₦airaland Forum

vooks:
You have wasted far more time avoiding it by chewing through reviews that are several times longer and confused as the book. Obviously you have little time for Ravi because he scares you. If he scared me, I'd not even furiously google the reviews , I'd be too busy with other stuff

It's MY TIME.

I don't do what you want me to do because someone I never heard of before today scares me?

Sound reasoning.

There's this fancy word called time. Don't know if you've ever heard of it?

Now it's irreplaceable, and can be short at times (there's the word again). At such periods, when time is short another fancy word comes into play. The second word is priority. We tend to do the things ranked highest TO US on our priority list. It may be a better use of my time to count my teeth with my tongue than to say, read a free "mere" 145 page book. It's MY TIME!

I was interested in the book but had to make sure I wouldn't waste MY TIME, so I invested a little time in looking up reviews and in doing so, I saved myself the anguish and I posted here to help others save their time too.

vooks:
You got tons of stuff to do, yet you can afford to patronize NL and you still have time to google reviews and paste them here verbatim

I find it ironical that a super time-conscious man spends more time on reviews far longer than the book

I take dumps too.

I'm not allowed to do that either?

vooks:
The book is only 145 pages. I can get you tons of positive reviews FYI. Please read for yourself and then critique it. What are you scared of?

Err nothing.

I've got TONS of stuff to do. The Harris book? The one this book is meant to address? I've had it for years, haven't read it. Im sure not going to read this one. You had me interested though, that's why I went to look for the reviews to see if I'd be wasting my time.

Have you read the Harris book by the way?

As for the so called objective reviews, I saw a few. SMH.

vooks:
Am I the only one noting lengthy diatribes in the name of review which are LONGER than the actual book?

It's a review.

Had to find out what the book was about and I posted for the benefit of others.

texazzpete:
Please, don't be daft. This statement was NOT made by EFCC, but was a confession to the courts from one of the accused.

He has been asked to account for how the NSA paid him 2.2bn naira without a legal contract and this is his defence/explanation. Which other side is there to hear from? The EFCC?

He has even offered to refund the money and someone is talking hear the other side. Which other side again.

It would be difficult to miss Harris's explanation of what he thinks is moral, as I stated above. It seems even more difficult to miss a later section in Letter to a Christian Nation, entitled "Real Morality," in which Sam Harris blatantly counters the rest of the position Zacharias posits about objective morality not being possible without a God (he seems to think that this has not been addressed by Harris in the book). Harris writes to Christians,

"You believe that unless the Bible is accepted as the word of God, there can be no universal standard of morality. But we can easily think of objective sources of moral order that do not require the existence of a lawgiving God. For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in this world. If there are psychological laws that govern human well-being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality" (Letter 23-4).

It is clear that Zacharias missed this as well, since he writes in his book, "Sam Harris may protest, `Why is a moral lawgiver necessary in order to recognize good and evil?'" (Zacharias 55). He is right that Harris would protest that, but he did not seem to know that he already does. In fact, Zacharias starts off this section by addressing Harris's arguments about God allowing rape, torture, and natural disasters, asking,

"Is he saying that such things are evil, ought to be evil, or ought not to be allowed by a loving God? In any of the three assertions he is at best saying, 'I do not see a moral order at work here.' But if there is no God, who as the authority to say where there is a moral order in operation? Sam Harris? Adolf Hitler? Who?" (50).

Again, Zacharias brings up Hitler. The other time, he claimed that Harris could not say Hitler did anything immoral without an objective moral system, which he believes Harris does not have (he does). This time, he is bringing up Hitler in an attempt to show the dangers of relative thinking like Harris's (it's not). He also continually echoes the claim throughout this section of his book that Sam Harris does not see moral order in the world. Harris goes on in Letter to a Christian Nation,

"While we do not have anything like a final, scientific understanding of human morality, it seems safe to say that raping and killing our neighbors is not one of its primary constituents. Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to happiness than hate is. This is an objective claim about the human mind, about the dynamics of social relations, and about the moral order of our world. It is clearly possible to say that someone like Hitler was wrong in moral terms without reference to scripture" (Letter 24).

Harris has made it clear that he does see moral order in the world. He also has made it clear why he can criticize Hitler objectively. Now that Ravi Zacharias's mistakes, misinterpretations, and oversights have been plainly noted, I hope you don't bother with this book. It is simply not a good set of arguments, and it seems as if he did not read Harris closely at all. Whether or not you agree with Harris, this isn't even a decent book against him, and I think even Christians would prefer to find a book that actually is worth the read against atheism. Granted I have yet to find one that is, this is certainly not one of them.

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1055453403

Horrible. Preaching to the choir. Only those who already agree and want to will not realize how bad the arguments are.

Too many people have probably read this book without first reading Harris (or at least, not reading him very carefully and with an open mind). I am not looking to defend atheism so much as I am trying to show some examples of precisely where Zacharias gets it wrong, so you can see how he is mistreating Harris' work. It would be better to get a different book against the atheists if that's what you are so inclined to do. This one is simply no good.

In it, he notes Harris's arguments about the wrongness of Hitler's actions, and asserts that Harris does not put forth a criterion with which to judge moral actions. He writes, "For Harris to convince us that Hitler was wrong to do what he did, he has to borrow from an objective moral framework to support his point," (Zacharias 52). Ravi Zacharias is claiming that without God, there can be no objective morality. He is also claiming that Sam Harris has simply made up his own morality, "as if morality should be self-evident to everybody, regardless of whether God exists or not," (54). He thinks that Harris "cannot explain his innate sense of right and wrong - the reality of God's law written on his heart - because there is no logical explanation for how that intuition toward morality could develop from sheer matter and chemistry" (54-5). Nowhere does Ravi Zacharias see Sam Harris state what he thinks is moral, and thus he thinks that Harris has "concocted" his moral view "in his own mind" (54).

Interestingly, though, Sam Harris directly addresses this point in Letter to a Christian Nation. Early on in the book, he writes,

Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering. This is why you and I do no have moral obligations toward rocks. To the degree that our actions can affect the experience of other creatures positively or negatively, questions of morality apply," (Letter .

So, if Ravi Zacharias is trying to argue (and he is) that Harris never explains what he thinks is moral, then he must have missed this part early in the book. But in The End of Reason, Zacharias sets up this argument:
Premise one: "Objective moral values exist only if God exists."
Premise two: "Objective moral values do exist."
Conclusion: "Therefore God exists" (Zacharias 56).

The issue with the argument for an atheist such as Harris is in premise one, which Zacharias argues for on the prior page:
Premise one: "When you assert that there is such a thing as evil, you must assume there is such as thing as good."
Premise two: "When you say there is such a thing as good, you must assume there is a moral law by which to distinguish between good and evil. There must be some standard by which to determine what is good and what is evil."
Premise three: "When you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver - the source of the moral law" (55).

The issue with this argument lies in premise three, as we will see. But it is important to note that Zacharias thinks that "this moral lawgiver is precisely who atheists are trying to disprove" (55). He means the God of the Bible. The reason I bring Zacharias so heavily into this argument is because I believe that his views on morality are common among Christians with a literal interpretation of the Bible (it seems that atheists like Harris often must defend against such attacks). It is important to discuss what Zacharias claims because it is a real and prevalent mindset that must be philosophically combated.

irunooboo:
[size=13pt]What kind of english will the i.diot speak when she is a confirmed stark illiterate? I hope she is saving enough money to build a container shop for her slice bread business because that is where i see her ending up. Useless opportunistic illiterate [/size]

What kind of creature are you?

Is any of this Olajumoke's making? Other people have vented their frustration with her making news everywhere in a decent manner.

I hope you never get to experience the level of hate you just displayed.

He came to do a show.

He will put an end to the gospel of money by getting that dough. Suweet

This is hilarious.

Christians say, the Quran is false.

Muslims say, the Bible is false except the parts that align with the Quran.

Am I missing something?

Suppose I knew of a prophecy that said a man in a white shirt with a red bandana and green shoes would one day show up at Aso Rock and would be given an oil well.

What do you think I'd do?

ISIS crew knew/know, the prophecy apparently. Playing the part isn't difficult.

stevecantrell:
You're getting the idea.
But I never tried make it seem like it is something like a conscious procedure, it would be a gift. In fact those who could achieve such would be considered freaks.

Man I got the idea since yesterday. What I'm saying is that it's not special if everybody has it.

Yes, if one were to obtain such abilities one would certainly not be normal. I think it's time to quit the back and forth. We've reached a convenient point to stop and shake hands.

Have a nice day Sir.

stevecantrell:
But I said, if YOU could do that while OTHERS Could not. YOU WOULD have an astronomical an unfair advantage over the rest. Check it, I said it.

Yes you did. There's no disputing that. However it ignores the fact that people are born more or less equally and therefore if one person can do it, so also will others be able to do it, therebye negating the advantage. The few who may for some reason or the other be unable to do it, would be regarded as "slow" (I don't want to use the R word).

stevecantrell:
In that case, the advantage is even greater. You spend the first 15 years of your life learning how to be a person in a world like this and by the time your 20 you realise you really haven't learned anything at all...but what is the age of your soul ?

Do you know where your soul has been ? the wonderful things it has experienced before coming here ?

Your soul (pre birth) has acquired more knowledge than microcosm that is earth.

But here you are, struggling with day to day mundane earthly issues. If you had access to such knowledge of what you truly are would you struggle for anything at all ?

Think about it ?

If only I could do that, I'd have an advantage.

But if everyone else can do that also, where's my advantage.

That's my question.

stevecantrell:
I'm saying if you knew mistakes you made in a previous life, you probably wouldn't repeat them in your current life and as a result you can save yourself a lot of time, stress and even create good fortune for yourself.

Most of the mistakes we make today we also made before in a previous life, this is why a soul can reincarnate multiple times till it learns a particular lesson.

I don't think you get it, do you ?

Oh come on!

You're the one who doesn't get it. Go back to the part I quoted and address it. You were explaining why people aren't born with memories of previous lives weren't you?

You argued that it would give one tremendous advantage. I'm not saying it wouldn't, I'm saying if one were to be born with prebirth memories, then all would be born with prebirth memories. No advantage.

You're one to talk about someone not getting it.

LoJ:
My Brother Jayriginal . It's been a long time we have not exchanged. How is it on your side? I hope all is well.

Receive my noblest thoughts .

Thank you LoJ

I'm fine, hope you are well?

stevecantrell:
Although I haven't made one yet, my argument is very plausible. But it would prove futile explaining it to one who's pre-judged the whole thing as crackpot.

It's like this, you're saying adding ten marks will give a person an advantage.

I'm saying there would be no advantage if everyone else got the same ten marks.

Whether or not I buy into this has nothing to do with the validity of the argument.

vooks:
I'm sorry.
The 'certain traits that make us human', are we slaves to them or can we rise above them?
Could you please list them

We can overide them.

In fact I'd say the ability to overide them, especially base instincts is what differentiates us from other animals.

stevecantrell:
I wouldn't expect any point made to be good to you.

You "don't buy into this thing", remember ?

Doesn't mean I can't point out a bad argument.

vooks:
Would I be right to say that these 'certain traits that make us humans' baseless?
What are they founded on? Conditioning?

Kindly rephrase.

There are certain traits that make us human. Those traits border on the emotional /sentimental. I guess that's what Frank was trying to explain and that's why he brought in pain and regards for the feelings of others.

When we talk of something being dehumanizing, we know exactly what it means. Without sentiments, we are just walking robots. Software if you like.

Vooks, is your take on uninstalling software the same as your take on suicide? I don't think so. Software may not be the perfect analogy but unless you wish to split hairs. . .

stevecantrell:
I will tell you what I believe.



Imagine the kind of power and advantage that level of consciousness would give you over others ? It would be astronomical and very unfair.

Now while I don't buy into this thing, I will however point out that there would be no advantage if everyone had "that level of consciousness ". The point you made isn't a good one.

Edgarated:
That's what happens when your president call his people "criminals". so the uk security man is treating the 9ja guy as one

He never called Nigerians criminals. Get your facts right.

MIPNIG:
Come back brother... In Nigeria you can't be treated like this.

You're right. In Nigeria the police might shoot him and arrange charms, bullets and ammunition around him, strip him to his boxers and claim they've smashed a robbery gang.

Nigerians need serious education on their Fundamental Human Rights.

That's the solution to this nonsense.

PRYCE:
7Bln? Metuh's own was 400mn oo but had GMB security all over his shít? Issorite!

So to APC chieftains, Na only 'Furious' no EFCC Attack Dogs?

Double Standards everywhere! But even "INTEGRITY"?

Are you comparing public funds to private funds?

byvan03:
They do have, it just doesn't sell as much.

I didn't know.


Some men need it oh. Especially on the wedding day

If ladies can have push up bras, padded butts, padded chests, padded thighs, and waist trainers, why can't men have waist trainers.

Men probably wouldn't wear them everyday but I just saw a wedding photoshoot where the fine pics were ruined by the man's tummy.

Janeyinspires:
Yea,i quite agree with you on not taking things to heart here....that is if i want to enjoy here.The few things i noticed here long before i joined(searchn 4 infor sometymz brings me here),was the bashing n folks being mouthy.I know people are entitled to their opinioin,buh one thing is this:when people open their mouth to speak,it shows how wise or foolish they are.

NL means different things to people.This is just to show our interest and commitment.

I'm in for a loooooong ride,will get to see how it turns out.

You're absolutely right.

lekjons:
END-TIME STORE!!












just to annoy the poster above me..

Lol.

Evil you.

Where are the other captured girls?