₦airaland Forum

^^^ Very simple and straight forward really.

^^^ In some distorted hope to help you see how outrageous it is to describe charitable teachings as those of a fool.

Enjoy sha. I leave you with that which I have always said to you: do not let unnecessarily excessive atheistic enthusiasm drive you to ridiculous statements. Shalom.

^^^ Oh, no, I did not expect that you would think so. I wonder if you think all who have responded to you thought your ramblings here wortrh anything though. Pity.

Purist: lol. . why don't you just address me directly?

Ah, welcome to the club.

I repeat, I am entitled to quote whoever expresses my thoughts best; yes, even if they are an American id[i]i[/i]ot. Even idiots make sense sometimes. If you cannot see the sheer absurdity of you comparing my use of an American's quote to buttress a point, with your own use of a US court judgment to impose a universal definition, then I really have a serious cause to question your intellect. Also, I find it wholly ironical that you of all people would call anyone an id[i]i[/i]ot, going your arguments on this thread.

Could not put it better myself. Its just incredible, any attempt to use such a specific legal interpretation governing fundamental rights in a particular jurisdiction - to arrive at a universal connotation of atheism as a religion.

Beats all imagination.

jayriginal: An anecdote:

He insisted on his position, even when it was explained to him that while the provision was indeed in the constitution, it was a 'qualified' right and as such had application only in a particular sense and not universally.

This should seaL it, but as simple and commonsensical as it is, i doubt that those attempting to force religious status on atheism will grasp this very simple anecdote.

Kay 17: I don't mind repeating myself over and over and over again. Religion defined by the SC for the purposes of 1st Amendment and in the ideal of human rights is different and separate from the general meaning and dictionary meaning of Religion.

Honestly the depth of legal understanding you have displayed in this thread leaves me wondering if you are in fact a lawyer or law student. You have done and said very well: this above in particular is as jurisprudentially sound as it gets.

However you may have to accept the reality that sometimes no amount of logic or reasoning can dislodge people's biases. I wouldn't advise you to expend too much energy on this case.

^^^ WORD! Expressed with beautiful and incisive simplicity!

But those who have no ears, will NOT hear.

Here, the innate poverty and inferiority of your doctrine is manifest: and it is alarming that you do not see it; for you should first ask yourself who indeed is deserving of love: and whether or not it is the case that genuine love is oft properly given without being specifically earned.

Again, the scandalous inferiority of your position is revealed in its first canon: love the person in the mirror: whilst self-love is natural, rendering it the fundamental and core premise of your doctrine unviels one thing and one thing only: selfishness.

In your canon, there would be no such thing as self-sacrifice for example: a thing which many humans have risen to not only for their loved ones, but even for their countries in time of war: men have died to save complete strangers.

If you cannot see how nobility rests in this: and how far loftier it is than your selfish materialistic dogma, then of course, you should remain exactly where you are: in the depth of poverty stricken materialistic selfishness - a pathethic excuse for a creed for any human being worthy of the name.

You should go to a quiet room and meditate on these two words: Nobility and Selfishness.

I will also task you to make a distinction between the higher and the lower. Though of cousre, I am hoping for too much from a materialist.

Martian: These are my points to counter his "greatest commandments".

Number 1. Love the person in the mirror and whoever else deserves it.

Here, the innate poverty and inferiority of your doctrine is manifest: and it is alarming that you do not see it; for you should first ask yourself who indeed is deserving of love: and whether or not it is the case that genuine love is oft properly given without being specifically earned.

Again, the scandalous inferiority of this position is revealed in its first canon: love the person in the mirror: whilst self-love is natural, rendering it the fundamental and core premise of your doctrine unviels one thing and one thing only: selfishness.

In your canon, there would be no such thing as self-sacrifice for example: a thing which many humans have risen to not only for their loved ones, but even for their countries in time of war: man have died to save complete strangers.

If you cannoy see how nobility rests in this: and how far loftier it is than your selfish materialistic dogma, then of course, you should remain exactly where you are: in the depth of poverty stricken materialistic selfishness - a pathethic excuse for a creed for any human being worthy of the name.

Purist: This is the part I really don't get from the guy's argument. So because some Supreme Court in some foreign land defines atheism as a religion under certain circumstances, that definition automatically becomes effective in all realms universally.

Wetin person nor go see for dis Nairaland sef.

The point is very simple and succintly made as Kay 17 has very well argued - for the purpose of giving effect to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by law, the court will consider the atheist entitled to the self-same religious freedoms as anybody else. This is strictly with regard to the laws being discussed. This does not mean that atheism is in fact a religion - any more than any other legal position which "deems" a thing to be such or such - may or may not transpose into reality.

Might I further add that this position is not invalidated even if one million atheists argue that atheism is a religion. It is not a religion.

Furthermore as Jayriginal pointed out, that at all events is legal interpretation for one jurisdiction only - the United States. Will we then hold that atheism is a religion only in the United States? We will be heading down a perilous path of stark absurdity. Is atheism a religion in Nigeria, per example?

I have often vowed not to entertain this sort of discourse: for the very words "religion" and "religious" stand to testify that atheism is anything but. It is the stark reverse, and it beats me that anyone can argue the contrary.

Martian: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.”

If I was christian, I would probably argue that here, Jesus was speaking metaphorically in terms of teh extent to which a believer must go for the gospel. However since I am not a christian let me just openly admit that I do not understand this hard saying.

If there are any bible teachers in the house, please come and explain this hard saying for us.

Martian: Well I don't subscribe to the sort of love preached in religion so love has nothin to do with empathy in my opinion.

Charity has everything to do with empathy, and charity is the sort of love that Jesus preached. . . for which you call him a fool. . .

And what is "YOUR OPINION" about the original connotation and meaning of the word "traslated" or is it "transliterated" as love?

Do you want me to do your homework for you? ? ? YOU were the one who boldly quoted that verse and concluded that Jesus' statement sounded foolish. . .YOU ought to have done your research before blabbering off about Jesus being a fool for that - even though a normal person should not need research to know about that meaning of the original word used. . . .

I didn't call him a fool for advocating charity, I call him a fool for saying "love your neighboras yourself".

What is wrong with saying "Love your neighbour as yourself"? Is it not consistent with the idea that we should treat others the way we would like to be treated? And when we consider that charitable love is what is being referred to - the very same empathy that you comically seek to claim is a different thing - then is it not a lofty ideal to aspire to - to deal charitably with others in the same measure as we would with our very selves? ? ?

Sir, you have NO POINT. Give it up already.

Martian: I can have empathy without loving the person and charity is not exclusive to "scriptures". There is nothing wrong with the story, it's just the pedestal his teachings are placed on when they are just ordinary human actions that are practiced with or without "divine" teachings.

So where does the man become foolish in this?

Martian: I can have empathy without loving the person.

I did mention the sort of love that is preached in religion, in scripture/ That is not romantic love. It is rooted in common human empathy.

You would have recognized how nonsensical your position is if only you had bothered to think about the orignal connotation and meaning of the word translated as love, that Jesus is said to have used in the gospel when he taught that. Then you would see that there is no way you can divorce that from empathy. But you are far too eager to insult the man such that you call him a fool for advocating human love and brotherhood. Abeg, think before you type joor.

At all events, you have no basis for calling a man a fool on account that he urged humans to practice charitable love. The fact that the world is unyieldingly horrible does not make that a foolish teaching. Its nonsensical for you to brand him a fool specifically for teaching love. Absolutely nonsensical.

joe4christ: Did i just here you say [size=15pt] soul [/size]? And where did you get that from? I thought u dont believe in the existance of a spirit soul thing?
So wotta happen o?

Stop making assumptions. I am no atheist. I believe in God, and I believe that man is a spirit being.

Even if it is granted that the US Supreme Court deployed such an interpretation in that regard.

I really wonder whether the fact that atheism is considered, in the realm of law, a religion - thereby makes it in fact a religion.

In the same way as I wonder if the fact that a company is considered a legal person in the realm of law, - thereby makes it in fact a person.

Martian: I'll rather have that mindset than Jenwitemi's mindset influence by "current data" that's hidden from "mainstream" science and the conspiracies involving Hollywood and thoe secrets. And it's all taking place in "simulated 3D holographic universe". lol C'mon!!



29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two silver coins[a] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

What does love have to do with this story? The Samaritan simply had sympathy or/and empathy for the injured man. He also had the means(silver coins) to take the man to an inn and have him cared for.The good Samaritan was simply a man of means who helped somebody and can be said to be a philantrophist. Now, do you mean to assert that people weren't empathetic before the story of jesus?
As for the priest and the levite. Maybe they were just wary of being set up. maybe they didn't have the means.
You don't have to love someone to help them, so why elevate a simple story of philantrophy and empathy into about how to behave at all times?

So no, the man didn't dererve to be loved, but he needed help and men help themselves when they can. There is nothing trancendental about it.

So in your mind, the charitable love preached in scripture is something altogether different from the notion of empathy?

My word.

You see, I have often warned Martian about allowing the excess of atheistic enthusiasm to lead to absolutely unnecessary, and even ridiculous statements. The adjuration to love our neighbour, especially as elucidated within the parable of the good samaritan, cannot be quarreled with. It is simple, clear, practical and would make for a better world. No remotely sane person could dispute this.

Now, for someone to declare that Jesus sounds like a fool, for simply adjuring people towards love, I have to say ranks as perhaps the daftest, hollowest, shallowest, silliest comment ever made on this forum and is nothing but the result of the excess of puerile atheistic enthusiasm.

Such a person surely could not be a day over 16 years of age.

This has to be one of the most foolish threads ever created on this forum. Mindlessly and hopelessly shallow and purposeless.

It is only right, normal and expected, that spiritual experiences should evoke such patterns within the brain. This is because the spiritual is accessed some times via the very same neuro-paths with which the Drug Addict accesses hallucinations, or the brain accesses dreams. Let me very carefully state that this does nothing to invalidate such "spiritual" experiences, and if anything - looked at carefully, it actually offers some validation of same.

On another note i wonder just how much it costs to take this here nice banquet hall of the Eko Expo centre for this service. I know that this hall is often split into smaller parts for most events as it is just massive. The service is taking the full hall, undivided. I am just wondering if the best use of this money, for a charitable organization such as a church, is renting this hall. Anybody know how much it costs?

I sit right now at the service for House on the Rock at Eko Hotel.

Please do not ask me what i am doing here. Its just business, nothing personal.

Pastor Paul Adefarasin is howling his lungs out. Whoever said this fella doesn't work hard for his money.

It has always intrigued me that the faithful do not readily see what a sham religion, and particularly the commercial brand of christianity, has become - particularly in Nigeria. It has always amazed me that simple logic will not faze the faithful. Now i am having a slight peak into the fact that the sheep are actually armed against logic by these 'Men of God'...

Here are some of the sound bites that the Pastor has REPEATEDLY drummed into the faithful today -

"Be prepared for the persecution of criticism and contrary opinions"

"Don't listen to the spritit of thosse who will criticize your faith and belief, dont listen to those opinions about our beliefs"

"Every body is entitled to their opinion. You are also entitled not to listen to their opinions"...

I am still here. Now i can see what goes thru the mind of the faithful when faced with logical arguments from atheists or other 'non-believers'... They are well coached to reject logic... The booming voice of the Pastor's encouragement must ring in their souls..."we are not to yield to the persecution of criticism... We should not listen to those opinions...we are entitled not to listen to their critical views....

Amen...

jayriginal: Is this real amnesia or perhaps its only selective ?
Stop pretending and read our interactions on this thread again. You cannot feign ignorance as to where and in what context your ancient aliens came to play on this thread.

You did not need to point anything out, particularly when I dealt with the same issue you are pointing out on that thread. I simply posted the link. I'm sure Uyi can read and decide for himself.


Coming from you the chief host, patron, life president and founder, I appreciate your kind welcome and I hope you continue to provide us with the entertainment you have been dishing out since.

OKKAAAAAAAY! E don do!

Idehn: Ex deo dictated that what was "created"(the Universe) was the same substance(at some point) as the thing you called God. I concluded that the substance of the Universe is matter/energy and ergo the substance of God was also matter/energy. You returned that this is not necessarily the case.So now it seems that you are claiming knowledge of a substance that is NOT material. Stop me if I am not reading your mind correctly, but it seems that you are saying that something immaterial is transforming into something material. But of course this would illicit a bevy of more questions than it was meant to answer, which you would rather groan about being asked than actually answer.

But let us just "move on" to the existence of God if it makes you happy. After all I can bring up the problems with your definition at any point in a discussion. If you want we can even relabel the discussion "existence of God". All the ontological/epistemological problems of your definition will still remain.

The question of what "creating a material Universe" actually entails will still remain.
The question of how a material objects can/did interacts with something that is NOT material will still remain.
The question of how how material beings(humans), can perceive/understand/access/whatever anything that is NOT material will still remain.
The question of how any of these interaction integrates with our understanding of the physical Universe(science) will still remain.
The question of how beings/minds,things that in all known instances are decidedly material, can exist without being composed of matter/energy will still remain.
The question of how the thing you define as God can be distinguished from nothing will yet still remain.

You can flee from these questions for now if you like. However in a discussion, I will never allow you to ignore or forget them. Ultimately all your work is still ahead of you.

I am happy to even grant you that God is physical - if only to progress the discussion. It matters little to me: what I seek to prove is the existence of a creative element preceding this universe. Whether it is physical or not is not particularly important here.

If you are happy with that, I will proceed to open a thread where we discuss the existence of God, based on the definition "A being said to have created the universe ex deo." I will happily, for the purpose of that thread, allow it to be presumed physical, as nothing else will do for you. If you are game, I am game.

However I must insist on one condition, which I hope you will accept. Given the long rigmarole it has taken us to arrive at any semblance of definition, there is one strict rule that I will request we adopt in that thread. The rule is the Dictionary Rule. It simply means that whenever we encounter difficulty defining any term, we will have recourse to the bare dictionary definition of the said term for the purpose of the discussion and such dictionary definition will govern the discussion.

This is only reasonable please.

I will give you an analogy that supports this. My brothers and I are strong football enthusiasts. After every game we often argue about which side turned in the better performance. After years of disagreeing, we have concluded that once there is a disagreement on such, we resolve it with recourse to the cold bones of the game statistics - i.e: shots on target, ball posession, etc. And that settles it. Of course we know that this is not all there is to football, but it is the most objective way to resolve our eternal disagreements in that regard. As such I propose to you that we do something similar: when any definition is contentious (as many will certainly be, in any discussion with you), then let our rule be that we will have recourse to the dictionary definition and discuss based on that. Before starting, we will mutually agree on an acceptable dictionary to use. Where there are multiple meanings given for a word, we will agree on which meaning is applicable to our discussion.

One more thing we will have to resolve before proceeding is the distinction between things that exist and our perception of them. Because it seems to me that you conflate these and it will be impossible to advance the discussion if you contend for example, that space exists only in our mind. This is because I intend to use the Big Ban.g as the premise for my contentions, and it will be impossible so to do if you hold that the space in which this occurred, or the space that this event expands, is simply a figment of our imagination.

If you agree, we proceed.

jayriginal: I quite agree. Like for like.

Just by the way, your ancient aliens might play banjos but I suspect they would use intergalactic scales and thus, I'm not interested.
If you made them play chess, I just might raise an eyebrow. Afterall, Viktor Korchnoi 'played' chess with the ghost of Geza Maroczy.



I do suspect that the mind that endows the ancient aliens with existence will endow them with skill surpassing my mortal ability. In which case, I should lose the game but gain a lesson.
Or maybe the ancient aliens would find chess too banal.
As Edward Lasker said (a strong master at the time) "While the Baroque rules of Chess could only have been created by humans, the rules of Go are so elegant, organic, and rigorously logical that if intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe, they almost certainly play Go.

Cheers.

To be sincere i have only taken a cursory look at the above and not read it and I am not sure whether I am intelligent enough to decipher if it is further mockery or suggestions of possibilities. Not that either matters, because if you will go back to the chain of the discussion, you will see that some one raised the issue of cause and effect; you responded saying that it is of no use and referred him to our discussion re: cosmological argument; i pointed out that in that discussion you did not show any uncaused material things: and VOILA! You responded with ancient aliens.

Its not hard to see the irrelevance of such a response.

Moreover, the response suggests that I have said anywhere that ancient aliens existed. I simply opened a thread to discuss teh subject. I wonder if you believe that discussing the subject at all or being open to the possibility is idiotic.

Like I said, enjoy you stay. Someday, hopefully, you will address arguments with srguments and not with ancient aliens.

Idehn: It is hard to find meaning in word salad and clumsily defined concepts. I just am not able to do it I am afraid. But I too am a die hard optimist, and one day you may actually produce cogent definitions. At least Mr. Anony has extended the courtesy of not expecting me to read his mind.

You cannot honestly insist that that a definition for the purpose of discussion, which says - " being said to have created the universe ex deo* - is a "clumsy word salad" - even as you should remember that the latin end to the sentence was added at your insistence.

Is that really a clumsy word salad. Honestly, if you say it is, we can just quietly leave the matter and siddon look. Cos it doesn't get simpler than that. You know I already told you that you and I both know you are intent on rejecting any definition that is presented,and that has emerged the truth. I ask you to allow us to use the dictionary, you refuse. How on earth are we to discuss? what on earth am I to do. Even if I reduce it toa singleword such as "creator" or "cause" of the universe, you and I know you will reject that. So my dear I have tried all I can and you cannot sincerely claim that the difficulty is with me here. The difficulty is with you; you do not wish to proceed to the meat of the matter, and its as simple as that.

jayriginal: Awww. Go play with your ancient aliens.

No amount of ad hominems will add an inch to the validity or invalidity of your claims.

Idehn: It is hard to find meaning in word salad and clumsily defined concepts. I just am not able to do it I am afraid. But I too am a die hard optimist, and one day you may actually produce cogent definitions. At least Mr. Anony has extended the courtesy of not expecting me to read his mind.

You cannot honestly insist that that a definition for the purpose of discussion, which says - " being said to have created the universe ex deo* - is a "clumsy word salad" - even as you should remember that the latin end to the sentence was added at your insistence.

Is that really a clumsy word salad. Honestly, if you say it is, we can just quietly leave the matter and siddon look. Cos it doesn't get simpler than that. You know I already told you that you and I both know you are intent on rejecting any definition that is presented,and that has emerged the truth. I ask you to allow us to use the dictionary, you refuse. How on earth are we to discuss? what on earth am I to do. Even if I reduce it toa singleword such as "creator" or "cause" of the universe, you and I know you will reject that. So my dear I have tried all I can and you cannot sincerely claim that the difficulty is with me here. The difficulty is with you; you do not wish to proceed to the meat of the matter, and its as simple as that.

jayriginal: Awww. Go play with your ancient aliens.

No amount of ad hominems will add an inch to the validity or invalidity of your claims.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I only do this so that we can have a meaningful conversation.[/quote]Keep hoping.

Best read the writing on the wall. You cannot have any discussion, much less a meaningful one, with people who will tell you that every word has no meaning.

jayriginal: As long as dimwits keep providing these 'escapes'.

Yawn. From zero examples of magically uncaused material things all the way to ancient aliens. Pathetic.

Worever bo!

Martian: For real. Remember the volcano in Finland that grounded European flights for a few days a couple of summers ago?
Now imagine a super volcanic eruption happening in Yellowstone or a similar volcano and the disaster that will ensue. Forget nairaland, I'm calling my private spaceship I got stowed on the "darkside of the moon" and saying goodbye to you humans.

Men, that volcano had me stranded sef o! But that turned out to be relatively small palaver. Can you just imagine if there is serious palaver like a meteor hitting the earth, one the size that hit 65 million years ago?

Meeeen.... you cant even imagine o.

I watched a documentary explaining exactly what would happen across the earth step by step

not funny sh.it at all bro

^^^ But men, the whole idea of an apocalypse is sooo frightening. Forget Mayan calender, etc... apocaplypses do happen and have happened on earth before, wiping out the dinosaurs, etc. What the bl.oody hell would we do if a sizable enough meteor appears on the radar too late. . . can you even imagine the scale of the palaver?

First, off, no internet. . . so no nairaland,

Sh.it, i wont even be able to say goodbye to y'all

^^^ Yes, yes, yes. . . apocalyspe this year. Hmmmmmm! Lets get all the money and strippers we can!

Martian: lol, you seem upset lately. You've been in attack mode a la Daviddylan. Come on man, be still........
Afterall, it's not your fault that people can't conceive an "unembodied mind" floating outside the spacetime continuum in the "extraphysical realm" where everything is "immaterial and non physical". It makes sense!!!
I'm on your side Deepsight, to infinity and beyoooonnnnndddddddddddddd........

*Grumble* *Grumble* *Grumble*. . . .

_{ancient f#cking aliens are responsible}

Of course. Why dont you guys just accept that.