₦airaland Forum

Hello. I have a beautiful male Labrador which I would like to breed with a female Labrador.
Please anyone with the required should contact me via email if interested.
sightdeep@gmail.com
Thx

drlateef:
They were fought by Christians who believe in Jesus and were propelled by Christian beliefs.

This is both desperate and absurd. How do you know any of the instigators were Christian. Secondly was there any declaration of a Christian purpose or motivation for these wars. How were they propelled by Christian beliefs - which ask you to love your enemies and turn the other cheek. Mind you, I am not a Christian, before you presume - and I certainly dont believe in turning the other cheek.

The first world war was ignited by the complex political alliances in Europe following the assassination of the Austrian Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand. The second world war which can be regarded as an extension of the first, was ignited by Hitler's invasion of Poland in September of 1939 in search of "Living-Space" for the allegedly superior German Aryans. How do Christian beliefs come into any of this.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were prompted by a mix of terrorism, imperialism and greed for black gold as well as military contracts in billions. Where does Christianity come into that?

Grow a brain, son.

drlateef:
Answer for yourself: which religion has killed more people in world than any other religion? Answer is Christianity. They started first and second world wars, they dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they killed and raped Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc. Just name it, Christians are in forefront.

All these were political and economic wars and none of them was fought in the name of Christianity, whereas much terrorism in the world today is conducted in the name of Islam.

Rashduct4luv:
I have seen people criticise Islam's strict punishment for fornication and adultery. Why flog someone for simply having pleasure? Why give the death penalty for someone who desecrated the marital instutution. It is barbaric and outdated they say.

●You must realise that one of the hindsight of unrestricted hedonism (pursuit of pleasure) is that when viewed from an individual perspective it sounds harmless. Sex is pleasurable. Engaging in it brings a lot of satisfaction to the one who engages in it. However the singular act of seeking pleasure can put an entire community at the risk of infection. Imagine a community of 100 persons all free of STIs like Syphilis and HIV. Then someone travels out, contracts the infection and when he comes back has sex with just one other member of the community infecting her. She then in turn infects another who infects another...till it becomes widespread in the community. So the hedonist says why punish someone for seeking pleasure, and the moralists say well, we can't let you put the community at risk while seeking pleasure. Imagine if there was a way to prevent him from spreading that infection ab initio?

●You may now wonder, why different punishments for the fornicator and the adulterer? If an unmarried man contracts an STI. He is only likely to infect guilty persons who offer themselves for sex whilst being unmarried. If STIs could be restricted to only those who fornicate, trust me, many persons would not have worried about it. But then imagine a married man with 4 wives, who still goes out to have illicit sex. He doesn't just put himself at risk, but 4 innocent women. In some kinds of STIs like HIV, the lives of his unborn children and even the children at home may also be put at risk. Islam fights against injustice, as it is rather preferred that a guilty person is mistakenly acquited, than an innocent person mistakenly convicted. Would it not be better to take the life of one guilty person to save the lives of many other innocent persons? Its like having to take a decision between someone with a time bomb strapped to his chest, that can not be defused, walking into a mall filled with people. Obviously shooting him down is the wiser thing to do, to protect the lives of others in the mall.
●Islam takes no pleasure in killing anybody. Look at the conditions that has to be met before guilt of fornication and adultery is established. 4 witnesses have to be presented who saw the actual process of the man's genitals going into the woman's. Even in today’s world where sex is now nearly a norm on the streets, this is a condition that is still very difficult to establish. That is why the commonest way to establish the guilt of fornication and adultery is self confession. Punishments are meant to serve as deterrents rather than being vindictive. Even where it doesn't completely prevent people from engaging in it (because people will always find a way to beat the law) it at least ensures evil doesn't become an acceptable norm that is confidently discussed in public.

●Lastly, Imagine if that your cheating husband knows he risks losing his life at the expense of an orgasm or two, will that not serve as sufficient scare to force him to be faithful? This will have been sufficient to curtail the spread of STIs and protect marital institutions. Allāh mandates that the punishment of the fornicator and the adulterer be done in public (و اليشهد عذابهما طاءفة من المؤمنين). This is so that if you are about send that "I am bored, can you come over" message to her, and you remember how your friend was flogged in public, even the erection you are having will die a natural death. Today people bring all sorts of argument in the defence of the guilty, rather than seek the protection of the innocent from the evils of criminals and those with immoral inclinations. Then you appreciate more the wisdom in Allāh's statement

و لا تأخذكم بهما رأفة في دين الله
Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah (Q 24:2).
If I know I have no intention of becoming a kidnapper, why should I be sympathetic to kidnappers so much as to worry about whatever punishment is prescribed for them, especially if that punishment come from the law giver Himself. That's why I am convinced that whoever you see or hear having any problem with this punishment, from among the Muslims, is either a fornicator, and adulterer, or someone who intends to become one.

May Allāh grant us the ability to protect our chastity.

A. Haroun

You belong in the middle ages.
Go back there.

aumeehn:
Alhamdulillah for the Blessings Allah bestowed upon me and choose me among the believers.
Since the medieval times Islam is a religion that the unbelievers so much hate.
A Christian dont hate a Jewish or a Hindu and vice versa but all of them have one thing in common, hate for Islam and Rasulillah S.A.W. you wont see muslims on other Non islamic thread causing problems but you can see them here already spewing trash as Usual. Very soon this forum will also face the twitter treatment if they keep on keeping a blind eye on what these unbelievers are doing to Muslims on Islamic threads.

Of course with your Taliban president in Aso Rock, that is a possibility.

Lukgaf:
We know it is permissible for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman if she is Christian or Jewish, while it is not permissible for him to marry a non-Muslim woman who follows any religion other than these two.

But can a Muslim woman marry a Christian or Jewish man? This thread clears this.



https://islamqa.info/en/answers/21380/can-a-muslim-woman-marry-a-non-muslim-man

And what is the purpose of this accursed sexist injunction if not world domination by stealth?

Same ol' ridiculous double standards: I can have your women, but you dare not even look at mine ( + slave-Burqa/ Niqab) - I can build Mosques in your land - even at the site of the Jewish Temple - but you dare not build a single church in our land.

This is one more reason Europeans should be very careful about their immigration policies concerning muslims, especially those from extremist Islamic theocracies.

Such accursed backward medieval feudal barbaric separatist extremist fundamentalist precepts.

@ Workch

Even though you fled from this thread after your presumptions were exposed, here goes -

For your education.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rJOSDgDG0A

@ LordReed, triplechoice -

Definition & Description of Spirit - (for the purposes of this discussion):

The vital principle, essential animating force and root-consciousness (of living, sentient and sapient beings).

It manifests itself in the world of matter principally through the physical body, and engages in activity therein and has experiences thereby, but its consistency is of a lighter nature than matter, which is heavy by comparison. It has its domicile in the spiritual dimension with which it shares the same consistency and nature, and which dimension is different from, and lighter than the world of matter, even if attached to the world of matter.

Adblg0610:
According to the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Nigeria now produces 8 million tones to become the largest producer of rice in Afica,ahead of Egypt and 13th position in the world.

Nigeria also has one of the largest National Social Investment Programmes in the world, like the National Home Grown School Feeding Programme (NHGSFP), Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT), N-Power,etc.

Nigeria is the Infrastructure capital of Africa, with about 850 federal roads and bridges either completed or nearing completion. Massive railway revolution, Airports/Seaports world class rehabilitation and water dam projets.

With the digital economic revolution, Nigeria is set for complete cashless and paperless economy by 2030, we have become one of the leading countries in Information Technology in Africa.

PDP's ranting is understandable but inconsequential, having massively looted valuable resources during their years of the locust.

I suppose all of these popped up only and exclusively in the last 7 years.

triplechoice:
But then, I know things are not necessary effects but he , Lordreed, seems to use that word to "carry" so many things along to make
it easy to change his position when it doesn't favor him.

I very much feared so.

Myer:
Know this one thing. Darkness is the absence of light.
Light is the matter.

You can see the source of light.
You can control light.
The intensity of light can be calculated.

Darkness on the other hand is just what you get in the absence of light.
You don't calculate the intensity of darkness. You calculate the intensity of light.

Gbam.

LordReed:
I would say thing is how we describe particular or distinct phenomenon. I am not sure exactly how it applies to actions but we do say stuff like "I am doing something" when we are busy with a task so would I say that action is a thing? I can't say.

As for effects like that from a Tsunami I would say it is a thing, we call it damage. There are many words like damage that we use to describe our environment that don't exactly correlate to a material, like damage isn't a material but what has happened to a material.

I see: clearly, we have been very careless thus far. We are not using the word "thing" in the same way (and we probably are not using the words "material", immaterial" and "mind" in the same way either. If we must proceed, we absolutely must each define each of these words as they apply this conversation.

The word "thing" has very broad applicability but my understanding of the word as it applied to this conversation was in relation to the discussion at hand - matter and mind - and thus I have been using the word as it would apply to either a definite material object or, in reference to the immaterial, it would have to be some identifiable element, force or quantity, however described. For this reason I would not have used the word "thing" to refer to an action, a deed, an event or even an effect - even though of course in the very broad usage of the word "thing" you could find such usages. In summary, for the material, it would have to be a definite object - that it is, have mass and occupy space. And for the immaterial, it would have to be real-in-itself, that is to say, existent, identifiable and capable of existing in a causative chain as a cause of an effect, that is to say it must be capable of exerting force in whatever existent realm or dimension it has its presence in. So in this manner, mind, for example, could be considered an immaterial thing, whereas a shadow would not qualify because it is not real-in-itself in the first place: its is not "existent" - it is only the description of absence of a thing (light) on a surface. At all events for me, no description of a "thing" would admit of an "absence" being a "thing." Because if this were the case, we could well call "emptiness" a "thing" as well, we could be drawn into describing an empty pot as being full of the absence of everything that is not in the pot, and in this way we would lead ourselves surely into a pedantic and foolish mess which will not be worth the time of the cheapest clown in town.

Thus, with the above, I hope I have clarified my stance on what a "thing" is - and no, for the purposes of this discussion I would not have included actions, events or effects. However I grant that you obviously do/ did and thence lies the source of our misunderstanding. With this clarification, hopefully we can move forward.

<sub>Post-Script: I set out below an extract from the dictionary of the many applications of the word "thing" - just to show how misguided we were to to assume what particular application either of us had in mind (and this is not even an exhaustive list).

thing
noun: thing; plural noun: things; noun: the thing; noun: one's thing; plural noun: one's things

1 - an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
"look at that metal rail thing over there"
2 - an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.
"I'm not a thing, not a work of art to be cherished"
3 - an action, event, thought, or utterance.
"she said the first thing that came into her head"
4 - informal
what is needed or required.
"you need a tonic—and here's just the thing"
5 - what is socially acceptable or fashionable.
"it wouldn't be quite the thing to go to a royal garden party in wellies"
6 - informal
one's special interest or inclination.
"reading isn't my thing"
7 - informal
used to introduce or emphasize an important point.
"the thing is, I am going to sell this house"</sub>

LordReed sincerely I really lost hope that we could understand one another from our discussion yesterday. Especially by the time we had wound up with absence being a thing I truly felt it was hopeless.

However something occurred to me from some of your exchanges above with triplechoice and Myers. Perhaps we are being defeated by language. We ought to have commenced with definitions (I acknowledge my outstanding on that of "spirit" ) but we ought to have defined "matter", "mind" and "immaterial", as well.

We also need to define the word "thing" as being used in this discussion.

Because it struck me from something you said up there that perhaps the problem here is our consideration of what a "thing" is. If we say that a shadow is an effect can we call it a thing. So are the effects of actions "things" properly so called. And would it also be apt to call a verb a thing. So for example is running a thing? Is jumping a thing. Is slapping a thing. Is a deed a thing.

Also is the effect of natural forces a thing? For example can you call the damage done by a tsunami a thing. If we see a broken house as a result of a tsunami can we call the damage thereon a separate thing from the house. Your thoughts on this may be useful to seeing if we can correct our misunderstandings.

Just looking at these images it is obvious something of significant seriousness is brewing in the East. This is not something that can be glossed over or lightly ignored: if any organization has such capacity to enforce, street-support, and apparent moral authority over the people as to be able to compel this sort of complete desertion of commercial activities, then that organization is very close to the status of a shadow government already. I can deduce from this that notwithstanding the sneering and mockery of any persons anywhere in this country, the "Igbo-Question" obviously still remains very much alive in this country 52 years (half a century!) after the end of the civil war.

Nigeria and Nigerians will be well advised to accord the issue the seriousness it deserves and explore every reasonable opportunity for a genuine resolution of this seething problem. Because it is quite clear to me that if not attended to properly, sooner or later, something quite unexpected may be upon us all from the East.

budaatum:
You make it sound like "truly absurd" is a negative thing.

Indeed, one is "surrounded by the absence of all things which exist which are not in your presence". It's actually a state of being to be "surrounded by the absence of all things which exist which are not in your presence", and is the basis of human existence called want, and desire, and so on.

I am surrounded by poverty which is the absence of a thing which exists which is not in my presence, and when I am hungry its because I am surrounded by food that might exist but not in the proximity to my mouth and my belly.

In that case, take good care of my absence, a real thing which is right beside you.
Good night.

budaatum:
Yes I can call an absence, a thing. An absence of a thing can be a thing in many cases, and in fact, the specific word called not-thing has been formed so I can.

I can claim that the removal of a thing called light has left a thing (or a not-thing) called darkness. Also, an absence of money could be a thing called poverty, and a lack of food to eat can cause a thing called hunger, etc.

Its all in use of language.

Going by this then nothing is a thing. A perfect self- negating statement. You simply can't describe an absence as a thing otherwise you are surrounded by the absence of all things which exist which are not in your presence.

It's truly absurd, but enjoy.

budaatum:
Sorry Deep, but shadows are a thing. And you can simply block light from a surface and then call it a thing.

When I build a house I block off a part to form a shadow so I can sit in comfort in the evening. And when I plant things around my house I ensure the things I want to grow are in or not in shadow according to their need for light.

You cannot call an absence a thing.
That is analogous to calling the absence of either light or sound a thing.
If you do so, once you go into your room at night, if you switch off the lights, then the ensuing darkness is a thing.
It is an absence of light - which is a thing. Light is a thing. The absence of light is not a thing.

But I have said enough on this matter. I am tired of it for now.
Maybe I will have the inspiration to revisit it some other time.

You simply cannot describe an absence of something as a separate thing in itself.
An absence is not a thing.

Ok give me small time.

LordReed:
I don't think you did or you won't have written I said you said image on a screen doesn't exist since that is exactly the opposite of what I actually wrote.

This misunderstanding cant be helped. Its better left where it is.

LordReed:
Did you even read what I wrote?

Yes I did sir, and I have nothing more to add. It appears to me you have not read anything I have written. It can rest there.

LordReed:
What you don't even grasp is that you shot yourself in the foot with this argument when you apply it to images on a screen especially projection screens. If a shadow is non-existent and is merely a surface then what is image on a screen if not the shadows with colour gradients? So how can you then claim the image is made up materials but say a shadow is non-existent? LoLz, you should really reevaluate your position since it has no real world consistency.

This is a mischaracterization of what I have said. I didnt say the image you see on a screen is non-existent, I said it is not immaterial. Regrettably I feel there is no point repeating myself ad infinitum ad nauseum. I am content with my explanations and happy to leave them as they are for posterity. I addressed every example or analogy you brought up, but there are several I brought up you simply walked past without a word on. I have nothing more to add on this point.

I equally feel you have not grasped anything on this point, and have serially contradicted yourself, have put forward amazing absurdities, but there is nothing more to be said because we have said it all.

LordReed:
Gosh, seems your amnesia is acting up again. You categorically said shadow doesn't exist so how am I strawmanning you? How can shadow not exist but still be the surface? This is what you have failed to explain. You may have nothing further to say but let it be on record that you contradicted yourself by claiming that shadow doesn't exist but is also the surface on which it appears.

What an absurdity.

The absurdities are all yours brother. I will list them before we are done.

For the avoidance of doubt I said what you are seeing is a surface. And that is a fact.

If you have a cassette tape and some part of it has no recording and the rest has a recording you cannot then say that the part without a recording is a separate Inmaterial thing. Likewise if you have a wall and some part is blocked off from light that doesn't make it a separate immaterial thing. That is what is absurd. As usual you have ignored my several explanations and examples. Even on Morse code which you brought up.

I am content with what I have explained. It will be there for posterity. Maybe one day in the future you might even read it with better understanding.

LordReed:
You haven't answered the question. How can shadow be the surface and be nonexistent. Explain this magic of how something can be and yet not be.

I havent said that the surface is nonexistent. You are strawmmaning me, perhaps deliberately. What I have said is that what you are seeing is only a surface. I further explained that "shadow" is merely a word and I specifically elaborated by saying that - If we had a word for an empty cassette tape, then you would have the same problem, because you would say I am contradicting myself by calling it an empty cassette tape and also calling it that word.

There's really nothing I can do or say further on this matter. Its a tad exasperating though, that you bypass and ignore my laborious explanations only to wind back to the same question and insist that I have not answered it. If you have a unique word for an empty cassette tape, my friend, that is analogous to what you call a shadow.

The absence of sound on a surface is one, and the absence of light on a surface is the other.

I am afraid that I may have nothing more to say even if you keep harping on this, because I have explained exactly what I mean quite clearly. Our respective posts are above for posterity and for anyone to arrive at his own conclusions regarding them. That should suffice.

Nope, you need to answer the questions since I posed them. I can always give my answer but after you have, I insist.

This is not fair because I have given you many posers that you havent answered yet - indeed you have said you will answer them only when I describe spirit. I should be able to tell you something similar, that I will answer them only when you describe matter or something similar. Nevertheless I am full of grace, so here goes. But after this please note I many not have the inclination to quibble any further on the subject of seeing immaterial things.

Answers -
Morse Code - Badly framed question because a code is an artificial set of rules. It may be delivered by patterns of representation, it may be written down, it may be spoken or otherwise transmitted by sound, at all events it remains an artificial set of rules to represent or convey thoughts, words, numbers, ideas etc. None of this changes it essentially from a language even if an encrypted one. I say it is a badly framed question because it approximates to asking if a language is a material thing or an immaterial thing.

Numbers - Numbers are representational of quantity, volume, size, length and the like. They are an immaterial construct, and do not exist in and of themselves as a thing. The number 7 is not a thing. It is neither a material thing nor an immaterial thing. It doesn't have any independent existence save with reference to representation of quantities, volumes, sizes, etc.

Zero - Is simply another representation. A word, if you like, which we use to conveniently express the idea of nothing.

And you see, what you have done with morse code as an example is just as bad as picking on a zero in a number and insisting that it is a separate immaterial thing. When we have zero in a number - for example, 1100, what we are conveying is that we have one unit of a thousand, one unit of a hundred, no units of tens and no singular units. It would be madness to then pick those zeroes and say that they amount to a separate immaterial thing. That is what would in fact be a contradiction and that is exactly what you have done with morse code, and the silences therein (or spaces therein).

I have been graceful. I think you should return the favor. I should be proceeding to discuss spirit later in the day, and please note as I have said that I may have nothing further to say on this matter of seeing the immaterial. At least not for now.

LordReed:
How can the shadow be the surface and the same time be non existent? You are contradicting yourself.

I am not contradicting myself because I simply said that what you are seeing is the surface, and you do not deny this. The surface without light, or lesser light, simple. It remains the surface. Look, "shadow" is just a word which we use to convey the idea of that same surface from which light is blocked. The mere fact that we have a word to convey that also does not make it a separate immaterial thing. We have such words as "nothingness" do we not.

I gave you an analogy that I thought would have put this to bed. I said that to say that a shadow is a thing is like saying that a part of a cassette tape on which no sound is recorded is a separate immaterial thing. Only the tape exists. The absence of sound on it does not form a distinct immaterial thing. If we had a word for an empty cassette tape, then you would have the same problem, because you would say I am contradicting myself by calling it an empty cassette tape and also calling it that word.

In the same way, the absence of light on a surface does not form a separate immaterial thing.

Seriously, we cant move forward on this. Let us leave it where it is. Every reader can derive his own conclusions. Pushing the matter at this stage will only lead to repetition ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Is the morse code fragment material or immaterial? Are numbers material or immaterial? Is zero material or immaterial?

I would suggest that you answer these questions yourself first. If I disagree, or have something to add, I will do so. Let that be your own assignment, seeing as I have my own assignment already - the description of spirit. Besides the first part of your tripartite question is very badly conceived.

By way of a little hint though, of course zero by itself, in a pure conceptual sense, refers to nothingness.
Does nothingness exist?
Maybe you may wish to consult the renowned iidiot, Lawrence Krauss on this subject.

As for numbers, they are representational.

LordReed:
You still haven't shown me me how I am seeing something that doesn't exist.

It is the surface you are seeing, simple. I have repeated this now too often for it to serve any purpose to repeat it further. I have also explained as best I can that the absence of light on a surface cannot thereby create a separate immaterial thing. I dont believe we can help one another any further on this subject. We will have to leave it where it is and each reader can come to his own conclusions regarding the subject.

Do you know morse code? Do the silences between each blip in a code fragment have meaning or not? Are you also going claim that they don't exist or that the code fragment is a material thing?

A code is a code and a silence can be meaningful in a code. Thats because there are established artificial rules for reading a code. This does nothing to suggest that the absence of light on a surface is an immaterial thing of its own. Suggesting that a silence in a code is a separate immaterial thing is just as bad as suggesting that a zero in a given number is a separate immaterial thing. This too is absurd, notwithstanding that on account of the artificial rules governing numbers, that zero has a meaning within that specific set of numbers. This does not make it by itself a separate immaterial thing. Not least because you are dealing with an artificial set governed by artificial rules.

When I return, I will be going straight to the description of spirit. I dont think we have anything more to offer one another on this subject of seeing immaterial things. For the avoidance of doubt, my position remains that one does not see immaterial things with the physical eyes. This is inherently absurd.

LordReed:
How can I see something that doesn't exist?

For the umpteenth time, what you are seeing is the surface.
No surface, no shadow.

To say that a shadow is a thing is like saying that a part of a cassette tape on which no sound is recorded is a separate immaterial thing. Only the tape exists. The absence of sound on it does not form a distinct immaterial thing.

In the same way, the absence of light on a surface does not form a separate immaterial thing.

We can, and we do observe all sorts of shapes from the interplay of light. This does not been that we are observing distinct immaterial things. We are simply seeing the interplay of light on surfaces. Both the light and the surfaces are material things.

If you insist on your position, you will be saying in effect that the absence of light on a given surface creates a separate immaterial thing. I trust you should be able to see how this does not add up. You do not wind up with a separate immaterial thing simply by blocking light from a surface. All that you will have there is simply the same surface - just devoid of light, or with less light, thats all.

Kindly reflect closely on the words I have underlined above. Those words should explain what I am trying to convey to you.

LordReed:
So does the shadow exist now are you withdrawing your statement that shadow doesn't exist?

Jesus No! certainly not!
Look I really dont know how something so simple has become a problem for you, but a shadow is not a thing, not even an immaterial thing. You cannot simply block light from a surface and then call it a thing, declare it a separate immaterial thing. It is not. Your mind simply discerns a shape from a part of a surface in lesser light as opposed to a part of the surface bathed in greater light. At all times, what you are looking at is that same surface, simple.

I truly must attend to other things, I will be back after hours.
Cheers.

LordReed:
I see the surface and I also see the shadow. If the shadow doesn't exist how am I seeing it?

Its only the surface you are seeing. Its just a part of the surface in lesser light. I have already said this, really gat to run now. Will be back,
Try and study the example of the sky and clouds I gave you, Its the same.

DeepSight:
You see the wall. Or whatever surface is there.

PS: It should occur to you that without a surface, you see no shadow.
No surface, no shadow.

So its just a part of a surface blocked from light, and you are calling that an immaterial thing.
How can a blocked part of a physical surface be an immaterial thing.

Tomorrow, if I say that LordReed said that if we block light from physical things, we see an immaterial thing, you will scream blue murder.

Anyway, let me not be tempted. Later in the day, as I said.

LordReed:
My question was what is a shadow made of and your response was it doesn't exist. Explain how you can see what doesn't exist.

You see the wall. Or whatever surface is there.
That is indisputably what you see.

Later. Busy now. Will be back to describe spirit so we can carry on.

LordReed:
We are on page 4 and DeepSight still hasn't produced the definitions and evidence. How much longer is this going to take? LoLz

Not a problem, I am committed to it, even if I have now become quite certain that it may turn out to be a waste of my time if we cannot get past shadows. Later in the day, I must attend to the necessities of life now.

LordReed:
The hallucination itself is what we are talking about not the thing that isn't there. The person is having a hallucination, is the hallucination material or immaterial?

I have not quibbled with its nature, I have not even said it does not exist, my issue is simply that it is by no means seen with any physical eye. Or do physical eyes see things without reflection of light?

LoLz. Is this how you are going to dodge giving your definitions and evidence? By devolving this discussion into non-issues?

I am not dodging anything and I really mean it when I say you are frightening me.
Because if we cannot get past such a tiny and simple thing, what hope is there for a discussion of the spiritual - which is even more intangible?