₦airaland Forum

martinseme: This morning while being driven in a commercial bus as a thing habit i took out my phone and browsed nairaland only to be confronted with front news of Goldies death and my first impulsive reaction was shock then a senile smile came to my face.i know i should be angry or even mournful but i only smiled because i know the most dreadful has just happened to a soul who if am to judge by my weak knowledge hadnt prepared her self in a righteous way to meet her creator and face judgement which has eternal consequence.my mind went back to two weeks back when i was taking dinner in a fast food joint and a south african channel was showing the latest music effort of Goldie and her dressing and dancing was really explicit to say the least, i was embarrashed and had to look away from the tv thinking what a shameless agent of the devil that Goldie is ,i wasnt surprised to learn shortly after that that same video was banned by the Nigerian censore regulatory body for its lewd content. so today having been shocked by the talk of her death at such a young age i became worried and saddened by the thought of the fate of her soul .God so gracious allow all men to make their decision about their own eternal destiny. Heaven or hell is just not so far away but only a stone throw at the moment of death. Am guessing probably Goldie might have nursed the thought of a easy escape route of death bed repentance but death came so suddently for her to enjoy so a rare priviledge. I only smile for i dont want fall into depression for a soul which appear absolutely lost for eternity to the cold grip of satan's merciless claws.i shiver in fear for my own soul knowing that death can come in split of a second.

poopli: what he says are correct in current scientific knowledge. I have read through everything, maybe his pattern of writing is wrong as they are sometimes contradictory but his aims are right after all.

give me one example of what he says that is TOTALLY wrong without redemption. majority of what he said you choose to reject and ignore. then you pick on some of his ideas and make a matter out of it. ooman is better than you 100% .

chukkynwob: The debate of the existence of God is one of the oldest debates of all times and so no matter what we say here,the deabate cannot and will not end with us.

My appeal to all(atheists,Deist,Theist) is that we abide by an ethical code of not mixing personal opinions(including worldviews) with scientific facts.

poopli: you are always 90% right, 10% controversial, 0% wrong.

scarred: Good Morning Wiegraf,

You make some very TRUE (capital for emphasis)statements in your post, the primordial need of philosophical discourse is understanding the interaction between the individual and society. What you find inevitably is that most interpretation of that interaction is formed by a bias imposed on that philosopher by his society. One of the few Philosophers that tried to exclude that bias was a gentleman named John Rawls, and what he said was very interesting. He said that if individuals were allowed to make laws, without knowing what their social standing would be, prior to making those laws, then the laws that they would make would favour the weakest individual in society. It is called the Veil of Ignorance theory.

So, for instance, if you did not know what your sexual preference was going to be, you would make laws that favoured homosexuals, or if you did not know, what your economic standing would be, you would make laws that favoured the poor. So I completely understand, when you say you would "...would prefer when building laws, individual rights take precedence over societal wants."

To your question, what were the Philosophies of the Founding Fathers of America. I think to answer that question we must first be conversant with what they were trying to achieve in the society that they were trying to create. Remember that most of the early pilgrims were victims of religious intolerance, indentured servitude, economic persecutions and the like. So I think that it is a good starting point to state that the foundational basis for their new society would have been a rejection of a lot of the societal norms in the Europe in general, but Great Britain in particular.

At the onset of this grand adventure, called America, the British did impose a system of rule. America, like Nigeria was a colony of the British. Once it became evident that this new venture was going to be profitable, they made sure that their interests were well represented. A vast majority of the settlements along the Eatern Seaboard of these United States bear a marked similarity to the original locations they were named for. There were even crown appointed Governors from New England to the Carolinas. For all intent and purposes the US was the UK writ large in those days. So the crown was making a fortune. They could tax their colonies, have them raise Militia at their own expense, charge crippling tarrifs and still write their laws for them in London.

It must have come as a shock for these 'new Americans' to wake up one day to discover that that which they had fled from, had not only followed them here, but that by and large, there was no difference in the colonies and what they had fled from. Yet the trials and tribulations that they had endured in taming this new land, must have made them more willing to throw off the shackles of British Rule and seek independence by allying themselves to the French.

There is no hard and fast answer to this, but I will take as my cue one of the statements from an earlier American document that states that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...', in their estimation British rule was the very antithesis of this and both states of being (independent and subjects of the crown), were not only morally incompatible, but also not in keeping with the life that they had come to forge for themselves here. Jefferson said ' I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America'. The issue of independence was made real once the Fouding Fathers realized that they could not achieve for themselves as men what they wanted whilst still tied to the British Yoke.

The Declaration of Independence was a complete and total rejection of British Rule, for in stating to the British that they would rather be equal partners than servants, they had come to realize that the forging of a 'more perfect union', could not be underatking whilst still tied to the British. That in my mind is the quick and dirty of it.

plaetton: Thank you.
I get your point, and yes, I have a good understanding of how languages and dialects evolve. Infact, studying the evolution of languages is the most reliable method of retracing history.

However, the point I have been trying to make here, which you have missed, is the fact we are not talking about an object here, as in your examples. We are not talking about an ordinary word, nor an ordinary name.
Here ,we are talking about the devine name of the son of the omni omni God.

Let me repeat again, in Hebrew Mysticism, names, apart from having certain unique vowels inserted, also have numerical values. So if you change the letter A to E in a name, you have altered the numerical value of that name, and, in the case of holy names, you would have altered the latent energy configuration of that name. Such an act would have constituted the highest blasphemy, punishable by instant death.

Infact, to insure the spiritual integrity of their holy scriptures, every line of every page of every scroll had a numerical number equalling the sum of the numerical values of all the the words. This was done to prevent word substitutions, embellishments and forgery.
By painstakingly applying this technique in the study of ancient hebrew scriptures, it becomes easy to discover which parts of the ancient scriptures had been altered or edited.

Back to the issue, my point is that when it comes to issues of holy names, the phrase " a rose by any other name is still a rose" does not apply.

If there is power in the name of the son of god, as there should be, it would have to be in the special configuration of letters, vowels and their numerical values.
Only therein would the Real Power reside and resonate.

plaetton: I don't disagree with you.

But how many times how you heard the phrase " there is power in the name in the name of Jesus"?
If you know anything about ancient Hebrew Mysticism, you would know that words and names are not just letters but also numbers, and that each word or name is an almalgam of letters, special numbers and special vowels. Therefore a holy name is not just a group of letters but a special combination that is supposed to ignite certain energies and passions when invoked.

The name of the Ancient hebrew deity was so sacred that only the high priest was allowed utter it only once at a special time, on a special day, once a year, inside the holy of holies.

Therefore, a son of a hebrew deity would most certainly have a name whose unique configuration of letters, numbers and vowels, would manifest the power and glory of an omni omni deity.

Therefore, if and when the letters of that name is altered(something that would be equivalent to blasphemy), the numerical as well as the energy configuration of that name would also change.

So my question is: In which name or variants of his original name would the power reside, in the case of Jesus?

poopli: sorry for the name.

actually, there will be strippers in hell, so is Michael Jackson among many others. hell will be much more lively than heaven.

am a field biologist, my work is to camera nature in zoos and national parks and send it to nature tvs or publish them so am also with media.

in my studies, I have learnt that intelligence or god or conscious entity is not the sole cause of events. except if you believe in the gaia hypothesis : it says that the earth is a conscious body.
I have learnt that non living events like sun, rain, wind etc normally lead to effects that affects life. what if such non living event was the first cause.? the cause of the universe

let me illustrate: in the seregetti desert, rain hardly fall. however, there was a night that was so cool that rain fell. the next day, we set out to see how it will affect desert animal lives. we were lucky to experience a burning bird nest. why and how could this be possible? after much studies on surrounding nests, we discovered that the bird nest absorbed rain water, the surface water dried up in the heat of the day, but the water underneath the nest were dropping slowly, because of this, the dropping water concentrated the sun's heat and rays, as the sun shines brightly and redirected them to the dry leaves of the nest which caused fire that burned many nests.

now the point of my story is that there was sun, fire, water, nests, birds yet this affected each other in a well coordinated manner without being that a separate god was playing a game. there are also numerous events like this that happen that when you think a god must have been involved, you later find that its because the living and the non living world are connected.
I think (though not crtain, which is why am an agnistic) that the first cause is a NON LIVING cause. if you agree with this, we can call it even, if no, you would have to prove the first cause is a living cause.

by saying god is the sun of all energy, you are saying everything has god in them, since everything has energy in them. you are also saying the universe and everything in it collectively is the GOD that people worship. if that is right, always watch your back, xtians and muslims may punch you for blasphemy.

by saying "Will you be there in the end, (and there will be no end) to say that the work is not finished?" are you saying that the universe as a whole will exist forever?

poopli: deepsight DEEPSIGHT DEEPSIGHT. how many times did I call you?

you have denied salvation, your lot is in hell.

JUST JOKING, AM AN AGNOSTIC TOO.

tell me your field of study

you know atheists, deists, agnostic, I think we all have one thing in common and that is we all realize that it is impossible for an intelligence to be ever present in all natural processes.

here is one question for you: as a deist, you believe that a god started everything and left and since then nature has self coordinate to produce everything we see. here is why I remain an agnostic and this is the question no one has answered: if nature can self coordinate, why cant it self originate?

ooman says everything came from energy, why can't that be TRUE.?

why would an intelligence start what he wouldn't finish?

poopli: you are making the same mistake ooman makes, I have been following him, he seem scientific but I never saw you engage him.
you and ooman have same mindset with different views. you both dont know when to let go and so you make blunders. this thread is a trap, let it go.

by the way, are u a christian because brokoto is still struggling to tell me where he belongs after denying xtianity.

MacDaddy01:

You're not finished? Seriously, what more do you have to say?

poopli: deepsight, you are a great philosopher, however, if god exist, let him speak for himself. god is a person, evolution is not so people can speak for it, you do not qualify to speak for god, he is greater than even you can comprehend. remember the story of gideon in the bible when he destroyed some idols and the owners wanted to kill him but his father asked them to let the idol fight for himself if he is powerful. so if god exist, let him speak, if he wont, then you keep quiet.

MacDaddy01: Goodbye. There is no going forward. You bore me with your anonyism

MacDaddy01: After breaking your own rules and disrespecting me with your copy and paste nonsense?


mtchwew

MacDaddy01: They didnt sidestep like the 3 empty barrels.

MacDaddy01: Shut up. I dont want to hear it.


You have nothing. Just keep shut. Waste of time

MacDaddy01: Deepsight,


You are a foolish waste of time. So in reality, you had nothing against Dawkins only a strawman to set up your failed points. You claimed that he was saying that evolution disproves the existence of God. You must be a crazy liar.


Secondly, after reading your link, copying and editing your comment, copying the orignal article and then replying it in a very strategic and eligible way, you then lazily copy and paste your meaningless reply to another person in another thread. You couldnt even pay me the respect of putting forward a real reply to my own dissection of your link. Lazy, disrespectful and dubious.

Foolish waste of time. Empty barrel

thehomer: What you're supposed to show is Dawkins saying that the theory of evolution disproves God not that it doesn't need a God. Don't start dancing and vomiting lots of words, just demonstrate your claim for once.

Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God.

The details of the early phase of the universe belong to the realm of physics, whereas I am a biologist, more concerned with the later phases of the evolution of complexity. For me, the important point is that, even if the physicist needs to postulate an irreducible minimum that had to be present in the beginning, in order for the universe to get started, that irreducible minimum is certainly extremely simple.

thehomer: What you're supposed to show is Dawkins saying that the theory of evolution disproves God not that it doesn't need a God. Don't start dancing and vomiting lots of words, just demonstrate your claim for once.

Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God.

The details of the early phase of the universe belong to the realm of physics, whereas I am a biologist, more concerned with the later phases of the evolution of complexity. For me, the important point is that, even if the physicist needs to postulate an irreducible minimum that had to be present in the beginning, in order for the universe to get started, that irreducible minimum is certainly extremely simple.

Chrisbenogor: classic "oversight "
@deepsight have you tried scientology Bruv?
The oneness of infinity

thehomer: Your dishonesty knows no bounds. I'm asking you to quote me. Show me the contradictions using my own words right on this thread. Don't just sit back, type a lot of words and lie.

Deep Sight: You and I are very well acquainted with the fact that the theory of evolution does not touch on the origin of life. THAT is exactly the point - namely that since evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, then it cannot be a reference point for dismissing that which is referred to as the origin of life! Simples!

In fact, I elaborated on this in the thread I referred logicboy to - the thread which his quaking fear and congenital epilepsy has frigtened him from reading up till now. It is in fact not just the origin of life at issue. It is the origin of the entire universe at issue.

Because the cosmological question of God's existence centres around the existence of the entire universe. And the cause for that. It is therefore starkly unimaginable that one would state that the evolution of species on a speck of a planet - obviates the need for God! - When that need, arises from a question about the existence of anything at all - as opposed to nothing!

It thus beats belief entirely, that as we very well know, the TOE does not address either the origin of life or the origin of the universe - and was never meant to - and yet it is held up as sufficient reason to obviate the questions that it was never meant to address! - - - and does NOT address.

Amazing, my son, amazing! I hope you can clearly see the illogicality here.

And no - the argument is not that which you have tried to rephrase it as - namely that God is not necessary for evolution to take place or continue. God may very well not be necessary for that (not my position though), just as Bill Gates may not be needed in your bedroom for your computer to make automatic updates. That is neither here nor there; for the question of God's existence has never been about how things work, but about from whence they started to exist and work in the first place. And thus, to the extent that evolution is not about that, then it is philosophically dumb to hold it up as a factor that obviates God's existence.

And this is exactly why I have said he is effectively arguing that demonstrating how photosynthesis works or how a child grows means that neither the tree nor the child needed a cause.

thehomer: This is the sort of dishonesty that I find really frustrating. You just throw out assertions like a religious fellow and when asked to back them up, you run away. This is a pattern of behaviour with you and it is terrible.

Why don't you show how I've "surreptitiously retreated" by quoting me? I know what the thread is about but you're yet to actually show me doing anything you're accusing me of by quoting me on this thread.

You've not shown me to contradict myself, you've not shown me to be retreating here and you've not shown the problem with Dawkins' statements. And the article you cited as being damning to Dawkins, doesn't appear to be so since you're unable to actually show the quote that you think is problematic.

I usually expect better from you but you're regularly putting up a very disappointing show.

MacDaddy01: I give up

I raise my hands in defeat!

Can we make a new thread discussing your link?

(If you agree to the new thread please post the link in your next comment)

Can we make a new thread discussing your link?

ooman: if you have inclination for murder, it has to do with your mind. homosexuality is not an inclination so it is not psychical, it can be passed down from father to son, mother to daughter. it is a genomically imprinted gene. experiments conducted by scientists decades ago confirms this.

HOMOSEXUALITY HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN ALMOST ALL ANIMALS, starting from rat, to mosquitoes, fish, sharks, rays, dogs, cat, lions etc. it is a gene not an inclination and IT IS ONLY OBSERVED IN ANIMALS WHEN THEY OVER POPULATE A PARTICULAR HABITAT. once they are divided, everything comes back to the old man-woman way. u need to understand gene regulation to understand why homosexuality comes and goes in animals. once human species return back to carrying capacity of earth, the gene will be subdued again and that which favors propagation will be expressed.

concerning the rodent, the information you have on it is correct but not complete, I will look for the journal and post it.

MacDaddy01:


Do you know that you havent put any false argument that Dawkins has made about God?

MacDaddy01:

Lol....keep this up.

The more you do this the more you look like an empty barrel