The Office...Finally!

johnydon22:
Elaborate. I don't seem to get it.

We can only grasp the concept of suffering while we are capable of processing it...Let's say someone got burnt to death. Between the time the person started feeling the pain of severe burns and death,such a person could actually say he/she was actually suffering..Now do we really say such a person suffered if at the end of death,there's no trace of such suffering subjectively for the victim. It's like someone who won the lottery and lived luxuriously until he/she loses memories of such...Subjectively the person never really enjoyed anything if he/she can't recall actually enjoying it...So if oblivion is the end,does all of it count as suffering if there's no recollection of such after existence? This is kinda what makes suicide easy for some people cos they believe that the torture/suffering they'd feel before death would become "nonexistent" after it... This is not really related to the OP

The conundrum tho would be,whether it's really suffering if at some point it becomes nonexistent..Zooming out kinda perspective

Suffering would be constant and persistent,mostly involuntary subjection to things(physical and emotional) that one would consider harmful,toxic or negative to one's state of being. Most people suffer in one way or another but we've made light of it when it comes to emotional suffering. We call them "our demons".We hide our demons and put on a brave and cheerful front,sometimes we even forget about them,whilst drowning inside..It's the way the world works and while some people have found escapes, others ultimately embraced them since " you can't really win" tbh.. Then you have those who are insistent that suffering still lies beyond this forsaken reality we find ourselves in.SMH for these guys.

It can't possibly be stopped unless a world without the negative consequences/effects of the human condition is created(Paradise,heaven,utopia etc). It can only be alleviated or temporarily escaped from while you remain a living being in this reality...Hopefully whatever lies beyond all this,ensures permanent freedom from the inescapable.

johnydon22:


I'm not mixing anything up at all.

Let me try again.

According to the naturalist you mentioned above, consciousness is a product of the brain.

Brain is the cause, consciousness (mind) is the effect.

And for a conscious being, conscious actions are initiated in the mind.

i.e: Conscious being as I will use throughout this post means a being that thinks and knows it is thinking.

Brain ---> Mind ----> Action.

So, in order to control thoughts (mind) those chemicals in the brain must also be controlled.

So, how does the Mind (effect) control the chemicals in the brain (Cause) in other to control thoughts (Effect)

This means the effect can control the cause.

But, if a conscious being can't control his thoughts (mind) then things he thinks about or does are automatic feeds from the brain (cause)

I think the brain = the mind i.e. brain activity is the same with conscious activity.The problem would be,how does the brain generate consciousness without empirically verifiable means. Consciousness and rationality can be messed up if the brain is messed up..Mental disorders and psychedelics have effects on consciousness which would corroborate the fact that the consciousness and thought are in someway dependent on the brain.

johnydon22:
Rationality implies that a Thinker is in control of thoughts.

By materialistic or naturalistic doctrine, thoughts (mind) are effects that are caused by some processes in the brain.

In other to ground rationality, the thinker (The effect) must control the processes in the brain (The cause)

Can there be an effect that controls the cause?

If No, then materialistic/naturalistic doctrine for rational thought is self refuting since it would imply that the effect comes before the cause.

Consciousness is a product of the chemicals and neurons in the brain according to certain naturalists.I use certain,because although it is a widely speculated assumption,it hasn't been verified scientifically. So it's still very much an assumption but a metaphysical naturalist would most likely favour this assumption.Now,consciousness in varying degrees holds the ability to rational thinking and as such it doesn't discredit naturalism.Rational thinking doesn't debunk naturalism because to think,you need a brain to provide the ability to function independently as a being.It's still unknown where consciousness is derived from but a metaphysical naturalist would assume it's just a product of natural processes and nothing beyond the material world..
I'm not sure rationalism and metaphysical naturalism are in opposed in anyway but I'd like to hear your perspective in a more comprehensible way,cos I believe your onto something but just mixing things up. Rationalism and empiricism would be worthy opponents,if that's what your getting at(I don't think so)

LordReed:


Noah very clearly blesses Shem and Japheth but chose to curse Ham's son.

Lmao! The ol' man was prolly dealing with a serious hangover at the time.

OpenYourEyes1:
Speechless.

I'm disappointed tbh.You of all people should have had your guard up now. How can "OpenYourEyes" open a "Used black soap thrown beside me from nowhere" thread.
Why did you blink bro? Why?!!!!
It is well.

LordReed:
What I see quite often is an attempt to foist unto the atheist that is saying "I don't believe you", the counter claim "god does not exist" and then requiring proof.

This is an observation that is valid due to the conscious/unconscious ignorance of theists. JohnyDon has clearly explained what statements require proof and the one's that don't. Your God is just as real as the invisible pink unicorn, because your God doesn't exist,would be a claim that requires proof against the existence of such a God.
Theists automatically believe that anybody that doesn't believe in a God/gods should have some logical reason(s)/evidence for disbelief.To them only a "fool" says there's no God cos it's clearly evident that even in their sleeping and waking up,God exists.So the lack of belief is absurd and preposterous and even worse,if they believe in Satan's mission to bring about disbelief in God and lead many to eternal damnation.So they'd ask you for proof,just so they know you have valid reasons(they most prolly think you don't but just cause) and not controlled by evil forces to accomplish Satan's purpose on earth.They may then try to convince you using scriptural evidences that seem very logical to them. This is wrong and should be avoided.
cc Michellekabod

P.S. I don't intend to generalize.

Johnydon22 I've being trying to point this out for a while now.Certain atheists should be accountable for proof against theistic gods when they're certain such gods don't exist.Not all atheists just lack the belief and such folks are gnostic atheists.

johnydon22:
What has that got to do with this?

Lol.He's got the victim fever.Let him be

budaatum:

By necessity to exist, Abdul. Or it would have died.

I believe the answer he was looking for would be 3.Abdul,I go with 3. Now make your case for design.Why would a designer be so interested in the adaptive features of this one carnivorous plant? What's so special about this one?

I keep wondering Abdul,why your hellbent on convincing the atheists.It only leaves you jumping on the slightest signs of supposed proof and leaves you dangerously susceptible to confirmation bias.Try to learn without filtering for evidence to "convince the atheists".

Hey there,angry white fella.Black folks aren't cursed and your contempt isn't gonna change anything.So you can either start advocating for movements and policies that could revolutionize the black race or keep your derogatory opinions to yourself.We are all frustrated by the apparent intellectual gap but that just means we've been doing a lot of things wrong for a long time.Hopefully, we'd get it right someday.

emmanuelchux:
So many evidence abounds these days that we're not alone in the universe. I remember one incident while growing up in Aba, Abia State. This should be around 1994 or 1995. My mum sent us home at night around 10-11pm because she was still at the shop selling food with the other sales girls.

I was about 8 or 9years old hence my vivid recollection but that night is imbedded in my memory forever. As we walked home, there was this very bright red light hovering right above in the sky. No sound to suggest it's an airplane. Like a police siren light but only the red part. The light was so bright we could literally see our shadows and that of trees moving on the floor meaning the lighty object was moving. We were scared to our bones.

When we got home, we could hear people in the neighborhood and far off neighbourhoods screaming as the light got to there own area. Our house is a two storey building so we stood at the varandar/balcony and watch the light fade into the horizon.

We are not alone.

If this is a true and actual experience, then you'd witnessed something truly amazing.Was it like a lantern from a distance kinda bright or like a vehicle headlight from a distance kinda bright? Cos I experienced the former but it was moving in a straight line.It could have been one of them space rocks tho(from my experience)

OpenYourEyes1 Drop the links that connect the Sabrina name with those images.It'd be helpful if one knew the filter used for your search.

budaatum:
God is saying nothing. Take responsibility for your own words and opinion!

Lmao! As in,"What is God trying to say?" Like God is some toddler that lacks the ability to be articulate about his opinions.

Jnr!

jesusjnr:
Lol!

It appears that Buda has achieved Buda's aim with you, as you can clearly see what buda is trying to do, despite that Lordreed our witness has proven that what I said was correct.

Buda didn't achieve anything jnr..If all parties involved agree that your statement was the condition agreed upon then it would become irreversible.No stories or hearsays.It would do you both a whole lot of good especially you,since everyone seems to think you predicted the end of atheism on NL(which isn't happening any time soon).

So let me leave you and buda to straighten it out, because as for me I'm out, I don't know about Lordreed.

If buda doesn't agree to this, then the deal becomes irrelevant.So we are trusting you both are honest with yourselves and true to your words.

LordReed:


We shall hear my dear buda's complaint and then agree to a statement of this challenge that shall accompany the hashtag so that all ambiguity is laid to rest.

Aptly said,LordReed.

jesusjnr:
Once and for all?

That has already happened several times before.

And I still expect more.

The both of you haven't been specific about the condition(s) of your deal.It's best you both straighten it out now or risk having unnecessary arguments when the time is really close..There's like 3-4 versions of what the deal is about and it's looking like the both of you don't have a mutual understanding about the condition.Let nairalanders know what it's all about so they don't keep passing on the wrong information.It's that simple.

LordReed:


Jesusjnr has laid it all out.

Alright then.We'll wait for Budaatum to confirm it and settle this once and for all.

jesusjnr:
Lol!

Just three months plus left, but I wonder how many times the terms and conditions of the deal would change before D-Day.

The same reason I mentioned you cos we really need to clarify this whole thing and not lead people on with the wrong information..

So Jesusjnr,Budaatum,LordReed can you guys kindly revisit the conditions behind your deal and get this straight so nairalanders know what to look out for before the end of the year.

budaatum:

The miracle was actually that one of them would repent or deactivate and die.

Jesusjnr

@OP Virginity isn't some kinda trophy anymore..You can't cash in on the "I'm a virgin" tag except you want to sell it(Probably worse in most cases).There is no check box that asks whether one is a virgin or not when applying for most things cos it's what you know how to do that really matters..One's self worth doesn't depend on what's on the outside but what you've got on the inside..If a girl is regretting loosing her virginity,then such a girl doesn't know where her real value lies(Probably brainwashed by the society they live in) and all I have is sympathy..It's folks like that,who give your likes the mind to make fun of those who really know their worth.

Virgin or not,if you don't show me that your worth more than the "physical things" nature can favour/not favour anybody with,then you're not worth my time tbvh.Just imagine,been a virgin all your life and carry it on your head,only to find out you can't procreate(lol)..Dude,if anybody's gonna stick with such a person they would have to value something more than the virginity..
Please don't make me bring up this lecture again..I'd like to think you should be more enlightened but your need to guilt trip ignorant folks because of your own specs,is making you look like a very bitter person..It's not very nice!

Folks like MJBolt:No God,No Religion=Utopia!..Lmao

Find something more productive to do,that can actually make serious change rather than dropping memes and looking for something/someone to blame for the human condition.These jokes are stale already.

He's right..All Christians and religious people should take words of wisdom from what freeze has to say here,regardless of your bias/prejudice.
He seems to agree with you on certain things buda.

LordReed:


What do you mean by theistic claims?

The Hand of God version to fill the gaps.

budaatum:

No one is telling anybody what or whether they should believe or not, or rather, no one can, not here. We are here because we feel the need to announce our opinions to an external audience, and once we've done so, we know opinions on it will be offered, so please stop with the "why are they asking for evidence of my God", when na me carry my God go dem face! They must ask, unless I'm relying on some superpower to strike them dumb of course.

Anyone who don't want people to ask about their God should go do their God in the privacy of their home and not here on a public forum!

I'm in no way discouraging those who are keen on the need for proof and evidence from theists.Infact,this is the highly recommended as it not only puts theists on their feet after spending hundreds of years dependent on accounts from people who existed long ago as justification for their faith,it also takes the bone of contention (who is right/wrong) from the religious level and brings about a united front from different religious faiths in order to provide answers to the questions atheists are asking.My point buda is that when one does more than just ask questions but seeks to debunk theism as a whole through materialism,then one is no longer a neutral atheist and should be open to questioning which shadeyinka was doing.I said it was the wrong person because LordReed maintained he didn't have any intentions of providing evidence against theistic claims on the subject matter(I think).

Yes, I said, clearly, I hope. Why should I think that anyone in particular can "provide answers"? Do I not have senses of my own to see that many answers have been provided over the entire history of time and from there reason that many more answers will be provided in the future and so therefore find my own answers? Or is this due to your presumption of the nonbiased perfect science and not science as done by we imperfect humans some chose to believe? Such "thinking" does point to an either/or mode of thinking as shown in your "counter", and your "materialistic nature of science", the popular strawman many harp about called the theist/atheist debate as had by some, especially where science seems to be concerned.

I don't really get what your saying here but modern science is based on empiricism.God cannot be measured,observed or physically sensed and as such,God theories aren't deemed scientific.Even ID proponents aren't necessarily deemed scientific.

"Science" does not have a "material nature" alone, having evolved from the reasoning of the mind, as in "how we thought things were with very little observation of the material physical evidence" (C.f. Plato, Aristotle, Genesis) into the increased use of the mind and improved use of the senses, both with which we have observed a lot understood a lot more today. You must have heard of theoretical science and philosophical sciences, I pressume. But it is the theist who is comical in this regard here. Or what should we say about a theist who attempts to subject the Lord God to the material atheist's weights and measures?

I get you here buda,but the way scientists are today,there are strict rules that guide what is deemed scientific or not.Formal sciences is the closet form of nonempirical evidenced science under morden science. Some atheists don't readily view science in the same light that you see it,buda.

budaatum:

First, the bold. You are saying, "anyone who's senses work scientifically", or in Christianese, "those who's talents work well and are used".

I put it to you that if that us indeed what you are saying then I suggest you go get glasses because the entire point shade is making is either that they are blind and cannot see or can see and refuse to admit that which they see and so are liars.

Those who view science as a tool for arguments against theistic claims are the ones I'm referring to.Science is a neutral ground which according to definition has no other motive but to explain the world as we sense it.It is human influence that wields it as evidence for or against theist claims as regards God related theories.The folks that use the materialistic nature of science as some kinda evidence/knowledge against God are the ones I'm referring to.Shadeyinka points are legit if you take a neutral stance on the topic.From my perspective tho.The question is " Is it the right person he's questioning? ".

Apart from that, I do not look at the atheist or any neighbour and suggest they "hide", for doing so is hiding my own eyes and failing to see the atheist, whom by their loudness on here and the number of threads calling them out and the fact that they cannot resist throwing "spears whenever they get the chance", can hardly be said to be hiding!

It becomes hiding buda,when the lack of belief is used when questions are been asked of them as regards evidence against God." Why should I provide evidence against something I lack belief in" would be a standard reply but why would you feel science has much knowledge,you use it to attack theistic claims,but quickly reverts to neutrality because you have no evidence refuting God.I know you may say "It's theists that have a point to prove" but don't you think atheists,who assume that through science, they can counter theistic claims,also through science provide answers in place of those offered by theists.
Note:Atheism=lack of belief due to the lack of evidence.Simple
They should become accountable when they do more than lack the belief.

Science is the use of the senses to understand the material world and s the entire message of the Word of God, a tool that Jesus himself worked very hard to show us to use. So, I'd say it is as wrong as blinding oneself or crucifying Christ to attack science, and doing so simply shows one knows not what one is doing, or saying in this case.

I couldn't agree more.

budaatum:

The atheists are actually saying "the Universe is there", and usually make no claim as to how it got there, but the theist, with their 'creation inclined mind' translate this to 'the universe created itself', which no (or hardly any) atheist believes or infers.

Buda,I think what shadeyinka has been trying to convey is one of my biggest skeptism about atheism.People hide behind the neutrality of the atheistic definition like a shield but throw spears whenever they get the chance using scientific method&theories to rule out theistic claims.This is one of the reasons theists attack science(this is wrong) because it can be used to enable atheists when they find it favourable.Science aims to explain the material world and anyone who wholly supports the material explanation of the origin of the universe and things within it,should have some kinda faith in the knowledge it has to offer. Now,I presume shadeyinka is trying to take up scientifically inclined atheists on the verifiability of their claims about the origin of the universe which some feel rules out an alternate theistic claim.
Note:Neutral atheists would concede they don't yet know how the universe began because there is no empirical and irrefutably in depth researched evidence for it.They wouldn't aim to find evidence that disproves the God theory as regards origin,etc.(which is the majorly discussed topic on this thread)

I'm open to corrections

It means that in a parallel universe,you,for some weird reason, decided it was "bring your kids dirty laundry to church" day.No offence.