₦airaland Forum

@ L-Reed,

Over the last couple of days, each time I attempt to quote you and respond to your last revert on this thread, I am instantly banned by the spambot, regardless of how I edit or re-word. So I will not quote here, and hope it turns out different. Reference is to your last query to me.

You asked how I arrived at individual intention of cells from what you said.

You see my friend, the strict materialist must contend more stringently with the hard problem of consciousness than anyone else: since he asserts that all things are material only, he must perforce locate consciousness in physical matter.

And this physical matter consists of cells, neurons and the chemical interaction of such, which the materialist must imbue with individual and collective intention and motivation, if he is to derive consciousness and personality therefrom.

You asked how your worldview eliminates personal responsibility?

Here goes -

If we consist entirely of chemicals, you cannot hold chemicals responsible for moral or ethical decisions as chemicals lack moral agency: and therefore you cannot hold anyone responsible for anything morally or ethically. Indeed you cannot hold anyone responsible for anything, period.

You would have to say that everything is simply just always the chemicals at work, nothing more.

Indeed this hacks back to your first question and also answers it - because if you insist that we are strictly material and also insist on personal responsibility, then you are automatically imbuing cells with intentionality and motivation - because we otherwise know that mere chemicals cannot have moral agency.

If you place moral agency on them, you have placed intentionality and motivation on them.

Capisce?

NNTR:
Please you need to add ample meat on this for me to gnaw on, not any of this skeleton or scaffolding stuff

I trust you are familiar with the Abrahamic ideas of God which are predominant across the Judeo-Christian and Islamic worlds, and which tend to be the dominant idea of God expressed in the world today. That is the view of God I am addressing - and contesting. That paternalistic, virtually human, allegedly loving, just and merciful, perfect, yet vengeful, genocidal, sadistic, voyeuristic, racist, tribalistic and petty "God" who is simultaneously said to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. This generally spoken of concept of "God" I challenge.

The view of God taken by oriental religions - the East of the world in general - India and the Far East - is generally more spiritual and philosophical and I have little or no issues with it.

This a poignant fresh breath of air, if I am being honest, I havent come across any poster, succinctly put forward this incontrovertible Biblical fact, absolute truth and reality, but if you know all this about how completely an enigma God is, then what on earth for, are you creating and opening a thread titled 'Can The Creator "Judge" The Created'?

How many times do I need to repeat that I am contesting a specific view of God.

You know about the Hashem substitute, right?

What about it?
A pointer to transcendent holiness and ineffability as perceived by Jews?
Or what?

NNTR:
Typical of you not to have a Scooby Do all what you typed about me, loll, but we'll let it slide

Feels good, doesn't it. I know. I have to let alot like that slide, you know.

NNTR:
What if she is lesb?.
Is it your lesb?
Would if she is lesb, reduce or increase, the price of kongo garri in the market?

carbon copy DeepSight DeepsightX

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

I am glad to note that for a Christian you seem fairly liberal.

LordReed:
There is a limitation with how language can describe the conglomeration that we call the self. The self is both the mental construct and the physical body which gives raise to the mental construct. Those concepts and ideas are all housed within the mental constructs of the individual which in turn is housed in the physical body of the individual. Without the physical body the mental construct cannot exist, well that is as far as we can tell.

Do you recognize that to sustain this, you will have to posit a world wherein the micro organisms/ cells and neurons that form your body are imbued with such individual intention and motivation which coalesce into a collective purpose?

At a further level do you recognize how this worldview must necessarily eliminate personal and moral responsibility for any actions of any kind?

LordReed:
From what I have learnt I would say I am a methodological naturalist which in summary means all ways that I can meaningfully know things are material. If there is some other realm it will have to be able to be measured in a way that makes sense to me or else it remains merely an untested proposition.

So far the only thing that has been verified is that man is a physical being with no other otherworldly components in evidence.

Would you thus say that your sensing of things is that your body is you?
That your sense of self is equivalent to and no more than your body, physical senses and your bodily effects?

Whereof personality?

Is it not true that we mostly live in a realm of concepts and ideas which are in fact not physical?

Is it possible to tell a meaningful story of your life if you limit all meaning to the feelings, movements and senses of your body?

LordReed:
Well shouldn't everybody who nearly dies be having NDEs if there was truly an objective experience called afterlife?

Are you a strict materialist, and do you believe that man you are strictly physical and no more.

pretydiva:
At 44 you still no wan get sense? Must you reveal your thigh? I wonder the kinda upbringing she's giving her daughter

Whats wrong with you holier-than-thou, rigid, probably frigid sanctimonious so so so and so's?
A flash of thigh and your jealous feminine insecurity leaps to the fore.
Get a grip, kid!

atheistandproud:
Nonsense



Hope you'll maintain the same energy when a man comes out to display his goods in public as well or should I arrange for the imp to poison you again?

If by "goods" you mean a mans penis, thats a bad example as she hasnt shown her vagina, has she?
Nothing on display there that you will not see at the beach for both men and women, whats wrong with you people? ? ?

LordReed:
Then baptise your children and call them James or Elisabeth.

And behold!
Take this miniature Roman instrument of execution
Which hath a miniature image of a dead man nailed to it
And lo!
Hold it and treasure it
For it is salvation for you!
But behold!
Do not make any graven images of your own
And do not treasure them
For behold!
Such shall be damnation for you!

KnownUnknown:
After declaring it a “Protectorate” he commences an orgy of rape, rapine, and kidnapping, then calls his victims “savages”. Don’t worry though, God sent him.

The best part is that your brothers/sisters start nodding in agreement and calling themselves “savages”.

Wahallahi!

LordReed:
No man! He will still catch you. If he tells you the sky is blue, ask him which resources on your land is he after so that you can negotiate a price. If you look at the sky, he will steal the land from under you and tell you its a "Protectorate".

"I hereby claim this land, and do so call it Jamestown."

Gbam.

NNTR:
If you can manage it. Put both posts side by side or on top of each other for me to see

Okay.

This one - (made this morning, at 12:59 am, on page 5 of this thread) -

NNTR:
Not on account of misery but on account of put up with life or shut up, if you dont want to top up.
One moment ago, you were flirting with the idea that you didnt ask to be born. If thats so, why are you still lingering about, as if like a toxic smelly fart

If hypothetically speaking you are, then just be you, be the best you, you possibly and uniquely can be

You havent the balls to go through. You love life too much. You enjoy chopping life and so you'll do everything with your gift of freewill, not to see the test through to the end. I'll spare you the my neighbour the humiliation

When Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites go, wasn't Pharaoh exercising his gift of freewill?
Why did angel Gabriel need to visit Mary to tell her she'll have a Son? Perhaps to obtain her consent to be a willing partner ?, loll.
The omniscience of God doesnt interfere with the choices we make from out of exercising our gift of freewill from

Did God dictate to you what side of the bed to get out from this morning, lol, smh?
Did God specifically appoint you to log on to NL today?

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

And this one - (made at 1:11pm on Dec 21, on pg 3 of this thread -

NNTR:
Not on account of misery but on account of put up with life or shut up, if you dont want to top up.
One moment ago, you were flirting with the idea that you didnt ask to be born. If thats so, why are you still lingering about, as if like a toxic smelly fart

If hypothetically speaking you are, then just be you, be the best you, you possibly and uniquely can be

You havent the balls to go through. You love life too much. You enjoy chopping life and so you'll do everything with your gift of freewill, not to see the test through to the end. I'll spare you the my neighbour the humiliation

When Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites go, wasn't Pharaoh exercising his gift of freewill?
Why did angel Gabriel need to visit Mary to tell her she'll have a Son? Perhaps to obtain her consent to be a willing partner ?, loll.
The omniscience of God doesnt interfere with the choices we make from out of exercising our gift of freewill from

Did God dictate to you what side of the bed to get out from this morning, lol, smh?
Did God specifically appoint you to log on to NL today?

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

.

NNTR - You appear to have repeated a previous post (1:11pm; Dec 21) verbatim.

KnownUnknown:
Some of your questions are about abiogenesis and others about evolution. All questions that can be or have been answered to your satisfaction or dissatisfaction as research continues. I mean, you must have made some discoveries since 2013 about work on the subjects.

You can’t discuss the questions about sex independent of the theory of evolution, so why do you think it can’t account for them other than your incredulity. As for the professors who argue against evolution, has their research provided any clues about this matter?

The “why” questions such as “Why is life self replicating at all? What accounts for this?” have no discernible answers.

Maybe life replicates because that’s one of the myriad things that happen. Maybe life is just a stage in the decay of a solar system. Hell, if it didn’t replicate, we wouldn’t exist to ask why.

Anyway, you do have an answer for the “why” already, which maybe influencing your incredulity.

Looks like you only took a cursory glance at some of those questions.
Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Jakumo:
Chairman I don sight you and throway salute.

Na only you go fiti carry lie put for my head wey I nogo complain, but you sef know say na betta ting man pikin suppose to dey shook.

Lie ke!

Ilamina:
I heard the whites there
like to marry women from their Netherlands

Where they originally came from

That is by no means surprising. You see, if you have spent some time in SA, especially as a black African from from any other African country, you will have a first hand appreciation of the depth of the impact of apartheid on the psychology of that country. This is something that will take a couple of centuries or more to extinguish. Up till today, there are many wealthy neighborhoods in SA's cities in which the only black people you will see are servants, waiters in restaurants, door men, janitors, etc. I cannot imagine what it would have been like to grow up with such an idea being constantly thrust in your face - it must work grave psychological harm, and witnessed upfront, the sheer stench of its evil strikes one with greater force.

Ilamina:
big bums can be beautiful ❤️

Jakumo na strictly tooth-pick hin dey like oh.

KnownUnknown:
What about them?

I doubt the Theory of Evolution can account for them, and once raised several posers in that regard -

https://www.nairaland.com/1571602/evolution-sexes-sexxual-reproduction#20521482

.

KnownUnknown:
Congratulations

Have you given thought to the evolution of the sexes and sexual reproduction, for example?
Just curious.

KnownUnknown:
Have you taken time to examine the evidence and practical application while raising your “reasonable questions”?

If I hadnt, I would not say that overall, I accept the theory.

KnownUnknown:
The ostracized professors are just victims of their own ignorance.

Are you sure you have taken the time to examine some of the counter arguments made, while you recommend college to others?

Dtruthspeaker:
. . . that statement is also futurely implementable.

Hmmm.

Confusion over the mere words of ancient writers. Confusion everywhere. Poor mankind. Groping in the dark forever. Doomed to seek and never find.

Modern architecture is horseshhit.

Mosopzy23:
World cup is played off-season too na.
Honestly the timing if Afcon has never been cool

Secondly someone just pointed out that the timing for AFCON considers African weather. (Most of) Africa experiences its heaviest rains mid year.

Mosopzy23:
World cup is played off-season too na.
Honestly the timing if Afcon has never been cool

It was pointed out that there are plans to play it in-season because of the weather in Qatar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup

Kingpin1000:
What is the age bracket for Olympics?
How many key players have played I the olympics?

Why did you go silent on the World Cup?

KnownUnknown:
Dtruthspeaker is right and you are arguing wrongingly.

Words are sounds that refer to things or events in the world that one person is trying to communicate to another. The words make up language which is not set in stone but evolves. So “derangically” may not be correct grammar at the moment, but given the right circumstances, it can become part of the lexicon. I’m not endorsing his use of language but just pointing out that he communicated clearly albeit he writes in “derangically” style

“The lonely bandit dwindled in front of the critic.” is a sentence that uses “real” words but once upon a time it was gibberish.

I am no stranger to the evolution of language or the creation of words and dare say I have spawned a few myself. However "derangically" is just horrible and twisted to the eye, ear and tongue.

Dtruthspeaker:
There was not a word as deranged before!

Deranged, yes, derangically, never.