₦airaland Forum

Dejideji1:
Guy pls don't interfere in this matter, most of his comments has been removed. so you don't know what transpired between us.

Or what? You'll threaten me too with your omni god?

[size=16pt]Olodo[/size].

73-45 = 28

And why subtract 32/28 from 45?

They got married in 1989, which is 27 years ago. Her age then, was 45-27 = 18. This hardly counts as childbride anywhere in the world.

This woman shouldn't muddy herself with Fayose and his goons on twitter. Sue his spox for libel and defamation, they'll learn to shut up.

Dejideji1:
You are hiding under anonymity to insult God? Were you drunk as usual when you typed that? Now i can see you are truly a beast. You know you can't try this in the open else you will become history. Well i will leave you to God who is omnipresent to deal with you. It's just sad that you are about to learn of his existence in a harsh way.

Boko haram! Your blood thirsty omni-omni god should learn to fight its fight by itself instead of hiding behind its believers for vengeance; lest we should add omni-petulant-malingerer to its long list of omnis.

frank317:
Your ****God don't want me to enjoy life to the fullest? Sadist mudafucking sky daddy... and so why should I serve him if he does not want me to enjoy life to the fullest... is he not enjoying his hevean to the fullest?

Tell him he has failed... I am having the best fun my human mind can provide.

Dejideji1:
I knew it, you don't have anything meaningful to offer, just insults, meanwhile i will stop replying you.

An inglorious way to concede defeat...but...still, I accept your concession!

But for your Last question on consciousness existing outside the body, check the latest reply @frank317. Pls i can't repeat myself

You could have just stopped at "I will stop replying you".

timonski:
hmmm... 'unknown-unknowns'. So how did you 'know' that God falls into the unknown-unknowns category?

That's a very good question, and I can see its point.

Actually, if I were to take any one definition of god(s), it would probably fall into the known-unknown category. However, some particularly illogical definitions, for example, the triune god, the omnipotent god, Zeus of mount Olympus etc, would feature in the known-known category, in the sense that I know they are a logical impossibility; thus, they most definitely don't exist! However, I very carefully used the word "ontology" because there is no consensus on the infinite possible definitions of god.

The way I see it, the word "god", itself, is just a placeholder for an infinite number of unknowns, and I don't know what these unknowns are. As such, I 'know' "god" is in the unknown-unknowns category much in the same way that I 'know' a category called unknown-unknowns exists.

Dejideji1:
Oga this your moniker sef, are you sure you are really an Atheist?

Are you really Deji?

And why all this insult?

No insult, just fact.

That is what you have been doing since you joined this thread. No meaningful contribution.

Lol...Keep telling yourself that.

What do you mean by being shallow? You don't understand my concept.

No, YOU don't understand 'your' concepts.

All this things I'm trying to explain (detaching consciousness from the brain) are beyond the natural/material world view that you Atheists hold onto and I have been trying hard to avoid the spiritual aspect so as to make it logical (as anything spiritual is difficult to comprehend for you guys)

Aye, you HAVE been trying hard, no doubt. What happens when one tries hard to make logical, what is illogical?

For the case of consciousness existing outside the body read the reply i gave @frank317.

I asked a simple question. Does consciousness exist outside of the body? The answer is either "Yes", "No" or "I don't know". I don't need to read your replies to XYZ for that. If I have any specific followups, I'll ask!

frank317:
Lol... Mr dejideji is talking himself into confusion.

You called the brain just a meat and then u say this...


So you think the brain (meat) might actually have a thing to do with consciousness yet you are certain consciousness persists outside the brain.

Pls help me out... do you u actually think there is a relationship between the brain and consciousness?

Why do u think consciousness can exist outside the brain, yet think the brain has a role in consciousness?

Deji cannot help but argue with himself because like anything shallow/thin, a little scratch on the surface will always reveal a different surface, one usually inconsistent with the overlying mask. Beneath the facade of intelligence he wishes to project by quoting great people, his grasp of the concepts he proposes is bereft of any kind of depth whatsoever.

Dejideji1:
I'm not saying the brain doesn't have a role to play in consciousness, the argument is on consciousness persisting outside of the body. But remember it's a personal thing so you can only answer for your self.

I'm not saying what I'm saying, I'm just saying! Cheezuz! Dude, make a clear statement and stop prevaricating. Is consciousness independent of the body or not?

Now I doubt if you read my second topic on NDE a case of a lady who was brain dead was narrated there, and how she still gave vivid account of the operation process after she was resuscitated. Pls i believe you read that article i can't go into details [quote]Are you being serious? You want me to read someone's vivid anecdote and pretend it's evidence for your spurious claim?

[quote]Bro this is the same mistake that guy you were defending made! How can you make such comparison? Inanimate vs animate? How are they related?

Straw man. This is not a question of inanimate vs animate, this is a question of whether consciousness is independent of the brain. You claim it is because it is immaterial, but haven't shown one shred of evidence...We have gone a step further to show that there is nothing unusual about immaterial things and material things being functionally holistic. So, unless you wish to demonstrate how consciousness is animate, I advise you stick to the point of contention.

I did programming while I was in school and i wrote codes and ran them. I won't totally agree with the fact that it's immaterial simply because you can't see it while it's in operation but you can demand for the codes and see it. going deep, they are just instructions guiding the CPU on how to operate/carry out a certain task more or less like switches

I don't know what your definition of material is, I hope it means something that is made of matter. So unless you can show that softwares are made of matter, yeah, they are pretty immaterial. What you see when you load source codes are flickering pixels on a display that manipulates light to take the form of abstract symbols that make sense to you, but those symbols are immaterial; just as immaterial as the vivid dreams I sometimes have, where everything appears real to the extent that I can see and touch them.

Don't compare, the human mind(consciousness) is far more complicated than ordinary written codes.

Since the only property of consciousness that makes you declare it independent of the brain is its immaterialism, I see no reason why it cannot be compared with other immaterial things. Complexity of consciousness is NOT proof of independence, any more than a sufficiently complex software is proof that it can operate outside a CPU.

Dejideji1:
Bro please read the reply i gave @donnffd for the concept of consciousness i was trying to describe

Okay

Done, and how have you shown that consciousness is independent of the brain?

Dejideji1:
because self awareness (consciousness) is immaterial and you can't destroy something that is immaterial.

A software is immaterial so you mean to say it can't be destroyed?

Dejideji1:
...since it appears both of you Don't understand the concept of consciousness i was trying to describe.

I understand your concept of consciousness. It assumes consciousness exists independently of the brain. You just haven't been able to show this is the case. It appears you have have put the same level of consideration into it as what a 2 year old puts into their fear of boogey men, snarks and grumpkins! And this is not ridiculous to you!

So you say this:

Dejideji1:
Well i just couldn't read through it this time around because I don't have time.

and this:

Dejideji1:
...So I didn't bother going Tru it again

Yet you know that my:

Dejideji1:
...response Is just as ridiculous as that of the guy you are defending.

A pretty succinct summary of all the respect you have for logic summed up in two/three lines! Need I say more?

Dejideji1:
Bro this your reply is extremely ridiculous i can't believe you just spew this trash. I don't think you know what consciousness means. are the players in your FIFA conscious?

I don't think his response is ridiculous, I think it is your claims about consciousness that are ridiculous, and his post only serves to highlight the ridiculousness in yours. Since the point is lost on you, I'll attempt to break it down in simpler terms.

You said:

Dejideji1:
Consciousness has nothing to do with memory. It's just a state of awareness and it's immaterial as you can't see, feel, measure or quantify it.

Consciousness cannot be simply the
result of meat (the brain) because
consciousness is a property entirely
separate from matter. Consciousness
has an irreducible existence .

First off, let me just say, comparing the brain to "meat" has the same descriptive appeal and internal logic as comparing a CPU to plastic or metal. The brain, is of course more than meat!! It is a complex network of synapses and neurons that do more than just MEATING around. But you already know this, don't you? It is only a matter of expedience to refer to the brain as 'meat' because your whole argument falls apart otherwise. Having put that aside, lets address your many claims about consciousness.

Claim 1: Consciousness cannot be the result of the brain.

Why??

Claim 2: Because consciousness is a property entirely separate from matter

This is NOT a reason, just a rephrasing of your initial claim. So I ask again. Why??

Claim 3: Consciousness has an irreducible existence.

Again, why

See how when you break things down, their depths (or lack thereof) become lucid?

I believe Teempakguy has used the apt analogy of FIFA'16 to call your attention to the absurdity of your claims. You're aware of the reductionist definitions of hardware and software in computer theory. I also trust you are just as aware that both are mutually dependent. No doubt, a contraption with a lot of processors can exist independent of a software, but it will just be a 'brick' in computerspeak. Likewise, some independently meaningless characters we call software can exist inside some medium (the nature of the medium, regardless), but without an operational processor to run and process them, they will just be a bunch of inaccessible characters encoded in a disc or a stick or the internet or something of the sort. What I think the gentleman intended to do, was to demonstrate that it is not unusual for an abstract software to be functionally inextricable from a material machine and vice versa, so why should the case be different for living things and their so-called consciousness?

The closest thing to evidence you have provided in this regard, is the existence of vivid, yet subjective accounts of OOB experiences:

Dejideji1:
For the NDE cases recorded of those giving vivid account of the operation process despite been rendered unconscious under general anesthesia
How can you explain that? Can we call it a case of consciousness persisting outside the body?

I trust you know vividness is not evidence of anything. George R. Martin gives vivid accounts of events in Westeros, yet we know it's a fictional place. Accuracy, not vividness is what counts! I wouldn't go as far as to deny OOBEs do happen, but I cannot accept such accounts simply because they are subjective and cannot be verified independently, let alone be deemed accurate. Claiming this as evidence that matter is independent of consciousness flies in the face of the definition of the very word "evidence".

Dejideji1:
Bro i have heard that oxygen starved bla bla bla before it's just a point used by skeptics for argument. I believe u read that my second topic that point as been flawed.

What is oxygen starved bla bla bla?

Dejideji1:
Actually your post was very very long, i had to skim it. However the following points caught my attention while skimming

It wasn't very very long, it was just long, which was why I requested you to bear with me to the end. Anyway, my post was long because I wished to engage you on the philosophy of atheism, since you seemed to be a respecter of philosophy, going by your posts.

Bro you do not need to assume. Why should i quote someone falsely or out of context? In other to achieve what? That's plain stupidity. I can give you the link to the whole story if you want to further your research.

I'm glad you did your due diligence.

Well, i can't start stating my reasons here, i have done it before and i have seen other theist do it, it doesn't work, it's just a waste of time

My pardons! It's just that you made the following statement:

Dejideji1:
God is not a physical being for whom you can provide physical evidences. There are evidences about God, but the nature of this evidences is very subtle so you have to engage in extra-scientific and therefore philosophical/religious reasoning.

I had assumed you meant it when you said the subtle evidence of god is in philosophical reasoning. Instead of indulging my willing invitation to a philosophical discourse about god then, you disappointingly write me off as a waste of time. Thanks!

...since you obviously don't believe in the religious books i will be quoting from.

Quoting from a religious book, mind, is not a philosophical discussion because such books already presuppose the existence of some god(s) with scant, ambiguous or inconsistent definitions of said god(s). That is hardly the right place to start a debate on the existence of god. The real discussion is why you think those religious books are correct.

My belief in God is independent on what any physicists say. What prompted me to actually quote them was as a result of an argument we had on one thread and I decided to open this thread just to show them what their mentors/role models say about God's existence.

Most people I know, who have mentors, know that their mentors are fallible humans. Don't you think mentors are fallible?

Like I said above, it will be a total waste of time giving you my own philosophical thought on the subject.

Well, thanks for writing me off as a waste of time!

Dejideji1,

You have quoted a lot of physicists and philosophers in your posts. I haven't verified the authenticity of your quotes, but I will assume you have done your due diligence, and aren't falsely quoting, or quoting out of context. These people are obviously very brilliant, as evinced in many of their works; and one could only aspire for the level of insights they all had in their days. That said, I do not wish to spend that much time on their philosophical musings and conclusions because the most brilliant figures of history have been known to make catastrophic mistakes on specific subjects that were outside their areas of expertise...even within the same broad field. No doubt, they have their reasons for arriving at their respective conclusions, but do you have reasons for arriving at yours?

I would like to give you more respect than to assume you believe the things you do because some brilliant persons said so. So, prove that you are worth the words you bellow from the pages of great philosophers by engaging us with your own philosophical thoughts on the subject, rather than just regurgitating things that have been said in the past.

Since I intend this to be a discourse about the things we know, I will start with my thoughts on the position of atheists, in order to highlight how severely you misunderstand atheism; and to do this, what better place to start my discourse than the very theory of knowledge itself? I will eventually arrive at my point, but you have to bear with me and read to the end.

A while ago, during one of my more productive introspections, I conceptualised an idea which I like to call the quadrant of knowledge. The goal of my musing then was to reduce the unitary universe of knowledge into definable categories, and that I did by dividing it into four parts as follows: Known-knowns, unknown-knowns, known-unknowns and unknown-unknowns. This categorisation of knowledge will prove useful in my defense of atheism.

1) Known-Knowns: These are basically the things that we have knowledge of; and that we are aware of of that knowledge. E.g. I have knowledge of what happens when I add two numbers together. I also know that I have that knowledge. The nature of this category of knowledge is such that it is the type of knowledge we actively go out of our ways to seek, and I consider it the smallest part of the knowledge quadrant.

2) Unknown-knowns: This category is for things we know, but are unaware of the existence of such knowledge. I consider many of our instinctive behaviours to be part of this category. Unknown-knowns are ephemeral by their very nature because they quickly transition to known-knowns after they are brought to light. By definition, it is impossible to give a live example of unknown-knowns, but consider this: Every creative work came from nowhere but the minds of their creators, so the very first time a creative work is conceived, that work has just made its transition from unknown-known to known-known.

3) Known-unknowns: This is as straight forward as it sounds. They are things you know you do not know. E.g. I use prescription medicines when I fall ill, and I know they work, I just don't know how they do. Although, this knowledge is well documented and I can know it with time and patience. Another example of this is radioactive decay. I know that it occurs in the unstable nuclei of certain isotopes of certain atoms, but I don't know why given the same isotopes, the individual atoms decay at different times. This one hasn't been answered by science, and I guarantee you a Nobel prize if you can find an answer to it. These are things I don't know; but for which I have awareness.

4) Unknown-unknowns: This category is a monstrosity. It consists of things you don't even know that you don't know. Such things exist completely outside of your awareness, either due to imperceptibility or limited experience. This category has the distinct feature of being infinitely sized because by definition, you have absolutely no awareness about you lack of knowledge, so that even if you claim to know everything, there would exist an inherent paradox in you knowing something which you are unaware of not knowing.

It is the category of the unknown-unknowns in which the very ontology of god falls. God belongs in this category, and not any other because it is a nebulous concept, which is either plagued with many definitions that are neither logical nor self-consistent, or is so vague as to be meaningless. Either way, it is something that we absolutely don't know what it is or how it works. I believe this is the position that most of the atheists with whom I've interacted take on the subject.

So, when you demand that an atheist proves that god doesn't exist, you're off the mark in thinking that the absence of god's existence is the goal of atheism. Au contraire, atheism acknowledges that there is yet no evidence of the existence of god, and so asserts that a position needs not be taken in that regard. I'm glad you identified the absurd cliches of unicorns and Santa Claus for their silliness, but I'm afraid you missed the point of such absurd arguments. The purpose of such arguments isn't to provide evidence for the non-existence of god, but to show that evidence for god's existence is just as scant as those for unicorns and Santa, further affirming the atheistic assertion that no position needs be taken on god's existence; not any more than one needs to be taken on unicorns and Santa! To me, this is just an elegant way of expressing the logical truth that negatives cannot be proven, thus necessarily placing the burden of proof on the claimant.

Is there any part of my argument your disagree with? If so, which and why?

Obas101:
Smh... U are a kid

Yep, you got me, Mr clairvoyant.

Obas101:
In ur own words disgusting take note of that i won't even go into the details bt know that you've lost ursef in this world if you believe abnormal sex with same sex partner or otherwise (anal, private licking.. ) is normal.

Apologies my liege lord, it had skipped me that you own the monopoly on the definition of "normal".

Also I'm more straight than you cos u are the one fighting for gay cause

Aye, you're more straight than me, but still a little crooked! So be proud of your achievement! Hurrah, you're the champ of piss fights! You've made the world a better place...Clap for yourself!!

Obas101:
No i have never obsessed or fantasize disgusting heterosexual sex before, the thought of it sickens me, it's barbaric that's y i condemn it nd when i see people involved in such acts i always express my opinion.
Good you are not a Muslim if this how you reason

The thought of heterosexual sex sickens you to the extent that you condemn it? I've got to admit, didn't see that coming! Yours is a very special case then. Humour me; have you condemned your parents also? Surely, you are aware that you're a product of disgusting heterosexual copulation, right? Wait...you don't believe you're a stork baby...do you?

Listen mate, not sure what type of sexual fantasies (if any) gets you ticking. For all I care, you can be sexually hermaphroditic, whatever rocks your world! My point is that however disgusted I am by your sexual preferences, no matter. Your body, your right. I hope you can appreciate me not meddling in your business; or worse, condemning you for it. It is only decent that you extend the same courtesy to others, however disgusted you may find them. It's not like they approached you for a quickie or something. Live and let live!

Obas101:
Are you not a Muslim.. With wot uve been typing it's like u supporting gayism

Very perceptive sir! I don't suppose you go about your daily life obsessing about all the disgusting ways heterosexuals have sex? If not, I see no reason why you cannot leave homosexuals to do their disgusting things...basically, stop spending so much time thinking about what homosexuals consensually do to each other, especially if you don't like it. One would think it is unwise to waste energy on disliked things.

I am not Muslim, since you asked!

tobex23:
Akshow? Aren't you our residential atheist on NL, well, I think I see where your pain is coming from... Mind you I didn't make that comment from religious perspective... I only said that cause I can't imagine what would make a reasonable person open his anus for another nigga, I expect you to know why they(you all) do that... Since you seem to be an advocate for them

It's a curious thing how much time and energy you spend obsessing about how other guys treat their anuses.You seem inexorably invested in such musings to the detail, that one might even justifiably assume that's the sole subject of your fantasies.

All dead organic matter decompose under normal circumstances, and the rate at which they do so depends on several factors such as temperature, humidity, location of death, and so on. Most buried bodies would decompose in under a year or so, so it is practically unthinkable that the bodies of people presumably buried thousands of years ago will still be existing. In some very rare cases, such as was practiced with dead Egyptian kings of old, bodies are mummified using special chemical/physical procedures. In such cases, the bodies can last from decades to millennia without decomposition. But such cases are an exception, not the norm. As such, to ask for the bodies of Jesus, Abraham, Jacob etc, is to be ignorant of the inevitable.

Guyman02:
Have you seen the Addis Ababa light rail? You have seen the Lagos version, where are the swampy terrain in the 34km in Lagos

Your question is best directed at those suggesting that the prices should be equivalent. Many have rightly pointed out that cost comparison is only justifiable after having factored in all the city unique variables that affect such projects wherever they may be executed. It is utterly pretentious and dumb to quote the number of stations being built, as well as the distance, and then make price comparisons as if these are the only factors to consider in rail projects.

That said, the fundamental question of why Lagos' light rail should cost 3 time as much as Addis' is still very much valid and has not been addressed by any of the commenters here, mostly because none of them is the contractor/client, but also because no one seems interested in the answer. They either just want to mindlessly defend the Lagos state government, or mindlessly condemn it.

I am very much interested in the answer, and I will try to contact LAMATA directly and share my experience with you lot, but before then, I hope Kinibigdeal will be kind enough to share the source of the information because contacting government parastals is serious business, and I don't want to go sounding like an idiot who knows how to pull random numbers out of his arse.

geraldmezi:
they score us first. Hausa 1-0 Igbo ....i promise u dat it's gonna b 1-1 full time

What are you going to do? Behead a Hausa person? Don't be foolish!

salam1:
but y is it DAT anytime a Hausa man was killed in d east nobody says anything but ones and Igbo person is killed in d north den u term it as religion killing, y?

How many times has an eastern mob specifically attacked people of a different ethnicity because some Foreign magazine that is unrelated to the victims 'blasphemed' against their religion? Make no mistake, the problem is not the existence of people that are impulsively violent. These exist everywhere in the world! The problem is the culture that enables and even encourages impulsive violence.

Another thing that worries me is that some people think such a crime as blasphemy should exist. I've read some terrifying half hearted condemnations of the action of the mob from Muslims, even on this forum, where the person asserts that the mob was wrong to kill the woman, not because condemning someone to death for 'blasphemy' is inherently wrong, but because the judgement was not pronounced by a sanctioned Islamic judge. This makes me very concerned about the mindset of these people, and these are meant to be the saner, educated lot!

It makes one wonder why their supposedly gafur'ul raheem (the most forgiving and most merciful) god is such a touchy feely coward whose most remarkable power is compelling humans, whether as certified Islamic judges or a group of illiterate mob, to satisfy its bloodlust. Such majesty and forgiveness!

It pleases me to know that faithlessness is slowly getting acknowledged in the mainstream media, even if just as an opinion piece.

Abimbola Adelakun: President Muhammadu Buhari will go down in history as one of the worst managed presidents Nigeria ever had when it is evaluated on the basis of effective and strategic communication. The problem is not a shortage of personnel to carry out the necessary tasks of reaching the Nigerian public. No, the problem is he is managed by an incompetent team that thinks its highest duty is to write tepid press releases. His media team generally appears to lack initiative, and in a desperate bid to outshine one other, they embarrassingly contradict themselves when they (eventually) communicate with the public.

Due to them, the Presidency has been subjected to a needless ridicule. The latest of their sins is about the press release issued by the Presidency after the barbaric murder of a certain Mrs Bridget Agbahime. The woman was killed by a Muslim mob in Kano over allegations of blasphemy.
There are a number of howlers in that press release, none that should have come from the Presidency.

One was to refer to the victim as an “Igbo market woman in Kano.” Considering that we are all citizens of “One Nigeria” why make a reference to her ethnic group? Was that a sly suggestion that she occupied a space she does not belong? Saying “An Igbo woman in Kano” presupposes that her citizenship and constitutionally guaranteed right to live in Kano are both contestable. It is a crying shame that even the Federal Government could not look past tribe and let their eyes rest on her Nigerianness. Instead, they “reduced” her to another Igbo woman.

The press release added that “When law and order breaks down, those who become victims are never distinguished on the basis of religion or ethnicity.” This is another desperate attempt to efface the possibility that the victim was picked on because of religion and ethnicity, and her death was not merely circumstantial. Indeed, her death came about as a result of a breakdown of law and order but the perpetrators were not confused about the identity politics that drove them to murder her in such gruesome circumstances. Claiming that in the midst of a breakdown of law and order, we are all liable to become victims erases the reality of people who, during mass riots, were specifically targeted in many mass riots for their religion and ethnicity. This effort to minimise the political context of those killings is an obtuse form of political correctness that panders to the sentiment of those who kill and their enablers who – like Pontius Pilate – wash their hands off their culpability and watch the murder happen. If the murderers and perpetrators do not select their victims in the various riots and attacks that had taken place in the past, then, how come the victims are almost always of a certain demographic? And how come the aggressors’ demographic is so predictable?

Another major gaffe – and this one has been picked up by a number of commentators – is the part of the press release that suggests that the woman deserved her death. The release said, Let us learn to respect each other’s faith, so that we can know each other and live together in peace.”

This is a most tactless thing to say considering the circumstances in which Madam Agbahime died. For one, it presumes that the woman died because she overstepped her bounds by allegedly blaspheming. If she had expressed more respect, she would have been alive among others. That is a form of victim blaming that displaces the blame from the murderous maniacs and locates it on the poor woman.

The other reason that clause in the press release is problematic is that it accommodates the idea of blasphemy, and that it should be indulged and honoured as a legitimate wrong. This is anti-democratic and in fact, a thoughtless intervention. Like a number of Nigerians, the President – and his media aide who drafted the release – took it for granted that the only people who occupy Nigeria border space are the people who profess one faith or the other. In Nigeria, by the way, to profess faith largely means to be either a Christian or a Muslim. All other faiths, minority and marginal, have their basic rights regularly (and unapologetically) eroded by these two dominant ones who tend to assume Nigeria was made for them only.

The Nigerian state, while not constitutionally allowed to recognise any religion in official capacity, caters to these two religions. We see this in the contestation that accompanies electioneering in Nigeria, state sponsorship of pilgrimages, and the willingness of political office holders to identify with one religion or the other. The existence of other religion is easily forgotten and even worse, there is no acknowledgement of people who have no faith to profess. For instance, the “faith” of an atheist is non-faith, a non-belief that negates the faith of the believer. By asking us to respect each other’s faith, we leave behind those who have no faith or those who do not fall under the umbrella of Christianity and Islam. If we get to know others more by respecting the faith of others, how do we propose to live in peace with the atheists or non-theists whose “non-faith” is inherently blasphemous?

That is why there should not be an indulgence of the possibility that faith can be blasphemed, or that “respect” for other people’s faith is a recipe for mutual co-existence. Apart from the inherent falsehood for that statement, it is worth noting that respect for faith must be balanced with respect for non-faith as well. The Director of MURIC, Prof Ishaq Akintola, reasoned that even if blasphemy had been committed, she should have been taken to a police station rather than be savagely attacked. Again, that kind of thought process is exceedingly problematic. If she did not believe in their God to either exalt him, she should not have to shut her mouth to avoid allegations of blasphemy. People should not have to believe nor pander to those who believe so that they can keep their lives. That is a terrible form of dehumanisation and a violation of their constitutional rights.

Currently, a number of people are on death row in the same Kano State where the Agbahime incident occurred, convicted by the Sharia Court for the sin of blasphemy. The Federal Government should intervene and see to it that those people are promptly freed. Their trial process is a meaningless one. It does not make sense that they be punished for not giving any regard to another person’s belief or faith. Under Islamic law and in an Islamic state, that kind of totalitarianism may make sense to those who are willing to abide by such dictates. To those of us who have chosen to live under a democracy, there can be nothing like blasphemy. Anyone who wants to protect their god from criticism should hide them in a private vault. All gods – as long as they are unleashed to roam in the public sphere, as long as taxpayers’ money is used to fund their rituals, as long as they are in our faces – are fair game for both ridicule and reverence. Those who blasphemed God with their mouths are also expressing their rights to free speech. How do you punish them for one and retain the other? If God wanted them dead, he has enough machinery at his disposal to kill them dead by himself.

Punch Newspaper

Lukay99:
You know what? You're the one Cherry-picking verses you cannot even quote verses of the Quran that supports your so called believe of Islam it's always better for you to give references when making allegations against any religion (e.g verse number or what chapters numbers) let me give you an example on how to criticize a religion But those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me.’” Luke 19:27 that's according to the Bible itself so if you really want to criticize Islam do your homework and bring real proof not fabrications have a nice day

Your adeptness at straw man arguments is noted. However, showing that the bible is also violent doesn't absolve Islam from its violent nature. I dropped names of people whose deaths were sanctioned by Muhammed, it wasn't my intention to quote from the Quran. However, there are several violent verses in the Quran and hadith; for example, ones that sanction slavery, or the extermination of the banu Qurayzah tribe, which is well documented in Islamic sources...please, don't get me started on the violence perpetrated by Muhammed if you don't want to spend all day reading my epistle.

Lukay99:
You know what? You're the one Cherry-picking verses you cannot even quote verses of the Quran that supports your so called believe of Islam it's always better for you to give references when making allegations against any religion (e.g verse number or what chapters numbers) let me give you an example on how to criticize a religion But those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me.’” Luke 19:27 that's according to the Bible itself so if you really want to criticize Islam do your homework and bring real proof not fabrications have a nice day

Your adeptness at straw man arguments is noted. However, showing that the bible is also violent doesn't absolve Islam from its violent nature. I dropped names of people whose deaths were sanctioned by Muhammed, it wasn't my intention to quote from the Quran. However, there are several violent verses in the Quran and hadith; for example, ones that [url=http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Slavery]sanction slavery[/url], or the extermination of the banu Qurayzah tribe, which is well documented in Islamic sources...please, don't get me started on the violence perpetrated by Muhammed if you don't want to spend all day reading my epistle.

Islam is an inherently violent religion. To claim that there are no instances where Mohammad ordered the killing of people for deriding him is simply false!
There are two prominent instances where this happened, his call to assassinate Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak, both, for writing poems against his person and religion.

Cherry-picking verses in the Quran that cloak the violence of Islam does not change this.

pharmagba:
Na lie
You are an "avenger' you want to lay anbush for our military?
It is not going to work. Let them finish killing themselves their fossils will turn to more oil for Nigeria.

You're shameless and despicable!

KingEbukasBlog:
This lady blatantly appeals to authority in her arguments and no atheists has seemed to care , event AgentofAllah

Dear lady cloudgoddess, I have been summoned because, apparently, I am to care that you "appealZ to authority in your arguments". So, allow me to appeal to you to stop all these authoritarian appeals.

In keeping with the theme of appeals, I should also take this opportunity to appeal to Uyiredia and his fellow cheerleader, Ebuka (♫♩♪ When I need motivation...♫♩♪), to be a little less trusting of commonsense. Throughout history, science has challenged and trashed many commonsensical notions without apology, as the following examples will demonstrate:

1) In his ground breaking work on gravitational acceleration being independent of mass, Galileo proved the untrustworthiness of commonsense against the teachings of Aristotle.

2) Max Planck proved it against his own wishes when he solved the UV catastrophe, by quantizing the energy states of oscillators.

3) Einstein and Schrodinger proved it against the demon cat that was both dead and alive (just kidding)...but they proved it against the wishes of the great champs of classical physics, including unfortunately, Einstein himself, who spent his last living years trying to refute the far reaching implications of his work on light. His last years, a cruel irony in that he died in the dark of his own light!

It is evident in these examples, that commonsense, which is just an euphemism for cognitive bias, must never be allowed to sully rational thoughts.

*End of appeal*

It is context dependent.

If you wish to request clarification for a statement/action, then "more explanation" is appropriate.
e.g. "Could you give me more explanation as to the context of you question?"

Alternatively, if you wish to demand several mutually independent explanations for one/several statement(s)/action(s), then "more explanations" could be appropriate.

e.g. "Mubarak needs to provide more explanations for the 10 questions if he wishes to get full marks in his history exam."

absolutism:
Agent of Allah

Who summons the agent, and what is thy quest?

KingEbukasBlog:
Thank you at least for honestly . But since you didn't God is , why do you criticize people who know Or you feel that there are a lot of your kind who have not realised that they don't even know God ?

You are mistaken, sir. I don't "criticise people who know". People know what they know, so what difference would it make if I criticised someone for knowing what they know?
However, I am very scrutinous about things people claim they know. I understand this makes you uncomfortable, but you must forgive me, for my experience in life has taught me not to trust every claim people make. There is no shortage of people who claim to know things but later turn out to be liars or deluded or impressionable or brainwashed or wishful thinkers or credulous or rumour mongers or a motley combination those attributes. I assure you though, if you truly know god, then you have nothing to fear from my scrutiny.