PastorAIO:


So in the context that he used it, which one was it/ antonym or synonym.


I said:

If God is all powerful then nothing happens that is not sanctioned by him.


to which he replied:
he may either sanction it or allow it.


I doubt that he is using them as antonyms because he would logically be following my use of the word.

However if they were synonyms then why does he make a contrast between Allow or Sanction.

You ,Sir are a lot smarter than me ....

Let us for one moment contemplate a mirror and the image in it. We see letters said to be laterally inverted.
Notions of "Good" and evil appear to me like images one of the other. The reality of such concepts is ultimately unknowable and so talk of higher good is merely self indulgence. For as long as our dreams last they are REAL then we "WAKE" but are there even further awakenings?

omonnakoda:
You ,Sir are a lot smarter than me ....

No, I'm not. Maybe in this instance I applied my intelligence more assiduously, but I am NOT smarter than anybody.

omonnakoda:
Let us for one moment contemplate a mirror and the image in it. We see letters said to be laterally inverted.
Notions of "Good" and evil appear to me like images one of the other. The reality of such concepts is ultimately unknowable and so talk of higher good is merely self indulgence. For as long as our dreams last they are REAL then we "WAKE" but are there even further awakenings?

.. and here. While I can't fully claim to get it, it's has a poignance that suggests to me that it is worth ruminating over.

Ubenedictus:
TO sanction is to authoritatively approve, to allow is simplier, to let it be. Example, God sanctions my existence and allows my faults.

Like God said 'Let there be Light', Let there by water etc etc etc.

Yungbitz:

I will like know about this insaner insanities that could unseat religion

Pure psychopathy. After all religion often just involves a socialised form of psychopathy. Imagine oure psychopaths, truly without the constraints of needing to be socialised.

Yungbitz:

Thanks for Elucidating and making the already Comprehensive even more Comprehensible to Mr Ebuka..When certain religionist run out of points to defend the flaws of their sects, they often resort to hide and seek tactics or lay all at the altar of faith and belief with no room for Objective scrutiny..."Violence is a salient feature present in all Religion..only Time n Epoch differ".Anthony Sylvester(2015)..take that to the bank Mr Ebuka

Where am I running out of points . You are the one at loss in this argument because atheism has unleashed more terror on mankind than religion . Bro , do you make bullshi.t up too like the rest so you can sleep well ? . Where am I defending the flaws of the sect ? What sect even ? These atheists are clowns Gosh

https://www.nairaland.com/2988881/atheism-terrorism-annihilation-grasp-atheistic

PastorAIO:


It's funny that that is what you got from reading his posts because I didn't get that:



At no point do I recall him stating any numbers, or even estimating or guestimating in the thousands not to talk of millions.
It's called straw man tactics when you address something that is not even an issue and you try to make it the issue. Why are you resorting to such twisting tactics? What are you hiding? What are you afraid of?

I would ignore your comment about whether or not I know how many people died in the inquisition if it were not for a curious observation that I've made. What is this obsession amongst 'christians' about who knows what, or who knew what first, and who is teaching who? It is not only you, but a common thread I've noticed amongst you fake religionists. Apart from the fact that it, again, has nothing to do with the topic being discussed you lot keep bringing it up. I suspect that it has it's roots from feeling stupid deep down and you are trying to compensate for the idiotic feeling you get when you attempt to defend your ludicrous beliefs.

Mtcheww

Anyway, decimate means to kill one in ten people from the latin word Decem. From which we also get words like Decades, Decimal. If you read somewhere that it is used in a sense that flouts its true meaning then you have a choice. but the facts remain. Like I said, it's pedantry on my part, but it really irritates the hell out of me.

That meaning is obsolete . Do you understand the word 'obsolete' ?

KingEbukasBlog:

That meaning is obsolete . Do you understand the word 'obsolete' ?

Okay, no wahala.

KingEbukasBlog:

Mtcheww

lol. I know that is the very best you can answer. Nobody quoted any statistics but in your delusion you started arguing against statistics. Millions ko thousands ni. very laughable.

KingEbukasBlog:

Where am I running out of points . You are the one at loss in this argument because atheism has unleashed more terror on mankind than religion . Bro , do you make bullshi.t up too like the rest so you can sleep well ? . Where am I defending the flaws of the sect ? What sect even ? These atheists are clowns Gosh
https://www.nairaland.com/2988881/atheism-terrorism-annihilation-grasp-atheistic

Simple question of please give us the facts and figures and you are shaking. I know that atheist ideologies have unleashed terrors and I have mentioned them myself on this forum, but to say that they've unlooshed more than religion?

Let me mention 2 religious terrors for you to sample then tell me if you can find a atheist movement that killed more people.


1) Taiping rebellion. killed up to 100 million people. Probably a lot more.

2) 30 years wars. Killed 10 million people in central europe

Then obviously you've neglected to take into account the proportion of global or local population that was exterminated as well as the duration of the horrors.

Anyway shaa, just chew on those 2 examples I've given you for now.

Yungbitz:
...except religion cease to exist

You are a bigot and poorly informed too

PastorAIO:


lol. I know that is the very best you can answer. Nobody quoted any statistics but in your delusion you started arguing against statistics. Millions ko thousands ni. very laughable.

He mentioned Inquisition because he felt it was the worst terror unleashed by Religion . So through circumvention - outwitting through anticipation - I mentioned stats because he would surely do that at some point during the argument .

Simple question of please give us the facts and figures and you are shaking. I know that atheist ideologies have unleashed terrors and I have mentioned them myself on this forum, but to say that they've unlooshed more than religion?

I already gave you a link . Where am I shaking ? What is wrong with you people ?

Let me mention 2 religious terrors for you to sample then tell me if you can find a atheist movement that killed more people.


1) Taiping rebellion. killed up to 100 million people. Probably a lot more.

2) 30 years wars. Killed 10 million people in central europe

Then obviously you've neglected to take into account the proportion of global or local population that was exterminated as well as the duration of the horrors.

Anyway shaa, just chew on those 2 examples I've given you for now.

Taiping rebellion was against a heretic "Christian group" . It was more of a fight against foools who thought that their leader was Jesus' brother - a civil war in fact with the pretext of religious differences as its cause . So that does not count . We should be addressing fights made by true and approved religious movements like the Inquisition . Soviet Union brah ! (close to 70 million )

KingEbukasBlog:


He mentioned Inquisition because he felt it was the worst terror unleashed by Religion . So through circumvention - outwitting through anticipation - I mentioned stats because he would surely do that at some point during the argument .

Therein lies the crux of your entire problem. It's called delusion. You are addressing what isn't there. You can help yourself by limiting your mental activities to what people actually say and what you actually sees and hear. As it is with your debating so it is with your religion.


You are outwitting Ghosts. Arguments that weren't made, you are debating against. Gods that you haven't seen, you are describing, abject humiliation and disgrace you look at and call it a great intellectual victory by the king.

KingEbukasBlog:



I already gave you a link . Where am I shaking ? What is wrong with you people ?


Taiping rebellion was against a heretic "Christian group" . It was more of a fight against foools who thought that their leader was Jesus' brother - a civil war in fact with the pretext of religious differences as its cause . So that does not count . We should be addressing fights made by true and approved religious movements like the Inquisition . Soviet Union brah ! (close to 70 million )

The link you gave is a NL op that is spouting unverified poo.


But before I can even go any further with you you're gonna have to tell us what you mean by a 'true and approved religious movement'. Who does the approving? You yourself, personally? Or a council of elders? What are the criteria used to determine whether the religious movement is true? Can you give us a list of, say, 5 true and approved religions? Personally approved by you if need be.

All religious wars are a fight against 'fools', as you so elegantly put it.

PastorAIO:


Therein lies the crux of your entire problem. It's called delusion. You are addressing what isn't there. You can help yourself by limiting your mental activities to what people actually say and what you actually sees and hear. As it is with your debating so it is with your religion.


You are outwitting Ghosts. Arguments that weren't made, you are debating against. Gods that you haven't seen, you are describing, abject humiliation and disgrace you look at and call it a great intellectual victory by the king.

I think you should pay attention to how the argument between the dude and I progressed .

Yungbitz:

The Inquisition was commissioned and ordained by the Catholic Church,do you expect an impartial position from them? I quoted the above so that you can grasp how long this act took place and then imagine the lives lost to it. Even the Great Galileo had to flee to over beings burnt alive for his scientific discoveries

You argue ignorantly

KingEbukasBlog:


I think you pay attention to how the argument between the dude and I progressed .

Please, what is a 'true and approved' religion? Can you give us some examples?

KingEbukasBlog:


You are a bigot and poorly informed too

Delusion of Grandeur at its peak..the ignoramus here is you..its equally unfortunate,that you find yourself in this caged cubicle and rather than realize its despicable position and seek mental illumination and Uhuru,you still cling to your unfound idiosyncrasies like the case of a certified madman professing his sanity from his abode of filth and refuses

PastorAIO:


The link you gave is a NL op that is spouting unverified poo.


But before I can even go any further with you you're gonna have to tell us what you mean by a 'true and approved religious movement'. Who does the approving? You yourself, personally? Or a council of elders? What are the criteria used to determine whether the religious movement is true? Can you give us a list of, say, 5 true and approved religions? Personally approved by you if need be.

All religious wars are a fight against 'fools', as you so elegantly put it.

Allow Ebuka to wallow in his lobotomized state....a religion's superiority is only but a relative conception..religion is a general encompassing term for every thing with religious cloak @ Ebuka..this should be an argument clothed with objectivity and not the personalize way you have taken it..but I ain't surprise since that is the path most religious fanatics opt for..emotions and irrationality over Logic

[quote author=KingEbukasBlog post=45014589]

He mentioned Inquisition because he felt it was the worst terror unleashed by Religion . So through circumvention - outwitting through anticipation - I mentioned stats because he would surely do that at some point during the argument .

Like i earlier said,the inquisition was just an example..never did i mention it as the worse horror of religion nor did i give figures..try to treat laid down facts and not concocting abstracts from your own imagination

Yungbitz:

Delusion of Grandeur at its peak..the ignoramus here is you..its equally unfortunate,that you find yourself in this caged cubicle and rather than realize its despicable position and seek mental illumination and Uhuru,you still cling to your unfound idiosyncrasies like the case of a certified madman professing his sanity from his abode of filth and refuses

A gallimaufry of idiotic thoughts

KingEbukasBlog:


A gallimaufry of idiotic thoughts

Abeg, what are the true and approved religions?

PastorAIO:


Abeg, what are the true and approved religions?

Every known religion and not the heretics

Yungbitz:

Allow Ebuka to wallow in his lobotomized state....a religion's superiority is only but a relative conception..religion is a general encompassing term for every thing with religious cloak @ Ebuka..this should be an argument clothed with objectivity and not the personalize way you have taken it..but I ain't surprise since that is the path most religious fanatics opt for..emotions and irrationality over Logic

I am computer science student , I deal with Logic and Reason EVERYDAY , you guys just purport yourselves as one - its pathetic

KingEbukasBlog:


I am computer science student , I deal with Logic and Reason EVERYDAY , you guys just purport yourselves as one - its pathetic

Logic presupposes elementary grasp of syntax and grammar.
What is the meaning of your construction ? "purport yourselves as one" please translate?

Also of what LOGICAL relevance is your status as a computer science student? Is there any special and unique aptitude for logic that Zoology students say,do not possess?

PS it's pathetic not its pathetic

KingEbukasBlog:

Every known religion and not the heretics

I'm still waiting to hear the names of these true and approved religions.

PastorAIO:

Abeg, what are the true and approved religions?

omonnakoda:
Logic presupposes elementary grasp of syntax and grammar.
What is the meaning of your construction ? "purport yourselves as one" please translate?

They falsely parade themselves as people who 'operate with logic and reason ' - purport .

Also of what LOGICAL relevance is your status as a computer science student? Is there any special and unique aptitude for logic that Zoology students say,do not possess?

I actually study it . They just make idiotic claims because they are atheists . My professors are all religious , more religious than the students . Its logical to believe in God and exhibit faith though.

PS it's pathetic not its pathetic

I'm not sure why you are being pedantic , but thanks anyway

KingEbukasBlog:


A gallimaufry of idiotic thoughts

I will say no more..my time is more precious.stay daft, it ur choice

For anyone curious about Taiping here is a video that gives an overview of what happened.

A classic case of Religious violence.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=568tuOQF5No

Probably the worst case of mass violence in known history and it's motivation was religious. Christian to be precise.

PastorAIO:
For anyone curious about Taiping here is a video that gives an overview of what happened.

A classic case of Religious violence.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=568tuOQF5No

Probably the worst case of mass violence in known history and it's motivation was religious. Christian to be precise.

Thanks for the video. Interesting piece of history

Logicbwoy:

Thanks for the video. Interesting piece of history

Pleasure.

One of the great platitudes which are popular today when we are confronted with acts of violence is to refer to Theodore Dostoïevsky’s famous statement from The Brothers Karamazov: if there is no God then everything is permitted.

Well, the first problem with this statement of course is that Dostoïevsky never made it. The first one who used this phrase that was allegedly made by Dostoïevsky was Jean-Paul Sartre in 43, but the main point is that this statement is simply wrong.

Even a brief look at our predicament today clearly tells us this. It is precisely if there is God, that everything is permitted to those who not only believe in God but who perceive themselves as instruments, direct instruments of the divine will.

Sartre was probably the wrongest he's ever been when he said 'if there is no God then everything is permitted'.

Obviously God means different things to different people. However there are certain patterns that can be perceived when people evoke God.

It is a known fact that humans tend to anthropomorphise ideas, forces and concepts.

For example Justice is depicted as a blind woman holding scales in one hand and a sword in the other.
Biting frosty Cold is depicted as a nasty man called Jack Frost who likes to bite people.
Luck is often depicted as a woman called Lady Luck.
etc etc etc

I've noticed that when many people evoke God they are referring to an anthropomorphisation of Authority. The idea of ultimate Authority is represented as this being called God.

Now to bring it to this issue of violence and morality, I've also noticed that when authority is externalised it makes evil actions more permissible for most people.
What I mean is that when people are made to feel and bear the responsibility for their own actions themselves they are often more cautious, they weigh things carefully before acting and are just generally more … err… responsible in their behaviour.

But the minute you relieve them of bearing responsibilities themselves by laying the responsibility on an external authority figures, all hell breaks loose. The nastiest behaviour suddenly becomes permissible.

There have been experiments where an Authority figure tells people to apply electric shocks on their fellows. The people are prepared to deliver deadly electric voltages as just because they are told to do so by an Authority. Deeds they wouldn't do if they had to make the decisions themselves. The same thing was witnessed in Nazi germany where the torturers' main excuse was that they were only following orders.

This could be the explanation for why religious atrocities are so especially nasty. It is precisely because of God that all such things are possible. Not the opposite.

PastorAIO:


Pleasure.



Sartre was probably the wrongest he's ever been when he said 'if there is no God then everything is permitted'.

Obviously God means different things to different people. However there are certain patterns that can be perceived when people evoke God.

It is a known fact that humans tend to anthropomorphise ideas, forces and concepts.

For example Justice is depicted as a blind woman holding scales in one hand and a sword in the other.
Biting frosty Cold is depicted as a nasty man called Jack Frost who likes to bite people.
Luck is often depicted as a woman called Lady Luck.
etc etc etc

I've noticed that when many people evoke God they are referring to an anthropomorphisation of Authority. The idea of ultimate Authority is represented as this being called God.

Now to bring it to this issue of violence and morality, I've also noticed that when authority is externalised it makes evil actions more permissible for most people.
What I mean is that when people are made to feel and bear the responsibility for their own actions themselves they are often more cautious, they weigh things carefully before acting and are just generally more … err… responsible in their behaviour.

But the minute you relieve them of bearing responsibilities themselves by laying the responsibility on an external authority figures, all hell breaks loose. The nastiest behaviour suddenly becomes permissible.

There have been experiments where an Authority figure tells people to apply electric shocks on their fellows. The people are prepared to deliver deadly electric voltages as just because they are told to do so by an Authority. Deeds they wouldn't do if they had to make the decisions themselves. The same thing was witnessed in Nazi germany where the torturers' main excuse was that they were only following orders.

This could be the explanation for why religious atrocities are so especially nasty. It is precisely because of God that all such things are possible. Not the opposite.

Bro, you remind me of a philosophy teacher. You actually took time to express the problem with an unflinching belief in ultimate authority.

I agree with most of what you posted except the part where you say that it is precisely because of God that all such things are possible. There are no gods or devils- it is only us humans that try to act as gods or devils to meet our different goals in life.

Logicbwoy:



Bro, you remind me of a philosophy teacher. You actually took time to express the problem with an unflinching belief in ultimate authority.

I agree with most of what you posted except the part where you say that it is precisely because of God that all such things are possible. There are no gods or devils- it is only us humans that try to act as gods or devils to meet our different goals in life.

I wasn't raising the issue of God's existence.

Perhaps a better way to rephrase it is 'Precisely because of belief in God that all use things are possible.'

PastorAIO:


I wasn't raising the issue of God's existence.

Perhaps a better way to rephrase it is 'Precisely because of belief in God that all use things are possible.'

Better

KingEbukasBlog:


I actually study it . They just make idiotic claims because they are atheists . My professors are all religious , more religious than the students . Its logical to believe in God and exhibit faith though.

Ever heard of compartmentalism? Aye, one can be a computer genius, or a guru in the subject of logic, and that still wouldn't preclude one from discarding logic when it is, for one reason or other, expedient to do so.

As an example, I am staunchly anti-nationalist, and I believe all borders must be abolished. Nevertheless, I still support Nigeria during international sporting events. My support for Nigeria is, of course, inconsistent with my views on nationalism, so I compartmentalise by conveniently ignoring my anti-national stance, especially when the National team wins, for the kick of exceptionalism which I enjoy for a few minutes! National exceptionalism feels damn good when you're with the winning team, even when it is a demonstrably illogical position!

So, your very religious professors can all be computer science genii, and that still wouldn't mean their religiosity is consistent with logic. If as you claim, belief in god is logical, then such a claim must be scrutinised on its own merit, not by appeal to authority (of your professors), which is a well-studied logical fallacy!

Now, if you paid attention in your Logic classes, you will know that definition of terms must necessary precede their feature in any logical statement. So, if you don't mind, kindly define what you mean by 'god' since, as we all know, the definition is not at all, axiomatic!