₦airaland Forum

thehomer: Thanks. Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

What heat? The heat where you make completely unsound premises such as a God who cannot be detected and yet is detected in its works by millions of humans? That you dont share their opinion does not mean you have shown that they have not detected God in its works about them.

Secondly, as an alternative, you them offer the farcical and absurd doctrine of dead matter contriving human beings, given enough time.

Abegi!

thehomer: Excellent. I know sticking to attacking strawmen is easier but it still doesn't mean you've actually addressed my argument.

That is your argument: do not run away from it. You say that matter did contrive human beings over time unaided by any intelligence, no?

thehomer: Huh? How you make these leaps, I will never know.

That is your position and you CANNOT resile from it: namely that bare and dead matter somehow, with the passage of time, contrived Human Beings.

If they can do their work without introducing your God, then your God is not necessary for them to do their work.

Dont make me laugh. "Necessary' as you surely know, has nothing to do with their ability to do their work. Don't be a toad. It has to do with the inescapable necessity of God in logic about the origin of existence.

thehomer: But you do consist of matter unless of course you're not human.

Maybe you consist of matter, I do not. I am a spirit being within a material cloak.

Dead matter? Is the moon alive or dead? Last time I checked, it consisted of matter. No I don't say that because there are certain conditions required.

STOP RUNNING. DONT BE A COWARD. IT IS IN FACT YOUR RPOSITION, IS IT NOT, THAT DEAD MATTER, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, CONTRIVED TO FORM HUMAN BEINGS, NO?

Can a corpse appreciate great wine?

You'll be surprised.

Meh. A universe is still very different from a house.

O, infinitely greater and more magnificent, yes of course.

Don't worry, with time, this could become a human being - Thehomer

By Spontaneous generation in a primordial soup, and subsequently by natural selection, no help needed.

thehomer: No it doesn't. Millions of people can be and have been wrong about what they thought they detected. People have had wishful thinking, delusions, hallucinations, illusions, faulty memory and many other issues.

O yes, delusions such as the intricacy required for the existence of a human, or any brain, for that matter. No doubt that is nothing but our imagination, a delusion - which of course was put together by mindless matter and gases which simply had enough time to arrive at that!

Yet philosophers and scientists have been doing their work without the need for introducing God. I wonder why.

O, we do not speak of their work, which they may get right or wrong at any time. We speak of the necessity of God: which necessity, has nothing to do with their work, whatever they may propound or not propound.

thehomer: This is of course a text book case of the bandwagon fallacy. Millions claiming to detect God or to hear him doesn't make it true. For all we know, those claiming to hear him may have some psychological problems while others claim to detect him because he got them a parking space near the supermarket entrance. If they can actually hear God, then God is interacting with the universe in some way.

Of course, because they are living beings, who recognize that they use material tools to perceive a material world; it being more than evident to any thinking being, that he does not consist of matter. These people can then locate the glaring fact of their intangible existence as beings, and as such recognize the fount of life itself as non material and intangible.

I am sometimes hilarious when I want to be but you're just making a strawman argument here because nothing I said actually leads to that conclusion.

[size=16pt]DO NOT BE A COWARD NOW. EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID INESCAPABLY MEANS THAT YOU SAY THAT DEAD MATTER AND GASES, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, WILL IN FACT AND DID IN FACT PRODUCE CONSCIOUS INTELLIGENT, KNOWING SAPIENT BEINGS.[/size]

Oh I appreciate a lot of things.

About as many things as a corpse appreciates, I guess.

The universe is a very different beast from a house. It is like comparing an apple to a pod of whales.

A self existent universe should surprise you just about as much as a self existent house should, if not more: for a self existent universe contains many more vastly amazing and intricate things than any house does.

You, of course, being one such amazing thing.

thehomer: By we, I meant people in general. One human person would be enough to satisfy this requirement.

O, one line containing two sentences in perfect contradiction.

Second sentence defeats your argument, since not just one, but millions, profess to detect God and even hear God. And oh, you cannot deny their statements since you are not within their mind or perceptions, you can never know, can you?

Since we're just stamping our feet and making assertions, then I too say that it is only a mad or ignorant man in these modern times would take a look at the world and believe that it had a God behind it.

Dont worry, dead matter, rock and gases did it all by their very intelligent selves.

And ignorant about what? Ignorant about the capacity of dead rocks and gases to, given sufficient time, form intelligent beings of culture and knowledge such as us?

You are hilarious.

By necessary, I take it that you mean logically necessary. You'll need an argument for that. The rest are just assertions and misuse of words. How can God be living when it isn't at the very least made of cells? Or are you using a hidden definition of "living"?

Answering this question to you, would amount to throwing cheap jewelry (not pearls) before swine. No offence intended mate, just meant proverbially about he who will not appreciate anything, no matter how simple or valuable.

To be clear, the conclusion of the argument was:

5. If we cannot tell that he does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

Just as surely as when we see houses, we cannot tell who built them, or that they must have have a mind, or hands.

thehomer: I used your own example of it being detectable to one person as satisfying the criterion for being detectable.

Well this nullifies your whole argument. Millions detect him and profess so everyday. They detect God in all the wonder that they see: particularly with reference to seeing living, thinking, conscious, sentient, knowing, sapient beings, the technology for which remains beyond the highest human intelligence but which you seek to claim was performed by dead matter. Bro, you are funny indeed.

If you laugh at or reject religious notions of God, I can understand that. I cannot understand however, laughing at or rejecting the philosophical and indeed, scientific necessity of God.

thehomer: It does not assume that man can detect everything detectable in existence,

.

It does, when you say this:

thehomer:
3. If he does, then we should be able to detect it.

It is possible that you might not be able to detect it. That is logically possible.

And many sensible people do not see the existence of brains the CNS and the rest of the natural world as evidence for your God. Notice that when you say this, you're implicitly saying that the effects of your God are detectable and have been detected.

Of course, man has logically and intuitively detected the existence of God from the dawn of time. This is why you have all the concepts of God all over the world. No body, save mad men, see the sort of extensive design of the human brain, and its functions far in excess of that which is warranted by evolution, and concludes that it is the product of un-directed mindless matter. It takes madness, to believe that.

If you're saying this, then what does the presence of unspeakable terrors, horrors and pains in the natural world mean? Are they also evidence of your God?

The argument does not say that God is all good. It does not even say that God is benevolent. It says that God is necessary.

At all events, for anything to exist, something or the other must be self existent. I have already told you severally why matter cannot be the self existent, but you never just get the very simple reason why. Self existent things are not mutable.

And what else can you now conclude about this God?

That it is necessary, self-existent and living.

This is what makes your argument bad -

thehomer: 3. If he does, then we should be able to detect it.

This assumes that man currently has what it takes to detect every thing detectable in existence. The truth is, man is only developing in that regard. Many things in the universe which we can detect today, we could not detect yesterday, for lack of the appropriate technology.

You therefore cannot make this huge and bad assumption that man is omniscient and as such can detect everything detectable. That is simple false. We cannot.

Secondly, many sensible people see the footprint of God in intelligently designed organs such as our brains and central nervous system, aside from the many unspeakable wonders of the natural world. That you willfully refuse to see intelligence therein is a personal choice you have made, and concerns no one else.

solomon111: how much does GEJ have in his account?

O, just a little over half of everything Nigeria earns annually. . . . . . year on year. . . . go figure.

Dangote is Africa's LEGITIMATELY richest man. . . . as for the illegimate wealth, many pass am.

Go find out how much Hosni Mubarak had stashed away IN CASH before he was toppled. . . . then you will understand.

If any body thinks Dangote is richer than the President of this country alone, that person is a fooooooooool.

^^^ Do you agree that for anything to exist at all, something or the other must be self-existent?

collynzo2: You don't know the difference between its and it's but you are calling others idiots. You are doomed

kponke denge: Olodo u cannot even numba ur posts properly. U r doomed.

LOL @ "DOOMED!"

Oya, calm down, e dey pain you say I talk true?

Examine the content and stop bbitcching on typos and numbering.

CarCam: Transcript

0:01 We are at the famous sights of the
0:05 giant footprint or the footprint of god
0:07 here near
0:09 Mpaluzi, in South Africa very close to the Swaziland border
0:14 now this is one of the
0:16 greatest examples of an ancient footprint
0:19 a giant footprint, about four feet high
0:21 in rough granite it is about two hundred million and three billion years old
0:25 that's what geologists will tell you
0:27 am just going to take you, if you follow me
0:30 up to the top
0:31 where it's imprinted against the side of the rock
0:33 which means it's been around for so long that tectonic plates and the movement
0:37 have actually pushed it up

Why is the Higgs Boson called "the God particle?" Is it because scientists think it is God?

Grow up man! 'THE FOOTPRINT OF GOD' is just a nickname they have given to the imprint!

collynzo2: You cannot even count properly and you are calling others idiots. You are finished.

SHARRAP! TYPO!

kponke denge: U and ur generation r idiots. Didn't u hear wen d man said d footprint belongs to Godm stop clamin cheap inteligece cos its exposing ur stupidity n it sucks.

OMG! ! ! !

Your stoopidity is surreal!

boneruns: Most people commenting here didn't even watch the video. The Archaeologist only stated that there were giants on earth, and not God.

Better person jare.

Permit me the liberty to call every-one who has commented above me a prize-winning iddiot.

It would appear that you fellas did not even watch the video.

If you did, the issues that should concern you are as follows -

1. If the print is a hoax, deliberately created by some fraudsters or pranksters.

2. If the print came about by chance, or by geological / tectonic movements

3. If the print is of the age claimed

4. If the print was in fact caused by a giant hominid as suggested

4. If 4 is positive, the implications of that on the history of humanity and evolution

Finally, the dude did not really mean it as 'the footprint of God' - that term is just a nickname, much like the Higgs Boson is called "the God Particle", stop being dolts.

At the end of the video, his claim is not that its God's footprint. His claim is that giants once inhabited the earth. Now if y'all are Christians, you should rejoice, for your christian Bible makes exactly the same claim.

In answer to your title, LB, the following are acts of high treason and blasphemy which are deeply offensive to Christians -

1. Claiming that virgins do not get pregnant.

2. Claiming that people do not walk on water.

3. Claiming that donkeys do not talk.

4. Claiming that human sacrifice cannot redeem anyone.

5. Claiming that a certain Jewish Rabbi/ Carpenter who lived 2000 years ago is not God.

So please stay away from these offences upon pain of death.

Okay, I will be posting some more still. However I have not closed my mind. God may be thought by some to be the universe itself, or all conscious life, all sorts of permutations of what God may be. But God IS.

Later. I need a small stout right now to cool my head.

What say you, we share a beer one of these days and chat it all through face to face. . . .sightdeep@gmail.com

plaetton: @Deepsight:

Hey man, your attention is needed on this thread.

*****I still dey come. I still dey far away. Make you wait till I reach where I dey gooooo. . . . . ***

When you say that some forms of evolution exists, we need you to explain what you mean.

Growth. Natural growth and natural change. I will elaborate on this when I come to my main post.

I would also like your views on the age of the universe, the earth, your views on whether the universe is static or changing, and if changing, the agency and the processes for such changes.

For this question, again, please permit me to reach into the past. It is long but every word is ever worthwhile. Mostly words from justcool -

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Did someone suggest the universe is a closed system? I think the reverse is far more logical. I had said in a previous thread:

Here I reproduce what Justcool wrote in red:

"Some people claim that the energy in the universe was created by the big slam! Nothing could be more unscientific!! Because science has observed that Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only changes forms. And since science is confined only to the physical; it logically follows that in the physical world energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus the source of the energy in the physical world was not created in the physical world; therefore there must be another dimension from where this energy comes i.e. where this energy is created."

Now you stated that - "that energy can neither be created or destroyed in a closed system."

This has one direct implication: that if the universe is a closed system, energy could not be created in it: to wit: there would never have arisen any energy therein. What this tranposes into logically is that there would have been no energy and no universe.

It therefore means that the very existence of energy herein presupposes an open system: or at the very least at the the commencement, an entrance or reception of energy. It logically could not be otherwise.

This rationally leads to the affirmation that the source of energy could not itself be this universe, or the matter from which this universe expanded.

This is firm reasoning: and it speaks for itself.

And Justcool had written -

Science acknowledges the big slam as an event that gave rise to the formation of the universe in its present state. Contrary to popular opinions, science never said that the Big slam created the universe in terms of creating the materials that make up the universe. Just as on can say the freezing of water gave rise to the formation of ice blocks; this does not mean that the water was created by the freezing. The freezing is an event which caused the water to change its state; you can also say that the freezing state of water or frozen water is a state of the water. Water can exist in many states- liquid, solid, gas and etc. Actually matter can exist in four states: (1) Plasma state, (2) Solid state, (3) Liquid state, (4) Gaseous state. The change of state or stage does not imply the creation of a new substance(matter) but rather it is the same substance or matter, only that the molecules are rearranged. Thus it is the rearrangement of matter or the atoms of the substance that gives rive to a change of state. In Solids for example, the atoms are closely compacted atoms while in liquids the atoms loosely compacted atoms and in gasses the atoms are even more loosely compacted and etc. Also difference in temperature and entropy gives rise to this change of state or rearrangement of the atoms. Plasma state, for example, can only exist at extremely hot temperatures; while solids only can exist in a certain range of temperatures, gasses can only exist in certain range of temperatures, and liquids can only exist in only a certain range of temperatures.

The big slam or the stage that caused the big slam is the plasma state of all the matter in the universe. At this stage it is so hot, extremely and unimaginably hot that the whole universe and all the forces of nature(gravity, electromagnetic forces and etc) are united into one. Indeed the whole universe is condensed or contracted into an object even smaller than an atom; it is so hot that not even gases can exist. Every thing is united and contracted to an object smaller than the smallest nucleus. This is the primordial seed!! In time the temperature gets so hot and the universe contracts to a point unimaginable small and when it reaches the maximum point of contraction it exploded! This explosion is the big slam. Once this explosion occurred, the temperature reduced due to less contraction, and the universe then formed into hot gases or nebulae. Every explosion releases energy or pressure; this pressure caused the hot gas to move further apart and away from the center of explosion. As the gasses moved further away, temperature is reduced and consequently it got to a stage where the temperature is so reduced that dense nebulae can arise, and then consequently from the nebulae liquids and solids can form. As things cooled down, what we call laws or forces (which are nothing but intricate behavior of matter), can now arise. Thus gravity comes into play and many other forces; as the nebulae grow bigger they begin to attract. This is gravity or gravitational potential at work. Soon due to gravity suns, planets asteroids and etc resulted. And consequently groped themselves into solar systems; big bodies like our sun are able to exercise an attraction on smaller bodies and consequently capture them in its orbit. This is our solar systems were formed.

The pressure resulted from the big band is still pushing everything away. Thus the solar systems are moving away from each other; the universe is expanding. Science knows this; but does not know for sure where this expansion will lead. It is my perception that this expansion will continue till the solar systems are so far apart that the initial pressure that arose from the big band slackens. Then gravity will counter the expansion; the universe will start contracting. The contraction will continue; and as it contracts, due to friction, it will become hotter and hotter. Also the bodies will become bigger and bigger, consequently having ever greater attraction towards each other. Based on the law of Gravitational potential which states that “The rate at which two bodies attract each other is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square root of their distance” the bigger the bodies get(their masses) the more they pull each others and the closer the get to each other, the more they pull each other. Soon the universe will collapse, crash or contract into one hot spot. The extreme heat will contract the universe once again into a small invincible(to the physical eye) spot. The universe will return to being a primordial seed, which after a certain degree of heat and contraction will explode again into another big slam.

This circle of explosion, expansion, contraction, and collapse will continue. The big slam is the beginning of the explosion stage and not the creator of the universe. It is the same energy that passes through these four states; it heats up to become plasma, only to explode cool down to condense and become matter. Just like the same lake of water can freeze and condense into solid ice during winter; it also evaporates as gasses during hot summer.

People encounter problems when they try to separate scientific energy from matter as being totally different things. Scientifically speaking, matter is condescend energy or matter is made up of energy. If one understands this, then he/she would stop saying things like “matter can be destroyed during nuclear reaction.” Matter can never be created or destroyed by man or any natural process. Matter only changes state; matter can change its state to plasma state where it becomes pure energy.

Just like a cup of water cannot by itself change from liquid to solid(ice) or to gas without an external force, be it change in the external temperature or other forces; the physical universe cannot be going through these changes or stages without external force acting on it. The pressure from the planes above the physical plane is the external force that is perpetually acting on the universe, keeping it in motion. Behind everything lies the “will” of the creator who set creation in motion and maintains it with ever new power annually.

Everything material passes through the four stages of (1) birth or blossoming, (2) ripeness or maturity, (3) over-ripeness or old age, and (4) decay or death. Our physical bodies, our houses, our cars, the earth, our solar system and even the entire material universe. The stage of death or decay is where the object is dissolved to its original components or constituents which will re-unite in another way to be born again. Thus after death or decay comes stage (1) birth again. This is the eternal circle of everything that is material.

The big slam could be likened to stage (1)Birth of the universe, not birth or creation of the substance that make up the universe. At the point when the solar systems are formed could be likened to stage (2) ripeness. At a stage in its expansion, it goes into stage (3) over-ripeness; then when its contracting it is in stage(4) decay which will lead its death which is a point where everything has retuned to the primordial seed. Then once again it will be born—another big slam.

Thehomer then asked why is a God needed if the universe keeps cycling.

Justcool's response -

(1) The Big slam is not the creation or the universe, in that it is not the creation of matter and energy that make up the universe.
(2) Science doesn’t actually say that the universe was created by the Big slam. Science only says that the universe in its present state started by the Big slam, while acknowledging that before the Big slam the energy and matter that cooled down to become the universe existed in a different form. Science also speculates that other universes might have existed before the present universe.
(3) Although science is not sure where the current expanding universe may lead; many have come up with many speculations. I offered my perception of where the universe is headed to, based on my knowledge of the Laws of creation which are express nothing but the will of God.


Putting all these together you see how ridiculous it sounds when people say that the universe (the energy and matter in the physical world) was created by the Big slam.

I introduced God into it because the cyclic movement could not have started by itself and perpetually maintain itself in order; such would violet the law of thermodynamics.

A liquid cup of water, in isolation of every external force, will remain a liquid cup of water. It cannot by itself, and without any external force change from liquid to ice; or from liquid to gas. Only external forces, like change in the temperature of the environment can cause these changes in the liquid cup of water.

Fishes living inside the lake that is perpetually changing state, from liquid to ice; if such fishes were men, they would know that there is something else beside the lake. Something that they cannot see, yet they see its effects in the environment, the lake. They would figure out there is a source of power(heat) outside of the lake, which causes it to change state. And this power is the sun which sends rays carrying heat, thereby warming the lake; and during winter when these rays are hardly felt, the lake freezes.

The lake could be likened to the universe; the fishes could be likened to us; the sun could be likened to God who through the pressure of His power keeps everything in motion.

This is a coarse analogy though; it faintly reflects the relationship between God, His Power and the universe.


I think all of this is very topical indeed.

It was a very rich thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/570326/linear-chance

It would be pure madness, for anyone to think that human consciousness, the quality of thought, sentience, purpose and sapience which we have, and particularly our ability to grasp abstract concepts, is an accident of evolution, arising, contrived and put together so intricately by mindless matter.

Madness, pure madness.

I will elaborate later today.

Permit me to start with some thing I said on this forum some years ago -

Now let us hang back a second and contextualize this:

We find ourselves in this world, living, thinking, feeling, intelligent beings. We see the world and universe about us. We are aware that we were not always here: that we were born - and we are aware that we will not always be here: that we die.

In truth perhaps it may be said that this is about all we can be absolutely certain of.

However we are typically born in one or more already existing religious worldviews – wherein we are taught a vast array of already existing and accepted “religious truths.” The vast majority of us end up accepting the Religion and Worldview of their birth and family as the one for ourselves. Some stray however.

Opening proposition: Having found ourselves in the natural world, it makes sense to look at the natural world about us in our search for truth. This natural world, is what I will call “The book of Life.”

Proposition Number One: Having found ourselves in the world: and having seen clearly that mankind is not perfect, we should not presume any of the “religious truths” that we have met within the world to be necessarily true or correct or perfect – but should rather seek to genuinely find that which is the truth about our existence in this world. Here I am not saying that one should reject the religion of one’s birth: but only that each human being owes it to himself to question himself, make inquiries, and search deeply for truth. It may well be that such a search will lead back to the religion of one’s birth but nonetheless –

A sincere self-examination and personal search for truth should always be undertaken by everybody. This is the first proposition.

Proposition Number Two: In the individual’s search for truth, the individual must ask himself which things he can honestly say that he knows within his mind to be true and which things he has merely accepted by an assumption. The individual having observed the nature of mankind must be keenly aware that history is replete with deceit: and that not everything that is reported to have happened can necessarily be believed to have happened, and vice versa. Most importantly, I think, the individual has to ask himself – in the context of his existence - which supposed truths are relevant and which are irrelevant?

Basically the individual is urged to accept as truth that which his mind knows for sure to be true – not necessarily because he has merely been told that such is true. He is urged also to sift the wheat from the Chaff by determining that which, even if true: is irrelevant to his existence as opposed to that which is both true and relevant to his existence. This is the second proposition.

Proposition Number Three: Now the Search for Truth proceeds. What can the individual say that he knows for sure? The very first question: the eternal question in the search for truth has been – where did all this (the world) come from? What is the source of all things?

Without much ado: and without the need for any advanced argument the Individual by common sense can agree within his mind that the world about him must have a source just as everything he observes has a source, a process for its existence. The Individual can apprehend that given the vastness of the world about him, and the incredible nature of its natural wonders, its creatures, its plants, and its natural beauty: that the source is a meaningful source: and that the source is of great capability and potential.

Expressed in the many different languages of mankind this source is what mankind throughout history have intuitively referred to as “God” – the maker of all things. This is the third proposition.

Proposition Number Four After the thought – “God created all things” – the next logical thought is “for what purpose?” – basically the quest of the individual to determine the purpose of his existence – and contextualize this with the purpose of all existence. Implicit in this already, for the discerning is a recognition that the individual bears a need to understand his existence in the context of all existence – and this implies that he has a need – he is compelled towards – blending with – or harmonizing with his environment and all existence.

The Individual can thus both logically and intuitively grasp that the purpose of existence - and his existence – is harmony. This is the fourth proposition.

Initial Summation: Beyond these, I am not sure that there is much else that the individual can honestly claim that he knows for certain. Everything else there is to be known, which is relevant to the individual’s existence, I believe are inferences and intuitive perceptions from the foregoing basic truths. I can only say for now that the advanced and exact knowledge of supposed celestial spiritual happenings which are contained within the many religions - in my humble opinion – cannot really be said to be known for sure by anybody, and are thus largely assumed beliefs – and not steady and certain truth. This is the basis for my claim to that which I believe I may rationally and intuitively know for certain; namely that there is a source – God and that the purpose of the source is harmony.

I will build on the foregoing in discussing Consciousness and what it implies for the existence of God and evolution in my further posts.

plaetton: Deepsight, I am awaiting your input to my thread on consciousness.

My dear, you will probably be shocked if you knew how much I have been dwelling on that thread and carefully deciding how to express my thoughts. It is too deep. Frightening, even.

I have an 11 a.m meeting tomorrow: once I am done with that, I will go straight into that thread, I promise. Beware my comments may be extensive.

Now, back to this thread.

In my worldview, the answers to all of the above are NOOOO, except for the use of animals in scientific experiments, in whose case, although cruel, the anticipated benefits to a wider humanity sort of mitigates against my moral conscience to an acceptable level.
Call it hypocrisy, and I agree with you.

Ah, haba, even the torture and sports and decoration? Guy, you harsh o.

wiegraf: Ooh, yeah, more random of sorts. The pastor is correct about most of what he's said

Sorry, I am not aware that the Pastor said anything on this thread. The Pastor is very taciturn and I have rarely seen him say anything since 2009 when I joined this forum. He is more comfortable dithering this way and that and arriving at nothingness. I would challenge the Pastor to shew just one conclusion on any subject he has ever made on this forum. It doesnt exist. Maybe it is laudable humility and he is leaving it to God to make the conclusions.

wiegraf: DOHOHOHOHO

You're not alone, seems I have trouble getting through to a few folk. My bahdt (not saying I'm going to be doing much about it though, so I'm not really sorry).

A somewhat abridged version. Materialism says nought (well, nothing directly) about your morality. It doesn't say you should respect human life more. Then again, it doesn't say you should respect human life less either. Just like it doesn't insist you marry 4 wives, or roast babies. It doesn't say you should worship the sun because you believe it is made of matter. Not sure how you're drawing conclusions like these, perhaps you are looking for dogma somewhere? You might have well just opened an 'Atheism is A Religion' thread. So yes, waste of time. I can only hope you weren't trolling.

Something like Humanism on the other hand is a little more involved...

Now this is disgraceful, and shows how terribly and disastrously you missed the premises. Meet me on the cruelty to animals thread and maybe we can knock our brains together a bit further for fun.

Laterz.

Alfa Seltzer: It is not about good and evil. All creatures have their uses. In my case, it is about phobia. I have an irrational fear of snakes. I would do anything to avoid contact with them. I even became physically sick and confused and almost fainted when we went to a zoo recently and I saw a small snake behind a glass box. I knew it was harmless but the proximity was too much to handle. Mind you, I wont go on a snake killing spree or pay someone to hurt them but I can never feel any remorse for anything that may happen to a snake. That is why I said it depends on the animal. I feel a bit guilty when I slaughter goats or chicken but it doesn't prevent me from enjoying their meat. Sorry if it is not what you wanted to hear but that's how I see it.

Most people share that phobia of snakes. However, if its about fear, can I ask if you feel the same way about other dangerous animals? Lets use the Lion as an example. Do you feel the same way towards it?

Alfa Seltzer: I will have a problem giving you a straight answer because I would say that for me, it depends on the type of animal. For me, there is nothing you can do to snake that I can consider cruel. If you slow cook a snake alive with its children, you are a too kind and generous. However, I would personally torture anybody I see hurting a monkey for whatever reason.

This means you regard some animals as good and some as evil. Can you share your reason(s) for this please?

(Although I understand the feeling, a friend an i came up with what we called the Evil Cult of Six - Snakes, Bats, Scorpions, Hyenas, Vultures and crocodiles).

But give reasons please.

^^^ Thank you. Your answers are based on the sense that animals are living creatures and that they can suffer pain. Pain is therefore the basis for your judgments. As such, you consider causing pain to animals immoral, yes?

[quote author=PAGAN 9JA]what rule number?[/quote]I am the one who created the rule in my OP. I said -

Here is the strict rule please. Only short one line answers are allowed throughout this thread. Nobody is allowed to go into an explanation of anything. You may ask questions, but they must also be short one-liners. The reason for this rule is to arrive at strict logic and not prose: to avoid verbosity and avoid a situation whereby people duck behind meaningless words. Short one liners and no more. Be warned, I have connections amongst the moderators and I have compromised them with gifts of land, houses, cars and bespoke str.ippers. If I ask them to ban you from the earth, they will.

Secondly it is difficult to know which question you are responding to when being so difficult. Especially as I added new questions in between. Stop being stubborn. Just re-arrange them so readers can know what question you are answering.

[quote author=PAGAN 9JA]which rules says that? are you slow to read my words?[/quote]The one line rule. For each of your answers, the reader has to scroll up to the questions and puzzle over which question you are answering its mostly not clear which is which.