not in the business of providing proofs of claims. Science is in the business of testing hypothesis and providing and marshalling evidence for against claims or hypothesis. As per evolution, the fact that could stand as evidence for evolutions is:

1) The observed gradation in complexity of lifeforms from relatively simple life billions of years ago to more complex/advanced life in the present.

Now, how do you explain that? How do you explain the fact that remains (fossils) of mammals and birds are never found in rocks 500 million years old?

horse703:

i have already given an answer to those three questions, enlighten me if im wrong.

if u do believe that science cannot be explained on "religious or superstitious or revelatory evidence" why cant u believe that the opposite applies. Atheists on nairaland keep asking for scientific evidence on christianity and base disbelieve in God on that.

The above  is not what I said.   This is what I said:

Scientific theories can only be accepted and rejected on a scientific evaluation of the evidence for/against it.  Not on religious or superstitious or revelatory evidence.



Basically, you cannot accept or reject a scientific theory using any other means of assessment but science.  So if the scientific theory contradicts your cherished beliefs, you cannot reject the theory based on those beliefs.  You must evaluate the theory using scientific means and accepted or reject it accordingly.

The scientific method cannot be used to accept or reject religions, myths or superstitions per se.  However, if these religions, myths or superstitions make factual claims that are realisable in the material world or material sense, then science could be used to examine such claims.  Note the diference - science is used to examine the factual claims of religions.

Now, most religions are built on one or many of such claims.  What if science finds that all or most of the factual claims of a religions are specious?  Would that religion have a foundation to sit on?

afix:

YET TO BE CONVINCE!.all what you said is base on deductive reasoning.NOW i will want you to give me the details of how ADAM came into existence,and then JESUS and then bring out similarities and differences from the story of their origin

Sorry for being a pedant. Did you mean inductive reasoning? [b]Deductive reasioning [/b]is as secure and watertight a way of reasoning as they come.

Am afraid, there is some truth in what he says. If you guys so much as engaged in illicit sex, or just casually touched each others privates, or kissed each other, then am afraid, there is no turning back. Read Deuteronomy 22:20-21.

horse703:

so are u saying that since scientists were right and rome was wrong the same assumption could be applied to evolution?, that is really shallow thinking, wht about all those other theories that came up and have been found to be totally wrong? for example, early theories on heredity, preoformation and particulate thories, preformationists believed parents possesd a miniaturised version of a human beign in the reproductive cells, which will then be "cooked" in womans womb and grow, guess wht thousands of scientist including general public accepted this for years!!!, particulate theory says that,paraphrased, every single organ has particles that it distributes to beign to create a whole human beign, they believed this also for years, are they true now?!

You are right that many scientific theories from the past have been rejected in the light of new and better evidence. This is exactly what science demands. However, there is ONE BIG requirement, namely;

Scientific theories can only be accepted and rejected on a scientific evaluation of the evidence for/against it. Not on religious or superstitious or revelatory evidence.



Why was there opposition to the heliocentrism in the 17th century? Was the opposition motivated by scientific or religious ends?


BTW, do you know the different between the following:

1) Hypothesis
2) Fact
3) Theory

as use in the scientific sense?

Interesting to see Dan Hofstadter weighing in on this debate. I like some of his books, three of which I have got. But they are very technical and demand a great deal of focus to read. I will certainly be buying this one. Many thanks for letting us know.

At what age did Jesus become aware that he was god?  Was it

1)  In the womb

2)  At birth?

3)  6 months old ?

4)  1 year old ?

5)  12 years old ?

6)  20 years old ?

7)  30 years old ?

8.)  33 years old ?

9)  At the crucifixion?

10) At the Resurrection?

I just knew you were never a true atheist. Watch here .

God make us laugh again. here

wirinet:

Discrimination and segregation are primitive animalistic instinct that a lot of people cannot get over, it arises out of either fear of the unknown or unpredictable or the need for security of our beliefs which we had invested our whole life with.

If all humans were the same colour, we will still hate and fight over counties.
If there is only one country in the world, we would fight over tribes.
If there is only one country and tribe, we would fight over religions
If there is only one religion, we would war over sects
If there is only one sect, we would war over hierarchy.
If every member is equal in the eyes of the religion, we would find something else to segregate ourselves, maybe height or length of nose.

If you study human history, a society being the same religion had never guaranteed peace, in fact it is almost a recipe for conflicts. Because different sects always spring up claiming to be the right sect. The reason Christians has a semblance of unity in Nigeria is because they perceive the have a greater enemy - The Muslims. If you remove Muslims from Nigeria, CAN would break up overnight and Pentecostals and Catholics will have a go at each other, same with Catholics and  Protestants, by the time Jehovah Witness, Cele, Apostolic Faith and so on enters the mix< you will have a real "roforofo" fight. Some of these pent up anger can be felt in this religion section of Nairaland. The same Scenario will also play our if Nigeria is a Muslim only country, a good example is Iraq, where Shiites and Sunnis are at each others throat.

The only remedy to a peaceful society is to allow people to believe what ever they chose to believe a encourage people mixing and interacting freely, there would be some antagonism and some ego bruising but in the long run people will prefer to leave other believers to their "crazy" beliefs.  

Absolutely spot on.   Just think of the great schisms in early christianity with the Arianist controversy.  In fact, early christianity was split into no less than 10 sects each fighting for supremacy and for the right and freedom to be taken seriously. It is estiamted that about a million lives were lost in such internal christian infighting.

To this day, no-one knows what "true christianity" represents.

I think we should have a sub-forum for tithers and one for non-tithers

How about "God Answers Prayers"

Have a laugh here

Great Video and Great Question.

Yes, that is so true. Check here for more details.

Watch the movie here .

Pastor AIO:

I don't disbelieve you Huxley. I reckon that not only do you dream Nairaland but you eat and breathe it too judging from the number of threads you've started up.

Oh yes, NL is GREAT and I enjoy spending time here. Don't you? It looks to me like you do too.

The feedback I have got from some members is that my presence here is valued and that is why I keep posting. You, for one, have commented positively with regards to my contribution, which I might add, is an honour.

Like any activity, there is a point of dimishing returns, beyond which I would have very little impact. I might already be there or close to being there. So there inevitably will come a time when I shall withdraw from contributing. But my hope is that we (the rationalists) would have spread the message of rationalism and naturalism suffciently into the Nigerian/African memesphere before I retire. Our mission is great but not insurmountable.