Budaatum's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Budaatum's Profile › Budaatum's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 (of 1631 pages)
 Politics › Re: The Late Nelson Mandela Was Against Homophobia by budaatum: 7:54pm On Apr 18, 2018*. Modified: 9:41am On Jun 20, 2018 |
Opinionated:Hey, its ma bodi naw! If me want take off mi clothe and dance in di market, se na ur bodi I de take dance? Call me animal, or unintelligent, if you wish but a persons poker is a persons poker and if they wish to poke it in poo its really none of your poking business, in my opinion, least as long as I'm not breaking any laws, and you can't catch me! Some people have to learn to not go overboard in their attempt to save others from going to hell! |
| Politics › Re: The Late Nelson Mandela Was Against Homophobia by budaatum: 6:22pm On Apr 18, 2018 |
darkchild64:And that's what you should have said in the beginning, though better still is to ignore them. Personally, I sympathise with homophobic people, and I understand their fear. Homosexuality is contagious, as one person cannot be gay by oneself. The homophobics fear is that if homosexuals freely walk the street, they might infect the homophobic just by contact, and one day, after years of other gender poking they suddenly find they are bent over for same gender poking! It is unfortunate however that their fear, that homosexuality is contagious, is groundless, but this wouldn't be the first time people fear that what others do condemns them too. Some 'believing in gods' people fear that if non-believers are allowed to dwell amongst them, their gods might burn everyone or turn everyone into salt! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: DISCUSSION: YHWH (jewish) And Enki (epic Of Gilgamesh) Who Is Older? by budaatum: 4:16pm On Apr 18, 2018 |
OkCornel:Links would do. I wait, rather impatiently. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: DISCUSSION: YHWH (jewish) And Enki (epic Of Gilgamesh) Who Is Older? by budaatum: 3:16pm On Apr 18, 2018 |
PastorAIO:You have done well enough over the years and I thank you immensely for it. You research deeply before commenting and it shows in what you write. And no, its not the case that one agrees with everything you write, just that one can be sure you wouldn't be writing it without justification or to justify an invalid position, as some tend to do. Please know that you do not go unnoticed. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: DISCUSSION: YHWH (jewish) And Enki (epic Of Gilgamesh) Who Is Older? by budaatum: 3:07pm On Apr 18, 2018 |
I'm going to ask for one more favour before I respond. Can you please post some opinions about Richard Rives and the WYATT Archaeological research team? Is the team related to a Ronald Eldon Wyatt (2 June 1933 – August 4, 1999)? P.s. I was not complimenting. I was stating an objective fact. His post over the years show my trust in his opinion is warranted. OkCornel: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 11:54am On Apr 18, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: Gggg102: 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 3:00am On Apr 18, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: Gggg102: 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 2:15am On Apr 18, 2018*. Modified: 2:59am On Apr 18, 2018 |
I guess we aren't making as much progress as I hoped, so let me start with a definition An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false. ... A subjective claim, on the other hand, is not a factual matter; it is an expression of belief, opinion, or personal preference. vaxx:You must be confusing even to yourself. What objective evidence would you find to support the statement "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria"? Is it not simply my objective opinion? Is it a valid claim? Any claim is subjective. You scrutinise it, find evidence, then you claim it is objective. If there is no objective evidence to support it, it remains subjective, at best. vaxx:Agreed. But before verification, it is my subjective opinion. It is only on scrutiny that we can determine if it is objective as well. My statement "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria", remains subjective until subjected to scrutiny. If objective evidence is found to support it, then and only the can it become an objective statement. vaxx:I don't know why you chose to write "subjective analyses". Its a new introduction by you! Subjective statements, on the other hand, can be subjected to scientific scrutiny! My subjective statement "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria", is scientifically scrutinised by asking the Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria who the current president is! It will be objectively falsified of course, but we only know this by subjecting it to scrutiny. All science discoveries start with the scientist forming an opinion which by nature is subjective. They would then observe empirical (objective) evidence which would verify or falsify their opinion. In effect, science can be called the process of objectifying subjective opinion. vaxx:Agreed. Any statement that objective evidence cannot support is subjective, period. vaxx:There is a scientific method to measure half a litre of water in a glass that holds one litre. If I get you to measure the water in the glass when it is full, you will find it to be the objective one litre, and if I measure out half of that, you will find it to contain half a litre of water so it is essentially objectively half full of water and half empty. But I'll admit its hair splitting. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 6:33pm On Apr 17, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: Gggg102: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: DISCUSSION: YHWH (jewish) And Enki (epic Of Gilgamesh) Who Is Older? by budaatum: 4:13pm On Apr 17, 2018 |
OkCornel:Yes, give his name. Meanwhile, below is a response to a post on that video. PastorAIO:Please note that PastorAIO has through the last 10 years given me sufficient reason to explicitly trust his opinion. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: DISCUSSION: YHWH (jewish) And Enki (epic Of Gilgamesh) Who Is Older? by budaatum: 3:25pm On Apr 17, 2018 |
OkCornel:How is it possible to make a video full of lies? I'll let you ponder that. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: DISCUSSION: YHWH (jewish) And Enki (epic Of Gilgamesh) Who Is Older? by budaatum: 3:02pm On Apr 17, 2018 |
OkCornel:Can you now see why I said I wouldn't waste my time watching your video? You need to realise that you have form of throwing up conspiracies and asking them to be believed even after evidence that refutes your conspiracies is presented! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Slashing Of Redeemed Pastor Salary Because The Church Is Not Growing Is It Right by budaatum: 2:38pm On Apr 17, 2018 |
sonofthunder:Thanks for the permission. It's much appreciated. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 1:49pm On Apr 17, 2018 |
Gggg102:He knew that from the start. His intention was not to prove anything but to drag you round and round with his nonsense without listening to a single word thrown at him. You just watch now how many times he attempts to revive this thread! 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Slashing Of Redeemed Pastor Salary Because The Church Is Not Growing Is It Right by budaatum: 1:41pm On Apr 17, 2018 |
sonofthunder:Diversion? My bad. It is not my expectation that the vast number of churches in Nigeria will all survive as people's eyes will eventually open and they will drag their gods out of the buildings and into their hearts where it would be used to love their fellow human beings. You did see the thread where churches in UK were being shut down, no? It would be naive to think Nigerians will continue to buy what their churches sell them. We will not be fooled forever. Again, sorry about the diversion. It was not intended to obscure my glee. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Slashing Of Redeemed Pastor Salary Because The Church Is Not Growing Is It Right by budaatum: 3:37am On Apr 17, 2018 |
Klimaths:I usually ask for evidence but I doubt you would make this up. We will find out if you have lied, and it will severely ruin your reputation. There is no way you could be so stupid! And no, I do understand how it might not be so simple as just posting the letter on here. So, it would seem to me that RCCG is going through the same hardship that First Bank is going through except that while FB sends a txt sacking staff, RCCG is cutting pay in half. Times must be getting hard. I knew that Daddy Freeze was spoiling business! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Studies Has Shown That The Most Religious Countries Are The Poorest by budaatum: 3:19am On Apr 17, 2018 |
nwabekeyi:No, Qatar is not a member of G anything, or 'power', but they are one of the richest per capita, and I think, highly religious too. Kind of goes against the op, don't you think? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 3:13am On Apr 17, 2018 |
vaxx:Good, some progress at last! Subjective views, as in one's personal opinion, can be verified or falsified objectively, however. It is my subjective opinion that 'Buhari is the current president of Nigeria'. It just so happens that my subjective opinion in this case, can be objectively verified to be true, while my, also subjective statement, that Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria, can be objectively falsified. Both can be said to be my subjective opinions. It just so happens that when we subject both statements to analysis, one corresponds to reality, it is supported by objective fact regardless of my personal opinion, while the other doesn't and has no objective evidence to support its validity. To borrow your words, "scientific analysis to identify an object, measure, quantify or qualify for various parameters and confirm the result", in either case. vaxx:No, not true. Read the above again. Both statements of mine about the current president of Nigeria are my subjective view. Both can "be subjected to scientific analysis" and will be verified or falsified with the objective evidence, as in evidence not based on my opinion, like asking the Attorney General of Nigeria who the current president of Nigeria is. vaxx:Not so simple I am afraid. Yes, "objective is independent of subject", but statements about things are always subjective, its just that some subjective statements can also be objective, (i.e. if they correspond to objective facts), or not, (i.e. if there is no Attorney General to ask or any other external evidence to objectively test for validity). And that is the complexity of objectivity and subjectivity. It is not some thing on a straight line scale with objectivity on one end, and subjectivity on the other end of the scale. One could indeed argue that a glass half full or half empty is subjective opinion. However, it can also be objective that a glass is half full and half empty if the case is such that it contains half of what it can contain. A glass that can take one litre of water is half full and half empty if only half a litre is accurately measured and poured into the glass. We can measure it objectively to verify whether our subjective opinion is valid. A statement is said to be subjective in as much as it is one made by an individual, the subject. It can be a true statement or a false one. A statement is said to be objectively true if evidence outside the subject corresponds to it, i.e. the statement, 'Buhari is the current president of Nigeria', is a statement subject to me, but also objectively verifiable by asking the Attorney General, and if he agrees, we can say it is objectively true. There is no objective evidence to validate the equally subjective statement that 'Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria'. We can objectively test It of course, by asking the Attorney General, but if he says it is not so, we would claim it is a subjective statement that is objectively false. Einstein and Newton made subjective observations. They then looked at the objective evidence, which is what scientists rely on, and it corroborated their subjective opinion. Regardless of who looks at the evidence, they will come to the same conclusions they both came to. This is what the scientific method is based on and why there is an insistence on peer reviews. Newton's error was simply in assuming that the way things work on earth is how they work all over the universe, which is not so much the case, as subsequent examination showed. Newton's laws are still valid within the parameters of earth. Phew! You sure make me work for it vaxx! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Studies Has Shown That The Most Religious Countries Are The Poorest by budaatum: 3:51pm On Apr 16, 2018 |
Thanks op. It's unfortunate that African countries top the religiosity list and are the poorest nations. America though is right in the middle and is said to be the richest, while China is said to be the least religious (which isn't true), and is not the richest either. For comparison, a search for richest countries per capita reveals the following: These are the richest countries in the world per capita. United Arab Emirates ($68,250) ... Kuwait ($69,670) ... Norway ($70,590) ... Ireland ($72,630) ... Brunei ($76,740) ... Singapore ($90,530) ... Luxembourg ($109,190) ... Qatar ($124,930) The small Middle Eastern country often ranks as one of the richest countries in the world per capita. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 2:53pm On Apr 16, 2018*. Modified: 3:16am On Apr 17, 2018 |
vaxx:Are you trying to educate me on objectivity and subjectivity? 1. There is nothing objective about saying "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria". There is no evidence to support it. It is at best, a subjective lie, as in, one made up by a subject, myself, with no external objective evidence to support it! He may be the president in the future, but my original statement intentionally included the word "current" because I know you have a tendency to shift ground as you did. 2. While the statement, "Buhari is the current president 3. I once proposed the further scrutiny of H2O, which you claimed required no further scrutiny, so who are you arguing with about not scrutinising things? Even further scrutiny of gods, be it Yahweh or Olodumare is acceptable to me because what may seem like absolute truth about them may turn out, and usually does turn out not to be true on further scrutiny. But before you go off on one again, I am not advocating an infinite regression of scrutiny! Once the Attorney General confirms who the current president is, there is no point in further seeking for who the current president is unless a different 'current' occurs, like say in the year 2030! And neither am I not advocating no scrutiny at all, of, and most especially where gods are concerned, as I have found they are usually used to fill the gap when people don't really know. Ps. I ask not that you read my response to yours above, but read your own last response. I propose that while it may make sense to you, try reading it objectively, devoid of your subjective meaning, and tell me what you make of it. Do you think it can be understood as clearly as you may understand it? 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 9:02pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Gggg102, thanks for engaging with butter on this thread. Know that there are many reading and learning. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 7:48pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
vaxx:Some claims are untrue. An example is, 'Prince Harry is the current President of Nigeria', and it does not matter how strongly I, in my subjective right, make that statement, it is untrue, and everyone knows it to be untrue. Yet, as you claim, truth is subjective, even though you will probably claim Prince Harry is most certainly not the current President of Nigeria. And I might have difficulty providing objective evidence to prove it is a true and valid statement if you were to ask me for evidence to collaborate my assertion. Surely, both our contradicting statements regarding whether Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria or not cannot be true. So how is truth subjective in this case especially when it fails to correspond to objective reality? Now look at the statement "Muhammad Buhari is the current president of Nigeria". It's still my subjective opinion, but I can provide objective evidence, like a statement from the Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, confirming it is true. Or would that not be objective enough for you? vaxx:Oh my! I think you mistake 'parameter' to mean something else! No one is suggesting they are fixed. However, we fix them in order to take measurements or make observations. This is the same error I tried pointing out in your driver analogy. You fixed the parameter as "permission was required from another driver, who required permission from another driver ad infinitum". Then you complain that the driver never gets to drive since another driver's permission will constantly have to be sought. If you wanted a driver to drive, why set up the parameter in the first place? It is the same error butter makes in claiming all effects have a cause. If all effects have a cause, how come you nullify that statement with the exception. Once you have, it makes the initial statement "all effects have a cause", invalid, since by his own admission, at least one effect, god, has no cause. Now, take the following statement about Gravity, the universal force of attraction acting between all matter: On Earth all bodies have a weight, or downward force of gravity, proportional to their mass, which Earth’s mass exerts on them. Gravity is measured by the acceleration that it gives to freely falling objects. At Earth’s surface the acceleration of gravity is about 9.8 metres (32 feet) per second per second. Thus, for every second an object is in free fall, its speed increases by about 9.8 metres per second. The 'parameter', which is the limit or boundary which defines the scope of a particular process or activity (gravity in this case), is 'Earth'. Basically, on 'Earth', 'gravity is about 9.8 metres per second per second'. Now read the following: At the surface of the Moon the acceleration of a freely falling body is about 1.6 metres per second per second. Different 'parameter' - the moon, different measurement of gravity - 1.6 metres per second per second. vaxx:What "absolute truth" are you referring to exactly? Using your words, it is an absolute truth that gravity is the universal force of attraction acting between all matter. It is incontrovertible, and a truth that has been extensively determined. Its actual quantity, which is location dependent, as opposed to person dependent, while not constant everywhere, is not subjective at all. No one can stand on the moon and claim a gravitational force of 9.8 metres per second per second and hope to be taken seriously! Not by people with brains, at least! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 6:24pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
superhumanist:Funny enough, people fail to want to consider that something must have existed for it to go bang, and which might have at that very point formed the universe as we know it. And even that which existed prior to the bang we know of itself might have come about from an even previous bang of what existed prior to that point. And who's to say that what existed prior to the bang that was prior to the bang we know of itself didn't come into existence by prior bangs ad infinitum? But no, in our arrogance we exclude that possibility and insert a godthingy in the gap instead. It wouldn't really be a problem if the god people admit they are just filling in gaps of the unknown, and if they didn't ask that those bangs be worshipped! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 5:34pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
vaxx:You keep making this erroneous claim, with no evidence to support it. Personally, I wish it were true. I could subjectively tell the Ferrari salesman I have a million pounds in my bank account, write a cheque and drive out of the showroom with a brand spanking new red Ferrari. The fact is that things we know, and call 'knowledge' - if you mean, "facts that are valid", in that they are statements that "correspond to reality" - are not dependant on an observer. If they, any statement made by anyone would be true if they claimed it was. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 5:23pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
The level of stupidity we resort to when we have nothing intelligent to say is just sad, and if there weren't a devil intending to derail any seeds of progress by our discussions we sure create one ourselves in the attempt to hold on to illogical positions. Ops thread set up a basis for intelligent discussion, except that he was rather ill prepared to defend his position once questioned and resorted to his usual underhandedness once accosted. Below is [url=httpbutter.iep.utm.edu/hume/]David Hume[/url] in his An Understanding of Human Knowledge, dealing with the same issues this thread posed, though, since we seem to lack the ability to comprehend our simple use of words, Hume's is likely to fly over the heads of some. In a word, if we proceed not upon some fact present to the memory or senses, our reasonings would be merely hypothetical; and however the particular links might be connected with each other the whole chain of inferences would have nothing to support it, nor could we ever, by its means arrive at the knowledge of any real existence. If I ask you why you believe a particular matter of fact which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner in infinitum, you must at last terminate with some fact which is present to your memory or senses or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation. (Hume 1955 [1748], pp. 59–60) It can be seen that butter has decided to opt for the latter, 'terminate with some fact present to his own senses', rather than admit his belief is entirely without foundation. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 2:23pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Butterflyleo:Ban me please. It would be much better than the torture you must be going through justifying this thread! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 2:19pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
(In borrowing from a previous post, I might have modified the original in error!) Are you just failing to recognise rules set by you? In either scenario, if permission is required, driver or soldier has no choice but to seek it. And if it means no shooting or driving is done, so be it. The stupidity of such as system where permission is sought ad infinitum is the sole reason we don't set things up that way and set a limit on how many permissions would be required. However, op has set up such a system with his statement "Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect", but which he wants to get out of by claiming, "except god". And the only evidence he has for such a claim is his say so! And this he calls scientific! Does he not understand that therefore means some, and not the every that he claims? Oh, I guess his argument falls apart if he admits that! Seriously, on that basis, I wonder why one should bother claiming god done it. He might as well claim he is the first permission, except we'd probably all say he's mad, has a demon in him, and crucify his black ass! vaxx: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 3:38am On Apr 15, 2018 |
Butterflyleo:If this were true, I wonder then why you then attempt to use "empirical proofs [sic] limited to this universe" to prove a thing "exists OUTSIDE our universe". Have you just not, in one more swoop amongst many, proved that your thread is baseless, and just pointless clickbait? 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 3:05am On Apr 15, 2018*. Modified: 3:28am On Apr 15, 2018 |
vaxx:One can justify anything one wants if one tried hard enough. Some people justify blowing up those who don't believe what they believe, for instance, but not many would agree with their justification now, or would we? The fact is that one's justifications can be based on one's subjective viewpoint, which basically amounts to "because I said so", and which is what butter is attempting to do on here. He is bound to hit against someone else's subjective "because I said so too", as he seems to have done. It is the reason we ask for evidence beyond "because I said sos"! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 2:51am On Apr 15, 2018 |
vaxx:I do get your analogy vaxx, it just doesn't make sense. You say I need permission from another driver who in turn needs permission from another driver till infinity. If that is the case, then we'd just have to keep asking permission from another driver till we give up and just find another means of getting to where we want to get to. And that will apply as long as we continue to need the permission of another driver. If however, at some point of asking another driver, I can get tired of asking another driver and just jump in the car and drive it, then I mustn't have needed the permission in the first place and shouldn't have bothered with the rule to begin with. So which is it, do I need any permissions to drive the car or could I just say "to hell with it", jump in the car and drive off? What I'm saying is, write clearly so you can be understood! 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 11:39pm On Apr 14, 2018 |
Butterflyleo:I guess you've just about summed it up nicely. I can't help but smh. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 11:37pm On Apr 14, 2018 |
Butterflyleo:Are you seriously not directing the above to yourself? |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 (of 1631 pages)