wiegraf:

I'm even considering being nicer to anony next time he shows up...

Tough ask, considering he seems incapable separating his religion from government....

seriously, despite anything Anony is the North to this guys South. He's the only one capable of making any sense in arguments. The rest. . .smh. But you flatter Italo though. Ah ahn! The best atm? I find even that difficult to swallow.

Mr Troll: seriously, despite anything Anony is the North to this guys South. He's the only one capable of making any sense in arguments. The rest. . .smh. But you flatter Italo though. Ah ahn! The best atm? I find even that difficult to swallow.

lol

But really if you can point out someone willing and better, I'll take it...

Italo is taking the mantle only because the rest have given up, mind you

Now, try finding this mythical 'better' xtian.......





























......still searching?

^^^
[url=www.nairaland.com/joel%20lala]Joel Lala[/url]

Mr Troll: ^^^
[url=www.nairaland.com/joel%20lala]Joel Lala[/url]

Mayhaps, but meh, initial reaction is about italo level at most.

He seems more concerned with details atm, did the bible say this or that blah in chapter blah verse blah blah blah. If he ventures into something that interests me I'll seek and (likely) destroy of course. ty

wiegraf:

Aha, but it's objective logic. It isn't mine, or yours, it's objective. Unless you can show otherwise.

2 + 2 is 4 everywhere, yes?

The bolded is an type of assumption. It is subjective which isn't the same everywhere. It is fallacious since it fails the law of identity. These propositions I will defend if you undertake to slight it on this thread, in any manner.

Uyi Iredia:

The bolded is an type of assumption. It is subjective which isn't the same everywhere. It is fallacious since it fails the law of identity. These propositions I will defend if you undertake to slight it on this thread, in any manner.

Yes, please show me how 2+2 != 4


And what do you think this is? Sparta? Are you willing to defend your whargarbl to the death?

plaetton: Question for Italo:

You keep harping on miracles as proof of god.

Now, In whatever way you define a miracle, My 1st question is:
Why does the miraculous phenomena have to be attributed to god? Why not, for example, attribute such to a random one in a blue moon unknown natural phenomena that might be rationally explainable if studied in clearer detail?

2nd question is : Isn't it equally plausible and possible that the devil, which you also believe in, is using his slight of hand tricks to deceive the gullible?

3rd question: For faithfuls like you and many others, miracles are evidence of the invisible hand of god and therefore serve to strengthen your faith, right?

If so, does that alone not show that you and your fellow faithfuls are coming from a position of doubt?

If every miraculous phenomenom is seen as an act and evidence of god, then miracles serve to make one believe and to strengthen the faiths of those who already believe.

So miracles are doubt-busters. A great weapon against doubts. Agree?

So can you agree with me that a faithful mind is a mind that is always haunted By doubts ?

And why would an already mysterious god decide to use even more ambiguous, more mysterious and more unscientific and irrational phenomena in the form of the so-called miracles to showcase himself?

Also, all the Hindu swamis of India , and the Buddhist monks of Tibet who have been said to perform miracles: are they also from god?

Are you admitting that there are miracles (occurrences that defy the laws of nature)?

If not, why should I bother explaining the source and essence of miracles?

wiegraf:

lol

But really if you can point out someone willing and better, I'll take it...

Italo is taking the mantle only because the rest have given up, mind you

Now, try finding this mythical 'better' xtian.......





























......still searching?

Question is what have they given up on?

italo:

Question is what have they given up on?

Spreading cancer

Do you still accept that 2+2=4 is objectively true?

wiegraf:

Spreading cancer

No. They gave up on treating cancer. Especially when you are the patient, not them.

Try asking them, dont just assume.

wiegraf:
Do you still accept that 2+2=4 is objectively true?

Precisely what your adversaries would ask you.

wiegraf:

Yes, please show me how 2+2 != 4


And what do you think this is? Sparta? Are you willing to defend your whargarbl to the death?

Going by the law of identity, A=A and nothing else, agreed ?

italo:

Are you admitting that there are miracles (occurrences that defy the laws of nature)?

If not, why should I bother explaining the source and essence of miracles?

Stymied?

Ha hah ha.

You have no answer.
That does not surprise anyone.

Therefore then, I am 100% correct that faith=doubts

And by the way, how is your doubt meter today, green, orange or red?

plaetton:

Stymied?

Ha hah ha.

You have no answer.
That does not surprise anyone.

Therefore then, I am !00% correct that faith=doubts

And by the way, how is your doubt meter today, green, orange or red?

How intelligent!

Is this what you teach your disciples...like Mr Troll?

italo:


How intelligent!

Is this what you teach your disciples...like Mr Troll?

lol. Give up Italo. You are finished. You cannot even give simple answers anymore. Trying to digress. . .dohohohoho!

italo:
No. They gave up on treating cancer. Especially when you are the patient, not them.

Try asking them, dont just assume.


Precisely what your adversaries would ask you.

italo:
By saying that some people think you and wiegraf illogical the same way you think them illogical?

Is that a lie?

wiegraf:
Do show who denies this

You'll proceed to whine about one repeating himself....

Now, there are objective truths that can be ascertained, yes? Eg, 2+2=4, yes? So, if we set up a value system, which would be subjective, we can then go about figuring out if our actions are objectively foo.lish or not, yes?

There's no objective way to ascertain who's hotter, oprah or jessica alba. However, there would be an objective way to verify foo.lish ways to go about wooing either of them, yes? The goal is to get laid tonight, you know jessica speaks english, you also know how to speak english, you then approach and start spitting in hausa or yoruba, you're undeniably being foo.lish, no?

Uyi Iredia:

Going by the law of identity, A=A and nothing else, agreed ?

4 is also 2+2. I'll humor you for now and say; yes.

wiegraf:





You'll proceed to whine about one repeating himself....

Now, there are objective truths that can be ascertained, yes? Eg, 2+2=4, yes? So, if we set up a value system, which would be subjective, we can then go about figuring out if our actions are objectively foo.lish or not, yes?

There's no objective way to ascertain who's hotter, oprah or jessica alba. However, there would be an objective way to verify foo.lish ways to go about wooing either of them, yes? The goal is to get laid tonight, you know jessica speaks english, you also know how to speak english, you then approach and start spitting in hausa or yoruba, you're undeniably being foo.lish, no?

I'd rather not glorify fornication.

Perhaps you can relate your theory to something less sinful...

Mr Troll: lol. Give up Italo. You are finished. You cannot even give simple answers anymore. Trying to digress. . .dohohohoho!

Morning, miss.

italo:

I'd rather not glorify fornication.

Perhaps you can relate your theory to something less sinful...

see mumu excuse. Guy go and sleep abeg! Shame sef no de catch you?

italo:

I'd rather not glorify fornication.

Perhaps you can relate your theory to something less sinful...

Glorify fornication? What's glorifying about that, simply mentioning sha.gging? Se.x is a ubiquitous natural activity. You don't believe me? Put on animal planet, see? Not sure what the big deal i.... ahhh, sins.

Yes, forgive me, it 's hard to keep up with what's sinful and what's not, it seems rather haphazard. For instance, apparently wearing different fabrics together is a sin worthy of a stoning to death then eternal roasting in hell. Obviously there's no sane logic behind that, so you'll excuse me if I have trouble keeping up with what's sinful and what's not; I'm no good with cramming.

So, ok, let's use your holy book

GOD??!!:


And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

So, they were married, but as it was either his mom or his sister, or both, then incest was involved. Are you comfortable with this?

So again

me:

There's no objective way to ascertain who's hotter, one's wedded mother or sister. However, there would be an objective way to verify foo.lish ways to go about wooing either of them, yes? The goal is to get laid tonight, you know your mother speaks only english, you also know how to speak english, you then approach and start spitting in hausa or yoruba, you're undeniably being foo.lish, no?

If you're uncomfortable with this as well, then we could use Lot and his daughters, or the Book of Solomon, or the incident involving circumcising hundreds of adult males, or the many genocides, etc etc, any of the good, non-sinful deeds in the good book.


Or you could simply use the scenario I presented earlier, which you ignored

me:

If your aim is to cross a road, you value that and that is your aim, and instead of simply crossing when the road is clear you deliberately wait for a truck moving at speed passes by then jump in front of it, as you calculated that the impact would fling you across the road and thus fulfill your purpose, then well, you're foo.lish. Unless, of course, your aim was to reach the other side dead or something similar, agree?

I'm fine with whichever you pick

^^^ lol!

I will simply wait for you to show me why the world must adhere to your idea of what is objectively logical.

Little time for frivolities.

wiegraf:

Glorify fornication? What's glorifying about that, simply mentioning sha.gging? Se.x is a ubiquitous natural activity. You don't believe me? Put on animal planet, see? Not sure what the big deal i.... ahhh, sins.

Yes, forgive me, it 's hard to keep up with what's sinful and what's not, it seems rather haphazard. For instance, apparently wearing different fabrics together is a sin worthy of a stoning to death then eternal roasting in hell. Obviously there's no sane logic behind that, so you'll excuse me if I have trouble keeping up with what's sinful and what's not; I'm no good with cramming.

So, ok, let's use your holy book



So, they were married, but as it was either his mom or his sister, or both, then incest was involved. Are you comfortable with this?

So again



If you're uncomfortable with this as well, then we could use Lot and his daughters, or the Book of Solomon, or the incident involving circumcising hundreds of adult males, or the many genocides, etc etc, any of the good, non-sinful deeds in the good book.


Or you could simply use the scenario I presented earlier, which you ignored



I'm fine with whichever you pick

italo: I will simply wait for you to show me why the world must adhere to your idea of what is objectively logical.

Little time for frivolities.

LWTMB

Ok Italo, why don't you state in your own words what you consider objectively logical? That way we can make a head way, you should be diZzy by now. All those spinnings...

wiegraf:

4 is also 2+2. I'll humor you for now and say; yes.

Your first response connotes you see where I'm going. It so happens your assertion is not just that, it is (ironically) a contradiction. 4 IS NOT 2+2: going by the law you agreed with 4 is 4 and nothing else, you have simply being indoctrinated in believing 2+2=4 as true, so much so you you'll find it hard to think otherwise. TBH if the symbol 5 were used in place of 4 and vice-versa when the respective numerals were agreed on I would be arguing how 2+2 is not equal to 5, and you'll think it nonsense.

italo: I will simply wait for you to show me why the world must adhere to your idea of what is objectively logical.

Little time for frivolities.

I never said the world must adhere to what I think is objectively logical, I said the objectively logical is objectively logical regardless of what you, I or even your omnipotent GOD??!! thinks. They are universal, and oftentimes can be ascertained, hence the word 'objective', yes? 2+2=4 is logically correct in any universe regardless of what you, I, or anybody else thinks.

Using this, we can at least attempt to determine if a given action is logical, or not, yes?


Random; I understand you're a man of few words, so few in fact you barely make sense, but frivolities? You don't think it frivolous to go all holier art thou at the mention of se.x? lol. You could simply ignore that, you know, and face the scenario I offered you pages ago which you've been coyly avoiding. At least now I have your attention.

You cut an austere figure brah. I'm sure all those priests do so as well, while singing to themselves

"There was a young chaplain from King's
Who talked about God and such things;
But his real desire
Was a boy in the choir
With a bottom like jelly on springs."

Uyi Iredia:

Your first response connotes you see where I'm going. It so happens your assertion is not just that, it is (ironically) a contradiction. 4 IS NOT 2+2: going by the law you agreed with 4 is 4 and nothing else, you have simply being indoctrinated in believing 2+2=4 as true, so much so you you'll find it hard to think otherwise. TBH if the symbol 5 were used in place of 4 and vice-versa when the respective numerals were agreed on I would be arguing how 2+2 is not equal to 5, and you'll think it nonsense.

Erm, @uyi, I'm not talking about symbols here, I'm talking about universal, mathematical truths. The sort that would say facilitate interaction with intelligent alien species. Mathematical truths aren't even physical

So, where exactly did you show that 2+2!=4?

As far as I know, 2+2=4 is not disputed anywhere else. However, there are many other matters on logic that are disputed. When asked why your position is right, you say because 2+2=4. When your adversaries are asked why they are right, they say because 2+2=4. Then who decides objectively who is following logical principle?

You seem to think its the one who shouts it out the most...or the one with the biggest collection of insultive words...or the one with the longest epistles.

I dont believe that.

wiegraf:

I never said the world must adhere to what I think is objectively logical, I said the objectively logical is objectively logical regardless of what you, I or even your omnipotent GOD??!! thinks. They are universal, and oftentimes can be ascertained, hence the word 'objective', yes? 2+2=4 is logically correct in any universe regardless of what you, I, or anybody else thinks.

Using this, we can at least attempt to determine if a given action is logical, or not, yes?


Random; I understand you're a man of few words, so few in fact you barely make sense, but frivolities? You don't think it frivolous to go all holier art thou at the mention of se.x? lol. You could simply ignore that, you know, and face the scenario I offered you pages ago which you've been coyly avoiding. At least now I have your attention.

You cut an austere figure brah. I'm sure all those priests do so as well, while singing to themselves

"There was a young chaplain from King's
Who talked about God and such things;
But his real desire
Was a boy in the choir
With a bottom like jelly on springs."

italo: As far as I know, 2+2=4 is not disputed anywhere else. However, there are many other matters on logic that are disputed. When asked why your position is right, you say because 2+2=4. When your adversaries are asked why they are right, they say because 2+2=4. Then who decides objectively who is following logical principle?

And you're still dancing around. I am not, and have not, been referring to matters that are disputed, that should be clear, no? If you want to dispute, I've been asking you to do just that, not claim there's some dispute and not back up your assertion.

italo:
You seem to think its the one who shouts it out the most...or the one with the biggest collection of insultive words...or the one with the longest epistles.

I dont believe that.

No, it's very simple; the one who makes the most sense. And you do little of that.

High and mighty passive aggressive, that's simply the way I write (and there's a point to every word, believe it or not), just as it's your style to say little and mean even less. And insultive words? lol. I didn't even use many of those, but you do know there are a variety of ways to insult one, yes? Like judging one for simply mentioning se.x, yes? Sinful my a$$ <- said with more 'insulting' words, see?

And I won't dumb $hit down if it it will misrepresent me. I keep it curt only when the person I'm debating has shown s/he is capable of understanding without too much exposition.

Meh, kudos for now

[i][/i]

wiegraf:

Erm, @uyi, I'm not talking about symbols here, I'm talking about universal, mathematical truths. The sort that would say facilitate interaction with intelligent alien species. Mathematical truths aren't even physical

So, where exactly did you show that 2+2!=4?

The equation I showed contradictory, save in your la-la land, is one of such 'truths'. BTW what evidence is there for immaterial, universal mathematical truths, which you, curiously happen to believe in. I smell a just-so reason coming up. in any case, you are not addressing my argument hence the silly question you have up there.

Reload

onetrack:


Sorry, but this is why religion lacks logic. The first statement is babble, and the second is flat wrong. If you can use those statements to explain why religion is logical, then I can also use those statements to explain why any fairy tale is logical and why all errors are not real errors but only metaphors. If that is the case then I can assert that we are all, in fact, perfect.

Superb!

I don't expect you to understand...what with being an atheist and all.

That smells like a copout.