stephenmorris: spacyzuma i read ur diaries i must say you deserve frontpage abeg no stop o but the part when u say you no like sex hahahahahah ,joseph1013 no vex say i dey use ur thread dey talk o,i tried quoting the guy i couldn't
LOL. He looks to me to be a mercurial person. He's very interesting. I die for the great links he shares.
I have been trying to access my ymail since yesterday but its acting up please here is my mail(leommyn@gmail.com),pls message me or you cud drop urs,so sorry for the inconveniences this might cause
joseph1013: THE WORD 'ATHEIST' IS SO MISUNDERSTOOD
I follow spacyzuma's diary. In his latest comment posted a few minutes again, he inferred that an agnostic is somehow between a theist and an atheist. I have found myself having to discuss this issue so many times. No...agnoticism is not between theism and atheism. Theism is not at one end and atheism at the other extreme corner. No...agnostism is not the midpoint. They are two separate terms. One deals with belief, the other deals with knowledge.
Perhaps, I may have used it and make it sound like an agnostic is the reasonable fellow and the atheist is the stubborn one, pardon me, that's not true.
Watch the video below...it explains it in a way I don't have time to today.
I have been trying to access my ymail since yesterday but its acting up please here is my mail(leommyn@gmail.com),pls message me or you cud drop urs,so sorry for the inconveniences this might cause
[b]Okay...I spent the entire day thinking whether I should write this or not, but finally decided that it is more helpful if I share.
As usual I got a mail but this mail was unlike any I have ever received. It was not a threatening message, I was a call for help. But I was beyond shocked at the content. I reproduce the mail below:
My first thought was that this email was meant for another person, but then I realized that I have had someone called me a occultic person before.
So to this guy, I know you are seeing this post, atheists are not occultic people. Atheists lack a belief in God. That's all.
God = Supernatural being
Occult = Supernatural phenomena
No. I don't think you can really call yourself an atheist with any sense of credibility if you believe in magic, the occult, supernatural powers or psychic abilities.
Theoretically if one was willing to accept the existence of the supernatural then it would be both irrational and hypocritical to then disbelieve in the possible existence of gods.
So bro, while I understand your pains, Nigeria is in really bad shape at the moment, joining a group of occults, especially as we have it in Nigeria is a really bad move. Your desperation could force you into doing some really terrible stuff. It's a regular thing to hear of people beheading and kidnapping people for money rituals. Don't go that route, bro.
Your best shot at success is still hard work. You gotta keep looking for opportunities to climb out of poverty. It is said that luck is where opportunity meets preparation. You just gotta keep at it.
joseph1013: [b]Okay...I spent the entire day thinking whether I should write this or not, but finally decided that it is more helpful if I share.
As usual I got a mail but this mail was unlike any I have ever received. It was not a threatening message, I was a call for help. But I was beyond shocked at the content. I reproduce the mail below:
My first thought was that this email was meant for another person, but then I realized that I have had someone called me a occultic person before.
So to this guy, I know you are seeing this post, atheists are not occultic people. Atheists lack a belief in God. That's all.
God = Supernatural being
Occult = Supernatural phenomena
No. I don't think you can really call yourself an atheist with any sense of credibility if you believe in magic, the occult, supernatural powers or psychic abilities.
Theoretically if one was willing to accept the existence of the supernatural then it would be both irrational and hypocritical to then disbelieve in the possible existence of gods.
So bro, while I understand your pains, Nigeria is in really bad shape at the moment, joining a group of occults, especially as we have it in Nigeria is a really bad move. Your desperation could force you into doing some really terrible stuff. It's a regular thing to hear of people beheading and kidnapping people for money rituals. Don't go that route, bro.
Your best shot at success is still hard work. You gotta keep looking for opportunities to climb out of poverty. It is said that luck is where opportunity meets preparation. You just gotta keep at it.
That's the misrepresentation and sometimes deliberate misconception of what atheism is essentially all about. That's the reason i sometimes desist from using the label ATHEISM depending on the person am chatting with. My usual answer to such is that i don't understand coherently the meaning of occult or satan, hence they should explain more about the stuff they labeled me.
joseph1013: [b]Okay...I spent the entire day thinking whether I should write this or not, but finally decided that it is more helpful if I share.
As usual I got a mail but this mail was unlike any I have ever received. It was not a threatening message, I was a call for help. But I was beyond shocked at the content. I reproduce the mail below:
My first thought was that this email was meant for another person, but then I realized that I have had someone called me a occultic person before.
So to this guy, I know you are seeing this post, atheists are not occultic people. Atheists lack a belief in God. That's all.
God = Supernatural being
Occult = Supernatural phenomena
No. I don't think you can really call yourself an atheist with any sense of credibility if you believe in magic, the occult, supernatural powers or psychic abilities.
Theoretically if one was willing to accept the existence of the supernatural then it would be both irrational and hypocritical to then disbelieve in the possible existence of gods.
So bro, while I understand your pains, Nigeria is in really bad shape at the moment, joining a group of occults, especially as we have it in Nigeria is a really bad move. Your desperation could force you into doing some really terrible stuff. It's a regular thing to hear of people beheading and kidnapping people for money rituals. Don't go that route, bro.
Your best shot at success is still hard work. You gotta keep looking for opportunities to climb out of poverty. It is said that luck is where opportunity meets preparation. You just gotta keep at it.
I don't know why people mix irreligion for Satanism/Occultism. Religion involves worship, so does Satanism, therefore it is totally illogical to mix irreligion with Satanism.
Anyway,you gave him a good advice already 'Hardwork'.
Your best shot at success is still hard work. You gotta keep looking for opportunities to climb out of poverty. It is said that luck is where opportunity meets preparation. You just gotta keep at it.
He should also go for some entrepreneurial training, an opportunity might come up from there.
The Nigerian Pastor won't talk about Usain Bolt or Serena Williams. They won't talk about late Dora Akunyili or Tony Elumelu.
The Nigerian pastor wont talk about Steve Jobs or the young people in Silicon Valley reshaping our world.
They won't talk about young American scientists spending endless hours in search of a cure to a disease that's predominantly in the Tropical African region. The Nigerian pastor won't talk about Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie or Ben Okri.
In every corner of the world, there exist young men and women who has defiled all odds and became successful through hardwork, creativity and dedication...
The Nigerian pastor wont talk about them......neither will he ask his members to emulate the spirit of these individuals.
He would rather talk about sister Agatha who got a job she WAS NOT THE MOST QUALIFIED because she prayed and fasted in line with their church program.
Or
Brother John who became a millionaire because he used all his salary as a seed in the church.
Or
Papa Miracle who he laid his hands on and 3 of his children got admission in the university
Or
Mama Esther paid her tithe and her business started growing everywhere across the nation......no business plan, just boom, everywhere.
This has led to a new breed of mentally lazy young people who now see God as a rewarder of mediocrity.
To the Nigeria Pastor, the only way to prosper is by paying your tithe and sowing seeds in the church. So they will never talk about those who has through hardwork and dedication placed theirselves in the world map.
No......the Nigeria God only blesses the first 30 people that rush to the altar to drop 100,000 as seed.
The Nigeria God abhors hardwork and creative thinking, He only gives to those who sow seeds and offerings......and those who shout "i am a millionaire" every morning and do nothing the rest of the day.
Continue....you want God to come down and help you use the talent He gave you and bless you because you are going to church to shout "Daddy I receive it" You all jokers.
Can someone tell these jokers that irrespective of your creed, faith or religion, blessings and favours follows you once you start using your talent and become useful to your society.
joseph1013: [b]Okay...I spent the entire day thinking whether I should write this or not, but finally decided that it is more helpful if I share.
As usual I got a mail but this mail was unlike any I have ever received. It was not a threatening message, I was a call for help. But I was beyond shocked at the content. I reproduce the mail below:
My first thought was that this email was meant for another person, but then I realized that I have had someone called me a occultic person before.
So to this guy, I know you are seeing this post, atheists are not occultic people. Atheists lack a belief in God. That's all.
God = Supernatural being
Occult = Supernatural phenomena
No. I don't think you can really call yourself an atheist with any sense of credibility if you believe in magic, the occult, supernatural powers or psychic abilities.
Theoretically if one was willing to accept the existence of the supernatural then it would be both irrational and hypocritical to then disbelieve in the possible existence of gods.
So bro, while I understand your pains, Nigeria is in really bad shape at the moment, joining a group of occults, especially as we have it in Nigeria is a really bad move. Your desperation could force you into doing some really terrible stuff. It's a regular thing to hear of people beheading and kidnapping people for money rituals. Don't go that route, bro.
Your best shot at success is still hard work. You gotta keep looking for opportunities to climb out of poverty. It is said that luck is where opportunity meets preparation. You just gotta keep at it.
he should get his ass and work ,let him reduce the time he spend on the internet and also know that listening to too much news is very dangerous it makes one feel as if there is suffering everywhere as if all hope is lost and he should also read this http://peterkeyz.com/money-rituals-believe-myth/
According some ancient record, a radical humanist (at least in the standard of his days) once lived in an area of what is today called Palestine. He was a scourge on the flesh of religious leaders in his time. They conspired to kill him. Upon his death, some group of followers decided to form a RELIGION in his name without his consent- a religion that is entirely different from his character, a religion that represents everything the man stood against. They named it Christianity.
He condemned the collection of tithes by religious leaders at the expense of the poor. In Christianity today, woe betide you, if you do not pay tithe.
He couldn't condemn a prostitute caught in the act, he wined and dined with "sinners". Today, pastors flog teenagers caught in sexual act, Christians open up "gate of hell" and all manner of threats, curses and condemnation on prostitutes, gays, atheists, and any other person who doesn't conform.
He was a pacifist. The only time he wielded a cane was to chase out money changers in the temple. Today, churches are business transaction centers. Fraudsters swindle people's money in the name of "seed sowing". Financial irregularities, worse than money changing, go on in churches.
As a peasant - a carpenter - he had the audacity to stand up against religious leaders. Today, "Touch not my anointed" is the watchword of Christians. Churches, Catholics especially, evolved all manner of incantations (rosary, etc) liturgy, doctrines, dogmas that have more to do with pagan Roman culture than with the life of the man they claim to worship.
As a devout Jew who practiced Judaism, he has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity as a religion - a religion that has become a tool for mass control, acquisition of power and wealth; a religion that drove European politics in the Dark ages; a religion used as tool for the oppression and enslavement of the Black continent in time past; a religion that satiates power hungry men.
If it were today, the Pope and the Vatican mafia would be his worst enemy. The Bishops, Priests, Pastors, pulpit hustlers, ignorant Christian sheeple would condemn him to eternal damnation.
The concepts of Trinity, Virgin Birth, Immaculate conception and all other Christian doctrinal gibberish were invented decades after his death - mere human ideas foisted on gullible followers who cannot think for themselves.
I am a great fan of that humanist, but the religion that was formed in his name with all its fabricated doctrines and dogmas is what all humanists should reject. [/b]
[quote author=joseph1013 post=48642520][/quote] I concur with this article, except for the fact that Christianity did not necessarily drive Europe into the dark ages. Europe going into the dark ages was inevitable due to the fall of Rome. It was Christianity that actually played a role in taming the barbarians who conquered Rome else it probably could have been a continuous cycle of conquest. I am not saying Christendom has been all bread and butter in history, of course not, but to correct this impression of dark ages and Christianity. Part of the reason why it was initially called dark ages was because we know quite little about events and developments during this time frame( 500-1000) A.D. From the 11th century Europe began to bubble slowly and only had the muhammedians to worry about. Nice article though, l jumped in here because there are some atheists who for instance argue that Christianity is too passive and Pacifistic which led to the fall of Rome, but same atheist would turn around to blame Christianity for all the wars in Europe. Not saying you are one of those atheists though.
Well, it is a beautiful point you bring up. But it is not good enough for you to (subjectively) look at the wonder of the universe and human design and conclude that a being or deity is responsible.
It used to be obvious that the world was designed by some sort of intelligence. What else could account for fire and rain and lightning and earthquakes? Above all, the wonderful abilities of living things seemed to point to a creator who had a special interest in life. Today we understand most of these things in terms of physical forces acting under impersonal laws. We don't yet know the most fundamental laws, and we can't work out all the consequences of the laws we do know.
The human mind remains extraordinarily difficult to understand, but so is the weather. We can't predict whether it will rain one month from today, but we do know the rules that govern the rain, even though we can't always calculate their consequences. I see nothing about the human mind any more than about the weather that stands out as beyond the hope of understanding as a consequence of impersonal laws acting over billions of years.
The human eye does not show intelligent design. In fact it shows unintelligent design.
The configuration of the retina is in three layers, with the light-sensitive rods and cones at the bottom, facing away from the light, and underneath a layer of bipolar, horizonal, and amacrine cells, themselves underneath a layer of ganglion cells that help carry the signal from the eye to the brain. And this entire structure sits beneath a layer of blood vessels.
For optimal vision why would an intelligent designer have built an eye backwards and upside down? Because an intelligent designer did not build the eye from scratch. Natural selection built the eye from simple to complex using whatever materials were available, and in the particular configuration of the ancestral organism.
The human eye is not even the most complex...it is not the most well-developed. The octopus has a superior eye to us. Some animals even see more colour than us.
There are alot of examples from the human body to illustrate that if there is a designer at all, then the designer is very unintelligent.
Several flaws in the human design frequently result in death, especially without modern medical care:
- In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.
- In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby’s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.
- In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias, including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death.
- The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.
- The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but rather indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate. Oxygenless asphyxiation in a pure-nitrogen atmosphere has been proposed as a humane method of execution that exploits this "oversight".
- The human appendix is a vestigial organ with no known purpose. However, appendicitis, an infection of this useless organ, is a certain death without medical intervention.
- Barely used nerves and muscles, such as the plantaris muscle of the foot, that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations. Another example is the muscles that move the ears, which some people can learn to control to a degree, but serve no purpose in any case.
- The common malformation of the human spinal column, leading to scoliosis, sciatica and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae.
- Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective. Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death. The gene is also non-functional in other primates and in guinea pigs, but is functional in most other animals.
- The prevalence of congenital diseases and genetic disorders such as Huntington's Disease.
- Crowded teeth and poor sinus drainage, as human faces are significantly flatter than those of other primates and humans share the same tooth set. This results in a number of problems, most notably with wisdom teeth.
- The structure of humans' eyes (as well as those of all vertebrates). The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot.
You see, the human body does not show that any deity who may have designed us is intelligent.
TThis is 1 of d most interesting threads I've com across on nl, Weldon. A quick one; would u say due to d inefficiency of a car n 1 or 2 poor designs in it, like poor fuel efficiency, poor axle design (like u find in most Honda cars), that it wasn't designed by any1/being, that it came by chance? (Assume d creator is not perfect ). If, like u say, d creator/god (or whoever u wish to call him/her) did a bad/poor job, y has man with all his accumulated knowledge, science n technology not been able to replicate/create a living thing, man or animal? I've learnt a lot from atheists on nl, but just can't understand y u prefer throwing out d baby & d bbath water, even wen its obvious there's a baby in d bath water. I'm sure u own a car n it breaks down sometimes, do u jump to d conclusion DAT it wasn't designed by an engineer, DAT it just came by chance?
I concur with this article, except for the fact that Christianity did not necessarily drive Europe into the dark ages. Europe going into the dark ages was inevitable due to the fall of Rome. It was Christianity that actually played a role in taming the barbarians who conquered Rome else it probably could have been a continuous cycle of conquest. I am not saying Christendom has been all bread and butter in history, of course not, but to correct this impression of dark ages and Christianity. Part of the reason why it was initially called dark ages was because we know quite little about events and developments during this time frame( 500-1000) A.D. From the 11th century Europe began to bubble slowly and only had the muhammedians to worry about. Nice article though, l jumped in here because there are some atheists who for instance argue that Christianity is too passive and Pacifistic which led to the fall of Rome, but same atheist would turn around to blame Christianity for all the wars in Europe. Not saying you are one of those atheists though.
I agree with you, Christianity really had almost no role. The Dark Ages were caused by the evolution of a stateless society in the void created by a shattered Roman Empire. We can have an argument about what you talked about how Christianity played a role in taming the barbarians, which in my mind is quite insignificant, but by and large, for someone who really understands history, Christianity cannot be blamed for the Dark Ages. There was a lot wrong with medieval Christianity but real history is a lot more complicated than the slogans many anti-christians would lead us to believe.
TThis is 1 of d most interesting threads I've com across on nl, Weldon. A quick one; would u say due to d inefficiency of a car n 1 or 2 poor designs in it, like poor fuel efficiency, poor axle design (like u find in most Honda cars), that it wasn't designed by any1/being, that it came by chance? (Assume d creator is not perfect ). If, like u say, d creator/god (or whoever u wish to call him/her) did a bad/poor job, y has man with all his accumulated knowledge, science n technology not been able to replicate/create a living thing, man or animal? I've learnt a lot from atheists on nl, but just can't understand y u prefer throwing out d baby & d bbath water, even wen its obvious there's a baby in d bath water. I'm sure u own a car n it breaks down sometimes, do u jump to d conclusion DAT it wasn't designed by an engineer, DAT it just came by chance?
[b]The problem with your analogy of the car is that we know that a car was made. For instance, if there is ever any doubt about how a car was made, we are sure to have someone who would come forth to explain how it was made and if need be point you to the factory it was produced.
Secondly, saying that a perfect God is capable of making imperfect things is blasphemy. In some communities, the punishment is death. A perfect God is supposed to make things that keeps mortal men in reverence. This is clearly not the case in humans.
Thirdly, saying man has not been able to replicate a living thing is very incorrect. One, the world has not ended and man is constantly working and each day, we are closer and closer to make more and more discoveries. You are being too impatient. Let me tell you of the advances we have made thus far:
- In 1986, a mouse was successfully cloned from an early embryonic cell.
- Dolly, a Finn-Dorset ewe, was the first mammal to have been successfully cloned from an adult somatic cell in 1996.
- In 2000, the first pigs were cloned.
- A Haflinger female born 28 May 2003, was the first horse clone.
- A male Afghan hound was the first cloned dog (2005).
- Samrupa was the first cloned water buffalo in 2009.
- (2012) Noori, is the first cloned pashmina goat.
- (2013) The gastric brooding frog, Rheobatrachus silus, thought to have been extinct since 1983 was cloned in Australia.
Let's talk about humans:
- In January 2008, Dr. Andrew French and Samuel Wood of the biotechnology company Stemagen announced that they successfully created the first five mature human embryos using SCNT.
- In 2011, scientists at the New York Stem Cell Foundation announced that they had succeeded in generating embryonic stem cell lines.
- In 2013, a group of scientists led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov published the first report of embryonic stem cells created using SCNT.
- A year later, a team led by Robert Lanza at Advanced Cell Technology reported that they had replicated Mitalipov's results and further demonstrated the effectiveness by cloning adult cells using SCNT.
Can you see why I said you are very wrong? Man is working...we are making progress WITHOUT the need for God's intervention.[/b]
The bible contains 2 accounts of creation and both are quite contradictory. The first one is narrated in Genesis 1:1-31 and the second one is Genesis 2:4-25. The first account is what is popular with Christians and that is what I'll discuss.
It starts with the passage: "Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
This passage suggests that the whole universe (Earth and other heavenly bodies) was made at the same time and it was dark. This contradicts known facts about the Universe, as the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old and the Universe is about 13 billion years old. And so, the earth is much younger than the universe.
Going further down the narrative in the next couple of verses, Light was made next but the Sun wasn't made until Day 4. You have to wonder what this 'light' was since the only source of light for the earth is sunlight and then you also have to wonder how the days were counted since we count our days by the earth's rotation using daylight from the Sun. In other words, how were the first 3 days counted?
Moving on... The firmament was Created next. What is this? There's nothing like a firmament dividing the waters above(?) from the waters beneath the earth. This firmament thingy always confuses me. Explanations will be welcomed as a reply to this post.
Next, Dry Land was created. This doesn’t make sense seeing as even if the earth was filled with water when made, the water would have been on land. In other words, land existed before water. No point having a special day to create land again.
Next, God made Plants before making the Sun. Another senseless narrative seeing as plants cannot possibly exist without the sun. In fact, life could not have existed BEFORE the Sun here on earth. The fact that the Sun only comes into play on the 4th day make nonsense of the whole creation story. Moving on...
Next, the sun and moon were made as light giving sources for night and day. But sadly, the moon is not a light source. The moon is a lifeless piece of rock that does not give its own light. You would think the maker of the Universe would know this, No?
Next, he made the Stars also (as an afterthought?) "To give light upon the earth." Sadly, only a very tiny fraction of the billion billion 'Stars' can be visible from the earth and so their 'giving light' ability is severely limited in this regard. God no think this thing well o. Lol.
Next, he made animals and then Man. I wouldn't go into how it is an error to say Whales were made before Reptiles (that would be being too pedantic). In verse 27, it appears that 'Man' represented both male and female as they were made together and yet in the next chapter, the woman was made (again?) from the rib of man. Confusing sturvs, lol.
All in all, as a factual account of the origin of the universe, this creation story fails woefully BUT if taken as nothing more than Jewish folklore at par with other creation stories from different cultures around the world, it makes for interesting literature. The maker of the Universe should know how the Universe was made. This story couldn't have been inspired by It, Ergo the Bible has already failed from its first chapter as being a divinely inspired book.[/b]
joseph1013: [b]LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CREATION ACCOUNT(S)
The bible contains 2 accounts of creation and both are quite contradictory. The first one is narrated in Genesis 1:1-31 and the second one is Genesis 2:4-25. The first account is what is popular with Christians and that is what I'll discuss.
It starts with the passage: "Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
This passage suggests that the whole universe (Earth and other heavenly bodies) was made at the same time and it was dark. This contradicts known facts about the Universe, as the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old and the Universe is about 13 billion years old. And so, the earth is much younger than the universe.
Going further down the narrative in the next couple of verses, Light was made next but the Sun wasn't made until Day 4. You have to wonder what this 'light' was since the only source of light for the earth is sunlight and then you also have to wonder how the days were counted since we count our days by the earth's rotation using daylight from the Sun. In other words, how were the first 3 days counted?
Moving on... The firmament was Created next. What is this? There's nothing like a firmament dividing the waters above(?) from the waters beneath the earth. This firmament thingy always confuses me. Explanations will be welcome in the comments section.
Next, Dry Land was created. This doesn’t make sense seeing as even if the earth was filled with water when made, the water would have been on land. In other words, land existed before water. No point having a special day to create land again.
Next, God made Plants before making the Sun. Another senseless narrative seeing as plants cannot possibly exist without the sun. In fact, life could not have existed BEFORE the Sun here on earth. The fact that the Sun only comes into play on the 4th day make nonsense of the whole creation story. Moving on...
Next, the sun and moon were made as light giving sources for night and day. But sadly, the moon is not a light source. The moon is a lifeless piece of rock that does not give it's own light. You would think the maker of the Universe would know this, No?
Next, he made the Stars also (as an afterthought?) "To give light upon the earth." Sadly, only a very tiny fraction of the billion billion 'Stars' can be visible from the earth and so their 'giving light' ability is severely limited in this regard. God no think this thing well o. Lol.
Next, he made animals and then Man. I wouldn't go into how it is an error to say Whales were made before Reptiles (that would be being too pedantic). In verse 27, it appears that 'Man' represented both male and female as they were made together and yet in the next chapter, the woman was made (again?) from the rib of man. Confusing sturvs, lol.
All in all, as a factual account of the origin of the universe, this creation story fails woefully BUT if taken as nothing more than Jewish folklore at par with other creation stories from different cultures around the world, it makes for interesting literature. The maker of the Universe should know how the Universe was made. This story couldn't have been inspired by It, Ergo the Bible has already failed from its first chapter as being a divinely inspired book.[/b]
pls the day you are done with nairaland don't ever deactivate your account we will need it for future reference and inspiration to upcoming freethinkers
stephenmorris: pls the day you are done with nairaland don't ever deactivate your account we will need it for future reference and inspiration to upcoming freethinkers
The Pentateuch is the first five (5) books of the bible comprising Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. It is popularly attributed to Moses as the author of them all but today I'd show how Moses couldn't have possibly been the author of those books and why a book that has an unknown author can't possibly lay claim to being divinely inspired.
First of all, it is known among Scholars, Historians and Religious apologists that the writers of the Pentateuch were unknown and were at least 4 different people nicknamed the Jahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source and that the books were compiled over many centuries. But, even though many christians would want to disregard this and still hold on to their belief that Moses wrote those books, I'll show from the bible itself that Moses could not have written them.
First, the style of writing. Almost all the references concerning Moses were always in the third person. It's either “And the Lord spake unto Moses” or “Moses spoke to the people” “or the people spoke to Moses…”
Contrast that with the letters of Paul to all the people he wrote to and how he addressed them. Also, nowhere in all the five books did Moses actually claim to have written the words contained in the books.
The argument can be made that Moses could have written it himself in the third person as some writers do. Although that is a valid argument, it is not enough to establish with any certainty that it was so. It is merely a logical speculation and speculation alone is insufficient to establish the authorship of a supposedly divine work.
In Numbers 12:3, it said “Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.”
Now, there's no way Moses as an author will call himself the humblest man in the world. The mere mention of that fact disproves the idea that he was humble. No humble man says he's the humblest man in whole world. It's either he isn't humble or someone else wrote it.
Another example is Deut. 34:5 “So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. 6 And He buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Peor; but no one knows his grave to this day.”
The last line of verse 6 actually says “no one knows his grave to this day” this can only mean that this was written long after Moses had died. It's like saying no one to this day knows the grave of Nnamdi Azikiwe. Azikiwe himself can't write about his own death and that no one can find his grave up until today.
There are numerous examples I could give from the books themselves to show that these works could not have been written by Moses but I think these 2 examples can do.
Now, why is this important?
It is important because these passages supposedly contain direct messages from God and if what we are left with are reported accounts of things that may or may not happened many years after the fact, how then are we to say that they are true?
Who wrote down these things? How do we know such a man called Moses ever walked the earth and actually did or said those things that were attributed to him? How do we know this anonymous narrator of the life of Moses didn't simply make up these stories? For example, there's no evidence of the Red Sea crossing anywhere in history. What else was made up to make the Hebrews look good?
The book of Genesis actually reads like a written down version of long held Oral traditions. It begins abruptly “In the beginning…” which in today's vocabulary will sound like “once upon a time…” it had no narrator, no identification of the author and certainly no indication that this was even a divinely inspired narrative. How is this different from the Yoruba creation mythology?
I could do this for many other Old Testament books, even the New Testament Gospels. They all bear the marks of anonymous, unknown authors. Sometimes more than one, like the book of Psalms and Isaiah. Right there inside these books are enough evidence that these are nothing more than written down Jewish Traditions.
Again, as a divinely inspired book, the bible doesn't come close BUT as literature, it gives great insight into Ancient Jewish Culture.[/b]
[b]The problem with your analogy of the car is that we know that a car was made. For instance, if there is ever any doubt about how a car was made, we are sure to have someone who would come forth to explain how it was made and if need be point you to the factory it was produced.
Secondly, saying that a perfect God is capable of making imperfect things is blasphemy. In some communities, the punishment is death. A perfect God is supposed to make things that keeps mortal men in reference. This is clearly not the case in humans.
Thirdly, saying man has not been able to replicate a living thing is very incorrect. One, the world has not ended and man is constantly working and each day, we are closer and closer to make more and more discoveries. You are being too impatient. Let me tell you of the advances we have made thus far:
- In 1986, a mouse was successfully cloned from an early embryonic cell.
- Dolly, a Finn-Dorset ewe, was the first mammal to have been successfully cloned from an adult somatic cell in 1996.
- In 2000, the first pigs were cloned.
- A Haflinger female born 28 May 2003, was the first horse clone.
- A male Afghan hound was the first cloned dog (2005).
- Samrupa was the first cloned water buffalo in 2009.
- (2012) Noori, is the first cloned pashmina goat.
- (2013) The gastric brooding frog, Rheobatrachus silus, thought to have been extinct since 1983 was cloned in Australia.
Let's talk about humans:
- In January 2008, Dr. Andrew French and Samuel Wood of the biotechnology company Stemagen announced that they successfully created the first five mature human embryos using SCNT.
- In 2011, scientists at the New York Stem Cell Foundation announced that they had succeeded in generating embryonic stem cell lines.
- In 2013, a group of scientists led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov published the first report of embryonic stem cells created using SCNT.
- A year later, a team led by Robert Lanza at Advanced Cell Technology reported that they had replicated Mitalipov's results and further demonstrated the effectiveness by cloning adult cells using SCNT.
Can you see why I said you are very wrong? Man is working...we are making progress WITHOUT the need for God's intervention.[/b]
First, let me say am a truth seeker, I research/analyse without bias, fear or favour. Its like ur mind is closed/made up n ur disgust/hatred towards religion gets in ur way of unbiased analysis. I implored u to ignore religion for d sake of our discourse but u cldnt help but bring it in, am not here to win argument but to learn. I stated u shld assume d creator is not perfect cos I no u wld 1 2 harp on a perfect god making imperfect things. Who told u he/she/it is perfect? Same religious books filled wit lies n half truths. Can u 4get d bible, quoran n any religious book n whatever dey say for a moment n look around u, observe ur body, nature; can u sincerely say there's no intelligent design n order in nature? I said man has not bin able to, n u say am wrong n went on to say man cld in future, so hw am I wrong? Did d scientists make/create d cell dat was cloned? Did they put d genes n all d components of d cell in it? Cloning is not creation, its building on an intelligent design. Call me when scientists develop a cell from scratch. Am sure u get d point i was trying to make wit d car. I've bin a xtian all my life but don't c myself as 1 anymore, am more of an agnostic theist or whichever way u 1 2 describe me, but def not atheist, ur argument against intelligent design n order is very weak n flawed.
First, let me say am a truth seeker, I research/analyse without bias, fear or favour. Its like ur mind is closed/made up n ur disgust/hatred towards religion gets in ur way of unbiased analysis. I implored u to ignore religion for d sake of our discourse but u cldnt help but bring it in, am not here to win argument but to learn.
This was one of your first statements:
I've learnt a lot from atheists on nl, but just can't understand y u prefer throwing out d baby & d bbath water, even wen its obvious there's a baby in d bath water.
I can argue that you are the one with the closed mind. You believe there is an intelligent designer. You didn't provide evidence.
I stated u shld assume d creator is not perfect cos I no u wld 1 2 harp on a perfect god making imperfect things. Who told u he/she/it is perfect? Same religious books filled wit lies n half truths.
Who told you the creator is not perfect? Can I see some evidence?
Can u 4get d bible, quoran n any religious book n whatever dey say for a moment n look around u, observe ur body, nature; can u sincerely say there's no intelligent design n order in nature?
No...nature does not suggest an intelligent designer. Those who say it have yet to provide evidence. We know that evolution is responsible for a great deal of what we see in nature. We have a great deal of knowledge about the formation of rocks, seas, land, clouds etc. They do not suggest intelligent design. If you say they do, please provide evidence. The human body is the ultimate proof of an unintelligent design.
I said man has not bin able to, n u say am wrong n went on to say man cld in future, so hw am I wrong?
That is the wrong coinage...you cannot infer that Man has not been able to do what he is actively in the process of doing. At best, you should say we are moving close to doing. An uninitiated mind would infer that we have tried and failed and have given up. This is clearly not the case.
Did d scientists make/create d cell dat was cloned? Did they put d genes n all d components of d cell in it? Cloning is not creation, its building on an intelligent design. Call me when scientists develop a cell from scratch.
Keep a close eye on a guy called Craig Venter. He is on the leading edge of artificial genomics research. He has already created an artificial genome that worked quite happily inside a natural cell. Like I said, you are impatient.
Am sure u get d point i was trying to make wit d car.
I have told you that your analogy is flawed. If anyone asks how a car came to being, we can point it to him/her. Can you point me the designer of the human body? We know Evolution is responsible for our development. We know that for a FACT.
I've bin a xtian all my life but don't c myself as 1 anymore, am more of an agnostic theist or whichever way u 1 2 describe me, but def not atheist, ur argument against intelligent design n order is very weak n flawed.
I'm really not interested in labels at this point. There are atheists who don't agree with evolution. That's their business. It's like saying Nigeria is not a country in Africa. Saying the argument is weak and flawed is merely your opinion. The proof for evolution is more than the proof for the cell theory or germ theory. I don't see theists try to argue about those two theories.
First, let me say am a truth seeker, I research/analyse without bias, fear or favour. Its like ur mind is closed/made up n ur disgust/hatred towards religion gets in ur way of unbiased analysis.
Please, what has led you to say that his mind is closed in disgust towards religion? I don't notice any particular hatred towards religion in his posts. You have made some accusations here without providing the reasons why you made those accusations.
Please can you quote for us what he said that is particularly hateful?
"What else can I do to prove I am the greatest? I'm trying to be one of the greatest...
"I have made the sport exciting, I have made people want to see the sport. I have put the sport on a different level." ~ Usain Bolt.
This is not pride. This is not arrogance. This is honesty. This is self-confidence. This is him telling you that only YOU are responsible for your success and failure.
Contrast the above to the average Nigerian mediocre response:
"My brother, it's God ooo. In fact, I don't even know how the thing take happen. Na only God's grace ooo".
This is not humility. It is exaltation of mediocrity.
Haba! But sometimes you've just got to admit that 'luck' plays a big part in many successes. This is a fact recognised by many successful people.
There is something called the Napoleon test. Apparently he wasn't much interested in how qualified a general was or how clever he was, he would first check to see if the guy has been lucky in his life.
Napoléon Bonaparte > Quotes > Quotable Quote Napoléon Bonaparte “I know he's a good general, but is he lucky?”
"What else can I do to prove I am the greatest? I'm trying to be one of the greatest...
"I have made the sport exciting, I have made people want to see the sport. I have put the sport on a different level." ~ Usain Bolt.
This is not pride. This is not arrogance. This is honesty. This is self-confidence. This is him telling you that only YOU are responsible for your success and failure.
Contrast the above to the average Nigerian mediocre response:
"My brother, it's God ooo. In fact, I don't even know how the thing take happen. Na only God's grace ooo".
This is not humility. It is exaltation of mediocrity.
In the process of writing the last post I found a webpage with quotes of Napoleon, some of which you'll like.
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte
“History is a set of lies agreed upon.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte
“A leader is a dealer in hope.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte
“Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for him.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte
“You don't reason with intellectuals. You shoot them.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte, Napoleon's Memoirs
“A woman laughing is a woman conquered.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte, In the Words of Napoleon: A Collection of Quotations of Napoleon Bonaparte
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte
PastorAIO: Haba! But sometimes you've just got to admit that 'luck' plays a big part in many successes. This is a fact recognised by many successful people.
There is something called the Napoleon test. Apparently he wasn't much interested in how qualified a general was or how clever he was, he would first check to see if the guy has been lucky in his life.
[b]There is absolutely no questions about that. Luck has played a great role in the life of every successful person.
During the Olympics, I was reading about Sprints and the winners. I learnt that genes play a great role. Countries whose indigenes are of West African origins are the only ones that can compete well in the 100m, 200m and 400m dashes. Those ones have won the genetic lottery. Those countries are LUCKY.
As you can see, a country like Nigeria is there. In fact, in our golden years, we regularly feature in the finals of those dashes.
The difference right now is how much we have exalted mediocrity to the detriment of hard work. I saw the Minister of Sport calling for Nigerians to pray for the athletes to succeed. Athletes he made no provisions for. Athletes that had to go online begging for funds to travel to Rio. He asked that we ask that God favours us and grant us victory. How absurd! Jamaica is lucky yet it has a national program centered around athletics in its secondary schools. People would be dazed at how much the government spend on those programmes.
In summary, people who are consistently successful don't rely on luck. They are known for strategies bordering on hardwork. The more hardwork, the more luck.
This 'luck' and 'hope' mentality is seen in all spheres of our national life. Merit has been subdued, it's all about favour, which is another word for Grace, which is another word for Luck. [/b]
PastorAIO: In the process of writing the last post I found a webpage with quotes of Napoleon, some of which you'll like.
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte
“History is a set of lies agreed upon.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte
“A leader is a dealer in hope.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte
“Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for him.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte
“You don't reason with intellectuals. You shoot them.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte, Napoleon's Memoirs
“A woman laughing is a woman conquered.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte, In the Words of Napoleon: A Collection of Quotations of Napoleon Bonaparte
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte
A Typical Day in Nigeria by Anugba Chikwendu Hillary
So I went to the Mountain of Fire Church which has become a public nuisance in my neighborhood and complained. A lot of people supposed I was on a foolish mission. The pastor would have presumed I suffer some form of mental illness when I met him.
'Why are you fighting God?' another man standing by the pastor asked me.
"I suppose the church program is for your church members who are already seated in your church?', I continued, ignoring the intruding fellow.
"Don't worry, tomorrow we will reposition the speakers so they will face another direction" the pastor said.
"But you wouldn't have solved the problem. Some other persons would be made to suffer more. Why not pull down these speakers entirely?" I suggested.
"No my friend", he said.
"Then I am left with no choice but to go to the police". A look of bemusement played on their faces when I left. I headed straight to a police station in our neighborhood and met two female sergeants at the counter. I carefully narrated my ordeal with the noise of the Mountain of Fire Church.
" Are you a Muslim?" the fair complexioned officer asked me.
"What has that got to do with the complain I brought" I queried her.
"Who are you?" She queried, but recoiled after I'd told her.
"But you can be joining them in their programs" she advised. I struggled to mask my anger.
"Is breach of public peace no more an offence in Nigeria? Do you realize that people have health challenges and this noise isn't what they need? Do you realize people need to rest in peace after the day's work? Do you know that Lagos State government is sealing churches because of noise pollution? I think I will report this to the State command headquarters since you don't want to take my case and act on it."
"Can you come tomorrow so I can invite the pastor and tell him what you said?" I couldn't believe my ears.
"Can't you hear the noise even from this station? Can you imagine what those living closer to the church face?"
"Oga please drop your phone number, name and address. We will call you and tell you when to come tomorrow", she said apologetically.
From her approach, I know she isn't willing and may not address my report. But I will be forced to take a step further when I return from my leave.
If this is what it means to fight God, then I accept the duel.
,joseph1013 no vex say i dey use ur thread dey talk o,i tried quoting the guy i couldn't