Well, I'm persuaded to believe that homosexuality is genetic or at least mostly so.
However, we need to also keep in mind that even if it is caused by genetic and biological factors, it is notwithstanding an abnormality, a disease, a disorder. It is one of those things that happen as a result of nature messing up; it is an indication of something bad. So while we shouldn't condemn people who are genuinely naturally homosexual (or whatever other variant), we also shouldn't allow homosexuality to fester and thrive in our society.
Essentially, homosexuals (and their relatives) fall into the same category as Thalidomide babies, Parkinson's sufferers, autism or people who have cerebral palsy (using your examples). They are suffering from a sickness which requires a cure. They are an error that needs to be corrected !

JessicaRabbit:
In the absence of a philosophy section, I decided this topic wouldn't be entirely out of place in the romance section. But at any rate, please bear with me.

The first time I came across this concept was about 3 years ago on another forum. Apparently, it's a well known philosophical thought experiment, aimed at demonstrating that hedonism is false. For those who don't know, hedonism is basically the idea that pleasure is the only good thing.

This experiment was thought-up by the philosopher Robert Nozick as a criticism of hedonism. The experiment goes like this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

So what are your thoughts on the experience machine? And the argument for it? Would you plug in? Would you want your friends and family members to plug in?

C1: If all that matters to us is that we experience as much pleasure as we can then we have no reason not to plug into the experience machine. (P1&P2)

This conclusion is not quite right. Plugging into the experience machine would mean that we are going to give up the old ways of getting pleasure which we are already used to (eating, fücking, playing with friends, achieving goals etc). The thought of losing these pleasures may cause us some pain, a feeling which of course we always want to avoid. Furthermore, we may have genuine misgivings about plugging into the experience machine because we CANNOT be completely certain this will bring better pleasures than what we are used to. So there are reasonable reasons not to want to plug to the machine even if all that matters to us is to experience more pleasure.
A better conclusion should be that if you experience better or more pleasures upon being plugged to the experience machine than is possible in real life, then you should have no reason to want to be unplugged.

TenQ:
I am actually busy now but let me respond to some of your posts.

I wonder why you had to mention this. I didn't demand that you should reply me now.

It is not my fault that Atheism is so incoherent that one thousand atheists have a thousand belief system.

I think the problem is that you've developed some very wrong notions about what atheism is or stand for. Atheism doesn't have a specific belief system in the way that organized religions do. Even though many atheists might use similar arguments to support their stand, but there are no particular set of beliefs that hold all atheists together. The implication of that is that when you argue with an atheist, you're basically arguing with an individual; his ideas and thoughts may not necessarily reflect what other atheists think or believe.

True for the subset of intangible realities produced from tangible realities.
The converse may not also be untrue.

Perhaps you can cite some examples of the subset of intangible realities you know of that are NOT produced from tangible realities.

Mathematic, Logic and Software etc fall under the realm of INFORMATION. Information is REAL but not Tangible

Software is real, yes. It has a reality inside the memory of a computer. Mathematics and logic are not "real" things. They do not have a reality anywhere. They are abstract ideas.

This is why it is impossible to debate with a thousand faced individual.

. Atheists must have frustrated you so much in your debate with them over the years. Sorry 😐

Is gravity conscious?
If it is , yes but it isn't!

No, gravity is not conscious. But yet, it controls the "Working interconnection" of star systems,and galaxies. So what's the need for an "intelligent mind" in this ?

TenQ:
The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption that Everything REAL Must be TANGIBLE

First Some Definitions:
1. Real:
Things that EXIST are REAL : things that do NOT Exist are Imaginary or Virtual!
e.g. Your image in the mirror is virtual!
2. Tangible:
Anything that has either Mass or Dimensions (Length, Area or Volume) or Energy which can interact with time either by change in position or change in state.

Anything that is tangible can be described in terms of either its mass or Dimensions or Energy?

Photons and Gluons are mass-less objects and they do not even have spatial dimensions but they have measurable Energies: thus they are Tangible objects

Note:
All REAL things that are not tangible can only be known by the Effect they produce on other things that exist.

Actually, you're the one making a very costly and somewhat ridiculous mistake of assuming that atheists assume (or believe) that everything real must be tangible. Atheists of course know that gravity and electromagnetism are intangible real things !
Perhaps you should have asked for the opinions of atheists on intangible real things before reaching that erroneous conclusion.
And by the way, you should also stop assuming that ALL atheists have the same set of beliefs. The main thing that unifies atheists is that they are unconvinced that a god or gods exist. The reason for their lack of conviction can vary very widely.

On the matter of intangible real things, here is what I personally think:
Intangible real things are a product of tangible real things. In other words, everything that exists is a consequence of complex interplay and interaction of matter and energy.

Examples of Real things that are NOT Tangible include
1. Life
2. Mathematics
3. Software Code within a machine
4. Information
5. Logic
6. Magnetic Fields,
7. Electric Fields,
8. Gravitational Fields

I think some of these your examples here are poorly chosen. Mathematics and logic for instance are not "real" things in the same sense that magnetic field is. I do get the point you're trying to make anyways.

Finally,
There is a Huge Difference between Real objects that are NOT Tangible and the Medium by which their Existence can be monitored.
Every Non-Tangible REALITY can only be detected INDIRECTLY by the Effect they have on suitable mediums.


If you don't have problem of comprehending knowledge,
Answers to Questions from my Challenge to Atheists:
1. If an existence is not tangible i.e. cannot be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time, does this prove it doesn't exist?
Answer: NO!
Examples abound Like Life, Logic, Software, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Knowledge, Information etc

2. Is a software within a machine REAL or not?
Answer: Softwares within a machine are very real REAL

3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" DIRECTLY by any physical means?
Answer: NO! There is no physical means by which a software can be measured or quantified. Detection or Quantification can only be done Indirectly with Another Software.

4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
Answer: It is actually IGNORANCE that will make a person INSIST on physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist.

5. Tell me, how can one DIRECTLY prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?
Answer: It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to prove directly the existence of a software within the CPU or HDD or RAM of a computer without the use of another software.

Everything you said here did not prove any point

Questions :
1. Do you as Atheists now concur that REALITIES Exist that are NOT TANGIBLE?
2. Do you as Atheists now concur that demanding for direct physical proof of Non-Tangible Realities is borne out of Ignorance?
3. Do you as Atheists now concur that visible Effects of Non-Tangible Realities on other real objects is a fair (indirect) proof of its existence?
i.e. Like the effects of Microsoft OS or Application program on a Computer is sufficient reason to believe that a software is operating within the Computer!

Like I said up there, you made a wrong assumption about what atheists believe about intangible real things. So you're basically arguing with yourself here.

4. Do you concur that a Working Interconnection of several Systems is a reasonable proof of an Intelligent mind behind the controlling program of the systems where the controlling program is Non-Tangible?

As we've learned in physics, gravity controls the "Working Interconnection" of star systems and galaxies. Can we then say that gravity is an intelligent mind 🤔?

CuriousCart:



Show us where I said animals created mankind or shut up. Your wife up there already ran away. You will soon.


Show us or shut your trap you bloody idiot.

It was a big mistake on my part to have commented on your thread. Upon reading your nonsensical post, I knew you must be a m0r0n, but I love giving people the benefit of the doubt, so I wanted to see if there is a method in your mädness, hence why I decided to ask you questions.
Now I'm convinced that you're really, truly, actually mäd

JessicaRabbit:


I wouldn't say that I wouldn't be as smart without chess, but I do think that playing chess has been a valuable addition to my cognitive arsenal. It has helped me develop a unique perspective and approach to problem-solving.

Alright, fair enough.

Actually, upon thinking about the matter more carefully, I think I might be committing hasty generalisation fallacy.

My belief that chess has little or no impact on one's critical thinking skills is based on my personal experience as a chess player myself. I have been playing the game for many years now and in all honesty, I wouldn't say that all the hundreds of hours I have spent exerting my mental energy on chessboard have had any significant, noticeable impact on my critical thinking skills.

But here's an important point I think I was missing. Before I learned to play chess in my second year in the university, I was already fairly good at logical and critical thinking (by the way, I believe this is usually the case for most people that love and enjoy chess). I was good at maths, further maths and physics, and enjoyed solving challenging problems in these subjects. After years of playing chess, I don't think there's anything I can do cognitively that I wouldn't have been able to do just as well without playing chess.

So, I think perhaps for people who lack critical thinking skills, it's possible that playing chess might help them improve or develop the skill.

And now that I'm curious about it, I will like to make findings about schools that teach their students chess to see if such training has any significant impact on the academic performance of the students. You should do this too before you start advocating for the teaching of chess in schools.

CuriousCart:



Show us where I said this anywhere.
Please expose me.
I'll wait...

If you can't show us then you are dumb.

ME: How did the animals become inhabitants of earth? Who created them ?

FÓ0LISH YOU: Who created our creators?
I have no idea sir. I only gave mankind's creation theory.

So tell me what the question in your response implies.

CuriousCart:


Who created our creators?


I have no idea sir. I only gave mankind's creation theory.

Oh, so the animals are our creators ?

By the way, don't call your story creation theory sir, creation fable sounds better

CuriousCart:


Yes.
Animals have lived longer on Earth than homo sapiens.

Homo sapiens are not natural inhabitants of Earth but a creation from two or more beings.

How did the animals become inhabitants of earth ? Who created them ?

JessicaRabbit:


Just because chess has its own set of rules and strategies doesn't mean that the critical thinking skills developed through playing chess are not applicable elsewhere. Strategic thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills are all valuable assets that can be applied to various areas of life, from business to science to everyday decision-making. Research has shown that expertise in chess can lead to improvements in cognitive abilities such as memory, attention, and processing speed. These cognitive enhancements can benefit individuals in various areas of life, not just in chess. So, the critical thinking skills developed through playing chess are not entirely domain-specific.

I don't trust all these psychological research easily, compared to research in physical and biological sciences.

Anyways, you're obviously a very smart person and I presume you've been playing chess for sometime. So in your own personal experience, would you say that playing chess significantly contributed to how good a thinker or problem solver you are now ? In other words, would you say that if you had not started playing chess then you wouldn't be as smart as you are today ?

CuriousCart:
Please read until the end to make meaning of my write up. I'm going to apply both scientific and biblical references and use relatable terms for better understanding.


Here's how I see it:

Human beings were created by beings from another world who had a leader/project manager (God).

These beings were not of this world. They possibly stumbled upon life on Earth while exploring and were obviously fascinated by the animals they met (no humans yet).

These beings of superior intelligence decided to experiment with the life they met on Earth by mixing their genes with chimpanzees (who happened to be the closest animal in semblance to them). So science is somewhat correct to state that homo sapiens are relatively new and evolved from chimpanzees. They just don't know the full details.

Out of this experiment they created Man who looked and behaved like them but he was primitive (Blacks). They created Man to act as their servant/labourer/assistant in taking care of the Earth they discovered for them. Think of it like a Bigman and his gateman or driver. They do not hate you but the gulf in class will be maintained.

Later on, some of these beings began to lust after the Man they created and eventually had sex with Man to produce further mutated offsprings. This is not too difficult to imagine because while Mankind were of inferior stock some must definitely have enticing features that appealed to the creators. The product of this union is mentioned in the Bible.

After this, their leader (God) decided to leave Earth since his original project had been tampered with but not before kicking out the erring members out of their spaceship (Heaven) into Earth (Hell without his supervision). These exiled beings rallied around a leader (Satan) and decided to make sure they destroyed their former leader's most revered project (Mankind) in petty retaliation. Like when your spoilt child pours away the pot of soup because you disciplined him.

I will explain the previous paragraph better:
Before the betrayal, God and his beings could come down here on Earth physically to live and give instructions to Man (like in the Bible). They could come down sometimes to solve problems with their superior technology (miracles) when summoned. Man also had a longer age limit since he was created with their DNA. But after the abomination, God decided to wipe out all of that anomaly with a flood. This flood did not cover the whole world as the Bible mentioned but just the inhabited parts.

The flood lasted longer than 40 days. It lasted many years and the ark people multiplied within it.

Some people survived the flood without being inside the ark.


These non-ark survivors migrated to Europe and Asia away from the flood and evolved over many years while the flood people were holed up in their ark. They explored and developed skills to survive on their own instead of waiting for their creators to save them as used to be the case then.

These survivors are the Whites of today.
Their skin whitened because they moved high up into the mountains and away from sunlight/sky to avoid the flood.

This is why the White's mentality is distinct from the Black's who still have the saviour gene in him. The Blacks are only just learning to survive on their own and still lag behind Whites whose ancestors managed to figure out a way during the flood.


This is also why Whites enslave Blacks throughout history because their genes still carry the original creator+creation DNA that God tried to wipe out. The ark survivors were chosen because they had the original lab experiment intact without sexual intercourse with the creator beings.

Now, through centuries of mixed race intercourse, almost everyone in the world will carry the creator/created DNA that God opposed.

That is the Mark of the Beast.

When all of Mankind finally have it, the leader of the exiled beings (Satan) plans to wage war (Armageddon) with his former boss (God) since his own project has overshadowed his boss' own.



Ask me any questions.


OAM4J nlfpmod Seun

Are you saying that animals and humans had different creators ?

JessicaRabbit:


You make some fair points. But even if we can come up with a dedicated critical thinking course that can definitely break down the skills we're talking about in a more structured way, how many of them can do it in a way that is as engaging as chess usually is?

When you're analyzing a chessboard, anticipating your opponent's next moves and formulating a strategy, that's all critical thinking in action! The only difference is that you're doing it in a context that's exciting and mentally stimulating. Learning those critical thinking skills in isolation might feel abstract to some students. Chess throws them into a situation where they have to apply those skills right away, and the competition adds a layer of pressure that forces them to think quickly and creatively. It's like a fun mental workout that gets these valuable skills ingrained almost subconsciously. Plus, chess teaches you valuable lessons about dealing with setbacks. You will lose games, especially when you're starting out. But you learn to analyze your mistakes, adjust your approach, and come back stronger. That kind of resilience is just as important in life as being a good problem solver.

I might also need to address a veiled misconception I'm noticing here. Chess isn't about turning everyone into a Garry Kasparov. That's looking at the issue through a narrow lens. Chess is simply about training your brain in a way that benefits you across different areas. Kasparov and Carlsen are exceptional chess players because they've honed their critical thinking skills to a master level, through chess. It's just like going to the gym. You strengthen your muscles, which then helps you perform better in various physical activities. Applying this analogy to chess, the game can strengthen your cognitive muscles, making you a better problem solver in general.

I don't quite get your argument about the number of groundbreaking inventions directly linked to chess grandmasters and I don't think it's necessarily relevant to the topic in general. But for what it's worth, I've come across countless videos on YouTube of successful people from all walks of life, from CEOs to scientists, who have credited chess with sharpening their minds. It's not a guarantee of success, but it's a valuable tool in your mental toolkit.

And by the way, I don't think anyone seriously believes that chess mastery magically makes you a genius in everything, but the core skills you develop are absolutely applicable outside the game and practicing them intensely in chess could strengthen your neural pathways for broader use.

Chess is a game played according to a few, well-defined rules. All the critical thinking you do when you play chess is basically centered around these rules. As you play the game more and more, you learn different strategies and tactics (still based on the rules) that enable you to play the game better.
Hence, when people get better at chess, they are NOT really getting better at thinking, instead they just become better at using the different strategies and tactics they've mastered (through experience and practice) and at analysing the chessboard. So a good chess player is one who has simply excelled in strategic thinking and tactical problem-solving within the realm of chess. The skills he has developed are highly domain-specific and not transferable to other areas.
Therefore, when you teach someone to play chess and they learn to play it well, their overall critical thinking skills may not improve noticeably. Also, someone can be resilient when it comes to chess and not exhibit that same attitude in other areas.
This is the whole point I'm trying to make.

My reference to Kasparov and Carlsen was just to further buttress the point that playing chess will not necessarily significantly improve your thinking capacity. These are two of the greatest chess players, so if playing chess is an exercise for critical thinking, then they should be among the best thinkers. But can we really say this is the case ? Well, I think they are just experts in the game of chess and nothing more !

If you're hoping that teaching chess in schools will help students become better at thinking, problem solving or learning, I think you might be greatly disappointed.

While chess certainly requires a lot of thinking (if you want to play it well), I do not think that by getting better at chess, you invariably become markedly better at performing other activities that involve significant levels of critical reasoning. In other words, improved chess playing skills does not necessarily mean improved thinking capacity. As a matter of fact, I think when you learn to play chess better, all that has happened is that you have mastered certain positional patterns and understood how to use different chess strategies and tactics well.

If you take Kasparov and Carlsen to the class room, they will not necessarily learn better than a typical smart student. Give them puzzles and problems outside of chess to solve and their performance may not be so outstanding. How many real-life problems have been solved or innovations birthed by great chess Grandmasters ?

If the goal is to make students better thinkers and problem solvers, I think it will be better to systematically teach them specific set of skills necessary for critical thinking and problem solving, skills that probably contributed to the emergence of people like Carlsen and Kasparov (and me 😁) as great chess players.

Okay

Ponomote:
(i) The scenario falls within the realm of defamation law, particularly slander, as the pastor made a false statement about Mrs. Benson, calling her a liar, which could harm her reputation within the community.

(ii) To succeed in a defamation case, Mrs. Benson would have to prove the following elements:

1. **Publication:** The false statement made by the pastor must have been communicated to at least one person other than Mrs. Benson.

2. **Identification:** Mrs. Benson must be identifiable from the statement made by the pastor. This can be proven if the statement was made directly to her or if others could reasonably infer that the statement referred to her.

3. **Defamatory Nature:** Mrs. Benson must show that the statement made by the pastor was defamatory, meaning it harmed her reputation in the eyes of the community. Calling her a liar and questioning her integrity as a law graduate could be considered defamatory.

4. **Falsity:** Mrs. Benson needs to prove that the statement made by the pastor was false.

**Nice job** from **chatGPT**

cathodekazim:
I've nothing to say. Lemme book space first

My observation comes first with the guy named Righteousness/holiness.

It baffles me how this guy quotes bible here and then and then supports killing/war/bloodshed etc. each time I read his comment, indaboski comes to mind.

If you're a Christian/Muslim and you support war/killing of another soul, you're not of God but of the devil.

May God deliver us from hypocritical Muslims and Christians on this platform

Are you ignorant of the fact that God himself supported wars in the old testament ?

I want to see the list of countries owing Nigeria 🤔

Offpointng:


You give woman millions of sperm and she gives you just a kid.

You're pointless

How many billions of sperm can you put together to form a baby

Is China in debt to any country ?

A

RevenuesBoost:


😂😂😂
My husband was like
Omo! small boy don see me finish 😂
He wasn't bothered because same way he listens to me, I listen to him.
My sisters also tell me that I allow my husband control me.
Couples listening to each other is the best way they can both live without fights or quarrels.

How old is your marriage 🤔