Reyginus:
Yeah. I know understanding all won't be easy but I then I also know that calling all of them stupid without understanding them is worse. Judgement comes from knowledge of the thing and it's antagonist. Why do you think I dismiss Hinduism? Why do you think I dismiss gay?

Teempakguy, how do you see people who criticise you even when they don't understand you? Are they smart?

NO. they are NOT smart. and i don't advice anyone to criticize any religion unless they understand it.

Reyginus:
Pointless. How does this explain why they seem to work in the areas they have? Or is it that I didn't see clearly or we are all stupid and ignorant.

The fact that such silly fables usually emanate from the dungeons of primitive Africa speaks volumes about their veracity.

If you are going to a gun battle, you either wear bullet proof vests that has the stamp of scientific innovation, or, you wear your charms.
The choice yours.

An0nimus:

all of the above?

yeah, all of the above . . .

Teempakguy:
well a christian cannot be an hinduism follower, neither can he be a gay supporter.

anyway, atheists do not do the bolded. in fact, they do the exact opposite. I'm sure you know many atheists are well versed in the bible. they actually understand what is going on here. it IS fantasy! you can only come to the realization of that when you actually take time to study these religions.

So, is your point that one can criticise what he doesn't understand?

Teempakguy:
NO. they are NOT smart. and i don't advice anyone to criticize any religion unless they understand it.

Good for you. What about events that violate our present knowledge of our world? Or is it selective?

plaetton:


The fact that such silly fables usually emanate from the dungeons of primitive Africa speaks volumes about their veracity.

If you are going to a gun battle, you either wear bullet proof vests that has the stamp of scientific innovation, or, you wear your charms.
The choice yours.

How does this answer anything?

Reyginus:
So, is your point that one can criticise what he doesn't understand?

it is inevitable.
the fact remains that one cannot understand everything, yet, one must criticize everything. so, the only solution is to criticize what we do not understand, most of the time.

however,

there is a scale of importance to things. some things can be dismissed and critcized without need for understanding them. for instance, a field of study. because the consequences of doing so are trivial. but when it comes to things like religion, one must be painstakingly strive to understand it because the consequences of not doing so are potentially deadly. i.e eternal punishment.

Reyginus:
Good for you. What about events that violate our present knowledge of our world? Or is it selective?

every event can and will be eventually explained. using explainable events to prove God is a suicidal mission. because when everything or close to everything becomes explained, God will disappear from logical minds. this is already happening.

God should be present in the explainable. not in the in-explainable.

Teempakguy:
it is inevitable.
the fact remains that one cannot understand everything, yet, one must criticize everything. so, the only solution is to criticize what we do not understand, most of the time.

however,

there is a scale of importance to things. some things can be dismissed and critcized without need for understanding them. for instance, a field of study. because the consequences of doing so are trivial. but when it comes to things like religion, one must be painstakingly strive to understand it because the consequences of not doing so are potentially deadly. i.e eternal punishment.

If one cannot everything then one's criticism of everything must be taken as that of an ignoramus.

Dismissing without any need for understanding is never intelligent. Never. What field of study?

Teempakguy:
every event can and will be eventually explained. using explainable events to prove God is a suicidal mission. because when everything or close to everything becomes explained, God will disappear from logical minds. this is already happening.

God should be present in the explainable. not in the in-explainable.

I'm not even talking about God yet. I'm just on things we dismiss because we don't really consider the idea within present scientific confines. Substituting God for everything is ignorant too. Yeah. It's possible. Events may be eventually explained. We know too little now to know what will be explained in the future.

Reyginus:
How does this answer anything?

My point, in case you still refuse to get it, is that it is very sad that we prefer things that doesn't require us to think, investigate and innovate, rather than the things that requires us to.

This is the national tragedy that would eventually lead to our extinction.

If, for example, a global pandemic were to ensue now or in the future, Africa would be the first to go extinct.

Just look back at the last Ebola scare.
We are still depending on foreigners, those who use their brains, who don't give a xxxing shyte about Paul's missionary journeys, to find the cure for the Ebola and many other diseases that kill millions of our children daily.

And here you, talking to me about charms and miracles.

Tufiakwa.

plaetton:


My point, in case you still refuse to get it, is that it is very sad that we prefer things that doesn't require us to think, investigate and innovate, rather than the things that requires us to.

This is the national tragedy that would eventually lead to our extinction.

If, for example, a global pandemic were to ensue now or in the future, Africa would be the first to go extinct.

Just look back at the last Ebola scare.
We are still depending on foreigners, those who use their brains, who don't give a xxxing shyte about Paul's missionary journeys, to find the cure for the Ebola and many other diseases that kill millions of our children daily.

And here you, talking to me about charms and miracles.

Tufiakwa.

You've not made any point yet pertaining to my question. I think your problem is with the response of religious people to important issues. That's not my business here. Mine is on the efficacy of some things they do. Why does it happen? Am I deluded? Am I being deceived by a trick? If so, how? Stop barking at the wrong tree.

Reyginus:
If one cannot everything then one's criticism of everything must be taken as that of an ignoramus.

Dismissing without any need for understanding is never intelligent. Never. What field of study?

yet we do it all the time. human's aren't all that smart, I guess,

field of study? well, take mathematics for instance. 70% of all Nigerian students today dismiss and criticize the subject because . . . well, they don't understand it.

or take the natural sciences. most Nigerians reject evolution theory and the big bang theory without even taking time to understand it. just because it conflicts with their inner belief system.

Teempakguy:
yet we do it all the time. human's aren't all that smart, I guess,

field of study? well, take mathematics for instance. 70% of all Nigerian students today dismiss and criticize the subject because . . . well, they don't understand it.

or take the natural sciences. most Nigerians reject evolution theory and the big bang theory without even taking time to understand it. just because it conflicts with their inner belief system.

Yeah. We are not really as smart as we think. If they dismiss maths it's because they are ignorant and when it's time to proof a new mathematical theory their ignorance is still not considered. That's the point.

The same thing with Darwin and The Big Bang Theory. When you critique things you don't understand you will end up making no sense except to your intellectual kind.

Reyginus:
I'm not even talking about God yet. I'm just on things we dismiss because we don't really consider the idea within present scientific confines. Substituting God for everything is ignorant too. Yeah. It's possible. Events may be eventually explained. We know too little now to know what will be explained in the future.

well, that discussion would be better suited for the science section, but, i guess . . . not..

yes, it's easy to say that substituting God for everything is ignorant. yet, the opening argument of virtually EVERY theist is, "you don't know who or what created this beautiful and intricate universe. this is proof of God."

their ENDING argument usually is, "so you're saying we came from nothing, right? no! it's God!"

so I'd say the problem is from your side of the table.

Reyginus:
You've not made any point yet pertaining to my question. I think your problem is with the response of religious people to important issues. That's not my business here. Mine is on the efficacy of some things they do. Why does it happen? Am I deluded? Am I being deceived by a trick? If so, how? Stop barking at the wrong tree.

You have not said anything that they supposedly do.

A miracle is an ambiguous word.
To a very ignorant person or uninformed person, every little discovery is a miracle.

Funny that miracles are used more often with issues of faith.
By simply understanding the definition of faith, it is not too difficult to see why the word miracle is overused in matters of faith.

Teempakguy:
well, that discussion would be better suited for the science section, but, i guess . . . not..

yes, it's easy to say that substituting God for everything is ignorant. yet, the opening argument of virtually EVERY theist is, "you don't know who or what created this beautiful and intricate universe. this is proof of God."

their ENDING argument usually is, "so you're saying we came from nothing, right? no! it's God!"

so I'd say the problem is from your side of the table.

Lol. But then if we want to be truthful we cannot really say EVERY theist substitutes EVERYTHING for God. Let's be fair. So, how is it from my side of the table when I don't even think the above?

Reyginus:
Yeah. We are not really as smart as we think. If they dismiss maths it's because they are ignorant and when it's time to proof a new mathematical theory their ignorance is still not considered. That's the point.

The same thing with Darwin and The Big Bang Theory. When you critique things you don't understand you will end up making no sense except to your intellectual kind.

exactly.

plaetton:


You have not said anything that they supposedly do.

A miracle is an ambiguous word.
To a very ignorant person or uninformed person, every little discovery is a miracle.

Funny that miracles are used more often with issues of faith.
By simply understanding the definition of faith, it is not too difficult to see why the word miracle is overused in matters of faith.

Lolololol. Plaetton, what is this? How does understanding the meaning of faith explain my experience in Northern Nigeria? I don't understand.

Reyginus:
Lol. But then if we want to be truthful we cannot really say EVERY theist substitutes EVERYTHING for God. Let's be fair. So, how is it from my side of the table when I don't even think the above?

lol, i actually meant the issue of using God to explain everything was a problem of theists. rather than atheists.

Teempakguy:
you KNOW this is a ridiculous statement, right?

also, atheists immediately claim "hoax" whenever they see "miracles" because they violate the laws of nature. if you watched a video where person was floating in midair, you should already know he is faking it. gravity doesn't do partiality. neither does electromagnetism. so we shout hoax because they are bullshyte thought up by clever people to deceive less clever and more ignorant people into thinking they have some supernatural power.

and EVERY TIME, atheists have been proved right. no "miracle" has survived the test of scientism. they are all hoaxes.

Interesting. So what are the laws of nature? 2. who said ALL "laws of nature" have been discovered or acknowledged to be so 3. How did "nature" begin?

Atheists are not necessarily scientific. No true scientists make conclusions without examination of fact. And no fact makes sense without a correct premise for interpretation.

By the way, I am a scientist; science is not contrary to faith. Christians just happens to know what science has not yet discovered.

You can now use the privilege of that information to read again. Just maybe you will get my point this time.

Conversation with people who allow emotions to cloud reason cannot yield any benefit.

My post is not intended to convert an atheist to Christianity. Reason CANNOT establish that. I'm just stating a very strong issue that affects humans generally, theists and atheists, students and professors, politicians and non-politician, Governments and rebels. Being a good listener and observer helps to resolve conflicts, aids productivity and makes us able to relate with one another better even if we don't believe the same thing.

Just see how people are prone to attack persons rather than address issues by reading replies above.

PMIcon:


Interesting. So what are the laws of nature? 2. who said ALL "laws of nature" have been discovered or acknowledged to be so 3. How did "nature" begin?

By the way, I am a scientist. You can now use the privilege of that information to read again. Just maybe you will get my point this time.

1. The laws of nature are descriptions of the constraints and behaviors that guide our world. it's as simple as that, really.

2. Nobody says all the laws of nature have been discovered. that would be a very ridiculous statement.

3. No one knows.

Teempakguy:

1. The laws of nature are descriptions of the constraints and behaviors that guide our world. it's as simple as that, really.

2. Nobody says all the laws of nature have been discovered. that would be a very ridiculous statement.

3. No one knows.

2. Good. So who says everyone is even on the same page in terms of knowledge of principles or laws guiding how things work in our world currently available to humans.

Note that many so called "scientific discoveries" have gone into the archive as untrue.

We learn from others when we listen and observe without prejudice.

3. That statement has not been verified.

PMIcon:
[/b]

2. Good. So who says everyone is even on the same page in terms of knowledge of principles or laws guiding how things work in our world currently available to humans.

Note that many so called "scientific discoveries" have gone into the archive as untrue.

We learn from others when we listen and observe without prejudice.

3. That statement has not been verified.

2. yes.
3. yes, it has been verified. no human being knows the origin of the universe. no one was there. all we have are pretty good guesses which tend to fact. and they do not include genesis chapter one. that is pure bullshyte and will have no place in any reasonable scientific discussion.

Teempakguy:
lol, i actually meant the issue of using God to explain everything was a problem of theists. rather than atheists.

Yeah. But 'everything' really means everything. It's too much of an assertion to make.

Reyginus:
Yeah. But 'everything' really means everything. It's too much of an assertion to make.

very much so.
alas, we find that this is indeed the case.
theist do explain everything with God. even random things. such as chess, and children's cartoons, are explained as God putting the ideas into people's heads. or, if it doesn't agree with their level of fanaticism, they claim it's the devil's idea. as if humans are so moronic that they cannot think up their own concepts. or solve their own problems.

Teempakguy:
very much so.
alas, we find that this is indeed the case.
theist do explain everything with God. even random things. such as chess, and children's cartoons, are explained as God putting the ideas into people's heads. or, if it doesn't agree with their level of fanaticism, they claim it's the devil's idea. as if humans are so moronic that they cannot think up their own concepts. or solve their own problems.

Lol. This is not true. Not at all. To assume All for Few or Most is wrong. It's like saying all atheists claim science resolves every theistic argument even when we know that some do not believe because it doesn't just make sense to them?

Teempakguy:
2. yes.
3. yes, it has been verified. no human being knows the origin of the universe. no one was there. all we have are pretty good guesses which tend to fact. and they do not include genesis chapter one. that is pure bullshyte and will have no place in any reasonable scientific discussion.

Again permit me to ask you what you meant by "reasonable scientific discussion".

Also, you said "no one was there" how did you know that? Who came back from the past to tell us, "I travelled to the beginning and no one was there when nature began."

Christians believe that God created nature. They have grounds to say they know how it all began because there is God. Atheists on the other hand have no premise to stand on when they say, "No one knows" or "Know one was there," because those statements require a miracle to make and be right when your premise is: you have to prove things to believe it.

Reyginus:
Lol. This is not true. Not at all. To assume All for Few or Most is wrong. It's like saying all atheists claim science resolves every theistic argument even when we know that some do not believe because it doesn't just make sense to them?

yes, I know. i actually forgot to add most theists. It is always wrong to generalize and i often avoid this as much as i can.
in fact i'll go further, most theists That I have met.

A theist who isn't hasty to ascribe every occurrence to his God is very likely to eventually become an atheist though. for he will continually ascribe less and less to that God until eventually, he ascribes nothing to that God and eventually concludes that the God does not exist. it is a slippery slope.

Teempakguy:
yes, I know. i actually forgot to add most theists. It is always wrong to generalize and i often avoid this as much as i can.
in fact i'll go further, most theists That I have met.

A theist who isn't hasty to ascribe every occurrence to his God is very likely to eventually become an atheist though. for he will continually ascribe less and less to that God until eventually, he ascribes nothing to that God and eventually concludes that the God does not exist. it is a slippery slope.

Another claim? Who have you been interacting with?

Teempakguy:
2. yes.
3. yes, it has been verified. no human being knows the origin of the universe. no one was there. all we have are pretty good guesses which tend to fact. and they do not include genesis chapter one. that is pure bullshyte and will have no place in any reasonable scientific discussion.

Again permit me to ask you what you meant by "reasonable scientific discussion".

Also, you said "no one was there" how did you know that? Who came back from the past to tell us, "I travelled to the beginning and no one was there when nature began."

Christians believe that God created nature. They have grounds to say they know how it all began because there is God. Atheists on the other hand have no premise to stand on when they say, "No one knows" or "Know one was there," because those statements require a miracle to make and be right when your premise is: you have to be able to prove things to believe it.