₦airaland Forum

MrPresident1:
witchcraft derives from idolatry. It is like a localised cancerous growth, when it is discovered and immediately excised, there is no cause for alarm. But when the cancer is allowed to grow and metastasize, it becomes difficult to remove and may eventually claim life.

Despite it being unvalidated.......would you still kill one who you perceived is a "witch"?

MrPresident1:
Every part of it.

If you fail in just one of it ehn, na hellfire straight

So you must keep the whole law, and statutes and judgements and commandments of The Most High God.

Okay,
Exodus 22:18 King James Version (KJV)

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Seeing that you approve all the laws of the bible....I ask you then...what is the best way to kill a "witch"?
would you burn a "witch"?
would you slit the "witch's" throat?
Would you bash the brains out?
What would you have done to the 10 year old that was accused of witchcraft?
Since all the biblical laws are correct to you,would you kill all who are accused of being a "witch"?

This is why people need to speak against and question dogmatic creeds and superstitions....

mumumugu:
in order for Atheism to 'succeed', Atheism has to evolve beyond the Dawkins style, i.e. "A perfect atheist is one for whom god never comes up. They never talk about it, they don't go to meetings or read books about it, they never use the word "atheist" to describe themselves, and they aren't rebelling against anything." Your thoughts on this

Sure....just keep quite while theists grow strength in numbers and then start enforcing "god's law" and other laws that permit them.....
keeping quite is the worst thing to do in a nation ruled by dogma.

Imagine if galileo kept quite while the "flat earthers" spreaded their pseudoscience.
Imagine if louis pasteur kept quite while people claimed "demons" and "bad blood" for the causes of diseases.
Imagine if einstein kept quite while people believed space and time were abstract entities.
Imagine if abraham lincoln kept quite and said nothing about slavery.
Getting out there and chatting,debating...even holding meetings is a positive step towards any progress..
we can't fly planes into towers..nor hold killing crusades but we can present our voices...and that is our strength and right.
Better to speak now,before keeping quite turns nigeria into a dictatorship.

Maamin:
Really..tell me more

And as a result of this,the so called phenomena does not exist or is not real?

It is a label describing the consequence of mass present in space which creates a force of pull(or push)....that is termed gravity.

You can demonstrate it by allowing any object with mass to free-fall.

Gravity is as much as a descriptive term the same way the label(or term) given to the act of rapid acceleration of your feet is called "running"....

So do you want to question "running" too? or ask how one can prove "running"?

Now....ditch the tap dancing...and for the third time....have you any evidence/justification for your belief in a "god"?

Maamin:
You might want to Give me evidence for gravity..by showing me gravity itself

Gravity is the label given to the phenomena observed....its not an entity.

Maamin:
Give me evidence that they dont exist..."that which can be ascertain without evidence can also be disregarded without evidence"

Loool!.... You are the one uttering a "god" without evidence and you want me to give you evidence against the unvalidated claim?!....
while your running up in circles here...why not also tell me to also give you evidence against a 5-sided square?...
You are the theist here....you believe "god" is real,i do not....so either provide an evidence/justify your beliefs so that we know its real or tell us you have no reasons to justify it...

Maamin:
Gimmie a religion and I will tell you it root..Athest are very delusional set of people.

Because not accepting that a donkey and snake talked is a delusion....
Let me ask you a question,who is more likely to be detained in a psychiatric facility... one who without reservation will hold a belief that there are dragons in a closet or one who'd ask for that claim to be justified before believing?
So with that said.....a skeptic cannot be delusional for asking basic questions....the only person that you could say is delusional is the person that holds a belief as true without evidence/justification and/or refuses to change upon presentation of one....
So all you have to do is present evidence of a "god/gods" and I'll believe that indeed such things exists...

sinequanon:
Here is the QUESTION for the 4th or 5th time:

Do you or do you not agree that science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause?

It is clearly asking you IF you agree with something, not presupposing it.

Since you are stuck and reluctant to answer the question, as was plaetton, there is no point continuing.

The only useful thing you have to say is that you are disingenuous, and you have effectively shouted it from the rooftops.

And I will keep on telling you....your question is structured and my answer to that will always be science can only observe that which can be detected...
I know it is not an answer you are satisfied with....it is an answer that is accurate nonetheless...
The least I could say is....if the cause is detectable....science could find it...

sinequanon:
Another illogical question.

I asked you if plaettons answer is the answer you would have given.

I've already given a reply.

honourhim.....what do you understand the big bang theory to be?.......

frustratedman.....do not commit suicide....life is precious...cherish it..
Problems are what life can bring....but facing and never giving in to those problems....is living...

sinequanon:
^

davien, is that your answer, LOL.

so plaetton is suddenly davien?

sinequanon:
You are prevaricating. In a debate you simply state clearly what you think the presupposition is instead of avoiding the question.

Do you or do you not agree that..

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

If your answer is "I don't agree because it presupposes X" then say so, instead of prevaricating.



Please explain what you mean by "evidences" structured to it, and how you distinguish between evidence that you would accept.

It has a presupposition that science assumes answers that have absolute certainty in what should be the case on all events....
And evidences being structured to meet "supernatural" claims would be in the form of "since the moon has crators,that means..."
Anything I would accept are things based on verified evidence and a method of error-margin...or atleast be justified by enough evidence and not statements like "flower exists, that means a flower maker exists"

sinequanon:
So you can't answer the question:

Do you or do you not agree that..

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

OK next...

Explain what makes a claim supernatural. I don't want a list of examples and arm waving. I want a description of what makes a claim supernatural.

I would not answer the initial question with a yes/no response because it offers a presupposition....

A claim is supernatural if it offers no method of verification apart from faith or make-believe... inwhich the conclusion has been made beforehand with "evidences" structured to it
A supernatural claim could also defy logic e.g A five sided square...
A supernatural claim can offer to fill the gaps of ignorance with an answer not given for accuracy....

sinequanon:
So now that you can no longer play with words, you are back to avoiding the question.

Do you or do you not agree that..

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

Your question is a structured one and as such the only thing I can say to be accurate is what i've just said...
science concerns itself with the things that are/can be detected and/or investigated...
If anything has a natural origin....science can detect such...because it is what it concerns itself with...
Anyone offering "magical" and/or "supernatural" claims would have to justify their method of detection and its reliability with evidence...

sinequanon:
You see, you are the one playing with words.

I am saying that, to avoid any ambiguity, we can simply replace the words with their long description.

So, do you or do you not agree that..

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

(You are the one trying to stray by making words a stumbling block.)

I can only say science concerns itself with things that can be investigated...and/or detected..

sinequanon:
A law is a condition that ALWAYS holds.

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

Don't try to twist it or water it down.

Unless you are claiming that Science accepts that some things don't have a natural cause.

You again equivocate the arbitrary meaning of laws....
A scientific law is;
" A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental
observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A
scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies
that there is a causal relationship involving its elements."
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

It is a specific set of conditions that allow a law to hold....
gravity doesn't hold without mass...
Your method is to form a faulty dichotomy and project it to your opponent...
I.e Either this is A or it is Z...
And you keep straying off your original claim "science assumes laws"...
with redefinitions and non sequitors...

sinequanon:
Sorry, if you don't have the intellect to understand the difference between...

Science assumes that there are fixed laws..

AND

Science assumes laws are fixed.

Any intelligent person reading this is going to shake their head and confine you to the dustbin of dunces, I'm afraid.

(oh, and now we have your clone behaviour, as predicted, slinging around the term "quote mining".)

No doubt you are the most dishonest theist I have talked to...
In no point was there a statement of laws being fixed in any article you listed up......the only three things mentioned are these

1. There are natural causes for things that happen in the world
around us.
2. Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those
causes.
3. There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.

You can throw ad hominem attacks all day....but science makes no assumptions of laws....
The ridiculous thing here is you tried to hide your initial folly by claiming "science assumes it has found such laws",I tip my hat at your level of dishonesty...

sinequanon:
Can you understand the difference between..

Science assumes that the universe is governed by fixed laws.

AND

Science assumes that it has found such laws.

All your rigmarole so far seems to revolve around you confusing these two statements. You will then deny your mistake and try to make it everybody else's fault, and blame semantics.

And you are still so in denial that you are hedging your bets and not explicitly stating which point you disagree with. You need space to spin.

You are the one employing semantics here....
You claimed science assumes laws are fixed and now you have quote mined a piece that agreed with your presupposition. ...does your dishonesty have an end?

sinequanon:
Answer the question. If your answer is that the first statement you disagree with is statement 1, then come out and say it explicitly, instead of beating about the bush and trying to hide behind waffle.

1. Science makes the ASSUMPTION that we live in a universe entirely governed by fixed, unchanging, repeatable, reproducible laws.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions that are worth acknowledging. Science operates on the assumptions that:...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Axiomatic_assumptions

Thomas Kuhn concluded that all science was based on an agreed framework of unprovable assumptions about the nature of the universe, rather than simply on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a constellation of beliefs, values and techniques that are shared by a given scientific community, which legitimize their practices and set the boundaries of their research."[36]

Now, kindly stop making a dishonest fool of yourself and pretending that these people are talking pseudoscience.

The more you lie to yourself with your blinkered rhetoric, the more foolish you are going to look.

This was your claim here

sinequanon:
cience makes the ASSUMPTION that we live in a universe
entirely governed by fixed, unchanging, repeatable, reproducible
laws.

assumptions of laws was your claim and that was your folly....and all my citations were based on no one assuming laws...science is an objective tool and as such it has unproven premises...like objective reality and cartesian philosophy....
The paradigms of science are the assumptions that are made before inquiry....and that is why science concerns itself with the natural world...
So either tell me where you had your claim that "science assumes laws" fit in with science being built on "science assumes things are natural"

sinequanon:
Stop being dishonest with yourself.

I simply asked you to be explicit. If you disagree with ANY of the following, say so, and stop beating about the bush.

I know this is for plaetton,but your sheer arrogance to willfully spit pseudoscience and false premises are annoying...and as such I can't help but call you out on your "statements"

1. Science makes the ASSUMPTION that we live in a universe entirely governed by fixed, unchanging, repeatable, reproducible laws.

Science didn't make any assumption of laws governing the universe....science is merely expressing properties of it in mathematical and/or thesis-like statements that we then term as laws or theories based on the facts that lead up to the conjecture...
Einstein didn't assume the theory of relativity governed the universe.....his first test to falsify it was to calculate mercury's orbit.

2. Science only accepts as "evidence", "proof", "rational observation" explanations that conform to this ASSUMPTION.

No assumptions of what laws are were made from the onset.....you used a straw-man here.

Just for the information....a "proof" only exists in mathematics because mathematics is definitive....
Nobody assumed gravity is a consequence of mass,we demonstrated,observed and experimented it to be true.

3. Therefore this ASSUMPTION is not falsifiable using science, and hence is not scientific.

There are assumptions that can be falsified....take phlogiston theory for example....
The only assumptions not able to be falsified are mostly religious and faith based assumptions....

Now, stop fooling yourself that your reticence to address the issue is anything but slavish and religious adherence to dogma and reluctance to scrutinize your beliefs and faith.

Quite the contrary....you are the dogmatic one here...and a dishonest one at that

I'd like to know myself...people just keep claiming it.

Dogs are social/territorial animals.....barking at night is what they do....to ward off foreigners in their territory...
That is why they are natural guards..

MrPresident1:
I have to tell you the meaning of complex? You must be joking. Maybe if you look at the context of how I used it you may glean some understanding.

Yes you do....If you want to be in a discourse where all would agree with the terms...

You have been asking these questions ever since before dinosaurs disappeared from the surface of the earth, and you have not gotten answers because you mind is made up, you do not want to listen.

Listening doesn't mean accepting....all arguments lie on their merits...

Assuming that if for all these eons, you have not gotten the answers you seek, doesn't that just tell you that what you seek isn't external of you?

Not finding answers is not an excuse to accept a faith based assertion... the theory of gravity had no answers for mercury's weird orbit......everyone waited till a justified answer was found I.e einstein's theory of relativity..
I'd also wait till I find a justified answer...and in the absence of none....I admit ignorance...not accept flawed conclusions...

That you must look inwards, internally, introspectively for your answers?

The answers I seek is to know if your claims are true....otherwise I'd be ignostic...

Your lack of belief is of no consequence, the day you come to terms with the sheer complexity of your design, that is the day you cross your rubicon.

When you tell me I'm a "complexity of design" you are providing a label, without a defined "designer" or a definition of "complexity" you are merely labelling....and not offering anything to justify those labels..

Until then, you are an hyena.

This has become an ad hominem attack...
So.....either define your vague terminology to avoid goal-post shifting or stop wasting my time.

Hiswordxray:
You have no idea what faith is and you know God exist. For the Bible says "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Rom 1:18-21).

And you can say whatever you like to disqualify those verses but telling me and telling yourself that you don't know if God exist, is a big lie.
STOP DECEIVING YOURSELF AND FACE THE TRUTH.

I do not lie when I tell you I have 0 knowledge of what a "god" is...nor if any such thing exists...the classical definition is ofcourse in mythical anthropomorphic tales......
In reality,no such things are known to exist...they are claimed to be.

You using the bible(that is the origin of the claim of your "god" ) to prove the claim that what it writes about exists....is circular logic...

And then picking verses that accuse unbelievers of having knowledge they do not have is just downright fallacious and dishonest....
Not withstanding,I shall use your own logic to prove your fallacy....
From an extract of your comment...
" His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made "

Here is the definition of invisible..

"Invisibility is the state of an object that cannot be seen . An object in
this state is said to be invisible (literally, "not visible" ). The term is
often used in fantasy/ science fiction , where objects are literally
made unseeable by magical or technological means; however, its
effects can also be demonstrated in the real world... "

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisibility


Now from the definition of invisible....how can I "clearly see" that which has "invisible qualities" without a demonstration or justification in the real word?


"clearly seen" does not go well with "invisible qualities"...

That is why "god" is never demonstrated,only labelled on things..

You yourself are the liar in this case.....because out of the numerous times i've expressed my ignorance of what a "god" would be....you use a scripture verse to speak for who you are talking to.

Hiswordxray:
This is the biggest lie I have ever heard. Atheist do not have honest conscience but instead they have a troubled conscience which they try to calm which foolish logical lies.
You know God exist but you denial him and your conscience will forever trouble you no matter the lies you tell yourself.

Wiegraf doesn't seem troubled,nor told you he's troubled.....but somehow you'd choose to assume and then tell him what you think he's thinking..what type of mentality are you using here?
You keep saying atheists "know god exists".....
I have a question for you......if you know whatever you termed "god" exists why is faith needed to believe it?
Is there any path to knowledge that requires faith?
Is it by faith you have knowledge that no car is approaching you.... as you cross a street?
If you look before crossing streets and then tout faith as a method to knowledge then you are a hypocrite by definition..
Even still I wonder how you keep regurgitating the same line each day...
What would even be your reaction if a Muslim told you...
"Hiswordxray...you know allah exists and Muhammad is his prophet"

MrPresident1:
atheism
ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Proud and pompous fellow that you are, you are waiting for proof of intelligent design and of a Creator when the truth stares you in the face. And you say 'until such claims can be justified'? You are the answer you seek, you yourself davien are the proof of a Creator. You think all the systems working independently yet interdependently that make up you, are just some product of some random chance occurrence?

Do you have the slightest idea how incredibly functionally complex you are? Yet you seek answers from outside?

davien, you are an hyena.

I'm proud and pompous?.... :-O

I make satirical atheistic comments here and there....yes,but pompous....no!
what exactly would I be pompous about,my lack of belief?
And I would advise you to ask people on what they think before taking up presumed assumptions,when or where have I ever claimed "random chance occurence" for anything?....
Besides,when the "random chance occurence" proposition is viewed passively....it would seem impossible because people attribute "random" and "chance" as lucky....when in reality....things go that way daily..
One can make the sun seem impossible by insinuating the question... "how is random chance responsible for a billion of a billion-billion photons all held together at the same time?"...
MrPresident1 you have to tell me what you mean by "complex",so that we can use the same definition...
And if you choose to call me a hyena then so be it....what troubles me is why a fellow human being becomes sub-human for asking questions

PastorKun:
Na you sabi

lol....

lastmessenger:
Yes I just saw that.

Okay....