₦airaland Forum

^^^@ Kay - Can you tell me which of the above practices is accepted by the generality of humanity? I positively assert that there are none.

It appears you did not understand my examples of -

1. Core Values and Cultural Values

2. Mala-in-se and Mala-Prohibita

3. The single serial-killer and the laws of the state against murder.

Because if your argument is taken at the crest, what you are saying amounts to stating that there is nothing wrong with being a serial killer. . .

sauer:
That's exactly the point!! Why else would he spawn such elaborate details about his god?

Are you informed as to who Theists are? What makes you think every theist spawns elaborate or ANY details about God?

Study the above sentence carefully.

I repeat my question now: Do you regard EVERY Theist as irrational?

dogmafree:
I can say its a false statement until someone (maybe you) provides evidence that it is true. Until then its false.

I believe Krayola has already shown the absurdity of this.

If you do not have any information on a subject, you cannot make a statement as to its truth or falsehood. You can only state that you do not know, or cannot verify.

It is absurd to declare something false because it cannot be verified.

As an example: Look at this statement - "I am a sexual-masochist deep in my heart."

Tell me if you are able to state if this is true or false. You CANNOT. And yes - it cannot be verified, no?

The best answer you can give to that statement is this - "I don't know!"

Second Example - "There are 15 black holes in the universe closest to our own universe."

We don't know ANYTHING outside our universe. We do not know if there are other universes AND WE BLOODY HELL CANNOT VERIFY!

Now - can you state that the above statement is false? That's right - you CANNOT. Because you simply do not know.

So it's clear - you cannot call a statement false because its unverifiable. An unverifiable statement is an unverifiable statement. Period.

Although this thread is for Team A and Team B Members, i cannot resist making a few comments:

toneyb:
Ok Let me talk like a Christian now lets examine this statement from Paul and the one Jesus. Jesus says that except a man be born again he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of god. He did not talk about any law written in any body's heart at all. He only said to be saved and get access into the kingdom of the God who sent him you must be born again else nothing for you. Whose words supersedes that of Jesus or that of Paul? Jesus also says that He is the way the truth and the life that NO ONE can come to his father EXCEPT through him, again he did not talk about any law written in any bodies heart at all.

Now to the Issue of the law, What exactly are the laws that are written in people's hearts? There is an ancient Australian tribe that truly believe that eating the flesh of their enemies will make them better hunters, so they went around killing their neighbors. In what part of their hearts was the law of not killing their neighbors and eating their flesh writing?  How does a person obey the commandments of God like tithe and offering or observing the sabbath with out knowing about it? In what part of their hearts is this law writing? What about the law of divorce? Some societies do not see any thing wrong with divorce at that time or had divorce laws that were completely different from the one writing in the bible, In what part of their hearts were the bible divorce laws writing?

What about the laws of stoning disobedient Children who curse their parents to death. Jesus was very comfortable with it (Mat 15: 1-6) What about those of them that did not grow ın societies that accept that form of punishment? In what part of their hearts were such laws writing? What about the Southern Nigerians who lived hundreds of years ago that truly believed that it was right to kill their twin babies and did that ritual with great pride? Why was a law against that not writing in their hearts?

Thanks for this Toneyyyyyy. . .

My perception is that basic conscience is common to humanity. Now, given the fact of human diversity there will doubtless be, as you correctly stated, instances of practices which deviate from that which may normally be considered "good" or acceptable. However you will agree that in all such instances, the generality of humanity is able to perceive such actions as unseemly. For example the aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Although it seemed acceptable to them, you will certainly agree that the generality of mankind views such as barbaric. Ditto for killing of twins etc.

Now there is a direct co-relation to secular criminal law that seals this point. In the perception of The State, murder is wrong, and punishable. In the perception of a serial-killer, it might be acceptable. However the perception of the state is representative of what the people as a whole think, in that the secular law is based on the perception of the majority in citizenry, theoretically speaking at least. Thus it would be right to state that for a given country, murder being wrong is indeed written in the hearts of the people EVEN IF there exist people (like serial killers) who think it's fair game.

Accordingly i may equally state that murder being wrong is written in the hearts of humanity as a whole, EVEN IF there are or have been tribes that practiced human sacrifice at a state level.

Now i need to make one important point.

Let me suggest to you that there is a difference between core values and cultural values. Because it seems to me that you are mixing up both when you talked about "observing the sabbath" not being written in our hearts.

Core values, in my view, are values which are timeless and universal. An example might be - "Stealing other people's property is wrong." I doubt that there is or has been any society that does not frown on such.

Cultural Values, however, are not moralistic in the pure sense, but deal with cultural dictates only - the sabbath - might be an example. Cultural values are limited to given cultures, nations or tribes.

May i suggest to you that core values are written in the heart in conscience, whilst cultural values are not. May i suggest to you that core values are the real morals whilst cultural values are mere norms. Does this make some sense to you?

This also finds some grounding in criminal jurisprudence. There are crimes called Mala in se (inherently evil) - such as murder, and then crimes called mala prohibita (wrong because specifically prohibited) - such as not parking your car in the right place, or not paying a prescribed fee, etc. Mala in se deals with things which all men should be able to sense as inherently evil and subversive. Mala prohibita deals with things which are only wrong because the government says so. I think that core values pertain to the former and cultural values to the latter.

KunleOshob - Solid Insight, Open Mind, Best Headed Christian on NL in my opinion _{(obssessed with UFOs)}

Viaro - Complex. Unpredictable. Modest. Schorlarly. Brilliant. Dogmatic.

Wirinet - Le Proffeseur

Team A                                                                                                                                                        Team B

Team Lead: Noetic                                                                                                                                          Team Lead: Pastor AIO

Members:                                                                                                                              Members:

Bouncer - Davidylan                                                                                                                Bouncer - Viaro

Caretaker - Jesoul                                                                                                                  Caretaker - KunleOshob


                                                                                    The Ball.
                                                                               
                                                                                   Three Questions

                             1. Salvation of Sincere Non-Christians: The Bible Perspective and the Realist Perspective

                                                       2.  Purgatory & The Afterlife - Real or Imagined?

                                                            3. Baptism & Holy Communion - Required?



                                                                                  The Referee:

                                                                                    Krayola

                                                                          Referee's decision is final.

Short Note on Referee: Although many regard him an atheist, he is not. He only argues in a dialectic fashion to learn more.
He is currently doing a course on Bible History/ Archaelogy (or something like that). He is very Neutral, and his decisions here will
be based not on what is the truth (since we can never agree on that) but on the quality of the arguments advanced only.



                                                                    Let's go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bawo; Toney -

You guys are being unfair to me - you know very well i relish contrary views and wouldn't life be boring if we all thought the same way?

bawomolo:
you seem to have a pattern of claiming everyone accedes to the existence of the non-physical.

.

I did not just "claim" that wirinet accepted the existence of the non-physical. Here are his words again -

wirinet:
i can never accept that anger, jealousy, love are physical things, neither can i accept sleep, zero (as you had earlier postulated) and death as a physical thing.

Although he spent a large portion of his write-ups attempting to negate the existence of non-physical faculties, he accepts that non-physical things exist.

And this is the fulcrum of this thread: that a rejection of God's existence needn't also entail a rejection of all non-physical things. In reality i am trying to show that the atheist who accepts the existence of non-physical things has already created a firm plank upon which the vital premise of God's existence may be placed: to wit: that intangible and non-material things exist.

@ Sauer -

Thus you assert that no theist can be a rational person? ? ? ? ?

[quote author=AlaniTiógo link=topic=335826.msg5043048#msg5043048 date=1259860665]Now Deepsight, tell me yours.[/quote]I do believe in God. And in Meaning within Creation. And in the grand harmony of all created things - which may be beyond our perception.

I believe that i am a human spirit bearing a small spark of life from the source of all life - GOD. We all are.

I believe that the purpose of Earth Life is experiencing: which leads to spiritual growth.

I believe in worlds and lives beyond this world and beyond this life.

I believe that it is possible to logically infer the existence of God, and some of the attributes of God, but absolutely impossible to grasp the nature of God. I have once described myself as an empirical and intuitive deist.

I do not subscribe to any religion: l believe that conscience is all the religion that a man needs - if his conscience be alive, that is.

Philosophically, i would call myself a Deist. But Deism as a world-View is no creed, and thus much is left to the individual to define for himself.

I have great trouble acceding to claims to the divinity of any human being. This includes Jesus of Nazareth. I regard him as a man only. I believe that Divinity, in its intangible purity: in it's ineffability, cannot be approached or apprehended at all.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=357796.msg5016210#msg5016210 date=1259503499]Yes I am aware of the brains microcircuit but I also know that their is no scientific evidence to show that the brains microcircuits are responsiple for near death experience during flat EEG. If you are aware of such evidence, kindly cite it and I will look at the scientific evidence presented. Sure the brain cells are not dead but have no recordable activity that can be measured during coma or medically induced coma. The brain cells can be said to be in suspended animation and to argue that cells in such undetectable level of activity are capable of producing out of body experience and accurately report such experience when the patient regains counsciousness is scientifically strange. It is akin to state that human cell lines frozen in liquid nitrogen in my laboratory is capable of cell division, cell growth etc at -196 celcius just because when I thaw them and put it in an incubator at 37 degree celcius, they regain cell division and growth.[/quote]I think the important point to distill is the fact that people with such near-death experiences with a flat EEG have reported stories such as may be akin to dreams in which they have seen x or y (whatever they report).

Asde from this, such people have been known to report goings-on around them accurately during the period of the flat EEG.

While we can accept that a flat EEG does not equate total cessation of all activity, we must really ask ourselves how likely it is that a person with such miniscule brain activity such as cannot be detected AT ALL be the most modern instruments, would be able, in that state, to have imaginations or hallucinations in full story-forms akin to dreams as well as perceive and record and relate activity going on around him/ her.

It is abundantly unlikely. Even in normal dream states, technology can detect the active areas of the brain which are involved in the production of the dream, its imagery, and activity. I cannot accept the proposition that people could formulate advanced stories and report occurences around them accurately when there is no detectable brain activity! It's most unlikely.

I think we should, to be open minded, accept the possibility that there could be other non-tangible faculties at work within the human being.

michelin89:
Atheism is the absence of a system and when you negate the spiritual, you hardly go back.

I can's see an an Atheist who was once a Christian becoming a Muslim or a Jew. It's out right impossible. They can embrace a philosophy but never a spirituality.

Concerning these line of yours above, might i call you out for a moment.

Is there a difference between Atheism - (the rejection of the existence of God or deities) and a rejection of the existence of HUMAN SPIRITUALITY.

You might want to review this thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-357796.0.html

davidylan:
If you believe this then i have an island off the coast of Venezuela to sell to you.

^^^ hOW MUCH? I am looking for one to buy. Nothing over $200 million though, as i have a policy of not spending above 10% of my net worth at any one time. . .

Alright: here's an allegation: NOETIC AND DAVIDYLAN ARE THE SAME POSTER USING TWO DIFFERENT IDS.

dID YOU MEAN TO SAY WHO IS THE BEST PASTOR BUSINESS MAN OF THE YEAR 2009?

^^^ Clearly the reason is obvious, you will probably be his favourite as well. . .

He is your favourite because HE AGREES WITH YOU.

@ Jagunlabi - stop being mischeivous - should it not be obvious to you by now that i am the reincarnation of Elijah and John the baptist sent now to Nairaland? O, i forgot, a prophet is not recognised among his own people.

Thou generation of Vipers!

Alani - To quote: when you get to the page for posting replies, scroll down and you will see all recent posts in the thread. Each post has a tag where you may click "insert quote" in order to quote such a post.

Pastor - Where are you - God has answered our prayers and sent us a gifted one - Alanitiogo!

I am really looking forward to rubbing minds with you, sir.

[quote author=AlaniTiógo link=topic=335826.msg5040580#msg5040580 date=1259838489]@Pastor AIO and Deepsight. I have read and thoroughly enjoyed the very acute and intelligent conversation on this thread. I think I understand what Pastor AIO means when he says perfection can only be used in reference to a function. In my grope around these issues, I perceive God to be beyond perfection itself. Like Pastor said, he is ineffable. And Deepsight, please consider this: perfection is the tipping point to nothingness. Infinity, eternity, omnipotence- these are terms used in understanding God. He is absolutely borderless in space, time and power, whereas perfection is precise, defined and thoroughly within the grasp of time, space and even power! So, in a way, perfection is ineffectual in grasping God. What do you think?[/quote]Brilliant! I accept. Makes perfect sense. Nonetheless i suspect there is a bit of hair-splitting involved in that. Because we can only work with words, however limited such words may be. If we screen out the word "perfect" we can also screen out all other words which may be used to define attributes of God - on the same grounds that he is absolutely ineffable, and any human words must perforce limit him. If we carry on with that, we will even screen out the word "God" and adopt the old Jewish tradition of never mentioning his name at all, as a sign of its very holiness and ineffability. I hope you thus appreciate the fact that we must use some words, no matter how limiting they may be, and the word "perfect" is not a bad start. . .

Nonetheless i believe that in this line below, you have shown the depth and high quality of your mind -

[quote author=AlaniTiógo link=topic=335826.msg5040580#msg5040580 date=1259838489]And Deepsight, please consider this: perfection is the tipping point to nothingness. Infinity, eternity, omnipotence-[/quote]Just brilliant.

P.s: That's a unique username - what does it mean?

Welcome to NairaLand.

Nope, its a logical inferrable fact, we can discuss it. But I am off right now. Cheers.

^^^ That's cool.

My Imaginary Friend is constantly and energertically spawning zillions of new universes outside this universe virtually every second, Kay.

If you are serious, i am willing to take this up and answer all your questions in a thread you may open for this purpose.

Tony - You didn't say anything on the above. . .

Given the respiratory activity of plants, forests act as the lungs of the earth. A shortage or excess of such "lungs" will lead to atmospheric imbalances. Thus desserts are a required balancing of the activity of forested areas.

@ Kay - Unicorns are different from causes. A Unicorn may be anything a person has imagined - it could be a sex-crazed-galaxy-hopping spagetti monster, as Krayola once said - such a thing is clearly imaginary - or perhaps imaginary.

BUT: A cause is not such a thing. A beautiful painting requires a painter. A House requires a builder. These are causes.

Causes are not imaginary.

_{P.s; Unicorns actually exist, just not on earth, but in other realms. . . sheeeeeesh! Its a secret.}

Now that "Box" above is the Universe.

How dare any person claim to know what outside our universe.

It could be zillions of other universes.

It could be aliens.

It could be God.

Period.

Does humanity have a need for any prophets?

Have civilizations with excellent ethics not thrived in this same world without any prophets.

Did the work of the prophets not only lead to division, religious intolerance and war?

Perhaps i am a Prophet who has been sent to a nation called Nairaland

@ Kay - I have explained it in these threads -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-343779.0.html

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-315294.0.html

toneyb:
I am an atheist because I reject the existence of all the gods of man made religions because there is no evidence for them. Their supposed holy books are there for all to read.

Very good. So please if you reject all these ideas about the Religionists God - have you stopped to ponder for yourself and ask yourself what YOU believe is the cause of the existence or reality that we live in?

It is lazy to stop at a mere rejection of the ideas of others. Can you not conceive your own ideas? Who knows, you might just hit on it.

Krayola:
@ deepsight. . . do u believe philosophy tells us anything real about anything, especially the origin of existence? Do u think we are better off philosophizing, or are we better off observing and analyzing, without jumping to conclusions that the evidence does not conclusively lead to?

^ ^^Philosophy can certainly tell us that somethingness does not proceed from nothingness.

That life will come only from pre-existing life accordingly: a fact verified by the experiments of the Scientist Loius Pasteur. A fact yet to be knocked down by the wild pseudo-scientific and unsubstantiated fantasies of life arising from a pre-biotic soup.

Philosophy can tell us that the earth may need water or air - but it does not need something like culture or civilization: and that the sources or purposes of such things as culture or civilization must per force reside outside pure nature - in a mind beyond the purposes of simple nature alone.

Philosophy can tell us much, intuition can tell us alot, but damn it - i agree with you that opening our eyes to observe the world around us will tell us the most - and for this reason i stick to my guns that nature is screaming evidence of the existence of superior intelligence external to this world.

Kay 17:
@ deep sight, part the love HE has for us is to make us victims of balancing process he perfectly designed. floods, diseases, earthquakes are gifts of love has for us! wonderful! from your conclusion, this earth is paradise. this is abject nonsense, you are on the fringes of madness, tiger killing a baby gazelle is not different from using a baby for rituals or committing genocides, so who is evil?

Please go and read my post history if you care: i have NEVER propounded in my reasoning the concept of a loving or merciful God.

Perhaps this is a good place to address you all gathered here on this - and Tudor is already aware of my perspective on this -

I do not in my ideology seek to proffer the idea of a loving Abrahamic daddy in the sky who is merciful and benevolent.

Everyone who has followed my threads can testify that i argue philosophically about the existence of a Prime Mover, a first cause, an uncaused cause for the universe. That such a cause must exist i infer from many different possible lines of deductive reasoning which i have advertised extensively on this forum. I have also sought to infer a few attributes of the primordial uncaused cause of all things: and some of those attributes have included power, intelligence and an eternal or permanent, self-existent nature.

So please, please, please and please: DO NOT waste my time with any ideas about the all-loving Abrahamic God, because i have never advanced that as a line of reasoning.

It is within this context that you may understand my apprehension of the stance of some of the atheists here: because your very words reveal an antagonism against religion and the Abrahamic conception of a loving God AND NOT a puristic rejection of the idea of a Prime Mover - whom i call God.

As far as i am concerned it is hare-brained to conclude that since a particular conception of the nature of God is wrong (i.e: the all loving, merciful, Abrahamic conception) then nothing caused the universe. This is the atheists riddle: and i challenge anyone of you to deliver substance to the contention against the existence of an intelligent prime mover: we speak, rememeber, NOT of a merciful or caring entity!

As things stand your very arguments render it obvious that you are all in mere rejection of religionist ideas regarding the origin of existence - and nothing more! You need to be discerning enough to distinguish that question from the cosmological question of the existence of a Prime Mover for teh Universe - which i call God.