₦airaland Forum

Martinez19:
Not again. I am not built for this *runs out of thread*

Hahahahahaha. I don die

hahn:
Share the link to the full story @johnnydon22

https://californiafamily.org/2019/new-york-senate-passes-bill-legalizing-late-term-abortions/

Who waits till 9 months and then decides they don't want the baby?

It is not a matter of who will.

It is a matter of "it is now legal" therefore, do you think it is right or wrong?

LuciferCelibate:
I support this.

Why?
Aborting a baby at this stage increases the chances that the mother will die.

Anything to eliminate those useless creatures has my full support.


*spits

what the heck?

Martinez19:
A baby at nine months is now a living being.

What do you mean living being?

You don't take away innocent lives. People should learn to stand up to their responsibilities.

Why is killing innocent lives wrong?

NB: I have decided to adopt scientific definitions rather than the subjective one I used in our last discussion.

Which is?

Martinez19:
Immoral. People who would celebrate this are sick in the head.

on what ground is this immoral?

Governor of New york just signed into law a new bill removing the protection on viable unborn babies legalizing abortion up to 9 months.

What are your thoughts on this?

Do you support abortion of a baby even at a viable stage?

Is this morally permissible by your own moral judgement?

GeneralShepherd:
When you approach issues like this with the mentality of shattering hope and what not, it exposes you as a dogmatic atheist.

You like the tell believers here about the scientific method but go on to speak in absolutes.

A more scientific statement will say that it appears to be that NDEs are hallucinations. But you continue to claim that this cases has been done and dusted when it clearly isnt true.

I find this attitude very common in some atheists, including myself when I was one. Same as in Sam Harris and Hitchens , the dogmatism is beyond belief.

Am I asking you to believe in a God? No. If for example man actually has a consciousness that is not physical, do that prove God? NO!

But most atheists are by default unwilling to look into anything that may challenge their worldview. This is exactly what many Christians and theists do.

I love this.. This is true.

NnennaG6:
Its hard for a christian to convert an atheist and vice versa. But sometimes i just love to challenge their ideas

I'd love to take up your challenge, you are in Enugu too

tyup:
You can believe what you want ion think anyone is forcing you to Christianity here

Nobody said they were being forced.

Asking "why i should be a Christian and not others" is not an attack.

Stop being paranoid

NnennaG6:
Perhaps your conception of God is wrong, which is why you find it so easy to dismiss. The idea of a literal magical man in the sky is of course absurd. Do you know that's what average Theists mean when they say God? Because to me it seems, apart from the dogmatic literalists, that most are referring to the same thing as I am - fate, the universe, causes and effects that are so complex as to be mystical to us etc. What do you mean by external existence?


It's not fantasy because it's physically real. In the same way that entropy or time is physically real, even though it isn't a distinct 'entity' of matter or energy. God is a property of the universe that you have to notice personally.

No they are not referring to the same thing as you otherwise it won't be theism

NnennaG6:
If we want to investigate the world scientifically, we don't just look around and form our own opinion, and take that as the truth. We gather objective data in as many ways as possible, to minimise human error, bias, superstition, etc. In this way we have formed valid theories about how the physical world works.


There is no scientific evidence that God exists. The mistake atheists make, is assuming that science has no blind spots.


Science has one natural, huge, critical blind spot; the personal nature of existence. Your whole life is lived from one perspective. All we really know in the end, is what our senses tell us in our personal lives. We may have amazing, valid, objective, peer reviewed and tested scientific theories, but you personally will never know about them until you read about them with your own two eyes. All knowledge you have ultimately only comes into your brain through the filter of your own personal perception. Your perception is your whole and only reality.


So the question is, is there knowledge that can ONLY be attained personally, that can't exist in scientific consensus? The answer is yes, and here is the simple proof; we cannot prove our own consciousness to others. Only YOU know if you are conscious and real. Ever joke with friends about "how do I know you're all not just figments of my imagination"? It's that principle; personal consciousness is simply impossible to prove scientifically. It is categorically personal; only ever known by YOU. Of course we infer and assume that others are conscious just like us. We see with our perceptions that the world around us looks and works as if everyone else is conscious. But it is an assumption; there is no actual evidence. For all you know, you could be the only conscious being in a dream world, or the matrix, or whatever else this strange reality could be.


So your own consciousness is something which is self-evident to you alone, and impossible to prove. You alone know it to be true, through your senses. Believing that others are conscious and see the world like you, is actually faith, because there is no evidence. But this faith makes us treat others fairly.


I have to tell you that knowing God is the same. You will never see a proof. I can't offer one, nobody can. You either see it for yourself in the world around you, and in your life, or you don't. I can't scientifically prove my consciousness to you, but I can describe it, and, if you know it too, you will 'get' it. So, I can only describe God to you, and maybe you won't get it, and maybe one day you will, through your own life experience.


God is the name for how everything is connected. I was actually an atheist for many years, and then my personal experience started to make me believe in fate. Fate is another name for God. Another is Nature; another is the Universe. The All, the Prime mover, Chaos, Determinism, and Cause and Effect are also synonyms for God. God cannot be proven in writing, He must be seen first hand, and you will see Him (or 'it') if you are observant and thoughtful about everything you see in your life.


Faith in God means something like; "well, in the vast expanse of possible realities I could be living, my life isn't so bad. I am unbelievably lucky to be here. Humans could have been abducted by carnivorous aliens 10,000 years ago, and I could be living in a factory farm on planet Lizard right now. The world could just be 20% more boring, or dangerous. There's no law of physics that says we have to be able to experience beauty or joy. Nuclear armageddon still hasn't happened; I don't have to live in a post apocalyptic cancerous wasteland." Faith in God is looking at the world and realising somehow, the Universe seems to like me overall. And, from this, we can have faith that it will be good to us in the future, if we are careful. Again, this can never be proved scientifically. It's down to your perception and your own relationship with reality.


God is cause and effect, or nature, so observing it and recognising patterns can give us rules for how to succeed in life (morals). It's impossible to prove rules of life scientifically, because the matrices of causes and effects are very complex, and isolating them changes them. Take a deadly sin; Greed. How would we go about testing the hypothesis that personal greed leads to bad personal consequences? It is outside science, unless we can observe thousands of people at all times for their whole lives. You can only know if that hypothesis is true or false by either observing it yourself, or faithfully believing the words of a person you deem wiser than you. Again, it is completely a case of personal perception and experience of reality.


There is much more that could be written, but basically approaching God from this perspective can explain what concepts like faith, sin (evolutionarily maladaptive action), and morality (adaptive action) actually mean. There is a good reason for calling 'it', "Him", which could fill another post this long. I wasn't raised as any faith and I was an atheist for a long while, so discovering this stuff on my own, kind of from first principles, took some time. But lo and behold, every teaching of every faith makes logical sense from this perspective, even if you don't understand why a teaching is professed, you can understand that maybe thousands of years of passed down life experience knows something about causes and effects that you don't yet.


I thank God that He found me, and now I feel awake to the patterns and cycles of reality. Again, it's outside of science. I'm not asking you believe me without evidence, I'm just showing you how to look at it and you can take it or leave it. Maybe you'll scoff at this now and in 5 years time, come to realise I was right. It's your personal life, it's your personal journey of learning, it's your reality, after all.


Note I am not making the argument from personal experience. I am not saying "I saw the light so I know God is real, that's the proof"- we all know that's a stupid argument. There is no proof or argument. I would call this the problem of personal consciousness- the scientific blind spot. All I can say is if you are thoughtful and observant of your reality, one day you will come to see God, and know Him, just like you know you are here, wherever here is.


My eyes tell me the mountains are beautiful, though I cannot prove it to the blind.

My nose tells me the smell of flowers, though I cannot tell it in words.

My ears tell me music is sweet, although I cannot see it.

My skin tells me when it is cold, though cold is relative.

My tongue tells me I love strawberries; though others may hate them.

My heart tells me there is a God, and my mind tells me there is a me.

Our perception is our whole reality. What can we trust but our senses?

In a clear sense, you seem to be making an argument rather for a Spinoza concept of God and not an actual anthropomorphic theistic idea of God.

Though, sometime you tend to lean a bit to anthropomorphism which i can excuse by human description ability. We use terms like "the river wants to flow downhill" somehow anthropomorphizing water even though the context doesn't, so i'd take these descriptions as such.

Going over you argument, you refer to things like; Nature, chaos, determinism, universe, cause and effect and broadly chance as God. In that sense, yes God exists.

The universe obviously exist
cause and effect are observed universal models
everything is nature
chaos is an inherent part of existence
chance is mostly a determining factor.

Call these things God then there is God. call them with the conventional lingual connotations and they remain the same in essence. Universe, nature, cause and effect, chaos, chance or fate, they do not gain more intrinsic meaning by ascribing the word God to it.

To me, that is am ambiguous way to define God because it seems broadly an argument of language use other than definite definitions.

hahn:
How is religion beneficial to the society?

Benefits of imagined orders are obvious

Seeker99:
I’ve been following this forum for quite some time now and have noticed there’s a great many atheists/agnostics arguing against the validity of religious beliefs. As someone who takes an interest in this ongoing debate, I have put forth 10 questions for the irreligious here so that I can get a better understanding of their position and would appreciate if a few of you will take the time to answer some of the question below:

#1 Do you believe the universe is eternal?

I cannot say but most likely, yes.

#2 Do we have freewill or is everything determined?

We operate under several confines sometimes with the injection of choice.

#3 Is our existence the product of chance?

Cannot say for sure.but it is very likley

#4 Would you say morality is objective or relative?

Intersubjective

#5 What type of universe would you expect if there was no God?

This type and any other type.

#6 What’s your take on the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God?

Amoeba on a puddle

#7 What’s you take on miracles? Do you believe everyone that has ever claimed to have witnessed a miracle was lying or was mistaken/hallucinating?

Mostly nonsense

#8 What’s your thoughts on near death experiences and the afterlife?

NDE is a neurological experience.

Afterlife is an assumption that sadly cannot be confirmed

#9 Do you think we have souls?

it depends on what you call soul.

#10 Is religion beneficial to society?

Yes.

Obviously a string. Like it's too obvious and i don't see how any one could miss that

ainas247:
Let me get to heaven first then I will answer

Lol. Good one

ElidaxZiel:
Yes , athiest make us know creation start from big bang, so you have to know. you don't need to deny them now

How so?

ElidaxZiel:
Athiest are people that dont believe the spirit because there is no evidence

Then Since atheist don't believe spirit then Let them prove that man has the answer with evidence.

questions for Atheist

1. What triggers the big bang explosion

2. The dust that form planet are gotten from where ?

3 . What keeps the planet in the universe

4. How did the first cell of every animal come by,

5. Why do we see ourselves in dream even when our eyes are close


Provide your answers in simple sentence, There is no need for stories

So, why exactly are these questions meant for atheist? Did atheism propound any of them?

if yes. how?

if No. then, again why is this question meant for atheist?

For you don't believe spirit then you believe Man

Atheist will always say, if you don't know something, it doesnot mean it from God ! if so . is it from Man or from what exactly ??.

Simple; I don't know.

ainas247:
my purpose on earth is make heaven and win many souls...

Meanwhile put your business on Google and get more clients check my profile to see new results

what is your purpose in heaven afterwards?

4kings:
Hello! Long time!

@quote It doesn't change the fact that there are SUBJECTIVE!

One can say, by your logic that Homosexuality is not moral based on intersubjective human beliefs in Africa.

Therefore, your stance about morality on Abortion is still SUBJECTIVE using your logic above.

Moreso on your other post, to feel pain, an organism nervous system has to have developed for that ability, this does not happen until the third trimester in the womb which is about 20 weeks before the pain receptors are developed.

And I have not read your response yet to circumstances like rape leading to abortion.

No. imagined orders aren't subjective, they are intersubjective.

computergeek:
You are very intelligent and I approve your assertions. I'd just like to chip in that abortion is medically permissible and recommended when the presence of the foetus is harmful to the mother. Complications could arise in some pregnancies where the mother falls to great risk due to abnormalities in the foetus, or even in an ectopic pregnancy.


This actually, is one of the worst decisions a woman has to make. Letting your baby go, because he might cause you death. Some may actually insist they die rather than have their baby removed, if the baby isn't up to the stage of incubation.

I actually recommend abortion when the woman's life is at risk, it's self defense and is ethically excusable

LordReed:
Who made it sacred?

Who made gold valuable?

Who made government effective?

Who made oaths binding?

Who made money a thing of value?

Who made constitutions?

Who made belief potent?

Answer; Intersubjective human belief.

Jesus. I have to explain such elementary stuffs.

hahn:
And being moral is not always right

Repeat that until it makes sense to you. I'm sure it will

budaatum:
I don't know about you, but I do say, ""my choice, my religion" and leave these religions alone". I after all have never knocked on my JW neighbour's door and said, "Your God is a figment of your imagination"! I wonder if you go knock on your neighbour's door promoting your 'god'?

Who has knocked on your door to tell you not to commit abortion here?

Everyone who aborts a foetus has a reason that is very valid to them which may seem unimportant to others. You missed it in your adult to foetus which if you'd ended with human egg and human sperm, you might see how an abortion starts with the use of a condom.

When it comes down comparing a fetus to sperm, I'm done. It has gone too absurd for me to indulge in.
Any intelligent person that does not know the difference between a human and a sperm has gone over the height of reaching.
A sperm is a human cell not a human. Humans are made of cells - correct
Human is a cell - incorrect.

Humans are made of atoms - correct
Humans are atoms - incorrect.

That i even have to explain this shows the absurdity people sink in to rationalize an abhorrence.

Thankfully, in most societies, one does not need permission to remove an unwanted foetus from one's womb.

Again this is not the premise, no one is asking anybody to not do what they want. Jesus Christ! People stay with the premise.
Criticizing religion doesn't mean you are telling people to come and seek your permission before they become religious.
How the hell do you people even inject seeking for permission when the premise criticizes abortion?
Finally, being legal is not exactly same as being moral.

jasonguru:
God created an angel with a free will and ability to choose his life course, God did not create him to be a puppet in God's hand

still doesn't negate the ability of God to know his choices before hand. And for one who supposedly has good intention for the universe, creating the devil was a deliberate diick move

budaatum:
It's my body. If I want to kill off a part or all of it, your opinion does not count.

This is not the argument dude. Disagreeing with something. Showing why it is wrong isn't the same as insisting people do what you think.

The premise was on the moral weight of the action.

You and i criticize religions from time to time, i wonder why we don't say "my choice, my religion" and leave these religions alone.

Because we understand that criticism isn't same as "you shouldn't do what you want with your life"

Jesus!!! This is non sequitur to this post

Michellekabod1:
Can I give you a hug through the phone?
Never came across a pro-life piece as convincing as this before

Hi. I'm Olaf and i like warm hugs especially if the girl is hot

frosbel2:
^^^

Thanks for your non interest interest.

So :

- Is abortion on the same level of evil as murder

Yes. The very premise behind our moral abhorrence of murder is the belief in the sacredness of human life.
Premeditated termination of a human life at every stage is just as abhorrable and is exactly the evil of murder.

Human laws are meant to protect the weak, balance the chances of the weak to survive in a society of the strong, it is an irony that we are leaning towards abandoning humans at a stage they are the weakest of us.

The fundamental point of our moral system is broken at this

- Is there a special case where abortion is permissible

Only special cases where killing a human is. Excusable more like it.

-accidental
-self defence. (Meaning the life of the other is in imminent mortal danger)

- Is abortion is not murder regardless ?

it is in the moral sense of the word.

I will address the other points when time permits.

ok

frosbel2:
Few things to consider about the Fetus

I do not have much interest in your thread having gone over it like a thousand times before. But there are some absurd assertions that caught my attention that i feel should be corrected.

- The fetus is in a sort of oblivious state of being as it pertains to consciousness

1. It has been shown that fetus feel pain
2. It has been shown they recoil at discomfort.

Therefore, they are not oblivious to external stimuli not even to the threat of death.

3. Obliviousness is not an argument still to kill a human or we could all agree it is morally permissible to kill a comatose patient because, he is oblivious.

- The fetus is not fully formed as a human being, so perhaps may not yet be a human being

This is basically the most absurd assertion from this thread. There is no such a thing as a fully formed human. A human is a state of being not a stage stop conflating the two.

There is never a time something that isn't human becomes human at some point, anything that isn't human isn't human and cannot be human. A human is always a human but goes through several stages of being human.

Human adult
Human adolescent
Human child
Human baby
Human fetus

These are different stages of being human but in all these stages only one thing is constant, human.

An adult is no more human than an adolescent and thus down the chain.

So please, there is no such thing as a fully formed human, unless you should give us the definition of human on which you base this premise.

- The fetus may be the result of a rape or unintended consequences ( such as intercourse between two careless people )

Cause and effect? It is not the child's fault at any instance.

- The fetus may possess a deformity that if allowed to fully mature will result in a life of pain.

What stops us from killing out every deformed person on earth now whether they are born or not?

Martinez19:
I am not surprised that stvpidity is roaming about in this thread.

CHRISTIAN LOGIC 101:
1) you have no answer, therefore it's Yahweh.
2) I have no answer, therefore it's Yahweh.

Dude is a troll. Forget him. Continue your thread, i will read later tonight.

ElidaxZiel:
. am expecting the answer too

ok

ElidaxZiel:
I expect you to say to its nonsense, because you don't have answer , Mind you , its not ignorance , you fucking mofos and your scientists just don't have answer,, What about the other animals ??

you are only just deceiving yourself !

Read my reply again brother. You will be fine las las shaa

ElidaxZiel:
your existence is a proof God exist. If you don't believe then answer this

How did the first human cell, come about or let me say, who create it

This is a nonsensical statement weaved into a nonsensical question.

You do not replace evidence with ignorance and think you have an argument, that's nothing short of idiocy.

Let me demonstrate; Obama is my father, if you don't believe this, tell me the name of my first great great grand father?

Our ignorance is not evidence for God unless you only wish to make God a temporarily and ever receding placeholder for our ignorance.

We may then stop using the word "ignorance" and replace it with the word "God"

Instead of saying "You are so ignorant" I'd rather say

"You are so God" cus really, you are.