₦airaland Forum

You can always be in a relationship till your dying day. You don't have to tie the knot. It's the same thing either way.

timonski:
No. The body of patient is still fighting, albeit slowly.
We humans have our natural rights. It is immutable and universal. So no one can take away your right to life, bot even you.

Unless life is a duty, it is only an option.

The right to life is for the benefit of the owner. What is your interest in whether the owner chooses to enjoy it or not?

Some other universal rights include the right to liberty and the right to own property. Would you then say it is immoral to confine yourself, or to give away everything you own? Would you prevent people from confining themselves, or from giving away all of their property?

timonski:
Suicide is going against your body's desire to live- a desire you have no control over.
Also, you just don't lose the desire to live; something causes it. And that 'something' can always be sorted out.
So no! Suicide is never an option.

I think we are our bodies. When you commit suicide, you do not have a desire to live.

If we tow your line and assume that you can have a separate set of desires other than those of your body, we still face the problem of whose desires should prevail between yours and your body's. Usually, dualists value the mind over matter.

It is not morally wrong to deny some of your (or your body's) desires. I'm pretty certain you don't always give in to your instinct to reproduce. It is even considered morally right to sometimes leave this desire unfulfilled.

The body of a terminally ill cancer patient does not desire to live. Is it at least right for the patient to die by suicide?

The "something" that destroys the will to live cannot always be sorted out. Allow me to use the example of the terminally ill patient again.

Maybe death is terrifying to think about, but don't take just that into consideration.

timonski:
so what makes suicide "not wrong"?

I've detailed my comment.

What makes suicide wrong?

You're ranting against slavery and calling others subhuman. Are you slow?

I don't think suicide is wrong, though some of its consequences are. Details later.





The details.

It is so tricky to come up with a definition of what is morally wrong that fits every situation.

For suicide, I tend to use the same criteria for wrongness that applies for murder and injury. We usually find murder and injury wrong because they interfere with a person's right to life, with the use and management of their body and potentially cause both physical and mental pain and suffering.

For suicides there is no interference with another's body. The right to life, like any other right, can be given up. That leaves us with the issue of pain and suffering.

Causing pain and suffering is not by itself wrong. You can think of many instances where you would be justified in causing pain and suffering to another person. The question now is whether suicide causes pain and suffering, justifiably.

Once the act is completed, the suicide does not suffer. He might have loved ones who would suffer emotionally or financially (kids, e.g.) from his death. It is possible to justify their suffering however, such as in an instance where the suicide is terminally ill or condemned to a life of considerable pain. (You can always argue that the suffering of one is better than the suffering of many.)

However, in the event that he doesn't have loved ones, his suicide will not cause any pain or suffering to anyone. What is wrong about this suicide in particular?

In both cases, the suicide ranges anywhere from neutral to right, but it could have the consequence of causing unjustifiable pain and suffering.



NB. It is an offence punishable with imprisonment to fail to complete a suicide. Do not commit attempted suicide. I am not endorsing suicide.

wrench:
are you married?

I'm not married. The person I took the oath with is now married with kids though. She has been married for 4 years. Also, if the covenant were any good, I would be unable to have kids. However, I can have all the childrens I want or don't want. Forget about that covenant and live your life.

wrench:
when you say 'tried' you mean what exactly?

I took a blood oath which I didn't keep. No repercussions.

Blood covenants don't work. I've tried and it doesn't work. She can rest easy.

Cute pic.

The statistic is sooo wild. 95% of people where, please?

What is even "quad sexual"?

@ayomivic, the issue is about whether ending the world will solve the problem it is meant to solve. There will still be evil after the world's proposed end, so why should the world end?

architez:
I don't think human reasoning can decipher these things.

BTW,
There is this raging thread where they r saying that Muhammad (PBUH) slept with a child. How true? Add your two cents.

Here is the link:

https://www.nairaland.com/2439827/age-consent-sex-what-want

These things are unreasonable, then?

The Prophet (SAW) was a paedo, no doubt. You can take that to the bank (or to your thread).

I doubt it. Whatever happened to Luci can happen to others.

We have to fast and pray against it when we get to heaven.

He will judge the worst singers in his choir.

As long as I can't hear their blood curdling howls of pain and horror, yes. Not that I would even be able to tell which voice belongs to my son, out of the din. For all we know, some family members are in hell this minute gnashing teeth which they have (at least they are allowed to eat, hence the teeth). I can't hear them, so you don't see me crying about it.

He was in himself.

Edit.

He was, simply. Your question is similar to asking "where is space?".

Some male homosexuals don't do a.nal. Some homosexuals are not male. Some heterosexuals do a.nal. STD's are transmitted through all forms of sex. The OP is simplistic and wrong.

They mistook his soul for a demon and delivered him of it. You guys should understand with them.

Fear fear.

Hello, Mr cheap questions.

Queed:
1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?

No.

This follows from the above.

I have looked at the evidence and found it wanting.

2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?

Yes.

Yes.

3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?

Yes.

Yes.

4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?

Yes.

5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?

We may not see things which are microscopic, do not emit photons, or are hidden from view. While I don't expect God to be microscopic (or to have a size at all) or to be capable of being hidden from view, I also don't expect an immaterial God to emit photons. So, no.

6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?

The big bang does not say that something came from nothing.

7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?

Yes.

Yes.

8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)

No. We can also draw the inference that it takes one type of "encyclopedia" to make another type since DNA is responsible for our intelligence and our entire being.

9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?

No. You can explain how you've come to know that mind has matter to give.

10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?

Yes.

There are moral laws

11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?

It does. We are the Moral Lawgiver.

12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?

No. This line of thought leads to an infinite regress, where intelligence has to be preceded by the universe in which it exists and that universe is preceded by the intelligence which made it. This intelligence is then preceded by its own universe, and so on.

13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?

Yes. However the atoms that make up the glass ball are the same ones that make up the universe and cannot have a cause different from the cause of the universe. The analogy is flawed, being based on a false dichotomy.

Yes. You have only added more atoms.

The analogy is flawed.

14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?

No. It just has to be less finite.

15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?

No. The gist of the anthropic principle is that we should expect any universe we find ourselves existing in to be hospitable to life. If it were not, we would not be able to observe that it were not.

Life does not require intelligence to create. If it does, then your intelligent being who pre planned life was intelligent before he was alive.

Also, if your intelligent being is omnipotent, we would not expect life to require fine tuning. The fact that he is alive is proof of this. The omnipotent sets the parameters and can work with any.

Medicis:
1. Why do we exist? 2. Why do we matter and why is human life precious? 3. How do we account for conscience? 4. Are atheists really really sure there is no God ? 5. Where did the genetic code come from? 6. How did the DNA and Amino acid arise? 7. Any strong evidence to prove there is no conscious existence after death? 8. How do we know the supernatural does not exist. Any strong scientific evidence? 9. Evolution (why did monkeys suddenly stop evolving into Human?). 10. Do atheists really have a common ancestor with MONKEYS 11. What is responsible for so much evil we have in the world today? 12. Has any atheists seen the mind? If not, is there any strong scientific evidence to show us how the mind really looks like?

1. If you're asking for a purpose, there doesn't seem to be any. 2. We don't really matter. Life is precious because of death. 3. We're working on it. 4. I'm not. 5. Same place every other thing came from. 6. Happy accident. 7. You have to first prove that there can be a bodiless consciousness. 8. How do we know that the supernatural exists? 9. Monkeys never evolved into humans. 10. Ditto. 11. Nature and human nature. 12. I haven't seen a mind. There are things that have no appearance. The mind is probably one of them.

She dey wear bullet proof vest inside office? Her vest is clean sha

Does she love her family less than you? If yes, you should be scared.

Clearly dads are funner.

I even eat biscuit with meat, grilled chicken with goat meat, etc. Food without meat is unnatural. At least make you try boil egg join am na.

[quote author=tmanis post=35343594][/quote]I think homosexuals, both male and female, also manage to plug their sockets.

Lol. Fire Service arrives at your burning house, dashes in, grabs your copy of American Gods, dashes out and returns to base. Your house burns to the ground. Yaay, MIRACLE! You can now read your book from the comfort of your very own pile of debris.

You are on your way to a stress free life.

"Go And Tell Ahab That Elijah Is Here Ministry". This one killed me.

freecocoa:
Lol, you are funny. I could really use that Autobiography.

Funny is just 1/5. What you want is 5/5.

If you ignore his call long enough, you'll get the car. Maybe. Just keep ignoring the call.

Maybe he is. I would advice you to hold out a bit more tho. That way he has to tempt you with something better than fine boys with angelic voices. Something like a free Range Rover Autobiography or a smart kind funny rich handsome atheist boyfriend, or replacing your state governor with you mid term. All the best.

We become one with Nothing, our creator.