₦airaland Forum

kovah:
Putting ur reality b4 others...or challenging others reality...Is saying they don't have a right to live or exist cos ur existence is d right one

I wonder why people do this, "Putting ur reality b4 others...or challenging others reality". Might it be because peoples' perception affect others?

Consider homosexuality for instance. What business is it of the non-participators. Now consider Christianity itself! I am sure if they didn't claim those who don't believe what they believe are fools, why would anyone be against them? But when they go into schools and start teaching my child 'Jesus Christ', 'eternal life', 'you're going to hell', 'God', I insist that it becomes my duty to ask if the existence being imposed is the right one, sorry!

Do note, my mother was born to Christian converts. She was FGMed as were two of her Christian friends whom I know of. I have a friend who is also Christian from Christian parents who was FGMed, and I am acquainted with 3 others, of Christian parents who were FGMed too. All of them are Yorubas.

felixomor:
The people donating money to church have already payed tax.
You cant tax contribution of tax payers who have already payed tax.

Try to reason it properly. Ok

I paid tax. I wonder why I pay tax on a bottle of beer, and why the beer seller pays tax too?!

hopefulLandlord:
I'm starting to become an atitheist and it feels kinda weird

I think I might be too, in response to all the "you must accept Jesus into your life" I get. They claim "blessed assurance", but live in fear. What a complete waste of the blood of Jesus, I tell them!

The 2014 National Health Bill signed by JEG included something on organ donation, but I do not know how far it went. I do know we are rather stingy with our organs compared to some.

See
Debate on legality of organ donation and transplantation under new [url=https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=National+Health+Act%2C+2014+nigeria&oq=National+Health+Act%2C+2014+nigeria&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j0l2.7410j0j4&client=ms-android-alcatel&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8]National Health Act, 2014[/url]

AnonyNymous:

Lol what about as companions, like dogs are to humans Besides, the rules they'd probably impose on us wouldn't be soooo bad

Says who? Haven't they shown enough stupidity by seeing me as I see fish and intending to have me as dinner? Do they behave as some humans do and 'eat' their companions too?

In fact, I think you are now insulting fish! If fish had my level of intelligence, little as it may be, do you think fish would not get a gun and shoot me even if just because I am so stupid to consider it as dinner in the first place?

I rhetorically bet you they treat us like we treat chicken! And if fish or chicken could, it too would get a gun and shoot me.

AnonyNymous:
Hmm, well I actually agree with the part about 'dumb' animals showing some form of intelligence like your mom's chickens, lol. Made me remember about one guy from my hometown who's goat would bend over like a Muslim whenever it was time for their call to prayers.

Then about the dogs I didn't mean without human interaction, I meant without interaction at all. . .I meant that dogs aren't the kind of animals to be content with just eating, sleeping, and reproducing, it seems like they have to do some activity or the other to keep themselves entertained and they also seems to have a much higher intelligence than some other 'beasts'.

Anyway I guess the only thing that could prevent this other species from eating us is if we could prove our usefulness to them. Come to think of it, most of the animals we don't eat as humans serve one purpose or the other to us.

Like, we can prove our usefulness to them by serving the purpose of slaves perhaps, or their dinner?

Shall I lend you my gun now?

vaxx:
EVEN after enlightening you that empirical statement cannot be subjective, you are still repeating this poo for the purpose of argument.

Vaxx! You have not enlightened me! And do not insult yourself by claiming I argue for the "purpose of argument"!

I have never said "empirical statements are subjective", though there are opinions that consider that they can be. Below is exactly what I claimed!

budaatum:
I assert that subjective statements can be objectively true if there is independent evidence to support them! This was what I tried to explain with my one litre jug that was half full and half empty because I accurately filled it with half a litre of water! I also equally assert that subjective statements can also be false, like when I subjectively talk through my ass!

vaxx:
you lack comprehension my man . i correct you overtime, any element or statement that can be proven empirically is not subjective, it is objective,

Interesting. Your problem is that you refuse to consider the subject who decides what is objective and what is subjective. And the confused reason you can claim "subjective truth is reality" on one thread when nothing objective supports it. My question however is, "who's subjective is the reality?"

We are subjects, talking about objectivity and subjectivity, but you want to claim you are being objective, and you are teaching me, and I am being, how did you describe my subjectivity again? As "repeating this poo for the purpose of argument", "lack comprehension", "repeating your normal mistake", "lack understanding" or "it is intentional", and "to cover shame".

So, in your opinion, do you the hold above view because you have objective evidence to support it? Or is that your subjective view?

Below is a recent real world example of the confusion regarding objectivity and subjectivity.

DeLioncourt:
I am of the opinion that the religious god does not exist in any form.

Kemzeee1:
yes my dear God do really exist. he is in you

DeLioncourt:
that you choose to believe so, doesn't make it so.

Butterflyleo:
That you chose to disbelieve so, doesn't make it so.

Can you point out those who's statement you would claim are objective or subjective, and wonder if it matches the posters views of themselves, or, and, the views of independent observers?

Go and read the articles you yourself posted in this thread. They point out the complexity involved with the subjective and objective view. Yet you think for some reason that you can have your view, and just by saying so, it becomes objective, while claiming that is impossible for the subjective to be claimed to be objective. Isn't that exactly what you are attempting
to do here, make your subjective the objective?

Please be informed, it is intentional. And just in case it is missed, my claim is that people, including your very self too it seems, make some statements which may be subjective, but which can be supported by objective evidence; and statements which are subjective and lack any objectivity whatsoever, but which one claims is objective, be it falsely or not.

The above does not apply to objectivity in science, which should be completely devoid of subjectivity, but still unfortunately sometimes isn't. (C.f. young earthism, the no global warming stance, and the human's didn't evolve brigade.)

vaxx:
likewise i also correct you making statement like that of your claim is objective statement because it can be be verified, scrutinized and observed. you are still repeating your normal mistake. i am done biko.

I never said a statement that can be verified is not an objective statement. I even gave the wishy washy but verifiable one litre jug with half a litre of water carefully measured in which therefore can objectively be determined to be half empty and half full! Are you still claiming this is not objective?

If you are done, you will be done, but you aren't, and you know it!

vaxx:
it is either you lack understanding or it is intentional , maybe doing it to cover shame when your ignorance have been exposed. i have given it to the viewer to make a judge. if i do not know , i read thru the lines rather than argue. @budaatum

And do note how repetitive, and detailed I have been in my response to you! Its on here, with my name on it, I buda said it. If what I have written is as shameful as you think, trust me, I can't hide from it. Even if I go back and edit, the quotes in your responses have my name on it. And remember what I said at the beginning of the thread? It is a reference for the future, so it can more easily be followed.

Do note that I intend to update this thread regularly from now on so my stupid can't be missed!

AnonyNymous:
Have you ever seen lions or chickens attempt to decode human language? Why do you think we can keep dogs, horses, monkeys, etc as pets? Even though they're not nearly as intelligent as us, they make attempts to understand us and they can recognize patterns, to an extent. For people who rear chickens, the chicken doesn't even seem to recognize that its being enslaved until its time to get killed. As long as it can find food to eat, its satisfied with its life. Dogs, on the other hand, won't function properly on just being fed alone. They need some sort of interaction to remain sane. Now as humans, we're continuously evolving and developing our brains and bodies- humans of two thousand years ago were smellier, shorter, and far less intelligent than we modern humans. Even if not at first contact, I think we'd eventually be able to convince those far more intelligent aliens that we're a species capable of serving them, at the very least.

Yes, I have seen chickens and lions decoding human language.

My grandma kept chickens and named every single one of them. When she calls one to receive food, the others know its not their turn.

There's a circus I went to when I was a child. The ring master asked the lion if it was hungry, and the lion nodded its head. He then told the lion to open its mouth, which it did, and he put his head in it and the lion shut its mouth. After a short period, the ringmaster raised its hand, and the lion opened its mouth, released the man's head, gave out a very loud roar, and we all cheered in amazement that the lion did not eat the ringmaster.

Dogs survive very well in the wild without human interaction!

All living things evolve their 'brains'!

I think you think way too highly of humans, or too lowly of the "form of life more powerful and intelligent than our own" that considers you as dinner!

I can't help wonder why Africans were unable to convince those who enslaved them not to. Is it because the Africans hadn't evolved at the time and were "smellier, shorter, and far less intelligent than" the enslavers? Or perhaps the enslavers themselves were "smellier, shorter, and far less intelligent than" those they enslaved? Or don't you consider enslaving a person to be similar to my eating fish?

Your point holds though. We eventually were "able to convince those far more intelligent aliens that we're a species capable of serving them, at the very least" I suppose, or perhaps they knew we could serve them to begin with, I can't help but wonder.

BLESSMME:
It is a reality TV show and Religion is a reality. The various religion of people is what keeps them in check and gives them hope

I agree with GoodMuyis for once. BBN is full of satan, and you are just asking for some bible in it so you can justify watching trash! My tv is programmed not to show such nonsense. It says something about me if I am sitting there watching people sleep (at least that's one of the things they use to show on the 24 hour BB channel!)

Butterflyleo:
Well they do not mean the same thing to the rest of the world. A God is supreme while a god is lesser than God.

Which, "rest of the world"? They mean the same to me!

AnonyNymous:
Don't you think that would be confirming to them that we're 'primitive'? When a lion or some other wild animal is to be captured, the first thing it does is to attack. Imagine if lions made attempts at dialogue, lol. We'd have probably integrated them into our society

So, if fish fights you back when you catch it to eat, it's primitiveness (or your's) is somehow of significance?

Lion does not tend to do dialogue unless they are Lion King, then "munana mutata", or something like it. Nor do they generally wait for you to attack, not at least when they are hungry.

About integrating, have you ever killed a fowl or hen? You probably don't understand what it says, so you are not going to argue that it doesn't mean "please don't kill me for supper". Have you noticed how we integrate them into our mouths! Or would you argue that it does not make an attempt to dialogue?

4kings:
If we were to one day encounter a form of life more powerful and intelligent than our own, and it regarded us as we regard fish, what would be our argument against being eaten? - Jonathan Safran Foer

Can you answer this?

Cc: Seun DeepSight AnonyNymous Hopefullandlord plaetton Delishpot wirinet RaphieMontella Akintom Johnydon22 Teempakguy Wilgrea7 cloudgoddess Hahn Dalaman PastorAIO OtemAtum K9blunt LoJ budaatum Diybay and co

We wouldn't argue. I'd buy a gun and shoot it.

I see you're picking up a thing or two butter!

Butterflyleo:
Your OP says religious gods do not exist.
And I just showed you that they exist. If they are dead or not is inconsequential. They existed before and still exist in the minds of their followers as gods.

So they exist.

Just as my imaginary one million pounds exists in my mind DeLioncourt. Any luck with finding me a Ferrari salesman who'd sell me one for it?

Luke 2

My Father’s Business!

I am going to jump to verse 40 where it says Jesus grew and became strong and was filled with wisdom, as almost everything narrated to that point is enough to make this a work of fiction! In my opinion, the entire chapter suffers from the same embellishments that border on the absurd. But if it was not the case that one is asked by some to literally believe it, it would not matter that it does. Fortunately, that attitude towards scripture is not what is found amongst the majority, who today grow in wisdom and stature. I cannot lay claim to knowing what God makes of them though.

Jesus is described in this chapter by a certain Simeon as "a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel', which sounds to me like a salesman selling Judaism to the Romans. Perhaps that is why the Jews weren't buying it as he never came to sell it to them.

kovah:
no vex

When people do what you just done here, tears enter my eyes and I have to confess it. Thank you for being, good person.

MuttleyLaff:
Please my dear sir, kindly reproduce or repeat here the post where I said:
"... your anology of comparing air you can't see to a god or gods you can't see is incorrect"

I think a certain buda implied that the analogy comparing air to gods was incorrect.

budaatum:
I wonder why people compare air that one cannot see with an invisible non-phonomenal god. Everytime I see people do it, I just wonder if they have considered what they say. If I were to place you in an airproof room and sucked out all the so called 'invisible air', would you be in a position to claim because you did not see it to begin with that I was not sucking out anything?

Tell me what would happen to you if what I sucked out was god please?

One is invisible, while the other is a figment of the imagination!

kovah:
lmao I breathe in Oxygen o but not 100% Oxygen o

Oh good. I wouldn't want you to go believing vaxx by creating your own version of air that has no real oxygen in it!

MuttleyLaff:
Try and live on nitrogen, helium and whatever the other elements with the exception of oxygen
and lets see how long you'll last being alive without breathing in oxygen
and having its reactive quality break down your food molecules to give you energy

Kovah, are you trying to breath in your own 'real' air? Please oh, if its not got Oxygen in it, you will die of asphyxiation! And that's an absolute truth!

Continuations!

https://www.nairaland.com/4451394/atheism-god-does-not-exist/4#66929189

vaxx:
lol. i know when to stop an argument and this is the right time. maybe another one next time. thankfully i have passed my message. you may remain like this if you care.

Oh, you and I know that you will forever insist on trying to make me accept that your illusory 'real' is independently verifiable objective absolute truth while at the same time claiming truth is subjective and nothing is absolutely true!

vaxx:
I AM NOT INSULTING YOU, I JUST WANT YOUR MIND TO WORK BETTER. I AM CHALLENGING YOUR MENTAL CAPACITY.

You are insulting me actually, in post after post. But I am letting it fly. It says more about your position than it says about me.

It was you who introduced the idea of an 'absolute truth'. My own position is that things can be checked to determine if statements about them are true at specific places (Nigeria), or time (current). If you comprehended, you would have noticed the frames of reference by now, but no, you repeatedly focus on the twig you perceive in my eye without considering the forest growing in yours! And you want to claim relative difference when it is the frames of references that have changed!

vaxx:
The nature of Truth which we are discussing is an appearance – that is to say, what appears to be true to the human mind and therefore is human, and may be called illusion''.

See? There you go again with your insulting by trying to impose your reality on me!

If you refer to something as an "absolute truth", when we are having a discussion about objectivity and subjectivity, would it be wrong to assume that you do not mean by it, the subjective truth that I may cook up in my head, but the objectively verifiable discernable truth?

Please note that when I talk about any truth at all, I mean the objectively verifiable truth alone and of the type: "Buhari is the current president of Nigeria", and not some illusory statement that I cook up in my head like the false statement that, "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria", or the imaginary million pounds in my bank account!

Such illusions are not only objectively false, but to refer to them as subjectively true is oxymoronic at the very least, and meaningless!

kovah:
Obviously u want to put ur own perception on me to accept your own reality...Lol

There is no way to defend myself against this allegation, so I plead, guilty as charged.

You now see how my personal real perception might not be reality. And that in claiming it is, I might be deceiving you.

Please, if you know a Ferrari salesman who will accept that my perception is reality, do let me know. It will benefit me immensely if anyone agrees that my reality is real.

You kitchen sink throw these references about, but I wonder if you understand them at all, and that's if you read them in the first place.

"In its root meaning, then, phenomenology is the study of phenomena: literally, appearances as opposed to reality. This ancient distinction launched philosophy as we emerged from Plato’s cave."

A perception of truth defined by my own frame of reference, is at best a truth that is subjective to me. As soon as I claim my subjective truth is the objective truth, I expect you to insult me vaxx, and rightly so!

Do tell me if I am wrong.

vaxx:
Truth has a way if adapting to each ones prerogative. Your perception of truth is defined by your frame of reference. As your reference changes, so can your truth. little did budha know lion truth maybe difference from human truth even shark or my favorite dog. budaatum if you have been reading the links i post to you, you will not be repeating this fallacy. please before you make an attempt to reply me this time. go through this topic. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/. Anyway i like the analogy you used when you say (i am paraphrasing you)
the money you have in the bank is 1 and 0 in a computer'' cheers.

kovah:
real is based on perception ....Tell a blind man about his point of view...And tell him it's cannot be personal...Or tell a deaf name...His hearing of words is subjective truth or subjective reality...His perception of the world is his alone...

I do understand you kovah. My real is my reality. But my real might not correspond to reality itself, is my point, and claiming that "how I perceive the world, is exactly how it is", you might agree, is rather presumptiously arrogant of me, no?

I continously use the imaginary million pounds in my bank account with which I intend to buy a real spanking brand new red Ferarri. The imaginary million pound might, despite being imaginary, be real to me, and hence, a part of my reality. But I am having problems making the Ferrari salesman accept it as his reality too.

Surely, my real might not be reality, and I might be tripping?

Your subjectivity blinds you to the objective my man. And no, I am not done with you, nor do I need to be throwing stuff irrelevant to the discussion at hand to prove my point.

We are discussing objectivity and subjectivity. You claim, amongst various many other claims, that there is 'subjective truth', and that there are no 'absolute truths', another concept introduced by you. I take it to mean an individual can determine by themself if a statement is true or not. I therefore present you with a simple statement to test what you say, but you, knowing where it leads you, want to run away!

So I simply repeat, is the subjective statement "Buhari is the current president of Nigeria", a statement any rational minded person would claim is not objectively absolutely verifiably true today, 22 April 2018?

vaxx:
AM done on this blind argument, i will tolerate it again if i notice i will be exploring a new breath of knowledge from you. i cannot continue the argument i am not benefiting. it should not be only me presenting, it should be both of us. get yourself some book and better your understanding, i saw this flaw in you earlier even before i change your subjective perspective. IRE O

And please, I repeat, stop with the flawed spurious unfounded subjective statements!

kovah:
Reality is based on perception...A bed bugs perception is based on its feeding habits...A dog's perception is based on smell... Money in d bank Is based on perception....its ones and zeros on a computer...U don't have it physically but when u want it is there...We all have our reality.... Putting ur reality b4 others...or challenging others reality...Is saying they don't have a right to live or exist cos ur existence is d right one

This is the reason I argue subjectivity with vaxx!

Reality is not based on perception at all! For one, there is quite a lot of reality that is not perceived by anyone. The planets were after all real even though no one knew they existed! Or would you claim they suddenly came into existence when someone looked up at them? And one's ability to perceive itself might be so compromised so one doesn't clearly see.

What you are saying is personal is not necessarily reality as what is real cannot be personal alone. Let me suggest words like "one's perception", "point of view", "subjective reality", and even the obnoxious "subjective truth" as introduced to me recently, instead.

vaxx:
you lack comprehension? am done with you on this . maybe another one next time.

No I don't. I simply do not agree with you.

And yes, there will be a next time!

vaxx:
@budaatum, while i was giving you an academic references that was published under rigorous and scientific research , you are here honoring me with non substantial references from allaboutphilosphy and got question. mtcheew, this kick out your response, please use academia website for me next time. wikipedia or rational wiki is preferred if not universities journals.

What you posted does not claim truths do not exist. It purely gives a survey of views on the topic. And you might notice that I do not go about throwing irrelevant references at you. My point is a simple, "if there are no truths, why are you throwing what you claim is true at me?" Or aren't you?

Besides, the term, "absolute truths" was introduced by you when it suited you to do so. I gave a simple example, "Buhari is the current president of Nigeria". I also gave you an objective reason why it is true and you never gave anything back claiming it isn't!

So I simply repeat, is the statement "Buhari is the current president of Nigeria", a statement any rational minded person would claim is not objectively absolutely verifiably true today, 22 April 2018?

vaxx:
There is always more than enough error in your feedback, be careful next time , you are error free even if is small, this is is how you reject subjective evidence, not until i shown you a lot of theories telling how much fallacy you are making. this is another one again. According to an academic source. this is what relativism imply, '' Relativism, roughly put,

No one is arguing relativism with you! There is nothing relatively true about the statement Prince Harry being the current president of Nigeria!

And I never rejected subjectivity! But if by "subjective evidence", you mean subjective like "because I said so", then you must be tripping. So, in case I err, define " subjective evidence" please!

And I never said I was error free and have posted on here where the showerhead taught me the folly of aiming to be perfect! If you cared for the objective truth, I would tell you that my ability to ensure I am infallible is fallible.

vaxx:
if you were the type of person reading lot of philosophy articles, which i doubt, you would have find no mention of ‘absolute truths’ and no philosophers intent on demonstrating the existence or nonexistence of this apparent species of truth.

“Are you absolutely sure of that?”

I cringed when you introduced the idea of "absolute truth" vaxx, but decided not to hold you up on it in order to keep to the discussion at hand.

That said, I am amused that you who claims to read philosophy would not know that there is a lot of argument on the topic.

"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.

Absolute Truth vs. Relativism
While absolute truth is a logical necessity, there are some religious orientations (atheistic humanists, for example) who argue against the existence of absolute truth. Humanism's exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes." Humanists believe one should do, as one feels is right.

vaxx:
when i say there is no absolute true, this is what i am expressing.

– Anything that we take to be true is revisable
– We can never have a unique-eye’ view of the universe
– All truths are a matter of opinion
– Truth is relative (to culture, historical epoch, language, society etc.)
– All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths)
– There is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true

What you are claiming here is that everything is subjective! Yet, you yourself have, in our discussion claimed some things are objective! So which is it now, is everything subjective and objectivity is impossible, or can there be objectivity?

Do me a favour, stop peppering your comments with patronising and condescending statements. A person who claims to read philosophy should be able to philosophise without constantly patronising the person he philosophises with!

vaxx:
she will grow to become like this after years of consummation, she will definitely grow old.

that the new weapons you say in there will soon become old fashioned later as it cannot be new for life. so there is relativity in what they both saw but was not absolute.

There is a reason why I am careful when I write stuff, especially on forums. Experience has shown me that words can easily be misunderstood, especially by those who are hell bent on sticking to their positions irregardless of opposing evidence.

If I had 100 Naira in my pocket at 2pm on Saturday 21 April 2018, and spent half of it by 4pm that day. It is still absolutely true that I had 100 Naira in my pocket at 2pm on Saturday 21 April 2018 even though I had only 50 Naira by 4 pm that day. And there's nothing relative about it. Time just passed, and circumstances changed!

Prince Harry may one day become the president of Nigeria, but currently (and you may go back and see that I have been careful not to omit that word), it is an absolute objective verifiable truth to claim that Buhari is the current president of Nigeria, and Prince Harry is not. And by current, I mean today, 21 April 2018.

Please note that in my opinion, a person who claims that absolute truth is impossible has no basis on which to claim gods absolutely exist. Such a person would find it difficult to simply cross a road because they would never be certain they wouldn't get run over by the invisible non-existent approaching car! In fact, that person would not live very long at all!

What Ogun an Sango above saw is not relative, but observed at different times! Or perhaps the sekete they drank with their dinner went to their eyes!