₦airaland Forum

OkCornel:
How often do you post links? Mine was for posting a youtube video links on something about tithing...

And I posted that particular link on multiple threads...before I got slammed with a ban...

I think you were banned for spamming then. I treat this site like someone's home. I would not enter and throw my crap all over the place. I would find it disrespectful to myself if I behaved like a pig.

johnydon22:
I wanted to raise an argument later on the subjectivity or objectivity of morality and have a long discussion how objectivity in morality either must include or not necessarily include God or external influences to put a lid on that long standing argument.

Make sure its later. We need a proper understanding of the terms first. Did you follow the argument in the thread the first post is from? What do you understand by objectivity and subjectivity?

OkCornel:
They do...if you check your profile...you'll see the reason...

I guess I'll have to get banned. Those mods must really like me!

HappyPagan:
Lost my password. Couldn't retrieve it as I used a disposable email add for that account. How you dey, Brother? I see you are still fighting the Good fight.

Yeah, I'm here. Been catching fun lately finding I shouldn't take some people too seriously. Thankfully, once in a while, someone I can't fool comes along and I get lessoned.

OkCornel:
I noticed too... I was wondering if he (Sarassin) left nairaland...

As per posting of links...that stuff can earn ban from the mods... I had problems with that on my other moniker...

Welcome back...

I post links but have not been banned. Do the mods not communicate reasons for bans?

OkCornel:
Then you didn't watch the last video I posted on the thread... the test done by Richard Rives was done in that video...

As for the links on Richard Rives... I'm looking for references outside of wyattmuseum.com because most of what I've seen are from there and might have an element of bias in the...I need something independent and neutral...

OkCornel, it's not fair o! I told you I was waiting impatiently, still, days later, nothing! How long do you think this can hold on to my attention? Or were you hoping I would forget and not be reminded?

Please, when you do provide what I asked for, do include where it says anything that could possibly be taken to mean, "Richard Rives was a scientist".

HappyPagan:
Yeah. Went on pilgrimage to burn my soul. How you doing, shapeshifter?

SonofLucifer? You changed name? Welcome back.

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?

DeLioncourt:
you obviously still didn't understand what I typed the first two times.
It will be pointless explaining again

Do you realise that my response will have a particular meaning to you if you held the position that I do understand what you have written, and a different one if you think I do not understand? It's not at least that I have not bothered to express myself clearly, or is it? I do seriously take extra care to ensure all my letters are in the right and proper place you know, meaning exactly what I intend them to mean. After all, it's not like I can expect you to read my mind or anything like that, and since you are a non-believer, you would not be the sort to hold on to preconceived opinions (beliefs) about me now, or is butter correct in claiming a non-believer has to fill the vacuum and believe any odd things to replace a belief in gods? I rhetorically ask, you a "non-believing atheist", or a "non-believing believing atheist" like butter would rather paint you?

It is not pointless explaining to me. I believe that explaining to me is the most pointful conversation you will have today! I just need observe the competition, or have an inflated opinion about myself! Let me know which when the day is over!

DeLioncourt:
lmao... an atheist is already a non-believer...
you believe in fairy tales... that's why you get so angry when you're called out. You know in your heart that you may be wrong. lmao

I've heard that before, though it usually goes "the atheist knows in his or her heart that there is gods" (I think they mean the atheist is lying). As to your lmao, this is the point where you get an "e pain u" (though I do confess that I have to be lying myself to claim you are hurt when in reality, you laugh at me. Maybe e pain u deep down, no?)

I don't believe in fairy tales! And I am not wrong, least not in my opinion. Call me a Christian again and I will personally come over here and thunder fire my mouth!

DeLioncourt:
If your feasibility study is sound and you've done all your homework, your proposition should be able to withstand any scrutiny and not depend on religion or tribe or any other factors (except business related) to be approved.
Once you start hoping for religion to be a grounds on which your idea is accepted, that idea is most likely sub-standard and likely to fail.

Yeah, right, perfect me with my sound study. What do you take me for, a god? I really hate when people project their own view on things! But let me help you.

I, buda, categorically state, as I continously have, that there is an imaginary million pounds in my bank account with which I intend to buy a spanking brand new red Ferarri. I just haven't figured out yet how to convince the salesman that he has the money after I've given it him. Now if he's a believer, I can just tell him and he might believe. But if it's you, I better just keep to my current mode of walking I guess.

DeLioncourt, I insist that you should believe, if you are a Ferrari salesman or the investor who will invest in my imperfect, probably lazy put together business plan!

darkchild64:
a few 100 years ago in some parts of Nigeria Twins were considered as an abomination by the majority of the public,the religion on place also supported the killing of twins so going by what you said can we say that at that time since most people considered twins "UNNATURAL" that twin killing is justified ?

About a 50 years ago it was illegal to be gay in UK and some other countries, and up until recently they were ostracised. Now:

Scotland apologises for gay convictions

UK issues posthumous pardons for thousands of gay men

Nicola Sturgeon makes gay convictions apology

Justin Trudeau apologizes for Canada's program targeting LGBTQ civil servants

Maybe Nigeria too, will repent, one day.

I read your post, it made me laugh. I posted my appreciation of you making me laugh. Then I stated my position which is that "no one has the right to police what thoughts another holds in their heads!" Meaning, you have the right to your opinion. Which is the view that a person who wants to have privacy in their bedroom must hold, I think, and which is what you meant by "They're free to think whatever sick thoughts are in their heads or stick anything up their arseholes in private". I then said what the law is in some place. I never said you insulted anyone. You definitely didn't insult me!

I don't think I have comprehension problems. But I am willing to defer to your superior intellect if in your view I do have comprehension problems.

QuotaSystem:
Do you have comprehension challenges? This is a valid concern not an insult. Where did I state or even insinuate the bolded?

They're free to think whatever sick thoughts are in their heads or stick anything up their arseholes in private, but public displays of homosexualism is what is rejected and banned.

As for walking out, good luck to the lawyer trying to prove the motive of our walkout.

DeLioncourt:
smh.. you want to tell an investor that because you're a christian and he's a christian he should invest without a proper presentation of your business assessment? You're not a serious person.
You're akin to a fraudster.

Oh, and enough with the insults, you bloody non-believing atheist calling me Christian!

DeLioncourt:
that's where you get it all wrong. When u force a child to be an image of you, that child never really grows. that child wouldn't have dreams of his/her own. Religion aside, your child should have the freedom to a life of his/her own. You are there as a GUIDE and SUPPORT SYSTEM!!
Your child is not a canvas for you to draw out the plans you had for yourself... your child is not an avenue to live out your unfulfilled dreams!!!
Let your child make his/her own choices.
And I didn't say a child shouldn't know his/her parents. Read my statement again.

Why would you assume I don't understand what you're saying? Can a person not just have a different opinion to your own?

Listen you, it's my child. Are you not aware of how much stupid is out there? If I don't infect my child with my ideology, would society not infect it with their's for me? One day my child might come home and start telling me I am washed in the blood of something because I did not input a better doctrine into it! Then when I take it to the bottom of the river and bash its bastard head in (no child of mine is doing blood of anything, if I had anything to do with its conception!), I bet you would be the first to call me a child murderer!

Don't indoctrinate your child if you don't want to. Please don't make me have to bash mine's head in just because I neglected to mold it how I want mine to be! And I'm not talking force now! (Or do I have to tell you to "Read my statement again"?) I am guiding and supporting my child by inputting the doctrine I would like it to adhere to, is all. Is that really not what everyone does with their child, mold them into the image they want it to be, or at least, try to?

DeLioncourt:
smh.. you want to tell an investor that because you're a christian and he's a christian he should invest without a proper presentation of your business assessment? You're not a serious person.
You're akin to a fraudster.

No, not "proper presentation", I presented it well, its just that what I'm presenting requires a level of belief to work and a Christian person might not scrutinise it as much as you sound like you might.

QuotaSystem:
Society is not ignorant about the cause of homosexualism, but has decided to regulate/reject it, can the same be said of killing of twins in the 19th century?

I didn't know society wasn't ignorant about homosexuality! Educate me please, what has society decided causes homosexuality?

You bring me laugh. I'm calling you a bigot without intending it as an insult. As I said in a previous, no one has the right to police what thoughts another holds in their heads!

Walking out on him though?! You could have been sanctioned for contravening the Equality Act 2010 in UK!

QuotaSystem:
I have already stated my position on this matter;



I have had cause to come across gays severally especially while I was at Uni. We had an officially registered LGBT society (lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transexuals) and two of my lecturers were married gay partners (interestingly the 'wife' was a Nigerian from Bayelsa) and we were seriously warned by the university authorities that discrimination would be severely punished, because for instance, we African students totally refused to accept and identify with the 'wife' whenever he tried to attend our Africa Development Society meetings and actually walked out on him once which he reported, while he was desperately seeking acceptance with his African brothers. In another instance there was a society awards dinner and we (ADS) were to share the same table with LGBT society exco members; we didnt last 5 minutes on that table or touch the free food. I have had so many other encounters of such but those are not for this thread.

The point I'm making here is that while I have learned to accept individual differences regarding sexuality, it does not mean I will tolerate it being flaunted in my face because it remains a cultural and religious anomaly where I'm from.

zombieTRACKER:
Who is the brother

His name is Rotimi.

zombieTRACKER:
Am saying they can do whatever they want in the confines of their house and leave kids out of it
Going extra mile to raise a child is a no no for me...
You can't imagine how confused and lost this particular child would be....
The society has enough ills to deal with already


I don't need to grab the child off them because I know it's against The law.... The police will do that

I guess it depends what country you're in. Studies do not agree that children of gay couples are "confused and lost" by the way.

Gggg102:
whose attributes and nature are determined by subjective reasoning without any scientific way of proving.

A figment of the imagination created in his mind.

justtoodark:
something is wrong with you....

this is against black traditions to be gay or whatever....

go ahead....try it....

You see this guy? He was gay. Nigerian too. You probably never heard of him, but I bet you know of his brother.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Wikirotimi.jpg/425px-Wikirotimi.jpg


"I make my pictures homosexual on purpose. Black men from the Third World have not previously revealed either to their own peoples or to the West a certain schocking fact: they can desire each other."

zombieTRACKER:
Couldn't have said it any better

I can't stand a sight of two males holding a child on the street and calling him or her theirs... It's not homophobic

A spade is a spade is a spade......

It sounds homophobic to me, but to be honest, who cares what anyone thinks. If a person can ask you to keep your nose out of their bedroom surely you can tell them to keep out of the thoughts in your head!

Please tell me you don't go grab the child off them though.

Any Muslims here still recite this?

superhumanist:


A spirit that is beyond time and space.

The two very items needed by science to measure/prove things

An uncaused immovable scientific spirit.

DeLioncourt:
Lol
Yes you have given choice...but you haven't been objective. At the end of the day, you still trick the child into making the choice that suits you.
And No,your child isn't supposed to be an image of you.
Your child is his/her own person and should be allowed to create his/her own identity.

Ehn? My child, conceived with a dik, out of my very own toto would not be an image of me? God forbid that my child be a bastard not knowing its parent! Or are you just trying to trick me?

If I don't indoctrinate my child into an image of me, I bet you are waiting in the wings somewhere to make my child an image of yourself, you my child's image thief!

I swear to god, I will tattoo my doctrine to my child's forehead. That should make it impossible for you to fill it with yours!

DeLioncourt:
Lmao. But hell doesn't exist!
As I said earlier, the creator of an idea is the one to provide evidence as to his claims.
The man with the business plan is the one to convince the investor that the plan is feasible.
If you claim that your business plan is backed by spiritual forces, only a gullible individual will buy into the idea... When it fails, you can always do as religious people do...attribute it to a greater plan in the works.

Lol!

Oh lord god, when I take my next business plan to investors, do not let this bloody atheist be the one advising him or her. Please make sure the investor and the adviser are believers so that the spirits in my business plan work! Ami.

superhumanist:
lol....your op is self refuting. There is nothing scientific about your God.

After all, you have forgotten that you clearly claimed that God is fully a spirit?


When does science prove spirits?

Butter's god must be a scientific spirit.

wirinet:
So in effect you are telling us that voyeger is travelling from the earth to the sun? What is the distance of the earth to the sun and what is the distance of voyeger 2 right now? Are you on drugs or there are deeper issues?

Erm, excuse me please, but is he not saying Voyager 2 is travelling from the earth to the earth?

I think if you checked carefully, you will find it is travelling at Warp 9!

Vaxx, I've moved us here. By now I'm sure you realise you and I are going to be flogging this horse for a long time to come, so, from now on, if you don't mind, lets always return to this thread.

Yes, "objectivity is an ideal for science". Unfortunately, science is done by individuals (subjects), with perspectives. It is these perspectives that introduce the subjective into science, and while we might idealise and claim we are perfect, surely, we can only be lying! The article from Stanford states it as "several conceptions of the ideal of objectivity are either questionable or unattainable".

"The prospects for a science providing a non-perspectival “view from nowhere” or for proceeding in a way uninformed by human goals and values are fairly slim, for example."

That, though is not to claim objectivity is impossible, but that if there is no objectivity (or if it is subjective) then it cannot be scientific.

Our discussion itself, is skewed by our subjective understandings, for has the Stanford article not been brought up to justify my position too at some time in the past when discussing this same subject?

vaxx:
Your definition is limited in scope, in philosophy of science , Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered as an ideal for scientific inquiry, as a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and as the basis of the authority of science in society(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/). while subjectivity in philosophy is divided into thee definition, it Three common definitions include that subjectivity is the quality or condition of:Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.Something being a subject, broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity).

Butterflyleo:
Thank you buda for constantly helping me bump the thread

You wished this went the way you thought but I am sure you were positively shocked to see that nobody could defeat the OP so this infuriates you enough to personally want to believe what you are posting as you bump the thread.

However my question remains.

Is there no atheist who is able to refute the OP?

I never wished anything, but believe what you may. The objective evidence is that in between your erroneous logic, vaxx and I were able to hold a discussion with minimum insults even though we could not agree. That's all I wish for so I'm happy.

As to bumping your thread, you're welcome. I know it meant that much to you.

I'm done, for now. I am going forward with the assumption that you understand what I mean when I use the words objective and subjective. I understand what you mean, and thank you for exploring the issue.

vaxx:
Your definition is limited in scope, in philosophy of science , Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered as an ideal for scientific inquiry, as a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and as the basis of the authority of science in society(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/). while subjectivity in philosophy is divided into thee definition, it Three common definitions include that subjectivity is the quality or condition of:Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.Something being a subject, broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity).