₦airaland Forum

Scholar8200:
He did not maul them; he overwhelmed them. Note the violence displayed by the two examples given. The stones and natural strength of animals exceed that of man how much more when preternatural influences are involved.

Lmao... And a scenario were 1man overpowered and escaped from 7 men, who doesnt see that shiit everyday. is now likened to one were 42boys are being mauled by just 2bears who supposedly acting under the influence of preternatural ability that somehow made them superspeed enough to maul down 42boys, and the boy was supposed have stood there and watched?. . .

For crying out loud their is no way these boys would have stood there and watched, how exactly can 2 bears tie down 42boys from escaping them.

Scholar8200:
He did not maul them; he overwhelmed them. Note the violence displayed by the two examples given. The stones and natural strength of animals exceed that of man how much more when preternatural influences are involved.

Wikipedia gives a sample of what a breed of bear (in its natural but aggressive state) did. I am not saying the same breed was involved but at least the animal involved was also a bear:

In some areas of India and Burma, sloth bears are more feared than tigers, due to their unpredictable temperament.... One specimen, known as the Sloth bear of Mysore, was single-handedly responsible for the deaths of 12 people and the mutilation of 2 dozen others before being shot by Kenneth Anderson....They typically charge on all fours with their head held low, before rearing on their hind legs and striking at their attackers with their claws and teeth.

One bear killed 12 and mutilated 24!

So i just read about the sloth bear and it never told us if the attack happened in one single strike. . . it never stipulated if the attacks happened through out the duration of it's life before it was finally shot by Kenneth Anderson...

Now the elisha bears mauled 42 boys dead in one single fatal strike (event) that is 21boys for each bear? And someone believe this? Like WTF

tartar9:
"What can God gain by your punishment"(Qur'an 4:147)
[b]"WHOEVER does what is just and right,
does so for his own good; and whoever does
evil, does so to his own hurt: and never does
God do the least injustice to His creatures"(Quran 41:46)

And somehow you just showed even the quran agrees with empathy as a guide to morality just as the bolded shows. . . Now exactly what is this morality the morality stipulates is where the question lies; Cus first I am sure beheading people of different religions is nothing near empathy.

tartar9:
rather it is the opposite,those laws stem from His own mercy and justice to us humans,they are for the wellbeing of the society.

Ooh really?

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence
they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns
supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and
the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to
you.

The bolded above certainly shows what you think is for the societal well being, i certainly can rightly say that if you think these laws above are for the well being of mankind then you my friend have a very epileptic sick and idiotic moral basis just like allah who introduced these laws.

Scholar8200:
Consider the unusual state of creatures when they are under preternatural influences just like the bears that were actually stirred by the same forces after the curse was declared:
1. Acts 19:14 Seven sons of Sceva, a leading priest, were doing this. 15 But one time when they tried it, the evil spirit replied, “I know Jesus, and I know Paul, but who are you?” 16 Then the man with the evil spirit leaped on them, overpowered them, and attacked them with such violence that they fled from the house, naked and battered.
This is one man (under preternatural influence) against 7 full grown men.

2. Luke 8:33
Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.

And so the bears acting under preternatural influences had the speed of light that enabled them get 42, how come they never got all of them then or are the other boys not under the curse too?

It is very clear that 42boys wouldn't stick around for some bears to maul them, in fact a commotion will even make things harder for the bears as the boys would all scatter in different directions.

For one man overpowering 7, am sure the verse never said he overpowered 42 or mauled them. . . Just escaped them and fled the house. . How would you reconcile this with 2 bears mauling 42children

Scholar8200:
Let me quote the op
When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up f[b]orty-two lads of their number[/b] This shows 42 of a larger number.

42 of them in this case could mean 42/43, 42/44, 45,46,47 and so on. . . we are not provided with that information on how many they were maybe to give room to assumptions like you are employing now.

It is clear with deductive intuition that even if there was a commotion, 2 bears cannot maul 42boys in a strike. . .not even 5 or 8 but 42?? WTF

Scholar8200:
Yes.If you consider the scenario very well. The way you used the phrase,"standing in line" suggests that you visualize the situation as a sober, orderly queue of offenders,each patiently waiting for his turn! Have you heard of fear that petrifies its victims?(And this was worse in a commotion.) Remember, a curse exposes its victim to demonic operations chief of which is fear.

I used the language standing in line to show the blatant implausibility of the story.. their is no way 42kids will stand and watch bears take them up to the count of 42.

@bolded. . . really and 42boys were petrified somehow, am sure you forgot to add parasympathetic reflex, that can induce an escape in dire danger without the individual being fully aware of how he managed to escape.

Even the speed of light is not a enough to give two bears ability to kill 42 kids in a strike. .

Scholar8200:
If the highlighted be true then it further explains why some of them died: they thought they could fight back. They were more than 42. A wild commotion is known to immobilise some weak ones who are run over by their fellows trying to flee.

First the story in 2 Kings 2:23-25 never stipulated the number of kids allegedly calling Elisha baldy. . . Am sure we all know you actually are the one assuming a higher number so as to throw in the commotion saga.

2.) Their is no way 2 bears can maul 42 boys even if there was a commotion unless of course the bears possessed the speed of light making them able to kill faster than normal.

SHARIAREPORTERS:
www.nairaland.com/2154501/what-anxiety-drugs-get-pharmacy


Dis is ma own contribution

Hahahahahahaha OREMUSANCTUS madman, leave tartar9 alone naaa

Scholar8200:
Not necessarily stand in line? Female animals have a seemingly stronger version of ferocity; the uproar and confusion caused should also be considered. Also note that the lads were more than 42, others managed to escape. Besides, the bears did not go after them as a result of hunger, they were mainly to kill. Moreover, if you consider the fact that a curse operates like letting loose the hordes of hell against a person(s), you will realise that this was not an act carried out in the zoo, but a wild, petrifying commotion that leaves vulnerable people at a disadvantage.

So you are meaning to tell me that you actually believe 2 bears can kill 42 boys. . .

tartar9:
that ability to be empathic is made possible by Allah(SWT) himself.but with the billions of people on earth,that's still very risky it needs more than just cultivation of empathy to be in full control.

Is it not quite ironic how you first termed that atheists suggest human morality as a result of empathy, you termed it "based on sad feelings" and now you are trying to assert allah gave this morality based on sad feeling which u quite didn't agree with in the first place.

Allah himself certainly lacks this empathy in particular, if he did he wouldn't have given those shabby barbaric laws in the quran. . . If the laws in the quran is allah's show of empathic consideration, then it is clear allah has nothing near empathy and certainly cannot give that which it doesn't possess.

Scholar8200:
Elisha did not primarily call for bears;he cursed them! That's where the issue is. Why would Balak go all out to get Balaam to curse Israel b4 confronting them in battle, in spite of the fact that they were inexperienced, liberated slaves? The curse was to bring them to a point of chronic vulnerability. The same thing here.

So the curse made them stand in line while two bears came out from the bush and mauled them one after the other.?

tartar9:
that's the problem,atheist morality is based on some "sad feeling",which is extremely dangerous.

I think maybe to you it should be based on somethings muhammed said; we all know the result we are getting from that..

Oh no my good sir, Atheist know morality is a human concept. .
We know; Morality is not distinctively muslim, christian or hindu, morality is human, it belongs to no ism. And it does not depend upon any book, creed or supernatural for foundation. Because morality itself is a foundation.

tartar9:
that's the problem,atheist morality is based on some "sad feeling",which is extremely dangerous.

I wonder how you basically don't know what Empathy means. . .i would have had it you read through posts with the help of a dictionary seeing you can't even comprehend a simple assertion represented in simple English... I wonder how what you could deduce from the post was some randy "sad feelings". . . Am sure my post meant "Do not do to others what you wouldn't like them to do to you"

Emotionally, mentally and physically we are the same, we each have potentials to great good or great evils or to be overcome by disturbing emotions such as anger, hatred, fear, suspicion and greed. On the other hand if we cultivate loving kindness, compassion and concern for others (empathy). Their will be no room for anger, jealousy or hatred.

tartar9:
meaning the horses and camels are better than atheists

Well i think it means they are just like you. . . And nairaland is proof enough you in particular lacks what it takes to match any atheist here, so it just means your brain is just as simple as the camel's or horse'

theAtheist101:
... because he (god) has poor judgement just like most men that lived 2000 years ago.

Your main question should be: How did just two bears kill 42 (!) young boys? Where they all crippled?

The authors of the Bible are the masters of all liars!

That is it o, i have once asked this question. Nobody is even first minding the plausibility of that fairy-tale..

Deductive intuition shows the two bears can only pounce on two boys at a given time or four at most. . what were the other 40boys doing when the bears first pounced on the first two boys? They formed a line and waited for their turn

seemples:
Mister man just rest it pls...if I had given a sweeping Yes answer to your very first question below, tell me you were planning to say ok?!

Lol...this is just a simple discussion or should i say a healthy argument. . . who doesn't have fun arguing? . . .no need getting touchy or emotional about it... Certainly i wouldn't have said just "ok" am sure of that. cus it still would slide down to the part were you claim faith to mean certainty..

seemples:
Point remains you should stop shooting peoples belief system in so far as it's not injurious to you or your neighbours cos YOU SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW PERFECTLY NOR WOULD YOU EVER KNOW.

Nobody is shooting at anybody's belief system, but just like other ideologies it also is a subject of discussion, argument, scrutiny. . . Are you trying to shield your belief from these? . . .

I think people who needs to stop shooting other people's beliefs are the theists that go about murdering people in the name of their beliefs. . Talk about Muslim jihadists or christian Crusaders.

I see no way a discussion based on differences in certain ideologies is a bad thing . . .

seemples:
This sort of argument with no end in sight....

First off, I don't even know what it's all about...

Secondly, I don't know what you have proved or diaproved

Lastly, I don't normally argue. Since I know nobody has a perfect knowledge of anything, what's the point?

Let's trace back to where you started...I believe God exists based on all I know and still knowing...
You don't believe God exists based on all you know and still knowing...

So when anybody affirms his or her belief or unbelief don't go shooting the persons tenets cos for all there is to it, you might be totally mistaken and wrong cos you simply aren't perfect in knowledge.

Let me put it simply, i was not even arguing with you that a god exists or not. . . As far as we know there are thousands of god concepts from different civilizations and cultures and none have been proven or demonstrated, just claims.

My argument was when you try to drag a simple mathematical knowledge to the dimension of belief to liken it to your belief in a deity...

Just like i said before, knowledge (certainty) is practically and literally different from belief (faith). . . If any of the god concepts humanity invented is proven to be true, am sure nobody would need to believe it with faith, everyone simply would have known and be sure therefore it no longer will be belief but sheer simple knowledge... But so far none of the god concepts have achieved this feat therefore all still remains a claim that is dependent on faith to believe.

NumberOne2:
Oh, I am touched. Almost in tears. An honest Atheist?
You talk of honesty yet your lies are epic. "You will believe if I tell you"? Oh please, even a 5 year old knows you were lying.

Lol... why not tell me first

Are you afraid you can't substantiate your claim as usual?... lol.. its understandable boy

Anas09:
@Mrpresident.
I need you to throw more light on what you termed as "Natural Inherency" because when you say inherent, u r almost like saying, everyman is born with a conscience.

Of course he is right because you don't need anybody to tell you that anybody stealing your phone is not a very good thing to u, so then why perpetrate this act on others?..this sad feeling induced by the act of someone stealing your phone is innate in you cus you weren't taught to feel that way . . . That is empathy.

And empathy is innate as a result of intellect. . . Just like MrPresident showed us; lions dont prey on other lions... why is this? what is the purpose of that?

Anas09:
1). Is Morality an abstraction?

Lets start by defining morality;
A moral act is an act that decreases individual human suffering and/or betters societal well being, freedom, equality and justice.

An immoral act is one that increases individual human suffering and is a detriment to to societal well being, freedom, equality or justice.

Both are human concepts clear depicts favourable or unfavourable actions.

Anas09:
2). How do you define good and evil?

Good action or event is one that coincides with the definition of morality. . It favours societal well being, and decreases suffering.

A bad event or action is one that negates the concept of good; it is unfavourable to societal well being and increases human suffering.

So this two are dependent on each other for meaning

Anas09:
3). What are their purposes?

The purposes of good(morality)/evil(immorality) is dependent on the concept.. from my answer to 1 and 2 it is easy to deduct that;

the purpose of Good is; To be favourable to human/societal/enviromental well being and minimizes suffering.

While the purpose of bad exactly negates the concept given to the purpose of good.

Anas09:
4). We different colours by seeing them, how do we defferentiate good and evil?

Same perceptive method. you differentiate colours by optical perception while the human concept of good and evil is perceived by empathical perception which still involves optical, emotional perception etc... i believe an example is needed.
Giving food to a hungry man by every definition decreases the suffering of that hungry man therefore its clear this act falls on the scope of a moral act.

while stealing food from that hungry man increases his suffering because you have just subjected him to hunger. . this act is clear negates the former therefore its distinguishable.

Anas09:
6). If we say there's such thing as good and evil, there must need be that there are moral laws. And if there are moral laws, then there must be a moral law GIVER, because without a moral law GIVER, we cannot differentiate between good and evil.

Like other answers above shows; Good and evil are both human concepts tagged to favourable or unfavourable actions. . . Since these are human concepts it is therefore right to deduct humans invent these moral laws to suite the concepts of good and evil.

Anas09:
NOW, do we need moral laws?
What is the value of these moral laws without a moral law giver to set standards and bring us to accountability?
Cc. Pleatton, Johnnydon, ifeness.

It is quite simple, since these are human concepts the values too are human concepts too...
So i wonder what you mean by moral giver when morality being a human concept depicts humans perceived it, therefore gave it meaning. this means humans gave these laws which most of the times are subjective and about accountability still boils down to humans; try robbing a bank and see

e.g; In the Jewish society, a law given by the jewish deity stipulates death sentence for a bride found not to be a virgin, why are you not following this law now?

It is very clear that this law whereas masked as a moral law is very far from being moral. and that concept of morality as depicted by the jews surely goes against this modern day concept and that is why i dont see you following it.

seemples:
If you'll quit all these dancing around with words !

You appear smart enough to use my orange analogy above to understand what I mean when I say 2+2=4 might need faith to believe.

Oh yes the orange analogy you threw in. . . Sure thing was; we were talking of simple numerical mathematics. . . This is how fallacies work, you leave the whole and dabble into particles.
As long as simple intuition is involved taken from a simple deduction. . there are 2 oranges, if you want to count from the particles then start from atoms.

But by throwing an object in it which by so doing you have driven it out from the simple numerical mathematics we were to particles.
When particles are being counted then it is right to then start from the atoms then the question will no longer be 2+2 but Billions plus billions. . .

seemples:
You KNOWING 2+2 =4 is absolutely that fallacy you're talking about.

This is simple numerical mathematical rule. . . We are not counting objects here but sheer numerical representations.
2+2=4. .

seemples:
You BELIEVING 2+2=4 is being realistic because it's so believed that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, 2+2=4.

Why not believe then it is 5 instead then insist its realistic? why not believe 2+2=5? . . . Sometimes it gets stale replying this; when someone goes as far as trying to represent mathematics as a form of belief. . it really wows me totally.

seemples:
All things held constant,all things being equal, 2+2=4 ...(all things means things seen and unseen, known and unknown factors etc)

You are still dragging in objects while the 2+2 analogy i proposed was purely numerical.
If we should count particles then we should from the atoms (seen by the aid of a microscope) how then can you now equate billions of atoms to one orange?

seemples:
Same line, All things held constant, GOD EXISTS!

Lmao..
a.) is this belief or certainty?
b.) which of them?
c.) where?

seemples:
Faith then is the equivalent of all things being constant.

This is just very funny replying. . . How can faith be equivalent to things being constant when even you agrees its sheer hope.? taking from this then we can assert my pink diamond rabbit exists because i have faith it does..

Faith according to you is evidence for things hoped for (Wishful thinking) . . . You are just hoping their is; its quite understandable.

seemples:
Ok, by ur line of reasoning then, I can firmly infer that you , Jonnydon, are dishonest being deluded by reducing a global certainty - God's existence - [ though not all believe in God, just as not all believe 2+2=4 ( to wit, for 1orange to equal another, you have to bring an exact same orange of exact same proportions juice, fibre and all, to equal 2..) ] to wherever level you placed it.

Now look at this...
I think everyone reading this now get a clear picture..
A god exists, a global certainty? while whereas you stipulate others don't believe this...lmao..How come it still is a global certainty?
How can "belief" be a certainty when it is not "empirical knowledge"

When something is certain it no longer needs to be believed, if actually you are sure a god exist, you wouldn't be saying "Believe" but you would be saying "i know".


Now you want to liken a simple maths rule of 2+2=4 and reduce it to a simpleton dimension of belief.
I have given this example before..
Their is a huge difference in saying
I know 2+2=4 (certainty)
and
I believe 2+2=4 (unsure)

I think it is very clear when someone says "i believe 2+2 is not 4 that its just plain fallacy born out of maybe ignorance or dishonesty.

Re-evaluate your analogy and see where your fallacies fall in...
Now tell me who is being dishonest here; The one who thinks belief is a form of certainty (when its not certainty), if belief its a form of certainty it wouldn't be belief anymore but knowledge...
Bandwagon fallacy is a huge intellectual argumentive flaw i must add.

seemples:
So I follow the definition of Faith as the substance of things not seen, the evidence of things hoped for.

Exactly what i was waiting for... Faith doesn't make anything true or even probably true, that you believe something with faith only shows you do so whether its true or not... This definition is not even different from what the dictionary gave us.

@Bolded; Evidence of things hoped for is a very clear to show its Wishful thinking....Hoping for something basically means wishing..
So then i take it from your definition that ur faith is evidence of things hope for (god)… isn't this enough to show you are just hoping their is?

I have faith (evidence of things hope for) that their is a huge diamond rabbit in space who created the universe; does my faith make this true?
Certainly not, it doesn't.

So it is clear enough that faith makes nothing true no matter how hard you try to believe it.

Following the simple basic mathematics 2+2, its takes only knowledge in simple basic maths to know it is 4 (numerically), i wonder where faith comes in on this.

NumberOne2:
Okay okay! From my experience with arguments, when reference is being made to what was SAID or NOT SAID, it has gone past making an INTELLIGENT point to being a WASTE of precious time. Well, time I dont have, for intelligent arguments I can squeeze time for.

So call me up when you have something intelligent to say rather than the hair colour of a God YOU dont believe (but you will believe if I tell you His hair colour) SMH.

I think probably running away when drillings start is your second name.
First you resort to straw man, then dodge questions and zoom off.

Since you don't even know how what you claim to know looks like, it certainly is now brightly clear; Assumptive imagination is at play here.

It should be brown or black; You don't even know which it is... Lmao.. Nairaland won't kill me with daft assertions.

It's so funny how you were very bold to ask if i would believe if you have seen, when you get a positive answer, your bold liver got cut.

I think when you find out simply what honesty means first, we can then talk about seeing an intelligent post from you.

NumberOne2:
How come you stipulated God has white hair?

And this is where it creeps in. here was my quote when i was sarcastically referring to depicting god in the movies just like another fiction; spider man was.

But seriously was hoping your god could say "hi" in the movies too,
kinda imagining if it will have long white beards.. Wouldn't it be great !!!

And somehow this post means i stipulated he has white beards?? Oh don't even add english comprehension to the list please

So do you agree you were only imagining he has brown/black hairs just like the post shows i was imagining too?

9niceguy:
Thanks for the recommendation but I will also wish you can do as have written just by reading the scriptures over again with a purified heart (nt your present heart)
Thanks for your precious time

Yes and i recommend you read the Quran same way too...

You don't get it; That's just what every other religion say..

NumberOne2:
No, Seeing Jesus is not a requirement to become a believer.

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. - Romans 10:9-10

You can start with the scriptures above. Good luck.

Ooh now you just disappointed me

This is a very cheeky way to dodge a question... But i was wondering??

How come you stipulated Jesus has Brown or black hair?

seemples:
Haba Jonnydon, You just landed on ..I know...certainty... dishonesty...despite my caveat on our understanding of what faith is?

When you reduce a global certainty (knowledge) to the dimension of faith i think that is where your dishonesty creeps in. 2+2 =4. Faith is not needed in this cus whether you have faith (whatever yours means) does not affect in anyway that it is (4) and remains so. . . It is just pure knowledge. . .
Their is a huge difference between saying;
I know 2+2=4
and
I believe 2+2=4

seemples:
My definition of faith? I guess that's where you shudav started.
Or more so, by defining or decribing ur understanding of faith first before asking about mine.

A simple definition of Faith, let me hew from the dictionary.

Faith (Religion) A belief, conviction or feeling that something is true without empirical evidence..

Now do you mind giving your own definition?

9niceguy:
Well, it is good you make yourself happy even though nothing around you seems to be smiling.
Meanwhile, I will recommend the Holy book for you to read as well. Just learn how to read and comprehend. Set aside every negative thought you have towards religion am sure you will appreciate me later.
Concerning your recommendation, name a book and I will get it. Thanks

Oh holy books, funny that somehow you thought i grew up an atheist. . lol..

I have seen far more of Christianity than you ever can imagine. Have read the bible back to back, Underwent years of theological and philosophical learning in the seminary. I have studied most world religions and mythologies... Right on the contrary i have nothing against religion; I just have the guts to call mythology what it is; Mythology. . Unlike you who wishes and thinks it true..(one over others tho)

Now lets start a book for you; I recommend Just a Simple comprehensive Biology, you need to start from the basics clearly. . am sure you must have passed through it in secondary school, but i suggest you go read it up now.

seemples:
Like I said earlier, it all depends if my understanding of faith tallies with yours....so 2+2 equalling 4 might actually need faith to believe.

Am sure that can be termed dishonesty. . . You don't believe 2+2 is 4, you know it is.. Knowing means Certainty.

So what is your own definition of faith if i may ask?

tartar9:
I meant atheist have no brain

Oh sure they don't. at least not a common one as yours. . . So i said Horses and Camels have brains too but that didn't make them any less dumber just exactly like

tartar9:
am not smarter,I just have a brain

Of course, Horses and Camels have one too.