Aemmyjah:


Honesty, trustworthiness, purity, faithfulness, chastity, virtue and morality... Where do these qualities come from? Anyone claiming not to believe in God yet claims to possess these qualities is a liar cos they are nor expressed automatically. These are not something that we see in a selfish, evil, materialistic, pleasure loving society today. Where does morals come from? Altruism, love and kindness stem from?
One who does not believe in creation likely believe in evolution but the theme of evolution is survival of the fittest that tends to promote selfishness. Why then do we hate injustice? Why do doctors and nurses struggle to help their patients with sweat and tears? Why do we hate selfish, greedy, violent people but get drawn to those who are loving, sharing and peaceable?
This is because of Genesis 1:26,27. We're made in the image of God, that's is we reflect his qualities like love, wisdom, compassion and empathy. We're not made in the image of brute beasts

So, several things wrong here right off the bat.

1. The qualities you listed above don't come from a belief in God. If it did, then theists would be one of the most trustworthy, virtuous, honest people on the planet. As you know, there are both theists, and atheists who sit on both ends on the moral spectrum. Because morality, is, and always has been, a human thing. Not a God thing.

2. You seem to possess a misinformed view of evolution. Evolution does not negate creation. It negates YOUR specific view of creation (the biblical creation), but it does not negate the general concept of creation itself.

3. Survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean the strongest (physically), or the most brutal. That's an inaccurate view. It just means survival of the organism that can best adapt to the environment. If you're going to oppose a scientific theory, at least try to get the details correctly.

Endtimer:


I’ll believe this when you provide an argument proving it.

Let's think of the laws in the old testament that people don't follow today. Think about how people have updated their views on the nature of "sins" like homosexuality.
What of the so much diverse doctrines that is being followed by the so much Christian sects we have today (that many fundamentalist Christians condemn)?

I could list out so much including the ones I can't remember as I type this, but Christianity as we see it is an evolving religion which has given it a strong relevance till today, if Christians chose to stick with the Bible, Christianity would have died off as a religion.

Wilgrea7:


So, several things wrong here right off the bat.

1. The qualities you listed above don't come from a belief in God. If it did, then theists would be one of the most trustworthy, virtuous, honest people on the planet. As you know, there are both theists, and atheists who sit on both ends on the moral spectrum. Because morality, is, and always has been, a human thing. Not a God thing.

2. You seem to possess a misinformed view of evolution. Evolution does not negate creation. It negates YOUR specific view of creation (the biblical creation), but it does not negate the general concept of creation itself.

3. Survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean the strongest (physically), or the most brutal. That's an inaccurate view. It just means survival of the organism that can best adapt to the environment. If you're going to oppose a scientific theory, at least try to get the details correctly.

1. Why is man moral? Where does his sense of morality and altruism comes from as well as justice, fidelity, love? Did they evolve?

2. Lol, as to the formation of life and diversities in living forms and the universe, who does evolution give credit to? A Creator or by accident?

3. Go and learn more about the survival of the fittest and its struggle but I agree wit you though

Endtimer:


I'll check it out although I suspect I can debunk it right now. If something is true and another religion managed to grasp it, it should be no surprise that Christianity also acknowledges it. Other religions have morsel of truths, but Christianity is the ultimate set of truth, hence some intersection is to be expected. To put it in Aquinas' words: "All truth is God's truth".

I've had this discussion with DTruthSpeaker on this thread and he gave a response that looked like this. I would quote the reply I gave him here

AuthenticKing:

Then I ask you Mr DTruthSpeaker, should a new newspaper completely change the essence of an information, insert parts that could validate it (thereby invalidating those that came before it), then stealthy claim that it is the right newspaper with the right info and declaring others wrong without evidence? Being different from others does it give the newspaper the right to claim to be the only true source of information while others had it wrong without any evidence? I could go further with my questions but I'll stop here for now.

How can Christianity be the ultimate truth when it borrowed its truths from religions before it and added it's truth to make it religion seem to be the holder of valid truth?

Endtimer:

You contradict yourself. You do not believe in objective morality yet state something to be wrong plainly. Your position seems to be that morals are grounded in advancing the human condition. Advancing the human condition does not constitute morality. You have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it does without making appeals to circular logic.

Yes it's wrong na because I believe it's wrong not because it's objectively wrong. I gave my reasons for it: It causes harm to the said individuals, doesn't help to enhance human experience and these people have no justified reasons for their actions asides from appealing to books written by a God we have no evidence for.

Endtimer:

You have a very wrong view of history. You seem to be talking mainly about the American civil war. What made the north win was superior military facilities, not fighting to advance humanity. The point I was making is that those Americans could only ever debate whether slavery was right or wrong because they believed in an objective real set of moral values.

They believed in an objective real set of moral values yet they couldn't come at an agreement without arguing. Why didn't they just continue or end slavery without coming to debate? Why must their opinions be divided?

Endtimer:

You can have similar discussions with atheists since you are committed to maintaining the useful fiction that advancing humanity makes something moral (you may not know it but this is an evil basis to ground morality, I will provide examples some other time).

I didn't explicitly say it makes it moral but nevertheless, I would want to know why it's an evil basis to ground morality.

Endtimer:

What I am saying is that "advancing humanity" is a circular answer to "what makes something good?" because it assumes that "advancing humanity" is good. It is therefore circular.

Well, I concede to this. I would still want to know how advancing humanity is an evil basis to ground morality.

Endtimer:

The first statement is wrong. The second betrays a lack of understanding of the topic being discussed and the groundwork we have laid so far. The third is a conclusion drawn from false premises.

First: No it isn't, if it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion/argument.
Second: It doesn't. You said God is a strong basis for morality and I'm pointing out that your God has given laws that we find incredulous today so...
Third: What false premises?

ReubenSandwich:


A gri.

I hope so.

ReubenSandwich:


I think that there were spiritual teachers who taught with parables, using words which are sometimes translated into English as "God," as names for characters in those parables who represent metaphorically a supreme source of knowledge, wisdom and power who created us and who knows and wants what's best for us. Their parables included parables about themselves as messengers of that God. Their sayings and parables continued circulating among their followers until they were written down. That's my theory about how the Abrahamic scriptures were written.

Example of these spiritual teachers?

ReubenSandwich:
Wilgrea7, AuthenticKing, I agree that the existence of a God does not solve any moral dilemma.

From some of your posts it looks to me like you think that challenging some religious beliefs will help solve some social problems. Maybe it will, if you are practicing and promoting good behavior in those discussions, and doing it in the right spirit and for the right reasons. However that may be, I'm saying that those beliefs don't need to change before people can start learning to work together to solve all our social problems. There are multitudes of people all around the world who have those same beliefs, and who are working side by side with people whose beliefs are opposed to theirs, learning together with them to help solve the problems.

You're making me repeat myself so much on this thread.

Wilgrea7 opened this thread to challenge the theists who claim their God is the originator of morality and only him can solve the moral problem. This claim by believers discards non-believers as less moral or even rebellious to this so-called originator of morality.
What we are trying to actualize here is to find out if God is truly the originator of morality and whether he can truly solve the moral problem or is there some other way morality came about and how its problems could be solved.

I'm not active in this thread because I want everyone to become atheists/non-believers but because I want to help challenge people's way of thinking and get rid of harmful rigid beliefs that draw us back.
You can be religious and be rational.

Aemmyjah:


1. Why is man moral? Where does his sense of morality and altruism comes from as well as justice, fidelity, love? Did they evolve?

2. Lol, as to the formation of life and diversities in living forms and the universe, who does evolution give credit to? A Creator or by accident?

3. Go and learn more about the survival of the fittest and its struggle but I agree wit you though

I would ignore your first and second question and allow Wilgrea7 to answer you but for the bolded, how can you agree with him and still tell him to learn more about it? Quite hilarious to me

AuthenticKing:


I would ignore your first and second question and allow Wilgrea7 to answer you but for the bolded, how can you agree with him and still tell him to learn more about it? Quite hilarious to me

Feel free to ignore the ones you can't answer
What I meant in the last words is that he is a bit correct as to the meaning but he need to go and understand the struggle

Aemmyjah:


Honesty, trustworthiness, purity, faithfulness, chastity, virtue and morality... Where do these qualities come from? Anyone claiming not to believe in God yet claims to possess these qualities is a liar cos they are nor expressed automatically. These are not something that we see in a selfish, evil, materialistic, pleasure loving society today. Where does morals come from? Altruism, love and kindness stem from?
One who does not believe in creation likely believe in evolution but the theme of evolution is survival of the fittest that tends to promote selfishness. Why then do we hate injustice? Why do doctors and nurses struggle to help their patients with sweat and tears? Why do we hate selfish, greedy, violent people but get drawn to those who are loving, sharing and peaceable?
This is because of Genesis 1:26,27. We're made in the image of God, that's is we reflect his qualities like love, wisdom, compassion and empathy. We're not made in the image of brute beasts

Even if those qualities come from God, that doesn't mean that a person has to believe that He exists, to have those qualities as much as anyone who does.

ReubenSandwich:


Even if those qualities come from God, that doesn't mean that a person has to believe that He exists, to have those qualities as much as anyone who does.

This is because it is part of our formation. What other logical reason is there?

AuthenticKing:

But your Supreme being has been ruling for at least 2000 years now and yet law enforcement agents were being used to force people to follow the law. Even in the Bible, your Supreme being punished Adam and Eve, drowned humanity in a flood, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, used snakes to attack the Israelites in the wilderness and other barbaric ways of enforcing laws your Supreme Being used in the Bible that are so much if I start listing them here. So if I agree with you that a society that is successful in morality do not need law enforcement agents to force people to live by the law, then dear brother Maximus, your Supreme being fails woefully in that.

Who are the laws enforcement agents used during the destruction of Noah's generation or Sodom and Gomorrah?

AuthenticKing:

How can Christianity be the ultimate truth when it borrowed its truths from religions before it and added it's truth to make it religion seem to be the holder of valid truth?

And one of the implications of my answer is that you are the one who is making such a spurious and unfounded allegation centuries after.

And the making of an allegation, is not proof of Truth.

None of those present when the Bible made its report raised any objection to it. Meaning they confirm and corroborate the Truth of its reports.

So, you can not come centuries after to make an allegation which you did not personally see. Which is why your allegation is unfounded exactly like you accusing Dele Giwa of borrowing the Truth from Daily Times. You would be guilty of defamation.

Stick to your problem which is that you are very angry that the Bible has said Truths which you hate and find very unsettling. Your discomfort and displeasure is not the issue of discuss

AuthenticKing:

How can Christianity be the ultimate truth when it borrowed its truths from religions before it and added it's truth to make it religion seem to be the holder of valid truth?

And one of the implications of my answer is that you are the one who is making such a spurious and unfounded allegation centuries after.

And the making of an allegation, is not proof of Truth.

None of those present when the Bible made its report raised any objection to it. Meaning they confirm and corroborate the Truth of its reports.

So, you can not come centuries after to make an allegation which you did not personally see. Which is why your allegation is unfounded exactly like you accusing Dele Giwa of borrowing the Truth from Daily Times. You would be guilty of defamation.

Stick to your problem which is that you are very angry that the Bible has said Truths which you hate and find very unsettling. Your discomfort and displeasure is not the issue of discuss.

Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance. (or unacceptance)

W. Clement Stone

Aemmyjah:


1. Why is man moral? Where does his sense of morality and altruism comes from as well as justice, fidelity, love? Did they evolve?

I'll give you a hint. They certainly don't come from the scribbles of a few jewish men several thousand years ago. What we term moral behavior, is, and always has been, a representative of human-wellbeing.

2. Lol, as to the formation of life and diversities in living forms and the universe, who does evolution give credit to? A Creator or by accident?

Evolution gives credit to neither. Because evolution deals with the changes organisms undergo in order to adapt to their environment. It makes no claims about the origins of life itself. And once again, "A Creator" and "My specific concept of a creator" are 2 very different things.

3. Go and learn more about the survival of the fittest and its struggle but I agree wit you though

What exactly do you mean by "learn more about the survival of the fittest?" Is there anything in the statement I made that somehow contradicts with the concept of what "survival of the fittest" is?

So, several problems right off the bat here

Dtruthspeaker:


None of those present when the Bible made its report raised any objection to it. Meaning they confirm and corroborate the Truth of its reports.

I don't know what universe you're getting your data from, but silence does not always mean agreement. Secondly, the idea that "objections were not raised" simply doesn't make any logical sense.

The fact that the biblical writers themselves didn't document "objections" to their stories, doesn't mean that objections didn't or couldn't have existed at the time.

Also, in regards to objections, just as certain books of the bible tells certain stories in favor of their God, other religious books also tell their own contradictory stories, in favor of their own God. Doesn't make either any more true.

So, you can not come centuries after to make an allegation which you did not personally see. Which is why your allegation is unfounded exactly like you accusing Dele Giwa of borrowing the Truth from Daily Times. You would be guilty of defamation.

This is funny considering you believe stories written in a book, even though you were not also there to physically see or experience those things.

Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance. (or unacceptance)

W. Clement Stone

Funny quote coming from you of all people. You should really meditate on this. It will be useful in helping you shed some of your religious bias.

Wilgrea7:


I'll give you a hint. They certainly don't come from the scribbles of a few jewish men several thousand years ago. What we term moral behavior, is, and always has been, a representative of human-wellbeing.



Evolution gives credit to neither. Because evolution deals with the changes organisms undergo in order to adapt to their environment. It makes no claims about the origins of life itself. And once again, "A Creator" and "My specific concept of a creator" are 2 very different things.



What exactly do you mean by "learn more about the survival of the fittest?" Is there anything in the statement I made that somehow contradicts with the concept of what "survival of the fittest" is?

You're twisting words, as to the origin of life and the formation of man, what does evolution say and which one makes sense to you?

Aemmyjah:

You're twisting words, as to the origin of life and the formation of man, what does evolution say and which one makes sense to you?

He is totally confused. At first he claimed he's not an atheist but seeking a proof about the existence of God then he turned to agnostism saying there is God but he's not sure which of the Gods deserves to be worshiped, and finally he came out openly that he's now an atheist.

So his mind is fully made up he will continue to twist words just to make himself feel good.

MaxInDHouse:


He is totally confused. At first he claimed he's not an atheist but seeking a proof about the existence of God then he turned to agnostism saying there is God but he's not sure which of the Gods deserves to be worshiped, and finally he came out openly that he's now an atheist.

So his mind is fully made up he will continue to twist words just to make himself feel good.

Good morning
That's why I say there's no atheist in Nigeria
They can't defend atheism or stand for it or say why atheism is the answer. They only nurse a grudge against God cos they don't want to feel accountable for their selfish actions

Wilgrea7:
...I don't know what universe you're getting your data from, but silence does not always mean agreement.

We know what the meaning of silence is, in every situation.

Wilgrea7:

Secondly, the idea that "objections were not raised" simply doesn't make any logical sense.

The fact that the biblical writers themselves didn't document "objections" to their stories, doesn't mean that objections didn't or couldn't have existed at the time.

See how faulty your thinking is? It is not the Bible writers (Defendant) who will document objections but the Complainants against the Bible reports (Plaintiff) who will raise their objection and document same. That is how it works.

Wilgrea7:

Also, in regards to objections, just as certain books of the bible tells certain stories in favor of their God, other religious books also tell their own contradictory stories, in favor of their own God. Doesn't make either any more true.

Stick to the issue (Change of Post). We are not talking about what "other religious books tell". We are talking about your unfounded allegations against the Bible, which as you can see, you have none.

Wilgrea7:

This is funny considering you believe stories written in a book, even though you were not also there to physically see or experience those things.

Same as we believe the news in nairaland's front page even when none of us are present there. Normal natural living and well within my right.

This, the record shows that I did not make this allegation. It is rather you are your co-respondent plaintiff who made this unfounded allegations, which I came to defend.

And as the records here exhibits, you have no reasonable accusation only your personal grumblings and displeasure.

Dtruthspeaker:


We know what the meaning of silence is, in every situation.



See how faulty your thinking is? It is not the Bible writers (Defendant) who will document objections but the Complainants against the Bible reports (Plaintiff) who will raise their objection and document same. That is how it works.



Stick to the issue (Change of Post). We are not talking about what "other religious books tell". We are talking about your unfounded allegations against the Bible, which as you can see, you have none.



Same as we believe the news in nairaland's front page.

I made no allegations. You are your co-respondents plaintiff made this unfounded allegations. And as the records here exhibits, you have no reasonable accusation only grumblings.

This is where you need to treat him with the dosage of silence as the best medicine. Is the Bible not also a record of history? Places, mountains, rivers, cities, rulers, etc are confirmed by secular history's and archaeology. He has not seen Prophet Muhammad either but he can't dispute his existence neither that of Alexander the Great or even Nimrod, the first king of earth.

Did the Bible writers not tell us about how the nation rebelled against God and he punished them, even sent them on exile and rejected the nation when they killed the Messiah?

We know the mistake of Moses, Jonah, David, Peter and the disciples, etc. Many of them poured out their anguish and pain and anger to God.

You see how atheist can be, they accuse God of being a homicide lover and now they make him look like a figment of human fabrication; They say the Bible is a book of myth but they later said it was copied from other religious books; They say Jesus Christ never existed but they later say he existed but he did not perform miracles or he was entirely someone else. They call themselves atheists but they promote themselves by on!y attacking Christian and the Bible. It is like a politician attracting follower's to himself by attacking other politicians but when asked why he should be president, he has absolutely nothing to say

Again, for the billionth time, I am asking them, Is Atheism the answer?

Aemmyjah:

Good morning
That's why I say there's no atheist in Nigeria
They can't defend atheism or stand for it or say why atheism is the answer. They only nurse a grudge against God cos they don't want to feel accountable for their selfish actions

My brother i agree with you except the highlighted!

The whiteman became an atheist due to deep thoughts regarding the teachings of false religions but our black neighbours here turned against God due to long time deception from their Yahoo big boys they call pastors. Just try to listen intelligently you will find out that they're crying silently within because they've been taught that God will always perform miracles to solve their problems so after waiting for so long and the miracles aren't coming they turned against God instead of their Yahoo big boys!
Whitemen don't teach their listeners such because their government has made things easy for them unlike my black brother who expects God to do everything for him even to cook meal for him so he can make testimonies of how special he is before a partial deity!

Aemmyjah:
...This is where you need to treat him with the dosage of silence as the best medicine.

I understand what you mean I am just trying to conclude what I started.

Aemmyjah:
...Again, for the billionth time, I am asking them, Is Atheism the answer?

People who never pass jamb or finish the University or do not get visas always say shiit about those places when they are rejected.

MaxInDHouse:


My brother i agree with you except the highlighted!

The whiteman became an atheist due to deep thoughts regarding the teachings of false religions but our black neighbours here turned against God due to long time deception from their Yahoo big boys they call pastors. Just try to listen intelligently you will find out that they're crying silently within because they've been taught that God will always perform miracles to solve their problems so after waiting for so long and the miracles aren't coming they turned against God instead of their Yahoo big boys!
Whitemen don't teach their listeners such because their government has made things easy for them unlike my black brother who expects God to do everything for him even to cook meal for him so he can make testimonies of how special he is before a partial deity!

I agree. Most white men disregard the idea of God as incompatible with science cos they used to wrong attribute the mixture of some chemicals in organic chemistry to a 'vital force' and when a plague destroy a village, they say it was an act of God whereby it was a virus but there was no advanced instruments those years. Seeing that the mixture of chemical and epidemic has nothing to do with God, they felt that belief in a creator is archaic but is that true? How can the vast universe and the complexity of life result by random chance? The rotation of the earth, the sun, moon ,rains and stars? Others blame that there is no God cos a loving God won't allow his creation to suffer.

As for miracles, is that not what Jesus Christ condemed the people for? He said they have eyes but they can't see, and sense that can't comprehend. Let me give two instances here in Nigeria.

When I was small, I love to watch emmanuelTV seeing how TB Joshua perform miracles (I really wonder why people don't like the man and accuse him of fetishness but other pastors claim to have perform miracles but it was never seen on TV). I always believed that TB Joshua was a man of God and wanted to meet him. Some of his miracles were somehow stupid like helping a man gain a very powerful sexual power that his wife will become weak and the prophet is thanking God but I did not mind. I just want to see miracles... This was the one that beat me that they were not real. A powerful witch in the city who specialises in killing other powerful men of God (without mentioning one) comes to the Church and sits down. The prophet calls her out and 'exposes' her, she threaten to kill him. One lowly usher will come and hold a mic for her (have you started to see the scam? a small girl holding mic for the most powerful witch in the city that has been killing men of God?. The witch laugh an evil laugh and the small girl does not move but the pastor shakes, he then gain composure and begin his thing. The woman starts to shake until she falls, as she falls, the lowly girl makes sure she places the mic close to her mouth, the woman does not spend two seconds on the floor, ahw stands up suddenly, as she is standing, the girl is holding the mic close to her. What a poor acting. The woman from the floor starts shouting 'I'm free! 'I'm free!... This same scenario but different women happened like three times, I knew they were fake. Even when Jesus Christ cast out a powerful demon from a boy, he screamed and people thought he was dead until Jesus Christ raised him. This one just fell for one second without blinking. I remember this things and feel like weeping for Nigerians.

Second, a pastor in Nigeria who happens to be the richest pastor in the world gave a testimony not too long ago and is on YouTube, if you doubt it, it is there. He says that he resurrected recently resurrected a boy who was embalmed for 7 days and see how the congregation were shouting to a man who at that age can lie on the altar! (Anyways, no be him build that altar?). Think of this, in Jesus Christ time, there was no TV or radio and when he did some miracles, he warned them to tell no one but they did tell others and it spread so much that his opposer's can't dispute. Today, in this digital era where news flies around like missiles, do you need to tell people that you raised a boy that was embalmed? The media, the boy, the parents, the whole community would have done that for you just as they do when they donate food and money. No one can dispute those facts. The boy, the hospital, the parents and community is not known and we never heard of such news. What these pastors do here that attract followers will not work in developed lands. Nigerians want miracles and financial breakthrough. When they don't come, they blame God

Aemmyjah:


You're twisting words, as to the origin of life and the formation of man, what does evolution say and which one makes sense to you?

You're making me repeat myself.

Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life. Also, i feel like i need to point out that the “origin of life" and “formation of man" are 2 very completely different topics.

Data from evolution shows humans evolved from ape-like ancestors (NOT FROM APES).

Secondly, I don't go after “what makes sense to me"... Because by doing that, you're trying to confine reality to your current ability to understand it, which is not how reality works.

Wilgrea7:


You're making me repeat myself.

Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life. Also, i feel like i need to point out that the “origin of life" and “formation of man" are 2 very completely different topics.

Data from evolution shows humans evolved from ape-like ancestors (NOT FROM APES).

Secondly, I don't go after “what makes sense to me"... Because by doing that, you're trying to confine reality to your current ability to understand it, which is not how reality works.

You are really funny. Go and do research on what evolution says as to the origin of life. Or you think it's only concerned with diversity of organisms?

Aemmyjah:


You are really funny. Go and do research on what evolution says as to the origin of life. Or you think it's only concerned with diversity of organisms?

It's getting a little irritating with your “go and do research" ideology.

If you believe I'm wrong, then be kind enough to share the “right information" on what evolution says.

If not, stop telling someone else to go do research, when you're clearly not producing any counterargument, or data to oppose their claims.

Wilgrea7:


It's getting a little irritating with your “go and do research" ideology.

If you believe I'm wrong, then be kind enough to share the “right information" on what evolution says.

If not, stop telling someone else to go do research, when you're clearly not producing any counterargument, or data to oppose their claims.

As to the origin of life, there are two factors. Either it came from a Creator or it happened by chance. How the universe was formed, we don't know but we know that God is the source. Life did not arise from a cosmic soup

Dtruthspeaker:


We know what the meaning of silence is, in every situation.

And what exactly are you trying to say here? I've already said it doesn't always mean acceptance or agreement.. and you're saying what exactly??

See how faulty your thinking is? It is not the Bible writers (Defendant) who will document objections but the Complainants against the Bible reports (Plaintiff) who will raise their objection and document same. That is how it works.

Stick to the issue (Change of Post). We are not talking about what "other religious books tell". We are talking about your unfounded allegations against the Bible, which as you can see, you have none.

You are trying to eat your cake and have it. First of all, the bible isn't, and was never the center of the universe, where different civilizations around the world would be bothered about debunking it's claims.

The bible as a thing didn't even exist up until a few thousand years ago. So your point really doesn't hold much water.

Secondly, as I've shown you, different civilizations at the time were writing their own contradictory stories and claims. Your argument for the Bible's claims can be used to defend the claims made in the books of other religions.

Same as we believe the news in nairaland's front page even when none of us are present there. Normal natural living and well within my right.

This, the record shows that I did not make this allegation. It is rather you are your co-respondent plaintiff who made this unfounded allegations, which I came to defend.

And as the records here exhibits, you have no reasonable accusation only your personal grumblings and displeasure.

You seem to have missed my point. I'm not saying you need to be physically present somewhere to believe, or deny that something happened.

That was my response to statement you made about AuthenticKing not being there.

We believe things, or rather, accept them as true when we have a certain level of evidence for them. That's how we know things like the age of the earth, the existence of pre-historic civilizations civilizations and so on.

In the absence of any evidence to corroborate the claim about a past event, it will, in it's entirety, remain nothing more than a claim.

By the way, what allegations about the bible are you talking about here?

Aemmyjah:


As to the origin of life, there are two factors. Either it came from a Creator or it happened by chance. How the universe was formed, we don't know but we know that God is the source. Life did not arise from a cosmic soup

1. You're pushing a false dichotomy, for which you have absolutely no evidence for.

Secondly, you seem to be implying that the view of evolution is that things came about by chance. You couldn't be further from the truth.

For the very last time, I will attempt to explain this as simply as i can.

Evolution talks about the changes an organism undergoes under a certain period of time, in order to adapt to it's environment.

Let's say for example, an organism staying in a hot, climate where water is scarce. Over long periods of time, this organism's body system can adapt to using water more effectively, like

1. Having thicker skin barriers , to reduce evaporation
2. Adaptation of the digestive system to reduce the amount of water needed for digestion.
3. Expansion of the stomach for more long term storage of water... or something along these lines.

It makes no claims about the origin of all life as we know it. Only about how said life changes and adapts to it's environment.

Very few scientists today promote the idea that life came from a cosmic soup. The origin of life as we know it is still very much a mystery to us today.

If you want to claim it was a God, particularly a single creator God who spoke to some jewish people a couple thousand years ago, then the burden of proof is on you

Wilgrea7:


1. You're pushing a false dichotomy, for which you have absolutely no evidence for.

Secondly, you seem to be implying that the view of evolution is that things came about by chance. You couldn't be further from the truth.

For the very last time, I will attempt to explain this as simply as i can.

Evolution talks about the changes an organism undergoes under a certain period of time, in order to adapt to it's environment.

Let's say for example, an organism staying in a hot, climate where water is scarce. Over long periods of time, this organism's body system can adapt to using water more effectively, like

1. Having thicker skin barriers , to reduce evaporation
2. Adaptation of the digestive system to reduce the amount of water needed for digestion.
3. Expansion of the stomach for more long term storage of water... or something along these lines.

It makes no claims about the origin of all life as we know it. Only about how said life changes and adapts to it's environment.

Very few scientists today promote the idea that life came from a cosmic soup. The origin of life as we know it is still very much a mystery to us today.

If you want to claim it was a God, particularly a single creator God who spoke to some jewish people a couple thousand years ago, then the burden of proof is on you

What you are promoting is adaptation and not evolution. It makes sense to me that someone is responsible for life and living forms here on and the universe. If you have a problem with that, suit yourself

Wilgrea7:

And what exactly are you trying to say here? I've already said it doesn't always mean acceptance or agreement.. and you're saying what exactly??

I am saying we know and we know also know when silence occurs because Truth has shut all mouths!

Wilgrea7:

You are trying to eat your cake and have it. First of all, the bible isn't, and was never the center of the universe, where different civilizations around the world would be bothered about debunking it's claims.

Change of Post! The issue is not about "centre of the universe".

Wilgrea7:

The bible as a thing didn't even exist up until a few thousand years ago. So your point really doesn't hold much water.

Off Point! Google, cars, phones did not exist until a few years ago and they have their places here. But offpoint still.

Wilgrea7:

Secondly, as I've shown you, different civilizations at the time were writing their own contradictory stories and claims. Your argument for the Bible's claims can be used to defend the claims made in the books of other religions.

As I said, change of post! We are not talking about "other religious books". Each group have a right to defend themselves on their own force and merit.

Wilgrea7:
...That was my response to statement you made about AuthenticKing not being there.

I know! And I simply responded to show you that you should not have said anything for it is indefensible because you both lack locus standi. Just as you lack capacity to make a case about Davido's son's death, so also could both you and the other guy nor anybody today raise any allegation against the Bible. You can not take panadol for another person's headache, is The Law!

Wilgrea7:

We believe things, or rather, accept them as true when we have a certain level of evidence for them.

You can as well refuse to believe and accept that Ifeanyi Davido's son, is not dead! You are well within your rights and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it, for it is your right to accept or reject any thing, whether that thing is True or not. Like refusing to travel with God is good Motors and preferring "I hate God Mass Transit". It is the exercise of your power and right to act.

Whether your power and right is exercised rightly or wrongly is a separate issue.

But, as long as you have a power and right to act, you will do it in any way you will it to be and like I said, using the Davido's son and the transport companies, the basis does not need to be True. As long as it is your power, you will do whatever you choose to do.

After all, you are free to choose a Truth or a Lie! You are not bound to accept all Truths whether you like it or not.

And that is why a Court, the Natural Court God made and gave men (and not the ones men made for themselves which is called legal) is better, for it must accept all Truths whether the Judges like it or not.

But in your own court you can do whatever you like which is the essence and power and evil of legal and manmade courts which are courts of "do as you like and can do"!

Which is simply what you people are doing AND YOU PEOPLE ARE NOT BOUND OR SWORN TO UPHOLD THE TRUTH

So, there is no need trying to prove anything to you people.

Aemmyjah:


What you are promoting is adaptation and not evolution.

What?

It makes sense to me that someone is responsible for life and living forms here on and the universe. If you have a problem with that, suit yourself

I don't have a problem with someone or something or some things being responsible for the universe. I have a problem with the people who make these claims but fail to prove it