₦airaland Forum

wiegraf: Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Lol. One day you will start thinking.

You will look at things you have looked at everyday of your life, and they will suddenly seem drastically different to you, than they hitherto appeared. One of the things that will drastically change in your perception, is people.

And this will not be because such things have changed, no. It would be because you would have started thinking.

For all your waste of time on this board, you have yet to start to think, my dear, even though you will find that hard to swallow. Until the day that you start, then you will know that you previously had not thought.

Don't tarry too long: for there is a terminal date.

Merry Christmas.

[quote author=Deep Sight:]The eye is more than enough food for thought - not its unfathomable complexity - which is quite another proof, no, not even that: rather the fact that it represents perception through sight - and this is only possible to a personal being. To see a thing, a feel a thing, to hear a thing, to smell a thing, to taste a thing: these faculties are only possible where there is a being that is seeing, a being, that is feeling, a being, that is tasting, etc. The physical apparatus by itself can only transmit and interpret signals - if there were no being to experience the interpreted signals, there would be no experience.[/quote]Indeed, thinking on the above, one might ask oneself if a robot can taste an orange. Or en.joy sex.

And indeed, for the thoughtful and clear-minded, many other very obvious questions spring from these two seemingly simple questions, which absolutely foreclose the position of the strict materialist as arrant and wasteful nonsense.

But in his smug and most thoughtless st.upidity, he laughs at the non-materialist theist.

Keluong: Thank you very much.
I used to think like an atheist. But there is something unique in life. You dont tell me that the ability to think, love, hate be sad, reason, judge, discern and some high level of intelligence is just by some random chance natural selection, that unknowingly gathered elements of the brain together and started evolving? Infact, the proof of God is found in the atheists. How can something be able to reason logic to this level and find little faults in arguments and you tell me that its just a product of nature found in the tiny brain that came by chance without any external control?

The bold in red is the saddest part: namely that the materialist atheist infers or states that such are nothing but the work and product of tiny pieces of matter, which, for their own unknown purposes and motivations, collectively work together in an intricate system to deliberately produce such. It's unthinkably and lamentably st.upid, that they cannot discern the clear evidence of a personal being existing therewith, and the aggregation of matter about it, which is called a body, being nothing but its material support system for life in a material world.

The eye.

The eye is more than enough food for thought - not its unfathomable complexity - which is quite another proof, no, not even that: rather the fact that it represents perception through sight - and this is only possible to a personal being. To see a thing, a feel a thing, to hear a thing, to smell a thing, to taste a thing: these faculties are only possible where there is a being that is seeing, a being, that is feeling, a being, that is tasting, etc. The physical apparatus by itself can only transmit and interpret signals - if there were no being to experience the interpreted signals, there would be no experience.

Which is why I refer thinkers to meditate on the corpse. To observe its as-built functionalities and ask themselves: WHAT were those functions serving?

They are only functions built for a being.

This is the simple, plain and evident truth that any child can see and discern; however, as the saying goes: a little learning, is often a terrible thing.

What can I say?

wiegraf: No, really, oga DS, you should warn us before you post. Some of us are allergic to BS.

https://www.funnypica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Funny-Vomit-people-12.jpg

Kid.

Mr Troll: ^^^^

Deepsight, your stupidity is getting legendary.

Lol.

what dafuq is this nonsense?

Do you know the processes that lead to the death of an animal? Say through electrocution, old age, trauma or disease? What nonsense is this 'breath of life' you are trying to promote here?

The very hands with which you type this, will rest in a grave one day. And rot.

You are not your body. Reflect on that.

I don't have the energy this morning for a sermon on the obvious.

Oh, and talking about st.upidity, please read your post again, and ask yourself if the processes that lead to death, have any bearing on the question as to whether a non-material being survives the body or not. I have highlighted the luckless logical gaffe in yours above. Good grief.

Honestly, good grief. Elementary thought processes are beyond you, and still, wide open, you allow your mouth to hang, the ill-formed thoughts therefrom to blast, repugnantly, into the world.

Keluong: I cant explain God. I used to think that atheists were right. But I dont think God needs to proove anything to us. Its just like you making a very powerful machine/robot that can think on its own. Just because it is highly intelectual, it wants it maker to proove that its it maker, with the kind of logic and reasoning wired into it . The 1st question the robot should ask itself is how did I come into existence?

Good question.

Actually the robot could even use the capacities wired into it to detect all the electronic connections, metallic elements, chemical substances and pieces of data that it is formed from. It could go further to analyse the sources of such materials and compounds and even break them down into equations and mathematical formulas. The robot could then ignorantly conclude that it had no maker.

This is what strict materialist evolutionists do when they describe the stages of biological evolution as the explanation for life as we know it. Just as in the case of the robot, that does not in any way show that man does not have a maker.

If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times: the existence of God is glaring; and the existence of the spirit of man as different from the material body is super-glaring. You only need to look at a corpse to see this most glaring of all facts.

plaetton: @Deepsight.
What caused God to be?

God, my friend is not said to be caused.

Is there Eternity?

What caused it?

Is there Infinity?

What caused it?

Eternity and Infinity are components of God - and, are clearly not factors of which you would speak of a cause, are they?

Joshthefirst: God is not bound by space time. God is uncaused, self-existent, conscious, direct, all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present. He described himself as the "I AM"

plaetton: So isSanta Clause. Is Santa Clause God? Hmmm.

@ Plaetton -

Well no sir, as far as we all know, Santa Claus is rather defined as with gifts down chimneys, a reindeer carriage, his red caps and overcoats, and the like.

Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle and simply "Santa", is a mythical figure with legendary, historical and folkloric origins who, in many Western cultures, is said to bring gifts to the homes of the good children on December 24, the night before Christmas. However, in some European countries children receive their presents on St. Nicholas' Day, December 6.[1] The modern figure of Santa Claus is derived from the Dutch figure of Sinterklaas, which, in turn, has part of its basis in hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of Christian bishop and gift-giver Saint Nicholas. During the Christianization of Germanic Europe, this figure may have absorbed elements of the god Odin, who was associated with the Germanic pagan midwinter event of Yule and led the Wild Hunt, a ghostly procession through the sky. Over time, traits of this character and the British folklore character Father Christmas merged to form the modern Santa Claus known today.

Obviously I have not posted the extract above because you do not know it, you clearly do, and so does anyone else.

I have posted it simply wondering why when attributes such as self-existence, omnipotence and omniscience are mentioned by a Christian describing God, you would respond by saying that Santa Claus also has these properties. This shows one of four things: (1) you are cracking a joke (in which case you should not be taken seriously), or (2)you are trying to mock (in which case you should not be taken seriously) or (3)you genuinely believe that the ontology of Santa Claus is similar to the ontology of God as either is defined (in which case you should be pitied), or (4) you are trying to say that any attribute can be attributed to a mythical character (in which case you both avoid the fundamental question of existence and non-existence, as well as the fact that both "mythical" characters are well defined with specific "mythical" attributes. Just as surely as the "mythical Sango" is very well delineated from the "mythical Yemanja".)

The lesson of all my trouble on such a simple line from you is to request you to be serious when having existential discussions. Existentialism is a serious and grave area, and when discussed, should not be approached with light mocking jibes such as Santa Claus, or worse, FSM, Meatballs (as I saw you say in another thread) and such other empty and useless mockery - which actually serves to mock the mocker himself more than anything else.

wiegraf: You may not know the meaning of deluded. Holding that this universe was put together just for you I would say fits much, much more with the actual meaning. It's like a grain of sand thinking the milky way was put together just for it.

I have never said that the universe was built just for humans.

In before you shift and say it was put together to support carbon based life, not necessarily us. Really?

Good, I see you have already corrected yourself, so I don't have to.

Nevertheless those were still not my words.

And, of course, the obligatory definition of what 'god' means this month,

That has always been the most fundamental element of the definition of God from the dawn of time.

and your willfully ignoring the conspicuous fact that most people here are addressing yahweh when they speak of 'god'

I should ignore it, because atheism is not defined as a disbelief in the existence of Yahweh. It is a disbelief in the existence of God.

^^^ Daftie. Skoot.

You are of course too lazy in both the physical and intellectual senses to go through the issues in a lucid manner or grasp the pith of the matter.

rationalmind: No. I don't think you get him.

I do. He should be aware that there are many colorations of what the term God refers to, however the concept has one most intrinsic fundamental core denominator: namely that it is the pre existent cause.

That is why I stated that he is contradicting himself when he says that it is irrational to believe in God, if he also says that it is not irrational to believe in a pre existent cause. This is because at the most fundamental level, that is the most basic core definition of the word "God".

What Logicboy is saying is, the pre-existent cause may be some form of virtual particles or something no one knows at the moment. And that is what he doesn't consider irrational.

At the most fundamental level, that would still qualify as fitting the most basic definition of God. This is why, for example, you would have the play on words which the Higgs Boson was nick named as - The God particle.

However I should tell you that all that is sufficient, is for us to agree that there must needs be a cause.

If you call that cause Mr. Virtual Particle, and I call that cause Mr. God, we both agree on the existence of something - A pre existent cause, which we see call and see differently. That is not a big deal. Language and Culture alone does that, not to speak of Ideas.

Nevertheless, I should tell you that any world view that renders matter or non living particles as the source of world and mind, is thoughtless in the extreme, and I would even say wilfully deluded and insane.

This is just my opinion from what I understood from his post.

Thanks.

Pope Xander VII: Can you be more explicit on how Atheism is a
denial of the laws of motion and the laws of thermodynamics?

I will.

wiegraf: You spout nonsense with such confidence, it's like a gift.

Before you whine, abeg, show how atheism is the bolded.

You are one to talk about spouting nonsense.

Anyway, Gentlemen, on the denial of causality/ the law of cause and effect, I have had an extensive discussion previously with Jayriginal, and there is no point repeating myself. The discussion starts here -

https://www.nairaland.com/869536/darwins-day/6#10392540

And continues over the next 5 to 6 pages.

If you are interested, you may read it, but you may have neither the time nor the inclination.

I will post similar links to previous discussions on motion and thermodynamics.

This post -> https://www.nairaland.com/1556662/china-lands-moon-does-nigeria/1#20255067

- may be useful to you, before you jump and scream - "O. but atheists don't deny causality!"

Deep Sight: So belief in a pre existent cause is irrational?

Logicboy03: No.....a belief in a God is irrational.

But the most fundamental definition of God is as a pre-existent cause. That is what God is said to be.

So at the most fundamental level of definition, you are contradicting yourself.

Logicboy03: Both are irrational...there is no evidence for both your "gods". Funny how your gods have no independent qualities of their own when it comes down to evidence. You take energy and claim that it is god. The christians claim that we are creations therefore god is the creator......irrational arguments

So belief in a pre existent cause is irrational?

Ok.

It wont kill you to stop using big words....you only impress market women like Ishilove and the ilk

I write the way i write and i speak the way i speak. Stop obsessing on nothing.

And since you choose to rope in an innocent non participant in this discussion for unwarranted insults, I will have you know that if she is a market woman, you are certainly one of the lowliest dirtiest touts in the said market, useful only as an agbepo, a crippled, filthy bearer of wares which are suitable only for the lowest souls in the said market. Get an education, and stop embarrassing the Federal Government and your long suffering parents by calling kindergarten words 'big words'.

I write the way I write and I speak the way I speak. Stop obsessing on nothing.

plaetton: So, a god existing outside the universe is a contradiction because such a god cannot be said to exist in the universe.

OMG!

WTF!

Please explain this statement. Let me restrain myself and assume I am missing something. Read, absorb and re-explain this statement please.

Thank you sir.

Logicboy03: Belief in god is irrational. Simple and short. Deepsight, your sophistry wont change that

Be clear please. Belief in God as defined by Abrahamic religions or belief in God defined as the nessary causative factor of the universe and mind.

Are both equally irrational?

in answering this, please consider the implications of stating that either definition, is non existent.

Thank you, noble kind gracious and excellent sir, potentate of nairaland.

plaetton: Atheism is NOT A PROPOSITION.

It is.

It is a denial of basic laws. Such as the laws of cause and effect and the laws of motion and thermodynamics.

The big bang could have been caused by tons of different known cosmic variables, and millions of unknown or yet to be known cosmic variables.

....Which cosmic variables of course just exist, abracadabra!

However, the bold is BULLSHITE......apart from that, you made a solid point

By the way- religion is one of the massive contributors to low IQs and poverty

------->

This belief, whether you share it or not, is by no means a st.upid one, or reserved for people of low IQ.

plaetton: Anything, anything at all to increase our national IQ and neutralize the debilitating effects of magical thinking and religious bullshyts.

You are quite the one who is obsessed. You really need to get off it brother. Do you really think religion is responsible for poor 'national IQ'? Lol.

FYI the vast majority of scientific breakthroughs were, and are still being made by religious people. The very Big B.ang Theory, if I am not mistaken, was propounded by a catholic priest.

Please stop conflating religion with a lack of intellect. In all truth, I can safely say that the smartest people I personally know - maniacally brilliant even - are also deeply religious people, even though I do not agree with their creeds and doctrines.

The first step to heal your maniac anti religious obsession is for you to realize that there is nothing st.upid, in the perception that man sees himself as a spiritual being encapsulated in a physical body, delivered into an evidentially constructed world by an evidentially intelligent creator. This belief, whether you share it or not, is by no means a st.upid one, or reserved for people of low IQ.

As to your topic, I love the idea, but please and please, Nepa needs to be fixed first. Lest there is a blackout, and our astronauts fall out of the sky.... dont you think, o guru of science?

rationalmind: Only that I didn't tell you I subscribe to objective morality. I was only trying to call you out on your use of "they".

Come on. There was nothing wrong with the use of "they" because "they" were indeed atheists; and to a man, amongst those that stepped forward, they all argued for the subjectivity of morality on that thread. Including LB, who here shamefully partly retracts that by saying that he thinks some morality to be objective. "They" indeed do lack any integrity, those ones!

It is not wrong either, when you say of Christians - "They" call a Jewish Rabbi God. It is not wrong, because Christians do say this - even when not all Christians say or agree with it.

Logicboy03: As usual, you talk a lot of nonsense. First of all thanks for jumping on one atheist to label all atheist as poor on moral philosophy. Generalisation.....

I for one believe that many aspects of morality are universal due to them having logical grounding.....then there are some gray areas.....


So not all morality is relativem you and your pal shouldn't judge all atheists witht the comment of one

rationalmind: I tire o. Even sam harris (an atheist) believes in objective morality. He just doesn't accept it has anything to do with any moral giver

Why are you fellas wetting your pants?

I merely referred him to what atheists argued on a thread. I did not even refer him to any particular post of mine or theirs - I rather asked him to read the whole thread. So why are you getting your knickers in a twist, why are you sh..tting yourselves?

Could it be because, as is obvious with your statements, you have yet to grasp the fatal implication of the existence of objective morality for the atheistic worldview. That fatality was very well grasped by the atheists arguing on that thread, and that was why they were ready to make the most staggering, bewildering and shocking declamations, desperate to avoid the existence of any objective morality. It appears you two miss that fatal implication, which your atheistic co-travelers on that thread grasped very well.

BTW, LB, its okay for you to refer to nonsensical statements made by religionists, and you find those references not to be unnecessary generalizations, right? Why then can others not refer to nonsensical statements made by atheists, without you proceeding into epileptic cardiac arrest?

NativeBoy: "all morality is relative" - this is exactly the point. Under a certain set of circumstances, if you subscribe to an atheist mindset, you can justify anything.

Exactly. And that is what they in fact do, poker faced, and without blinking.

Whenever you have the time, read this thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/1520806/evolution-morality

Read ALL of it.

In repeating that cultural values are the basis of criminal laws, you forget the topic .- the morality of the laws.

So when you say that morality is based on values, you thereby say that anything that is endorsed by the values of a culture is thereby morally apt.

Such as slavery, or killing twins.

I could not possibly make it simpler.

Catching a flight now. Talk again later.

Mr Troll: i'm done playing silly here....

You can't be done with what you are.

rationalmind: Lol, I never said so sir. .

Edit: something else led to that very logical conclusion

To be clear .. are you saying that something else led to the very logical conclusion that.-

Deep Sight: ..... that the Universe had no cause, that dead matter conspires to erupt thinking feeling beings, or that God does not exist.

And if so please what led to that conclusion?

plaetton: We atheists often forget that we need spiritual understanding to make sense of all the #*%$ that come out of the lips of josh and other apostles of bullshyt mountain.
Your common sense is simply not enough.
Lol

There isn't enough bulsht on all the bulsht mountains put together, to confront the enormity of the bulshyt on parade by your cohorts here.

rationalmind: Yes, we have to attack all of them for their beliefs including him because, even if Josh or a few others are exceptions to some belief systems, we can't be excluding them everytime we talk.

My friend was told by the pastors she stepped on a charm when she was small. They told her the charm she stepped on is responsible for all the problems she's been having. The discussion went on and on till she handed them 52,000 naira.

If she had been on nairaland and had been bashed on her beliefs about charms or the dangers of believing pastors, hook line and sinker, who knows, maybe she would had been wiser.

That's what we set out to do and that's what platteon was trying to do with the thread and the thread about the Philippines

If josh feels we generalise, he should know we are referring to the majority and not a certain minority which he feels he's part of.

..... and probably your friend being duped and the Philippines tragedy both lead to the very logical conclusion that the Universe had no cause, that dead matter conspires to erupt thinking feeling beings, or that God does not exist.

texanomaly: When you made this statement, it was relevant. Now that y'all have gone through 10 pages of going around and around, can you still justify the *coughs* debate? Just asking...You tell me? I respect your opinion.

Well thank you, snd it is with deference to your comment, and cognisant of the fact that I have said that which I needed to say, that I now try to limit unnecessary brick batting here. There is nothing further to engage.

Thanks for the advise and kind words.

^^^^ Delude yourself. I have seen the end from the beginning as you have shown a determination to fail to address the core issues here. Wiegraf's turn out on this thread has been scandalously low minded and abysmal. He hops on your nonsense about cultural values after advocating force as the proper tool for the determination of morality. Bunkum. Trash.

As for the nonsense on cultural values it of course is neither here nor there. It would ascribe as morally apt anything endorsed by the value system of a culture. This would include aztec human sacrifice, the killing of twins, child labor, honor killing, apartheid, slavery, gender apartheid, ethnic cleansing and every other perverse atrocity in history that has had the good fortune to be endorsed by a society as a cultural group based on their values.

Its a nonsensical nonstarter that makes no distinctions and I will not commit any significant energy to engaging such until and unless you answer the original questions properly and sensibly and show a grasp of the real problems and issues at play.

aManFromMars: What would you define as extremism? Was Abraham 'extremist' when he took his son for sacrifice?

I think that you surely do have an idea of what religious extremism refers to. And yes; I would consider Abraham's action as extremist.

Atheism is purposeless and meaningless, just like not believing in Santa won't automatically give you a purpose in life.

Perhaps it will help you better if I put it thus: the atheistic worldview would render that the universe, the world, and all existence, have no inherent deeper purpose or meaning, but "just happen" to exist, or to have come to exist as a fluke or quirk.

Not believing in God isn't the end of the world. There's so much out there to learn, explore and enjoy.

There is also so much out there to suffer: and satisfaction regarding the profound questions of our existence is never attained without a recognition of our spirituality: and to boot - a recognition of the abstract realm of ideas in which we live our entire lives: and a recognition therefore of the non-material nature of mind, of reality, and of the human core. But you may skip this; as I hardly expect it will make any sense to you.

Not really. I believe religion evolved from culture and religion is man's creation.

At this point we will be quibbling with semantics - for it is legitimate to also say that religion is culture as well. You could not separate Jewish religion from Jewsih culture for example, nor could you separate Islamic religion from Islamic culture. Same goes for every other culture and religion - religion and culture are intertwined and in most cases are even the same thing, the culture being the religion and the religion being the culture.

You can't give what you do not have. Religious doctrines and notions of love simply mirrors the founder's desires and character.

And so? Is there anything we practice that does not originate from our minds and thoughts?

At the end, it all boils down to man. If you see any truth in any religion, it wasn't religion that revealed that truth to man. It was man embedding his idea in the fabric of religion.

Again, I repeat - And so? Is there anything we practice that does not originate from our minds and thoughts?

You speak as if Religion is a person somewhere (see the bold in the quote above) and not simply practices and beliefs of man.

I fail to see your point here.

Do you consider prostitution intrinsically wrong or evil?

No.

Which would you consider evil? The death of a loved one? The death of an enemy? The death of an oppressor?

Death by itself is just as natural a phenomenon as birth. Birth, growth, degeneration, death - natural processes. So your question is like asking if I would consider the birth of a loved one, enemy, or oppressor, as good or evil. It is not their birth or death that is good or evil, but the moral actions surrounding same.

Is death evil?

Like birth, it is just a natural process.

Until different versions of this God decide to wage war against each other.

Of course this never happens. Where have you - an atheist/ aganostic - ever seen God fighting anywhere, or gods fighting anywhere.

You only see men fighting for reasons best known to them.

Smoove. Maybe you could help us mention a single religion that isn't corrupt in any form.

All religions do have some form of corruption or the other, but what I referred to was that degree and extent of corruption which leads to shocking perversions of the essential ethos of religions.

This board is testament that mockery does work. Ask Alfa.

For every Alfa Seltzer that you may think mockery has worked with, I am confident there are ten others whose determination to follow their religious path has waxed stronger on account of a persecution complex. This is why I said maybe you should do some statistical research on the question.

Mockery of religion is wasteful and childish - except where one condemns the most extreme and unacceptable fall-outs of religion - such as terrorism, for example. Trust me, I should know how wasteful such mockery is - if you have the time to skim through some of my older posts you will be shocked at the amount of time and energy I devoted to mocking religion. It was a s.illy, puerile waste of time that profited no one anything. It is not even a sensible way to go about changing the mind of the believer.

^^^ Confused garbled nonsense, not that I could ever expect anything else from you after your demystification of your self with your very low minded posts on this thread.