₦airaland Forum

hopefulLandlord:
how did this guy become atheist

This dude was a strong apologetic. If anything, his case clearly shows that we aren't wasting our time when we engage others on this forum.

Logic's not dead.

KingEbukasBlog:
I told you that its not clear when it started . Here's an article stating that it was from second century BC
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-3215570/The-tradition-atheism-India-goes-2-000-years-m-proud-that.html

One thing is clear : The Charvaka boys made atheism popular because their atheism was rabid

First, I would rather pick the dating suggested by a scholarly source published by the University of Hawaii (one of the sources of that particular citation) than an opinion piece on Daily Mail.

The second point was never the concern of my argument. Debating that would only further detail the thread.

analice107:
Don't understand you pls.

The first part was just me poking fun at the comment that said masturbation for clinical reasons was wrong because it would involve the consumption of pornographic material, where the models would perform sexual acts.

The second one was a legitimate question to know the conditions under which it can be performed guiltlessly.

KingEbukasBlog:
They started around second century BC , some say its between the 3rd and 4th century - its not clear . The rebellion by the Charvaka materialist school against the Braham priests was the springboard that led to the beginning non theistic religions like Jainism , Buddhism in India .

The Carvaka (or Charvaka) philosophy is dated to 6th century BCE. Your assertion is false.

KingEbukasBlog:


I'm serious bro . Read my latest comment to Jonbellion . Try to see my point . We have derailed this thread enough .

What about Jainism? What about the Carvakha?

KingEbukasBlog:
This is far the dumbest comment I've read in my entire life . Ignorance has eaten you up .

I know it's hard to about that you've goofed. I just hope you never use this argument again.

KingEbukasBlog:
Atheism was invented by a rebellious ignorant man during the 5th and 6th BC century . Why haven't you dumped it yet ?

This is my far the dumbest comment I've read in my entire life. And I occasionally use 4chan.

Thou hast become a troll unto thyself.

SSSSNAKE LIVESSSS MATTER!!!!

Join the resisssstance!!

proudafrogal:
thanks for expanding my knowledge. I just searched "furry tentacle alien hentai"

so people do jerk off to that? it's weird

- a 15 year old male virgin
- looking to relieve stress
- starts off with vanilla stuff
- doesn't quite cut it after the first 13 views
- decides to move on to stranger stuff
- repeat the two previous steps a couple of times
- voila! You've become a perverted deviant

Pidgin2:
As to your question, won't they give him pornographic materials to view so that he can get aroused? The photos he looks at to get an erection are not his spouse's image, they belong to other women so he has committed a sexual act with the image of a woman he's not married to

Ok, what if he only uses furry tentacle alien hentai?

Edit: But seriously though, is there any situation that it would be ok?

hfeetham0:
ape don't say bye.. they hop right to left...

All humans are apes, FYI.

KingEbukasBlog:
Its like you atheists and your repulsive obsession with God whom you claim does not exist

Do you get the whole picture now ?

The effects of religious indoctrination are obvious in the psychological, social, and most importantly, legal processes of our country. I mean, the penal code practised in the North is based on Sharia law.

Homosexuality does not affect people who aren't involved. The obsession with it is unfounded. It also doesn't help that a lot of American anti-LGBT activists have had their Grindr accounts exposed.

KingEbukasBlog:
How do you know that the kidnapped man is not gay ? Are you gay since you are criticizing homophobic people ?

Immaterial. I don't feel the need to point out how straight I am, since I'm sure of myself.

That is exactly why I don't consume gay pornography.

It's a very simple thing, if I say I hate anime, a friend can ask me why I have 200Gb worth of it on my PC. Likewise, if homosexuality was so abhorrent to us, then why are we more interested in their sex than USA where it is legal?

KingEbukasBlog:
Since the gay rights advocates aren't necessarily gay , then people who searched 'gay sex' don't necessarily support homosexuality .

How do you know? Is that what you do? Do you search 'gay sex' for research purposes?

KingEbukasBlog:
Its not special pleading . Its only a logical inference that affirms the existence of God . Just like the moral argument , the Cosmological Argument etc. You only draw the logical conclusion which is God's existence .

GB uses an argument by elimination. What could cause my sensory ideas? Here are possible causes : other ideas, myself, or some other spirit. The first option which is 'other ideas' is eliminated with a new argument :

1. Ideas are passive - there are no activities in them
2. But because of the mind-dependent status of ideas, they cannot have any characteristics which they are not perceived to have.
3. Therefore , ideas have no causal power

Option 2 is eliminated with the observation that although I can cause some ideas at will Example Stan Lee caused the idea of Spider Man which is imaginary, there are sensory ideas which are involuntary; they present themselves whether I wish to perceive them or not and I cannot control their content . Example : The primary and secondary properties of your mobile device

We are now left with option 3 which is that my sensory ideas must be caused by some other spirit , the creator of our sensory ideas. This creator must be eternal and infinite in other to create and sustain the complexity and orderliness of our sensory ideas . The argument is on the creator of our sensory ideas which are involuntary ,presenting themselves whether they are perceived or not .

Option three is still problematic. It completely dispels the reasoning that perception is necessary for existence by assuming that a mind must be eternal and infinite to perceive the universe, which is finite itself. This amounts to a non-sequitur, there is no logical progression between the two and you are using God as an arbitrary break in the logic flow.

In other words, if your argument (that perception is necessary for existence) is true, it invariably leads to an infinite regress. Therefore, your argument is necessarily false.

KingEbukasBlog:
God is eternal

This is known as the special pleading fallacy. Your own argument states that perception is necessary for existence, it is illogical to suspend the principle behind your own argument to conclude that God exists.

Why would you get your foreign news from Vangaurd Nigeria?

The CNN report days that a disgruntled former employee of Fiamma Inc., Orlando, Florida shot and killed five employees.

His name was John Robert Neumann Jr.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/us/orlando-fatalities/index.html?adkey=bn

It's sad that everyone jumped to start insulting Muslims without even fact-checking.

Fvck fake news!

Amberon11:
Who is talking about the ability to think or retain memories? Dude, we are talking about sentience and plants have that ability.

That is clearly untrue, how can an organism be sentient without the ability to subjectively interprete sensory input and emotion? Plants and early-stage foetuses do not have that ability. They simply lack the physiological equipment necessary for such.

Furthermore, even after the foetus can develops sentience, the woman carrying the baby still has total agency over her body. Therefore, carrying a baby to term should be her decision.

Amberon11:
Fetuses have sentience, even plants do. That premise holds no water.

That's totally false, plants can sense Anna respond to stimuli. They do not have the ability to think or retain memories. They also lack a central nervous system. Get your facts right.

Amberon11:
Congenital insensitivity to pain or congenital analgesia is a condition in which a person cannot and has NEVER felt pain in their entire lives.

So should we kill them too based on your premise?

I'm quite sure that fully-fledged humans have sentience. Which you totally ignored, of course,

KingEbukasBlog:
King Ebuka : And there's where God comes in , the ultimate perceiver of all things , a divine mind which exists eternally and sustains everything we perceive . And even if we are not there to perceive these things that existed before us , the mind of God is there to perceive them . All realities are created and perceived in the mind of God . (To be is to be perceived )

You didn't see this coming , did you?

CoolUsername :

Let's not get ahead ourselves, here. First, you haven't accounted for how perception impacts reality in anyway.

Secondly, by your own logic, God can't possibly exist, as there would have been nothing to perceive it before the creation of reality.

KingEbukasBlog:
Good question . It is a popular objection to George's idealism : how can we tell the difference between real and things that are imaginary . I was expecting that anyway . Imaginary things depend on our will as humans . They exist because we want them to exist . If Stan Lee hadn't thought of Spider Man , there wouldn't have been a Spider Man . Things that are real are made up of only ideas of sense. And ideas of sense follow laws of nature . The salient feature of anything real is that it has order and occur in regular patterns . We perceive real things because of their order and coherence but our minds can create imaginary objects .

I don't think I can get behind this logic, before the invention of the microscope, there was no sensory information on microbes. That wouldn't have stopped them from existing, would it? Evolutionarily speaking, are we going to say that the Universe didn't exist until humans developed brains capable of thinking? That's completely illogical. Without perception the only thing missing is our own subjective knowledge/experience of an object or idea. I think Berkeley's assertion falls into the same problem that most ontologies fall into, in that they don't add new information to an argument.

KingEbukasBlog:
Sorry mind-dependent . Thanks for pointing that out



Perceptions , opinions , beliefs , thoughts about anything concrete or abstract . Like I described abstract objects as ideas in God's mind .

I feel that the premise of the argument is flawed in the sense that it equates the reality of ideas with that of physical objects. How real is the concept of something like love in comparison to a ball?
Does thinking about something make it real? Can Spiderman then be considered real since it is an idea from the mind of Stan Lee?
If your concept of what is 'real' encompasses both Spiderman and actual people into its definition, what them isn't 'real'?

KingEbukasBlog:
Here it is Johnydon22 , coolusername took of before we even got started .

Ok, so I looked at the argument, but it still makes the same slippery assumption that you always make. How can an idea be mind independent?

I would also like to understand your writing definition of an 'idea'.

KingEbukasBlog:
Let's go back to THAT thread then .

What thread was it?

Nigerians claim to hate gay people, but Google Trends shows us otherwise.

We are 21st in the world for internet searches for 'gay sex'!

Hypocritical motherfvckers!

KingEbukasBlog:
Wishful thinking ? Like the multiverse or eternal universe you hope exists ?


I've told you that I can use idealism to prove that unembodied minds exist . You ran away as usual .

Multiverse, really? I said it was a possibility which I can't hold as fact due to lack of evidence.

Idealism to prove unembodied minds? I'll like to hear that one.

KingEbukasBlog:
Because we are different from other animals . We have spirits or unembodied conscious minds which can exist without an end . And our spirits are our true selves . Only the Almighty Creator can destroy the spirit .

There is no evidence for this, but I'm sure that wishful thinking is enough for your kind.

KingEbukasBlog:
Top Magic Tricks performed by Nothingness

You forgot to add: Create an omnipotent, omniscient being.

lepasharon:
Nah, cos a child isn't the same as a developing fetus

These people refuse to understand this point. A foetus lacks sentience until about the fifth month, a foetus cannot feel pain until about then too. The person carrying the baby should have be able to choose whether she wants to bring it to term or not.

Stevebamdex:
The bible calls him a fool {psalm 14:1}and I follow suit..how is that a crime? Or are you a fool too?

And this is why we can't have peace.

Stevebamdex:
Only a fool like you would keeping arguing there is no God..I pity your empty life.
I'm living for God/jesus..deal with it.

And he's not, you deal with it and stop calling him a fool.