₦airaland Forum

plaetton: There are studies that religious bliss makes people live a bit longer.
I want to live longer, so i think it's about time I start shopping for a religion.
I want to be in that religious bliss that have been spoken about for so long.

But before I jump in with out looking, I would like christians to sell me the Jesus product.
Tell me why Jesus is better for me than Mohammed or Buddha, or Traditional African Religions.

Logicboy03: The brain of course is more complex.

Logicboy03: Dont worry, the feeling is mutual

Deep Sight: Question for you: which is more complex and intricate - A space Ship, or the human brain?

Logicboy03: Why the snark?

Logicboy03: The earth was formed by mindless matter.....stardust....no mystery there

Logicboy03: There are natural forming caves that need no builder. Peope live in caves too.
There are mansions that need builders. They cant just form on their own.


The point here is that you theists mix the natural with the artificial
Just because we build things doesnt extrapolate to nature or some God building things.

Some big rocks you see around are a result of sand, wind and heat and moisture.....which builder did that

Blacklight: I just can't seem to comprehend, probably for some fault of mine, how the appearance of a house is analogous to that of life and man. There are some utterly majestic caves, that have served as homes and fortresses to wild beasts and man. Do we stand aside and wonder if "mindless matter combined and coalesced over time to form the awe-inspiring (cave)"?

plaetton: Well , houses are not built with proteins.
If they were , you would have found billions of of unoccupied houses.
So, the analogy is incorrect.

Deepsight,
You have to know something thoroughly before you can argue against it.
Your knowledge of evolution is very very rudimentary.
It is grossly insufficient, and I might add, arrogant, to criticize, let alone repudiate any aspect of the theory of evolution when you hardly understand it.

All that I am hearing you say is improbable this and impossible that.

Presently, there is absolutely no dispute among scientists about the validity of the main gist of the theory.
It is a very very complex subject.
The change of RNA to simple DNA took hundreds if not thousands of intermediary micro-steps to achieve.
We know how it happened. There was no magic or fairy god-daddy involved.

To be fair, I really do not expect anyone not deeply immersed in cellular biology to understand, let alone accept the very complex processes that took billions of years, in place of the very simple acceptance of a magical creator.

I have to admit to you that what I have found very fascinating is that when the first proto-life emerged, it became driven to live and succeed.
A rudimentary intelligence? Your guess is as good as mine. But for me, that would be the most plausible answer.

So, if DNA is intelligent, then for me, the need and the drive to survive at all cost makes perfect sense.

Joshthefirst: he is truly a man of faith

plaetton: I get it.
But that house needing a builder phrase is too childish.

MyJoe: Besides, if we accept your argument we would have to accept the reverse argument that believers are necessarily the ones with depth and thought.

plaetton: Not again!

This is getting serious.

Calling Deepsight, Calling Deepsight.
Come in Deepsight.
Anyone there?
Can you hear me?

Man,
That Alpha Omega Galaxy system is too distant from Earth.
Come back home to Terra firma.
Your words and statements are constantly being garbled.
We don't know what they mean.

lol.

MyJoe: Personally, I believe in the creator God because I am convinced that while a stone can have landed on the roadside without someone deliberately putting it there, the house I live in can’t have come about that way (“the improbable protrusion in reality”).

Uyi Iredia: Why suggests a purpose to reality which is unevidenced

plaetton: Garble babble rabble!

Lies + Sophistry + Anonyism + lawyerly tenacity = Truth?

Maybe in your new galaxy.

Playing for the jury of uninformed plaebians again? huh?

Sorry, the well-informed jury has already spoken .
I am satisfied that Mr. Troll, Logicdude, Uyi, as well as myjoe have all made the same simple points that I did.

I cannot go on an endless cycle of repeating myself over and over again as if I was talking to a retard.
It makes me begin to feel like a retard.

End of discussion.

MyJoe: I'm doing good. I trust you are too.




Yes, you have consistently spoken of your belief in God being anchored on intuition and empiricism. “Appeal to intuition”, then, wasn’t the best way for me to put it.

I disagree with much of what plaetton has written – however, some quick points.

If the question “Is there EVIDENCE for God?” is asked, a Yes or a No would both be good answers, in my view. Here’s why.

1. God is not tangible – no one has ever seen him.

2. God is not to be seen in this dimension so the tools of science and research are useless in finding him.

3. Extra-sense perceptions of God, dreams, near death experiences, soul travel, etc, are subjective experiences – I mean, they always present a porter only the experiencer can log on to. (That explains why materialists like Martian and logicboy would hastily, and probably in ignorance, dismiss them as either lies, reading too much into ordinary things, or pure hallucinations.)

4. “Intuition” is tendentious, spectacularly subjective, and cannot be relied upon for the apprehension of objective truth. Logicboy did a sound critique of it above. I put a very similar argument to you in the past – where logicboy used the illustration of tribal folks believing the world is flat, I used that of Hindus venerating cows.

5. Outside an individual’s head, extra-sense perceptions cannot be equated with sense perceptions – that will make nonsense of the word “objectivity”.

6. The First Cause argument is good. But so is the counterargument.

I recall a cousin telling me he believes in God simply because he is comfortable with that position. At the end of the day that is what it often comes down to for the majority of thinking people – the position you prefer, since, according to Kierkegaard, you have to take a position.

Personally, I believe in the creator God because I am convinced that while a stone can have landed on the roadside without someone deliberately putting it there, the house I live in can’t have come about that way (“the improbable protrusion in reality”). But some atheists (like plaetton), on other hand, have reviewed the science available which tells them that the Big Bang came out of nothing without an apparent need for intelligent intervention. Some other atheists (like mazaje) insist that we don’t really know how it all started and since we can’t see any God or lightenings of him (and can't know even if we do since we don't know what God looks or sounds like) we can’t just conclude that God must be responsible. No lack of depth or thought there.

Besides, if we accept your argument we would have to accept the reverse argument that believers are necessarily the ones with depth and thought.

MyJoe: I think you're attacking the person. The use of flowery language or play on words does not necessarily amount sophistry. Not that there is flowery language here, to start with.

plaetton: I have repeated something at least four times on this thread, and in each time you are cornered you have twisted it to suit.

Lets me take everyone back to the genesis of all this argument so that I can expose your deliberate obfuscation of the issue.

But first, let me try as much as I can in the plainest english, to explain to anyone with the barest comprehension skills, the meat of my argument.

Lets take a leaf of a plant in my hand.
With that leaf in my hand, [size=20pt]I can see[/size] it's color,whether green, orange or red.
[size=20pt]I can see[/size] it's shape, whether oval or circular.
I can feel it's texture, whether fine or rough.
[size=20pt]I can see[/size][size=8pt][/size] the symmetry of it's veins.
If I wish, I could also smell it or even taste it.

That is what is called observation.
It is objective.
Any other person who holds the same or similar leaf, will make the very same observations.

In this case the truth about the nature of this leaf is easily and universally discernable.

Now, other other hand,

If I ask several people to gaze upon a portrait or photo image of the same leaf, and then ask them to deeply reflect upon their thoughts on it and it's implications for truth of blah blah blah...,
then surely, all will come up with very different subjective interpretations for this one visual image of the very same leaf that they had objective observed, and whose physical characteristics they had all agree upon.

Is that clear enough for any dumbos out there?

Show me where I said that observation cannot disclose objective truth.

You did did not ask us to observe a rock or a human brain or a mother and child.
No.

You asked us to deeply reflect upon the images of a rock and a brain, a mother and a child, dead corpse, etc.

To observe requires the use of physical faculties of sight, touch, ear, nose and taste.
To reflect upon an image already seen requires the a complex system of memory, age and experience, cultural or religious bias to interpret a simple image.

Enough.
Remember you did not call for observation, you called for thoughts and reflection and it's implications for so so truth.

plaetton: A lie, repeated many times, tend to be taken as truth.
I hate lies and I resent being lied about.

Uyi Iredia: @ Deep Sight: As I said one doesn't need to invoke God/gods to explain reality especially since science makes it possible to explain reality without reference to such.

Logicboy03: You're a person. Did I not answer the question clearly?


What is your point? That we can get objective results from looking at your picture?

Tell me, do you consider looking at a picture a scientific observation? Hmm? Dem never tell you that beauty is in the eye of a beholder in art?

Logicboy03: Of course, by further observation- but this further observation would consider other things- so, its not the same observation as the first

Logicboy03: Oh another question?

Observation that can be properly tested can lead to an objective truth.

Logicboy03: Okay, I will play along. I will play and beat you. Logic always defeats sophistry

Science is based on observation and logic.
You can observe something but your conclusion can be illogical-- this is why you need to test and examine what you observed.

Logicboy03: Okay, I will play along. I will play and beat you. Logic always defeats sophistry

Science is based on observation and logic.
You can observe something but your conclusion can be illogical-- this is why you need to test and examine what you observed.

Deep Sight: If you wish to follow the discussion, I suggest you start with these simple questions -

- > Is Science based on observation or not?

- > Can observation disclose objective truth?

Logicboy03: Guy, you are only deceiving yourself. If you like, quote the whole thesaurus, it wont change the sound argument that Plaetton made.


1) Pictures are subjective in the sense that people's perception will be different when it comes to describing what they saw.
2) Intuition is not always right. Infact, the world was not made for us. So, our intuition can not be in exact tune with the world


Following point number 2, it is intuitive that the world is flat. If you meet tribal people in the north of Nigeria, they will tell you tht the world is flat. It takes deep study of sailing, waves and movement of the sun to realise that the earth is not flat, despite standing on flat ground.


If God is intuitive, then it makes it even better to argue against it.

Joshthefirst:
Laugh a little sir, it will help relieve the stress.

plaetton: Science, in case you have not heard, have very simple explanations on how the worlds, ours , as well as the many billion others, evolve throughout the universe.

MyJoe: I agree with the highlighted – have been through it with Deep Sight once or twice. But I think he really believes it when he says it. Atheism is not a lack of deep thought. Deep Sight’s appeal to “intuition” doesn’t help that argument either.

plaetton: Shallow sophistry at best.
Intuit the existence of god subjectively?
And then what? Why stop there, why not also intuit more attributes of god, like hair color, his likes and dislikes , or does he exist in the form of a snake, a dragon, fire, volcano? and why not?
And why can't we also intuit also the existence of god's ancestry or creator? Why not?.
Why must we just intuit the existence of god and then stop there? Whose rules?

Do you get my drift? I doubt.

Subjective truths are not universal truths.

I feel weird for repeating this so often.


Again trying to use word play to say nothing.
That the " world is an improbable protrusion in reality" is just crapola.
How is the world an improbable protrusion in reality?.
As compared to what other reality that exists without a world?.
What reality do you know or have outside the world?

Science, in case you have not heard, have very simple explanations on how the worlds, ours , as well as the many billion others, evolve throughout the universe.

If you think that a a fairy super daddy created it, fine, just confine that belief to your head.
The rest of humanity is moving on.



Well, it is quite obvious that your views are jaundiced by your desperate need for a supper fairy sky daddy to complete your version of the puzzle of existence. I perfectly understand that.

Reminding you that most atheist have been where you presently are, the ones who dare to step out of narrow box and expand their thoughts and queries beyond simplistic fantasies are the ones who show depths of thought.

Asking deeper questions about old answers shows depth of thought , not clinging on to old answers that begs more questions.

texanomaly: Sir forgive my intrusion. Please. Your reputation precedes you. I stopped to see what all the fuss was about. I must say, I was highly impressed. Right up until you made this statement. I will speak frankly here, because we are all, surely, wearing our 'big boy' pants. You know very well Sir, that this statement is not completely accurate. You allowed these gentleman to ruffle your feathers, so to speak.

You have impressive skills I'll admit, but here you fall my hand Sir. Forgive me. I realize you don't know me, and may not care. There are many on NL who look up to you, and admire you. Perhaps if you give credit where credit is due, these guys may be more likely to take what you are trying to impart seriously. Probably not, but one can hope. They are for the most part, highly intelligent, with thought provoking questions. Now granted, they are misguided, but they can't help that.

That is all I wanted to say. Thank you for your time, and for taking up this gauntlet. As it were
.

plaetton: It is not possible to make someone an atheist.
Atheism is a realization that occurs at certain time in the lives of some individuals.
Even after the realization, it still takes a lot of courage to openly declare it.

I bet you that there are many many vocal theists on and off NL who are troubled by the enormous doubts they harbor about the existence of god.

You know them by the amount of intellectual gymnastics and sophistry they employ to prove the existence of the airy(more like fairy) skydaddy.