₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
Are sex and gender the same thing?

Gender is the social representation of sex. It accounts for age development and sex.

Boy
Girl
Woman
Man

paraltero:
Question: if in the future, science advances to the point where you can do a sex change right down to the chromosomal level, would you still think transgenderism is a delusion?

Yes. I'd still think is

I'd simply agree that sex can be changed.

Just like if science gets to the point, you can be changed into a dog.

I'd agree that you can be changed into a dog but maintain that the initial part where you as a human believe you arw a dog is delusion

budaatum:
But, scientifically, "human sex is interchangeable

Actually it isn't. Not even 1 bit.

Let me be sure we understand what we are talking about here;

What's sex?
What makes someone male or female.

and transgendersm isn't delusion",

Unless the definition of delusion changed, it is.

a scientist would claim, since one can objectively provide many "human sex is interchangeable and transgendersm who isn't delusion" just by popping onto the street.

Lol. Again, No.

Believing something that isn't factually correct is delusion.

There are humans who believe they are dogs? Are they dogs?

No.

A male believing he is female isn't female.

Who, one might then wonder, is allowing bias to get in the way of "objective reality"?

This time around politics is and it is convincing people that cosmetics is human sex.

Lol.

Cosmetically giving myself a dog tail makes me no more a dog than giving myself a boob makes me female.

Human sex primarily are genetical states translated from the chromosomes either XY or XX and on rare cases abberational condition of intersex. So changing your appearance cosmetically does no more than a makeup does to your biological state.

You people are funny

Michellekabod2:
How can chosing to become a man be delusional?

Lol. Very simple: any belief that isn't factually correct is delusion

we can all see for ourselves that the human sex is interchangeable.

actually it isn't and to think so is delusion.

Human sex is right down at the chromosonal level. Cutting my dick or implanting a breast doesn't make me female anymore than sticking a tail makes me a dog.

Human sex isn't cosmetic, it is in the DNA, cutting of a dick or wearing a lipstick doesn't change XY or XX if you think it does then there you have it.

Point made

The doctors who are been blacklisted are they including their subjective beliefs into science

Actually, they were blacklisted because of the polical nature of the concept they refuse to subscribe to which is a perversion of biological reality.

I think this reply has eventually put my post into perspective how delusion can be informed with the word "science said" as much as it can be with "God said"

Martinez19:
If it's not the Abrahamic god then yes. Even for the Abrahamic God, certain logical arguments may surface but they are soon shown to contradict the bible. Anyway, how does my post show the close mindedness of atheists?

I said "God" didn't specify any particular God.

Science is the greatest form of philosophy known to man today, a wonderful tool fueling the advancement of humanity.

I think that yes, science can in fact be controlled by worldview and even an authority, at least conventional science.

Few hundred years ago, religion was the highlight of humanity's trust, almosy all trusted it and thus it became the greatest tool for control.

Today, science enjoys the same amount of trust and therefore can be used as a great tool for mass control or delusion.

I was writing a paper on Transgenderism for someone somtime last year, one of my sources a doctor wrote a journal on how WHO is blacklisting doctors who refuse to accept that human sex is interchangeable or that transgendersm isn't delusion, a deviation from objective biological reality.

Is that science? Censoring ideas due to their polical implications?

See?

Science is funded and run by people and people are many times can be moved by agendas especially types of science that can have economic or political implications.

There is nobody more in control than the person who runs an enterprise that enjoys mass trust.

Martinez19:
Care to explain?

Do you think arguments for God can be logical?

Martinez19:
Are there regular hattrick heroes as well?

The close mindedness of atheists when it comes to atheism vs religion arguments is difficult to spot because the position that the existence of religious gods have no basis in reality can't be refuted and constantly maintaining this position is logical. Whether they are being close minded or honest and thoughtful isn't certain because their position and the maintenance of it are both logical.

We can spot out close minded atheists when the discussion drifts away from religion to philosophical issues, political issues and others. Just my take. Atheists can be as gullible as religious folks as well.

Actually No, atheists can just be as close minded on matters regarding God, religion or theology and they often.

This your post actually affirms that close-minded stance.

budaatum:
Is this what you think Jesus did, or what the Preacher told you Jesus did?

My own idea personally is that Jesus based on the gospels was a form of social reformer, aggresively wise that eventually was deified by his followers.

budaatum:
I know. But he did say his mind is open so let me spit on mud and rub it in his blind mind until he does get it. Then will you too see how one makes people see the immaterial that they refuse to see with their very tiny minds and closed eyes.

I swear to you that sometimes, the way one has to be is enough to make one not bother showing some people anything!

Trouble

Atheist on here are quite as close minded and dogmatic as the religious people they accuse of same behavior.

Here, people don't read comments or arguments to understand, consider the point, they just read to throw back a reply and then Win

Atheism 1 - 0 theism
Atheism 0 - 1theism

Kinda

Preacher: Jesus came so that we can be saved and opened the doors of heaven.

Me: What about moses, Samuel and millions of humans through history who died before Jesus came?

Preacher: God overlooked and allowed them into heaven

Me: So, Jesus didn't really save anyone or opened the doors of heaven, it was already opened as you have stated above. Jesus in his bid to help seems to just ended up making it harder?

Preacher:

budaatum:
HenryDion. Below is what you made up in your head.

Budaa it is ok na. Henry doesn't get it. Lol

HenryDion:
Whatever conclusion I arrived at is definitely deduced from our little battering here. Won't have known these if I haven't engaged you. So, it isn't a "believe" but rather, a fact after a thorough analysis of your comments on this thread.

I still hold that you believe in ridiculousness despite lack of evidence, and the contrary evidence. To prove me wrong, simply buttress me by disclosing the evidence that upholds your "believe".

Sadly, you can't do that either but rather, keep exhibiting your ignorance all over the thread and making yourself look dumb.

You say there is no need for a bone of contention? Then what was your intention for quoting me in the first place?

I'm here to learn from theists and atheists alike. That is only possible when we engage with a focal point, not beat around the bush.

I love to repeat, I'm damn open minded. But if your aim is to come and spill how arrogant you are, then I can no longer entertain you.

Peace brother!

Lol. Only that your analysis of his comments weren't thorough though, not even in the least

If it were, you guys wouldn't have gotten up to this point.

budaatum:
Welcome back.


You do believe stuff you make up in your head. Go back and read some of the unevidenced statements you made up above. Or don't you believe them? A clear example of you making things up in your head is your above, "if you can do that".

God strike buda if buda did not pray to the contrary!


I don't agree that your mind is open. If you have managed to misunderstand what I've written so far then even your eyes are not open not to talk of your mind. And I think you are very dogmatic. You dogmatically hold on to the cooked up idea in your head that I want to turn you into a theist and I am poor at proving the existence of God to you when the truth is I have never tried to prove the existence of God to you and even prayed you remain an atheist.


You do not want to know anything. You just want to believe HenryDion, you say so above, and what did I say about "believe"?


You can not know what I know HenryDion. It is too hard for you to learn at the moment. When you read what I write instead of believing stuff you make up in your head call me.

_{Johnydon22 you might see why I laugh here.}

Hahaha Buda

HenryDion:
Your biggest flaw was those lame biblical quotations used to depict the nature of God and man's purpose on earth. Why did you ignore the Quran, Torah, Bayble, Tripitakas or other spiritual books out there?

If he used any of those books, the results would still be the same. So i don't see the problem with using the bible unless you have personal issues with the bible?

If you're of the notion that God exists? What proof do you have? For something to be accepted as BEING, it is when it has been proven beyond every reasonable doubt.

Fundamental assumption the premise of this thread is built on is that God exists.

This thread isn't here to treat the subject of God existing, that's a different argument.

It is treating the parallels between God - man - designs which comes implicitly with the idea that God exists

Premise man, premise.

If you say particle A exist, the burden of proof lies on you the proposer. We are merely open to analyze your evidence, test it and then conclude.

This is you bringing what he didn't say in his post, his premise isn't treating the existence of God. Bringing it up is a strawman and absolutely non sequitur to the premise

So far, no substantial evidence whatsoever to support Gods exist and as thus, he remains inexistent.

You have mentioned the subject of God existing for far too long on this reply without actually even touching the Actual premise of the the thread

You keep making mention of intelligent design. Like really?

Yes. So?

If we are to go by that logic, then who created God? If God can self exist, why then do you ignore the possibility of man being a self-existing organism?

Non sequitur to the premise. This is a different argument all together

Mehn, too many inconsistencies

Actually there are none except the ones you created by bringing in external premises not original to the thread.

hakeem4:
Well your hypothesis is quiet funny and it has been refuted since the mid 19th century by Darwin and Wallace.

Your responses to this thread are easily refuted

1) are you saying if Man was created in the image of god then chimps and other apes are created in the image of god because we are closely related. I read one funny quote saying if we were created in the image of god why aren’t we invisible? .

A car is also man's design doesn't refute the notion that a humanoid robot is modelled after the image of man.

So, that a designer created something in its image doesn't mean it has to create everything else likewise.

2) so what was the reason why the all intelligent designer created dangerous organisms like viruses and bacteria?

Dangerous to who? The designer?

Viruses isn't dangerous to the designer, so there isn't any reason for it not

We have such a thing as computer viruses which is not directly harmful to man but is also man's creation but is rather harmful to computer programs which is another of man's design.

2. There is another possible reason: It wants to create viruses and bacterias.

3) so because we do not know how consciousness evolved so it’s god just be intellectually honest for once and say you do not know.

Nope.

Because it quarks like a duck
Looks like a duck
Smells like a duck

Then it's possibly a duck.

I need us to fully understand the ground for each arguments, conisder them then we can easily argue them open mindedly

Stop citing books written by “bronze age peasants who didn’t know the earth orbits the sun” - krauss.

All human knowledge were never in isolation, most of things humans know today are built on the foundation these ancient bronze age peasants laid.

hakeem4:
In my opinion I think the reason why people believe in god is probably the way we evolved. It deals with the way the human mind is. We natural seek answers for things we cannot answer like “where did we come from”, “where are we going”. The human mind is very good at imagination, that was how we imagine different faces in sky. We are just good at recognising patterns. Using our common sense to deduct answers all made sense Before science came.

Now that children become indoctrinated with different religious myth from birth, it becomes difficult for them to accept how the universe works without the need of a creator.

We humans did not evolve to think or understand quantum mechanics, we evolved to survive that’s why it is easy for people to believe this religious myths than to think deeply.


So what’s your opinion on why we have people who believe in god

I will divide this into two groups:

1. Philosophical reasons
- Propensity to attribute arrangements, design, functioning systems to intelligence
- Causality
- Cosmological argument from contingency
- Consciousness as a pointer to the transcendence of the immaterial
- Simulation theory
- Alien Gods theory
- Ultimate moral authority argument
- Ontological reason

2. Religious reasons:
- Vulnerability in the face of death
- Short cut to problems
- Moral - Political authority legitimacy
- Need for hope
- A succor to the grandeur of the cosmological scale and man's apparent insignificance
- Unknown
- Paranoia of immaterial enmity

tartar9:
You seek an example? Well,in theoretical physics higher dimensions are said to exist thou havent been tested or probably never be able to.

So, how did you come to the conclusion that it does?

tartar9:
It musn't necessarily be reduced to the senses to assert its existence.The existence of such an immaterial entity could be the result of a purely logical inference or consequence.

Exactly what i am asking for

budaatum:
Sounds to me like we are going back to your other thread.

Reason I ask is, could I include the psychological and the mental that don't physically exist though they may impact as angels and demons which I can't physically present? I can't physically present love or sadness either but I doubt we'd say emotions don't exist.

My other thread deals with illogicality of the materialism, this probes the certainty of the knowledge in the immaterial and holds a position that it is a logical absurdity.

Psychological phenomemons are physical, you can pin point particular behaviors of matter causing this or that.

Or even emotions, you can pin point chemical/hormones responsible and how our brain serve as a CPU to reduce these phenomenon to our perception.

Much like light, the sun is matter but the light it provides behaves totally different - But both are physical, measurable, can be reduced to human perception.

Immaterial in the sense deals with things transcendent to our immediate universe - much like spiritual realm, multiverses or transcendental beings.

Things that can be conceptually defined as distinct entities or existential states.

budaatum:
There are loads of definitions of "immaterial". Could you pin us down by giving an idea which you mean please.

Spiritual, Intangible, transcendent - Unable to exist physically (At least outside human perception or immediate material universe)

hayoholla:
That is according to your your subjective opinion,

Nope. Question built on the premise of your previous comment.

but what stands here is a ship will always remain a ship, except If in general terms, a ship has never or does not exist,. be that as it may, if you replace all but one part with the same set of spare, it is still the same ship, it is now up to you to name it Johnnydon's ship if you wish.

The question wasn't whether a ship with parts replaced is still a ship. The exercise is; Is it still the same original ship?

We have treated the illogicality of materialism HERE

Establishing the materialism is reductionism in the sense that it prays everything be reduced to the senses as humans possess them, therefore is limited by the elusive nature of the possibility of things that may be.

Example: If humans saw in X-ray like a bumblebee, they would be ignorant to the existence of the color spectrum since it transcends the reaches of their x-ray senses.

Therefore, that something doesn't appeal to human perception doesn't conclusively validate its inexistence.

But then, it doesn't validate its existence either.

Materialism appeals to the sense, belief in the immaterial asserts a transcendent knowledge that cannot be known.

Example: If someone asserts that the immaterial exists, they got to know this somehow, and if they got to know this in an objective sense, then it means that it can be reduced to the senses and immaterial by definition cannot be reduced this the senses, therefore, it is material.

This is a looped contradiction.

But, if one asserts the existence of the immaterial which doesn't appeal or can be reduced to the senses in actuality, then that begs the question - How in God's good earth did you get to know about it in the first place?

So, this is a question to everyone who believes in the existence of the immaterial: How did you conclusively determine that it exists?

Work us through this logic. Because you can't conclusively assert that something exists without having a way by which this knowledge is available to you.

hayoholla:
the keyword I used is "Completely". if a part is changed by a spare, of course, it's still the same car.

So, if i change every part except 1 it's not a new ship then?

Since it's not completely replaced?

hayoholla:
A "ship" is just a nomenclature for a specific (not generalising for any object that float in water) object made of steel that float on water. so a ship that has it pat completely stripped off and replaced with a new part entirely will no longer be the old ship, but a new one. language sometimes can be insufficient to explain some very complex and tricky phenomena.

at one point in this process of stripping it down did it cease to be the old ship and become a new one?

Because, If you change your car tyres, it's still the same car, if you change the engine even.

So, tell me, which point that replacing parts make something not be what it was before.

jesusjnr:
Why not?

But this is designed to poor and needy na, not rich people like you na.

Haaaay God!!!

Na you dey classify people rich now?

Oga this your charity program is rigged.

Ojoro!!!

We wee not take it

jesusjnr:
Not only your account numbers but also your pins, Lol!

Hahahaha you cannot epp me abi?

Are we to send our account numbers over? lol

budaatum:
One might argue that you've described 'artificial selection', and not natural selection, and if the designer were a human being we'd call it 'human selection', and not selection by nature nor by gods.

Not really artificial selection, artificial selection deals with an external selection agent.

Natural selection is inherent.

So, if organisms are inherently designed to by themselves adapt, evolve to survive then it is as much natural as they are designed to grow.

Moreover, argument of design encompasses that nature itself is a designed model.

shadeyinka:
God is a descriptive title and noun just like the "President!" or "the Leader" etc

If I am in America and I said "the President said..": everyone know that I am refering to Donald Trump. In Nigeria however if I make the same statement, everyone know that I refer to Muhammadu Buhari.

Correct

shadeyinka:
It isn't! ?*?!

It's not a specific name for a particular deity

hakeem4:
calm down and listen. Evolution by natural selection and intelligent design are not compatible.

Natural selection is the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

Intelligent design the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

Evolution by Natural selection never claimed it was the origin of life or so. It was abiogenesis that claimed to know the origin of life on how life can arise from non living matter.

Yes ID Is compatible with evolution by artificial selection . But not with natural selection

Logical argument can never be used to prove what’s true or not. The purported logic is to make deductions.

If 1 boy has two eyes
Then 2 boys have four eyes.

I can use this false analogy argument

These cars are complex
They require an ID

the human eye is complex
It requires an. ID

the cars are complex
It was made in 2007

Human eye is complex
it was made in 2007

We do not know if it’s true or not. You need evidence to show what’s true or not.

Alright then, let me tell you how even natural selection can be compatible with design.

Have you considered the scenario where this designer instead of personally making modifications to his designs imbued in them the ability to modify and adapt in relation to their ecosystem?

Hence, adaptability of organisms along the line to survive and thrive (natural selection) is a model by design of the designer?

Just as we are trying to do with A.I. create programs that learn and evolve.

See? How logically, natural selection can still be compatible with design?