Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,168,867 members, 7,872,884 topics. Date: Thursday, 27 June 2024 at 02:04 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Keppler's Profile / Keppler's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (of 7 pages)
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 6:49am On Mar 27, 2021 |
HellVictorinho: You are clearly angry now for wishing me death. God be with you |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 6:47am On Mar 27, 2021 |
budaatum:I intentionally phrased it the way I did as I believe that it is possible to know what the Bible clearly teaches as against reading into the Bible what one wants. I can't make such claim when it comes to understanding of some certain passages, but I believe that the Holy Spirit have helped in helping folks know Sola Scriptura - interpreting scripture with scripture, which is what we see Jesus and his apostles did. That help one not to impose his UNDERSTANDING on the scripture. By the way, I said I don't like discussing interpretations of scripture. It's why I don't join when Christians are dissecting issues on NL |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 6:41am On Mar 27, 2021 |
budaatum:You are not wrong about the difference among the offshoot of a worldview system but my point have been about the generics. What is known to bring all of them under such camp. Many may find some of the principles of such system to be difficult, but they've an a priori rejection for other systems already, hence, it is easier to make adjustments which may give them names such as heretics. So atheism also have a priori rejection to the concept of God and would love to provide alternatives to worldview questions that are being answered with God being a presupposition. They must exclude God. And when you talk of KNOWING that there is no God, that is a very difficult position for anyone to take. Most atheists don't like starting from a difficult position which is why they keep changing some terms (which generally, all do quickly adjust to) in order to reduce the burden of answering tough philosophical questions. Again, I am not arguing against what I feel someone should believe. I am arguing against the concept provided by atheism in a broad sense. Trying to look for strong ground to stand on and deviating from the norm as explained by those whom many of our atheists have learned from is just a form of deception. In fact, I am not attacking straw man, rather I am engaging with what the literature from which they largely grow their arguments. If I used one person's belief (which may be "unorthodox" to atheism) to engage atheism, that is when I attack straw man |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 6:24am On Mar 27, 2021 |
LordReed:Still wrong. Atheism is not the opposite of Christianity I never implied that Atheism is the opposite of Christianity There were atheists before Christianity Sure! Atheism rejects the concept of God before Jesus came (which maybe argued to be the foundation for Christian principles) but that is not the main issue. The main issue is that it rejects the idea of God as its presupposition, hence it has alternative for those philosophical questions. Many of the age long thinkers clearly answered such questions before. Though, a Christian worldview provides an explanation for why atheism exist and why they surely have alternative explanation to how the universe came to be Also who says God or no god needs to also answer how the universe was created? That is a nonsequitur No body says that but it is what is observed in real time. Theists (Christians especially) believes that God made the universe (as revealed in his word). The other clearly rejects the notion of God (and the Bible) and hence propose alternatives (such as the universe is eternal, it came from nothing, etc). But I get, folks don't want to be cornered just as evolutionists would avoid the question of the first life form, hence claim that it has nothing to do with the theory |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 6:03am On Mar 27, 2021 |
LordReed: This why I told you to ditch your assumptions when talking to me. Where have I told you I am an idealist? Alright, I guess you did not read what I wrote well as I don't know how I imply that you are an idealist. I said your belief system are in ANTITHESIS to the idealist world view. Did I not tell you that my worldview is not atheistic so why are surprised that my presuppositions are not based on disbelief? 1. We don't know. 2. We are a result of natural processes. You are not just being consistent and maybe not truthful with yourself. Your answers to the question proved that already. They are answers provided by those who start with the axioms that there is no God. 1. They gave many hypothesis which are being over turned by later understanding of the universe. But they all have an a priori belief that it MUST exclude God. This is consistent with atheistic worldview 2. Thought there is no prove that we are here through natural processes alone but such answer is necessary in order to exclude God as a creator who made the universe and made earth for living forms with laws governing the operation of everything. In fact, this second answer is enough to prove that it derives from atheistic worldview. All I need to ask is what are the natural process that you are referring to? If I limit it to our existence, how did the natural processes bring us into existence? |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 5:52am On Mar 27, 2021 |
HellVictorinho: You were even asked why, but you couldn't give any reason. Or you are angry that you got exposed and couldn't defend your claims the other time? |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 10:24pm On Mar 26, 2021 |
budaatum:Worldview is not necessarily a form of belief system or perspective! One may have a worldview of disbelief too. Disbelief is just a semantic play. It is a belief in the opposite direction. So worldview whether of belief in something or disbelieve is still a belief system of different directions And now have you hit the head of the nail. You fail to recognise that the morality that even theists learn originated from the subjective humans simply because you received you morals as an object in a book without knowing their subjective human origin. And you are equating "worldview" with objective reality, which it clearly is not since a worldview is precisely a view of a subjective human being, and in this instance, seen through respective theistic or atheistic lens. Either ways, they'll both be best served saying please and thank you, and not killing each other. There are lot of assumptions here that you made (if I'm being generous), but I wouldn't want to move away from topic For your own selfish survival advantage perhaps, be you a theist or an atheist, as history shows, which is why we humans, in our wisdom, have devised the Holy Bible and such other texts to teach you to be humanistic, the meaning of which is "love your neighbours and your enemies moreso", for the common good of all humans. I guess this issue is dragging because you have a view of the Bible which I find incompatible with what the Bible teaches. But again, I am not going to delve into that You just need to do a little bit of research to find how universal that law is. Smiles, I'll try to see how old such 'universal law' is and how old it is from where I actually know it from |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 10:04pm On Mar 26, 2021 |
LordReed:Though these are belief systems though you may think that the word "belief" in it makes it look religious rather than philosophical. And it stand in antithesis with the idealist concepts or worldview. It's just that though, these belief system are not exclusive to you (I've seen some of this ideas on the net), they don't have anything to do with disbelieve in the existence of God. There are questions to be answered first which these usually serve as auxiliary. Those would answer existence of a real universe - realism as a whole. Could be framed as 1. If we exist in reality, that should be in a real time and space. This would suppose that our universe is real, then how and why did a real universe came to be? 2. How did we arrive here? These questions can now give room for those presuppositions |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 9:40pm On Mar 26, 2021 |
LordReed:I explained that to Buda already. So I'll just show that here also keppler: |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 9:37pm On Mar 26, 2021 |
budaatum: This is like saying "one must not kill", yet we all know murderers exist. Or love your enemies, yet there are lots of Christians who can't even love their neighbours. Of course, in my worldview, we see that as a deviation from the NORM and there are consequences for deviating from the norm. That is what I am trying to point out - there is an objective basis for such consistency. There is no reason that fallible humans must be consistent with their beliefs, and the fact that we are humans makes it virtually impossible for us to be. Again, in my worldview, there is a reason for humans to be consistent with their beliefs. That is why 'fruits' such as perseverance exists. You are right that it is virtually impossible for us to be, but the worldview again provides a form of subsidy. Then admit you do not know instead of filling what you do not know with untruths and unverified facts, why don't you? I'm not omniscient but I'm not to 'critique' atheist by what they think, rather, by their general belief system. For example, Christians are being called out for the crimes of the crusaders. But those are folks allegedly representing Christianity but not doing what is consistent with its belief system. If anyone use that argument with me, I would easily dismiss such because and show that he's not talking about my belief system or what actually defines me as a Christian. This is why I prefer to use belief system and not what a person under such worldview prefer to believe. You can't be a Christian if you are not consistent with Christianity. Same should go for atheism. I was an atheist from birth. And not a "don't believe Gods exist" atheist, but a "know Gods don't exist" atheist. So welcome to meeting one, albeit a somewhat ex one since I am more theistic now, though atheistic in the original sense of the word which actually means "Not believing in n the Gods of Athens", since I do not helieve, period. Wow! this sounds like it was imprinted in your conscience, the KNOWLEDGE that God don't exist (maybe I'm not reading this well). If my interpretation is correct, this should be a miracle My point is, even one's definition of the word depends on the knowledge of it that one has, which is why one should seek a definition instead of imposing one on others as I am alleging you are doing here. Now, I have maintained that I used concepts as derived from atheistic literature, and not my making. And I explained that though there may be branches or offshoots, the broad concept would still exist; whether Christianity or Atheism. So, it is not my issue if one cannot be consistent with belief system. Let me even make little note here. If one starts with the antithesis of concept of God, i.e. there is no God, then answering questions such as 1. How is the universe formed 2. How did we get here, 3. Why was the universe formed, or why are we here? etc must be answered without the notion of God. It is questions such as these that brought about those generics I mentioned. And I'll say it again, they are not my words, but words from atheistic literature which many of the atheists also learn from. Perhaps you have not been here long enough. When you have, you might understand that just as you have here lots of Christians who have not read their Bible do you also have some very ignorant atheists who have not consumed any literature at all, along with the opposites of both, which might make you realise the error of generalising on imposing definitions and assumptions on others. Well, I've not been here for long (with this moniker anyway) but I've been here long enough to know that we are largely ill-informed in both camps. But that does not mean that I imposed definition on anyone. I only call them with what they professed. In fact, that is why I call many on this site "wannabe atheists" because they don't know what atheism actually entails. Thinking it's just about rejecting God (after all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend). It will look odd if a self professing is caught in the act of adultery and he defended himself with statement like "I don't subscribe to that part of Christianity". That automatically makes him non. 1 Like 1 Share |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 6:37pm On Mar 26, 2021 |
LordReed:Right! I know that you would find the word 'belief' to be out of place. I will rephrase it. What are your presuppositions about the world? 1 Like 1 Share |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 6:33pm On Mar 26, 2021 |
budaatum:For the first paragraph, I believe this is desperation. If worldview is a form of belief system or perspective in which we see the world, then one can say that atheism is also a worldview because it starts with the disbelief in God and then answers other philosophical questions from such presupposition. Again, I am not saying that atheist cannot be moral. Buda should get it, rather, morality does not have an objective basis in such worldview - it is subjective. What can be moral to A may not be for B. For survival advantage, I may need to hurt another person in which it shouldn't be an issue in (orthodox) atheism. Humanism may provide disagree but that is branching away from the source |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 6:21pm On Mar 26, 2021 |
budaatum:Oh my! Like I explained previously, one need to be consistent with his belief system. The Christians have the Bible as the final authority. Difference may arise in doctrinal issues but there are generics that ties the different camps together. I don't know of any atheist that was born so, many (especially in Nigeria) got such concept from outside world and fed on their literature to be able to make arguments against Christianity. These body of literature largely echo those concepts which I used and it'd be dishonesty to accuse me of fabricating them. For example, atheism has been defined by disbelief in God, but since arguments used by atheists are not strong enough with such definition, it was CHANGED to a 'lack of belief in God'. Again, I am certainly aware that this definition was not made by our Nigerian atheist, but they got it from the literature that they consume. So it will not be cool to accuse me of using concept from such body of literature because it may put some atheists in some sort of corner. |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 6:11pm On Mar 26, 2021 |
budaatum:I guess budaa confused my assertion here. I am not saying that atheist cannot be moral, but there is is no logical ground or objective for morality in an atheistic worldview. Those generics are not what I made up, they have been argued for by top atheists (from Darwin down to present age). Those concepts seem hard to digest by many wannabe atheists (reason I call them wannabe), just as the holiness of Christianity is seem 'hard' to live with by many self professed Christians. Those concepts makes one 'belong' to such camps and in all honesty, you must have seen implication of some of those concepts even in this very thread, but when they are used to dissect some issues, it seems the atheists are not comfortable with them |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 5:40pm On Mar 26, 2021 |
LordReed:Alright! I understand the issues of onus. Anyway, what are your belief system? Since I called those concepts generics, but it seems their maybe orthodox and unorthodox version of atheism |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 5:35pm On Mar 26, 2021 |
Dtruthspeaker:Like you said, I joined because I see how wannabe atheists misuse the word "science" in contrasting science from religion. And I notice that many Christian folks are not thoroughly informed in such war of worldviews, hence they resort to ill informed arguments. This in turn raises the suspicion that the atheists were right all along when they are actually wrong in many cases and their use of logical fallacies and intentional deception, with few folks (such as Grandmeister, Image, Papparseventy. etc) to expose such tactics. Keep up the good fight as you put 2 Cor 10: 4 in to action. God be with you |
Religion / Re: What If Religion Really was a Scam , What Would You Do different.? by keppler: 5:26pm On Mar 26, 2021 |
LordReed:It's still me, I'll discuss with this moniker I intentionally asked you to answer within your worldview because I know that there's no such concept of good, bad, or human well being in an atheistic/materialism worldview. I'll start with some generics of such worldview: 1. No purpose, no meaning - nothing matters 2. There's nothing out there other than matter and energy 3. Humans are not different from other animals since they are the current product of evolution from other animals over eons of time Now, with those above, why would you care about human well being? Would you care if a cat catches and eat a rat? For 'generic 3' to be consistent, why should anyone care if one human (an animal in such worldview) destroys another human (animal)?. You said every intelligent and conscious being... Again, in such worldview of nothing except matter and energy, where and how did consciousness emerge? If every human is a determinant of their morality, then what constitutes morality to human A may not go along with human B. If we can't settle with individual morality yet, then communal morality may be begging the question. So brother, your worldview is not just about a disbelief in the existence of God (as against the desperate new definition of "lack of belief". I have explained to many on this forum how even the american atheist website could not be consistent with such definition in even one article), it explains various concepts (with the presupposition of no God anyway), such as THE REASON why there is no reason for us to be here (funny right?), how we came to be, why we should not expect anything after death and so many concepts which it accuses theists of figment of their imagination. So, it's not just about the existence of God 1 Like |
Religion / Re: New Dead Sea Scrolls In Israel Reveals Fragments Of Biblical Prophets (Pics) by keppler: 3:52pm On Mar 21, 2021 |
AntiChristian:Like he said, no one is ready to answer such questions because most are easily found in the Bible if you read it. But it is clear that you don't want answers for knowledge sake (as indicated from your moniker). If you get the answers, what is the next thing? By the way, just as you got those from anti-God sites, so have they been answered long time ago. If you are really after knowing the answers, read the Bible or search online as you searched for such questions |
Religion / Re: New Dead Sea Scrolls In Israel Reveals Fragments Of Biblical Prophets (Pics) by keppler: 3:48pm On Mar 21, 2021 |
JaffyJoe:It's cool that you take your time to explain this, but folks like him are not after explanation or truth. It's more of anything that will discredit the Bible. Keep up the good work, you may be encouraging some who could have been misled by fallacious attacks on the Scriptures 3 Likes |
Religion / Re: New Dead Sea Scrolls In Israel Reveals Fragments Of Biblical Prophets (Pics) by keppler: 3:42pm On Mar 21, 2021 |
Qathafi:Which is why there's a field called textual criticism. This is a Greek translation and there is room for copyist errors, but the Bible enjoys the advantage of so many manuscripts such that textual criticism can be applied to get what the original author wrote to an extremely high degree |
Education / Re: How Important Are The Other Planets Of the Universe? by keppler: 3:32pm On Mar 21, 2021 |
budaatum:I think we humans, both atheists and theists, "use pseudo-intellectual argument to back ourselves up" This statement cannot be true. If it were true, then we can't have TRUTH. Truth exist because it pass logical tests. And using pseudo intellectual arguments connotes trying to sound 'technical' and logical whereas, the arguments are logically flawed. I guess you didn't understand my case at first. He was questioned on how he became an atheist (whether by stumbling on it online or through careful analysis) and he tried to show that it was through curiosity. A careful analysis of his claim show that it was rather ambiguous and full of many fallacies. I pointed out those to him (to show that his alleged knowledge was flawed from the beginning) and he just dismissed them without any trial. This was why I said he made a HAND WAIVING DISMISSAL which you have been accusing me of since you engaged me. just that we always see the pseudo in other people's arguments and only see intellectual in our own, Again, this is not true. We have the ability to objectively critique our arguments. This is why people abandon previously held beliefs. As a personal rule, I don't accuse someone of something without providing logical reason to back it up. So, when I said he used pseudo-intellectual arguments, it was because I already critiqued it and he wasn't trying to defend himself (maybe because I already used a universal rule - logic to expose the fallacies there). So your statement is not true here because it is not ALWAYS so. And good arguments should be checked by the presenter first objectively so as not to be a laughing stock. which is the reason you should not so easily wave your hand in dismissal, because you never know what you might learn from your own words Now you accuse me of dismissing what? I asked in an earlier reply what you meant by that. Making a hand waiving dismissal implies that you are not ready to engage the opposite claim but just conclude that it is not important or that it is wrong without showing why. Can you show me how I have done that? Since you've made this accusation twice. Secondly, what am I to learn from my own words? Finally, you seem not to point out my (allege) error but have been implying such. Can you show me exactly what you are trying to point out? |
Education / Re: How Important Are The Other Planets Of the Universe? by keppler: 10:03pm On Mar 20, 2021 |
HellVictorinho:Smiles |
Education / Re: How Important Are The Other Planets Of the Universe? by keppler: 10:00pm On Mar 20, 2021 |
budaatum:I don't get your first sentence clearly and I was not blaming atheism outrightly. I was just informing him that his logic is flawed and that an atheist does not really have a logical ground to stand when asking some questions. Well, like many other atheists, he has closed his mind to anything about God and just seem to use pseudo-intellectual argument to back himself up. His arguments were critiqued and he wasn't interested in defending them, rather, he just dismissed the "diagnosis". That is typical of many of the wannabe atheists. Only God can encounter them by mercy Shalom |
Education / Re: How Important Are The Other Planets Of the Universe? by keppler: 5:52am On Mar 20, 2021 |
HellVictorinho:Again, it would have been better if you defend your position that have been critiqued, rather than making a hand waiving dismissal, which shows that you really don't have a case in the first place. Maybe like others, atheism is chosen since it gives one the belief that one is not responsible for any of his actions - no purpose. Hence, one can live life the way they want. Shalom |
Education / Re: How Important Are The Other Planets Of the Universe? by keppler: 8:45pm On Mar 19, 2021 |
HellVictorinho:I think the development of deifying tendencies in the first set of religious humans or the first set of humans that deified objects(imaginary or real) happened by chance. This is something you THINK, there's no way to verify such statement for truth or not Since that development occurred,some other humans have been exposed to their deifying practices or works. Since that development occurred,these deifying practices/works have been addressed by other humans in different ways. This is begging the question fallacy. We are yet to establish your initial assumption and yet, you went on to build more hypothesis. So, I also got exposed to bla bla bla concerning different Gods after I was born without faith in any God. I guess I understand your issues. Not having adequate knowledge and experience about a journey would definitely make one get loss Owing to the superiority of the effect of my exposure to a particular God over that of other Gods,I developed faith in that particular God instead of the other ones. It depends on the God you're talking about and the exposure anyway. I once wrote a letter towards that God expressing my thoughts concerning the identity and abilities of the God. Later,I disposed the letter because there wasn't any response. As I said above, I don't know any deity that is would take letter. Not from God as revealed from the Bible who is Spirit and hence transcends his creation but still relate and commune with everyone who accepts his Lordship - doing his will. I wouldn't know the God you were "exposed" to After disposing the letter,my curiosity about life increased. Then,my curiosity about events within and outside the universe increased. The faith disappeared when my brain couldn't accommodate it anymore. This is another problem. Being exposed to inadequate or wrong info must have made you make the fallacy of generalization about the concept of deity. I believe in God and is motivated to know more about his creations. In fact, His dominion mandate was a foundational premise for modern science and the scientific revolution. Just as many have left faith (the Bible predicted that already), so are others coming to faith as a result of knowledge (someone like me) An accidental sequence of several thoughts pushed it out of my head. Look! Now, the bolded is of utmost importance. Humans just exist. The increase/decrease in population just happens. There's no reason why there's competition for bla bla bla. There's no reason why there are people with bla bla bla. Life is absurd. Like I bolded accidental earlier, these cannot be taken as truth though they echo atheistic/materialism worldview. The logic is that an accidental thought cannot be taken seriously. As another may have another accidental thought which may give another idea. There is no logical ground to stand for absolute truth (a privilege that theists provide) There are infinite ageless indivisible objects. I don't know what this is supposed to mean though but I shouldn't fret since it is a product of accidental thought anyway The arrangements of these objects are structures/patterns to an observer. There is no reason why an observer gets exposed to these things. More and more thoughts. Logic is an important tool for everyone but it's definitely not part of an atheistic worldview. Also, questioning is not part of such worldview to start with. |
Science/Technology / Re: Why Life On Earth May Be Gone In A Billion Years (Photos) by keppler: 3:17pm On Mar 07, 2021 |
It's cool that science match up with the scripture that: 1. The earth (and universe as a whole) has a beginning 2. The earth will experience a heat death What science can not successfully be used is to tell us when, but the events happened and the latter will surely happen. |
Science/Technology / Re: ‘Next-Generation’ Wearable Tech Turns Your Body Heat Into Electricity (Photos) by keppler: 4:40pm On Mar 05, 2021 |
Xioxing:Couldn't log in with my account, so I'll just respond with this account. Break your English down and then read what you wrote up there total gibberish man There's nothing to break down here. You claimed to KNOW that I would respond to what you wrote initially. That is a big claim and I only teased you with being an object of worship for being Omniscient. If you don't understand that, you don't need to criticize it, making it a variant of fallacy of argument from personal incredulity. By the way, I used the dot sign to show that the first sentence continues and it was your idea that I was repeating. it is so easy for a good secondary school student (as you implied) to understand. You just ended up writing a lot of dead end English with no meaning just to prove a non existent point. Again, I was teasing your faulty logic but you got emotionally and took it personally. (though my auto correct messed me up in changing "explanatory" to "explanation" It should be easy for an advanced learner to note that I was quoting you, which was why the statement was in quotes. Now the argument should be addressed and not the attacker. There's no point in making ad hominem remarks. If everything in life is self explanatory, then what's the need for learning many things in life which is according to you, self explanatory? If you can't see the fallacy here, then you should defend your position instead of making ad hominem remarks or arguing from personal incredulity. I don't waste my time on a wannabe Albeit and a copy paste Anachronistic wannabe scientist you really have a long way to go on earth and hopefully you will learn cause as I said life is self explanatory!! Turning the table, you wrote "...wannabe Albeit and a copy paste Anachronistic wannabe scientist...". Now, that clause is gibberish and I will show you (unlike you who would make claim without proving it). 'Albeit' means 'although', so re read it as "wannabe although and a copy paste anachronistic wannabe scientist". That is a real gibberish. Again, you used "anachronistic", could you provide a case for using such word? Then you went on to repeat the fallacious claim I called you out on. You don't need to keep on with your logical fallacy on begging the question. Is it not ironic that you said "hopefully you will learn cause as I said life is self explanatory!!" . How will I learn what is self explanatory? Modified: Avoid Quoting me next time with your Childish Science words so you don't end up getting yourself Embarrassed please do that shit with sec kids like yourself You seem not to love to make logically sound arguments, rather, words driven by emotions. Your question begging epithet is noted. What is your definition of "childish science"? Again, your false assumption of me being a sec kid is laughable. It's easy to see that you are driven by emotion, yet, champion on ignorance. Keep it up my friend, the world is watching in fun (I believe) |
Science/Technology / Re: Astronomers Now Agree Universe Is Nearly 14 Billion Years Old by keppler: 6:07am On Jan 08, 2021 |
Xbee007:I rightly contrasted science with faith because they are inherently different. Not that they are not different, but they are not world and opposites as you seem to have believed from many of your comments Pull that wool off your eyes! Great from one who cannot define religion properly as seen below Science is an attempt to understand the world based on evidence. Religion is an attempt to understand the world based on faith. Just as said above. This just show that you swallow whatever you read without passing it through an objective lens provided it is against theism. Please, consult dictionary to get a simple explanation of what religion is. Such type of your definition is a show of either deliberate deception (wouldn't be surprised coming from folk like you) or that of sheer ignorance. A talking snake managed to convince Eve to eat an apple. Science will say "sounds like bullsh*t." Religion will say, "sounds interesting, pray, do tell me more." First of all, your ignorance of the text (or deception) is not my problem. Devil called the old serpent deceived to eat a fruit (not apple). This is what one gets when some folks dabble to what they are ignorant of. Secondly, you fail to know the limits of science and maybe falsely equate atheism to science here (since the latter will object to such because it goes against its worldview). Science is descriptive and not prescriptive, it does not cause or forbid anything. So it can NEVER call it bullshit, and worse, your argument was built on straw man since you are not even informed on what you want to criticize. "Operational Science" is a pseudonym made up by creationists to bellitle science and bolster their stance. Science attempts to understand the world from the beginning of time, the big bang, or what you called the "unobserved past." Why does NASA, for example, send a man to the moon? Just glad you repeated the usual response found online against contrasting OBSERVABLE, REPEATABLE AND TESTABLE science from UNOBSERVEABLE, UNREPEATABLE and UNTESTABLE events which happened at a time beyond anyone's reach; hence called HISTORICAL SCIENCE. So, you didn't refute anything but committed the question begging epithet fallacy claiming that a group belittle science. What science? The one which follows the scientific method of observability, testability and repeatability? Again, this is either intentional deception for gullible readers or sheer ignorance to not be able to understand difference between science that put men on the moon (that which follows the scientific method) and the science that attempt to explain what happened in the distant unobserved past which no one witnessed. When Galileo observed that the earth wasn't flat... Galileo observed that the earth wasn't flat? I laugh WUHANically. Like I said before, be well informed on a topic before making a case for it. That the earth was spherical has been established some centuries BC. SMH ...and wasn't at the center of the universe, he was summarily locked up by the church who had preached for centuries that the earth was at the center of the universe I don't just know where you get your misinformation. That the earth was at the 'center of the universe' was the "best science" at that time just like the big bang of now. It was taught by many schools and firmly and scientifically established by Ptolemy. That science was called Ptolemaic Geocentricity. Again, he was not locked up for necessarily going against the church as noted by many historians but that he held a view which he cannot scientifically prove and is also found to be heretical (since the church was following the 'best of science' also). Btw, it was still church guy Keppler who was able to scientifically prove Heliocentricity and the church did nothing to him. Another God loving scientist (described as one of the greatest mind that ever lived) Newton explained the universal gravitational attraction. It's possible that you don't know Newton as a God loving scientist for he even wrote more religious books than scientific books. Also, when some scientists began dissecting human cadavers in order to understand human anatomy and advance modern medicine, the church stopped them calling the human cadavers, "temples of the lord that should never be descecrated." Religion, literally placed a choke hold on modern medicine! Your willingness to swallow false accusation against God is amazing. I bet you didn't even check to see what the decree is before coming to bring your misinformation. Anyway, this is the decree “Persons cutting up the bodies of the dead, barbarously cooking them in order that the bones being separated from the flesh may be carried for burial into their own countries are by the very fact excommunicated.” Now tell me how this stopped dissection. And for your information public dissection was even carried out during the time of the Pope who issued this decree that bodies started getting missing as folks were stealing them for dissection in Universities (founded by the church). You can lie all you want, facts will not support you for anyone who cares to find them but those who may be looking for opportunity to live a life free from the ideals of godliness could latch on to such lie and BELIEVE that church is the problem. Btw, everyone, even scientists, were religious at the time because the consequences for atheism was dire. Self-proclaimed atheists were jailed till they recanted and even burnt alive. Lies upon lies!!!! Again, you ignorantly BELIEVED that scientists wouldn't have chosen to love God if not for fear of their lives when most centers for learning (science especially) where founded and run by the church just as missionaries brought education to Nigeria. Btw, don't confuse witch burning and war against sorcery with atheism. Atheism does not believe in any of those. Lastly, read on foundation of modern science so you won't be showing sheer ignorance due to your hatred for God and godliness (everyone wish to do whatever he likes and wouldn't like to be under any constraint, so it is easy to deny existence of God and look for ways to look intellectually sound, something that atheism still lack philosophically - basis for logic) Atheism should never be lumped up with other religions because "absence of belief is not belief." Baldness is not an hairstyle, lol! That is the new desperate definition of atheism but as I showed in one thread some months ago, the American atheist website defined atheism the way you did but reading further, they wrote "Atheism is about what you believe" (a screenshot is below). So don't deceive yourself with such play of words (by the way, what is deception in an atheistic worldview?). Your example is a fallacy of false analogy as shown that the definition is not even self sustaining. Modern science isn't found on Christian presuppositions. Don't just give a hand waiving dismissal, read objective papers on history of modern science; not just your favorite deceitful anti-God blogs or sites who seems to feed wannabe atheists with what they want Modern science is founded on evidence and facts which is mutually exclusive with Christianity. When you read about the philosophical grounds on which modern science was founded, you can come back (this ignorance is overwhelming ) I wonder how virgin Mary contributed to science or tower of Babel rationally explained the differences in human languages. Attacking straw man is not a good traits of true lovers of science. Like I wrote above, take your time to study diligently on how and why modern science flourish, maybe it'll help remove the wool you mentioned before. For the tower of Babel, having a knowledge about language groups (fallible scholars' classification anyway) is best explained that all languages did not descend from one single language but from very few languages. You may interpret it the way you want The only reason USA constitution categorises atheism as a religion is because of human rights. To ensure every American enjoy equal rights regardless of their beliefs Alright Prof, who didn't know what led the supreme court to make such declaration It turns out that you still don't know that science is not independent as history of science has shown that scientists works with their worldview which I mentioned before. Again, your hatred for God helps you in dishing out misinformation and lies to prove your case, and committing several logical fallacies An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge. Proverbs 18:15 1 Like
|
Religion / Re: 2021 Prophecies By Pastor Adeboye by keppler: 11:07am On Jan 01, 2021 |
LaEvilIMiss: 1 Like |
Science/Technology / Re: World's Earliest Python That Lived In Europe 47 Million Years Ago Unearthed (Pix by keppler: 6:32pm On Dec 29, 2020 |
IMAliyu:Alright Bro Yeah, I guess. That's why I felt that it could have been made in such a way to make the enquirer want to know the evidence for both sides of the camp. I love the word "secular" because it is assumed by many that science is neutral but facts don't interpret themselves; rather, through the scientist's worldview such as humanism, Christianity, Materialism etc. Yeah, that's their assumption. Like I said, every scientist have a frame work which is presumed to be through first and hypothesis are worked around such frame work. Their are many young earth websites you can check to see the evidence put forward which matches their frame work, it may help you to get acquainted with the model |
Science/Technology / Re: World's Earliest Python That Lived In Europe 47 Million Years Ago Unearthed (Pix by keppler: 6:47pm On Dec 28, 2020 |
IMAliyu:Great response there but your conclusions favour the long agers and I think you committed question begging epithet. Making it look like the young earthers don't have evidence to support their world view apart from the Bible and differentiating Creationist from the "geological and scientific consensus". Thus, you didn't fairly give the enquirer (Bahamas95) the opportunity to think for himself since your conclusion and question begging epithet has done that for him. Anyway, I always enjoy your comments 1 Like |
Science/Technology / Re: World's Earliest Python That Lived In Europe 47 Million Years Ago Unearthed (Pix by keppler: 6:37pm On Dec 28, 2020 |
Remix10:Carbon dating is not used when it is believed that the strata in which the fossil is found was formed millions of years ago. 1 Like |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (of 7 pages)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 178 |